PDA

View Full Version : Let's face it, Federer has done GREAT


RalphNYC
04-14-2009, 12:24 PM
Whether or not he continues on to beat Sampras' record, or whether he begins to focus more on his family and being a new dad, Federer has had a DREAM career in professional sports. Not only did he become the #1 player, but he did it in a way that inspired so many fans of tennis, and sport in general - including the greatest living players of past decades. The game that he brought to us is a work of art, and his record - no matter what happens next - will always justify his inclusion in conversations about the greatest players of all time. His friendly, down-to-earth personality together with his out-of-this-world talent has raised the bar for how great athletes might present themsleves in the world and how they can be role models for kids in every country. I've been watching and playing tennis and sports since the 70's, and no one has had a greater impact on me than Roger Federer.

Good on ya mate - Well done!!

P_Agony
04-14-2009, 12:50 PM
Good post, but I hope he's not done yet. Tennis would be quite boring if he's gone.

nikdom
04-14-2009, 12:54 PM
Agree with you on one hand, but it would also be a shame if he doesn't break the 14 Grand Slam record having come this close. Of course, Nadal or someone else may come around and break the record again in a few years, but would he not want to have his name cemented up there having spent pretty much his whole life devoted to the sport.

He can spend the rest of his life being a good dad and a husband. Right now he only has a window of 2-3 years to do it.

theduh
04-14-2009, 01:27 PM
I say break the 14 GS record and 17 MS titles then retire :)

Emelia21
04-14-2009, 01:34 PM
Good post, but I hope he's not done yet. Tennis would be quite boring if he's gone.

To some fans of his. Tennis survived without him for many a years and was not boring, and Tennis will survive without him again when he's gone, and Tennis will not be boring.

egn
04-14-2009, 01:43 PM
Do we need all these point out the obvious threads..or how Federer changed my life..I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but come on how many of these do we need.

Tennis will survive without him..the next Fed will come along soon enough.

Cesc Fabregas
04-14-2009, 01:44 PM
Its a shame for Federer but he falls short of Pete Sampras in many departments.

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 01:48 PM
I dunno how Fed would even manage not being able to at least tie Pete's record. That would be the ultimate shot to Fed's ego etc. He dominated his way all the way to one slam shy of tieing and 2 of breaking and he cant get it done? Ohh.. Fed would end up in the nuthouse

Emelia21
04-14-2009, 01:52 PM
Do we need all these point out the obvious threads..or how Federer changed my life..I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but come on how many of these do we need.

Tennis will survive without him..the next Fed will come along soon enough.

Good post :) I posted this above

egn
04-14-2009, 01:53 PM
Good post :) I posted this above

Hah word just saw it yay =] Gosh I mean Fed is great and it will be different when he is gone but someone else will become the center of attention.

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 02:02 PM
Someone will come along in a few years out of the blue and dominate probably. It always happens.

Serendipitous
04-14-2009, 02:13 PM
Someone will come along in a few years out of the blue and dominate probably. It always happens.

Gulbis :twisted:

P_Agony
04-14-2009, 03:15 PM
Tennis was boring with him.

Right. Ok. Whatever.

egn
04-14-2009, 03:21 PM
Someone will come along in a few years out of the blue and dominate probably. It always happens.

Yep and everyone will suddenly appreciate Fed more, Sampras will become like Borg, Borg everyone will refer to as if he was Laver and Laver people will try even more ridiculous arguements to discredit him as we will be further and they will have found a way to make another new tennis surface but it will be just like all the other ones.

Sir Andrew of Roddick
04-15-2009, 05:04 AM
He's won 13 GS in 5 years...it took sampras 12 to get 14 I think.

oberyn
04-15-2009, 09:25 AM
He's won 13 GS in 5 years...it took sampras 12 to get 14 I think.


Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.

vtmike
04-15-2009, 10:23 AM
I dunno how Fed would even manage not being able to at least tie Pete's record. That would be the ultimate shot to Fed's ego etc. He dominated his way all the way to one slam shy of tieing and 2 of breaking and he cant get it done? Ohh.. Fed would end up in the nuthouse

Yeah I would think so too...but the best thing for him is to NOT think about the slam record and just go from slam to slam...easier said than done though!

RoddickRook
04-15-2009, 10:41 AM
Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.

:shock: Good mathematics

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 11:00 AM
Good post, but I hope he's not done yet. Tennis would be quite boring if he's gone.

Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.

Safinator_1
04-15-2009, 11:07 AM
Totally agreed Nadal, Djoko, Murray saved tennis from dark era

P_Agony
04-15-2009, 02:14 PM
Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.

You make no sense whatsoever, as Nadal was on top as well for most of Fed's dominance. In fact, Nadal is the longest running #2 in history I believe. More exciting talents is your opinion. I think both eras are exciting, but as far as comparing the number 1, Nadal is the most boring #1 IMO I've ever watched. BTW, I hated Fed's dominance, and I hate Nadal's current one.

cshokraii
04-15-2009, 02:33 PM
Someone will come along in a few years out of the blue and dominate probably. It always happens.


YEAH, HIS NAME IS NADAL!

FEDERER WILL GET 14 OR 15 BUT NADAL COULD EASILY GET 20 IF HE DOESN'T BREAK DOWN!

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 02:34 PM
Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.

Yea but Pete could maintain for longer it is appearing. Fed cant beat his rival and is having trouble even winning a tournament anymore. Pete wouldnt let one player dominate him on every surface as Fed has let Nadal. Pete was winning a slam at 31 years old, and even though he didnt a slam for just short of 2 years he still made deep runs at slams. Fed is already diminishing before our eyes at only 27 years of age. The way Fed is going he may be done with tennis before he hits 30 years of age unless he picks it up. Pete didnt really begin to drop in play until he was around 29 years old. Fed is already dropping at only 27

veroniquem
04-15-2009, 02:36 PM
Hah word just saw it yay =] Gosh I mean Fed is great and it will be different when he is gone but someone else will become the center of attention.
Someone else has already become the center of attention. Haven't you noticed? :wink:

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 02:39 PM
YEAH, HIS NAME IS NADAL!

FEDERER WILL GET 14 OR 15 BUT NADAL COULD EASILY GET 20 IF HE DOESN'T BREAK DOWN!


I highly doubt Nadal will be as dominant in a few years as he is now. This year and next year is probably Nadal's peak. Hes been around since 17 at the top. Hes not a late bloomer like Roger and Pete were even though pete did manage a slam at 19,. So his peak, chances are wont be in his mid-late 20s. It is NOW. Not to mention the way Nadal plays which is more taxing for him as it would be for Pete and Roger who play with less effort

kevsaenz
04-15-2009, 03:22 PM
Yea but Pete could maintain for longer it is appearing. Fed cant beat his rival and is having trouble even winning a tournament anymore. Pete wouldnt let one player dominate him on every surface as Fed has let Nadal. Pete was winning a slam at 31 years old, and even though he didnt a slam for just short of 2 years he still made deep runs at slams. Fed is already diminishing before our eyes at only 27 years of age. The way Fed is going he may be done with tennis before he hits 30 years of age unless he picks it up. Pete didnt really begin to drop in play until he was around 29 years old. Fed is already dropping at only 27

Even though Fed is still making the semi's or higher in the tournaments he's entering? Doesn't sound to bad to me.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 03:23 PM
Even though Fed is still making the semi's or higher in the tournaments he's entering? Doesn't sound to bad to me.

Hes still managing deep runs yes.. But his days of winning may be over as long as Nadal is around and Murray continues to improve and finally does something at the slams

P_Agony
04-15-2009, 03:24 PM
Someone else has already become the center of attention. Haven't you noticed? :wink:

I believe he said "when he is gone". Until then Fed is the center of attention ;-)

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 03:33 PM
You make no sense whatsoever, as Nadal was on top as well for most of Fed's dominance. In fact, Nadal is the longest running #2 in history I believe. More exciting talents is your opinion. I think both eras are exciting, but as far as comparing the number 1, Nadal is the most boring #1 IMO I've ever watched. BTW, I hated Fed's dominance, and I hate Nadal's current one.

Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.

edberg505
04-15-2009, 03:38 PM
Yea but Pete could maintain for longer it is appearing. Fed cant beat his rival and is having trouble even winning a tournament anymore. Pete wouldnt let one player dominate him on every surface as Fed has let Nadal. Pete was winning a slam at 31 years old, and even though he didnt a slam for just short of 2 years he still made deep runs at slams. Fed is already diminishing before our eyes at only 27 years of age. The way Fed is going he may be done with tennis before he hits 30 years of age unless he picks it up. Pete didnt really begin to drop in play until he was around 29 years old. Fed is already dropping at only 27

So, making it to the finals of a slam and not bowing out before the semi-finals of the past 3 events he's played in is going down hill? Wow!

icedevil0289
04-15-2009, 03:39 PM
Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.

Um, they are plenty of people who became huge tennis fans, like myself, because of roger. Both have their share of fans and it just comes down to preference. Some people find nadal's style of play boring, while other's find fed's style boring. I don't think nadal is any more popular than fed or vice versa.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 03:43 PM
So, making it to the finals of a slam and not bowing out before the semi-finals of the past 3 events he's played in is going down hill? Wow!

Fed aint getting any younger and its clear with the mixture of better players around at the top, and Nadal now at his peak, Fed may never win another slam. I wouldnt say its certain Fed never wins another, but its definitely possible. Nadal isnt going anywheres and neither is Murray or Djoker.

Making it to the finals and winning the slams are a different story. What happens if Fed begins losing in the earlier rounds? It is bound to happen eventually. How will that affect him? Hes been so dominant, and consistent he may never recover once he hits rock bottom.

Fed is showing he doesnt have the focus and mental toughness to perservere and turn things around. It began in 2008, and has been steady ever since

veroniquem
04-15-2009, 03:47 PM
I believe he said "when he is gone". Until then Fed is the center of attention ;-)
Only in your imagination! In the media, it's very clear who is the center of attention at the moment... (around the practise courts as well)

icedevil0289
04-15-2009, 03:48 PM
Only in your imagination! In the media, it's very clear who is the center of attention at the moment...

I'm glad. He deserves it and it could be a good thing for fed, to have some of the pressure off of him.

Josherer
04-15-2009, 03:48 PM
Good post, but I hope he's not done yet. Tennis would be quite boring if he's gone.

Yah i agree. he adds such a great element to the game.

lawrence
04-15-2009, 03:53 PM
feds game may seem boring to some of you on TV, but im pretty sure you'll eat your words once you've seen him play in person.

veroniquem
04-15-2009, 03:59 PM
To me tennis now is the most exciting it's been in years. In 2008, we had 3 different slam winners. This year promises to be very competitive too. We have Djokovic, will he win another slam? He has the talent to do it, we have Murray coming into his own, when will he win his first slam?, we have Nadal, a charismatic champion at the top but how long will he last? And we have Federer, still dangerous, can he break Sampras's slam record?
Tennis is wonderfully exciting right now and more competitive than before.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 04:36 PM
Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.
This is just scary. These two guys are exactly 10 years apart and turned pro at the exactly 10 years apart... I think the number 10 is telling us something here...

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 04:42 PM
Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.

US television ratings are in the toliet already and your boy Nadal isnt doing a thing to pick up the ratings. Around the world, both guys are immensely popular but federer is still the fan favorite around the world. Oh and the bolded part, well that is your opinion, nothing more nothing less. Nadal's game is considered boring by many and his personality isnt that amazing either. If you want the best of both worlds, than there is Djokovic :lol:. Sadly, he isnt doing well. :(

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 04:45 PM
To me tennis now is the most exciting it's been in years. In 2008, we had 3 different slam winners. This year promises to be very competitive too. We have Djokovic, will he win another slam? He has the talent to do it, we have Murray coming into his own, when will he win his first slam?, we have Nadal, a charismatic champion at the top but how long will he last? And we have Federer, still dangerous, can he break Sampras's slam record?
Tennis is wonderfully exciting right now and more competitive than before.
More than Djokovic and Murray, I think tennis is exciting because we have federer trying to break the all time record but at the same time, the young Nadal is side tracking him every opportunity he gets. Federer has 13 GS while Nadal has 6 GS. We are living in a time with 2 Tennis greats.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-15-2009, 04:46 PM
Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting. Link? No way I am going to believe this otherwise.

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 04:52 PM
Link? No way I am going to believe this otherwise.
It is BS. Nadal isnt bringing higher viewership, at least not in the USA
http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/wimbledon2008-500x400.gif

link:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-15-2009, 04:57 PM
It is BS. Nadal isnt bringing higher viewership, at least not in the USA
http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/wimbledon2008-500x400.gif

link:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209Funny that they have actually INCREASED since Feds domination at the US Open.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-15-2009, 05:00 PM
Sorry meant Wimbledon.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 05:00 PM
Huh.. Why the spike in 99-00 I wonder at Wimby?

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-15-2009, 05:04 PM
Its funny how low the numbers are since they changed to that new type of grass which has made rallys longer.

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 05:06 PM
Huh.. Why the spike in 99-00 I wonder at Wimby?

Since these are American ratings. It probably has to do with having a great American champion like Pete win wimbledon.:)

helloworld
04-15-2009, 05:08 PM
It is BS. Nadal isnt bringing higher viewership, at least not in the USA
http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/wimbledon2008-500x400.gif

link:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209
Wow, tennis must have been a golden age during Borg's time.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 05:11 PM
Since these are American ratings. It probably has to do with having a great American champion like Pete win wimbledon.:)

Well Pete won 7 wimbeldons in 8 years yet the final 2 wimbeldons he won drew the best. Maybe it was because the Pete-Andre final in 99?

RalphNYC
04-15-2009, 05:39 PM
To me tennis now is the most exciting it's been in years. In 2008, we had 3 different slam winners. This year promises to be very competitive too. We have Djokovic, will he win another slam? He has the talent to do it, we have Murray coming into his own, when will he win his first slam?, we have Nadal, a charismatic champion at the top but how long will he last? And we have Federer, still dangerous, can he break Sampras's slam record?
Tennis is wonderfully exciting right now and more competitive than before.

this is the most positive thing i've seen you write.. is everything ok? :)

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 05:46 PM
this is the most positive thing i've seen you write.. is everything ok? :)

Id love to share his optimism and enthusiasm.. But damnit.. Its a still a 2 man show at the slams. LOL. 2009 doesnt look any different either. I see Fed-Nadal finals going all the way through the 2009 season even the USO

icedevil0289
04-15-2009, 05:49 PM
Id love to share his optimism and enthusiasm.. But damnit.. Its a still a 2 man show at the slams. LOL. 2009 doesnt look any different either. I see Fed-Nadal finals going all the way through the 2009 season even the USO

well if its pretty much fed-nadal finals all the way through, then veroniquem has even more reason to be happy because chances are nadal will win those matches.

egn
04-15-2009, 05:52 PM
Did anyone notice how Wimbledon tanked it in 2006 when Roddick got bounced early lol. It was like Fed vs Nadal who cares..yet now Fed v. Nadal is apparently saving tennis? I would not judge american viewership as a whole. I barely watch tv and for tennis I watch it online, because american coverage sucks, is awful and on occasion provides some of the most annoying commentary ever and muting takes away from some of it..I like sounds. Therefore I resort to the internet!

LanEvo
04-15-2009, 06:06 PM
Federer definately is not done with his career yet id say, id say he'll retire at 34 or 36 one of those ages

egn
04-15-2009, 06:37 PM
Federer definately is not done with his career yet id say, id say he'll retire at 34 or 36 one of those ages

No. Please. For his sake he should call it quits around 30 or 32. He is not going to be top form between 32-36 and I would really not want to see another 35 year old guy attempting to be the top player. It was sad seeing Agassi from 04-06 still trying to play in the top. He was going on a good run every 5 or 6 tournaments. It was very upsetting. It is not that at 30-35 he will not be capable of being a great player Federer it is just he will become way more inconsistent and probably will not be as pretty. He will get a good run now and then and it will keep his ranking up, but as a whole it will be quite ugly.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:44 PM
Fed will be done no later than 30 years of age I bet. Maybe even 29 years of age, depending on how this next season or two go for him. Fed's ego is too big. HE wont continue to play when he is limping around the court, way passed his prime. If he is no longer capable of winning a slam or cannot be the top 1 or 2 in the world he wont player. Not with that ego of his.

It already appears he is losing focus on the game. I highly doubt Fed has been putting in the time on tennis like he used to.

egn
04-15-2009, 06:50 PM
Fed will be done no later than 30 years of age I bet. Maybe even 29 years of age, depending on how this next season or two go for him. Fed's ego is too big. HE wont continue to play when he is limping around the court, way passed his prime. If he is no longer capable of winning a slam or cannot be the top 1 or 2 in the world he wont player. Not with that ego of his.

It already appears he is losing focus on the game. I highly doubt Fed has been putting in the time on tennis like he used to.

Yea I second that. He has too much pride. Years of being the big man, the one on top, the force to be reckoned with. Similar to Borg in some regards it really gets to you, it really does become all about being no.1 and really nothing else matters. Fed has other things to look forward to, he has a wife, a kid on the way, and enough money that he can do other things now. Fed is in for retirement sooner than I feel most people think, including Fed himself.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:54 PM
Yea I second that. He has too much pride. Years of being the big man, the one on top, the force to be reckoned with. Similar to Borg in some regards it really gets to you, it really does become all about being no.1 and really nothing else matters. Fed has other things to look forward to, he has a wife, a kid on the way, and enough money that he can do other things now. Fed is in for retirement sooner than I feel most people think, including Fed himself.

LOL.. Wish that was all I had to look forward to instead of working crappy jobs until im dead :) Ahhh.. to be a millionaire

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 07:00 PM
You're a ******. Look at his last 18 GS finishes.....

And the last 3 of the 4 slams finals he has been in he has lost to the same player over and over again. No one remembers 2nd place. The point is, he isnt getting the job done anymore at the big stage. USO is the only slam he is managing anymore to win. He has lost his handle at every other slam.. Well he never had it at the French.. But anyways

helloworld
04-15-2009, 07:03 PM
You're a ******. Look at his last 18 GS finishes.....

What's so ******** about other people's opinion? Open up, dude.

imalil2gangsta4u
04-15-2009, 07:13 PM
i dont think federer will keep playing if hes not at his best during his 30s.

egn
04-15-2009, 07:14 PM
You're a ******. Look at his last 18 GS finishes.....

He said fast...meaning quickly compare his last 8 to his 8 prior to that. Also note who all those final losses came against. Both of his points are backed up.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 07:16 PM
It is BS. Nadal isnt bringing higher viewership, at least not in the USA
http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/wimbledon2008-500x400.gif

link:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

So see how it hits rock bottom in 2006, and once people saw Nadal doing better and becoming a threat to Federer the YAWN on grass it starts picking up again since. Thanks for proving my point. Of course it wont fly overnight. It will take time for Federer, Murray, and Djokovic to build popularity back up from the overrated boring Federer killing it for several years.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 07:19 PM
So see how it hits rock bottom in 2006, and once people saw Nadal doing better and becoming a threat to Federer the YAWN on grass it starts picking up again since. Thanks for proving my point. Of course it wont fly overnight. It will take time for Federer, Murray, and Djokovic to build popularity back up from the overrated boring Federer killing it for several years.

Lol, the rating during Federer's reign is the lowest ever. Federer basically killed tennis. :(

The-Champ
04-15-2009, 07:20 PM
Hes still managing deep runs yes.. But his days of winning may be over as long as Nadal is around and Murray continues to improve and finally does something at the slams


Murray? The same Murray who got killed at the USO-final? Nobody expected Sampras to win that 2002 USO, remember what happened? Although I felt he was quite fortunate it wasn't Hewitt on the other side of the net. Hewitt was a better match-up for Sampras than Agassi. Sometimes you just need a little luck, and it can happen to Federer as well.






What the hell is wrong with people? Roger won the USO a few months ago and all of a sudden, he wont win another slam? What if he wins the last 2?

helloworld
04-15-2009, 07:23 PM
Murray? The same Murray who got killed at the USO-final? Nobody expected Sampras to win that 2002 USO, remember what happened? Although I felt he was quite fortunate it wasn't Hewitt on the other side of the net. Hewitt was a better match-up for Sampras than Agassi. Sometimes you just need a little luck, and it can happen to Federer as well.






What the hell is wrong with people? Roger won the USO a few months ago and all of a sudden, he wont win another slam? What if he wins the last 2?

Doesn't matter who the opponent was. Sampras was on fire in that final. If Hewitt was good enough, he wouldn't have lost to Andre in the semis.

egn
04-15-2009, 07:26 PM
Lol, the rating during Federer's reign is the lowest ever. Federer basically killed tennis. :(

Real reason for 2006 death. Roddick did not make the finals. Lets be realistic here neither Nadal or Fed had anything to do with it. Americans watched in 04 and 05 because of Roddick.

The-Champ
04-15-2009, 07:34 PM
Doesn't matter who the opponent was. Sampras was on fire in that final. If Hewitt was good enough, he wouldn't have lost to Andre in the semis.


It's a match-up thing. Hewitt liked playing Sampras because he could pass him left and right, and was an excellent returner. Andre on the other hand, never approached the net. That semi-final between AA and Hewitt was one of the best AA performance I've ever seen.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 07:37 PM
It's a match-up thing. Hewitt liked playing Sampras because he could pass him left and right, and was an excellent returner. Andre on the other hand, never approached the net. That semi-final between AA and Hewitt was one of the best AA performance I've ever seen.
So Andre Agassi, one of the best returner ever with laser-like passing shot ability couldn't do that as well?? :confused: By your logic, Andre should be the one who is a good match up for Sampras.

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 07:39 PM
So see how it hits rock bottom in 2006, and once people saw Nadal doing better and becoming a threat to Federer the YAWN on grass it starts picking up again since. Thanks for proving my point. Of course it wont fly overnight. It will take time for Federer, Murray, and Djokovic to build popularity back up from the overrated boring Federer killing it for several years.
I didnt prove your point. I gave the stats for one match in one tournament, Wimbledon 2006. These are US ratings for the final only. The ratings plummeted because American hopes: Blake and Roddick made pathetic showings and lost early. Nadal and Federer have nothing to do with anything, Nadal can win 10 GS straight and it wont have a massive effect on the US ratings. The US is not producing amazing players anymore unfortunately and our ratings have taken a massive hit.

edberg505
04-15-2009, 08:07 PM
Doesn't matter who the opponent was. Sampras was on fire in that final. If Hewitt was good enough, he wouldn't have lost to Andre in the semis.

Sorry, but that's BS. I think everyone knows Agassi did Sampras a huge favour by taking Hewitt out in the semis. I was and still am a huge Sampras fan but I was hoping like crazy that Hewitt would be on the other side of the net in that final.

Real reason for 2006 death. Roddick did not make the finals. Lets be realistic here neither Nadal or Fed had anything to do with it. Americans watched in 04 and 05 because of Roddick.

Yes, let us remember that those stats are for American viewership. No Americans near the final = no Americans watching Wimbledon.

edberg505
04-15-2009, 08:13 PM
So Andre Agassi, one of the best returner ever with laser-like passing shot ability couldn't do that as well?? :confused: By your logic, Andre should be the one who is a good match up for Sampras.

As amazing a return Agassi was he sometimes took the all or nothing approach when it came to returns. It's not a huge surprise to see that Pim-Pim fire 50+ aces past him at the 05 AO. The difference between Agassi's returns and Hewitt's returns is Hewitt makes the shot from his return extremely difficult to handle. A lot of Hewitt's returns would land at Pete's feet, Pete volley's up and the next shot is academic. Hewitt just put a lot of returns back in play in a very difficult position for Pete to volley.

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 08:21 PM
Sorry, but that's BS. I think everyone knows Agassi did Sampras a huge favour by taking Hewitt out in the semis. I was and still am a huge Sampras fan but I was hoping like crazy that Hewitt would be on the other side of the net in that final.



Yes, let us remember that those stats are for American viewership. No Americans near the final = no Americans watching Wimbledon.
agreed. Many people here are blaming the devil himself, Federer, for single handedly ruining tennis, but dont worry the lord and savior Rafael Nadal will be here to take tennis to better days. :rolleyes:

Patrick_St
04-15-2009, 08:31 PM
Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.


That doesn't have to do solely with Nadal or Federer. It has to do with the great rivalry that was created between the two of them. Rivalries make sports more entertaining.

As for the original post, yes, I agree. However, it is a bit early to make this post, since Federer is not done with his career yet. He still has a few years left. Once he is retired, then you should make a post like this.

COPEY
04-15-2009, 08:37 PM
I think it's dangerous to start writing off Federer at this point. Not everyone's doing it, of course, but to suggest he's all but done is maybe wishful thinking by some who don't want him to succeed for one reason or another.

Like others have said, this year should be pretty interesting. Even though the overwhelming consensus is that Nadal will take the French, I've never been a believer in the so-called "sure thing". An untimely exit by Nadal and/or Murray opens the door for Fed in any Slam, but even without such "luck" he's still extremely dangerous...dangerous enough to where if either of the aforementioned players aren't on their game he has the ability to take them out.

Anyway, I'm just looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds!

thalivest
04-15-2009, 08:46 PM
That doesn't have to do solely with Nadal or Federer. It has to do with the great rivalry that was created between the two of them. Rivalries make sports more entertaining.

What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 08:59 PM
As amazing a return Agassi was he sometimes took the all or nothing approach when it came to returns. It's not a huge surprise to see that Pim-Pim fire 50+ aces past him at the 05 AO. The difference between Agassi's returns and Hewitt's returns is Hewitt makes the shot from his return extremely difficult to handle. A lot of Hewitt's returns would land at Pete's feet, Pete volley's up and the next shot is academic. Hewitt just put a lot of returns back in play in a very difficult position for Pete to volley.

You're still not correct, but closer than the-chump. Hewitt is an ultimate counter puncher. He is the master of using the opponent's pace and direct it at his will. Sampras is the epitome of offensive tennis, therefore it shouldn't be hard to see that purely offensive tennis will have trouble against great counterpunchers. This is not very difficult to see, but none of you made the right attempt to analyze the situation here. It's not the return or passing shot ability. It's the nature of Hewitt's strengths that fits right into Sampras's weakness.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 09:01 PM
Sorry, but that's BS. I think everyone knows Agassi did Sampras a huge favour by taking Hewitt out in the semis. I was and still am a huge Sampras fan but I was hoping like crazy that Hewitt would be on the other side of the net in that final.

What is wrong with you? You are a Sampras fan and yet you wish Hewitt was in the final? :confused:

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 09:03 PM
Hewitt actually prefers when players come in against him almost all the time. He doesnt have the power to hit through people from the backcourt, or even the most consistency there. He is an amazing counterpuncher, passes extremely well, and returns best when he has a target as well. He likes to use peoples pace againsts them but does it best when they are charging forward and he is getting a rythym against that. I think when he first reached the time in mid-late 2001 players kept thinking they had to attack all out for awhile to have a shot vs him. Even up and coming in 2000 attackers had more trouble with him since they didnt quite know how to approach him yet. I do think though players began to figure him out early in 2003. Dont give him a target constantly by charging the net point after point. Mix it up more, stay back often, then come in when he doesnt expect it. Once that happened he was never able to have the same success. I think Sampras would have figured it out too eventually, the same way Federer, an old Agassi (he lost 3 in a row in late 2001-mid 2002 then started beating him again), Roddick, and others figured him out.

Patrick_St
04-15-2009, 09:04 PM
What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.


Even if Nadal has gotten the better of Federer there is still a rivalry. When you think of the finals of a grand slam tournament the two people you imagine playing are Federer and Nadal. They have met each other in the finals of every major and seem to be the only two players that make it to the finals now. There is indeed a great rivalry between the two.

edberg505
04-15-2009, 09:06 PM
What is wrong with you? You are a Sampras fan and yet you wish Hewitt was in the final? :confused:

Mistake, should have been wasn't. I couldn't stand Hewitt which made that loss to Hewitt in the previous year's final all the more tough to swallow. So naturally when I saw Federer just dismantle Hewitt in the 2004 final it brought a smile to my face.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 09:10 PM
Mistake, should have been wasn't. I couldn't stand Hewitt which made that loss to Hewitt in the previous year's final all the more tough to swallow. So naturally when I saw Federer just dismantle Hewitt in the 2004 final it brought a smile to my face.
I remember that match. The match clearly exposed Hewitt's weakness to generate pace against Federer's strength, court coverage. Hewitt was practically helpless as he couldn't generate enough pace to outmaneuver Federer, while Federer refused to make unforced errors like he used to in his younger days.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 09:10 PM
What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.

I agree there is no rivalry. Nadal is master, Federer is slave.

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 09:14 PM
What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.
agreed. No rivalry but atleast they have epic matches right. I mean 2004 people talked about this Roddick and Federer rivalry and that always made me laugh. :lol:

Chopin
04-15-2009, 09:16 PM
agreed. No rivalry but atleast they have epic matches right. I mean 2004 people talked about this Roddick and Federer rivalry and that always made me laugh. :lol:

On clay there is no rivalry but Federer has a winning record over Nadal off of clay. Perhaps you haven't been watching tennis. Yes, Nadal has dominated the last two years, but that's how tennis works.

Chopin
04-15-2009, 09:17 PM
Do any of your posters realize that Federer still has a winning record over Nadal off of clay?

edberg505
04-15-2009, 09:21 PM
Hewitt actually prefers when players come in against him almost all the time. He doesnt have the power to hit through people from the backcourt, or even the most consistency there. He is an amazing counterpuncher, passes extremely well, and returns best when he has a target as well. He likes to use peoples pace againsts them but does it best when they are charging forward and he is getting a rythym against that. I think when he first reached the time in mid-late 2001 players kept thinking they had to attack all out for awhile to have a shot vs him. Even up and coming in 2000 attackers had more trouble with him since they didnt quite know how to approach him yet. I do think though players began to figure him out early in 2003. Dont give him a target constantly by charging the net point after point. Mix it up more, stay back often, then come in when he doesnt expect it. Once that happened he was never able to have the same success. I think Sampras would have figured it out too eventually, the same way Federer, an old Agassi (he lost 3 in a row in late 2001-mid 2002 then started beating him again), Roddick, and others figured him out.

Apparently people didn't seem to get the memo as he was in the finals of the US Open and the AO. In fact I think Hewitt had some kind of streak for losing to the eventual slam winner in the slams for a while.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 09:24 PM
Hewitt actually prefers when players come in against him almost all the time. He doesnt have the power to hit through people from the backcourt, or even the most consistency there. He is an amazing counterpuncher, passes extremely well, and returns best when he has a target as well. He likes to use peoples pace againsts them but does it best when they are charging forward and he is getting a rythym against that. I think when he first reached the time in mid-late 2001 players kept thinking they had to attack all out for awhile to have a shot vs him. Even up and coming in 2000 attackers had more trouble with him since they didnt quite know how to approach him yet. I do think though players began to figure him out early in 2003. Dont give him a target constantly by charging the net point after point. Mix it up more, stay back often, then come in when he doesnt expect it. Once that happened he was never able to have the same success. I think Sampras would have figured it out too eventually, the same way Federer, an old Agassi (he lost 3 in a row in late 2001-mid 2002 then started beating him again), Roddick, and others figured him out.
I think you sum it up pretty well.

VivalaVida
04-15-2009, 09:31 PM
Do any of your posters realize that Federer still has a winning record over Nadal off of clay?
I have been watching tennis thank you very much. Maybe the reality hasn't hit home for you yet, but 13-6 is not a rivalry. Federer got whooped on clay, grass, and most recently hard courts by Nadal. In grand slams, nadal has won 6 of the 8 meetings. There is no rivalry. I am a big fed fan myself but it is a fact. Nadal owns Federer.

btw- Federer and Nadal are tied on HC 3-3. Fed has the edge 2-1 on grass.

AprilFool
04-15-2009, 10:16 PM
I have been watching tennis thank you very much. Maybe the reality hasn't hit home for you yet, but 13-6 is not a rivalry. Federer got whooped on clay, grass, and most recently hard courts by Nadal. In grand slams, nadal has won 6 of the 8 meetings. There is no rivalry. I am a big fed fan myself but it is a fact. Nadal owns Federer.

btw- Federer and Nadal are tied on HC 3-3. Fed has the edge 2-1 on grass.

You forgot to mention the previous grass matches that Fed beat Nadal in. To say that Nadal whoops Fed on grass is a bit ludicrous, with all due respect.
And the '08 match was decided by a point or two and could have just as easily gone in Fed's favour.

As long as Federer has the talent to beat Nadal, which he has in spades, it's a rivalry.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 10:24 PM
You forgot to mention the previous grass matches that Fed beat Nadal in. To say that Nadal whoops Fed on grass is a bit ludicrous, with all due respect.
And the '08 match was decided by a point or two and could have just as easily gone in Fed's favour.

As long as Federer has the talent to beat Nadal, which he has in spades, it's a rivalry.
So as long as Marat Safin has the talent to compete with the top guys, he is the rival to Nadal and Federer?? :confused::confused:

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 10:40 PM
Do any of your posters realize that Federer still has a winning record over Nadal off of clay?

Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

edberg505
04-15-2009, 10:58 PM
Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

You seem pretty confident of that happening. Would you bet your life on it?

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-15-2009, 11:03 PM
Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors. You really don't think before you post do you? You are trying to compare a surface where they have played 10 times, Federers worst surface and Nadal best to Nadals worst and Federer second worst where they have played only once I think. His comparison is very relevent.

A user on here said the other day the H2H would look a hell of a lot different if Nadal was as good as Federer and reached HC finals more often and that is very true.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 11:14 PM
You really don't think before you post do you? You are trying to compare a surface where they have played 10 times, Federers worst surface and Nadal best to Nadals worst and Federer second worst where they have played only once I think. His comparison is very relevent.

A user on here said the other day the H2H would look a hell of a lot different if Nadal was as good as Federer and reached HC finals more often and that is very true.

I tend to disagree. Their overall H2H would still be overwhelm by Nadal's dominating result on clay. For example, suppose Nadal were able to make 3 extra hard court finals to play with Federer. Let's make it a worst case here and assume that he lost on all three finals. The H2H would be 13-9, which still heavily favors Nadal. As the current goes, the surface would be an irrelevant issue soon as Nadal can now beat Federer on all surfaces.

Povl Carstensen
04-16-2009, 12:07 AM
Lol, the rating during Federer's reign is the lowest ever. Federer basically killed tennis. :(

He he, Federer basically killed tennis...

thalivest
04-16-2009, 12:18 AM
Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

Excellent post. Totally agree.

thalivest
04-16-2009, 12:20 AM
You really don't think before you post do you? You are trying to compare a surface where they have played 10 times, Federers worst surface and Nadal best to Nadals worst and Federer second worst where they have played only once I think. His comparison is very relevent.

A user on here said the other day the H2H would look a hell of a lot different if Nadal was as good as Federer and reached HC finals more often and that is very true.

You *******s are really desperate for any straw to grasp onto at this point arent you. How is completely eliminating Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best and then only considering the remaining head to head fair. That would be like removing Nadal's best attribute, Federer's worst and then putting them on court together. Nonsense. The fact that eliminating Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst you still have only a 5-4 lead for Federer shows that Nadal has been superior in their head to head performance. Nadal has been very competitive with Federer on every surface. Federer cant compete respectably vs Nadal on clay.

Josherer
04-16-2009, 12:22 AM
Its a shame for Federer but he falls short of Pete Sampras in many departments.

How about you wait till his career is over.

thalivest
04-16-2009, 12:23 AM
How about you wait till his career is over.

For all intents and purposes his career is over.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 12:47 AM
I tend to disagree. Their overall H2H would still be overwhelm by Nadal's dominating result on clay. For example, suppose Nadal were able to make 3 extra hard court finals to play with Federer. Let's make it a worst case here and assume that he lost on all three finals. The H2H would be 13-9, which still heavily favors Nadal. As the current goes, the surface would be an irrelevant issue soon as Nadal can now beat Federer on all surfaces. Try 6-7 finals. I never said the H2H would favour Federer just look alot different and be alot closer. thalivest How about we take away Fed's best surface and Nadals best surface. The record would be 3-3, pretty even. Now lets presume they met more times on hard and carpet Federer would have a huge lead but fortunatly for Nadal he is not as good or as consistent as Federer to reach finals at GS and Master series events on hard or carpet.

P_Agony
04-16-2009, 01:40 AM
Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.

I said Gasquet has more natural talent than Nadal, not Safin and Nalbandian, who are both super talented. I won't expect any more logic from someone who thinks Nadal is exciting and Federer is boring. Yawn.

P_Agony
04-16-2009, 01:43 AM
Only in your imagination! In the media, it's very clear who is the center of attention at the moment... (around the practise courts as well)

I could care less about the media. I believe the guy who you think is the center of attention did not recently win "fan favorite" award (and I didn't even vote for that one).

lawrence
04-16-2009, 02:15 AM
Its a shame for Federer but he falls short of Pete Sampras in many departments.

ya, like his clay game

oh wait.

The-Champ
04-16-2009, 04:24 AM
So Andre Agassi, one of the best returner ever with laser-like passing shot ability couldn't do that as well?? :confused: By your logic, Andre should be the one who is a good match up for Sampras.


Hewitt's speed enables him to cover the court better, and hit more passing shots than Agassi. Hewitt ran down volleys that Agassi doesn't even bother to pick up, or simply couldn't. Did you get that logic now?

The-Champ
04-16-2009, 04:37 AM
What is wrong with you? You are a Sampras fan and yet you wish Hewitt was in the final? :confused:


I thought you said, it didn't matter who Sampas' face in the final, because he was on fire?

caulcano
04-16-2009, 05:29 AM
[/B]

To some fans of his. Tennis survived without him for many a years and was not boring, and Tennis will survive without him again when he's gone, and Tennis will not be boring.

Indeed. Tennis was boring just before him.

No doubt tennis will be boring at some point in the future.