PDA

View Full Version : Federer Facing Nadal


bladepdb
09-16-2009, 10:46 PM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

ArrowSmith
09-16-2009, 11:08 PM
Fed has 8 hardcourt slams the most in history. He also has the 56 in a row on hardcourts streak. You fail.

AlexTennisAllDayLong
09-16-2009, 11:11 PM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

federer dominated hard courts since he started, this year doesn't even matter, even if he don't win a hard court next 2 years he still be the best of all time, he don't even have a problem getting into every final, that counts for something

ArrowSmith
09-16-2009, 11:14 PM
Now he's 8-2 in hardcourt slam finals. 8-0 during his prime which is all that counts.

TheNatural
09-16-2009, 11:55 PM
edit wrong thread

prosealster
09-17-2009, 05:10 AM
major fail thread :(

Cyan
09-17-2009, 09:45 AM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

Actually, Fed is the best HC player of all time since he has won more HC slams than any other player ever....

bladepdb
09-17-2009, 10:53 PM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

msc886
09-17-2009, 10:56 PM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

This is not exactly the end of his career so we can't really make a conclusion based on that.

Tennis_Monk
09-18-2009, 03:00 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Why is that?. If anything a champion is defined by what he accomplished in his career. Not how he performed at the end of his career.

Every single champion finished weak including Sampras.Dont for one moment think that just becuase Sampras retired winning a USopen title, he finished strong. In fact Sampras had to wait almost two years for his last slam.

Applying your logic, if someone at the end of their career (marat Safin, santaro, etc) win a slam and retire -- that is considered mark of a champion and they now become greater than they were during their career?

dropshot winner
09-18-2009, 03:13 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.
So what you're saying is that Nadal cannot be considered a champion if he were to struggle as a 28 year old?

P_Agony
09-18-2009, 03:26 AM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

DP outplayed Federer in most of the match, Nadal didn't.
DP has won more overall points than Federer, Nadal didn't.
Fed choked away the AO final, in the USO he played badly against a red hot opponent.

ceberus
09-18-2009, 03:27 AM
Senseless topic.

cknobman
09-18-2009, 07:22 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Sure it says your a complete moron.

Even if it was the end of his career do you consider 2 GS finals and 1 MS shield weak?

You really are that stupid I guess.

Rhinosaur
09-18-2009, 08:10 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Your opinion is about as weak as the original post...and that's saying something!

egn
09-18-2009, 08:17 AM
Oh no! So obviously according to your dumb logic Sampras is awful on grass because he could never make a final after 2000 and Lendl is just down right disgusting on clay because he never won a french open in his 30s and lets not even start on how bad Agassi is at the Aussie because he just stopped winning them too. Oh no its obvious if you stop winning slams you are awful! Besides last I checked Fed is still playing...and the only player I know to ever retire after winning a slam was Pete Sampras. Even Laver, Borg, Tilden, Lendl, Agassi etc. all went out on losing notes..so did they suck too?

dukemunson
09-18-2009, 10:41 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Truly one of the dumbest quotes I've read on this board...well...in awhile at least...it makes absolutely no sense...

Agassifan
09-18-2009, 10:45 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Dumb *** post of the year.

If fed were to finish his career now, he would've made the finals of the last 7 slams while completing the french-wimbledon double.

TheMusicLover
09-18-2009, 11:00 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Thought I'd seen it ALL by now, but this really takes the cake in blatant silliness. :shock:

el sergento
09-18-2009, 11:09 AM
The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

Yup, especially when it comes to your logic, your quote absolutely says it all, really leaves nothing to the imagination. :evil:

Rippy
09-18-2009, 12:12 PM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

Federer has won 5 US Opens in a row, and 3 Australian Opens. Every player loses some matches. What's your point?

Mkie7
09-18-2009, 12:18 PM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

Your logic is so flawed.. Hope you are not a college student. Its like taking one paragraph of a book and interpreating it. Great job! :) Who care about Nadal being on the other side of the net.... Fed. had a better qualified opponent who deserved to be there. GSs are not about Nadal or Federer... its about the best players making it to the finals and winning it.

RCizzle65
09-18-2009, 12:19 PM
looks like blade ran away from this topic

stormholloway
09-18-2009, 12:29 PM
There's no irony at all actually. It's only ironic if you waste your time arguing with people on this forum. Then you'd have a skewed perception of reality altogether.

dysonlu
09-18-2009, 10:14 PM
The irony is that your username is bladepdb but you don't seem to be very sharp.

DjordjeRosic
09-18-2009, 10:42 PM
^^^ZING!!!
:grin::grin::grin:

-Djordje

BorisBeckerFan
09-18-2009, 11:16 PM
This is one of the definitions of Irony according to dictionary.com:

an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

Since Federer has won the most HC slams and was by many expected to win, including myself, it is ironic that he lost.

Sadly Federer did buckle in the fith set both times.

BorisBeckerFan
09-18-2009, 11:20 PM
There's no irony at all actually. It's only ironic if you waste your time arguing with people on this forum. Then you'd have a skewed perception of reality altogether.

Maybe english is not your first language, and if so I understand since it is not my first language, but there is actually a lot of irony in him losing.

Carsomyr
09-18-2009, 11:25 PM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

The mark of a champion is not how he performs during his prime, it is how he performs at the end of his career. Those who finish weak cannot be considered champions.

That says it all.

:-| .......

DMan
09-19-2009, 12:13 AM
Ironic how Fed lost the two hard court slams of the year while he's considered one of the best hard-courters of all time, right?

Even more interesting how he lost 6-2 in the fifth set of BOTH hardcourt finals, right?

Yep, at Flushing Meadow Fed was facing none other than a Nadal across the net, reminiscent of the first slam of the year. JMDP showed the fight and spirit of the man he defeated the day before to defeat one of the greatest of all time at the finals. Fed could do nothing but be awed by the performance and buckle under the pressure of pursuing the ever-elusive sixth consecutive GS title.

Um, Federer wasn't facing Nadal in the finals of the US Open. You see, Nadal FAILED...AGAIN...to reach just one US Open final. As for Federer, he's been in 6 consecutive US Open finals! Nadal won 6 games in his semifinal appearance. You see, Fed has had to win 6 matches to get to 6 consecutive US Open finals. Not win a mere 6 games!

And shame on Roger, for not winning his 6th consecutive in a major! How horrible of him. Now please, tell me the names of another man who has won 6 consecutive majors? Nadal is most certainly not on that list!