Federer was playing better in 2008 - Page 7

David L · 09-27-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

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.

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.

abmk · 09-27-2009, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

I love how all of Roger's excuses are always after the fact.

Oh uh I was sick.................

Oh uh my back was hurt..............

etc.............

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

mandy01 · 09-28-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Mandy's pessimism is funny, she's always predicting Federer will struggle with clowns like Haas, Soderling and Karlovic.

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?

shabby · 09-28-2009, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

And go learn the definition of pessimism first.
.

"A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pessimistic

mandy01 · 09-28-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shabby

"A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pessimistic

I already know that

Cant say the same about TW trolls though

Cesc Fabregas · 09-28-2009, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

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?

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.

TheFifthSet · 09-28-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

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?

dropshot winner · 09-28-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B Or Not 2B

But its true....whenever Roger loses everyone always says that "Roger was not playimh his best".

True, it's a bit lame, but actually not that far from the truth

dh003i · 09-28-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem

It is not totally obvious that Federer at his best would not have let the USO final get away. After all he did lose an epic match to Safin at AO during his best and a master cup final to Nalbandian.
To me, his game hasn't been at its best since 2007, it's more erratic and less precise, his movement has slightly declined as well but does it matter? He still scares the s--- out of his opponents and finds ways to beat them most of the time. But from a purely tennistic perspective, his "golden" years were 2004 to 2006. Personally, I would rate 2004 as my favorite even though resultwise his grand year was 2006.
I don't think there is a significant difference between 2008 and 2009, at least I can't see one. He did in 2009 what he would have done in 2008 if Nadal had been out of the way. I have no doubt that he would have won both RG and W in 2008 if Nadal had been MIA (although Djoko could have conceivably given him some trouble in the RG final). As for USO, he was a bit tired I think, he had played a lot and just won Cincy. Delpo was fresher.

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.

jackson vile · 09-29-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abmk

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

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*

Wow! that year sound so so much better, NOT!

TheFifthSet · 09-29-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

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*

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.

abmk · 09-29-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

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

Lets see, your so called *facts*

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

AO 4 sets lost (defeated)*Out early in semis*

2 sets lost to tipsarevic, 3 to djokovic, last time I checked 2+3=5. As I said before please learn some elementary maths

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

FO 6 sets lost (defeated)

correct

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

W. 2 sets lost (defeated) *only in finals to Nadal*

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

US.3 sets lost (winner) *absolutely crushed everyone, murray, etc*

he did not crush andreev, it was a 5-setter, also went to 4 with djokovic, that wasn't a crushing win either ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

55-8 (losing to all the people he crushed the previous year)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

2009 @slams Roger losing 16 sets, wins 2 slam (FO being a gimme)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

AO 3 sets lost (defeated)*Nadal of all people*

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

FO 5 sets lost (winner) *Nadal knocked out early and still only lost 1 less*

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

W. 3 sets lost (winner) *Lost more sets even though he is the winner?*

He lost 3 sets in both

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

US.4 sets lost (defeated) *Oddly losing to Delpo who he crushed many times*

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Wow! that year sound so so much better, NOT!

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 ...

jackson vile · 10-01-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

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.

jackson vile · 10-01-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B Or Not 2B

Nadal beat Federer I'm 3 grand slams during 2008-2009 on all three surfaces.

In other words Nadal beat Federer in both 2008 & 2009 in grand slam finals.

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

mandy01 · 10-01-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

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.

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.

mandy01 · 10-01-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson vile

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

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

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.

Cyan · 10-01-2009, 11:03 AM

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...

grafselesfan · 10-01-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyan

He 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.

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.

mandy01 · 10-01-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyan

He 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 2008 would have been better than 2009.

coulda,woulda,shoulda.
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 .

Cyan · 10-01-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

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.

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...

View Poll Results: Federer played better in 2008 or 2009
2008	19	15.70%
2009	102	84.30%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

10-01-2009, 11:03 AM	#137
Cyan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,375	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... Last edited by Cyan : 10-01-2009 at 11:07 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode