If Federer reaches the final...

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

If you spam another thread you're getting reported. Just letting you know.

LOL I responded to him saying that Rafa was the dark side and Fed somehow eliminated him. Go ahead and report.

[Bobby Jr]

The cool thing is Federer has already defended his points from last year - anything else from now on is a bonus. The Aussie Open is his second less likely major to win (based on the playing conditions imo) so making the semis is respectable. Making the final would be even better.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The cool thing is Federer has already defended his points from last year - anything else from now on is a bonus. The Aussie Open is his second less likely major to win (based on the playing conditions imo) so making the semis is respectable. Making the final would be even better.

I'd say it's his least likely Slam to win, because right now Djokovic, Nadal AND Murray are favorites against him on this surface. At the French, you'd only favor Nadal and perhaps Djokovic over him.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Lol how did Federer EVER eliminate Rafa? If anything Rafa eliminated Fed. Since 2008 Federer has won "only" 5 majors and ALL five of them were won without Fed having to beat Nadal.

Otoh, Nadal has won 8 since 2008 and out of those 8 he has had to beat Federer in 4 of them.

Just remember this, Nadal was able to beat Federer at his best major while Fed was at his best in Wimbledon 2008. Federer has never been able to beat Nadal at his best major, RG; In fact he has never even been close...

But.. who is in the AO semis, and was number 1 last year? Not rafa, that's who.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

But.. who is in the AO semis, and was number 1 last year? Not rafa, that's who.

That's because Rafa has been injured, not because Federer eliminated him which is the argument at hand.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The_Order

That's because Rafa has been injured, not because Federer eliminated him which is the argument at hand.

It's not, actually. Federer outlasted Nadal, which was my argument. Nice try, though. And why make so many excuses? I swear, *******s are the most delusional fans I've ever seen. Nothing is ever legit against Rafa. I mean Rod Laver could beat Rafa on clay and it would still have an accompanying excuse.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

Guys 31 yrs old today is like being 27 10 years ago. It's not that old. I love Fed too but can we tone down the fan worship a smidge?
We need desperately Rafa back in the mix to bring balance to the force.

If that were true, we'll see a gigantic increase in number of 31 year old slam winners in the future, I won't hold my breath.

Oh and saying Fed is not the player who used to be at the age of 31 is not fan worship, I thought the same for Agassi and Sampras and I wasn't a big fan of either of them.

[ruariatp]

He's technically better than 5 years ago - with the ascension of the other 3 he has had to expand his already massive armoury...however he's surely a couple of steps slower which is only natural.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by The_Order

That's because Rafa has been injured, not because Federer eliminated him which is the argument at hand.

Rafa isn't injured, he got mentally destroyed after Rosol outplayed him at his best in Wimbledon.

He recovered by AO but remembered Novak now owns him off clay and decided to duck it and wait for clay.