Why do people forget about Federer's Mono?

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

uh no......

Nadal has said many times that he simply was beaten by many players. Federer has NEVER said this and always has some excuse.

Will someone please call a waaaaaambulance.

Hahaahahaha..yeah right!
So the I was injured,I never played with calm,I have pain in my famous ***,etc is very humble,no?!

Ah..typical Nadal fanatics..or should I say-troll in this case.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

uh no......

Nadal has said many times that he simply was beaten by many players. Federer has NEVER said this and always has some excuse.

Will someone please call a waaaaaambulance.

And after a loss, Nadal said many times he was not 100%, tired, burn out, lost confidence, and of course injured.

[volleynets]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

If your too injured to play then you dont play. Dont get on the court and then whine your injured when you lose. Absolutely pathetic sore loser.

Sampras threw up all over the court.....you dont see him whiming like Roger!

Did you even know that Sampras suffered from a far worse disorder than mono?

Good point about Nadal. He really should just not play when he is injured.

[mandy01]

^ 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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

Federer has NEVER said this and always has some excuse.

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!

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

No you do. Show me even one. He will always qualify it. every single time. Go ahead i dare you.

He praise them and giving them credits for beating him. What's your problem?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

The media has always said Federer is a sore loser not me.

Again, this is another LIE.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Get real, no one cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops

I think mermaids and cyclops are more real.

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

If your too injured to play then you dont play. Dont get on the court and then whine your injured when you lose. Absolutely pathetic sore loser.

Sampras threw up all over the court.....you dont see him whiming like Roger!

Did you even know that Sampras suffered from a far worse disorder than mono?

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

The best you got is "I never played with calm" or "I have pain in my ars"?

well all I have to say is this:

Better to make it to the final than to have this happen

http://pacejmiller.files.wordpress.c...-soderling.jpg

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

First of all Sampras tried to keep his ailment a secret and did everything he could to hide it.

Unlike Federer who said he was fine and then when he lost blamed it on Mono.

The guy is an artist on the court but as a person.....well I dont want to comment.

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

Originally Posted by Mr. Tennis

I thought he acted like a gentleman, unlike this:

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.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by TheMusicLover

Don't throw them all on the same pile. There are very reasonable Nadal fans around, who understand very well that 'keeping healthy' is a very important matter in a pro's career - and that we don't always have that in our own hands. Those dreadful double standards come from the *****, not from the reasonable fans.

Originally Posted by doublebreak

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.

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.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

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

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?

[kraggy]

Originally Posted by zagor

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?

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.

[Messarger]

Originally Posted by RelentlessAttack

This. Nadal was fit enough to make the Madrid final and Federer fit enough to make the FO and W finals, obviously they were not suffering that much.

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.

[dh003i]

Originally Posted by kraggy

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.

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.

[TheMusicLover]

Originally Posted by TMF

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Jchurch

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.

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?

[Emelia21]

Originally Posted by Jchurch

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

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

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

Roger = superman

Originally Posted by Emelia21

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

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

Roger = superman

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