PDA

View Full Version : Roger is playing Montreal?


FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 08:32 AM
His home page has changed to Montreal, and I figure he would have already withdrawn by now.

http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/index.cfm

"Tour tracker" is on Montreal.

AprilFool
08-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Nice chance to pick up some major pointage.

Spider
08-06-2009, 08:36 AM
I look forward to Murray spanking Federer. :)

Lifted
08-06-2009, 08:37 AM
I look forward to Murray spanking Federer. :)

Rawrrrr, kinky.

maximo
08-06-2009, 08:39 AM
I look forward to Murray spanking Federer. :)

Same.

Federer fanatics better watch out! :twisted:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 08:43 AM
I look forward to Murray spanking Federer. :)
Keep on looking forward, for a long time. Murray is a clown who hasnt won ****! When he has his first 1-2 slams then we can start talking.

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 08:44 AM
Keep on looking forward, for a long time. Murray is a clown who hasnt won ****! When he has his first 1-2 slams then we can start talking.

You're really a tool. You know that Murray is the 3-setter King.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 08:44 AM
Roger pretty much only has to make the SF of Cincy and Montreal then the no1 position is pretty much locked for the rest of the year!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 08:46 AM
You're really a tool. You know that Murray is the 3-setter King.
Im not a tool, im the real deal:twisted:
He might be, thats why Roger is gonna spank him at Us Open this year as well. Lets just hope he wont be humiliated like he was last year.

Spider
08-06-2009, 08:50 AM
Im not a tool, im the real deal:twisted:
He might be, thats why Roger is gonna spank him at Us Open this year as well. Lets just hope he wont be humiliated like he was last year.

You talk like Federer is guarenteed to be in the final. It could very well be that Murray is on the other half and Federer has to play Nadal before Murray, and that would be a very tough challenge for Federer. Obviously Nadal is not guarenteed either and perhaps won't even make it to the second week. Then Fed will be there in the final and then let the better player win (which I hope is Murray).

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 08:54 AM
You talk like Federer is guarenteed to be in the final. It could very well be that Murray is on the other half and Federer has to play Nadal before Murray, and that would be a very tough challenge for Federer. Obviously Nadal is not guarenteed either and perhaps won't even make it to the second week. Then Fed will be there in the final and then let the better player win (which I hope is Murray).
Yeah, i can agree with that, i dont think Nadal will make it very far though, but ppl around here are talking like Murray easily is gonna beat Fed in both the MS coming up and Uso. Thats not gonna happen.

tacou
08-06-2009, 08:56 AM
I think this is an odd decision. After pretty much cementing himself as most accomplished tennis player ever, he can't take another week off to spend with his 2week old daughters? I know Montreal is a masters event but it's not a HUGE tournament...

Spider
08-06-2009, 08:57 AM
Yeah, i can agree with that, i dont think Nadal will make it very far though, but ppl around here are talking like Murray easily is gonna beat Fed in both the MS coming up and Uso. Thats not gonna happen.

Masters series Murray is clearly the favorite in their match up and at the slams its the opposite at the moment. No one easily beats Fed at a slam (and if Murray wins the US open, it will be a 5 setter final).

Fed is one of the greatest ever and Murray is the future. Can't wait for this match. :)

VivalaVida
08-06-2009, 09:03 AM
Alright, Federer better not lose to Murray in another 3 set match. :evil:

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 09:05 AM
murray might win 3 setters, but his grand slam record for a #3 isn't amazing, he needs a grand slam for rep.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:05 AM
Alright, Federer better not lose to Murray in another 3 set match. :evil:
I agree, and its always the same pattern , Federer chokes the 3rd set away in 15 minutes, MS tournaments are not GS, but still big enough.

Spider
08-06-2009, 09:08 AM
murray might win 3 setters, but his grand slam record for a #3 isn't amazing, he needs a grand slam for rep.

Federer won his first slam at around the same age as Murray (if Murray wins the US open).

These guys are exceptional talents and are late bloomers, so they should be judged once their careers are over and not when their peaks has not even started.

TMCW140
08-06-2009, 09:11 AM
I think this is an odd decision. After pretty much cementing himself as most accomplished tennis player ever, he can't take another week off to spend with his 2week old daughters? I know Montreal is a masters event but it's not a HUGE tournament...

outside of all the bickering, fair point, but i suppose he can cement the number 1 spot, which could allow him to miss some later events, or maybe the relentless crying is forcing him out the house...

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 09:15 AM
Federer won his first slam at around the same age as Murray (if Murray wins the US open).

These guys are exceptional talents and are late bloomers, so they should be judged once their careers are over and not when their peaks has not even started.

I'm not judging, i am just stating facts, andy murray could very well be number 1 at the end of the year - regardless of whether he wins a grandslam

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:16 AM
I'm not judging, i am just stating facts, andy murray could very well be number 1 at the end of the year - regardless of whether he wins a grandslam
That would be a SAD DAY for tennis...

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:23 AM
That would be a SAD DAY for tennis...

It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(

Tiberius
08-06-2009, 09:24 AM
Rawrrrr, kinky.

LOL that is so wrong! :twisted:

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 09:24 AM
That would be a SAD DAY for tennis...

that day will come eventually, and murray is the best player without a slam. Yes, it would be bad if murray got to #1 without a slam. I wonder how many hate threads would be posted

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:26 AM
I dont expect roger to come out of Montrael..

I think Roger is getting the sampras disease of 97-02. Focusing on the "big'ins" now.

Its funny Fed didnt win a tournament all year until Madrid and then winning Wimby and RG. It seems all of Fed's focus is primarily on slams now. Of course if he loses at Montrael, that may put a damper on his demolition of the tour since Nadal has been out and he wont have the confidence going into the USO

grafselesfan
08-06-2009, 09:27 AM
It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(

I agree totally. One of the saddest days in tennis history. :( Oh well atleast the last two slams have proven something. Federer cant win slams anymore with Rafa around or even playing any of his main rivals. He wins through default when his main rival is injured and he doesnt even play his main challengers in the draw. That is not a true champion. Graf and Seles won slams facing each other, Agassi and Sampras won slams facing each other, the Williams and Henin won slams facing each other, Nadal wins slams by beating Federer. Federer on the other hand has to wait for Nadal to be injured or upset, as well as Murray on non clay surfaces and Djokovic on non grass surfaces losing before he faces them, and wins by beating up on the B challengers.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 09:28 AM
It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(

agree, federer won the lottery and won that slam through everyone's pity

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:30 AM
It wasnt even the point Fed got to sidestep Nadal..

Fed got to sidestep the TWO BIGGEST threats of the tournament, Djoker and Nadal..

I mean goshh.. How lucky.. And Fed would have had to play these two b2b

grafselesfan
08-06-2009, 09:30 AM
agree, federer won the lottery and won that slam through everyone's pity

and now we have to hear all the GOAT talk of some player who is vastly inferior to Sampras in atleast half the aspects of the game (and no more than slightly superior in any), who would get owned by Borg in his prime, and who is owned by his biggest rival in his own era and even has recent losing head to heads with his 3 biggest rivals (owned by Murray of late, trailing Djokovic of late).

grafselesfan
08-06-2009, 09:31 AM
It wasnt even the point Fed got to sidestep Nadal..

Fed got to sidestep the TWO BIGGEST threats of the tournament, Djoker and Nadal..

I mean goshh.. How lucky

It depends which slam you are talking about. I would say his two biggest threats at the French were Nadal and Djokovic. His two biggest threats at Wimbledon were Nadal and Murray. Either way he sidestepped both at both.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 09:32 AM
and now we have to hear all the GOAT talk of some player who is vastly inferior to Sampras in atleast half the aspects of the game (and no more than slightly superior in any), who would get owned by Borg in his prime, and who is owned by his biggest rival in his own era and even has recent losing head to heads with his 3 biggest rivals (owned by Murray of late, trailing Djokovic of late).

when both players were in there prime, fed had the better backhand, that's it

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:33 AM
Sidestepping your two biggest threats of the slam who you would have had to deal with back to back..

These just pure luck.. Extremely fortunate Fed is..


Thus why Im not crowning him GOAT, UNLESS, he proves he can accomplish this type of feat.

Not grab slams when your main rival is out who has demolished you on a consistent basis on every surface at the slams..

FedNad316
08-06-2009, 09:34 AM
Sidestepping your two biggest threats of the slam who you would have had to deal with back to back..

These just pure luck.. Extremely fortunate Fed is..


Thus why Im not crowning him GOAT, UNLESS, he proves he can accomplish this type of feat.

Not grab slams when your main rival is out who has demolished you on a consistent basis on every surface at the slams..

He WON>>>15......Bottomline........while the losers can sit at home and fantasize:twisted:

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:34 AM
It depends which slam you are talking about. I would say his two biggest threats at the French were Nadal and Djokovic. His two biggest threats at Wimbledon were Nadal and Murray. Either way he sidestepped both at both.



Yea thats true..

Sidesteps Djoker and Nadal at the French.. Sidesteps Nadal and Murray..All of which who have had Roger's number of the course of the season and proven they have the games to beat Roger and are the top players in the world along with him.


Thats why Im not understanding why the GOAT label is being thrown around.. Fed didnt really overcome anything.. He did stay in the slams, but great situations evolved for him.


And if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, people will be recanting the GOAT'ness of Fed. No doubt

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:35 AM
Just watch when Federer loses his 5 time winning streak at the USO to Murray or Nadal. Fed fans will literally have a heart attack.

drwood
08-06-2009, 09:36 AM
I agree totally. One of the saddest days in tennis history. :( Oh well atleast the last two slams have proven something. Federer cant win slams anymore with Rafa around or even playing any of his main rivals. He wins through default when his main rival is injured and he doesnt even play his main challengers in the draw. That is not a true champion. Graf and Seles won slams facing each other, Agassi and Sampras won slams facing each other, the Williams and Henin won slams facing each other, Nadal wins slams by beating Federer. Federer on the other hand has to wait for Nadal to be injured or upset, as well as Murray on non clay surfaces and Djokovic on non grass surfaces losing before he faces them, and wins by beating up on the B challengers.

Shame on you...you're better than trolling posts like this. And, BTW, Graf won half of her slams after Seles was stabbed -- by your logic she's not a true champion either.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:37 AM
Just watch when Federer loses his 5 time winning streak at the USO to Murray or Nadal. Fed fans will literally have a heart attack.

Oh if Nadal beats Fed, the domination over Fed by Nadal will be complete. I dont care if Fed has 15 slams..

You cant deny what Nadal has done to Fed and what would have been at every slam there is.


And you can only use "matchup" excuse for so long.. That matchup problem has now extended to every surface and you either WIN OR YOU DONT!!

FedNad316
08-06-2009, 09:37 AM
Just watch when Federer loses his 5 time winning streak at the USO to Murray or Nadal. Fed fans will literally have a heart attack.

Well the only loser I can see is poor whining Murray and his loser *****....Let him win atleast 1 slam to keep his ***** happy:(

drwood
08-06-2009, 09:37 AM
Thats why Im not understanding why the GOAT label is being thrown around.. Fed didnt really overcome anything.. He did stay in the slams, but great situations evolved for him.

That's what happens when you don't lose to nobodies in slams...if Sampras had learned this, he'd have won at least 17 Slams.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 09:38 AM
WOW, the amount of hate that federer gets is epic, but truly deserved

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:39 AM
It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(
No,that my friend was a historical day, you cant say that he didnt deserve to win it! And Nadal got bulldozed 1 week earlier, that is not Rogers fault.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:39 AM
That's what happens when you don't lose to nobodies in slams...if Sampras had learned this, he'd have won at least 17 Slams.




Sampras would have won 17 anyways.. Are u forgetting injuries sidelined Sampras over the course of his long career as well? Herniated Discs, Torn Hip Flexors. THALASSEMIA MINOR!!!!!


Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:39 AM
Well the only loser I can see is poor whining Murray and his loser *****....Let him win atleast 1 slam to keep his ***** happy:(

You *******s are never happy, even with 15*. :shock:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:40 AM
That's what happens when you don't lose to nobodies in slams...if Sampras had learned this, he'd have won at least 17 Slams.
That is very true!

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:40 AM
Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him.

Precisely.

Some Federer fans would use the Mono card for his rather embarrasing straight sets white wash at last years AO!

Not to forget the back injury too!

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 09:41 AM
looks like the "i-cant-stand-Fed" troll wagon is in full steam. Must have been a horrible last two months for the troll wagoners :twisted:. Expect more of the same to come in future. Please whine harder - I can't hear you well enough :)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:41 AM
Sampras would have won 17 anyways.. Are u forgetting injuries sidelined Sampras over the course of his long career as well? Herniated Discs, Torn Hip Flexors. THALASSEMIA MINOR!!!!!


Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina
He practices smart, he is schedueling smart, he plays smart, very "economic" style of play.

Claudius
08-06-2009, 09:41 AM
You *******s are never happy, even with 15*. :shock:

Murray is a choker. Get over it.

FedNad316
08-06-2009, 09:41 AM
You *******s are never happy, even with 15*. :shock:

and counting......:)

A toast to future Fed victories and Murray's impending losses at slams atleast for another 2-3 years

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:43 AM
He practices smart, he is schedueling smart, he plays smart, very "economic" style of play.

And give him Thalassemia Minor his whole career and he doesnt succeed as much. Heck look what a mild form of mono did to him

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 09:43 AM
Sampras would have won 17 anyways.. Are u forgetting injuries sidelined Sampras over the course of his long career as well? Herniated Discs, Torn Hip Flexors. THALASSEMIA MINOR!!!!!


Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina

who the F cares? His playing style led to injuries; no one hired henchmen to injure his discs or hip flexors. And Thalassemia minor - it's a disadvantage just like height; Agassi won only 8 with his 5'11 height. Imagine if he was 6'1; his h2h with Sampras would've been 34-0, and he'd be sitting with 10+ slams


And the TM even comes into picture only in long matches.

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:44 AM
Murray is a choker. Get over it.

Did Federer choke when Murray rinsed him in the last 4 meetings. :shock:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:45 AM
And give him Thalassemia Minor his whole career and he doesnt succeed as much. Heck look what a mild form of mono did to him
What DID it do to him?? a GS-semifinal?

drakulie
08-06-2009, 09:45 AM
It wasnt even the point Fed got to sidestep Nadal..

"side stepping" is when one purposely and consciously avoids another player. Kind of like what nadal did at Wimbledon this year. He "side-stepped" Wimbledon to go practice for a Davis Cup match against Germany.

VivalaVida
08-06-2009, 09:45 AM
Did Federer choke when Murray rinsed him in the last 4 meetings. :shock:
He did. Any player who fails to win tennis matches is a choker according to TTW. :D

Blinkism
08-06-2009, 09:45 AM
LOL, Maximo - As much as I don't like Murray, I got to say kudos on the effort.

You are tenacious, that's for sure.

Too bad Murray's a pusher :)

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 09:45 AM
And give him Thalassemia Minor his whole career and he doesnt succeed as much. Heck look what a mild form of mono did to him

give sampras agassi's 5'11 height, and he wins NOTHING. So what's your point?

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:47 AM
He did. Any player who fails to win tennis matches is a choker according to TTW. :D

Yep. :D

Ever wondered who most of the Federer fans will root for after he retires?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:47 AM
"side stepping" is when one purposely and consciously avoids another player. Kind of like what nadal did at Wimbledon this year. He "side-stepped" Wimbledon to go practice for a Davis Cup match against Germany.
Great schedueling...:shock:

flyinghippos101
08-06-2009, 09:47 AM
Wow, that's sick. Can't wait, I'll see if I can post any pics I get in Montreal soon folks!

zagor
08-06-2009, 09:47 AM
Sampras would have won 17 anyways

Coulda,woulda,shoulda.Yeah I'm sure he could have potentially won 35 slams but bottom line is->he ended up with 14,that's it.

Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina

Staying healthy is part of the game.

The fact that Fed wasn't injuried is not mainly a product of luck.It's because of good genes,fitness,smart scheduling and economic game.

Claudius
08-06-2009, 09:48 AM
Did Federer choke when Murray rinsed him in the last 4 meetings. :shock:

Murray can't win when it counts. Nobody cares about Masters Series events. Why can't he prove himself in slams?

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:48 AM
What DID it do to him?? a GS-semifinal?

Well lets see.. Last year he had his worst year since 2003. Only managed 1 slam and lost to many questionable players like FIsh, Karlovic, etc he would never have lossed too healthy. And people were already calling Roger at that point passed his prime.

Not making any excuses. But its the way it is.

VivalaVida
08-06-2009, 09:49 AM
Yep. :D

Ever wondered who most of the Federer fans will root for after he retires?
I will personally root for Djoker, Nadal, and Murray against the newer generation of players. Many of Fed fans will be in the retired pro section arguing with angry Sampras fans. I can see it all from now. :lol:

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 09:49 AM
Only Britons root for Murray.. that too because thay dont have a CHOICE..

this is very very true.. people just hate his antics...No one outside UK would root for Murray unlesshe/she is a ******.. :evil:

Please stop day dreaming/trolling and get back on this form when murray wins a slam and/or earns some bloody respect first!!

zagor
08-06-2009, 09:50 AM
And give him Thalassemia Minor his whole career and he doesnt succeed as much. Heck look what a mild form of mono did to him

Yes and while we're at GameSampras fantasy land let's also give him Sampras serve and Guga's BH so he can win 25 slams.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:50 AM
Well lets see.. Last year he had his worst year since 2003. Only managed 1 slam and lost to many questionable players like FIsh, Karlovic, etc he would never have lossed too healthy. And people were already calling Roger at that point passed his prime.

Not making any excuses. But its the way it is.
You know what, that shows he is human, he is just a man, not an animal or a machine like some other players...no?

Al Czervik
08-06-2009, 09:50 AM
Jesus, this thread turned into a Fed-hating circle jerk.

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:51 AM
Murray can't win when it counts. Nobody cares about Masters Series events. Why can't he prove himself in slams?

Oh i see...Master Series are worthless now...

I have a question for you mister, how come Federer started winning his slams at the same age as Murray (22)?

Please try harder.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:51 AM
Only Britons root for Murray.. that too because thay dont have a CHOICE..

this is very very true.. people just hate his antics...No one outside UK would root for Murray unlesshe/she is a ******.. :evil:

Please stop day dreaming/trolling and get back on this form when murray wins a slam and/or earns some bloody respect first!!
Very well said, agree with you.

edberg505
08-06-2009, 09:52 AM
Sampras would have won 17 anyways.. Are u forgetting injuries sidelined Sampras over the course of his long career as well? Herniated Discs, Torn Hip Flexors. THALASSEMIA MINOR!!!!!


Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina

Ah, I see. So you are saying that if Pete were 100 percent healthy then he would have never lost at a slam?

zagor
08-06-2009, 09:53 AM
Jesus, this thread turned into a Fed-hating circle jerk.

What you're surprised? That happens all the time,especially since Fed won FO and broke Pete's slam record.

It would be nice if Fed plays in Montreal,would be a very strong field then with all top players participating.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 09:53 AM
Oh i see...Master Series are worthless now...HAHAHA

I have a question for you mister, how come Federer started winning his slams at the same age as Murray (22)?

Please try harder.
Ill answer that one, he strived for perfection, to find his ultimate winning game, all pieces of the puzzle had to come together, when it did... A domination that we have never seen before took place and really is still going...!

flyinghippos101
08-06-2009, 09:54 AM
Sheesh... everyone has to calm down. You guys are descending into the level of bickering toddlers.

Claudius
08-06-2009, 09:55 AM
Oh i see...Master Series are worthless now...

I have a question for you mister, how come Federer started winning his slams at the same age as Murray (22)?

Please try harder.

But Federer didn't have as many prior chokes in slams at that age.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 09:55 AM
Very well said, agree with you.



Danke!!! Cant stand these fed haters lining up at every single opportunity they get to post hate messages.. they ruddy well know how good federer is and still dont accept it..

God bless their ignorance!:)

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:56 AM
Ill answer that one, he strived for perfection, to find his ultimate winning game, all pieces of the puzzle had to come together, when it did... A domination that we have never seen before took place and really is still going...!

:)

So when Federer fans say Murray can never win a slam, it's all just garbage really.

egn
08-06-2009, 09:57 AM
It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(

No Nadal was there, he lost. Face it. He had something in common with Murray in slams on that day. Losing in them.

I dont expect roger to come out of Montrael..

I think Roger is getting the sampras disease of 97-02. Focusing on the "big'ins" now.

Its funny Fed didnt win a tournament all year until Madrid and then winning Wimby and RG. It seems all of Fed's focus is primarily on slams now. Of course if he loses at Montrael, that may put a damper on his demolition of the tour since Nadal has been out and he wont have the confidence going into the USO

I actually kind of agree with this.

and now we have to hear all the GOAT talk of some player who is vastly inferior to Sampras in atleast half the aspects of the game (and no more than slightly superior in any), who would get owned by Borg in his prime, and who is owned by his biggest rival in his own era and even has recent losing head to heads with his 3 biggest rivals (owned by Murray of late, trailing Djokovic of late).

Oh shut the hell up troll. Still supporting Graf as GOAT we see, at least Fed's players did not have their biggest rivals stabbed by someone from their own country. Graf couldn't even dominate old Navratilova. Trailing DJokovic as of late, what he lost two in a row oh noes!. Murray is only a rival his past year when he was no longer even number 1. What about his winning records against oh you know Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Agassi and etc. YOu know the guys who stayed around for 2-4 years of his prime and actually contested with him for most of his slams and all (excluding Nalbandian) have better careers than Murray. Though Nalbandian is probably equal to Murray at this point because Nalbandian got that Masters Cup. So save your I HATE FED talk for some other thread. Besides want me to make vast stupid irrationalities about your two players. Graf was a baseline basher who is the reason women's tennis is ruined and nobody moves to the net and Seles was a joke of a number 1 becuase nobody should be able to double hand both sides and be number 1. SHE WON 9 SLAMS WITH NO REACH. That shows how big of a joke her era was. Of course I don't believe this irrationalities like you and acknowledge they are talented players, but we have all come to expect less from you and your 90s tardism.

Sidestepping your two biggest threats of the slam who you would have had to deal with back to back..

These just pure luck.. Extremely fortunate Fed is..


Thus why Im not crowning him GOAT, UNLESS, he proves he can accomplish this type of feat.

Not grab slams when your main rival is out who has demolished you on a consistent basis on every surface at the slams..

Yea Djoker got straighted setted by Kohl on clay and as you USED TO POINT OUT SO MUCH NEVER HAD A SIGINIFCANT WIN ON CLAY AT THE FRENCH OPEN. Save your double standards for somewhere else Game, because your losing your touch. Either you trash a player or support him don't do it when it is convient. How many times was it Djoker is nothing yet on clay who has he beat that is of note on clay, you commented on his low ranked players that he beat to get to his semifinals. Well here we go I am turning it back at you. Oh yea and on every surface...grass slam matchups Fed 2 - 1 Nadal. It is sad that Nadal missed wimbledon but Nadal was not a 100% chance to win it. Also he GRABBED ONE SLAM while his rival was out. How about all those slams Sampras won while Agassi was absent or injuiried? You never bring those up? Or the slams Agassi grabbed when Sampras was absent? Again shove your double standards up your ***.

Yea thats true..

Sidesteps Djoker and Nadal at the French.. Sidesteps Nadal and Murray..All of which who have had Roger's number of the course of the season and proven they have the games to beat Roger and are the top players in the world along with him.


Thats why Im not understanding why the GOAT label is being thrown around.. Fed didnt really overcome anything.. He did stay in the slams, but great situations evolved for him.


And if Nadal beats Fed at the USO, people will be recanting the GOAT'ness of Fed. No doubt

Well Federer at least beat seven guys in a row on clay at the French Open that is why people are crowning him GOAT. The real GOAT to this is laver and yes everyone should recant his GOATNESS if he loses to Nadal at the US Open, because it is disgusting that he would lose agian to a player who is his main rival.


Note: Fed is definitely not GOAT but some of your are ****ing idiots when it comes to trashing him, he is definitely one of the most talented players ever and one of the best. He may very well be the greatest in the open era but he can never beat GOAT becuase of his losing record to Nadal. His losing record to Murary frankly doesn't mean crap at the moment unless it becomes 2-10 or something obseen, because what the hell has Murray done. At this rate in the end of all if Murray does not get a slam will be remembered as that guy who at a point in time had Fed's numbers. Which just further proves that Fed is a great because so few people had his number. However Laver remains GOAT tot his day until someone can pass his accomplishments and be more dominate in their era.

flyinghippos101
08-06-2009, 09:57 AM
God bless their ignorance!:)


That's a bit harsh wouldn't you say, so everyone that disagrees with your opinion is all of a sudden ignorant?

maximo
08-06-2009, 09:57 AM
But Federer didn't have as many prior chokes in slams at that age.

You might want to edit what you've just said before i bombard you with Federer's previous results at the slams. :-?

Ambivalent
08-06-2009, 09:58 AM
You're really a tool. You know that Murray is the 3-setter King.

As in getting straight 3 setted? (See 2008 USO Final)

drwood
08-06-2009, 09:59 AM
Sampras would have won 17 anyways.. Are u forgetting injuries sidelined Sampras over the course of his long career as well? Herniated Discs, Torn Hip Flexors. THALASSEMIA MINOR!!!!!

Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina

Federer takes his conditioning more seriously than Sampras ever did, that's why he doesn't get injured. Thalassemia minor is not an injury -- plenty of atheletes have it and never bring it up as an excuse. Thalassemia major is a different story, but Pete never had that.

zagor
08-06-2009, 09:59 AM
Ah, I see. So you are saying that if Pete were 100 percent healthy then he would have never lost at a slam?

He would have never lost a match overall,not just at slams.Heck,he would have never lost a serve.

Lotto
08-06-2009, 09:59 AM
This is seriously just ******* me off. This board has gone to the ****ing dogs. Nadal and Sampras ***** just simply cannot give credit where credit is due. GameSampras, you have made some ridiculous remarks in this thread, RIDICULOUS. A slam win is a slam win, there is no ifs, buts, ooos and ahs about it. Tennis is an individual sport, and the success of a tennis player is based on his or her achievements, not how good they look on court, not the style of play, not who they play, not their personality, but what they achieve, ie, results......grand slams.....weeks at no1....tournaments won....RECORDS....it is NOT a personality contest or anything else. At that level of tennis you play for 2 VERY important reasons, the first being the most important:

1)The Love of the game, nothing should ever be more important then that

2) To make a living, to win tournaments.


You can only beat what is put in front of you. You cannot control who you play. And this weak era is total ********. You can not determine what is a weak and what is a strong era. Era's are incomparable to eachother because they are not based on fact, they are based on opinion, however records are comparable. Is Nottingham Forests Champions League, or back then, European Cup victories in 1979 and 1980 any different from Manchester Uniteds in 2008? I know football and tennis are totally different sports but, both clubs achieved the same feat and same goal of winning that competition, and their names are on that trophy regardless.

Some points made on this board are pathetic and disrespectful and I think it's time peoples started opening their eyes and becoming realistic and not envying "enemies" achievements. Some on this board really really need to cop on to themselves and mature a bit. For their own good.

Al Czervik
08-06-2009, 10:00 AM
Sampras would have won 17 anyways.. Are u forgetting injuries sidelined Sampras over the course of his long career as well? Herniated Discs, Torn Hip Flexors. THALASSEMIA MINOR!!!!!

Fed has been more fortunate in this regard. He never gets a serious injury which sidelines him nor does he have to deal with an iron deficiency.. Not a good physical problem to have in the tennis field which affects your stamina

(a) That ape shouldn't have quit on top, but he was too big of an egomaniac to push on and risk more losses, so he wanted to stick with the storybook ending over AA. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing Pete probably regrets every day that he didn't play until like 35 and try to win more slams.

(b) LMAO at one of the biggest snow jobs ever, Pete and his puking, laboring, hangdog look on the court. Miraculously, as bad as he looked, he would crack service winners in the clutch and crush good baseliners in rallies. So courageous! Give it up. If Fed pulled that same crap on the court, you guys would be all over him.

(c) Fed is so smooth and in tip top shape that he doesn't get hurt. He should be credited for that.

VivalaVida
08-06-2009, 10:00 AM
He would have never lost a match overall,not just at slams.Heck,he would have never lost a serve.
LOL. That is the same message i got.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:01 AM
Why is Gamesampras bothering to post in montreal masters threads?? are we unaware that sampras is playing??or am i missing some thing :shock:

This happens every single time.. always comes into irrelavant posts and starts sampras' songs.. it is so irritating..why cant he accept the fact that sampras' time is over and move..

Thank god sampras did not win a french open.. if he had then he would have flooded TW with sampras' GOAT qualificatioons.. :-?

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 10:01 AM
Same.

Federer fanatics better watch out! :twisted:

Watch out from what? Federer losing another pointess event? It's all about the slams maximo, and right now it is Federer with 15 and Murray with 0.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:03 AM
No Nadal was there, he lost. Face it. He had something in common with Murray in slams on that day. Losing in them.



I actually kind of agree with this.



Oh shut the hell up troll. Still supporting Graf as GOAT we see, at least Fed's players did not have their biggest rivals stabbed by someone from their own country. Graf couldn't even dominate old Navratilova. Trailing DJokovic as of late, what he lost two in a row oh noes!. Murray is only a rival his past year when he was no longer even number 1. What about his winning records against oh you know Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Agassi and etc. YOu know the guys who stayed around for 2-4 years of his prime and actually contested with him for most of his slams and all (excluding Nalbandian) have better careers than Murray. Though Nalbandian is probably equal to Murray at this point because Nalbandian got that Masters Cup. So save your I HATE FED talk for some other thread. Besides want me to make vast stupid irrationalities about your two players. Graf was a baseline basher who is the reason women's tennis is ruined and nobody moves to the net and Seles was a joke of a number 1 becuase nobody should be able to double hand both sides and be number 1. SHE WON 9 SLAMS WITH NO REACH. That shows how big of a joke her era was. Of course I don't believe this irrationalities like you and acknowledge they are talented players, but we have all come to expect less from you and your 90s tardism.



Yea Djoker got straighted setted by Kohl on clay and as you USED TO POINT OUT SO MUCH NEVER HAD A SIGINIFCANT WIN ON CLAY AT THE FRENCH OPEN. Save your double standards for somewhere else Game, because your losing your touch. Either you trash a player or support him don't do it when it is convient. How many times was it Djoker is nothing yet on clay who has he beat that is of note on clay, you commented on his low ranked players that he beat to get to his semifinals. Well here we go I am turning it back at you. Oh yea and on every surface...grass slam matchups Fed 2 - 1 Nadal. It is sad that Nadal missed wimbledon but Nadal was not a 100% chance to win it. Also he GRABBED ONE SLAM while his rival was out. How about all those slams Sampras won while Agassi was absent or injuiried? You never bring those up? Or the slams Agassi grabbed when Sampras was absent? Again shove your double standards up your ***.



Well Federer at least beat seven guys in a row on clay at the French Open that is why people are crowning him GOAT. The real GOAT to this is laver and yes everyone should recant his GOATNESS if he loses to Nadal at the US Open, because it is disgusting that he would lose agian to a player who is his main rival.


Note: Fed is definitely not GOAT but some of your are ****ing idiots when it comes to trashing him, he is definitely one of the most talented players ever and one of the best. He may very well be the greatest in the open era but he can never beat GOAT becuase of his losing record to Nadal. His losing record to Murary frankly doesn't mean crap at the moment unless it becomes 2-10 or something obseen, because what the hell has Murray done. At this rate in the end of all if Murray does not get a slam will be remembered as that guy who at a point in time had Fed's numbers. Which just further proves that Fed is a great because so few people had his number. However Laver remains GOAT tot his day until someone can pass his accomplishments and be more dominate in their era.


I love the overrall bitterners.. But Sampras didnt have a h2h that translated overrall onto almost every surface in the game against Agassi now did he? 20-14 went Sampras' way. Agassi couldnt touch PEte at Wimbeldon or the USO or Indoors .

If Nadal manages to beat Fed at the USO, the domination will be complete. Fed has been OUSTED by his main rival on every slam surface in the game today.

Comprende?

VivalaVida
08-06-2009, 10:03 AM
Watch out from what? Federer losing another pointess event? It's all about the slams maximo, and right now it is Federer with 15 and Murray with 0.
Just because Roger doesnt view them as important doesnt mean they aren't important. Those are prestigious tourneys man.

Blinkism
08-06-2009, 10:03 AM
Why wouldn't Roger play Montreal? I thought his kids were born like 2 weeks ago.

He doesn't have many points to defend, this is a great chance to cushion his USO points if he doesn't defend that title.

Same with Cincinnati.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 10:03 AM
It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(

Errr...Nadal didn't bother Murray as well. Why hasn't Murray won RG if Nadal wasn't in his way?

Claudius
08-06-2009, 10:03 AM
You might want to edit what you've just said before i bombard you with Federer's previous results at the slams. :-?

Hmm...RG and Wimbledon champion. Yes, please bombard me with that.

flyinghippos101
08-06-2009, 10:04 AM
Gamesampras I don't understand how you can spout the "this era is weak argument" you said yourself that eras cannot be compared. Too many factors are to be taken into consideration. You also cannot assume Sampras is the greatest palyer based on what-if scenarios.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:04 AM
:)

So when Federer fans say Murray can never win a slam, it's all just garbage really.
I cant answer for anyone but myself, id say Murray probably will win 1-3 slams, however, i dont see his 1st coming this year.

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 10:05 AM
Why wouldn't Roger play Montreal? I thought his kids were born like 2 weeks ago.

He doesn't have many points to defend, this is a great chance to cushion his USO points if he doesn't defend that title.

Same with Cincinnati.

No need to pay attention to that fool GameSampras, I've finally put him on my ignorelist.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:05 AM
(a) That ape shouldn't have quit on top, but he was too big of an egomaniac to push on and risk more losses, so he wanted to stick with the storybook ending over AA. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing Pete probably regrets every day that he didn't play until like 35 and try to win more slams.

(b) LMAO at one of the biggest snow jobs ever, Pete and his puking, laboring, hangdog look on the court. Miraculously, as bad as he looked, he would crack service winners in the clutch and crush good baseliners in rallies. So courageous! Give it up. If Fed pulled that same crap on the court, you guys would be all over him.

(c) Fed is so smooth and in tip top shape that he doesn't get hurt. He should be credited for that.



No we dont need Fed puking on Louis Armstrong stadium to bash him.. We just have to wash Fed break down like a little girl and cry in front of Laver and Nadal and take Nadal's special moment away from him

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:05 AM
Watch out from what? Federer losing another pointess event? It's all about the slams maximo, and right now it is Federer with 15 and Murray with 0.

Right now P Agony, Federer is 27 and Murray is 22.

Maybe you would like me to post some of Federer's results at the slams before his Wimbledon title in 03?

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 10:05 AM
Just because Roger doesnt view them as important doesnt mean they aren't important. Those are prestigious tourneys man.

Next to the slams they are not that important.

Plus, Federer alrady has 15 of those. I doubt Federer will try hard to win Montreal. He should play because it's free points for him, as he lost 1st round last year, but still, I won't be surprised if Fed losses in the QF or SF, maybe even before. He would want to keep his energy for the US Open.

edberg505
08-06-2009, 10:06 AM
Well lets see.. Last year he had his worst year since 2003. Only managed 1 slam and lost to many questionable players like FIsh, Karlovic, etc he would never have lossed too healthy. And people were already calling Roger at that point passed his prime.

Not making any excuses. But its the way it is.

You are right, Sampras only loses to players like Mark Keil, Ramon Delgado, or Bohdan Ulihrach.

Blinkism
08-06-2009, 10:06 AM
No need to pay attention to that fool GameSampras, I've finally put him on my ignorelist.

Nah, GameSampras is no fool.

When did I get off your ignore list?

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 10:06 AM
Right now P Agony, Federer is 27 and Murray is 22.

Maybe you would like me to post some of Federer's results at the slams before his Wimbledon title in 03?

Federer already had a slam at Murray's age.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:06 AM
Errr...Nadal didn't bother Murray as well. Why hasn't Murray won RG if Nadal wasn't in his way?
Because the day a Brit wins in RG i will run through New York naked screaming "rule britannia"...not likely to happen.

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:08 AM
Why is Gamesampras bothering to post in montreal masters threads?? are we unaware that sampras is playing??or am i missing some thing :shock:

This happens every single time.. always comes into irrelavant posts and starts sampras' songs.. it is so irritating..why cant he accept the fact that sampras' time is over and move..

Thank god sampras did not win a french open.. if he had then he would have flooded TW with sampras' GOAT qualificatioons.. :-?

Oh yes,definitely.GameSampras is almost unbearable even though Sampras never won FO(hell,he never even reached the final),I can't imagine if Sampras somehow won a FO title in his day what would GS be like.He would probably post "Sampras is God" thread every day here.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:08 AM
Gamesampras I don't understand how you can spout the "this era is weak argument" you said yourself that eras cannot be compared. Too many factors are to be taken into consideration. You also cannot assume Sampras is the greatest palyer based on what-if scenarios.


Im not really talking about eras.. Im comparing rivalries against rivalries. And the FACTS Point out this out in terms of Fed-Nadal. Not what-ifs. I dont think its really foolish to concede that Sampras wouldnt have gotten 2-3 more slams had he not been injured.
THeres a very chance Pete would have.. Now thats a what if..But most will agree

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:08 AM
That's a bit harsh wouldn't you say, so everyone that disagrees with your opinion is all of a sudden ignorant?

If u follow this thread from the beginning u would understand that it is infact totally justified.. not only this.. innfact any thread related to roger.. these haters come around and start singing hate tunes


Why should sampras' credentials be discussed in the thread where people are discussing if fed is playing in montreal or not...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:08 AM
No we dont need Fed puking on Louis Armstrong stadium to bash him.. We just have to wash Fed break down like a little girl and cry in front of Laver and Nadal and take Nadal's special moment away from him
Who are you to judge that? He is a human being, he loves and respects the game, the occasion got a little bit over-whelming, get over it!!

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 10:09 AM
I'm warning you all, any more anti-Federer trolls are going on my ignore list.

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:09 AM
I love the overrall bitterners.. But Sampras didnt have a h2h that translated overrall onto almost every surface in the game against Agassi now did he? 20-14 went Sampras' way. Agassi couldnt touch PEte at Wimbeldon or the USO or Indoors .

And Pete couldn't touch Andre at the Australian or French...lets not pretend that their rivalry was completely one-sided.

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 10:09 AM
Damn you "TheMagician", you keep responding to that troll GS and ruining my TT!

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:10 AM
Who are you to judge that? He is a human being, he loves and respects the game, the occasion got a little bit over-whelming, get over it!!


Yea well then pete shouldnt be attacked for puking.. Was that supposed to be some kind of spectacle? Did he do it on purpose?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:10 AM
And Pete couldn't touch Andre at the Australian or French...lets not pretend that their rivalry was completely one-sided.
The Sampras-legend gets better and better each day!

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:10 AM
Errr...Nadal didn't bother Murray as well. Why hasn't Murray won RG if Nadal wasn't in his way?

Because Gonzo fed him a tasty bagel in quarters.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 10:10 AM
Nah, GameSampras is no fool.

When did I get off your ignore list?

GameSampras is no fool, but he IS in denial. Now he is claiming Pete would have had 17 slams if it hasn't been for injuries. Sure, it's possible, but Federer would have had about 19-20 slams right now if it wasn't for Nadal. Point is, woulda shoulda coulda doesn't count. It's time for GameSampras to understand that.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:10 AM
Yea well then pete shouldnt be attacked for puking.. Was that supposed to be some kind of spectacle? Did he do it on purpose?
No he should not be attacked for puking, who did that?

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:11 AM
And Pete couldn't touch Andre at the Australian or French...lets not pretend that their rivalry was completely one-sided.

Correct...

But losing to your rival at every slam is much more of a hole in the resume than not being able to beat your rival at 2 of the 4

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:11 AM
No he should not be attacked for puking, who did that?

I dunno some clown I was responding too on here

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 10:11 AM
Because Gonzo fed him a tasty bagel in quarters.

Now maximo will say that if Federer had Gonzo in his draw he'd have lost, completely ignoring the fact that in 2008 a crap-playing Federer beat Gonzales at the QF too, rather easily.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:12 AM
GameSampras is no fool, but he IS in denial. Now he is claiming Pete would have had 17 slams if it hasn't been for injuries. Sure, it's possible, but Federer would have had about 19-20 slams right now if it wasn't for Nadal. Point is, woulda shoulda coulda doesn't count. It's time for GameSampras to understand that.
Or maybe he can give Fed some credit when Fed reaches 18, because that is 1 more than what sampras sholda coulda woulda, right?

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:12 AM
I'm warning you all, any more anti-Federer trolls are going on my ignore list.
thank god.

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:12 AM
Hmm...RG and Wimbledon champion. Yes, please bombard me with that.

Ok.

2000:

3rd round AO/4th round FO/1st round Wimbledon/3rd round USO.

2001:

3rd round AO/4th round USO

2002:

4th round AO/1st round FO/1st round Wimbledon/4th round USO

2003:

4th round AO/1st round FO/4th round USO.

I suppose you would now like me to compare these stats to Murray's so far. :-?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:13 AM
I dunno some clown I was responding too on here
Breaking into tears after losing a historic gs-final is very understandable as puking on court due to sickness or being exhausted, i dont see anything wrong with either one.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:14 AM
Damn you "TheMagician", you keep responding to that troll GS and ruining my TT!
What? im not following..

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:15 AM
GameSampras is no fool, but he IS in denial. Now he is claiming Pete would have had 17 slams if it hasn't been for injuries. Sure, it's possible, but Federer would have had about 19-20 slams right now if it wasn't for Nadal. Point is, woulda shoulda coulda doesn't count. It's time for GameSampras to understand that.


Thats not fair at all. Most people will give Roger the benefit of the doubt for losing to arguably one of the top 2-3 clay courters of all time at the French every year.

So why not extend some of these same courtesys to Pete for having to play with a blood deficiency is whole career which affected his stamina (WHICH HE TRIED TO KEEP FROM THE PUBLIC MIND YOU) , and getting sidelined with various injuries at times when he was playing his best tennis?

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:16 AM
Ok.

2000:

3rd round AO/4th round FO/1st round Wimbledon/3rd round USO.

2001:

3rd round AO/4th round USO

2002:

4th round AO/1st round FO/1st round Wimbledon/4th round USO

2003:

4th round AO/1st round FO/4th round USO.

I suppose you would now like me to compare these stats to Murray's so far. :-?

Interesting how you skipped the 03 Wimbledon title, QF 01 Wimbledon, and Qf 01 French -- if you're going to state facts, state ALL of them.

drakulie
08-06-2009, 10:17 AM
I agree Sampras would have won 17 slams if he wasn't injured. However, his opponents in the 14 slams he did win, would have beat him if they weren't injured in those finals. So, Sampras really would have ended up with only 3 slams.

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:18 AM
Federer already had a slam at Murray's age.

Murray can still have a slam at Federer's age. :-?

theroleoftheunderdog
08-06-2009, 10:19 AM
Thats not fair at all. Most people will give Roger the benefit of the doubt for losing to arguably one of the top 2-3 clay courters of all time at the French every year.

So why not extend some of these same courtesys to Pete for having to play with a blood deficiency is whole career which affected his stamina (WHICH HE TRIED TO KEEP FROM THE PUBLIC MIND YOU) , and getting sidelined with various injuries at times when he was playing his best tennis?

wahwahwahwah

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:19 AM
lets have a poll..

which poster is the biggest troll..

i'll create it.,..
we need qualifications/recommendations first...

all those who are recommended would be put in the list...


I recommend game sampras/maximo/grafrules

Cesc Fabregas
08-06-2009, 10:19 AM
Federer got a huge slice of luck at the French with Nadal being injured and Djoker going out early, those 2 guys would have beaten him I'm sure of it.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:19 AM
Murray can still have a slam at Federer's age. :-?

only in his wet pant dreams... :evil:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Federer got a huge slice of luck at the French with Nadal being injured and Djoker going out early, those 2 guys would have beaten him I'm sure of it.
Let me correct you, with Djokovic breaking down and Nadal getting bulldozed? Well, im sure Fed didnt mind it, but you can only beat who is in front of you, you should know that.

Lifted
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Federer got a huge slice of luck at the French with Nadal being injured and Djoker going out early, those 2 guys would have beaten him I'm sure of it.

Nadal and Djokovic couldn't even beat Soderling or Kohlschreiber, respectively. What makes you so certain they would beat Federer?

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Interesting how you skipped the 03 Wimbledon title, QF 01 Wimbledon, and Qf 01 French -- if you're going to state facts, state ALL of them.

I chose those specifically so i can show you Fed fans how wrong you are in comparing Murray and Federer from when they both were 22. :-?

jonnythan
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
It wasnt even the point Fed got to sidestep Nadal..

Fed got to sidestep the TWO BIGGEST threats of the tournament, Djoker and Nadal..

I mean goshh.. How lucky.. And Fed would have had to play these two b2b

Please tell me how he "sidestepped" anyone. Federer didn't pick his draw, and he had to beat the guy who knocked out Nadal.

Federer beat everyone he faced and won the Slam. He had to beat #32, #11, #5, and #23.

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Thats not fair at all. Most people will give Roger the benefit of the doubt for losing to arguably one of the top 2-3 clay courters of all time at the French every year.

So why not extend some of these same courtesys to Pete for having to play with a blood deficiency is whole career which affected his stamina (WHICH HE TRIED TO KEEP FROM THE PUBLIC MIND YOU) , and getting sidelined with various injuries at times when he was playing his best tennis?

Look, thalassemia minor is not unique to Sampras. As I said earlier, thalassemia major would be a big deal -- plenty of people have the minor variant and don't use it as an excuse.

Fed is a MUCH better conditioned athlete than Sampras -- that's why he doesn't get hurt -- it isn't a coincidence.

Pete's problem is that he would lose to nobodies in majors, which Fed hasn't done. You don't see Fed lose in slams to the likes of Kucera, Korda, Phillipoussis, Yzaga and Krajicek before the SF as Sampras did during his prime.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
lets have a poll..

which poster is the biggest troll..

i'll create it.,..
we need qualifications/recommendations first...

all those who are recommended would be put in the list...


I recommend game sampras/maximo/grafrules

As in troll, you mean posters who dont kiss Fed's arse at every turn or go against your way of thinking?


I have never categorized ANYONE as a troll on here who have a different favorite player or though process

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:22 AM
I agree Sampras would have won 17 slams if he wasn't injured. However, his opponents in the 14 slams he did win, would have beat him if they weren't injured in those finals. So, Sampras really would have ended up with only 3 slams.

Now,now that's nonsense.Only some of his opponents in 14 slams he won were injuried,others were exhausted and some even choked the match away(like every single player did against Fed this year at FO and Wimbledon.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Federer got a huge slice of luck at the French with Nadal being injured and Djoker going out early, those 2 guys would have beaten him I'm sure of it.

wahwahwahwah

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:23 AM
I chose those specifically so i can show you Fed fans how wrong you are in comparing Murray and Federer from when they both were 22. :-?

You mean, you deliberately left out the results that destroyed the point you were trying to make about 22 yo Murray being better than 22 yo Fed in slams.

Look, if you can't be objective, just say so, but don't pretend to be objective and then subjectively pick and choose stats...that's insincere.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:25 AM
Look, thalassemia minor is not unique to Sampras. As I said earlier, thalassemia major would be a big deal -- plenty of people have the minor variant and don't use it as an excuse.

Fed is a MUCH better conditioned athlete than Sampras -- that's why he doesn't get hurt -- it isn't a coincidence.

Pete's problem is that he would lose to nobodies in majors, which Fed hasn't done. You don't see Fed lose in slams to the likes of Kucera, Korda, Phillipoussis, Yzaga and Krajicek before the SF as Sampras did during his prime.



Thats the point.. Sampras NEVER used it as an excuse.. But an iron deficience which Can and does hinder a player's level of play particularly stamina is true.


Yzaga? Again... Pete was injured there.


Figures Krajieck doesnt get any love around here.. But did you exactly see the man play At wimbeldon in 96? What kind of damage do you think Richard could have done to today's baseline field playing like that attacking and serving viciously at a relentless rate?

When Im talking about double standards, is the world ALMOST STOPPED when it was found out Fed had mono and he was given this excuse for the better part if not ALL OF 2008. So again.. I ask why not extend some of these same courtesies to a man who lived his life with an iron deficiency?

Are u saying Thalassemia Minor has no bearing on a pro athletes, specifically Tennis players who needs all the stamina they can get.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:25 AM
As in troll, you mean posters who dont kiss Fed's arse at every turn or go against your way of thinking?


I have never categorized ANYONE as a troll on here who have a different favorite player or though process

\

People SHOULD have different favorites...else there would be no beauty.. But that should not be hatred for other players..

U wouldnt have to kiss fed's arse..it would be fine if u very well stopped hating him so damn badly and compelling every one to hate him and love sampras to the point of being obnoxious..

trolls are those who are not rational in thier arguments..

Cesc Fabregas
08-06-2009, 10:25 AM
The only top performer Federer beat at the French and Wimbledon is Roddick and I use the phrase top class generisly here.

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:25 AM
only in his wet pant dreams... :evil:

You see, this the type of response from a Federer fan when they know they are wrong.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-06-2009, 10:28 AM
Thats the point.. Sampras NEVER used it as an excuse.. But an iron deficience which Can and does hinder a player's level of play particularly stamina is true.


Yzaga? Again... Pete was injured there.


Figures Krajieck doesnt get any love around here.. But did you exactly see the man play At wimbeldon in 96? What kind of damage do you think Richard could have done to today's baseline field playing like that attacking and serving viciously at a relentless rate?

When Im talking about double standards, is the world ALMOST STOPPED when it was found out Fed had mono and he was given this excuse for the better part if not ALL OF 2008. So again.. I ask why not extend some of these same courtesies to a man who lived his life with an iron deficiency?

Are u saying Thalassemia Minor has no bearing on a pro athletes, specifically Tennis players who needs all the stamina they can get.

wahwahwahwahwah

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:28 AM
The only top performer Federer beat at the French and Wimbledon is Roddick and I use the phrase top class generisly here.
Well, if Nadal Murray and Djokovic didnt step up than to BAD! Im sure that will be in the history-books, Wimbledon 2009 mens winner: Roger Federer (Nadal withdrew because of...unknown...)

grafselesfan
08-06-2009, 10:29 AM
The only top performer Federer beat at the French and Wimbledon is Roddick and I use the phrase top class generisly here.

I would say Roddick on grass and Del Potro on clay as his pretty tough (but not exactly outstanding) opponents. That is pretty much it.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:29 AM
You see, this the type of response from a Federer fan when they know they are wrong.

Murray is a pusher...Every one just HATES him... he is outright disgusting to tennis kind...please face it..

Make one person say say he/she likes murray(other than a briton and other than a fed hater) and i will give it to u

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:29 AM
The only top performer Federer beat at the French and Wimbledon is Roddick and I use the phrase top class generisly here.

Roddick and class dont really go together considering some of the things he has said in the past :)


In terms of top notch tennis player.. Again, Roddick hasnt proved to be one. Hes a top player today but never a top echelon one in terms of tennis history.

I agree.

Hes not among the greats like Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Pete etc. Never was, never will be

jonnythan
08-06-2009, 10:29 AM
By "top performer" he apparently means "guys who lost to Soderling and Kohlschreiber."

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:30 AM
You mean, you deliberately left out the results that destroyed the point you were trying to make about 22 yo Murray being better than 22 yo Fed in slams.

Look, if you can't be objective, just say so, but don't pretend to be objective and then subjectively pick and choose stats...that's insincere.

Your hilarious, did Federer make a slam final at the age of 21? Nop.

Federer reached 2 QF's while Murray has reached a Final, 2 QF's, and a Semi final. And could well win the USO which would mean he has surpassed Federer in all aspects at that age.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:31 AM
Murray is a pusher...Every one just HATES him... he is outright disgusting to tennis kind...please face it..

Make one person say say he/she likes murray(other than a briton and other than a fed hater) and i will give it to u
You will never be able to find that.:)

drakulie
08-06-2009, 10:32 AM
Now,now that's nonsense.Only some of his opponents in 14 slams he won were injuried,others were exhausted and some even choked the match away(like every single player did against Fed this year at FO and Wimbledon.


This is very, VERY true.

Also, he was lucky to play the guys he did, because they guys he usually had trouble with lost earlier in every one of those tournaments.

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:34 AM
Murray is a pusher...Every one just HATES him... he is outright disgusting to tennis kind...please face it..


Everyone other than a Fed fan hates Federer. Just face it.

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:34 AM
Murray is a pusher...Every one just HATES him... he is outright disgusting to tennis kind...please face it..

Make one person say say he/she likes murray(other than a briton and other than a fed hater) and i will give it to u

I actually enjoy Murray's game at times,mostly when he's playing a top player.I like his touch,his BH,his serve motion and I always enjoy watching great movers.

Not a Brit nor a Fed hater.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-06-2009, 10:36 AM
Everyone other than a Fed fan hates Federer. Just face it.

wrong tournament organizers dont hate federer cuz be brings great crowds

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:36 AM
This is very, VERY true.

Also, he was lucky to play the guys he did, because they guys he usually had trouble with lost earlier in every one of those tournaments.

Or they didn't even show up at those tourneys until the age of 25 like Agassi at AO(he's 2-0 against Pete at AO).

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:36 AM
Murray is a fanstactic and talented player.. I wish he would be a little more aggressive. If you watch how Murray played Nadal last year at the USO.. That was the type of aggressiveness Murray needs to instill in his tennis. But sometimes he gets back into the counterpunching routine and in only ends up spelling doom for him.

Im not totally convinced Murray has what it takes to be a true champion..But he has alot of time still.

rommil
08-06-2009, 10:36 AM
The only top performer Federer beat at the French and Wimbledon is Roddick and I use the phrase top class generisly here.

Generisly? Did pronouncing the word with your English teeth got in the way of your spelling as well?

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:37 AM
Everyone other than a Fed fan hates Federer. Just face it.


because any one other than federer has no life when federer is around...and because federer has potential to make legends look mediocre in front of him..so its natural for u to hate him. face it!!

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:39 AM
I actually enjoy Murray's game at times,mostly when he's playing a top player.I like his touch,his BH,his serve motion and I always enjoy watching great movers.

Not a Brit nor a Fed hater.

must be a descendant of briton family.... :) just kidding...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:39 AM
Everyone other than a Fed fan hates Federer. Just face it.
Well if thats the case, its a good thing he has millions of fans around the world. Most of Murrays fans are probably located in London and in Dunblane,thats really exotic man!:)

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:40 AM
because any one other than federer has no life when federer is around...and because federer has potential to make legends look mediocre in front of him..so its natural for u to hate him. face it!!

What "legends" is Roger making look mediocre?

They are kind of doing that to themselves. Djoker has been losing in the slam to players he otherwise should be beating. Murray has been lately. Nadal has been out. When Nadal steps on the court healthy against Fed lately, it is he who has been making Fed look not as good as he appears to be

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:41 AM
because any one other than federer has no life.

Really? Thank you for being soo honest about yourself.

norbac
08-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Murray is a pusher...Every one just HATES him... he is outright disgusting to tennis kind...please face it..

Make one person say say he/she likes murray(other than a briton and other than a fed hater) and i will give it to u

I like Murray, I'm not a briton and I did cheer for Fed at RG so I'm not a hater. Though I'm not a fan of Fed either.

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:43 AM
Well if thats the case, its a good thing he has millions of fans around the world. Most of Murrays fans are probably located in London and in Dunblane,thats really exotic man!:)

Oh come on TMOP, Murray is only 22 and has yet to reach his prime. ;)

He will have many more fans in the next 2 years. :)

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:45 AM
What "legends" is Roger making look mediocre?

They are kind of doing that to themselves. Djoker has been losing in the slam to players he otherwise should be beating. Murray has been lately. Nadal has been out. When Nadal steps on the court healthy against Fed lately, it is he who has been making Fed look not as good as he appears to be

when i speak of federer i only speak of him when he was in his prime for 3 wonderful years...U HAVE to agree on this.. he really beat players as clean as a whistle..serving bagels in almost every match he played... his sheer class has made me his vouch for him..

Now he is not in his prime..i really concede that.. that aura of invincibility is not to be seen now...2008 has dented his confidence permanently!!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:45 AM
Oh come on TMOP, Murray is only 22 and has yet to reach his prime. ;)

He will have many more fans in the next 2 years. :)
In Britain? Im sure, the rest of the world?? Nah, whats the thing with his mum?? She looks nuts during his matches. Is there something wrong with her? (seriously)

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:46 AM
Oh come on TMOP, Murray is only 22 and has yet to reach his prime. ;)

He will have many more fans in the next 2 years. :)



is britain planning on a population explosion??? :shock:

norbac
08-06-2009, 10:46 AM
In Britain? Im sure, the rest of the world?? Nah, whats the thing with his mum?? She looks nuts during his matches. Is there something wrong with her? (seriously)

It's called passion, something Mirka doesn't seem to have when watching many of Fed's matches...

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 10:46 AM
I love the overrall bitterners.. But Sampras didnt have a h2h that translated overrall onto almost every surface in the game against Agassi now did he? 20-14 went Sampras' way. Agassi couldnt touch PEte at Wimbeldon or the USO or Indoors .

If Nadal manages to beat Fed at the USO, the domination will be complete. Fed has been OUSTED by his main rival on every slam surface in the game today.

Comprende?


Hey GameSampras: Care to explain how Agassi is Sampras' main rival? Is it because they both were American? Was Agassi #2 ranked the whole time Pete was #1 ranked? So they met 10 times in slams in a span of 13 years. Big deal!! How does that translate to a "main" rival. I like how Pete & his ***** choose to anoint some one against whom pete has a positive h2h as PEte's main rival. In reality, it should be someone like krajicek.

Pete was LUCKY to have side-stepped krajicek in his slam wins where he did not meet krajicek.

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:46 AM
Thats the point.. Sampras NEVER used it as an excuse.. But an iron deficience which Can and does hinder a player's level of play particularly stamina is true.


Yzaga? Again... Pete was injured there.


Figures Krajieck doesnt get any love around here.. But did you exactly see the man play At wimbeldon in 96? What kind of damage do you think Richard could have done to today's baseline field playing like that attacking and serving viciously at a relentless rate?

When Im talking about double standards, is the world ALMOST STOPPED when it was found out Fed had mono and he was given this excuse for the better part if not ALL OF 2008. So again.. I ask why not extend some of these same courtesies to a man who lived his life with an iron deficiency?

Are u saying Thalassemia Minor has no bearing on a pro athletes, specifically Tennis players who needs all the stamina they can get.

Considering Krajicek never made another slam final and was owned during his prime by Rusedski of all people, the answer is...not much different today -- he reached #4 in the world, and wouldn't be any higher in this era. And yes, I did see him play...I was one of the few people before the Wimbledon QF in 1996 that thought Krajicek would beat Sampras.

And again, thalasemia MINOR does not have a bearing on athletes -- it doesn't require treatment. Thalassemia MAJOR does, not minor.

I'm not into excuses. If you play, you play. Period. I understand Djoker fans hating Fed fans b/c his mononucleosis put a cloud over Djokers lone GS title after Djoker could arguably have beaten Fed at the 07 US Open final (of course, he could have just as easily lost to Stepanek in the 1st round that year).

Last year, Fed was just not as good as Nadal. Period -- you can give all the excuses you want, but Nadal won more of the big events than anyone else. This year, Fed has won 2 of the 3 biggest events. No excuses. Part of being a great player is PLAYING.

I don't accept excuses from Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Roddick, or Murray and I certainly don't accept them from Sampras either. That's as fair as I know how to look at each player. For example, I don't buy that Agassi choked in the 1990 US Open final -- Pete just thrashed him. Period. I don't buy that Pete was easily distracted in the 1995 Aus Open final against Agassi b/c of Gullickson's death -- it didn't affect him in the first set of that match before Agassi won the next 3 sets.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:47 AM
In Britain? Im sure, the rest of the world?? Nah, whats the thing with his mum?? She looks nuts during his matches. Is there something wrong with her? (seriously)


I cant STAND her.. really...she is the heights of aversion to any sane human being..

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:48 AM
when i speak of federer i only speak of him when he was in his prime for 3 wonderful years...U HAVE to agree on this.. he really beat players as clean as a whistle..serving bagels in almost every match he played... his sheer class has made me his vouch for him..

Now he is not in his prime..i really concede that.. that aura of invincibility is not to be seen now...2008 has dented his confidence permanently!!

I will agree Roger isnt at his overrall 2005-2006 peak... But I still believe he has in his prime, if only at the tail end. His results have been just to good.. And he doesnt have early exits at the slams that would entail he may just be passed his prime. Hes still racking the slams each year

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:49 AM
is britain planning on a population explosion??? :shock:
Oh yeah! They are shagging like maniacs, everyone wanna be the new Andy!:twisted:

West Coast Ace
08-06-2009, 10:50 AM
The only top performer Federer beat at the French and Wimbledon is Roddick and I use the phrase top class generisly here.You obviously don't play tennis. You play who the tournament director tells you to. This isn't Pro Wrestling - have a feeling you're a big fan of it - where you get to 'call out' your next opponent.

Your hilarious, did Federer make a slam final at the age of 21?Did Murray get a cookie for his USO final appearance - in which he was brutally outplayed?

He will have many more fans in the next 2 years. :)Wanna bet? The droll Brit/Irish/Scot personality doesn't play well outside of... Brit/Ire/Sco... His childishness - racket breaking, swearing, constant pleading with his box - turn a lot of tennis fans off...

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:50 AM
Hey GameSampras: Care to explain how Agassi is Sampras' main rival? Is it because they both were American? Was Agassi #2 ranked the whole time Pete was #1 ranked? So they met 10 times in slams in a span of 13 years. Big deal!! How does that translate to a "main" rival. I like how Pete & his ***** choose to anoint some one against whom pete has a positive h2h as PEte's main rival. In reality, it should be someone like krajicek.

Pete was LUCKY to have side-stepped krajicek in his slam wins where he did not meet krajicek.



I dont need to explain do I why AGassi is PEte's rival.. Everyone, even pete himself has said this. He was right there aside from his MIA years 96-98 with Pete all the way through from 1990-2002.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:50 AM
It's called passion, something Mirka doesn't seem to have when watching many of Fed's matches...
Alright, thank you for clearing that up! Maybe Mirka is getting tired of carrying all of Feds slam-trophys??

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:51 AM
Considering Krajicek never made another slam final and was owned during his prime by Rusedski of all people, the answer is...not much different today -- he reached #4 in the world, and wouldn't be any higher in this era. And yes, I did see him play...I was one of the few people before the Wimbledon QF in 1996 that thought Krajicek would beat Sampras.

And again, thalasemia MINOR does not have a bearing on athletes -- it doesn't require treatment. Thalassemia MAJOR does, not minor.

I'm not into excuses. If you play, you play. Period. I understand Djoker fans hating Fed fans b/c his mononucleosis put a cloud over Djokers lone GS title after Djoker could arguably have beaten Fed at the 07 US Open final (of course, he could have just as easily lost to Stepanek in the 1st round that year).

Last year, Fed was just not as good as Nadal. Period -- you can give all the excuses you want, but Nadal won more of the big events than anyone else. This year, Fed has won 2 of the 3 biggest events. No excuses. Part of being a great player is PLAYING.

I don't accept excuses from Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Roddick, or Murray and I certainly don't accept them from Sampras either. That's as fair as I know how to look at each player. For example, I don't buy that Agassi choked in the 1990 US Open final -- Pete just thrashed him. Period. I don't buy that Pete was easily distracted in the 1995 Aus Open final against Agassi b/c of Gullickson's death -- it didn't affect him in the first set of that match before Agassi won the next 3 sets.


You dont accept ANY excuses? Come on now man.. Up until nadal got injured, He was the BEST player this year as well. Can we agree?

Do you just expect someone like Nadal to go out there and limp around on one leg and perform at top level?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 10:52 AM
You obviously don't play tennis. You play who the tournament director tells you to. This isn't Pro Wrestling - have a feeling you're a big fan of it - where you get to 'call out' your next opponent.

Did Murray get a cookie for his USO final appearance - in which he was brutally outplayed?

Wanna bet? The droll Brit/Irish/Scot personality doesn't play well outside of... Brit/Ire/Sco... His childishness - racket breaking, swearing, constant pleading with his box - turn a lot of tennis fans off...
You are SO correct! I was about to write that, and whenever he loses a point he is looking up towards his mum and girlfriend...seriously man!?

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:53 AM
Your hilarious, did Federer make a slam final at the age of 21? Nop.

Federer reached 2 QF's while Murray has reached a Final, 2 QF's, and a Semi final. And could well win the USO which would mean he has surpassed Federer in all aspects at that age.

Actually, yes Fed made a slam final at age 21 -- it was called Wimbledon and he WON it.

Look, Murray is a great player, and I like him -- I'm not sure why so many people don't. But don't try to downplay what Fed accomplished at his age in order to make up for the fact that Murray hasn't yet won a slam. I will learn a lot about him at this year's US Open, b/c being a marked man in New York isn't easy -- ask Nadal.

I think Murray will eventually win several slams, including Wimbledon -- that doesn't mean I have to be a Fed-hater.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 10:54 AM
I will agree Roger isnt at his overrall 2005-2006 peak... But I still believe he has in his prime, if only at the tail end. His results have been just to good.. And he doesnt have early exits at the slams that would entail he may just be passed his prime. Hes still racking the slams each year


Yeah.. his prime was just too good..i never watched tennis before..recently i started paying attention to it..watched some of federer's matches and i was amazed at how

he played SO MANY incredible shots.. i saaw people throw their rackets out of frustration of having tried every thing and still looking mediocre in front of federer.. it was really amazing..

and yet federer was so humble in his emotions...who can do that...i fell for him..even after producing some ground braking strokes he never looked into the eye of the opponent and fist-pumped at errors...

he is too good a person to hate...i really can never understand how people hate him..seriosly!!

maximo
08-06-2009, 10:55 AM
Wanna bet? The droll Brit/Irish/Scot personality doesn't play well outside of... Brit/Ire/Sco... His childishness - racket breaking, swearing, constant pleading with his box - turn a lot of tennis fans off...

When did Murray actually brake his racquet? :shock:

Do you remember when Federer broke his racquet rather convincingly in Miami and didn't shake the umpire's hand and chucked water bottles on the floor for ball boys to pick up??:shock:

Interesting tho that this hasn't turned any of his fans off.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:56 AM
Yeah.. his prime was just too good..i never watched tennis before..recently i started paying attention to it..watched some of federer's matches and i was amazed at how

he played SO MANY incredible shots.. i saaw people throw their rackets out of frustration of having tried every thing and still looking mediocre in front of federer.. it was really amazing..

and yet federer was so humble in his emotions...who can do that...i fell for him..even after producing some ground braking strokes he never looked into the eye of the opponent and fist-pumped at errors...

he is too good a person to hate...i really can never understand how people hate him..seriosly!!



His arrogance maybe? Not a bad reason to not particularly care for a player

drwood
08-06-2009, 10:56 AM
You dont accept ANY excuses? Come on now man.. Up until nadal got injured, He was the BEST player this year as well. Can we agree?

Do you just expect someone like Nadal to go out there and limp around on one leg and perform at top level?

Nadal clearly WAS the best player before he got hurt. But part of being a great player is playing. As you have heard me say on other threads, I expect Nadal to come back and win many more slams. But for me to downgrade Federer's achievements b/c he has kept his body in shape enough not to get injured would be like downgrading Nadal's achievements last year for not getting mono, or to downgrade Sampras's GS record b/c Borg never played in the Australian where he probably would have won at least 3 times -- part of being a great player is playing.

Speranza
08-06-2009, 10:58 AM
drwood - very good words, agree completely.

Ah, and as for Murray not breaking racquets...Ask Pat Cash how many he broke in the locker room after his loss to Roddick at Wimbledon :shock:

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 10:58 AM
I dont need to explain do I why AGassi is PEte's rival.. Everyone, even pete himself has said this. He was right there aside from his MIA years 96-98 with Pete all the way through from 1990-2002.

Of course Pete would say that, because he has a winning record over him. He wouldn't want to call Krajicek his rival because he has a losing record over him.. Now, that wouldn't look good on him, would it? Federer could easily pick Roddick as his main rival - actually, they're closer in age, became pros at pretty much the same time, etc..

Agassi was there alright. How many times did he face him in the slams in a 13 yr period?

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 10:59 AM
Of course Pete would say that, because he has a winning record over him. He wouldn't want to call Krajicek his rival because he has a losing record over him.. Now, that wouldn't look good on him, would it? Federer could easily pick Roddick as his main rival - actually, they're closer in age, became pros at pretty much the same time, etc..

Agassi was there alright. How many times did he face him in the slams in a 13 yr period?

Dude.. Krajiceck though a beast when he was on, didnt do a whole lot in his career.. How can u expect him to be a rival when outside of Wimbeldon, he never really made many waves in the world of tennis.


Agassi was Pete's main rival.. They were only 1 year apart and both had tremendous amount of longevity and that rivalry extended for almost the better part of a decade or more. At not just slams but other tournaments as well.

Not Krajicek who hung around for a cup of coffee and left.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 11:02 AM
[His arrogance maybe? Not a bad reason to not particularly care for a player


is he now?? it is a very abstract a topic to start arguing on... better leave a person to his opinion in matters like these.. but arrogance would SHOW on court.. really.. like djoker displayed in AO2008 after beating fed and that king is dead slogan.. and on court antics as well..that would be arrogance..i dunno what it is that made u belive fed is arrogant but what ever it is.. slight mistakes can be exempted taking his 15GS into account..he is a man after all and not a monk at that... :).. he is by far the best person i have EVER read of.. and i read a lot..

drwood
08-06-2009, 11:02 AM
Dude.. Krajiceck though a beast when he was on, didnt do a whole lot in his career.. How can u expect him to be a rival when outside of Wimbeldon, he never really made many waves in the world of tennis.

Agassi was Pete's main rival.. They were only 1 year apart and both had tremendous amount of longevity and that rivalry extended for almost the better part of a decade or more. At not just slams but other tournaments as well.

Not Krajicek who hung around for a cup of coffee and left.

I'd have to agree with GameSampras here. Everyone acknowledges that Agassi was the second best player in Sampras' era...that alone defines him as his primary rival.

fed_is_GOD
08-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Nadal clearly WAS the best player before he got hurt. But part of being a great player is playing. As you have heard me say on other threads, I expect Nadal to come back and win many more slams. But for me to downgrade Federer's achievements b/c he has kept his body in shape enough not to get injured would be like downgrading Nadal's achievements last year for not getting mono, or to downgrade Sampras's GS record b/c Borg never played in the Australian where he probably would have won at least 3 times -- part of being a great player is playing.


hi drwood..

Dont mind if i sound ignorant but who is the person holding the wimby title in ur photo graph?

egn
08-06-2009, 11:05 AM
I love the overrall bitterners.. But Sampras didnt have a h2h that translated overrall onto almost every surface in the game against Agassi now did he? 20-14 went Sampras' way. Agassi couldnt touch PEte at Wimbeldon or the USO or Indoors .

If Nadal manages to beat Fed at the USO, the domination will be complete. Fed has been OUSTED by his main rival on every slam surface in the game today.

Comprende?

Hold on since you don't read lets take a direct quote from me.



Note: Fed is definitely not GOAT but some of your are ****ing idiots when it comes to trashing him, he is definitely one of the most talented players ever and one of the best. He may very well be the greatest in the open era but he can never beat GOAT becuase of his losing record to Nadal.

I obviously agreed.

Second indoors is not a slam.

Should we discount Sampras' Australian Opens? Agassi was absent in both of his victories..he beat Sampras there. YOu are all ready to discount Fed's wimbledon this year when Fed is 2-1 against Nadal there well obviously since Sampras was 0-2 in Australian Opens against Agassi won won 4 and skipped the only two Sampras managed to win maybe those should be taken away as well.

Sorry when having to deal with people with amazing double standards like you it is hard not to be bitter.

Oh and ONCE AGAIN....JUST SO YOU KNOW I AGREE..BECAUSE THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS TO YOU..FEDERER IS NOT GOAT...HE NEVER CAN BE GOAT..HIS RECORD AGAINST NADAL IS FAR TOO BAD. Fed needs to dominate Nadal on a surface and having a winning record on another one in order for him to be considered GOAT and unless he can tie that head to head it still is a stretch.

Yet PETE will never be GOAT because HE NEVER WON A SLAM ON CLAY. He could not dominate both ends of the spectrum, the slowest and the fastest. Laver won on slow clay and on fast grass and on carpet, hardcourts, wood etc. He dominated the whole spectrum, Sampras never did that. Don't fool yourself over and over again and make excuses, because Laver took out Rosewall on clay probably one of the best clay courters of all time.

Im not really talking about eras.. Im comparing rivalries against rivalries. And the FACTS Point out this out in terms of Fed-Nadal. Not what-ifs. I dont think its really foolish to concede that Sampras wouldnt have gotten 2-3 more slams had he not been injured.
THeres a very chance Pete would have.. Now thats a what if..But most will agree

Pete could have lost slams had Agassi not been injuired and showed up to them at times. Thats also a what if and most will agree there was well. Besides out of 97 US Open what slam is a definite lock?

lets have a poll..

which poster is the biggest troll..

i'll create it.,..
we need qualifications/recommendations first...

all those who are recommended would be put in the list...


I recommend game sampras/maximo/grafrules

i nominate you. fed_fan_2009, and i am too lazy to nominate the other few *******s but they deserve it but I am not willing to go look up all their names as they all spit the same crap out.

drwood
08-06-2009, 11:06 AM
hi drwood..

Dont mind if i sound ignorant but who is the person holding the wimby title in ur photo graph?

No prob...thanks for asking. The person in my photograph is Arthur Ashe after he won Wimbledon in 1975.

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 11:08 AM
99 USO is another definite lock there EGN


Sampras playing arguably his best tennis coming out of Wimbeldon that year.


Was ANdre or Todd Martin seriously going to beat Pete the way he was playing?

egn
08-06-2009, 11:10 AM
When did Murray actually brake his racquet? :shock:

Do you remember when Federer broke his racquet rather convincingly in Miami and didn't shake the umpire's hand and chucked water bottles on the floor for ball boys to pick up??:shock:

Interesting tho that this hasn't turned any of his fans off.

Murray just screams COME ON!!!!!!! And acts like an arrogant ***** after every point. DId you watch wimbledon?

Oh sorry I was a Marat Safin and Johnny Mac fan..nobody trashes them for on court antics. Safin at points broke a racket per set. Not really big deal. Oh and he chucked water bottles on floor so they well paid ball boys had to pick it up..OH NO..OH NO...wait let me repeat..OH ****ING NO!! Those poor ball boys who get paid and opportunities to meet great pros had to pick up his water bottles. Hold on let me shed a tear for those ball boys...*tears*...considering players have done a lot worse to ball boys. What about the verbal abuse some players used to give them. Did you watch tennis prior to 2008? I have seen a lot worse done on court. Obviously not. Watch some 70s-80s tennis re-runs of McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. You want some bad on court antics you will see it. Please I don't feel any remorse for a ball boy, they get paid pretty damn well, some nice free stuff and a chance to meet a bunch of top pros and they run around and collect balls.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 11:12 AM
99 USO is another definite lock there EGN


Sampras playing arguably his best tennis coming out of Wimbeldon that year.


Was ANdre or Todd Martin seriously going to beat Pete the way he was playing?
We will never know, but Andre was on fire that year after winning his first FO, final at Wimby and then won the Uso, what a year he had

egn
08-06-2009, 11:12 AM
99 USO is another definite lock there EGN


Sampras playing arguably his best tennis coming out of Wimbeldon that year.


Was ANdre or Todd Martin seriously going to beat Pete the way he was playing?

99 I will give you, not sure if it is a def but he probably could have easily got that. Forgot about that one. So basically 99 is a deifinite, 97 is almost definite and 94 is a chance, but Agassi was playing pretty damn amazing then if you ask me that final he was just top notch dismantling Michael Stitch.

egn
08-06-2009, 11:13 AM
Dude.. Krajiceck though a beast when he was on, didnt do a whole lot in his career.. How can u expect him to be a rival when outside of Wimbeldon, he never really made many waves in the world of tennis.


Agassi was Pete's main rival.. They were only 1 year apart and both had tremendous amount of longevity and that rivalry extended for almost the better part of a decade or more. At not just slams but other tournaments as well.

Not Krajicek who hung around for a cup of coffee and left.

Agreed. Krajicek was a one surface threat. It is the equivalent to saying Coria was Fed's rival. Coria never did anything off of clay.

drwood
08-06-2009, 11:22 AM
Agreed. Krajicek was a one surface threat. It is the equivalent to saying Coria was Fed's rival. Coria never did anything off of clay.

Actually, Krajicek made the Aus Open semis in 92 and had to default against Courier -- so he was a threat on HC. Don't forget he was up a break against eventual champion Edberg in the 5th set of their 92 US Open match as well.

drakulie
08-06-2009, 11:23 AM
Agassi was Pete's main rival..


actually, on grass>>>>> Mark Keil was Sampras' rival.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-06-2009, 11:24 AM
actually, on grass>>>>> Mark Keil was Sampras' rival.
The journey-man:)

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 11:26 AM
I only got to page 2 of this thread before I got tired of reading the idiotic crap GSF and GS were spewing out. Ridiculous.

And now I get to the last page and big surprise....and another Pete is GOAT argument. Or something to that affect. And big surprise, GameSampras right in the middle of it...:roll:

Good to see Roger back. But I have a feeling if Rog and Rafa met in the finals and Rafa lost, the injury excuses would start churning out once again from Nadal fans.

But that doesn't matter. Hope to see both back and competing. These GOAT debates are turning into silent noise at this pt.

grafselesfan
08-06-2009, 11:43 AM
Shame on you...you're better than trolling posts like this. And, BTW, Graf won half of her slams after Seles was stabbed -- by your logic she's not a true champion either.

Steffi leads Monica 10-5 in head to head, and led her 3-2 in head to head even during Monica's dominant peak. Monica has gotten 4 games off Graf in 2 matches at Wimbledon, so whereas Nadal is a huge threat to Federer in every slam Monica is an irrelevance to Graf at Wimbledon atleast. Monica has also never beaten Graf on a faster than average court which the U.S Open is played on of course. Graf has beaten Seles in 3 slam finals and 6 total times in slam. Monica though has beaten Graf in 3 slam finals also and won 7 of her 9 slams with Graf in the draw. Neither is reliant on the others absence, they are both great players capable of taking down each other and all other comers. Federer though is reliant on avoiding Nadal in draws, his being injured, not playing, not even being developed on hard courts yet, etc....

grafselesfan
08-06-2009, 11:49 AM
Considering Krajicek never made another slam final and was owned during his prime by Rusedski of all people, the answer is...not much different today -- he reached #4 in the world, and wouldn't be any higher in this era. And yes, I did see him play...I was one of the few people before the Wimbledon QF in 1996 that thought Krajicek would beat Sampras.

So how does that change how incredibly well he played to win Wimbledon 96.
Nobody is saying Krajicek was a constant enormous force on all surfaces in the mens game during the time. However he was yet another of the players who existed them just behind the very top echelon guys who were capable of getting red hot on their preferred surfaces and being nearly untouchable. We have few of those kind of guys today to the same level.

Last year, Fed was just not as good as Nadal. Period

You are right on that, and he wasnt nearly as good as Nadal this year until Nadal's injuries hit either.

I don't accept excuses from Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Roddick, or Murray and I certainly don't accept them from Sampras either. That's as fair as I know how to look at each player. For example, I don't buy that Agassi choked in the 1990 US Open final -- Pete just thrashed him. Period. I don't buy that Pete was easily distracted in the 1995 Aus Open final against Agassi b/c of Gullickson's death -- it didn't affect him in the first set of that match before Agassi won the next 3 sets.

What is wrong with analyzing circumstances and making logical reasoning of what happens. Just going by final results and not considering anything else is thinking for dummies. Yes Sampras absolutely just played incredible Sampras and overpowered and overwhelmed Sampras in that 1990 U.S Open final, despite that Agassi was favored. However Agassi also did struggle greatly with nerves and underperformed to varying degrees in each of his first 3 slam finals. That isnt to say he would have won all 3, but there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Sampras at the 1995 Australian Open was extremely subpar the entire event, and clearly struggling with his emotions and composure with the news of his coaches brain tumours. Pointing that out is not excuse making, it is just realism and practical thinking.

egn
08-06-2009, 12:09 PM
Steffi leads Monica 10-5 in head to head, and led her 3-2 in head to head even during Monica's dominant peak. Monica has gotten 4 games off Graf in 2 matches at Wimbledon, so whereas Nadal is a huge threat to Federer in every slam Monica is an irrelevance to Graf at Wimbledon atleast. Monica has also never beaten Graf on a faster than average court which the U.S Open is played on of course. Graf has beaten Seles in 3 slam finals and 6 total times in slam. Monica though has beaten Graf in 3 slam finals also and won 7 of her 9 slams with Graf in the draw. Neither is reliant on the others absence, they are both great players capable of taking down each other and all other comers. Federer though is reliant on avoiding Nadal in draws, his being injured, not playing, not even being developed on hard courts yet, etc....

1. When has Nadal been a threat to Fed at the US Open.
2. Wasn't Monica leading their slam finals 3-1 when she got stabbed
3. Monica had won 8 of the previous 13 slams compared to the 3 Steffi had won.

Yet you are going to say Monica's stabbing had no effect on Steffi? When Monica was dominating Steffi turned into a flake. She had lost control of the tour, she was no longer the best player (exception of grass) and Monica exposed Steffi. Steffi looked very human in 91 and 92. No suprise that those were her two ever worse back to back seasons in her prime. When Monica became number 1 it was the only season during Steffi's prime she did not have a 90% win loss record sure it was 89 however compare it to the mid to high 90s she had prior to that and after 92. Monica was definitely the biggest factor. Monica ran the tour while Steffi was the second tier nearly third tier as Gabby was in tons of positions to pass her. Once Monica was out of the picture she got the boost she needed to get back on top. Confidence was restored as she knew now that she could dominate as there was no longer a real threat to her.

todd03blown
08-06-2009, 12:21 PM
I only got to page 2 of this thread before I got tired of reading the idiotic crap GSF and GS were spewing out. Ridiculous.

And now I get to the last page and big surprise....and another Pete is GOAT argument. Or something to that affect. And big surprise, GameSampras right in the middle of it...:roll:

Good to see Roger back. But I have a feeling if Rog and Rafa met in the finals and Rafa lost, the injury excuses would start churning out once again from Nadal fans.

But that doesn't matter. Hope to see both back and competing. These GOAT debates are turning into silent noise at this pt.

AMEN...

can you imagine the type of life these clowns lead to sit on this message board all day long and spew this crap????


Really folks; its time some of you really look in the mirror and see how you act on these boards with this kind of drivel you type over and over....

I truly do feel sorry for you that the only thing in your life is post crap like this on this forum.

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 12:23 PM
So how does that change how incredibly well he played to win Wimbledon 96.
Nobody is saying Krajicek was a constant enormous force on all surfaces in the mens game during the time. However he was yet another of the players who existed them just behind the very top echelon guys who were capable of getting red hot on their preferred surfaces and being nearly untouchable. We have few of those kind of guys today to the same level.



You are right on that, and he wasnt nearly as good as Nadal this year until Nadal's injuries hit either.



What is wrong with analyzing circumstances and making logical reasoning of what happens. Just going by final results and not considering anything else is thinking for dummies. Yes Sampras absolutely just played incredible Sampras and overpowered and overwhelmed Sampras in that 1990 U.S Open final, despite that Agassi was favored. However Agassi also did struggle greatly with nerves and underperformed to varying degrees in each of his first 3 slam finals. That isnt to say he would have won all 3, but there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Sampras at the 1995 Australian Open was extremely subpar the entire event, and clearly struggling with his emotions and composure with the news of his coaches brain tumours. Pointing that out is not excuse making, it is just realism and practical thinking.




Actually it wasn't until the Courier match that he found out from what I remember. In the Agassi match he wasn't himself, but clearly Agassi was going to beat him that day regardless.

PrinceDiablo
08-06-2009, 12:32 PM
Will we have to wait tomorrow noon?

Enigma_87
08-06-2009, 12:43 PM
Lol, 11 pages of troll comments about Federer's FO win. Hello? The topic is whether Fed is playing Montreal or not. There are a gazillion other topics on Sampras and Federer.

But since the OP won't be discussed in here, I may try it myself:
Well, how lucky was Sampras to sidestep Agassi in his 2 AO wins. How lucky he was to win his AO slams playing unseeded clowns and his punching bag Courier.
How lucky he was to win 97' Wimbey playing nobodies and semi retired Becker, or how about 98' when he didn't face a top ten ranked player in the entire tournament, same for 00'. How about his joke draw in 93 USO, or how lucky he was to sidestep Agassi in the 96 USO.

Well if we look at the same perspective as some Petetards are looking then we should eliminate lets see - 2 AO's, 3 Wimbeys, 2 US, well that's like half of his slams..

pame
08-06-2009, 12:53 PM
ROFL... How exactly does one SIDESTEP another player who doesn't make it through to the round you're playing, pray tell? Damn, they have Fed sidestepping non-existent shadows now!! What next?

I guess some people aren't going to be satisfied until Fed has to play all 127 other players in a GS or all the other 63 in a Masters

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 01:01 PM
Lol, 11 pages of troll comments about Federer's FO win. Hello? The topic is whether Fed is playing Montreal or not. There are a gazillion other topics on Sampras and Federer.

But since the OP won't be discussed in here, I may try it myself:
Well, how lucky was Sampras to sidestep Agassi in his 2 AO wins. How lucky he was to win his AO slams playing unseeded clowns and his punching bag Courier.
How lucky he was to win 97' Wimbey playing nobodies and semi retired Becker, or how about 98' when he didn't face a top ten ranked player in the entire tournament, same for 00'. How about his joke draw in 93 USO, or how lucky he was to sidestep Agassi in the 96 USO.

Well if we look at the same perspective as some Petetards are looking then we should eliminate lets see - 2 AO's, 3 Wimbeys, 2 US, well that's like half of his slams..

Their hatred is so deep, they can't even stay out of a thread that is as narrowly focused as this one.

I could start another twins thread and they would come out with "Sampras is GOAT" bs.

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 01:10 PM
Dude.. Krajiceck though a beast when he was on, didnt do a whole lot in his career.. How can u expect him to be a rival when outside of Wimbeldon, he never really made many waves in the world of tennis.


Agassi was Pete's main rival.. They were only 1 year apart and both had tremendous amount of longevity and that rivalry extended for almost the better part of a decade or more. At not just slams but other tournaments as well.

Not Krajicek who hung around for a cup of coffee and left.

Ok, fair enough. Agassi is Pete's main rival. By the criteria you have specified, Hewitt is Federer's main rival, not Nadal.
- Both started pretty much at the same time.
- A decade ago (comparable points in careers of Fed & Pete) sampras reached 12 GS titles, agassi had 3. Hewitt has 2, when Fed is at 15

Nadal is not Fed's rival BASED ON YOUR CRITERIA because:

- Nadal started a good 6 yrs later
- Nadal has been consistently #2 for 140+ weeks, while Fed was #1
- Since 2005, Nadal has won 6 GS, Fed 11 (in contrast to the one-sided 12-3 b/n Pete & Andre)


I like how you paint as if Andre was going toe-toe with Pete for their entire career (even if you discount 96-98, which according to you were the years when Andre went MIA). simply not true.

If you still insist on calling Nadal as Fed's closest rival, then we should agree (based on evidence above) that Nadal is much more of a rival to Fed than Andre was to Pete (in other words, Pete faced a "weak" rival, while Fed faces a much tougher one - does this remind you of the "weak era" theory? :twisted:). So obviously pete had it easy - in your words, Andre was a "clown".

So please, do not compare pete's h2h vs Andre, with Fed's h2h against nadal - they are not comparable.

Enigma_87
08-06-2009, 01:21 PM
Ok, fair enough. Agassi is Pete's main rival. By the criteria you have specified, Hewitt is Federer's main rival, not Nadal.
- Both started pretty much at the same time.
- A decade ago (comparable points in careers of Fed & Pete) sampras reached 12 GS titles, agassi had 3. Hewitt has 2, when Fed is at 15

Nadal is not Fed's rival BASED ON YOUR CRITERIA because:

- Nadal started a good 6 yrs later
- Nadal has been consistently #2 for 140+ weeks, while Fed was #1
- Since 2005, Nadal has won 6 GS, Fed 11 (in contrast to the one-sided 12-3 b/n Pete & Andre)


I like how you paint as if Andre was going toe-toe with Pete for their entire career (even if you discount 96-98, which according to you were the years when Andre went MIA). simply not true.

If you still insist on calling Nadal as Fed's closest rival, then we should agree (based on evidence above) that Nadal is much more of a rival to Fed than Andre was to Pete (in other words, Pete faced a "weak" rival, while Fed faces a much tougher one - does this remind you of the "weak era" theory? :twisted:). So obviously pete had it easy - in your words, Andre was a "clown".

So please, do not compare pete's h2h vs Andre, with Fed's h2h against nadal - they are not comparable.

Actually according to his logic, Sampras's main rival till the end of his #1 reign - 98' was Becker, cause he had 6 slams compared to Agassi's - 3, twice as much. And Becker was already pants in 97 - retiring. Becker met Sampras only 3 times in slams - Wimbey.

If we use the same logic, Agassi till 05 had 8 slams, met Federer 4 times in slams - (both US and AO(by far his best surfaces), unlike Becker only at Wimbey) so he was his main rival, no? How about if Nadal never wins another slam and Djokovic wins 5-6 more in the next 3-4 years, surpassing Nadal? Won't then Fed and Nadal H2H become more irrelevant?

fed_rulz
08-06-2009, 01:26 PM
Actually according to his logic, Sampras's main rival till the end of his #1 reign - 98' was Becker, cause he had 6 slams compared to Agassi's - 3, twice as much. And Becker was already pants in 97 - retiring. Becker met Sampras only 3 times in slams - Wimbey.

If we use the same logic, Agassi till 05 had 8 slams, met Federer 4 times in slams - (both US and AO(by far his best surfaces), unlike Becker only at Wimbey) so he was his main rival, no? How about if Nadal never wins another slam and Djokovic wins 5-6 more in the next 3-4 years, surpassing Nadal? Won't then Fed and Nadal H2H become more irrelevant?

i agree. Yes, Agassi could be considered Fed's main rival, and we all know how the h2h looks like.

drwood
08-06-2009, 02:09 PM
and now we have to hear all the GOAT talk of some player who is vastly inferior to Sampras in atleast half the aspects of the game (and no more than slightly superior in any).

Alright, lets look at this OBJECTIVELY and grade each player shot-for-shot:

Obviously Pete has the best serve -- as I've said before, his second serve is one of the 10 best shots in the history of the sport, and it wasn't as good as his first serve.
Pete's first serve = A+; Federer's first serve = A/A-
Pete's' second serve = A+; Federer's second serve = B+

Mental toughness -- Pete was good, but Roger never gave up at the French. Plus Roger showed a lot of toughness in their 01 Wimbledon match. Pete did gut out a lot of wins, though, so I think its a wash.
Both = A

Clutchness -- Pete was a better clutch server, but Federer was the better clutch player b/c his backhand wouldn't break down as much as Pete's did.
Pete = A; Federer = A+

Return of serve -- Federer CLEARLY has the advantage -- especially on the backhand return.
Forehand return = Pete = B+; Federer = A/A-
Backhand return = Pete = C+; Federer B

Volleying = Advantage Pete, but not as big as you would think; remember Fed beat Pete at Wimbledon serving and volleying
Forehand volley: Pete = A-; Federer = A-/B+
Backhand volley: Pete = A-; Federer = A-/B+
(A to A+ grades reserved for Edberg/McEnroe levels)

Athleticism = slight edge to Pete; better vertical leap, but Federer much better at half-volleying off the baseline
Pete = A+; Federer = A

PHYSICAL CONDITIONING = big edge to Federer -- this was the main reason Pete only won 2 Aus Opens and never beat Andre there; also a big reason he didn't do better at the French -- if conditions got brutally hot, he would wilt (i.e. 95 Aus Open final, 01 US Open final) -- he was a BIG beneficiary of night tennis at the US Open
Pete = B; Federer = A-

Backhand -- clear edge to Federer. When Pete's backhand was on, it was devastating (96 San Jose final vs. Agassi), but that was rare. The backhand is probably why Pete never made a French final while Fed has made 4 and won one of them.
Pete = B/B-; Federer = A-/B+

Consistency -- OBVIOUSLY Federer -- mainly b/c his game didn't revolve around his serve like Sampras. Everyone knew that if you could return Sampras' serve and/or serve him off the court you could demoralize him (see -- 1996 Wimbledon quarters vs. Krajicek, 2000 US Open final vs. Safin), the problem was that almost no one in Sampras' era could do it.
Federer = A; Pete = B+

They complete each other as players, but Federer has a slight edge (and the only reason its not bigger is b/c I don't think Federer would do a great job of returning Sampras' serve).
Overall: Federer = A; Sampras = A-

The best player of all time would have Federer's game with Pete's serve and Agassi's return of serve....that would truly be unbeatable.

cknobman
08-06-2009, 02:11 PM
It was a very sad day when Federer won the FO with the absence of Nadal. :(

Maybe for Murray fans because even without Nadal in the draw Murray had little to no chance of winning the FO, yes folks he sucks that bad on clay.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Thats not fair at all. Most people will give Roger the benefit of the doubt for losing to arguably one of the top 2-3 clay courters of all time at the French every year.

So why not extend some of these same courtesys to Pete for having to play with a blood deficiency is whole career which affected his stamina (WHICH HE TRIED TO KEEP FROM THE PUBLIC MIND YOU) , and getting sidelined with various injuries at times when he was playing his best tennis?

That's the thing, I don't give Federer anything. Who knows, maybe he'd lose in the finals anyway to someone else. Point is we never know, so we can't count all the "ifs", we can only count actual numbers.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 02:20 PM
Murray can still have a slam at Federer's age. :-?

Murray is on my top 5 of people I want to win the USO. It's a shame he has such hateful fans.

P_Agony
08-06-2009, 02:23 PM
Everyone other than a Fed fan hates Federer. Just face it.

Then I guess it is good most of tennis fans are also Federer fans.

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 03:33 PM
God what a useless thread I created. I just wanted to discuss Roger in Montreal and it turned into all this ****....

edberg505
08-06-2009, 04:37 PM
I agree totally. One of the saddest days in tennis history. :( Oh well atleast the last two slams have proven something. Federer cant win slams anymore with Rafa around or even playing any of his main rivals. He wins through default when his main rival is injured and he doesnt even play his main challengers in the draw. That is not a true champion. Graf and Seles won slams facing each other, Agassi and Sampras won slams facing each other, the Williams and Henin won slams facing each other, Nadal wins slams by beating Federer. Federer on the other hand has to wait for Nadal to be injured or upset, as well as Murray on non clay surfaces and Djokovic on non grass surfaces losing before he faces them, and wins by beating up on the B challengers.

Oh you mean like what happened last year at the US Open?

mandy01
08-07-2009, 12:13 AM
From RF.com.
Article published in the French canadienne press tonight

RueFrontenac.com - by Mario Brisebois

Here is the translation/resume of part of the article as it pertains to Roger:

"At 18:00 hrs tonight (deadline for registering), Roger Federer still hadn't confirmed whether he would travel to Montreal.

Roger is undecided, but if he decided not to come, one couldn't blame Eugene Lapierre and the tournament organisation. We learned that Lapierre (tournament direcor) had answered Roger's request to have a pediatrician available 24 hrs. a day for the twins. This favour towards the one who has marked history in Wimbledon comes in addition to the luxurious house proposed to the family and much more.

This champion is not of the kind to make promoters languish, and even less the public, but his situation as a new head of a family changes the context...

According to Lapierre, who sleeps with his mobile phone not to miss a call from Switzerland, Roger wants to come to Montreal and his agent, Tony Godsic, stated that Roger has been training hard and that his fitness is at its maximum."

Full article in French
http://www.ruefrontenac.com/sports/tennis/9071-mbrisebois-federer-se-fait-desirer

CountryHillbilly
08-07-2009, 12:26 AM
From RF.com.
Article published in the French canadienne press tonight

RueFrontenac.com - by Mario Brisebois

Here is the translation/resume of part of the article as it pertains to Roger:

"At 18:00 hrs tonight (deadline for registering), Roger Federer still hadn't confirmed whether he would travel to Montreal.

Roger is undecided, but if he decided not to come, one couldn't blame Eugene Lapierre and the tournament organisation. We learned that Lapierre (tournament direcor) had answered Roger's request to have a pediatrician available 24 hrs. a day for the twins. This favour towards the one who has marked history in Wimbledon comes in addition to the luxurious house proposed to the family and much more.

This champion is not of the kind to make promoters languish, and even less the public, but his situation as a new head of a family changes the context...

According to Lapierre, who sleeps with his mobile phone not to miss a call from Switzerland, Roger wants to come to Montreal and his agent, Tony Godsic, stated that Roger has been training hard and that his fitness is at its maximum."

Full article in French
http://www.ruefrontenac.com/sports/tennis/9071-mbrisebois-federer-se-fait-desirer

Thanks.

This is about the only post on the topic.

rafan
08-07-2009, 12:32 AM
Well when you reach that level in the world you should be entitled to some respect regaring domestic arrangements. The twins are still very young and I don't blame him for his request to have a doctor on call

jamesblakefan#1
08-07-2009, 12:34 AM
Thanks.

This is about the only post on the topic.

Haha yeah it is funny how quickly this thread went off the tracks...not even 5 posts in until the usual Fed/Murray/Nadal/Sampras etc war broke out.

I swear, I could make a thread about Federer saving a kitten from a burning house, and it would somehow turn into a flame war, pardon the pun. :D

DarthMaul
08-07-2009, 12:43 AM
Roger's fitness at maximum... Scary if your name is not Roger Federer :D

ninman
08-07-2009, 12:45 AM
I really hope he does play, because he can really increase his lead in the rankings with a good showing, plus it will be good to get a couple of wins over Murray and Djokovic ahead of the US Open.

mandy01
08-07-2009, 12:45 AM
Roger's fitness at maximum... Scary if your name is not Roger Federer :D
Loads of other players are going to be fully fit and prepared.So not that scary.Plus,three setter matches :wink: