kalyan4fedever
Legend
Butthurt much
Incorrect.
If you ask majority of casual fans, they’d say Federer is the best at Wimbledon.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.
Ok, then why did Djokovic lose to thiem twice at RG then, if Djokovic is supposed to be greater than Thiem?
2017 - elbow injury confirmedYes, 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.
Really, so you never heard Djokovic was a baby and elbow injury excuses? Maybe your biased brain tuned it out from your memory.Not sure what you are on about. All I said was no one gave Novak the age excuse after you thought people complained about it.
How's this for an "excuse"?Lmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
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.
So true lol, their guys are winning and they are still complaining.I’m sure Novak and Rafa fans would prefer this to having an ATG like Sampras at age 26 who they had to deal with right now.
I’m sure they would accept less slams for them just so they could see them compete against an ATG who had that advantage.
Or maybe not!
Not even one person brought up Novaks age after his loss to Thiem. Not even one.
Really, so you never heard Djokovic was a baby and elbow injury excuses? Maybe your biased brain tuned it out from your memory.
Which is a bit strange, since Thiem not being great should make this loss even worse. People don't get that there is no shame if Fed is losing to ATGs lol, they are so stupid.I don’t think anyone considers Thiem an ATG tho. Or even a great player.
No player younger than Novak is playing that is close to being great. Well over a decade. Has any player not had to deal with a great player at least a year or two younger than them in their career. Novak is the first ever to never have to deal with that test.
So true lol, their guys are winning and they are still complaining.
I don’t think anyone considers Thiem an ATG tho. Or even a great player.
No player younger than Novak is playing that is close to being great. Well over a decade. Has any player not had to deal with a great player at least a year or two younger than them in their career. Novak is the first ever to never have to deal with that test.
Ok, baby means younger, it means age, hello? The only reason why excuses are less is, Djokovic is younger, so he is losing less, plus weak era means no younger ATG players to make him lose more.I thought we were talking about the age excuse? Why are you suddenly talking about something else?
And no, the amount of excuses that has piled up for Fed ever since he was about 26, 27 is outrageous. He probably has eclipsed Nadal with the amount of moral losses. It's a big joke.
Djokovic hasn't been an ATG his whole career, you know. He also had to fight and work hard to reach that claim.
Every ATG can say that dummy. They all started as a junior and then moved onto the tour as a nobody.
Novak is the only ATG though that hasn’t had to cope with a younger great player. Novak fans should count their the weakest period in tennis history followed Novak’s birth.
I would love internet trolls to learn the difference between loses and looses.Lmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
Because he's 32 you dim-bulb.Not even one person brought up Novaks age after his loss to Thiem. Not even one.
Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Nalbandian. 11 slam finals to these guys.
Because he's 32 you dim-bulb.
And in how many of those tournaments did Nadal, Nole or Murray not play? Please, tell us.
But they were in finals, so doesn't that prove they were playing at a high level, isn't current form what matters? I mean can't lower guys for one tournament play on the level of all time greats and make a final?Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Mark, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Nalbandian. 11 slam finals to these guys.
Actually half-wit, people have discussed Novak's age, in fact YESTERDAY I made several posts about the top 3 all being past their peaks. Why do you know-nothings continue to post with such arrogance and get your azz handed to you? You're on ignore, I deserve better banter.Yea Fed was called the youngling back when he was 32
Yeah and it's us Fed fans too who make excuses for Novak, which is fine, those are good excuses, since Novak is also past his peak now.Ask the poster I responded to. He was the one who brought up the weakest era talk.
Ask the poster I responded to. He was the one who started the weakest era talk.
Actually half-wit, people have discussed Novak's age, in fact YESTERDAY I made several posts about the top 3 all being past their peaks. Why do you know-nothings continue to post with such arrogance and get your azz handed to you? You're on ignore, I deserve better banter.
How's this for an "excuse"?
Fed's nearly 38, Djokovic is much closer to his prime, the World #1 by a huge margin, and just better at the moment?
If Fed loses, excuse or not, that will be the truth. It wouldn't invalidate Djoker's victory or nullify Fed's loss, but it's not some hilarious acrobatic excuse, like, oh I don't know, "the roof was closed for the whole match!!1"
The arrogance of them thinking they can manipulate stats like that, and we won't notice.Actually, he claimed Nole doesn't have a younger ATG to challenge him, which is 100% correct. Then you started posting names from an era that you don't really know much about as a complete change of subject. I am quite sure both him and me know the answer to my question, which is why I am asking you.
Again, when Roger beat those guys, how many times were neither of the Big 4 playing that tournament?
Actually, he claimed Nole doesn't have a younger ATG to challenge him, which is 100% correct. Then you started posting names from an era that you don't really know much about as a complete change of subject. I am quite sure both him and me know the answer to my question, which is why I am asking you.
Again, when Roger beat those guys, how many times were neither of the Big 4 playing that tournament?
No, I'm just using it as a parody to make fun of Novak fans who say Fed is only winning because of a weak era. Just to make them show how crazy this reasoning is.There is no younger ATG at the moment. But He is still having to beat two of the greatest to win his slams. He said Novak is lucky he is winning cause of the weakest era.
This is a load of gibberish.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.
No, I'm just using it as a parody to make fun of Novak fans who say Fed is only winning because of a weak era. Just to make them show how crazy this reasoning is.
It's an inside joke I have and it's fun. Trust me, I'm five steps ahead of you, I know how things work here.
Lmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
Ok, then why did Djokovic lose to thiem twice at RG then, if Djokovic is supposed to be greater than Thiem?
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.
I'm a narcissist, I guess, I think everything is about me.I wasn't even referring to you. Are you @James695 ?
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.
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.
You're right. Djokodal both deserve more credit for doing what they did vs prime Fed than most Fed devotees are willing to give them.
But. The fact that Fed is as old as he is now and is still competing the way he is simply can't be seen in a bad way imo. He has EVERYTHING to win at this stage. This is the privilege you get from still playing despite being old and well past your prime, a privilege that both of Djokodal will soon have as well if they are still playing in 4-5 years.
What did Nole have to do with it? In that period Federer les 4-1 at slams. 2-1 in 2008/2009 with Djokovic losing early a few times before a potential Federer meeting.I mean that's the summer that Federer's true reign is widely acknowledged to have ended and when Bull/Nole began to come into their own. In 2007 Nole and Rafa were younger than Stefanos is now. Roger lost his #1 then too.
Not even one person brought up Novaks age after his loss to Thiem. Not even one.
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...
Lmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
Lmao! I would love to see the excuses if fed looses!
No excuses. Peak Nadal on grass.best ever version of nadal on grass just got crushed at Wimbeldon, AO 19, AO 17, IW, Shanghai. Peak Nadal is 0-14 against Djokovic and Fed off clay since 2014 (im only giving off clay stat as thats the one I know without looking it up as someone posted it, you should add clay back in but sadly peak Nadal is still badly losing around 3-14 now)
Peak Nadal exposed. Give him Anderson in a final watch him add slams. Give him Fed or Novak and watch him go 0-14 lol
With the difference that even a 40 year old Nadal on one leg would still be a favourite over the princess of clay at RG.