PDA

View Full Version : Good Fed interview


vtmike
06-24-2009, 03:32 PM
A short but nice interview where he is talking about court speeds, rivals, GOAT debate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6L0RNNW7Hs

shrakkie
06-24-2009, 03:36 PM
Federer SO reads these boards!

vtmike
06-24-2009, 03:40 PM
Federer SO reads these boards!

Yeah I know! That's the feeling I got too from the GOAT debate points he brought up...:)

Well at least I know his point of view matches with mine i.e. there are just too many variables to pick a GOAT tennis player...

zagor
06-24-2009, 03:42 PM
Federer SO reads these boards!

Actually that wouldn't surprise me at all.From what I hear he like to surf around internet a lot so there's certainly a chance he might have stumbled upon TW at some point.

vtmike
06-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Actually that wouldn't surprise me at all.From what I hear he like to surf around internet a lot so there's certainly a chance he might have stumbled upon TW at some point.

It would be so awesome if he publishes a video and mentions TW in it...

GameSampras
06-24-2009, 03:45 PM
Federer SO reads these boards!

Hey Fed if your out there....


CAKEWALK CITY!!

JeMar
06-24-2009, 03:46 PM
That sounds like such a yummy place to live.

vtmike
06-24-2009, 03:48 PM
Hey Fed if your out there....


CAKEWALK CITY!!

Well its better than the bitter ***** city that you live in...

fed_rulz
06-24-2009, 03:52 PM
Hey Fed if your out there....


CAKEWALK CITY!!

Hey Fed if your out there.. Pete invites you to live in his hometown of the 90s...

CAKEWALK CITY

GameSampras
06-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Hey Fed if your out there.. Pete invites you to live in his hometown of the 90s...

CAKEWALK CITY

Whos Fed's biggest challenge this at Wimby this year anyway? Karlovic? The guy who has failed to get out of the 1st round of Wimby the last 4-5 yearss
Since we know neither Djoker or Murray will prolly reach the final.

Verdasco? A nobody.

Tsonga? A nobody.

0 slams between all of them.

Count them. 000000000

You know its funny.. Is there anyone even capable of winning slam today outside the top 2?

zagor
06-24-2009, 03:54 PM
Hey Fed if your out there....


CAKEWALK CITY!!

Fed if you are out there...

DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO BITTER POSTS FROM SAMPRAS FANBOYS!!!

THEY STILL HAVEN'T RECOVERED FROM SEEING YOU WIN THE FRENCH!!!

JeMar
06-24-2009, 03:56 PM
Whos Fed's biggest challenge this at Wimby this year anyway? Karlovic? The guy who has failed to get out of the 1st round of Wimby the last 4-5 years?

Since we know neither Djoker or Murray will prolly not reach the final.

Verdasco? A nobody.

Tsonga? A nobody.

0 slams between all of them.

Count them. 000000000

Dummy, get this through your thick skull. The fact that hardly anyone has a slam aside from Nadal and Federer speaks of just how great the two of them are, but about how bad the others are. How many times does this have to be repeated? It's impossible to win slams if two players are hogging them all with sustained excellence.

theduh
06-24-2009, 03:57 PM
Hey Fed if your out there....


CAKEWALK CITY!!

I see that you're back again. Back to old trolling I see.

GameSampras
06-24-2009, 03:58 PM
Dummy, get this through your thick skull. The fact that hardly anyone has a slam aside from Nadal and Federer speaks of just how great the two of them are, but about how bad the others are. How many times does this have to be repeated? It's impossible to win slams if two players are hogging them all with sustained excellence.

Oh thats the only reason.. I see. :???: Cause Nadal and Fed are too good. Not because the rest of the field arent all the great. Im sure if you stick Roddick in any area he would be a multiple time grand slam champ right? Im sure if you stick Nalbandian, Blake, Karlovic, Tsonga, Verdasco, they would be mutltiple grand slam champs in any other era. Sure...


At what point, does some blame GO ON the rest of the field for failing to produce at the highest level?


Instead of just saying.. Ehh the top 2 players are too good. So they have taken the last 40 out of 41 slams away. Why is it a player like Djoker and Murray can win smaller tourneys and beat Nadal or Fed in the process, yet they cant even get by players they are SUPPOSED TO BEAT, when it matters most?

Maybe because alot of these guys just dont have what it takes to be true champions?

vtmike
06-24-2009, 03:58 PM
Oh come on!! Another worthless GOAT debate initiated by GameSampras...:(

vtmike
06-24-2009, 03:59 PM
Oh thats the only reason.. I see. :???: Cause Nadal and Fed are too good. Not because the rest of the field arent all the great. Im sure if you stick Roddick in any area he would be a multiple time grand slam champ right? Im sure if you stick Nalbandian, Blake, Karlovic, Tsonga, Verdasco, they would be mutltiple grand slam champs in any other era. Sure...

If this If that....In Drak's words "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle"

zagor
06-24-2009, 04:01 PM
Whos Fed's biggest challenge this at Wimby this year anyway? Karlovic? The guy who has failed to get out of the 1st round of Wimby the last 4-5 yearss
Since we know neither Djoker or Murray will prolly reach the final.

Verdasco? A nobody.

Tsonga? A nobody.

0 slams between all of them.

Count them. 000000000

You know its funny.. Is there anyone even capable of winning slam today outside the top 2?

Not really,Murray has an excellent chance to reach the final.I'd be surprised if he doesn't.

AAAA
06-24-2009, 04:02 PM
Hey Fed if your out there....


CAKEWALK CITY!!

This is a cakewalk

Sampras's Wimbledon 2000 run:

1R : 'Who' Vanek (3-0 in sets)
2R : 'Maybe' Kucera ( 3-1 in sets)
3R : 'Chicken legs' Gimelstob (3-1 in sets)
4R : 'Doubles Specialist' Björkman (3-0 in sets)
QF : '90210 Pretty Boy' Jan Michael Gambill (3-1 in sets)
SF : Vladimir 'WTF' Voltchkov (3-0 in sets) (QUALIFIER ranked outside top100)
F: Rafter (seed #12) (3-1 in sets)

No top 10 players to deal with and none competitive enough to push Sampras to 5 sets.

Federer by comparison played at least two 5 setters and a number #5 seed to earn his 2009 FO title.

JeMar
06-24-2009, 04:02 PM
Oh thats the only reason.. I see. :???: Cause Nadal and Fed are too good. Not because the rest of the field arent all the great. Im sure if you stick Roddick in any area he would be a multiple time grand slam champ right? Im sure if you stick Nalbandian, Blake, Karlovic, Tsonga, Verdasco, they would be mutltiple grand slam champs in any other era. Sure...


At what point, does some blame GO ON the rest of the field for failing to produce at the highest level?


Instead of just saying.. Ehh the top 2 players are too good. Why is it a player like Djoker and Murray can win smaller tourneys and beat Nadal or Fed in the process, yet they cant even get by players they are SUPPOSED TO BEAT, when it matters most?

Just about everyone but you states that the game is the best it's ever been, and that the only thing that has apparently diminished over the years is the mental ability of the ATP top 20. Confidence and mettle, in other words. Winning one major can do wonders for that, but unfortunately for them, they have two of the greatest of all time to compete against.

GameSampras
06-24-2009, 04:04 PM
Oh come on!! Another worthless GOAT debate initiated by GameSampras...:(

No.. No GOAT debate. I just think its ridiculous just to shrug everything off as saying, the top 2 players are just too good, and everyone elses slams were taken away. Roddick got screwed out of 10 slams by Fed etc etc. Bottom line is.. Its not a one way street. Its not just Fed and Nadal are too good regardless of what the rest of the field does. Its the problem of the rest of the field for years never answering that challenge especially at the slams. Its a mixture of both. Fed and Nadal being great players, the rest of the field, not ever seemingly to be able to getting up to par.

fed_rulz
06-24-2009, 04:13 PM
No.. No GOAT debate. I just think its ridiculous just to shrug everything off as saying, the top 2 players are just too good, and everyone elses slams were taken away. Roddick got screwed out of 10 slams by Fed etc etc. Bottom line is.. Its not a one way street. Its not just Fed and Nadal are too good regardless of what the rest of the field does. Its the problem of the rest of the field for years never answering that challenge especially at the slams. Its a mixture of both. Fed and Nadal being great players, the rest of the field, not ever seemingly to be able to getting up to par.

you're just jealous that Pete wasn't good enough to prevent his opposition from winning slams during his supposed dominance, despite having a relatively weak field. Yeah, I'm talking about the era when kafelnikov won two slams, and marcelo rios was world # 1.. Sorry, if Pete was as good as federer or nadal, he wouldn't have let that happen

By your logic (bolded part), it would mean that the grass court competition in the 90s was a joke because none (bar krajicek) could pose any threat to Pete.. In other words, his wimbledon victories were a result of his residence in CAKEWALK CITY

World Beater
06-24-2009, 04:15 PM
at the end of day.

federer has 1 rg...sampras has zero rgs.

everything else is an excuse.

FedFan_2009
06-24-2009, 04:40 PM
Excellent interview. Mad props to OP - keep em coming!

BigServer1
06-24-2009, 05:22 PM
I love how the acronym GOAT incites riots...

Federer's draw this year is undoubtedly the hardest that he has faced for some time at SW19. Kholi, Soderling, then Tsonga/Verdasco, then Djokovic and then most likely Murray or Roddick.

If the seeds hold out, he would beat #27, #13, #7, #4 and then #3 to win this title. That's a tough run and if he does it, it will be impressive.

FedFan_2009
06-24-2009, 05:32 PM
I love how the acronym GOAT incites riots...

Federer's draw this year is undoubtedly the hardest that he has faced for some time at SW19. Kholi, Soderling, then Tsonga/Verdasco, then Djokovic and then most likely Murray or Roddick.

If the seeds hold out, he would beat #27, #13, #7, #4 and then #3 to win this title. That's a tough run and if he does it, it will be impressive.

Will the hatas give him credit for that? I don't think so - they'll still insist that Rafa was out and 2009 Wimby has a big *.

vtmike
06-24-2009, 05:35 PM
Excellent interview. Mad props to OP - keep em coming!

You're welcome...

VivalaVida
06-24-2009, 05:41 PM
Thanks for posting the "arrogant jerk's" interview, vtmike.

endbegin
06-24-2009, 07:37 PM
Nice interview ... he looked very relaxed. The interviewer was Vijay Amritraj, who had a great run at Wimbledon himself sometime in the 70s I believe.

Here is a blurb from Wikipedia:

"After playing his first grand prix event in 1970, Amritraj achieved his first significant success in singles in 1973 when he reached the quarter-final stage at two Grand Slam events. At Wimbledon he lost 7–5 in the fifth set to the eventual champion Jan Kodeš and later that summer at the US Open, lost to Ken Rosewall after having beaten Rod Laver two rounds earlier.
Amritraj repeated his feat at Forest Hills in 1974 when he went out in the last eight again to Rosewall after beating a young Björn Borg in the second round. In the years that followed he reached the latter stages of numerous Grand Prix events but failed to meet with success in Grand Slam tournaments. It was not until 1981 when Amritraj again reached the quarterfinals, going out in five sets to Jimmy Connors. This match typified Amritraj's tennis. He was a natural grass-court player who liked to chip-and-charge and serve-and-volley. He could compete against the world's best but often would lose longer matches through a lack of stamina. Against Connors he was up two sets but lost the last two convincingly in a 2–6, 5–7, 6–4, 6–3, 6–2 loss. A similar Wimbledon result occurred in 1979 in the 2nd round where he looked set to defeat defending champion Borg, up two sets to one and 4–1 in the fourth set, only to lose 2–6, 6–4, 4–6, 7–6, 6–2."

He also starred in a Bond movie ... Octo***** with Roger Moore! :)

abmk
06-24-2009, 07:41 PM
nice interview. Thanks for posting, vtmike

FedFan_2009
06-24-2009, 07:52 PM
A rare good interview with Roger. Of course it was a tennis player doing it so that helped.

dh003i
06-24-2009, 08:23 PM
you're just jealous that Pete wasn't good enough to prevent his opposition from winning slams during his supposed dominance, despite having a relatively weak field. Yeah, I'm talking about the era when kafelnikov won two slams, and marcelo rios was world # 1.. Sorry, if Pete was as good as federer or nadal, he wouldn't have let that happen

By your logic (bolded part), it would mean that the grass court competition in the 90s was a joke because none (bar krajicek) could pose any threat to Pete.. In other words, his wimbledon victories were a result of his residence in CAKEWALK CITY

I think Pete was as good as they said; and between him and Agassi, I really don't think anyone else should have won a slam outside of the French Open.

With Agassi, he had his away periods. Sampras I guess just wasn't as consistent, even when #1. No-one outside of Agassi had any business beating him on a hard-court slam.

I mean, if he plays his best game, no-one's going to beat him on grass or HC, except Agassi.

Well, Federer and Nadal have been able to play their best to such an extent that since 2004, only Safin and Djokovic has won slams.

Swissv2
06-24-2009, 08:31 PM
notice the usual "suspects" are in the back room trying to extract something "bad" out of the interview.

We wait patiently.

bruce38
06-24-2009, 08:33 PM
If Sampras played in this era he's have a lot fewer slams with these top 2.