Ahem: "Federer: Becker and Lendl would've killed him."

[BigboyDan]

That's a post title that I wrote in early April after seeing a whole Federer match for the first time on television (Nasdaq). Amazing how many of the terminally-clueless here tried to hand me my ***.

My openning remarks:

"And Sampras, in his prime, 7 out of 10 times. Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights. Average serve, no real speed; can't serve and volley. No real backhand volley. No real weapon off his backhand period; especially exploited when he goes into the doubles lane. Has no overhead winner. He's quick but not fast from side-to-side. Loses confidence in certain shots; indecisive at times; can be overpowered by opponents groundstrokes. Man, I feel had by posters here."

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=46772

 

[Bula!]

One of the funniest things I've ever read.

 

[Return_Ace]

I know what you mean........please tell me that this is some elaborate deception to show our support for Fed (well not mine but other peoples since I dnt like Fed ubt he is pretty talented)

 

[BigboyDan]

Nadal has beaten Federer twice, handly. Fed's done at the top. Finito. Adios. So long, Swissy. Federer always won over inferior opponants; now there's at least one that he can't beat. He doesn't have the game...

 

[rhubarb]

Reports of his demise are much exaggerated. He still has a 3000+ lead at the top of the rankings.

 

[Bula!]

Nadal has beaten Federer twice, handly. Fed's done at the top. Finito. Adios. So long, Swissy. Federer always won over inferior opponants; now there's at least one that he can't beat. He doesn't have the game...

I completely agree, his entire career hinged on one single match, I can't see him ever winning anything again...

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

BigboyDan, u know nothing in tennis or u watched only a few matches with Fed ?

Federer is the great player. But Nadal today captured his title of the NO 1. Boy today trembled second time this year. If Lendl met with Nadal probably he'd lose 0:6 three times. Lendl for me is nothing, hard working horse. Another story is Becker.

 

[Return_Ace]

You know i'm sure Sampras lost to Agassi heck of a lot more than federer did to nadal, via your mindset that would make sampras' career to over from an early start: guess who was wrong?(and it weren't me btw)

 

[zorg]

Okay. Think of THIS. Nadal is a clay court specalist. That is his best surface, he can't do as well on the others. I agree he can "DO" on the others, but he can't do as well. Federer on the other hand...Clay is his WORST surface. And I get the feeling he was very nervous for some reason. But he still managed to get a set from Nadal. That set was him playing like himself. He was nervous for the other sets. He got a set of a person that is on his best surface and is his worst surface. He will improve on clay. I feel that Federer is the one that can improve more. And since you haven't watched Federer at all really BigboyDan, you shouldn't even open your mouth about him. Another thing, you think that Safin, Agassi, Roddick, and Hewitt are inferior. Its nice that you think the top players are so bad. So then you really DO think Federer is good, if everyone else is inferior.

So buddy, you need to make up your mind. Federer is still number 1. Still probobly going to win atleast Wimbledon, and still can dominate anyone. He still is the only one that can do pretty well on all surfaces.

Please make up your mind BigboyDan, is the a bad player, or is he good. Because you said everyone is inferior. Please be clearer. Your lack of proof, knowledge, and truthfulness isn't pleasant to hear.

 

[erik-the-red]

Dan, that is ridiculous.

Do you really think that even in their prime Becker and Lendl would have been able to beat Federer?

The game has changed since the 1980s.

Players hit harder. Maybe you haven't realized that.

 

[BigboyDan]

Federer can win Wimbledon IF he doesn't have to play NADAL, because NADAL is a better tennis player than Federer.

 

[rhubarb]

Let's see Nadal get to the semis of Wimbledon then, because he'll need to if he's going to play Federer.

You're just a troll, BD, a nicely-timed one, but a troll all the same.

 

[BigboyDan]

Well erik,

Nadal just whooped Federer, and beat him on the hard-court back in April. Therefore, Federer is beatable. I surmise that Llendl and Becker (both bigger, stronger, had more game) could defeat Federer, because I've seen them all play. It's arguable...

 

[BigboyDan]

Troll?

Fact: French semifinal, Nadal over Federer 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Dan - You are a terrible judge of tennis talent.

- KK

 

[mach1]

Federer can win Wimbledon IF he doesn't have to play NADAL, because NADAL is a better tennis player than Federer.

Do you believe this 100%? You seem like one to sway with the wind.

 

[zorg]

Well erik,

Nadal just whooped Federer, and beat him on the hard-court back in April. Therefore, Federer is beatable. I surmise that Llendl and Becker (both bigger, stronger, had more game) could defeat Federer, because I've seen them all play. It's arguable...

Um, you really show your stupidity. Federer WON in April, not lost. You shouldn't open your mouth at all man. You make up fake stuff.

 

[rhubarb]

Troll?

Fact: French semifinal, Nadal over Federer 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

Yes, a troll. Stirring with a big stick. And lying: Federer beat Nadal in Miami this year, he won the last point, and that my dear, is what counts.

 

[BigboyDan]

zorg,

You caught me. I opologize for my stupidity. Nadal did lose to Federer in Miami in five sets. I posted too quickly and forgot to add that Federer lost in April at the Monte Carlo quarterfinals to Richard Gasquet L 7-6 (7-1), 2-6, 6-7 (8-10).

Point stands, Federer is beatable, and Nadal showed everyone how to do it.

 

[rhubarb]

Federer is beatable? Really? Gosh, I would never have guessed.

BD, don't you think the tour guys know that already? They know how to beat him, but rarely can they execute. There's a reason for that.

 

[Bula!]

If your point is that Federer is beatable, I don't think you'll find many people arguing.

 

[BigboyDan]

My POINT is that Federer will not be able to defeat Nadal from now on.

 

[Morpheus]

Dan - You are a terrible judge of tennis talent.

- KK

Hey, KK, on this we agree! And I hear BigBoy has a high opinion of himself...

 

[devila]

Federer boasted on espn, "I'm almost unbeatable."
Dick Enberg moans, "He's perhaps the most popular player."
LMAO

 

[doom-Ed]

My POINT is that Federer will not be able to defeat Nadal from now on.

lol.

that's pretty darn funny

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Hey, KK, on this we agree!

Morpheus - You may be surprised at how many times we DO agree. I think you are one of the best ... and most entertaining ... posters on TW. (I just usually don't do "Me too" posts to let people know the obvious -- that they've contributed to the discourse.)

- KK

 

[zorroman]

My POINT is that Federer will not be able to defeat Nadal from now on.

I too am interested to see how the Feds-Nadal rivalry plays out, but I am convinced that the silly posts of people like BigboyDan and twistserve is largely responsible for the declining level of discussion on this message board.

 

[erik-the-red]

Becker was 6'3, a full two inches taller than Sampras and most likely had a few more pounds of muscle in relation to height.

Sampras was able to overpower Becker nonetheless.

Borg was the godfather of the modern game. He made the western grip a virtual necessity for hitting "loaded with topspin" moonballs.

Lendl was the prototype of the modern ATP touring pro. He publicly admitted to weight training as the source of his dominant power.

Still, have you seen his physical shape in his prime time compared to some of the players on tour today, including Roger Federer? Federer is quite thin due to his relative youth, but Lendl is VERY thin.

 

[fastdunn]

He's quick but not fast from side-to-side.

Actually, Federer's forehand does seem to get weakened when it was
pulled wide. His running backhand can be better than his running forehand.
Federer's forehand looks surprisingly awkward if he gets pulled wide.

Safin and Nadal exploited this and went to his forehand fearlessly.

But still Federer's very rarely talented all court player,... maybe
skewed toward baseline game and volleys are not his forte but
who volleys these days anyway ?

 

[fist pump]

you should change your username to a longer one - trolldumbbigboydan

 

[Chopin]

How could Nadal ever beat Federer on grass? Nadal is a clay-courter. Federer's serve is much better than Nadal's, he has more variety and his movement on grass is much better than Nadal's. Federer can serve and volley, he has won Wimbledon twice. Its obvious you're not very educated on Federer's game if today is the first time you've seen him play a match.

 

[tsubaka]

My POINT is that Federer will not be able to defeat Nadal from now on.

I found this forum very interesting when I started scanning pro's racquets and gear, and others.. but the general pro player discussion sucks --- full of hatred, anger, biased opinions... some are good, but some dont even know how to spell tennis (bigboy, twistserve....). i suggest rename this site to "anti-federerforum.com". I better go to Tikling island and eat kamote than read others' wasted opinions.

 

[Morpheus]

Borg was the godfather of the modern game. He made the western grip a virtual necessity for hitting "loaded with topspin" moonballs.
.

Maybe G. Vilas was the great grandfather then if you mean the first to use heavy topspin.