PDA

View Full Version : Luckiest player of last 10 years


cuddles26
11-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Who do you think has been the luckiest player of the last 10 years. Here are my options:

Capriati- lol how did a player like this ever win 3 slams in a 13 month span. I still cant believe it ever happened.

Djokovic- his title in Basel this week is typical of the type of luck he often seems to get. Opponents choking, underperforming vs him, etc....

Henin- great player but also lucky her favorite surface is clay at a time the clay court field is sh1t and her main rivals arent that comfortable on clay like she is. Has success on other surface and big titles, but not the dominance she has on clay built on a weak clay court field.

Federer- great player but benefited from lack of serious competition from 2004-2006 especialy.

Coria- lucky to peak and win all those clay court titles when Ferrero, Kuerten, and others were all going down with injury and illness, and just before Federer and Nadal emerged. Only in 2004 could such a player be king of clay, and even then he still only won 1 Masters and failed to win the French vs that nothing clay field that year.

Kuznetsova- how on earth did she win 2 slams when she almost always loses and often chokes vs top players in slams. Similar miracle to Capriati's 3 slams in some ways.

Safina- this player reached 3 slam finals and #1. Really, how!?

Ivanovic- read above.

Agassi- check out his draws to the 2001 and 2003 Aussie Open titles, LOL!

Hewitt- peaked before Federer's prime, and as we saw couldnt even make a dent vs Federer when he did reach his prime.

Ripster
11-08-2009, 03:00 PM
^ wow you're really going after the TTW fan favourites. But where's Nadal?

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 03:02 PM
^ wow you're really going after the TTW fan favourites. But where's Nadal?

Right the same that you said for Henin could just as easily be applied to Rafa.

BTW, curious how Serena's not in the OP...just saying...

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 03:03 PM
James Blake.

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 03:06 PM
James Blake.

Obvious troll = obvious.

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Obvious troll = obvious.



Am I not allowed to express my opinion now? When did this board come down to personal attacks?

OddJack
11-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Serena Williams,
for having balls cut off at birth.

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Serena Williams,
for having balls cut off at birth.



I totally concur.

Serendipitous
11-08-2009, 03:19 PM
Federer holds a commanding lead in this poll: 66.67%

flyinghippos101
11-08-2009, 03:22 PM
Serena Williams,
for having balls cut off at birth.

http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx120/flyinghippos101/epic_win.jpg

Fedex
11-08-2009, 03:37 PM
I agree with Batz who said:

"Yep - becasue the way murray plays has no effect on his opponent's performance - it's not like he forces them into playing shots they don't want to play from positions they don't want to be in - Murray never does that. All he does is push push push - like a park player - then the tennis faeries come along and give him the 'W' - it just ain't right man. I just don't understand it. What he should be doing is hitting every ball as hard as he can from the baseline - tennis needs more of those types of players; they're pretty thin on the ground."

Murray pushes like a park player and the Tennis Faeries give him the Win.
That must be the only reason such a pusher keeps winning.
He must be the luckiest player ever.

nfor304
11-08-2009, 03:41 PM
Thomas Johansson

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 03:50 PM
Am I not allowed to express my opinion now? When did this board come down to personal attacks?

Explain, how has Blake has been lucky at all?

mzzmuaa
11-08-2009, 03:56 PM
federer, but not for those reasons.

rocket
11-08-2009, 04:02 PM
Federer- great player but benefited from lack of serious competition from 2004-2006 especialy.

Definitely Federer. He's nothing without obvious talent & the drive to dominate.

This era would have been a strong one if he weren't that good.

FlamEnemY
11-08-2009, 04:05 PM
Federer is too lucky for being so talented. The b******!

JeMar
11-08-2009, 04:10 PM
/sarcasm

Everyone knows that running into that net post in Italy, losing his dad, and getting Zoster gave Blake motivation that he would not have otherwise.

/sacrasm

Cyan
11-08-2009, 04:12 PM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

Serendipitous
11-08-2009, 04:18 PM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.


This is very true. It's a fact.

TheMusicLover
11-08-2009, 04:22 PM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

Rafa.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of clay court tennis. Murray and Djokovic both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. There were no other decent clay court tennis players in sight during 2004-2006, besides one fellow who continuously managed to make it to the finals in about every tournament.... So Rafa took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

I love those Double Standards! :)

Serendipitous
11-08-2009, 04:23 PM
Rafa.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of clay court tennis. Murray and Djokovic both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. There were no other decent clay court tennis players in sight during 2004-2006, besides one fellow who continuously managed to make it to the finals in about every tournament.... So Rafa took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

I love those Double Standards! :)

I concur.....

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-08-2009, 04:25 PM
Who do you think has been the luckiest player of the last 10 years. Here are my options:

Capriati- lol how did a player like this ever win 3 slams in a 13 month span. I still cant believe it ever happened.

Djokovic- his title in Basel this week is typical of the type of luck he often seems to get. Opponents choking, underperforming vs him, etc....

Henin- great player but also lucky her favorite surface is clay at a time the clay court field is sh1t and her main rivals arent that comfortable on clay like she is. Has success on other surface and big titles, but not the dominance she has on clay built on a weak clay court field.

Federer- great player but benefited from lack of serious competition from 2004-2006 especialy.

Coria- lucky to peak and win all those clay court titles when Ferrero, Kuerten, and others were all going down with injury and illness, and just before Federer and Nadal emerged. Only in 2004 could such a player be king of clay, and even then he still only won 1 Masters and failed to win the French vs that nothing clay field that year.

Kuznetsova- how on earth did she win 2 slams when she almost always loses and often chokes vs top players in slams. Similar miracle to Capriati's 3 slams in some ways.

Safina- this player reached 3 slam finals and #1. Really, how!?

Ivanovic- read above.

Agassi- check out his draws to the 2001 and 2003 Aussie Open titles, LOL!

Hewitt- peaked before Federer's prime, and as we saw couldnt even make a dent vs Federer when he did reach his prime.


Yea the AO draws for Andre those years were pretty weak to say the least. But again every great player has had his/her benefit at times from weak draws. Even the great Federer. Hes had some serious cakewalks as well over the years at slams. No denying that as u mentioned. Especially his peak years 04-06. Young Nadal still molding as player.. Prety much just a great clay court player during that time. Not great anywhere else. Agassi passed his prime, sciatica riddden. Hewitt, Davydenko and Roddick. Good players and decently solid surely not greats though. 04-06 (The years where Fed grabbed the bulk of his titles) was pretty brutal

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Definitely Federer. He's nothing without obvious talent & the drive to dominate.

This era would have been a strong one if he weren't that good.

We can argue that logic about ANY ERA. We can argue the 90s would have been even better without Pete. 60's would have looked even better without Laver. 70s without Borg. THe 80s have been argued to be the strongest era in the history of tennis. And why is that? THats the era that has produced the most champions and all time greats really. There really wasnt one outright dominant player. There were many. Connors, Becker, Mac, Lendl, Wilander etc.. All considered all time greats. None of them dominated to on the level of a Laver, Fed etc. But still the 80s are usually historically looked at as the best

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Explain, how has Blake has been lucky at all?



He's been lucky to make 3 QFs of a slam with his mindless and brainless strategy. He's been lucky to make it to world #4 in the world. He's been lucky period. I don't see how he even got there in the first place, as a 12 year old tennis player could think of better strategies than Blake.

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 05:37 PM
He's been lucky to make 3 QFs of a slam with his mindless and brainless strategy. He's been lucky to make it to world #4 in the world. He's been lucky period. I don't see how he even got there in the first place, as a 12 year old tennis player could think of better strategies than Blake.

Deleted. 10

dh003i
11-08-2009, 05:51 PM
We can argue that logic about ANY ERA. We can argue the 90s would have been even better without Pete. 60's would have looked even better without Laver. 70s without Borg. THe 80s have been argued to be the strongest era in the history of tennis. And why is that? THats the era that has produced the most champions and all time greats really. There really wasnt one outright dominant player. There were many. Connors, Becker, Mac, Lendl, Wilander etc.. All considered all time greats. None of them dominated to on the level of a Laver, Fed etc. But still the 80s are usually historically looked at as the best

Right, and the point is, you can argue that they all got their share of slams and no-one dominated like Federer, because they were all such great players that it was impossible for one player to dominate like that. Or you can argue that they really weren't that great, just better than the field, and hence why the 80s greats split up he slams. Or you can argue that Federer is just so good that he would've done pretty much the same thing back then, and that there are a number of players who, without Federer, would today be looked at in the same light as McEnroe, Wilanders, Lendl, etc.

The funny thing about the argument against Federer is that the better he does, the worse he's looked on, because his competition is somehow "weak". Now, this year, that he's won 2 and lost 2, this is a stronger year than past years, so this year's accomplishments mean more (i.e., beating Del Potro, Soderling, at the FO & Wimbledon). Or you could just say the opposite, that Federer was much worse this year, and were he in better form, would have also won the AO and the USO.

T1000
11-08-2009, 06:01 PM
Who do you think has been the luckiest player of the last 10 years. Here are my options:

Capriati- lol how did a player like this ever win 3 slams in a 13 month span. I still cant believe it ever happened.

Djokovic- his title in Basel this week is typical of the type of luck he often seems to get. Opponents choking, underperforming vs him, etc....

Henin- great player but also lucky her favorite surface is clay at a time the clay court field is sh1t and her main rivals arent that comfortable on clay like she is. Has success on other surface and big titles, but not the dominance she has on clay built on a weak clay court field.

Federer- great player but benefited from lack of serious competition from 2004-2006 especialy.

Coria- lucky to peak and win all those clay court titles when Ferrero, Kuerten, and others were all going down with injury and illness, and just before Federer and Nadal emerged. Only in 2004 could such a player be king of clay, and even then he still only won 1 Masters and failed to win the French vs that nothing clay field that year.

Kuznetsova- how on earth did she win 2 slams when she almost always loses and often chokes vs top players in slams. Similar miracle to Capriati's 3 slams in some ways.

Safina- this player reached 3 slam finals and #1. Really, how!?

Ivanovic- read above.

Agassi- check out his draws to the 2001 and 2003 Aussie Open titles, LOL!

Hewitt- peaked before Federer's prime, and as we saw couldnt even make a dent vs Federer when he did reach his prime.

This list is crap. For Agassi, how are two good draws all of a sudden a lucky career? You have really high standards. All of Nadal's draws are jokes, he didn't play anyone good except Federer and an on fire Verdasco. Hewitt peaked in 2004, Federer's prime. Have you ever watched tennis? Obviously not. He is probably one of the most unlucky players to hit his prime with Federer. He should easily have 4-6 slams. He owned Roddick, the only other consistent player on other surfaces from 04-06. Federer did not benefit from joke competition, its a lot worse now. A slamless pusher stays in the top 5, a lucky player (Djokovic) is in the top 5, and Nadal misses a slam and is still number 2. That's a joke. Coria is in no way lucky, see FO 2004 and Rome 2005.

drakulie
11-08-2009, 06:30 PM
James Blake.


agree. He is another Gonzalez without Gonzalez' brain.

Only reason he gets any hype is because he is African American.

NamRanger
11-08-2009, 06:35 PM
http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp114/perditia/Meeting.jpg



People are allowed to express their opinions freely on these forums without being attacked. I believe James Blake is the luckiest player the last 10 years short of maybe Ljubicic (but at least Ljubicic had brains when he played, Blake literally does nothing but clobbers the ball).

Shaolin
11-08-2009, 06:39 PM
Any of the nearly 7' guys that can just skate by on their serve alone, winning matches without having to play any good return games (all tiebreaks).

OddJack
11-08-2009, 06:40 PM
agree. He is another Gonzalez without Gonzalez' brain.

Only reason he gets any hype is because he is African American.

True,

Or you could say he's another Gonzalez with "z" instead of "s" at the end.

MuseFan
11-08-2009, 06:57 PM
Rafa.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of clay court tennis. Murray and Djokovic both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. There were no other decent clay court tennis players in sight during 2004-2006, besides one fellow who continuously managed to make it to the finals in about every tournament.... So Rafa took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

I love those Double Standards! :)

I disagree. Rafa had to beat Federer every single year to win the French Open.

inthemisosoup
11-08-2009, 06:58 PM
wait, james blake is lucky??? lol that's one of the funniest things i've heard all day. all i'm saying is, for sure he isn't the person i'd choose to be on a plane . . . or train . . . or anywhere for an extended period of time considering his record. i'm sure his luck is the butt of a many jokes between players and his friends & family. seriously, lol

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 07:21 PM
wait, james blake is lucky??? lol that's one of the funniest things i've heard all day. all i'm saying is, for sure he isn't the person i'd choose to be on a plane . . . or train . . . or anywhere for an extended period of time considering his record. i'm sure his luck is the butt of a many jokes between players and his friends & family. seriously, lol

Don't worry, let the trolls and morons continue to show off their inherent lack of tennis knowledge.

Serendipitous
11-08-2009, 07:24 PM
Don't worry, let the trolls and morons continue to show off their inherent lack of tennis knowledge.

I'm really sorry to say this, but that sounded like something gj011 would say.


No offense though, lol. :):)

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 07:28 PM
I'm really sorry to say this, but that sounded like something gj011 would say.


No offense though, lol. :):)

Yet another fresh green troll from the fresh green troll army.

;)

Serendipitous
11-08-2009, 07:30 PM
Yet another fresh green troll from the fresh green troll army.

;)

Hahahaha, lol.....the memories....:)

MuseFan
11-08-2009, 07:31 PM
James Blake is the unluckiest player ever. That horrific neck injury, then always losing to Roger in his prime at slams!

cuddles26
11-08-2009, 07:32 PM
Right the same that you said for Henin could just as easily be applied to Rafa.

BTW, curious how Serena's not in the OP...just saying...

Why would Serena be in the OP. Name one way Serena has been remotedly lucky.

T1000
11-08-2009, 07:41 PM
I voted for Nadal, its lucky how he wins all the time considering he's always injured

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 07:44 PM
Why would Serena be in the OP. Name one way Serena has been remotedly lucky.

Henin's retirement, one of the weakest WTA fields ever, mental midgets like Safina and Jankovic at the top of the women's game the past few years...if you're going to put Federer in there b/c of weak field, Serena also deserves to be in for the crap field she's competed against since Henin retired. And no I'm not a Serena hater - just ask GrafSelesFan if you don't believe me. Though Serena's had misfortune - a knee injury at a time she would've likely won 7 of 8 slams 2002-2004 - she's also been fortunate due to the weak field at this time, much more so than even Federer, who I say hasn't been lucky at all.

cuddles26
11-08-2009, 08:10 PM
Henin's retirement, one of the weakest WTA fields ever, mental midgets like Safina and Jankovic at the top of the women's game the past few years...if you're going to put Federer in there b/c of weak field, Serena also deserves to be in for the crap field she's competed against since Henin retired. And no I'm not a Serena hater - just ask GrafSelesFan if you don't believe me. Though Serena's had misfortune - a knee injury at a time she would've likely won 7 of 8 slams 2002-2004 - she's also been fortunate due to the weak field at this time, much more so than even Federer, who I say hasn't been lucky at all.

Henin is only a threat to Serena on clay and Serena didnt win a French Open since Henin retired anyway so who cares. Safina and Jankovic and the womens field the last couple years suck it is true, but Serena dominated when Venus, Davenport and Capriati were there instead so it doesnt matter.

Agassifan
11-08-2009, 08:25 PM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

except, he has won 6 slams and made the finals of 11 (including all 4 this year) since your weak era ended

BreakPoint
11-08-2009, 08:37 PM
I'll have to go with Nadal.

He was so very lucky that Uncle Toni convinced him to switch hands and play tennis left-handed. If it wasn't for that switch, he would have never won a single Slam (since he had to beat Federer to win all 6 of his Slams).

tudwell
11-08-2009, 09:48 PM
Nadal is the luckiest player of the last 10 years. And by that I mean he did the most steroids.

JeMar
11-08-2009, 09:51 PM
Tommy Haas.

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 10:03 PM
Fernando Gonzalez

JeMar
11-08-2009, 10:07 PM
Marcos Baghdatis, Pat Rafter, Ivanisevic...

JeMar
11-08-2009, 10:11 PM
Fernando Gonzalez

No, if James Blake is on this thread, it's quite obvious its tone has shifted to ironic. You may only post names of players that have been marred by injuries their whole careers.

LiveForever
11-08-2009, 10:19 PM
Mardy Fish, Tim Henman, Xavier Malisse...

JeMar
11-08-2009, 10:24 PM
Oh, can't forget Taylor Dent. I mean, did you see the draw he got at the Open this year?

dropshot winner
11-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

You do realize that this makes Nadal's record look very average too?

He lost to a lot of "weak" players until 2007, won masters 1000 against the likes of Ljubicic and beat the same choking player without a solid backhand in all of his finals.
Now in the "strong era" he's getting his *** whopped by the likes of Del Potro, Cilic and Davydenko.

jamesblakefan#1
11-08-2009, 10:56 PM
No, if James Blake is on this thread, it's quite obvious its tone has shifted to ironic. You may only post names of players that have been marred by injuries their whole careers.

I was only half joking w/ the Gonzo post...

Hmm..you say marred by injury? I guess Nadal fits that. Tsonga also had some bad injuries 2004-2007.

Sam Querrey, Marat Safin...

Baikalic
11-08-2009, 11:02 PM
Luckiest in what way...everything?

I'd just like to say that Hewitt had possibly the easiest Wimbledon campaign in history in 2002, a tournament with so many upsets that only 6 seeds made it out of the third round.

Polvorin
11-09-2009, 01:53 AM
I guess Federer is the luckiest because he is the most talented player on the face of the planet? I could see that. But something tells me that's not what the trolls meant when they voted for him...

zagor
11-09-2009, 02:05 AM
I guess Federer is the luckiest because he is the most talented player on the face of the planet? I could see that. But something tells me that's not what the trolls meant when they voted for him...

No they are confused and seem to think that the poll question is who is the player you most hate on tour.

It's ridiculous(but not surprising for this forum)that the guy who won most slams in tennis history is leading this poll by far.When you win 15 slams it's quite obvious luck plays a minor role and talent,skill and hardwork are the main reason.

Players who win 1-2 slams could be called lucky because the stars might have aligned for them(got the right draw,higher ranked players lost early etc.)to win the biggest events in tenni but a guy who 15 slams,whose consistancy at going deep in slams(I lost count how many slam SFs in a row)is umatched in tennis history does not need luck to win slam titles.

ninman
11-09-2009, 02:55 AM
I disagree. Rafa had to beat Federer every single year to win the French Open.

Yeah beating that same guy who's game matches perfectly with yours is really a sign of an amazing player. Nadal is just incredibly lucky that Federer isn't a little taller, or has a different backhand. Nadal's game totally exposes that one weakness in Federer, if you watch their matches, Nadal ALWAYS serves to Federer's backhand, then just beats it mercilessly until Federer cracks.

If Federer had a backhand that could handle that, Nadal would be getting his *** handed to him on clay and his record with Federer would look a lot like Roddicks. Face it Nadal is lucky that his one and only strategy happens to work extremely well against Federer. Later on when the strategy stopped working, Federer was just losing it mentally, which again is extremely lucky for Nadal. If Federer had held together just a little bit mentally, he would have defeated Nadal at least 5 times on clay.

CMM
11-09-2009, 03:07 AM
Yeah beating that same guy who's game matches perfectly with yours is really a sign of an amazing player. Nadal is just incredibly lucky that Federer isn't a little taller, or has a different backhand. Nadal's game totally exposes that one weakness in Federer, if you watch their matches, Nadal ALWAYS serves to Federer's backhand, then just beats it mercilessly until Federer cracks.

If Federer had a backhand that could handle that, Nadal would be getting his *** handed to him on clay and his record with Federer would look a lot like Roddicks. Face it Nadal is lucky that his one and only strategy happens to work extremely well against Federer. Later on when the strategy stopped working, Federer was just losing it mentally, which again is extremely lucky for Nadal. If Federer had held together just a little bit mentally, he would have defeated Nadal at least 5 times on clay.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8644/shoot.png

lawrence
11-09-2009, 04:02 AM
Federer's gotten lucky 22 slams in a row, and a few years straight.
Boy he sure is lucky.

grafselesfan
11-09-2009, 05:09 AM
Capriati by FAR. Nobody else even comes close. I think it is the biggest joke in tennis history she somehow managed to win 3 slams.

Datacipher
11-09-2009, 05:13 AM
I guess Federer is the luckiest because he is the most talented player on the face of the planet? I could see that. But something tells me that's not what the trolls meant when they voted for him...

Your inablity to see why somebody would vote for him, and your immediate accusation that they must be trolls speaks volumes to YOUR trollness. Congratulations.

I would posit that Federer's extraordinary accomplishments do indeed warrant a high "luck" component. There are countless components that luck could potentially cover. Certainly, I do not believe for an instant that he would have won nearly as many in some other eras, but that also does not mean I do not think he is the most talented player of his era. Your inflexible mind does not speak well of you.

grafselesfan
11-09-2009, 05:16 AM
Your inablity to see why somebody would vote for him, and your immediate accusation that they must be trolls speaks volumes to YOUR trollness. Congratulations.

I would posit that Federer's extraordinary accomplishments do indeed warrant a high "luck" component. There are countless components that luck could potentially cover. Certainly, I do not believe for an instant that he would have won nearly as many in some other eras, but that also does not mean I do not think he is the most talented player of his era. Your inflexible mind does not speak well of you.

Very well said. To disagree that Federer has been lucky is completely fine, but to just brush off anyone who thinks Federer got somewhat lucky with the field in place, playing conditions, other variables to win as many as 15 slams as being stupid or trolling is completely ignorant and short sighted.

grafselesfan
11-09-2009, 05:30 AM
Also why is Henin a poll option!! I am not even a Henin fan but that is ridiculous. Even to those who want to argue she has been a bit lucky (which I dont agree with) there is no way she can be considered as even close to the luckiest. Little wonder someone with a Serena avatar tries to trump Henin as as being one of the luckiest players, and I am a much bigger Serena fan than Henin. No wonder nobody voted for her, such a stupid and pointless option. I would say on TW she is overrated by some people who try to make her out to be a level higher than Serena, and say she has had the better career of the two, but that is totally different than how lucky she has been.

mandy01
11-09-2009, 05:46 AM
There's no such thing called luck.
What you get,you get because you've worked for it.You've earned it.
Only sad fanatics speak of 'luck'.

elquien
11-09-2009, 07:55 AM
Aren't they all lucky cuz they get paid for something we obsess about?

To win in tennis you have to be gifted, work hard, win points games sets matches and tournaments. Luck is pretty much a non-factor. If Iva Majoli had won her 1 slam off a let cord at the expense of an injured Hingis with a broken string she still had to win a slew of matches to become a pro, get ranked, make it to the tournament, make it to the final and arrive at match point.

Paris Hilton is lucky.

el sergento
11-09-2009, 08:21 AM
"Fortune favors the Bold"

"The harder I practice, the luckier I get"

Quantifying luck or fortune in tennis is a moot excercise. People who win the lottery are lucky, successful tennis players on the other hand are anything but, they are highly trained, highly competetive and motivated individuals. The only luck to be found is with physique. If Ivo wasn't 7 feet tall he would not be a successful tennis player. If SW wasn't so naturally built she wouldn't have the time to design terrible clothes :)

/thread

el sergento
11-09-2009, 08:31 AM
Also why is Henin a poll option!!

Couldn't agree more, she's a 5 foot nothing feather weight that has had to work that much harder to compete, and get the best of, other top players with a much more advantageous tennis morphology.

If anything, SW is the lucky one for having such a powerful physique. Who else could get away with designing clothes instead of training and playing matches and yet still amass Grand Slam titles?

robbie_mx
11-09-2009, 08:47 AM
There is no lucky !! it only hard work.. :)

Polvorin
11-09-2009, 10:04 AM
Your inablity to see why somebody would vote for him, and your immediate accusation that they must be trolls speaks volumes to YOUR trollness. Congratulations.

It's not hard to see why they would vote for him. Because their minds are made up. Sampras is the GOAT, despite having comparable skills but only a game to win on fast surfaces and having been totally overshadowed as far as accomplishments go. Thus they attempt to discredit Federer on a tennis message board at every opportunity because they think that will somehow prove it so. It naturally follows that Federer plays in a clown era, but the 90's were the peak of tennis glory and will never be surpassed. That's why they are called Petards/***********s.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-09-2009, 10:15 AM
It's not hard to see why they would vote for him. Because their minds are made up. Sampras is the GOAT, despite having comparable skills but only a game to win on fast surfaces and having been totally overshadowed as far as accomplishments go. Thus they attempt to discredit Federer on a tennis message board at every opportunity because they think that will somehow prove it so. It naturally follows that Federer plays in a clown era, but the 90's were the peak of tennis glory and will never be surpassed. That's why they are called Petards/***********s.

One doesnt have to believe Sampras is GOAT to think Federer is not beyond a shadow of a doubt the greatest ever since there probably really isnt one. Not to mention there is quite a few who can be argued. From Laver to Pete to Pancho to Roger to Tilden. Putting some things into perspective in regards to Roger is not blasting Roger nor is it downplaying what he has accomplished though some can cross over into that realm. But some things have to be put in perspective as well. Just because someone wants to give their opinions on a matter, put it into their perspective, want to shed light on some things should not automatically make that person a "troll" a "****" a "hater".

CCNM
11-09-2009, 01:09 PM
I'll have to be honest and go with my girl Svetlana K. I also wonder where she pulls out some of her wins.

NamRanger
11-09-2009, 01:13 PM
Henin is only a threat to Serena on clay and Serena didnt win a French Open since Henin retired anyway so who cares. Safina and Jankovic and the womens field the last couple years suck it is true, but Serena dominated when Venus, Davenport and Capriati were there instead so it doesnt matter.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !



No.



Henin in 2007 beat Serena at the French, Wimbledon, and the USO, during probably one of Serena's better years. If Henin was not in her way, I think Serena probably had a damn good shot at winning nearly every slam that year.

jamesblakefan#1
11-09-2009, 01:32 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !



No.



Henin in 2007 beat Serena at the French, Wimbledon, and the USO, during probably one of Serena's better years. If Henin was not in her way, I think Serena probably had a damn good shot at winning nearly every slam that year.

I agree with your premise, but let's be fair, 2007 was not one of Serena's better seasons. It was one of only two seasons where she had 10+ losses, she only won one title outside of the AO she won while out of shape. Not taking anything away from Henin, just stating 2007 was no where near Serena 2002-2003 or 2008-2009. 2007 was probably Serena's 5th best year at best.

Anaconda
11-09-2009, 01:36 PM
Luckiest player would be Federer.

Wimbledon 2004 final - rain delay's.
wimbledon 2005 final - Federer was lucky he played his best tennis :)
wimbledon 2006 final - Nadal chokes
wimbledon 2007 final - Nadal gets injured
wimbledon 2008 final - lucky that he didn't lose in SS
wimbledon 2009 final - Roddick choked

French open 2009 - Lucky to get through matches against JMDP and Haas and lucked out playing soderling rather than nadal.

note the second sentence was a joke BTW

ninman
11-09-2009, 01:37 PM
James Blake.

I agree, James Blake was lucky not to be paralyzed for life after breaking his neck. Really lucky guy. Interestingly while he was lying there in hospital he only received one get well card, and that was from Roger Federer.

ninman
11-09-2009, 01:40 PM
Luckiest player would be Federer.

Wimbledon 2004 final - rain delay's.
wimbledon 2005 final - Federer was lucky he played his best tennis :)
wimbledon 2006 final - Nadal chokes
wimbledon 2007 final - Nadal gets injured
wimbledon 2008 final - lucky that he didn't lose in SS
wimbledon 2009 final - Roddick choked

French open 2009 - Lucky to get through matches against JMDP and Haas and lucked out playing soderling rather than nadal.

note the second sentence was a joke BTW

Yeah, Nadal was "injured" again, and also the biggest fighter or tour just happens to be a massive choker too. Fabulous.

Anaconda
11-09-2009, 01:42 PM
I agree, James Blake was lucky not to be paralyzed for life after breaking his neck. Really lucky guy. Interestingly while he was lying there in hospital he only received one get well card, and that was from Roger Federer.

Why bring Federer into this, are you trying to make him look good? We know Federer is geniun - you don't need to remind us.

ninman
11-09-2009, 01:48 PM
Why bring Federer into this, are you trying to make him look good? We know Federer is geniun - you don't need to remind us.

What the hell? That's what happened, nobody else on tour cared enough to even send Blake a card, just Federer. Blake told the story himself after he lost the Indian Wells final to Federer in 2006.

veroniquem
11-09-2009, 01:51 PM
Yeah, Nadal was "injured" again, and also the biggest fighter or tour just happens to be a massive choker too. Fabulous.
Who are you calling biggest fighter and massive choker? Roddick?????

ninman
11-09-2009, 01:58 PM
Who are you calling biggest fighter and massive choker? Roddick?????

That would be Nadal, who everybody claims is the biggest fighter, yet when he loses it's because he either choked or was injured.

veroniquem
11-09-2009, 02:23 PM
That would be Nadal, who everybody claims is the biggest fighter, yet when he loses it's because he either choked or was injured.
Nadal doesn't choke. He may be injured or outplayed but when the going gets tough (understand tight), he's the best there is. That's why he has the best record on tour for 5 setters: only 3 lost for 12 won.

tudwell
11-09-2009, 02:28 PM
Nadal doesn't choke. He may be injured or outplayed but when the going gets tough (understand tight), he's the best there is. That's why he has the best record on tour for 5 setters: only 3 lost for 12 won.

This is just silly. Everyone chokes. Nadal was lucky to win Wimbledon last year because he had an epic choke in the fourth set tiebreak. Don't get me wrong, Nadal has superb mental strength, but he does get tight at times just like everyone else.

THESEXPISTOL
11-09-2009, 02:41 PM
Gilles Simon. The guy is the first player to reach such a high ranking without tennis for it.

veroniquem
11-09-2009, 02:46 PM
Federer certainly got lucky in slams. He won 4 of them against weak inexperienced finalists (Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Soderling and Philippoussis), 4 others against his personal punching ball (Roddick), 1 against a crumbling 35 years old Agassi and 2 against young maiden slam finalists: Djokovic and Murray.
That leaves only 4 finals where he played against a slam savvy dangerous opponent: Safin and Hewitt in 2004 and the 2 Wimbledon finals against Nadal (although to be honest, in 2006, Nadal was very much the novice on grass). It's unsurprising that 2 of those finals happened in 2004 since that is when Fed was playing his best tennis and he had to since at that time he didn't have his reputation to intimidate his opponents.

veroniquem
11-09-2009, 02:47 PM
This is just silly. Everyone chokes. Nadal was lucky to win Wimbledon last year because he had an epic choke in the fourth set tiebreak. Don't get me wrong, Nadal has superb mental strength, but he does get tight at times just like everyone else.
Choking a set sure but we were talking about choking matches. Who cares about sets?

vbranis
11-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Stepanek. He is one lucky dude...

bruce38
11-09-2009, 02:54 PM
Nadal has by far been the luckiest. The majority of his slams came with Federer 5th set collapses and stubbornness and mono.

ninman
11-09-2009, 02:58 PM
Nadal doesn't choke. He may be injured or outplayed but when the going gets tough (understand tight), he's the best there is. That's why he has the best record on tour for 5 setters: only 3 lost for 12 won.

Wrong, he's actually 12-9, Federer is 13-10, pretty similar I'd say. The best record for five setters was actually Borg.

veroniquem
11-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Wrong, he's actually 12-9, Federer is 13-10, pretty similar I'd say. The best record for five setters was actually Borg.
What? He is 12-3 in matches that went to 5 sets. (I guess you're giving me the stats for best of 5 matches instead which was NOT what I was talking about).
And forget about Borg, I meant best of all active players.

P_Agony
11-09-2009, 03:09 PM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

There is so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to start. Funny that in 2009, where Nadal, Novak and Murray are all grown up and into their primes, yet Federer wins more slams than all of them combined. Sigh....

Carsomyr
11-09-2009, 03:09 PM
Very well said. To disagree that Federer has been lucky is completely fine, but to just brush off anyone who thinks Federer got somewhat lucky with the field in place, playing conditions, other variables to win as many as 15 slams as being stupid or trolling is completely ignorant and short sighted.

Also why is Henin a poll option!! I am not even a Henin fan but that is ridiculous. Even to those who want to argue she has been a bit lucky (which I dont agree with) there is no way she can be considered as even close to the luckiest. Little wonder someone with a Serena avatar tries to trump Henin as as being one of the luckiest players, and I am a much bigger Serena fan than Henin. No wonder nobody voted for her, such a stupid and pointless option. I would say on TW she is overrated by some people who try to make her out to be a level higher than Serena, and say she has had the better career of the two, but that is totally different than how lucky she has been.

Biased troll is biased.

I'm not sure why either Federer or Henin are (or why some are suggesting Nadal and Serena should be) on this list; all great players are somewhat lucky, from Laver, Graf, and Borg to Sampras and Federer. Hell, I could even make a case for Sampras being on this list by virtue of his last two Wimbledon wins; in 1999, when the average ranking of his opponents was 125 (and still a fairly high average of 55 if we adjust Sapsford's ranking to '100'), and he was getting outplayed by Philippoussis (who demonstrated the abilility to beat Sampras in a GS by his straight-set victory over him in the 1996 AO and his ability to play on grass by reaching the 2003 Wimby final) before the latter had to retire. In 2000, Sampras faced another cupcake draw, with an average opponent ranking of 88 (69 if we adjust for Voltchkov) and not facing a seeded player until the final.

Did Federer get lucky that Djokovic and Nadal got knocked out of the French Open? Absolutely. But he has consistently put himself in a position to win majors by consistently reaching SFs and Fs; he has created his own luck.

veroniquem
11-09-2009, 03:17 PM
There is so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to start. Funny that in 2009, where Nadal, Novak and Murray are all grown up and into their primes, yet Federer wins more slams than all of them combined. Sigh....
He didn't win any of them against Murray, Djokovic or Nadal though. He couldn't even win one against Del Potro, so her point is perfectly valid. He won one against an inexperienced first time finalist and one against his own beloved b----.
Whenever someone a little more challenging was across the net, he lost, which confirms he relied somewhat on luck for his wins.

NamRanger
11-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Nadal doesn't choke. He may be injured or outplayed but when the going gets tough (understand tight), he's the best there is. That's why he has the best record on tour for 5 setters: only 3 lost for 12 won.



Nadal blew a 2 break lead in the 3rd set against Del Potro in Miami mainly due to his own errors. Pretty good example of a choke there IMO.

bruce38
11-09-2009, 03:29 PM
He didn't win any of them against Murray, Djokovic or Nadal though. He couldn't even win one against Del Potro, so her point is perfectly valid. He won one against an inexperienced first time finalist and one against his own beloved b----.
Whenever someone a little more challenging was across the net, he lost, which confirms he relied somewhat on luck for his wins.

But how could he win one against those guys? They couldn't make it to the finals or faked injuries. Yes and an inexperienced finalist that destroyed a healthy Nadal.

fed_rulz
11-09-2009, 03:44 PM
He didn't win any of them against Murray, Djokovic or Nadal though. He couldn't even win one against Del Potro, so her point is perfectly valid. He won one against an inexperienced first time finalist and one against his own beloved b----.
Whenever someone a little more challenging was across the net, he lost, which confirms he relied somewhat on luck for his wins.

so for Fed's slams to count, he has to win against players who actually are a tough match-up for him (and could beat him)?

Ok let's apply the same logic to Nadal.
- Nadal has not won any of his FOs beating Delpo or Soderling. So all of nadal's FO wins were "lucky"
- Nadal did not win his AO beating Murray or Djokovic or Delpo. His AO win was lucky.
- Nadal did not win his Wimby beating Djokovic or delpo. so he's still lucky

By the same token, let's discount all of Sampras' wins that did not involve beating Richard Krajicek @ wimby, or Agassi at the AO

edberg505
11-09-2009, 03:48 PM
But how could he win one against those guys? They couldn't make it to the finals or faked injuries. Yes and an experienced finalist that destroyed a healthy Nadal.

Destroyed is an understatement. He beat him like a rented mule.

TMF
11-09-2009, 03:53 PM
All players at some point in their career had luck on their side and being unlucky. Federer was fortunate to win some tight matches when it could of gone either way(i.e. Roddick 09 SW19, Nadal 07 SW19). However, I also think he was unlucky for not being able to pull off some tight matches(i.e. Safin in 05 AO, Nadal in 08 SW19 and 09 AO). I don’t believe any player had all the luck on their side in their entire career like some people in here put it. We can go through Pete, Borg or Lendl and point out some of their luck/unlucky moments during his heyday.

rocket
11-09-2009, 04:00 PM
He couldn't even win one against Del Potro, so her point is perfectly valid.

Did ya miss the 09 AO? It went something like 3-0-0... but I could be wrong.

Serendipitous
11-09-2009, 04:11 PM
Did ya miss the 09 AO? It went something like 3-0-0... but I could be wrong.


Yes, you are wrong.

Just kidding...

rocket
11-09-2009, 04:17 PM
Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

Now that they've matured nicely, are they winning any more slams? Of the 4 listed, only 2 made it to the slam finals this year. Who's fault? The one-eyed guy's fault?

jamesblakefan#1
11-09-2009, 04:20 PM
Federer certainly got lucky in slams.

So much fail in this post I'll address it bit by bit.

He won 4 of them against weak inexperienced finalists (Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Soderling and Philippoussis)

Besides the central point, that Federer can only play who is in front of him, how was Philipousis inexperienced? He made a USO final in 98, had big matches at Wimbledon vs Pete before....if anything Fed was the inexperienced one in that match.

Gonzo and Soderling were weak? Yet they steamrolled Nadal, what does that make him? Your theory here holds little water. And go back and see how well Baghdatis was playing in 06. Certainly anything but weak.

4 others against his personal punching ball (Roddick), 1 against a crumbling 35 years old Agassi and 2 against young maiden slam finalists: Djokovic and Murray.

We all know Roddick's a good matchup for Federer, but that still doesn't make these matches meaningless or 'lucky'. Roddick's best two matches of his career were probably the 04 and 09 Wimbledon finals, yet Federer still prevailed. Murray and Djokovic were both in good form when they made their finals appearances. Agassi was still a top 10 player when he made the finals in 05.

That leaves only 4 finals where he played against a slam savvy dangerous opponent: Safin and Hewitt in 2004 and the 2 Wimbledon finals against Nadal (although to be honest, in 2006, Nadal was very much the novice on grass).

LOL at how Hewitt's somehow a better opponent than Roddick. Hewitt's been as much of Fed's duck as Roddick since 2004. Hewitt has lost to Fed 5 times in slams which Federer eventually won, 7 times in slams overall, and 14 straight times dating back to 04. Yet he's not Fed's punching ball and Roddick is?

It's unsurprising that 2 of those finals happened in 2004 since that is when Fed was playing his best tennis and he had to since at that time he didn't have his reputation to intimidate his opponents.

LOL at 2004 being Fed's best tennis. He lost to Guga at teh French in 04, he wasn't nearly at his best on all surfaces yet. 2006 was definitely Fed's best, anyone with tennis knowledge will tell you this, 3 of 4 slams and 2 sets from the Grand Slam.

Another fail statement in your fail post.

bertrevert
11-09-2009, 04:24 PM
Thomas Johansson

Beating Safin at the AO that year with his bevvy of beauties in the gallery obviously tiring out Marat the night before haw haw haw! :)

IvanisevicServe
11-09-2009, 04:35 PM
LOL @ the "Federer wuz in a WEAK ERAAAaaaa" people.

How LONG could that weak era have been? Almost everyone agrees that 01-03 was a rather weak era with Sampras falling off the map and it being a transitional period.

But now 2004-2006 were also weak. So that's 6 straight weak seasons...the world just couldn't produce the tennis players then, apparently.

And then Federer dominated again in 2007. But it's because Djokovic and Murray were still inexperienced, so again...weak, right? Seven straight years.

And then 2008...Federer/Nadal take 3 of the 4 slams.

In 2009...Federer/Nadal again take 3 of the 4 slams.

Djokovic and Murray are full of "fail" since they can't beat the lowly Federer.

NINE straight years of weak tennis competition. WHEN WILL IT END?!

I have a hunch it will "end" when Federer stops appearing in every single GS final, or at least stops winning 2 per year.

zagor
11-09-2009, 10:52 PM
LOL @ the "Federer wuz in a WEAK ERAAAaaaa" people.

How LONG could that weak era have been? Almost everyone agrees that 01-03 was a rather weak era with Sampras falling off the map and it being a transitional period.

But now 2004-2006 were also weak. So that's 6 straight weak seasons...the world just couldn't produce the tennis players then, apparently.

And then Federer dominated again in 2007. But it's because Djokovic and Murray were still inexperienced, so again...weak, right? Seven straight years.

And then 2008...Federer/Nadal take 3 of the 4 slams.

In 2009...Federer/Nadal again take 3 of the 4 slams.

Djokovic and Murray are full of "fail" since they can't beat the lowly Federer.

NINE straight years of weak tennis competition. WHEN WILL IT END?!

I have a hunch it will "end" when Federer stops appearing in every single GS final, or at least stops winning 2 per year.

Bingo,when Fed stops being such a huge factor in slams the "weak" era will end.Also if Nadal happens to reach #1 again the "strong" era will start again so Nadal's slams can have more value.

zagor
11-09-2009, 11:00 PM
He didn't win any of them against Murray, Djokovic or Nadal though. He couldn't even win one against Del Potro, so her point is perfectly valid. He won one against an inexperienced first time finalist and one against his own beloved b----.
Whenever someone a little more challenging was across the net, he lost, which confirms he relied somewhat on luck for his wins.

He beat Djokovic in their one slam meeting this year in straight sets,beat Del Potro in 2 slams this year(AO and FO),Murray he didn't play in slams this year but beat him at USO last year(in straights again)when Murray was having a better or atleast comparable year than this one.

But if we go by your logic Nadal was tremendously lucky to win AO since he played 2 guys he has winning records against in SF and F.We saw what happens when he plays someone a little more challenging on HC,against whome he cannot rely on hitting to his BH over and over-he loses like he did against Delpo 3 times in a row and against Cilic and Kolja.

Gen
11-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Federer. Made his career in the era of weak competition, has easy draws most of the time, begs for favours from the tournament management and gets them. Plus his fake RG title. He would have never beat healthy Nadal, he would have never made a career slam. His RG title and his career slam are both based on Nadal's injury. In my country a very common superstition is: those who built their fortune on other people misfortunes do not live long.

vive le beau jeu !
11-10-2009, 01:06 AM
Federer certainly got lucky in slams. He won 4 of them against weak inexperienced finalists (Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Soderling and Philippoussis), 4 others against his personal punching ball (Roddick), 1 against a crumbling 35 years old Agassi and 2 against young maiden slam finalists: Djokovic and Murray.
That leaves only 4 finals where he played against a slam savvy dangerous opponent: Safin and Hewitt in 2004 and the 2 Wimbledon finals against Nadal (although to be honest, in 2006, Nadal was very much the novice on grass). It's unsurprising that 2 of those finals happened in 2004 since that is when Fed was playing his best tennis and he had to since at that time he didn't have his reputation to intimidate his opponents.Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.Federer. Made his career in the era of weak competition, has easy draws most of the time, begs for favours from the tournament management and gets them. Plus his fake RG title. He would have never beat healthy Nadal, he would have never made a career slam. His RG title and his career slam are both based on Nadal's injury. In my country a very common superstition is: those who built their fortune on other people misfortunes do not live long.
triple-LOL, the whole elite team is putting on an amazing show !!! http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/images/icons/popcorn.gif

but let's not get into stereotypes... :rolleyes:

mandy01
11-10-2009, 01:12 AM
triple-LOL, the whole elite team is putting on an amazing show !!! http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/images/icons/popcorn.gif

but let's not get into stereotypes... :rolleyes:
They dont reaslise they make Nadal look less worthy too :lol:
So according to their logic Nadal is luckier because he beat the luckiest player of all time in slams who wasnt that great to begin with..So in turn that makes NADAL the luckiest player of all time :lol:
You can always count on *******s to come up with epic fail posts

IvanAndreevich
11-10-2009, 01:14 AM
Leave it to veroniquem to bad mouth Fed in every thread even possibly related (and not) :lol:

mandy01
11-10-2009, 01:17 AM
Bingo,when Fed stops being such a huge factor in slams the "weak" era will end.Also if Nadal happens to reach #1 again the "strong" era will start again so Nadal's slams can have more value.
True.According to *******s' failed logic only Nadal's slams count as hard-earned ones.

dropshot winner
11-10-2009, 01:21 AM
Federer. Made his career in the era of weak competition, has easy draws most of the time, begs for favours from the tournament management and gets them. Plus his fake RG title. He would have never beat healthy Nadal, he would have never made a career slam. His RG title and his career slam are both based on Nadal's injury. In my country a very common superstition is: those who built their fortune on other people misfortunes do not live long.

Federer didn't build his fortune on anyones misfortunes. What he does is always beeing there during the last 2 days of a slam, since 5 years.

There's actually not much difference between a slam like AO 2007, US Open 2008 and RG 2009. Nadal was beaten by the better player both times and Federer dismantled that player in straight sets in the final. It's not Federer's fault that Nadal can't beat the "weak competition".

But I must say that your bitterness and the one of the other die-hard Nadalfans is very entertaining.
You were probably all expecting a calendar slam from Nadal, but the evil Soderling ended the Nada-era before it really began, at least that's the way it's looking right now.

And just to make it clear, I don't dislike Nadal and I wouldn't mind to see him regaining #1 at some point, but the die-hard Nadal fans just make every single of his losses so sweet.

TheFifthSet
11-10-2009, 01:25 AM
In my country a very common superstition is: those who built their fortune on other people misfortunes do not live long.

LOL. You make it sound as if Federer is at fault for Nadal getting injured. I mean come on, what was he supposed to do once Nadal was out? Not try to win?

edberg505
11-10-2009, 01:34 AM
LOL @ the "Federer wuz in a WEAK ERAAAaaaa" people.

How LONG could that weak era have been? Almost everyone agrees that 01-03 was a rather weak era with Sampras falling off the map and it being a transitional period.

But now 2004-2006 were also weak. So that's 6 straight weak seasons...the world just couldn't produce the tennis players then, apparently.

And then Federer dominated again in 2007. But it's because Djokovic and Murray were still inexperienced, so again...weak, right? Seven straight years.

And then 2008...Federer/Nadal take 3 of the 4 slams.

In 2009...Federer/Nadal again take 3 of the 4 slams.

Djokovic and Murray are full of "fail" since they can't beat the lowly Federer.

NINE straight years of weak tennis competition. WHEN WILL IT END?!

I have a hunch it will "end" when Federer stops appearing in every single GS final, or at least stops winning 2 per year.

Hahahaha, QFT!!!

He beat Djokovic in their one slam meeting this year in straight sets,beat Del Potro in 2 slams this year(AO and FO),Murray he didn't play in slams this year but beat him at USO last year(in straights again)when Murray was having a better or atleast comparable year than this one.

But if we go by your logic Nadal was tremendously lucky to win AO since he played 2 guys he has winning records against in SF and F.We saw what happens when he plays someone a little more challenging on HC,against whome he cannot rely on hitting to his BH over and over-he loses like he did against Delpo 3 times in a row and against Cilic and Kolja.

Look at Zagor dropping the hammer!

mandy01
11-10-2009, 01:45 AM
LOL. You make it sound as if Federer is at fault for Nadal getting injured. I mean come on, what was he supposed to do once Nadal was out? Not try to win? Besides,Roger has dominated for so long and lived so long at the pinnacle of the sport that the saying dosent apply :lol:

Mun
11-10-2009, 02:47 AM
Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

exactly, great post

zagor
11-10-2009, 02:48 AM
LOL. You make it sound as if Federer is at fault for Nadal getting injured. I mean come on, what was he supposed to do once Nadal was out? Not try to win?

The moment Nadal loses before the final the tourney should be simply disbanded until next year and declared no winner,same rule if Nadal doesn't participate so no evil doers profit from king's Rafa misfortunes.

In short Nadal is moreimportant than the sport itself and the title in any tourney is meaningles if he doesn't play in the final.

GustafsonFanatic
11-10-2009, 02:52 AM
You could say Federer was lucky that he didn't have any serious injuries in his prime, but weak competition, lucky draws? Come on...

ninman
11-10-2009, 04:18 AM
LOL at 2004 being Fed's best tennis. He lost to Guga at teh French in 04, he wasn't nearly at his best on all surfaces yet. 2006 was definitely Fed's best, anyone with tennis knowledge will tell you this, 3 of 4 slams and 2 sets from the Grand Slam.


To be honest I believe that Federer had won the Rome final in 2006 he would have won the FO too, or at least gone five sets in the final. I think losing that Rome final when he played so brilliantly and having 2 match points, then throwing it away really hurt him. He didn't really let it on at the time, but that really hurt, and if he had won it I think he would have been given a much need confidence boost and really taken the FO final to Nadal and perhaps won it.

In many ways Federer is incredibly unlucky that Nadal came around when he did, because no Nadal and Federer would have won the GS, definitely.

ninman
11-10-2009, 04:22 AM
LOL. You make it sound as if Federer is at fault for Nadal getting injured. I mean come on, what was he supposed to do once Nadal was out? Not try to win?

People don't seem to grasp the idea of a tournament, and the knock out format. People in the media were saying Federer did the FO-Wb double but didn't have to play Nadal, Murray or Djokovic. Well what exactly does that say about them? None of them were good enough to go deep enough in either tournament to play Federer, so who should be critized? It really, really gets on my nerves.

mandy01
11-10-2009, 04:54 AM
you know,the one player who's remained a constant factor for all these years in tennis is Roger.Generations have changed,players have come and gone,they've lost early but Roger has always managed to stay during the final days of the big events..
Its amazing how little credit he gets for fighting through while Nadal easily walks away with the 'mentally stronger","more fierce a cometitor" accolades.
I think his whole on-court display of 'passion' is what people look at.
Roger seems to some people as too laid back to be passionate.
I guess Roger's made it look so easy that people easily want to dismiss him as lucky..

mandy01
11-10-2009, 04:58 AM
To be honest I believe that Federer had won the Rome final in 2006 he would have won the FO too, or at least gone five sets in the final. I think losing that Rome final when he played so brilliantly and having 2 match points, then throwing it away really hurt him. He didn't really let it on at the time, but that really hurt, and if he had won it I think he would have been given a much need confidence boost and really taken the FO final to Nadal and perhaps won it.

In many ways Federer is incredibly unlucky that Nadal came around when he did, because no Nadal and Federer would have won the GS, definitely.
I agree..its what happened to Djokovic this year..he just had a letdown.
Roger could've felt it a bit too.He was so close and playing so well in that match..its kinda sad but I agree that the match could've maybe resulted in a much closer final.I think that year was Roger's best chance of getting the calender slam.

flying24
11-10-2009, 05:14 AM
I voted for Djokovic but only because I didnt notice at first Capriati was an option. Capriati would have been my choice if I had seen her there. She should have had 1 slam at most. Henin as a poll option is simply ********.

Steffi-forever
11-10-2009, 04:34 PM
All players at some point in their career had luck on their side and being unlucky. Federer was fortunate to win some tight matches when it could of gone either way(i.e. Roddick 09 SW19, Nadal 07 SW19). However, I also think he was unlucky for not being able to pull off some tight matches(i.e. Safin in 05 AO, Nadal in 08 SW19 and 09 AO). I don’t believe any player had all the luck on their side in their entire career like some people in here put it. We can go through Pete, Borg or Lendl and point out some of their luck/unlucky moments during his heyday.

You are right.

Cyan
11-10-2009, 06:43 PM
Fed winning the poll, obviously. He is the luckiest twat to ever play tennis.

jamesblakefan#1
11-10-2009, 06:46 PM
Dumb troll is Dumb

veroniquem
11-10-2009, 07:34 PM
Fed winning the poll, obviously. He is the luckiest twat to ever play tennis.
Yes, eloquent consensus on that one...

veroniquem
11-10-2009, 07:40 PM
The moment Nadal loses before the final the tourney should be simply disbanded until next year and declared no winner,same rule if Nadal doesn't participate so no evil doers profit from king's Rafa misfortunes.

In short Nadal is moreimportant than the sport itself and the title in any tourney is meaningles if he doesn't play in the final.
Nope, it wasn't Fed's fault and he seized the opportunity which is very deserving. It doesn't change the fact that Fed was lucky Rafa collapsed that way. Noone is saying it makes Fed evil to be lucky. It doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge his luck.

volleynets
11-10-2009, 07:47 PM
There's no such thing called luck.
What you get,you get because you've worked for it.You've earned it.
Only sad fanatics speak of 'luck'.

That is 100% true. Nobody is lucky. The harder you work, the more you try, the more you win, and the more lucky you seem.

volleynets
11-10-2009, 07:49 PM
Fed winning the poll, obviously. He is the luckiest twat to ever play tennis.

By luckiest you mean best. 100% agree. IF he wasn't good he wouldn't win now go away.

veroniquem
11-10-2009, 08:00 PM
[QUOTE=jamesblakefan#1;4092451]So much fail in this post I'll address it bit by bit.



Besides the central point, that Federer can only play who is in front of him, how was Philipousis inexperienced? He made a USO final in 98, had big matches at Wimbledon vs Pete before....if anything Fed was the inexperienced one in that match.
Agree, Philip was the least inexperienced of the weak opponents. Still when he met Fed in the 2003 W final, he hadn't won a single title in 2 years (since 2001), so yeah, that qualifies as weak

Gonzo and Soderling were weak? Yet they steamrolled Nadal, what does that make him? Your theory here holds little water. And go back and see how well Baghdatis was playing in 06. Certainly anything but weak.
Nadal was injured both at AO 2007 and RG 2009. But that's beside my point which is that they're weak slam FINALISTS, no experience of slam finals and their weakness is amply demonstrated by the fact they would never make another slam final, not even close. Neither of those guys has even won a master. All of this is even truer of Bagh, decent players but 0 weight as slam finalists.



We all know Roddick's a good matchup for Federer, but that still doesn't make these matches meaningless or 'lucky'. Roddick's best two matches of his career were probably the 04 and 09 Wimbledon finals, yet Federer still prevailed. Murray and Djokovic were both in good form when they made their finals appearances. Agassi was still a top 10 player when he made the finals in 05.
It doesn't make them meaningless, it just makes them easy as Fed has cushy comfidence vs this guy. I was not trying to demonstrate that Fed didn't deserve those slams, just that he wasn't challenged much in the process of winning a lot of them.
However good Murray and Djoko were, it was their 1st slam final (only one for Murray). Agassi top 10? Big deal! He was 35 and as close as can be to retirement

kishnabe
11-10-2009, 08:15 PM
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8644/shoot.png

Thank you CMM, That was hilarious.

OddJack
11-10-2009, 08:22 PM
Nadal will stay injured till he retires, pointing out he lost because he was injured is useless.

Tempest344
11-10-2009, 08:25 PM
no tommy haas in this poll?

TheFifthSet
11-10-2009, 09:05 PM
Yes, eloquent consensus on that one...

Nadal is absent from the poll, interestingly. :)

CHOcobo
11-10-2009, 09:11 PM
Nadal loses means he choked. Federer wins means he's lucky. theres excuses for every little thing out there, but one thing stays the same, people with no absolute acknowledgment.

I voted for Nadal, its lucky how he wins all the time
considering he's always injured

either he's lucky or he's really good to win while injured.

mandy01
11-10-2009, 10:34 PM
Nadal will stay injured till he retires, pointing out he lost because he was injured is useless.
Precisely.He is one injured soul...Thats why he's such a hero when he wins
Poor baby...
Lets throw a pity party for him.:roll:
I like how the OP conveniently left out Nadal :wink:

namelessone
11-10-2009, 11:05 PM
you know,the one player who's remained a constant factor for all these years in tennis is Roger.Generations have changed,players have come and gone,they've lost early but Roger has always managed to stay during the final days of the big events..
Its amazing how little credit he gets for fighting through while Nadal easily walks away with the 'mentally stronger","more fierce a cometitor" accolades.
I think his whole on-court display of 'passion' is what people look at.
Roger seems to some people as too laid back to be passionate.
I guess Roger's made it look so easy that people easily want to dismiss him as lucky..

Nadal won 2/3 of his titles on mental strength alone,coupled with some great tennis along the way but he is not as versatile as other players(see federer) but is usually clutch in the key moments and that's what gets him through. As Nadal himself said Fed can do more on court and once you can do everything on court people take your victories for granted. When I think Federer,I think graceful and efficient tennis,not fighting attitude. When I think Nadal I think fighting attitude on court and that is because of his game and all the tight situations he got out off in the past years on court.

Federer doesn't like tight situations and that's why we rarely see federer's fighting spirit,because he isn't pushed that much. This year he fought bravely in RG,where he came back and in WB 09' but he faultered in the fifth in AO and USO. But because Fed usually dominates his opponents you rarely get to see his fight for victory,he usually breezes through.

If you would see one kid fight another kid who is bigger and better than him and succeed in taking him down,who would you think was braver(had more fight in him),the first,small kid or the bigger kid? All people would say the small kid because he had little chance. Federer is so big in tennis(he has been the face of tennis for the last 6 years,joined by Nadal since 2005) that he can hardly get credit for anything anymore. RG was big for him and the tennis world because that trophy eluded him but Fed wins in big tournaments are still commonplace and as long as he keeps winning people will never see his fighting spirit. Sounds odd and cynical,right? But one needs to be down and get up for people to see your fighting spirit. That's why Fed was lauded for his 2009 season,because he recovered after his crappy 08'(in which he still made 3 out of 4 GS finals).

To conclude,Fed's "problem" is that he is so much better than everyone else that it puts his fighting spirit in the backseat while for other players(like Nadal),who aren't as complete,technically speaking,fighting spirit takes the frontseat. Fed is the only player I know who toys with his opponents in GS,even in GS finals.

CMM
11-10-2009, 11:11 PM
Precisely.He is one injured soul...Thats why he's such a hero when he wins
Poor baby...
Lets throw a pity party for him.:roll:
I like how the OP conveniently left out Nadal :wink:

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5793/mcgsuperman01crop.jpg

Jchurch
11-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Henin is only a threat to Serena on clay and Serena didnt win a French Open since Henin retired anyway so who cares. Safina and Jankovic and the womens field the last couple years suck it is true, but Serena dominated when Venus, Davenport and Capriati were there instead so it doesnt matter.

Oh the same Capriati that won 3 slams in a 13 month time frame?

flying24
11-10-2009, 11:23 PM
Oh the same Capriati that won 3 slams in a 13 month time frame?

The simple fact Capriati won all 3 of her slams in a 13 month time frame when she had losing head to heads with half the top 10, won only 1 other tournament (and she didnt tank any events like Serena), and benefited from timely withdrawals and other forms of extreme luck to get there, is why she is on this thread in the first place. As it was once Serena began to dominate and win 5 of her next 6 slams, and Henin soon came into her own too, Capriati never even reached another slam final.

jamesblakefan#1
11-10-2009, 11:40 PM
Nadal won 2/3 of his titles on mental strength alone,coupled with some great tennis along the way but he is not as versatile as other players(see federer) but is usually clutch in the key moments and that's what gets him through. As Nadal himself said Fed can do more on court and once you can do everything on court people take your victories for granted. When I think Federer,I think graceful and efficient tennis,not fighting attitude. When I think Nadal I think fighting attitude on court and that is because of his game and all the tight situations he got out off in the past years on court.

Federer doesn't like tight situations and that's why we rarely see federer's fighting spirit,because he isn't pushed that much. This year he fought bravely in RG,where he came back and in WB 09' but he faultered in the fifth in AO and USO. But because Fed usually dominates his opponents you rarely get to see his fight for victory,he usually breezes through.

If you would see one kid fight another kid who is bigger and better than him and succeed in taking him down,who would you think was braver(had more fight in him),the first,small kid or the bigger kid? All people would say the small kid because he had little chance. Federer is so big in tennis(he has been the face of tennis for the last 6 years,joined by Nadal since 2005) that he can hardly get credit for anything anymore. RG was big for him and the tennis world because that trophy eluded him but Fed wins in big tournaments are still commonplace and as long as he keeps winning people will never see his fighting spirit. Sounds odd and cynical,right? But one needs to be down and get up for people to see your fighting spirit. That's why Fed was lauded for his 2009 season,because he recovered after his crappy 08'(in which he still made 3 out of 4 GS finals).

To conclude,Fed's "problem" is that he is so much better than everyone else that it puts his fighting spirit in the backseat while for other players(like Nadal),who aren't as complete,technically speaking,fighting spirit takes the frontseat. Fed is the only player I know who toys with his opponents in GS,even in GS finals.

I started off reading your post and disagreeing with you, but after seeing where you ended up and your main point, I agree with you completely. Well said sir.

zagor
11-11-2009, 01:50 AM
Fed winning the poll, obviously. He is the luckiest twat to ever play tennis.

Yes, eloquent consensus on that one...

Yes TW pools are really accurate,the golden standard and absolute truth.So given that you find their results so important and valid in this case you agree that:

-Federer is GOAT http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8521

-Nadal is the most boring player on tour http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7456

-Nadal is the biggest whiner http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=293004&highlight=whiner

So given that you seem to think that TW poll result is absolute truth and isn't debatable and disputable you'll agree with the above mentioned things as well,yes?

Nope, it wasn't Fed's fault and he seized the opportunity which is very deserving. It doesn't change the fact that Fed was lucky Rafa collapsed that way. Noone is saying it makes Fed evil to be lucky. It doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge his luck.


Hm,yes Gen was implying exactly that.As for luck,given that according to Nadal fans Fed is:

-mentally weak
-has a crappy one handed BH
-win all his slams mostly due to luck

We can then conclude that Nadal is luck as heck that Fed is the guy he plays in the late stages of the big tourneys most often(heck he was his only opposition on clay until this year),easy to show great fighting spirit when the opponent isn't that good and is mentally weak.

We saw what happens when Nadal plays someone with a strong 2 handed BH on HC-he loses 6-2 6-2 6-2 like he did against Delpo,where was his fighting spirit then?

We also saw what happens when he plays someone who doesn't choke at the FO(like Fed the mental midget does)-he loses like he did against Soderling,for once in his life he faced an opponent who didn't choke at the FO and he didn't exactly raise to the challenge.

CMM
11-11-2009, 02:09 AM
-Nadal is the biggest whiner http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=293004&highlight=whiner
So wrong...:roll:

Nadal played that USO semifinal having an abdominal tear. I don't know how many other players would have been there in the same conditions. However, he said that he didn't lost because of the injury and that Del Potro was simply better. On top of that, after he suffered a humiliating loss and he lost the chance to win the only GS title that he's missing, he didn't rush stepping out of the court like most of the players do and instead he stopped and signed autographs for the kids and he even smiled. Such a whiner...

Gen
11-11-2009, 02:57 AM
We also saw what happens when he plays someone who doesn't choke at the FO(like Fed the mental midget does)-he loses like he did against Soderling,for once in his life he faced an opponent who didn't choke at the FO and he didn't exactly raise to the challenge.

Have you ever heard the word "injury", you, seemingly fair poster? Do you know enough about tennis to realize that no Sod could beat healthy Nadal? Have you seen the thrashing Nadal gave Sod only a month before RG (6:1, 6:0)? Do you imply that Sod developed from a clay nobody to a clay genous within 30 days? OK, I used to argue with hundreds of posters here who said Federer never had any mononucleosis, he just lost and looked for excuses. Now I'm saying FEDERER NEVER HAD ANY MONONUCLEOSIS, HE HAD A LOSING STREAK. You wanted it? Get it!

mandy01
11-11-2009, 03:06 AM
Have you ever heard the word "injury", you, seemingly fair poster? Do you know enough about tennis to realize that no Sod could beat healthy Nadal? Have you seen the thrashing Nadal gave Sod only a month before RG (6:1, 6:0)? Do you imply that Sod developed from a clay nobody to a clay genous within 30 days? OK, I used to argue with hundreds of posters here who said Federer never had any mononucleosis, he just lost and looked for excuses. Now I'm saying FEDERER NEVER HAD ANY MONONUCLEOSIS, HE HAD A LOSING STREAK. You wanted it? Get it!
You accuse zagor of not being fair when you and your fellow fans are constantly BSing? Wow.....:shock::shock:

mandy01
11-11-2009, 03:07 AM
So wrong...:roll:

Nadal played that USO semifinal having an abdominal tear. I don't know how many other players would have been there in the same conditions. However, he said that he didn't lost because of the injury and that Del Potro was simply better. On top of that, after he suffered a humiliating loss and he lost the chance to win the only GS title that he's missing, he didn't rush stepping out of the court like most of the players do and instead he stopped and signed autographs for the kids and he even smiled. Such a whiner...
I agree with you..Nadal has never ever been 100%.Injured since his previous lifetime...poor baby..God conspires against him.

CMM
11-11-2009, 03:44 AM
I agree with you..Nadal has never ever been 100%.Injured since his previous lifetime...poor baby..God conspires against him.

If you cannot understand what I'm saying, would be a waste of time arguing with you.

grafselesfan
11-11-2009, 03:55 AM
Good to see Crapriati and Federer with the most votes. TW does have alot of intelligent posters it seems.

mandy01
11-11-2009, 04:06 AM
I started off reading your post and disagreeing with you, but after seeing where you ended up and your main point, I agree with you completely. Well said sir.Same here.That post indeed ended up being a good one.

mandy01
11-11-2009, 04:07 AM
If you cannot understand what I'm saying, would be a waste of time arguing with you. I did..I understood the backhanded credit given to Del Po-by you that is..

zagor
11-11-2009, 05:46 AM
Have you ever heard the word "injury", you, seemingly fair poster? Do you know enough about tennis to realize that no Sod could beat healthy Nadal? Have you seen the thrashing Nadal gave Sod only a month before RG (6:1, 6:0)? Do you imply that Sod developed from a clay nobody to a clay genous within 30 days?

First of all I never said I was a fair poster,so take that BS to someone else.Second what I wrote in the previous was not my real opinion on Nadal but rather I was trolling using Nadal fanboy logic(your and your Nadal buddies logic when it comes to Fed).

This is what I truly think about Nadal and his Soderling FO match:

-He overplayed during clayseason,he should have skipped Barcelona or Madrid

-I don't believe he arrived at the FO with injury,he wouldn't have been able to stomp over Hewitt like that if he was injuried at that time.Lleyton is no giant on clay but he's still good enough not to lose in such fashion to an injuried player,especially given the fact that he's one of the few who was atleast able to put some resistance against Nadal on clay in the past.

-When he faced a big hitter who had a great day like Soderling Nadal given defensive nature of his game was forced to cover a lot of court(and I mean a lot,Soderling was going all out and not missing)and Nadal's overscheduling caught up with him in that match and flared the tendinitis problem that is always following Nadal.I believe that injury that forced Nadal to miss Wimbledon happened during the match with Soderling,not before or after.

-I do think Soderling played great tennis during the whole tourney not just the match with Nadal given that he also beat one of the best claycourters in recent years Kolja in a very convincing fashion and he also beat Gonzo after who was also in great form himself(he bageled strong era player Murray in QF).

-By some players's(and comentators,experts etc.)accounts clay played faster this year which resulted in having mostly big hitters in latest stages of the tourney and which also benefited Soderling during his match against Nadal.

OK, I used to argue with hundreds of posters here who said Federer never had any mononucleosis, he just lost and looked for excuses. Now I'm saying FEDERER NEVER HAD ANY MONONUCLEOSIS, HE HAD A LOSING STREAK. You wanted it? Get it!

Eh,the vast majority of Nadal fans in this forum did insist that Fed faked his mono,they never acknowledged there's even a possibility that he indeed had mono,they were ridiculing Federer and his fans on that issue ever since last year.So it's kinda stupid to threaten to do something which Nadal fans do and did all the time anyway.

zagor
11-11-2009, 05:48 AM
So wrong...:roll:

Nadal played that USO semifinal having an abdominal tear. I don't know how many other players would have been there in the same conditions. However, he said that he didn't lost because of the injury and that Del Potro was simply better. On top of that, after he suffered a humiliating loss and he lost the chance to win the only GS title that he's missing, he didn't rush stepping out of the court like most of the players do and instead he stopped and signed autographs for the kids and he even smiled. Such a whiner...

Hm,don't blame me,I don't think that the results of polls on internet forum are omnipotent and undisputable(not even close).

cuddles26
11-11-2009, 05:51 AM
Nadal lost to Soderling at the French Open since he was injured. End of story. Soderling is overrated and not even top 10 worthy. I do think even if he was healthy he might have lost to Federer in the final though. Roger was on fire in that final, and even though Nadal was already injured in Madrid Roger's performance there was also very impressive vs Del Potro and Nadal.

mandy01
11-11-2009, 06:55 AM
Nadal lost to Soderling at the French Open since he was injured. End of story. Soderling is overrated and not even top 10 worthy. I do think even if he was healthy he might have lost to Federer in the final though. Roger was on fire in that final, and even though Nadal was already injured in Madrid Roger's performance there was also very impressive vs Del Potro and Nadal. Nadal was not injured in Madrid.

cuddles26
11-11-2009, 07:10 AM
Nadal was not injured in Madrid.

Didnt Nadal and his uncle later say his injury took place in his semifinal win over Djokovic in Madrid? I see no reason not to believe them. It is not like they have lied before, and given that he did withdraw from Wimbledon he obviously had an injury at some point towards the end of the clay court season.

jamesblakefan#1
11-11-2009, 07:53 AM
Good to see Crapriati and Federer with the most votes. TW does have alot of intelligent posters it seems.

Yeah that Federer, he's so lucky, no talent at all. 15 slams with lucky draws...I wish I had his luck. How does he do it, rabbit's feet? ATP should investigate him for Performance Enhancing Luck.

wangs78
11-11-2009, 08:00 AM
Definitely Federer. He's nothing without obvious talent & the drive to dominate.

This era would have been a strong one if he weren't that good.

LOL 10char

TMF
11-11-2009, 08:06 AM
Didnt Nadal and his uncle later say his injury took place in his semifinal win over Djokovic in Madrid? I see no reason not to believe them. It is not like they have lied before, and given that he did withdraw from Wimbledon he obviously had an injury at some point towards the end of the clay court season.

There was nothing wrong with his movement and injury is just another excuse again. Federer simply outclassed him. His fh was giving Nadal all sort of trouble and the dropshots was killing him.

TMF
11-11-2009, 08:09 AM
Good to see Crapriati and Federer with the most votes. TW does have alot of intelligent posters it seems.

LOL, so intelligent by having Nadal equal to Fed in grass as GOAT.

mandy01
11-11-2009, 08:12 AM
Didnt Nadal and his uncle later say his injury took place in his semifinal win over Djokovic in Madrid? I see no reason not to believe them. It is not like they have lied before, and given that he did withdraw from Wimbledon he obviously had an injury at some point towards the end of the clay court season. Nadal said he overplayed by entering Madrid.Funny how he mentioned Madrid which is a mandatory masters event and not Barcelona which he could've easily missed for a year instead of playing 3 weeks back-to-back.

fed_rulz
11-11-2009, 08:19 AM
To the OP:
All of Fed's opponents were the luckiest ones - they got the best seats in the house to witness a genius at work

diegaa
11-11-2009, 08:27 AM
Coria is the unluckiest player of the last ten years, thats for sure

Storm
11-11-2009, 08:44 AM
It's funny all these players have more talent in their finger then anyone that has posted. So maybe their lucky, but they work their *** off harder then any of you.

Michael Bluth
11-11-2009, 08:45 AM
Well, it was Coria's own fault he choked.

T1000
11-11-2009, 09:51 AM
Nadal is easily the luckiest player of all time

LiveForever
11-11-2009, 12:19 PM
The only reason that Federer is leading this poll if because the OP conveniently left out his beloved favorites such as Nadal and Serena. Nadal would have received a buttloads of votes from his haters as well.

The-Champ
11-11-2009, 12:28 PM
Federer is the luckiest player of ALL time!

jamesblakefan#1
11-11-2009, 01:03 PM
Federer is the luckiest player of ALL time!

Another dumb Nadal troll, I see. Obviously didn't see the Almagro chokejob this morning, that is the definition of luck.

namelessone
11-11-2009, 01:17 PM
There is no such thing as lucky or unlucky in the long run. Nadal has been lucky lately with some players choking or getting injured when they face him but he is not so lucky overall considering he already missed 3 slams in his not so long career because of injury(RG 04',AO 07' and WB 09') and may retire in 2-3 years,probably because his body can't take it anymore. Nadal is not lucky because HC is the main surface in the ATP and he sucks on it. He is not lucky because he plays in the same era the GOAT plays in. He is not lucky because he lost his most at most successful slam to the one player he didn't like in the atp. He is not lucky because he lost in front of his home crowd to his main rival. He is not lucky because he lost the nr.1 for which he fought 3 years in a matter of a few weeks mainly due of injury(nadal had quite a large lead before the fo-wimbledon double). He is not lucky because the new generation in tennis is much taller,has bigger serves and almost all of them have 2H-BH.

I'd say Nadal has had his share of luck but he is not the luckiest player,not by a long shot.

jamesblakefan#1
11-11-2009, 01:24 PM
The only area where Federer has been remotely lucky is his health. His ability to remain relatively healthy for so long is certainly remarkable, but even he ran out of that luck in 08. But still, he's had a relatively injury free run in his career, but even that has to be a credit to his smart scheduling and fitness.

Baikalic
11-11-2009, 03:05 PM
Another dumb Nadal troll, I see. Obviously didn't see the Almagro chokejob this morning, that is the definition of luck.

Even if he saw that nail-biter, I don't think it would preclude trolls' propensity to troll :). Anyone championing either Nadal or Fed in this thread is trollish.

thus i think:
Nadal is easily the luckiest player of all time
is silly too.

The luckiest player of the last ten years would not be anybody with multiple GS titles...I think it would be someone with an incredibly easy draw to a GS title, or perhaps a GS final...that's why i earlier mentioned Hewitt at Wimbledon 2002.

zagor
11-11-2009, 03:53 PM
There is no such thing as lucky or unlucky in the long run. Nadal has been lucky lately with some players choking or getting injured when they face him but he is not so lucky overall considering he already missed 3 slams in his not so long career because of injury(RG 04',AO 07' and WB 09') and may retire in 2-3 years,probably because his body can't take it anymore. Nadal is not lucky because HC is the main surface in the ATP and he sucks on it. He is not lucky because he plays in the same era the GOAT plays in. He is not lucky because he lost his most at most successful slam to the one player he didn't like in the atp. He is not lucky because he lost in front of his home crowd to his main rival. He is not lucky because he lost the nr.1 for which he fought 3 years in a matter of a few weeks mainly due of injury(nadal had quite a large lead before the fo-wimbledon double). He is not lucky because the new generation in tennis is much taller,has bigger serves and almost all of them have 2H-BH.

I'd say Nadal has had his share of luck but he is not the luckiest player,not by a long shot.

Yes but he's lucky he matches up very well with supposed GOAT and that surfaces all around have been slowed down(especially Wimbledon and USO).

However you're right that he definitely had his share of misfortunes as well no doubt about it so I agree that he's not the luckiest player.

Although overall I do not believe luck plays a major role when we're talking about tennis legends like Fed and Nadal,talent,work ethic and mental strength are key factors when it comes to their success IMO.

The-Champ
11-11-2009, 08:14 PM
Another dumb Nadal troll, I see. Obviously didn't see the Almagro chokejob this morning, that is the definition of luck.

So are you..moron! In fact you are the dumbest poster around.


If you want to play mother theresa on this board...at least be fair. I don't see you playing gestapo on people calling Nadal the luckiest player the last 10 years. And quit pretending to be a blake fan when in reality, your only source of carnal satisfaction are the federer posters on your bedroom wall!

jamesblakefan#1
11-12-2009, 01:15 AM
So are you..moron! In fact you are the dumbest poster around.

If you want to play mother theresa on this board...at least be fair. I don't see you playing gestapo on people calling Nadal the luckiest player the last 10 years. And quit pretending to be a blake fan when in reality, your only source of carnal satisfaction are the federer posters on your bedroom wall!

People are only calling Nadal 'lucky' due to his 'injuries', b/c of your fellow Nadal trolls running around calling Federer luckiest, an overachiever, weak era, etc.

And the 'You're not a Blake fan' stuff really gets old. Are you really a Nadal fan? I see you in no match threads, hell half your posts are just irrelevant Fed bashing. You're more of a Fed-hater than anything else, not a real fan of tennis at all.

jamesblakefan#1
11-12-2009, 01:21 AM
The posts calling Nadal lucky were in response to these posts by 'fair minded' Nadal 'fans'.

Fed.

He piled up the majority of his slams in the weakest era ever in the history of any sport. Flake an Lube both in the top 4, rotfl, lmao. Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro were too young in 2004-2006.... So Fed took advantage of this. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

Very well said. To disagree that Federer has been lucky is completely fine, but to just brush off anyone who thinks Federer got somewhat lucky with the field in place, playing conditions, other variables to win as many as 15 slams as being stupid or trolling is completely ignorant and short sighted.

Federer certainly got lucky in slams. He won 4 of them against weak inexperienced finalists (Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Soderling and Philippoussis), 4 others against his personal punching ball (Roddick), 1 against a crumbling 35 years old Agassi and 2 against young maiden slam finalists: Djokovic and Murray.
That leaves only 4 finals where he played against a slam savvy dangerous opponent: Safin and Hewitt in 2004 and the 2 Wimbledon finals against Nadal (although to be honest, in 2006, Nadal was very much the novice on grass). It's unsurprising that 2 of those finals happened in 2004 since that is when Fed was playing his best tennis and he had to since at that time he didn't have his reputation to intimidate his opponents.

Fed winning the poll, obviously. He is the luckiest twat to ever play tennis.

Nope, it wasn't Fed's fault and he seized the opportunity which is very deserving. It doesn't change the fact that Fed was lucky Rafa collapsed that way. Noone is saying it makes Fed evil to be lucky. It doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge his luck.

Federer is the luckiest player of ALL time!

As far as me being fair, one of my biggest enemies (as if you can really have enemies on an internet message board :lol:), if you will, is a Fed fan. You know, the guy who broke the Nadal-steroid story that never broke? The guy with the newspaper articles? Yeah, that guy. Huge Fed fan. I never claim to be fair 100% of the time, but unlike you, I am not an irrational, worthless, meaningless troll with zero tennis knowledge whatsoever.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 01:23 AM
I'm pretty sure that Federer gets his fair share of luck more than anyone, especially at wimbledon.

Nadal isn't unlucky, he should count himself lucky that he is a bad matchup for the best player ever to play the game.

I suppose gaudio is lucky because outside the FO04 he was hopeless and luck even played a part in him winning, plus the choke of the decade when coria missed the BH on CP.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 01:28 AM
Thomas Johansson was lucky that Safin had a bad day in the 02 AO final, his draw up to that point was a bit of a joke:

Diaz, Hipfl, El Ayanaoui, Voinea, Björkman, Novak.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 01:32 AM
Thomas Johansson was lucky that Safin had a bad day in the 02 AO final, his draw up to that point was a bit of a joke: Diaz, Hipfl, El Ayanaoui, Voinea, Björkman, Novak.

Rubbish, johansson has proved himself outside the AO. And the draw itself doesn't matter because he still won 7 matches.

If you want an easy draw look at Federer's this year at wimbledon. He was playing the likes of karlovic in the QF's.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 01:38 AM
Rubbish, johansson has proved himself outside the AO. And the draw itself doesn't matter because he still won 7 matches.

If you want an easy draw look at Federer's this year at wimbledon. He was playing the likes of karlovic in the QF's.

Johannsen won only once more than 3 matches in a row in 2002, at the Aussi Open. Outside the AO he won just twice 3 consecutive matches, the rest of the year he lost between 1st and 3rd round.

And about Federer's Wimbledon draw. Haas played great, Kohlschreiber too, Roddick wasn't playing bad either and Karlovic was unbroken all grass season long until he played Federer, he was serving as good as anyone ever has and not doing a terrible job at backing up his serve either.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 01:51 AM
Johannsen won only once more than 3 matches in a row in 2002, at the Aussi Open. Outside the AO he won just twice 3 consecutive matches, the rest of the year he lost between 1st and 3rd round.

And about Federer's Wimbledon draw. Haas played great, Kohlschreiber too, Roddick wasn't playing bad either and Karlovic was unbroken all grass season long until he played Federer, he was serving as good as anyone ever has and not doing a terrible job at backing up his serve either.

But the quality of players wasn't exactly immense was it? yep Roddick and haas are no walkevers but Federer loves to play them. The draw was so easy for Federer up until the final that he only lost 1 set and that was to kohlshriebler.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 02:20 AM
But the quality of players wasn't exactly immense was it? yep Roddick and haas are no walkevers but Federer loves to play them. The draw was so easy for Federer up until the final that he only lost 1 set and that was to kohlshriebler.
Maybe not immense, but definately solid.

Haas had way too much game on grass for Djokovic (twice in a row, in fact), I think Kolhschreiber had a winner/ue-ratio around 10 in the set he won against Federer. Roddick was playing some of his best ever tennis, and so was Karlovic who seemed unbreakable for 3-4 weeks.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 02:42 AM
Maybe not immense, but definately solid.

Haas had way too much game on grass for Djokovic (twice in a row, in fact), I think Kolhschreiber had a winner/ue-ratio around 10 in the set he won against Federer. Roddick was playing some of his best ever tennis, and so was Karlovic who seemed unbreakable for 3-4 weeks.

Except that djokovic has been playing poor up until the US open and kohlshriebler got owned except for the tiebreaker he won. Karlovic was only unbreakable due to the fact he was playing guys with awful return games. Even against Roddick, Federer was favoured to win in straight sets.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 03:01 AM
Except that djokovic has been playing poor up until the US open and kohlshriebler got owned except for the tiebreaker he won. Karlovic was only unbreakable due to the fact he was playing guys with awful return games. Even against Roddick, Federer was favoured to win in straight sets.

Haas was playing some fantastic attacking tennis, that's the main reason why Djokovic had no answer to his game.

Tsonga and Verdasco looked absolutely helpless against Karlovic in Wimbledon, and Roddick was lucky to win in Queens.

Just because Federer has a good record against all those guys doesn't make it an easy draw. Otherwise Nadal has not had a single difficult draw on clay, ever.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 03:24 AM
Haas was playing some fantastic attacking tennis, that's the main reason why Djokovic had no answer to his game.

Tsonga and Verdasco looked absolutely helpless against Karlovic in Wimbledon, and Roddick was lucky to win in Queens.

Just because Federer has a good record against all those guys doesn't make it an easy draw. Otherwise Nadal has not had a single difficult draw on clay, ever.


Karlovic isn't a threat to any of the top 5,6 guys in the world. And Roddick was lucky to beat karlovic in queens - i didn't watch the match so i can't comment, but Roddick owns karlovic, like the rest of the top 6.

Name me 2 grand slam finalists that Federer played at Wimbledon 2009?

And Nadal has got tough draws if we consider the RANKING aspects. Plus the fact that he has actually lost at roland garros and to others in the past on clay.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 03:38 AM
Karlovic isn't a threat to any of the top 5,6 guys in the world. And Roddick was lucky to beat karlovic in queens - i didn't watch the match so i can't comment, but Roddick owns karlovic, like the rest of the top 6.

Name me 2 grand slam finaliststhat Federer played at Wimbledon 2009?

And Nadal has got tough draws if we consider the RANKING aspects. Plus the fact that he has actually lost at roland garros and to others in the past on clay.

Karlovic IS a threat to the top players in the form he showed at Wimbledon, he was not broken for 3-4 WEEKS, that's almost unheard of.

Nadal didn't play someone with a previous slam-final either before the final when he won Wimbledon, so what's your point? Roddick is an "easy" opponent for Federer and Federer is an "easy" opponent for Nadal, very favorable match-ups in both cases.

I don't get your last paragraph, Federer has lost previously at all slams. And what's the ranking worth when the player in question doesn't plays well (like Djokovic)? Had he beaten Haas the draw would've looked more difficult, but Haas had by far the better grass court season.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 04:08 AM
Karlovic IS a threat to the top players in the form he showed at Wimbledon, he was not broken for 3-4 WEEKS, that's almost unheard of.

Nadal didn't play someone with a previous slam-final either before the final when he won Wimbledon, so what's your point? Roddick is an "easy" opponent for Federer and Federer is an "easy" opponent for Nadal, very favorable match-ups in both cases.

I don't get your last paragraph, Federer has lost previously at all slams. And what's the ranking worth when the player in question doesn't plays well (like Djokovic)? Had he beaten Haas the draw would've looked more difficult, but Haas had by far the better grass court season.

Considering that his best result at slams is a QF, i would say that he isn't a threat to the top guys.

Haas did have a better grass-court season. But anyone who is anyone beat djokovic this year. If Djokovic comes out and plays well then he should take care of Haas in straight sets.

I'm just saying that Federer got lucky with the draw because the 3 or 4 people that could have beaten him landed in the other half didn't play due to injury and got KO'ed before they reached Federer.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 04:12 AM
Considering that his best result at slams is a QF, i would say that he isn't a threat to the top guys.

Haas did have a better grass-court season. But anyone who is anyone beat djokovic this year. If Djokovic comes out and plays well then he should take care of Haas in straight sets.

I'm just saying that Federer got lucky with the draw because the 3 or 4 people that could have beaten him landed in the other half didn't play due to injury and got KO'ed before they reached Federer.

Who can beat Federer on grass anyway except for Nadal, and Roddick at his absolute best?
Murray would have a chance if he played agressive, but that wasn't the case in 2009, he was very defensive against Wawrinka and Roddick.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 04:16 AM
Who can beat Federer on grass anyway except for Nadal, and Roddick at his absolute best?
Murray would have a chance if he played agressive, but that wasn't the case in 2009, he was very defensive against Wawrinka and Roddick.

If (big if) he plays like we all know he can, then Djokovic is in that tiny pack of 4 who can potentialy beat Federer on grass.

cuddles26
11-12-2009, 04:18 AM
If (big if) he plays like we all know he can, then Djokovic is in that tiny pack of 4 who can potentialy beat Federer on grass.

Dont be ridiculous. Djokovic isnt nearly good enough on grass to beat Federer, especialy at Wimbledon. Djokovic would have to play the grass court match of his life and Federer be injured so much he could barely serve or move or something. Djokovic will never make a Wimbledon final. Haas beat Djokovic twice on grass since he is better than Djokovic on the surface which is clearly his worst. Djokovic was not off form at Wimbledon, his rabid fan club were raving about his play until the quarters. If he looked less great against Haas, it is because Haas made him look less good. Karlovic would also have beaten Djokovic at this years Wimbledon if they played btw, and I gaurantee on grass Federer was more scared to play him than Djokovic.

dropshot winner
11-12-2009, 04:21 AM
Dont be ridiculous. Djokovic isnt nearly good enough on grass to beat Federer, especialy at Wimbledon. Djokovic would have to play the grass court match of his life and Federer be injured so much he could barely serve or move or something. Djokovic will never make a Wimbledon final. Haas beat Djokovic twice on grass since he is better than Djokovic on the surface which is clearly his worst.

I agree, although I think that Djokovic might have a chance in the future if Fedeer keeps getting worse.

By the way, why didn't you include Serena and Nadal in the poll?

cuddles26
11-12-2009, 04:22 AM
I agree, although I think that Djokovic might have a chance in the future if Fedeer keeps getting worse.

By the way, why didn't you include Serena and Nadal in the poll?

Well I dont consider them lucky but if people want me to include them on the poll I will probably start another which includes them. I will remove Henin as nobody seems to be interested in her as an option, and 1 other person.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 04:24 AM
Dont be ridiculous. Djokovic isnt nearly good enough on grass to beat Federer, especialy at Wimbledon. Djokovic would have to play the grass court match of his life and Federer be injured so much he could barely serve or move or something. Djokovic will never make a Wimbledon final. Haas beat Djokovic twice on grass since he is better than Djokovic on the surface which is clearly his worst. Djokovic was not off form at Wimbledon, his rabid fan club were raving about his play until the quarters. If he looked less great against Haas, it is because Haas made him look less good. Karlovic would also have beaten Djokovic at this years Wimbledon if they played btw, and I gaurantee on grass Federer was more scared to play him than Djokovic.

At wimbledon 2007, Djokovic was 1-1 in sets with Nadal playing with 1 foot and would have made the final if he didn't get injured.

If i was Federer, i would rather play Karlovic because Federer knows what djokovic can do in grand slams - which is beat him. Karlovic didn't even take a set off of Federer at wimbledon, neither did Haas. Personally i feel that Haas is overrated for someone who hasn't even made a slam final.

The fact that djokovic has been playing like ***** his year and is currently #3 in the world tells the whole story.

cuddles26
11-12-2009, 04:26 AM
At wimbledon 2007, Djokovic was 1-1 in sets with Nadal playing with 1 foot and would have made the final if he didn't get injured.

If i was Federer, i would rather play Karlovic because Federer knows what djokovic can do in grand slams - which is beat him. Karlovic didn't even take a set off of Federer at wimbledon, neither did Haas. Personally i feel that Haas is overrated for someone who hasn't even made a slam final.

The fact that djokovic has been playing like ***** his year and is currently #3 in the world tells the whole story.

Djokovic is 1-4 vs Federer in slams. He beat a mono ridden slam on his own best surface once. Against an in form Federer on GRASS he would be spanked regardless how he played, and you are a complete tool if you suggest otherwise. Get your head out of your *** please. Djokovic was lucky at Wimbledon to lose to Haas to avoid the *** whopping he would have gotten from Federer. In fact the most lucky one overall is Djokovic this year, Murray's injury putting him back up to #3, the lucks he gets with the timely chokes of opponents, the luck he often gets with draws, etc...The guy is 0-3 vs Roddick this year and is still ranked #3, how lucky is that, LOL!

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 04:31 AM
Djokovic is 1-4 vs Federer in slams. He beat a mono ridden slam on his own best surface once. Against an in form Federer on GRASS he would be spanked regardless how he played, and you are a complete tool if you suggest otherwise.
Get your head out of your *** please.


HMMM, Federer looked in fine form to me, making the semi's at AO. Djokovic just played the match of his life and Federer was helpless. Look at the stats and you'll find out that Federer played good tennis also.

Djokovic might be 1-4 against Federer but handed Federer's *** to him at the australian open. Get your head out of your *** and just admit that Federer can lose.

Oh, BTW, did Federer lose against Nadal at wimbledon 2008 because of monoglandular fever (spell it right).

prosealster
11-12-2009, 04:34 AM
ridiculous thread....fed should not be one of the choices....

cuddles26
11-12-2009, 04:35 AM
HMMM, Federer looked in fine form to me, making the semi's at AO. Djokovic just played the match of his life and Federer was helpless. Look at the stats and you'll find out that Federer played good tennis also.

Djokovic might be 1-4 against Federer but handed Federer's *** to him at the australian open. Get your head out of your *** and just admit that Federer can lose.

Oh, BTW, did Federer lose against Nadal at wimbledon 2008 because of monoglandular fever (spell it right).

Federer was in total crap form at the 2008 Australian Open, nearly losing to some Tipsarevic clown, so it was little surprise he lost before the final. It was the poorest slam event he has played since 2002. Regardless all their matches were in hard court slams, and as the 1-4 proves Djokovic can barely ever beat Federer at those, on Djokovic's best surface by far. So he doesnt have a prayer in hell on grass, especialy with Federer in form.

I laugh that someone is dumb enough to suggest Federer was lucky to not play Djokovic at Wimbledon, ahahahahahah! Thanks for the joke.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 04:38 AM
Federer was in total crap form at the 2008 Australian Open, nearly losing to some Tipsarevic clown, so it was little surprise he lost before the final. It was the poorest slam event he has played since 2002. Regardless all their matches were in hard court slams, and as the 1-4 proves Djokovic can barely ever beat Federer at those, on Djokovic's best surface by far. So he doesnt have a prayer in hell on grass, especialy with Federer in form.

I laugh that someone is dumb enough to suggest Federer was lucky to not play Djokovic at Wimbledon, ahahahahahah! Thanks for the joke.

No need to laugh at me. Read your sig and your lack of knowledge is obvious.

I'm done talking to this gorm.

flying24
11-12-2009, 04:49 AM
At wimbledon 2007, Djokovic was 1-1 in sets with Nadal playing with 1 foot and would have made the final if he didn't get injured.


You are crazy if you really think Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in that match if he had been healthy. Winning 1 set is a LONG way from winning a match vs Nadal. Djokovic couldnt even get a set off Nadal on much faster grass (aka much worse for Nadal) at Queens when they played the next year. At that years Wimbledon Djokovic took 5 sets to beat a past his prime Hewitt and Baghdatis, yet was going to take out an on fire Nadal, LOL! It is clear you are a huge Djokovic fanboy, please stop now before embarassing yourself further.

prosealster
11-12-2009, 04:53 AM
You are crazy if you really think Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in that match if he had been healthy. Winning 1 set is a LONG way from winning a match vs Nadal. Djokovic couldnt even get a set off Nadal on much faster grass (aka much worse for Nadal) at Queens when they played the next year. At that years Wimbledon Djokovic took 5 sets to beat a past his prime Hewitt and Baghdatis, yet was going to take out an on fire Nadal, LOL! It is clear you are a huge Djokovic fanboy, please stop now before embarassing yourself further.

agree...joker knew he wasnt in good shape...so he came out swinging and was lucky enough to make some good shots to win that set...nad was never going to lose that match

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 05:47 AM
You are crazy if you really think Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in that match if he had been healthy. Winning 1 set is a LONG way from winning a match vs Nadal. Djokovic couldnt even get a set off Nadal on much faster grass (aka much worse for Nadal) at Queens when they played the next year. At that years Wimbledon Djokovic took 5 sets to beat a past his prime Hewitt and Baghdatis, yet was going to take out an on fire Nadal, LOL! It is clear you are a huge Djokovic fanboy, please stop now before embarassing yourself further.

I'm not really a fan of Djokovic. I'm just stating my opinion. Djokovic was actually level with Nadal and he was injured at the same time, therefore i think if djokovic would have been healthy, then match would have been djokovic's or the match would have been closer.

Djokovic in mid 2008 wasn't in great form, Nadal was in the form of his life and Djokovic still had chances to win each set.

Tennis is a game of matchups, baghdatis could take djokovic to 5 sets but djokovic can beat Federer in straight sets at a grandslam.

grafselesfan
11-12-2009, 05:52 AM
I like Djokovic, and like him alot more than Federer, but this Anaconda poster really is crazy. Federer >>>> Djokovic on grass, end of story. On other surfaces he is some threat for sure if in form, but on grass. Maybe in the future he could be a threat to him on grass if he improves alot on the surface, and as Roger declines more, but not even close now. Just what these boards needs, yet another braindead troll to join the fray. I just noticed this is the same one who started a thread on washed up Hewitt rejoining the top 8, someone just ban this clown now.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 06:07 AM
I like Djokovic, and like him alot more than Federer, but this Anaconda poster really is crazy. Federer >>>> Djokovic on grass, end of story. On other surfaces he is some threat for sure if in form, but on grass. Maybe in the future he could be a threat to him on grass if he improves alot on the surface, and as Roger declines more, but not even close now. Just what these boards needs, yet another braindead troll to join the fray. I just noticed this is the same one who started a thread on washed up Hewitt rejoining the top 8, someone just ban this clown now.

I'm not crazy. Djokovic is a threat to any player. I don't even like the guy but he's made the wimbledon semi's so obviously he is quite good on grass. Yes i know Federer is much better than djokovic on grass - i didn't deny that. Federer is a much better grasscourt player than the likes of Nadal and Roddick but struggles on grass against them. Heck, Federer even nearly lost to safin on grass in halle.

And how is defending a player 'trolling' ? I think you are the troll and the crazyman.

navratilovafan
11-12-2009, 06:11 AM
Nadal and Roddick are also much better grass court players than Djokovic. Djokovic is no threat at all to Roger on grass, as cuddles pointed out he barely is a threat to Roger in even hard court slams (slams are different than weenie tournaments). Get off Djokovic's jockstrap seriously. Saying Roger was in part lucky not to play Djokovic at this years Wimbledon? Lucky for what exactly, that the match would have been so short that he would have had too much time forced to shop with his chubby wife, LOL!

navratilovafan
11-12-2009, 06:14 AM
Heck, Federer even nearly lost to safin on grass in halle.

Halle is completely different from Wimbledon you fool. Federer always struggles in Halle and has alot of 3 setters vs far inferior opponents since it is right after the French. His level at Wimbledon is always about twice as high as Halle and he crushes all those same people who he had tough matches with at Halle if he plays them. Anyway Safin is even probably a better grass courter than Djokovic, look how he slapped him silly around Cente Court way past his prime last year.

Anaconda
11-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Halle is completely different from Wimbledon you fool. Federer always struggles in Halle and has alot of 3 setters vs far inferior opponents since it is right after the French. His level at Wimbledon is always about twice as high as Halle and he crushes all those same people who he had tough matches with at Halle if he plays them. Anyway Safin is even probably a better grass courter than Djokovic, look how he slapped him silly around Cente Court way past his prime last year.

Halle is the closest grasscourt to wimbleon you tool. The reason why Federer plays halle is because the conditions are about the same, unlike queens where the courts are a little faster.

Safin isn't a better grasscourt player than djokovic (comming from a big safin fan and i don't really like djokovic)

Last year at wimbledon, djokovic played like crap anyway so invalid point.