Why do people forget about Federer's Mono?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by AM95, Dec 13, 2009.

  1. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

    To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

    When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

    Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


    ****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

    In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

    Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT
     
    #51
  2. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    de·ni·al (d-nl)
    n.
    1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
    2.
    a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
    b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.
    3.
    a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.
    b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
    4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.
    5. Abstinence; self-denial.
     
    #52
  3. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    68-9 is a decline if he went 92-5 the previous year and 81-4 the year before. I don't define a player's decline on absolute terms like you did (a player must make only one slam final to be considered in decline) but rather on how well he's playing in comparison to his best. Still, I would consider much of 2007 as part of Federer's peak. Federer was still playing his best tennis through much of 2007, but since 08 he hasn't been brining out his best as often.
    You say that Federer is losing because the field is stronger. I ask, is the field stronger or does it just look stronger because Federer can't dominate anymore? I know for sure that Federer is losing the guys he never lost to in late 2004, 2005 and 2006. So I can say with some confidence that Federer is not at his peak anymore. Whether or not the field is stronger is up for debate.
     
    #53
  4. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    ^^ you just cant accept that others have more technical knowledge of the game than you do and have seen the cracks in Roger's game.Roger's decline as far as his game was concerned began in 2007 right after the AO as someone pointed out.
    It is his level of play which people here are talking about.Obviously you understand nothing of it.
    It has nothing to do with the overall field which is no better than what it was before.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2009
    #54
  5. doublebreak

    doublebreak Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    148
    I agree 100%. I just wouldn't call them fans though, many other words come to mind. Of course there are many reasonable Nadal fans out there.
     
    #55
  6. kraggy

    kraggy Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    769
    Fed's mono was real as was Nadal's knee injury. I think there is more that enough evidence to suggest that both happened. While it may be debatable as to how much this affected their play, once you are on the court , you CHOSE to be there and there are no excuses. Being able to deal with adversity is part and parcel of the game.

    As far as era comparisons though, I don't think it is fair to say the current era is better or worse than the previous. It is unfair to say that a prime Fed or prime Sampras would blow every one of the court , just as it is unfair to say that Novak, Delpony and Murray are way better than Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were. in fact we don't even know if the youngers guys are in their prime yet! Having argued both sides though, I am of the opinion that all athletes, no matter what sport, get better, stronger and faster. Natural talent is probably constant across different eras. So overall it would seem that every generation should on an average be at least a little better than the previous generation.

    At the end of the day what counts are your results. 10 yrs from now nobody will remember Feds mono or Nadals knee. But they will remember that Djoker won the AO 2008 and that Fed won FO 2009.
     
    #56
  7. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    ^^ well said indeed.
     
    #57
  8. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,127
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    +1. Perhaps a bit too much common sense for an internet forum? :)
     
    #58
  9. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,126
    The Federer 'Monoglandular Fever' saga is frowned upon for being over-exagerated.

    Firstly, it didn't really effect him. He made the semi's at the Australian Open and then Made the FO & W finals back to back and won the US open; owning Murray in the process.

    People would have never recognised Federer was ill if he had never announced it. Yes, his game from the backcourt has dipped slightly but blaming losses to the world #2 on mono is pretty pointless as it never hurt him against everyone else.
     
    #59
  10. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    I think we should apply this to Nadal as well..geez what whiner :roll:
    Always tired and injured...duuh.
     
    #60
  11. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Hahaahahaha..yeah right!
    So the I was injured,I never played with calm,I have pain in my famous ass,etc is very humble,no?!

    Ah..typical Nadal fanatics..or should I say-troll in this case.
     
    #61
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    And after a loss, Nadal said many times he was not 100%, tired, burn out, lost confidence, and of course injured.
     
    #62
  13. volleynets

    volleynets Professional

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    CA
    Good point about Nadal. He really should just not play when he is injured.
     
    #63
  14. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    ^ no actually.I gave a few examples.There's a whole list of instances when Nadal dosent give players credit or acts like does and then goes on to 'explain' his injuries.
    And you spamming the board with useless pictures does nothing to prove your point either.Like I said-you're just a troll who's sole aim is to bash Federer.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2009
    #64
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373

    STOP LYING!

    Federer have said he was beaten by a other players and praises them. You need to read all of his interview scripts.

    Again, STOP LYING!
     
    #65
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    He praise them and giving them credits for beating him. What's your problem?
     
    #66
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373

    Again, this is another LIE.
     
    #67
  18. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I think mermaids and cyclops are more real.
     
    #68
  19. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    Yep. I sure did. Thalassemia Minor. A disease which isn't always treated and doesn't affect people huge amount. It isn't Thalassemia Major which does require treatment.

    http://www.medicinenet.com/beta_thalassemia/article.htm

    Furthermore, Federer said that he was over his glandular fever by mid year. These are Federer fans that are bringing it up and not Federer himself.
     
    #69
  20. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    #70
  21. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    Please show me the links that have your evidence?

    And having disease which at its worst causes MILD ANEMIA is no where near as debilitating as Mono
     
    #71
  22. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    Now what is worse, breaking a racket or saying "When I see him holding the US Open trophy, it pisses me off?"

    One shows frustration while the other shows a blatant disregard for the achievements of someone else.
     
    #72
  23. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,713
    Location:
    Weak era
    You're both right,I should have said some Nadal fans.There are a lot of good Nadal fans here,in fact those fans whose sole purpose on this forum is to bash Fed are probably a minority,just a very vocal one.


    Edit:I added that smiley by accident,damn laptop.
     
    #73
  24. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,713
    Location:
    Weak era
    Actually 68-9 is a decline compared to 92-5,81-4 and 74-6,that's some basic math.

    However if we go by your logic of counting only slam finals(that seems to be your main argument)consider the fact that Pete reached 2 slam finals in 2000 which is more than he did in 1996,1998 and 1999 and equal to what he did in 1993,1994 and 1997.

    In fact the only time Sampras reached more than 2 slam finals in his entire career was in 1995.

    So was Sampras in decline in 2000? Yes or no?
     
    #74
  25. kraggy

    kraggy Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    769
    Your logic is spot on as far as saying that reaching slam finals is not a sole indicator of playing form. However Fed's declining win-loss record doesn't tell us whether Fed declined or whether the competition caught up or whether both happened.

    I think a good indication of a decline would be the number of losses to players outside the top 10. If this number increases significantly, that is a sure sign of decline. Unfortunately Fed has such a spotless record that if he goes from 300-0 to 295-5 , people will call that a decline. Statistically though, I would argue that you need much more of a deviation to make a claim like that.

    I'm not saying Fed couldn't have declined, I'm just saying it's kind of hard to prove it.

    As a fan, we always want to believe that if our player had played at their best level they would have won. As a Nadal fan, I'd like to believe that a fully fit Nadal would have beaten Soderling at the FO. But I have no way of providing strong enough evidence to support this.
     
    #75
  26. Messarger

    Messarger Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,828
    Take nothing away from Federer's wins. But there's a difference between being fit enough to make the match and being fit enough to actually win the match.

    Look at Nadal's performances between the final against Federer and the semi final against Djokokvic. Totally different player in terms of movement and footwork.
     
    #76
  27. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,137
    Well, 15 slams suggests that ouside of clay, at his best, Federer beats everyone. And 4 FO's in a row including winning the FO without losing a set in 2008 -- the final over Federer, SF over Djokovic -- suggests the same for Nadal on clay. Soderling is a tough matchup for Nadal on clay; Delpo would be too. But if Nadal is at his best on the surface, there's just no question what-so-ever who is going to win.
     
    #77
  28. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,127
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    It's not just a matter of Mr. Troll not having read Fed's interviews - he's apparently never watched a match of his either.

    Hmmm, might I point out to you that I see the whole mono-business being brought up by Federer HATERS much more often than by his fans?
     
    #78
  29. Emelia21

    Emelia21 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    401
    I am in awe of super Federer, reaching a semi-final at AO, making the final of FO and Wimbledon and winning US Open with such a debilitating disease as mono is :shock: :shock:

    The guy is superman, I wonder what the fit and healthy players made of Rogers debilitating disease and his wins :shock:

    Roger = superman
     
    #79
  30. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    I never said that mono is the most debilitating disease. I said that it is more debilitating than thalassemia anemia. Which it is.
     
    #80
  31. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    I agree that Federer haters bring it up quite a bit but only to make fun of him instead of an explanation for why his 2008 results were subpar(by his standards)
     
    #81
  32. nCode2010

    nCode2010 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    121
    When Fed *only* makes 2 slam finals in 2010 we can say he's in decline. When he *only* makes 1 slam final in 2011 we can say his career is *over*. When he makes no slam finals, but still continues his semifinal streak to like 30+, we'll say *HE NEEDS TO RETIRE*.
     
    #82
  33. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,127
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    At a certain point - and I'd say, some two friggin' years after it happened is surely close to that point - it gets tiresome and lame. I don't mind my favs being made fun of at all, but one should expect folks to be a little more creative. ;)

    It depends on how you look. If you merely look at his RESULTS, you are spot-on. However, if you have followed him closely during his career, you cannot close your eyes that his game is indeed in decline. He isn't the player he was during his prime (2005 - 2007) anymore, even if his results are still very decent.
     
    #83
  34. nCode2010

    nCode2010 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    121
    TheMusicLover - who cares if his game is in decline since 04-06? He still wins slams and at this point that's all that matters. He'll still find a way to pick up the odd Masters win.
     
    #84
  35. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,127
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    Well it's not a matter of 'caring about it' (at least not that much for me), but just a natural process which I can't help but notice - and I'm not the kind of fan to close my eyes for reality. Of course, as long as he still manages to do well in the slams and the odd Masters, I'll be pleased to see that, but I'm no longer taking him as the absolute favourite to win 'everything' (outside of clay of course).
     
    #85
  36. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,290
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    typical lame *** excuses for a generation of spoiled brats...

    i dont remember or imagine Laver and Rosewall, Borg et. al. coming up with such BS... and they played with wood clubs and canvas plimsoles...
     
    #86
  37. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.

    To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.

    When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.

    Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????


    ****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.

    In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.

    Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT
     
    #87
  38. ksbh

    ksbh Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,155
    ^^^ Exactly! Great post, Vile!

    Also, to the OP ... what is so difficult to forget about something that never existed? One of Federer's great advantages is that his fans are mostly immature teenagers who will buy any reason for a loss without using logic or common sense. Playing in the searing Aussie heat with mono! Yeah right!
     
    #88
  39. Telepatic

    Telepatic Legend

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,167
    Location:
    Serbia, Belgrade
    @ OP
    I suppose pros can decide by their own decision whether to play or not, if they did and got beaten, they lost fair and square in those cases.
     
    #89
  40. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,713
    Location:
    Weak era
    I agree with you,it's hard to prove either way and maybe it's a combination of both.stronger competition and Fed's natural decline of skills.My issues was with Jackson Vile applying double standards to Fed when compared to Pete.

    However there is a difference between level of play and achievements.For example even if Fed say won a calendar grand slam this year(won those matches against Nadal and Delpo)I would still consider his actual level of play to be higher in 2005 even though this year achievement wise would have been much greater.

    Or another example,IMO of all the slams this year Fed's level of play was the highest in AO even though he lost,now he had a bad serving day against Nadal in the final and played relatively poor on big points but overall IMO he played great from the baseline,reminded me of his peak play,FO and Wimbledon he mostly won on mental strength and fitness.




    I already answered this post and you still haven't answered my question,given that we look at reaching slam finals as a sole indicator,was Sampras more in decline in 1996 and 1998 than in 2000?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2009
    #90
  41. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    IMO, He played better at the wimby than at the AO...

    He just did enough at the AO in the first 3 rounds, played badly the first 2 and half sets against berdych, then recovered. Played great against del potro and roddick, served awfully against nadal, but played great from the baseline.

    At wimby, he only needed the first 3-4 games to get attuned to the surface in his first match, had only one slight hiccup against kohlschreiber, making errors to give away a set, played well against karlovic and soderling and extremely well against haas, played well against roddick ( serving was ridiculous, though ground game and returns were patchy )
     
    #91
  42. No Worries

    No Worries Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20
    The year Fed lost to the joker at the AO he claimed that he was completely cured of the Mono and then when he lost to the Joker he turned around and used the Mono as an excuse.
     
    #92
  43. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    I think she means "decline" as in not as dominant as he was in 06-07. He is still very strong, but when you lose 10 matches in a 2 year span, anything less is a "decline".
     
    #93
  44. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    he never had mono.
     
    #94
  45. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    I thought Nads was secretly suspended for roids? tendinitis???
     
    #95

Share This Page