Federer: Nadal's losses to Djokovic could hurt him

[JohnnyCracker]

No. And I'm sorry she's going to be broadcasting during the French Open, but I just don't like the sneaky manipulative tactics. "I'm losing too, but it doesn't really matter." That's a bunch of malarkey. Unless he's now saying he doesn't care if he loses to Nole and Nadal.

Nope. It won't matter to him at all. Unbelievable.

Sneaky? Manipulative? :lol: He was asked to give his opinion and so he did.
Has Federer's sneaky & manipulative words worked against Nadal all these years?

So what's the big deal?

 

[TheTruth]

Sneaky? Manipulative? :lol: He was asked to give his opinion and so he did.
Has Federer's sneaky & manipulative words worked against Nadal all these years?

So what's the big deal?

It's not a big deal. I was just stating my opinion, just as I read other people's opinions on this board. As far as I'm concerned people's opinions should never become a big deal. We're all different and should understand that no one agrees with our opinion 100% of the time.

And no, I don't think it will work.

 

[JohnnyCracker]

Not true. JohnnyCracker. In fact it's a reversal. Noone is allowed to say anything remotely negative about "goat" Fed with his "honest" assessments. People say negative things about Nadal all the time on this board, but that isn't the issue in question.

The issue is for one to say "their losses hurt, but mine's don't," defies logic.

He was speaking about "now." The present day. And specifically about his recent losses to Djokovic. I think he's telling the truth. At this point he understand where he stands on the totem pole and probably has low expectation for himself although his ambition may still be the same as before.
Now, if the questions were about his losses to Nadal in the past. That's a different story. As you can see in those post match interviews. "This is a disaster." "This really hurts." So on and so on. He was weeping uncontrollably one time. lol :lol:

 

[powerangle]

Don't you know? Noone is allowed to say anything remotely negative about humble Nadal with heart of gold.

A bit of pot calling kettle black. Goes both ways. Expect fire and brimstone if anyone dare comment on anything remotely negative towards Federer...

 

[JohnnyCracker]

I don't recall Nadal being slammed for his opinion on Federer, whatever it may be. He may have been. I just don't remember seeing it.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I don't recall Nadal being slammed for his opinion on Federer, whatever it may be. He may have been. I just don't remember seeing it.

If Federer ever mentioned anything about his opponents ("he was playing defensive" "I had my chances") he got slandered to all hell. Now when Nadal had something to say about Djokovic's celebration after winning Madrid, the same posters that were calling out Federer were fighting tooth and nail to save Rafa's honor.

Nadal/Federer fans can never let this stuff go and simply respect Federer/Nadal's opinions without putting their own crazy spin on it.

 

[JohnnyCracker]

It's not a big deal. I was just stating my opinion, just as I read other people's opinions on this board. As far as I'm concerned people's opinions should never become a big deal. We're all different and should understand that no one agrees with our opinion 100% of the time.

And no, I don't think it will work.

Not much of a tactic, then.

 

[mandy01]

What do you mean? IMO, Federer has always done this. One of the main reasons I don't like him as a player.

What do press conferences have to do with liking or disliking someone as a PLAYER? You're pretty narrow-minded I must say,if what a player says off-court affects your enjoyment of his game itself (which then leads me to wonder why you like Nadal.LOLz)

He's played these mind games with Rafa, Nole, and Murray ever since they were on the tour, obviously anyone he considered a threat. I could see if he was beating Nole himself, but he's not.

Don't act holier-than-thou.You loverboy plays plenty of mind games himself.

On a side note: Everyone doesn't have to like Federer. You guys get so sensitive about any criticism of Federer, but don't bite your tongues saying whatever you want to say about Nadal.

Um..we know you don't like Federer and I can't see who's raised an issue with that.
Who's getting sensitive here? I myself disagree with Roger on some of the things he said.But this whole mind games business,I won't accept from Nadal fans when their boy goes and does it too.

Anyway, this is a tennis board and people can voice their opinions. I know I do. I'm not here to placate others. I have a right to my opinion, and I will voice it, just like you do

I don't remember asking you to leave this forum or something.It's not my place.So again,where have I challenged your right to free expression?

 

[aphex]

When Federer speaks, Nadtars listen.
And get very, very angry.
Fact.

 

[TheTruth]

What do press conferences have to do with liking or disliking someone as a PLAYER? You're pretty narrow-minded I must say,if what a player says off-court affects your enjoyment of his game itself (which then leads me to wonder why you like Nadal.LOLz)

What is your problem? Every time someone says anything about Federer, here you come. I think that's pretty narrow minded. Who said I enjoyed his game? I don't like his game or him. You ever hear me talking about Richie's game? Nope. Don't like his game either. People can do that, you know, like or dislike someone without your approval. Why are you talking to me? What do you care who I like?


Don't act holier-than-thou.You loverboy plays plenty of mind games himself.

You're silly. Just because Federer is tied to your heartstrings, that's you. And you're the one acting holier-than-thou, because no one even said anything to you.

Um..we know you don't like Federer and I can't see who's raised an issue with that.

If you know I don't like Federer and I restate why, where's the problem? I see you saying a lot of negative things about Nadal. Do you see me posting to you, grilling you? Nope.

And you're wrong, you're raising an issue by keeping on posting to me. What do you want me to do? Lie?


Who's getting sensitive here? I myself disagree with Roger on some of the things he said.But this whole mind games business,I won't accept from Nadal fans when their boy goes and does it too.

Where did I get sensitive? I'll post what I want to post. You're not the opinion police. I don't care what you accept or reject. That's your business.

I don't remember asking you to leave this forum or something.It's not my place.So again,where have I challenged your right to free expression?

Where'd that come from? That makes no sense. I wouldn't care if you did ask me to leave the forum. Who are you? challenge? right to free expression? What on earth are you going on about?

You make no sense at all. You're posting to me about my right to an opinion, although you say whatever you want all the time. What is your problem? I mean, seriously.

 

[Let_Cord]

Nadulltards get angry whenever Federer is mentioned.

 

[tennisfan244]

Here is a translated version of the question Federer was asked and how he replied.
(credits to sdfedfans)

Do the two victories of Djokovic against Nadal on clay represent the same as Nadal's victory against you in Wimbledon in 2008? Are we seeing a change of era?

-No. It's incomparable. Here, we're not in best of 5 matches. What's interesting, is to see how Rafa is going to react mentally to this situation. He has lost his last four straight Masters 1000 events to Djokovic,. It surely has to have some effect on him. Maybe he lost in Rome because of what happened in the three previous finals? I'm not worried for him, but there is no doubt that he is facing an important point in his career. Mentally, it can't be easy for him. I don't feel I'm in the same situation towards Djokovic. Even if I've lost my last 3 matches against him, I don't have the feeling he's dominating me. Rafa, with Novak, it could probably play more...To continue. It's interesting.

 

[Let_Cord]

Jesus, was Federer even watching the match?

 

[mandy01]

The Truth,Is it me not making sense or is it you?

What is your problem? Every time someone says anything about Federer, here you come. I think that's pretty narrow minded. Who said I enjoyed his game? I don't like his game or him. You ever hear me talking about Richie's game? Nope. Don't like his game either. People can do that, you know, like or dislike someone without your approval. Why are you talking to me? What do you care who I like?

Did you even read what I wrote? I asked you what press conferences have to do with enjoying a player's game.You go off on a tangent and falsely accuse me of things I never said or implied out of nowhere.Where does approval come into the equation here? Where have I said you need my approval to dislike someone?I'm arguing your opinion.
And what's with the 'why are you talking to me?' So much for you respecting peoples' right to opinion and expression.I really suggest you practice what you preach.

 

[Let_Cord]

Did it occur to you that Federer might be deliberately being arrogant?

 

[mandy01]

If you know I don't like Federer and I restate why, where's the problem? I see you saying a lot of negative things about Nadal. Do you see me posting to you, grilling you? Nope.

And you're wrong, you're raising an issue by keeping on posting to me. What do you want me to do? Lie?

Where did I say I have a problem with the fact that you dislike someone? Like I said,I'm arguing your opinions which I believe is surely,not out of bounds.
Now as to why you don't choose to grill or challenge my views-That is upto to you.I have no problem with it either way.But that doesn't mean I can't challenge your views.There's no written rule that says I can't argue peoples' view points if they don't argue mine.

Now this:

Where'd that come from? That makes no sense. I wouldn't care if you did ask me to leave the forum. Who are you? challenge? right to free expression? What on earth are you going on about?

I think you ought to read your own post again.All the 'right to opinion' business you started (YET AGAIN) and god knows why.That is what I replied to.

 

[Let_Cord]

But surely Federer is done...

 

[TheTruth]

Where did I say I have a problem with the fact that you dislike someone? Like I said,I'm arguing your opinions which I believe is surely,not out of bounds.
Now as to why you don't choose to grill or challenge my views-That is upto to you.I have no problem with it either way.But that doesn't mean I can't challenge your views.There's no written rule that says I can't argue peoples' view points if they don't argue mine.

Now this:


I think you ought to read your own post again.All the 'right to opinion' business you started (YET AGAIN) and god knows why.That is what I replied to.

Mandy,

You are constantly using terms such as *******s, talking about ******* logic, and other such offensive posts.

You initiated contact by telling me that you think I am narrow-minded, and holier than thou. All because I had an opinion? These types of comments are not conducive to effective communication. So don't waste your time writing me long essays, because you set the tone in your first response.

Now, maybe this is another example of "******* logic," but for the life of me I can't see why you would think I would want to have a conversation with you.

Nothing personal, but, no...just, no.

 

[bobbylechat]

i personally think that Roger knows what he is talking about since Rafa dominates him mentally. Novak has the exat same impact on Rafa now and i wouldn't be surprised to see Rafa ending up being as frustrated as Roger is when he will face Novak.....
We'll see....

 

[Sentinel]

Poor poor Nadal, first losses to Đoković have hurt him, and now Đoković declared that he can't be mate with Rafa. Two blows one after the other.
Rafa must be devastated and sobbing in Dasco's arms, hearing what Joker sed. Dasco and Feli hoping to capitalize on this

 

[mandy01]

Mandy,

You are constantly using terms such as *******s, talking about ******* logic, and other such offensive posts.

What's so offensive about it? These are commonly used terms on the forum.

You initiated contact by telling me that you think I am narrow-minded, and holier than thou.

No,that's not how I initiated contact.Go back and read. Yes, I found your thinking in this instance to be narrow-minded but I didn't mean to call you a narrow-minded person in general.Perhaps I should've clarified it but at the time I didn't sense the need for it..Instead of seeing this as a personal attack on you why not try and go over what I said? It wasn't something outlandish.You could atleast consider it.It was never meant to berate you per se.I've seen your kind of reasoning everywhere and somehow I just can't comprehend it.

All because I had an opinion? These types of comments are not conducive to effective communication.

So what kind of comments are conducive to effective communication? You dictating people your terms of communication,or you taking offense at every little thing that gets said here? Really,there was never any offense intended from my side .I mean gosh,c'mon,I like you.I like the fact that we can and are able to reach a happy zone despite our disagreements.A lot of things I say are more against the reasoning used by posters than the posters themselves.You've got to stop taking it so personally because that's often not how it is intended to come out .

you would think I would want to have a conversation with you.

.

eh..I didn't think you would have a conversation with me.You actually went ahead and had one.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Of course Nadal is in a deep hole.

-Nadal is currently in his prime and is ranked #1. He has much higher expectation than anyone else including Roger.

-Roger's legacy is sealed. His goal was to pass Pete's 14 slams and won a career slam. Nadal has a lot more to prove. And currently his goal is to chase Borg.

-Nole is his main rivalry b/c they are at the same age and in their prime. That's equivalent to Roddick, Hewitt, Safin being Roger's main rivalry.

-Nadal has 4 losses against Nole in the final. Both were on his best surfaces.

-Nadal is the favorite to win this year FO. Past prime Fed only a dark horse. Plus, Borg will be there live and expect Nadal to win, so more pressure.(Remember Sampras showed up in 2009 W when Roger broke his slam record?).


All fans are paying close attention to Nadal now, no one else. He's like the Tiger Woods in golf !

NADAL AND FEDERER ARE NOT THE SAME PLAYER!

 

[bolo]

I'm very well aware, thanks. Yes, the matches between Nadal and Djokovic are more important to Nadal because Nadal is closer in age to Djokovic, and in essence, has more to prove. It is more important to Nadal than it is for Federer...duh. I agree with that part and have never stated that I disagreed with it.

HOWEVER, my point is solely regarding the dynamics between Djokovic and Fed himself. It has nothing to do with Rafa. Even "old man Fed" still doesn't like to lose. You can be sure he still wants to take care of Djokovic and any other player. Instead of harping on "it is more important for Nadal than it is for Federer" again and again...let's take notice that Federer losing is still not the plan in Fed's head. As Fed fans we should want Federer to win, despite the circumstances, and I'm sure Fed still wants to prove, that even at his "advanced age", he can still beat Djokovic. He should stop playing it as if his losses mean absolutely nothing. This is a completely separate issue from Djokovic and Nadal, which I already agreed with before you guys even began harping on that issue to death.

yes to the 2nd paragraph. Most of these are grasping at straws "explanations" and fed. fangirl rationalizations. If djokovic is dominating nadal right now, fed's in much worse trouble.

 

[bolo]

the three before that djokovic couldn't take more than 1 set from fed. not so long ago

But you agree something fundamental seems to have changed since the start of the year. He probably will not plateau where he is right now (I hope not, lol ), but he's obviously improved some.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Not surprised.

Anything to try to get a leg up.

He needs to rectify his three straight losses to Novak, before fixing Rafa's problems.

Agreed; Federer just adds on to his reputation as a pissy man-child who desires failure in a genuine talent by playing woefully transparent mind games....jeeze...from that guy...

 

[cc0509]

Your 2nd paragraph has nothing to do with what federer was talking about and it's humorous to see that you keep thinking it does. Carry on.

I am glad you find what I am saying humorous but to me the second paragraph has total significance overall to what Roger is saying. The fact that you don't think so is not important to me. If I think so, that is all that matters to me.

The fact of the matter is you don't like Federer and you take every opportunity to disparage him. When Federer makes any comment it is like catnip for you. You are ready to jump on it with your pro Nadal propaganda and your anti-Federer stance. That is really what it going on here. Let's be honest.

 

[NamRanger]

Not surprised.

Anything to try to get a leg up.

He needs to rectify his three straight losses to Novak, before fixing Rafa's problems.

Federer is married, has kids, is filthy rich, and is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time.


Oh, and he's considered a very nice person to boot.


I'm pretty sure he could care less about winning anything else (apart from maybe the Olympics in 2012). He doesn't need to "rectify" anything. He's been at the top for long enough, and he seems pretty content about it now adays.


He was asked a question, and answered honestly like any honest person would. Honesty sometimes hurts. I know; it stings.

 

[cc0509]

Federer could have simply answered the question as it pertains to the Nadal/Djokovic dynamic...why did he have to bring himself into it, and act like his own losses to Djokovic are somehow an aberration? Like his own losses to Djokovic don't carry significance or meaning?

He's basically saying that it's ok for him to lose to Djokovic, yet Nadal losing to Djokovic must be so so horrible on Nadal's psyche.

Federer is saying Nadal's losses to Djokovic are in a way more important as it is a two-legged race now pretty much. Djokovic defeated Nadal on CLAY a surface which Nadal owned before. This MUST be more horrible on Nadal's psyche than Fed's losses to Djokovic. What is difficult to understand here? What Fed said is TRUE.

 

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by TheTruth
#1 reason that I can't stand Federer. Silly mind games. .

Oh yes,Nadal fans would know all about it,right?

Forget it Mandy01. You just can't reason with people that don't "get it." Nadal hero worshipping is a 24 hour a day disease.

 

[NamRanger]

Federer is saying Nadal's losses to Djokovic are in a way more important as it is a two-legged race now pretty much. Djokovic defeated Nadal on CLAY a surface which Nadal owned before. This MUST be more horrible on Nadal's psyche than Fed's losses to Djokovic. What is difficult to understand here? What Fed said is TRUE.

Obviously being at the tail end of your career and getting beat by the hottest player on the tour carries equal weight as being in the prime of your career and losing on a surface you dominated for years on end to the same guy in straight sets to boot (once in your home country for added insult).

 

[Raiden]

Federer is playing better than Nadal on clay isn't he? He's undefeated against Djoker on clay, Nadal is not.

Exactly.

The perfectly plain truth.

 

[cc0509]

Obviously being at the tail end of your career and getting beat by the hottest player on the tour carries equal weight as being in the prime of your career and losing on a surface you dominated for years on end to the same guy in straight sets to boot (once in your home country for added insult).

I know right. How people don't get it and refuse to see this is a joke. Oh well, no point trying to explain something to brick walls.

 

[NaturalGuts70]

I am glad you find what I am saying humorous but to me the second paragraph has total significance overall to what Roger is saying. The fact that you don't think so is not important to me. If I think so, that is all that matters to me.

The fact of the matter is you don't like Federer and you take every opportunity to disparage him. When Federer makes any comment it is like catnip for you. You are ready to jump on it with your pro Nadal propaganda and your anti-Federer stance. That is really what it going on here. Let's be honest.

You hit the nail on the head poster.

 

[namelessone]

Obviously being at the tail end of your career and getting beat by the hottest player on the tour carries equal weight as being in the prime of your career and losing on a surface you dominated for years on end to the same guy in straight sets to boot (once in your home country for added insult).

Nadal is in his prime?

Federer, a guy with a much easier style on the body and who could do more, had a prime that lasted five years(2003-2007).

Nadal, a guy that had grinded since 2001 on the tour with a extreme style, has a prime of SIX YEARS(2005-2010) and apparently now is still in his prime in his SEVENTH year.

Too good this Nadal.

Apparently you can prime longer on the tour while playing tennis that's harder on the body.

You learn something new everyday on TW.

 

[NaturalGuts70]

Nadal is in his prime?

Federer, a guy with a much easier style on the body and who could do more, had a prime that lasted five years(2003-2007).

Nadal, a guy that had grinded since 2001 on the tour with a extreme style, has a prime of SIX YEARS(2005-2010) and apparently now is still in his prime in his SEVENTH year.

Too good this Nadal.

Apparently you can prime longer on the tour while playing tennis that's harder on the body.

You learn something new everyday on TW.

So when did Djokovic's prime start?

 

[Raiden]

Nadal is in his prime?

Federer, a guy with a much easier style on the body and who could do more, had a prime that lasted five years(2003-2007).

Nadal, a guy that had grinded since 2001 on the tour with a extreme style, has a prime of SIX YEARS(2005-2010) and apparently now is still in his prime in his SEVENTH year.

Too good this Nadal.

Apparently you can prime longer on the tour while playing tennis that's harder on the body.

You learn something new everyday on TW.

By your silly logic Djoker's prime started in January 2008 (= equivalent to Nadal in 2005)

 

[namelessone]

So when did Djokovic's prime start?

All primes start when you win YOUR FIRST SLAM, IMO.

In your prime you have a peak year.

For Novak his prime started in 2008 and his peak year will probably be 2011(but he could have a even better year in the future, who knows?):

In the 2008-2010 period Novak achieved these things:

-made two slam finals, winning one of them(AO 2008). Not to mention that at the time he was stopped by Nadal twice in RG SF(plus another time in USO 2010) and another two times by Fed in USO SF. Without Fedal, we are looking at 4-5 possible GS for Novak by the end of 2010.

-made 7 MS finals, winning two of them(the rest he lost to fed,rafa and murray)

-won the Masters Cup in 2008

-made Olympics SF, beaten by Nadal.

And he did all these things while having health issues early in the year due to his allergies.

 

[NaturalGuts70]

All primes start when you win YOUR FIRST SLAM, IMO.

In your prime you have a peak year.

For Novak his prime started in 2008 and his peak year will probably be 2011(but he could have a even better year in the future, who knows?):

In the 2008-2010 period Novak achieved these things:

-made two slam finals, winning one of them(AO 2008). Not to mention that at the time he was stopped by Nadal twice in RG SF(plus another time in USO 2010) and another two times by Fed in USO SF. Without Fedal, we are looking at 4-5 possible GS for Novak by the end of 2010.

-made 7 MS finals, winning two of them(the rest he lost to fed,rafa and murray)

-won the Masters Cup in 2008

-made Olympics SF, beaten by Nadal.

And he did all these things while having health issues early in the year due to his allergies.

So basically prime Federer always faced prime Nadal.

 

[namelessone]

By your silly logic Djoker's prime started in January 2008 (= equivalent to Nadal in 2005)

When you have the ability to win slams or TMC/masters titles, you are entering your prime as a top player. The criteria is obviously different for guys who get nowhere near slam finals.

I am talking about PRIME, not peak. That's another thing.

Novak Djokovic made headway in 2007 by making IW finals(beat by Rafa) and USO 2007 final(beat by Fed). In that same year he beat Roddick,Rafa and Rog to win Rogers Cup.

He proved that he could do damage but could he take it further? Then he beat Fed and the guy that beat Nadal in AO 2008 and proved that he had entered the tennis arena for good.

Nadal also beat Coria in clay season 2005 but no one took him that seriously until he won his first slam, beating Rog along the way.

Murray is an amazing player skill wise, but to me, he will enter his prime once he pops his slam cherry.

 

[namelessone]

So basically prime Federer always faced prime Nadal.

When they met in the 2005-2007, yes. Obviously, Nadal's skills on other surfaces grew slower than on clay(heck, he made his first HC GS SF in 2008 ) where he was an early phenomenon but if he had the stones to win GS titles beating the best, then his prime had started.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Nadal is in his prime?

Federer, a guy with a much easier style on the body and who could do more, had a prime that lasted five years(2003-2007).

Nadal, a guy that had grinded since 2001 on the tour with a extreme style, has a prime of SIX YEARS(2005-2010) and apparently now is still in his prime in his SEVENTH year.

Too good this Nadal.

Apparently you can prime longer on the tour while playing tennis that's harder on the body.

You learn something new everyday on TW.

Federer's prime was 2003-2009 IMO. His peak years were obviously 04-07. Federer 2 years past his prime still won 2 slams in 09 and was a hair from a 3rd? So yeah, his prime was 03-09, peak 04-07.

Nadal's prime began in 05, I agree there, but to say a guy who's still #1 and still making multiple finals isn't in his 'prime' is ludicrous. Nadal's still in his prime, though it remains to be seen if he still has the peak form he had in 08, beginning of 09, and 2010. Even though Nadal may not still be at his peak (and again, that still remains to be seen, if he wins RG/Wimby double again it would be hard to argue he isn't at his peak), he's still in his prime and should still be able to compete and defeat Djokovic on his favorite surface.

FWIW Djokovic's prime started in mid 07, when he made RG SF, Wimby SF, won Canada beating Nadal, Roddick, Fed, and then made USO final. Your prime doesn't automatically start when you win your first slam, there can be results prior to the first slam that indicate that you are at or near your priime. If Murray wins Wimbledon this year I guess his prime would start then, ignoring the multiple MS titles and slam finals he's made prior to then? :?

 

[Raiden]

In your prime you have a peak year.

Oh! Blimey! I see. 'Prime' isn't really 'peak'. Well I guess it isn't 'apex' either... And those three things are obviously not 'zenith'... and naturally all of those things have nothing to do with 'dominance'

namelessone you are being Clintonistic. This is like arguing whether oral sex is sex, and what the definition of is is.

 

[decades]

classic Fed. Turning his weaknesses into positives---in his own mind.

 

[namelessone]

Federer's prime was 2003-2009 IMO. His peak years were obviously 04-07. Federer 2 years past his prime still won 2 slams in 09 and was a hair from a 3rd? So yeah, his prime was 03-09, peak 04-07.

Nadal's prime began in 05, I agree there, but to say a guy who's still #1 and still making multiple finals isn't in his 'prime' is ludicrous. Nadal's still in his prime, though it remains to be seen if he still has the peak form he had in 08, beginning of 09, and 2010. Even though Nadal may not still be at his peak (and again, that still remains to be seen, if he wins RG/Wimby double again it would be hard to argue he isn't at his peak), he's still in his prime and should still be able to compete and defeat Djokovic on his favorite surface.

FWIW Djokovic's prime started in mid 07, when he made RG SF, Wimby SF, won Canada beating Nadal, Roddick, Fed, and then made USO final. Your prime doesn't automatically start when you win your first slam, there can be results prior to the first slam that indicate that you are at or near your priime. If Murray wins Wimbledon this year I guess his prime would start then, ignoring the multiple MS titles and slam finals he's made prior to then? :?

The way I see it, that's a psychological threshold.

Murray of 2008 say, is more improved than in 2007 and in 2011 he is more improved(as a player) than 2008. His game has improved, his results haven't all that much. Why? Hasn't crossed that GS barrier.

What we knew of Andy in 2008:

-he can beat Nadal in GS and MS.
-he can beat Fed and Novak in MS but not GS.

What Andy has done in 2009-2011(so far):

-beat Nadal in GS and MS.
-he still can't beat Fed or Novak in GS but gets them in MS.

His game has improved to take him to later stages of tourneys more often but he still has that mental barrier.

Trust me, once Murray wins his first slam, he will take off big time(cause he will take off with a near complete game) and few will be looking at 2008-2011 as his "prime", more like pre-prime, something like Fed 2001-2002.

 

[TheTruth]

classic Fed. Turning his weaknesses into positives---in his own mind.

Succinct, and true!

 

[Raiden]

When you have the ability to win slams or TMC/masters titles, you are entering your prime as a top player.

So I guess the 30 y.o. Fransexa Schiavone's prime started in 2010. That's the consequence of your "theory".

Is that what you wanna believe? Fine. Suit yourself.

The criteria is obviously different for guys who get nowhere near slam finals.

Fuzzy math.

Just go back to the 'drawing board' and have a go at it again.

 

[TMF]

Maybe you posted too soon, or didn't see Powerangle's post, but Powerangle got it right. Fed is acting like it's horrible on Rafa's psyche? But not his? That doesn't even make sense. That's just a straight bs angle.

Nole beat Rafa on clay. OK. He beat Fed on hardcourt. What's the difference? If you can't see what Federer does, (and he does it constantly), that's your right. I see it differently, and I have a right to voice my opinions as well.

If Fed was at the same age as Nadal, in his prime and all three(fed, nadal, nole) are gunning to win slam in the future, then we can see Fed is not sincere. But he's being brutally honest b/c his career accomplishment is complete, but Nadal still has some work cut out. Added to the fact that Nadal lost 2 times on his best surface. Fed just answer to the question, he doesn't need to explain why his opinion b/c he expected that every fans should know this by now. Unless someone has no clue what's going on in tennis, they just jump into conclusion.

Like I said...if Fed was at the same age as nadal and have not accomplished all of his goals, I would support your argument 100%.

Now let stop ranting.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

The way I see it, that's a psychological threshold.

Murray of 2008 say, is more improved than in 2007 and in 2011 he is more improved(as a player) than 2008. His game has improved, his results haven't all that much. Why? Hasn't crossed that GS barrier.

What we knew of Andy in 2008:

-he can beat Nadal in GS and MS.
-he can beat Fed and Novak in MS but not GS.

What Andy has done in 2009-2011(so far):

-beat Nadal in GS and MS.
-he still can't beat Fed or Novak in GS but gets them in MS.

His game has improved to take him to later stages of tourneys more often but he still has that mental barrier.

Trust me, once Murray wins his first slam, he will take off big time(cause he will take off with a near complete game) and few will be looking at 2008-2011 as his "prime", more like pre-prime, something like Fed 2001-2002.

To me to say a person cannot be prime before they win a slam is an arbitrary marker and not really accurate. You said Novak's prime began in 08, but that disregards the fact that he had better results in 07 than he did in 09, supposedly one of his 'prime' years. So yes, Novak's prime began in mid 07.

Back to Murray, it's really ridiculous to say that Murray now isn't in his prime, and that if he won Wimbledon his prime would start then and there and make the MS titles he's won and Gs finals he's made minimal. If he wins Wimbledon and that's it, then obviously his prime years would be 08-11.

Your whole notion of a person's prime beginning the instant they win a slam is arbitrary and inaccurate IMO. A person can have results before and after their peak years that do not match w/ their peak, but still be in their 'prime'. I noted Federer now, and Nadal it remains to be seen - but if he wins RG/Wimbledon again or even one of the two it would indeed be quite ridiculous to say he's not in his prime anymore.

 

[TheTruth]

If Fed was at the same age as Nadal, in his prime and all three(fed, nadal, nole) are gunning to win slam in the future, then we can see Fed is not sincere. But he's being brutally honest b/c his career accomplishment is complete, but Nadal still has some work cut out. Added to the fact that Nadal lost 2 times on his best surface. Fed just answer to the question, he doesn't need to explain why his opinion b/c he expected that every fans should know this by now. Unless someone has no clue what's going on in tennis, they just jump into conclusion.

Like I said...if Fed was at the same age as nadal and have not accomplished all of his goals, I would support your argument 100%.

Now let stop ranting.

What part of we can criticize anything we want to, don't you get? You know, the same way you're always criticizing Nadal.

Fed is not my idol. I'll say whatever I want to about him and anybody else, and long posts to me will not dissaude me.

This is a public forum where people should be able to speak their mind, and if they don't, that's their problem. I speak mine and I always will.

Now, let's have discussions without telling people how they should view their own opinion. K?

 

[NamRanger]

Nadal is in his prime?

Federer, a guy with a much easier style on the body and who could do more, had a prime that lasted five years(2003-2007).

Nadal, a guy that had grinded since 2001 on the tour with a extreme style, has a prime of SIX YEARS(2005-2010) and apparently now is still in his prime in his SEVENTH year.

Too good this Nadal.

Apparently you can prime longer on the tour while playing tennis that's harder on the body.

You learn something new everyday on TW.

Nadal has lost to only Ferrer this year other than Djokovic. And he was clearly injured. If that isn't prime I don't know what to tell you. You're clearly a ****ing idiot if you honestly believe Nadal is not in his prime.