Nike congratulates Federer AD

[Fedexeon]

http://www.smalldeer.com/downloads/ishness/rf_equation/RF_equation_final_sm.mov

Basically you won't even see Federer in the ad... but seems like Nike is taking advantage of the attention given to Federer at the moment.

 

[prattle128]

weirdest video ive ever watched

 

[JeMar]

Well, I guess that settles the debate.

 

[boogywhip]

lol, awesome commercial.

 

[tennismonster]

this equation is amazing!

so ((swiss cheese*13majors)/6years)+1 French > or = to Pete Sampras!
i have to tell my math teacher its easier to remember than the

pythagora therom something haha

 

[Lotto]

All I can say is....oook.

 

[tudwell]

2003-2009 is seven years. Basic arithmetic fail.

 

[sh@de]

lol that was pretty funny.

 

[Telepatic]

Errm ook..Wierd ad..

 

[Cenc]

huh
i will stay at "huh whatever"

 

[GuillermoR]

AWESOME ad. Really well done

 

[Love Game]

Basically you won't even see Federer in the ad... but seems like Nike is taking advantage of the attention given to Federer at the moment.

exactly. that commercial is just another advertisement for their product, a way of associating their name with a winner. like if you use their products you can be a winner too! :roll:

 

[jelle v]

Seems a bit weird and out of place to explicitly state that Roger is better than Pete Sampras..

Saying it here as a personal opinion on a board is no problem, but saying it in a public advertisement seems a bit weird and disrespectful to me.. :neutral:

 

[Leublu tennis]

2003-2009 is seven years. Basic arithmetic fail.

Not if 2003 = 1, 2004 =2, etc.

 

[OrangeOne]

Seems a bit weird and out of place to explicitly state that Roger is better than Pete Sampras..

Saying it here as a personal opinion on a board is no problem, but saying it in a public advertisement seems a bit weird and disrespectful to me.. :neutral:

It says equal to or greater than Pete Sampras.... and it's something Pete's out there saying himself anyways.

Additionally: I'd think Pete would have faaaar too many Nike dollars in his bank account to be in any way bitter

 

[P_Agony]

haha, nice Ad.

 

[evakent]

nike has the best congratulatory ads. remember when ronaldo was fifa world player of the year? way too awesome.

 

[TBobLP]

Not if 2003 = 1, 2004 =2, etc.

2003=1
2004=2
2005=3
2006=4
2007=5
2008=6
2009=7

seven

 

[rommil]

It's a weird but a bit funny ad.


I'm waiting for ........

 

[kobe3pointer]

Not if 2003 = 1, 2004 =2, etc.

Yes, it still is...

2003=1
2004=2
2005=3
2006=4
2007=5
2008=6
2009=7 not 6

 

[BigServer1]

From Wimby 03-FO 09, it's been six years...Maybe that's what they meant?

 

[certifiedjatt]

2003=1
2004=2
2005=3
2006=4
2007=5
2008=6
2009=7

seven

umm no. not seven. 7th. 2003-2009 is 6 years, going into the 7th. so only 6 full years have gone by. when 2009 is complete, THEN 7 years would be complete.

 

[veroniquem]

Seems a bit weird and out of place to explicitly state that Roger is better than Pete Sampras..

Saying it here as a personal opinion on a board is no problem, but saying it in a public advertisement seems a bit weird and disrespectful to me.. :neutral:

Poor Sampras! His fellow countrymen couldn't even wait until Fed actually BROKE his slam record to crown Fed the king. But that's because Fed is still active and economically very profitable while Sampras is not anymore...

 

[rommil]

Poor Sampras! His fellow countrymen couldn't even wait until Fed actually BROKE his slam record to crown Fed the king. But that's because Fed is still active and economically very profitable while Sampras is not anymore...

Lol see what I said about I was waiting for .... we all know your kind gets drawn to cheese.
Sorry Ma'am but you have to step out.
Come back when... well you know.

 

[RoddickAce]

Yes, it still is...

2003=1
2004=2
2005=3
2006=4
2007=5
2008=6
2009=7 not 6

Maybe Nike meant July 2003(Fed's first slam) to June 2009(Fed's most recent slam).

July 2003-december 2003 = around half a year
Jan 2009 to June 2009 = around half a year.

So 2004 to 2008 = 5 years, 5 years + 2 "half" years = 6 years.

 

[TBobLP]

umm no. not seven. 7th. 2003-2009 is 6 years, going into the 7th. so only 6 full years have gone by. when 2009 is complete, THEN 7 years would be complete.

...just going by the "rules" of the post i replied to. maybe go read it?

 

[malakas]

haha that ad was...original!

 

[mental midget]

meh. opportunity squandered. there's no viewpoint or perspective, just a goofy animation to tell us something we already know.

 

[TennezSport]

Well............

2003-2009 is seven years. Basic arithmetic fail.

Itwas meant as not inclusive since 09 is not complete yet. That is why they added the FO after. Hopfully more majors to come this year

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[lawrence]

2003-2009 is seven years. Basic arithmetic fail.

2003=1
2004=2
2005=3
2006=4
2007=5
2008=6
2009=7

seven

Yes, it still is...

2003=1
2004=2
2005=3
2006=4
2007=5
2008=6
2009=7 not 6

dunno bout u guys but im living in 2009 still

 

[TBobLP]

dunno bout u guys but im living in 2009 still

again, i was just going by the "rules" of the post i was replying to.

 

[theduh]

Funny and very original.