Why do people forget about Federer's Mono?

AM95 · Dec 13, 2009

I was re-watching the Madrid 2009 win for Federer today and the Wimby final. I was pretty upset with the youtube comments, claiming that Federer beat Nadal in Madrid because Nadal was tired, so i thought i'd share my views and maybe get some opinions from you.

This year, prior to his French Open victory, everyone was talking about how Federer beat a tired, injured Nadal in the final of Madrid, and that this result would not pertain to the outcome of the French. Maybe we all seem to forget that Federer lost to Nadal in 2008 injured/ill as well?

In my mind, the only loss that i count is the AO 2009 loss to Nadal, where Federer played a horrible match. But lets face if, even if Federer won, Nadal was tired.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

Federer wasnt ill in the FO and W match against Nadal.Nadal won it.Just like Federer won this year's FO and Wimby.
I believe the mono affected his level of play and he's never been the same since then but that cant be given as an excuse to lose to Nadal in the finals of a slam.
Anyway-Nadal is always tired and injured .Thats why when he wins,he's such a hero :wink:

fedhingis515 · Dec 13, 2009

People also forget his win against Nadal at Hamburg in 07. Go figure.

jackson vile · Dec 13, 2009

Both of the excuses are lame @$$ for Nadal and Roger.

"He's still not the same after mono...." Get real!

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
Both of the excuses are lame @$$ for Nadal and Roger.

"He's still not the same after mono...." Get real!

taking out of context much?
To put it simply-the mono sped up a basically inevitable decline.Its obvious Roger is no longer his former self .

jackson vile · Dec 13, 2009

mandy01 said:
taking out of context much?
To put it simply-the mono sped up a basically inevitabe decline.Its obvious Roger is no longer his former self.

You're kidding me right? Roger is his former self? The guy was in every single final in 2009 unlike 2008.

How the hell that is a decline I dont' know LOL

Listen Roger was out played at the AO, Roger was again out played at the USO.

Roger a decline, you saw Wim, you can't really believe that. Roddick will never play the well agian in his entire life, and he still could not beat Roger.

The difference has nothing to do with Roger and everything to do with the fact that the top 10 is more competitive than possibly even Pete's golden era.

tudwell · Dec 13, 2009

Federer hasn't been the same since the Australian Open 2007. Since then, he's followed a pretty solid pattern: make every grand slam final in sight, while being inconsistent in Masters and lower level events. Obviously, that was before mono, so I don't know how much mono really affected him beyond the 1-2 months after he had it. He was already in a decline (compared to his 2004-2006 form) even before mono. But even then, it's really not much of a decline.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
You're kidding me right? Roger is his former self? The guy was in every single final in 2009 unlike 2008.

How the hell that is a decline I dont' know LOL

Listen Roger was out played at the AO, Roger was again out played at the USO.

Roger a decline, you saw Wim, you can't really believe that. Roddick will never play the well agian in his entire life, and he still could not beat Roger.

The difference has nothing to do with Roger and everything to do with the fact that the top 10 is more competitive than possibly even Pete's golden era.

Anyone who's followed Roger closely knows his level of play is nowhere close to its former self.
He's consistent and he does well in slams .His overall level of play though HAS declined.

TMF · Dec 13, 2009

Roger is the #1 right now and anyone in their right mind wouldn't say he's the same guy in 2005/06. No way.

nCode2010 · Dec 13, 2009

Fed's mono was done by March 08. But the consequence of not being able to do 2 training blocks(Dec 07, Feb 08) would prove fatal vs Nadal in the spring/summer matches.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

tudwell said:
Federer hasn't been the same since the Australian Open 2007. Since then, he's followed a pretty solid pattern: make every grand slam final in sight, while being inconsistent in Masters and lower level events. Obviously, that was before mono, so I don't know how much mono really affected him beyond the 1-2 months after he had it. He was already in a decline (compared to his 2004-2006 form) even before mono. But even then, it's really not much of a decline.

I think the mono sped up his overall decline.He no longer moves as well as he did before.Its obvious his baseline game,his anticipation ,his timing,hell,his backhand-none of these components are like what they used to be.He was obviously better in 2007 although in decline than he is now.
Even his forehand can be inconsistent these days.He's still a great player,obviously.Just not like he used to be.
But like I said before,it dosent excuse his losses.If you come out on court you beat the opponent or just accept the loss.And Nadal was playing great too so credit to him.

tangerine · Dec 13, 2009

Probably because he never really had mono.

nCode2010 · Dec 13, 2009

mandy01 said:
I think the mono sped up his overall decline.He no longer moves as well as he did before.Its obvious his baseline game,his anticipation ,his timing,hell,his backhand-none of these components are like what they used to be.He was obviously better in 2007 although in decline than he is now.
Even his forehand can be inconsistent these days.He's still a great player,obviously.Just not like he used to be.

I think the real answer is that he doesn't bounce back from matches as well as he used to. I mean look at the US Open QF vs Soderling. He was moving like the wind in that one and then so sluggish against Djokovic 3 days later. He moved great in Cincy too. I think what we'll see from Federer is bursts of the old brilliance followed by monoFed.

P_Agony · Dec 13, 2009

A win is a win, no matter who it's against. To win a slam you have to win 7 matches in a row, and your opponents aren't your decision. The fact Nadal lost early at the FO takes nothing away from Fed's win. As for Madrid 2009, if Nadal decided to go up the court, in my book he was 100%. He wouldn't play the match if he didn't believe in his chances to win it, right? Same goes for Rog at all the early tourneys in 2008.

I'm not saying Federer played his best tennis in 2008 and Nadal played his best tennis at Madrid 2009, I'm just saying they were physically good to go.

veroniquem · Dec 13, 2009

Oh yeah, Fed was so injured and tired that year that he played 19 tournaments among which 3 slam finals. If he was so tired and sick, don't you think he would have played fewer tournaments? :roll:
He even won a title between his RG and W final that year. Get real, noone cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops :lol:

RelentlessAttack · Dec 13, 2009

P_Agony said:
A win is a win, no matter who it's against. To win a slam you have to win 7 matches in a row, and your opponents aren't your decision. The fact Nadal lost early at the FO takes nothing away from Fed's win. As for Madrid 2009, if Nadal decided to go up the court, in my book he was 100%. He wouldn't play the match if he didn't believe in his chances to win it, right? Same goes for Rog at all the early tourneys in 2008.

I'm not saying Federer played his best tennis in 2008 and Nadal played his best tennis at Madrid 2009, I'm just saying they were physically good to go.

This. Nadal was fit enough to make the Madrid final and Federer fit enough to make the FO and W finals, obviously they were not suffering that much.

NamRanger · Dec 13, 2009

veroniquem said:
Oh yeah, Fed was so injured and tired that year that he played 19 tournaments among which 3 slam finals. If he was so tired and sick, don't you think he would have played fewer tournaments? :roll:
He even won a title between his RG and W final that year. Get real, noone cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops :lol:

So Nadal's tendinitis and knee injuries are just a myth and he really just lost to Soderling on clay. You can't have a double standard. Supposedly according to many reports Nadal's injuries occurred during the clay season. Ok, so how does a guy with severe tendinitis that keeps him out of the most prestigious tournament in the world is capable of winning 2 Master Tournaments, including another smaller tournament, on the most physically exhausting surface where rallies last the longest?

BigServer1 · Dec 13, 2009

veroniquem said:
Oh yeah, Fed was so injured and tired that year that he played 19 tournaments among which 3 slam finals. If he was so tired and sick, don't you think he would have played fewer tournaments? :roll:
He even won a title between his RG and W final that year. Get real, noone cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops :lol:

Lmao you've obviously never had mono. I don't think that Federer lost a ton of matches because of it and it's a tired excuse on these boards, but to call it a myth is absolutely ridiculous. It definitely affects people and it can be tough to recover from.

Rippy · Dec 13, 2009

veroniquem said:
Oh yeah, Fed was so injured and tired that year that he played 19 tournaments among which 3 slam finals. If he was so tired and sick, don't you think he would have played fewer tournaments? :roll:
He even won a title between his RG and W final that year. Get real, noone cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops :lol:

And Nadal was perfectly healthy when he lost to Soderling in the FO. If he was so injured, do you not think he wouldn't have played?

CyBorg · Dec 13, 2009

It's been three bleedin' years since the mono. Get over it.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

NamRanger said:
So Nadal's tendinitis and knee injuries are just a myth and he really just lost to Soderling on clay. You can't have a double standard. Supposedly according to many reports Nadal's injuries occurred during the clay season. Ok, so how does a guy with severe tendinitis that keeps him out of the most prestigious tournament in the world is capable of winning 2 Master Tournaments, including another smaller tournament, on the most physically exhausting surface where rallies last the longest?

Nadal said he'd been playing though injury for months .A player so tired and injured wins five titles including a slam and reaches 8 finals throughout the course of the year? :shock::shock:

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

P_Agony said:
A win is a win, no matter who it's against. To win a slam you have to win 7 matches in a row, and your opponents aren't your decision. The fact Nadal lost early at the FO takes nothing away from Fed's win. As for Madrid 2009, if Nadal decided to go up the court, in my book he was 100%. He wouldn't play the match if he didn't believe in his chances to win it, right? Same goes for Rog at all the early tourneys in 2008.

I'm not saying Federer played his best tennis in 2008 and Nadal played his best tennis at Madrid 2009, I'm just saying they were physically good to go.

well said.And for the record,I dont even blame his AO 08 loss on mono.
I do think his overall level of play has been going down but its still mostly in masters and maybe a few rounds here and there in slams.

nCode2010 · Dec 13, 2009

Actually it's been 2 years since the mono first hit.

HunterST · Dec 13, 2009

I've known 3 people that have had mono and all of them said they never felt the same after they had it. Of course they recover, but they just never felt quite as good.

jackson vile · Dec 13, 2009

mandy01 said:
Anyone who's followed Roger closely knows his level of play is nowhere close to its former self.
He's consistent and he does well in slams .His overall level of play though HAS declined.

take a look at sets lost, he made every single slam final. There is no decline.

Call me when Roger only makes one slam final like Pete, now that is a decline

zagor · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
take a look at sets lost, he made every single slam final. There is no decline.

Call me when Roger only makes one slam final like Pete, now that is a decline

So Pete was in decline in 1996 and 1998? He finished as #1 those years.

jackson vile · Dec 13, 2009

NamRanger said:
So Nadal's tendinitis and knee injuries are just a myth and he really just lost to Soderling on clay. You can't have a double standard. Supposedly according to many reports Nadal's injuries occurred during the clay season. Ok, so how does a guy with severe tendinitis that keeps him out of the most prestigious tournament in the world is capable of winning 2 Master Tournaments, including another smaller tournament, on the most physically exhausting surface where rallies last the longest?

What double standard, Nadal lost because Solderling was the better player that day. Get over it.

Fact is Nadal pushed himself way too far this year and paid the price.

Here is the difference, no matter how "sick and injured" Roger was he still played an extremely full schedule through the whole season.

Now Nadal was stupid and played way too much, his injuries caught up with him. And guess what he could not play anymore end of story, otherwise Nadal would have said oh I am hurt and then play like Roger.

If Roger was really sick and or injured then that would prevent him from playing, anyone that has had mono or a back injury knows they aren't playing with those issues end of story.

jackson vile · Dec 13, 2009

HunterST said:
I've known 3 people that have had mono and all of them said they never felt the same after they had it. Of course they recover, but they just never felt quite as good.

Guess what I have had mono and I could do no physical activies at all, all I could do is sleep. So either Roger is full of **** or it was not that bad to begin with. Either way it is a lame @$$ excuse.

Roger got his @$$ beat fair and square just like Nadal did, no excuses!

jackson vile · Dec 13, 2009

zagor said:
So Pete was in decline in 1996 and 1998? He finished as #1 those years.

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=SAP001

Here are the stats, take a look at the titles won with 1994 being 10 titles, The decline infact official starts end of 1997 and so do the W-L ratio at slams.

So what do you call that?

Emelia21 · Dec 13, 2009

When Rog has lost Mono rears its ugly head, when Rog wins Mono is not mentioned

I could go on and on

Mono comes and goes for Rog and his fans

akv89 · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=SAP001

Here are the stats, take a look at the titles won with 1994 being 10 titles, The decline infact official starts end of 1997 and so do the W-L ratio at slams.

So what do you call that?

By these standards, Federer has been in decline since the end of 2007, when his W/L started going south and he stopped winning every tournament he entered. And I would agree. He's still good enough to make it to the finals at majors, but he isn't good enough to dominate anymore.

Sartorius · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
If Roger was really sick and or injured then that would prevent him from playing, anyone that has had mono or a back injury knows they aren't playing with those issues end of story.

When it comes to Federer's mono, people are always missing (deliberately perhaps) the painfully obvious fact that what Federer missed was not "matches", he missed practice. Yes, he played matches. But as a poster mentioned earlier, he couldn't do the training blocks which he had always done in the past. Does anyone need confirmation as to how much practice means to a professional player?

And again as that poster mentioned, Federer himself said, before the clay season, that his sickness was long gone.

I would say it's not wise to suggest that it did not have any effect whatsoever on Federer in 2008, and it's rather hilarious to suggest that he "made it up". You can even argue if he suffered from the "fallout" of the sickness. But it's also not wise to suggest that it played a major role in Federer's losses.

Personally, I think Rafa would still do the French-Wimbly double even if Federer did not have mono. I can also say this for what Federer did this year, and yes I include the French Open in this.

pame · Dec 13, 2009

Emelia21 said:
When Rog has lost Mono rears its ugly head, when Rog wins Mono is not mentioned

When Rog has lost Mono rears its ugly head, when Rog wins Mono is not mentioned

I could go on and on

Mono comes and goes for Rog and his fans

But Nadal's injuries never ever go away... like Rome, they are eternal :???:

jazzyfunkybluesy · Dec 13, 2009

Rogers mono is history. Fugetaboutit.

bruce38 · Dec 13, 2009

Federer definitely had mono, I'm not so sure about Nadal's "injury" however. Federer is in a different league from Nadal talent wise which is why with mono he was still able to go deep into tournaments. Fed's losses to Nadal off clay have mostly been due to confidence issues and mono. Talent wise there is no comparison. Confidence can be regained, talent is inborn.

Emelia21 · Dec 13, 2009

pame said:
But Nadal's injuries never ever go away... like Rome, they are eternal :???:

I am not a Nadal fan

perhaps you should take that argument up with his fans, feel free to

AM95 · Dec 13, 2009

veroniquem said:
Oh yeah, Fed was so injured and tired that year that he played 19 tournaments among which 3 slam finals. If he was so tired and sick, don't you think he would have played fewer tournaments? :roll:
He even won a title between his RG and W final that year. Get real, noone cares about the mono because it is A MYTH like Ulysses' mermaids and cyclops :lol:

Hopefully that was sarcasm..

Halle is a pathetic title, and he beat weak players to win it. Unfortunatly I'm on my iPhone, but take a look at Federer during the Djoko AO semi. If he doesn't look sick to you then your an idiot.

Furthermore, the effects of mono last for 15 weeks after it had passed. Just google mononucleosis and you'll see the facts yourself.

Now a question for you. If Nadal was so injured since, as he claimed, Miami/Rotterdam then how come he won all those clay court tournaments and made it to the final of Madrid?

AM95 · Dec 13, 2009

Emelia21 said:
When Rog has lost Mono rears its ugly head, when Rog wins Mono is not mentioned

When Rog has lost Mono rears its ugly head, when Rog wins Mono is not mentioned

I could go on and on

Mono comes and goes for Rog and his fans

So does Nadal's tendinitis, blisters, fatigue, abdominal strain, soar throat, tummy ache, headache, groin pull and ass picking.

Your double standard fails.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
If Roger was really sick and or injured then that would prevent him from playing, anyone that has had mono or a back injury knows they aren't playing with those issues end of story.

Federer had a month off after the AO to recover.Besides,his mono was diagnosed just before Dubai and he had missed an entire training block in March.
Obviously it didnt affect his schedule because he had time off..But it takes common sense to note that.
And Roger did skip events when he had back injury.Only he was smart enough to skip minor ones.End of story.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

Sartorius said:
Personally, I think Rafa would still do the French-Wimbly double even if Federer did not have mono. I can also say this for what Federer did this year, and yes I include the French Open in this.

Exactly.I dont see many here denying this.Rafa was playing great.Of course he deserved it.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
Guess what I have had mono and I could do no physical activies at all, all I could do is sleep. So either Roger is full of **** or it was not that bad to begin with. Either way it is a lame @$$ excuse.

Roger got his @$$ beat fair and square just like Nadal did, no excuses!

A disease affects people differently at different levels.But again,it takes common sense to note that.

zagor · Dec 13, 2009

jackson vile said:
http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=SAP001

Here are the stats, take a look at the titles won with 1994 being 10 titles, The decline infact official starts end of 1997 and so do the W-L ratio at slams.

So what do you call that?

Eh,Fed's W-L ratio and especially number of titles declined since 2007 as well(and actualy more sharply than Pete's who won more titles in '98 for example than in '95)so if we go by your logic then Fed declined as well.

zagor · Dec 13, 2009

mandy01 said:
A disease affects people differently at different levels.But again,it takes common sense to note that.

Mono varies very differently in how it affects people,what people on this forum don't seem to know is that a good number of people go through mono without even knowing they had it.

If anything Ancic's case(which Nadal fans always bring up)is much more of an exception than Fed's.

You're wasting your time though,it's like arguing with a wall when it comes to mono and Nadal fans.

mandy01 · Dec 13, 2009

zagor said:
Mono varies very differently in how it affects people,what people on this forum don't seem to know is that a good number of people go through mono without even knowing they had it.

If anything Ancic's case(which Nadal fans always bring up)is much more of an exception than Fed's.

You're wasting your time though,it's like arguing with a wall when it comes to mono and Nadal fans.

LOL..and its not even like I'm blaming all of his losses on mono :lol:
I think he would've anyway lost the matches to Nadal that he did..The guy was the form of his life then.I think he would've anyway lost to Djokovic as well.

zagor · Dec 13, 2009

mandy01 said:
LOL..and its not even like I'm blaming all of his losses on mono :lol:
I think he would've anyway lost the matches to Nadal that he did..The guy was the form of his life then.I think he would've anyway lost to Djokovic as well.

For me it's not even an issue of whether he would lost to Nadal or Novak if he didn't have mono as I regard staying healthy as simply another part of the game.Sure I do believe Fed had mono and it somewhat affected his game and confidence but that's not Nadal nor Novak's problem,if Fed shows up to play them than he's in good enough condition to participate in a match,period.

What my issue is that Nadal fans are apparently so paranoid that Fed's mono takes something away from Nadal's incredible 2008(while really it doesn't for the reasons I said above)that they will accuse Fed of lying but on the other hand they give Fed zero credit for winning FO+Wimbledon this year(he won by default and similar nonsense)and beating Nadal in Madrid(the amount of excuses for that match was pathetic,they sounded like all Fed needed to do was show up),those are double standards.

BreakPoint · Dec 13, 2009

nCode2010 said:
Fed's mono was done by March 08. But the consequence of not being able to do 2 training blocks(Dec 07, Feb 08) would prove fatal vs Nadal in the spring/summer matches.

Only "done" in the sense that the virus had gone into remission, the major symptoms had subsided, and that he was on the road to recovery but by no means does it mean that he was fully recovered. Ask anyone who has ever had mono how long it took for them to fully recover. Most are not feeling 100% even after a year.

sh@de · Dec 14, 2009

zagor said:
For me it's not even an issue of whether he would lost to Nadal or Novak if he didn't have mono as I regard staying healthy as simply another part of the game.Sure I do believe Fed had mono and it somewhat affected his game and confidence but that's not Nadal nor Novak's problem,if Fed shows up to play them than he's in good enough condition to participate in a match,period.

What my issue is that Nadal fans are apparently so paranoid that Fed's mono takes something away from Nadal's incredible 2008(while really it doesn't for the reasons I said above)that they will accuse Fed of lying but on the other hand they give Fed zero credit for winning FO+Wimbledon this year(he won by default and similar nonsense)and beating Nadal in Madrid(the amount of excuses for that match was pathetic,they sounded like all Fed needed to do was show up),those are double standards.

Exactly. I don't understand why there are just so many double standards when those Nadal fans talk about Fed and Nadal. Those idiots who say mono was a lie and that Nadal only ever lost because he was tired/injured/*insert lame excuse* are seriously *******s who view the world through tinted glasses...

nCode2010 · Dec 14, 2009

The fact is that even monoFed gave Nole trouble in that 2008 AO semifinal. Remember he was up a break in the 1st set. A healthy Fed would have taken it in 4 sets for sure. Then easily beat Tsonga in the final.

TheMusicLover · Dec 14, 2009

zagor said:
Mono varies very differently in how it affects people,what people on this forum don't seem to know is that a good number of people go through mono without even knowing they had it.

If anything Ancic's case(which Nadal fans always bring up)is much more of an exception than Fed's.

This is very true indeed. A lot of 'normal' (= non-athletes) people indeed don't even notice having mono, as all you might notice is that you're just more tired in your daily job. Speaking out of personal experience, here.
It's of course completely different for pro athletes, where just a slight tinker in the cable might well have a big inpact on their 'daily job'.

You're wasting your time though,it's like arguing with a wall when it comes to mono and Nadal fans.

Don't throw them all on the same pile. There are very reasonable Nadal fans around, who understand very well that 'keeping healthy' is a very important matter in a pro's career - and that we don't always have that in our own hands. Those dreadful double standards come from the ****S, not from the reasonable fans.

AM95 · Dec 14, 2009

mandy01 said:
Exactly.I dont see many here denying this.Rafa was playing great.Of course he deserved it.

Right, but if you wan't to use the same mentality that Nadal fans use when Federer beats their boy, then Federer was fatigued from mono, similarily to how Nadal has tendinitis and complains about the season.

Why do people forget about Federer's Mono?

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Similar threads