Fed needs to be looked at differently now - Page 3

DRII · 09-13-2012, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

sureshs has some significant event happened in your life? What happened to the old sureshs who would troll the heck of out the Federer fanbase?

He takes turns antagonizing each group...

its the contrarian in him.

sureshs · 09-13-2012, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRII

He takes turns antagonizing each group...

its the contrarian in him.

It is called cognitive dissonance

underground · 09-13-2012, 11:18 AM

Don't you feel that Federer has gone past the GOAT level? After winning the Wimbledon for the 7th time it feels like he's upgraded from GOAT to an immortal legend.

Candide · 09-13-2012, 03:29 PM

A jaw dropping 17 majors not to mention all of his other records and achievements make debate on the subject spurious.

90's Clay · 09-13-2012, 03:35 PM

Ahh yes... The "Fed is older then dirt so losses dont matter at this point in his career" excuses popping up... Hes #1 in the world and never gets any serious injuries. SHUT UP!!!! If he was ranked outside the top 10, then these excuses would have more merit.. But he hasn't declined enough

NadalDramaQueen · 09-13-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Ahh yes... The "Fed is older then dirt so losses dont matter at this point in his career" excuses popping up... Hes #1 in the world.. SHUT UP!!!! If he was ranked outside the top 10, then these excuses would have more merit.. But he hasn't declined enough

Everyone will shut up when you start counting Sampras's loss at 29 to a young Fed at Wimbledon.

What? Sampras wasn't playing as well at 29 as Federer is playing at 31? I think that is the point everyone is trying to make.

Perhaps Fed is just declining from a level higher than you can comprehend.

90's Clay · 09-13-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Everyone will shut up when you start counting Sampras's loss at 29 to a young Fed at Wimbledon.

What? Sampras wasn't playing as well at 29 as Federer is playing at 31? I think that is the point everyone is trying to make.

Pete was suffering from nagging major injuries at that point in his career.. Fed never gets any serious injuries where he has to miss any significant time or even a slam for that matter

NadalDramaQueen · 09-13-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete was suffering from nagging major injuries at that point in his career.. Fed never gets any serious injuries where he has to miss any significant time or even a slam for that matter

If Federer starting whining about injuries (back issues, etc.) more often, then you would stop having double standards? I don't think you would, buddy.

90's Clay · 09-13-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

If Federer starting whining about injuries (back issues, etc.) more often, then you would stop having double standards? I don't think you would, buddy.

If Fed had serious injuries he wouldn't be playing at the level he is or playing the schedule he is. Just like his little mono spell how everyone uses that as some excuse. The guy was reaching the SF and F of slams during that time. If he had some severer case of mono he wouldn't have even been able to get out of bed much less playing tennis at a grand slam level

ANd I would like to see Fed maintain #1 and win all those titles or even PLAY for that matter if he tore his hip flexor or rotator cuff like Pete did

NadalDramaQueen · 09-13-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

If Fed had serious injuries he wouldn't be playing at the level he is or playing the schedule he is. Just like his little mono spell how everyone uses that as some excuse. The guy was reaching the SF and F of slams during that time. If he had some severer case of mono he wouldn't have even been able to get out of bed much less playing tennis at a grand slam level

ANd I would like to see Fed maintain #1 and win all those titles or even PLAY for that matter if he tore his hip flexor or rotator cuff like Pete did

Playing at the level he is? By his standards, Federer isn't playing at that high a level. Winning one slam in a year is great, but not necessarily for Federer.

Once again, if Federer would have had the exact same case of Mono and lost earlier in the tournaments, it would become a more legitimate excuse in your eyes. I think the fact that he was able to do so well with Mono is a positive, don't you? Similarly for still being able to compete day in and day out as he gets older. This is something that will be remembered in a positive light.

It works both ways.

Silly Federer for not severely injuring himself, what an idiot.

TMF · 09-13-2012, 04:08 PM

Federer has a gold and silver medal while Nadal has a gold.

Fed at 31 > Sampras at 29.

sureshs · 09-13-2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

Federer has a gold and silver medal while Nadal has a gold.

He will also get the brass and tin medals in Rio in singles and doubles.

WhiskeyEE · 09-13-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeGreat

lol hahahahahahahaha
that reminds me of seinfeld: '...yada yada yada'

you wrote thsoe statements as if they were facts!

he's got a 10-18 against nadal! 10- to bloody 18! He's lost to him on every surface, including HIS OWN BEST, in the finals of 3 of the 4 slams! How do you just magically overshadow that??????? How does his silver medal overshadow Nadal's GOLD medal!

This is just ridiculous. It's one thing to believe passionately about something. Another to magically wish it is so and then simply assume it is so.

slow surface skew/10. Nadal only has a couple real wins over Fed. Wimby '08 being one of them.

Bobby Jr · 09-13-2012, 05:01 PM

The amusing thing about the discussion of Federer's 2012 level are his results are the norm historically for a number one player... He won a major, was a semi-finalist at two others, he racked up a stack of Master's 1000 level tournaments.

In fact, in three - or half - of Sampras's years where he was the year end #1 he did worse than 2012 Federer in the majors.

1990: Edberg won 1 and had 1 final but bombed out otherwise (2 x first round losses) Fed wins
1991: Becker by a nose > 1 win, 1 final but a 3rd round at USO close call
1992: Courier did better, winning 2 majors
1993: Pete won 2, Courier won 1 and runner up at 2 <good year for both > > Pete was year end #1
1994: Pete won 2, no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results > > Pete was year end #1
1995: Pete won 2, no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results > > Pete was year end #1
1996: no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1
1997: no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1
1998: Moya and Pete > 1 win, 1 semi each.. Federer still way ahead Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1
1999: Agassi > 2 wins.. clear ahead of 2012 Fed
2000: Pete > 1 win, 1 final... close call
2001: No-one close to 2012 Federer Fed wins
2002: Hewitt > 1 win, 1 semi. 2012 Federer still ahead Fed wins
2003: Agassi > 1 win, 1 semi 2012 Federer ahead (behind 2003 version of himself) win

Not sure if this indicated anything by way of strong/weak competition/era but it shows how much the tennis world has come to expect a sole player to be the clear owner of the year.

90's Clay · 09-13-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The amusing thing about the discussion of Federer's 2012 level are his results are the norm historically for a number one player... He won a major, was a semi-finalist at two others, he racked up a stack of Master's 1000 level tournaments.

In fact, in three - or half - of Sampras's years where he was the year end #1 he did worse than 2012 Federer in the majors.

1990: Edberg won 1 and had 1 final but bombed out otherwise (2 x first round losses) Fed wins
1991: Becker by a nose > 1 win, 1 final but a 3rd round at USO close call
1992: Courier did better, winning 2 majors
1993: Pete won 2, Courier won 1 and runner up at 2 <good year for both > > Pete was year end #1
1994: Pete won 2, no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results > > Pete was year end #1
1995: Pete won 2, no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results > > Pete was year end #1
1996: no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1
1997: no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1
1998: Moya and Pete > 1 win, 1 semi each.. Federer still way ahead Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1
1999: Agassi > 2 wins.. clear ahead of 2012 Fed
2000: Pete > 1 win, 1 final... close call
2001: No-one close to 2012 Federer Fed wins
2002: Hewitt > 1 win, 1 semi. 2012 Federer still ahead Fed wins
2003: Agassi > 1 win, 1 semi 2012 Federer ahead (behind 2003 version of himself) win

Not sure if this indicated anything by way of strong/weak competition/era but it shows how much the tennis world has come to expect a sole player to be the clear owner of the year.

Personally, I think you have to expect more out of the top player in the world these days because of how homogenized conditions have become along with play..

Its not nearly as the task IMO to win 3 slams in a single year now.. We have already had 3 guys do it in just the last 5 years where as before that, we didn't have it for nearly two decades
Different times.. Different eras

corners · 09-13-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

By the way, Federer is the most fun to watch of all the players. When he is gone, we will be stuck with a bunch of 2 HBH clones that don't know how to volley or serve.

All GOAT talk aside, this is what really matters. I find that I don't watch that much tennis unless Fed's on court. The sport is on the verge of becoming painfully one dimensional. Without Fed, only PEDs or an infusion of NFL cornerbacks and NBA point guards can save tennis.

kishnabe · 09-13-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is called cognitive dissonance

Psychology 101....

jukka1970 · 09-13-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistik

You dont need to be a member to read.Plus there are other forums as well.

One can also be banned and join under a new name, that would increase how long they've been here too. And with your comment before this one, am going to take a guess that you're probably one of them.

sureshs · 09-13-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kishnabe

Psychology 101....

I took one semester of Psychology and never studied this. It was all about Freud and personality types. But that was a long time ago.

Tony48 · 09-13-2012, 07:37 PM

*reads the OP*

Ummm......what?

09-13-2012, 03:29 PM	#44
Candide Rookie Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Melbourne Posts: 294	A jaw dropping 17 majors not to mention all of his other records and achievements make debate on the subject spurious. __________________ “There is no best. There is just the discussion of who is best. Federer, he will always be in the first part of such a discussion.” Rino Tommasi

09-13-2012, 03:35 PM	#45
90's Clay Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 2,371	Ahh yes... The "Fed is older then dirt so losses dont matter at this point in his career" excuses popping up... Hes #1 in the world and never gets any serious injuries. SHUT UP!!!! If he was ranked outside the top 10, then these excuses would have more merit.. But he hasn't declined enough Last edited by 90's Clay : 09-13-2012 at 03:37 PM.

09-13-2012, 05:01 PM	#54
Bobby Jr Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 4,549	The amusing thing about the discussion of Federer's 2012 level are his results are the norm historically for a number one player... He won a major, was a semi-finalist at two others, he racked up a stack of Master's 1000 level tournaments. In fact, in three - or half - of Sampras's years where he was the year end #1 he did worse than 2012 Federer in the majors. 1990: Edberg won 1 and had 1 final but bombed out otherwise (2 x first round losses) Fed wins 1991: Becker by a nose > 1 win, 1 final but a 3rd round at USO close call 1992: Courier did better, winning 2 majors 1993: Pete won 2, Courier won 1 and runner up at 2 <good year for both > > Pete was year end #1 1994: Pete won 2, no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results > > Pete was year end #1 1995: Pete won 2, no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results > > Pete was year end #1 1996: no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1 1997: no-one else came close to Federer's 2012 results Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1 1998: Moya and Pete > 1 win, 1 semi each.. Federer still way ahead Fed wins > > Pete was year end #1 1999: Agassi > 2 wins.. clear ahead of 2012 Fed 2000: Pete > 1 win, 1 final... close call 2001: No-one close to 2012 Federer Fed wins 2002: Hewitt > 1 win, 1 semi. 2012 Federer still ahead Fed wins 2003: Agassi > 1 win, 1 semi 2012 Federer ahead (behind 2003 version of himself) win Not sure if this indicated anything by way of strong/weak competition/era but it shows how much the tennis world has come to expect a sole player to be the clear owner of the year. __________________ Original Pro Staff 85, leaded to 370g, hybrid poly/syn gut set-up, 48-52-ish lbs. Last edited by Bobby Jr : 09-13-2012 at 05:04 PM.

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