Federer was playing better in 2008
- Thread starter roysid
- Start date
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
And Roger was smart enough not to kill himself :wink:
Roger wasnt going to play MC.And he just said his aim was first to reach the semis at Rome, before the tourney.He practiced even harder after after that then said he would want to win Madrid before the tournament.He won it
He fulfilled what he set out to do.He got the confidence he wanted and he got it smartly.He paced himself unlike Nadal and Djokovic.And that is a part of the game.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
And Roger was smart enough not to kill himself :wink:
Roger wasnt going to play MC.And he just said his aim was first to reach the semis at Rome, before the tourney.He practiced even harder after after that then said he would want to win Madrid before the tournament.He won it
He fulfilled what he set out to do.He got the confidence he wanted and he got it smartly.He paced himself unlike Nadal and Djokovic.And that is a part of the game.
Oh, definetely agree. That is why Fed will win like 16/17 slams and Rafa and Nole will not come close to that achievement.
No.
Fact is Roger beat him in Madrid.
Fact is Soderling was BETTER than him on that day. Period.
Fact is Roger was waiting for him in the final and he didn't show up.
Fact is Roger earned more ATP points on clay than Nadal this year.
Maybe he should pray every night and ask God to give a better, durable knees.
If that doesn’t work, maybe he should only play 4 tourneys a year and only the clay season.
You're just so clueless about tennis,its funny :lol:
BTW-Are you trying to tell us that just because it was Del Po's first slam final we should discredit his win? Sounds fine to me
Fed won 'only' 2 slams in 2005 as compared to his other dominant seasons.I still consider the year better for him level-wise.
You really have to stop with the personal insults on this forum.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Fair warning.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
:shock::shock:
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
Does it matter? Here's one thing you'll learn more later in life. You don't have to be the best to beat someone or to earn something. A lot of it is luck, timing and persistence.
The irony is federer played better french open tournaments in 2006 and 2007 and still he won when he was pushed to 5th sets in 2009.
You don't have to be better than your competitors to get a job, but you do need side factors like network connections. I've seen a lot of incompetent and under skilled people at work because they know someone who got them in as opposed to a truly skilled individual.
It also works the other way where truly skilled people don't get in and get rejected. A great case in point is the director of District 9 and his involvements with Halo the movie. District 9 would have never been made if microsoft hadn't rejected him based on their lack of faith on his experience and look at how District 9 has done.
You really don't have to be the best to accomplish what you set out to accomplish. Fate deals a lot of random cards in life...
The irony is federer played better french open tournaments in 2006 and 2007 and still he won when he was pushed to 5th sets in 2009.
You don't have to be better than your competitors to get a job, but you do need side factors like network connections. I've seen a lot of incompetent and under skilled people at work because they know someone who got them in as opposed to a truly skilled individual.
It also works the other way where truly skilled people don't get in and get rejected. A great case in point is the director of District 9 and his involvements with Halo the movie. District 9 would have never been made if microsoft hadn't rejected him based on their lack of faith on his experience and look at how District 9 has done.
You really don't have to be the best to accomplish what you set out to accomplish. Fate deals a lot of random cards in life...
abmk
Bionic Poster
correct and nadal was playing incredible tennis in 2007, far superior to 2008 !
abmk
Bionic Poster
He's won 2 master series this year - Madrid and Cincy
ksbh
Banned
You mean the year he won back to back slams and the Olympic title before taking the coveted number 1 from your hero? Remind me ... how many times did Nadal beat Federer in 2008? And 2009? LOL!
abmk
Bionic Poster
No, I mean the year 2009 in which federer won back to back slams and took back the coveted no 1 from your hero
Federer who was playing incredible tennis in 2008, loses to stepanek, blake, karlovic, simon ( 2x ) etc etc .... , wins ZERO masters titles , doesn't reach the semis of the TMC, loses in straights to novak in a GS semi, wins only 4 games in a GS final. LOL !
ksbh
Banned
We'll have to just agree to disagree. It'll save us some keystrokes!
No, I mean the year 2009 in which federer won back to back slams and took back the coveted no 1 from your hero
Federer who was playing incredible tennis in 2008, loses to stepanek, blake, karlovic, simon ( 2x ) etc etc .... , wins ZERO masters titles , doesn't reach the semis of the TMC, loses in straights to novak in a GS semi, wins only 4 games in a GS final. LOL !
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
I just find it strange that Roger had the worst begining to his tennis season ever where he is glad that the 1st part of the hard court season is over and cries at the AO.
And that is considered a better year, he played far less tennis, he got beat by a kid at he USO.
The only reason he won the FO was because Nadal was not there in the final, and he struggled against Andy Roddick!
How is that a better year?
If anything it is not better than 2008, he lost AO and Wim, but those especially Wim was extremely close matches.
Fact is that Roger lost more grandslam sets in 2009 than 2008, and Roger played much less in 2009 than 2008.
Nadal was at French Open. Just failed to earn the right to throw Fed away.
abmk
Bionic Poster
convenient. Oh and I'm pretty sure the 3 gentlemen whose names appear in your sig will disagree with you
abmk
Bionic Poster
worst beginning to his tennis season lets see :
2008: no warmup tournament , 2009 : loses in semi at doha to murray
2008 : AO: semi : def in straights by novak, 2009 AO final: def in 5 by nadal
2008:loses first round in dubai to murray , 2009: does not play due to back-pain
2008:Indian wells:loses in semi to mardy fish, 2009 Indian wells : loses in semi to murray
2008: miami: loses in QF to roddick, 2009 miami: def the very same roddick and loses in semi to djokovic
Needless to say, unless you are blinded by your own delusions >> he had a better start to the season in 2009 than in 2008
he had back-problems at that time - that was a part of the reason why he said he was glad the HC season was over
umm. so the match against djokovic was close, whereas when he got beat by del potro in 5 sets it was getting beaten by a "kid".
What was novak in 2008 ? An experienced veteran ? huh ???
The reason he won is because he won 7 matches in a row including beating soderling who had beaten nadal
correct, a roddick who was playing the match of his life ,playing at his very best .. so ?
yeah, I already blew up many of your so called facts >> As I said, you need to brush up your elementary math
Last edited:
In tennis, there are results, and there is nonsense.
Even if the whole ATP tour goes down with severe diarrhea and Federer takes the full Grand Slam, it would still be a fantastic year for him, or anyone else with similar achievements.
Because training, preparation, staying fit, conserving energy, mastering safer technique, coming up with a smart schedule, proper nutrition, mental preparation etc. are just as important parts of tennis as the pure tecnnique is. Tennis is multi-dimensional, and everybody is given the same chances.
Whoever wins is the best, period. And 2009 has been an amazing year for Federer, no matter how you slice it and no matter what his opponents did to themselves.
Even if the whole ATP tour goes down with severe diarrhea and Federer takes the full Grand Slam, it would still be a fantastic year for him, or anyone else with similar achievements.
Because training, preparation, staying fit, conserving energy, mastering safer technique, coming up with a smart schedule, proper nutrition, mental preparation etc. are just as important parts of tennis as the pure tecnnique is. Tennis is multi-dimensional, and everybody is given the same chances.
Whoever wins is the best, period. And 2009 has been an amazing year for Federer, no matter how you slice it and no matter what his opponents did to themselves.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no of sets lost isn't really conclusive evidence of anything.
uh, he's had problems this year too >> he missed dubai and DC ( in the early part of the season ) due to backache
plus the difference in the no of matches is increased due to olympics ( not there this year ) and halle ( which he did not play because of the gruelling matches he had to play at the FO >> and you saying it was a gimme shows how clueless you are and how much you follow the game )
I thought we were talking about federer in 2008 and 2009 and not with comparision to others. By normal standards >> 2008 was a good year ...
^Refer to above
Refer to reply in part2 regarding "health" ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
Do you even watch tennis seriously ????
1. You are making out nadal to be some sort of a wimp/walkover on a HC, which by any means he is not >> Anyone who watched this year's AO will tell you nadal played exceptional tennis throughout
2. You don't even know anything about del potro , (referring to him as some 20 year old kid, duh !) >> how rapidly he has been improving throughout the course if this year .
Last edited:
VivalaVida
Banned
LOL. This thread goes to show how some people just enjoy to argue against the obvious. Seriously we can start a thread about how the earth is not flat and how atoms make up matter and we will still have detractors. LOL!
Similar threads
- Poll
