tusharlovesrafa
Hall of Fame
Lmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
Well, to think Fed was on the tour when Clinton was president, it sounds fair.Federer got old when Bush was still the president.
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.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.
Well, to think Fed was on the tour when Clinton was president, it sounds fair.
Pretty good results for just top 3 eh?So Fed was peak for 4 years and then stayed consistently in the top3 for 12 more years as an old man.
Interesting view.
Yeah, that's why we have peak vs prime.So Fed was peak for 4 years and then stayed consistently in the top3 for 12 more years as an old man.
Interesting view.
Of course. But he just sees one side of the coin and will never listen.So, Djokovic and Nadal were babies, got to #2and #3 and stayed consistently there until now?
So, Djokovic and Nadal were babies, got to #2and #3 and stayed consistently there until now?
The timely troll is backLmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
Ok, then Federer is the best from history until summer 2008. Still better than being the best just for a few years.Since Summer 2008, weeks at 1:
Djokovic 260
Nadal 196
Federer 73
Convenient year to chose.Since Summer 2008, weeks at 1:
Djokovic 260
Nadal 196
Federer 73
And you have been suffering with the Dunning-Kruger effect ever since the time Clinton first banged Lewinsky.Federer got old when Bush was still the president.
It's funny that he stopped declining for 12 years.Yeah, that's why we have peak vs prime.
Bush was president in 2014?Federer got old when Bush was still the president.
Didn't Fed's peak end in 2007?Bush was president in 2014?
Convenient year to chose.
Yeah his very peak did, which is proven by his results. Not because of age just a drop in level.Didn't Fed's peak end in 2007?
He didn't, the field got weaker. But I'm not exaggerating like the rest of Fed fans, I think Fed was still prime till 2012 probably.It's funny that he stopped declining for 12 years.
You kind of can though?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Djoker fans livin the dream.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.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.
Since Summer 2008, weeks at 1:
Djokovic 260
Nadal 196
Federer 73
Haha, that is the essence...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.
Yes, they make this excuses for his poor form all the time, especially for 2017. They say he was a baby till 2011.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...
He is the man to beat in 2019."True reign" and "began to come into their own".
Very green way of sidestepping the fact that Federer continued to be the man to beat up until the spring of 2010.
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.
Every loss counts, but I don’t count beating 2014-2015 Federer twice at Wimbledon as proof Djokovic is better there.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.
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.
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.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.
Ok, then why did Djokovic lose to thiem twice at RG then, if Djokovic is supposed to be greater than Thiem?Not even one person brought up Novaks age after his loss to Thiem. Not even one.