Have we forgotten the retirement argument?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by CountryHillbilly, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. CountryHillbilly

    CountryHillbilly Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,701
    As I remember, during the early clay season, commentators and bloggers were making a big deal out of Fed's inability to beat any of Top 4 since the last US Open. He's lost to Murray 5 times, to Djokovic 2 times and to Nadal once. That was one the main points in the retirement argument.

    So, what has changed in that department since then? He only beat tired Nadal once in Madrid. That's it. He's moved from 0-8 to 1-8.

    The "retirement argument" is still as valid as ever.
     
    #1
  2. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    You're making it sound as if it was inevitable that Federer would win Wimbledon and the French Open.

    Back before Madrid, Federer was not doing well by his own standards. I wouldn't blame people for being pessimistic or skeptical about his chances.

    Retirement was ridiculous, but even Fed acknowledged he was in a slump.
     
    #2
  3. CountryHillbilly

    CountryHillbilly Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,701
    Yeah, but it's funny that he only beat one of Top 4 once since then.
     
    #3
  4. DMan

    DMan Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    923
    Yeah, why not. Fed should retire! Afterall, isn't it time he gave some of the young 'uns a chance to win. No fair he's been hoarding Grand Slam titles the last 6 years!!!
     
    #4
  5. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    I don't recall anyone ever saying Fed would wind up retire, at least not until he broke the record, which he has done now. People wondered if he was still a lock to get to 14, but no one serious really thought Federer was just gonna give up.

    And now that he's got the record and 2 kids, he honestly seems more relaxed and motivated than ever. So no, the "retirement" argument, if there ever was one, is not valid.
     
    #5
  6. goyeji

    goyeji Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    on the fast track
    CHB makes an excellent point. In fact, the retirement argument is more valid than before the RG/W 09. Federer benefited from Nadal's injury and cakewalk draws. If you win a lottery, do you keep buying lottery tickets? No, you thank your lucky stars, call it quits and enjoy your retirement.
     
    #6
  7. sk8ing

    sk8ing Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    So your saying all of federers wins this year are all lucky? If I remeber correctly federer only won the french because nadal lost in one of your "cake walk" draws

    federers wins were not lucky (I admit nadals injuries helped him win though) he had a great match against roddick but in the end federers determination brought him out on top.
     
    #7
  8. crazylevity

    crazylevity Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,978
    To answer the bolded part, the top 4 has been floundering since. Nadal exited French Open in the 4th round, missed Wimbledon. Neither Djokovic nor Murray made it to the final of the French or Wimbledon to face Federer, and combined for only one semi (Murray, who lost to Roddick).

    So what if they're the top four? Federer's obviously the most consistent of them.
     
    #8
  9. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    842
    It's not Federer's fault that Nadal, Murray and Djokovic did not play well enough to meet him in the later stages of RG and Wimbledon.

    And it's time to retire the "Nadal was injured/tired" argument every time Nadal loses. Australians in the early pro era had a saying:

    If you're injured you don't play. If you play you're not injured.

    Nadal fans need to learn and abide by that code.
     
    #9
  10. Terr

    Terr Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    梦想
    *cough*

    Mono.
     
    #10
  11. goyeji

    goyeji Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    on the fast track
    I don't know if that is a good parallel. Nadal truly was injured.
     
    #11
  12. vndesu

    vndesu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,706
    mono isnt a injury its a disease that can cause long time fatigue..
     
    #12
  13. goyeji

    goyeji Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    on the fast track
    fixed your post for you
     
    #13
  14. vndesu

    vndesu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,706
    thx 10char..
     
    #14
  15. FedFan_2009

    FedFan_2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,353
    Location:
    Cylon Base Ship
    Wait a minute. So because he's lost 9/10 to his top rivals, he should retire despite having won 19 matches in a row and the last 2 slams? That makes PERFECT sense!
     
    #15
  16. drwood

    drwood Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,512
    Yeah, Federer should retire because he's won twice as many slams as Nadal, Murray and Djoker combined.

    That's laughable.
     
    #16
  17. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,251
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    welcome back, nadal_freak. we missed you badly.
    Yes, Fed should retire so that we can watch people winning slams who like to retire mid-match, who could not win a slam, or made a slam final once in their bleeding life and never again, overhyped also-rans whose only claim to fame are their teeth or their parents behavior etc.
     
    #17
  18. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,742
    And it was an injured Nadal playing thru pain
     
    #18
  19. Wizard of id

    Wizard of id Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    123
    This is one of the best reasons for why the "retirement argument" was moronic to begin with. Nice one, OP!

    I guess Fed winning the last two Grand Slams kind of makes it difficult to make this argument with a straight face.
     
    #19
  20. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    This isn't N_F, I'm sure of that. But I think it's someone else returned, someone who'll never go away. I won't say who, though. The truth will show itself eventually.
     
    #20
  21. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    i know who, but i just add the names to my ignore list as i figure them out
     
    #21
  22. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    It just goes to show when Federer plays against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal he can't win. Again, luck played a vital role in winning RG and Wimbledon.
     
    #22

  23. maximo, how are you today? :):)
     
    #23
  24. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Federer should learn from Nadal, and just withdraw from Slams.
     
    #24
  25. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Murray and the Djoker had the same opportunity to take advantage of Nadal's abscence that Federer did. But they didn't. Murray lost in the SF to Roddick, when he would've played Nadal instead. If anything, Roddick's a better matchup for him, yet he still couldn't do what Roger did-beat Roddick and 6 others to win the title.

    I have a feeling if Mr. Murray won Wimbledon (as you were infamously predicting before the tourney started lol), you wouldn't be claiming that "luck played a vital role". Murray and Djoke had the same opportunity open up, they just didn't take advantage.

    And remind me real quick, who'd Fed beat for the US Open titles in 07 and 08? Oh yeah, those guys he "can't win against" Great logic.
     
    #25
  26. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    A bit tired. Need sleeeep. ;)

    How about you? :)
     
    #26

  27. I'm great, thanks! :)
     
    #27
  28. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    The thing is, they still didn't face Roger did they? Cos Djokovic would have beaten Federer at the French. Especially after Federer's rather embarrasing matches with a qualifier and Haas.

    If Murray had won Wimbledon it would never have been luck. He would have to play the Federer. And since Murray knows how to beat Federer on faster surfaces, it would have been a perfect match up. Besides, Federer's draws at Wimby and ESPECIALLY the French was a complete and utter joke.

    Murray played nowhere near as well as he did against Nadal in the Semis. His return of serve was poor (Just like the Roddick match) and Federer should of counted himself lucky there too.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2009
    #28
  29. AprilFool

    AprilFool Guest

    If any of the top four had faced Federer at the French or Wimbledon he would have beat them, including Nadal. He demonstrated in Madrid that he knows how to beat Nadal now. That is, by employing the same method that Nadal uses against Federer, in addition to finally employing the best drop shot in the game.

    Neither Nadal or Murray are going to get away with hitting to Roger's backhand for entire matches any more. They'll just get the same treatment from Roger.:twisted:
     
    #29
  30. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,748
    It certainly is laughable....but we know the pro-retirement gang just wants the threat of Federer to vanish, so losers such as Murray can win a slam & join fluke slam winner Djokovic on the one-slam-wonder charts.
     
    #30
  31. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,030
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    funny? I think its "funny" that the whole rest of the top4 just sucked during that time (or got beaten by lesser ranked players). he did not lose one match, what could he have possibly done better?

    or in other terms: while federer knows when it does count, he's there. that's a strengh that no other player has in the field like him.
     
    #31
  32. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Not more embarassing than losing in straights to Kohlschreiber. Could've would've should've. Novak DIDN'T beat Kohschreiber, Novak DIDN'T make it past the 3rd rnd, so for you to say Novak would have beaten Roger @ the FO, when he couldn't even beat Kohlschreiber, who couldn't beat Robredo, who couldn't beat Del Potro, who couldn't beat....Federer.

    Novak lost, Roger didn't.

    Of course not, in your eyes. You do realize people would be saying the same if Murray won it though - he just got lucky that he didn't play Nadal in the SF, you do know people would be saying that, right? Because I guarantee you they would be.

    And again, Roger did what Murray failed to do - beat Roddick. And talk about joke draws? Murray's Wimby draw was a joke, and he still couldn't make the finals.

    Faster surfaces, you mean like the US Open?

    Haas, who beat your boy Novak twice in the wake of the FO, Monfils, a former SFist, DelPotro, who was playing the 3rd best out of anyone at the tournament, and Soderling, who knocked out Ferrer, Nadal, Davydenko, and Gonzalez, all top 10 calibur clay courters. That's a joke draw?

    I'll say it again, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying these same things if your boy Murray somehow wound up winning the FO and Wimbledon. You'd probably be saying how he's the new GOAT lol. So don't play yourself as being objective a/b this when you're clearly not. Murray and Djokovic both had the same chance at Wimbledon to take advantage w/o Nadal, Murray got Roddick in the SF, who he owns, instead of Nadal, and still couldn't make the finals.

    Don't blame Fed for the other 3 guys either getting hurt or losing.
     
    #32
  33. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,748
    Good point.



    QFT.
     
    #33
  34. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    It also goes to show that Fed doesn't lose to nobodies in slams, unlike these guys.
     
    #34
  35. drwood

    drwood Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,512
    Lucky to lose only 9 games? LOL :):)
     
    #35
  36. goyeji

    goyeji Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    on the fast track
    But the retirement argument is still valid as ever, as CHB pointed out. And supports the case for alternatives, such as finding a coach or switching to a larger racquet. All these points people made before RG 09 are valid as ever. People who don't see that need to take off their rosy glasses.
     
    #36
  37. Zeppy

    Zeppy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    308
    I don't see how Federer would want to retire. He looks like he has plenty of years in him left, he's staying healthy and he's still winning matches.
     
    #37
  38. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    This is all I see...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #38
  39. sp00q

    sp00q Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    198
    Well, Fed is one of the top four... And he beats himself quite often. So your argument doesn't stand.
     
    #39
  40. jonnythan

    jonnythan Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,356
    I love it.

    A player fails to win multiple Slams in a single year for the first time since 2003 and people declare it's time for him to retire.

    He wins two (possibly three) Slams in the following year, but it's still time for him to retire.

    Talk about high standards!
     
    #40
  41. Zeppy

    Zeppy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    308
    That is also what I see. So that's why I believe Federer doesn't have to retire yet. He still has plenty of years left, he's staying healthy and fit, and he's still winning matches.
     
    #41
  42. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,644
    Location:
    Weak era
    You mean Gj011 :)?
     
    #42
  43. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Who's that?
     
    #43
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,644
    Location:
    Weak era
    Goyeji.

    First he cameback as shouldretire then after he got banned 2nd August,he cameback again but this time as Goyeji who joined 3d August.

    All of this is just my guess obviously,I certainly don't have any proof.
     
    #44
  45. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    Really??

    I thought gj was treated unfairly. It has always intrigued me the way he put his interesting points across.
     
    #45
  46. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,836
    Location:
    VA Beach
    That's pretty harsh. I'm sure this goyeji just happens to share similar opinions to gj. No chance gj011 would come back. This goyeji's acct was created the day after shouldretire was banned? I see no connection at all...

    goyeji = gj? I don't see it. Their names aren't even alike.
     
    #46
  47. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I actually believe the poster you are referring to is, rafael nadal. He keeps getting banned. :)
     
    #47
  48. DarthMaul

    DarthMaul Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Asuras
    mircogel prestige pro ?
     
    #48
  49. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    Question.

    Don't you think Pistol getting banned harsh? I mean, he always stated facts and never used fowl language unlike other posters on these boards. The flaming between you and him was what really pushed him to getting banned.

    Maybe i'm just wasting my time and JBF has a heart made of stone...
     
    #49
  50. goyeji

    goyeji Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    on the fast track
    I think those posters must have disagreed with those former posters or disliked them. I am new to the forums, but I've been lurking around for some time reading the discussions, and I tend to agree with you. Reasonable posters with unique views and angles are often treated unfairly around here it seems.
     
    #50

Share This Page