Nadal will be new year end #1

[mental midget]

Nadal is simply not a #1 'type' player. He's limited as I have said all along, and that is showing now. Playing at 100% and the best shape he's ever been in (as he himself says) he is losing to guys like Soderling. It's not bad, this is simply where Nadal's skill belongs. It's an illusion that he was ever in the league of a Federer or even Sampras for that matter. In his best year ever when he was playing lights out (at the same time Fed was not up to par/aging), he won 2 slams. Fed beginning on the decline won 3 slams in 07. This is the difference.

nadal's a question mark for me. at his absolute peak, while he never displayed the artistry we've come to expect from federer, he executed on a relatively simple formula to the extent that he was almost unbeatable, even on surfaces that exploited the mechanical limitations of his chosen game.

but lately, i don't know . . . it's just not the same guy out there. it's as though the planets aligned for a couple months, and then spun back off on their respective orbits.

 

[flyinghippos101]

Whatev, another worthy addition to the archive of fail threads by sureshs.

 

[AJK1]

Another illiterate OP

 

[MuseFan]

Nadal is simply not a #1 'type' player. He's limited as I have said all along, and that is showing now. Playing at 100% and the best shape he's ever been in (as he himself says) he is losing to guys like Soderling. It's not bad, this is simply where Nadal's skill belongs. It's an illusion that he was ever in the league of a Federer or even Sampras for that matter. In his best year ever when he was playing lights out (at the same time Fed was not up to par/aging), he won 2 slams. Fed beginning on the decline won 3 slams in 07. This is the difference.

But in 2007 Nadal was not ready to win at non-clay slams and Djokovic was just emerging. 2008 was the beginning of the hard-co** era and Fed has struggled mightily in that.

 

[Cantankersore]

Another illiterate OP

SAME illiterate OP.

 

[volleynets]

Anyway, Nadal is officially #2. Again. He's the greatest #2 ever, aside from the one I took this morning. It was epic.

End thread.

HAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAH!!!

 

[namelessone]

Nadal is simply not a #1 'type' player. He's limited as I have said all along, and that is showing now. Playing at 100% and the best shape he's ever been in (as he himself says) he is losing to guys like Soderling. It's not bad, this is simply where Nadal's skill belongs. It's an illusion that he was ever in the league of a Federer or even Sampras for that matter. In his best year ever when he was playing lights out (at the same time Fed was not up to par/aging), he won 2 slams. Fed beginning on the decline won 3 slams in 07. This is the difference.

Nadal is so limited that he has been nr.2 for the better part of 4 years and that's only because he plays in the same era as GOAT. Without a dominant force like Federer,Rafa would have easily been nr.1 for 2 years or more because he was dominating clay(the bulk of his points came from here) and he was good enough to reach wimbledon finals but was unlucky enough to face perhaps the best grass player of all time(along with sampras).

A player cannot be "limited" and win 6 slams over 3 surfaces and 15 masters. I keep hearing that player x or y are more talented than Rafa and I keep asking,where the hell are their trophies? Nadal's game has gone backwards a bit since his injury,especially on the BH side but in 2008 it was much improved as opposed to his 2005 level for example. He's not as limited as people say. Ok,so he's no great tactician or magician a la Santoro but his skill is very underrated around these boards. It's just that he's not that good on HC. Most of his beatdowns have come here. He doesn't have the game for it. But he is king on clay,where he has a 153-6 record since 2005 and he is pretty good on grass too,winning queens and reaching 3 wimbledon finals. That,my friends,takes talent.

About Fed's decline. How can Fed begin his decline in 07',winning 3 slams(missing his 4th must have been tough),decline in 08' reaching 3 slam finals(losing two of them to a great Nadal),and inflate again in 09' reaching 4 slam finals and winning 2 of them. So where is Fed's decline? Sure,he has lost something as opposed to his 2004-2007 run,but only at non-slam events IMO.
If one says that Nadal won his slams in 08' because of declining Federer once could just as easily say that Fed won his 2 slams in 09' because Rafa was out of the picture because of injury. But I for one won't say that because I don't believe that last sentence.

 

[zagor]

Suresh fail thread #378462876782365927978263592693750

 

[Fed Kennedy]

that thing that nadal is trying to pick out of his undies is you suresh

 

[zagor]

Nadal is so limited that he has been nr.2 for the better part of 4 years and that's only because he plays in the same era as GOAT. Without a dominant force like Federer,Rafa would have easily been nr.1 for 2 years or more because he was dominating clay(the bulk of his points came from here) and he was good enough to reach wimbledon finals but was unlucky enough to face perhaps the best grass player of all time(along with sampras).

A player cannot be "limited" and win 6 slams over 3 surfaces and 15 masters. I keep hearing that player x or y are more talented than Rafa and I keep asking,where the hell are their trophies? Nadal's game has gone backwards a bit since his injury,especially on the BH side but in 2008 it was much improved as opposed to his 2005 level for example. He's not as limited as people say. Ok,so he's no great tactician or magician a la Santoro but his skill is very underrated around these boards. It's just that he's not that good on HC. Most of his beatdowns have come here. He doesn't have the game for it. But he is king on clay,where he has a 153-6 record since 2005 and he is pretty good on grass too,winning queens and reaching 3 wimbledon finals. That,my friends,takes talent.

About Fed's decline. How can Fed begin his decline in 07',winning 3 slams(missing his 4th must have been tough),decline in 08' reaching 3 slam finals(losing two of them to a great Nadal),and inflate again in 09' reaching 4 slam finals and winning 2 of them. So where is Fed's decline? Sure,he has lost something as opposed to his 2004-2007 run,but only at non-slam events IMO.
If one says that Nadal won his slams in 08' because of declining Federer once could just as easily say that Fed won his 2 slams in 09' because Rafa was out of the picture because of injury. But I for one won't say that because I don't believe that last sentence.

Actually you implied that several times.

As for where is Fed's decline,ask yourself why he wasn't close to going out in early rounds in HC slams during 2004-2007 period while during last 2 years if Janko,Berdman and Andreev have kept their nerves they would have mostly likely knocked him out.

When Nadal's going 5 sets in early rounds in FO against that level of players(not Soderling who actually reached the final and is a top 10 player)let me know.

 

[namelessone]

Actually you implied that several times.

As for where is Fed's decline,ask yourself why he wasn't close to going out in early rounds in HC slams during 2004-2007 period while during last 2 years if Janko,Berdman and Andreev have kept their nerves they would have mostly likely knocked him out.

When Nadal's going 5 sets in early rounds in FO against that level of players(not Soderling who actually reached the final and is a top 10 player)let me know.

I don't believe in Fed's decline and I don't believe that his 09' slams weren't worth something just because Rafa wasn't in front of him.

So what's better,going to 5 sets early on with some less than faboulos opponents and reaching finals or getting knocked out in 4th round?

 

[zagor]

I don't believe in Fed's decline and I don't believe that his 09' slams weren't worth something just because Rafa wasn't in front of him.

So what's better,going to 5 sets early on with some less than faboulos opponents and reaching finals or getting knocked out in 4th round?

Soderling's a top 10 player who reached masters cup and also went on to beat seeded players Kolja and Gonzo after he beat Nadal at the FO,he's a level above Janko,Andreev and yes even Berdych(who has done nothing this year apart from that match with Fed).

If you can use matches that Nadal almost lost(like against Almagro and Robredo)to prove Nadal is playing badly I can do the same for Fed.

 

[joeri888]

Actually you implied that several times.

As for where is Fed's decline,ask yourself why he wasn't close to going out in early rounds in HC slams during 2004-2007 period while during last 2 years if Janko,Berdman and Andreev have kept their nerves they would have mostly likely knocked him out.
When Nadal's going 5 sets in early rounds in FO against that level of players(not Soderling who actually reached the final and is a top 10 player)let me know.

I didn't follow the whole discussion, but this one stood out for me. I think Andreev, Janko and Berdych were never in a position where they could choke the match away. In the end, on all three occassions, Fed just played better in the end.

 

[zagor]

I didn't follow the whole discussion, but this one stood out for me. I think Andreev, Janko and Berdych were never in a position where they could choke the match away. In the end, on all three occassions, Fed just played better in the end.

Fed did play better in the end but Andreev wasted a lot of BPs and Berdych's level did go down after first 2 sets(Janko you're probably right,Fed just kept bombing aces and Janko was bound to drop first),they were both feeling the nerves as players always do when they have the chance to beat someone like Fed although Fed's experience and mental toughness did play a part in getting through those matches as well.

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

Does this guy always make these kinds of threads?

 

[lawrence]

that thing that nadal is trying to pick out of his undies is you suresh

Hahahaha LOL'd IRL

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

Soderling's a top 10 player who reached masters cup and also went on to beat seeded players Kolja and Gonzo after he beat Nadal at the FO,he's a level above Janko,Andreev and yes even Berdych(who has done nothing this year apart from that match with Fed).

If you can use matches that Nadal almost lost(like against Almagro and Robredo)to prove Nadal is playing badly I can do the same for Fed.

Soderling was not a Top 10 player before he beat Rafa.

Andreev and Berdych had better career than Soderling before the 2009 French.

 

[joeri888]

Fed did play better in the end but Andreev wasted a lot of BPs and Berdych's level did go down after first 2 sets(Janko you're probably right,Fed just kept bombing aces and Janko was bound to drop first),they were both feeling the nerves as players always do when they have the chance to beat someone like Fed although Fed's experience and mental toughness did play a part in getting through those matches as well.

Than I disagree. I think Berdych started to play worse without much pressure being already there. If it was mental I'd expect him to be nervous at 5 all in the third, but he just lost the third set quite easily. He never got back in. It just was his normal level he returned to. Same for Andreev. They can only keep those kind of levels up for so long.

 

[zagor]

Soderling was not a Top 10 player before he beat Rafa.

Andreev and Berdych had better career than Soderling before the 2009 French.

That's true,can't argue with that although I still don't believe for a second that Andreev and Berdych would have Fed on the ropes in HC slams in 2004-2007 period,they would be lucky to get a set.

 

[Agassifan]

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_y...DmWcgv7YF?slug=ap-atpfinals&prov=ap&type=lgns

LOLFAIL AGAIN

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

That's true,can't argue with that although I still don't believe for a second that Andreev and Berdych would have Fed on the ropes in HC slams in 2004-2007 period,they would be lucky to get a set.

Probably not. He never played Andreev in slams before 2008, and he beat Berdych in RG, Wimbledon and AO2008, all in straights.

 

[P_Agony]

I don't believe in Fed's decline and I don't believe that his 09' slams weren't worth something just because Rafa wasn't in front of him.

So what's better,going to 5 sets early on with some less than faboulos opponents and reaching finals or getting knocked out in 4th round?

If Fed hasn't declined, how do you explain his 2008 losses to Stepanek, Blake, Roddick, Fish, Karlovic - guys who he usually wons and has near perfect H2Hs against.

It's clear that Fed isn't who he used to be (Although still very good).

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

^ What about Canas, Volandri, Gonzalez, young Djokovic in 2007?

 

[namelessone]

If Fed hasn't declined, how do you explain his 2008 losses to Stepanek, Blake, Roddick, Fish, Karlovic - guys who he usually wons and has near perfect H2Hs against.

It's clear that Fed isn't who he used to be (Although still very good).

Fed's level in "decline" is the stuff other players dream of. Federer declined massively only at non-Slam events since 2007 and while he is fighting harder to win slams,he is still making an average of 2 slam wins and 3 slam finals per year.

I remember seeing Rafa at that "Universal Spaniard" thing a while ago,in a room full of spaniards(the guys giving the award to him,reporters),he was asked about the AO moment and what he though about Fed at the moment. Instead of playing a tune favourable to what his countrymen would have like to hear,Rafa said that he knew Fed would bounce back because he is a great champion and that he would have liked a "bad year" like Fed since in Fed's worst year he still reached more Slam finals than Rafa in his best year.

I for one agree with Rafa's assessment about Federer and his form.

 

[bruce38]

But in 2007 Nadal was not ready to win at non-clay slams and Djokovic was just emerging. 2008 was the beginning of the hard-co** era and Fed has struggled mightily in that.

How can you say he was not ready to win non-clay slams in 2007? He almost took W from Fed. That is not almost. He was ready.

 

[bruce38]

Nadal is so limited that he has been nr.2 for the better part of 4 years and that's only because he plays in the same era as GOAT. Without a dominant force like Federer,Rafa would have easily been nr.1 for 2 years or more because he was dominating clay(the bulk of his points came from here) and he was good enough to reach wimbledon finals but was unlucky enough to face perhaps the best grass player of all time(along with sampras).

A player cannot be "limited" and win 6 slams over 3 surfaces and 15 masters. I keep hearing that player x or y are more talented than Rafa and I keep asking,where the hell are their trophies? Nadal's game has gone backwards a bit since his injury,especially on the BH side but in 2008 it was much improved as opposed to his 2005 level for example. He's not as limited as people say. Ok,so he's no great tactician or magician a la Santoro but his skill is very underrated around these boards. It's just that he's not that good on HC. Most of his beatdowns have come here. He doesn't have the game for it. But he is king on clay,where he has a 153-6 record since 2005 and he is pretty good on grass too,winning queens and reaching 3 wimbledon finals. That,my friends,takes talent.

About Fed's decline. How can Fed begin his decline in 07',winning 3 slams(missing his 4th must have been tough),decline in 08' reaching 3 slam finals(losing two of them to a great Nadal),and inflate again in 09' reaching 4 slam finals and winning 2 of them. So where is Fed's decline? Sure,he has lost something as opposed to his 2004-2007 run,but only at non-slam events IMO.
If one says that Nadal won his slams in 08' because of declining Federer once could just as easily say that Fed won his 2 slams in 09' because Rafa was out of the picture because of injury. But I for one won't say that because I don't believe that last sentence.

You have no proof that he would be #1 if Fed was not there. I doubt he would have won any non-clay slams from 2004-2007. Someone else would have stepped up. Don't forget, it's not like he was getting to the finals of these events in those years. He was losing in early round to weak players because he himself is intrinsically weak (Except on clay).

 

[bruce38]

Nadal is so limited that he has been nr.2 for the better part of 4 years and that's only because he plays in the same era as GOAT. Without a dominant force like Federer,Rafa would have easily been nr.1 for 2 years or more because he was dominating clay(the bulk of his points came from here) and he was good enough to reach wimbledon finals but was unlucky enough to face perhaps the best grass player of all time(along with sampras).

A player cannot be "limited" and win 6 slams over 3 surfaces and 15 masters. I keep hearing that player x or y are more talented than Rafa and I keep asking,where the hell are their trophies? Nadal's game has gone backwards a bit since his injury,especially on the BH side but in 2008 it was much improved as opposed to his 2005 level for example. He's not as limited as people say. Ok,so he's no great tactician or magician a la Santoro but his skill is very underrated around these boards. It's just that he's not that good on HC. Most of his beatdowns have come here. He doesn't have the game for it. But he is king on clay,where he has a 153-6 record since 2005 and he is pretty good on grass too,winning queens and reaching 3 wimbledon finals. That,my friends,takes talent.

About Fed's decline. How can Fed begin his decline in 07',winning 3 slams(missing his 4th must have been tough),decline in 08' reaching 3 slam finals(losing two of them to a great Nadal),and inflate again in 09' reaching 4 slam finals and winning 2 of them. So where is Fed's decline? Sure,he has lost something as opposed to his 2004-2007 run,but only at non-slam events IMO.
If one says that Nadal won his slams in 08' because of declining Federer once could just as easily say that Fed won his 2 slams in 09' because Rafa was out of the picture because of injury. But I for one won't say that because I don't believe that last sentence.

Fed was declining in 07 because he did not win as dominantly as he did in previous years. In 06 he killed Rafa at W. In 07 it took 5 sets. *********s would argue Nadal got better, *******s argue Fed declined. Potato Putato.

 

[bruce38]

I don't believe in Fed's decline and I don't believe that his 09' slams weren't worth something just because Rafa wasn't in front of him.

So what's better,going to 5 sets early on with some less than faboulos opponents and reaching finals or getting knocked out in 4th round?

If you don't believe Fed's level has declined since 07, then you are truly delusional and biased and can't see anything clearly.

 

[bruce38]

Fed's level in "decline" is the stuff other players dream of. Federer declined massively only at non-Slam events since 2007 and while he is fighting harder to win slams,he is still making an average of 2 slam wins and 3 slam finals per year.

I remember seeing Rafa at that "Universal Spaniard" thing a while ago,in a room full of spaniards(the guys giving the award to him,reporters),he was asked about the AO moment and what he though about Fed at the moment. Instead of playing a tune favourable to what his countrymen would have like to hear,Rafa said that he knew Fed would bounce back because he is a great champion and that he would have liked a "bad year" like Fed since in Fed's worst year he still reached more Slam finals than Rafa in his best year.

I for one agree with Rafa's assessment about Federer and his form.

Bolded = decline. What don't you understand about that simple english?

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_y...DmWcgv7YF?slug=ap-atpfinals&prov=ap&type=lgns

Nadal: In ‘perfect shape’ going into ATP finals
By MATTIAS KAREN, AP Sports Writer
2 hours, 12 minutes ago

Buzz up! 0 PrintLONDON (AP)—All the involuntary rest because of injuries gives Rafael Nadal a good feeling heading into the season-ending ATP World Tour Finals.

When most players are nursing weary bodies after a long season, Nadal says things couldn’t be better.

“I’m in perfect shape, both mentally and physically,” Nadal said Friday. “I’ve had the best end of the season in my life.”

However, freshness comes at a steep cost. Knee tendinitis prevented him from defending his Wimbledon title and an abdominal injury forced another layoff after the U.S. Open.
Now the second-ranked Spaniard says he has returned to top form after reaching the Shanghai Masters final last month and the Paris Masters semifinals last week.

“I am close to my absolute best. I am playing well,” Nadal said. “And this situation, getting to play against the best players in the world, is perfect for me.”

The ATP World Tour Finals, the latest incarnation of the nearly 40-year-old elite season-ending tournament, features eight of the top players in the world, with a round-robin before the semifinals and final.

Nadal’s first match will be against rival Robin Soderling on Monday, giving him a chance to avenge his surprising fourth-round loss at the French Open against the Swede. Soderling qualified for the event as an alternate after Andy Roddick pulled out with a left knee injury.

Nadal said he’s more worried about Novak Djokovic in his group than Soderling or even top-ranked Roger Federer. He insists the third-ranked Serb is playing the best tennis of his life.

Djokovic defeated Nadal in the Paris semifinals en route to his second straight title, after beating Federer in the Swiss Indoors final the previous week.

“If I play my best tennis, and he plays like he did (in Paris), it’s going to be almost impossible” to beat him, Nadal said.

Djokovic, the defending champion at Shanghai last year, said he’s got a lot more to play for than just the rich prize. An undefeated champion will take home $1.63 million, with $120,000 knocked off for each loss in the round robin.

“I rate the world tour finals, besides grand slams, as the biggest event in our sport,” Djokovic said. “So being a title defender is a big responsibility.”

Djokovic plays Nikolay Davydenko in the first round, while Federer’s group includes U.S. Open champion Juan Martin del Potro, Andy Murray and Fernando Verdasco.

Federer, who lost to Julien Benneteau of France in the second round in Paris last week, will play Verdasco on Sunday in his first match in London’s O2 Arena. Federer said he can’t take any match for granted.

“At the very last tournament of the season, we could be sent home packing with three defeats,” Federer said. “But we can also go home having the best feeling in the world after beating all your closest rivals you’ve had through the year.”

Federer will be protecting his No. 1 ranking. Nadal has a slim chance of taking the top spot if he wins the event and the Swiss star has a poor performance.

“I’m aware of it. I’d be lying if I say I’m just here to play well,” Federer said. “Definitely, I’m here to win the tournament and try to stay No. 1 in the world.”

Nadal tried to downplay his chances of returning to the top of the rankings.

“If I win the tournament, it doesn’t matter to me if I’m No. 10,” he said. “The rest of the things, No. 1, No. 3, it doesn’t matter.”

AP Sports Writer Chris Lehourites contributed to this report.

SUCKER!!!:twisted::twisted:

 

[NamRanger]

^ What about Canas, Volandri, Gonzalez, young Djokovic in 2007?

That was the beginning of Federer's decline, but he was still good enough to nearly win everything. Everyone who was objective stated that these losses probably signified that Federer was not the dominant player that he once was.

 

[Agassifan]

If you don't think Fed is in decline, you're not objective. Fed has been in clear decline the last couple of years. He is still the best player around (by some distance) though.

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

That was the beginning of Federer's decline, but he was still good enough to nearly win everything. Everyone who was objective stated that these losses probably signified that Federer was not the dominant player that he once was.

Now that brings up 2 questions:

1) Were his bad performances in 2008 due to mono or were they a continuation of his decline?

2) Why is he not losing to those guys in 2009? In 2009, the only unexpected losses were to Wawrinka, Tsonga and Benneteau. All other losses were against Top 5 players. He had more unexpected losses in 2007 and 2008 than in 2009.

Are Volandri (53), Canas (55) and Gonzalez (7) better than Tsonga (7), Wawrinka (16) and Benneteau (49)?

 

[Rabbit]

Is Federer in decline...or are the other players just lowering his level?

And to the OP.....don't look like it now....maybe Nadal should add "juice" back to his breakfast.

 

[joeri888]

Is Federer in decline...or are the other players just lowering his level?

And to the OP.....don't look like it now....maybe Nadal should add "juice" back to his breakfast.

If anything, the top has upped its level. Federer just was THAT much better. His game has declined, but his serve might actually be improving still. I think it's at least become way more important. Fed's in decline, but this year it's not really declined further. i think especially in confidence he got such a boost that he now is at a significantly higher level than last year, even though he lost the USO final/

 

[flying24]

I think Federer really only had a little over 3 year prime. His prime was from the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup until Dubai 2007 basically. Even as a Federer fan I think that is a bit of a mark against him, as most other all time greats hard longer primes. However as long as he manages to keep winning slams and spend time at #1 outside his prime it wont matter much in the big picture. Also no player in history probably has been as dominant over an entire 3-4 year span as prime Federer was.

 

[flying24]

Is Federer in decline...or are the other players just lowering his level?

And to the OP.....don't look like it now....maybe Nadal should add "juice" back to his breakfast.

I think Federer is having a mini resurgence in that he is playing a bit better than 2008. Still I think he is also benefiting from others stagnating or regressing too. Djokovic is still a legit top 3 but a bit down from 2007-2008. Murray hasnt been able to raise his game to the level of a slam champion yet. Nadal is definitely a big level down from mid 2007-early 2009 and I dont think he will ever get back there again as he has lost half a step IMO. Del Potro is on the rise obviously, but still is a far way removed from being even a semi dominant player.

 

[flying24]

Actually you implied that several times.

As for where is Fed's decline,ask yourself why he wasn't close to going out in early rounds in HC slams during 2004-2007 period while during last 2 years if Janko,Berdman and Andreev have kept their nerves they would have mostly likely knocked him out.

When Nadal's going 5 sets in early rounds in FO against that level of players(not Soderling who actually reached the final and is a top 10 player)let me know.

Berdych you have a point on. However Tipsarevic and Andreev were never any closer to winning those matches than Federer. I dont recall them ever having a break lead in the decisive set or even being the first to have break chances to take the lead. The stats of the match also favored Federer in the end. People are so eager to say someone choked vs Federer that if the match merely goes to a 5th set, even if that player arguably is the one lucky to get to a 5th set, Federer is lucky or the opponent choked if he wins, which is a joke.

 

[zagor]

Berdych you have a point on. However Tipsarevic and Andreev were never any closer to winning those matches than Federer. I dont recall them ever having a break lead in the decisive set or even being the first to have break chances to take the lead. The stats of the match also favored Federer in the end. People are so eager to say someone choked vs Federer that if the match merely goes to a 5th set, even if that player arguably is the one lucky to get to a 5th set, Federer is lucky or the opponent choked if he wins, which is a joke.

Yes,I might have gotten carried away there trying to win an argument.Basically what I meant to say was that Fed wasn't that far away from suffering a similar fate to Nadal's FO this year(losing to Soderling)in HC slams.People here are always eager to use the word choke,period,not just when it comes to Fed,it's an overused term.

 

[zagor]

Now that brings up 2 questions:

1) Were his bad performances in 2008 due to mono or were they a continuation of his decline?

2) Why is he not losing to those guys in 2009? In 2009, the only unexpected losses were to Wawrinka, Tsonga and Benneteau. All other losses were against Top 5 players. He had more unexpected losses in 2007 and 2008 than in 2009.

Are Volandri (53), Canas (55) and Gonzalez (7) better than Tsonga (7), Wawrinka (16) and Benneteau (49)?

1)Maybe it's not that simple like it's one or another,maybe it was due to:

-Fed's natural decline
-Nadal's improvement
-Novak's improvement
-the dreaded mono

Maybe all those things had affect to various degree.And I'm not saying that that takes away Nadal's or Novak's wins or whatever(whatever is going on with Fed is not their problem,they just showed up on court,did their job and beat him)however if we're gonna argue Nadal's playing terribly because he's losing to top players during what is historically his worst part of the season then yes the same can be said for Fed and some of his 2008 losses(to Fish,Blake,Karlovic etc.).

2)Volandri was a bad loss,I can't really excuse that one other than the fact that Fed was splitting with Tony Roche at that time and that might have affected his performance.

Now Canas finished his year as #15 which was his career highest ranking at which he finished a year(which he equaled in 2001 and 2002),he was ranked low due to just coming back from injury but his playing level that year was obviously higher than that,he's also a defensive grinder type player who Fed was always somewhat vulnerable to so him beating Fed on slow HC is not that big of a deal,same as Simon beating Fed in 2008(which I never used as an example for a bad loss because of Simon's type of game).

Gonzo is Gonzo,he swung for the fences and got the win against Fed in RR,Roddick could have done the same even in Fed's best year in 2006(he had MP or 2),I don't look at that loss as a big of a deal either.

I don't know why you brought Novak a post before as a bad loss,along with Fed he also beat #2(Nadal) and #3(Roddick)at Montreal as well and overall Novak's 2007 is arguably better than this year.In no way would I qualify that as bad loss.

 

[AM95]

Now that brings up 2 questions:

1) Were his bad performances in 2008 due to mono or were they a continuation of his decline?

2) Why is he not losing to those guys in 2009? In 2009, the only unexpected losses were to Wawrinka, Tsonga and Benneteau. All other losses were against Top 5 players. He had more unexpected losses in 2007 and 2008 than in 2009.

Are Volandri (53), Canas (55) and Gonzalez (7) better than Tsonga (7), Wawrinka (16) and Benneteau (49)?

you cant possibly be referring to Federer tanking matches in 2007? Back to back matches to Canas? Cmon now..

btw fail thread :twisted:

 

[Steve132]

I think Federer really only had a little over 3 year prime. His prime was from the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup until Dubai 2007 basically. Even as a Federer fan I think that is a bit of a mark against him, as most other all time greats hard longer primes. However as long as he manages to keep winning slams and spend time at #1 outside his prime it wont matter much in the big picture. Also no player in history probably has been as dominant over an entire 3-4 year span as prime Federer was.

We need to distinguish between a player's peak and his prime. The period from TMC 2003 to Dubai 2007 represents Federer's peak. This period (3+ years) is by no means short compared with the peaks for other players, many of who enjoyed only a single great year.

Federer is still in his prime, however. While he is not the player he was in 2004 to 2006, he is still clearly the world's best player, holding the year end no. 1 ranking in 2007 and 2009 and finishing second in 2008. He remains an active player and as such I see no need to apologize for his (lack of) longevity.

 

[Agassifan]

We need to distinguish between a player's peak and his prime. The period from TMC 2003 to Dubai 2007 represents Federer's peak. This period (3+ years) is by no means short compared with the peaks for other players, many of who enjoyed only a single great year.

Federer is still in his prime, however. While he is not the player he was in 2004 to 2006, he is still clearly the world's best player, holding the year end no. 1 ranking in 2007 and 2009 and finishing second in 2008. He remains an active player and as such I see no need to apologize for his (lack of) longevity.

100% Agreed. His peak was better than anyone's peak in history and his prime is also better than anyone else's in history. Nothing more to ask for

 

[TheMusicLover]

We need to distinguish between a player's peak and his prime. The period from TMC 2003 to Dubai 2007 represents Federer's peak. This period (3+ years) is by no means short compared with the peaks for other players, many of who enjoyed only a single great year.

Federer is still in his prime, however. While he is not the player he was in 2004 to 2006, he is still clearly the world's best player, holding the year end no. 1 ranking in 2007 and 2009 and finishing second in 2008. He remains an active player and as such I see no need to apologize for his (lack of) longevity.

A very good point indeed. A fellow who managed to make ALL of the GS finals is most definitely still at his prime! He is past his peak though, but OMG how high that peak indeed was...
Problem is that nowadays fans seem to expect the same thing to be possible for any of his possible successors. I'm afraid that's quite delusional.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Now that brings up 2 questions:

1) Were his bad performances in 2008 due to mono or were they a continuation of his decline?

2) Why is he not losing to those guys in 2009? In 2009, the only unexpected losses were to Wawrinka, Tsonga and Benneteau. All other losses were against Top 5 players. He had more unexpected losses in 2007 and 2008 than in 2009.

Are Volandri (53), Canas (55) and Gonzalez (7) better than Tsonga (7), Wawrinka (16) and Benneteau (49)?

What you are saying is that Fed's 2009 level of play is better than his 2008 level of play. This is true.

 

[joeri888]

I think Federer really only had a little over 3 year prime. His prime was from the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup until Dubai 2007 basically. Even as a Federer fan I think that is a bit of a mark against him, as most other all time greats hard longer primes. However as long as he manages to keep winning slams and spend time at #1 outside his prime it wont matter much in the big picture. Also no player in history probably has been as dominant over an entire 3-4 year span as prime Federer was.

Fed has 3 years prime yes, but he wins Slams when he's in slumps. That's way more important. You can make any prime of a player as narrow/broad as you want. You can say Fed had his prime between 1998 and 2012. or you could say it was just 2006, or just AO 2007. It's how narrow you want it.

I think Federer is having a mini resurgence in that he is playing a bit better than 2008. Still I think he is also benefiting from others stagnating or regressing too. Djokovic is still a legit top 3 but a bit down from 2007-2008. Murray hasnt been able to raise his game to the level of a slam champion yet. Nadal is definitely a big level down from mid 2007-early 2009 and I dont think he will ever get back there again as he has lost half a step IMO. Del Potro is on the rise obviously, but still is a far way removed from being even a semi dominant player.

It's what you call mini. Federer plays way more consistent tournaments than last year and the beginning of this year. His winning percentage is a lot better I think.

 

[MuseFan]

Let's be clear. Fed's "golden prime" was from Nov 03 to Feb 07. That's when he was literally winning EVERYTHING in sight. Since then he's simply been winning slams and some other events. Not bad.

 

[namelessone]

Let's be clear. Fed's "golden prime" was from Nov 03 to Feb 07. That's when he was literally winning EVERYTHING in sight. Since then he's simply been winning slams and some other events. Not bad.

Exaggerating much? Federer dominated extensively throughout that period but he did not win everything in sight. If I remember correctly a young spaniard beat him in miami 2004 and kept RG away from RF in 2005-2007 period. So everything outside of clay would be a better argument for fed's "golden prime". Please tell me if he is in his "silver prime" now or if he has entered his "bronze prime" phase.

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

What you are saying is that Fed's 2009 level of play is better than his 2008 level of play. This is true.

What about 2007 and 2009?

 

[Carsomyr]

Exaggerating much? Federer dominated extensively throughout that period but he did not win everything in sight. If I remember correctly a young spaniard beat him in miami 2004 and kept RG away from RF in 2005-2007 period. So everything outside of clay would be a better argument for fed's "golden prime". Please tell me if he is in his "silver prime" or if he has entered his "bronze prime" phase.

It's more of his "cadmium prime".