If Roger loses this Wimbledon title He will never win another major.

If Federer loses Wimbledon, will he ever win another major?


  • Total voters
    168

Mustard

Bionic Poster
In 2007, Federer also lost to Canas twice, does that mean Canas was close to Federer? Federer was not playing his best in 2007 (in fact far from it, which is why Nadal was even close), his serve basically saved him.

In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.

In 08, were it not for the mono, no practice time lost and Fed wins. Courier saw this too. He was a professional tennis player by the way.

Let me know when you decide to leave the realm of fiction and come back to reality.

Nadal won 4 matches in AO2011 without losing a set he was playing great. In his case an acute injury took him out.

Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.

Federer played ok in the first 6 matches, but that's only because his B game is good enough to beat most others on grass quite easily. He didn't really face anyone tough up till the final.

Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.
 

Caracalla

Rookie
if somebody younger doesn't come to do it.. and if Djokovic is the only game in town, obviously he will have to be tired or out of focus or something else.. and in that case Nadal/Federer is almost confirmation.. sure I'de like to include Murray up there, but we never know whats happening with him when he reaches Finals.. I hope Murray can do it..
 
In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.

Let me know when you decide to leave the realm of fiction and come back to reality.

Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.

Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.

Yes Federer losing to Canas twice is much worse. LOL you just contradicted yourself. Below you laud Hewitt and Safin as tough opponents with 2 slams each, and then in the first part you use Roddick (who is also a slam winner I might remind you) as an example and equate losing to him the same as losing to Canas, make up your mind.

Sir I am always in reality, it is you who live in the world of fantasy and basically in denial.

So what if Nadal pulled his hamstring early, the point is something affected him. Federer's loss of his normal practice routine affected him greatly against Nadal in W2008. He's just not the whiner Nadal is making a big deal out of every little thing. But Courier definitely saw what most *********s are in denial about.

Federer basically had a cakewalk to the final in W2008, which is why he didn't lose a set. Both Hewitt and Safin were well past their prime.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Fred will keep playing another few years. Especially after Rafito retires, he'll pick up some tainted RG's then ;)

just sayings. no offences. having reads throuh your posts historys i can see that you are a good poster.
wow, the mod sures ares takings its easy this weeks :)
The 2008 match was closer than the 2007 match. FO08 was very telling, Federer getting beaten so soundly in a final hadn't happened before and it wasn't entire due to Nadal playing his best. Federer was nowhere near his best level having missed so much practice. Without mono, I don't see Nadal pulling out Wimby 2008 the way he did.
Hey buddy, nice to see you back. Love your avatar.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
2003 was the last year Federer went into the US Open with a hardcourt slam final under his belt.

I mean to say HC final,not HC slam final,my mistake.So let me restate my point then,the last time Fed went into USO without a single final on his best or 2nd best surface before 2008 was 2000.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
In 2008, Federer loses to Fish and Roddick in Indian Wells and Miami. Is that really much worse than losing twice to Canas in 2007 Indian Wells and Miami? Canas, after all, was a lucky loser and a qualifier in those tournaments and he beat Federer twice.

Match-ups,Canas is a tough match-up for Fed on a slow HC while Fish and Roddick never were.Overall Fed's level in 2007 was way higher than in 2008.He did lose to Volandri in Rome but he was affected with separation from his coach Tony Roach,he was in the middle of making an important decision and it showed in his play.

Nadal pulled his hamstring early on in the match. On top of that, he was playing Ferrer, who makes you run all over the court. Nadal had no chance after that.

Nadal played well against Ferrer but just wasn't good enough on the day,David was brilliant and should have reached the final as well(had SP to go 2-0 against Murray).Nadal didn't play poor by any means.

Hewitt and Safin were his toughest opponents. Do they ring any bells? They have 4 majors between them.

Both of them way past their prime with grass also being Safin's worst surface.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Match-ups,Canas is a tough match-up for Fed on a slow HC while Fish and Roddick never were.Overall Fed's level in 2007 was way higher than in 2008.He did lose to Volandri in Rome but he was affected with separation from his coach Tony Roach,he was in the middle of making an important decision and it showed in his play.



Nadal played well against Ferrer
but just wasn't good enough on the day,David was brilliant and should have reached the final as well(had SP to go 2-0 against Murray).Nadal didn't play poor by any means.



Both of them way past their prime with grass also being Safin's worst surface.

yeh he played well for someone with 1 hamstring. 8)
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Perhaps a better response would be how someone could play at all with only one hamstring :)

exactly, he hardly did play at all. Poeple lose all credibility when they say 'he played well" when we all know he played bad and was on 1 hamstring :)
 

BULLZ1LLA

Banned
(In the Ferrer-Rafa match at 2011 AO, I noticed on slow-motion replays that every time Rafa had to change direction he showed obvious pain on his face, so he ended up being late for Ferrer's down-the-line shots because it took him too much time to stop on the tramline and run to the other tramline. So Ferrer hit down-the-line a lot and Rafa would be a fraction late and mistime his shot each time resulting in error)
 
N

nikdom

Guest
If Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win a major!

Take my prediction to the bank.
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
If Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win a major!

Take my prediction to the bank.

sorry, but your post doesn't make sense because even if he doesn't win another slam title, he's already won 16 majors.

however, if Roger never wins a slam title again, he will never win another major! you can take that to the bank.
 

ksbh

Banned
sunny1.jpg
 
which part is perplexing?

You don't find it perplexing how a player could win 9 games in a professional match with one of his hamstrings missing? The only thing more perplexing is how a prime Pete Sampras in 2001 (1 year before winning the USOPEN in 2002 and still in his prime as defined by you) lost to a baby pre prime Federer in a slam on his best surface! Kinda suggests if prime Federer played in Sampras' era, he would have zero slams. Sampras was indeed lucky then that he played in such a weak era.
 
If you take Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray away...Federer still doesn't win either the French Open or Wimbledon last year, as he lost to Soderling and then Berdych.

He also doesn't win 2009's US Open, as he lost to Del Potro.

Federer was down a set and 4-0 to Acasuso, lost the first set to Mathieu, was down 2 sets and faced a break point at 4-4 in the 3rd set to Haas, and down 2 sets to 1 to Del Potro at the 2009 French Open. Pretty sloppy tournament, pressure or not.

He was down 2 sets to Berdych at the 2009 AO.

Beaten in straight sets by Davydenko at 09 WTF SF.

And most importantly, the difference in Federer's game is visible. It's not always "decline," per se', as he's capable of some spectacular tennis at times...but this spectacular tennis looks completely different from his old spectacular tennis. It almost looks like a different player. He's hitting flatter, giving himself wider margins, being very cautious with short balls, hitting balls right back AT opponents on shorter balls instead of away from them, playing tons of forehand drop shots when he used to hit the big forehand to take control of/finish the point, and he has more conservative court positioning.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
You don't find it perplexing how a player could win 9 games in a professional match with one of his hamstrings missing? The only thing more perplexing is how a prime Pete Sampras in 2001 (1 year before winning the USOPEN in 2002 and still in his prime as defined by you) lost to a baby pre prime Federer in a slam on his best surface! Kinda suggests if prime Federer played in Sampras' era, he would have zero slams. Sampras was indeed lucky then that he played in such a weak era.

not at all..if that player is Nadal.

your obsession with Sampras is unhealthy (its off topic)
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
(In the Ferrer-Rafa match at 2011 AO, I noticed on slow-motion replays that every time Rafa had to change direction he showed obvious pain on his face, so he ended up being late for Ferrer's down-the-line shots because it took him too much time to stop on the tramline and run to the other tramline. So Ferrer hit down-the-line a lot and Rafa would be a fraction late and mistime his shot each time resulting in error)

AO 2011? When he got hurt in the first set and could barely move?
 

BULLZ1LLA

Banned
AO 2011? When he got hurt in the first set and could barely move?

(Yes that's the match, I'm telling you what the injury caused - he couldn't push off quick enough after changing direction - that was why he kept playing but couldn't win enough points to beat Ferrer, because Ferrer kept hitting down the line rather than crosscourt. Rafa was fine going crosscourt because he was stationary and didn't need push-off, but when he had to suddenly push-off to the other side he felt the pain and therefore was late getting to the other tramlines)
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
(Yes that's the match, I'm telling you what the injury caused - he couldn't push off quick enough after changing direction - that was why he kept playing but couldn't win enough points to beat Ferrer, because Ferrer kept hitting down the line rather than crosscourt. Rafa was fine going crosscourt because he was stationary and didn't need push-off, but when he had to suddenly push-off to the other side he felt the pain and therefore was late getting to the other tramlines)

I know. I saw the match.
 

Buckethead

Banned
That's a shame Fed is on the same side as Djokovic again, that is unbelievable , they're always on the same half. nadal is lucky.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Hardly lucky. To date Djokovic has never beaten Rafa in a gs match. That would imply that Djoker was the lucky one up to this point.

All of Djoker's wins came in Master Series.

Not that he can't or won't this time around, but we won't that know until the tournament plays out.
 

cknobman

Legend
You know the draw was rigged so Nadal and Fed would be on opposite halfs of the draw, everyone on the freaking planet wants the possibility of a Nad/Fed final.

Djokovic, despite his spectacular run this year still has yet to build up enough star power (especially at Wimbledon) to have the majority of people want to see him in the final over a Rafa or Roger.

BTW I am not complaining because I want/hope to see a Rafa/Roger final.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
You know the draw was rigged so Nadal and Fed would be on opposite halfs of the draw, everyone on the freaking planet wants the possibility of a Nad/Fed final.

Djokovic, despite his spectacular run this year still has yet to build up enough star power (especially at Wimbledon) to have the majority of people want to see him in the final over a Rafa or Roger.

BTW I am not complaining because I want/hope to see a Rafa/Roger final.

But that would constitute cheating.
 

BULLZ1LLA

Banned
This is very true, Nadal has never beaten Djokovic this year and would probably be clobbered again if they met.

(Clobbered? Like in Miami where Rafa won the 1st set and went on to lose in a 3rd set tie-breaker? Or Indian Wells where Rafa won the 1st set? In slams, Rafa has only ever lost ONE match after winning the 1st set. Sorry, but Djokovic is yet to convince anyone that he is a great slam player)
 
(Clobbered? Like in Miami where Rafa won the 1st set and went on to lose in a 3rd set tie-breaker? Or Indian Wells where Rafa won the 1st set? In slams, Rafa has only ever lost ONE match after winning the 1st set. Sorry, but Djokovic is yet to convince anyone that he is a great slam player)

Methinks someone has forgotten the clobberings a certain spaniard received on his best surface at the hands of Djokovic. Nadal is extremely lucky to be avoiding Djokovic till the final. In those 3 set matches with Nadal, Nadal was at his ultimate best, Djokovic was not.
 

BULLZ1LLA

Banned
Methinks someone has forgotten the clobberings a certain spaniard received on his best surface at the hands of Djokovic. Nadal is extremely lucky to be avoiding Djokovic till the final. In those 3 set matches with Nadal, Nadal was at his ultimate best, Djokovic was not.

(sorry, but Djokovic can't beat Rafa in a slam, he's just not good enough. Win 2 sets? Sure, but under the pressure of a slam, Rafa only gets better while Djokovic obviously doesn't get better. He's got 2 Australian Opens, and he's never beaten Rafa at a slam)
 
(sorry, but Djokovic can't beat Rafa in a slam, he's just not good enough. Win 2 sets? Sure, but under the pressure of a slam, Rafa only gets better while Djokovic obviously doesn't get better. He's got 2 Australian Opens, and he's never beaten Rafa at a slam)

Sorry, you can be in denial all you want, but the Djokovic that Nadal faced at USO10 is not the same Djokovic of today. Had Nadal been good enough to get past Ferrer at AO11, Djoker would have thrashed him. It was only Federer that essentially saved Nadal for FO11. Slam or no slam, Djoker beats Nadal hands down anywhere, any place, anytime. Those are just the facts.
 

BULLZ1LLA

Banned
Sorry, you can be in denial all you want, but the Djokovic that Nadal faced at USO10 is not the same Djokovic of today. Had Nadal been good enough to get past Ferrer at AO11, Djoker would have thrashed him. It was only Federer that essentially saved Nadal for FO11. Slam or no slam, Djoker beats Nadal hands down anywhere, any place, anytime. Those are just the facts.

(I saw Djokovic beat Rafa 3 straight times in 2009. Was really impressed with Djokovic, until I saw him play Rafa at the US Open..... :lol:

If they are the facts then they have already occurred, everywhere, including Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Australian Open and.....US Open)
 
(I saw Djokovic beat Rafa 3 straight times in 2009. Was really impressed with Djokovic, until I saw him play Rafa at the US Open..... :lol:

If they are the facts then they have already occurred, everywhere, including Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Australian Open and.....US Open)

I realize this may come as a shock to you, but it's not 2009 anymore. That was then, this is now. Players change. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and making false extrapolations. Djokovic of today is a completely different player. Yes the facts have occurred as I said, Djokovic is 4-0 against Nadal this year. You realize that 0 losses means undefeated? That means Djokovic has beaten Nadal any place and every time.
 

BULLZ1LLA

Banned
I realize this may come as a shock to you, but it's not 2009 anymore. That was then, this is now. Players change. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges and making false extrapolations. Djokovic of today is a completely different player. Yes the facts have occurred as I said, Djokovic is 4-0 against Nadal this year. You realize that 0 losses means undefeated? That means Djokovic has beaten Nadal any place and every time.

(Yeah it's like 2008-09 all over again. His Australian Opens don't scare anyone, and neither do his non-slam wins over Rafa, seen it all before)
 

cknobman

Legend
Nadal looked pathetic at Queens this year. Take that and Djokovic's form this year and I would be willing to place a bet that Djoker beats Rafa if they meet.(I would be frugal with my bet though).
 

Buckethead

Banned
Now it's official, Federer is done, He will never win another major, I said it before if He lost this year's Wimbledon He would never had another chance, because on clay and HC He's been done for 2 years now.
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
I just don't think He can win anymore on HC, and on clay we already know, so his chances are only on grass.

If He can't win grass where will He win??

Nowhere else, not to mention that He will be so down in confidence that will hard for him to come back again.

For me this title is already in the bag, Roger is playing his best tennis ever, just played amazing in RG, could have beaten Nadal there, or let Djoker have done the job, but He failed. Now it is his turn.

If He wins on grass He has a 20% chance to win the US Open.


I have to disagree, even though Roger did not win any slams this year I think that all he needs is for Nadal and Novak to falter. Realistically that is all it will take.

I really don't think Roger's best surface is grass, he has far more hard court titles with better performances on average.
 
I really don't think Roger's best surface is grass, he has far more hard court titles with better performances on average.

Of course Fed has more hard court titles, he only plays 2 grass tournaments per year...

IMO, the one person Fed NEEDS to falter at a slam is Nadal. Djokovic being beaten would definitely pave the way for slam #17 but Federer is certainly more than adequate enough to match and beat Djokovic at a slam.
 
C

celoft

Guest
It's going to be very hard. Federer has to avoid: Nole, Nadal and all the ballbashers.
 
Top