shabby
Rookie
hmm.....could it be he's just much better than other players, despite being sick?
.
Oh please, now your just taking the mic! :lol:
hmm.....could it be he's just much better than other players, despite being sick?
.
Because he's Federer. That's what great players are capable of. What of Michael Jordan's famous flu game when he had that virus and "felt partially paralyzed".How could someone with a fever reach a slam semi final?
I'll let you think you think about that.
There aren't any other players out there with 15 Slams and who are heralded as the greatest the game has ever seen by numerous current and past pros. I don't think he's taking the mic. I think he's being credibly serious.Oh please, now your just taking the mic! :lol:
How could someone with a fever reach a slam semi final?
I'll let you think you think about that.
There are no weak fields or eras.It benefits Roger more than Nadal though since Nadal is good enough to dominate and do outstandingly even vs a very tough clay field. Sure he might lose a few more matches over the years or have a bit more struggle at the French, but he would still win many French Opens and be capable of being quite dominant. Federer on the other hand is not a true top notch clay courter, even when playing his best as opposed to the very subpar tennis he played at the 2008 (and before the final even 2009) French Opens, so he would not do nearly as well vs a deeper clay court field than the current one. His somehow making the final in 2008 despite playing some of his worst tennis ever was proof of just how weak the current clay court field is. Yeah Rafa may benefit a bit but not much as he is so great on clay he would do extremely well vs even a much tougher clay court field.
Same goes for Fed on other surfaces.Enough said.Your trollish double standards are veeeery amusing :lol:It benefits Roger more than Nadal though since Nadal is good enough to dominate and do outstandingly even vs a very tough clay field. Sure he might lose a few more matches over the years or have a bit more struggle at the French, but he would still win many French Opens and be capable of being quite dominant. Federer on the other hand is not a true top notch clay courter, even when playing his best as opposed to the very subpar tennis he played at the 2008 (and before the final even 2009) French Opens, so he would not do nearly as well vs a deeper clay court field than the current one. His somehow making the final in 2008 despite playing some of his worst tennis ever was proof of just how weak the current clay court field is. Yeah Rafa may benefit a bit but not much as he is so great on clay he would do extremely well vs even a much tougher clay court field.
Did you even bother to see the matches instead of bringing up stats? Your play does NOT depend entirely on how many sets you lose.See that is what I am saying, Roger did not paly any worse. Since he won the FO people want to pretend like it was an amazing year or something, don't get me wrong it is an amazing mile stone but he did not play better tennis in 2009 than in 2008.
The thing that gets me is that Roger was supposed to be injured and sick in 2008, the stats say otherwise with a man playing much more and not losing much more than the next year he is fine, what is with that?
yeah..looks like Rafa was faking his pain..pre-emptive excuses,you know.How could someone with a torn abdominal muscle reach a Slam semifinal?
I'll let you think you think about that.
Same goes for Fed on other surfaces.Enough said.
Your trollish double standards are veeeery amusing :lol:
nerves and not taking things for granted cannot be compared to your grade A crap-talk.Of course i wouldnt expect that to penetrate in the skull of a troll who revives 5 year old threadsSays the one who is paralyzed with fear that Federer will lose everytime before he plays the likes of Soderling, Kohlschreiber, Karlovic, or a way past his prime Hewitt.
Look in the mirror.
nerves and not taking things for granted cannot be compared to your grade A crap-talk.
And no,I dont need to look in the mirror..you however certainly need to go to the former pro player section with your 'weak era 'crap-talk.
LOOOOOL manuvering my way?Where and when did I claim he was going to lose to these guys? Where did I say I was expecting him to lose? sheesh,you are owning yourself with this rubbish :lol: Part of my nerves come from the scary consistency Roger displays and the thought of it breaking(which it will at some point.)That has NOTHING to do with his quality of play or my belief in his quality.LOL if you are scared and half expecting Federer to lose even to such pigeons as Soderling, Kolhschreiber, 31 year old Haas, past his prime Hewitt, then you are the last one who has any credability to declare Federer could surely have the same success even vs a really tough field. There is no maneuvering your way out of this one.
I do spend alot of time in the former pro player section. Unlike many on TW I am aware of players that existed before 2008. So anyone who doesnt praise the current fields and all its players to the highest heavens should just stay away so the *******s can be happy. Dream on.
1. You have not answered my LOGICAL question.
2. If you have mono, you are in bed and DEFINITELY not playing any sports.
3. I've come across this excuse before, you won't fool anyone who has a brain.
Mandy's pessimism is funny, she's always predicting Federer will struggle with clowns like Haas, Soderling and Karlovic.
1. That doesn't answer my question , does it ?
2. If you'd read about mono, you'd come to know the answer to your question .
Well sorry, I'm afraid you're wrong. The effect of Federer's illness, not only on his health, but also on how well prepared and fit he was able to be in 2008, is well documented. After missing out on training blocks in December 07 and February 08, he was playing catch-up all year with his fitness and form and said so at the US Open last year. His trainer, Pierre Paganini, has given a detailed account about the havoc mono created for his game in 08. You can choose to ignore this, but these are the facts. Sure he was still able to play once the acute symptoms had passed, but he was nowhere near as fit, prepared, confident or effective as he would have been throughout 2008 had he not contracted glandular fever in the first place, not to mention the stomach bug in Australia and the back problem. All of this is part of sport however. I doubt there is any player, let alone Federer and Nadal, who go through an entire year in perfect health with no setbacks or niggling ailments. We just don't hear so much about them.
Federer had his biggest health problems in 2008 and Nadal in 2009, and either can be said to have benefited from the other. The slight difference with Nadal is that his success depends on him running himself into the ground. He is not adequately equipt to win and remain physically okay for long stretches of time, so this is really a limitation in his game, not bad luck. I doubt 2009 will be the last time Nadal has some sort of physical problem which makes him pull out of an event.
1. Firstly I was the one who asked a question ( a LOGICAL one ) to which you have NO reply. Instead you posed another question because you couldn't answer mine . LOL !
2. I already said the answer to this lies in the details of mono (and the fact that federer is an incredible athelete) . You could read up on mono ( google is your friend ) . You will find there are varying degrees of mono and that it affects different people differently - one of the factors being the immune system . Oh and in case you did NOT know , federer himself did not know he had mono until after the AO.
3. I gave facts regarding federer skipping doha and kooyong and that he skipped it because of fever. But hey I am the one fooling around !
I love how all of Roger's excuses are always after the fact.
Oh uh I was sick.................
Oh uh my back was hurt..............
etc.............
Okay, so you accept that Nadal was perfectly fine at the French and US Open this year? Good.How is it that Roger has an excuse for each and every loss?
You can clearly see by the numbers I have post that Roger did just as well in 2008 as 2009.
Do you contend that he is still sick or injured??
Turning into quite a bit of a Djokovic isn't he????
When you are seriously ill or injured guess what?
YOU DON'T PLAY!!!
I find it amazing that Roger can play through all that, and some how Nadal can't, and Nadal would have been able to hold on to number 1.
I love how all of Roger's excuses are always after the fact.
Oh uh I was sick.................
Oh uh my back was hurt..............
etc.............
Why do you even care?Whats it to you if I am nervous-And go learn the definition of pessimism first. And no,none of them are clowns.Cant say the same about you though .Mandy's pessimism is funny, she's always predicting Federer will struggle with clowns like Haas, Soderling and Karlovic.
And go learn the definition of pessimism first.
.
I already know that :wink: Cant say the same about TW trolls though :wink:
"A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pessimistic
Why do you even care?Whats it to you if I am nervous-And go learn the definition of pessimism first. And no,none of them are clowns.Cant say the same about you though .
BTW-Where did I predict Roger WILL struggle against any of these guys?
Yes they are clowns, Slamless wonders. You always say it match threads; "Roger is going to have to play his best today or he might be in trouble" etc etc, when he has a 12-0 record against them.
True, it's a bit lame, but actually not that far from the truthBut its true....whenever Roger loses everyone always says that "Roger was not playimh his best".
It is not totally obvious that Federer at his best would not have let the USO final get away. After all he did lose an epic match to Safin at AO during his best and a master cup final to Nalbandian.
To me, his game hasn't been at its best since 2007, it's more erratic and less precise, his movement has slightly declined as well but does it matter? He still scares the s--- out of his opponents and finds ways to beat them most of the time. But from a purely tennistic perspective, his "golden" years were 2004 to 2006. Personally, I would rate 2004 as my favorite even though resultwise his grand year was 2006.
I don't think there is a significant difference between 2008 and 2009, at least I can't see one. He did in 2009 what he would have done in 2008 if Nadal had been out of the way. I have no doubt that he would have won both RG and W in 2008 if Nadal had been MIA (although Djoko could have conceivably given him some trouble in the RG final). As for USO, he was a bit tired I think, he had played a lot and just won Cincy. Delpo was fresher.
Got it >> You have no answer . Now please go and learn some elementary maths. I'll start with a small tutorial :
Why fed's 2009 is CLEARLY better in terms of numbers than fed's 2008
87 % > 82 % ( winning percentage )
2 master series > 0 master series
2 slams > 1 slam
Ok, lesson over
http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.ph...layerid=FER001
Here are the facts
66-15 (playing 18 more than 2009)
2008 @slams Roger losing 15 sets, wins 1 slam
AO 4 sets lost (defeated)*Out early in semis*
FO 6 sets lost (defeated)
W. 2 sets lost (defeated) *only in finals to Nadal*
US.3 sets lost (winner) *absolutely crushed everyone, murray, etc*
55-8 (losing to all the people he crushed the previous year)
2009 @slams Roger losing 16 sets, wins 2 slam (FO being a gimme)
AO 3 sets lost (defeated)*Nadal of all people*
FO 5 sets lost (winner) *Nadal knocked out early and still only lost 1 less*
W. 3 sets lost (winner) *Lost more sets even though he is the winner?*
US.4 sets lost (defeated) *Oddly losing to Delpo who he crushed many times*
Wow! that year sound so so much better, NOT!
http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.ph...layerid=FER001
Here are the facts
66-15 (playing 18 more than 2009)
2008 @slams Roger losing 15 sets, wins 1 slam
AO 4 sets lost (defeated)*Out early in semis*
FO 6 sets lost (defeated)
W. 2 sets lost (defeated) *only in finals to Nadal*
US.3 sets lost (winner) *absolutely crushed everyone, murray, etc*
55-8 (losing to all the people he crushed the previous year)
2009 @slams Roger losing 16 sets, wins 2 slam (FO being a gimme)
AO 3 sets lost (defeated)*Nadal of all people*
FO 5 sets lost (winner) *Nadal knocked out early and still only lost 1 less*
W. 3 sets lost (winner) *Lost more sets even though he is the winner?*
US.4 sets lost (defeated) *Oddly losing to Delpo who he crushed many times*
Wow! that year sound so so much better, NOT!
oh and yeah as far as sets lost is concerned, it doesn't prove much, what matters in the end is winning ..
Nadal beat Federer I'm 3 grand slams during 2008-2009 on all three surfaces.
In other words Nadal beat Federer in both 2008 & 2009 in grand slam finals.
So Roger lost 2 more sets in slams in 2009 than 2008, the point is proven even more. Further Roger played more in 2008 when he was supposedly sick.
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
FO is a gimme, 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.
Ok so now you're basically saying that Nadal's win against Roger was a fluke because Roger was playing worse than the previous year :lol: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
He didn't lose at the USO in 2008... If Rafa was injured in 2008 at both FO and Wimbledon, Fed would have won FO, Wimbledon and USO in 2008.
So take Rafa out of the equation in 2008 and Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008.
coulda,woulda,shoulda.He didn't lose at the USO in 2008... If Rafa was injured in 2008 at both FO and Wimbledon, Fed would have won FO, Wimbledon and USO in 2008.
So take Rafa out of the equation in 2008 and Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. Take Rafa out of the equation at FO and Wimbledon in 2009 and Fed wins 2 slams.
So without Rafa at FO and W, Fed 2008 would have been better than 2009.
Disagree. Djokovic would have beaten Federer in the 2008 French Open final. Federer wasnt playing well at all at that years French and it was a dissapointing reflection on the field he even made the final in that form, while Djokovic was very confident and playing great tennis.
You just find ways to diss the current crop of players dont you?And then you have the nerve to accuse someone of hypocrisy.Disagree. Djokovic would have beaten Federer in the 2008 French Open final. Federer wasnt playing well at all at that years French and it was a dissapointing reflection on the field he even made the final in that form, while Djokovic was very confident and playing great tennis.
I don't think. Fed beat Nole at Monte Carlo in 2008....
coulda,woulda,shoulda.
Whatever he won or he didnt he's playing better tennis this year.Or should I say-He's playing some really smart tennis this year.He's changed a few things, added variation,he's even more economical now.Thats it.
He won 3 slams in 2007.I still thought he was nothing like his former self .
You just find ways to diss the current crop of players dont you?And then you have the nerve to accuse someone of hypocrisy.
He did but Federer was playing pretty well in Monte Carlo. You obviously forget how awful he was playing at the 2008 French. It was horrible to see him make the final playing that poorly, and not just because I dont like Federer. Really reflected how little depth the clay court field has today. Meanwhile Djokovic was building up confidence all clay court season and was really in great form by the time of the French. Monte Carlo was in fact the only event Federer played better on clay than Djokovic in 2008.
Because sets lost do not always indicate a drop in level :wink:How can you say Fed is playing better tennis when he lost more sets at the FO in 2009 than in 2008, before the final?
Fed still lost more sets before the 2009 FO final than before the 2008 FO final...
How about, he just managed to play a little bit better than his opponents?Whatever, did you see Federer play at the 2008 French? If you do, would you even try to dispute he was playing extremely below par tennis for him that event. Yet he still somehow made the final like he usually does even playing like that. Spin it how you like but what does this say of the current clay court field then. That plus the huge luck that Djokovic who was playing better on clay at the time was in the other half.