Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by roysid, Sep 24, 2009.
Oh please, now your just taking the mic! :lol:
Because he's Federer. That's what great players are capable of. What of Michael Jordan's famous flu game when he had that virus and "felt partially paralyzed".
Sampras overcoming Corretja while severely undernourished. Muster coming back from 2 sets to 0 against Becker in Montre Carlo, despite suffering from dehydration. Tiger Woods winning the US Open last year despite grimacing through a double stress fracture.
These kinds of things are what the greats can do.
There aren't any other players out there with 15 Slams and who are heralded as the greatest the game has ever seen by numerous current and past pros. I don't think he's taking the mic. I think he's being credibly serious.
How could someone with a torn abdominal muscle reach a Slam semifinal?
I'll let you think you think about that.
There are no weak fields or eras.
Same goes for Fed on other surfaces.Enough said.Your trollish double standards are veeeery amusing :lol:
Did you even bother to see the matches instead of bringing up stats? Your play does NOT depend entirely on how many sets you lose.
If you say Roger has become incresingly prone to having some concentration lapses I can agree.His play technically however,was way better this year than in 2008.Deal with it.
yeah..looks like Rafa was faking his pain..pre-emptive excuses,you know.
Says the one who is paralyzed with fear that Federer will lose everytime before he plays the likes of Soderling, Kohlschreiber, Karlovic, or a way past his prime Hewitt.
Look in the mirror.
nerves and not taking things for granted cannot be compared to your grade A crap-talk.Of course i wouldnt expect that to penetrate in the skull of a troll who revives 5 year old threads
And no,I dont need to look in the mirror.(boy,you lack common sense as well ..sad).you however certainly need to go to the former pro player section with your 'weak era 'crap-talk.
LOL if you are scared and half expecting Federer to lose even to such pigeons as Soderling, Kolhschreiber, 31 year old Haas, past his prime Hewitt, then you are the last one who has any credability to declare Federer could surely have the same success even vs a really tough field. That is unless you are now admitting (as I always suspected) that you really know Federer is almost certain to cruise each time he is about to play one of those. and merely make up alot of the online trepidation and warning expecing him to lose in order to build up his competition to more than it really is. There is no maneuvering your way out of this one.
I do spend alot of time in the former pro player section. Unlike many on TW I am aware of players that existed before 2008. So anyone who doesnt praise the current fields and all its players to the highest heavens should just stay away so the *******s can be happy. Dream on.
LOOOOOL manuvering my way?Where and when did I claim he was going to lose to these guys? Where did I say I was expecting him to lose? sheesh,you are owning yourself with this rubbish :lol: Part of my nerves come from the scary consistency Roger displays and the thought of it breaking(which it will at some point.)That has NOTHING to do with his quality of play or my belief in his quality.
To your second bolded part-Who told you to respect the current field? Thats entirely your choice.But why shove YOUR theories in our faces and why on earth like a troll revive threads started ages back?Pretty pathetic :roll:
1. Firstly I was the one who asked a question ( a LOGICAL one ) to which you have NO reply. Instead you posed another question because you couldn't answer mine . LOL !
2. I already said the answer to this lies in the details of mono (and the fact that federer is an incredible athelete) . You could read up on mono ( google is your friend ) . You will find there are varying degrees of mono and that it affects different people differently - one of the factors being the immune system . Oh and in case you did NOT know , federer himself did not know he had mono until after the AO.
3. I gave facts regarding federer skipping doha and kooyong and that he skipped it because of fever. But hey I am the one fooling around !
Mandy's pessimism is funny, she's always predicting Federer will struggle with clowns like Haas, Soderling and Karlovic.
I know, it is pretty funny. :lol: I am a Federer fan but I am not worried at all before he plays those guys. The rare times he has a close match I am pretty shocked but I still never doubt he will win, especialy in a slam.
You should not expetc any answer or any real thought what so ever.
I have have mono, it is something that is with you for life.
When it pops up I don't do anything except stay home!
What are the signs and symptoms of mono?
Extreme tiredness or weakness.
Tender, swollen areas (bumps) at the sides and back of your neck. These "bumps" are called your lymph (limf) nodes. You may also feel tender or swollen lymph nodes in your armpits or groin (where your leg meets your belly).
Sore, swollen throat and tonsils. It may be hard for you to swallow.
Headaches and muscle aches.
Upset stomach. You may have abdominal (belly) pain or may not be hungry.
Swelling of upper eyelids.
Body organ swelling. Sometimes, an infected person's liver or spleen swells and becomes larger. The liver and spleen are organs inside your belly.
How is it that Roger has an excuse for each and every loss?
You can clearly see by the numbers I have post that Roger did just as well in 2008 as 2009.
Do you contend that he is still sick or injured??
Turning into quite a bit of a Djokovic isn't he????
When you are seriously ill or injured guess what?
YOU DON'T PLAY!!!
I find it amazing that Roger can play through all that, and some how Nadal can't, and Nadal would have been able to hold on to number 1.
I love how all of Roger's excuses are always after the fact.
Oh uh I was sick.................
Oh uh my back was hurt..............
Oh uh my knee hurt . . . . . .
(after loss to Gonzo)
Oh uh pain everywhere, pain in famous ass . . . . . . . . .
etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Okay, so you accept that Nadal was perfectly fine at the French and US Open this year? Good.
Federer's numbers are better this year than last year. He currently has a winning percentage of 87% compared to 82% at the same time last year. He has 2 Slams instead of 1, 2 Masters Series titles instead of 0, made 4 Slam finals instead of 3. Clearly, he is doing better in 2009 than he did in 2008.
Got it >> You have no answer . Now please go and learn some elementary maths. I'll start with a small tutorial :
Why fed's 2009 is CLEARLY better in terms of numbers than fed's 2008
87 % > 82 % ( winning percentage )
2 master series > 0 master series
2 slams > 1 slam
Ok, lesson over
Why do you even care?Whats it to you if I am nervous-And go learn the definition of pessimism first. And no,none of them are clowns.Cant say the same about you though .
BTW-Where did I predict Roger WILL struggle against any of these guys?
"A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view"
I already know that :wink: Cant say the same about TW trolls though :wink:
Yes they are clowns, Slamless wonders. You always say it match threads; "Roger is going to have to play his best today or he might be in trouble" etc etc, when he has a 12-0 record against them.
Why do you call players on tour clowns? I'm genuinely curious. Do you feel superior to them? Could you wipe the floor with them?
True, it's a bit lame, but actually not that far from the truth
Against Nalbandian at the Masters Cup, he was on crutches for his ankle the week before or something like that, right?
Vs. Safin, yes, he played very well and lost. I don't think he played his best.
Here are the facts
66-15 (playing 18 more than 2009)
2008 @slams Roger losing 15 sets, wins 1 slam
AO 4 sets lost (defeated)*Out early in semis*
FO 6 sets lost (defeated)
W. 2 sets lost (defeated) *only in finals to Nadal*
US.3 sets lost (winner) *absolutely crushed everyone, murray, etc*
55-8 (losing to all the people he crushed the previous year)
2009 @slams Roger losing 16 sets, wins 2 slam (FO being a gimme)
AO 3 sets lost (defeated)*Nadal of all people*
FO 5 sets lost (winner) *Nadal knocked out early and still only lost 1 less*
W. 3 sets lost (winner) *Lost more sets even though he is the winner?*
US.4 sets lost (defeated) *Oddly losing to Delpo who he crushed many times*
Wow! that year sound so so much better, NOT!
You're right. Victory doesn't matter. What makes the difference is MARGIN of victory.
Thanks for redefining success for us.
Lets see, your so called *facts*
2 sets lost to tipsarevic, 3 to djokovic, last time I checked 2+3=5. As I said before please learn some elementary maths
umm, he lost 3 (THREE) sets to nadal, you are not defeated if you lose only 2 sets unless you retire from the match, which he most certainly did not
he did not crush andreev, it was a 5-setter, also went to 4 with djokovic, that wasn't a crushing win either ...
what ??? In which world are you in ?
This year he's lost to murray (2), djokovic (2), tsonga(1),wawrinka(1),nadal(1),del potro(1)
Last year he was losing to stepanak,blake ,fish,simon(2), karlovic etc etc
Needless to say which bunch of losses are worse
yeah, right, FO was a gimme because that's the most sets he's lost in a major he's won. acusaso, PHM, haas and del potro didn't challenge him at all :roll:
lost 2 sets to berdych, 3 to nadal , last time I checked, 2+3=5
As I said before please learn some elementary maths
And you make it sound like nadal is a hopeless HCer which he's not
lost 1 set to acusaso,1 to PHM,2 to haas,2 to del potro -> last time I checked 1+1+2+2=6
As I said before please learn some elementary maths
He lost 3 sets in both
lost 1 set to hewitt, 1 set to soderling, 3 to del potro, last time I checked 1+1+3=5
As I said before ,please learn some elementary maths
uh, yes, I'll repeat the first tutorial :2>1(slams), 2>0(master series) and 55-8 > 66-15 ( win-loss record)
oh and yeah as far as sets lost is concerned, it doesn't prove much, what matters in the end is winning ...
So Roger lost 2 more sets in slams in 2009 than 2008, the point is proven even more. Further Roger played more in 2008 when he was supposedly sick.
At best 2008 and 2009 are the same, Roger apeared in finals just the same etc.
Let me know when Roger does not make finals in slams then you can talk about a bad year for Roger LOL
FO is a gimme, you defining a good year and a bad year with 2 masters is lame at best especially when he is dropoing more sets in slams when he is supposed to be 100% health.
No you don't understand, a better year includes losing to Nadal of all people in a hardcourt slam final and then having some 20yr old kid beat with little experience and no slam final experience. LOL
In almost all of the matches in GS where Roger lost sets the opponents whom Roger played against displayed some brilliant efforts.Especially at the FO as well as the USO.
The 2 sets lost is hardly a telling factor at all.But then again you ARE clueless.
FO is not a gimme,period.Its added to his resume and rightly so.
So how do you want to define a good year? By counting the number of sets lost instead of counting the matches won? ROFL.
Roger has performed better overall this year, at Masters as well as slams.
That said I do think Roger has been more prone to lapses in concentration this year but I certainly believe tennis-wise he's much much better this year.
Ok so now you're basically saying that Nadal's win against Roger was a fluke because Roger was playing worse than the previous year :lol:
So this means that had Roger been playing better Nadal would've never won.Sounds good to me
And I guess the 20 year old kid lucked out a win too,using your logic.Great..pretty convenient for me.:lol:
Fed didn't lose at the USO in 2008... If Rafa was injured in 2008 at both FO and Wimbledon, Fed would have won FO, Wimbledon and USO in 2008.
So take Rafa out of the equation in 2008 and Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. Take Rafa out of the equation at FO and Wimbledon in 2009 and Fed wins 2 slams.
So without Rafa at FO and W, Fed's 2008 at slam finals would have been better than Fed's 2009 at slam finals...
Disagree. Djokovic would have beaten Federer in the 2008 French Open final. Federer wasnt playing well at all at that years French and it was a dissapointing reflection on the field he even made the final in that form, while Djokovic was very confident and playing great tennis.
Whatever he won or he didnt he's playing better tennis this year.Or should I say-He's playing some really smart tennis this year.He's changed a few things, added variation,he's even more economical now.Thats it.
He won 3 slams in 2007.I still thought he was nothing like his former self .
I don't think so. Fed beat Nole at Monte Carlo in 2008.... After beating mono fed at AO in 2008, Nole lost the edge vs Fed for some reason...
You just find ways to diss the current crop of players dont you?And then you have the nerve to accuse someone of hypocrisy.
He did but Federer was playing pretty well in Monte Carlo. You obviously forget how awful he was playing at the 2008 French. It was horrible to see him make the final playing that poorly, and not just because I dont like Federer. Really reflected how little depth the clay court field has today. Meanwhile Djokovic was building up confidence all clay court season and was really in great form by the time of the French. Monte Carlo was in fact the only event Federer played better on clay than Djokovic in 2008.
09 without a doubt.
How can you say Fed is playing better tennis when he lost more sets at the FO in 2009 than in 2008, before the final?
Whatever, did you see Federer play at the 2008 French? If you do, would you even try to dispute he was playing extremely below par tennis for him that event. Yet he still somehow made the final like he usually does even playing like that. Spin it how you like but what does this say of the current clay court field then. That plus the huge luck that Djokovic who was playing better on clay at the time was in the other half.
Fed still lost more sets before the 2009 FO final than before the 2008 FO final...
Because sets lost do not always indicate a drop in level :wink:
FYI-Roger did not lose a single point on his serve in the first set against Haas.It was just one blip in the tb that gave Haas the set.Thats not called playing bad tennis.
As for Del Po-You'd have to be really clueless not to admit the guy played out of his mind.
Well he played more people playing really well at the 2009 French than 2008. He also had a tougher draw this year (not that it was that tough, but tougher than last years). Del Potro in the semis is way tougher than Monfils. Monfils in the quarters is about the same as Gonzalez last year on clay. Haas in the 4th round is much tougher than whoever he played last year, same as Acasuso in the 3rd round. I do think he was still playing alot worse at the 2008 French than 2009 French, not that he was playing that amazing this year either. Federer of the 2008 French would have lost to Del Potro of this years French in 3 sets.
I also never said Djokovic wouldnt have also beaten Federer at the 2009 French IF he were in his 2008 French Open form (which he of course clearly wasnt) now did I. ;-) I am pretty sure he would have in 2008 however.
Losing sets to Haas whose worst surface is clay, c'mon. Fed should have lost to Haas, Acasuso or Del Potro in 2009... Fed was never in danger of losing before the 2008 FO final. In 2009 FO Fed was in danger 3 times before the final. Also Roddick took him to 5 at W final this year. In 2008 W that would have never happened vs Roddick. He also lost to Del Po at the USO this year while in 2008 he won the USO.
How about, he just managed to play a little bit better than his opponents?
Separate names with a comma.