Federer was playing better in 2008

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Let's quantify this Roger had a crap hard court season, and went on straight losing streaks, cried at the AO to a player that can even play on hardcourts, gained FO title by default, almost lost to "ANDY RODDICK!!!" at Wim., Tsonga kicked his @$$ and then when on to mentally crumble and be out played by a 20 years old with little experience at the USO especially in a final.


2009 sounds a lot worse than 2008, consider that if Nadal was out early in the FO and did not play Wim in 2008 Roger would have 3 titles.

\

You have simply regurgitated your earlier post without addressing any of the issues that I identified. Since The Fifth Set has already dissected your arguments, I'll just focus on one of your claims. Federer did not win the French Open "by default." He was one of 128 men entered in the tournament, and won by winning seven consecutive matches - just as all other winners of majors have done since 128 man draws became standard. If you can't see this you're either blinded by hatred or simply don't know much about tennis.

[David L]

Federer is playing better this year. I posted the comments below in another thread, but they are relevant here also.

September 14, 2009

"I think it became clear to Roger when he was not feeling well that to beat Rafa he had to be in top shape," Higueras said. "His movement had to be more precise to beat Rafa."

So Federer went to work in Dubai at the end of the 2008 season, and again in February, with renewed purpose. Beating Rafa was his greatest motivation. He worked harder than ever with trainer Pierre Paganini.

The physical change is striking. Federer is playing, those close to him say, about eight pounds lighter than his listed weight of 187 pounds.

"Slowly," Higueras said, "his body has come back. He's where he wants to be."

There have been some other, less obvious alterations. According to Higueras and Cahill, Federer:

" Made his forehand more effective and improved his backhand".

"Champions know that if you stop getting better, you're getting worse," Higueras said. "This is true at all levels. I mentioned it pretty often to him last year: You have to think in terms of trying to get better, or your longevity suffers.

"Think about this: One guy had a better year than him in 2008 -- one. And now look at what he's done. He could win three Slams in a row."

More than anything, Higueras and Cahill stress, Federer has found his resolve again. After enduring what appeared to be a bruising defeat, a champion has the ability to rewind back to zero and refocus.

"I've seen him after losing matches, and I haven't been around too many people who react like that," Higueras said. "Pete [Sampras] was like that. Roger, I saw last year when he got beat at the French Open. The next day he went to Halle [Germany] and it was like nothing happened."

"You have to assume [Rafa's] one of the reasons [for his improvement]," said Tony Godsick, Federer's International Management Group agent. "Roger needs competition. He needs challenges to make it exciting for him. He tells you he wants to play the best player in the biggest stadiums  and he means it, he really does."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/ten...reg&id=4462264

September 5, 2009

Q. Do you think your game is anywhere near its peak? I mean, obviously you were No. 1 in the world for two years straight six years ago, but is your game anywhere near that level?

LLEYTON HEWITT: Yeah, I think so. I think the game is always improving and changing. Roger took it to a new level, and then Rafa came, and believe it or not, took it to a new level again. Roger has had to better himself to stay with Rafa. You have a guy like Murray and Djokovic is hanging around there. Roddick has had to make himself a better, more complete player, as well. Yeah, that's just part of it. I think that's what motivates the great players to try and keep improving and stay at the top of their game.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/int...177814593.html

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by Steve132

\

You have simply regurgitated your earlier post without addressing any of the issues that I identified. Since The Fifth Set has already dissected your arguments, I'll just focus on one of your claims. Federer did not win the French Open "by default." He was one of 128 men entered in the tournament, and won by winning seven consecutive matches - just as all other winners of majors have done since 128 man draws became standard. If you can't see this you're either blinded by hatred or simply don't know much about tennis.

Don't be a fool, only reason Roger won was because Nadal was not there. Fact is that is the only way Roger was ever going to win the FO.

As for being blind you must be the blind one as Roger never has and never will defeat Nadal at the FO end of story.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by mandy01

yeah..and if not for a mono Fed,darkness( since every individual reacts differently to light),etc etc..just throw in any excuse.... Nadal would not have a Wimbledon.
And if not for Roger's bad back,pressure etc wtc...just throw in any excuses-Nadal would never have the Australian Open.
Man..Deluded.Deluded.Deluded.Thats the word for you *******s.

There is no logic here, in 2008 Roger did not lose as many sets in the FO as in 2009. When is the last time Roger dropped 2 sets to two people at the FO?

For Andy Roddick to be able to push Roger that hard at Wim is plain sad, Grass is Roger's best surface end of story.

Someone needs to pull up the amount of unforced errors, serve percentage etc etc and average them for 2009 and 2008.

That will tell us which year was better, at the very best they are the same.

Roger did just as well with wins etc as in 2008, only thing was different was that he did not have to play Nadal at the FO and since Roger is the #2 best clay courter he won.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Don't be a fool, only reason Roger won was because Nadal was not there. Fact is that is the only way Roger was ever going to win the FO.

As for being blind you must be the blind one as Roger never has and never will defeat Nadal at the FO end of story.

Ony a fool who believe rafa wasn't at the FO. Fact was he played insane tennis during the early round at the FO and people were already crowned him as 2009 RG champion. It had to take Soderling to play out of his mind to beat him. If you don't believe upset can happen in any sport, then open your eyes.

TMF will never beat rafa at the FO? Do you have a crystal ball. If you don't then save your idiotic opinion to yourself. The only know FACT is Soderling beat Rafa at the FO and he end up losing to TMF in the final. End of story.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

There is no logic here, in 2008 Roger did not lose as many sets in the FO as in 2009. When is the last time Roger dropped 2 sets to two people at the FO?

For Andy Roddick to be able to push Roger that hard at Wim is plain sad, Grass is Roger's best surface end of story.

Someone needs to pull up the amount of unforced errors, serve percentage etc etc and average them for 2009 and 2008.

That will tell us which year was better, at the very best they are the same.

Roger did just as well with wins etc as in 2008, only thing was different was that he did not have to play Nadal at the FO and since Roger is the #2 best clay courter he won.

There was no logic in your post either..I just wrote my post based on your own logic.
If Roger dropped two sets to two people at the FO no one gives a damn..I've seen both those matches and Roger was NOT playing bad at all.Infact he was playing much much better than last year only under far more pressure and thats true.
FYI-Roger did not drop a single point on his serve in the first set against Haas..he just played a poor tiebreak.He wasnt playing bad.And Haas himself was playing very well.
And against Del Po-Youd be crazy not to admit the guy was playing out of his mind.
And Roger played MUCH worse in 2008..his movement was just plain bad.This year he's been far more aggressive with his tennis.Last year he was content with baseline rallies and he was moving just bad.He lost to a number of guys he had ridiculous records against.
He's regrouped very well this year.And Nadal simply couldnt keep up his level.Deal with it.
And for Andy Roddick to be able to push Roger is not sad at all.Like I said you *******s are just a deluded lot who think only Nadal is capable of giving Roger troubles.Roger is a horrible match-up for Andy but only someone blind will not appreciate the kind of work the guy put in , in that match.And this was with Roger playing much better from the start as compared to last year.

[David L]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Don't be a fool, only reason Roger won was because Nadal was not there. Fact is that is the only way Roger was ever going to win the FO.

As for being blind you must be the blind one as Roger never has and never will defeat Nadal at the FO end of story.

Firstly, Nadal was at the French Open. Secondly, Nadal is only one player. He is not bigger than the sport of tennis or the combined total of every other player. The fact that he got knocked out in the 4th Round did not help any of the other 126 competitors win the title, so why should we consider it did for Federer? The fact is that Nadal could not make it to the last hurdle because he was beaten by quality opposition. The same opposition Federer had to overcome, with incredible pressure I might add.

Never say never, because it might come back to bite you.

[jackson vile]

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.ph...layerid=FER001

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*


I find it odd that Roger is playing more the year he is sick and injured, and less the year that he is fine?

If Nadal had made it to the finals the contrast would be even greater. So I ask you did Roger have a "great" year at all and if so was it because he won the FO alone? What would be the odds of Roger beating an unhealthy Nadal at the FO? Were Roger's sats raised in 2009 because of Nadal's absence?

IMO if not for Nadal being out this year would have been a tragedy for Roger, but even with good fortune on Roger's side he still had a worse year than when he was supposedly sick and injured.

[David L]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

There is no logic here, in 2008 Roger did not lose as many sets in the FO as in 2009. When is the last time Roger dropped 2 sets to two people at the FO?

For Andy Roddick to be able to push Roger that hard at Wim is plain sad, Grass is Roger's best surface end of story.

Someone needs to pull up the amount of unforced errors, serve percentage etc etc and average them for 2009 and 2008.

That will tell us which year was better, at the very best they are the same.

Roger did just as well with wins etc as in 2008, only thing was different was that he did not have to play Nadal at the FO and since Roger is the #2 best clay courter he won.

So what? Federer lost many more sets in the 2006 Australian Open than he did in 2007, where he never dropped one, yet many think of 2006 as his best year. Have you considered the fact that maybe his opponents where playing excellent tennis, with the added advantage of having to play with considerably less pressure. Dropping sets does not necessarily mean you played worse or are worse as a player. It just means you dropped some sets, for whatever reason.

Also, Wimbledon 09 was not the first time Roddick has had a close match with Federer. Many times he has been able to win sets and get to tie-breaks. He is a former No.1 after all, as well as a multiple Slam finalist, with wins over Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and many other quality players.

In addition to quotes I posted above, here's another voice from someone who knows a thing or two about tennis.

August 5, 2009

"With the improvement of all the young guys, Roger had to get better -- and he did,"said Paul Annacone, head coach of men's tennis for Britain's Lawn Tennis Association. "That, to me, is very impressive. Now we're seeing how great Roger truly is."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/ten...reg&id=4376733

[Cesc Fabregas]

Theres not much difference between 08 Federer and 09, in the French Open this year he dropped more sets up and till the final than last year and at Wimbledon he dropped a few sets up and till the final last year he dropped none, the difference is last year he played the great Nadal in both finals and this year he has played his pidgeons Soderling and Roddick.

[David L]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.ph...layerid=FER001

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*


I find it odd that Roger is playing more the year he is sick and injured, and less the year that he is fine?

If Nadal had made it to the finals the contrast would be even greater. So I ask you did Roger have a "great" year at all and if so was it because he won the FO alone? What would be the odds of Roger beating an unhealthy Nadal at the FO? Were Roger's sats raised in 2009 because of Nadal's absence?

IMO if not for Nadal being out this year would have been a tragedy for Roger, but even with good fortune on Roger's side he still had a worse year than when he was supposedly sick and injured.

Did Nadal in 2008 benefit from Federer's illness, subsequent loss of fitness/preparation and back problems? Works both ways.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Theres not much difference between 08 Federer and 09, in the French Open this year he dropped more sets up and till the final than last year and at Wimbledon he dropped a few sets up and till the final last year he dropped none, the difference is last year he played the great Nadal in both finals and this year he has played his pidgeons Soderling and Roddick.

See that is what I am saying, Roger did not paly any worse. Since he won the FO people want to pretend like it was an amazing year or something, don't get me wrong it is an amazing mile stone but he did not play better tennis in 2009 than in 2008.

The thing that gets me is that Roger was supposed to be injured and sick in 2008, the stats say otherwise with a man playing much more and not losing much more than the next year he is fine, what is with that?

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by David L

Did Nadal in 2008 benefit from Federer's illness, subsequent loss of fitness/preparation and back problems? Works both ways.

Take a look at what I am saying, I contend that Roger was just fine in 2008 and that is why there is not much of a difference between 2008 and 2009.

As for Nadal if 2010 ends up same as 2009 then I say he is full of BS also. I don't see Roger being ill and palying better in Wim 2008 than wim 2009, how the heck does that work??? 2008 and 2009 wim were the exact same scinerio except it went the other way this time.

Listen if you are sick you aren't able to play more, you play less and have to withdraw a heck of a lot of tournaments, further more you don't make it to all these finals in slams.

How does a sick injured man playmore and make it to all the slam finals, and then blame losing ont he sickness when they paly the same way the year they are of good health????

[abmk]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.ph...layerid=FER001

Here are the facts

edited


66-15 in 2008
55-8 in 2009

( 55-8 > 66-15 )

1 slam in 2008
2 slams in 2009

(2>1)

0 masters in 2008
2 masters in 2009

(2>0)

The rest of your post is a waste

[abmk]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Take a look at what I am saying, I contend that Roger was just fine in 2008 and that is why there is not much of a difference between 2008 and 2009.

As for Nadal if 2010 ends up same as 2009 then I say he is full of BS also. I don't see Roger being ill and palying better in Wim 2008 than wim 2009, how the heck does that work??? 2008 and 2009 wim were the exact same scinerio except it went the other way this time.

Listen if you are sick you aren't able to play more, you play less and have to withdraw a heck of a lot of tournaments, further more you don't make it to all these finals in slams.

How does a sick injured man playmore and make it to all the slam finals, and then blame losing ont he sickness when they paly the same way the year they are of good health????

He has had problems this year too - back problems. Now do some more research before coming up with such statements that he has been of "good health" throughout the year

BTW as has already been stated by someone before in this very thread, he had ZERO losses to players outside the top 20 last year, he had SEVERAL last year.

And for those who can see properly, he is moving clearly better this year than last year

One thing I can agree on is he was playing very well in wimbledon both years.

As for the bold part, the difference is VERY clearly illustrated in the previous post

[David L]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Take a look at what I am saying, I contend that Roger was just fine in 2008 and that is why there is not much of a difference between 2008 and 2009.

As for Nadal if 2010 ends up same as 2009 then I say he is full of BS also. I don't see Roger being ill and palying better in Wim 2008 than wim 2009, how the heck does that work??? 2008 and 2009 wim were the exact same scinerio except it went the other way this time.

Listen if you are sick you aren't able to play more, you play less and have to withdraw a heck of a lot of tournaments, further more you don't make it to all these finals in slams.

How does a sick injured man playmore and make it to all the slam finals, and then blame losing ont he sickness when they paly the same way the year they are of good health????

Well sorry, I'm afraid you're wrong. The effect of Federer's illness, not only on his health, but also on how well prepared and fit he was able to be in 2008, is well documented. After missing out on training blocks in December 07 and February 08, he was playing catch-up all year with his fitness and form and said so at the US Open last year. His trainer, Pierre Paganini, has given a detailed account about the havoc mono created for his game in 08. You can choose to ignore this, but these are the facts. Sure he was still able to play once the acute symptoms had passed, but he was nowhere near as fit, prepared, confident or effective as he would have been throughout 2008 had he not contracted glandular fever in the first place, not to mention the stomach bug in Australia and the back problem. All of this is part of sport however. I doubt there is any player, let alone Federer and Nadal, who go through an entire year in perfect health with no setbacks or niggling ailments. We just don't hear so much about them.

Federer had his biggest health problems in 2008 and Nadal in 2009, and either can be said to have benefited from the other. The slight difference with Nadal is that his success depends on him running himself into the ground. He is not adequately equipt to win and remain physically okay for long stretches of time, so this is really a limitation in his game, not bad luck. I doubt 2009 will be the last time Nadal has some sort of physical problem which makes him pull out of an event.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Don't be a fool, only reason Roger won was because Nadal was not there. Fact is that is the only way Roger was ever going to win the FO.

As for being blind you must be the blind one as Roger never has and never will defeat Nadal at the FO end of story.

That is quite undeniable. There is absolutely no way Fed would have beaten Rafa in a best of 5 on clay (it's already eminently debatable whether he could beat Rafa in a best of 5 on other surfaces, much less on clay)

[VivalaVida]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

That is quite undeniable. There is absolutely no way Fed would have beaten Rafa in a best of 5 on clay (it's already eminently debatable whether he could beat Rafa in a best of 5 on other surfaces, much less on clay)

He didnt have to. Nadal got his teeth kicked in by Soderling in 4 Sets.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by David L

Did Nadal in 2008 benefit from Federer's illness, subsequent loss of fitness/preparation and back problems? Works both ways.

IMO, no. The only one that benefited is Djoko. I will give you the fact that Fed was below his usual level for 2008's first 3 months. He was fine during the clay season though (made tons of finals) and better than fine during the grass season (won Halle with the best stats ever). Rafa beat him in both slams fair and square. The back injury didn't happen until fall 2008 so I don't see any way it could have affected Fed's play several months beforehand!

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by VivalaVida

He didnt have to. Nadal got his teeth kicked in by Soderling in 4 Sets.

Undeniable as well but then again it's also undeniable that Rafa was injured during that match (took him more than 2 months off the tour to fix his knees...)