PDA

View Full Version : Have we forgotten the retirement argument?


CountryHillbilly
08-05-2009, 10:09 PM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

Blinkism
08-05-2009, 10:15 PM
You're making it sound as if it was inevitable that Federer would win Wimbledon and the French Open.

Back before Madrid, Federer was not doing well by his own standards. I wouldn't blame people for being pessimistic or skeptical about his chances.

Retirement was ridiculous, but even Fed acknowledged he was in a slump.

CountryHillbilly
08-05-2009, 10:18 PM
You're making it sound as if it was inevitable that Federer would win Wimbledon and the French Open.

Back before Madrid, Federer was not doing well by his own standards. I wouldn't blame people for being pessimistic or skeptical about his chances.

Retirement was ridiculous, but even Fed acknowledged he was in a slump.

Yeah, but it's funny that he only beat one of Top 4 once since then.

DMan
08-05-2009, 10:18 PM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

Yeah, why not. Fed should retire! Afterall, isn't it time he gave some of the young 'uns a chance to win. No fair he's been hoarding Grand Slam titles the last 6 years!!!

jamesblakefan#1
08-05-2009, 10:18 PM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

I don't recall anyone ever saying Fed would wind up retire, at least not until he broke the record, which he has done now. People wondered if he was still a lock to get to 14, but no one serious really thought Federer was just gonna give up.

And now that he's got the record and 2 kids, he honestly seems more relaxed and motivated than ever. So no, the "retirement" argument, if there ever was one, is not valid.

goyeji
08-05-2009, 10:20 PM
CHB makes an excellent point. In fact, the retirement argument is more valid than before the RG/W 09. Federer benefited from Nadal's injury and cakewalk draws. If you win a lottery, do you keep buying lottery tickets? No, you thank your lucky stars, call it quits and enjoy your retirement.

sk8ing
08-05-2009, 10:34 PM
CHB makes an excellent point. In fact, the retirement argument is more valid than before the RG/W 09. Federer benefited from Nadal's injury and cakewalk draws. If you win a lottery, do you keep buying lottery tickets? No, you thank your lucky stars, call it quits and enjoy your retirement.

So your saying all of federers wins this year are all lucky? If I remeber correctly federer only won the french because nadal lost in one of your "cake walk" draws

federers wins were not lucky (I admit nadals injuries helped him win though) he had a great match against roddick but in the end federers determination brought him out on top.

crazylevity
08-05-2009, 10:36 PM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

To answer the bolded part, the top 4 has been floundering since. Nadal exited French Open in the 4th round, missed Wimbledon. Neither Djokovic nor Murray made it to the final of the French or Wimbledon to face Federer, and combined for only one semi (Murray, who lost to Roddick).

So what if they're the top four? Federer's obviously the most consistent of them.

Steve132
08-05-2009, 10:45 PM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

It's not Federer's fault that Nadal, Murray and Djokovic did not play well enough to meet him in the later stages of RG and Wimbledon.

And it's time to retire the "Nadal was injured/tired" argument every time Nadal loses. Australians in the early pro era had a saying:

If you're injured you don't play. If you play you're not injured.

Nadal fans need to learn and abide by that code.

Terr
08-05-2009, 10:47 PM
It's not Federer's fault that Nadal, Murray and Djokovic did not play well enough to meet him in the later stages of RG and Wimbledon.

And it's time to retire the "Nadal was injured/tired" argument every time Nadal loses. Australians in the early pro era had a saying:

If you're injured you don't play. If you play you're not injured.

Nadal fans need to learn and abide by that code.

*cough*

Mono.

goyeji
08-05-2009, 10:50 PM
*cough*

Mono.

I don't know if that is a good parallel. Nadal truly was injured.

vndesu
08-05-2009, 10:53 PM
*cough*

Mono.

mono isnt a injury its a disease that can cause long time fatigue..

goyeji
08-05-2009, 10:55 PM
mono isnt a injury its a disease that can cause long time fatigue to those who actually do contract it..

fixed your post for you

vndesu
08-05-2009, 10:56 PM
fixed your post for you

thx 10char..

FedFan_2009
08-05-2009, 11:15 PM
Wait a minute. So because he's lost 9/10 to his top rivals, he should retire despite having won 19 matches in a row and the last 2 slams? That makes PERFECT sense!

drwood
08-06-2009, 06:56 AM
Yeah, Federer should retire because he's won twice as many slams as Nadal, Murray and Djoker combined.

That's laughable.

Sentinel
08-06-2009, 07:05 AM
CHB makes an excellent point. In fact, the retirement argument is more valid than before the RG/W 09. Federer benefited from Nadal's injury and cakewalk draws. If you win a lottery, do you keep buying lottery tickets? No, you thank your lucky stars, call it quits and enjoy your retirement.
welcome back, nadal_freak. we missed you badly.
Yes, Fed should retire so that we can watch people winning slams who like to retire mid-match, who could not win a slam, or made a slam final once in their bleeding life and never again, overhyped also-rans whose only claim to fame are their teeth or their parents behavior etc.

sureshs
08-06-2009, 07:42 AM
He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid.

And it was an injured Nadal playing thru pain

Wizard of id
08-06-2009, 07:47 AM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

This is one of the best reasons for why the "retirement argument" was moronic to begin with. Nice one, OP!

I guess Fed winning the last two Grand Slams kind of makes it difficult to make this argument with a straight face.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 07:55 AM
welcome back, nadal_freak. we missed you badly.

This isn't N_F, I'm sure of that. But I think it's someone else returned, someone who'll never go away. I won't say who, though. The truth will show itself eventually.

deltox
08-06-2009, 07:58 AM
This isn't N_F, I'm sure of that. But I think it's someone else returned, someone who'll never go away. I won't say who, though. The truth will show itself eventually.

i know who, but i just add the names to my ignore list as i figure them out

maximo
08-06-2009, 08:11 AM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

It just goes to show when Federer plays against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal he can't win. Again, luck played a vital role in winning RG and Wimbledon.

Serendipitous
08-06-2009, 08:13 AM
It just goes to show when Federer plays against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal he can't win. Again, luck played a vital role in winning RG and Wimbledon.


maximo, how are you today? :):)

drakulie
08-06-2009, 08:16 AM
Federer should learn from Nadal, and just withdraw from Slams.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 08:18 AM
It just goes to show when Federer plays against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal he can't win. Again, luck played a vital role in winning RG and Wimbledon.

Murray and the Djoker had the same opportunity to take advantage of Nadal's abscence that Federer did. But they didn't. Murray lost in the SF to Roddick, when he would've played Nadal instead. If anything, Roddick's a better matchup for him, yet he still couldn't do what Roger did-beat Roddick and 6 others to win the title.

I have a feeling if Mr. Murray won Wimbledon (as you were infamously predicting before the tourney started lol), you wouldn't be claiming that "luck played a vital role". Murray and Djoke had the same opportunity open up, they just didn't take advantage.

And remind me real quick, who'd Fed beat for the US Open titles in 07 and 08? Oh yeah, those guys he "can't win against" Great logic.

maximo
08-06-2009, 08:19 AM
maximo, how are you today? :):)

A bit tired. Need sleeeep. ;)

How about you? :)

Serendipitous
08-06-2009, 08:19 AM
A bit tired. Need sleeeep. ;)

How about you? :)


I'm great, thanks! :)

maximo
08-06-2009, 08:21 AM
Murray and the Djoker had the same opportunity to take advantage of Nadal's abscence that Federer did. But they didn't. Murray lost in the SF to Roddick, when he would've played Nadal instead. If anything, Roddick's a better matchup for him, yet he still couldn't do what Roger did-beat Roddick and 6 others to win the title.

The thing is, they still didn't face Roger did they? Cos Djokovic would have beaten Federer at the French. Especially after Federer's rather embarrasing matches with a qualifier and Haas.

I have a feeling if Mr. Murray won Wimbledon (as you were infamously predicting before the tourney started lol), you wouldn't be claiming that "luck played a vital role". Murray and Djoke had the same opportunity open up, they just didn't take advantage.

If Murray had won Wimbledon it would never have been luck. He would have to play the Federer. And since Murray knows how to beat Federer on faster surfaces, it would have been a perfect match up. Besides, Federer's draws at Wimby and ESPECIALLY the French was a complete and utter joke.

And remind me real quick, who'd Fed beat for the US Open titles in 07 and 08? Oh yeah, those guys he "can't win against" Great logic.

Murray played nowhere near as well as he did against Nadal in the Semis. His return of serve was poor (Just like the Roddick match) and Federer should of counted himself lucky there too.

AprilFool
08-06-2009, 08:23 AM
If any of the top four had faced Federer at the French or Wimbledon he would have beat them, including Nadal. He demonstrated in Madrid that he knows how to beat Nadal now. That is, by employing the same method that Nadal uses against Federer, in addition to finally employing the best drop shot in the game.

Neither Nadal or Murray are going to get away with hitting to Roger's backhand for entire matches any more. They'll just get the same treatment from Roger.:twisted:

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-06-2009, 08:27 AM
Yeah, Federer should retire because he's won twice as many slams as Nadal, Murray and Djoker combined.

That's laughable.

It certainly is laughable....but we know the pro-retirement gang just wants the threat of Federer to vanish, so losers such as Murray can win a slam & join fluke slam winner Djokovic on the one-slam-wonder charts.

kOaMaster
08-06-2009, 08:27 AM
Yeah, but it's funny that he only beat one of Top 4 once since then.

funny? I think its "funny" that the whole rest of the top4 just sucked during that time (or got beaten by lesser ranked players). he did not lose one match, what could he have possibly done better?

or in other terms: while federer knows when it does count, he's there. that's a strengh that no other player has in the field like him.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 08:40 AM
The thing is, they still didn't face Roger did they? Cos Djokovic would have beaten Federer at the French. Especially after Federer's rather embarasing match with a qualifier and Haas.

Not more embarassing than losing in straights to Kohlschreiber. Could've would've should've. Novak DIDN'T beat Kohschreiber, Novak DIDN'T make it past the 3rd rnd, so for you to say Novak would have beaten Roger @ the FO, when he couldn't even beat Kohlschreiber, who couldn't beat Robredo, who couldn't beat Del Potro, who couldn't beat....Federer.

Novak lost, Roger didn't.

If Murray has won Wimbledon it would never have been luck.

Of course not, in your eyes. You do realize people would be saying the same if Murray won it though - he just got lucky that he didn't play Nadal in the SF, you do know people would be saying that, right? Because I guarantee you they would be.

And again, Roger did what Murray failed to do - beat Roddick. And talk about joke draws? Murray's Wimby draw was a joke, and he still couldn't make the finals.

He would have to play the Federer. And since Murray knows how to beat Federer on faster surfaces, it would have been a perfect match up.

Faster surfaces, you mean like the US Open?

Besides, Federer's draws at Wimby and ESPECIALLY the French was a complete and utter joke.

Haas, who beat your boy Novak twice in the wake of the FO, Monfils, a former SFist, DelPotro, who was playing the 3rd best out of anyone at the tournament, and Soderling, who knocked out Ferrer, Nadal, Davydenko, and Gonzalez, all top 10 calibur clay courters. That's a joke draw?

I'll say it again, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying these same things if your boy Murray somehow wound up winning the FO and Wimbledon. You'd probably be saying how he's the new GOAT lol. So don't play yourself as being objective a/b this when you're clearly not. Murray and Djokovic both had the same chance at Wimbledon to take advantage w/o Nadal, Murray got Roddick in the SF, who he owns, instead of Nadal, and still couldn't make the finals.

Don't blame Fed for the other 3 guys either getting hurt or losing.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-06-2009, 08:44 AM
Faster surfaces, you mean like the US Open?

Good point.



I'll say it again, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying these same things if your boy Murray somehow wound up winning the FO and Wimbledon. You'd probably be saying how he's the new GOAT lol. So don't play yourself as being objective a/b this when you're clearly not. Murray and Djokovic both had the same chance at Wimbledon to take advantage w/o Nadal, Murray got Roddick in the SF, who he owns, instead of Nadal, and still couldn't make the finals.

Don't blame Fed for the other 3 guys either getting hurt or losing.

QFT.

raiden031
08-06-2009, 09:06 AM
It just goes to show when Federer plays against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal he can't win. Again, luck played a vital role in winning RG and Wimbledon.

It also goes to show that Fed doesn't lose to nobodies in slams, unlike these guys.

drwood
08-06-2009, 09:28 AM
Murray played nowhere near as well as he did against Nadal in the Semis. His return of serve was poor (Just like the Roddick match) and Federer should of counted himself lucky there too.

Lucky to lose only 9 games? LOL :):)

goyeji
08-06-2009, 11:05 AM
welcome back, nadal_freak. we missed you badly.
Yes, Fed should retire so that we can watch people winning slams who like to retire mid-match, who could not win a slam, or made a slam final once in their bleeding life and never again, overhyped also-rans whose only claim to fame are their teeth or their parents behavior etc.

But the retirement argument is still valid as ever, as CHB pointed out. And supports the case for alternatives, such as finding a coach or switching to a larger racquet. All these points people made before RG 09 are valid as ever. People who don't see that need to take off their rosy glasses.

Zeppy
08-06-2009, 11:11 AM
I don't see how Federer would want to retire. He looks like he has plenty of years in him left, he's staying healthy and he's still winning matches.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 11:18 AM
But the retirement argument is still valid as ever, as CHB pointed out. And supports the case for alternatives, such as finding a coach or switching to a larger racquet. All these points people made before RG 09 are valid as ever. People who don't see that need to take off their rosy glasses.

This is all I see...

http://nimg.sulekha.com/Sports/original700/roger-federer-2009-6-7-12-50-34.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6900000/Wimbledon-2009-roger-federer-6987254-606-455.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0907/tennis.roger.federer.grand.slam.titles/images/roger-federer-15-grand-slam-trophies.jpg

sp00q
08-06-2009, 11:26 AM
Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open.

Well, Fed is one of the top four... And he beats himself quite often. So your argument doesn't stand.

jonnythan
08-06-2009, 11:26 AM
I love it.

A player fails to win multiple Slams in a single year for the first time since 2003 and people declare it's time for him to retire.

He wins two (possibly three) Slams in the following year, but it's still time for him to retire.

Talk about high standards!

Zeppy
08-06-2009, 11:27 AM
This is all I see...

http://nimg.sulekha.com/Sports/original700/roger-federer-2009-6-7-12-50-34.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6900000/Wimbledon-2009-roger-federer-6987254-606-455.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0907/tennis.roger.federer.grand.slam.titles/images/roger-federer-15-grand-slam-trophies.jpg

That is also what I see. So that's why I believe Federer doesn't have to retire yet. He still has plenty of years left, he's staying healthy and fit, and he's still winning matches.

zagor
08-06-2009, 11:49 AM
welcome back, nadal_freak. we missed you badly.
Yes, Fed should retire so that we can watch people winning slams who like to retire mid-match, who could not win a slam, or made a slam final once in their bleeding life and never again, overhyped also-rans whose only claim to fame are their teeth or their parents behavior etc.

You mean Gj011 :)?

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 11:53 AM
You mean Gj011 :)?

Who's that?

zagor
08-06-2009, 12:01 PM
Who's that?

Goyeji.

First he cameback as shouldretire then after he got banned 2nd August,he cameback again but this time as Goyeji who joined 3d August.

All of this is just my guess obviously,I certainly don't have any proof.

maximo
08-06-2009, 12:04 PM
Goyeji.

First he cameback as shouldretire then after he got banned 2nd August,he cameback again but this time as Goyeji who joined 3d August.

All of this is just my guess obviously,I certainly don't have any proof.

Really??

I thought gj was treated unfairly. It has always intrigued me the way he put his interesting points across.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 12:05 PM
Goyeji.

First he cameback as shouldretire then after he got banned 2nd August,he cameback again but this time as Goyeji who joined 3d August.

All of this is just my guess obviously,I certainly don't have any proof.

That's pretty harsh. I'm sure this goyeji just happens to share similar opinions to gj. No chance gj011 would come back. This goyeji's acct was created the day after shouldretire was banned? I see no connection at all...

goyeji = gj? I don't see it. Their names aren't even alike.

drakulie
08-06-2009, 12:06 PM
Goyeji.

First he cameback as shouldretire then after he got banned 2nd August,he cameback again but this time as Goyeji who joined 3d August.

All of this is just my guess obviously,I certainly don't have any proof.

I actually believe the poster you are referring to is, rafael nadal. He keeps getting banned. :)

DarthMaul
08-06-2009, 12:08 PM
thx 10char..

mircogel prestige pro ?

maximo
08-06-2009, 12:10 PM
That's pretty harsh. I'm sure this goyeji just happens to share similar opinions to gj. No chance gj011 would come back. This goyeji's acct was created the day after shouldretire was banned? I see no connection at all...

goyeji = gj? I don't see it. Their names aren't even alike.

Question.

Don't you think Pistol getting banned harsh? I mean, he always stated facts and never used fowl language unlike other posters on these boards. The flaming between you and him was what really pushed him to getting banned.

Maybe i'm just wasting my time and JBF has a heart made of stone...

goyeji
08-06-2009, 12:11 PM
Really??

I thought gj was treated unfairly. It has always intrigued me the way he put his interesting points across.

I think those posters must have disagreed with those former posters or disliked them. I am new to the forums, but I've been lurking around for some time reading the discussions, and I tend to agree with you. Reasonable posters with unique views and angles are often treated unfairly around here it seems.

maximo
08-06-2009, 12:13 PM
I think those posters must have disagreed with those former posters or disliked them. I am new to the forums, but I've been lurking around for some time reading the discussions, and I tend to agree with you. Reasonable posters with unique views and angles are often treated unfairly around here it seems.

Welcome to these boards first of all. :)

Yeah, i'm always involved in flame wars defending Murray, Djokovic and Nadal from delusional Federer fanatics.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 12:15 PM
This is all I see...

http://nimg.sulekha.com/Sports/original700/roger-federer-2009-6-7-12-50-34.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6900000/Wimbledon-2009-roger-federer-6987254-606-455.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0907/tennis.roger.federer.grand.slam.titles/images/roger-federer-15-grand-slam-trophies.jpg
Sweet sweet sweet pictures, oh man!:)

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 12:15 PM
Question.

Don't you think Pistol getting banned harsh? I mean, he always stated facts and never used fowl language unlike other posters on these boards. The flaming between you and him was what really pushed him to getting banned.

Maybe i'm just wasting my time and JBF has a heart made of stone...

Pistol called anyone that disagreed w/ him a moron, clown, an arsehole, Feder-phile was another one. Believe me, I wasn't the only one that was irked in debates by 380pistol. And I wasn't the one who reported him and led to his banning.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=266455&page=55&highlight=roger+pete+owned

And he got rebanned for good after calling out the mods for being cowards the day he got back from banishments. So no, his banishment was not harsh, IMO it was justified and fair. You only get so many chances, and he obviously ran out of them. Calling out the mods in multiple threads won't do you any good.

goyeji
08-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Welcome to these boards first of all. :)

Yeah, i'm always involved in flame wars defending Murray, Djokovic and Nadal from delusional Federer fanatics.

Thanks maximo, it is very nice of you to welcome me to the boards. I wish more posters were considerate and open-hearted in the same way. I myself am certainly not going to any wars here. But I am also not afraid to state the truth about top players. Hopefully that is acceptable here!:)

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 12:21 PM
Hola goyeji! Where do you happen to be from? America? UK? Serbia?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Thanks maximo, it is very nice of you to welcome me to the boards. I wish more posters were considerate and open-hearted in the same way. I myself am certainly not going to any wars here. But I am also not afraid to state the truth about top players. Hopefully that is acceptable here!:)
You should feel welcome, however, both u and i know that what is true to you might not be true to me, and one has to respect peoples rights to have a strong opinion about something.

xHBvi3tbOix
08-06-2009, 12:31 PM
If any of the top four had faced Federer at the French or Wimbledon he would have beat them, including Nadal. He demonstrated in Madrid that he knows how to beat Nadal now. That is, by employing the same method that Nadal uses against Federer, in addition to finally employing the best drop shot in the game.

Neither Nadal or Murray are going to get away with hitting to Roger's backhand for entire matches any more. They'll just get the same treatment from Roger.:twisted:

Madrid and the French's surfaces are completely different. Madrids at a higher altitude and the balls bounce differently. And did you just compare clay to grass saying that if Fed beat Nadal on clay then therefore he could do the same on grass? You clearly do not know ANYTHING about how balls react when they are on different surfaces

goyeji
08-06-2009, 12:34 PM
Hola goyeji! Where do you happen to be from? America? UK? Serbia?

Hello JBF. I don't like to share my personal information on the forums. I hope you can respect my privacy!:)

goyeji
08-06-2009, 12:37 PM
You should feel welcome, however, both u and i know that what is true to you might not be true to me, and one has to respect peoples rights to have a strong opinion about something.

Yes, I always have respect for people with reasonable opinions. You might also consider that besides opinions there are also facts where there is no place for differing opinions.

Serendipitous
08-06-2009, 12:39 PM
This is gj011.



It's difficult to stay away from these forums.

maximo
08-06-2009, 12:40 PM
Thanks maximo, it is very nice of you to welcome me to the boards. I wish more posters were considerate and open-hearted in the same way.

Thank you. You yourself are very charming . ;)

Serendipitous
08-06-2009, 12:41 PM
Yes, I always have respect for people with reasonable opinions. You might also consider that besides opinions there are also facts where there is no place for differing opinions.

Welcome back! :wink:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 12:45 PM
Yes, I always have respect for people with reasonable opinions. You might also consider that besides opinions there are also facts where there is no place for differing opinions.
Well sure, but facts can be enterpred in different ways than one.

~ZoSo~
08-06-2009, 01:06 PM
CHB makes an excellent point. In fact, the retirement argument is more valid than before the RG/W 09. Federer benefited from Nadal's injury and cakewalk draws. If you win a lottery, do you keep buying lottery tickets? No, you thank your lucky stars, call it quits and enjoy your retirement.

Interesting analogy. There are many who say that while fed cannot be blamed for it, his last 2 slams were similar to 2 jackpot wins due to not having to meet his strongest rival in either final.

pame
08-06-2009, 01:22 PM
Interesting analogy. There are many who say that while fed cannot be blamed for it, his last 2 slams were similar to 2 jackpot wins due to not having to meet his strongest rival in either final.

So poor Fed has to win his rivals' matches for them as well as win his own so that they can meet him in the finals! oooooookkkkkkk then! lmao

CountryHillbilly
08-06-2009, 04:27 PM
I was just being sarcastic here. Fed did have a bit of luck, but that's just a part of tennis.

But, AprilFool and JBF#1, please don't go around saying that Fed would beat Nadal at the French. There is a possibility, but there was also a possibility that he would lose to Djoko.

JeMar
08-06-2009, 04:31 PM
I was just being sarcastic here. Fed did have a bit of luck, but that's just a part of tennis.

But, AprilFool and JBF#1, please don't go around saying that Fed would beat Nadal at the French.

CountryHillbilly sarcastic? Never would've thought that was possible.

CountryHillbilly
08-06-2009, 04:33 PM
CountryHillbilly sarcastic? Never would've thought that was possible.

Yeah right, like, I'm sooo sarcastic. Fed's gonna sooo roast on a spit next time he meets Muzza or Joker.

Sentinel
08-06-2009, 06:42 PM
we are so much into the injury and fatigue argument that we've totally forgotten the Roger should retire.

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 06:51 PM
I was just being sarcastic here. Fed did have a bit of luck, but that's just a part of tennis.

But, AprilFool and JBF#1, please don't go around saying that Fed would beat Nadal at the French. There is a possibility, but there was also a possibility that he would lose to Djoko.



The same Djokovic that lost to Kohlschrieber who sucks on clay, and has lost twice to Tommy Haas who outside of this one anomaly year has indeed sucked on grass his whole entire career? Right.



Federer's chances of beating Nadal are substantially higher than him losing to Djokovic, especially at RG where the clay is indeed far faster than any of the other clay tournaments except Madrid. In fact, Djokovic has been sucking it up all year except that little stretch during the clay season where he did post some good results, especially against Nadal.

sh@de
08-06-2009, 07:20 PM
It really isn't Fed's fault if his rivals lose before they get to play each other... the argument that Fed had cakewalk draws in the FO is seriously stupid. Imagine if Murray had been the one on Fed's half, what would people be saying then? Oh right yeah, Djoker was supposedly the 'second best claycourter' at the time, so Fed would have had another 'cakewalk'. Oh but now, Djoker's in his half, but loses early, so what happens? Yeah you guessed it, Fed's draw has just become a 'cakewalk' again. It doesn't matter what happens, people will always find ways to discredit Fed's wins. Pathetic really.

Lifted
08-06-2009, 07:30 PM
Thanks maximo, it is very nice of you to welcome me to the boards. I wish more posters were considerate and open-hearted in the same way. I myself am certainly not going to any wars here. But I am also not afraid to state the truth about top players. Hopefully that is acceptable here!:)

Thank you. You yourself are very charming . ;)

So where are you guys going on your first date?

goyeji
08-06-2009, 08:32 PM
Thank you. You yourself are very charming . ;)

Thanks maximo for your heartfelt and sincere compliment. It is already becoming clear to me that you are not only an astute and eloquent tennis afficionado, but a charming and sincere guy as well.;)

goyeji
08-06-2009, 08:35 PM
Welcome back! :wink:

Thanks for your welcoming message. I like your sense of humor! While we have not conversed previously, I have enjoyed reading your witty and humorous posts for some time now. Have a nice day!

goyeji
08-06-2009, 08:37 PM
Well sure, but facts can be enterpred in different ways than one.

Well yes, but it is most important to distinguish between facts and fiction in the first place. That ability seems to be commonly lacking these days.

goyeji
08-06-2009, 08:41 PM
Interesting analogy. There are many who say that while fed cannot be blamed for it, his last 2 slams were similar to 2 jackpot wins due to not having to meet his strongest rival in either final.

I think it's a very good analogy indeed, but there is actually more to it than Nadal being out of RG and W. Look at the actual draw Federer had to go through at the French - nothing else needs to be said. Also, I wouldn't call Federer "Nadal's rival" - their history has been hardly a rivalry.

crazylevity
08-06-2009, 08:54 PM
Thanks maximo, it is very nice of you to welcome me to the boards. I wish more posters were considerate and open-hearted in the same way. I myself am certainly not going to any wars here. But I am also not afraid to state the truth about top players. Hopefully that is acceptable here!:)

Would that be the objective truth, or the truth as you see it? The former is acceptable, the latter is not. Just a heads up.

goyeji
08-06-2009, 08:58 PM
Would that be the objective truth, or the truth as you see it? The former is acceptable, the latter is not. Just a heads up.

Objective truth, of course. I am glad you consider objective truth acceptable. People like you seem to be the minority these days.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 10:40 PM
This is gj011.



It's difficult to stay away from these forums.

Of COURSE it's gj011. You guys think I didn't pick up on it as soon as I saw this fool back spewing his usual anti-Fed crap? Sure a little more suble now w/ his hatred for Fed, but of COURSE it's gj. Let's end this charade right now. goyeji? gj? Am I the ONLY one who saw this right away?

goyeji = gj011.

Like Serendipitious said, welcome back.

mandy01
08-06-2009, 10:44 PM
Of COURSE it's gj011. You guys think I didn't pick up on it as soon as I saw this fool back spewing his usual anti-Fed crap? Sure a little more suble now w/ his hatred for Fed, but of COURSE it's gj. Let's end this charade right now. goyeji? gj? Am I the ONLY one who saw this right away?

goyeji = gj011.

Like Serendipitious said, welcome back. goyeji beats every ****. :mrgreen:

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:48 PM
Of COURSE it's gj011. You guys think I didn't pick up on it as soon as I saw this fool back spewing his usual anti-Fed crap? Sure a little more suble now w/ his hatred for Fed, but of COURSE it's gj. Let's end this charade right now. goyeji? gj? Am I the ONLY one who saw this right away?

goyeji = gj011.

Like Serendipitious said, welcome back.

LOL,no of course not,it's kinda obvious.But still give the guy a break,he's actually making some effort to hide it this time,I find it quite entertaining actually.

goyeji
08-06-2009, 10:51 PM
So where are you guys going on your first date?

Maximo is not only a clever, truthful and honest person who provides tennis insight from unique angles. He has the common decency and courteousness to welcome new posters in a sincere and courteous way. Take one (brief) look at some posts from JBF and mandy01 in this thread to understand the difference.

mandy01
08-06-2009, 10:52 PM
Maximo is not only a clever, truthful and honest person who provides tennis insight from unique angles. He has the common decency and courteousness to welcome new posters in a sincere and courteous way. Take one (brief) look at some posts from JBF and mandy01 in this thread to understand the difference. awww.....cry me a river :lol:

mandy01
08-06-2009, 10:53 PM
LOL,no of course not,it's kinda obvious.But still give the guy a break,he's actually making some effort to hide it this time,I find it quite entertaining actually.
me too ..its funny..regardles of who this poster is,he's a big time entertainment :lol:

goyeji
08-06-2009, 10:59 PM
So where are you guys going on your first date?

Oh and P.S. other character traits of maximo that I appreciate are his patriotism and sincerety. I wouldn't imagine him to berate British or French players. And also I wouldn't imagine him betraying British or French posters. He is the kind of guy who is true to his countrymen whether players or posters. Just another observation I happened to make about him. Can't say as much for some of the others in this thread unfortunately.

Serve_Ace
08-07-2009, 04:53 PM
Oh and P.S. other character traits of maximo that I appreciate are his patriotism and sincerety. I wouldn't imagine him to berate British or French players. And also I wouldn't imagine him betraying British or French posters. He is the kind of guy who is true to his countrymen whether players or posters. Just another observation I happened to make about him. Can't say as much for some of the others in this thread unfortunately.

You mean like since you only joined a few days ago, and within that time span you managed to read all of his posts to figure out his entire personality? Not buying it.

Andy G
08-07-2009, 05:29 PM
As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.

So by this standard any draw that does not go through Nadal is a cakewalk. Maybe you would be happy if the ATP just gave Nadal all the trophies in January. This way he wouldn't actually have to do anything to get them. After all he fails to reach finals more times than not. Then each player can take a turn playing him for one of them. It can be like boxing. One man has the titles and everyone can try to beat him. Oh yeah, except for the fact that Nadal has only reached 6 of the last 18 major finals. .333%, maybe he should take up baseball.