Federer was playing better in 2008

[abmk]

Originally Posted by ksbh

We'll have to just agree to disagree. It'll save us some keystrokes!

convenient. Oh and I'm pretty sure the 3 gentlemen whose names appear in your sig will disagree with you

[abmk]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

I just find it strange that Roger had the worst begining to his tennis season ever

worst beginning to his tennis season lets see :

2008: no warmup tournament , 2009 : loses in semi at doha to murray

2008 : AO: semi : def in straights by novak, 2009 AO final: def in 5 by nadal

2008:loses first round in dubai to murray , 2009: does not play due to back-pain

2008:Indian wells:loses in semi to mardy fish, 2009 Indian wells : loses in semi to murray

2008: miami: loses in QF to roddick, 2009 miami: def the very same roddick and loses in semi to djokovic

Needless to say, unless you are blinded by your own delusions >> he had a better start to the season in 2009 than in 2008

Originally Posted by jackson vile

where he is glad that the 1st part of the hard court season is over and cries at the AO.

he had back-problems at that time - that was a part of the reason why he said he was glad the HC season was over

Originally Posted by jackson vile

And that is considered a better year, he played far less tennis, he got beat by a kid at he USO.If anything it is not better than 2008, he lost AO and Wim, but those especially Wim was extremely close matches.

umm. so the match against djokovic was close, whereas when he got beat by del potro in 5 sets it was getting beaten by a "kid".

What was novak in 2008 ? An experienced veteran ? huh ???

Originally Posted by jackson vile

The only reason he won the FO was because Nadal was not there in the final,

The reason he won is because he won 7 matches in a row including beating soderling who had beaten nadal

Originally Posted by jackson vile

and he struggled against Andy Roddick!

correct, a roddick who was playing the match of his life ,playing at his very best .. so ?

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Fact is that Roger lost more grandslam sets in 2009 than 2008, and Roger played much less in 2009 than 2008.

yeah, I already blew up many of your so called facts >> As I said, you need to brush up your elementary math

[Netspirit]

In tennis, there are results, and there is nonsense.

Even if the whole ATP tour goes down with severe diarrhea and Federer takes the full Grand Slam, it would still be a fantastic year for him, or anyone else with similar achievements.

Because training, preparation, staying fit, conserving energy, mastering safer technique, coming up with a smart schedule, proper nutrition, mental preparation etc. are just as important parts of tennis as the pure tecnnique is. Tennis is multi-dimensional, and everybody is given the same chances.

Whoever wins is the best, period. And 2009 has been an amazing year for Federer, no matter how you slice it and no matter what his opponents did to themselves.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

So Roger lost 2 more sets in slams in 2009 than 2008, the point is proven even more.

no of sets lost isn't really conclusive evidence of anything.

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Further Roger played more in 2008 when he was supposedly sick.

uh, he's had problems this year too >> he missed dubai and DC ( in the early part of the season ) due to backache

plus the difference in the no of matches is increased due to olympics ( not there this year ) and halle ( which he did not play because of the gruelling matches he had to play at the FO >> and you saying it was a gimme shows how clueless you are and how much you follow the game )

Originally Posted by jackson vile

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

I thought we were talking about federer in 2008 and 2009 and not with comparision to others. By normal standards >> 2008 was a good year ...

Originally Posted by jackson vile

FO is a gimme,

^Refer to above

Originally Posted by jackson vile

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.

Refer to reply in part2 regarding "health" ...

[abmk]

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

Do you even watch tennis seriously ????

1. You are making out nadal to be some sort of a wimp/walkover on a HC, which by any means he is not >> Anyone who watched this year's AO will tell you nadal played exceptional tennis throughout

2. You don't even know anything about del potro , (referring to him as some 20 year old kid, duh !) >> how rapidly he has been improving throughout the course if this year .

[VivalaVida]

Originally Posted by abmk

Do you even watch tennis seriously ????

1. You are making out nadal to be some sort of a wimp/walkover on a HC, which by any means he is not >> Anyone who watched this year's AO will tell you nadal played exceptional tennis throughout

2. You don't even know anything about del potro , (referring to him as some 20 year old kid, duh !) >> how rapidly he has been improving throughout the course if this year .

LOL. This thread goes to show how some people just enjoy to argue against the obvious. Seriously we can start a thread about how the earth is not flat and how atoms make up matter and we will still have detractors. LOL!