PDA

View Full Version : If Roger loses this Wimbledon title He will never win another major.


Pages : [1] 2

Buckethead
06-12-2011, 06:34 PM
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.

If He can't win grass where will He win??

Nowhere else, not to mention that He will be so down in confidence that will hard for him to come back again.

For me this title is already in the bag, Roger is playing his best tennis ever, just played amazing in RG, could have beaten Nadal there, or let Djoker have done the job, but He failed. Now it is his turn.

If He wins on grass He has a 20% chance to win the US Open.

FedExpress 333
06-12-2011, 06:36 PM
I also think tat tis is his best chance for # 17, but he probably has at least a 40% chance at the USO,,,,,,

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 06:36 PM
I think the U.S Open is his best chance, even more than Wimbledon. He has a great shot vs Djokovic at the U.S Open, and Nadal can lose to a variety of players there. Wimbledon will be hard since Nadal is by far the favorite. Nadal hasnt lost at Wimbledon since 2007 now.

Buckethead
06-12-2011, 06:41 PM
I think the U.S Open is his best chance, even more than Wimbledon. He has a great shot vs Djokovic at the U.S Open, and Nadal can lose to a variety of players there. Wimbledon will be hard since Nadal is by far the favorite. Nadal hasnt lost at Wimbledon since 2007 now.

Disagree in all.

Fed had mono that year, that is why Nadal won that one, because Fed was never at his best in 2007.

Last year Fed was injured/out of form.

US Open, will be more about Del Po in Djokovic who can beat Fed/Nadal, with Murray having a chance to take Del Po out, if not, Del Po will get to the semis at least.

10ACE
06-12-2011, 06:47 PM
Zzzzz. Zzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz -_- zzzzzz -_-

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 06:50 PM
Disagree in all.

Fed had mono that year, that is why Nadal won that one, because Fed was never at his best in 2007.

Last year Fed was injured/out of form.

US Open, will be more about Del Po in Djokovic who can beat Fed/Nadal, with Murray having a chance to take Del Po out, if not, Del Po will get to the semis at least.

Federer had mono in January 08. By Wimbledon even he said he was at his best. Anyway 2008 is even a long time ago now for Federer, 2010 showed he was clearly past his prime on grass.

You are assuming too much to make Del Potro to be this huge contender. It is possible but probably not likely. He is making progress but has already been spanked by both Nadal and Djokovic this year. I doubt he beats any of the top 4 at the U.S open this year, except maybe Murray. If he stays healthy for another whole year maybe he can become a bigger contender again.

And Djokovic probably wont beat Federer at the U.S open. He has played Federer 4 times and his only win was last year when Roger played awful and still had 2 match points. It is nothing like Australia where Djokovic can beat Federer even in form, I doubt he could ever do that at the U.S Open until Federer slows down even more. And after beating Djokovic at Roland Garros, Federer will be extremely confident if they meet in a U.S Open final or semi.

BTW I am hoping Djokovic wins the U.S Open this year (though I wouldnt mind a Nadal repeat) so I am hoping that Djokovic does avoid Federer by either Nadal, or Del Potro, or Murray, or something else taking Federer out. However as far as objectively evaluating his chances I think Roger has quite a good shot at the U.S Open. I dont see anyone beating Nadal at Wimbledon.

Tammo
06-12-2011, 07:00 PM
Federer will most likely stop where he is.

tata
06-12-2011, 07:17 PM
Funny enough i'd rate Fed's chances best at US open. Though wimby would mean a lot more to him and motivate him more. I honestly think the surface at the USO suit him better.

MichaelNadal
06-12-2011, 07:50 PM
Federer is still capable of playing amazing tennis, and is still RIGHT in the mix to win slams. He can win a major anytime in the next 2yrs IMO.

Clay lover
06-12-2011, 07:53 PM
People were saying he was done after 2009 AO. Not buying any of this.

SStrikerR
06-12-2011, 07:58 PM
Neither am I. The funny part is how the OP says he can't play on HC. Hey, hear of the WTF? He still barely loses to people not named Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, and he still has beaten them. If he's in form and playing well, he'll still win. And Fed always shows up at slams.

Aeropax
06-12-2011, 08:07 PM
People were saying he was done after 2009 AO. Not buying any of this.

If Nadal doesn't lose to Soderling at the French and doesn't withdraw from Wimbledon - Federer is still tied with Sampras.

2009 was a lucky year for Federer that Nadal couldn't close shop at the French and withdrew from Wimbledon due to injury (ahem personal problems I'm guessing and being distraught from losing the French).

I'd give Federer the benefit of the doubt and say he'd have won the USO 2009 had he not beat Pete's record at Wimbledon.

Federer will not win another slam with Nadal and Djokovic around.

Xizel
06-12-2011, 08:07 PM
I think he has a pretty good chance at USO.

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 08:23 PM
If Nadal doesn't lose to Soderling at the French and doesn't withdraw from Wimbledon - Federer is still tied with Sampras.

2009 was a lucky year for Federer that Nadal couldn't close shop at the French and withdrew from Wimbledon due to injury (ahem personal problems I'm guessing and being distraught from losing the French).

I'd give Federer the benefit of the doubt and say he'd have won the USO 2009 had he not beat Pete's record at Wimbledon.

Federer will not win another slam with Nadal and Djokovic around.

If you are saying Federer would have won the 2009 U.S Open had he not beat Pete's record then he still would have passed it in that case. 2009 U.S Open and 2010 Australian Open would make 15, even if he won neither the 2009 French or 2009 Wimbledon (if that is what you mean).

Viking_Golfer
06-12-2011, 08:25 PM
Fed's chance of winning:

This Wimby: 75%
US Open: 50%
Aussie Open 2012: 30%
French Open 2012: 15%
Wimby 2012: 60%

So I'd say he has a decent chance to win another GS :)

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 08:26 PM
Why would anyone give Federer a better than 50% chance to win Wimbledon when the last 2 times he and Nadal played it Nadal won, and Federer is only getting older, not better. And last year Federer lost to Berdych of all people, Nadal would have destroyed him last year had he made that final in that form.

Viking_Golfer
06-12-2011, 08:28 PM
Why would anyone give Federer a better than 50% chance to win Wimbledon when the last 2 times he and Nadal played it Nadal won, and Federer is only getting older, not better. And last year Federer lost to Berdych of all people, Nadal would have destroyed him last year had he made that final in that form.

Because Fed plays better this year and I predict will also do next year - than last year, where his form went south.

He's in second childhood again :)

mandy01
06-12-2011, 08:30 PM
For me this title is already in the bag,Nothing is 'in the bag' :roll:
Sheesh,this must be idiotic prediction#68503580960

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 08:30 PM
Because Fed plays better this year and I predict will also do next year - than last year, where his form went south.

He's in second childhood again :)

I guess we will see. He did play much better at Roland Garros than he has since 2007 IMO. Despite that he won in 2009. If he wasnt such a mental midget in the final he actually could have beaten Nadal.

I expect that loss will only reinforce Nadal's dominance and mental edge in the rivalry when they play next however.

mandy01
06-12-2011, 08:34 PM
Federer had mono in January 08. By Wimbledon even he said he was at his best. Anyway 2008 is even a long time ago now for Federer, 2010 showed he was clearly past his prime on grass.

Nadal said he was feeling perfectly fine before RG 09 and after his loss started trumpeting his 'knee injury'.So don't give us that :rolleyes:



I remember Pierre Pagannini saying quite a few times that he was surprised Roger even managed to win a slam in '08 given that physically,he was playing catch-up the whole year.(I'm paraphrasing here of course).And Roger himself had has said this before.

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 08:41 PM
I havent made excuses for Nadal's loss at the 2009 French and have never denied it as a legitimate loss so what is your point (then again do you ever have one, lol).

Messarger
06-12-2011, 08:43 PM
I enjoy all your precentages :lol:

mandy01
06-12-2011, 08:44 PM
I havent made excuses for Nadal's loss at the 2009 French and have never denied it as a legitimate loss so what is your point (then again do you ever have one, lol).
I think the better question is-Does *******Agassi ever succeed at Reading Comprehension?
The point being(as if it weren't obvious),I'm pretty sure it took Roger much longer than what he let on to recover physically in 2008.

Bobby Jr
06-12-2011, 09:37 PM
... now for Federer, 2010 showed he was clearly past his prime on grass.
Please stop posting such drivel. That has about as much merit as saying Nadal was past him prime on clay when he lost at the FO to Soderling. Federer's performance at Wimbledon last year was just a poor patch for him. Not that he was clearly past his prime on grass.

He generally played like a complete mug by his standards for months on end including at Wimbledon last year. His level at this year's FO would have beaten that version of himself 6-2 6-2 6-2.

PCXL-Fan
06-12-2011, 09:55 PM
I wouldn't say this title is already in the bag. If he happens to meet Nadal, those numerous losses to Nadal will get into his mind, and there is no telling how it'll effect Roger's game.

NadalAgassi
06-12-2011, 10:09 PM
Please stop posting such drivel. That has about as much merit as saying Nadal was past him prime on clay when he lost at the FO to Soderling. Federer's performance at Wimbledon last year was just a poor patch for him. Not that he was clearly past his prime on grass.

He generally played like a complete mug by his standards for months on end including at Wimbledon last year. His level at this year's FO would have beaten that version of himself 6-2 6-2 6-2.

Federer the previous year was lucky to not lose to Roddick at Wimbledon. Andy Roddick of all people dominated him from the baseline that day. The only reason he won is he had one his best serving days and Roddick's worthless return of serve which combined for 50 aces and a bunch of other service winners. Plus the blown 2nd set tiebreak by Roddick.

Before Wimbledon last year he lost to grandpa Hewitt on grass who he hadnt lost to on any surface in 7 years. And in the 1st round of Wimbledon he was outplayed and nearly lost in 4 sets to Falla.

So if you think Federer isnt well past his best on the surface then you are blind to reality.

He still could win another Wimbledon maybe but only if he avoids Nadal and he doesnt run into a top 10 player playing as well as Berdych last year.

Hard courts is by far Federer's best surface now and if he ever wins another slam it is where he is most likely to, not Wimbledon.

Roger No.1
06-12-2011, 11:01 PM
Federer the previous year was lucky to not lose to Roddick at Wimbledon. Andy Roddick of all people dominated him from the baseline that day. The only reason he won is he had one his best serving days and Roddick's worthless return of serve which combined for 50 aces and a bunch of other service winners. Plus the blown 2nd set tiebreak by Roddick.

Before Wimbledon last year he lost to grandpa Hewitt on grass who he hadnt lost to on any surface in 7 years. And in the 1st round of Wimbledon he was outplayed and nearly lost in 4 sets to Falla.

So if you think Federer isnt well past his best on the surface then you are blind to reality.

He still could win another Wimbledon maybe but only if he avoids Nadal and he doesnt run into a top 10 player playing as well as Berdych last year.

Hard courts is by far Federer's best surface now and if he ever wins another slam it is where he is most likely to, not Wimbledon.

You're saying Federer is past his prime on grass, but not past his prime on other surfaces?
You can't really compare his performance after last year's AO to this year. He had a good chance of winning the French this year, but one or two points probably made the difference.

Bobby Jr
06-12-2011, 11:09 PM
Federer the previous year was lucky to not lose to Roddick at Wimbledon. Andy Roddick of all people dominated him from the baseline that day. The only reason he won is he had one his best serving days and Roddick's worthless return of serve which combined for 50 aces and a bunch of other service winners. Plus the blown 2nd set tiebreak by Roddick.
The only reason Roddick made a contest of it at all was Fed's average play. Overall it was the lowest quality tennis Federer has played in a Wimbledon final.

Before Wimbledon last year he lost to grandpa Hewitt on grass who he hadnt lost to on any surface in 7 years. And in the 1st round of Wimbledon he was outplayed and nearly lost in 4 sets to Falla.
You're proving my point. That his poor form was related to a poor patch, not a his-grass-days-are-over signal. Has he played great tennis anytime since? Yes? More than once? Yes. Won dominating or close battles with top 10 or 5 opponents? Yes.

Did you watch the French Open the other week? The quality of tennis being played by Federer is like night and day generally compared to the middle of last year.

He still could win another Wimbledon ....and he doesnt run into a top 10 player playing as well as Berdych last year.
You mean the guy who - career long - has been flakey and got smoked by Nadal in the final? That guy? Yeah, you're strengthening my argument yet again.

Without it being a flame attempt, how long have you been watching tennis? You're like the Bill O'Reilly of Talk Tennis. Hot air, selective fact use and dubious lines of logic as a matter of course.

Readers
06-12-2011, 11:14 PM
Come on, he is not THAT old yet.

Cesc Fabregas
06-13-2011, 12:20 AM
Nadal said he was feeling perfectly fine before RG 09 and after his loss started trumpeting his 'knee injury'.So don't give us that :rolleyes:



I remember Pierre Pagannini saying quite a few times that he was surprised Roger even managed to win a slam in '08 given that physically,he was playing catch-up the whole year.(I'm paraphrasing here of course).And Roger himself had has said this before.

Yeah, because his opinion is gospel. I mean who is he, a Fed fanboy?

mandy01
06-13-2011, 12:34 AM
Yeah, because his opinion is gospel. I mean who is he, a Fed fanboy?No.He's Roger's fitness trainer.

Gorecki
06-13-2011, 12:42 AM
Yeah, because his opinion is gospel. I mean who is he, a Fed fanboy?

No.He's Roger's fitness trainer.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/celebrity-pictures-homer-simpson-facepalm-copy.jpg

mandy01
06-13-2011, 12:53 AM
^Don't think you can post Simpsons' ROFLiety and get away with Catardism :roll:

Gorecki
06-13-2011, 01:02 AM
^Don't think you can post Simpsons' ROFLiety and get away with Catardism :roll:

i have been to "Catholics" anynimous... i'm doing the best i can here! can a man get some slack?

Povl Carstensen
06-13-2011, 03:01 AM
Why are people (a few) so occupied with putting down Federer. They must be really really frustrated.

Sarzy
06-13-2011, 03:15 AM
I think Roger can win one more GS. Either this year's Wimbledon or US open.

NadalAgassi
06-13-2011, 11:18 AM
The only reason Roddick made a contest of it at all was Fed's average play. Overall it was the lowest quality tennis Federer has played in a Wimbledon final.

So according to you now he played poorly in 2009 and played poorly again in 2010. Yet it was a fluke both times I suppose and not a sign of his declining on the surface, LOL! You make absolutely no sense.

You mean the guy who - career long - has been flakey and got smoked by Nadal in the final? That guy? Yeah, you're strengthening my argument yet again.

Learn to read idiot. I did not say Berdych imparticular. I said anyone playing as well as Berdych did last year, who is also ranked in or near the top 10. Federer is at the point on grass if anyone highly ranked plays that well against him he will lose. I did not say or in anyway imply Berdych would be the one to do it again.

And Berdych has been Nadal's lapdog since 2007. Berdych never had any chance vs Nadal in the final, anyone with a brain knew that before the match even began.

Without it being a flame attempt, how long have you been watching tennis?

Alot longer then you I am sure.

Fedex
06-13-2011, 11:33 AM
Without it being a flame attempt, how long have you been watching tennis? You're like the Bill O'Reilly of Talk Tennis. Hot air, selective fact use and dubious lines of logic as a matter of course.

Bobby Jr tells NadalAgassi there's no flame war:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Tyer5WrrqCk/SjmS-3GIUgI/AAAAAAAABkA/YLpvrhXzdk4/s400/mask-smokin.jpg

Buckethead
06-13-2011, 12:03 PM
You're saying Federer is past his prime on grass, but not past his prime on other surfaces?
You can't really compare his performance after last year's AO to this year. He had a good chance of winning the French this year, but one or two points probably made the difference.
i can't really understand when people say Fed is way passed his prime, but many, including Fed himself, think He is now playing the best He's ever done.

The only reason Roddick made a contest of it at all was Fed's average play. Overall it was the lowest quality tennis Federer has played in a Wimbledon final.


You're proving my point. That his poor form was related to a poor patch, not a his-grass-days-are-over signal. Has he played great tennis anytime since? Yes? More than once? Yes. Won dominating or close battles with top 10 or 5 opponents? Yes.

Did you watch the French Open the other week? The quality of tennis being played by Federer is like night and day generally compared to the middle of last year.


You mean the guy who - career long - has been flakey and got smoked by Nadal in the final? That guy? Yeah, you're strengthening my argument yet again.

Without it being a flame attempt, how long have you been watching tennis? You're like the Bill O'Reilly of Talk Tennis. Hot air, selective fact use and dubious lines of logic as a matter of course.

I agree , here good points made.

Rhino
06-13-2011, 12:05 PM
I would've thought people had a little bit more faith in Federer after his performance at Roland Garros.

Buckethead
06-13-2011, 12:09 PM
I would've thought people had a little bit more faith in Federer after his performance at Roland Garros.

That's why i created this thread and i wanted to hear people's opinion about it.

As great as he played in RG, Wimbledon which is his favorite tournament, more suitable to him, He should win it rather comfortably.

If He doesn't , I don;t think he will win another anymore.

TheTruth
06-13-2011, 12:15 PM
^^^ @ Rhino

What's even more startling is this he's past his prime nonsense. People usually start going downhill around his age, but they're at the top of the hill, not at the bottom.

Fed has got some very unreasonable fans. In the last six months he smoked everyone at the WTF, had matchpoints on Joker in one of the last two slams (can't remember which, USO, I think), stopped Djoker's amazing streak, and played very well in the FO final, and still...

That's not enough for some people. Unbelievable.

With things being the way they are, there is no way in the world anyone can predict who will win what, when, or where. Strange things always happen in tennis (sports) and yet, it still escapes people.

BeHappy
06-13-2011, 12:21 PM
Federer will win Wimbledon and/or the US Open this year.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Fred can't LOSE it, he can only gain it so theres not that much pressure on him. It's Nadal's Wimbledon to lose.

Ralph
06-13-2011, 12:37 PM
The only concern I have for Roger at Wimbledon is that he won't be the underdog working his way through the rounds as he was in Paris. It's only a slight concern, but one nonetheless. He stated himself that NOT having the pressure on him relaxed him somewhat and allowed him to swing from the hip, so to speak.

Here's hoping he continues to do so.

zagor
06-13-2011, 12:38 PM
Federer the previous year was lucky to not lose to Roddick at Wimbledon. Andy Roddick of all people dominated him from the baseline that day. The only reason he won is he had one his best serving days and Roddick's worthless return of serve which combined for 50 aces and a bunch of other service winners. Plus the blown 2nd set tiebreak by Roddick.

Yes but we have to consider few things:

-2009 Wimbledon F was not the 1st time Roddick pushed Fed at Wimbledon,not to a fifth set sure but Roddick was giving him quite a trouble in 2004 Wimbledon F as well.

-Roddick was on average serving the highest # of aces he ever did in 2009 Wimbledon(it was almost 2001 Goran like) and that coupled with the decline of Fed's ROS over the last few years made Roddick not an easy match-up anymore.

-I have never seen Roddick transition to the net better than in 2009 Wimbledon SF and F,hitting a high percentage return was an option that was punished for both Murray and Fed against A-Rod at Wimbledon that year.

-Fed still lost just one set on the route to the final in 2009 while in 2010 he should have been out in the 1st round.I know many people here have a low opinion of Roddick but he's a quality opponent on grass when he's playing well(which he certainly was in 2009 Wimbledon),there's a big difference between getting pushed to five sets against him and being on the brink of losing to someone like Falla.

My point is that IMO Fed played at a much higher level in 2009 Wimbledon than last year when he was just downright terrible for his standards(heck not just for his)so it's still possible that 2010 Wimbledon was a just one off lousy performance and that Fed plays this year at Wimbledon at his 2008-2009 level which is enough for him to be a contender IMO,we'll find out.Don't forget at FO this year Fed played some of his best CC tennis in years,it's not out of the question that he plays well at Wimbledon as well.

Before Wimbledon last year he lost to grandpa Hewitt on grass who he hadnt lost to on any surface in 7 years. And in the 1st round of Wimbledon he was outplayed and nearly lost in 4 sets to Falla.

So if you think Federer isnt well past his best on the surface then you are blind to reality.

He still could win another Wimbledon maybe but only if he avoids Nadal and he doesnt run into a top 10 player playing as well as Berdych last year.

Hard courts is by far Federer's best surface now and if he ever wins another slam it is where he is most likely to, not Wimbledon.

I agree with all that if Fed plays at his dreadful 2010 Wimbledon level but as I said IMO there's a chance he'll play better.

Ralph
06-13-2011, 12:38 PM
Fred can't LOSE it, he can only gain it so theres not that much pressure on him. It's Nadal's Wimbledon to lose.

Our posts clashed :) I feel there's more pressure than there was due to his recent performance at the FO, as mentioned above. I do agree with your latter statement that it is Ralph's to win or lose though.

cknobman
06-13-2011, 01:01 PM
The only time I will ever say Roger will never win another major is when he retires from the tour.

Magnus
06-13-2011, 01:25 PM
I think the U.S Open is his best chance, even more than Wimbledon. He has a great shot vs Djokovic at the U.S Open, and Nadal can lose to a variety of players there. Wimbledon will be hard since Nadal is by far the favorite. Nadal hasnt lost at Wimbledon since 2007 now.

Nadal was only dominant at W in 2008, and it still took him 5 sets in the final. He didn't play in 2009, and in 2010 he was close to losing on quite a few occasions (some would say Nadal stole his way to victory).

Magnus
06-13-2011, 01:28 PM
delete post

Magnus
06-13-2011, 01:30 PM
I would've thought people had a little bit more faith in Federer after his performance at Roland Garros.

I do. I don't think he's going to win it, but I think he has a good chance of making the final. In fact, I don't see anyone but Nadal stopping him. The problem is, even if Nadal was handicapped, half blind and playing with one hand, Fed would still find a way to lose to him.

TMF
06-13-2011, 01:51 PM
I think the U.S Open is his best chance, even more than Wimbledon. He has a great shot vs Djokovic at the U.S Open, and Nadal can lose to a variety of players there. Wimbledon will be hard since Nadal is by far the favorite. Nadal hasnt lost at Wimbledon since 2007 now.

Skipping 2009 SW19 is worse than losing in the 1st round.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 02:01 PM
Skipping 2009 SW19 is worse than losing in the 1st round.

The worst thing about Nadal's 09 injury is it gave Fred 2 opportunistic slams, so then Nadal had to begin his 'FO-Wimbledon double' Streak all over again in 2010. :lol:

TMF
06-13-2011, 02:05 PM
The worst thing about Nadal's 09 injury is it gave Fred 2 opportunistic slams, so then Nadal had to begin his 'FO-Wimbledon double' Streak all over again in 2010. :lol:

You can't make any assumption. He can lose in the 1st, 3rd, or any round. The fact is he chose not to play and we just don't know. All we know was he lost confident and burnout after Robin beat him at the FO. And even if he was injured, that's part of the sport.

TheNatural
06-13-2011, 02:18 PM
You can't make any assumption. He can lose in the 1st, 3rd, or any round. The fact is he chose not to play and we just don't know. All we know was he lost confident and burnout after Robin beat him at the FO. And even if he was injured, that's part of the sport.

I know. ;) Nadal is still going for his 3rd Fo/wimbledon double after his 2008 and 2010 efforts, which would be a remarkable feat!

Fedex
06-13-2011, 02:36 PM
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.

If He can't win grass where will He win??

Nowhere else, not to mention that He will be so down in confidence that will hard for him to come back again.

For me this title is already in the bag, Roger is playing his best tennis ever, just played amazing in RG, could have beaten Nadal there, or let Djoker have done the job, but He failed. Now it is his turn.

If He wins on grass He has a 20% chance to win the US Open.

What are you talking about?
You haven't a clue what Federer is going to do at Wimbledon or any other tournament in the future.
He just whooped unbeatable Djokovic at the FO, Federer's worst surface and he played one of his best ever matches.
And you think he can't win another Slam outside Wimbledon.
Write off Federer at your peril for a long time yet.

marc45
06-13-2011, 02:45 PM
Our posts clashed :) I feel there's more pressure than there was due to his recent performance at the FO, as mentioned above. I do agree with your latter statement that it is Ralph's to win or lose though.

you think "ralph" believes that bs?

Ralph
06-13-2011, 03:14 PM
The only concern I have for Roger at Wimbledon is that he won't be the underdog working his way through the rounds as he was in Paris. It's only a slight concern, but one nonetheless. He stated himself that NOT having the pressure on him relaxed him somewhat and allowed him to swing from the hip, so to speak.

Here's hoping he continues to do so.

Fred can't LOSE it, he can only gain it so theres not that much pressure on him. It's Nadal's Wimbledon to lose.


Our posts clashed :) I feel there's more pressure than there was due to his recent performance at the FO, as mentioned above. I do agree with your latter statement that it is Ralph's to win or lose though.

you think "ralph" believes that bs?


What are you referring to as bs? The bold above is concerning Roger, not Ralph.

Or are you referring to TheNatural's comment that Wimbledon is Ralph's to win or lose as bs?

Bobby Jr
06-13-2011, 03:30 PM
So according to you now he played poorly in 2009 and played poorly again in 2010. Yet it was a fluke both times I suppose and not a sign of his declining on the surface, LOL! You make absolutely no sense.
One match is not an indication of overall form. Only a fool would extrapolate a single effort such as the 09 final and argue it showed form. Doing so would show Murray was about to win Wimbledon and Nadal would lose in the 3rd round. That Djokovic was a worse player in 2011 than Federer based on Federer's current winning streak over him of one match.

And Berdych has been Nadal's lapdog since 2007. Berdych never had any chance vs Nadal in the final..
And Federer's too. And yet he lost. Like Nadal did to Tsonga the other day... is it all over for Nadal??

You are prone to taking events out of context and using them as clout to your facetious arguments. The problem is, you actually believe them. If you step back for a second and didn't take every post countering your view as a personal attack you might learn something from the eons of people here who know more about tennis than you.

There are literally dozens of threads on this board of people debating your ideas - think about what that might mean before you line up your next spout.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-13-2011, 03:38 PM
And Federer's too. And yet he lost. Like Nadal did to Tsonga the other day... is it all over for Nadal??

The essential difference: Federer is far older, so when he loses during the twilight of his career, it is more of a statement about his form, chances and overall ability than it is for Nadal.

Rhino
06-13-2011, 03:42 PM
I do. I don't think he's going to win it, but I think he has a good chance of making the final. In fact, I don't see anyone but Nadal stopping him. The problem is, even if Nadal was handicapped, half blind and playing with one hand, Fed would still find a way to lose to him.

Fed is 2-1 against Nadal in Wimbledon finals.

Tammo
06-13-2011, 03:49 PM
If Fed doesn't win Wimbledon or the US his winning ways are probably over.

Cup8489
06-13-2011, 03:55 PM
bah, you tricked me! i answered the poll based on your thread title.. i wanted tosay yes he will win another regardless!

MichaelNadal
06-13-2011, 03:56 PM
If Fed doesn't win Wimbledon or the US his winning ways are probably over.

This place is hilarious.

kishnabe
06-13-2011, 04:25 PM
LOL at some people counting out Roger. The guy gave Novak his first defeat this year. He gave Rafa a run for his money....and many didn't even believe he can make a final and much less at RG. If he can do that...why not win on his best surfaces?

If Roger does not win Wimbledon....he will allways be a contendor at slans and win a few more. 2013 is when i think Federer won't be a factor as much. He will have chances to win this year and next year!

timnz
06-13-2011, 04:36 PM
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.

If He can't win grass where will He win??

Nowhere else, not to mention that He will be so down in confidence that will hard for him to come back again.

For me this title is already in the bag, Roger is playing his best tennis ever, just played amazing in RG, could have beaten Nadal there, or let Djoker have done the job, but He failed. Now it is his turn.

If He wins on grass He has a 20% chance to win the US Open.

I think he has an excellent chance of winning the us open. One has to recognize the difference between slow and fast hard court. The first 3 months of the year including the austraiain open are slow hard court. This is nearly as slow as clay. It is here that Roger finds it more challenging. But in the post wimbleon hard corurt season Roger does really well. So he is definitely one of the best on fast hard court

Talker
06-13-2011, 04:39 PM
Fed should beable to win another, though he's come up short his game is still in the top 3 or 4 the last 6 months or so.

AM95
06-13-2011, 04:48 PM
Disagree in all.

Fed had mono that year, that is why Nadal won that one, because Fed was never at his best in 2007.

Last year Fed was injured/out of form.

US Open, will be more about Del Po in Djokovic who can beat Fed/Nadal, with Murray having a chance to take Del Po out, if not, Del Po will get to the semis at least.

all this del po hype is getting really annoying.

mandy01
06-13-2011, 08:54 PM
^^^ @ Rhino

What's even more startling is this he's past his prime nonsense. Now you're calling other peoples' opinions nonsenscal :shock:
Hmmm..you really need to learn to practice what you preach :D

Sharpshooter
06-13-2011, 09:00 PM
Rediculous, of course Fed can win another major if he doesn't get Wimbledon this year. Especially if he doesn't run into Nadal or Djoker.

Lion King
06-13-2011, 09:02 PM
Federer is still capable of playing amazing tennis, and is still RIGHT in the mix to win slams. He can win a major anytime in the next 2yrs IMO.

Fed is a stock at a historic low. This is your chance to buy a quality stock at a ridiculous price. Then when he wins something (he will eventually) you will be handsomely rewarded.

Take heart, all ye Fed fans. He will dazzle us one more time.

mandy01
06-13-2011, 09:03 PM
I think he has an excellent chance of winning the us open. One has to recognize the difference between slow and fast hard court. The first 3 months of the year including the austraiain open are slow hard court. This is nearly as slow as clay. It is here that Roger finds it more challenging. But in the post wimbleon hard corurt season Roger does really well. So he is definitely one of the best on fast hard court
Re: the USO ,I'm only concerned a bit about the format.If he were to go deep then I'm really hoping he plays the first SF.

Buckethead
06-14-2011, 10:47 AM
Fed is 2-1 against Nadal in Wimbledon finals.

This record doesn't matter. Nadal VS Fed is different from anything else.

Fed will only feel confident to beat Nadal if the conditions are more suitable to him, such as grass and some rare HC, otherwise He already goes to play defeated.

In this case, Nadal will not be a real problem, otherwise that's why i said He won't ever win another one.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Re: the USO ,I'm only concerned a bit about the format.If he were to go deep then I'm really hoping he plays the first SF.

Yep, same here. The Saturday-Sunday schedule is really hurting players, especially those who have to play 2nd / face a tougher opponent. I also don't think there's been many 27 year old+ players who have won the championships...

Bobby Jr
06-14-2011, 01:15 PM
This record doesn't matter. Nadal VS Fed is different from anything else.

Fed will only feel confident to beat Nadal if the conditions are more suitable to him, such as grass and some rare HC, otherwise He already goes to play defeated..
I agree. The last two times Federer has played Nadal he has come out like a man on a mission but just not converted. Both times I think Nadal was relieved to come away with a win - but it was only because Federer couldn't sustain the quality, not because he failed strategically as he has done at times in the past.

As Nadal himself said in one of the FO press conferences, when Federer is on there's not a lot to do but hope he goes off the boil eventually and for long enough that you can get to the finish line.

TMF
06-14-2011, 01:28 PM
^^^ @ Rhino

What's even more startling is this he's past his prime nonsense. People usually start going downhill around his age, but they're at the top of the hill, not at the bottom.



You have never seen prime Fed played during 2004-07.

What's really nonsense is when fans say a 24 yrs old ranked #1 in the world is in a decline.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 02:12 PM
You have never seen prime Fed played during 2004-07.

What's really nonsense is when fans say a 24 yrs old ranked #1 in the world is in a decline.

I saw Fed during those years, and honestly I don't see much of a difference. I think the difference has to do with Nadal, Novak, and Murray maturing. Fed's game looks exactly the same to me.

I agree with the second part. I don't think Nadal is in a decline at all. Seven finals, three titles, and a major. He just wasn't playing well at the time, as evidenced by his start at RG, his "Holy Grail."

However, and I don't deign to speak for anyone else, as whatever a Nadal fan says doesn't automatically get credited to my account.

It was my opinion when the decline talk was going on that Nadal could have been disappointed from not being able to compete for the "Rafa Slam" due to injury, taking a month off and upon his return, running into a red, hot Novak.

I thought we were discussing this is in the Nadal News thread.

Still, Nadal was in both of those finals, imo.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 03:38 PM
You have never seen prime Fed played during 2004-07. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbFPE1NYFr8&feature=related)

What's really nonsense is when fans say a 24 yrs old ranked #1 in the world is in a decline.

Prime Federer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbFPE1NYFr8&feature=related) for those that have never seen him in his prime.

TMF
06-14-2011, 04:02 PM
I saw Fed during those years, and honestly I don't see much of a difference. I think the difference has to do with Nadal, Novak, and Murray maturing. Fed's game looks exactly the same to me.



Prime Federer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbFPE1NYFr8&feature=related) for those that have never seen him in his prime.

The results proved otherwise. Especially when he was setting all the tennis records during his prime. By the time he decline, many(if not all) of his streaks are snapped. Plus, he was losing to lesser players frequently.



I can't access Utube at work. But anyway, few summary of Fed's prime vs. today.

2005:
80-4; 11 titles(this was the year he sprained his ankle and missed 2 indoor MS)

2006:
92-5: 12 titles(basically made the final in every events except Cinci.)

This 2011, he has no slam and no MS. And is 34-8 so far.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 04:28 PM
Prime Federer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbFPE1NYFr8&feature=related) for those that have never seen him in his prime.

Wow! Great stuff. Nadal looks like a real kid on there. It's hard to believe that they're on hard court. I wonder if I can get this match on DVD. This was totally awesome!

Thanks!

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 04:39 PM
The results proved otherwise. Especially when he was setting all the tennis records during his prime. By the time he decline, many(if not all) of his streaks are snapped. Plus, he was losing to lesser players frequently.



I can't access Utube at work. But anyway, few summary of Fed's prime vs. today.

2005:
80-4; 11 titles(this was the year he sprained his ankle and missed 2 indoor MS)

2006:
92-5: 12 titles(basically made the final in every events except Cinci.)

This 2011, he has no slam and no MS. And is 34-8 so far.


You said 2004-2007, have you changed it to 2005-2006 now?ANyways...

Much Better competition now in the top 5. There was no one before. The better competiton now in the top 5 has pushed him to improve more. Fed has improved now, but so has everyone else.

perfect example = Freds semi win at Roland Garros v Djko, which was his best win there ever, therefore that was prime Fred.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 04:40 PM
The results proved otherwise. Especially when he was setting all the tennis records during his prime. By the time he decline, many(if not all) of his streaks are snapped. Plus, he was losing to lesser players frequently.

I can't access Utube at work. But anyway, few summary of Fed's prime vs. today.

2005:
80-4; 11 titles(this was the year he sprained his ankle and missed 2 indoor MS)

2006:
92-5: 12 titles(basically made the final in every events except Cinci.)

This 2011, he has no slam and no MS. And is 34-8 so far.

2011 isn't over, yet, and he still holds a ton of records. I think the results have less to do with his game, than with the competition growing up. On The Natural's video, Nadal is only 18 years old. You can't expect 17-19 year olds to compete with a player like Fed when he has so much more experience than they do, at least not consistently. That's why Nadal is also an all-time great. To be that mentally strong at that age is phenomenal.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:44 PM
You said 2004-2007, have you changed it to 2005-2006 now?ANyways...

Much Better competition now in the top 5. There was no one before. The better competiton now in the top 5 has pushed him to improve more. Fed has improved now, but so has everyone else.

perfect example = Freds semi win at Roland Garros v Djko, which was his best win there ever, therefore that was prime Fred.

I was thinking about a new signature and there you have it! this statement is just way too retarted to be unnoticed, let the whole world know who's the author

TMF
06-14-2011, 04:46 PM
You said 2004-2007, have you changed it to 2005-2006 now?ANyways...

Much Better competition now in the top 5. There was no one before. The better competiton now in the top 5 has pushed him to improve more. Fed has improved now, but so has everyone else.

perfect example = Freds semi win at Roland Garros v Djko, which was his best win there ever, therefore that was prime Fred.

I jsut gave you 2 yrs as an example to make my point. Anyway...better or worse competition doesn't mean anything since Fed/nadal won most of their slams since 2005 against the same playing field.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:48 PM
2011 isn't over, yet, and he still holds a ton of records. I think the results have less to do with his game, than with the competition growing up. On The Natural's video, Nadal is only 18 years old. You can't expect 17-19 year olds to compete with a player like Fed when he has so much more experience than they do, at least not consistently. That's why Nadal is also an all-time great. To be that mentally strong at that age is phenomenal.

Wait, so you're telling me that Sampras in 2000-2002 was still in his prime, he just lost because Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Federer were all that much better? And his far worse achievements in that years have nothing to do with him being around 30 years old? Same story with a 30-year old Federer who struggles against 5,6,7 years younger opponents?

Wait 5 years, mate, just wait 5 years. And then tell me Nadal is still in his prime when he's losing to the best players of the new generation, 6-7 years younger than him.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 04:51 PM
You have never seen prime Fed played during 2004-07.

What's really nonsense is when fans say a 24 yrs old ranked #1 in the world is in a decline.

Sorry, I thought you were somebody else.

Of course I saw him throught the years. That's why I became a Nadal fan.

TMF
06-14-2011, 04:52 PM
2011 isn't over, yet, and he still holds a ton of records. I think the results have less to do with his game, than with the competition growing up. On The Natural's video, Nadal is only 18 years old. You can't expect 17-19 year olds to compete with a player like Fed when he has so much more experience than they do, at least not consistently. That's why Nadal is also an all-time great. To be that mentally strong at that age is phenomenal.

2011 isn't over and he's not going to play like he did 5 yrs or so ago. Sure, he still holds the records but he currently doesn't have any streaks. During his prime, it was hc, grass winning streak, slam final and semi streaks, streaks winning against his peers...all of them are gone now.

He lost to too many lesser players in 2008 who he owned during his prime. With family issue, his life has change.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 04:53 PM
Wait, so you're telling me that Sampras in 2000-2002 was still in his prime, he just lost because Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Federer were all that much better? And his far worse achievements in that years have nothing to do with him being around 30 years old? Same story with a 30-year old Federer who struggles against 5,6,7 years younger opponents?

Wait 5 years, mate, just wait 5 years. And then tell me Nadal is still in his prime when he's losing to the best players of the new generation, 6-7 years younger than him.

LOLLL, Pwned, time for the usual double standards to make their appearance methinks :)

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:56 PM
LOLLL, Pwned, time for the usual double standards to make their appearance methinks :)

I think I'm gonna get some "Sampras was just a mere grass court specialist" or "the competition sucked in the 90's now, there was only inconsistant Agassi and old Becker" kind of reply :D if ANY that is..

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 04:57 PM
I was thinking about a new signature and there you have it! this statement is just way too retarted to be unnoticed, let the whole world know who's the author

what was Federer best win at roland garros before this years semi v Djoko.When has he played better there to win a match?2005??:oops:

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:58 PM
what was Federer best win at roland garros before this years semi v Djoko.When has he played better there to win a match?2005??:oops:

I wouldn't say it's his best win, probably the most satisfying, it's not that part that was hilarious, though - you finished with a "therefore Federer is still in his prime"

Of course Federer did play way better at Rolland Garros, take any of the 2005-2007 editions and his level was higher, apart from losing to Nadal in 4 sets (just as he did this year), there was no-one threatening him, he barely lost sets at the FO in 2005-2007 except against Nadal, so it's hard to find a 7-6 6-3 3-6 7-6 esque win over a top player cause he usually steamrolled them in 3

take a 6-1 6-4 6-3 win over Moya, or a straight-set win over Davydenko who was pwning everyone on clay in 2007 at the FO

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 04:58 PM
Wait, so you're telling me that Sampras in 2000-2002 was still in his prime, he just lost because Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Federer were all that much better? And his far worse achievements in that years have nothing to do with him being around 30 years old? Same story with a 30-year old Federer who struggles against 5,6,7 years younger opponents?

Wait 5 years, mate, just wait 5 years. And then tell me Nadal is still in his prime when he's losing to the best players of the new generation, 6-7 years younger than him.

Federer and Sampras are two different people. At Fed's age, Sampras was burned out. According to Fed his hunger is still burning. That makes a huge difference.

Fed only looks out of his prime when he plays against Nadal. So, to me I don't see his troubles against Nadal as a signal that he's past his prime.

Regarding Nadal, we will only know the answer in 5 years. People are different. Melzer is playing better now than when he was in his prime years, so a lot depends on the person. There is no blanket, you reach this age and suddenly you're out of your prime.

Li Na and Schiavone are also proof of this.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 05:04 PM
2011 isn't over and he's not going to play like he did 5 yrs or so ago. Sure, he still holds the records but he currently doesn't have any streaks. During his prime, it was hc, grass winning streak, slam final and semi streaks, streaks winning against his peers...all of them are gone now.

He lost to too many lesser players in 2008 who he owned during his prime. With family issue, his life has change.

His peers? Can you clarify what you mean by his peers? Are you talking about Hewitt, Juan Carlos, Haas, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, et al?

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:10 PM
Federer and Sampras are two different people. After Fed's age, Sampras was burned out. According to Fed his hunger is still burning. That makes a huge difference.

LOL what is he supposed to say? "I'm washed up and I wanna go home!" ? I bet 100 $ that Sampras said in his interviews in 2000-2002 that he still had the desire to win. Only a fool would believe him, though. Not in this world does a 30-year old Federer have the same drive, hunger and motivation as his 23-year old self.

Fed only looks out of his prime when he plays against Nadal. So, to me I don't see his troubles against Nadal as a signal that he's past his prime.

Oh yes, after 2007 losses to Stepanek, Fish, Simon, Karlovic, Gasquet, Melzer, Roddick and a lot more I don't even bother checking now - guys who he normally steamrolled in over an hour are a proof of Federer still being in his prime. They all just got better LOL.

Regarding Nadal, we will only know the answer in 5 years. People are different. Melzer is playing better now than when he was in his prime years, so a lot depends on the person. There is no blanket, you reach this age and suddenly you're out of your prime.

You just mentioned player peaking NOW but who sucked at age 23-27. Federer was Godlike at that age, no-one can sustain that for his whole career, watch Nadal's game drop next year or even this year. He's no different than any other pro, after 7-8 years of intensive play your level drops no matter how hard you try. As I could quote you "the competition ate him alive!"

Li Na and Schiavone are also proof of this.

As above.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:12 PM
I jsut gave you 2 yrs as an example to make my point. Anyway...better or worse competition doesn't mean anything since Fed/nadal won most of their slams since 2005 against the same playing field.


It just means he can be better now but have worse results than when he was competing v the Hewitts and Roddicks in his 'prime' performing years.

TMF
06-14-2011, 05:14 PM
His peers? Can you clarify what you mean by his peers? Are you talking about Hewitt, Juan Carlos, Haas, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, et al?

Yes, and what's the problem? These are the same players at their prime when Fed as at his prime.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:16 PM
It just means he can be better now but have worse results than when he was competing v the Hewitts and Roddicks in his 'prime' performing years.

2003-2004 Roddick would smash current Djokovic/Murray/Del Potro on grass/hard courts nowadays and would probably beat Nadal on hard courts as well. If you weren't so narrow-minded you'd see something more than a 2-20 against Federer. Roddick was a super tough player to beat at his best on a fast surface. Because Federer was able to dominate him it doesn't mean that Nadal or Djokovic would. Heck, even now Roddick has a 5-3 lead over Djokovic overall and he should have a 4-2 lead over Nadal on hard courts if he didn't choke his 2010 WTF RR match. That's all what a post-2007 Roddick accomplished. Even a 27-year old past his prime Roddick could beat prime Murray at Wimbledon in 4 sets. Roddick is VASTLY underrated because of his 2-20 h2h against Federer.

Hewitt won 4 of the 6 meetings against Nadal, the 2 times he lost on clay to win he still managed to win sets each time. After that they only met on clay.

Nalbandian, another one from Federer's generation, absolutely pwned Nadal's a** in the first 2 meetings on hard courts in late 2007, should've won the third meeting in 2009 after injury before he choked big time (against Nadal in his best period on hard courts), and then again led a set in their 4th meeting.

So stop talking crap about the 2003-2007 generation cause it definately not weaker than the today's one. There were tons of players challenging for the big titles, names like Federer, still good Agassi, Ferrero, Coria, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Henman, Safin. What do we have now? 1)Nadal 2)Djokovic 3)Murray who can't even win a set in a Slam final, 4)Del Potro who's been good for 6 months in his career thus far, everyone from no 5 down including superinconsistant Soderling is LOL compared to the old generation, we've got guys like Almagro, Fish or Melzer in the top 10 AT THE SAME TIME.

TMF
06-14-2011, 05:19 PM
It just means he can be better now but have worse results than when he was competing v the Hewitts and Roddicks in his 'prime' performing years.

I don't know about you, but I've watched so many of Fed's matches since day one, and like all other past players, there's a rise and a fall between 20 to 30 yrs old. Like a bell shape curve.

http://groovygreen.com/images/stories/bell_curve.gif

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 05:22 PM
LOL so in Federer's case at 30 he still prime, playing as good as he ever was and the competition is simply better than him now. And in Sampras' case poor guy, he just burned out. LOLLLLLLL, now I've heard it all. The ***** can be so asinine it's hilarious.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:23 PM
lmao..calm down. I expected you to use your brain and put the pieces together.

He didnt lose any sets this time either except v Nadal as ussual and except 1 v Djoko who was on a 41 match run, including winning the last 2 MS titles, and Joko was flying at ROland Garros and winning esily before he met Fred. So yes it was his best win ever there...therefore it was his prime performance at Roland Garros;)

Fred has never beaten a guy at Roland Garros who had just won 2 clay MS titles in a row and been on a 41 match streak(Moya and Davydenko havnt done that), so besides the quality of the match, thats what made the win his best win there.

Even if you disagree, which you shouldn't, its hard for anyone to argue that he has ever played better then he did at this French open, which would put this French Open on par with his prime performances there.

I wouldn't say it's his best win, probably the most satisfying, it's not that part that was hilarious, though - you finished with a "therefore Federer is still in his prime"

Of course Federer did play way better at Rolland Garros, take any of the 2005-2007 editions and his level was higher, apart from losing to Nadal in 4 sets (just as he did this year), there was no-one threatening him, he barely lost sets at the FO in 2005-2007 except against Nadal, so it's hard to find a 7-6 6-3 3-6 7-6 esque win over a top player cause he usually steamrolled them in 3

take a 6-1 6-4 6-3 win over Moya, or a straight-set win over Davydenko who was pwning everyone on clay in 2007 at the FO

TMF
06-14-2011, 05:28 PM
LOL so in Federer's case at 30 he still prime, playing as good as he ever was and the competition is simply better than him now. And in Sampras' case poor guy, he just burned out. LOLLLLLLL, now I've heard it all. The ***** can be so asinine it's hilarious.

And what I can't understand is some of them said Nadal at 24 has past his prime, but 5 yrs older Fed is not allow.
Crazy !!

tennisdad65
06-14-2011, 05:28 PM
This is his best chance. Next best chance is 2012 AO.

The back to back semis-finals in the USO is too difficult for him to pull off at his age. He could beat Nadal in the Semi's, and then Murray ( or someone else other than Novak) in 3 straight in the finals. That's his best hope. No chance of him beating Nadal in the finals on Sunday, after playing a 3-4 setter on Saturday. I prefer for him to play Nadal in the semi's of GS from now on.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:29 PM
lmao..calm down. I expected you to use your brain and put the pieces together.

He didnt lose any sets this time either except v Nadal as ussual and except 1 v Djoko who was on a 41 match run, including winning the last 2 MS titles, and Joko was flying at ROland Garros and winning esily before he met Fred. So yes it was his best win ever there...therefore it was his prime performance at Roland Garros;)

Fred has never beaten a guy at Roland Garros who had just won 2 clay MS titles in a row and been on a 41 match streak(Moya and Davydenko havnt done that), so besides the quality of the match, thats what made the win his best win there.

Even if you disagree, which you shouldn't, its hard for anyone to argue that he has ever played better then he did at this French open, which would put this French Open on par with his prime performances there.

And how many of them has he actually faced? Nadal over the years (who wasn't even on a 40+ streak once in his career) and that's it?

I agree that Federer was superb against Djokovic in that semi-final but saying he was in his prime is total crap. It's like saying that Sampras was in his prime in 2002 after his great 2002 US Open run when he steamrolled guys like Roddick and Agassi.

Players of Federer's or Sampras' calibre will always have the game, even if they're in their 30's. That doesn't mean that their in their primes since they can bring the goods once or twice a year.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:30 PM
I don't know about you, but I've watched so many of Fed's matches since day one, and like all other past players, there's a rise and a fall between 20 to 30 yrs old. Like a bell shape curve.

http://groovygreen.com/images/stories/bell_curve.gif



Actually since the start of 07, Fred's prime periods where he won more,correlate more strongly with Nadal's injuries than they do with his age, but the stronger competition also explains the bell curve.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 05:30 PM
lmao..calm down. I expected you to use your brain and put the pieces together.

He didnt lose any sets this time either except v Nadal as ussual and except 1 v Djoko who was on a 41 match run, including winning the last 2 MS titles, and Joko was flying at ROland Garros and winning esily before he met Fred. So yes it was his best win ever there...therefore it was his prime performance at Roland Garros;)

Fred has never beaten a guy at Roland Garros who had just won 2 clay MS titles in a row and been on a 41 match streak(Moya and Davydenko havnt done that), so besides the quality of the match, thats what made the win his best win there.

Even if you disagree, which you shouldn't, its hard for anyone to argue that he has ever played better then he did at this French open, which would put this French Open on par with his prime performances there.

Therefore you agree that Nadal at 25 is in decline and Fed at 30 is still in his prime. LOLLLLL, do you ever listen to how stupid you sound?

NadalAgassi
06-14-2011, 05:31 PM
2003-2004 Roddick would smash current Djokovic/Murray/Del Potro on grass/hard courts nowadays

Oh please. If you want to defend Roddick's abilities that is fine but such over the top statements arent going to be taken seriously by anyone. Well you would be right on Del Potro on grass but that is it (and current Del Potro is nowhere near his best anyway btw).

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:33 PM
And how many of them has he actually faced? Nadal over the years (who wasn't even on a 40+ streak once in his career) and that's it?

I agree that Federer was superb against Djokovic in that semi-final but saying he was in his prime is total crap. It's like saying that Sampras was in his prime in 2002 after his great 2002 US Open run when he steamrolled guys like Roddick and Agassi.

Exactly. Thats my point, he faced someone performing on a higher level than he had ever had faced before and he won, so it's his best win.

We could say that about sampras if Agassi and Roddick were on 41 match streaks and had just won 4 ms titles in a row.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:33 PM
Actually since the start of 07, Fred's prime periods where he won more,correlate more strongly with Nadal's injuries than they do with his age, but the stronger competition also explains the bell curve.

Yeaaa such strong competition that instead of Federer collecting all the Slams it's Nadal collecting them all, 4 out of the last 5 now. I expect the competition to get tougher if Nadal wins more and weaker if he doesn't :)

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:37 PM
Exactly. Thats my point, he faced someone performing on a higher level than he had ever had faced before and he won, so it's his best win.

We could say that about sampras if Agassi and Roddick were on 41 match streaks and had just won 4 ms titles in a row.

Nope, you're still wrong. What do you mean by "best"? Cause I've seen Federer play way better than that at the FO before and steamroll his opponents in straight sets (because he himself player better). That doesn't mean his previous victories were better?

As I said this victory is his most SATISFYING win at the French Open. If it was 2006 Federer vs 2011 Djokovic he'd win in straight sets and that victory wouldn't've looked as good as it does now.

Of course a 2006 Federer wouldn't let anyone go on a 41-all surface streak to begin with.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:37 PM
Therefore you agree that Nadal at 25 is in decline and Fed at 30 is still in his prime. LOLLLLL, do you ever listen to how stupid you sound?

Nadal was just as dominant as ussual from the 1/4 final onwards, so I wouldn't go that far.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 05:39 PM
Nadal was just as dominant as ussual from the 1/4 final onwards, so I wouldn't go that far.

But wait in 2008 he didn't lose a set the ENTIRE tourney, and in 2011 he lost several and taken to 5 sets for the first time. That proves Nadal is in decline based on the sets won/loss for Federer theory, no?

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 05:40 PM
LOL what is he supposed to say? "I'm washed up and I wanna go home!" ? I bet 100 $ that Sampras said in his interviews in 2000-2002 that he still had the desire to win. Only a fool would believe him, though. Not in this world does a 30-year old Federer have the same drive, hunger and motivation as his 23-year old self.

Pete didn't fool himself. He knew his motivation was low, and so did the rest of the world. He didn't have the luxury of trying to fudge his results. He got beat by Bastl, at Wimbledon of all places. His motivation was definitely low, as evidenced by his wife writing him a note to carry in his bag that said, in essence, "remember who you are." All of that speaks to where Pete was, and had nothing to do with what did or didn't come out of his mouth.

Oh yes, after 2007 losses to Stepanek, Fish, Simon, Karlovic, Gasquet, Melzer, Roddick and a lot more I don't even bother checking now - guys who he normally steamrolled in over an hour are a proof of Federer still being in his prime. They all just got better LOL.

Everyone has some odd losses here and there. How many majors did he win in 2007? 3. That's definitely a prime year. He won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and the USO. 2004-2007 are the years Fed Fans call his peak years, and rightly so.

You just mentioned player peaking NOW but who sucked at age 23-27. Federer was Godlike at that age, no-one can sustain that for his whole career, watch Nadal's game drop next year or even this year. He's no different than any other pro, after 7-8 years of intensive play your level drops no matter how hard you try. As I could quote you "the competition ate him alive!"

I mentioned players peaking now, because age didn't dictate their peak of play. Of course your level drops, but that can be due to many factors, some of which we may not be privy to. Nadal has already been on tour for 7-8years, more actually. He turned pro at 15.



Responses bolded.

fed_rulz
06-14-2011, 05:41 PM
TheNatural is getting pwned and he does not even realize it. LOL :)

Sid_Vicious
06-14-2011, 05:43 PM
TheNatural is getting pwned and he does not even realize it. LOL :)
TheNatural gets dominated more than any other poster on this forum. In every thread I enter he is getting a lesson thought to him.

NamRanger
06-14-2011, 05:44 PM
Oh please. If you want to defend Roddick's abilities that is fine but such over the top statements arent going to be taken seriously by anyone. Well you would be right on Del Potro on grass but that is it (and current Del Potro is nowhere near his best anyway btw).



Roddick would definitely blow Murray off of HCs; against Djokovic it remains to be seen. The biggest thing is I think Murray tends to get a little tight in high pressure matches, and I think that Roddick's serve would definitely make the match tight.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:46 PM
Nope, you're still wrong. What do you mean by "best"? Cause I've seen Federer play way better than that at the FO before and steamroll his opponents in straight sets (because he himself player better). That doesn't mean his previous victories were better?

As I said this victory is his most SATISFYING win at the French Open. If it was 2006 Federer vs 2011 Djokovic he'd win in straight sets and that victory wouldn't've looked as good as it does now.

Of course a 2006 Federer wouldn't let anyone go on a 41-all surface streak to begin with.

Ive seen Djokovic play way better than he played in his 41 match streak as well. But the opponent was his little brother.:lol:

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:48 PM
But wait in 2008 he didn't lose a set the ENTIRE tourney, and in 2011 he lost several and taken to 5 sets for the first time. That proves Nadal is in decline based on the sets won/loss for Federer theory, no?

ok :):):) That explains why Fred won a lucky set.

bolo
06-14-2011, 05:48 PM
This is his best chance. Next best chance is 2012 AO.

The back to back semis-finals in the USO is too difficult for him to pull off at his age. He could beat Nadal in the Semi's, and then Murray ( or someone else other than Novak) in 3 straight in the finals. That's his best hope. No chance of him beating Nadal in the finals on Sunday, after playing a 3-4 setter on Saturday. I prefer for him to play Nadal in the semi's of GS from now on.

I agree with this too. Ideally for him he beats nadal in the SF and he can figure out ways to manage his serve and fh around djokovic and murray in the final. The other way around, things don't look so good for fed.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:48 PM
Responses bolded.

Pete didn't fool himself. He knew his motivation was low, and so did the rest of the world. He didn't have the luxury of trying to fudge his results. He got beat by Bastl, at Wimbledon of all places. His motivation was definitely low, as evidenced by his wife writing him a note to carry in his bag that said, in essence, "remember who you are." All of that speaks to where Pete was, and had nothing to do with what did or didn't come out of his mouth.

Where's the reply to "not in this world does a 30-year old have the same determination, hunger and drive as his own 30-year old self"?


Everyone has some odd losses here and there. How many majors did he win in 2007? 3. That's definitely a prime year. He won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and the USO. 2004-2007 are the years Fed Fans call his peak years, and rightly so.

You agreed so no need to argue. I'll just add that those "weird losses" didn't happen to Federer AT ALL, every single loss he had in 2004-2007 (even in 2007 he lost twice to Canas and Volandri! So already you can argue that he started to decline in 2007) was to a top top player, most of them to Nadal who was no 2 at the time, after 2007 those losses started to occur very often, in Indian Wells he lost to Fish, then to Roddick, almost got beaten by Ramirez-Hidalgo but came back from 1-5 down, then lost to Stepanek in straight sets (!!), next to Karlovic, Simon, got pushed to 5 sets in Slams by Tipsarevic and Andreev (!!), etc.


I mentioned players peaking now, because age didn't dictate their peak of play. Of course your level drops, but that can be due to many factors, some of which we may not be privy to. Nadal has already been on tour for 7-8years, more actually. He turned pro at 15.

They are peaking now cause they didn't achieve much earlier in their careers. When you're winning 3 out of 4 Slams for 4 years like Federer the only way from there on is DOWN, therefore he's in decline. Obviously he was a superhero to maintain that level for 4 years but still it's HIS decline.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 05:49 PM
Yes, and what's the problem? These are the same players at their prime when Fed as at his prime.

Hey, don't get snippy. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

If, imo, you're comparing him to those guys, most of them were MIA during huge chunks of Fed's reign.

Hewitt-chicken pox, never returned to the tour in full strength.

JCF-see above.

Haas-I don't recall Haas ever being on tour for an uninterrupted year without injuries.

Safin and Nalbandian-the mercurial talents who were rarely there?

Roddick-nothing to say about him.

If this is the competition that you're comparing these results too, then it only makes sense that he would have played "godlike." Not to mention that Generation-Next was growing and maturing.

Hence, my belief that Federer is/was not past his prime. The older players were in and off of the tour, and the younger generation was gaining experience.

NadalAgassi
06-14-2011, 05:49 PM
Roddick would definitely blow Murray off of HCs; against Djokovic it remains to be seen. The biggest thing is I think Murray tends to get a little tight in high pressure matches, and I think that Roddick's serve would definitely make the match tight.

Roddick began losing to Murray in 2006 when Murray was 18. I like Roddick alot more than Murray but prime Murray would in no way be an easy opponent for any version of Roddick.

Djokovic before this year is the only one I could see Roddick destroying perhaps due to the bad matchup he seems to be based on their H2H. However definitely not the current Djokovic.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:54 PM
Yeaaa such strong competition that instead of Federer collecting all the Slams it's Nadal collecting them all, 4 out of the last 5 now. I expect the competition to get tougher if Nadal wins more and weaker if he doesn't :)

Work it out. Nadal is just the strongest of the stronger bunch now. And Fed was the strongest of the strongest bunch for 3-5 years vs guys like Hewitt. He kept improving but as Agassi said, players are better every 3-5 years.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 05:56 PM
Work it out. Nadal is just the strongest of the stronger bunch now. And Fed was the strongest of the strongest bunch for 3-5 years vs guys like Hewitt. He kept improving but as Agassi said, players are better every 3-5 years.

Nope Djokovic is stronger than Nadal now as the data indicate. Nadal is in decline according to your calculations, LOLLL :)

Wait so based on your latest theory, since players keep improving every 3-5 years, it means Federer is better than Sampras ever was :) Pwnedddddddddddd

TMF
06-14-2011, 05:58 PM
Hey, don't get snippy. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

If, imo, you're comparing him to those guys, most of them were MIA during huge chunks of Fed's reign.

Hewitt-chicken pox, never returned to the tour in full strength.

JCF-see above.

Haas-I don't recall Haas ever being on tour for an uninterrupted year without injuries.

Safin and Nalbandian-the mercurial talents who were rarely there?

Roddick-nothing to say about him.

If this is the competition that you're comparing these results too, then it only makes sense that he would have played "godlike." Not to mention that Generation-Next was growing and maturing.

Hence, my belief that Federer is/was not past his prime. The older players were in and off of the tour, and the younger generation was gaining experience.

Thatís your opinion. I think prime Safin beat Nole on hc. Prime Roddick beat Murray/Nole on grass including USO hc. Hewiit didnít get chicken pox. Hewitt was playing his best in 2004-05. That was when Ted Robinsons at the 2005 W quoted Hewitt saying that heís playing his best tennis but Roger is "too bloody good". 2007 Gonzo would smoke a 2 time finalist Murray. Nalbandian is better than anyone including Nadal on indoor.

Some of the players that Fed compete have retired. The problem is some of you forgetting that the player(eg Roddick, Gonzo, Davy, etc) today have past their prime....giving you false view about their ability.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 05:59 PM
Nope Djokovic is stronger than Nadal now as the data indicate. Nadal is in decline according to your calculations, LOLLL :)

as long as a declined Nadal os still better than an improved Djokovic in Grand slams tennis..Nadal is happy. :)

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 05:59 PM
Work it out. Nadal is just the strongest of the stronger bunch now. And Fed was the strongest of the strongest bunch for 3-5 years vs guys like Hewitt. He kept improving but as Agassi said, players are better every 3-5 years.

Of course, I fully agree (beside the fact that it's not 3-5 years but more like 10-15), that's called EVOLUTION. You can't take anything from the past greats just because they played earlier, though. 5 or 10 years from now there will be a new generation of eventual all-time greats, finding their own formula for winning. I'm sure there will be tons of guys who will claim that "player X" would pwn prime Federer or prime Nadal. Just watch.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 06:03 PM
as long as a declined Nadal os still better than an improved Djokovic in Grand slams tennis..Nadal is happy. :)

You have no data to support this view. Also you forgot to address the last part of my post, do players improve every 3-5 years or not? :)

Mainad
06-14-2011, 06:05 PM
Roddick would definitely blow Murray off of HCs; .

???? HC h2h Murray 5-2 Roddick.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 06:09 PM
Fed won the AO in 2010 and the wtf, and at the last 3 slams only djoko and Nadal stopped him. he is still in his prime.He has even said himself that he is playing better than ever.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 06:10 PM
Thatís your opinion. I think prime Safin beat Nole on hc. Prime Roddick beat Murray/Nole on grass including USO hc. Hewiit didnít get chicken pox. Hewitt was playing his best in 2004-05. That was when Ted Robinsons at the 2005 W quoted Hewitt saying that heís playing his best tennis but Roger is "too bloody good". 2007 Gonzo would smoke a 2 time finalist Murray. Nalbandian is better than anyone including Nadal on indoor.

Some of the players that Fed compete have retired. The problem is some of you forgetting that the player(eg Roddick, Gonzo, Davy, etc) today have past their prime....giving you false view about their ability.

I so agree with that. I actually think that everyone outside of the top 4 and Del Potro if he comes back sucks nowadays. Just look at the semis and finals contensted this year, there's ALWAYS the top 4 there

Australian Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray + Ferrer who beat Nadal
French Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal

Indian Wells - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the semis
Miami - Federer Nadal Djokovic in the semis
Monte Carlo - Nadal Murray in the semis, Djokovic didn't play
Rome - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in the semis
Madrid - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic in the semis

So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo)!!! That's insane.

In 2003-2007 at least the top 10 was packed with guys like Federer, Nalbandian, Agassi, Henman, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Coria, Gaudio, Davydenko, right now you got the top 4 and the rest sucks

Pwned
06-14-2011, 06:11 PM
Fed won the AO in 2010 and the wtf, and at the last 3 slams only djoko and Nadal stopped him. he is still in his prime.He has even said himself that he is playing better than ever.

No it's just because everyone else sucks. This is a weak era.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 06:12 PM
Fed won the AO in 2010 and the wtf, and at the last 3 slams only djoko and Nadal stoped him. he is still in his prime.

Have you ever thought that maybe Federer is so good that even at his post prime 29-30 years of age he can win big titles? Can you give a guy who won 11 majors in 4 years some credit?

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 06:13 PM
Fed won the AO in 2010 and the wtf, and at the last 3 slams only djoko and Nadal stopped him. he is still in his prime.He has even said himself that he is playing better than ever.

Sampras had the capability to win a slam in 2002, so he was still in his prime in 2001 right? Wow, the player levels must have really improved as you say since a baby Fed in 2001 beat a prime Sampras :) According to you!

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 06:13 PM
Pete didn't fool himself. He knew his motivation was low, and so did the rest of the world. He didn't have the luxury of trying to fudge his results. He got beat by Bastl, at Wimbledon of all places. His motivation was definitely low, as evidenced by his wife writing him a note to carry in his bag that said, in essence, "remember who you are." All of that speaks to where Pete was, and had nothing to do with what did or didn't come out of his mouth.

Where's the reply to "not in this world does a 30-year old have the same determination, hunger and drive as his own 30-year old self"?

Melzer. I already said that, and Li Na and Schiavone. Doing their best work in their later years, and of course, Agassi.

Everyone has some odd losses here and there. How many majors did he win in 2007? 3. That's definitely a prime year. He won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and the USO. 2004-2007 are the years Fed Fans call his peak years, and rightly so.

You agreed so no need to argue. I'll just add that those "weird losses" didn't happen to Federer AT ALL, every single loss he had in 2004-2007 (even in 2007 he lost twice to Canas and Volandri! So already you can argue that he started to decline in 2007) was to a top top player, most of them to Nadal who was no 2 at the time, after 2007 those losses started to occur very often, in Indian Wells he lost to Fish, then to Roddick, almost got beaten by Ramirez-Hidalgo but came back from 1-5 down, then lost to Stepanek in straight sets (!!), next to Karlovic, Simon, got pushed to 5 sets in Slams by Tipsarevic and Andreev (!!), etc.

Well, now you're waffling. You cited 2007 as a year Federer wasn't in his prime, and I said he won 3 majors that year. I also mentioned that 2004-2007 are the years most cite as Fed's prime.

But, check this out. According to the logic that you're using, whenever someone starts to lose, it automatically signals that they're past their prime.

Let's use Djokovic as an example, if we applied that same logic and Djoker starts to lose more than he did in the first six months of the year, he would immediately exit his prime, because he started losing to people he hadn't lost to before in 2011.


I mentioned players peaking now, because age didn't dictate their peak of play. Of course your level drops, but that can be due to many factors, some of which we may not be privy to. Nadal has already been on tour for 7-8years, more actually. He turned pro at 15.

They are peaking now cause they didn't achieve much earlier in their careers. When you're winning 3 out of 4 Slams for 4 years like Federer the only way from there on is DOWN, therefore he's in decline. Obviously he was a superhero to maintain that level for 4 years but still it's HIS decline.

I see where you're coming from on the last part, but I disagree. Had Nadal, Novak, and Murray remained stagnant, Fed would still be capable of winning 3-4 slams. Who else is going to stop him?

Also, your equating Fed's prime to his results neglects the fact that the others are growing up and so are their games. While a 23-27 year old could dominate a younger crew, it is not going to be possible to dominate them once they reach their full potential. This does not mean Fed declined, instead, imo, the competition matured.

Take Nadal, Novak, and Murray away and Fed is still plowing through the field.

ptb5021
06-14-2011, 06:19 PM
I agree, this competition is exciting to watch. Should be a great Wimbledon.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 06:22 PM
Take Nadal, Novak, and Murray away and Fed is still plowing through the field.

THIS is because the field outside the top 4 sucks, top 3 even cause Murray can't even hurt a 29-year old Federer in a Slam. He'd be competing for Slams with guys like Ferrer, Berdych, and Soderling. I honestly think that this era sucks, as I said in one of my previous posts, out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year thus far (2 Slams + 5 Masters), 21 of them have been contested by Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, and it even should be 22 cause Djokovic skipped MC (also Murray was in a Slump in IW/Miami and the it would total a mind blowin 24 out of 28 if he played OK). That would NEVER happen in 2003-2007 in ANY period.

Btw as for Djokovic LOL that his one loss at the French Open automatically means that his post prime. So how long did his prime last, 10 minutes? You need a bigger sample than that, at least 20 minutes!

Federer was Godlike in 2004-2006, in 2007 he still could bring his very best to the Slams as in 04-06 but he couldn't bring in in the Masters, 2 losses to Canas, a loss to Volandri, 2 losses to Nalbandian (don't care he was hot that autumn, prime Federer should've beaten him at least that 1 time), a loss to Gonzalez at the Masters Cup, I'm not saying that he did decline in 2007 but he already stopped bringing his A game everywhere, saved it for the Slams.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 06:24 PM
Sampras had the capability to win a slam in 2002, so he was still in his prime in 2001 right? Wow, the player levels must have really improved as you say since a baby Fed in 2001 beat a prime Sampras :) According to you!

Hahaha! Damn, Sampras was so lucky to play in the 90's! He'd be competing for 4th rounds at Wimbledon nowadays!

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 06:27 PM
Nope Djokovic is stronger than Nadal now as the data indicate. Nadal is in decline according to your calculations, LOLLL :)

Wait so based on your latest theory, since players keep improving every 3-5 years, it means Federer is better than Sampras ever was :) Pwnedddddddddddd

nadal is declining in 3 set events, but not in slams.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-14-2011, 06:28 PM
nadal is declining in 3 set events, but not in slams.

Thank you for admitting you were owned :) QED. ;)

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 06:31 PM
nadal is declining in 3 set events, but not in slams.

So Nadal is choosing where he wants to decline?:)

Now I've heard it all.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 06:48 PM
So Nadal is choosing where he wants to decline?:)

Now I've heard it all.

No, silly. He's not SELECTING anything. I thought even you'd know that 3 set events are TOTALLY different to 5 set slams. Slams are the priority.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 06:51 PM
I agree, this competition is exciting to watch. Should be a great Wimbledon.

http://www.ocprocleaners.com/picts/excellent.png

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 06:53 PM
Thatís your opinion. I think prime Safin beat Nole on hc. Prime Roddick beat Murray/Nole on grass including USO hc. Hewiit didnít get chicken pox. Hewitt was playing his best in 2004-05. That was when Ted Robinsons at the 2005 W quoted Hewitt saying that heís playing his best tennis but Roger is "too bloody good". 2007 Gonzo would smoke a 2 time finalist Murray. Nalbandian is better than anyone including Nadal on indoor.

Some of the players that Fed compete have retired. The problem is some of you forgetting that the player(eg Roddick, Gonzo, Davy, etc) today have past their prime....giving you false view about their ability.

Where did you get that? Hewitt contracted the chicken pox in 2002, and imo, he was never the same since. I'm talking about what I considered the beginning of the end for Hewitt in 2002, and you're talking about 2005.

Ted Robinson isn't what I call a credible source.

Seems, we share different opinions, but I have to go. I missed the Reunion shows for the The Real Housewives, and they're re-airing it now.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 06:55 PM
Of course, I fully agree (beside the fact that it's not 3-5 years but more like 10-15), that's called EVOLUTION. You can't take anything from the past greats just because they played earlier, though. 5 or 10 years from now there will be a new generation of eventual all-time greats, finding their own formula for winning. I'm sure there will be tons of guys who will claim that "player X" would pwn prime Federer or prime Nadal. Just watch.

It happens every tennis generation.

TheTruth
06-14-2011, 07:03 PM
THIS is because the field outside the top 4 sucks, top 3 even cause Murray can't even hurt a 29-year old Federer in a Slam. He'd be competing for Slams with guys like Ferrer, Berdych, and Soderling. I honestly think that this era sucks, as I said in one of my previous posts, out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year thus far (2 Slams + 5 Masters), 21 of them have been contested by Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, and it even should be 22 cause Djokovic skipped MC (also Murray was in a Slump in IW/Miami and the it would total a mind blowin 24 out of 28 if he played OK). That would NEVER happen in 2003-2007 in ANY period.

Btw as for Djokovic LOL that his one loss at the French Open automatically means that his post prime. So how long did his prime last, 10 minutes? You need a bigger sample than that, at least 20 minutes!

Federer was Godlike in 2004-2006, in 2007 he still could bring his very best to the Slams as in 04-06 but he couldn't bring in in the Masters, 2 losses to Canas, a loss to Volandri, 2 losses to Nalbandian (don't care he was hot that autumn, prime Federer should've beaten him at least that 1 time), a loss to Gonzalez at the Masters Cup, I'm not saying that he did decline in 2007 but he already stopped bringing his A game everywhere, saved it for the Slams.

I can't believe you said that! There have been many wars on TW negating this.

Ha ha ha. No, Djokovic is still in his prime. A loss here or there doesn't negate that. That was my point. Djoker's going to get way more than 20 minutes I'm sure, but I am very interested in how he shows up at Wimbledon.

Ah, I see. I agree with you. I think Federer quit worrying about winning all of the smaller events and started focusing on the slams more. But, even before Joker went on this streak, when he and Fed played at the USO, I wasn't seeing a decline. I thought he played very well, so I'm not buying the past his prime garbage, I think it's more a matter of selective peaking.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 07:06 PM
I so agree with that. I actually think that everyone outside of the top 4 and Del Potro if he comes back sucks nowadays. Just look at the semis and finals contensted this year, there's ALWAYS the top 4 there

Australian Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray + Ferrer who beat Nadal
French Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal

Indian Wells - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the semis
Miami - Federer Nadal Djokovic in the semis
Monte Carlo - Nadal Murray in the semis, Djokovic didn't play
Rome - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in the semis
Madrid - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic in the semis

So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo)!!! That's insane.

In 2003-2007 at least the top 10 was packed with guys like Federer, Nalbandian, Agassi, Henman, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Coria, Gaudio, Davydenko, right now you got the top 4 and the rest sucks

Thats right, Before there was Federer by himself then a gap in talent, then the other 3-4 or 5 who were not on the same level as Fed.

Now there are about 3 guys who can regularly beat Fed and play just as well.The far stronger top 4 is what makes the competition much stronger now.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 07:14 PM
Thats right, Before there was Federer by himself then a gap in talent, then the other 3-4 or 5 who were not on the same level as Fed.

Now there are about 3 guys who can regularly beat Fed and play just as well.The far stronger top 4 is what makes the competition much stronger now.

What's more possible, that 1 guy is better or that 10 are worse? No, you're wrong. The answer is that 1 guy is better than ordinary. Put 2004-2007 Federer in this era and he wins nothing less.

And btw this era does suck, if somehow the top 4 fails in a tournament, there's no-one to watch. I wouldn't be shocked if Nadal-Djokovic-Murray kept meeting time and time again for the next 3-4 years (I assume Fed will retire by then) because there is no-one on the horizone, aged 17-20 who's making progress nowadays. Raonic and Harrison maybe, but they need another 2-3 years at least.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 07:17 PM
Thats right, Before there was Federer by himself then a gap in talent, then the other 3-4 or 5 who were not on the same level as Fed.

Now there are about 3 guys who can regularly beat Fed and play just as well.The far stronger top 4 is what makes the competition much stronger now.

Take out the top 4 players nowadays out and you have Soderling, Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils, Fish, Almagro. Next in line are pusher Roddick, Melzer, Troicki.

Look so much better than Moya, Coria, Henman, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio (taken from the 2005 Australian Open - a Slam on hard court which Federer, believe it or not, didn't win)

HUGE LAWL, this is such a mug era, no wonder a well past his prime 30-year old Federer can still well compete for Slams. If he doesn't bump into Djokovic or Nadal, a major is 100% his.

TMF
06-14-2011, 07:29 PM
Where did you get that? Hewitt contracted the chicken pox in 2002, and imo, he was never the same since. I'm talking about what I considered the beginning of the end for Hewitt in 2002, and you're talking about 2005.

Ted Robinson isn't what I call a credible source.

Seems, we share different opinions, but I have to go. I missed the Reunion shows for the The Real Housewives, and they're re-airing it now.

I was thinking Chicken Pox Ferrrero. Hewitt Chicken Pox didn't affect his career the way you put it. Fed's mono was 100x worse and he managed to recovered. I think Hewitt started downward when he got married and have a baby at the end of 2005. He chose not to play the Master Cup and preferred to be with his wife and a newborn baby.

And Ted at the 2005 W was rephrasing what Hewitt have said before. Hewitt said he was playing his best tennis but Fed was "too bloody good".

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 07:47 PM
What's more possible, that 1 guy is better or that 10 are worse? No, you're wrong. The answer is that 1 guy is better than ordinary. Put 2004-2007 Federer in this era and he wins nothing less.

And btw this era does suck, if somehow the top 4 fails in a tournament, there's no-one to watch. I wouldn't be shocked if Nadal-Djokovic-Murray kept meeting time and time again for the next 3-4 years (I assume Fed will retire by then) because there is no-one on the horizone, aged 17-20 who's making progress nowadays. Raonic and Harrison maybe, but they need another 2-3 years at least.

If you put either 24yo djokovic or Nadal in 2004-2007, they'd each sweep all the slams, or most of them. Nadal is doing that right now, the only diference is if you put him in 2004-2007 instead of beating up on Federer,and Joko, he'd have to beat much easier chumps more often.

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 08:55 PM
Sampras had the capability to win a slam in 2002, so he was still in his prime in 2001 right? Wow, the player levels must have really improved as you say since a baby Fed in 2001 beat a prime Sampras :) According to you!

Maybe Federer was in his prime in 2001 just for 1 single match, and then he went out of his prime 2 days later and lost to Henman, and maybe he has been declining ever since. Maybe Federer has just been lucky that the eras kept getting weaker ever since to allow him to win slams while he was out of his prime.:shock:

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 09:21 PM
Have you ever thought that maybe Federer is so good that even at his post prime 29-30 years of age he can win big titles? Can you give a guy who won 11 majors in 4 years some credit?

Its hard to tell exactly when someone is in their prime, because prime doesn't work in linear time periods, sometimes players play prime time tennis for a few months at a time or a few tournaments at a time. I believe Federer still plays prime tennis, though its possible he could slip from his prime tennis a bit more often than before.

DeShaun
06-14-2011, 09:39 PM
I think the calculation if Roger should be likely to win another slam after not winning Wimbledon ought to take under consideration how far he made it through the draw and whether or not he was able to raise his play to some level, because obviously he is not crushed whenever he does not win a slam now that he seems to be primarily playing for deep runs in some hope of sustaining his roll long enough to catch someone out in the semis and/or beyond whose game possibly does not trouble him nor has it ever; there are a few such players who are talented enough, but would need a little luck, to navigate the draw through a slam all the way to its final where Roger would be waiting for them, with an exceedingly favorable head to head record, licking his chops over the net during the coin toss. I believe he is trying to capture moments like these and ask who knows what the future holds.

Mainad
06-15-2011, 04:13 AM
(Berdych has an excellent grasscourt game, far better than his hardcourt game, I think Berdych vs Rafa is the likely Wimbledon Final)

He had one of his best seasons last year beating Fed and Djoko en route to the final.But that was last year.Djoko,for one, is on a different level this year and I don't think Berdych is displaying as much form this year as he did in 2010.For instance,he just lost in the semis of Halle to Petzschner (a guy ranked 64 places below him) so I'm not convinced his form on grass is going to be anything like as good as it was in 2010.But we'll see.

Messarger
06-15-2011, 05:45 AM
(Yep, you won't know until week 2)

Hi mate. Do you know anything about blood spinning treatment that the pros use?

cknobman
06-15-2011, 05:53 AM
Actually since the start of 07, Fred's prime periods where he won more,correlate more strongly with Nadal's injuries than they do with his age, but the stronger competition also explains the bell curve.

Actually I have noticed Nadals injury announcements have a strong correlation to coming directly after losses since 07. :twisted:

Bartelby
06-15-2011, 05:58 AM
Quite accurate, but not a bad strategy. If you want to win it's good to tell yourself you could have won - and believe it.



Actually I have noticed Nadals injury announcements have a strong correlation to coming directly after losses since 07. :twisted:

Rafa Garros
06-15-2011, 06:10 AM
thread tietle misleading since fed doesnt haves wimbeldon tietle to lose.
just talking...

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 07:24 AM
Actually I have noticed Nadals injury announcements have a strong correlation to coming directly after losses since 07. :twisted:

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone! Nadal is actually injured all the time but he's good enough to win 4 out of 5 Slams on one leg. That's how good he is in this super tough competition.

jackson vile
06-15-2011, 10:34 AM
Shhhh! Don't tell anyone! Nadal is actually injured all the time but he's good enough to win 4 out of 5 Slams on one leg. That's how good he is in this super tough competition.


He does try to mimic Roger, so it is no wonder that he picked up his hero's tactics along the way LOL

Homeboy Hotel
06-15-2011, 11:00 AM
Lets have this discussion after the US Open.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 11:18 AM
LOL at anyone thinking Berdych will repeat his Wimbledon final. He was in the form of his life last year and caught Federer in the worst form of his life and Djokovic on his worst surface in subpar form at the time as well. He will be lucky to even make the quarters this year.

And who would want to see another Nadal-Berdych Wimbledon final anyway. You know it will be a straight sets loss for Berdych before the match even begins if that is the final. I am a Nadal fan but I like to see the most competitive or intriguing final matchups possible.

Buckethead
06-15-2011, 11:25 AM
LOL at anyone thinking Berdych will repeat his Wimbledon final. He was in the form of his life last year and caught Federer in the worst form of his life and Djokovic on his worst surface in subpar form at the time as well. He will be lucky to even make the quarters this year.

.

I agree, T Bird got his best results last year, they will not happen again, He just doesn't develop fast enough, in fact i think He is stuck, his movement is still poor, his volleys as well, his serve is very predictable, so is his whole game.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 11:44 AM
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.

Remember this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38100000/jpg/_38100425_sampras_bastl2.jpg

2002 Wimbledon R64: George Bastl def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4)


And then this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39420000/jpg/_39420653_samp02.jpg

2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)

Both photos are under the copyright of the BBC.

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 11:58 AM
Wilander says that Fred is playin better than he has since about 2006 but isnt winning as much due to the tougher competition. Look at what wilander said About Feds level of tennis (November 2010):


"I think Federer is on to something. I think he's playing better now than he has in the last three or four years," Wilander told the ATP Champions Tour. "He's just not winning (recent majors) though it's not like he had a horrible year and I think he wants to cap it off winning the ATP World Tour Finals."

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:01 PM
I don't agree with Wilander on that point. Federer's forehand had a lot more bite on it in 2006, with far less shanks. And his footwork was miles superior in 2006. Watching some of Federer's matches from 2006 makes this obvious.

TMF
06-15-2011, 12:05 PM
If Fed was in 2006 form, I bet my money on him.

Cesc Fabregas
06-15-2011, 12:10 PM
If Fed was in 2006 form, I bet my money on him.

In 2006 baby Nadal nearly took Federer to 5 sets despite only playing 3 grass court tournaments in his life. I think 2008- Nadal could beat 2006 Federer on grass.

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 12:10 PM
I don't agree with Wilander on that point. Federer's forehand had a lot more bite on it in 2006, with far less shanks. And his footwork was miles superior in 2006. Watching some of Federer's matches from 2006 makes this obvious.

but who were the players who most pushed Fred to improve and play better in 2006? The players now, like Nadal and Djoeker are demanding a higher level of baseline consistency of Fred than before, so you'd also expect more shanks now even if he was playing as well as before.

TMF
06-15-2011, 12:16 PM
In 2006 baby Nadal nearly took Federer to 5 sets despite only playing 3 grass court tournaments in his life. I think 2008- Nadal could beat 2006 Federer on grass.

In 2006 Fed could easily beat Nadal in 3 sets, but he did owned him in the 4th set.

2006 Fed > 2008 Fed. And Nadal almost lost to Fed in a marathon match in 2008.

DragonBlaze
06-15-2011, 12:20 PM
In 2006 baby Nadal nearly took Federer to 5 sets despite only playing 3 grass court tournaments in his life. I think 2008- Nadal could beat 2006 Federer on grass.

2008 Nadal was 2 points away from losing to a Federer who was still reeling from the after effects of mono (missed training blocks etc).

Two can play at that game. :)

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:20 PM
In 2006 Fed could easily beat Nadal in 3 sets, but he did owned him in the 4th set.

Don't you mean the first set, which Federer won with a bagel? Nadal was a break up for the most of the second set, got broken when serving for the set at 5-4, and ended up losing it in a tiebreak. Nadal did win the third set, and Federer showed his grass-court ability to close out the match in the fourth set. The second set was key.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:34 PM
2008 Nadal was 2 points away from losing to a Federer who was still reeling from the after effects of mono (missed training blocks etc).

The mono cleared up before the 2008 clay-court season started, although he did miss some fitness training. Federer said this himself in an interview at 2008 Wimbledon with Sue Barker. I don't know why the mono is exaggerated out of all proportion and why myths persist about Nadal overtaking Federer because of mono, unless of course, you're blaming the missed training.

I know Federer lost to Fish and Roddick in the 2008 Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, but is that any worse than twice losing to Canas at those tournaments in 2007? Canas had been a lucky loser and a qualifier at those 2007 Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, and he beat Federer in both those tournaments. 2008 Federer lost to Stepanek in Rome, but is that any worse than losing to Volandri in Rome like 2007 Federer did? But for Nadal playing his best level of tennis ever, Federer would have won 3 majors in 2008.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 12:38 PM
In 2006 baby Nadal nearly took Federer to 5 sets despite only playing 3 grass court tournaments in his life. I think 2008- Nadal could beat 2006 Federer on grass.

I don't remember Nadal having any set points in the 4th set. In fact Federer raced to a 5-1 lead and should've finished it 6-1 in the 4th, he wasn't even close of losing it.

Saying that Nadal almost took Federer to 5 sets in 2006 is like saying that Federer almost took Nadal to 5 sets in this years FO final.

TMF
06-15-2011, 12:39 PM
Don't you mean the first set, which Federer won with a bagel? Nadal was a break up for the most of the second set, got broken when serving for the set at 5-4, and ended up losing it in a tiebreak. Nadal did win the third set, and Federer showed his grass-court ability to close out the match in the fourth set. The second set was key.

1st set and 4th set. I don't how you can say the 4th set was close.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:47 PM
1st set and 4th set. I don't how you can say the 4th set was close.

When did I say the fourth set was close? It was a 6-3 set though, so hardly ownage.

DragonBlaze
06-15-2011, 12:53 PM
The mono cleared up before the 2008 clay-court season started, although he did miss some fitness training. Federer said this himself in an interview at 2008 Wimbledon with Sue Barker. I don't know why the mono is exaggerated out of all proportion and why myths persist about Nadal overtaking Federer because of mono, unless of course, you're blaming the missed training.

I know Federer lost to Fish and Roddick in the 2008 Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, but is that any worse than twice losing to Canas at those tournaments in 2007? Canas had been a lucky loser and a qualifier at those 2007 Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, and he beat Federer in both those tournaments. 2008 Federer lost to Stepanek in Rome, but is that any worse than losing to Volandri in Rome like 2007 Federer did? But for Nadal playing his best level of tennis ever, Federer would have won 3 majors in 2008.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I know the mono was long gone by then, but missing those training sessions most likely made a difference, however minute. In a sense, Federer was playing catch up tennis throughout the rest of the year.

More importantly, I was half trolling (look at Cesc's post that I was quoting) :)

Also how would Fed have won 3 majors? No way was he winning against Rafa at RG even if peak Rafa didnt show up like he did. I mean Fed's clay form that year was atrocious at RG.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:57 PM
More importantly, I was half trolling (look at Cesc's post that I was quoting) :)

Oh, right ;)

Also how would Fed have won 3 majors? No way was he winning against Rafa at RG even if peak Rafa didnt show up like he did. I mean Fed's clay form that year was atrocious at RG.

I meant that Nadal was the only player who stood in Federer's way. Federer did win the US Open, and was runner-up at the French Open and Wimbledon, losing to Nadal in both those finals. Some say that Djokovic would have beaten Federer at the 2008 French Open, had they played, but I don't think so. I think Djokovic gave Nadal a tougher match because Djokovic is a tougher match-up for Nadal in terms of styles, as well as Rafa losing focus for a few games in the third set.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-15-2011, 01:12 PM
The mono cleared up before the 2008 clay-court season started, although he did miss some fitness training. Federer said this himself in an interview at 2008 Wimbledon with Sue Barker. I don't know why the mono is exaggerated out of all proportion and why myths persist about Nadal overtaking Federer because of mono, unless of course, you're blaming the missed training.

I know Federer lost to Fish and Roddick in the 2008 Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, but is that any worse than twice losing to Canas at those tournaments in 2007? Canas had been a lucky loser and a qualifier at those 2007 Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, and he beat Federer in both those tournaments. 2008 Federer lost to Stepanek in Rome, but is that any worse than losing to Volandri in Rome like 2007 Federer did? But for Nadal playing his best level of tennis ever, Federer would have won 3 majors in 2008.

Courier said that Federer having mono in 2008 and missing so much practice time cost him the W2008 title. Federer probably downplayed it because that's his style. He's not as big a whiner as Nadal.

kevoT
06-15-2011, 01:47 PM
I can't access Utube at work.

Sure you can! Hide my *** . com or something like that... Search it up on google. : )

Mustard
06-15-2011, 02:10 PM
Courier said that Federer having mono in 2008 and missing so much practice time cost him the W2008 title. Federer probably downplayed it because that's his style. He's not as big a whiner as Nadal.

Nadal was very close to beating Federer at 2007 Wimbledon, and he did beat Federer at 2008 Wimbledon. Federer's 2008 year is nowhere near as bad as some people make out.

Heracles
06-15-2011, 02:17 PM
This is absurd, Federer last slam title is on hardcourt. If Federer does not win Wimbledon this year he will have a chance next year an in the USO and the OA.

zagor
06-15-2011, 02:46 PM
He does try to mimic Roger, so it is no wonder that he picked up his hero's tactics along the way LOL

Right,Nadal made way more injury excuses by the age of 25 than Fed did by the age of 30.

Rafa Garros
06-15-2011, 02:52 PM
Right,Nadal made way more injury excuses by the age of 25 than Fed did by the age of 30.

he does haves a more physiacal game. sureleys you can admit that much.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 02:59 PM
he does haves a more physiacal game. sureleys you can admit that much.

if you have a physical game don't cry about your injuries cause they're a part of your game

zagor
06-15-2011, 03:00 PM
he does haves a more physiacal game. sureleys you can admit that much.

Yes and that relates how exactly to the post I replied to? He can't really copy Fed's tactics when he's much more proficient at them himself,heck he overcame Roger in that regard before the age of 25.

zagor
06-15-2011, 03:05 PM
Nadal was very close to beating Federer at 2007 Wimbledon, and he did beat Federer at 2008 Wimbledon. Federer's 2008 year is nowhere near as bad as some people make out.

Right,you realize when was the last time Fed went into USO without a single HC slam final under his belt? Back in 2000.Keeping in mind that HC is his best or 2nd best surface it's quite telling.

Rafa Garros
06-15-2011, 03:06 PM
Yes and that relates how exactly to the post I replied to? He can't really copy Fed's tactics when he's much more proficient at them himself,heck he overcame Roger in that regard before the age of 25.

just sayings. no offences. having reads throuh your posts historys i can see that you are a good poster.

zagor
06-15-2011, 03:09 PM
just sayings. no offences. having reads throuh your posts historys i can see that you are a good poster.

Don't believe everything you read.

Keld0r
06-15-2011, 03:10 PM
actually, i know theres some pretty staunch fans here of the different pros, and i know tennis players dont have forever to win majors (someone tell Daniel Nestor). But i counted Federer out a couple years ago. I thought he reached that point where he wasn't going to do it anymore. It happened for me, after he lost to Karlovic. Time went by, he kept placing well but not dominating, but every now and then we see glimpses of his old form. He's still capable of beating anyone at anytime. I've lost enough money betting against him by now to know. I think he has a chance for a major for the next 2-3 years even if he doesn't win Wimbledon.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-15-2011, 04:04 PM
Nadal was very close to beating Federer at 2007 Wimbledon, and he did beat Federer at 2008 Wimbledon. Federer's 2008 year is nowhere near as bad as some people make out.

The 2008 match was closer than the 2007 match. FO08 was very telling, Federer getting beaten so soundly in a final hadn't happened before and it wasn't entire due to Nadal playing his best. Federer was nowhere near his best level having missed so much practice. Without mono, I don't see Nadal pulling out Wimby 2008 the way he did.

Buckethead
06-15-2011, 04:44 PM
Courier said that Federer having mono in 2008 and missing so much practice time cost him the W2008 title. Federer probably downplayed it because that's his style. He's not as big a whiner as Nadal.

That is what i have always said. If it had been Nadal He would have pulled off of every tournament.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 05:08 PM
Right,you realize when was the last time Fed went into USO without a single HC slam final under his belt? Back in 2000.Keeping in mind that HC is his best or 2nd best surface it's quite telling.

2003 was the last year Federer went into the US Open with a hardcourt slam final under his belt.

Federer had to face a Nadal who played his best tennis ever at that 2008 French Open and Wimbledon. Nadal's peak level of tennis was April to August 2008, not in 2010. As for the 2008 Australian Open, Federer played well against Djokovic but just wasn't good enough on the day. Federer was sweating more than normal, but I certainly didn't think Federer was playing poor tennis. Djokovic played brilliantly.

The 2008 match was closer than the 2007 match.

I disagree. They were both very close, but Nadal had chances to win the 2008 Wimbledon final before it went to 5 sets. In the first 4 sets of the 2007 Wimbledon final, Nadal had broken Federer's serve 4 times compared to Federer breaking Nadal's serve once. And Federer served in the fifth set at 1-1 15-40 and 2-2 15-40, and managed to get out of it. Nadal was closer to winning the 2007 Wimbledon final than Federer was to winning the 2008 Wimbledon final.

FO08 was very telling, Federer getting beaten so soundly in a final hadn't happened before and it wasn't entire due to Nadal playing his best. Federer was nowhere near his best level having missed so much practice. Without mono, I don't see Nadal pulling out Wimby 2008 the way he did.

You realise that you are contradicting Federer himself, yes? Federer said to Sue Barker at 2008 Wimbledon in a studio interview during the tournament, that the mono had passed before the start of the clay-court season. And, another thing, Federer got to the 2008 Wimbledon final without dropping a set.

borg number one
06-15-2011, 05:15 PM
I think he may very well have chances through 2012. After 2012, it may be pretty tough, but who knows? Obviously it'll depend most on his avoidance of injuries as well as motivation. Strange things can happen over a two week period when a great player catches fire and starts feeling it. In addition, draws can take very unexpected turns (the other top players not making it into the second week).

DjokovicForTheWin
06-15-2011, 06:10 PM
I disagree. They were both very close, but Nadal had chances to win the 2008 Wimbledon final before it went to 5 sets. In the first 4 sets of the 2007 Wimbledon final, Nadal had broken Federer's serve 4 times compared to Federer breaking Nadal's serve once. And Federer served in the fifth set at 1-1 15-40 and 2-2 15-40, and managed to get out of it. Nadal was closer to winning the 2007 Wimbledon final than Federer was to winning the 2008 Wimbledon final.

You realise that you are contradicting Federer himself, yes? Federer said to Sue Barker at 2008 Wimbledon in a studio interview during the tournament, that the mono had passed before the start of the clay-court season. And, another thing, Federer got to the 2008 Wimbledon final without dropping a set.

That 2007 was as close to 2008 is your opinion, in my opinion they were not as close, which cancels out. Both are subjective. Opinions are irrelevant. The objective data indicate that 2008 was closer, 9-7 in the 5th set is closer than 6-2 no matter how you slice it. You can't argue with the facts.

Contradicting Federer? I suppose you still believe Federer is in his prime like he believes (or as he says playing better than ever LOL)? No? Yeah, I thought not. Therefore you are contradicting Federer too. However I'm not really contradicting Federrer, I never said the mono hadn't passed, I said the mono took away considerable training time from him which is what Courier said. So although mono was not the direct cause for him losing to Nadal at W08, it indirectly contributed. Without mono, he would have had that training time, and if that had happened, I don't see him losing to Nadal at W08. Even with being rusty it still took Nadal 9-7 in the 5th.

Before Nadal lost to Soderling at FO09 he didn't drop a set either, does that mean he wasn't injured? How many sets did Nadal drop at AO2011 before losing to Ferrer? None, does that mean he was unaffected by his injury? Therefore Federer not losing a set at W2008 is meaningless.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 06:43 PM
That 2007 was as close to 2008 is your opinion, in my opinion they were not as close, which cancels out. Both are subjective. Opinions are irrelevant. The objective data indicate that 2008 was closer, 9-7 in the 5th set is closer than 6-2 no matter how you slice it. You can't argue with the facts.

You know very well that it's not that simple. In the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer had to come back from 2 sets down, saving match points, and had a break point in the fifth set. In the 2007 Wimbledon final, Nadal was breaking Federer's serve a lot more often than vice versa and had those 4 break points in the fifth set.

However I'm not really contradicting Federrer, I never said the mono hadn't passed, I said the mono took away considerable training time from him which is what Courier said. So although mono was not the direct cause for him losing to Nadal at W08, it indirectly contributed.

Didn't the 2007 Wimbledon final tell you anything about how close Nadal was to Federer on grass?

Before Nadal lost to Soderling at FO09 he didn't drop a set either, does that mean he wasn't injured? How many sets did Nadal drop at AO2011 before losing to Ferrer? None, does that mean he was unaffected by his injury? Therefore Federer not losing a set at W2008 is meaningless.

Federer won 6 matches at 2008 Wimbledon, Nadal won 3 matches at the 2009 French Open, so a big difference. Anyways, at the end of the day, it's about beating the opponent in front of you, whatever shape you're both in. That's what tennis is about.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-15-2011, 06:51 PM
You know very well that it's not that simple. In the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer had to come back from 2 sets down, saving match points, and had a break point in the fifth set. In the 2007 Wimbledon final, Nadal was breaking Federer's serve a lot more often than vice versa and had those 4 break points in the fifth set.



Didn't the 2007 Wimbledon final tell you anything about how close Nadal was to Federer on grass?



Federer won 6 matches at 2008 Wimbledon, Nadal won 3 matches at the 2009 French Open, so a big difference. Anyways, at the end of the day, it's about beating the opponent in front of you, whatever shape you're both in. That's what tennis is about.

In 2008, Federer was 2 points from the title. That is much closer than 6-2 in the 5th. I disagree, 2008 was much closer than 2007. This is why I said subjectivity always cancels out. The score is objective data. 2008 was closer.

In 2007, Federer also lost to Canas twice, does that mean Canas was close to Federer? Federer was not playing his best in 2007 (in fact far from it, which is why Nadal was even close), his serve basically saved him.

In 08, were it not for the mono, no practice time lost and Fed wins. Courier saw this too. He was a professional tennis player by the way.

Nadal won 4 matches in AO2011 without losing a set he was playing great. In his case an acute injury took him out. Federer played ok in the first 6 matches, but that's only because his B game is good enough to beat most others on grass quite easily. He didn't really face anyone tough up till the final. Not losing a set is not indicative of how he was playing. The rust still affected him against Nadal.

duffguy808
06-15-2011, 06:53 PM
Yes he can. Roger is the man

Mustard
06-15-2011, 06:59 PM
In 2007, Federer also lost to Canas twice, does that mean Canas was close to Federer? Federer was not playing his best in 2007 (in fact far from it, which is why Nadal was even close), his serve basically saved him.

In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.

In 08, were it not for the mono, no practice time lost and Fed wins. Courier saw this too. He was a professional tennis player by the way.

Let me know when you decide to leave the realm of fiction and come back to reality.

Nadal won 4 matches in AO2011 without losing a set he was playing great. In his case an acute injury took him out.

Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.

Federer played ok in the first 6 matches, but that's only because his B game is good enough to beat most others on grass quite easily. He didn't really face anyone tough up till the final.

Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.

Caracalla
06-15-2011, 07:00 PM
if somebody younger doesn't come to do it.. and if Djokovic is the only game in town, obviously he will have to be tired or out of focus or something else.. and in that case Nadal/Federer is almost confirmation.. sure I'de like to include Murray up there, but we never know whats happening with him when he reaches Finals.. I hope Murray can do it..

DjokovicForTheWin
06-15-2011, 07:19 PM
In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.

Let me know when you decide to leave the realm of fiction and come back to reality.

Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.

Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.

Yes Federer losing to Canas twice is much worse. LOL you just contradicted yourself. Below you laud Hewitt and Safin as tough opponents with 2 slams each, and then in the first part you use Roddick (who is also a slam winner I might remind you) as an example and equate losing to him the same as losing to Canas, make up your mind.

Sir I am always in reality, it is you who live in the world of fantasy and basically in denial.

So what if Nadal pulled his hamstring early, the point is something affected him. Federer's loss of his normal practice routine affected him greatly against Nadal in W2008. He's just not the whiner Nadal is making a big deal out of every little thing. But Courier definitely saw what most *********s are in denial about.

Federer basically had a cakewalk to the final in W2008, which is why he didn't lose a set. Both Hewitt and Safin were well past their prime.

Sentinel
06-15-2011, 08:28 PM
Fred will keep playing another few years. Especially after Rafito retires, he'll pick up some tainted RG's then ;)

just sayings. no offences. having reads throuh your posts historys i can see that you are a good poster.
wow, the mod sures ares takings its easy this weeks :)
The 2008 match was closer than the 2007 match. FO08 was very telling, Federer getting beaten so soundly in a final hadn't happened before and it wasn't entire due to Nadal playing his best. Federer was nowhere near his best level having missed so much practice. Without mono, I don't see Nadal pulling out Wimby 2008 the way he did.
Hey buddy, nice to see you back. Love your avatar.

zagor
06-15-2011, 11:13 PM
2003 was the last year Federer went into the US Open with a hardcourt slam final under his belt.

I mean to say HC final,not HC slam final,my mistake.So let me restate my point then,the last time Fed went into USO without a single final on his best or 2nd best surface before 2008 was 2000.

zagor
06-15-2011, 11:17 PM
In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.

Match-ups,Canas is a tough match-up for Fed on a slow HC while Fish and Roddick never were.Overall Fed's level in 2007 was way higher than in 2008.He did lose to Volandri in Rome but he was affected with separation from his coach Tony Roach,he was in the middle of making an important decision and it showed in his play.

Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.

Nadal played well against Ferrer but just wasn't good enough on the day,David was brilliant and should have reached the final as well(had SP to go 2-0 against Murray).Nadal didn't play poor by any means.

Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.

Both of them way past their prime with grass also being Safin's worst surface.

TheNatural
06-16-2011, 08:22 AM
Match-ups,Canas is a tough match-up for Fed on a slow HC while Fish and Roddick never were.Overall Fed's level in 2007 was way higher than in 2008.He did lose to Volandri in Rome but he was affected with separation from his coach Tony Roach,he was in the middle of making an important decision and it showed in his play.



Nadal played well against Ferrer but just wasn't good enough on the day,David was brilliant and should have reached the final as well(had SP to go 2-0 against Murray).Nadal didn't play poor by any means.



Both of them way past their prime with grass also being Safin's worst surface.

yeh he played well for someone with 1 hamstring. 8)

Sneezy
06-16-2011, 08:28 AM
Roger probably has another one or two left in him. He definitely moves pretty fast for an old guy :p

DjokovicForTheWin
06-16-2011, 08:53 AM
yeh he played well for someone with 1 hamstring. 8)

Perhaps a better response would be how someone could play at all with only one hamstring :)

Sentinel
06-16-2011, 10:23 AM
^ Djoko4thewin, who is the smart lady in your avatar. Is that you ?

TheNatural
06-16-2011, 10:39 AM
Perhaps a better response would be how someone could play at all with only one hamstring :)

exactly, he hardly did play at all. Poeple lose all credibility when they say 'he played well" when we all know he played bad and was on 1 hamstring :)

DjokovicForTheWin
06-16-2011, 10:47 AM
exactly, he hardly did play at all. Poeple lose all credibility when they say 'he played well" when we all know he played bad and was on 1 hamstring :)

I wonder how he managed to win 9 games against the #7 player in the world with only 1 hamstring. Quite perplexing indeed.

TheNatural
06-16-2011, 12:02 PM
I wonder how he managed to win 9 games against the #7 player in the world with only 1 hamstring. Quite perplexing indeed.

which part is perplexing?

hoosierbr
06-16-2011, 12:17 PM
Not Federer's title to lose. He didn't win it last year.

Rippy
06-16-2011, 12:19 PM
exactly, he hardly did play at all. Poeple lose all credibility when they say 'he played well" when we all know he played bad and was on 1 hamstring :)

I thought it was an adductor longus tear?

nikdom
06-16-2011, 12:41 PM
If Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win a major!

Take my prediction to the bank.

mad dog1
06-16-2011, 01:14 PM
If Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win a major!

Take my prediction to the bank.

sorry, but your post doesn't make sense because even if he doesn't win another slam title, he's already won 16 majors.

however, if Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win another major! you can take that to the bank.

zagor
06-16-2011, 01:16 PM
yeh he played well for someone with 1 hamstring. 8)

Yes,another heroic effort.

ksbh
06-16-2011, 01:19 PM
http://images.bollywoodhungama.com/img/feature/11/feb/sunny1.jpg

sureshs
06-16-2011, 01:40 PM
ksbh, you are flirting with getting banned. Then we will lose you forever.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-16-2011, 05:08 PM
which part is perplexing?

You don't find it perplexing how a player could win 9 games in a professional match with one of his hamstrings missing? The only thing more perplexing is how a prime Pete Sampras in 2001 (1 year before winning the USOPEN in 2002 and still in his prime as defined by you) lost to a baby pre prime Federer in a slam on his best surface! Kinda suggests if prime Federer played in Sampras' era, he would have zero slams. Sampras was indeed lucky then that he played in such a weak era.

IvanisevicServe
06-16-2011, 08:39 PM
If you take Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray away...Federer still doesn't win either the French Open or Wimbledon last year, as he lost to Soderling and then Berdych.

He also doesn't win 2009's US Open, as he lost to Del Potro.

Federer was down a set and 4-0 to Acasuso, lost the first set to Mathieu, was down 2 sets and faced a break point at 4-4 in the 3rd set to Haas, and down 2 sets to 1 to Del Potro at the 2009 French Open. Pretty sloppy tournament, pressure or not.

He was down 2 sets to Berdych at the 2009 AO.

Beaten in straight sets by Davydenko at 09 WTF SF.

And most importantly, the difference in Federer's game is visible. It's not always "decline," per se', as he's capable of some spectacular tennis at times...but this spectacular tennis looks completely different from his old spectacular tennis. It almost looks like a different player. He's hitting flatter, giving himself wider margins, being very cautious with short balls, hitting balls right back AT opponents on shorter balls instead of away from them, playing tons of forehand drop shots when he used to hit the big forehand to take control of/finish the point, and he has more conservative court positioning.

TheNatural
06-16-2011, 09:02 PM
You don't find it perplexing how a player could win 9 games in a professional match with one of his hamstrings missing? The only thing more perplexing is how a prime Pete Sampras in 2001 (1 year before winning the USOPEN in 2002 and still in his prime as defined by you) lost to a baby pre prime Federer in a slam on his best surface! Kinda suggests if prime Federer played in Sampras' era, he would have zero slams. Sampras was indeed lucky then that he played in such a weak era.

not at all..if that player is Nadal.

your obsession with Sampras is unhealthy (its off topic)

TheTruth
06-16-2011, 09:34 PM
(In the Ferrer-Rafa match at 2011 AO, I noticed on slow-motion replays that every time Rafa had to change direction he showed obvious pain on his face, so he ended up being late for Ferrer's down-the-line shots because it took him too much time to stop on the tramline and run to the other tramline. So Ferrer hit down-the-line a lot and Rafa would be a fraction late and mistime his shot each time resulting in error)

AO 2011? When he got hurt in the first set and could barely move?

TheTruth
06-17-2011, 01:38 AM
(Yes that's the match, I'm telling you what the injury caused - he couldn't push off quick enough after changing direction - that was why he kept playing but couldn't win enough points to beat Ferrer, because Ferrer kept hitting down the line rather than crosscourt. Rafa was fine going crosscourt because he was stationary and didn't need push-off, but when he had to suddenly push-off to the other side he felt the pain and therefore was late getting to the other tramlines)

I know. I saw the match.

Buckethead
06-17-2011, 04:23 AM
That's a shame Fed is on the same side as Djokovic again, that is unbelievable , they're always on the same half. nadal is lucky.

TheTruth
06-17-2011, 05:13 AM
Hardly lucky. To date Djokovic has never beaten Rafa in a gs match. That would imply that Djoker was the lucky one up to this point.

All of Djoker's wins came in Master Series.

Not that he can't or won't this time around, but we won't that know until the tournament plays out.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 05:32 AM
not at all..if that player is Nadal.


That's interesting, then why would Nadal need to take time off if he's fine playing with just one hamstring? More importantly how could he contract his quadricep without a hamstring?

cknobman
06-17-2011, 05:32 AM
You know the draw was rigged so Nadal and Fed would be on opposite halfs of the draw, everyone on the freaking planet wants the possibility of a Nad/Fed final.

Djokovic, despite his spectacular run this year still has yet to build up enough star power (especially at Wimbledon) to have the majority of people want to see him in the final over a Rafa or Roger.

BTW I am not complaining because I want/hope to see a Rafa/Roger final.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 05:35 AM
That's a shame Fed is on the same side as Djokovic again, that is unbelievable , they're always on the same half. nadal is lucky.

This is very true, Nadal has never beaten Djokovic this year and would probably be clobbered again if they met.

TheTruth
06-17-2011, 06:01 AM
You know the draw was rigged so Nadal and Fed would be on opposite halfs of the draw, everyone on the freaking planet wants the possibility of a Nad/Fed final.

Djokovic, despite his spectacular run this year still has yet to build up enough star power (especially at Wimbledon) to have the majority of people want to see him in the final over a Rafa or Roger.

BTW I am not complaining because I want/hope to see a Rafa/Roger final.

But that would constitute cheating.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 06:45 AM
(Clobbered? Like in Miami where Rafa won the 1st set and went on to lose in a 3rd set tie-breaker? Or Indian Wells where Rafa won the 1st set? In slams, Rafa has only ever lost ONE match after winning the 1st set. Sorry, but Djokovic is yet to convince anyone that he is a great slam player)

Methinks someone has forgotten the clobberings a certain spaniard received on his best surface at the hands of Djokovic. Nadal is extremely lucky to be avoiding Djokovic till the final. In those 3 set matches with Nadal, Nadal was at his ultimate best, Djokovic was not.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 07:34 AM
(sorry, but Djokovic can't beat Rafa in a slam, he's just not good enough. Win 2 sets? Sure, but under the pressure of a slam, Rafa only gets better while Djokovic obviously doesn't get better. He's got 2 Australian Opens, and he's never beaten Rafa at a slam)

Sorry, you can be in denial all you want, but the Djokovic that Nadal faced at USO10 is not the same Djokovic of today. Had Nadal been good enough to get past Ferrer at AO11, Djoker would have thrashed him. It was only Federer that essentially saved Nadal for FO11. Slam or no slam, Djoker beats Nadal hands down anywhere, any place, anytime. Those are just the facts.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 07:59 AM
(I saw Djokovic beat Rafa 3 straight times in 2009. Was really impressed with Djokovic, until I saw him play Rafa at the US Open..... :lol:

If they are the facts then they have already occurred, everywhere, including Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Australian Open and.....US Open)

I realize this may come as a shock to you, but it's not 2009 anymore. That was then, this is now. Players change. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and making false extrapolations. Djokovic of today is a completely different player. Yes the facts have occurred as I said, Djokovic is 4-0 against Nadal this year. You realize that 0 losses means undefeated? That means Djokovic has beaten Nadal any place and every time.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 09:36 AM
(Yeah it's like 2008-09 all over again. His Australian Opens don't scare anyone, and neither do his non-slam wins over Rafa, seen it all before)

Oh well since you've seen it all before, I presume you would pick Hrbarty to defeat Nadal if they played now?

cknobman
06-17-2011, 12:48 PM
Nadal looked pathetic at Queens this year. Take that and Djokovic's form this year and I would be willing to place a bet that Djoker beats Rafa if they meet.(I would be frugal with my bet though).

Buckethead
06-29-2011, 07:30 AM
Now it's official, Federer is done, He will never win another major, I said it before if He lost this year's Wimbledon He would never had another chance, because on clay and HC He's been done for 2 years now.

sureshs
06-29-2011, 07:34 AM
He should retire

Bobby Jr
06-29-2011, 07:35 AM
Match spoilers people!

jackson vile
10-12-2011, 12:24 PM
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.

If He can't win grass where will He win??

Nowhere else, not to mention that He will be so down in confidence that will hard for him to come back again.

For me this title is already in the bag, Roger is playing his best tennis ever, just played amazing in RG, could have beaten Nadal there, or let Djoker have done the job, but He failed. Now it is his turn.

If He wins on grass He has a 20% chance to win the US Open.


I have to disagree, even though Roger did not win any slams this year I think that all he needs is for Nadal and Novak to falter. Realistically that is all it will take.

I really don't think Roger's best surface is grass, he has far more hard court titles with better performances on average.

celoft
10-12-2011, 04:55 PM
Tsonga. :rolleyes:

flyinghippos101
10-12-2011, 04:58 PM
I really don't think Roger's best surface is grass, he has far more hard court titles with better performances on average.

Of course Fed has more hard court titles, he only plays 2 grass tournaments per year...

IMO, the one person Fed NEEDS to falter at a slam is Nadal. Djokovic being beaten would definitely pave the way for slam #17 but Federer is certainly more than adequate enough to match and beat Djokovic at a slam.

celoft
10-12-2011, 05:00 PM
It's going to be very hard. Federer has to avoid: Nole, Nadal and all the ballbashers.

Tammo
10-12-2011, 05:14 PM
It's going to be very hard. Federer has to avoid: Nole, Nadal and all the ballbashers.

Which is going to be really hard to do, it will be hard to avoid guys like Tsonga, Berdych and other big hitters in the slams. I honestly don't think Fed can get another major. 30 years, and competing in today's era just isn't very likely. Fed could do it in the 80's and early 90's maybe.

jokinla
10-12-2011, 07:58 PM
It's going to be very hard. Federer has to avoid: Nole, Nadal and all the ballbashers.

Those players used to be his only obstacle, but after losing the last two majors up two sets, and again losing to Djoker after having match points, he now will have these obstacles lingering as well. And of course next year will be another year on his body, even Fed isn't immune to aging, so I'd say you could just repeat the phrase, if he doesn't win by this Wimby, then he won't ever win again.

tistrapukcipeht
06-08-2012, 09:48 AM
If he loses this year, then I will start to think, but for now, i believe he can still win one, 2 more by the end of next year.

Bassus
06-08-2012, 02:49 PM
Federer's best chance is probably the US Open. Should he face Nadal, the US Open is definitely his best chance.

Heracles
06-08-2012, 02:50 PM
Federer has been subpar in his last two Wimbledon, losing to Berdych and Tsonga.

He has more chance on hardcourt.