Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
He would need to tell the AO organizers to close the roof on all his day matches, play mainly evening matches and then speed up the courts dramatically. Oh wait, he actually did that in 2017.
Federer will win AO 2020 or Wimb 2020
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
The butthurt is really strong with you. Too bad there's no more Baghdatis, Gonzo, Hewitt or Roddick these days huh?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Yeah cause they would actually be considered "impossible, no?" competition for Nadal at the US Open.
LMAO at Hewitt or Roddick, they'd love to play Nadal at the US Open now if they were in their primes.
Pretty funny bringing up Gonzalez too given what he did to Nadal at the 2007 AO.
Fed beat Gonzalez in a Slam final = LMAO loldraw. Nadal surpasses that and more = Slam no 19 baby, in your face. Don't seem to care now, yo?
AceSalvo
Legend
Lil Agut and Lil Diego.
Little people that are painted with tiger stripes. Oh the scariness. Some folks peed their pants.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Massive strawman.
Let's go over this again:
Federer, the no 1 player in 2007, and the guy who held three slams at the end of the year was suddenly out of the picture.
Now do you understand?
You can't take a number 1 player out of the discussion and claim "all is well still".
You see, it's the same story. If you paid close attention, you'll notice that I used your own words to write this argument. You can just as easily make the case for Federer having a massive decline in 2008. Nadal benefited from this in 2008 just as Federer did when Nadal declined in 2009 (but the top 10 was stronger overall in 2009, which is where the difference lies).
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
If it's not mono then it's "Fed was past his prime in 2008". Another Fedfan Disney song...
How convenient that he loses his prime JUST MONTHS AFTER A 3-SLAM SEASON then gets beaten over and over by a new ATG.
Just accept Rafa's and Novak's greatness. The only way to join the real world of pro tennis. Until then, keep spinning facts and keep cherry-picking stats to fool yourself that RF is invincible...
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
I've said this before ... players don't choose their opponents. I don't believe this weak draw or weak era c*rap. I have no problem with a 38 year old winning a slam.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Pro ... this is why you guys get a lot of flak. Just what is wrong with winning the FO multiple times? FO & Wimbledon winners get equal points so Wimbledon isn't in any way a superior slam. You folks have to got to stop with trying to belittle FO winners and then wonder why you're getting attacked. Every slam is just as important as the other.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Why hope that you're wrong? Players age and records are broken. It is going to happen to Federer sooner than later. That is the very nature of most sports records, particularly a recoed that is not a mountain to climb.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
"Blue collar?" Here it is, folks: a Federer fan believing his false idol represents some "higher class" when he's just another in a long line of tennis players. He had nothing over Nadal, no matter how many ads you buy into with Federer only representing the equally false idea of materialism.
Meanwhile, Federer's majors count is soon to be passed.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Some people understand tennis as little as they understand rocket science. It is very easy to lie to these people that clay is irrelevant, grass wonderful, Fed had mono and all the other nonsense that steers far from the facts.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Missed the last line until I read the post made by @THUNDERVOLLEY who quoted you. Man you sure do appear to have lost your marbles completely. Very poor remark, regardless of whose fan you are.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I said earlier that Fed was already showing signs of decline in 2007. It didn't take place in a couple of months.
But of course, keep on marking every one of my arguments as some sort of "excuse" and keep on embracing the strawman fallacy the way you do. In the meantime, I'm done with this conversation. It's not easy to keep going on if your opponent ignores your arguments instead of refuting them.
AceSalvo
Legend
AceSalvo
Legend
Ok you can count from 17-21 and can be busy with the below at the same time. Who knew.
EDIT: So mods, took down your fav "past time" which I captured.
Last edited:
Like Djokovic and Federer at USO17 and USO19?
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
He won THREE SLAMS in a year when he was DECLINING?
Did I get that right?
Just checking...
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
The decline was essentially exclusive to Bo3 at that point. It didn't spread to the Slams until later. The stats are on my side. End of story.
AceSalvo
Legend
But only Fed played his "best ever" post 2017 according to Fed-haters. Djokdal had a "normal" decline.
There were chinks in the armour. Losing to guys like Canas twice and Nalbandian too (someone he had figured out)
Don’t forget the Rome debacle, after such a a great run the year before.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I've heard bizarre theories, but this one is... awesome.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I fully expected you to support this bizarre theory that RF was in DECLINE during 2007 when he won 3 slams.
Hilarious.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
No, this is about 2008. RF fans need a wild theory to "explain" how the God got dethroned by a young Spaniard...
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
Bwahaha, in your face Chichi !!!
40-15 Chokerer and Rafa winning his 19th Major has made you so miserable. I love it !!!
What a Glorious day indeed
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
According to the media his elbow is doing fine
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Show me the numbers if you think so. Show me the numbers that reflect Federer's losses in Masters 1000s to the likes of Canas, Volandri, and Nalbandian twice. The numbers that reflect his obvious decline in Bo3 (however slight they were; he was still very clearly in his prime).
I've thrown every piece of evidence at you and you continue to say things like this:
Show me some piece of evidence that actually supports your theory. Even just one will work; it'll still be an impressive improvement over what you've shown so far.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually, scratch that. I'll save you the trouble and just pull out of the conversation. It's getting one-sided anyways.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
It shows that the poster you responded to was not a serious poster that they put those four in one sentence. Hewitt and Roddick are multi-Slam finalists, and not easy draws by any means. Gonzalez was on fire at that AO. He may never have matched that form again but he was definitely playing Slam-title-winning tennis that week. Baghdatis was admittedly weaker, so it's lucky for Federer that the AO2006 was one of his weakest events of that time period. Gonzo of AO2007 could probably have beaten Federer of AO2006, or at least pushed him all the way. Gonzo of AO2007 could also likely have beaten Medvedev of UO2019 on a neutral court.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
You've thrown nonsense. I can't argue with nonsense. Because nonsense has its own weird anti-logic that refuses to have a dialog with common sense.
The guy is no 3 after TWELVE YEARS and you want to tell me he was DECLINING in 2007.
A joke.
Just because your God lost a few matches does not mean he was declining. This religious worship of RF is just way too much for me. I truly don't understand it.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, chinks in the armor is a much better way of putting it. I probably wouldn't go as far as saying he declined, but let's just say that his invincibility aura from 2005-2006 was fading away. That Volandri match was something awful.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Nyahahaha. Here cry some more, babygirl. 40-15 will haunt you down like crazy.
Let's toast for the 19th
Karma Tennis
Legend
The extreme ends of Tennis are Red Clay (FO) and Natural Grass (Wimb).
Federer's ONLY FO Title did not involve him beating Nadal. (Every other FO Final that Federer played in was against Nadal who defeated him every time.)
Nadal's two Wimbledon Titles involved him beating Federer. (Federer beat him in two other Wimbledon Finals)
Nadal performs a lot better at the extreme ends of the spectrum than Federer. And Nadal has been significantly more successful on his favourite surface than Federer has been on his.
It's a fact, no?
Yes !!!
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
Fed has to, otherwise he’s losing the slam record. He’s under more pressure than he’s ever been. I don’t see him winning Aussie open but he’ll have a good shot at Wimbledon again.
That comment stuck out to me as well. The worst part is him buying into the myth of Nadal being some blue-collar workhorse when in fact he's another rich, privileged European. But still a rather classist comment.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
At least Nadal defeated the people he was supposed to defeat at the USO unlike your guy for 11 years.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Enjoy your last year of bragging rights. Come 2020 and onwards you guys will be looking in front and no longer from the rear view mirror. So go ahead. Go down in a blaze of hating glory.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
I called it at the end of 2018, that Fed was done winning slams.
If he wins a couple Masters that will keep him happy.
I think he accepts losing to Djokovic, or to Nadal in Paris, but the mugs hes losing to elsewhere, just isn't good enough.
He has no consistency outside of Wimbledon.
If he wins a couple Masters that will keep him happy.
I think he accepts losing to Djokovic, or to Nadal in Paris, but the mugs hes losing to elsewhere, just isn't good enough.
He has no consistency outside of Wimbledon.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Nyahahaha. Here cry some more, babygirl. 40-15 will haunt you down like crazy.
Let's toast for the 19th
Federer will do more of that by the end of 2021.
That's the unavoidable fact: there was no version of Federer that was going to defeat Nadal in a French Open final, so he could only win one when Nadal was not there to deliver the customary beatdown. On the other hand, Nadal walked into Wimbledon and beat Federer at "his" major in convincing fashion, and won another title there. By the criteria set by the worst of Federer's fans, Nadal is the superior player, as he won more titles on a surface that is his alleged "weakest" and against the so-called "best" player, while Federer could not do the same at the French.
tennis_pro buys into the materialistic myth of Federer being of some sort of "high breeding" (when anyone knowing about his family knows its the opposite of his advertising) while Nasal is not. Anyone born before yesterday knows where the Nadal family hails from, and its not the "sticks" by any stretch of the imagination. But tennis_pro is likely basing his opinion on visuals--thinking Nadal is some "lesser" human being than the so-called "Golden Eagle" (which was part of the iconography of Germany under the Third Reich, so that should tell you something about anyone ever referring to Federer as that). Again, look at Federer's background, and that "Golden Eagle" crap goes down the toilet as he would not fit into their world views about people.
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
He has probably the least losses on tour for this year and the third most in wins
tennis24x7
Professional
We have been waiting quite a while now for that new name, they just do great once and then rest on it, maybe the smart phone generation has too many distractions
steelcity32
Rookie
Federer is done winning slams. This isn't a hot take, either.
Similar threads
