PDA

View Full Version : Julian Reister: "I actually don't really want to win against Federer..."


dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 03:07 AM
Just read an article in a swiss newspaper about Federer's next opponent, it seems he finally found his "Almagro".

His originial quote in german:

«Er ist mein absoluter Lieblingsspieler. Und eigentlich möchte ich gar nicht gegen ihn gewinnen. Dann wäre er ja ausgeschieden und ich traurig»

Loosely translatet that means:

"He (Federer) is my absolute favorite player. Actually I don't really want to win against him. Because that would mean that he'd be eliminated from the tournament, and I'd be sad as a result".

:D

Looks like a hopeless Federer-fanboy, but he seems to be a really nice guy. He plays in the german tennis leage and a while ago waived his earnings in an attempt to save his club (which didn't work).

Carsomyr
05-27-2010, 03:22 AM
Well, Federer's going to get draw some flak for this, and finally, it's deserved.

Playing Federer is many fans' dream. Sure, you'd try to win some points, but your eyes would twinkle and you'd flash a grin when Federer passes you with a brilliant forehand.

I'm not watching Federer so I can see some Make a Wish exhibition. I'm watching so I can see him tested by opponents who want a bigger payday, who want to beat the best. The driving force of professional sports is competition, and if you're not planning on being competitive, I can hardly call you a professional. As a pro, you have every right to respect Federer with all your being because he's deserved every ounce of it. But you have no right to worship him.

vortex1
05-27-2010, 03:34 AM
Another clown ready to bend over for his idol. Nothing new here.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 03:35 AM
Another clown ready to bend over for his idol. Nothing new here.

At least he's not ranked in the top10 like some fanboys of Nadal :)

Reister doubled his 2010 earnings be reaching the 3rd round of Roland Garros and has never won a single ATP match.
I don't think he has even beaten a top100 player in the challengers.

babbette
05-27-2010, 03:43 AM
That's the mentality of most of them let's be honest. You can always tell when they walk out on court. I'n so glad one said it to validate speculations over the years :)

where as when it's time to play rafa they're out for blood. that's why rafa always looks like he's been slaughtered when he loses big.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 03:44 AM
That's the mentality of most of them let's be honest. You can always tell when they walk out on court. I'n so glad one said it to validate speculations over the years :)

where as when it's time to play rafa they're out for blood. that's why rafa always looks like he's been slaughtered when he loses big.

That explains some of the fantastic performances from Robredo, Almagro and Verdasco against Nadal. You know, when they can't hit a single decent shot when it REALLY matters.

Face it, Federer AND Nadal have free wins because of their reputation. It's not the whole world against little Rafa.

babbette
05-27-2010, 03:47 AM
That explains some of the fantastic performances from Robredo, Almagro and Verdasco against Nadal. You know, when they can't hit a single decent shot when it REALLY matters.

Face it, Federer AND Nadal have free wins because of their reputation.
His compatriots don't count. 8)

malakas
05-27-2010, 03:48 AM
Well not that he had actually much of a chance-it looks to me like this Reister guy is barely a full time pro-which justifies his statement which is NOT what a professional would ever say-much more believe.

But yeah..cute.

malakas
05-27-2010, 03:49 AM
His compatriots don't count. 8)

LOL why? is this some kind of spanish armada secret oath they make-to always bend over for Rafa?

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 03:49 AM
His compatriots don't count. 8)

So top5, top10 and top20 players don't count, but some obscure player that has played 3 freaking ATP matches (losing all of them) does?

Well, at least you're honest :)

tennis08tarheels
05-27-2010, 03:53 AM
Good quote. :)

Realistically though, I'm sure he'll play harder in this match than he's ever played in his life. I like Roger and if I was in Julian's position I'd be a little sad if I had to knock Roger out too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to lay down and not try to win. That sure as hell isn't what he's saying. It's like playing your best friend in a tournament championship. Part of you feels bad for beating them, but you have to do what you have to do.

iriraz
05-27-2010, 03:54 AM
Some players don`t want to beat their idols although they are well capable of but in this case even if Reister would play his absolute best it would be impossible to take 3 sets of Federer.
At least he can enjoy the stay on center court and if he puts a performance like Falla did the other day then he should be happy

HAL9001
05-27-2010, 04:10 AM
..................................

sh@de
05-27-2010, 04:32 AM
His compatriots don't count. 8)

er... ok?

10 chars.

dh003i
05-27-2010, 04:48 AM
Why would Federer deserve to be criticized for something that his opponent said? (referring to the comment about how he's going to get some flak for this, and deservedly so).

Federer is already criticized more than enough for the things he says.

raiden031
05-27-2010, 04:52 AM
Why would Federer deserve to be criticized for something that his opponent said? (referring to the comment about how he's going to get some flak for this, and deservedly so).

Federer is already criticized more than enough for the things he says.

How arrogant of Federer to be somebody's hero!

Telepatic
05-27-2010, 05:08 AM
I can already see tears of joy in Reister's eyes after Fed serving him yet another bagel set.

Dutch-Guy
05-27-2010, 05:22 AM
I already feel sorry for people that 'll waste their hard earned dough to watch this [expletive] clown.

Legend of Borg
05-27-2010, 05:22 AM
Another clown ready to bend over for his idol. Nothing new here.

Could we say the same for a certain Spaniard in the top 10 who made a comment with a similar suggestion regarding Nadal?

Hitman
05-27-2010, 05:50 AM
Another clown ready to bend over for his idol. Nothing new here.

Could we say the same for a certain Spaniard in the top 10 who made a comment with a similar suggestion regarding Nadal?

I do believe that is what was implied. Another clown bending over for his rival, it's true we've seen that a few times already in the past few weeks. :sad:

cknobman
05-27-2010, 06:02 AM
Reister didnt think it was fair for Rafa to get all the virtual walkovers courtesy of Verdasco and Ferrer so hes decided to show Fed some love too.

zagor
05-27-2010, 06:11 AM
Fed has a puppy of his own now? How cute :)

Nadal's puppy(Verdasco) is a better player though.

Sentinel
05-27-2010, 06:14 AM
Why would Federer deserve to be criticized for something that his opponent said? (referring to the comment about how he's going to get some flak for this, and deservedly so).

Federer is already criticized more than enough for the things he says.
Thank you for the one sensible post in this thread.

Well, Federer's going to get draw some flak for this, and finally, it's deserved.

I'm not watching Federer so I can see some Make a Wish exhibition. I'm watching so I can see him tested by opponents who want a bigger payday, who want to beat the best. The driving force of professional sports is competition, and if you're not planning on being competitive, I can hardly call you a professional. As a pro, you have every right to respect Federer with all your being because he's deserved every ounce of it. But you have no right to worship him.
My dear friend, he has a right to do what he wants.

I don't think it matters to him what *your* or *my* definition of a professional is.

And lastly, its not like he really has a chance to beat Federer even if he tries. Feddie hasn't reached some 20+ finals without deserving it -- you know that.

CMM
05-27-2010, 06:28 AM
Almagro or Verdasco never said that they don't want to beat Nadal.
Only the *******s want to see it that way.
I'm sure they want to beat him because they don't feel very comfortable when they see that Nadal is getting all the attention in Spain. Verdasco even complained about this on the radio. If they don't do it, it must be because they can't.




Is that guy allowed to say that he doesn't want to win? :neutral: Not that he would have a chance even if he wanted to, but the players who don't try are getting fined. I don't see how is this any different.

zapvor
05-27-2010, 06:51 AM
Just read an article in a swiss newspaper about Federer's next opponent, it seems he finally found his "Almagro".

His originial quote in german:

«Er ist mein absoluter Lieblingsspieler. Und eigentlich möchte ich gar nicht gegen ihn gewinnen. Dann wäre er ja ausgeschieden und ich traurig»

Loosely translatet that means:

"He (Federer) is my absolute favorite player. Actually I don't really want to win against him. Because that would mean that he'd be eliminated from the tournament, and I'd be sad as a result".

:D

Looks like a hopeless Federer-fanboy, but he seems to be a really nice guy. He plays in the german tennis leage and a while ago waived his earnings in an attempt to save his club (which didn't work).

wow thats awesome

DarthMaul
05-27-2010, 06:55 AM
The guy is an idiot, IMO. I think he's an arrogant fool. What he's trying to say:

"I can beat Federer, but I won't, because I am his fan"
He has an early excuse for losing.

ksbh
05-27-2010, 07:05 AM
They should ban such cowardly players. If he doesn't want to win, why the hell is he playing. Guys like this one, the ugly Swedeling, James Blake and others are a disgrace. At least James Blake has a good reason ... Federer called him when Blake was in the hospital! LOL!

Sentinel
05-27-2010, 07:05 AM
^^^ Its a digrace, an scandal, an outrage, that someone should want to lose to Federer !!!

ksbh
05-27-2010, 07:06 AM
LOL, C.Man!

What about the ugly Swedeling in the quarters? Is he also going to be starry eyed? :)

Reister didnt think it was fair for Rafa to get all the virtual walkovers courtesy of Verdasco and Ferrer so hes decided to show Fed some love too.

ksbh
05-27-2010, 07:08 AM
LOL, Sentinel! Truth be told though, I wouldn't complain if every player in either half stepped aside for the top 2. I want that Nadal-Federer final!

^^^ Its a digrace, an scandal, an outrage, that someone should want to lose to Federer !!!

sh@de
05-27-2010, 07:21 AM
^^^ Its a digrace, an scandal, an outrage, that someone should want to lose to Federer !!!

Dude go get some grammar lessons man. It's A outrage, not an.

:):mrgreen::mrgreen:

ViscaB
05-27-2010, 07:23 AM
It doesn't really matter. The only game that will matter this year in Paris will be the big final.

Speranza
05-27-2010, 07:25 AM
Dude go get some grammar lessons man. It's A outrage, not an.

:):mrgreen::mrgreen:

Holmes: Is't it just. ;)

Sentinel
05-27-2010, 08:08 AM
Dude go get some grammar lessons man. It's A outrage, not an.

:):mrgreen::mrgreen:
Sorry, I was so outraged that I forgot TW Grammar Chapter 2 (Subject of your thread).


LOL, Sentinel! Truth be told though, I wouldn't complain if every player in either half stepped aside for the top 2. I want that Nadal-Federer final!

oh ksbh, you sadist, you want to see Roger being bageled again, and totally disgraced and outraged and scandalized, don't you !!! I'd rather see a fair battle like Andy Muggins vs Rafa - the Master Tactician and All Courter from GREAT Britain vs the King of Clay.
Or even Djokovic vs Rafa (altho the draw wont allow). Two mental giants battle to death each refusing to give up. Final set going on for a week.

Anyway, I can't blame you for wanting Rafa to win the title easily in straight sets against Roger. And then to add on his Facebook "I played terrible in the finals!" !! LoL.

OKUSA
05-27-2010, 08:11 AM
my favorite player is borg, and if i ever had a chance to face him I would try my hardest to stomp him into the ground. of course that will never happen as he's 30 years older than me. being starstruck on the court is a recipe for failure

cucio
05-27-2010, 08:11 AM
Easy, guys, the man surely was expressing his admiration of Federer in an exaggerated manner, but which player wouldn't want a goat skin overgrip? We are talking about huge rep, points and bucks here, especially for a nobody. He'll try his heart out.

jerriy
05-27-2010, 08:22 AM
Reister didnt think it was fair for Rafa to get all the virtual walkovers courtesy of Verdasco and Ferrer so hes decided to show Fed some love too.:mrgreen: good one

frisco
05-27-2010, 08:25 AM
Doesn't Nadal already have the entire Spanish armada bending over for him?

drakulie
05-27-2010, 08:25 AM
This Guy Is Arrogant, Just Like His Idol.

Shaolin
05-27-2010, 08:27 AM
Good quote. :)

Realistically though, I'm sure he'll play harder in this match than he's ever played in his life. I like Roger and if I was in Julian's position I'd be a little sad if I had to knock Roger out too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to lay down and not try to win. That sure as hell isn't what he's saying. It's like playing your best friend in a tournament championship. Part of you feels bad for beating them, but you have to do what you have to do.



Exactly.. I cant believe everyone here taking the quote at face value :roll: The guy is just playing the match down, when he will probably go all out to win.

Blinkism
05-27-2010, 09:09 AM
Wow, I don't believe someone would actually say that, though.

TennisandMusic
05-27-2010, 09:12 AM
People don't see a clear difference between "I can't beat Nadal" and "I don't want to beat Federer."

One is belief, the other is desire.

valiant
05-27-2010, 09:16 AM
People don't see a clear difference between "I can't beat Nadal" and "I don't want to beat Federer."

One is belief, the other is desire.

so which one you think is better ?

TennisandMusic
05-27-2010, 09:18 AM
so which one you think is better ?

They're both bad, but having no DESIRE to win is far far worse. For example Verdasco (who everyone likes to bag on because he said he can beat everyone but Nadal) probably wanted to win this match against Nadal.

http://www.tennistournaments4u.com/wp-content/gallery/fernando-verdasco/fernando-verdasco-1_0.jpg

drakulie
05-27-2010, 09:23 AM
They're both bad, but having no DESIRE to win is far far worse. For example Verdasco (who everyone likes to bag on because he said he can beat everyone but Nadal) probably wanted to win this match against Nadal.


Agreed. Saying you don't want to beat someone (such as the case here in the OP), is WAY bad, rather than acknowledging you "can't" beat someone.

Fedex
05-27-2010, 09:25 AM
Another clown ready to bend over for his idol. Nothing new here.

Julian Reister. You get today's Kiss *** award.

again

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/a/***_kissing.asp

Legend of Borg
05-27-2010, 09:25 AM
Both statements sound defeatist to me.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 09:32 AM
I just read a longer article about Reister on *********.com (in german) and there the quote was put in context. He wasn't fully serious, and even added that if it were it would be unprofessional, but that he feels a bit that way.

He also said that suprises don't just happen by talking about them and that he's not delusional, adding that he respects Federer immensly, but that he's not in awe of him.

At the end the reporter asked if he'd really be sad if he won to which he replied "Probably not" :)

http://*********.com/WorldTennis/Articles/2010/05-2010/27-05-2010/FrenchOpen_Reister_Vorschau.aspx

kishnabe
05-27-2010, 09:33 AM
I hope Reister puts up a fight...so people don't actually say that he wants to lose. He has to be more professional...and win!

yellowoctopus
05-27-2010, 09:35 AM
If the translation is correct, then it shows bad sportsmanship from Mr. Reister, no matter what his intention is. Ultimately he is a citizen of a free country in a mostly-free world, he can say whatever he wishes.

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_story/2010/01/28/photos_ana_ivanovic_funny_faces_for_verano_photo_s .jpg

davey25
05-27-2010, 10:37 AM
The tour is full of Verdascos these days. Unlike the 90s when everyone was a warrior out there.

davey25
05-27-2010, 10:41 AM
LOL, Sentinel! Truth be told though, I wouldn't complain if every player in either half stepped aside for the top 2. I want that Nadal-Federer final!

And 80% of the p*ssycats on tour today would happily step aside for Federer and Nadal and not even play the match if offered the choice. They would be happy enough reaching as far as they could before playing one of them. It is not like hardly any of them were actually going to try and win the match vs either.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 10:41 AM
The tour is full of Verdascos these days. Unlike the 90s when everyone was a warrior out there.

Nostalgia is always fun.

TennisandMusic
05-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Agreed. Saying you don't want to beat someone (such as the case here in the OP), is WAY bad, rather than acknowledging you "can't" beat someone.

You agree eh? Engagement is making you soft.

BreakPoint
05-27-2010, 10:45 AM
Just read an article in a swiss newspaper about Federer's next opponent, it seems he finally found his "Almagro".

His originial quote in german:

«Er ist mein absoluter Lieblingsspieler. Und eigentlich möchte ich gar nicht gegen ihn gewinnen. Dann wäre er ja ausgeschieden und ich traurig»

Loosely translatet that means:

"He (Federer) is my absolute favorite player. Actually I don't really want to win against him. Because that would mean that he'd be eliminated from the tournament, and I'd be sad as a result".

:D

Looks like a hopeless Federer-fanboy, but he seems to be a really nice guy. He plays in the german tennis leage and a while ago waived his earnings in an attempt to save his club (which didn't work).
Well, Del Potro said the same thing last year (that he was rooting for Federer to finally win his deserved first French Open and complete his career Slam), but then he went on to almost beat Federer in the semis anyway. So......

davey25
05-27-2010, 10:46 AM
Nostalgia is always fun.

It is true though. Even the qualifier and satellite players were warriors back then. It is why even the greats like Sampras, Agassi, and Becker went out or nearly went out in the early rounds to guys not even in the top 100 on a few occasions in slams. Imagine that happening to the top players today. Guys that low cant even take out Djokovic or Murray at their absolute worst in a slam.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 10:50 AM
It is true though. Even the qualifier and satellite players were warriors back then. It is why even the greats like Sampras, Agassi, and Becker went out or nearly went out in the early rounds to guys not even in the top 100 on a few occasions in slams. Imagine that happening to the top players today. Guys that low cant even take out Djokovic or Murray at their absolute worst in a slam.

Sure, when Sampras losses with 80-90 unforced errors against some journeymen it's because his opponent is so great. YAWN. Agassi too played some HORRIBLE stuff in some of his shock losses in slams.

Besides, in the last few slams Djokovic lost against Kohlschreiber and Murray got destroyed by top20/30 Cilic, it's not like only top10 players can beat each other.

Hitman
05-27-2010, 10:53 AM
I wonder if this is just mental warfare. Gets Federer into thinking he's going to have an easy time, then all of sudden, the next clay champion emerges, taking the FO champ out in straights. :)

But yes, he shouldn't really being saying that. Its okay to say that Roger is your favorite, but you've got to go out and play otherwise you're doing yourself, the sport, the fans and those who support you a big injustice.

mandy01
05-27-2010, 10:58 AM
Sure, when Sampras losses with 80-90 unforced errors against some journeymen it's because his opponent is so great. YAWN. Agassi too played some HORRIBLE stuff in some of his shock losses in slams.

Besides, in the last few slams Djokovic lost against Kohlschreiber and Murray got destroyed by top20/30 Cilic, it's not like only top10 players can beat each other.
I must say I'm amazed by davey25's ability to diss the current crop of players every opportunity he gets :shock:

Talker
05-27-2010, 10:59 AM
It is true though. Even the qualifier and satellite players were warriors back then. It is why even the greats like Sampras, Agassi, and Becker went out or nearly went out in the early rounds to guys not even in the top 100 on a few occasions in slams. Imagine that happening to the top players today. Guys that low cant even take out Djokovic or Murray at their absolute worst in a slam.

The level is much higher now, it is very difficult to make any headway against the best players.
Teenagers can't just walk in and make the top 100 anymore.
Not too long ago someone mentioned that there isn't even one teenager in the top 100, not sure if it's still the case now.

mandy01
05-27-2010, 11:00 AM
Both statements sound defeatist to me.Correcto.:(

ksbh
05-27-2010, 11:01 AM
Exactly, Dave!

Reading the ugly Swedeling's comments before his final against Federer at last year' FO, I knew the guy wouldn't take a set. He couldn't wait to get on court to kiss Federer's a*rse!

And 80% of the p*ssycats on tour today would happily step aside for Federer and Nadal and not even play the match if offered the choice. They would be happy enough reaching as far as they could before playing one of them. It is not like hardly any of them were actually going to try and win the match vs either.

Agassifan
05-27-2010, 11:03 AM
At least he's not ranked in the top10 like some fanboys of Nadal :)
.

Players don't really like Nadal

TMF
05-27-2010, 11:04 AM
Well, atleast Roger gets a break since his top half is much tougher than rafa's bottom half. And it's only one player, however rafa got bunch of spaniard players who's already prepared to lose to rafa(if they ever meet).

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 11:06 AM
Exactly, Dave!

Reading the ugly Swedeling's comments before his final against Federer at last year' FO, I knew the guy wouldn't take a set. He couldn't wait to get on court to kiss Federer's a*rse!

It's been a year. Don't you think it's time to drop the bitterness?

Desipite losing Söderling gave Federer good matches at Wimbledon and the US Open, he sure could've done better in Paris, but it's not like he isn't trying.

CCNM
05-27-2010, 11:06 AM
I hope Reister can take a set off Fed. Maybe it will boost his confidence.

mandy01
05-27-2010, 11:09 AM
It's been a year. Don't you think it's time to drop the bitterness?

Desipite losing Söderling gave Federer good matches at Wimbledon and the US Open, he sure could've done better in Paris, but it's not like he isn't trying.
Soderling almost took his match against Roger at the USO to the fifth set if I recall correctly.He was a little unfortunate to lose that fourth set.Lost it in a TB ,didn't he?

Carsomyr
05-27-2010, 11:15 AM
It's been a year. Don't you think it's time to drop the bitterness?

Desipite losing Söderling gave Federer good matches at Wimbledon and the US Open, he sure could've done better in Paris, but it's not like he isn't trying.

:lol::lol::lol:

Hitman
05-27-2010, 11:21 AM
It's been a year. Don't you think it's time to drop the bitterness?

Desipite losing Söderling gave Federer good matches at Wimbledon and the US Open, he sure could've done better in Paris, but it's not like he isn't trying.

It's difficult for some to drop the bitterness because of what Soderling did to Rafa last year will always be remembered. Rafa was going for number five straight, a historic moment in tennis, but Soderling crashed the party, allowing Federer a golden opportunity to win the FO. Fed haters did not want Roger to win the FO under any circumstances, and they have animosity towards Soderling who just went out there and did his job. Play a match and won it. But apparently he bent over in the final, hence even more hatred for him.

And that match between Robin and Roger at the USO was epic! Easily could have gone the distance.

zagor
05-27-2010, 11:23 AM
Soderling almost took his match against Roger at the USO to the fifth set if I recall correctly.He was a little unfortunate to lose that fourth set.Lost it in a TB ,didn't he?

I think Sod would have won if it got to five,Fed was getting pretty tight,was lucky he wrapped it up in 4 IMO.

jackson vile
05-27-2010, 11:41 AM
Really guys, more lame excuses for both players???

ksbh
05-27-2010, 11:53 AM
DW ... it's not bitterness. I just don't like the ugly Swedeling. Is that now allowed? ;)

It's been a year. Don't you think it's time to drop the bitterness?

Desipite losing Söderling gave Federer good matches at Wimbledon and the US Open, he sure could've done better in Paris, but it's not like he isn't trying.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 11:58 AM
DW ... it's not bitterness. I just don't like the ugly Swedeling. Is that now allowed? ;)

No one has the obligation to like Söderling, it's just that "ugly Swedeling" sounds a bit bitter and disrespectful.

TennisandMusic
05-27-2010, 12:13 PM
No one has the obligation to like Söderling, it's just that "ugly Swedeling" sounds a bit bitter and disrespectful.

It's nice as heck compared to the names, or descriptions, used for Nadal around here. Heh.

dropshot winner
05-27-2010, 12:16 PM
It's nice as heck compared to the names, or descriptions, used for Nadal around here. Heh.

Just because some have a low level doesn't mean you have to join them, right?

rocket
05-27-2010, 12:25 PM
His originial quote in german:

«Er ist mein absoluter Lieblingsspieler. Und eigentlich möchte ich gar nicht gegen ihn gewinnen. Dann wäre er ja ausgeschieden und ich traurig»

Loosely translatet that means:

"He (Federer) is my absolute favorite player. Actually I don't really want to win against him. Because that would mean that he'd be eliminated from the tournament, and I'd be sad as a result".

:D

doesn't stand a chance. let's see if he can even win a set off Fed.

oneness
05-27-2010, 12:30 PM
RIDICULOUS!!! This guy has to be fined for saying, he doesn't want to win.:rolleyes:

P_Agony
05-27-2010, 12:33 PM
God I hate those loser attitudes. First Verdasco and now this. When you go on court you need to develop a bit of hatred to your opponent. You can respect him and like him off court but on court you need to come and win, without thinking about anyone or anything. I thought DP did it really well last year at RG against Fed - he said Fed is his favorite player to watch, but as soon as they started playing, you knew DP came to win, despite all the respect for his hero. Only after the match was over he returned to being a fan and congratulated Fed in his way for the title.

With Verdasco, you see that he's afriad of playing Nadal and gives him way too much respect on court.

oneness
05-27-2010, 01:01 PM
IMO, this is distinctly different from what Verdasco said.

Saying I don't want to win is very different from saying I won't be able to win.

Anyways as Cucio said, the guy was probably exaggerating... but I don't see anything cute about that...

jigar
05-27-2010, 01:07 PM
I don't understand it. Why not compete? That is why you participate.

P_Agony
05-27-2010, 01:10 PM
IMO, this is distinctly different from what Verdasco said.

Saying I don't want to win is very different from saying I won't be able to win.

Anyways as Cucio said, the guy was probably exaggerating... but I don't see anything cute about that...

It's different, but it's just as bad. If you're a competitior, compete!

nikdom
05-27-2010, 01:17 PM
I don't understand it. Why not compete? That is why you participate.

He did not say he's not going to compete, he said he would not want to win. Obviously he's addressing a hypothetical in that latter statement - that he actually has a chance against Roger.

While I think any player should keep a positive attitude going into a match, this guy is a no name player and he can be excused for it. What is inexcusable is the as$-kissing displayed by Top 10 players and compatriots of Nadal. Taking every opportunity they can get to capitulate to him and proudly exclaiming to the media that they don't stand a chance against Nadal. Such losers.

TennisandMusic
05-27-2010, 01:19 PM
He did not say he's not going to compete, he said he would not want to win. Obviously he's addressing a hypothetical in that latter statement - that he actually has a chance against Roger.

While I think any player should keep a positive attitude going into a match, this guy is a no name player and he can be excused for it. What is inexcusable is the as$-kissing displayed by Top 10 players and compatriots of Nadal. Taking every opportunity they can get to capitulate to him and proudly exclaiming to the media that they don't stand a chance against Nadal. Such losers.

Uh...people say that about Roger as well. Davydenko, Ljubicic (remember his me and Roger are the two best players in the world, and we are best buddies comment?), who knows who else. Can't beat Roger. That was the M.O. on the tour for years for lots of guys. Definitely not the McEnroe, Borg, Connors style where they were out for blood every much. Much preferred at high level sports.

nikdom
05-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Uh...people say that about Roger as well. Davydenko, Ljubicic (remember his me and Roger are the two best players in the world, and we are best buddies comment?), who knows who else. Can't beat Roger. That was the M.O. on the tour for years for lots of guys. Definitely not the McEnroe, Borg, Connors style where they were out for blood every much. Much preferred at high level sports.

Having high regard for his achievements is different from saying you cannot beat him.

Ferrer and Verdasco have explicitly said this week that if Nadal is playing well, that they have "no chance" against him.

namelessone
05-27-2010, 01:31 PM
I don't see what is wrong with his comments. Mina also said he is a big Nadal fan before the match and it did not stop him from putting up a fight,even though he lost.

akv89
05-27-2010, 01:35 PM
Nostalgia is always fun.

Nostalgia used to be more fun in the 90's.

namelessone
05-27-2010, 01:36 PM
He did not say he's not going to compete, he said he would not want to win. Obviously he's addressing a hypothetical in that latter statement - that he actually has a chance against Roger.

While I think any player should keep a positive attitude going into a match, this guy is a no name player and he can be excused for it. What is inexcusable is the as$-kissing displayed by Top 10 players and compatriots of Nadal. Taking every opportunity they can get to capitulate to him and proudly exclaiming to the media that they don't stand a chance against Nadal. Such losers.

Nadal's compatriots achievements put together don't even amount to 10% of his success. Verdasco said that he has no chance if Rafa is at his best ON CLAY. Cand you disagree with that assesment? Do you think he wasn't trying in his first masters final in MC? He hit with everything he had and everything came back to him,with more topspin,which is the game he hates,he prefers big hitters,see how he beat sod and djoker twice. Ferrer is a bulldog on court and gives his all but has no weapons against Rafa. Almagro is very good but gets tired quickly and is one of the few guys that has won a set over Rafa this clay season.

As TennisandMusic said there were many other players who said,with their own mouth,that they did not believe they could beat a in-form Federer. But I guess those guys get a free pass cause they aren't swiss.

davey25
05-27-2010, 02:12 PM
I think many of the Spanish guys give an admirable effort vs Nadal. I completely laugh at anyone who says Ferrer doesnt. The guy is a roardunner with no weapons. He probably doesnt do a single thing better than Nadal considering his strengths are all Nadals too. Yet he still has 2 or 3 wins over Nadal including beating him at the U.S Open and TMC which are huge events, and leading to two of his own best tournaments ever. Only on rare occasion have I seen him play a match vs Nadal where he wasnt atleast respectable. One of the few total blowouts was the 2005 FO quarters where he simply had no energy after a long first set coming off an excruiating 5 setter with Gaudio previous round. If anything he overperforms vs Nadal. Compared to Ferrer, someone like Federer himself underperforms vs Nadal far more than the solid but weaponless Ferrer does.

I think Moya played extremely well vs Nadal, especialy at that point in his career.

I think Ferrero also has always played his well as should be expected vs Nadal. The guy was past his prime already by the time he started playing Nadal really, and even in his prime he isnt the caliber of player Nadal is on any surface. Yet despite that past his prime he managed 2 wins over Nadal, one on hard, one on clay. What more would people expect. It isnt surprising at all he usually loses, and sometimes gets spanked.

I think Robredo also plays as well as can be expected. The guy has no real weapons and isnt even as good a player as Ferrer at his best really. He has never beaten Federer or really come close either as far as I know.

The only Spanish players that I have thought in the past underperformed vs Nadal were Verdasco, Almagro, and maybe Lopez. Almagro played really well vs Nadal in Madrid though. Verdasco is a headcase in general anyway and only wins matches vs top players if they are totally out of form and/or outchoke him. Lopez isnt significant enough to even matter, the guy has lost twice to Donald Young.

tennis08tarheels
05-27-2010, 02:17 PM
Easy, guys, the man surely was expressing his admiration of Federer in an exaggerated manner, but which player wouldn't want a goat skin overgrip? We are talking about huge rep, points and bucks here, especially for a nobody. He'll try his heart out.

Exactly.. I cant believe everyone here taking the quote at face value :roll: The guy is just playing the match down, when he will probably go all out to win.

Yeah. Absolutely cannot believe how incredibly dull so many people on this thread are to take this quote at face value, even after that article said he was not serious. He never seriously said he didn't want to win. He jokingly said that he would be a little sad if he knocked Federer out of the tournament. I'd be the same exact way. Thrilled to advance in a tournament, but it stinks you have to knock out your favorite player to do it.

Reister is going to lose. I'm guessing he's also going to play harder than he's ever played in his life.

Cyan
05-27-2010, 02:17 PM
This is the same sissy/pansy atittude we saw last year coming from Del Potro and Soderling BUT it was after they lost to Fed and felt so relieved they did not hamper his lifelong dream of completing the career slam and achieving GOATNESS :rolleyes: Only that they said these things after the match not before. Funny thing you would think this Reister schmuck with the loser behavior before a match is French or something, no? Guy is German! OMG.

veroniquem
05-27-2010, 02:43 PM
This pathetic jerk should default. If Davydenko was penalized for "not trying" DURING a match, one can only be stunned at how much worse it is to announce a deliberate intention of not trying BEFORE a match.
If he likes to kiss *** so much, he can go to a *****house. Noone needs that kind of amateurish buffoon in a pro competition of the highest level.

Rippy
05-27-2010, 02:44 PM
As some others have said, you are taking his comments too seriously.

Of course he's going to try - it would do wonders for his reputation, beating Fed before the semifinals in a slam! It was probably a light-hearted comment he made.

davey25
05-27-2010, 02:46 PM
I think he is probably Verdasco's long lost brother though.

Legend of Borg
05-27-2010, 02:52 PM
He may be lulling Fed into a false sense of security, making him think he'll just roll over. I bet he goes all out on him come tomorrow. :)




P.S.: Some people are taking this a bit too seriously, in my opinion. Some of these comments sound hateful.

Justdoit10
05-27-2010, 02:53 PM
He prob isnt the first one to have ever felt like this on playing Federer or Nadal.

tennis08tarheels
05-27-2010, 03:05 PM
This pathetic jerk should default. If Davydenko was penalized for "not trying" DURING a match, one can only be stunned at how much worse it is to announce a deliberate intention of not trying BEFORE a match.
If he likes to kiss *** so much, he can go to a *****house. Noone needs that kind of amateurish buffoon in a pro competition of the highest level.

Are you SERIOUS? Do none of you people know how to read the article or read the thread to find out that oh, he was not being serious when he said that? That's kind of important.

I wonder if I created a thread something Fed said in German loosely translated to something about retiring from tennis and linked to an article about something else entirely, how many of you would believe it. I'm guessing 90%.

AsgerHO
05-27-2010, 03:06 PM
I must say I´m quite schocked how hard a time some guys are giving this Reister.
The boy is just a Federer fan, relax - it´s an innocent comment, and I really don´t think it´s a big deal. Way too much made out of this...

Rhino
05-27-2010, 03:15 PM
He'll still try to play his very best tennis. If he actually does have the choice he will chose to win the match. He would want Federer's respect after all.

veroniquem
05-27-2010, 03:22 PM
I must say I´m quite schocked how hard a time some guys are giving this Reister.
The boy is just a Federer fan, relax - it´s an innocent comment, and I really don´t think it´s a big deal. Way too much made out of this...
There is nothing innocent about saying you don't want to beat a guy you'll have to compete against the next day. It's 100% cowardly and spineless.

tennis08tarheels
05-27-2010, 03:27 PM
There is nothing innocent about saying you don't want to beat a guy you'll have to compete against the next day. It's 100% cowardly and spineless.

Read very slowly and carefully...

He did not say that. He jokingly said he would it would make him sad if he won, since that would knock Federer out of the tournament. When asked later if it really make him sad, he said "no."

Okay?

Edit: if anyone knows how to make this any more simple, please go right ahead.

TheTruth
05-27-2010, 03:34 PM
People don't see a clear difference between "I can't beat Nadal" and "I don't want to beat Federer."

One is belief, the other is desire.

Finally. Good grief!

veroniquem
05-27-2010, 03:34 PM
At least he's not ranked in the top10 like some fanboys of Nadal :)




Noone has EVER said they didn't want to beat Nadal before playing him. Ever. (Thank god because it would be downright shameful) and all of Rafa's compatriots have produced superlative efforts to try and get wins against him (Ferrer) or come damn close to beat him by giving everything they have (Verdasco at AO).
It seems that Rafa inspires the most heroic and courageous behavior in his opponents while seemingly Fed does a good job of uncovering the wimp inside them. Nothing to be proud of to say the least.

TheTruth
05-27-2010, 03:38 PM
It is true though. Even the qualifier and satellite players were warriors back then. It is why even the greats like Sampras, Agassi, and Becker went out or nearly went out in the early rounds to guys not even in the top 100 on a few occasions in slams. Imagine that happening to the top players today. Guys that low cant even take out Djokovic or Murray at their absolute worst in a slam.

Agree. Matches weren't givens back then. Men came and played.

Verdasco said "I can't beat him." He hasn't. Has he tried to beat him? Yes.

veroniquem
05-27-2010, 03:41 PM
Read very slowly and carefully...

He did not say that. He jokingly said he would it would make him sad if he won, since that would knock Federer out of the tournament. When asked later if it really make him sad, he said "no."

Okay?

Edit: if anyone knows how to make this any more simple, please go right ahead.
"I don't really want to win against him". That's a joke? Not funny and can't be all pretense if he even thought of saying something like that. Good for him if he ambitions to become a comedian. As a competitor in a slam, it is low and gutless.

dh003i
05-27-2010, 03:48 PM
Noone has EVER said they didn't want to beat Nadal before playing him. Ever. (Thank god because it would be downright shameful) and all of Rafa's compatriots have produced superlative efforts to try and get wins against him (Ferrer) or come damn close to beat him by giving everything they have (Verdasco at AO).
It seems that Rafa inspires the most heroic and courageous behavior in his opponents while seemingly Fed does a good job of uncovering the wimp inside them. Nothing to be proud of to say the least.

This is just stupid idiocy. Your statement is the most idiotic thing I can think of.

Federer can't be faulted in a good or bad way for cowardly behavior of his opponents.

You are really grasping at straws.

TheTruth
05-27-2010, 03:49 PM
This pathetic jerk should default. If Davydenko was penalized for "not trying" DURING a match, one can only be stunned at how much worse it is to announce a deliberate intention of not trying BEFORE a match.
If he likes to kiss *** so much, he can go to a *****house. Noone needs that kind of amateurish buffoon in a pro competition of the highest level.

Absolutely spot on...


as usual.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why be a pro?

slicefox
05-27-2010, 03:49 PM
That's the mentality of most of them let's be honest. You can always tell when they walk out on court. I'n so glad one said it to validate speculations over the years :)

where as when it's time to play rafa they're out for blood. that's why rafa always looks like he's been slaughtered when he loses big.

QQ

u talk so much shyt

volleynets
05-27-2010, 04:17 PM
Noone has EVER said they didn't want to beat Nadal before playing him. Ever. (Thank god because it would be downright shameful) and all of Rafa's compatriots have produced superlative efforts to try and get wins against him (Ferrer) or come damn close to beat him by giving everything they have (Verdasco at AO).
It seems that Rafa inspires the most heroic and courageous behavior in his opponents while seemingly Fed does a good job of uncovering the wimp inside them. Nothing to be proud of to say the least.

WOW. That is way out of Federer's hands that his opponents respect him more than they respect Nadal.

veroniquem
05-27-2010, 04:27 PM
Except that is cowardice, not respect. Respect means wanting to show someone the best of yourself and try to be at their level as best you can, not wallowing and groveling at someone's feet like some kind of hapless subservient poodle.

Mun
05-27-2010, 04:38 PM
This is a shame, because the way he is playing, Reister has the game to beat Federer.

BreakPoint
05-27-2010, 05:33 PM
This is the same sissy/pansy atittude we saw last year coming from Del Potro and Soderling BUT it was after they lost to Fed and felt so relieved they did not hamper his lifelong dream of completing the career slam and achieving GOATNESS :rolleyes: Only that they said these things after the match not before. Funny thing you would think this Reister schmuck with the loser behavior before a match is French or something, no? Guy is German! OMG.
Nope. Del Potro said that he wanted to see Federer win the French Open last year BEFORE he played him in the semis. However, it obviously had no effect on his play as he still tried to beat Federer, and almost did.

Rhino
05-27-2010, 06:29 PM
Sometimes this forum is a joke. People get so hung up on comments from the players, it's ridiculous.
Of course the guy wants to beat Federer, he's just trying to make the point that he's a big fan of Federer, like a lot of people are. It doesn't make him spineless like someone suggested, it would be odd if he wasn't a fan of Federer. Reister doesn't want Fed to get eliminated, but of course he will put himself first if it comes down to it.

The end. Get over it already.

edberg505
05-27-2010, 07:58 PM
Sure, when Sampras losses with 80-90 unforced errors against some journeymen it's because his opponent is so great. YAWN. Agassi too played some HORRIBLE stuff in some of his shock losses in slams.

Besides, in the last few slams Djokovic lost against Kohlschreiber and Murray got destroyed by top20/30 Cilic, it's not like only top10 players can beat each other.

Hahaha, welcome to the world of the strong era advocates! Besides, that Falla guy looked like he was really taking a dive!

edberg505
05-27-2010, 08:09 PM
Agree. Matches weren't givens back then. Men came and played.

Verdasco said "I can't beat him." He hasn't. Has he tried to beat him? Yes.

Ahh, I see, so when Delgado takes out Sampras in the 2nd round of the FO it's because he's a warrior and when Federer destroys Kristof Vliegen in the first round it's because Vliegen just doesn't fight? Hmm, interesting. It couldn't be that Federer just doesn't lose to these guys no matter how much they fight. I mean it sure looked like Falla was fighting to me.

Sentinel
05-27-2010, 08:25 PM
This is a shame, because the way he is playing, Reister has the game to beat Federer.
Hey are you mungo73 reincarnated ? You sure sound like him.

mandy01
05-27-2010, 09:42 PM
Ahh, I see, so when Delgado takes out Sampras in the first round of the AO it's because he's a warrior and when Federer destroys Kristof Vliegen in the first round it's because Vliegen just doesn't fight? Hmm, interesting. It couldn't be that Federer just doesn't lose to these guys no matter how much they fight. I mean it sure looked like Falla was fighting to me.Oh..don't bother.These are Nadal/Sampras fanatics who WILL go to any lengths to discredit/denigrate Roger Federer.Nothing can stop 'em :oops:

mandy01
05-27-2010, 09:45 PM
This pathetic jerk should default. If Davydenko was penalized for "not trying" DURING a match, one can only be stunned at how much worse it is to announce a deliberate intention of not trying BEFORE a match.
If he likes to kiss *** so much, he can go to a *****house. Noone needs that kind of amateurish buffoon in a pro competition of the highest level.hmmmm...and Veronique is supposedly respectful and all that..or that's what I was told by one of her clan.A blatant lie as is evident.

davey25
05-27-2010, 11:53 PM
Veroniquem is definitely one of the best and most objective posters on TW. I dont always agree with what she says but she knows her tennis and states it in a very objective and well reasoned manner.

TennisandMusic
05-28-2010, 12:00 AM
Veroniquem is definitely one of the best and most objective posters on TW. I dont always agree with what she says but she knows her tennis and states it in a very objective and well reasoned manner.

Stuff like this cracks me up. I know you said you don't always agree, but it's a larger issue we are seeing here. People just don't see their own bias, even though it's so evident in everything on this board. All of the Nadal fans think TheTruth, Veroniquem, Morrisey and I guess myself, and many others are all level headed and very fair. Federer fans think they are nuts.

Federer fans think Drakulie, Breakpoint, P_Agony, Bruce38 and who knows who else are reasonable and right on the mark. Nadal fans think they are nuts.

Everybody argues from the point of view that they are entirely normal, and anyone who has a differing opinion is obviously insane.

Then you get online "shouting" matches where everyone, including myself, ends up looking like a huge loser in the end. After all we are sitting here spending hours and hours arguing about tennis.

It's a shame people can't realize that their preferences DO make them biased, and it DOES influence how they read other people's opinions. You see it on this board every day "Oh you're just a troll!", "So and so is just a troll, ignore them!"

Translation: I do not agree with this person, therefore they are maniacs.

Real good people....real good.

Sentinel
05-28-2010, 01:27 AM
This is a shame, because the way he is playing, Reister has the game to beat Federer.
You mean Reister is a "lefty" with a huge topspin forehand and balls of steel ?

roundiesee
05-28-2010, 01:38 AM
I recall American Devin Britton also saying that he admired Fed and would sometimes hit to his forehand just to see Fed make the shot. This was at the US Open 2009.

"In his postmatch interview, Britton was marvelously self-deprecating and genuinely funny talking about his first turn on the major stage.

"His forehand is just crazy," Britton said. "It's so pretty. I tried to keep it away, but sometimes I just hit it there just to see it." "

ksbh
05-28-2010, 04:24 AM
A good number of Federer fans are great folks but the rest of that camp are so deluded, they make the residents of a mental asylum seem like Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan!

nikdom
05-28-2010, 04:28 AM
A good number of Federer fans are great folks but the rest of that camp are so deluded, they make the residents of a mental asylum seem like Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan!

LOL. Look who's talking. I should probably link to the "Vegetarian Pros" thread so folks can see actually who belongs in a mental asylum. :)

ksbh
05-28-2010, 04:41 AM
Nikdom ... seems like you've got so used to reading utter tripe and petty arguments amongst forum members that a thread like the 'Vegetarian Pros' seems of little value to you! LOL!

LOL. Look who's talking. I should probably link to the "Vegetarian Pros" thread so folks can see actually who belongs in a mental asylum. :)

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 04:54 AM
Ahh, I see, so when Delgado takes out Sampras in the 2nd round of the FO it's because he's a warrior and when Federer destroys Kristof Vliegen in the first round it's because Vliegen just doesn't fight? Hmm, interesting. It couldn't be that Federer just doesn't lose to these guys no matter how much they fight. I mean it sure looked like Falla was fighting to me.

Sampras/Delgado? What are you talking about? Totally off topic.

Nobody cares who wins the match. Comments such as he made are going to be scrutinized. Tennis is a sport, ergo competition, and comments such as these are banal to say the least.

Not to mention we've just endured a week recently with the Verdasco/Nadal comment thread. Let me go back and see what you posted there.

Be right back.

nikdom
05-28-2010, 04:57 AM
You guys can spill out all the hate you've got inside, but I don't see anything wrong with how Reister is actually playing Roger. Gave him a good fight in the first, checked out in the second, and made the third competitive again during games. Did not look like he tanked to me.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 05:01 AM
Veroniquem is definitely one of the best and most objective posters on TW. I dont always agree with what she says but she knows her tennis and states it in a very objective and well reasoned manner.

Absolutely. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion to consider them objective. There are Fed Fans whose opinion I don't share, but nowhere in my mind do I consider them trolls simply because we don't see things the same way as I do.

Veronique makes great points all the time. I don't see trollism from someone who makes legitimate arguments and backs them up.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 05:06 AM
Stuff like this cracks me up. I know you said you don't always agree, but it's a larger issue we are seeing here. People just don't see their own bias, even though it's so evident in everything on this board. All of the Nadal fans think TheTruth, Veroniquem, Morrisey and I guess myself, and many others are all level headed and very fair. Federer fans think they are nuts.

Federer fans think Drakulie, Breakpoint, P_Agony, Bruce38 and who knows who else are reasonable and right on the mark. Nadal fans think they are nuts.

Everybody argues from the point of view that they are entirely normal, and anyone who has a differing opinion is obviously insane.

Then you get online "shouting" matches where everyone, including myself, ends up looking like a huge loser in the end. After all we are sitting here spending hours and hours arguing about tennis.

It's a shame people can't realize that their preferences DO make them biased, and it DOES influence how they read other people's opinions. You see it on this board every day "Oh you're just a troll!", "So and so is just a troll, ignore them!"

Translation: I do not agree with this person, therefore they are maniacs.

Real good people....real good.

Gosh, you're smart. Probably a waste of a few brain cells, but you get an A for effort anyway!

Everyone is biased. When you resort to name calling because someone else doesn't share your opinion is when you cross the line, imo. It cracks me up how people can't see that.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 05:37 AM
A really entertaining match in the end!

RalphNYC
05-28-2010, 06:06 AM
Tennis Channel showed so little of the match....

ksbh
05-28-2010, 07:52 AM
Exactly, couldn't agree more. It's one thing to have respect & admiration. Nothing wrong in that. But if he doesn't want to win, stay home. That way, people won't be paying their hard earned money to watch his on-court worship of his hero.

This pathetic jerk should default. If Davydenko was penalized for "not trying" DURING a match, one can only be stunned at how much worse it is to announce a deliberate intention of not trying BEFORE a match.
If he likes to kiss *** so much, he can go to a *****house. Noone needs that kind of amateurish buffoon in a pro competition of the highest level.

sureshs
05-28-2010, 09:58 AM
A good number of Federer fans are great folks but the rest of that camp are so deluded, they make the residents of a mental asylum seem like Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan!

He was a bright guy. Pity he died young.

tennis08tarheels
05-28-2010, 10:40 AM
Exactly, couldn't agree more. It's one thing to have respect & admiration. Nothing wrong in that. But if he doesn't want to win, stay home. That way, people won't be paying their hard earned money to watch his on-court worship of his hero.

http://www.justpressplay.net/images/stories/facepalm.jpg

Repeated Assertion (http://www.sageofspringfield.com/argument/e1.html)
- An author or speaker commits this fallacy whenever he or she relies on repetition to provide support for an unwarranted claim.
- Political advocates who lack support for their claims sometimes hope that if these claims are frequently repeated, people will begin to accept them. This has been proven by scientific studies to be true.

icedevil0289
05-28-2010, 11:15 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/CG_Brouwer/interesting-thread.gif

SiriusTennis
05-28-2010, 11:19 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/CG_Brouwer/interesting-thread.gif

My thoughts exactly.

edberg505
05-28-2010, 03:10 PM
Sampras/Delgado? What are you talking about? Totally off topic.

Nobody cares who wins the match. Comments such as he made are going to be scrutinized. Tennis is a sport, ergo competition, and comments such as these are banal to say the least.

Not to mention we've just endured a week recently with the Verdasco/Nadal comment thread. Let me go back and see what you posted there.

Be right back.

Oh, quite the contrary this is completely germane to the topic at hand. You typed, Agree. Matches weren't givens back then. Men came and played. Which means you are implying that the in today's matches, players just go out and give up from the start as opposed to the days of yore when qualifiers and lower ranked players left their blood sweat and tears out on the court producing upsets. So basically what some people are saying is that lower ranked players back then fought more and that is why they're more likely to scalp top players. But top players get scalped now. Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, and other players have lost in early rounds of slams. It's only Federer that doesn't lose in the early round of slams.

Also, I'm not sure what you are hoping to find in the Verdasco thread. I haven't really been on the boards much these days.

120mphBodyServe
05-28-2010, 03:20 PM
I'm actually quite disturbed by this.
If I were a pro, all notions of me being a fan go right out the window.
If I were to play Federer, I'd throw the whole proverbial house at him. And I'd try to put him under pressure from the first point to the last. And I will never ever ever give up hope of victory.
I will be gunning for his *** so hard he'd have wished he didn't wake up that day.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 03:27 PM
Oh, quite the contrary this is completely germane to the topic at hand. You typed, Which means you are implying that the in today's matches, players just go out and give up from the start as opposed to the days of yore when qualifiers and lower ranked players left their blood sweat and tears out on the court producing upsets. So basically what some people are saying is that lower ranked players back then fought more and that is why they're more likely to scalp top players. But top players get scalped now. Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, and other players have lost in early rounds of slams. It's only Federer that doesn't lose in the early round of slams.

Also, I'm not sure what you are hoping to find in the Verdasco thread. I haven't really been on the boards much these days.

How often do we get an upset of the top players when they're playing well? Djokovic and Murray were beaten because of their own inconsistent play, not because they were playing well and getting beaten. Murray has been in a funk since the Australian, and Djokovic almost took all of 2009 off.

But it doesn't matter. My opinion stays the same. The level of competition was higher to me, back then. Everyone doesn't see this as a strong era.

I would be interested in what you had to say when the argument was on the other side though (not enough to look it up). Surely, this conversation has come up more than once.

This is my opinion. When top players and others can come out and say they don't want to beat another player, kidding or not, it is a disgrace to the sport and the spirit of competition, not to mention fans who paid to see two people play a match, not one.

Justdoit10
05-28-2010, 03:32 PM
I'm actually quite disturbed by this.
If I were a pro, all notions of me being a fan go right out the window.
If I were to play Federer, I'd throw the whole proverbial house at him. And I'd try to put him under pressure from the first point to the last. And I will never ever ever give up hope of victory.
I will be gunning for his *** so hard he'd have wished he didn't wake up that day.
...And Federer would still have kicked your teeth in.

Justdoit10
05-28-2010, 03:35 PM
How often do we get an upset of the top players when they're playing well? Djokovic and Murray were beaten because of their own inconsistent play, not because they were playing well and getting beaten. Murray has been in a funk since the Australian, and Djokovic almost took all of 2009 off.

But it doesn't matter. My opinion stays the same. The level of competition was higher to me, back then. Everyone doesn't see this as a strong era.

I would be interested in what you had to say when the argument was on the other side though (not enough to look it up). Surely, this conversation has come up more than once.

This is my opinion. When top players and others can come out and say they don't want to beat another player, kidding or not, it is a disgrace to the sport and the spirit of competition, not to mention fans who paid to see two people play a match, not one.
Reister is not a top player. He is one of those low ranked players who qualifies for grand slams and barely makes it past the first round. He does not have high expectations. 1 low ranked irrelevant player makes a comment and everyone thinks that all top players dont want to win. :rolleyes:

edberg505
05-28-2010, 03:43 PM
How often do we get an upset of the top players when they're playing well? Djokovic and Murray were beaten because of their own inconsistent play, not because they were playing well and getting beaten. Murray has been in a funk since the Australian, and Djokovic almost took all of 2009 off.

But it doesn't matter. My opinion stays the same. The level of competition was higher to me, back then. Everyone doesn't see this as a strong era.

I would be interested in what you had to say when the argument was on the other side though (not enough to look it up). Surely, this conversation has come up more than once.

This is my opinion. When top players and others can come out and say they don't want to beat another player, kidding or not, it is a disgrace to the sport and the spirit of competition, not to mention fans who paid to see two people play a match, not one.

But Federer hasn't exactly played stellar matches in each and every one of his slam matches since the FO 2004. He could have just as easily lost to Tipseravic at the AO in 2008 or Accasuso and Haas at the FO last year. He could have also lost to Andreev at the AO that one year. Those guys were playing pretty darn well and it isn't as if Federer was playing lights out. Yet he still manages to win.

My stance in this whole strong vs weak era thing has always been the same. I think advocates of strong era would probably have a point if Federer were losing some of these matches and going out early occasionally, but he just doesn't. My question is if this is a weak era, then when does it become strong? When Federer starts losing to qualifiers in the earlier rounds then does it become strong? I mean would this even be an argument if Federer weren't so dominant? I'm guessing probably not.

rovex
05-28-2010, 03:46 PM
My question is if this is a weak era, then when does it become strong?

When someone(s) not named Nadal or Federer win a slam?

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 03:51 PM
Reister is not a top player. He is one of those low ranked players who qualifies for grand slams and barely makes it past the first round. He does not have high expectations. 1 low ranked irrelevant player makes a comment and everyone thinks that all top players dont want to win. :rolleyes:

He is one of many. No pro should make those kinds of statements, imo. Put it this way, I won't pay to see him play, especially if I don't know if he's a fan of his opponent. That would be a waste of my money and time. Rolleyes? Why?

tennis08tarheels
05-28-2010, 04:00 PM
He is one of many. No pro should make those kinds of statements, imo. Put it this way, I won't pay to see him play, especially if I don't know if he's a fan of his opponent. That would be a waste of my money and time. Rolleyes? Why?

Because he did not earnestly say he didn't want to win? If any of you hardheads actually read the entire interview, this idiotic thread would not exist.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 04:02 PM
But Federer hasn't exactly played stellar matches in each and every one of his slam matches since the FO 2004. He could have just as easily lost to Tipseravic at the AO in 2008 or Accasuso and Haas at the FO last year. He could have also lost to Andreev at the AO that one year. Those guys were playing pretty darn well and it isn't as if Federer was playing lights out. Yet he still manages to win.

My stance in this whole strong vs weak era thing has always been the same. I think advocates of strong era would probably have a point if Federer were losing some of these matches and going out early occasionally, but he just doesn't. My question is if this is a weak era, then when does it become strong? When Federer starts losing to qualifiers in the earlier rounds then does it become strong? I mean would this even be an argument if Federer weren't so dominant? I'm guessing probably not.

I don't really understand your argument.

It's not about who wins. A guy can play lights out and still lose. That's not a problem. The better man won. Strong or weak era doesn't depend on Federer winning or losing, I think that's where a lot of people go off the beaten track, and they think that's what people are saying.

Any era becomes strong when pros go out and compete with the intention to win. For years it was the Fed and Rafa show with other players not even thinking they could win against those two, unless it was Rafa on a hard court. You feel that's indicative of a strong era? I don't. I mean we can say almost with a certainty that some of the better players may never win a slam. Berdych, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Monfils, Verdasco, some even say Murray, so how can it be a strong era, when people have no faith in the top ten?

Justdoit10
05-28-2010, 04:05 PM
He is one of many. No pro should make those kinds of statements, imo. Put it this way, I won't pay to see him play, especially if I don't know if he's a fan of his opponent. That would be a waste of my money and time. Rolleyes? Why?
Sorry. The rolleyes wasnt necessary. In grand slams, there are lots of players who qualify for the tournament and pick up their hefty first round checks and depart.Reister is one of the many players who came to RG this year without any high expectations. He is ranked 165 in the world. He made this silly comment but he still put in a solid effort against Federer. There is no reason for people to call him a "pathetic jerk" etc. Low ranked players have been doing this for years now.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 04:09 PM
Because he did not earnestly say he didn't want to win? If any of you hardheads actually read the entire interview, this idiotic thread would not exist.

This is my take on it. The thread does exist and I felt it worthy of commenting on, as did others, including you. Post #145. Guess people choose what they feel is newsworthy.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 04:12 PM
Sorry. The rolleyes wasnt necessary. In grand slams, there are lots of players who qualify for the tournament and pick up their hefty first round checks and depart.Reister is one of the many players who came to RG this year without any high expectations. He is ranked 165 in the world. He made this silly comment but he still put in a solid effort against Federer. There is no reason for people to call him a "pathetic jerk" etc. Low ranked players have been doing this for years now.

True post, very good points. But it is a silly comment and you gotta expect people will talk about it. Thanks for being a reasonable poster. That was very nice.

tennis08tarheels
05-28-2010, 04:12 PM
This is my take on it. The thread does exist and I felt it worthy of commenting on, as did others, including you. Post #145. Guess people choose what they feel is newsworthy.

I have commented on this thread several times, as have several others who agree with me, because it is based on a lie, and if most people see a thread title that they want to be true, they'll believe it whether it is or not.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 04:16 PM
I have commented on this thread several times, as have several others who agree with me, because it is based on a lie, and if most people see a thread title that they want to be true, they'll believe it whether it is or not.

Who cares whether it's true or not? It's a silly thing to say as a professional. People are going to discuss it. That one guy just brought it up on national TV in Fed's interview, so...

This a pretty wild assumption, imo. I doubt people care to that extent. It's just tennis fodder. That's all.

120mphBodyServe
05-28-2010, 04:19 PM
...And Federer would still have kicked your teeth in.

Yeah, whatever. More like fall on his back after a long fought victory deep into the 5th set, in extreme exhaustion and cramping.

edberg505
05-28-2010, 06:30 PM
I don't really understand your argument.

It's not about who wins. A guy can play lights out and still lose. That's not a problem. The better man won. Strong or weak era doesn't depend on Federer winning or losing, I think that's where a lot of people go off the beaten track, and they think that's what people are saying.

But would the strength of this era even be questioned at all if Federer weren't in the picture. I feel safe in saying, that this wouldn't even be an issue. Do you honestly think people would bring up this whole strong vs. weak era debate if Federer didn't have 16 slams, be truthful here now.

Any era becomes strong when pros go out and compete with the intention to win. For years it was the Fed and Rafa show with other players not even thinking they could win against those two, unless it was Rafa on a hard court. You feel that's indicative of a strong era? I don't. I mean we can say almost with a certainty that some of the better players may never win a slam. Berdych, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Monfils, Verdasco, some even say Murray, so how can it be a strong era, when people have no faith in the top ten?

Well, then that's both purely speculative and subjective. How can you tell that pros aren't out there now doing just what you typed? I can remember people were already handing Federer his 16th slam at the US Open last year when they saw Del Potro was playing Federer in the final. Apparently Del Potro doesn't think this is a weak era. Del Potro said something along the lines of, "I'd like to see Federer win the French". Before he played him in the semis and he still went out there and competed and almost beat him and he did beat him at the US Open. Trust me, nobody likes to lose. It doesn't matter if it's to Federer or some 4.0 hack at your local park. I think anyone who plays competitive knows this. And just because Tsonga, Monfils, Verdasco, Davydenko, etc. haven't won a slam doesn't mean this era is weak. There have been tons of good players in a past that just weren't able to win a slam. I mean what makes Pioline, Todd Martin, Wayne Ferreira, Tim Henman, Marcelo Rios, Karol Kucera, or T. Enqvist better than any of those other guys that you mentioned? They didn't win slams while Agassi and Sampras were at the top.

TheTruth
05-29-2010, 05:04 PM
But would the strength of this era even be questioned at all if Federer weren't in the picture. I feel safe in saying, that this wouldn't even be an issue. Do you honestly think people would bring up this whole strong vs. weak era debate if Federer didn't have 16 slams, be truthful here now.



Well, then that's both purely speculative and subjective. How can you tell that pros aren't out there now doing just what you typed? I can remember people were already handing Federer his 16th slam at the US Open last year when they saw Del Potro was playing Federer in the final. Apparently Del Potro doesn't think this is a weak era. Del Potro said something along the lines of, "I'd like to see Federer win the French". Before he played him in the semis and he still went out there and competed and almost beat him and he did beat him at the US Open. Trust me, nobody likes to lose. It doesn't matter if it's to Federer or some 4.0 hack at your local park. I think anyone who plays competitive knows this. And just because Tsonga, Monfils, Verdasco, Davydenko, etc. haven't won a slam doesn't mean this era is weak. There have been tons of good players in a past that just weren't able to win a slam. I mean what makes Pioline, Todd Martin, Wayne Ferreira, Tim Henman, Marcelo Rios, Karol Kucera, or T. Enqvist better than any of those other guys that you mentioned? They didn't win slams while Agassi and Sampras were at the top.

I will be very truthful.

The problem with this statement is that many "fans" equate everything about tennis back to Fed. For me, the weak era has nothing to do with Fed per se. Part of why I think it's a weak era, is because for the most part you can pencil in most of the names. Here lately, we're seeing the younger players coming out to try to win, which is a good thing. But reading some of the articles and comments that players are making were unheard of back in the day. People came to win, and if they didn't it was like, too good.

Outside of Rafa and Fed who else in this era do you think will end up with multiple slams and in the Hall of Fame? Just based on what we see now? Champions don't get denied on a regualr basis. They find a way to break through. So, no matter how good Rafa and Fed are, there should be other people whose names also come up.

When people come out and give up two set leads, 0-40's, goofy shots on set and match points, sorrry, I don't think they're in it to win it.

After Pete retired and Agassi was on the downswing, there was a huge lull in the game. All of the players seemed scattered and not sure of what they were supposed to do. Then Federer stepped in and began to win, and imo, it was sort of like, "finally, we have a leader." And the rest is history.

Anyway, thanks for your respectful tone. I can see where you're coming from and if I believed the era wasn't weak, would probably make a lot of the same points that you make. I just see it as a weak era.

Totai
05-29-2010, 05:08 PM
When someone(s) not named Nadal or Federer win a slam?

Delpotro won a slam a few months ago...

TheTruth
05-29-2010, 05:48 PM
But would the strength of this era even be questioned at all if Federer weren't in the picture. I feel safe in saying, that this wouldn't even be an issue. Do you honestly think people would bring up this whole strong vs. weak era debate if Federer didn't have 16 slams, be truthful here now.



Well, then that's both purely speculative and subjective. How can you tell that pros aren't out there now doing just what you typed? I can remember people were already handing Federer his 16th slam at the US Open last year when they saw Del Potro was playing Federer in the final. Apparently Del Potro doesn't think this is a weak era. Del Potro said something along the lines of, "I'd like to see Federer win the French". Before he played him in the semis and he still went out there and competed and almost beat him and he did beat him at the US Open. Trust me, nobody likes to lose. It doesn't matter if it's to Federer or some 4.0 hack at your local park. I think anyone who plays competitive knows this. And just because Tsonga, Monfils, Verdasco, Davydenko, etc. haven't won a slam doesn't mean this era is weak. There have been tons of good players in a past that just weren't able to win a slam. I mean what makes Pioline, Todd Martin, Wayne Ferreira, Tim Henman, Marcelo Rios, Karol Kucera, or T. Enqvist better than any of those other guys that you mentioned? They didn't win slams while Agassi and Sampras were at the top.

Todd Martin was a choker, so I'm going to dismiss him.

That's what you seem to be missing. It's not about Federer or Sampras winning. It's about the other guys trying to beat them. Just like today, we all had a pretty good idea that Hewitt wasn't going to beat Nadal. He just doesn't have the weapons.

BUT,

Hewitt competed. It's not whether he won or lost. He competed. He gave the fans his best, and he fought till the end. Many people respect him for that, and conversely don't respect those who don't come out and fight for the right to win. Borg said it best, and I'm paraphrasing, "if you go out feeling like you don't have a chance, then you daren't win."

The era isn't weak because of Federer. The era is weak because the guys don't seem to care about their own place in history. Will they all beat Fed? Probably not, but again, this has nothing to do with Fed.

sh@de
05-29-2010, 06:26 PM
Todd Martin was a choker, so I'm going to dismiss him.

That's what you seem to be missing. It's not about Federer or Sampras winning. It's about the other guys trying to beat them. Just like today, we all had a pretty good idea that Hewitt wasn't going to beat Nadal. He just doesn't have the weapons.

BUT,

Hewitt competed. It's not whether he won or lost. He competed. He gave the fans his best, and he fought till the end. Many people respect him for that, and conversely don't respect those who don't come out and fight for the right to win. Borg said it best, and I'm paraphrasing, "if you go out feeling like you don't have a chance, then you daren't win."

The era isn't weak because of Federer. The era is weak because the guys don't seem to care about their own place in history. Will they all beat Fed? Probably not, but again, this has nothing to do with Fed.

Wait what? So you think people like Roddick don't try their very best against Fed and believe they can do it? Did you see Wimby final last year? Have you seen how hard Roddick tries every time they play? USO 2006? Miami 2008? Where Roddick actually beat Fed?

And Hewitt, someone Fed completely dominated, you have already very kindly explained that he never gave up.

So who else do you want? Ok maybe Davydenko was a tad bit weaker, but what other "main rivals" are there? Safin? Safin beat Fed in AO 2005 when he played his best.

I think you must be severely deluded to think that the players don't actually go all out when playing Fed and believe they have a chance. The point is, they know the chance isn't big, but that doesn't mean they don't believe. And in fact, this is even more impressive because that is just how good Fed is: he is good enough to make others feel like they don't necessarily have a great chance against him.

TheTruth
05-29-2010, 06:52 PM
Wait what? So you think people like Roddick don't try their very best against Fed and believe they can do it? Did you see Wimby final last year? Have you seen how hard Roddick tries every time they play? USO 2006? Miami 2008? Where Roddick actually beat Fed?

And Hewitt, someone Fed completely dominated, you have already very kindly explained that he never gave up.

So who else do you want? Ok maybe Davydenko was a tad bit weaker, but what other "main rivals" are there? Safin? Safin beat Fed in AO 2005 when he played his best.

I think you must be severely deluded to think that the players don't actually go all out when playing Fed and believe they have a chance. The point is, they know the chance isn't big, but that doesn't mean they don't believe. And in fact, this is even more impressive because that is just how good Fed is: he is good enough to make others feel like they don't necessarily have a great chance against him.

Roddick does try.

You guys seem to be stuck on the premise that the weak era argument is directed against Fed. I think with a few exceptions, the ATP is much worse as far as competitiveness vs. the WTA.

Tony48
05-29-2010, 07:05 PM
This guy is pathetic. (Try and) beat Federer and then feel bad later.

Yikes, what a frickin clown.

Rhino
05-29-2010, 07:12 PM
This guy is pathetic. (Try and) beat Federer and then feel bad later.

Yikes, what a frickin clown.

You just don't get it. He tried his hardest to beat Federer, and it was obvious that he would try his hardest before the match.

davey25
05-29-2010, 07:41 PM
I mean what makes Pioline, Todd Martin, Wayne Ferreira, Tim Henman, Marcelo Rios, Karol Kucera, or T. Enqvist better than any of those other guys that you mentioned? They didn't win slams while Agassi and Sampras were at the top.

The thing is those were not the key guys in the Sampras era. They were not even the key secondary players. They were the supporting cast of the supporting cast really. Comparing them to the top players after Federer and Nadal today is like comparing Mary Joe Fernandez to Dinara Safina to evaluate depth, when MJF never reached the lofty heights Safina did last year.

sh@de
05-29-2010, 07:46 PM
Roddick does try.

You guys seem to be stuck on the premise that the weak era argument is directed against Fed. I think with a few exceptions, the ATP is much worse as far as competitiveness vs. the WTA.

It is...

Basically, saying that the era is weak is an underhand way of trying to diminish Fed's achievements. So it is directed at Fed.

And you might want to know that competitiveness does not determine whether an era is strong or weak. What if the best guy in the world was a 4.0, and it was very competitive because there were a lot of 4.0s around, would that be a strong era? What if the best guy was 7.0, and the rest were 5.5, it wouldn't be competitive, but would that then be a strong era?

I think the answer to the question is quite obvious. I'm not saying that this era or strong or anything like that, I'm just saying that it's really impossible to determine whether an era is strong or weak, and that the only reason for somebody to do that is in order to target certain people's achievements. Quite pathetic really.

hoodjem
05-29-2010, 07:52 PM
Hey, wait a minute. It's not Fed's fault that his era is weak.

Mick
05-29-2010, 08:00 PM
well. i know when i face a player on the tennis court, my mind set is: i don't want him to beat me, not i don't want to beat him.

edberg505
05-29-2010, 08:11 PM
I will be very truthful.

The problem with this statement is that many "fans" equate everything about tennis back to Fed. For me, the weak era has nothing to do with Fed per se. Part of why I think it's a weak era, is because for the most part you can pencil in most of the names. Here lately, we're seeing the younger players coming out to try to win, which is a good thing. But reading some of the articles and comments that players are making were unheard of back in the day. People came to win, and if they didn't it was like, too good.

I would venture to say the reason you didn't hear such things back then is because it is not readily available to find through various media outlets. I mean I wonder how long it took someone to dig up that quote on the internet. There was no internet back then to find such quotes on.

Outside of Rafa and Fed who else in this era do you think will end up with multiple slams and in the Hall of Fame? Just based on what we see now? Champions don't get denied on a regualr basis. They find a way to break through. So, no matter how good Rafa and Fed are, there should be other people whose names also come up.

Well, for sure Hewitt and Roddick. Federer has denied those guys so many times. I can't even remember the number of times Hewitt has been denied by Federer but it has to be over a dozen at least. Djokovic would have several US Opens by now. The same reason Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira is a champion is the same reason someone like Gonzalez and Davydenko isn't one either.

When people come out and give up two set leads, 0-40's, goofy shots on set and match points, sorrry, I don't think they're in it to win it.

After Pete retired and Agassi was on the downswing, there was a huge lull in the game. All of the players seemed scattered and not sure of what they were supposed to do. Then Federer stepped in and began to win, and imo, it was sort of like, "finally, we have a leader." And the rest is history.

Anyway, thanks for your respectful tone. I can see where you're coming from and if I believed the era wasn't weak, would probably make a lot of the same points that you make. I just see it as a weak era.

Those guys go down 2 sets from the start because they just happen to run into someone on fire. I mean, if we consider this a weak era then I don't think it will ever become stronger. Thanks, I thought I was always respectful. :-)

edberg505
05-29-2010, 08:24 PM
I mean what makes Pioline, Todd Martin, Wayne Ferreira, Tim Henman, Marcelo Rios, Karol Kucera, or T. Enqvist better than any of those other guys that you mentioned? They didn't win slams while Agassi and Sampras were at the top.

The thing is those were not the key guys in the Sampras era. They were not even the key secondary players. They were the supporting cast of the supporting cast really. Comparing them to the top players after Federer and Nadal today is like comparing Mary Joe Fernandez to Dinara Safina to evaluate depth, when MJF never reached the lofty heights Safina did last year.

I'm pretty sure that each and every single one of those guys I mentioned were in the top 10. How were Henman, Kucera, Martin, and Pioline not key guys? Did he not play any of these guys in route to all of his finals and championships? He play 2 of these guys in several finals and semi-finals! You make it seem like Sampras played Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Agassi, and Rafter in every match en route to his title. Well we know that's simply not the case. The fact of the matter is, every person she named can be related to all of the players I named. And if Pioline and Martin are secondary players then Sampras played in a weak era too because he beat 3 of the guys I mentioned to get 3 slam titles.

Tony48
05-29-2010, 09:13 PM
You just don't get it. He tried his hardest to beat Federer, and it was obvious that he would try his hardest before the match.

"I don't want to beat Federer" = obviously wants to beat Federer?

Um, what?

abraxas21
04-10-2011, 10:25 AM
reister in the top 100 as of next week

ksbh
04-12-2011, 06:19 AM
ROFL, just in time ... with Federer a*rse kisser James Blake heading into oblivion, he's found a worthy successor for his duties!

glazkovss
04-12-2011, 08:13 AM
No ambition and no self-beliefe. Or just being realistic...

jackson vile
04-13-2011, 09:28 AM
No ambition and no self-beliefe. Or just being realistic...

Ouch, what a life.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 09:36 AM
Ferrer is my hero. :lol:

devila
04-13-2011, 11:05 AM
you have to be a satisfied genius and charity prostitute to love federer.
Watch Roddick...

devila
04-13-2011, 11:14 AM
Roddick does try.

You guys seem to be stuck on the premise that the weak era argument is directed against Fed. I think with a few exceptions, the ATP is much worse as far as competitiveness vs. the WTA.
roddick tries to save his scalp from baldness. he almost went crazy when he needed to talk to fake friends on a radio show. he was so in denial of his family's bad baldness that he never saw his father's huge baldness.

Manus Domini
04-13-2011, 03:06 PM
ROFL, just in time ... with Federer a*rse kisser James Blake heading into oblivion, he's found a worthy successor for his duties!

You make it sound like Blake wanted Federer to win every time and Federer was horrible...