PDA

View Full Version : Federer's Most Underappreciated Quality


OddJack
12-03-2011, 11:26 AM
"...Federer does retain one quality that is underappreciated. Unlike Murray, who saw big drop-offs in his play after losing each of the last two Australian Open finals, Federer tends to bounce back from his toughest losses. I counted 19 particularly painful losses in the last seven years for Federer, who simply doesnít lose often, period. These include matches in which he squandered match points or was otherwise close to victory, or was eliminated in major finals, or suffered a stunning upset. On 16 of those occasions, he won his next match. On average, and including the three times he lost his next match, he won seven straight. Six times he bounced back from the loss with a streak of at least 11 wins, including his current streak, which follows a devastating semifinal loss to Djokovic at the U.S. Open. Federer has his sights set on No. 1 for next year. He wonít get it if he doesnít start beating his top rivals outdoors. But if he doesnít, itís a very good bet one of them will..."


I was just reading this article and the above part is somehting most of his fans just dont appreciate enough. It comes more into perspective when you compare him with Nadal, Murray and Djoker.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2011/12/02/tenniss-big-four-reigns-in-2011/

TopFH
12-03-2011, 11:31 AM
Great article there.

Towser83
12-03-2011, 11:40 AM
would be nice to see him elaborate upon those 19 occaisons. But it is true I guess, I was also totally amazed at him losing MC, Hamburg, RG in that brutal fashion and then coming back from 0-2 down at Wimbledon to 2-2. I was convinced he'd get done in straights.

beast of mallorca
12-03-2011, 11:43 AM
"Federer's Most Underappreciated Quality"

You forgot, he has a nice wavy hair, and OMG, the way he carries those bags and so much more !

I love Fed soooo much........ :oops:

nadalwon2012
12-03-2011, 11:59 AM
"...Federer does retain one quality that is underappreciated. Unlike Murray, who saw big drop-offs in his play after losing each of the last two Australian Open finals, Federer tends to bounce back from his toughest losses. I counted 19 particularly painful losses in the last seven years for Federer, who simply doesn’t lose often, period. These include matches in which he squandered match points or was otherwise close to victory, or was eliminated in major finals, or suffered a stunning upset. On 16 of those occasions, he won his next match. On average, and including the three times he lost his next match, he won seven straight. Six times he bounced back from the loss with a streak of at least 11 wins, including his current streak, which follows a devastating semifinal loss to Djokovic at the U.S. Open. Federer has his sights set on No. 1 for next year. He won’t get it if he doesn’t start beating his top rivals outdoors. But if he doesn’t, it’s a very good bet one of them will..."


I was just reading this article and the above part is somehting most of his fans just dont appreciate enough. It comes more into perspective when you compare him with Nadal, Murray and Djoker.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2011/12/02/tenniss-big-four-reigns-in-2011/

Good at bouncing back, but just endured a year of being bounced in slams. He is still a great indoor player though, no doubt about that.

zagor
12-03-2011, 12:00 PM
Lendl also had a tendency to bounce after a tough loss with a big win. You could say Nadal as well altough in a somewhat different way, after tough 2007 Wimbledon final loss he won it next year, after subpar(2nd half atleast) 2009 he had his best year ever in 2010 etc.

OddJack
12-03-2011, 12:15 PM
Lendl also had a tendency to bounce after a tough loss with a big win. You could say Nadal as well altough in a somewhat different way, after tough 2007 Wimbledon final loss he won it next year, after subpar(2nd half atleast) 2009 he had his best year ever in 2010 etc.

Yes but the article does not talk about what happens a year after, it is about what happens immidiately after the losses.

Nadal went away after his 2009 loss to soderling citing injury while there was no sign if it during his FO matches, and also citing family problems.

More recent, Nadal mentioned loss of passion for the game after losing to Novak final after final with a poor end of the year performance.

While agree that he has mental toughness over all, but in this regard when compared to Federer he does not show the same consistency.

namelessone
12-03-2011, 01:45 PM
Yes but the article does not talk about what happens a year after, it is about what happens immidiately after the losses.

Nadal went away after his 2009 loss to soderling citing injury while there was no sign if it during his FO matches, and also citing family problems.

More recent, Nadal mentioned loss of passion for the game after losing to Novak final after final with a poor end of the year performance.

While agree that he has mental toughness over all, but in this regard when compared to Federer he does not show the same consistency.

How did Nadal go away after that? 2009 was a troublesome year but in 2010 Nadal won 3 slams and made his first WTF final.

And Nadal "went away" after RG because he had severe tendonitis issues and was thus faced with a very tough decision. If anyone here believes he skipped WB cause of mental issues they don't really follow Nadal. If Nadal's legs go, he goes. Unfortunately, due to horrible scheduling on his part in the clay season, Nadal's knees were really bad by the time RG came and we all saw what happened.

If Nadal really went away, he would have taken a large chunk of time off but he only skipped Queens and WB, due to medical reasons. After the WB break, he never missed a tourney till years end, even though he amassed many bad defeats along the way, including his worst GS spanking. He wasn't playing anything worthwhile but he was there fighting.

In 2011 there is a bit of going away on Nadal's part because I don't feel he is in it mentally like in the past. You can't compare with Fed's situation cause Fed never lost to Nadal on 3 surfaces in 6 finals in a calendar year. Fed had some time to go back to his corner when Nadal's weakest surfaces came around. Nadal doesn't have a corner to go to because Djokovic can play everywhere almost as good. So totally different mindset. Fed could hide from Nadal, Nadal can't hide from Djokovic. That gave Fed a big edge from the get go.

nikdom
12-03-2011, 01:54 PM
Namelessone, the more I see your spirited defense of Nadal in every damm thread, like he's some medieval damsel in distress, the more I think you are our resident Don Quixote.

An imaginary knight fighting for the honor of your beloved Dulcinea, Rafa Nadal. :)

(forgive me for assuming you're a guy.)

namelessone
12-03-2011, 02:03 PM
Namelessone, the more I see your spirited defense of Nadal in every damm thread, like he's some medieval damsel in distress, the more I think you are our resident Don Quixote.

An imaginary knight fighting for the honor of your beloved Dulcinea, Rafa Nadal. :)

(forgive me for assuming you're a guy.)

Funny, considering I am a guy.

I'm not defending the guy, I'm just saying the the situations in Fed and Nadal's hardships(and how they faced them afterwards) were different due to the nature of their respective rival. Federer could take a break from Nadal when moving to some surfaces(and thus could mentally recover for the next meeting with a slam win or other title), Nadal had no such luxury since Djokovic met him 2 times in 3 slams(he was one step away from 3 out of 3) and if Nadal didn't injure himself in AO, there was a real possibility of them meeting in AO final as well :shock:

And I'm not even factoring in all the losses Nadal had in those MS against Djoko(clay-hc). Fed's losses to Nadal in MS tourneys came mostly on one surface, clay.

Agassifan
12-03-2011, 02:09 PM
Good at bouncing back, but just endured a year of being bounced in slams. He is still a great indoor player though, no doubt about that.

Just like Rafa got bounced around outside of Clay, Fed got bounced around outside of indoors. He is 30 though.

Tennis_Monk
12-03-2011, 02:14 PM
Federer's Most underappreciated quality ?....being Federer.

OddJack
12-03-2011, 02:30 PM
Funny, considering I am a guy.

I'm not defending the guy, I'm just saying the the situations in Fed and Nadal's hardships(and how they faced them afterwards) were different due to the nature of their respective rival. Federer could take a break from Nadal when moving to some surfaces(and thus could mentally recover for the next meeting with a slam win or other title), Nadal had no such luxury since Djokovic met him 2 times in 3 slams(he was one step away from 3 out of 3) and if Nadal didn't injure himself in AO, there was a real possibility of them meeting in AO final as well :shock:

And I'm not even factoring in all the losses Nadal had in those MS against Djoko(clay-hc). Fed's losses to Nadal in MS tourneys came mostly on one surface, clay.

the the ....what?

You are not defending the guy...you just bend backwards everytime "the guy's" name is mentioned in some type of critisism.

Nadal had no such luxury? Did Federer get a break after his one of the saddest defeats at Ao 2009 and come back to win Madrid and FO? What type of break was that? What Luxury are you talking about??

He had the luxury of winning his beloved FO after two master defeats and yet went away after W, didnt he?

LOL@ Luxury, that one was rich dude.

namelessone
12-03-2011, 02:39 PM
the the ....what?

You are not defending the guy...you just bend backwards everytime "the guy's" name is mentioned in some type of critisism.

Only when it's unwarranted. I've recognized Nadal's slow *** timewasting many times, if you want a counter-example. Or his stupid 2 year plan for ranking. I'm just saying you can't compare how they dealt with hardships when the conditions were hardly the same. In fact I could say that they were tougher for Nadal since his big defeats against his rival were condensed in ONE YEAR whereas Fed has them spread out over 4-5 years against Nadal.

Just my POV on the matter, no need to get upset.

Nadal had no such luxury? Did Federer get a break after his one of the saddest defeats at Ao 2009 and come back to win Madrid and FO? What type of break was that? What Luxury are you talking about??

Yes, and that break was Nadal's scheduling, which busted up his knees. Fed had his ONLY obstacle for RG out in 4th round and the only guy to beat him in WB in the last years missing from the tourney. It's like Nadal finding out Novak is injured for AO and RG in 2012. You get a new wind from that. No one is saying that it automatically put the RG and WB titles in Fed's pocket but that gave him a big relief.


LOL@ Luxury, that one was rich dude.

Thanks.

Mike Sams
12-03-2011, 02:49 PM
Like I said, he will have a hell of a time getting through Nadal and Djokovic back to back in any tournament. And that's what he needs to do to win anything. Well...besides the tournaments which they don't show up in. :lol:

SLD76
12-03-2011, 02:52 PM
How did Nadal go away after that? 2009 was a troublesome year but

well lets see, after losing FO, didnt even play W. Then did nothing in summer HC. Made it to USO semi, then did nothing in the fall. Didnt win a set in WTF. How is that not going away????

Again, the poster isnt saying what happened in the next season( we all know he bounced back in 2010), he is talking about bouncing back immediately after a tough loss.As in, how does the player respond the next match or tourny after a tough loss. Fed had a brutal 2008 but rebounded enough to win Olympic doubles gold, which propelled him to retain USO title.

Meanwhile, Nadal looked burned out and raggedy for much of the summer, didnt look good at all in USO til the latter stages. He did recover well after losing USO with his davis cup performance but again, performed dismally after that-especially after failing to defend Tokyo. Basically, he has looked somewhat diminished every where except on spanish clay.


Honestly, this was talked about during the summer, especially after Djoker won W and Nadal went out early in Canada.Someone in a thread actually talked about giving Fed credit for mentally hanging in after some hard defeats and that perhaps Nadal was stronger mentally in matches, but Fed was stronger mentally after defeats.






And Nadal "went away" after RG because he had severe tendonitis issues and was thus faced with a very tough decision. If anyone here believes he skipped WB cause of mental issues they don't really follow Nadal. If Nadal's legs go, he goes. Unfortunately, due to horrible scheduling on his part in the clay season, Nadal's knees were really bad by the time RG came and we all saw what happened.

If Nadal really went away, he would have taken a large chunk of time off but he only skipped Queens and WB, due to medical reasons. After the WB break, he never missed a tourney till years end, even though he amassed many bad defeats along the way, including his worst GS spanking. He wasn't playing anything worthwhile but he was there fighting.


Yet his knees were so broken, he valiantly played both summer HC masters before the USO...come on dude, it was obvious to everyone that the FO loss had damaged him the rest of that season, along with the physical issues.

JustBob
12-03-2011, 03:01 PM
Winning your next match in the 1st round of a tournament after a painful loss is hardly an amazing feat. So you are essentially left with this:


Six times he bounced back from the loss with a streak of at least 11 wins


So roughly 30% of the time (6 out of 19) he goes on a significant winning streak after a tough loss. I'd like to know how that compares to other top players.

namelessone
12-03-2011, 03:14 PM
Honestly, this was talked about during the summer, especially after Djoker won W and Nadal went out early in Canada.Someone in a thread actually talked about giving Fed credit for mentally hanging in after some hard defeats and that perhaps Nadal was stronger mentally in matches, but Fed was stronger mentally after defeats.


What does mentally stronger after defeats mean?

Let's see, Fed's worse times were RG 08, WB 2008 and around AO 2009.

After the RG-WB double Nadal did in 2008, Fed went on to lose early in both Canada and Cincy and in a pretty big shocker, went out to James freaking Blake in Olympics. Fed did play better in USO 2008 but he didn't get over Nadal cause there was no Nadal in the USO Final that year, but GS virgin Andy Murray. How would Fed have handled Nadal in that final? We can't say for sure but it can't hurt having your biggest rival not be in another slam final after beating you in 2 consecutive ones.After USO, Roger reached Madrid SF(beaten by Murray), won his home tourney in Basel and skipped Paris and TMC due to injuries.Moving on to 2009. Roger loses in Doha, in AO 2009(to Nadal), loses in IW(to Djoko with a racket smash along the way), loses to Wawrinka in MC and again to Novak in Rome before bagging his first title in Madrid.

So from RG 2008 to RG 2009(where his biggest rival arrives on his last knees), Fed wins USO,Basel and Madrid and is looking pretty bad at times, even losing his temper in IW.

This whole Fed hangs in tougher that Nadal after defeats is BS because they are basically the same in and after defeat, only Nadal has more physical issues after then Roger which translates in more time off tour to heal. With Roger, regardless of his form, he rarely skips tournaments cause of injuries(he rarely has injuries so serious) so using the "he stayed in there after big defeats/didn't withdraw from tourneys" argument,when compared to Nadal, doesn't work because of how their games work and how that plays out on tour. Fed is gonna play tournaments anyway cause he is rarely injured and Nadal can get injured even when things go his way(see what happened at the end of 2008, with him skipping TMC).



Yet his knees were so broken, he valiantly played both summer HC masters before the USO...come on dude, it was obvious to everyone that the FO loss had damaged him the rest of that season, along with the physical issues.

Well let's see, Nadal played no matches from 31st of May 2009(4R RG) until mid August when Toronto started. That's basically TWO MONTHS, a huge chunk of time to recuperate.

pound cat
12-03-2011, 03:23 PM
"Federer's Most Underappreciated Quality"

You forgot, he has a nice wavy hair, and OMG, the way he carries those bags and so much more !

I love Fed soooo much........ :oops:

And his ability to produce twins who look just like him.l

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1742/2591836980x12000.jpg

Bobby Jr
12-03-2011, 03:27 PM
"...Federer does retain one quality that is underappreciated. Unlike Murray, who saw big drop-offs in his play after losing each of the last two Australian Open finals, Federer tends to bounce back from his toughest losses.
Nice one OddJack.

It is so true that after any particular match and also within matches it is a very useful 'talent' to have to be able to play thinking only the point in front of you. The vast majority of players let previous point/match failure creep in and affect their thinking - even if it's only to a small extent.

namelessone
12-03-2011, 03:34 PM
Nice one OddJack.

It is so true that after any particular match and also within matches it is a very useful 'talent' to have to be able to play thinking only the point in front of you. The vast majority of players let previous point/match failure creep in and affect their thinking - even if it's only to a small extent.

Good post but I don't think the guy who wrote that article was right comparing Roger to Murray. Murray is easily the worst out of the top4 when it comes to letting points affect him and he gets down on himself very easily after big losses. I mean, after losing in AO final 2011, he went out very early on slow HC to guys like Baghdatis,Young and Bogomolov.

And as I wrote in one of my previous posts, Roger also had his troubles getting over big losses. He didn't play anything particularly amazing(outside of USO 2008 let's say and maybe AO 2009 if you wanna take that into account) after WB 2008 till Madrid 2009.

above bored
12-03-2011, 03:38 PM
Good at bouncing back, but just endured a year of being bounced in slams. He is still a great indoor player though, no doubt about that.
He's still a great player period.

namelessone
12-03-2011, 03:41 PM
He's still a great player period.

Duh, only fools or haters will tell you otherwise.

Oh, and don't respond to nadalwonwhatever, just another ********* account.

SLD76
12-03-2011, 04:02 PM
[

Let's see, Fed's worse times were RG 08, WB 2008 and around AO 2009.

After the RG-WB double Nadal did in 2008, Fed went on to lose early in both Canada and Cincy and in a pretty big shocker, went out to James freaking Blake in Olympics. Fed did play better in USO 2008 but he didn't get over Nadal cause there was no Nadal in the USO Final that year, but GS virgin Andy Murray



how is any of this relevant??? The facts are, Fed had a bad 08 for whatever reason, had some brutal embarassing losses, but recouperated after his Olympic win. all the stuff you are saying basically is repeating what I already said. Why does everything need to be explained ad nauseum, lol.


. How would Fed have handled Nadal in that final? We can't say for sure

we cant, because it didnt happen. Can we stick with the facts??? Nadal lost to Murray( b/c he was tired) Fed beat Murray.

but it can't hurt having your biggest rival not be in another slam final after beating you in 2 consecutive ones.

Oh I get it now, you are saying if Fed had had to have played Rafa everywhere, he wouldnt look so much like he had the ability to hang in after tough losses. So basically, since he didnt play Rafa, we dont know how mentally solid he is after a loss. ok.

So what's rafa excuse for losing to a guy like Dodig after losing W this year??








This whole Fed hangs in tougher that Nadal after defeats is BS because they are basically the same in and after defeat, only Nadal has more physical issues after then Roger

wait what? So what, Rafa is injured after every loss? LMAO!

With every loss to djoker rafa's game and confidence seemed to slide a bit...something that you yourself have pointed out as well!!! Fed still dominated the field even when Rafa began to seriously challenge him in 06. It wasnt till 08 the year that marked his decline somewhat and also the year he had his mono, back issues etc that he started to have uncharacteristic losses. i.e. losses to anybody not in the top 5 or not named nadal. He bounced back from crushing AO 09 final to win FO, and hang on to win W and made USO final, a complete reveral of his 08. Yeah yeah we know we know, Rafa didnt make FO final, didnt play W, we get it.

Meanwhile, after a few beatings from Djoker, Rafa looked a mess this summer.
Hell, he looked a mess in the early stages of the FO, barely beating Isner and it seemed to be a direct result of his painful clay losses to Djoker. I think his FO win buoyed his confidence somewhat, but after losing W, he once again seemed lost and in a shambles. This aint 09 and he wasnt hurt, so whats the reason?




which translates in more time off tour to heal. With Roger, regardless of his form, he rarely skips tournaments cause of injuries(he rarely has injuries so serious) so using the "he stayed in there after big defeats/didn't withdraw from tourneys" argument,when compared to Nadal, doesn't work because of how their games work and how that plays out on tour. Fed is gonna play tournaments anyway cause he is rarely injured and Nadal can get injured even when things go his way(see what happened at the end of 2008, with him skipping TMC).

please. so now its "rafa doesnt have the chance to prove he is a warrior because he is hurt". lawlz.

Fate Archer
12-03-2011, 04:26 PM
Yeah, great post.

Fed has a very "long term" and "big picture" mentality, so big losses, while hurting at the moment, don't hamper him as much as it does to other players.

He knows that big losses are as much part of the game as big wins are too, so it boils down to keep going and giving himself chances, until he eventually succeeds.

The poem by Rudyard Kipling 'If' comes to mind when considering Fed's resilience in this sport. He simply knows and loves the spirit of the game more than anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is-JCJCUy18&feature=related

Towser83
12-03-2011, 05:34 PM
I don't get people saying Nadal went away in 2009 after RG. Apart from skipping Wimbledon he had a good year (when you consider Nadal's usual post Wimbledon form... I mean if you look at it he made mostly semis and finals and lost mainly To Del Potro and Djokovic who always had his number on hardcourt and Davydenko (same deal as with Djokovic) in the WTF he got a bad group (Davydenko, Djokovic, Soderling)

markwillplay
12-03-2011, 06:51 PM
Agree with OP. Good post. I will have to say that I think Nadal is pretty strong mentally with effort too. He has lost and come back and won several times...also even during matches (and maybe more) he has seemed to be getting whiped and then hung in there and been very consistant with EFFORT even when things looked bleak for him. I think he has it over Fed in this respect just a tad (in my eyes anyway) but Fed definately comes back in the next match as well or better than anyone ever has.

beast of mallorca
12-03-2011, 06:55 PM
"...Federer does retain one quality that is underappreciated. Unlike Murray, who saw big drop-offs in his play after losing each of the last two Australian Open finals, Federer tends to bounce back from his toughest losses. I counted 19 particularly painful losses in the last seven years for Federer, who simply doesnít lose often, period. These include matches in which he squandered match points or was otherwise close to victory, or was eliminated in major finals, or suffered a stunning upset. On 16 of those occasions, he won his next match. On average, and including the three times he lost his next match, he won seven straight. Six times he bounced back from the loss with a streak of at least 11 wins, including his current streak, which follows a devastating semifinal loss to Djokovic at the U.S. Open. Federer has his sights set on No. 1 for next year. He wonít get it if he doesnít start beating his top rivals outdoors. But if he doesnít, itís a very good bet one of them will..."


I was just reading this article and the above part is somehting most of his fans just dont appreciate enough. It comes more into perspective when you compare him with Nadal, Murray and Djoker.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2011/12/02/tenniss-big-four-reigns-in-2011/

Fed fans are the funniest in this board. Every little thing about him you have to praise, putting him on a pedestal and in the process trounce other players.

.........Oh Federer does that unlike Murray and Rafa and Djoko; Oh Fed's armpits are soooo nice, and his finger's, omg they're so flimsy yet sturdy.
What an awesome player Federer is, look at the way he flicks his hair............Fed fans I think are teenage girls gathering together.
Carry on, because this is my comics...lol

nadalwon2012
12-03-2011, 06:59 PM
Just like Rafa got bounced around outside of Clay, Fed got bounced around outside of indoors. He is 30 though.

Nadal didn't get bounced in the slams though, he made 3 of the 4 slam finals this year. And he's made 6 of the last 7 slams finals. That injury at the AO was his only 'bounce'. And this year overall he made 10 finals.

togood4u
12-03-2011, 07:01 PM
I appreciate the fact that Federer can beat anyone (or close) still at age 30 as well as his ability of longevity and maintenance. Not to mention he hadn't dropped lower than 4 for a few years.

fgzhu88
12-03-2011, 07:45 PM
Nadal didn't get bounced in the slams though, he made 3 of the 4 slam finals this year. And he's made 6 of the last 7 slams finals. That injury at the AO was his only 'bounce'. And this year overall he made 10 finals.

I swear I'm not trolling when I say this, but Federer and Nadal had a fairly even 2011 in terms of GS; the only deciding factor favoring Nadal was his win over Federer at RG.

They both lost in the QF in one GS and to Djokovic twice this year (who was eventual champion each of those times.

seattle_1hander
12-03-2011, 08:23 PM
In my humble opinion, the GOAT's most under-appreciated quality is as follows:

-Many athletes play their sports "not to lose," taking no risks, always being safe, doing nothing exciting or inspirational, and fearing the big moments. (a pusher in tennis, a current Andy Roddick, LeBron James, perhaps others who are considered to "choke"
-Other athletes play their sport with reckless abandon. Taking every risk, never being safe, occasionally rising to the level of inspiration, but mostly being pitied as "head cases." (Ernests Gulbis, James Blake, Brett Favre)
-The highest level athletes play to win, take on the big moments, give everything they have, and want victory more than avoiding defeat (Jordan, Nadal, Woods, Elway).

And then there is Roger Federer, who steps onto that court each and every time simply because he loves it. He is in love with the game of tennis more than any person ever has been. He is as gracious and inspirational in defeat as he is in victory. He takes risks and doesn't take risks, he leaves it all on the court yet doesn't sweat, he plays recklessly yet goes for shots no one would ever dare to. It just so happens he was born as the Chosen One, the greatest to ever pick up a racquet. But if you wanna know the truth...I don't think he'd be enjoying life any less if he was Number 1000.

Clarky21
12-03-2011, 08:29 PM
I swear I'm not trolling when I say this, but Federer and Nadal had a fairly even 2011 in terms of GS; the only deciding factor favoring Nadal was his win over Federer at RG.

They both lost in the QF in one GS and to Djokovic twice this year (who was eventual champion each of those times.



I'd actually rate Fed's slam performances a bit higher since he was the only one who beat **** in a slam this year. It doesn't matter if he didn't reach as many finals because he was a h*ll of a lot closer to beating Possum than anyone else this year in a couple of different occasions. He also had match points on him at the USO but choked them away. That's and his win over **** at RG are a million times better than anything Nadal did at the slams this year.

Polaris
12-03-2011, 09:38 PM
Fed fans are the funniest in this board.
You got that part correct. The Eagle thread is the funniest thread in a while, in a good way. It is simultaneously creative, funny and self-deprecating.


Every little thing about him you have to praise, putting him on a pedestal and in the process trounce other players.

.........Oh Federer does that unlike Murray and Rafa and Djoko; Oh Fed's armpits are soooo nice, and his finger's, omg they're so flimsy yet sturdy.
What an awesome player Federer is, look at the way he flicks his hair............Fed fans I think are teenage girls gathering together.
Carry on, because this is my comics...lol

As for that later part of your comment, the less one says about it, the better.

msc886
12-03-2011, 09:45 PM
Another one is his ability to just hang in there. Despite being well past his prime. He still stays in there mentally and game wise and took his opportunities when it arose. He was rewarded for that in 2009 when Nadal crashed out of FO as well as this year when everyone was a bit burnt out. He can't do what he used to do but if he still hangs in there opportunities will arise.

Magnus
12-03-2011, 11:17 PM
I remember that in 2008 Fed couldn't bounce back after his loss to Nadal at Wimbledon. He lost to Simon and Karlovic in Toronto and Cincy, both matches he was ahead. His bouncing-back match was against Andreev in the USO, where he was close to losing, and afterwards it was clear Federer is the boss of the tourny.

Agassifan
12-03-2011, 11:42 PM
Nadal didn't get bounced in the slams though, he made 3 of the 4 slam finals this year. And he's made 6 of the last 7 slams finals. That injury at the AO was his only 'bounce'. And this year overall he made 10 finals.

Well, Rafa was 'bounced' by Nole in a couple of slams and Fed was bounced by Nole in a couple of slams. What's the difference?

zagor
12-04-2011, 04:44 AM
In fact I could say that they were tougher for Nadal since his big defeats against his rival were condensed in ONE YEAR whereas Fed has them spread out over 4-5 years against Nadal.

That's a matter of opinion, losing big matches year after year can be devastating mentally.

Furthemore Nadal had the luxury(to use your term) of having beaten Novak in every big match they played until this year, Fed never lead H2H against Nadal at any point in their career.


Yes, and that break was Nadal's scheduling, which busted up his knees. Fed had his ONLY obstacle for RG out in 4th round and the only guy to beat him in WB in the last years missing from the tourney. It's like Nadal finding out Novak is injured for AO and RG in 2012. You get a new wind from that. No one is saying that it automatically put the RG and WB titles in Fed's pocket but that gave him a big relief.

Nadal had his only obstacle for RG final this year lose before final as well. Toni admitted they were releived Nadal wasn't facing Novak in the final.

I'm not defending the guy, I'm just saying the the situations in Fed and Nadal's hardships(and how they faced them afterwards) were different due to the nature of their respective rival. Federer could take a break from Nadal when moving to some surfaces(and thus could mentally recover for the next meeting with a slam win or other title), Nadal had no such luxury since Djokovic met him 2 times in 3 slams(he was one step away from 3 out of 3) and if Nadal didn't injure himself in AO, there was a real possibility of them meeting in AO final as well :shock:

Break? Luxury? Fed played Nadal in two consecutive slams on 3 separate occasions(2006, 2007 and 2008 ), Nadal so far only had to face his new found nemesis once in back-to-back slams.

And I'm not even factoring in all the losses Nadal had in those MS against Djoko(clay-hc). Fed's losses to Nadal in MS tourneys came mostly on one surface, clay

What about those Miami and Dubai losses Nadal fans constantly use as a proof Nadal would be able to handle peak Fed in HC slams? Do they not count?

And as I wrote in one of my previous posts, Roger also had his troubles getting over big losses. He didn't play anything particularly amazing(outside of USO 2008 let's say and maybe AO 2009 if you wanna take that into account) after WB 2008 till Madrid 2009.

So? After Wimbledon final this year, Nadal lost to Dodig and Fish.

SLD76
12-04-2011, 05:18 AM
And as I wrote in one of my previous posts, Roger also had his troubles getting over big losses. He didn't play anything particularly amazing(outside of USO 2008 let's say and maybe AO 2009 if you wanna take that into account) after WB 2008 till Madrid 2009.


So? After Wimbledon final this year, Nadal lost to Dodig and Fish.



This....but also, how is winning the USO not doing anything amazing?

We can flip it around and say, Rafa didnt reaally do much of anything after winning Barcelona( seeing as he got beat consecutively by djoker, lost in W final, bad loss to dodig, loss to fish, loss in USO final, bageled in final set in tokyo, bageled in WTF...oh yeah, he did win FO but pfffffft.)


see how it works? Namelessone is one of the few mostly rational rafa fans around here but sheesh, this is over the top methinks.


ETA: FWIW, and it was gimmelstob who said it after all, but he said in the commentary for the DC match that roger is better at going away for a bit, and letting things go and resetting than Rafa is.

stringertom
12-04-2011, 05:25 AM
And his ability to produce twins who look just like him.l

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1742/2591836980x12000.jpg

Is that Mirka's father?

kOaMaster
12-05-2011, 07:06 PM
In my humble opinion, the GOAT's most under-appreciated quality is as follows:

-Many athletes play their sports "not to lose," taking no risks, always being safe, doing nothing exciting or inspirational, and fearing the big moments. (a pusher in tennis, a current Andy Roddick, LeBron James, perhaps others who are considered to "choke"
-Other athletes play their sport with reckless abandon. Taking every risk, never being safe, occasionally rising to the level of inspiration, but mostly being pitied as "head cases." (Ernests Gulbis, James Blake, Brett Favre)
-The highest level athletes play to win, take on the big moments, give everything they have, and want victory more than avoiding defeat (Jordan, Nadal, Woods, Elway).

And then there is Roger Federer, who steps onto that court each and every time simply because he loves it. He is in love with the game of tennis more than any person ever has been. He is as gracious and inspirational in defeat as he is in victory. He takes risks and doesn't take risks, he leaves it all on the court yet doesn't sweat, he plays recklessly yet goes for shots no one would ever dare to. It just so happens he was born as the Chosen One, the greatest to ever pick up a racquet. But if you wanna know the truth...I don't think he'd be enjoying life any less if he was Number 1000.

i like that!

nadalwon2012
12-09-2011, 07:21 PM
Surreal.
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd372/nadalwon2012/identical.jpg

OddJack
12-09-2011, 08:16 PM
In my humble opinion, the GOAT's most under-appreciated quality is as follows:

-Many athletes play their sports "not to lose," taking no risks, always being safe, doing nothing exciting or inspirational, and fearing the big moments. (a pusher in tennis, a current Andy Roddick, LeBron James, perhaps others who are considered to "choke"
-Other athletes play their sport with reckless abandon. Taking every risk, never being safe, occasionally rising to the level of inspiration, but mostly being pitied as "head cases." (Ernests Gulbis, James Blake, Brett Favre)
-The highest level athletes play to win, take on the big moments, give everything they have, and want victory more than avoiding defeat (Jordan, Nadal, Woods, Elway).

And then there is Roger Federer, who steps onto that court each and every time simply because he loves it. He is in love with the game of tennis more than any person ever has been. He is as gracious and inspirational in defeat as he is in victory. He takes risks and doesn't take risks, he leaves it all on the court yet doesn't sweat, he plays recklessly yet goes for shots no one would ever dare to. It just so happens he was born as the Chosen One, the greatest to ever pick up a racquet. But if you wanna know the truth...I don't think he'd be enjoying life any less if he was Number 1000.

i like that!


Yes Koa, that's a good post.

Why is that you never see a Nadal fan write things like that?

There is really a cultural, educational and over all class difference here.

Big_Dangerous
12-09-2011, 08:31 PM
Good at bouncing back, but just endured a year of being bounced in slams. He is still the greatest indoor player of all time though, no doubt about that.

FTFY.

10 Chars.

nadalwon2012
12-10-2011, 03:32 AM
Yes Koa, that's a good post.

Why is that you never see a Nadal fan write things like that?

There is really a cultural, educational and over all class difference here.

Speaking of class....

The idiocy of this statement is so disturbing that one wonders if it's a joke, a troll, an attempt to get a response at any cost or just plain mindless.

He will look like building legacy if he wears sleeveless shirts, grows his hair and starts picking his butt.
Then Nadalites will be really scared.

Cant get any more childish than this,

You should be either in school or watching cartoons.There is no shortcut to growing up, so just take it easy and take your time little beast.

And I only had to go back a page :shock:

OddJack
12-10-2011, 04:21 AM
Speaking of class....







And I only had to go back a page :shock:

I see you're taking a break from your cartoons again nadalwon2012.
Yes, the idiocy in your post can get you banned, like clarky was. I see you are getting better with your posts though. It's good that you keep track of mine, that helps you improve even faster. You have the potential to separate yourself from idiocy class clarky belonged to. Keep reading more and post less and try to be less personal about it.
Have a good day.

nadalwon2012
12-10-2011, 04:49 AM
I see you're taking a break from your cartoons again nadalwon2012.
Yes, the idiocy in your post can get you banned, like clarky was. I see you are getting better with your posts though. It's good that you keep track of mine, that helps you improve even faster. You have the potential to separate yourself from idiocy class clarky belonged to. Keep reading more and post less and try to be less personal about it.
Have a good day.

Case in point :oops:

tennis_pro
12-10-2011, 08:37 AM
How did Nadal go away after that? 2009 was a troublesome year but in 2010 Nadal won 3 slams and made his first WTF final.

And Nadal "went away" after RG because he had severe tendonitis issues and was thus faced with a very tough decision. If anyone here believes he skipped WB cause of mental issues they don't really follow Nadal. If Nadal's legs go, he goes. Unfortunately, due to horrible scheduling on his part in the clay season, Nadal's knees were really bad by the time RG came and we all saw what happened.

If Nadal really went away, he would have taken a large chunk of time off but he only skipped Queens and WB, due to medical reasons. After the WB break, he never missed a tourney till years end, even though he amassed many bad defeats along the way, including his worst GS spanking. He wasn't playing anything worthwhile but he was there fighting.

In 2011 there is a bit of going away on Nadal's part because I don't feel he is in it mentally like in the past. You can't compare with Fed's situation cause Fed never lost to Nadal on 3 surfaces in 6 finals in a calendar year. Fed had some time to go back to his corner when Nadal's weakest surfaces came around. Nadal doesn't have a corner to go to because Djokovic can play everywhere almost as good. So totally different mindset. Fed could hide from Nadal, Nadal can't hide from Djokovic. That gave Fed a big edge from the get go.

it took him a full year after his French Open loss in 2009 to win another title again

Federer won the next majors after 2 of his most devastating losses, won the US after losing Wimbledon in 08, won the Channel Slam after losing in the 2009 AO final. Nadal as usual needed some clay to regain his winning formula and I expect nothing different in 2012, watch him find some new excuses for the first 3-4 months of the year but he'll be A OK once he plays in Monte Carlo :)

To be honest I'm so curious how his season will go on if he doesn't win anything on clay in 2012 or at least loses at the French. He'll withdraw for the remainder of 2012 citing injury or something?

kiki
12-10-2011, 09:35 AM
No doubt about it: his crying abilities, should deserve him some movies contracts...

ViscaB
12-10-2011, 10:21 AM
The aerodonamics of his nose. Very under appreciated.

beast of mallorca
12-11-2011, 09:33 AM
Speaking of class....







And I only had to go back a page :shock:

You didn't even have to say it. Everyone here knew already.