Did Federer Lose the Battle to #1 or Did Novak Win It

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Oct 17, 2012.

  1. Alchemy-Z

    Alchemy-Z Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,452
    was laughing to myself...I love seeing 3.5 hacks discuss the reasons people are winning at the pro level.
     
    #51
  2. dimeaxe

    dimeaxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    even on clay Federer carried back and hip injuries that seriously compromised his performance, and (d) despite all your braying to the contrary Federer's h2h over Djoko (including handing him a bagel) indicates personal superiority during the hard court season you insist on trumpeting.


    I mean Federer lost 8+1 times to Nole in last year an 1/2, so I really don't know about which one owning you're talking about.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
    #52
  3. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    6-0, 7-6? That owning. Let it be said that Federer was 31 and Djokovic was 25 when that happened.

    But no argument, though, Djokovic clearly is the more deserving YE #1 at this point.
     
    #53
  4. dimeaxe

    dimeaxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Yeah, and Fed should be grateful about his first 7 GS, winning all against HOF opponents.
     
    #54
  5. dimeaxe

    dimeaxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    So, does it realy matter?! Djokovic played 3 weeks in a row, while Fed was in Switzerland resting after olympics, so you think that Novak was really fresh in finals???
     
    #55
  6. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Just because you're tired doesn't mean you weren't owned. Federer got owned by Murray at the Olympics.
     
    #56
  7. dimeaxe

    dimeaxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Yes, and as a Djokovic fan, I believe that Federer was tired in Olympic finals, there's no sour grapes really, but I will not accept this term like owning player in one match.I think it's more related with rivalries like Federer and Roddick, Federer owned his rival big time:)
     
    #57
  8. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Owning is when your opponent has nothing to celebrate about. Atleast in my mind. So no, Federer hasn't owned Roddick as Roddick did win a few times.
     
    #58
  9. Smasher08

    Smasher08 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,063
    Location:
    The 6
    He has more points, there's no disputing that. But the word "deserving" has other connotations which I would dispute.

    And as for my friend from the land of palacinke (full disclosure: I really like palacinke) "owning" does indeed happen in specific matches. Fed owned Hewitt when he handed him a double bagel in a certain USO final, just as Nadal owned Fed at RG '08 and Fed owned him at WTF '11.

    Happy to discuss over Slivovica anytime :)
     
    #59
  10. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Well, he did perform better at Slams by a significant margin. And he did straightset Federer a couple of times on Clay this year, if you're looking at the head-to-head. And he hasn't had a very shabby year at the Masters, either. I see no dispute.
     
    #60
  11. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Talking to yourself in the mirror and posting what you are saying to yourself in front of the mirror a public internet forum is a distrubing trend. You should really on that. Although your own advice to yourself is good in this case, perhaps you should act upon it.

    More like you might want to start being a man rather than running like a crybaby to the mods when someones points embarass your failed logic.

    Duh, what an Einstein you are. This isnt about Djokovic 2012 vs Djokovic 2011, it is Djokovic 2012 vs all others 2012 and Djokovic 2012 > all others 2012.

    So I guess the ranking points should give less points if you win an event without so and so there. More genius logic, lol! I guess Federer's Wimbledon title in 2009 should be worth less points since Nadal didnt play then, and Federer wasnt a "worthy" #1 in 2009.

    The rest of your post just gets dumber with each sentence so I will stop now before I split my side laughing at breaking down your attempts at "logic". :lol: You might want to notice even your fellow ****s in this thread arent giving you any support on this particular topic, especialy with reasons so poorly layed out as yours.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 19, 2012
    #61
  12. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Of course he was, excuses only apply to Federer and to those somehow inadvertently involved in trying to diminish Djokovic in a thread about him being #1. After all Murray flaming out early in Cinncinati is to be expected since he played a bit before WDing in Canada, but Djokovic should be expected to be 100% after playing the same # of matches as Federer at the Olympics, winning Canada, then going all the way to the Cinncinati final. It is only logical of course. :lol:
     
    #62

Share This Page