Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The_Punisher, Feb 21, 2009.
well what do you think?
no...just an excuse
Federer was already declining in 2007. His AO that year was perfect, but later in the year you could tell his footwork wasn't what it used to be, his forehand and backhand lost the power they had in the old days, and players were no longer afraid he would drop bagels on them even when they were playing well.
Wow--this could be the million dollar question in about five years from now. Right now, there is no way to answer it. We'll just have to wait until his career is over before we can answer it.
Nope, but just ask any Fed-obsessed fan and they'll say different.
The Year of the Mono
1. Great thread.
2. Yes, it certainly ruined 2008 and AO 2009, and any more slams he might lose.
All this about giving credit to Nadal, and the other players improving is all hogwash. It was all about Roger's mono.
2008 shall go down in History books as The Year of Mono.
No, it was a virus called Nadal that is ruining his career.
no, Nadal ruined it. Nadal's knee also saved Fed's career in 07.
Yea I think Nadal is a bigger problem for Fed than the mono, think the mono might have hurt him in the 08 AO, 08 FO was nadals anyway and he was fine at wimbly till the nadal match
haha--now THAT was good!
What ruined Fed's career?
No, Rafa did.
How could you say his career is ruined? The man has won 13 slams. Nobody can ever ruin that.
People get sick. It happens.
If a recent career was "ruined" by mono it was Ancic.
Besides, Federer had twelve GS singles titles when he was sick, and gotten another one since.
I'd be more concerned about his back. Depends on how serious it is.
Rip up your back, blow out your knee, tear up your shoulder, break a hip......now those are career ruining injuries.
Could not agree more. Well said. Probably the only career (current) that was ruined by an illness. Feel for the guy.
yea mono ruined it cause with mono he made a sf had 3 runner ups and a major title....really. Try age and now he is facing people five to six years younger than him.
Age wise, Roger is in his prime.
I say it played a part, but I don't believe it was the biggest factor.
I had mono last year. And wasn't able to play for 3 months straight. It's a terrible desease, but by now he surely recovered.
I think there are quite a few different factors that are a problem for fed
Mono? You're kidding?
Every King must pass on the throne. Poor excuses that's all. Definitely something more like "Federer got fired by the Nadal Passion and Phenomenon.
Yes, but just ask any Nadal-obsessed fan and they'll say different.
Federers career is fine. In 2008 he won the US open, made the finals to Wimby and Roland Garros and in 2009 he made the final of the Australian open.
He hasn't gotten any worse, it's just that Nadal has gotten way better.
no,mono ruined mario ancics career
in my opinion there are better players on the tour now than 3 or 4 years ago
and how is his career ruined by the way?
he is the reigning champion at uso, a grand slam!!!
if you want to make conclusions out of his three runer-up finishes at the other slams than nadal ruined his career and his inability to improve his game or at least his game plan
Until September 13, 2009.
Rafitis monotonically hammering his backhand ?
He is still consistently making slam final after final and just won the USO. He just cant beat 1 player at the slams because that player got better and Fed didnt. He still destroys the rest of the field outside of Murray in 3 set matches.
Some "decline." Where can I buy some "Decline." I will take "Decline" for 400 Alex.
It it wasnt for Nadal, Fed would still be winning slam after slam. Nadal is better player not that he has hit his prime as opposed to what Fed had to deal with in the finals before like Hewitt, Gonzo, Roddick, etc.
Thats the only difference
When Fed start losing before the slam finals we will talk about "decline." Until then Fed's career is not in a decline
Of course not,the guy has 13 slams and you talk about ruining career? 1-2 slams is a great carrer for a tennis player,10+ is amazing.If anything Fed had good fortune with his health during his prime years,being almost injury-free in that period.To win so many slams in such a short period as Fed did of course you need talent,dedication,mental strength etc. but you also need to be healthy as well.
If you want to talk about injury ruined careers those are Kuerten,Pat Cash,Krajicek,even Tsonga etc. certainly not Fed.Mono did affect his performance but hardly to some great degree as he didn't miss a tourney the whole 2008.The thing is that Fed's getting older and is declining while Nadal his improving,that's the way in tennis and in other sports in general,you can't remain on top forever,there will always bee some young gun to dethrone you.
You never know,he just might surprise you.Hardly anyone expected him to win it last year given the fact that he bombed out early in Olympics-Toronto-Cinncinati yet he went on to win beating young guns Novak and Murray in a row.
Not that surprising though to see people on this site writing off a 5 time defending champion,acting like he has no chance whatsoever for the USO title(like it's a foregone conclusion that he want defend the title) all the while stating how Fed fans are the ones who are delusional/blind/obsessed.I'm used to seeing that kind of double standard here.
Not really,but I don't expect you to say anything otherwise given your agenda.As for losing before the final,he was mighty close to losing in early rounds in every HC slam since 2008,coincidence? Not likely but don't expect you to acknowledge the fact that Fed was a few points away from losing to Tipsarevic and Andreev and was damn close to losing to Berdych as well.I guess Tipsarevic,Andreev and Berdych all improved so much as well,it's just that you couldn't tell by their results and ranking(or anything actually).
With that said don't you dare now say that Sampras was playing badly at USO in 200-2002 period as he reached 3 USO finals in a row in that period,something he never managed to do in his prime,during the 90s.
if anything has ruined Fed's career its been Nadal becoming a better player on grass and HC. Before Nadal was just a great clay courter. Now he can beat Fed anywhere it seems. Aside from the USO. The difference is Nadal rised to the challenge on Hardcourt and Grass. Fed hasnt rised to the challenge on clay
Not really? Who has Fed lost to at the slams outside of Nadal aside from when he had Mono at the AO 2008? NO ONE!!!. Hes still in his prime. If not for Nadal, Fed is still a 3 out of 4 slam a year player.
He reached 2 finals in a row at Wimbledon in 2006-2007 so no,you're wrong.
No, it hasn't , although it did play a part in him losing in the SF at the AO in 2008 ....
So how do you explain him almost losing to Tipsarevic,Andreev and Berdych then? He never had those sort of matches in the early rounds in HC slams before? Tipsarevic match he was a few points from losing,Andreev choked more than Berdych despite what people say and Berdych was up 2-0 against him so do explain that.
Fed had his share of problems with players in which was is so called "Prime." 04-07. A young Murray got him at Cincinatti? Nadal got him a few times. Canas got him twice. He wasnt perfect in ever match he played. He played at a level you werent going to duplicate.
He had mono against Tipsy. Berdych and Andreev gave him a bit of a scare yes.. But did he lose? No.
And he is only 27 and has had no major injuries to speak of. Pete was 29-31 years of age in 00-02. It was obvious he wasnt in his prime post 99.
Its not obvious Fed is past his. I look at the end result. No one has gotten Fed at the slams outside of Nadal. If he was "passed his prime", you would see more uncharacteristic losses when it mattered most.
He may not be at his " 2006 peak" but he hasnt left his "prime." Usually a peak doesnt last long. But a prime can last quite a while. Like i said, until Fed begins losing uncharacteristically at slams, I dont buy he has left his prime
If you call Fed in a decline, Im sure 95 percent of the players on tour wish they were as well. If consistently making 19 straight Semis or Finals appearances at the slams and only losing to one player is a decline , I would like that decline.
Look at what he did to Djoker and Murray at the USO after his scare against Andreev. Hell there is only player on tour that can beat him at the slams
Only slam results matter according to you so quit babbling about yout young Murray in Cinncinati.Or if you want,we can compare Fed's results outside of slams in 2004-2007 and 2008.Aside from a match against Haas in 2006 AO Fed was never in danger of losing early in any slam and Haas is a former world number 2 and twice semifinalist at AO,a far cry from Tipsarevic,Andreev and Berdych.
An understatement if I ever saw one,they were outplaying Fed and were on the verge of victory but they couldn't hold their nerves and Fed hung in tough.
He was still reaching slam finals and reached 3 USO finals in a row,again according you that means he was playing great.
The end result is that Fed was on the brink of losing to players who would have a hard time getting a set off from in HC slams a few years back.If Andreev and Berdych kept their nerves and Fed didn't hang tough he would dump out of both USO and AO early,something he was never in danger of before in any slam.
No, mono did not reuin his career. It's not over is it? Nor did mono interfere with his career.
But Federer's stubborness in playing despite knowing that he had mono was a very stupid thing to do. Whether this decision has a permanent effect on his tennis dreams is yet to be seen.
Sampras was not as good in 00-02 as Fed is at only 27 years of old in the years 08-09. Thats a fact. No one in their right mind would say Sampras at 29-31 years of age was in his prime. Yes he was making headway at the USO. Look at him at Wimbeldon post 29 years of age. He was needing 5 sets to get by bums. He lost to George Basil in 2002. Who the hell is Basil? Sampras was way removed from his prime by 01-02. Historically Pete's prime ended in 98 or 99. Fed has made 19 straight semi appearances at the slams has last to.. ONE PLAYER!!.. ONE PLAYER!!!! if you discount his Mono spells at the AO 2008 and that player is currently the best player in the world.
I dunno how u can say Fed has passed his prime yet has been in position to win 3 or 4 slams a year. Thats not a player passed his prime Im sorry.
Like said, the only difference is Nadal has gotten better is all. If Nadal will still just a great clay courter, Fed has 3 of the 4 slams a year
Nothing has runied Feds career....he still has a stella career....he still went on to win USO after having it!
And Djokovic is what,invinsible?
Okay,agre to disagree,this isn't going nowhere.If you think that a 2004-2007 Fed would be on the brink of losing(not just a tight match,he was on the "edge" and was saved by his mental toughness and his opponent's nerves)to Andreev,Tipsarevic and Berdych in any slam then fine,you're entitled to your opinion.I would consider your opinion more valid if I didn't know you'd say anything to downgrade Fed because he's close to your idol's slam record.
Another thing,stop calling Nadal "just" a great claycourter when he reached 2 Wimbledon finals in 2006-2007,it's downright ridiculous.
Well he put the beatdown on Djoker and Murray both in a row at the USO. Did Fed look like he was in a decline then? I dont think he is the week in week out phenomenon he was. But he doesnt have to be. He is at the point in his career that winning the GS record is all that should matter and taking some wins back from Nadal. Winning Cincinatti or Dubai shouldnt be on his short list of "things to do". But at the same time Djoker and Murray, Nadal are better players now than Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Nalbandian ever were. All fed has to do now is win 2 more GS titles, and get his revenge on Nadal a couple times, Maybe win an RG doing so and he should be the GOAT statisctially. And I dont even like the guy. LOL. He still has a good year or two left on taking out Nadal at the slams
In theory agree with that although they still have some proving to do,Murray especially who I think was unlucky to run into a red hot Verdasco at AO while being sick that day as well(which I believe he was),I still expect great things from Murray in this and next few years despite AO loss but Djokovic on the other hand needs to get back on track,he's not improving,if anything he's stagnating(he played better in first half of 2008),if he continues on that reute other young guns will pass him by.You should add Tsonga to your list,who I think has plenty of potential and will be a slam winner one day if his health holds up.
I don't think I'll ever think of Fed as the GOAT but I'll put him as being greater than Sampras if he breaks Pete's slam record "and" gets a few more wins over Nadal in slam finals.If he breaks Pete's record and doesn't beat Nadal in a slam final ever again I'll still consider Sampras to be the greater player.This is all regardless of the fact that Fed is my favourite player of all time,whether I or anyone else like to watch his game or not should have no bearing of whether he's the GOAT or not.
Personally, if Fed can win the French and defeat Nadal at the slams while doing so. I would probably put him as GOAT if not right up there. I didnt get to experience the Laver-Borg phenenon but if he overtakes Petes GS record and wins the French. I dunno how u can put Pete ahead of Roger in terms of careers to be honest.
So Fed should be right there with Laver. But Laver never had to beat someone the calibor of Nadal on clay. So if Fed can do that I dunno how u can go against that. Borg couldnt win the USO, Pete couldnt win the french. If Fed can beat arguably the great claycourter to ever live, Fed should be GOAT really, It would be difficult to argue against those results
it didnt ruin his career. . what it may have done though, is ruin his chances of winning the records number of slams aka attaining GOAT status.
Well yes,but what are the chances of that happening? It will be an uphill battle for Fed to beat Nadal even at Wimbledon and USO/AO this and the next few years let alone FO where it will be mission impossible.Personally,if Fed somehow manages to reclaim Wimbledon this year by beating Nadal in the final it would do much to boost his legacy.But he ain't getting into any kind of GOAT discussion if he doesn't beat Nadal on a big stage again as far as I'm concerned,I love his tennis but the GOAT standards should be harsh,we're talking about the best ever here.
Maybe Nadal will not be a 100 percent for the French? IF so that could spell good news for Roger. Apparently Nadal is having knee problems again
Fed dropped a level in 2007 even though he won 3 slams. It was evident. He wasn't as unbeatable in 2007 as he was in 05-06. Then he got mono and it was the nail in the coffin.
I'll be rooting for Fed at the FO as always but would hate to see that happen to Nadal.I mean I wouldn't wish injury on any player but I wouldn't care that much if Nadal was some asshat but the thing is even though as a Fed fan I dislike the fact that he's beating up on Fed so often I really consider Nadal to be a nice guy off court.Wouldn't want to see anything bad happen to him,if he loses at the FO this year or who knows when I hope it's because someone outplays him,not because his body can't hold up.
Someone outplaying a physically fit Nadal at RG??
I would crown that guy (if he wins the match outplaying Nadal) as the GOAT, because it would require a level of tennis that maybe we haven't ever witnessed yet.
Fed was bound to drop off a little. You werent going to duplicate the playing level he was playing at in 2006 the following year.
But I would of have liked have seen how Fed 2006 would have handled 08-09 Nadal during that time. I dont think it would have made much a difference considering Nadal and the matchup problem he presents for Fed. Fed still had the 1 handed BH then. But his serve is even better now
Separate names with a comma.