If Fed wins he is the 9th wonder of the world, if he looses he is too old!!

weakera

G.O.A.T.
I just think it's funny that to some, Roger only gets credit for winning as an older player and never discredited for losing while there's no talk of the fact that Djokodal had to face (and often beat) prime maestro as tennis babies.

Most people see through this but many maestronians want to have their cake and eat it, too. You just can't have it both ways.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Your idol took it on the chin again folks.

But he did it honorably and respectably.

In that way, he is just like his fan base.

Seek help. :)
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Looses what? Lets loose his forehand on Djokovic?

In all honesty, I really don't see the issue here. If Sampras decided to come out of retirement and won Wimbledon with a WC, it would be utterly incredible. If he lost in R1, no one would be surprised, and it would be because he's old. Now Federer isn't anywhere near as old as Sampras, but making slam finals at 37 hasn't been done by anyone for over 40 years, before the game became more physical. It's pretty much uncharted territory. Novak is the clear favourite. If Novak wins, it will be the expected outcome. Federer winning at this age would be unprecedented
 

JackGates

Legend
So true....If Nole wins it doesn’t count as Fed is near 38....If Fed wins it doesn’t count as it slower this year than previous years..l.
Can your brain handle two things at the same time? Of course it counts, since Nole will win a slam and be closer. But it counts less when you beat the underdog, we are measuring two different things here, so it counts in one way and doesn't in the other way, it's not black and white.

Everything is not this simple in life, can you understand that? Anyway I'm not weak like you and some Fed fans, so for me it all counts, no excuses from me, Fed is in top form, Nole will earn it.
 

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
The best two grass courts players in the field, and the No.1 and no.2 seeds, got to the final so there will be no excuses from moi if Novak wins.
He should win, he's world no.1, defending champion and six years younger, while Roger also had to go through Rafa in the semi final. That whole occasion of meeting Rafa probably meant a lot to Fed emotionally.
If he's 100% today, we should have a good match.

Roger has 8 Wimbledons anyway and has had a great tournament already, so may the best man win.

Plus Fed beat Rafa.

:p
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Didn't Fed's peak end in 2007?
Yeah his very peak did, which is proven by his results. Not because of age just a drop in level.

I still think overall, he played close to his best tennis from 2003-2012 with varying levels but overall a similar style with the old racket. 2008 being a lower year overall (still brilliant for most players)

He’s had some top level tournaments in 2014-2019 too but never with any sort of consistency across the whole year.

0 chance peak Fed loses at slams to likes of Tsitsipas or Anderson.
 
I just think it's funny that to some, Roger only gets credit for winning as an older player and never discredited for losing while there's no talk of the fact that Djokodal had to face (and often beat) prime maestro as tennis babies.

Most people see through this but many maestronians want to have their cake and eat it, too. You just can't have it both ways.
You kind of can though?

Some people just can’t grasp this age thing. It’s like beating a dead horse.

But isn’t it only natural that a near-38 year old receives more credit for a win against people much his junior, and more leeway for a loss against said opposition?

As for people that don’t grasp that he was beaten when Novak and Nadal were young:

1. Novak has only turned that H2H with Fed in his 30s.
2. Different people say different things. I know people on the internet always have this problem. But the same people saying one part of your point aren’t the only ones saying the other also. I would absolutely acknowledge that Fed losing in his late 20s to these guys goes against him. But let’s be clear they were not “babies” then either in their early 20s. So that point doesn’t particularly stick as heavily as you’d like anyway.
 
Last edited:

JackGates

Legend
Yeah his very peak did, which is proven by his results. Not because of age just a drop in level.

I still think overall, he played close to his best tennis from 2003-2012 with varying levels but overall a similar style with the old racket. 2008 being a lower year overall (still brilliant for most players)

He’s had some top level tournaments in 2014-2019 too but never with any sort of consistency across the whole year.

0 chance peak Fed loses at slams to likes of Tsitsipas or Anderson.
OK, just a queston, why doesn't it count even when you are past your prime? Fact is he isn't good enough, who cares what the reasons are.

I mean who cares if Germany was past their prime when they lost the war, they still lost.
 

JackGates

Legend
I just think it's funny that to some, Roger only gets credit for winning as an older player and never discredited for losing while there's no talk of the fact that Djokodal had to face (and often beat) prime maestro as tennis babies.

Most people see through this but many maestronians want to have their cake and eat it, too. You just can't have it both ways.
It's not having it both ways, the same applies to Djokovic too when he loses to Thiem. IT was the same when Fed was playing old Agassi, it would look bad for Federer and Agassi would be called a hero.
 

JackGates

Legend
Sucks to be a fan of Djoko or the Nadal these days:

If they win it's obvious. If they loose they suck big time.

I can see why their fanbase is so pissed right now.
Because they are weak. When people had the same excuses for old Agassi losing to Federer, we Fed fans didn't have any problems. And the same people are making the same excuses when Djoko lost to Chung and Thiem.
 

beard

Legend
And what's the problem, why can't older guy have an excuse?
I'm sure nobody minds Djokovic lost to younger Thiem at the FO twice, so why do you only care about Federer?

Yes, you are biased and don't see this excuse is used for everyone.
Haha, that is the essence...
Have you heard any Novak's fan to say Novak lost because he is older than Thiem who is in best tennis age?
That is difference between Fed and Novak fans...
 

JackGates

Legend
Haha, that is the essence...
Have you heard any Novak's fan to say Novak lost because he is older than Thiem who is in best tennis age?
That is difference between Fed and Novak fans...
Yes, they make this excuses for his poor form all the time, especially for 2017. They say he was a baby till 2011.

So, they make the same spiel as all other fans.
 

weakera

G.O.A.T.
You kind of can though?

Some people just can’t grasp this age thing. It’s like beating a dead horse.

But isn’t it only natural that a near-38 year old receives more credit for a win against people much his junior, and more leeway for a loss against said opposition?

As for people that don’t grasp that he was beaten when Novak and Nadal were young:

1. Novak has only turned that H2H with Fed in his 30s.
2. Different people say different things. I know people on the internet always have this problem. But the same people saying one part of your point aren’t the only ones saying the other also. I would absolutely acknowledge that Fed losing in his late 20s to these guys goes against him. But let’s be clear they were not “babies” then either in their early 20s. So that point doesn’t particularly stick as heavily as you’d like anyway.

If Roger deserves extra credit for winning at 38, Bull deserves extra credit for winning at such a young age and Djokodal deserve credit for playing historically unbelievable age 32-33 tennis. Why is winning at a nearly unprecedented older age more meaningful than winning at a nearly unprecedented younger age? Why is beating a 33 year old at age 37 so impressive but beating a 27 year old at age 22-23 meaningless? Because historically the former is more rare of an event?

All of the big three are in uncharted territories anyway in terms of age - Nole is poised to have the most successful age 30-40 decade ever, Bull is the oldest man in history to reach 6 consecutive slam semi finals and Roger is on the cusp of the oldest slam win ever. To only give Roger credit for his exploits is just subjective picking and choosing.

You want to know a secret? History will remember and weigh the numbers and forget most of the rest. If Roger wins today but Novak collects another 7 grand slams and retires with the most slams and the most weeks at #1, he will go down in history as the GOAT according to most and very few will try to dispute it with the memory of today's Roger win. And what's true further is that in 30-50 years as the sport evolves and recency bias wins out, all of the big three will be marginalized by the newer generations who did not get to see these guys compete in real time.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
OK, just a queston, why doesn't it count even when you are past your prime? Fact is he isn't good enough, who cares what the reasons are.

I mean who cares if Germany was past their prime when they lost the war, they still lost.
Every loss counts, but I don’t count beating 2014-2015 Federer twice at Wimbledon as proof Djokovic is better there.

Also Germany’s prime would be 1914? Unless you meant WW2.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
And what's the problem, why can't older guy have an excuse?
I'm sure nobody minds Djokovic lost to younger Thiem at the FO twice, so why do you only care about Federer?

Yes, you are biased and don't see this excuse is used for everyone.
Not even one person brought up Novaks age after his loss to Thiem. Not even one.
 

JackGates

Legend
Every loss counts, but I don’t count bearing 2014-2015 twice at Wimbledon as proof Djokovic is better there.

Also Germany’s prime would be 1914? Unless you meant WW2.
This is the problem with internet and social media. Only small minority of loud extreme fans are counting that, I don't think majority of fans would count that.

And this creates perception that we are all not on the same page.
 
Top