PDA

View Full Version : Brad Gilbert's BS predictions and comments!


Buckethead
05-28-2010, 10:58 AM
Everybody is welcome to post here all the BS BG has said in Paris.
1-He said Fed will lose a number one ranking in about 3 weeks.
2-He said Nadal belong the number 1 rank and He should've never lost and only lost because of injuries(the fake ones).
3-He said Montanes and Soderling was going to be a really tight one,LOL.
As i remeber and listen to his non-sense i will post more.
4-He said Nishikori was going to be the upset of the day,and that proved to be a really close match:):)

ViscaB
05-28-2010, 11:02 AM
Too much time on hand? A bit of nonsense really.

zapvor
05-28-2010, 11:03 AM
brad gilbert is pretty funny i like him

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 11:04 AM
Everybody is welcome to post here all the BS BG has said in Paris.
1-He said Fed will lose a number one ranking in about 3 weeks.
2-He said Nadal belong the number 1 rank and He should've never lost and only lost because of injuries(the fake ones).
3-He said Montanes and Soderling was going to be a really tight one,LOL.
As i remeber and listen to his non-sense i will post more.
4-He said Nishikori was going to be the upset of the day,and that proved to be a really close match:):)

If he really said that, then he must remember Nadal attained the #1 only due to Fed's mono.

nikdom
05-28-2010, 11:04 AM
BG should have auditioned for those GEICO ads with Billy Jean King. I think he'd fit the caveman part without any makeup.

Legend of Borg
05-28-2010, 11:06 AM
He made a prediction at the 2008 Wimbledon that Roddick would go on to the final. He was an year off.

sureshs
05-28-2010, 11:06 AM
He is correct about the first two items.

dmt
05-28-2010, 11:11 AM
Yeah Nadals injuries are "fake". one joke of a thread after the other.

Buckethead
05-28-2010, 11:14 AM
brad gilbert is pretty funny i like him
I think He is pretty funny too,but He is losing my respect.Technically and as a coach we can't sy anything,but about his commentary,He is a jack *****.

If he really said that, then he must remember Nadal attained the #1 only due to Fed's mono.
I agree.Also the AO that last year he had back problems as well and had that problem until the clay season.
But that Nadal's run 2 years ago was one of the most incredible runs a player could ask for.Monte Carlo,Rome,Barcelona,RG,Queen's,Wimbledom,gold medal.
Of course the field now is a lot stronger,that's why Nadal found plenty of problems.

sureshs
05-28-2010, 11:15 AM
I think He is pretty funny too,but He is losing my respect.Technically and as a coach we can't sy anything,but about his commentary,He is a jack *****.


I agree.Also the AO that last year he had back problems as well and had that problem until the clay season.
But that Nadal's run 2 years ago was one of the most incredible runs a player could ask for.Monte Carlo,Rome,Barcelona,RG,Queen's,Wimbledom,gold medal.
Of course the field now is a lot stronger,that's why Nadal found plenty of problems.

Like he was not able to win 3 Masters Series events in a row and defeat Fed in the final of one

Buckethead
05-28-2010, 11:15 AM
Also I remembered that the whole ESPN crew said that Fed would never get his number one back after He lost to Nadal in Wimbledom,so they all misfired,by a long way.

angiebaby
05-28-2010, 11:16 AM
Gilbert is hilarious. And a total Nadal-fanboy, he doesn't even try to hide it. But so what, it's really not a big deal. The only people who get upset/irritated by his comments are the Fed fans who can't bear the thought that their man isn't someone's favourite. If the positions were reversed and Gilbert was gushing over Fed reclaiming the Number 1 position I doubt his predictions would be labed "bs" by the people doing so now.

I think I read somewhere that Rafa gave him one of his Wimby '08 racquets; that's a pretty amazing keepsake for anyone to have. Lucky guy.

dmt
05-28-2010, 11:17 AM
how is the fied alot more stronger then 2008? it isnt. Thats hillarious "logic" right there. Nadals problems were injuries and now that he's recovered, he is doing well again.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 11:20 AM
I think He is pretty funny too,but He is losing my respect.Technically and as a coach we can't sy anything,but about his commentary,He is a jack *****.


I agree.Also the AO that last year he had back problems as well and had that problem until the clay season.
But that Nadal's run 2 years ago was one of the most incredible runs a player could ask for.Monte Carlo,Rome,Barcelona,RG,Queen's,Wimbledom,gold medal.
Of course the field now is a lot stronger,that's why Nadal found plenty of problems.

Rome was actually Hamburg, and you missed out Toronto as well. Quite a remarkable run indeed.

That said it is unfair to say only Rafa lost the number one ranking because he got injured. Roger also suffered with mono at the start of 2008, and had back problems leading into 2009, a case could be made for him also.

Truthfully, injuries, illnesses are all part of the package. This is non contact sport, no one took a sledgehammer to anyone's knees or back. Whoever is at the top deserves it for playing well, and maintaining great conditioning whilst travelling and playing a demand sport. Whether that is Rafa, Roger or someone else.

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:20 AM
Everybody is welcome to post here all the BS BG has said in Paris.
1-He said Fed will lose a number one ranking in about 3 weeks.
2-He said Nadal belong the number 1 rank and He should've never lost and only lost because of injuries(the fake ones).
3-He said Montanes and Soderling was going to be a really tight one,LOL.
As i remeber and listen to his non-sense i will post more.
4-He said Nishikori was going to be the upset of the day,and that proved to be a really close match:):)

1. He is probably right.

2. Actually I agree with Brad here too.

3. It turned out to be actually.

Cassius Clay
05-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Yes, full of BS, Fed will lose his n1 ranking in a week.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 11:21 AM
1. He is probably right.

2. Actually I agree with Brad here too.

3. It turned out to be actually.

Surprise, surprise.....

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:23 AM
Gilbert is hilarious. And a total Nadal-fanboy, he doesn't even try to hide it. But so what, it's really not a big deal. The only people who get upset/irritated by his comments are the Fed fans who can't bear the thought that their man isn't someone's favourite. If the positions were reversed and Gilbert was gushing over Fed reclaiming the Number 1 position I doubt his predictions would be labed "bs" by the people doing so now.

I think I read somewhere that Rafa gave him one of his Wimby '08 racquets; that's a pretty amazing keepsake for anyone to have. Lucky guy.

Yes despite that I find alot of his comments reasonable, I would agree Gilbert is a huge and very biased Nadal cheerleader. And he doesnt try and hide it. So what though. Mary Joe Fernandez is a huge Williams booster, Carillo becomes a **** of whoever is the new flavor of the week, P Mac is a huge Federer and Henin backer.

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:24 AM
Surprise, surprise.....

It makes alot more sense than claiming he faked his injuries which is a proposterous claim with no basis at all to reality. In fact is a haters claim.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 11:24 AM
Gilbert is hilarious. And a total Nadal-fanboy, he doesn't even try to hide it. But so what, it's really not a big deal. The only people who get upset/irritated by his comments are the Fed fans who can't bear the thought that their man isn't someone's favourite. If the positions were reversed and Gilbert was gushing over Fed reclaiming the Number 1 position I doubt his predictions would be labed "bs" by the people doing so now.

I think I read somewhere that Rafa gave him one of his Wimby '08 racquets; that's a pretty amazing keepsake for anyone to have. Lucky guy.

I agree, it would be a different group of people.

But that is the way things will always be. It would be boring if everyone liked the same things.

Buckethead
05-28-2010, 11:25 AM
Rome was actually Hamburg, and you missed out Toronto as well. Quite a remarkable run indeed.

That said it is unfair to say only Rafa lost the number one ranking because he got injured. Roger also suffered with mono at the start of 2008, and had back problems leading into 2009, a case could be made for him also.

Truthfully, injuries, illnesses are all part of the package. This is non contact sport, no one took a sledgehammer to anyone's knees or back. Whoever is at the top deserves it for playing well, and maintaining great conditioning whilst travelling and playing a demand sport. Whether that is Rafa, Roger or someone else.
Well said,as well.

dmt
05-28-2010, 11:25 AM
so one commentator is a nadal fan boy. Big deal. 99 percent of commentators are fed fanboys.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 11:26 AM
It makes alot more sense than claiming he faked his injuries which is a proposterous claim with no basis at all to reality. In fact is a haters claim.

You don't know if Nadal would've beaten Fed at wimby, even if he was fully fit. Nadal had a lot of points to defend at RG - wimby, and Fed winning wimby could've given him #1.

Plus, if you agree with Brad, you surely would not refute that Nadal claimed the #1 ONLY because Fed had mono??

dmt
05-28-2010, 11:34 AM
anyway Nadal deserved to get his #1 ranking just as federer deserved to regain his #1 ranking. Illnesses and injuries are a part of any sport and happen to most athletes at some point in their carrears. But its rude to attack someone for having any injury problems (as many federer fans attack Nadal) or accuse someone of faking injury.

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:35 AM
You don't know if Nadal would've beaten Fed at wimby, even if he was fully fit. Nadal had a lot of points to defend at RG - wimby, and Fed winning wimby could've given him #1.

Plus, if you agree with Brad, you surely would not refute that Nadal claimed the #1 ONLY because Fed had mono??

Nadal would not need to win Wimbledon to have kept #1. He just would have needed a very good result and I am sure he would have atleast managed that. I also am one of those who agrees his early loss at Roland Garros was due to his injury.

Federer's mono only affected him at one event potentially- the 2008 Australian Open, and he would have lost to Djokovic there anyway who was playing too well. So no Federer's mono had no effect on losing his #1 ranking to Nadal.

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:36 AM
anyway Nadal deserved to get his #1 ranking just as federer deserved to regain his #1 ranking. Illnesses and injuries are a part of any sport and happen to most athletes at some point in their carrears. But its rude to attack someone for having any injury problems (as many federer fans attack Nadal) or accuse someone of faking injury.

Yeah Nadal couldnt stay healthy so Federer did deserve to become #1 ultimately. Nadal now has to work his way back and seems to be doing a good job of doing so. People saying Nadal faked his injuries are pure haters though. Especialy the same Federer fans who like to claim every loss Federer had for 18 months or more was due to his mono which he himself said he was recovered from by March.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 11:39 AM
anyway Nadal deserved to get his #1 ranking just as federer deserved to regain his #1 ranking. Illnesses and injuries are a part of any sport and happen to most athletes at some point in their carrears. But its rude to attack someone for having any injury problems (as many federer fans attack Nadal) or accuse someone of faking injury.

I agree with you on both accounts. I am proud Federer fan, but even I say that Rafa was not 100% by the time he ran into Soderling. Yes, Soderling played incredible, but Rafa was no where near the level that we've come to expect from him.

But this takes me back to a previous statement. No one sledgehammered Nadal's kness. Injuries are part of the sport, and unfortunately do happen.

ProCoach
05-28-2010, 11:43 AM
I think He is pretty funny too,but He is losing my respect.Technically and as a coach we can't sy anything,but about his commentary,He is a jack *****.


I agree.Also the AO that last year he had back problems as well and had that problem until the clay season.
But that Nadal's run 2 years ago was one of the most incredible runs a player could ask for.Monte Carlo,Rome,Barcelona,RG,Queen's,Wimbledom,gold medal.
Of course the field now is a lot stronger,that's why Nadal found plenty of problems.

Brad just likes to create controversy and "what if's". It's just in his nature. He is the guy they brought in to stir up the pot and he does a great job of it. Don't forget, Brad was a very hard worker when he played on the tour and Nadal is the same way. He relates to Nadal and likes his work ethic. Brad's pretty passionate about the game and I have a feeling it is extremely hard for him to stay neutral due to his passion. I think Brad's job is to get people fired up, whether it be in his favor or not. It seems to work!

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:45 AM
The fact he has you talking means he is doing his job. Rememer this is television and sport today is business. It is all about ratings, fans, interest, and money. Hence why every current best athlete in any sport is labeled the GOAT whether they deserve to be or not.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 11:46 AM
Federer's mono only affected him at one event potentially- the 2008 Australian Open, and he would have lost to Djokovic there anyway who was playing too well. So no Federer's mono had no effect on losing his #1 ranking to Nadal.

Disagree. You can't say that for sure. Roger was not well, couldn't get the practice he needed before AO. Maybe he would have still lost to Novak, maybe not. Credit to Novak for a sensational two weeks of tennis.

Federer lost his training block in February, that effected him severely during the spring hard court season. Fish destroyed him in Indian Wells, and Roddick got that second win, although that was well desereved. He lost to just about anybody and everybody from Karlovic, to Simon, to Blake. What do you attribute all those losses to? That he just sucked all of sudden after dominating the game for several years.

So your last statement is an opinion, not fact.

TennezSport
05-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Gotta remember that Brad made his career out of winning ugly (also the title of his book). So he really likes Rafa because Rafa made his career out of playing Ugly, so they have something in common. :twisted:

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

davey25
05-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Disagree. You can't say that for sure. Roger was not well, couldn't get the practice he needed before AO. Maybe he would have still lost to Novak, maybe not. Credit to Novak for a sensational two weeks of tennis.

Federer lost his training block in February, that effected him severely during the spring hard court season. Fish destroyed him in Indian Wells, and Roddick got that second win, although that was well desereved. He lost to just about anybody and everybody from Karlovic, to Simon, to Blake. What do you attribute all those losses to? That he just sucked all of sudden after dominating the game for several years.

So your last statement is an opinion, not fact.

Federer has been tanking the majority of best of 3 events, especialy those on hard courts, for over 2 years now so losses to Fish and Roddick shouldnt be alarming. His clay court season was quite good, 3 final losses to Nadal. He wouldnt have been doing that on the most physically demanding surface if he was still dealing with mono. His losses to Karlovic, Simon, and Blake were during his post Wimbledon depression funk which lasted a couple months. It isnt unusual for a player after such a devastating loss to go through something like that, and often it lasts alot longer than it did for Federer. Being humiliated in the French Open final and losing that incredible Wimbledon final, had to sap alot of spirit from Federer atleast in the short term.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 12:09 PM
Federer has been tanking the majority of best of 3 events, especialy those on hard courts, for over 2 years now so losses to Fish and Roddick shouldnt be alarming. His clay court season was quite good, 3 final losses to Nadal. He wouldnt have been doing that on the most physically demanding surface if he was still dealing with mono. His losses to Karlovic, Simon, and Blake were during his post Wimbledon depression funk which lasted a couple months. It isnt unusual for a player after such a devastating loss to go through something like that, and often it lasts alot longer than it did for Federer. Being humiliated in the French Open final and losing that incredible Wimbledon final, had to sap alot of spirit from Federer atleast in the short term.

Tanking is one thing, not being allowed to play your game, as in the Fish match is something else. Lets add that he was an unforced error machine against Murray in Dubai also.

His clay season by his standards was poor, he was struggling in Estoril, just about escaped a first round loss that year in MC, lost to Stepanek in Rome, and was lucky he did not play Novak before the final in FO, even then he just about made it.

All of this was a complete turn around from the fall of 2007 after winning the USO and claiming the Masters Cup in dominating form.

davey25
05-28-2010, 12:16 PM
Tanking is one thing, not being allowed to play your game, as in the Fish match is something else. Lets add that he was an unforced error machine against Murray in Dubai also.

Those matches were no different than his ugly displays vs Baghdatis, Berdych, Gulbis in best of 3 events this year. I fail to see any point you are making here.

His clay season by his standards was poor, he was struggling in Estoril, just about escaped a first round loss that year in MC, lost to Stepanek in Rome, and was lucky he did not play Novak before the final in FO, even then he just about made it.

For his standards!?!? He usually has one bad loss and some close calls on clay. He is no Nadal on the surface, and even Nadal who is far better than Federer on clay has had losses to Ferrero, Soderling, and some near bad losses on clay in recent years. Furthermore he has been gradually getting worse on clay since after 2007 now, something that typically happens to players on that surface as they age. If he was consistently making the finals vs Nadal on clay he is doing pretty well, end of story.

I agree he would have lost to Djokovic at the French Open. Federer wasnt playing nearly as well at the French as he was in Monte Carlo, Hamburg, or even Rome (despite the upset loss to an inspired Stepanek), all "earlier" events while Djokovic was at his most confident and on fire around then. Again this in no way relates to some mono theory.

All of this was a complete turn around from the fall of 2007 after winning the USO and claiming the Masters Cup in dominating form.

yeah it is called starting to get older, and finding it hard to mantain a near impossible standard you had set for yourself for 4-5 years, surprise. Here we are 2 years later, mono long long gone, and all the things you are referencing as examples of his supposed poor form are still happening. Bad losses in best of 3 events, in fact even more of them now. Bad losses and many near bad losses on clay. How is that, does he have mono again, LOL!

West Coast Ace
05-28-2010, 12:16 PM
Far be it from me to try to bring a thread back on course - or throw water on another scintillating Fed vs. Rafa injury debate... but Brad Gilbert is all about exaggeration, hyperbole, smack talk, and general entertainment. He's the Court Jester to the serious PMac. He's also very loyal and thus biased to his old employers.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 12:26 PM
yeah it is called starting to get older, and finding it hard to mantain a near impossible standard you had set for yourself for 4-5 years, surprise. Here we are 2 years later, mono long long gone, and all the things you are referencing as examples of his supposed poor form are still happening. Bad losses in best of 3 events, in fact even more of them now. Bad losses and many near bad losses on clay. How is that, does he have mono again, LOL!

Yeah getting over the Christmas break, that must have really taken it's toll, he must have aged severely! :shock:

I know you don't like Federer. I don't have a problem with that. You don't have to like him. But you can't say that Rafa lost the number one rank only because he was injured. Yet say that mono didn't have any kind effect on a guy who was outright the world number one at the end of 2007, and then was losing to everyone and their dog throughout 2008. Because that somehow detracts from Rafa's accomplishment for getting the number one spot.

Rafa desereved it because he played better AND had better conditioning in 2008. By that same accord the same can be said for Roger in 2009.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 12:32 PM
Nadal would not need to win Wimbledon to have kept #1. He just would have needed a very good result and I am sure he would have atleast managed that. I also am one of those who agrees his early loss at Roland Garros was due to his injury.

Federer's mono only affected him at one event potentially- the 2008 Australian Open, and he would have lost to Djokovic there anyway who was playing too well. So no Federer's mono had no effect on losing his #1 ranking to Nadal.

how do you know that Fed would've lost to Djokovic anyway? Prior to and after that AO loss, Fed has beaten the Djoker twice in slams (the both times they met). Fed lost to Mardy fish in IW, Roddick in Miami, etc. combined that with the AO, it would've easily been a swing of around 2500 pts. So there's no guarantee that Nadal would've gotten the #1 position to begin with. With the confidence of a grandslam already under his belt, Fed would likely have not lost wimby 08.

I'm sure you'll be ok with me using Fed's back injury during AO 09 as an excuse for losing to Nadal? If Fed didn't have the back injury, he could've won the AO. See how it works?

Fact:
1. Fed played AO 08 and lost to the Djoker (mono or no mono)
2. Nadal played FO 09 and lost to Soderling (knee injury or not)
3. Nadal did not play Wimby 09, Fed played and won.

Sounds fair and square to me. Nadal deserved to get the #1 in 08, while Fed did in 09.

so yeah, you and Brad Gilbert speak alike -- i.e. BS.

davey25
05-28-2010, 12:35 PM
Yeah getting over the Christmas break, that must have really taken it's toll, he must have aged severely! :shock:

I know you don't like Federer. I don't have a problem with that. You don't have to like him. But you can't say that Rafa lost the number one rank only because he was injured. Yet say that mono didn't have any kind effect on a guy who was outright the world number one at the end of 2007, and then was losing to everyone and their dog throughout 2008. Because that somehow detracts from Rafa's accomplishment for getting the number one spot.

Rafa desereved it because he played better AND had better conditioning in 2008. By that same accord the same can be said for Roger in 2009.

Like I said Federer began tanking the best of 3 events over 2 years ago. If you follow his career and dont realize this, and actually believe bad losses in best of 3 events are somehow mono related then you have been living under a rock. Apart from a trend which had been starting at some point in 2007 (the half assed Masters events effort) and only continued or even built since then, the only difference was Federer losing in slams to Nadal and Djokovic. Losing to Nadal at Wimbledon had been building for awhile at that point, as had Djokovic's rise to winning a slam and beating Federer in one. So there is absolutely no evidence of mono affecting his performance based on anything you said.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 12:39 PM
Like I said Federer began tanking the best of 3 events over 2 years ago. If you follow his career and dont realize this, and actually believe bad losses in best of 3 events are somehow mono related then you have been living under a rock. Apart from a trend which had been starting at some point in 2007 (the half assed Masters events effort) and only continued or even built since then, the only difference was Federer losing in slams to Nadal and Djokovic. Losing to Nadal at Wimbledon had been building for awhile at that point, as had Djokovic's rise to winning a slam and beating Federer in one. So there is absolutely no evidence of mono affecting his performance based on anything you said.

Yeah, losing 6-3 and 6-2 to Fish is something that Fed had planned :confused:

Yeah, by that token, there's no evidence to point to Nadal's injuries.. you could argue that he pulled out of wimby because of the devastation caused by his FO loss. Remember, he was not even wearing his knee straps when he lost to Soderling, so it's hard to buy that too, that he lost because of his knee.

ViscaB
05-28-2010, 12:41 PM
Yeah, by that token, there's no evidence to point to Nadal's injuries.. you could argue that he pulled out of wimby because of the devastation caused by his FO loss.

Such nonsense:-?.

davey25
05-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Yeah, losing 6-3 and 6-2 to Fish is something that Fed had planned :confused:

Not that much different than losing to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Berdych, and Gulbis all in a row in slams. Since it is obvious I have to spell this out as plainly as possible- any result Federer has had in best of 3 events in the last 3 years in fact means nothing. Federer himself hasnt given a damn about those events for awhile unless he decides he really needs the points or some match play, and his fans of all people should realize that. Trying to draw a conclusion of his losses in smallish events to Roddick (a top 10 player), Stepanek (a top 15) player, Simon (a top 10 player that year), Blake (a top 10 player), and even Fish and Karlovic becomes pointless when as we speak he is still regularly losing to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Gulbis, and Berdych, in such events is stupid and pointless.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Like I said Federer began tanking the best of 3 events over 2 years ago. If you follow his career and dont realize this, and actually believe bad losses in best of 3 events are somehow mono related then you have been living under a rock. Apart from a trend which had been starting at some point in 2007 (the half assed Masters events effort) and only continued or even built since then, the only difference was Federer losing in slams to Nadal and Djokovic. Losing to Nadal at Wimbledon had been building for awhile at that point, as had Djokovic's rise to winning a slam and beating Federer in one. So there is absolutely no evidence of mono affecting his performance based on anything you said.

Again disagree, I can easily say that you've been living under a rock. I know what I saw with Roger in 2008, and how his level dropped a little to signifcantly after 2007. He was not tanking in 2007. He won two MS. Lost one to Rafa in MC, one two Djokovic in Canada, and he lost to Nalbandian playing the tennis of his life in Madrid and Paris. Only to clean house in TMC.

2008 it all went south and too quickly, after he fell ill in January.

So if I don't have any evidence, neither do you.

West Coast Ace
05-28-2010, 12:46 PM
Like I said Federer ... blah, blah, blah, ...Spoken like a bitter Sampras jock sniffer - your avatar and cheap shot signature (who else in his era has won 16 majors - and counting) speaks volumes...

Oh, and sorry my Flyers destroyed your Habs! Better luck next year!

davey25
05-28-2010, 12:51 PM
Again disagree, I can easily say that you've been living under a rock. I know what I saw with Roger in 2008, and how his level dropped a little to signifcantly after 2007. He was not tanking in 2007. He won two MS. Lost one to Rafa in MC, one two Djokovic in Canada, and he lost to Nalbandian playing the tennis of his life in Madrid and Paris. Only to clean house in TMC.

2008 it all went south and too quickly, after he fell ill in January.

So if I don't have any evidence, neither do you.

In 2007 he lost to Guillermo freaking Canas twice in a row in Masters events, lost to Nalbandian twice in a row too as you mentioned (yeah I know Nalbandian is the uncrowned GOAT on TW but he has been owned by Federer since late 2003), played really ugly tennis in Cincinnati but still won thanks to a cakewalk draw. Since his results in Masters make it pretty clear he is giving a half assed effort in them these days (even if one thinks tanking is too strong a word) that had to start at some point. There is reason to think it possibly started in 2007, but even if you disagree there is nothing unreasonable to think it didnt start in 2008 especialy since it hasnt stopped since then. Either way to overanalyze losses to the players you mentioned in best of 3 events which he is now only half trying in (at best) and losing to any obscure Fish like players out there right and left only a couple years later, yet putting that happening then down to mono, is a blind and baseless argument.

All Federer has cared about for awhile now are the Grand Slams and maybe the TMC. The only reason his year was bad for his standards that year was he lost to Djokovic and Nadal in slams. As I said something that had been building for awhile. If he had won those it would have been another banner year for what he wants now, which is no longer only 3 or 4 losses a year anyway.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 12:54 PM
Not that much different than losing to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Berdych, and Gulbis all in a row in slams. Since it is obvious I have to spell this out as plainly as possible- any result Federer has had in best of 3 events in the last 3 years in fact means nothing. Federer himself hasnt given a damn about those events for awhile unless he decides he really needs the points or some match play, and his fans of all people should realize that. Trying to draw a conclusion of his losses in smallish events to Roddick (a top 10 player), Stepanek (a top 15) player, Simon (a top 10 player that year), Blake (a top 10 player), and even Fish and Karlovic becomes pointless when as we speak he is still regularly losing to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Gulbis, and Berdych, in such events is stupid and pointless.

They ARE different. The fish match was so one-sided, it was not even funny. The other matches went 3 sets and in some of them, he even had match pts. Go learn something. Now master's series tournaments are "smallish"
events? Ok....

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 12:55 PM
In 2007 he lost to Guillermo freaking Canas twice in a row in Masters events, lost to Nalbandian twice in a row too as you mentioned (yeah I know Nalbandian is the uncrowned GOAT on TW but he has been owned by Federer since late 2003), played really ugly tennis in Cincinnati but still won thanks to a cakewalk draw. Since his results in Masters make it pretty clear he is giving a half assed effort in them these days (even if one thinks tanking is too strong a word) that had to start at some point. There is reason to think it possibly started in 2007, but even if you disagree there is nothing unreasonable to think it didnt start in 2008 especialy since it hasnt stopped since then. Either way to overanalyze losses to the players you mentioned in best of 3 events which he is now only half trying in (at best) and losing to any obscure Fish like players out there right and left only a couple years later, yet putting that happening then down to mono, is a blind and baseless argument.

All Federer has cared about for awhile now are the Grand Slams and maybe the TMC. The only reason his year was bad for his standards that year was he lost to Djokovic and Nadal in slams. As I said something that had been building for awhile. If he had won those it would have been another banner year for what he wants now, which is no longer only 3 or 4 losses a year anyway.


Yes, it must be true if Davey25 says so...

The point still stands: if you believe there is no evidence that Fed lost the #1 due to mono, then there is no evidence that Nadal lost it due to his knee injury.

davey25
05-28-2010, 12:58 PM
They ARE different. The fish match was so one-sided, it was not even funny. The other matches went 3 sets and in some of them, he even had match pts. Go learn something. Now master's series tournaments are "smallish"
events? Ok....

To Federer now after all he has accomplished they obviously now are which explains his lackadaisical effort in them for awhile now. Even as a non Federer fan I predicted while he was losing to that collection of clowns that in Madrid he would decide it was time to put in the effort with the points situation getting dicier and that at the French he would be fine. Lo and behold he is the final in Madrid, and suddenly at the French he is looking great again. Coincidence, LOL! And that is all fine, he is at the point he is focusing only on the slams and maybe a couple other events now, there is nothing wrong with that I guess if that is what he wants. However it has been obviously happening for awhile now so only an idiot like yourself would try and psychoanalyze such losses then and put them down to mono. If it was in 2006 that would actually make sense but it wasnt.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Such nonsense:-?.

like one of your many usernames?

Hitman
05-28-2010, 01:00 PM
In 2007 he lost to Guillermo freaking Canas twice in a row in Masters events, lost to Nalbandian twice in a row too as you mentioned (yeah I know Nalbandian is the uncrowned GOAT on TW but he has been owned by Federer since late 2003), played really ugly tennis in Cincinnati but still won thanks to a cakewalk draw. Since his results in Masters make it pretty clear he is giving a half assed effort in them these days (even if one thinks tanking is too strong a word) that had to start at some point. There is reason to think it possibly started in 2007, but even if you disagree there is nothing unreasonable to think it didnt start in 2008 especialy since it hasnt stopped since then. Either way to overanalyze losses to the players you mentioned in best of 3 events which he is now only half trying in (at best) and losing to any obsucre player out there right and left only a couple years later is a blind and baseless argument.

All Federer has cared about for awhile now are the Grand Slams and maybe the TMC. The only reason his year was bad for his standards that year was he lost to Djokovic and Nadal in slams. As I said something that had been building for awhile.

The loss in IW was coming. He was on a 41 match winning streak, and hadn't had a bad day in the office for months. He played badly in Cincy? Didn't he just play the final the week before in Monteal? Rafa, Novak all went out, but Roger played on. Infact he won the the US Open series that year, so not bad for someone who wasn't trying.

He actually did Four straight finals in a row at MS level that year. Hamburg, Canada, Cincinnati, and Madrid. So I don't think he was tanking at all.

2008 it suddenly changed? Okay, if you say so.

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:01 PM
Yeah, by that token, there's no evidence to point to Nadal's injuries.. you could argue that he pulled out of wimby because of the devastation caused by his FO loss. Remember, he was not even wearing his knee straps when he lost to Soderling, so it's hard to buy that too, that he lost because of his knee.

Nadal is one of the biggest fighters this sport has ever seen, something even his biggest haters should be able to admit. To think he would actually withdraw from Wimbledon while healthy enough to play is an absurd suggestion.

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:04 PM
The loss in IW was coming. He was on a 41 match winning streak, and hadn't had a bad day in the office for months. He played badly in Cincy? Didn't he just play the final the week before in Monteal? Rafa, Novak all went out, but Roger played on. Infact he won the the US Open series that year, so not bad for someone who wasn't trying.

He actually did Four straight finals in a row at MS level that year. Hamburg, Canada, Cincinnati, and Madrid. So I don't think he was tanking at all.

2008 it suddenly changed? Okay, if you say so.

So why are most of his results in Masters events so bad today? Does he still have mono, lol! It is amazing some Federer fans are too thick to realize he doesnt give a damn about those events anymore.

David123
05-28-2010, 01:05 PM
His predictions are fairly accurate..Soderling and montanes were tight sets. Montanes is very good on clay. And federer will lose the number 1 ranking in the next 1-2 months.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:06 PM
To Federer now after all he has accomplished they obviously now are which explains his lackadaisical effort in them for awhile now. Even as a non Federer fan I predicted while he was losing to that collection of clowns that in Madrid he would decide it was time to put in the effort with the points situation getting dicier and that at the French he would be fine. Lo and behold he is the final in Madrid, and suddenly at the French he is looking great again. Coincidence, LOL! And that is all fine, he is at the point he is focusing only on the slams and maybe a couple other events now, there is nothing wrong with that I guess if that is what he wants. However it has been obviously happening for awhile now so only an idiot like yourself would try and psychoanalyze such losses then and put them down to mono.

hey moron, try to address why the fish match was so 1-sided.

And show me where I said Fed gave his all in best-of-3 events?

Oh, and do provide evidence that Nadal lost his #1 because he was injured..

Hitman
05-28-2010, 01:10 PM
So why are most of his results in Masters events so bad today? Does he still have mono, lol! It is amazing some Federer fans are too thick to realize he doesnt give a damn about those events anymore.

Don't call me thick. Personally all I see is biased hate from you against Roger, bringing him down. Your signature says a lot about what you think about him. Whatever.

I won't stoop to your level and call you names.

You have your opinion, and I have mine.

If you want you can have the last word, because it seems like it will be some kind of moral victory for you. Oh, and I am a huge Sampras fan by the way.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:11 PM
Nadal is one of the biggest fighters this sport has ever seen, something even his biggest haters should be able to admit. To think he would actually withdraw from Wimbledon while healthy enough to play is an absurd suggestion.

So what? The FO loss was devastating, even Nadal-fans would admit. So that would explain why he withdrew from wimbledon.

Here's what you said:

His losses to Karlovic, Simon, and Blake were during his post Wimbledon depression funk which lasted a couple months. It isnt unusual for a player after such a devastating loss to go through something like that, and often it lasts alot longer than it did for Federer

If the loss at wimby affected Fed so much, why wouldn't the loss at FO impact Nadal? Or given your biased, hypocritical, anti-fed views, do these only apply to Federer?

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:12 PM
Don't call me thick. Personally all I see is biased hate from you against Roger, bringing him down. So signature says a lot about what you think about him Whatever.

I won't stoop to your level and call you names.

You have your opinion, and I have mine.

If you want you can have the last word, because it seems like it will be some kind of moral victory for you. Oh, and I am a huge Sampras fan by the way.

Again why are most of his Masters events so bad today. Does he still have mono? What is the excuse now for losing to a collection of Mardy Fish players (atleast most of his Masters losses in 08 were top 10 or top 15 players at the time). Anyone who thinks Federer gives a damn about those kind of events today is thick, sorry if the shoe fits wear it.

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:13 PM
So what? The FO loss was devastating, even Nadal-fans would admit.

Here's what you said:

If the loss at wimby affected Fed so much, why wouldn't the loss at FO impact Nadal? Or given your biased, hypocritical, anti-fed views, do these only apply to Federer?

Of course it could have affected Nadal but not to the point he would actually withdraw from Wimbledon as the defending Champion healthy. To insinuate Nadal of all people would withdraw from any grand slam healthy is lunacy. This is the guy who tried to play the U.S Open on his worst surface, months after a devastating loss in the Wimbledon final to Federer, with a knee injury so bad he was kneeling over in pain between points in his 4th round loss to Ferrer.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:17 PM
Again why are most of his Masters events so bad today. Does he still have mono? What is the excuse now. Anyone who thinks Federer gives a damn about those kind of events today is thick, sorry if the shoe fits where it.

are you too stupid to even accept that lack of motivation is not the only reason for Fed to lose?

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:17 PM
Of course it could have affected Nadal but not to the point he would actually withdraw from Wimbledon as the defending Champion healthy. To insinuate Nadal of all people would withdraw from any grand slam healthy is lunacy. This is the guy who tried to play the U.S Open on his worst surface, months after a devastating loss in the Wimbledon final to Federer, with a knee injury so bad he was kneeling over in pain between points in his 4th round loss to Ferrer.

How do you know that? Now you're just talking out of your *****.. Or should we take it that your word is the indisputable truth?

Leonidas
05-28-2010, 01:19 PM
Everybody is welcome to post here all the BS BG has said in Paris.
1-He said Fed will lose a number one ranking in about 3 weeks.
2-He said Nadal belong the number 1 rank and He should've never lost and only lost because of injuries(the fake ones).
3-He said Montanes and Soderling was going to be a really tight one,LOL.
As i remeber and listen to his non-sense i will post more.
4-He said Nishikori was going to be the upset of the day,and that proved to be a really close match:):)

Probably the former Agassisīs coach knows more about tennis than you do. Plus, Soderling beat Montaņes in 4 sets, i saw the 1st and 2nd and they were indeed really close. so...WTF are you talking about here?

Agassifan
05-28-2010, 01:21 PM
Everybody was fully fit* at this year's Australian Open and Fed still won. So I fail to see where injuries figure in that discussion.



*Nadal was injured after he lost

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:23 PM
Everybody was fully fit* at this year's Australian Open and Fed still won. So I fail to see where injuries figure in that discussion.



*Nadal was injured after he lost

it doesn't count, because he didn't beat Nadal to win it.

frisco
05-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Let's face it, Nadal probably didn't fake his injuries. But what Fed achieved due to Nadal's absence is equal to what Nadal achieved in 2008 with Fed's injuries (mono + back). It evens out.

sureshs
05-28-2010, 01:25 PM
it doesn't count, because he didn't beat Nadal to win it.

http://threadbombing.com/data/media/20/seriousdgif.gif

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:27 PM
Let's face it, Nadal probably didn't fake his injuries. But what Fed achieved due to Nadal's absence is equal to what Nadal achieved in 2008 with Fed's injuries (mono + back). It evens out.

Somehow, Fed detractors are happy to shove the "Fed reclaimed #1 because Nadal was injured" BS down our throats, yet never acknowledge the bolded part.

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:27 PM
are you too stupid to even accept that lack of motivation is not the only reason for Fed to lose?

It is lack of motivation or he got outplayed. Take your pick, I dont really care. You are the crazed ******* who lives and dies on each of his results, not me. Either way most of his Masters losses today are worse than in 2008. He lost to Roddick, Stepanek, Simon, Blake, top 10/top 15 players all, and a couple others to monster serving Karlovic and Fish because he had mono but today loses in his last 4 Masters in a row to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Gulbis,and Berdych because he got outplayed by an amazing opponent in each. And you are the one calling anyone else stupid here, ROTFL!!!!

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:29 PM
It is lack of motivation or he got outplayed. Take your pick, I dont really care. Either way most of his Masters losses today are worse than in 2008. He lost to Roddick, Stepanek, Simon, Blake, top 10/top 15 players all, and a couple others to monster serving Karlovic and Fish because he had mono but today loses in his last 4 Masters in a row to Benneteau, Baghdatis, Gulbis,and Berdych because he got outplayed by an amazing opponent in each. And you are the one calling anyone else stupid here, ROTFL!!!!

Seriously? you can only think of 2 reasons? How about MONO? Of course, that doesn't suit your agenda.

No, I'm not calling anyone else stupid -- you're the only one in this thread worthy of that honor. enjoy :)

dmt
05-28-2010, 01:29 PM
guys, i think its time to relax.

malakas
05-28-2010, 01:33 PM
brad gilbert's predictions are like the kiss of death.

Hitman
05-28-2010, 01:34 PM
How do you know that? Now you're just talking out of your *****.. Or should we take it that your word is the indisputable truth?

It's obvious he's just bitter, and not worth it.

At the start of 2008 Fed was still chasing the record, and he was doing very well. He had 12, and was doing it while still competing at a high level in Masters events. He was fit and healthy.

Why would he suddenly decide to change that winning formula at the start of 2008?

Now it's a different story. He's got the record. He doesn't need to be winning everything in sight anymore, just peaking for Slams. It seems some people have been blinded by hatred. That's their problem.

It just shows how good Roger truly is.

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:35 PM
Seriously? you can only think of 2 reasons? How about MONO?

Yes a series of losses in Masters to mostly top 15 caliber opponents must have been due to mono. So as he today he regularly losses in Masters to guys who are barely top 30 opponents he must now have double mono right? What will it be when he begins to lose regularly in Masters to guys barely top 60, will he then have developed a new illness called quadruple mono? Sorry I was so wrong, your stellar arguments have made me see the way, I have learnt how to think in ******* language. :lol:

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:37 PM
How do you know that? Now you're just talking out of your *****.. Or should we take it that your word is the indisputable truth?

Only the truly worst of the blind and hate filled *******s like yourself would even suggest Nadal would pull out of Wimbledon with a phony injury. You really reveal the kind of lowlife scum you are to even suggest such a thing, regardless how much you hate Nadal.

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:41 PM
Only the truly worst of the blind and hate filled *******s like yourself would even suggest Nadal would pull out of Wimbledon with a phony injury. You really reveal the kind of lowlife scum you are to even suggest such a thing, regardless how much you hate Nadal.

LOL, if i'm a Fedfan/****, then I must hate Nadal.. Again talking out of your *****, I see ...

Let me remind you: If Fed regained #1 due to Nadal's injuries, then Nadal claimed the #1 in the first place due to Fed's mono.

davey25
05-28-2010, 01:44 PM
Let me remind you: If Fed regained #1 due to Nadal's injuries, then Nadal claimed the #1 in the first place due to Fed's mono.

you just keep dreaming that if it helps you sleep easier at night. :)

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:45 PM
Yes a series of losses in Masters to mostly top 15 caliber opponents must have been due to mono. So as he today he regularly losses in Masters to guys who are barely top 30 opponents he must now have double mono right? What will it be when he begins to lose regularly in Masters to guys barely top 60, will he then have developed a new illness called quadruple mono? Sorry I was so wrong, your stellar arguments have made me see the way, I have learnt how to think in ******* language. :lol:

gosh, reading comprehension isn't your strength.. you're sounding more and more like GameSampras..

Wait, you ARE GameSampras :)

fed_rulz
05-28-2010, 01:47 PM
you just keep dreaming that if it helps you sleep easier at night. :)

OMG, you're right:

- Fed regained #1 because he played well. Nadal, OTOH, claimed #1 ONLY because Fed had mono.

satisfied?

forzamilan90
05-28-2010, 01:50 PM
gilbert is a known fed hater, and murray and nadal butt kisser, so no surprises there; anyone on the commentator team i prefer over him (it's funny when him and chris fowler talked about nadal and if he becomes number 1, fowler was shocked that gilbert basically said fed wasn't worthy of the number 1 ranking)

nn
05-28-2010, 01:56 PM
BG should have auditioned for those GEICO ads with Billy Jean King. I think he'd fit the caveman part without any makeup.

man I was started laughing & login to comment on that

Justin Side
05-28-2010, 02:31 PM
Everybody is welcome to post here all the BS BG has said in Paris.
1-He said Fed will lose a number one ranking in about 3 weeks.
2-He said Nadal belong the number 1 rank and He should've never lost and only lost because of injuries(the fake ones).
3-He said Montanes and Soderling was going to be a really tight one,LOL.
As i remeber and listen to his non-sense i will post more.
4-He said Nishikori was going to be the upset of the day,and that proved to be a really close match:):)

Someone get this Nadal hater some tissues. :cry:

angiebaby
05-28-2010, 02:35 PM
guys, i think its time to relax.

Seriously. People are just chasing their tails here and going round and round in circles. :(


brad gilbert's predictions are like the kiss of death.

Except for when they kinda come true right? :twisted::)

gio
05-28-2010, 03:58 PM
You don't know if Nadal would've beaten Fed at wimby, even if he was fully fit. Nadal had a lot of points to defend at RG - wimby, and Fed winning wimby could've given him #1.

Plus, if you agree with Brad, you surely would not refute that Nadal claimed the #1 ONLY because Fed had mono??

Federer never had mono.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 05:22 PM
anyway Nadal deserved to get his #1 ranking just as federer deserved to regain his #1 ranking. Illnesses and injuries are a part of any sport and happen to most athletes at some point in their carrears. But its rude to attack someone for having any injury problems (as many federer fans attack Nadal) or accuse someone of faking injury.

Great post!

OddJack
05-28-2010, 05:25 PM
He said Nadal will get to where he belongs (#1) and Chris Fowler questioned that. "where he belongs"?? he said

And then D Cahill disagreed with him. He picked Roger to be number 1 and his reasoning was end of the year hard courts and that he can do well in W.

He says stupid things such as " he has 100% chance for break" which even his colleagues call him on.

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 05:26 PM
Far be it from me to try to bring a thread back on course - or throw water on another scintillating Fed vs. Rafa injury debate... but Brad Gilbert is all about exaggeration, hyperbole, smack talk, and general entertainment. He's the Court Jester to the serious PMac. He's also very loyal and thus biased to his old employers.

PMac? Can we say Roddick? What Brad does is no different from any other commentator. It seems to depend on who you like (not you specifically).

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 05:33 PM
guys, i think its time to relax.

Good call:).

TheTruth
05-28-2010, 05:36 PM
gilbert is a known fed hater, and murray and nadal butt kisser, so no surprises there; anyone on the commentator team i prefer over him (it's funny when him and chris fowler talked about nadal and if he becomes number 1, fowler was shocked that gilbert basically said fed wasn't worthy of the number 1 ranking)

I do think he is a Rafa fanboy. Nothing wrong with that. But a Fed hater? I don't see how you come to that conclusion. That comment was a bit over the top, even if he felt that way, he shouldn't have said it. Not cool.

Justdoit10
05-28-2010, 05:39 PM
I do think he is a Rafa fanboy. Nothing wrong with that. But a Fed hater? I don't see how you come to that conclusion. That comment was a bit over the top, even if he felt that way, he shouldn't have said it. Not cool.
Agreed. Gilbert has always leaned towards Rafa but he is far from a fed hater. There is nothing wrong with leaning towards Rafa. He is a great player as well.

Justin Side
06-06-2010, 03:56 PM
Nice work by Brad Gilbert.

statto
06-06-2010, 04:01 PM
Everybody is welcome to post here all the BS BG has said in Paris.
1-He said Fed will lose a number one ranking in about 3 weeks.
2-He said Nadal belong the number 1 rank and He should've never lost and only lost because of injuries(the fake ones).
3-He said Montanes and Soderling was going to be a really tight one,LOL.
As i remeber and listen to his non-sense i will post more.
4-He said Nishikori was going to be the upset of the day,and that proved to be a really close match:):)

1 - OK, he lost the ranking place two weeks early, but as he's not getting it back in another two weeks we'll call this a hit
2 - Hit
3 - Hit
4 - Miss (hey, nobody's perfect).

jackson vile
06-06-2010, 06:44 PM
Good job BG!