federer better player now than 2006 say pat cash

[Rafa Garros]

on bbcs radio 5 live interview wimbledon winner pat cash say fedeerer better player now than the fedeerer of 2006. asked to explain the poorer results cash said its due to better competition now and that fed racked up the slams easily during the post sampras void before nadal became force and that the fields is stronger now forcing fed to raise his game.

 

[Giggs The Red Devil]

Either he didn’t say it or he’s completely blind.

 

[1970CRBase]

Pat Cash is even better now than in 2004.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-8687719-i-am-not-wrecking-federer-says-mirka.do

http://gototennis.com/2010/03/02/required-reading-the-untouchable-mirka-federer/

 

[Sharpshooter]

Oh no. Let's watch another person get shot for having an opinion

Anyway, while I don't think Rog is better now, I do agree that competition is tougher now than from 2003-2007.

 

[namelessone]

Pat Cash needs glasses.

 

[FedEx23]

While I don't think Federer is worse than he was in 2006, I think his aura of invincibility is gone and he doesn't have have that killer instinct anymore.

 

[fps]

Roger has a better defensive game now than in 2006, possibly he anticipates even better than before too, but it's his attacking game that has won him the slams, and his quick feet and perfect eyesight/ reactions were the launch pad for that game. Both are not quite the same now.

 

[The Hermit]

I want to know what he is smoking.

 

[fps]

I want to know what he is smoking.

hahaha it's Pat Cash you know it's something good.

 

[Comet Buster]

Federer's four only losses in big tournaments 2005/06 came to Nadal playing his best clay court tennis ever, and the only other top tier talents in Federer and Nadal's league - Safin and Nalbandian at the AO and Masters Cup respectively. Nowadays Federer is losing to guys who haven't nearly as much talent as those three players. It's pat cash's opinion but get real. He's improved his serve and his ability to play average and beat someone playing at a high level. Other than that Federer is severly past his prime/peak.

 

[Homeboy Hotel]

Pat must be smoking something strong.

 

[bezs]

Great Scott!!! I say we go Back To The Future and bring back the 06 Fed than.

 

[Satch]

Roger has a better defensive game now than in 2006, possibly he anticipates even better than before too, but it's his attacking game that has won him the slams, and his quick feet and perfect eyesight/ reactions were the launch pad for that game. Both are not quite the same now.

Federer + defensive game = fail :-|

 

[fps]

Federer + defensive game = fail :-|

Oh without doubt, his most vital component is the way he attacks, but his squash shot forehand, his ability to take a hard shot from his opponent and place it back on his baseline and retrieve his position on the baseline with no advantage to his opponent, these are things he's improved.

 

[mcenroefan]

He's lost some steps in court coverage. Fed used to sit almsot primarily on the baseline. He was able to do so b/c of his footwork and speed. Having lost a step or two, he now gets pushed back more easily...he retreats, seeking to get more time. It's a subtle difference but shows up in huge ways in the big matches.

Nadal, Nole, and Fed win with footwork and court coverage. Reduce their ability in this departement by even 5% - 10% and they will start losing matches they used to win.

This doesn't mean that Tsonga didn't play incredibly yesterday. He played well enough to beat anyone...prime Fed, prime Nadal, prime NOle, etc. He hit Ferrer off the court in straights....yesterday was not a fluke and was not due to Fed's poor play....Tsonga played great and deserved the win.

Navratilova said that she watched the last few games courtside and had never heard a sound on Centre Court like the one being made Tsonga's forehand.

 

[mandy01]

This is not bad when compared to what he said about Mirka in '04. That was such nonsense that Mirka had to actually come out and defend herself. Probably one of the rare times she's spoken to the press after she gave up tennis professionally. But I think Cash has got some beef with Roger in general. Either that or his ego hurt because Mirka asked him to shut his mouth . :lol:

 

[ViscaB]

Possibly nonsense.

Cash has more authority than Max Myrni though..

 

[sarmpas]

Possibly nonsense.

Cash has more authority than Max Myrni though..

Correction. Max has played Fedal in ATP matches, real matches. Cash hasn't ;-)

 

[sureshs]

Fed has greatly improved his backhand since those days. But overall, the game has progressed and he is getting left behind.

 

[Buckethead]

Only an idiot wouldn't agree that Fed is a better player now than before, hence agreeing with Pat Cash.

The only problem is, opponents now have gotten to the same level as Fed, the natural progression of tennis and tennis players, plus Fed is choking now, knowing that every match is only getting tough for him, that is why He isn't winning anymore despite of being a better player than before. Also He has won more than anybody, so his motivation and desire isn't the same as if HE hadn't won anything.

Fed will never win another major, He is done, people think that because Sampras won another Fed will as well, this era is 1000% stronger than Sampras' and the margins are very small, chances that Fed will have to compete and win 3 straight hard matches at his best are very little.

Fed is done, whether we Fed fans like it or not.

 

[Comet Buster]

Cheers Buckethead! I needed a new sig.

 

[Mustard]

It's crazy to say that Federer is better now than in 2006. Watch a 2006 Federer match, and what sticks out is his superior footwork and the bite and accuracy on his forehand.

 

[Wilander Fan]

He's lost some steps in court coverage. Fed used to sit almsot primarily on the baseline. He was able to do so b/c of his footwork and speed. Having lost a step or two, he now gets pushed back more easily...he retreats, seeking to get more time. It's a subtle difference but shows up in huge ways in the big matches.

Nadal, Nole, and Fed win with footwork and court coverage. Reduce their ability in this departement by even 5% - 10% and they will start losing matches they used to win.

This doesn't mean that Tsonga didn't play incredibly yesterday. He played well enough to beat anyone...prime Fed, prime Nadal, prime NOle, etc. He hit Ferrer off the court in straights....yesterday was not a fluke and was not due to Fed's poor play....Tsonga played great and deserved the win.

Navratilova said that she watched the last few games courtside and had never heard a sound on Centre Court like the one being made Tsonga's forehand.

That must be in the commentator's manual or something because they were saying the same thing when Berdych beat Federer last year..."never heard a ball make that sound off a racket before". In fact, it was the same kind of match with journeymen power baseline types just going for broke on every shot and making it. Both times, Federer sat back and waited for them to implode but they never did.

 

[TMF]

LOL at some of you think Fed is still in his prime when you even declared a 5 yrs younger player(Nadal) is in decline.

 

[Mustard]

Correction. Max has played Fedal in ATP matches, real matches. Cash hasn't ;-)

Pat Cash lost an exhibition match in 2001 to a 14-year old, Rafael Nadal

 

[Wilander Fan]

Tennis is about not having any weaknesses rather than having great strengths. There are guys out there with great individual shots but never get very far because they have weaknesses that can be exploited. Fed's backhand might be better now but it was never really a weakness that could be exploited. However, he is slower. He hides it well with anticipation but he gets taken out of position regularly so he has become much less aggressive from the baseline. A step slower makes your opponent look that much faster and more powerful. Notice how he doesnt blow people off the court anymore from a meter behind the baseline with that forehand? Its not because his forehand is off, its because he cant set up fast enough anymore.

 

[Hood_Man]

I don't like to say something like this about other people, but in this instance I think I can feel comfortable saying it.

...

Pat Cash is an idiot.

 

[TheTruth]

Pat Cash wants press and people talking about him. He's proven in the past that he doesn't mind being seen as an idiot as long as he gets the ink, and remains "relevant" in the tennis world.

 

[zagor]

Cash's opinion certainly carries some weight him being a former Wimbledon champion and all but on this I disagree with him completely. IMO Fed is still a great player but not as good as he was in his prime in quite a few aspects of his game which is perfectly normal and happens to every player once they hit 29-30 ( or even sooner).

This is not bad when compared to what he said about Mirka in '04. That was such nonsense that Mirka had to actually come out and defend herself. Probably one of the rare times she's spoken to the press after she gave up tennis professionally. But I think Cash has got some beef with Roger in general. Either that or his ego hurt because Mirka asked him to shut his mouth . :lol:

I definitely remember that, that was actually far worse than this as he was meddling in Fed's personal life which is none of his business.

 

[Praetorian]

Haha... I find it ironic that people whose sole purpose on this forums is to provide opinion, criticize Pat Cash's opinion, yet no one has ever played at his level to truly understand where his opinions come from.

 

[mcr619619]

he's just much less hunger..but the way that nadal is chasing his record, i think he's more motivated now than last year..

 

[TMF]

Haha... I find it ironic that people whose sole purpose on this forums is to provide opinion, criticize Pat Cash's opinion, yet no one has ever played at his level to truly understand where his opinions come from.

B/c if you have watched Fed played throughout his career, it's so obvious that he's not as good as he's use to be. Get a clue.

 

[zagor]

Haha... I find it ironic that people whose sole purpose on this forums is to provide opinion, criticize Pat Cash's opinion, yet no one has ever played at his level to truly understand where his opinions come from.

So given that he's a former player his opinion is infallible? Why do these former pros get their predictions wrong so often then? I can respect his opinion but I can still disagree with it, sorry but no one will convince me that Fed is playing anywhere near his 2006 level let alone better.

 

[TheTruth]

Why would someone have to play on a professional level to have an opinion?

Mary Jo, Cahill, Evert, Drysdale, P & JMac, Shriver, Carillo, et al. were all professional tennis players and their opinion is wrong way more than it's right.

Fowler, Robinson, et al. didn't play professional tennis and they're just as wrong too.

You don't have to play a sport to offer an opinion.

Do all sports physicians, or psychologists, or any other sports related careers have to actually play on a professional level?

Just because someone played tennis doesn't mean they're imbued with perfect and flawless logic. They can still lack the ability to reason. They can still not be smart.

Playing a sport doesn't make you a genius. It only means you played a sport.

 

[Praetorian]

B/c if you have watched Fed played throughout his career, it's so obvious that he's not as good as he's use to be. Get a clue.

My point is it is his opinion. So now you are attacking me for having an opinion. Need a hug? I guess you've just made my point.

 

[1970CRBase]

Cash's opinion certainly carries some weight him being a former Wimbledon champion and all but on this I disagree with him completely. IMO Fed is still a great player but not as good as he was in his prime in quite a few aspects of his game which is perfectly normal and happens to every player once they hit 29-30 ( or even sooner).



I definitely remember that, that was actually far worse than this as he was meddling in Fed's personal life which is none of his business.

Just because he was a former champion doesn't mean he cannot ruin his own credibility. Once it's gone through the BS they spout, it's over. Same with Mac. They were former great players, so what? Nothing but jesters now.

Actually, Pat has to make a wound on somebody he knows is much greater than himself and feed on it to have any life of his own.

Oh, and what was Pat's opinion on the possibility of Nad winning USO again?

 

[sarmpas]

Pat Cash lost an exhibition match in 2001 to a 14-year old, Rafael Nadal

It's not a real match.

 

[Praetorian]

Why would someone have to play on a professional level to have an opinion?

Mary Jo, Cahill, Evert, Drysdale, P & JMac, Shriver, Carillo, et al. were all professional tennis players and their opinion is wrong way more than it's right.

Fowler, Robinson, et al. didn't play professional tennis and they're just as wrong too.

You don't have to play a sport to offer an opinion.

Do all sports physicians, or psychologists, or any other sports related careers have to actually play on a professional level?

Just because someone played tennis doesn't mean they're imbued with perfect and flawless logic. They can still lack the ability to reason. They can still not be smart.

Playing a sport doesn't make you a genius. It only means you played a sport.

You don't. But what evidence that people have on this board that their opinion matters more than his? People spend enormous amounts of time on this board trying to prove their own opinion is greater than someone else's. If you want to state your opinion, then that's fine, I can respect that, the same level of respect I'll grant Pat Cash's. However, if you want to push you are right over someone else, the contribute some evidence or knowledge, that is beyond the evidence of the person you are trying to over proving.

For instance, if you've sustained the same type of knee injury that Nadal had, I'd be more inclined to believe how you felt Nadal felt, over someone who've only had a Migraine. If Nadal had a migraine, then I'd believe that person, if you've never had a migraine.

 

[NamRanger]

Why would someone have to play on a professional level to have an opinion?

Mary Jo, Cahill, Evert, Drysdale, P & JMac, Shriver, Carillo, et al. were all professional tennis players and their opinion is wrong way more than it's right.

Fowler, Robinson, et al. didn't play professional tennis and they're just as wrong too.

You don't have to play a sport to offer an opinion.

Do all sports physicians, or psychologists, or any other sports related careers have to actually play on a professional level?

Just because someone played tennis doesn't mean they're imbued with perfect and flawless logic. They can still lack the ability to reason. They can still not be smart.

Playing a sport doesn't make you a genius. It only means you played a sport.

Playing the sport generally gives you more knowledge and experience when talking about that sport. Now that's not to say that these people are always right, however they are generally more right then people who don't play the sport. Are you going to argue that Cahlill and Gilbert are wrong just as often as Chris Fowler? Give me a break.



a.k.a. stop being so uppdy up because you don't play the sport, and all you do is watch Nadal run around.

 

[Devilito]

Fed will never win another major, He is done, people think that because Sampras won another Fed will as well, this era is 1000% stronger than Sampras'

You're smoking more McCrack than Cash buddy. This is the top 20 seeds of the final slam (2002 US Open) Petros won. Compare it to the total scrubs littering the top 20 in the 2011 Wimbledon where Federer was expected to win.

1. Lleyton Hewitt
2. Marat Safin
3. Tommy Haas
4. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
5. Tim Henman
6. Andre Agassi
7. Juan Carlos Ferrero
8. Albert Costa
9. Carlos Moyà
10. Sébastien Grosjean
11. Andy Roddick
12.n/a
13. Roger Federer
14. Jiří Novák
15.n/a
16. David Nalbandian
17. Pete Sampras
18. Àlex Corretja
19. Xavier Malisse
20. Younes El Aynaoui

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Novak Djokovic
3. Roger Federer
4. Andy Murray
5. Robin Söderling
6. Tomáš Berdych
7. David Ferrer
8. Andy Roddick)
9. Gaël Monfils
10. Mardy Fish
11. Jürgen Melzer
12. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
13. Viktor Troicki
14. Stanislas Wawrinka
15. Gilles Simon
16. Nicolás Almagro
17. Richard Gasquet
18. Mikhail Youzhny
19. Michaël Llodra
20. Florian Mayer

 

[TheTruth]

You don't. But what evidence that people have on this board that their opinion matters more than his? People spend enormous amounts of time on this board trying to prove their own opinion is greater than someone else's. If you want to state your opinion, then that's fine, I can respect that, the same level of respect I'll grant Pat Cash's. However, if you want to push you are right over someone else, the contribute some evidence or knowledge, that is beyond the evidence of the person you are trying to over proving.

For instance, if you've sustained the same type of knee injury that Nadal had, I'd be more inclined to believe how you felt Nadal felt, over someone who've only had a Migraine. If Nadal had a migraine, then I'd believe that person, if you've never had a migraine.

People are allowed to disagree with someone else's opinion. If that's the case you're saying that just because a player offers an opinion, we're supposed to accept it? That doesn't make sense.

We can't have any opinion using your logic, nor can we disagree with anyone else's. You may as well shut the board down in that case, because that's the entire purpose of a public forum.

 

[NamRanger]

People are allowed to disagree with someone else's opinion. If that's the case you're saying that just because a player offers an opinion, we're supposed to accept it? That doesn't make sense.

We can't have any opinion using your logic, nor can we disagree with anyone else's. You may as well shut the board down in that case, because that's the entire purpose of a public forum.

You may not be able to have an opinion because you never back anything up with evidence.

 

[tacou]

what other players are better at 30 compared to 25?

 

[sonicare]

what other players are better at 30 compared to 25?

This..lol...

 

[Comet Buster]

Why would someone have to play on a professional level to have an opinion?

If there was ever a topic actually about the technical side of the sport, the pro would be right every single time. I know these things never get discussed but an opinion on the sport by someone who actually got of their ass to play that sport would know it.

Mary Jo, Cahill, Evert, Drysdale, P & JMac, Shriver, Carillo, et al. were all professional tennis players and their opinion is wrong way more than it's right.

No one even mentioned these guys. This is to do with Pat Cash. Sometimes these people are wrong about things that aren't related to the technical side of the sport. They just make dumb comments once in a while or a dumb prediction. So what?

Fowler, Robinson, et al. didn't play professional tennis and they're just as wrong too.

Fowler is pretty good actually.

You don't have to play a sport to offer an opinion.

Opinions like 'who's GOAT' 'My favourite player >>> Your favourite player' you don't. All you have to be is an idiot troll to do that. The person who plays the sport can offer an opinion about the sport itself; playing it.

Do all sports physicians, or psychologists, or any other sports related careers have to actually play on a professional level?

Getting to professional level of tennis is hard -no ****- . You need finances for travel expenses/coaching etc etc. Many people play the sport and are very good. Some people are great yet didn't have the breaks etc etc. I guarantee you that many of the most intellectual tennis fans play the sport.

Just because someone played tennis doesn't mean they're imbued with perfect and flawless logic. They can still lack the ability to reason. They can still not be smart.

That's funny.

Playing a sport doesn't make you a genius. It only means you played a sport.

Weren't you the poster who burried Max Mirnyi for critisising Nadal for not being 'qualified' to do so. Now you're critisising players who have actually played the game and make a living talking about the game keeping in mind you're not qualified to critisise them?


From now on I'm just gonna call you The_Hypocrite

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Pat Cash is even better now than in 2004.

Pat Cash needs glasses.

Pat must be smoking something strong.

Possibly nonsense.

Cash has more authority than Max Myrni though..

ah... the Hippos.. the Hipnosis... the himps... you know the word starting with H??? i cant remember now...

Correction. Max has played Fedal in ATP matches, real matches. Cash hasn't ;-)

ViscaB knows alot about Soccer\Footbal. so much that he didnt even know who Joan Gamper was...

Why would someone have to play on a professional level to have an opinion?

You don't have to play a sport to offer an opinion.

they are not offering... they are being payed!!! but this may just be too deep pf a concatenation of thoughts for you to understand!!!

People are allowed to disagree with someone else's opinion.

hence max mirnyi being a clown and what not right???? please refer to Viscab's reply on the h word

Weren't you the poster who burried Max Mirnyi for critisising Nadal for not being 'qualified' to do so....

...From now on I'm just gonna call you The_Hypocrite

carefull... she belongs to the minority hence she owns the truth!!!! be afraid... be very afraid!!!

 

[NadalAgassi]

You're smoking more McCrack than Cash buddy. This is the top 20 seeds of the final slam (2002 US Open) Petros won. Compare it to the total scrubs littering the top 20 in the 2011 Wimbledon where Federer was expected to win.

1. Lleyton Hewitt
2. Marat Safin
3. Tommy Haas
4. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
5. Tim Henman
6. Andre Agassi
7. Juan Carlos Ferrero
8. Albert Costa
9. Carlos Moyà
10. Sébastien Grosjean
11. Andy Roddick
12.n/a
13. Roger Federer
14. Jiří Novák
15.n/a
16. David Nalbandian
17. Pete Sampras
18. Àlex Corretja
19. Xavier Malisse
20. Younes El Aynaoui

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Novak Djokovic
3. Roger Federer
4. Andy Murray
5. Robin Söderling
6. Tomáš Berdych
7. David Ferrer
8. Andy Roddick)
9. Gaël Monfils
10. Mardy Fish
11. Jürgen Melzer
12. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
13. Viktor Troicki
14. Stanislas Wawrinka
15. Gilles Simon
16. Nicolás Almagro
17. Richard Gasquet
18. Mikhail Youzhny
19. Michaël Llodra
20. Florian Mayer

LOL you think Hewitt at #1 and Haas at #3 is stronger. Those two wouldnt have a prayer of ever being ranked that high against the current field. For the record I agree the Sampras era had stronger competition (as far as depth) but 2002 was not the Sampras era. 2002 was probably the weakest year of mens tennis ever with Jonansson and a past his prime Costa winning slams, a pre prime Nalbandian making a Wimbledon final, and Schalken being one of the biggest threats at Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

 

[MixieP]

OK, so Federer won his titles in a weak era - that's what he's saying, right?

 

[Mustard]

LOL you think Hewitt at #1 and Haas at #3 is stronger. Those two wouldnt have a prayer of ever being ranked that high against the current field.

I see you've forgotten how good Hewitt could be back then. A prime Hewitt is definitely top 5 in today's field, if not higher.

 

[veroniquem]

Fed does everything better now except for the score
Pat Cash fits perfectly in Federer's happy shiny universe...