PDA

View Full Version : Confessions from a Fed-fan


TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:17 AM
I was so incredibly happy when Roger beat Rafael Nadal in Madrid, and when he won the French Open i was extatic! And when he won Wimbledon i was close to a heart-attack but i also felt that the circle had been closed. I think Roger Federer is the greatest tennisplayer so far in history...

BUT...I hate to admit this... but it REALLY bothers me that he has a 7-13 h2h against his main rival. That he has a 2-6 h2h against Moooorray...that he always (outside of slams) wins the 1st set against Murray and then only God knows what happens...I can understand that a player like Federer wants to mainly focus on the slams, but that shouldnt mean that he repeatedly pretty much gets "owned" by the no2, no3 AND no4 in Masters Series-tournaments and ends up with a really bad h2h against ALL 3 of his main rivals. If you repeatedly loses to your main rivals in MS-tournaments i think its gonna be even harder to beat them when it matters most, in GS.

Thoughts?? (Nadal/Sampras-fans behave!!)

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:20 AM
Murray knows how to beat Federer. i would class him as favorite if they met at the USO. ;)

BTW, Murray won the first set in Indian Wells.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:22 AM
yeah his h2h with murray is mainly due to the 3 setter tourneys where fed falls apart alot of the time..btw ive read that you used to be like 1100 in singles...thats insanely good man....good on you....your not playing anymore?
his h2h with nadal is because nadal hits it to feds bh alot...but yeah being the GOAT fed should have found a way around this and he obviously hasnt...but there are still plenty fed-nadal matches to come,,hopefully more madrids :)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:23 AM
Murray knows how to beat Federer. i would class him as favorite if they met at the USO. ;)

BTW, Murray won the first set in Indian Wells.
Yes i know, but before that 3 matches in a row looked the same with Fed winning the 1st set.
Well, i have to admit, i am worried about Murray. If Federer and Murray had never met, and i saw Murray play, then Federer play (not against eachother) i would say that Fed will win easily, but there is something in Murrays game that Fed hates and has huge trouble dealing with.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:25 AM
yeah his h2h with murray is mainly due to the 3 setter tourneys where fed falls apart alot of the time..btw ive read that you used to be like 1100 in singles...thats insanely good man....good on you....your not playing anymore?
his h2h with nadal is because nadal hits it to feds bh alot...but yeah being the GOAT fed should have found a way around this and he obviously hasnt...but there are still plenty fed-nadal matches to come,,hopefully more madrids :)
Yeah i really wish that you are right about that...
Thank you! Im not playing at that level anymore, nowadays just playing club-matches. Practicing like 2-3 hours a week

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:27 AM
but there is something in Murrays game that Fed hates and has huge trouble dealing with.

Don't you know?

Since Murray has the best 2 hander in the game, he always goes to Federer's backhand during the rallies since his will break down while Murray's won't. ;) That's the only reason. Nadal and Djokovic have done the exact same thing.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:29 AM
Don't you know?

Since Murray has the best 2 hander in the game, he always goes to Federer's backhand during the rallies since his will break down while Murray's won't. ;) That's the only reason. And Nadal and Djokovic have done the exact same thing.
Well yes i DO know what i meant was that i cant understand how it can work everytime, Fed needs to change his tactics against Murray and dont fall in the same pits every time. He needs to attack Murray constantly like last years Us Open...And if Roddick can out-backhand Murray then Federer must be able to do it as well.:shock:

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:31 AM
Well yes i DO know what i meant was that i cant understand how it can work everytime, Fed needs to change his tactics against Murray and dont fall in the same pits every time. He needs to attack Murray constantly like last years Us Open...And if Roddick can out-backhand Murray then Federer must be able to do it as well.:shock:murray varies it to feds bh tho, fed can get into the groove against roddick, and is obvioulsy quite confident against him

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:33 AM
murray varies it to feds bh tho, fed can get into the groove against roddick, and is obvioulsy quite confident against him
Yeah, confidence is a huge thing at this level.

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:35 AM
Well yes i DO know what i meant was that i cant understand how it can work everytime, Fed needs to change his tactics against Murray and dont fall in the same pits every time. He needs to attack Murray constantly like last years Us Open...And if Roddick can out-backhand Murray then Federer must be able to do it as well.:shock:

Murray knows how to beat Federer now. Last years USO doesn't mean much because since then all the matches were taken by Murray. Also, the main reason why he won so convincingly was because Murray returned badly and he was being waay too defensive when compared to the Nadal match where he went out all guns blazing. And when did Roddick out backhand him?? From what i can remember he kept going to the Murray forehand.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:35 AM
Yeah, confidence is a huge thing at this level.well yeah its obvious, look how worse fed serves against murray/nadal than against roddick. hes just so much more relaxed against roddick and its when he plays his best...when hes relaxed:)

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:37 AM
Murray knows how to beat Federer now. Last years USO doesn't mean much because since then all the matches were taken by Murray. Also, the main reason why he won so convincingly was because Murray returned badly and he was being waay too defensive when compared to the Nadal match where he went out all guns blazing. And when did Roddick out backhand him??murray returned well that match, fed only hit 3 aces the entire match

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:37 AM
well yeah its obvious, look how worse fed serves against murray/nadal than against roddick. hes just so much more relaxed against roddick and its when he plays his best...when hes relaxed:)
Yeah, he has to pretend its Roddick on the other side when he serves to Murray or Nadal

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:39 AM
murray returned well that match, fed only hit 3 aces the entire match

BUT he wasn't aggressive when returning. And so Federer controlled the points with ease.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:40 AM
Murray knows how to beat Federer now. Last years USO doesn't mean much because since then all the matches were taken by Murray. Also, the main reason why he won so convincingly was because Murray returned badly and he was being waay too defensive when compared to the Nadal match where he went out all guns blazing. And when did Roddick out backhand him?? From what i can remember he kept going to the Murray forehand.
In Wimbledon Roddick won a lot of Backhand duels, outbackhanded him? Ok that was a little excageration maybe...
But what says that Murray wont be as defensive as he was in Wimbledon against Roddick?? I think he tightens up in GS? Ive never seen him so defensive as he was in Wimby. And, he really shouldnt be able to suceed against Federer with his tactics every friggin time...

Ambivalent
08-08-2009, 06:40 AM
Murray knows how to beat Federer. i would class him as favorite if they met at the USO. ;)

BTW, Murray won the first set in Indian Wells.

See 2008 USO.

Spider
08-08-2009, 06:41 AM
Well that's tennis and as much competition there is, the better it is for tennis. Well I am not a Fed fan but even I can admit what that guy has and continues to do is simply out of this world. Every players have some critics that would like to point out some negative aspects (irrespective of how successfl you turn out to be). If I were you, I would enjoy Fed winning everything under the sun and wish him best of luck (instead of looking for some small holes that you don't appreciate).

He is on a 19 match winning streak, has won 3 out of the last 4 slams, and has 15 slams under his belt (in addition to just getting back his number one spot). I mean, any other fan would love his favorite to have even half the success of Fed, and they would be very very happy for their player.

That's what I will do, when Murray dominates the tour. :)

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:42 AM
BUT he wasn't aggressive when returning. And so Federer controlled the points with ease.yeah he stood a ridiculously long way back to return serve, no way to be aggresive when your standing there, his own fault really. but fed did play very very well that match

Ambivalent
08-08-2009, 06:43 AM
BUT he wasn't aggressive when returning. And so Federer controlled the points with ease.

Wait a minute, i thought Murray KNEW how to beat Federer. Right?

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:43 AM
In Wimbledon Roddick won a lot of Backhand duels, outbackhanded him? Ok that was a little excageration maybe...
But what says that Murray wont be as defensive as he was in Wimbledon against Roddick?? I think he tightens up in GS? Ive never seen him so defensive as he was in Wimby. And, he really shouldnt be able to suceed against Federer with his tactics every friggin time...

The way he played at Queens really was sooo much better. Yes, Murray does tighten up in GS. But he will learn to deal with it in time. And the USO seems to be the perfect place to loosen up.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:45 AM
Well that's tennis and as much competition there is, the better it is for tennis. Well I am not a Fed fan but even I can admit what that guy has and continues to do is simply out of this worl. Every players have some critics that would like to point out some negative aspects (irrespective of how successfl you turn out to be). If I were you, I would enjoy Fed winning everything under the sun and wish him best of luck (instead of looking for some small holes that you don't appreciate).

He is on a 19 match winning streak, has won 3 out of the last 4 slams, and has 15 slams under his belt (in addition to just getting back his number one spot). I mean, any other fan would love his favorite to have even half the success of Fed, and they would be very very happy for their player.

That's what I will do, when Murray dominates the tour. :)

Oh well absolutely! I totally agree with you! But mankind works that way, if you have a lot you often ask for even more, i AM extremely happy about what he has accomplished i just wish the Nadal and Murray fans didnt have this advantage...:)

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:46 AM
aggresive murray is exciting, but his usual pushing crap with fh slice and waiting for mistakes(see wimby 09) bores most sane people to hell

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:46 AM
Wait a minute, i thought Murray KNEW how to beat Federer. Right?

Did you read my previous posts? I'm speaking about the USO last year here. And since then Murray has crushed your beloved one 4 consecutive times.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:47 AM
Did you read my previous posts? I'm speaking about the USO last year here. And since then Murray has crushed your beloved one 4 consecutive times.
He didnt crush him.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:48 AM
He didnt crush him.fed melted..as usual

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:48 AM
Did you read my previous posts? I'm speaking about the USO last year here. And since then Murray has crushed your beloved one 4 consecutive times.
6-2,7-5,6-2 is crushing someone.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 06:48 AM
Murray plays aggressive against passive players. If you watch Murray against Roddick at Qatar open you see roddick was relying too much on net play (even though that's what he does most). So Murray could abuse him with passes as he wishes. But what changed at Wimbledon semi final was that Roddick was hitting off the ground better and was setting up better approach shots. Unlike Murray, Roddick didn't let their previous meeting affect their current. Which goes to show h2h means nothing especially in slams where anything can happen

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:48 AM
fed melted..as usual
Thats right, Fed beat himself.

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:48 AM
He didnt crush him.

He did after Federer won his set.

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:49 AM
fed melted..as usual

Yep, Federer choked in all 4 of those matches. :roll:

Enough with the nonsense.

Spider
08-08-2009, 06:51 AM
Murray is as or even more talented than Federer, that's why, their matches will always be interesting from now on with the more talented player winning more often.

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 06:52 AM
I was so incredibly happy when Roger beat Rafael Nadal in Madrid, and when he won the French Open i was extatic! And when he won Wimbledon i was close to a heart-attack but i also felt that the circle had been closed. I think Roger Federer is the greatest tennisplayer so far in history...

BUT...I hate to admit this... but it REALLY bothers me that he has a 7-13 h2h against his main rival. That he has a 2-6 h2h against Moooorray...that he always (outside of slams) wins the 1st set against Murray and then only God knows what happens...I can understand that a player like Federer wants to mainly focus on the slams, but that shouldnt mean that he repeatedly pretty much gets "owned" by the no2, no3 AND no4 in Masters Series-tournaments and ends up with a really bad h2h against ALL 3 of his main rivals. If you repeatedly loses to your main rivals in MS-tournaments i think its gonna be even harder to beat them when it matters most, in GS.

Thoughts?? (Nadal/Sampras-fans behave!!)

it's a tough life being a federer fan

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:52 AM
:???:Yep, Federer choked in all 4 of those matches.

Enough with the nonsense.so your saying the mountain of UEs from fed was simply due to murrays superioty?:???:

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:52 AM
Murray is as or even more talented than Federer, that's why, their matches will always be interesting from now on with the more talented player winning more often.hahahaha, sorry but no, just no

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:53 AM
Murray is as or even more talented than Federer, that's why, their matches will always be interesting from now on with the more talented player winning more often.
No, absolutely not, Murray is a physical monster, Federer is not...really.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 06:53 AM
:???:so your saying the mountain of UEs from fed was simply due to murrays superioty?:???:
NO its Murray's ability to make his opponent hit a UE ;)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:53 AM
it's a tough life being a federer fan
Come on man...you could have written a little more than that, not very respectful.

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:55 AM
:???:so your saying the mountain of UEs from fed was simply due to murrays superioty?:???:

I'm sorry, if you think someone (GOAT) chokes in 4 straight matches then you need wake up. No credit from any *******s as usual...

Spider
08-08-2009, 06:55 AM
hahahaha, sorry but no, just no

No, absolutely not, Murray is a physical monster, Federer is not...really.

Okay, then lets see what happens at Montreal and then we can talk. :)

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:56 AM
I'm sorry, if you think someone chokes in 4 straight matches then you need wake up. No credit from any *******s as usual...sorry, all im saying is fed didnt play his best, even you might have been able to see that

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 06:56 AM
I'm sorry, if you think someone (GOAT) chokes in 4 straight matches then you need wake up. No credit from any *******s as usual...
Credit is due but it won't be fully exploited until its a best of 5 match

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:57 AM
Okay, then lets see what happens at Montreal and then we can talk. :)
Or even better, lets see what happens in NYC, then we can talk.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 06:58 AM
Credit is due but it won't be fully exploited until its a best of 5 match
Yeah i agree with that, winning a 3-setter is like being in the lead at half-time. (comparing with football or basketball)

maximo
08-08-2009, 06:58 AM
sorry, all im saying is fed didnt play his best, even you might have been able to see that

In the YEC and Madrid he played the same as he did at the USO. You're just coming up with garbage excuses. Since when does a 'GOAT' choke in 4 matches, is that even possible? :lol:

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 06:59 AM
Or even better, lets see what happens in NYC, then we can talk.yeah, we can really only start talking when it comes GS time, for some reason fed doesnt really place much importance in masters these days

Spider
08-08-2009, 07:00 AM
Or even better, lets see what happens in NYC, then we can talk.

Damn then its a lot tougher ;)

Federer at the slams is the best player in the history of the sport and if Murray does beat him (either in the semi or the final), and ends up winning the slam, then I will go ballistic!!!

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 07:01 AM
In the YEC and Madrid he played the same as he did at the USO. You're just coming up with garbage excuses. Since when does a 'GOAT' choke in 4 matches, is that even possible? :lol:
Federer was not even close to his performance at US open 2008 at Madrid and YEC you do remember he had a back injury

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:02 AM
In the YEC and Madrid he played the same as he did at the USO. You're just coming up with garbage excuses. Since when does a 'GOAT' choke in 4 matches, is that even possible? :lol:ROfl bad back much?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:04 AM
yeah, we can really only start talking when it comes GS time, for some reason fed doesnt really place much importance in masters these days
Absolutely! Yeah i know, hasnt won a MS on HC sice 2007...i think its time in either Montreal or CIncy, and he has basically no points at all to defend from last year in those 2 tournaments.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:05 AM
Damn then its a lot tougher ;)

Federer at the slams is the best player in the history of the sport and if Murray does beat him (either in the semi or the final), and ends up winning the slam, then I will go ballistic!!!
Yeah, if Murray beats Fed at the Us Open i will mourn for a week, then i will be ready to give huge credit to him...

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:05 AM
Come on man...you could have written a little more than that, not very respectful.

any murray or federer fan with a decent pair of eyes would know that if murray plays federer playing good tennis, federer would win and murray would lose. Period. The us open 2008 match proved this. You will get fans saying that murray wasn't used to playing in slam finals - but the likes of hewitt, federer, roddick and nadal won there first slam in the first final. Murray just froze and never beats good players when it truly matters. He will eventually win a slam soon though, and may finish with more than 5 slams in total.

I think nadal is a tough matchup for anyone, but probably a more a psychological issue for federer. Players like blake and nalbandian lead nadal H2H, but it doesn't mean they are better than nadal or anyone that loses on H2H against nadal.

I think the difference with murray and nadal, is that nadal was able to beat federer in his prime and in big matches, granted, murray did beat fed in 06 cincy - but fed tanked and the US open final was just domination.

H2H's don't really mean anything. Murray would swap his 6 wins against federer for that US open 2008 final they played, who wouldn't. nadal in 13-7 against a federer who beat himself a few times

maximo
08-08-2009, 07:05 AM
Federer was not even close to his performance at US open 2008 at Madrid and YEC you do remember he had a back injury

ROfl bad back much?

FEDERER certainly ain't blasting forehands cross court and moving like a cripple!! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fks7LLmvxdI

You Fednatics make me chuckle. :lol:

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:07 AM
FEDERER certainly ain't blasting forehands cross court and moving like a cripple!! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fks7LLmvxdI

You Fednatics make me chuckle. :lol:how do you explain the repeating timeouts during changeovers for fed back then?

Spider
08-08-2009, 07:09 AM
FEDERER certainly ain't blasting forehands cross court and moving like a cripple!! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fks7LLmvxdI

You Fednatics make me chuckle. :lol:

I mean these people want him to win everything and if he doesn't, there will be excuses...

I like the man and respect his achievements (something that may never be repeated again) but his fans just keep making excuses for everything (if he fails AT TIMES!).

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:12 AM
any murray or federer fan with a decent pair of eyes would know that if murray plays federer playing good tennis, federer would win and murray would lose. Period. The us open 2008 match proved this. You will get fans saying that murray wasn't used to playing in slam finals - but the likes of hewitt, federer, roddick and nadal won there first slam in the first final. Murray just froze and never beats good players when it truly matters. He will eventually win a slam soon though, and may finish with more than 5 slams in total.

I think nadal is a tough matchup for anyone, but probably a more a psychological issue for federer. Players like blake and nalbandian lead nadal H2H, but it doesn't mean they are better than nadal or anyone that loses on H2H against nadal.

I think the difference with murray and nadal, is that nadal was able to beat federer in his prime and in big matches, granted, murray did beat fed in 06 cincy - but fed tanked and the US open final was just domination.

H2H's don't really mean anything. Murray would swap his 6 wins against federer for that US open 2008 final they played, who wouldn't. nadal in 13-7 against a federer who beat himself a few times

You are making some very good points here, and i agree. Murray seems to freeze up in huge matches. Good points about Hewitt Roddick and Nadal winning their 1st slam final.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:14 AM
any murray or federer fan with a decent pair of eyes would know that if murray plays federer playing good tennis, federer would win and murray would lose. Period. The us open 2008 match proved this. You will get fans saying that murray wasn't used to playing in slam finals - but the likes of hewitt, federer, roddick and nadal won there first slam in the first final. Murray just froze and never beats good players when it truly matters. He will eventually win a slam soon though, and may finish with more than 5 slams in total.

I think nadal is a tough matchup for anyone, but probably a more a psychological issue for federer. Players like blake and nalbandian lead nadal H2H, but it doesn't mean they are better than nadal or anyone that loses on H2H against nadal.

I think the difference with murray and nadal, is that nadal was able to beat federer in his prime and in big matches, granted, murray did beat fed in 06 cincy - but fed tanked and the US open final was just domination.

H2H's don't really mean anything. Murray would swap his 6 wins against federer for that US open 2008 final they played, who wouldn't. nadal in 13-7 against a federer who beat himself a few timesi thought you were a fed hater?nice post btw

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:16 AM
i thought you were a fed hater?nice post btw

no, the reason i probably hated federer yesterday is because i was watching the 2006 US open final between him and roddick, made me kind of annoyed and my hate ran thicker than blood

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:16 AM
i thought you were a fed hater?nice post btw
Yeah, ive gotten that impression to:shock: Now i dont know..

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:17 AM
im not a fed hater.......i just hate it that he beats my 2 favourite players week in, week out

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:17 AM
no, the reason i probably hated federer yesterday is because i was watching the 2006 US open final between him and roddick, made me kind of annoyed and my hate ran thicker than blood
That was a great final! Andy played some great tennis there

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:19 AM
no, the reason i probably hated federer yesterday is because i was watching the 2006 US open final between him and roddick, made me kind of annoyed and my hate ran thicker than bloodi feel sorry for roddick against fed....that wimby final 09...even tho i am a *******....i even felt like i was rooting for roddick at times...i was fully confused...then i just felt like crying for roddick at the end....all that effort and what a match just to lose to fed once again in a GS final...gotta feel for him

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:19 AM
That was a great final! Andy played some great tennis there

and still lost in 4

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:20 AM
THIS is what i would like to see at Us Open this year!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgc_fwCwEA&feature=related

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:22 AM
THIS is what i would like to see at Us Open this year!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgc_fwCwEA&feature=related

he nearly lost that match against andreev

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:22 AM
i feel sorry for roddick against fed....that wimby final 09...even tho i am a *******....i even felt like i was rooting for roddick at times...i was fully confused...then i just felt like crying for roddick at the end....all that effort and what a match just to lose to fed once again in a GS final...gotta feel for him
Absolutely, i have a lot of respect for Andy Roddick and i also felt for him at Wimbledon this year, without Fed i think Andy Roddick would have had 3-4 GS titles and easily inducted inte tennis HoF.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:23 AM
he nearly lost that match against andreev
Yeah i know, i was referring to the reaction and the pumping

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:24 AM
Yeah i know, i was referring to the reaction and the pumping

seen, he normally jumps about or falls down

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:25 AM
seen, he normally jumps about or falls down
Yeah after finals, not this early in a GS, u could tell this meant a lot to him.

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 07:26 AM
Yeah after finals, not this early in a GS, u could tell this meant a lot to him.

he needed that win because he didn't win a slam that year before the open and was very nearly close to losing

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:27 AM
Yeah after finals, not this early in a GS, u could tell this meant a lot to him.yeah, was on the same level as fed/berdych at this year Ao and also fed/haas at FO. all matches he was expected to win easily and how to fight it out in 5

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:28 AM
he needed that win because he didn't win a slam that year before the open and was very nearly close to losing
Yeah,

id say that the Olympic gold medal in doubles and the Us Open last year saved his career.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:28 AM
he needed that win because he didn't win a slam that year before the open and was very nearly close to losingwho are your two favs? roddick and...?

Ambivalent
08-08-2009, 07:31 AM
Yep, Federer choked in all 4 of those matches. :roll:

Enough with the nonsense.

Keep bringing up the h2h and ill bring up the fact that Fed>Roddick>Murray.

Maybe Murray will have something going for him once he beats Federer in a slam, and stops cheering on double faults.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:33 AM
Keep bringing up the h2h and ill bring up the fact that Fed>Roddick>Murray.

Maybe Murray will have something going for him once he beats Federer in a slam, and stops cheering on double faults.when did murray ever cheer on dfs? thats simply uncalled for

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 07:35 AM
when did murray ever cheer on dfs? thats simply uncalled for
NO actually he is serious Murray did. Against Kendrick, Wawrinka and Roddick. Murray would yell 'come on' after one of their DF's at wimbledon

maximo
08-08-2009, 07:35 AM
Keep bringing up the h2h and ill bring up the fact that Fed>Roddick>Murray.

Maybe Murray will have something going for him once he beats Federer in a slam, and stops cheering on double faults.

Putting words in my mouth i see. Typical.

Murray doesn't cheer on double faults, that is simply your delusional brain creating false assumptions.

maximo
08-08-2009, 07:37 AM
when did murray ever cheer on dfs? thats simply uncalled for

Didn't you know? Ambivalent loves creating stuff up. :lol:

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:38 AM
NO actually he is serious Murray did. Against Kendrick, Wawrinka and Roddick. Murray would yell 'come on' after one of their DF's at wimbledonwhat the hell was he thinking???i could never bring myself to say come on an opponents ue, let alone a double fault....thats some serious unethical behaviour

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:39 AM
so maximos saying he didnt hahahaha

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 07:40 AM
what the hell was he thinking???i could never bring myself to say come on an opponents ue, let alone a double fault....thats some serious unethical behaviour
What made it worse was that he wasn't alone. He had the crowd in on it as well.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 07:41 AM
so maximos saying he didnt hahahaha
He can believe that but I watched the match live

maximo
08-08-2009, 07:54 AM
He can believe that but I watched the match live

We all know you hate Murray, no need to stir more garbage to make yourself feel better.

I watched the match live to. And i saw nothing wrong.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 07:56 AM
We all know you hate Murray, no need to stir more garbage to make yourself feel better.

I watched the match live to. And i saw nothing wrong.
lol whatever makes you happy. Keep believing Murray is innocent with his desperate 'come on' on every single point.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 07:57 AM
Keep bringing up the h2h and ill bring up the fact that Fed>Roddick>Murray.

Maybe Murray will have something going for him once he beats Federer in a slam, and stops cheering on double faults.
Cheering on a double-fault makes you deserve a punch right in the face imo!

maximo
08-08-2009, 07:58 AM
lol whatever makes you happy. Keep believing Murray is innocent with his desperate 'come on' on every single point.

Spewing hate for Murray is what makes YOU happy. Good for you.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 07:59 AM
Cheering on a double-fault makes you deserve a punch right in the face imo!Murray might just be the first play ive ever heard of doing this, have there been ANY other?:???:

namelessone
08-08-2009, 08:00 AM
Look,it all depends on how you view the h2h's,it is a matter of perspective.

What does it mean if Fed has weak h2h's with Nadal and Murray? Well it means that those 2 guys know how to play Fed and that Fed cannot impose his natural game on them as on the rest of the ATP.
Personally I think it says more about Fed's own generation then about who is the better player out of Fed,Nadal and Murray.If young guns like Nadal could take out Fed when he was dominating the ATP(funny enough his first win over fed was on HC not clay) and Murray can beat him in non-Slams it's just a sign that it can/could be done.But Safin,Roddick,Hewitt,Nalbandian,Davydenko couldn't find the key to his game and got stumped on.Safin and Nalbandian didn't have the mental game to take it to Fed although they were very talented and they didn't improve enough,they remained headcases.Hewitt and Davydenko were/are fighters but Lleyton has had medical issues and davydenko is merely a quarters,max semifinal guy.

Nadal and Murray are different.They know that Fed is more mature and has more weapons than them.Nadal exposed Fed's weakness for all to see:hit the backhand and never back down.Easy to say,hard to do.
Beating Fed is like beating every other player.All you have to do is take him out of his comfort zone and keep pressing on.In short do to Fed what Fed does to the ATP.What makes Federer such a good player is how he picks his moments.There are a few key moments in a tennis match in which the tide can turn.Fed usually wins those and his opponents lose it mentally.His problems with Nadal,aside from the tennis issues like the topspin and leftyness,is that Nadal refuses to budge and puts Fed in a totally new situation for him.That's why Nadal has 13 wins over the guy who is the potential GOAT.Murray is a great admirer of Nadal and has borrowed from his strategy.He frustrated Fed in 2 out of 3 matches but lacks Nadal's mental edge and hasn't been able to do in GS.
If the guys from Fed's generation had gotten their s**t together and analyzed their weaknesses and decided to improve them,perhaps they could have done better against Roger.Look at Roddick.He proved at this WB that with a new attitude and a revised game he can get close to beating Fed.Think of all the things he could have achieved if he had improved his backhand and his movement on court,not to mention his approach shots.I was watching the WB final this year and at times he looked like Rafa,plus the added bonus of the terrific serve.Roddick won his only slam in 2004.Until the stefanki collaboration,the only thing that was at the 2004 level was his serve.His forehand became less and less of a weapon as the years passed and his backhand was crappy as hell,not to mention the fact that his movement was mediocre at best.To be fair,Roddick has a good mental game,its just that in the past it has crumbled against Federer.After Stefanki came along,he is actually hitting winners from his backhand side,and on the run no less,he moves better and he is willing to suffer more.Now that's a good attitude to bring to the game,not the "hope my serve works today or else I'm screwed" one.

I don't think head-to-head statistics are that important although they can be important in the guy you are dominating/dominated by is your rival.It's one thing to have a losing 0-8 h2h with a guy who is always losing early or isn't winning Slams but if that guy is your rival it can raise a few eyebrows.
Case in point:Nadal was dominated by Nalbandian and Blake when he was younger,especially on HC,because his topspinning counter-punching style didn't match up against those guys who hit flat and have very good backhands.Nadal is 2-3 against James but has won their last 2 meetings and he is 1-2 against David and has won their last meeting.

Just my 2 cents.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Murray might just be the first play ive ever heard of doing this, have there been ANY other?:???:
I cant remember anyone, not even Hewitt in 2000-2002...is there any utube-link of this?? If its true, well...Then it is just BAD.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 08:03 AM
Look,it all depends on how you view the h2h's,it is a matter of perspective.

What does it mean if Fed has weak h2h's with Nadal and Murray? Well it means that those 2 guys know how to play Fed and that Fed cannot impose his natural game on them as on the rest of the ATP.
Personally I think it says more about Fed's own generation then about who is the better player out of Fed,Nadal and Murray.If young guns like Nadal could take out Fed when he was dominating the ATP(funny enough his first win over fed was on HC not clay) and Murray can beat him in non-Slams it's just a sign that it can/could be done.But Safin,Roddick,Hewitt,Nalbandian,Davydenko couldn't find the key to his game and got stumped on.Safin and Nalbandian didn't have the mental game to take it to Fed although they were very talented and they didn't improve enough,they remained headcases.Hewitt and Davydenko were/are fighters but Lleyton has had medical issues and davydenko is merely a quarters,max semifinal guy.

Nadal and Murray are different.They know that Fed is more mature and has more weapons than them.Nadal exposed Fed's weakness for all to see:hit the backhand and never back down.Easy to say,hard to do.
Beating Fed is like beating every other player.All you have to do is take him out of his comfort zone and keep pressing on.In short do to Fed what Fed does to the ATP.What makes Federer such a good player is how he picks his moments.There are a few key moments in a tennis match in which the tide can turn.Fed usually wins those and his opponents lose it mentally.His problems with Nadal,aside from the tennis issues like the topspin and leftyness,is that Nadal refuses to budge and puts Fed in a totally new situation for him.That's why Nadal has 13 wins over the guy who is the potential GOAT.Murray is a great admirer of Nadal and has borrowed from his strategy.He frustrated Fed is 2 out of 3 matches but lacks Nadal's mental edge and hasn't been able to do in GS.
If the guys from Fed's generation had gotten their s**t together and analyzed their weaknesses and decided to improve them,perhaps they could have done better against Roger.Look at Roddick.He proved at this WB that with a new attitude and a revised game he can get close to beating Fed.Think of all the things he could have achieved if he had improved his backhand and his movement on court,not to mention his approach shots.I was watching the WB final this year and at times he looked like Rafa,plus the added bonus of the terrific serve.Roddick won his only slam in 2004.Until the stefanki collaboration,the only thing that was at the 2004 level was his serve.His forehand became less and less of a weapon as the years passed and his backhand was crappy as hell,not to mention the fact that his movement was mediocre at best.To be fair,Roddick has a good mental game,its just that in the past it has crumbled against Federer.After Stefanki came along,he is actually hitting winners from his backhand side,and on the run no less,he moves better and he is willing to suffer more.Now that's a good attitude to bring to the game,not the "hope my serve works today or else I'm screwed" one.

I don't think head-to-head statistics are that important although they can be important in the guy you are dominating/dominated by is your rival.It's one thing to have a losing 0-8 h2h with a guy who is always losing early but if that guy is your rival it can raise a few eyebrows.
Case in point:Nadal was dominated by Nalbandian and Blake when he was younger,especially on HC,because his topspinning counter-punching style didn't match up against those guys who hit flat and have very good backhands.Nadal is 2-3 against James but has won their last 2 meetings and he is 1-2 against David and has won their last meeting.

Just my 2 cents.

Great post,great post!
Youre 2 cents is worth a lot imo

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 08:06 AM
I cant remember anyone, not even Hewitt in 2000-2002...is there any utube-link of this?? If its true, well...Then it is just BAD.
There is no link but I'm quite surprised you guys didn't know about this. It was buzzing in the Murray vs wawrink thread

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 08:07 AM
Look,it all depends on how you view the h2h's,it is a matter of perspective.

What does it mean if Fed has weak h2h's with Nadal and Murray? Well it means that those 2 guys know how to play Fed and that Fed cannot impose his natural game on them as on the rest of the ATP.
Personally I think it says more about Fed's own generation then about who is the better player out of Fed,Nadal and Murray.If young guns like Nadal could take out Fed when he was dominating the ATP(funny enough his first win over fed was on HC not clay) and Murray can beat him in non-Slams it's just a sign that it can/could be done.But Safin,Roddick,Hewitt,Nalbandian,Davydenko couldn't find the key to his game and got stumped on.Safin and Nalbandian didn't have the mental game to take it to Fed although they were very talented and they didn't improve enough,they remained headcases.Hewitt and Davydenko were/are fighters but Lleyton has had medical issues and davydenko is merely a quarters,max semifinal guy.

Nadal and Murray are different.They know that Fed is more mature and has more weapons than them.Nadal exposed Fed's weakness for all to see:hit the backhand and never back down.Easy to say,hard to do.
Beating Fed is like beating every other player.All you have to do is take him out of his comfort zone and keep pressing on.In short do to Fed what Fed does to the ATP.What makes Federer such a good player is how he picks his moments.There are a few key moments in a tennis match in which the tide can turn.Fed usually wins those and his opponents lose it mentally.His problems with Nadal,aside from the tennis issues like the topspin and leftyness,is that Nadal refuses to budge and puts Fed in a totally new situation for him.That's why Nadal has 13 wins over the guy who is the potential GOAT.Murray is a great admirer of Nadal and has borrowed from his strategy.He frustrated Fed in 2 out of 3 matches but lacks Nadal's mental edge and hasn't been able to do in GS.
If the guys from Fed's generation had gotten their s**t together and analyzed their weaknesses and decided to improve them,perhaps they could have done better against Roger.Look at Roddick.He proved at this WB that with a new attitude and a revised game he can get close to beating Fed.Think of all the things he could have achieved if he had improved his backhand and his movement on court,not to mention his approach shots.I was watching the WB final this year and at times he looked like Rafa,plus the added bonus of the terrific serve.Roddick won his only slam in 2004.Until the stefanki collaboration,the only thing that was at the 2004 level was his serve.His forehand became less and less of a weapon as the years passed and his backhand was crappy as hell,not to mention the fact that his movement was mediocre at best.To be fair,Roddick has a good mental game,its just that in the past it has crumbled against Federer.After Stefanki came along,he is actually hitting winners from his backhand side,and on the run no less,he moves better and he is willing to suffer more.Now that's a good attitude to bring to the game,not the "hope my serve works today or else I'm screwed" one.

I don't think head-to-head statistics are that important although they can be important in the guy you are dominating/dominated by is your rival.It's one thing to have a losing 0-8 h2h with a guy who is always losing early or isn't winning Slams but if that guy is your rival it can raise a few eyebrows.
Case in point:Nadal was dominated by Nalbandian and Blake when he was younger,especially on HC,because his topspinning counter-punching style didn't match up against those guys who hit flat and have very good backhands.Nadal is 2-3 against James but has won their last 2 meetings and he is 1-2 against David and has won their last meeting.

Just my 2 cents.nice post..:)

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-08-2009, 08:10 AM
hahahaha, sorry but no, just no

Agreed--and for all of the pumping of Murray over the past couple of years, his most vocal cheerleaders still cannot explain Murray failing to win the slams.

Serendipitous
08-08-2009, 08:11 AM
Confessions from a Gulbis fan: It really bothers me that he can't win back to back matches.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 08:12 AM
Confessions from a Gulbis fan: It really bothers me that he can't win back to back matches.rofl, hell get there one day....perhaps:twisted:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 08:12 AM
There is no link but I'm quite surprised you guys didn't know about this. It was buzzing in the Murray vs wawrink thread
I didnt know!! Wow, well that makes Andy Murray into an idiot in my eyes, i cant ever imagine Federer or even Nadal doing that.

<3tennis!!!
08-08-2009, 08:14 AM
I didnt know!! Wow, well that makes Andy Murray into an idiot in my eyes, i cant ever imagine Federer or even Nadal doing that.yeah or anyone!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 08:14 AM
Confessions from a Gulbis fan: It really bothers me that he can't win back to back matches.
Lol, i feel for you man, i really do.:twisted:

batz
08-08-2009, 08:15 AM
Agreed--and for all of the pumping of Murray over the past couple of years, his most vocal cheerleaders still cannot explain Murray failing to win the slams.

Murray has only been in the top 10 regularly for a little over 12 months. Who has been saying Murray should be winning slams two years ago?

Murray hasn't won a slam by his 15th attempt. I'm assuming you were making similar criticisms of Federer a few years ago, given that he took 18 attempts before winning one?

Serendipitous
08-08-2009, 08:17 AM
Lol, i feel for you man, i really do.:twisted:

Thank you. :(:(

batz
08-08-2009, 08:22 AM
I didnt know!! Wow, well that makes Andy Murray into an idiot in my eyes, i cant ever imagine Federer or even Nadal doing that.

There is no link becasue it did not happen on anywhere near the scale he is making out. It MAY have happened once - even then I'm not sure. If it was as prevelant as he says it was then it will be easy for him to post a link - yes? That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

On the subject of anecdotes. I noticed ARod emitting a few 'c'mon's at Karlovic UE. This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem when it's not Murray who does it.

For the record - I'd rather he didn't c'mon at others' UE. But I'm not going to hang him for it.

maximo
08-08-2009, 08:26 AM
There is no link becasue it did not happen on anywhere near the scale he is making out. It MAY have happened once - even then I'm not sure. If it was as prevelant as he says it was then it will be easy for him to post a link - yes? That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

On the subject of anecdotes. I noticed ARod emitting a few 'c'mon's at Karlovic UE. This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem when it's not Murray who does it.

For the record - I'd rather he didn't c'mon at others' UE. But I'm not going to hang him for it.

I've seen Federer do much worse when he was in his early 20's. Then again, without proof of Murray doing that and i'm pretty sure he never did the accusations are meaningless.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 08:26 AM
There is no link becasue it did not happen on anywhere near the scale he is making out. It MAY have happened once - even then I'm not sure. If it was as prevelant as he says it was then it will be easy for him to post a link - yes? That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

On the subject of anecdotes. I noticed ARod emitting a few 'c'mon's at Karlovic UE. This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem when it's not Murray who does it.

For the record - I'd rather he didn't c'mon at others' UE. But I'm not going to hang him for it.
Whoever does this , it is unacceptable! And to do it at your "home-tournament" (trying to get the crowd going, for the wrong reason) is even more unacceptable! Well well, i didnt start this thread to bash Murray, so im done.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 08:28 AM
I've seen Federer do much worse when he was in his early 20's. Then again, without proof of Murray doing that and i'm pretty sure he never did the accusations are meaningless.
You have seen Federer do much worse? Care to share?

batz
08-08-2009, 08:33 AM
Whoever does this , it is unacceptable! And to do it at your "home-tournament" (trying to get the crowd going, for the wrong reason) is even more unacceptable! Well well, i didnt start this thread to bash Murray, so im done.

You've made your mind up - fair enough. I have no recollection of Murray screaming c'mon on a DF or encouraging the crowd to celebrate a DF. I'm sure the crowd might have cheered him winning a game on an opponent's DF but I'd argue that's fair enough.

If he did do it then like you, I'd condemn it.

batz
08-08-2009, 08:34 AM
You have seen Federer do much worse? Care to share?

Not shaking the umpire's hand after a match is pretty bad is it not?

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 08:36 AM
who are your two favs? roddick and...?

gonzalez

10 chars

NamRanger
08-08-2009, 08:37 AM
Murray has only been in the top 10 regularly for a little over 12 months. Who has been saying Murray should be winning slams two years ago?

Murray hasn't won a slam by his 15th attempt. I'm assuming you were making similar criticisms of Federer a few years ago, given that he took 18 attempts before winning one?




Actually in 2007 the hype was so big after the Australian Open 2007 I wanted to blow my head off. People were talking as if though Murray was the next best thing since sliced bread after the Nadal match where he still lost.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 08:38 AM
There is no link becasue it did not happen on anywhere near the scale he is making out. It MAY have happened once - even then I'm not sure. If it was as prevelant as he says it was then it will be easy for him to post a link - yes? That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

On the subject of anecdotes. I noticed ARod emitting a few 'c'mon's at Karlovic UE. This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem when it's not Murray who does it.

For the record - I'd rather he didn't c'mon at others' UE. But I'm not going to hang him for it.
Unless we see Roddick shouting 'come on' at about 40% of his opponent's UE's then it's just Roddick having one of his moments. There are plenty of players that throw c'mon's after a UE, heck even innocent rafa does it. But Murray is the only player I recall saying it after a DF which isn't showing the greatsportsmanship that some claim he has.

maximo
08-08-2009, 08:39 AM
Not shaking the umpire's hand after a match is pretty bad is it not?

Please move to 2:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULx84JnGAJ4

And that's minus the racquet braking scenario.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 08:39 AM
Not shaking the umpire's hand after a match is pretty bad is it not?
Yes it is Federer should not have done that he was wrong

batz
08-08-2009, 08:43 AM
Actually in 2007 the hype was so big after the Australian Open 2007 I wanted to blow my head off. People were talking as if though Murray was the next best thing since sliced bread after the Nadal match where he still lost.

Can you give us some examples Nam? AO 2008 was the first time I saw Murray mooted as even an outside bet at a slam, but I'll happily stand corrected.

batz
08-08-2009, 08:45 AM
Yes it is Federer should not have done that he was wrong

And Murray is wrong to cheer opponents DFs.

yung goon
08-08-2009, 08:49 AM
how classless of him.

diamondback
08-08-2009, 08:51 AM
murray is overhyped because we want him to do well

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 09:02 AM
And Murray is wrong to cheer opponents DFs.
Yes I am glad we have come to an agreement :)

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 09:05 AM
don't single out murray, there are far worse players out there who are noted for there bad sportmanship - hewitt, fish and others

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:06 AM
Not shaking the umpire's hand after a match is pretty bad is it not?
It is, as long as the umpire didnt totally screw up, but thats pointed towards the umpire, cheering a df is pointed towards ur opponent.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:08 AM
I was so incredibly happy when Roger beat Rafael Nadal in Madrid, and when he won the French Open i was extatic! And when he won Wimbledon i was close to a heart-attack but i also felt that the circle had been closed. I think Roger Federer is the greatest tennisplayer so far in history...

BUT...I hate to admit this... but it REALLY bothers me that he has a 7-13 h2h against his main rival. That he has a 2-6 h2h against Moooorray...that he always (outside of slams) wins the 1st set against Murray and then only God knows what happens...I can understand that a player like Federer wants to mainly focus on the slams, but that shouldnt mean that he repeatedly pretty much gets "owned" by the no2, no3 AND no4 in Masters Series-tournaments and ends up with a really bad h2h against ALL 3 of his main rivals. If you repeatedly loses to your main rivals in MS-tournaments i think its gonna be even harder to beat them when it matters most, in GS.

Thoughts?? (Nadal/Sampras-fans behave!!)

It doesn't bother me personally. Both Murray and Nadal are bad matchups for Federer, and Federer is a bad matchup to many players who are bad matchups to Nadal and Murray. It's the circle of life, I mean the circle of tennis, or whatever. Point is, as long as Fed is still winning slams and is beating more than 95% of the field, it really doesn't matter.

For example, Nadal has been beating Federer all these years more than the opposite happened, but it was Federer who had a huge winning % over the field, much bigger than Nadal's. Even Nadal in 2008 wasn't as strong as Federer in 2006 as far as % goes.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 09:08 AM
I've seen Federer do much worse when he was in his early 20's. Then again, without proof of Murray doing that and i'm pretty sure he never did the accusations are meaningless.

This is a lie based on the apocryphal accounts on Federer's youth. Everyone says he was such a brat, but no one's reproduced anything other than one video of Federer throwing his racquet at his chair when he was something like seventeen.

There's lots of video of Murray acting like an immature brat as an adult.

Tiberius
08-08-2009, 09:10 AM
This is a lie based on the apocryphal accounts on Federer's youth. Everyone says he was such a brat, but no one's reproduced anything other than one video of Federer throwing his racquet at his chair when he was something like seventeen.

There's lots of video of Murray acting like an immature brat as an adult.

Take this one for example,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TzSjzgZzI

How old was he in this video?

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:11 AM
This is a lie based on the apocryphal accounts on Federer's youth. Everyone says he was such a brat, but no one's reproduced anything other than one video of Federer throwing his racquet at his chair when he was something like seventeen.

There's lots of video of Murray acting like an immature brat as an adult.

Err... Maybe because Federer wasn't in the public eye before he won Wimbledon??

Murray's anything but immature...unless you're Fed fan that is.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Err... Maybe because Federer wasn't in the public eye before he won Wimbledon??

Murray's anything but immature...unless you're Fed fan that is.

You said you'd seen Federer do worse. Care to give any proof? I've been watching Federer pretty closely since 2001 and I've never seen him do the things you imply that he's done. All you do is go back to people's statements that say that Federer acted badly when he was in his early teens. He was, however, reprimanded by his parents and is now better for it. This is something that Judy apparently missed.

I didn't say Murray was immature, I said he's acted like an immature brat on the court. Take your pick of video proof. There's plenty to choose from.

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Err... Maybe because Federer wasn't in the public eye before he won Wimbledon??

Murray's anything but immature...unless you're Fed fan that is.

I disagree, the guy punches his racket strings

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Err... Maybe because Federer wasn't in the public eye before he won Wimbledon??

Murray's anything but immature...unless you're Fed fan that is.

HaHAHAHAHAHAHAha

Please. I like Murray, but Murray is one of the most immature players on tour. He is also one of the very few players who will say "come on" after a double fault.

JeMar
08-08-2009, 09:17 AM
I've seen Federer do much worse when he was in his early 20's. Then again, without proof of Murray doing that and i'm pretty sure he never did the accusations are meaningless.

Take this one for example,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TzSjzgZzI

How old was he in this video?

I'm pretty sure Roger never called Peter (both of them), Tony, Jose, and Sverin a "****ing ****."

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:20 AM
HaHAHAHAHAHAHAha

Please. I like Murray, but Murray is one of the most immature players on tour. He is also one of the very few players who will say "come on" after a double fault.
I agree with this, i think his mother pampered him for to long, told him he is the most beatiful boy in the world, this can be a result of that- spoilt brat.

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:22 AM
HaHAHAHAHAHAHAha

Please. I like Murray, but Murray is one of the most immature players on tour. He is also one of the very few players who will say "come on" after a double fault.

Considering Federer's age, don't even start that garbage.

I could go through all the things he's done and said about other pro's. And believe me, they are anything but mature.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:23 AM
I agree with this, i think his mother pampered him for to long, told him he is the most beatiful boy in the world, this can be a result of that- spoilt brat.

It is clear maximo is the same as gj011, only the Murray version. He cannot see anything past his love for Murray and his hatred towards Fed.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 09:23 AM
HaHAHAHAHAHAHAha

Please. I like Murray, but Murray is one of the most immature players on tour. He is also one of the very few players who will say "come on" after a double fault.
According to maximo that never happened :)

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:24 AM
Considering Federer's age, don't even start that garbage.

I could go through all the things he's done and said about other pro's. And believe me, they are anything but mature.

You see MagicianOfPrecision, these are the kind of replies I'm talking about. gj011 quality here.

フェデラー
08-08-2009, 09:25 AM
Err... Maybe because Federer wasn't in the public eye before he won Wimbledon??

Murray's anything but immature...unless you're Fed fan that is.

are you honestly that stupid?

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 09:26 AM
Considering Federer's age, don't even start that garbage.

I could go through all the things he's done and said about other pro's. And believe me, they are anything but mature.
Believe it or not no player is as mature as their fans make them out to be not Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Roddick or even nadal.

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:29 AM
You see MagicianOfPrecision, these are the kind of replies I'm talking about. gj011 quality here.

What kind of reply was that? You didn't even bother answering my valid points. Or maybe they were too true that there was no need of a reply?
are you honestly that stupid?

Nah, you're just too much of a fanboy to see it.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:31 AM
It is clear maximo is the same as gj011, only the Murray version. He cannot see anything past his love for Murray and his hatred towards Fed.
You are right, its very obvious. I thought (im an idiot) that this would be a hater-free thread but some ppl are S O FAST to bash Federer...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:32 AM
You see MagicianOfPrecision, these are the kind of replies I'm talking about. gj011 quality here.
Yeah i can see the "quality"...:-|

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:32 AM
You are right, its very obvious. I thought (im an idiot) that this would be a hater-free thread but some ppl are S O FAST to bash Federer...

But everyone bashes Murray and Djokovic so it goes both ways. :-?

dragonfire
08-08-2009, 09:34 AM
You are right, its very obvious. I thought (im an idiot) that this would be a hater-free thread but some ppl are S O FAST to bash Federer...

well, apparently i'm 3 other people who have been banned already, strange though, i thought if you get banned - you can't get back on (which is the purpose of getting banned).

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:34 AM
What kind of reply was that? You didn't even bother answering my valid points. Or maybe they were too true that there was no need of a reply?


Nah, you're just too much of a fanboy to see it.

Since you are ignoring every point I make, there is really no reason to reply to you. Every reply is *******s are like this and *******s are like that.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:34 AM
But everyone bashes Murray and Djokovic so it goes both ways. :-?
Well when we started out this thread a couple of hours ago the tone was fairly "decent"...

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 09:34 AM
But everyone bashes Murray and Djokovic so it goes both ways. :-?
Paranoia

10 char

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:35 AM
well, apparently i'm 3 other people who have been banned already, strange though, i thought if you get banned - you can't get back on (which is the purpose of getting banned).
Ok, i wouldnt know anything about that...?

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:35 AM
But everyone bashes Murray and Djokovic so it goes both ways. :-?

The only basher here is you. You have to create a flame war in every Federer thread there is. It is your whole purpose.

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:36 AM
Since you are ignoring every point I make, there is really no reason to reply to you. Every reply is *******s are like this and *******s are like that.

I actually said the word '*******' in that post you quoted. :-?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:36 AM
The only basher here is you. You have to create a flame war in every Federer thread there is. It is your whole purpose.
Writing and asking for hater-free thread is like inviting them over for a barbecue...

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:39 AM
The only basher here is you. You have to create a flame war in every Federer thread there is. It is your whole purpose.

No i don't create the flame wars. You Fedatics started bringing up and pinning down on Murray's 'come ons' so i had a go at Federer's antics. But of course, that's not aloud. :?

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-08-2009, 09:42 AM
Murray has only been in the top 10 regularly for a little over 12 months. Who has been saying Murray should be winning slams two years ago?

I have a few hitting partners and friends who love Murray, and they have been acting like Murray is the Second Coming with a date to racking up the slams for a couple of years, but as of the last slam played...their notion is unwarranted.

Murray hasn't won a slam by his 15th attempt. I'm assuming you were making similar criticisms of Federer a few years ago, given that he took 18 attempts before winning one?


As for Federer, before his 1st slam, I thought he had considerable talent, but I never thought he would transform into anything of the monster he turned out to be--frankly, how many (pre 1st slam) accurately charted the full measure of his success and hyped him as though it was a sure thing?

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 09:42 AM
No i don't create the flame wars. You Fedatics started bringing up and pinning down on Murray's 'come ons' so i had a go at Federer's antics. But of course, that's not aloud. :?
so what the hell do you want us to say 'Murray's come on's are good for the sport, every player should do it etc.......' :-?

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 09:44 AM
OK, I've had enough of Maximo. Another addition to ignore list.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-08-2009, 09:45 AM
No i don't create the flame wars. You Fedatics started bringing up and pinning down on Murray's 'come ons' so i had a go at Federer's antics. But of course, that's not aloud. :?

Yeah, but your tit-for-tat posting does little to quiet the so-called Fedatics, does it?

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:45 AM
so what the hell do you want us to say 'Murray's come on's are good for the sport, every player should do it etc.......' :-?

What do you want me to say 'Federer not shaking the umpire's hand is acceptable'?

OK, I've had enough of Maximo. Another addition to ignore list.

Fine by me.

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:46 AM
Yeah, but your tit-for-tat posting does little to quiet the so-called Fedatics, does it?

There's too many of them to keep quite.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 09:48 AM
What do you want me to say 'Federer not shaking the umpire's hand is acceptable'?



Fine by me.
Its acceptable if the umpire doesn't want a handshake ;)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Maximo: How would you feel if Murray was from Poland? Is it that you like him as a man/boy/tennisplayer or is it because he is "British/English"? Or a combination of both?

maximo
08-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Maximo: How would you feel if Murray was from Poland? Is it that you like him as a man/boy/tennisplayer or is it because he is "British/English"? Or a combination of both?

i like him as a tennis player and because he's British.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 09:57 AM
i like him as a tennis player and because he's British.
Alright fair enough, then i rest my case.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Fed didnt exactly beat a Nadal at 100 percent at Madrid.. Far from it.. Of course he did beat him and thats all that matters.

But Nadal was obviously on rubber legs that match due to the grueling 4 hour match with Djoker the day before.


At the end of the day Roger is winning and had a great clay court season.. But didnt have to beat the best to do so.. I think its safe Fed was EXTREMELY fortunate.


And regardless of what anyone says.. He needs some wins over Nadal at the slams to truly establish himself as THEEE BEST.. So far he can claim so, but not when you factor in Nadal..


When was the last time Fed beat a healthy Nadal? When was the last time Fed has won a slam over Nadal? A LONG TIME

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 10:00 AM
Fed didnt exactly beat a Nadal at 100 percent at Madrid.. Far from it.. Of course he did beat him and thats all that matters.

But Nadal was obviously on rubber legs that match due to the grueling 4 hour match with Djoker the day before.


At the end of the day Roger is winning and had a great clay court season.. But didnt have to beat the best to do so.. I think its safe Fed was EXTREMELY fortunate.


And regardless of what anyone says.. He needs some wins over Nadal at the slams to truly establish himself as THEEE BEST.. So far he can claim so, but not when you factor in Nadal..
It was just a matter of time before a Sampras fan showed up lol

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 10:01 AM
Fed didnt exactly beat a Nadal at 100 percent at Madrid.. Far from it.. Of course he did beat him and thats all that matters.

But Nadal was obviously on rubber legs that match due to the grueling 4 hour match with Djoker the day before.


At the end of the day Roger is winning and had a great clay court season.. But didnt have to beat the best to do so.. I think its safe Fed was EXTREMELY fortunate.
Well, if he cant finish his semifinals fast enough to be fresh and ready for the finals then it is really his own problem.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 10:03 AM
Fed didnt exactly beat a Nadal at 100 percent at Madrid.. Far from it.. Of course he did beat him and thats all that matters.

But Nadal was obviously on rubber legs that match due to the grueling 4 hour match with Djoker the day before.


At the end of the day Roger is winning and had a great clay court season.. But didnt have to beat the best to do so.. I think its safe Fed was EXTREMELY fortunate.


And regardless of what anyone says.. He needs some wins over Nadal at the slams to truly establish himself as THEEE BEST.. So far he can claim so, but not when you factor in Nadal..


When was the last time Fed beat a healthy Nadal? When was the last time Fed has won a slam over Nadal? A LONG TIME

If you think Nadal and Djokovic played for 4 hours you are in denial.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 10:03 AM
It was just a matter of time before a Sampras fan showed up lol
They always seems to find the Federer threads for some strange reason...

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 10:04 AM
Well, if he cant finish his semifinals fast enough to be fresh and ready for the finals then it is really his own problem.
Either way If Federer beats or loses to him Federer will always be at the receiving end of insults

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 10:05 AM
Either way If Federer beats or loses to him Federer will always be at the receiving end of insults
Yeah thats the thing that really amazes me...i dont expect everyone to see Federers greatness, but bashing him?? come on.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:05 AM
Well, if he cant finish his semifinals fast enough to be fresh and ready for the finals then it is really his own problem.

Thats true.. Its not Fed's fault.. he did what he had to do.. But that doesnt negate the fact, that Fed needs some big wins over Nadal when Nadal is in top form.. Not gassed Nadal operating on a half a tank, and on rubber legs.


If Nadal comes back to top form, healthy and continues where he left off earlier this year, Fed is in BIG TROUBLE IMO


But it still goes down in the history books Fed wins Wimbeldon and the French.. But got a giftwrap in doing so.. Avoiding all the bigs like Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.. Guys who do have the game to give Fed fits.

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:07 AM
Thats true.. Its not Fed's fault.. he did what he had to do.. But that doesnt negate the fact, that Fed needs some big wins over Nadal when Nadal is in top form.. Not gassed Nadal operating on a half a tank, and on rubber legs.


If Nadal comes back to top form, healthy and continues where he left off earlier this year, Fed is in BIG TROUBLE IMO


But it still goes down in the history books Fed wins Wimbeldon and the French.. But got a giftwrap in doing so.. Avoiding all the bisgs like Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.. Guys who do have the game to give Fed fits.

So do you guys not count Wimbledon's 06 and 07? Nadal had plenty of chances in that 07 final, and still couldn't get it done...I don't see why you don't count this one.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:08 AM
Either way If Federer beats or loses to him Federer will always be at the receiving end of insults

If Fed proves he can beat a healthy Nadal.. And make the h2h a little more appealing slam wise, than no.. Fed would not be bashed nearly as much..

But French Open and Wimbeldon?? Come on... Fed got lucky as hell. Admit it

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:09 AM
So do you guys not count Wimbledon's 06 and 07? Nadal had plenty of chances in that 07 final, and still couldn't get it done...I don't see why you don't count this one.



Nadal was a grass court rookie in 06.. Playing his 4th grass court tournament of his ENTIRE CAREER.

I agree that the 07 WImbeldon finals was a big win for Roger. The 06 Wimbeldon title not so much

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 10:09 AM
Thats true.. Its not Fed's fault.. he did what he had to do.. But that doesnt negate the fact, that Fed needs some big wins over Nadal when Nadal is in top form.. Not gassed Nadal operating on a half a tank, and on rubber legs.


If Nadal comes back to top form, healthy and continues where he left off earlier this year, Fed is in BIG TROUBLE IMO


But it still goes down in the history books Fed wins Wimbeldon and the French.. But got a giftwrap in doing so.. Avoiding all the bigs like Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.. Guys who do have the game to give Fed fits.
Then your statements has to be put on hold until NADAL is 100% which means Nadal will never be fully fit when Federer beats him due to the nadal fans biased opinions thus everybody making this same statement over and over again it will never stop.

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:12 AM
Nadal was a grass court rookie in 06.. Playing his 4th grass court tournament of his ENTIRE CAREER.

I agree that the 07 WImbeldon finals was a big win for Roger. The 06 Wimbeldon title not so much

The 2 wins at the YEC don't count either?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 10:12 AM
Thats true.. Its not Fed's fault.. he did what he had to do.. But that doesnt negate the fact, that Fed needs some big wins over Nadal when Nadal is in top form.. Not gassed Nadal operating on a half a tank, and on rubber legs.


If Nadal comes back to top form, healthy and continues where he left off earlier this year, Fed is in BIG TROUBLE IMO


But it still goes down in the history books Fed wins Wimbeldon and the French.. But got a giftwrap in doing so.. Avoiding all the bigs like Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.. Guys who do have the game to give Fed fits.
I hear you, i do, and i understand you, but injuries is as you know a part of the game. If Rafa pushes himself so much and so hard in order to win titles and therefore cant face Federer in GS due to injuries, then thats just tough luck.

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 10:14 AM
Nadal was a grass court rookie in 06.. Playing his 4th grass court tournament of his ENTIRE CAREER.

I agree that the 07 WImbeldon finals was a big win for Roger. The 06 Wimbeldon title not so much
So basically it doesn't count.......:-?

That's sounds a bit harsh, I mean Federer beat nadal when he was at his best during 2004-2007. Is it fair on Federer's behalf that Nadal wasn't the grass court player he was today. Also that according to your biased opinion Nadal's wins over Federer at Wimbledon, RG(2008) and AO don't count. But then again this forum is surrounded with a lot of double standards. So somehow Nadal's win over federer during that period are much greater than Federer's over Nadal during 2006/7. Great that makes much sense :confused:

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:17 AM
All of Roger's achivements in the history books count no matter what I say anyways..

I mean Im just trying to put some things into perspective at all.


Listen if Fed, had a more decent h2h Against main rival at the slams and was not taken out essentially every slam surface outside of the USO.. This wouldnt even be an issue would it?



In this regard.. Fed has accomplished just about everything there is to do in the world tennis.. Except this one feat.. And I do think its imperative for Fed to at least PROVE himself against Nadal at the slams.. He hasnt done so in 2 years

THESEXPISTOL
08-08-2009, 10:18 AM
I love watching Federer playing. He's my favourite player. But i don't understand how the users of this forum can talk about Federer all the time instead of talking about tennis.
There's a measure for everything.
He's the GOAT for me. If the others don't agree me. I try to expain why is the GOAT only one time. If the person still not agrees with me. That's ok. I respect her/his opinion and rest my case.
Why can't you guys do the same?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 10:19 AM
All of Roger's achivements in the history books count no matter what I say anyways..

I mean Im just trying to put some things into perspective at all.


Listen if Fed, had a more decent h2h Against main rival at the slams and was not taken out essentially every slam surface outside of the USO.. This would even be an issue.

Listen, look at the title of this thread, i brought up exactly what you just wrote in my intro, it bothers me personally that his h2h against Nadal is so bad, and vs Murray to.Im a fan of Federer and i had the balls to admit that this bothers me, i dont think many will admit that. Then why did you have to bring it up?

zagor
08-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Fed didnt exactly beat a Nadal at 100 percent at Madrid.. Far from it.. Of course he did beat him and thats all that matters.

I couldn't care less if Nadal was 100%,95%,87%,65% or whatever,he showed up and lost to the better player of the day.Maybe Fed wasn't 100% in some of his losses to Nadal as well but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter,what matters is who is the better player that day.

But Nadal was obviously on rubber legs that match due to the grueling 4 hour match with Djoker the day before..

Nadal was playing at a similar level in the final the way he did during whole Madrid which,he was playing on a low level for his standards on clay during the whole tourney(he never looked comfortable and on his game).The difference was that unlike Verdasco and Djokovic Fed used his chances,they didn't(Novak had PLENTY of chances and Verdasco was up 4-0 in second set).

At the end of the day Roger is winning and had a great clay court season.. But didnt have to beat the best to do so.. I think its safe Fed was EXTREMELY fortunate.

So having one shot at the FO without Nadal in the span of 5 years is extrememly fortunate according to you? There's a reason nobody won 5 FOs in a row,it's extremely hard to do.Fed outlasted,outwaited Nadal so some credit has to go to him as well(although I don't expect you to give him any).Was he fortunate? I would say so but EXTREMELY fortunate? Nope.

And regardless of what anyone says.. He needs some wins over Nadal at the slams to truly establish himself as THEEE BEST.. So far he can claim so, but not when you factor in Nadal.

With this I agree,to be the GOAT Fed needs to get a few more wins against Nadal in slams in the future.I don't think that's very likely given their age gap so you will most likely always have that to fall on in the GOAT debate.

When was the last time Fed beat a healthy Nadal? When was the last time Fed has won a slam over Nadal? A LONG TIME

Oh,again this "healthy" thing.When was the last time Nadal beat a healthy Fed? Fed had mono in 2008 and in AO this year he had a bad back.See how easy it is to make ridiculous excuses?

The last time Fed beat Nadal was in Madrid final.The last time he won in a slam over him was 2007 Wimbledon final.

zagor
08-08-2009, 10:23 AM
Then your statements has to be put on hold until NADAL is 100% which means Nadal will never be fully fit when Federer beats him due to the nadal fans biased opinions thus everybody making this same statement over and over again it will never stop.

Problem is that Fed can't beat Nadal when Nadal is 100% because he never is 100% when he loses,there's always some excuse..

All-rounder
08-08-2009, 10:24 AM
All of Roger's achivements in the history books count no matter what I say anyways..

I mean Im just trying to put some things into perspective at all.


Listen if Fed, had a more decent h2h Against main rival at the slams and was not taken out essentially every slam surface outside of the USO.. This wouldnt even be an issue would it?



In this regard.. Fed has accomplished just about everything there is to do in the world tennis.. Except this one feat.. And I do think its imperative for Fed to at least PROVE himself against Nadal at the slams.. He hasnt done so in 2 years
What I'm saying is that you are taking into account of Federer's losses during the 2008/2009 season when he was not at his best at the same time nadal was at his best. But what I don't get is why Federer's two wins over nadal are diminished. Before you reply you are going to say 'Because nadal has beaten Federer on every surface'. Apart from their clay meetings when were these defeats?? During 2008/2009. The argument can't even out because Federer wasn't able to beat nadal on hardcourts during his peak years because nadal wasn't good enough to make it to finals. Then on the other hand you have nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 where nadal was in his prime and Federer is out of his. Now do you see what I mean these different opinions somewhat seem pointless when you look at them.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:27 AM
I couldn't care less if Nadal was 100%,95%,87%,65% or whatever,he showed up and lost to the better player of the day.Maybe Fed wasn't 100% in some of his losses to Nadal as well but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter,what matters is who is the better player that day.



Nadal was playing at a similar level in the final the way he did during whole Madrid which,he was playing on a low level for his standards on clay during the whole tourney(he never looked comfortable and on his game).The difference was that unlike Verdasco and Djokovic Fed used his chances,they didn't(Novak had PLENTY of chances and Verdasco was up 4-0 in second set).



So having one shot at the FO without Nadal in the span of 5 years is extrememly fortunate according to you? There's a reason nobody won 5 FOs in a row,it's extremely hard to do.Fed outlasted,outwaited Nadal so some credit has to go to him as well(although I don't expect you to give him any).Was he fortunate? I would say so but EXTREMELY fortunate? Nope.



With this I agree,to be the GOAT Fed needs to get a few more wins against Nadal in slams in the future.I don't think that's very likely given their age gap so you will most likely always have that to fall on in the GOAT debate.



Oh,again this "healthy" thing.When was the last time Nadal beat a healthy Fed? Fed had mono in 2008 and in AO this year he had a bad back.See how easy it is to make ridiculous excuses?

The last time Fed beat Nadal was in Madrid final.The last time he won in a slam over him was 2007 Wimbledon final.




Ok thats fair.. If you just look at it from that extreme degree..


HOWEVER, I dont want people here belly ache or complain about how AGassi GOT LUCKY, at Wimbeldon in 92 for instance, or Sampras lucky at Wimbeldon 00 or how Sampras didnt have to deal with an Agassi who was MIA for 3 years.



Cause I can snap right back and put it right into the Fed's fans faces like yourself about how fortunate Roger has been with some of his slam draws, and avoiding top threats as well

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:31 AM
What I'm saying is that you are taking into account of Federer's losses during the 2008/2009 season when he was not at his best at the same time nadal was at his best. But what I don't get is why Federer's two wins over nadal are diminished. Before you reply you are going to say 'Because nadal has beaten Federer on every surface'. Apart from their clay meetings when were these defeats?? During 2008/2009. The argument can't even out because Federer wasn't able to beat nadal on hardcourts during his peak years because nadal wasn't good enough to make it to finals. Then on the other hand you have nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 where nadal was in his prime and Federer is out of his. Now do you see what I mean these different opinions somewhat seem pointless when you look at them.




Yes you can use that argument.. But I think we can almost agree beyond a shadow of a doubt, That if we elminate Nadal, from the draws in 08... Fed wins the remaining 3 slams of the years most likely.. So for saying Roger "wasnt at his best"... He was in good enough form for well if we substitute Nadal away, Fed wins the French Open, Wimbeldon and USO last year and most likely the AO this year along with the French and Wimbeldon this year. So Fed has been in good enough form slam wise I think we can agree.


Fed is still dominant nonethless CONSISTENTLY over the rest of the field slam wise.. There is no debating that as his results show it..


And that goes right back to circular aruging or reasoning... Fed NEEDS to overcome Nadal at the slams

FredMurray
08-08-2009, 10:32 AM
Federer was definitely performing at his best(not AO 07 level but better than his 2009 slam performances) during wimbledon 2008, he lost no sets before the final.

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:35 AM
Ok thats fair.. If you just look at it from that extreme degree..

HOWEVER, I dont want people here belly ache or complain about how AGassi GOT LUCKY, at Wimbeldon in 92 for instance, or Sampras lucky at Wimbeldon 00 or how Sampras didnt have to deal with an Agassi who was MIA for 3 years.

Cause I can snap right back and put it right into the Fed's fans faces like yourself about how fortunate Roger has been with some of his slam draws, and avoiding top threats as well

No one here even brings up Sampras except for you and CF...most non Sampras fans agree that he is now on the 2nd tier of greats now that his record is passed, w/ Fed on par w/ Borg, Laver, Gonzalez, etc.

Pete's FO record is a much bigger hole than Fed's h2h vs Nadal, IMO. Fed has beaten Nadal 7 times, Pete only made it past the 3rd of the FO 4 times. That's a bigger hole to me.

Both are holes, it's just a question of which you think is a bigger hole. I say Pete's FO record, you think otherwise. Agree to disagree, at this pt.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-08-2009, 10:39 AM
GameSampras up to what he does best, cry foul 24/7

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:41 AM
Im still not understanding why People are saying Fed last year wasnt at his best? OVerral maybe not.. But Slam wise he was hitting it out of the park..


Do any of you actually remember Fed's run at Wimbeldon last year? He went the whole Wimbledon slam until the Finals last year without Dropping 1 SINGLE SET!!! I mean I wouldnt say Fed was exactly off form there. LOL. French Open he performed very well.. This year he was more or less in trouble to a few guys like Haas or Del Potro. And the USO, Fed had a tough one against Andreev, but turned it out and blew Djoker and Murray off the court. And then breezed through the Australian Open this year.. Fed isnt at his peak 05-06.. But the guy still the best player on tour next to a healthy Nadal..

Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed still gets is standard 3 slams a year last year and prolly this as well. Same as he was doing at his peak

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:44 AM
No one here even brings up Sampras except for you and CF...most non Sampras fans agree that he is now on the 2nd tier of greats now that his record is passed, w/ Fed on par w/ Borg, Laver, Gonzalez, etc.

Pete's FO record is a much bigger hole than Fed's h2h vs Nadal, IMO. Fed has beaten Nadal 7 times, Pete only made it past the 3rd of the FO 4 times. That's a bigger hole to me.

Both are holes, it's just a question of which you think is a bigger hole. I say Pete's FO record, you think otherwise. Agree to disagree, at this pt.

BULLCRAP!!


Everyone rags on another player's of the past draws. Agassi is always getting ragged on for his Wimbeldon title, cause he to avoid a few of the guys notorious for beating him.. Sampras' draws have been slammed by Federphiles..


But when you reverse this on them... They cant deal with it..


Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

jamesblakefan#1
08-08-2009, 10:48 AM
BULLCRAP!!


Everyone rags on another player's of the past draws. Agassi is always getting ragged on for his Wimbeldon title, cause he to avoid a few of the guys notorious for beating him.. Sampras' draws have been slammed by Federphiles..


But when you reverse this on them... They cant deal with it..


Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's tit for tat then, you call this an era full of clowns, and when people mention some of the dubious draws Sampras had, you can't take it and have a fit.

I've always been of the belief, you win 7 matches to get a slam, no one can take that away from you. But you obviously believe otherwise when it comes to this era, yet when people do the same to some of Pete's draws, it's somehow wrong?

zagor
08-08-2009, 10:50 AM
Ok thats fair.. If you just look at it from that extreme degree..


HOWEVER, I dont want people here belly ache or complain about how AGassi GOT LUCKY, at Wimbeldon in 92 for instance, or Sampras lucky at Wimbeldon 00 or how Sampras didnt have to deal with an Agassi who was MIA for 3 years.



Cause I can snap right back and put it right into the Fed's fans faces like yourself about how fortunate Roger has been with some of his slam draws, and avoiding top threats as well

When did I complain about Agassi's Wimbledon and FO wins? Heck I'm one of the few here who actually has a high opinion on Medvedev,I thought he was a very talented claycourter who underachieved.

I also have a pretty high opinion of Goran as well(who was probably my favourite player from the 90s),I consider him to have been a very talented grasscourter at his best.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:52 AM
It's tit for tat then, you call this an era full of clowns, and when people mention some of the dubious draws Sampras had, you can't take it and have a fit.

I've always been of the belief, you win 7 matches to get a slam, no one can take that away from you. But you obviously believe otherwise when it comes to this era, yet when people do the same to some of Pete's draws, it's somehow wrong?


Its their perogrative and yours. I mean you an entitled to your opinion as I mine.. But dont go out and attack some other player for avoiding the likes of players that could beat them, and then sit there and try to defend you favorite player and making excuses for him when he gets avoids certain players or gets weaker draws.. I dont really like that.. It is a bit hypocritical

Tiberius
08-08-2009, 10:53 AM
Wonder what happened to this thread?

http://i25.tinypic.com/9u7tic.jpg

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 10:54 AM
When did I complain about Agassi's Wimbledon and FO wins? Heck I'm one of the few here who actually has a high opinion on Medvedev,I thought he was a very talented claycourter who underachieved.

I also have a pretty high opinion of Goran as well(who was probably my favourite player from the 90s),I consider him to have been a very talented grasscourter at his best.



I wasnt directly point it at you.. But when people say Agassi got through a Wimbeldon draw in 92 avoiding the few players that could take him out or someone else got a weak draw, but yet when Federer avoids the likes of his rival who has consitently beaten him at the slam for the last 2 years and it has now carried over onto every surface or gets to avoid his two biggest threats at RG that would have had to of played back to back , people try and make excuses. I dont like that.

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 11:02 AM
Wonder what happened to this thread?

http://i25.tinypic.com/9u7tic.jpg

Those threads get deleted the next day.

Tiberius
08-08-2009, 11:05 AM
Those threads get deleted the next day.

Shame...I would've liked to see who the best was...

ubermeyer
08-08-2009, 11:34 AM
I was so incredibly happy when Roger beat Rafael Nadal in Madrid, and when he won the French Open i was extatic! And when he won Wimbledon i was close to a heart-attack but i also felt that the circle had been closed. I think Roger Federer is the greatest tennisplayer so far in history...

BUT...I hate to admit this... but it REALLY bothers me that he has a 7-13 h2h against his main rival. That he has a 2-6 h2h against Moooorray...that he always (outside of slams) wins the 1st set against Murray and then only God knows what happens...I can understand that a player like Federer wants to mainly focus on the slams, but that shouldnt mean that he repeatedly pretty much gets "owned" by the no2, no3 AND no4 in Masters Series-tournaments and ends up with a really bad h2h against ALL 3 of his main rivals. If you repeatedly loses to your main rivals in MS-tournaments i think its gonna be even harder to beat them when it matters most, in GS.

Thoughts?? (Nadal/Sampras-fans behave!!)

he has a winning h2h against djokovic, right?

ubermeyer
08-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Don't you know?

Since Murray has the best 2 hander in the game, he always goes to Federer's backhand during the rallies since his will break down while Murray's won't. ;) That's the only reason. Nadal and Djokovic have done the exact same thing.

lol murray has the best 2 hander in the game????
murray's backhand wouldn't make the top 25 best 2 handers of today

maximo
08-08-2009, 11:39 AM
lol murray has the best 2 hander in the game????
murray's backhand wouldn't make the top 25 best 2 handers of today

I don't know whether i should reply to this individual's stupidity.

VivalaVida
08-08-2009, 11:41 AM
lol murray has the best 2 hander in the game????
murray's backhand wouldn't make the top 25 best 2 handers of today
ROFL!!!!!! hahahah

maximo
08-08-2009, 11:42 AM
It's currently the best since Nalby's out of action.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 11:50 AM
Im still not understanding why People are saying Fed last year wasnt at his best? OVerral maybe not.. But Slam wise he was hitting it out of the park..


Do any of you actually remember Fed's run at Wimbeldon last year? He went the whole Wimbledon slam until the Finals last year without Dropping 1 SINGLE SET!!! I mean I wouldnt say Fed was exactly off form there. LOL. French Open he performed very well.. This year he was more or less in trouble to a few guys like Haas or Del Potro. And the USO, Fed had a tough one against Andreev, but turned it out and blew Djoker and Murray off the court. And then breezed through the Australian Open this year.. Fed isnt at his peak 05-06.. But the guy still the best player on tour next to a healthy Nadal..

Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed still gets is standard 3 slams a year last year and prolly this as well. Same as he was doing at his peak


At the slams, he was certainly hitting it "out". Please, Fed is past his prime, anyone with a pair of eyes can see that. He isn't hitting the ball as cleanly, his movement is slower, his instincts on the returns are also worse. It doesn't take a lot of changes to make you a far worse player, in tennis every small change is has a huge affect on your game.

Are you telling me Fed hit his FH in the Wimbly 08 final as well as he did in past matches? Are you telling me Fed has served as well in the AO 09 final? How about all the losses to Blake, Roddick, Fish, Canas, Karlovic, Stepanek from 2008? These are all guys Federer usually owns (no disrespect to those players of course) yet he lost to all of them in 2008.

Yes, he reached 3 slam finals and one semi, but he had to fight harder than ever to get there:

AO 2008 - Tpisarvic catches Federer in ine of the early rounds and gives him quite a beating. Federer barely wins this in 5 long sets.

FO 2008 - Fed plays craptaciluar tennis the whole tourny. The fact he even reaches the final is amazing - losses sets on the way to Gonzo, Monfils, in his way to his worst final ever.

Wimbly 2008 - This is a different one. Due to Fed's serve and slice, his decline is shown the least on the grass, and he still looks unbeatable. The final was a coin toss.

USO 2008 - Federer is almost eliminated by Andreev, he has to win it in 5. After that match he plays some good tennis - nothing 2006-ish about it, but still good tennis. Still, Fed had to struggle, especially given the fact he came to the tourny with losses to Simon, Karlovic, and Blake on the hard courts.

Federer's decline has continued in 2009 as well. He no longer has it easy where his talent alone only won him the matches, he had to fight hard to win. Bedych, Acasuso, Haas, Del Potro and Roddick will tell you that. Federer wins today more becuase of his mental streangth, experience and fighting spirit a lot more than he wins because of his talent, game and movement.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 11:51 AM
lol murray has the best 2 hander in the game????
murray's backhand wouldn't make the top 25 best 2 handers of today

I have to disagree. Murray has one of the best 2HBHs in the world today. He can keep the ball in play with it, go for it DTL, croos court, or even with a great slice. Murray has it all.

maximo
08-08-2009, 11:53 AM
I have to disagree. Murray has one of the best 2HBHs in the world today. He can keep the ball in play with it, go for it DTL, croos court, or even with a great slice. Murray has it all.

I CANT BELIEVE YOU JUST said THAT!!?!?

Has P Agony CHANGED!?

Murray is the dark side after all.

I'm the dark side! MUHAHAHA!

VivalaVida
08-08-2009, 11:54 AM
At the slams, he was certainly hitting it "out". Please, Fed is past his prime, anyone with a pair of eyes can see that. He isn't hitting the ball as cleanly, his movement is slower, his instincts on the returns are also worse. It doesn't take a lot of changes to make you a far worse player, in tennis every small change is has a huge affect on your game.

Are you telling me Fed hit his FH in the Wimbly 08 final as well as he did in past matches? Are you telling me Fed has served as well in the AO 09 final? How about all the losses to Blake, Roddick, Fish, Canas, Karlovic, Stepanek from 2008? These are all guys Federer usually owns (no disrespect to those players of course) yet he lost to all of them in 2008.

Yes, he reached 3 slam finals and one semi, but he had to fight harder than ever to get there:

AO 2008 - Tpisarvic catches Federer in ine of the early rounds and gives him quite a beating. Federer barely wins this in 5 long sets.

FO 2008 - Fed plays craptaciluar tennis the whole tourny. The fact he even reaches the final is amazing - losses sets on the way to Gonzo, Monfils, in his way to his worst final ever.

Wimbly 2008 - This is a different one. Due to Fed's serve and slice, his decline is shown the least on the grass, and he still looks unbeatable. The final was a coin toss.

USO 2008 - Federer is almost eliminated by Andreev, he has to win it in 5. After that match he plays some good tennis - nothing 2006-ish about it, but still good tennis. Still, Fed had to struggle, especially given the fact he came to the tourny with losses to Simon, Karlovic, and Blake on the hard courts.

Federer's decline has continued in 2009 as well. He no longer has it easy where his talent alone only won him the matches, he had to fight hard to win. Bedych, Acasuso, Haas, Del Potro and Roddick will tell you that. Federer wins today more becuase of his mental streangth, experience and fighting spirit a lot more than he wins because of his talent, game and movement.
I actually agree with GameSampras. Federer is not at his peak but he is still in his prime and a complete force at the GSs. Federer is still playing good tennis, it may not be his peak, but he is certainly in his prime.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 11:55 AM
I actually agree with GameSampras. Federer is not at his peak but he is still in his prime and a complete force at the GSs. Federer is still playing good tennis, it may not be his peak, but he is certainly in his prime.

I have to disagree on that.

Federer is a force on the slams because he has the mental strength, fitness, experience that everyone lacks. But his game doesn't work as well as before.

mandy01
08-08-2009, 12:10 PM
I have to disagree on that.

Federer is a force on the slams because he has the mental strength, fitness, experience that everyone lacks. But his game doesn't work as well as before.
His game has declined by quite a margin.His ROS dosent look as strong to me.His ability to shift from defense to offense has also declined.
Roger was also incredibly fast in his best years.IMO he's half a step slower now.
I've seen Roger play exquisite tennis..I actually liked how he played at RG..I didnt quite like how he played during Wimbledon.
I know he still won,but I've seen him play so much better than that.Today its more his heart that wins him matches.
And has he added more topspin to his forehand or something?

namelessone
08-08-2009, 12:15 PM
The past prime argument is passed on by people who have no respect for Federer,even though some claim to be his fans.
In the guys worst year he won 1 slam,USOpen and made at least semifinals in the other 3.That's probably crappy by his standards but it's awesome for everyone else.The guy wins an average of 2 slams per year.If Nadal hadn't appeared he would have had at least 2 Calendar Slams.

The problem is that some people expect too much and get all emotional instead of thinking with a straight head.Federer shanks his forehand a bit more than in the past and his serve only goes off against Nadal.He's also half a step slower.But he is still phenomenal so stop *****ing about it.
A friend of mine made a terrific analogy which I have already stated but I am happy to repeat.Here it goes.In 2004-2007 Fed played like a god most of the time except for the forbidden ground of RG,where the titan(insert other mythical creature at will)Nadal defeated him everytime and grounded Fed for a shot period of time in the spring but fed flew again once he was out of the clay season.But Nadal learned to play on other surfaces and faced Fed on grass and HC and he defeated him there too.
Suddenly everything seemed over for Fed but the tides turned when another guy took Nadal out at the forbidden ground(RG)and Nadal got injured and didn't enter WB.

With Nadal out of the picture,Fed flew again,winning RG and WB quite convincingly and earned his place in the pantheon of legendary players.And I put his shaky performance at RG down to the fact that Nadal got ousted quickly so the pressure moved on to Fed.If Nadal hadn't entered RG I'm sure Fed would have been more cool and calculated,and would have played better.Which is what happened at Wimbledon,where he only lost 1 set up until the final.

To get back to the story,Fed doesn't play like a god nowadays,he plays like a demi-god.But the fact is that he plays among the mere mortals of the ATP and if something happens to Nadal/Murray/perhaps Roddick he can win slams for another 2 years.

So quit complaining.Most tennis player have 1-2 terrific years.Federer already has at least 4.And he has 15 Slams.And he has Career Slam.And he's very talented.And he's a daddy now and has a good family life.Who cares if he shanks a bit more or isn't as fast? That's nitpicking,my friends. Everyone has the right to grow old and Fed's doing great for a 28 year old.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:15 PM
His game has declined by quite a margin.His ROS dosent look as strong to me.His ability to shift from defense to offense has also declined.
Roger was also incredibly fast in his best years.IMO he's half a step slower now.
I've seen Roger play exquisite tennis..I actually liked how he played at RG..I didnt quite like how he played during Wimbledon.
I know he still won,but I've seen him play so much better than that.Today its more his heart that wins him matches.
And has he added more topspin to his forehand or something?

I think he added more spin and he's not as aggressive as before. It always looks to me like he's afraid of hitting his shots. During the Wimbly final he played very passive tennis, barely went for his shots, it's clear he lost confidence on his FH for the last year and a half.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:18 PM
The past prime argument is passed on by people who have no respect for Federer,even though some claim to be his fans.
In the guys worst year he won 1 slam,USOpen and made at least semifinals in the other 3.That's probably crappy by his standards but it's awesome for everyone else.The guy wins an average of 2 slams per year.If Nadal hadn't appeared he would have had at least 2 Calendar Slams.

The problem is that some people expect too much and get all emotional instead of thinking with a straight head.Federer shanks his forehand a bit more than in the past and his serve only goes off against Nadal.He's also half a step slower.But he is still phenomenal so stop *****ing about it.
A friend of mine made a terrific analogy which I have already stated but I am happy to repeat.Here it goes.In 2004-2007 Fed played like a god most of the time except for the forbidden ground of RG,where the titan(insert other mythical creature at will)Nadal defeated him everytime and grounded Fed for a shot period of time in the spring but fed flew again once he was out of the clay season.But Nadal learned to play on other surfaces and faced Fed on grass and HC and he defeated him there too.
Suddenly everything seemed over for Fed but the tides turned when another guy took Nadal out at the forbidden ground(RG)and Nadal got injured and didn't enter WB.

With Nadal out of the picture,Fed flew again,winning RG and WB quite convincingly and earned his place in the pantheon of legendary players.And I put his shaky performance at RG down to the fact that Nadal got ousted quickly so the pressure moved on to Fed.If Nadal hadn't entered RG I'm sure Fed would have been more cool and calculated,and would have played better.Which is what happened at Wimbledon,where he only lost 1 set up until the final.

To get back to the story,Fed doesn't play like a god nowadays,he plays like a demi-god.But the fact is that he plays among the mere mortals of the ATP and if something happens to Nadal/Murray/perhaps Roddick he can win slams for another 2 years.

So quit complaining.Most tennis player have 1-2 terrific years.Federer already has at least 4.And he has 15 Slams.And he has Career Slam.And he's very talented.And he's a daddy now and has a good family life.Who cares if he shanks a bit more or isn't as fast? That's nitpicking,my friends. Everyone has the right to grow old and Fed's doing great for a 28 year old.

Where the hell did you see any complaints?

All I was saying is Federer isn't at his prime anymore, and you admitted it too in your post. I don't have a problem with that - it's the natural order of things and it was bound to happen sooner or later. I'm just saying nowdays he wins more by his heart than by his game.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:19 PM
Another gloryhunting ******* thread. Enough already!

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:20 PM
Another gloryhunting ******* thread. Enough already!

Haha, your'e one to speak...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:23 PM
Wow...sat down for 5 minutes and thought about this...3 hours later its got 200 posts:shock: These boards really are fascinating!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:28 PM
GameSampras: Id love to hear your answer to post 172...

mandy01
08-08-2009, 12:30 PM
The past prime argument is passed on by people who have no respect for Federer,even though some claim to be his fans.
In the guys worst year he won 1 slam,USOpen and made at least semifinals in the other 3.That's probably crappy by his standards but it's awesome for everyone else.The guy wins an average of 2 slams per year.If Nadal hadn't appeared he would have had at least 2 Calendar Slams.

The problem is that some people expect too much and get all emotional instead of thinking with a straight head.Federer shanks his forehand a bit more than in the past and his serve only goes off against Nadal.He's also half a step slower.But he is still phenomenal so stop *****ing about it.
A friend of mine made a terrific analogy which I have already stated but I am happy to repeat.Here it goes.In 2004-2007 Fed played like a god most of the time except for the forbidden ground of RG,where the titan(insert other mythical creature at will)Nadal defeated him everytime and grounded Fed for a shot period of time in the spring but fed flew again once he was out of the clay season.But Nadal learned to play on other surfaces and faced Fed on grass and HC and he defeated him there too.
Suddenly everything seemed over for Fed but the tides turned when another guy took Nadal out at the forbidden ground(RG)and Nadal got injured and didn't enter WB.

With Nadal out of the picture,Fed flew again,winning RG and WB quite convincingly and earned his place in the pantheon of legendary players.And I put his shaky performance at RG down to the fact that Nadal got ousted quickly so the pressure moved on to Fed.If Nadal hadn't entered RG I'm sure Fed would have been more cool and calculated,and would have played better.Which is what happened at Wimbledon,where he only lost 1 set up until the final.

To get back to the story,Fed doesn't play like a god nowadays,he plays like a demi-god.But the fact is that he plays among the mere mortals of the ATP and if something happens to Nadal/Murray/perhaps Roddick he can win slams for another 2 years.

So quit complaining.Most tennis player have 1-2 terrific years.Federer already has at least 4.And he has 15 Slams.And he has Career Slam.And he's very talented.And he's a daddy now and has a good family life.Who cares if he shanks a bit more or isn't as fast? That's nitpicking,my friends. Everyone has the right to grow old and Fed's doing great for a 28 year old.

Er...what? Do you even follow the sport seriously? Who's nitpicking?
Get a clue.Spotting out areas where his game has naturally declined is wrong?
Why do you think he relies more on his serve in pretty much all his matches now than he did in 06 and 07? Why do you think he looks to finish off the points faster now than before in pretty much all his matches?
Duh!

mandy01
08-08-2009, 12:34 PM
I think he added more spin and he's not as aggressive as before. It always looks to me like he's afraid of hitting his shots. During the Wimbly final he played very passive tennis, barely went for his shots, it's clear he lost confidence on his FH for the last year and a half. Not so much lost confidence than the slight decline in footwork that makes the difference for him.His forehand is still the best in the game when its on IMO..Its the footwork that falters more often than before.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:37 PM
Not so much lost confidence than the slight decline in footwork that makes the difference for him.His forehand is still the best in the game when its on IMO..Its the footwork that falters more often than before.

I think he also lost some confidence. I think in the Miami match versus Djokovic he hit his FH with no confidence at all, and the ball didn't obey. I do think his FH is the best shot in the game when it's on, but lately it's not on a lot of the times.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:37 PM
TMOP - only 1100 in the world? Pffft.


J/K.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:38 PM
TMOP - only 1100 in the world? Pffft.


J/K.
Yes... Only 1100 in the world...didnt reach the heights that Fed did:)

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:38 PM
I think he also lost some confidence. I think in the Miami match versus Djokovic he hit his FH with no confidence at all, and the ball didn't obey. I do think his FH is the best shot in the game when it's on, but lately it's not on a lot of the times.

It sure was in the FO final. He was hitting the ball beautifully for those 2 hours. The backhand too. Of course his serve was wondrous - legendary tiebreaker with 4 aces on all 4 service points.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:39 PM
Yes... Only 1100 in the world...didnt reach the heights that Fed did:)

Don't you feel the odds are stacked against players who don't get the early backing of the academies? Or is just a talent thing?

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:40 PM
It sure was in the FO final. He was hitting the ball beautifully for those 2 hours. The backhand too. Of course his serve was wondrous - legendary tiebreaker with 4 aces on all 4 service points.

In the FO final it was on, but in the semi and against Haas - not so much.

namelessone
08-08-2009, 12:41 PM
My point was that this "past prime" is very good,even phenomenal I would say.I have watched all of Fed's matches in this Wimbledon and he had minor problems in a few games in the first round and when he dropped his level a bit in the kohly match.That is 1 set in 7 freaking matches!!! And in the last wimbledon where he was supposedly "not his best" didn't lose a set until the final.

A lot of Fed fans have lived through the domination phase and have way too many expectations from Fed and don't know how to adjust those expectations with Fed's increasing age.The guys wins RG,wins Wimbledon,has 15 Slams,Career Slam.What more do you want from him? I mean if he's winning titles he's still great,right?

Federer looks a bit "off" because some of you expect him to be 100% all the time but you don't take into account his age,the defeats he has amassed at the hands of Nadal(which took a toll on Fed's psyche),his glorious career(which can become a burden at some point because everybody expects you to win) and so on.My point is that Federer has the right to shank a bit,to be a bit slower,it's just normal,it's not something that comes from mono if you get my drift.You should be happy that his "not best" is good enought to beat 95% of the guys on Tour.And fed's game is not so physical as Rafa's so as to say that he will be more vulnerable if he gets old.


The conclusion is,please cut Fed some slack,he can't be near perfect all the time.It doesn't matter if he is in his prime or past prime,he is still beating almost everyone even with his supposedly weaker game.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:42 PM
In the FO final it was on, but in the semi and against Haas - not so much.

Hey as long as he can squeak by to the final, and then bring his A-game I'm alright with that. The days of JesusFed from beginning to end of an event have been over for 2.5 years now. Essentially the last 5 slam wins have been warrior-type wins rather then "floating on air".

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:43 PM
BTW it's happened to all the greatest ones. Gretzkey, Jordan. They all lost a step at some point and made up for it with intelligence and experience. Tennis is not yet such a brute-force game that late 20s guys can't be a the top.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Hey as long as he can squeak by to the final, and then bring his A-game I'm alright with that. The days of JesusFed from beginning to end of an event have been over for 2.5 years now. Essentially the last 5 slam wins have been warrior-type wins rather then "floating on air".

Exactly. Now tell that to GameSampras.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:45 PM
Exactly. Now tell that to GameSampras.

That moron is on my ignore list. Somebody should hit him with a cluebat.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:47 PM
Don't you feel the odds are stacked against players who don't get the early backing of the academies? Or is just a talent thing?
Early backing from different academies can be a great thing if you have coaches that really believes in you, the negative side of an academy is that you easily can fall into shadow since there are many good players and the coaches are always more interested in the best players. I never went to an academy, i did A LOT of my practice on my own with my friends without a coach, worked out fairly OK. I believe its very important that you do a lot on your own, you cant be to dependant on a coach or it will end up that you cant take any decisions on your own since you are so dependant on your coach. Gotta learn to stand on your own feet without someone holding ur back.

mandy01
08-08-2009, 12:50 PM
My point was that this "past prime" is very good,even phenomenal I would say.I have watched all of Fed's matches in this Wimbledon and he had minor problems in a few games in the first round and when he dropped his level a bit in the kohly match.That is 1 set in 7 freaking matches!!! And in the last wimbledon where he was supposedly "not his best" didn't lose a set until the final.

A lot of Fed fans have lived through the domination phase and have way too many expectations from Fed and don't know how to adjust those expectations with Fed's increasing age.The guys wins RG,wins Wimbledon,has 15 Slams,Career Slam.What more do you want from him? I mean if he's winning titles he's still great,right?

Federer looks a bit "off" because some of you expect him to be 100% all the time but you don't take into account his age,the defeats he has amassed at the hands of Nadal(which took a toll on Fed's psyche),his glorious career(which can become a burden at some point because everybody expects you to win) and so on.My point is that Federer has the right to shank a bit,to be a bit slower,it's just normal,it's not something that comes from mono if you get my drift.You should be happy that his "not best" is good enought to beat 95% of the guys on Tour.And fed's game is not so physical as Rafa's so as to say that he will be more vulnerable if he gets old.


The conclusion is,please cut Fed some slack,he can't be near perfect all the time.It doesn't matter if he is in his prime or past prime,he is still beating almost everyone even with his supposedly weaker game.
The bolded aspect comes into play only when he plays against Nadal.
And of course we 'cut him slack' so to speak..we love the guy!
We're just talking about the aspects in his game that have declined ..its a normal discussion.

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Early backing from different academies can be a great thing if you have coaches that really believes in you, the negative side of an academy is that you easily can fall into shadow since there are many good players and the coaches are always more interested in the best players. I never went to an academy, i did A LOT of my practice on my own with my friends without a coach, worked out fairly OK. I believe its very important that you do a lot on your own, you cant be to dependant on a coach or it will end up that you cant take any decisions on your own since you are so dependant on your coach. Gotta learn to stand on your own feet without someone holding ur back.

So you feel that an academy environment would not have given you much better overall results like top 800 or something? Is it just talent at that point that gets the job done - or is it something about academy training that teaches stroke consistency that allows players to win heaps of matches at the Challenger level so they can rise to the top 500?

FedFan_2009
08-08-2009, 12:51 PM
If Nadal's victories have inflicted damage onto Fed's psyche, I can't imagine how Andy Roddick hasn't committed suicide yet! It's just a tennis match...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 12:57 PM
So you feel that an academy environment would not have given you much better overall results like top 800 or something? Is it just talent at that point that gets the job done - or is it something about academy training that teaches stroke consistency that allows players to win heaps of matches at the Challenger level so they can rise to the top 500?
No, it wouldnt have gotten me to top 800 in the world, i had great training-possibilities at my local club, a great coach that gave his heart and soul to everyone. At that level it has got little to do with stroke consistency imo, its about luck,GREAT fitness and endurance,possibilities,coinscidences and if you have enough mone to travel to "easier" tournaments in less wellknown countries to pick up "easy" atp-points.

namelessone
08-08-2009, 01:00 PM
The bolded aspect comes into play only when he plays against Nadal.
And of course we 'cut him slack' so to speak..we love the guy!
We're just talking about the aspects in his game that have declined ..its a normal discussion.

True.But as I have said before it sometimes feels like nitpicking.Before, Federer made 9 out of 10 forehands.Now he shanks some and perhaps makes 7 out of 10 forehands.His service game is as good as before,just not against Nadal.

Where Fed has declined significantly,from about 2007 onwards is his backhand,not forehand,not movement,not serve,but the backhand.There was a time when he was aggresive with the BH,in the groundies and in the return game.Now he just get the ball back on the return game and doesn't hit a lot of winners as before with the BH.Not to mention that he slices the BH A LOT on clay and grass.I know that those surfaces take slice well but when he was in those situations in the past he would step up and make tha ball a winner,not just slice it back.

I feel that it's an empty discussion to point out's fed's shortcomings.There are very few of them and it seems wierd to me to discuss these things when this guy has one of the best runs of his life.

mandy01
08-08-2009, 01:15 PM
True.But as I have said before it sometimes feels like nitpicking.Before, Federer made 9 out of 10 forehands.Now he shanks some and perhaps makes 7 out of 10 forehands.His service game is as good as before,just not against Nadal.

Where Fed has declined significantly,from about 2007 onwards is his backhand,not forehand,not movement,not serve,but the backhand.There was a time when he was aggresive with the BH,in the groundies and in the return game.Now he just get the ball back on the return game and doesn't hit a lot of winners as before with the BH.Not to mention that he slices the BH A LOT on clay and grass.I know that those surfaces take slice well but when he was in those situations in the past he would step up and make tha ball a winner,not just slice it back.

I feel that it's an empty discussion to point out's fed's shortcomings.There are very few of them and it seems wierd to me to discuss these things when this guy has one of the best runs of his life.
There's no harm in talking about his game.
Your second para-Precisely.
He's still very good..its just the natural decline we talk about which happens to everyone.
I actually learn a lot out of these discussions.They are far more informative than some others.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 01:18 PM
There's no harm in talking about his game.
Your second para-Precisely.
He's still very good..its just the natural decline we talk about which happens to everyone.
I actually learn a lot out of these discussions.They are far more informative than some others.
Agree, these boards are very educational, ive seen journalists that writes about tennis for a living that would look very flat compared to some ppl around these boards.

World Beater
08-08-2009, 01:22 PM
murray doesn't freeze up in big matches.

he just got outplayed by verdasco, gonzalez, federer and roddick.


murray can play aggressive tennis but when he comes up against another player playing on-fire tennis, its difficult for him to beat that other guy.

murray isnt quite on the defensive level as nadal but is more versatile. he doesnt have the heaviness of shot like nadal but he can take the ball early.

all the problems murray gives federer are on the slower hardcourts. the faster hc and slow clay...federer either takes the ball earlier and plays "faster" than murray or he hits with more spin than murray on clay resulting in a heavier shot.

murray will be fine. he just doesnt have the same fire extinguishing capabilities as federer. federer would hardly lose to the same players that murray did in a GS - its a matchup thing. but he still is an incredible player and his time will come.

P_Agony
08-08-2009, 01:25 PM
True.But as I have said before it sometimes feels like nitpicking.Before, Federer made 9 out of 10 forehands.Now he shanks some and perhaps makes 7 out of 10 forehands.His service game is as good as before,just not against Nadal.

Where Fed has declined significantly,from about 2007 onwards is his backhand,not forehand,not movement,not serve,but the backhand.There was a time when he was aggresive with the BH,in the groundies and in the return game.Now he just get the ball back on the return game and doesn't hit a lot of winners as before with the BH.Not to mention that he slices the BH A LOT on clay and grass.I know that those surfaces take slice well but when he was in those situations in the past he would step up and make tha ball a winner,not just slice it back.

I feel that it's an empty discussion to point out's fed's shortcomings.There are very few of them and it seems wierd to me to discuss these things when this guy has one of the best runs of his life.

So if you feel it's an empty discussion we are not allowed to dicuss it? If we point out Fed's recent shortcomings it means we complain?

Fed is past his prime IMO. Doesn't mean he's not a good player - obviously he's still very good, and he still beats 95% of the players out there rather easily. But he HAS declined - that's a fact.

Jchurch
08-08-2009, 01:45 PM
Murray knows how to beat Federer now. Last years USO doesn't mean much because since then all the matches were taken by Murray. Also, the main reason why he won so convincingly was because Murray returned badly and he was being waay too defensive when compared to the Nadal match where he went out all guns blazing. And when did Roddick out backhand him?? From what i can remember he kept going to the Murray forehand.

Murray usually plays defensively, that is his bread and butter and how he wins

slicefox
08-08-2009, 01:56 PM
Murray knows how to beat Federer. i would class him as favorite if they met at the USO. ;)

BTW, Murray won the first set in Indian Wells.

you always have him as favorite, so this comment tells nothing

Lotto
08-08-2009, 02:07 PM
If I was Roger I would slice to Murrays down the line to Murrays forehand if Murray began picking on his backhand because the forehand down the line again is a risky shot and it would also allow Fed time to run around the backhand because if Murray wanted to change the diagonal again chances are he's gonna hit a looping forehand down the line and not hit the low percentage flat drive....The forehand-forehand rally favours Federer aswell....big time...

drwood
08-08-2009, 02:22 PM
I cant remember anyone, not even Hewitt in 2000-2002...is there any utube-link of this?? If its true, well...Then it is just BAD.

Hewitt was yelling "Come on!" after double faults in the 2005 Aus Open -- I think it was his match against Chela.

bruce38
08-08-2009, 02:26 PM
I agree with the OP, Nadal is definitely worrisome. He can play at the same level as Fed. But Murray and Djoker I think are not serious threats no matter what the current H2H is. They aren't in the same league as Rafa and Roger.

OddJack
08-08-2009, 02:31 PM
Only Nadal has beaten him on big stages, not Murray and he has better record agains Djoker. And 7-13 is not that bad and it should improve now that Nadal's deflating.

FredMurray
08-08-2009, 02:56 PM
I have properly made a mistake, but if not, then excluding super roddick and nadal, federer's record at wimbledon would be at GOAT levels .

Roger Federer


Wimbledon - before final


1 set lost - wimbledon 2009
0 set lost - Wimbledon 2008
1 set lost - wimbledon 2007
0 set lost - wimbledon 2006
1 set lost - wimbledon 2005
1 set lost - wimbledon 2004
1 set lost - wimbledon 2003


US Open - before final


4 set lost - us open 2003
3 set lost - us open 2004
2 set lost - us open 2005
1 set lost - us open 2006
2 set lost - us open 2007
3 set lost - us open 2008




Nadal... :evil:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Hewitt was yelling "Come on!" after double faults in the 2005 Aus Open -- I think it was his match against Chela.
Yeah but that was personal, Hewitt never got along with any of the Argentinians. As far as i know Murray and Wawrinka dont dislike each other.

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:02 PM
At the slams, he was certainly hitting it "out". Please, Fed is past his prime, anyone with a pair of eyes can see that. He isn't hitting the ball as cleanly, his movement is slower, his instincts on the returns are also worse. It doesn't take a lot of changes to make you a far worse player, in tennis every small change is has a huge affect on your game.

Are you telling me Fed hit his FH in the Wimbly 08 final as well as he did in past matches? Are you telling me Fed has served as well in the AO 09 final? How about all the losses to Blake, Roddick, Fish, Canas, Karlovic, Stepanek from 2008? These are all guys Federer usually owns (no disrespect to those players of course) yet he lost to all of them in 2008.

Yes, he reached 3 slam finals and one semi, but he had to fight harder than ever to get there:

AO 2008 - Tpisarvic catches Federer in ine of the early rounds and gives him quite a beating. Federer barely wins this in 5 long sets.

FO 2008 - Fed plays craptaciluar tennis the whole tourny. The fact he even reaches the final is amazing - losses sets on the way to Gonzo, Monfils, in his way to his worst final ever.

Wimbly 2008 - This is a different one. Due to Fed's serve and slice, his decline is shown the least on the grass, and he still looks unbeatable. The final was a coin toss.

USO 2008 - Federer is almost eliminated by Andreev, he has to win it in 5. After that match he plays some good tennis - nothing 2006-ish about it, but still good tennis. Still, Fed had to struggle, especially given the fact he came to the tourny with losses to Simon, Karlovic, and Blake on the hard courts.

Federer's decline has continued in 2009 as well. He no longer has it easy where his talent alone only won him the matches, he had to fight hard to win. Bedych, Acasuso, Haas, Del Potro and Roddick will tell you that. Federer wins today more becuase of his mental streangth, experience and fighting spirit a lot more than he wins because of his talent, game and movement.



WOW!!!


Lets be realistic here... A player, such as Fed in CONTENTION to win every single slam almost every year with the exception of the AO where he was suffering from mono is passed his prime?? Are u kidding me man?

Agassi at 35 was passed his prime.. Pete at 30 with a 35-16 year was passed his prime.. Fed at 28 who is either winning every slam or barely loses in every final due to Nadal, outside of the Australian Open is passed his prime? Gimme a break..



When Fed begins losing uncharacteristically in early rounds at the slams, against players he should be routinely destroying as he used to, than we will begin the passed his prime talk.


Do you actually want to compare ever year for Fed outside of 2006? That was Fed's PEAK YEAR. As in, he was at a level he will never achieve again..


There is difference between peaks and primes

Lionheart392
08-08-2009, 04:03 PM
WOW!!!


Lets be realistic here... A player, such as Fed in CONTENTION to win every single slam almost every year with the exception of the AO where he was suffering from mono is passed his prime?? Are u kidding me man?

Agassi at 35 was passed his prime.. Pete at 30 with a 35-16 year was passed his prime.. Fed at 28 who is either winning every slam or barely loses in every final due to Nadal, outside of the Australian Open is passed his prime? Gimme a break..



When Fed begins losing uncharacteristically in early rounds at the slams, against players he should be routinely destroying as he used to, than we will begin the passed his prime talk

Maybe again this is a case of prime vs peak, so could still be in his prime but not at his absolute peak?

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:11 PM
Listen, look at the title of this thread, i brought up exactly what you just wrote in my intro, it bothers me personally that his h2h against Nadal is so bad, and vs Murray to.Im a fan of Federer and i had the balls to admit that this bothers me, i dont think many will admit that. Then why did you have to bring it up?

Im sorry refesh my memory.. What did I bring up? Ive been away from the computer for a while now

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 04:12 PM
Maybe again this is a case of prime vs peak, so could still be in his prime but not at his absolute peak?

Absolutely..


Johnny Mac.. Peak 1984.
Borg had a peak year, I dunno way before my time though.. Which one it is is debatable I guess.

Sampras- Peak most consistent year in 1994. But had a good 5-6 year prime.

Agassi-99 Peak year.. Or 95 depending on who you ask..


Roger peak year 2006.. Been in his prime since 04


Every great has a peak year which they probably wont duplicate, chances are they wont.. Put primes last for a years.. Look back in history at all the all time greats.. Long primes, short peaks

Gaudio2004
08-08-2009, 06:24 PM
Murray knows how to beat Federer. i would class him as favorite if they met at the USO. ;)

BTW, Murray won the first set in Indian Wells.

BTW, Fed won the first 3 sets in the US Open 2008 final.

sh@de
08-08-2009, 07:04 PM
BTW, Fed won the first 3 sets in the US Open 2008 final.

ROFL. 10 chars.

Rippy
08-09-2009, 07:29 AM
I was so incredibly happy when Roger beat Rafael Nadal in Madrid, and when he won the French Open i was extatic! And when he won Wimbledon i was close to a heart-attack but i also felt that the circle had been closed. I think Roger Federer is the greatest tennisplayer so far in history...

BUT...I hate to admit this... but it REALLY bothers me that he has a 7-13 h2h against his main rival. That he has a 2-6 h2h against Moooorray...that he always (outside of slams) wins the 1st set against Murray and then only God knows what happens...I can understand that a player like Federer wants to mainly focus on the slams, but that shouldnt mean that he repeatedly pretty much gets "owned" by the no2, no3 AND no4 in Masters Series-tournaments and ends up with a really bad h2h against ALL 3 of his main rivals. If you repeatedly loses to your main rivals in MS-tournaments i think its gonna be even harder to beat them when it matters most, in GS.

Thoughts?? (Nadal/Sampras-fans behave!!)

Well, the Nadal thing is due to bad matchup, Nadal being able to chase down Federer's shots so well, poor mental strength against Nadal, and the majority of matches being on clay.

The Murray H2H isn't so bad really. With both players, you've got to remeber Federer is 5 years older than them. Federer can't have a winning H2H against every player til the day he retires. It's just impossible with him getting older.

Terr
08-09-2009, 10:39 AM
I think it's a mental thing. Federer's been the best for a long time. He's used to winning. Once he loses once, he takes a tremendous mental blow and seems to lose confidence in himself.

I think with all his physical skill, he could beat every one of his rivals each time they meet, but I just don't think he's mentally as tough as some other players.

Aabye
08-09-2009, 10:42 AM
I think it's a mental thing. Federer's been the best for a long time. He's used to winning. Once he loses once, he takes a tremendous mental blow and seems to lose confidence in himself.

I think with all his physical skill, he could beat every one of his rivals each time they meet, but I just don't think he's mentally as tough as some other players.

This is a wide spread argument and something I've just never been able to agree with. How can you say that when Nadal's H2H is still 13-7

Sartorius
08-09-2009, 10:57 AM
This is a wide spread argument and something I've just never been able to agree with. How can you say that when Nadal's H2H is still 13-7

Indeed.

People forget that Federer has lost to Nadal at French Open in each of his "peak" years (2005-2007), they were more or less tight matches, and all in finals except one. There were also some really close matches outside of French as well, which again went to Nadal's favour (Rome 2006). Yet he always bounced back, he could have drifted downwards in at least one of those years, but he didn't. I would say he actually has great resilience in him that people overlook.

And it's absurd to call a 15 time GS champion "not as mentally tough as others".. Who are these other players, except of course Nadal?..

Federer is mentally one of the strongest players ever, his career itself is proof to this.