The numbers behind the King

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
That's not the point; the only point that I'm making is that Federer in his early years showed far less promise than Djokovic did before they both won their slams. Djokovic before winning his slam had consistently made deep runs in slams (SF at Wimbledon, SF at FO, F at USO), won multiple Master titles (won Canada, Miami), and beat many top players in those years (Federer, Nadal, Roddick, etc). Oh, and somehow that is all overshadowed by the fact that Federer beat old man Sampras at Wimbledon. So what about Novak's accomplishment of beating Federer during his prime? LOL.


And yet somehow we're suppose to believe that Djokovic is the one doping. He was always consistently very good. Federer on the other hand, is a much stronger candidate for the PED case considering before his slam, he was just a wildly inconsistent player who could lose to just about anyone.

What's the point of this? It won't matter one bit if Djokovic fails to have a Federer-like career which looks unlikely even if he goes unbeaten this year.

Before the Federer era started in 2004 he had some decent results prior. Beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, reached 2 consecutive Slam quarters in 2001 as a teenager, won a Masters title at 20 a year later and then won Wimbledon/Masters Cup in 2003. So you suggest he took just a little PED in 2001 to try out, took a little bit more in 2002 and then thought "hey the **** is working!" and has been taking huge dozes since?
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
What's the point of this? It won't matter one bit if Djokovic fails to have a Federer-like career which looks unlikely even if he goes unbeaten this year




jWEPA{FOHAWPERYAIPWEFHP@A#YG%V(T_($WAt



You cannot accuse Djokovic of PEDs when he has always been a consistent top player in tennis, without accusing Federer. Federer before his Wimbledon title was the very definition of a headcase/inconsistent/choke artist. How does one go from a total bust (which many people thought he was at the time), to a 16 slam champion? According to our resident expert's logic, the only explanation is obviously PEDs. It is in fact more logical when you look at the results that Federer is the one who doped, as his rise was dramatic, not like Djokovic's which occurred over a long period of time (with some slumps to boot).


It's like people on TW have no reading comprehension at all.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
jWEPA{FOHAWPERYAIPWEFHP@A#YG%V(T_($WAt



You cannot accuse Djokovic of PEDs when he has always been a consistent top player in tennis, without accusing Federer. Federer before his Wimbledon title was the very definition of a headcase/inconsistent/choke artist. How does one go from a total bust (which many people thought he was at the time), to a 16 slam champion? According to our resident expert's logic, the only explanation is obviously PEDs. It is in fact more logical when you look at the results that Federer is the one who doped, as his rise was dramatic, not like Djokovic's which occurred over a long period of time (with some slumps to boot).


It's like people on TW have no reading comprehension at all.

Federer is as clear as a feather and so is the rest of the tour until proven otherwise. Case closed.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Btw, NamRanger, Federer kept improving his ranking untill 2007 (well he was number 1 in 2004-2007 but he couldn't get any higher so I include that).

1998 - 301 (entered the tour)
1999 - 65 (qualified for first majors)
2000 - 29 (1st 4th round in a major)
2001 - 13 (1st QF in a major)
2002 - 6 (first Master final, 1st Masters victory after that)
2003 - 2 (first Slam, Masters Cup)
2004-2007 - 1

You sound as if he was ranked outside the top 100 in 1998-2003 and suddenly became no 1 in 2004.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Btw, NamRanger, Federer kept improving his ranking untill 2007 (well he was number 1 in 2004-2007 but he couldn't get any higher so I include that).

1998 - 301
1999 - 65
2000 - 29
2001 - 13
2002 - 6
2003 - 2
2004-2007 - 1

You sound as if he was ranked outside the top 100 in 1998-2003 and suddenly became no 1 in 2004.


Look at Novak's ranking. It was a gradual rise too. The issue that I am raising here is that in 2002 and early 2003, he wasn't even CLOSE to being a contender in slams. He was consistently losing in the early rounds to a bunch of guys he really should have beat.


He went from that, to a guy who was winning 2 or 3 slams a year with about 4 Master titles to boot. The only "logical" explanation from the trolls here would be that Federer was taking PEDs. Djokovic at least showed that he could sustain a high level of play throughout an entire year; Federer even after winning Wimbledon in 2003 was wildly erratic with his play.
 

tenis1

Banned
Btw, NamRanger, Federer kept improving his ranking untill 2007 (well he was number 1 in 2004-2007 but he couldn't get any higher so I include that).

1998 - 301
1999 - 65
2000 - 29
2001 - 13
2002 - 6
2003 - 2
2004-2007 - 1

You sound as if he was ranked outside the top 100 in 1998-2003 and suddenly became no 1 in 2004.

Some other are foolishly trying to convince us that Djokovic was out of top 100 in 2010 and just suddenly started winning everything. NamRanger is just proving them wrong. Nothing against Federer.

Also must give props to NamRanger for spending time and effort to make a fool of that tool with Soderling on his avatar. Very well done. But I would still rather ignore him.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Look at Novak's ranking. It was a gradual rise too. The issue that I am raising here is that in 2002 and early 2003, he wasn't even CLOSE to being a contender in slams. He was consistently losing in the early rounds to a bunch of guys he really should have beat.


He went from that, to a guy who was winning 2 or 3 slams a year with about 4 Master titles to boot. The only "logical" explanation from the trolls here would be that Federer was taking PEDs. Djokovic at least showed that he could sustain a high level of play throughout an entire year; Federer even after winning Wimbledon in 2003 was wildly erratic with his play.

Looking at it now, he wasn't. He was one of the favorites BACK THEN, if you find some odds from 2002-2003 I guarantee that he was a top 10 favorite to win a major.

Federer was a confidence kind of player, once he made his Wimbledon breakthrough, he had less pressure, thus could perform better.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Looking at it now, he wasn't. He was one of the favorites BACK THEN, if you find some odds from 2002-2003 I guarantee that he was a top 10 favorite to win a major.

Federer was a confidence kind of player, once he made his Wimbledon breakthrough, he had less pressure, thus could perform better.


In 2003 he started out something like a top 5 favorite to win Wimbledon, ahead of Roddick.


After his disaster at the FO in 2003 though (along with alot of other disappointing tournaments), he actually fell behind Roddick and was like 9th or 10th. He was well behind guys like Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick. I think Schalken and Federer had similar odds. In fact, Federer actually entered the SF against Roddick as an underdog at the time. His odds at the 2002 Wimbledon were FAR better than his 2003 odds, I know that for a fact. He was considered actually a heavy favorite with Hewitt, Agassi, and Sampras (I think his odds were just as good as Henman's at the time, which is pretty good considering Henman always had good odds for whatever reason). This is talking about strictly from betting perspective.


Between him and the Scud in the final, it actually was pretty close on the odds too. In fact, the reason why he did so well at Wimbledon 2003 was because there was less pressure on him to win it than there was before. People weren't paying as much attention to him; alot of big names had written him off, including Johnny Mac (who was paying more attention to Roddick).


Alot of people here keep thinking that Federer was a forgone conclusion to win slams. That is looking at things retrospectively. If you actually watched tennis at the time though, Federer was getting pretty close to bust status. Although there was pressure on Fed to win Wimbledon 2003, it was nowhere near the level of pressure that was expected of him at Wimbledon 2002, AO and FO 2003. That is why he played much more relaxed, alot less erratic, etc.
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Some other are foolishly trying to convince us that Djokovic was out of top 100 in 2010 and just suddenly started winning everything. NamRanger is just proving them wrong. Nothing against Federer.

Also must give props to NamRanger for spending time and effort to make a fool of that tool with Soderling on his avatar. Very well done. But I would still rather ignore him.

If anything, Djokovic looks more suspicious to me. Ok, he was no 3 in 2007-2010 but it looked as if he was going downhill since 2008. He was rather average for his 2007-2008 standards in 2009-2010. From being a stable top 3 player, he suddenly became untouchable in 2011. Federer was still losing matches in 2004 to guys he should've beaten, like Henman, Hrbaty, Costa etc. Or maybe he did it on purpose to hide the painful truth, lolz?

This is what confidence does to you, Djokovic has been a different man nowadays. We can only speculate what led to this - beating Federer at the US Open after 3 consecutive losses? Davis Cup?
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
You can't talk about history with knowledge that Federer actually won 16 slams.


:confused: Than what we are talking about is fictional because history and knowledge proved otherwise.

Before Wimbledon 2003, Federer was considered overhyped, inconsistent, a headcase that had a ton of talent, but simply couldn't put it together. Even Federer himself was beginning to lose confidence in himself after the FO in 2003.

Yes, clearly what major tournament is played after the FO, and what major tournament did the low confidence headcase win in 2003? :)
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
In 2003 he started out something like a top 5 favorite to win Wimbledon, ahead of Roddick.


After his disaster at the FO in 2003 though (along with alot of other disappointing tournaments), he actually fell behind Roddick and was like 9th or 10th. He was well behind guys like Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick. I think Schalken and Federer had similar odds. In fact, Federer actually entered the SF against Roddick as an underdog at the time.


Between him and the Scud in the final, it actually was pretty close on the odds too. In fact, the reason why he did so well at Wimbledon 2003 was because there was less pressure on him to win it than there was before. People weren't paying as much attention to him; alot of big names had written him off, including Johnny Mac (who was paying more attention to Roddick).


Alot of people here keep thinking that Federer was a forgone conclusion to win slams. That is looking at things retrospectively. If you actually watched tennis at the time though, Federer was getting pretty close to bust status.

Thank you, you just did all the hard work for me. First you made a statement and then contradicted yourself
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
:confused: Than what we are talking about is fictional because history and knowledge proved otherwise.



Yes, clearly what major tournament is played after the FO, and what major tournament did the low confidence headcase win in 2003? :)



How is it fictional when Federer himself at the time was low on confidence? LOL.


Quote from Federer -

"The entire world keeps reminding me that I am supposed to win a Grand Slam tournament and be No. 1 in the world. That's not fair because it's not that easy."

After his defeat against Louis Horna due to the ENORMOUS pressure on Federer

"I don't know how long I'll need to get over this defeat. A day, a week, a year- or my entire career."


How that is not low confidence is beyond me.



Thank you, you just did all the hard work for me. First you made a statement and then contradicted yourself


What contradiction are you even talking about?
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Yes, clearly what major tournament is played after the FO, and what major tournament did the low confidence headcase win in 2003? :)

I think what he meant was that Federer took PED after the French Open (confidence low) but before Wimbledon 2003 (which he won). Explains everything.

Thank God we have some experts here who won't let the truth die!
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Alot of people here keep thinking that Federer was a forgone conclusion to win slams. That is looking at things retrospectively. If you actually watched tennis at the time though, Federer was getting pretty close to bust status. Although there was pressure on Fed to win Wimbledon 2003, it was nowhere near the level of pressure that was expected of him at Wimbledon 2002, AO and FO 2003. That is why he played much more relaxed, alot less erratic, etc.

Yes, it was clear that 20 year old Federer was on the verge of being a bust, his ranking plummeted.:) I am surprised he didn't go back to playing challengers for awhile to regain some form. Maybe try some tougher competition than beating Sampras at Wimbledon to get his confidence level back.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
What contradiction are you even talking about?

First you said that Federer took PED then you claimed that the only reason he did well at Wimbledon in 2003 was because pressure was off

Quote:
"In fact, the reason why he did so well at Wimbledon 2003 was because there was less pressure on him to win it than there was before"

Right?

We gonna get 1 thing straight. WHEN EXACTLY did Federer start taking PED?

If it was before 2003 Wimbledon, that would mean that you're contradicting yourself as you said that the pressure was off and that's why he won.

If he took some before 2004, it would still mean that his 2003 Wimbledon was legit and Federer was actually good enough to win a major.

Either way he's a major champion.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Yes, it was clear that 20 year old Federer was on the verge of being a bust, his ranking plummeted.:) I am surprised he didn't go back to playing challengers for awhile to regain some form. Maybe try some tougher competition than beating Sampras at Wimbledon to get his confidence level back.



Try reading some of his memoirs. He put himself under so much pressure that he was unable to actually to play his game in the slams. He was getting pretty close to bust status; read any news articles in 2002 and 2003.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
First you said that Federer took PED then you claimed that the only reason he did well at Wimbledon in 2003 was because pressure was off

Quote:
"In fact, the reason why he did so well at Wimbledon 2003 was because there was less pressure on him to win it than there was before"

Right?

We gonna get 1 thing straight. WHEN EXACTLY did Federer start taking PED?

If it was before 2003 Wimbledon, that would mean that you're contradicting yourself as you said that the pressure was off and that's why he won.

If he took some before 2004, it would still mean that his 2003 Wimbledon was legit and Federer was actually good enough to win a major.

Either way he's a major champion.



Holy sh1t.


I never actually truthfully believed that Federer took PEDs. All I'm saying is that you cannot rightfully accuse Djokovic for taking PEDs when Federer had a far more dramatic rise in level of play. Lmao. I'm using Lsmkenpo's horrible logic and applying it to Federer. It is in fact more logical to apply it to Federer, considering Federer never truly displayed any kind of level of play that would even remotely show that he is capable of being a 16 time slam champion BEFORE Wimbledon in 2003.


Compare Djokovic at age 20/21 to Federer at age 20/21 and there is no comparison. Djokovic at age 20/21 was a far better player than Federer was, and played in a far tougher top 10. There is no way you are ever going to argue that prime Federer and Nadal are worse than oldman Sampras/Agassi along with other clowns of the early 2000 era.


Your reading comprehension skills are so terrible it is hilarious.
 
Last edited:

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
Here is a question for you Namranger

How many majors did you expect out of Djokovic after his loss to Nadal at the US Open? and how many now?
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Try reading some of his memoirs. He put himself under so much pressure that he was unable to actually to play his game in the slams. He was getting pretty close to bust status; read any news articles in 2002 and 2003.

That's true.

Then the pressure was off at Wimbledon in 2003 --->He won --->got confident ---->went on to have a decent year winning the TMC at the end of 2003 ---->got even more confident in his own abilities ----> went on to dominate the tour

Where's the gap where we can put PED so that your post actually makes sense?
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
That's true.

Then the pressure was off at Wimbledon in 2003 --->He won --->got confident ---->went on to have a decent year winning the TMC at the end of 2003 ---->got even more confident in his own abilities ----> went on to dominate the tour

Where's the gap where we can put PED so that your post actually makes sense?



What I stated is the truth in that quote.


If we use Lsmkenpo's logic though, we just ignore the fact that there was no pressure and just assume that he utilized PEDs after the FO and suddenly in a short span of a week became a godlike player. Remember, **** logic knows no bounds. I'm simply utilizing Lsmkenpo's amazing logic that the only way to explain a player's sudden surge in level of play is PEDs.



Here is a question for you Namranger

How many majors did you expect out of Djokovic after his loss to Nadal at the US Open? and how many now?


I think he was capable of winning maybe 3 if he could get the right draws, particularly on HCs. Nadal played obscenely well at the USO, and Djokovic played nowhere near the level he was even capable of (in that final, he didn't even play up to his 2007/2008 level, let alone the level he is playing at now).


Now, he's likely capable of winning at LEAST 5 to 6, if not more.
 
He took PED's at the beginning of Wimbledon 2003, if I had to guess. Now would be a good time for him to take them, too. Heck, I wouldn't mind if all the top players took them, as long as it was never publically revealed.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I never actually truthfully believed that Federer took PEDs. All I'm saying is that you cannot rightfully accuse Djokovic for taking PEDs when Federer had a far more dramatic rise in level of play

Your reading skills are even worse than mine, then.

If any of the 2, DJOKOVIC IS THE ONE WHO LOOKS MORE SUSPICIOUS. Read my other post. Federer has steadily improved his ranking year by year, he had better results every year, it's not like he jumped from being a player ranked 100 and then won 11 majors in 4 years.

DJOKOVIC looked like going downhill in overall performance. He was worse in 2009 compared to 2008. He was absolutely crap for the first half of 2010, quarter loss to Tsonga at the AO, crap performances in Indian Wells and Miami, terrible clay court season with some withdrawals, QF loss at the French to Melzer (lol), had a lucky draw at Wimbledon, still lost badly to Berdych in 2010. One real exception was the US Open where he BARELY managed to beat Federer. He still was rather crap for the rest of the year.

And now suddenly it's mid May and the guy is yet to be beaten this year.

Who looks more suspicious for you? Djokovic obviously. Federer prior to dominating the tour in 2004 won Wimbledon, TMC and finished no 2 in 2003. So it's not like it was THAT surprising. I remember some commentators talking when Fed won the TMC in 2003 that Federer has a combo that could dominate for years. Nobody, I swear nobody expected Djokovic to do this well.

Of course it's all bulls**t, anyway cause neither Federer nor Djokovic have taken anything illegal. Until proven otherwise they're as clear as one player can be.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Your reading skills are even worse than mine, then.

If any of the 2, DJOKOVIC IS THE ONE WHO LOOKS MORE SUSPICIOUS. Read my other post. Federer has steadily improved his ranking year by year, he had better results every year, it's not like he jumped from being a player ranked 100 and then won 11 majors in 4 years.

DJOKOVIC looked like going downhill in overall performance. He was worse in 2009 compared to 2008. He was absolutely crap for the first half of 2010, quarter loss to Tsonga at the AO, crap performances in Indian Wells and Miami, terrible clay court season with some withdrawals, QF loss at the French to Melzer (lol), had a lucky draw at Wimbledon, still lost badly to Berdych in 2010. One real exception was the US Open where he BARELY managed to beat Federer. He still was rather crap for the rest of the year.

And now suddenly it's mid May and the guy is yet to be beaten this year.


Of course it's all bulls**t, anyway cause neither Federer nor Djokovic have taken anything illegal. Until proven otherwise they're as clear as one player can be.



You realize that Djokovic's 2010 season is like 1000x better than Federer's 2002 season right? LOL. He lost to Melzer because Melzer played some amazing tennis in the last few sets. Otherwise he would have again made it to the SF of the FO.


And remember, Djokovic despite his supposedly ****ty 2010 season still made 2 QFs, 1 SF, and a Final. That is the definition of consistency. Federer went from a guy who couldn't even MAKE it to the QF's of a damn slam to a guy who could roll of 3 slams a season. And yet somehow Djokovic is more suspicious? Your logic doesn't even make any sense.


Federer pre-Wimbledon 2003 made couldn't even make it past the 3rd round for the most part in most of the major tournaments (made a 4th round in AO, final in Rome I think, but that was about it). Somehow he goes on to win Wimbledon and rolls the YEC. That's far more suspicious than a guy who made the QF or better in every slam in his slump year.
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
You realize that Djokovic's 2010 season is like 1000x better than Federer's 2002 season right? LOL.


But why are you comparing Djokovic's 2010 to Federer's 2002, not 2003? Federer started his run in 2004 as Djokovic did in 2011, therefore the previous seasons are Federer in 2003 and Djokovic in 2010.

Federer's 2003 is way better than Djokovic's 2010.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
And remember, Djokovic despite his supposedly ****ty 2010 season still made 2 QFs, 1 SF, and a Final. That is the definition of consistency. Federer went from a guy who couldn't even MAKE it to the QF's of a damn slam to a guy who could roll of 3 slams a season. And yet somehow Djokovic is more suspicious? Your logic doesn't even make any sense.

FAIL LOGIC IS ALWAYS FAIL.

You could say that if Federer went from a 2002 to a 2004 season!!!!!! You lost 2003 inbetween in which he did rather well.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
FAIL LOGIC IS ALWAYS FAIL.

You could say that if Federer went from a 2002 to a 2004 season!!!!!! You lost 2003 inbetween in which he did rather well.



His 2003 season is comparable to Djokovic's 2008 season. Both have shown the same amount of promise; there is nothing to suggest that either player did PEDs at all, but Lsmkenpo keeps saying "Djokovic has never shown any level of promise that young Federer did."


Except Djokovic in 2007/2008 was just as good as young Federer (if not better, considering his 2007 was way better than Federer's, and in 2008 he won a Master title if I'm not mistaken).


Even in Djokovic's slump years he was doing rather well, making multiple finals or deep runs for the most part. You're basically defending Lsmkenpo when he has absolutely 0 ground to stand on. There is nothing to suggest that Djokovic was/is doing PEDs. He had a hot start at 20/21, but went through a slump, matured and preservered, and now he is dominating. He just simply went one step further than where he was in 2007/2008.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Federer pre-Wimbledon 2003 made couldn't even make it past the 3rd round for the most part in most of the major tournaments (made a 4th round in AO, final in Rome I think, but that was about it). Somehow he goes on to win Wimbledon and rolls the YEC. That's far more suspicious than a guy who made the QF or better in every slam in his slump year.

AGAIN.

Even after Federer won Wimbledon, he failed in Canada/Cinninati/the US Open/Madrid/Basel etc...only won the Masters Cup 4 months later. The way he played back then could give you signs that the guy was gonna be great in 2004. There were ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNS WHATSOEVER that Djokovic is gonna have an EVEN BETTER SEASON THAT FEDERER HAD IN 2004.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
I don't get the logic behind the argument.

Let's say we agree with it.

Federer's rise was suspicious.:)

How does it make Djokovic's less suspicious? If anything it reinforces the notion. :)
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
(...)but went through a slump in 2010

That's the whole point!

Federer's rise was stable from 1998-2004, Djokovic had a great 2007-2008 but then was crap in 2009-2010, now suddenly he dominates.

If he had a 2011-esque season in 2009, nobody would say a word (****s that is) as he did great in 2008, comparably well to Federer in 2003.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
I think he was capable of winning maybe 3 if he could get the right draws, particularly on HCs. Nadal played obscenely well at the USO, and Djokovic played nowhere near the level he was even capable of (in that final, he didn't even play up to his 2007/2008 level, let alone the level he is playing at now).


Now, he's likely capable of winning at LEAST 5 to 6, if not more.

If he was always this good over his career, why did you only think 3 majors before and now you think double or triple that amount just a few months later?
 

tenis1

Banned
Busted!

10 PED's

You should stop supporting trolls and tin foil hat theories. You should know better.

The fact is Federer from 2004 is just as suspicious as Djokovic in 2011. To me none of them are suspicious, but if you want to accuse Djokovic of something based on difference in performance, you better do the same with Federer. (And Nadal too).

End of story.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
You should stop supporting trolls and tin foil hat theories. You should know better.

The fact is Federer from 2004 is just as suspicious as Djokovic in 2011. To me none of them are suspicious, but if you want to accuse Djokovic of something based on difference in performance, you better do the same with Federer. (And Nadal too).

End of story.

It's not about the PED itself, it's about NamRanger who thinks that Federer in 2004 looks more suspicious than Djokovic in 2011 and obviously it's the other way round. This is as far as the discussion is concerned.

For me, neither is taking **** until proven otherwise.
 

tenis1

Banned
It's not about the PED itself, it's about NamRanger who thinks that Federer in 2004 looks more suspicious than Djokovic in 2011 and obviously it's the other way round. This is as far as the discussion is concerned.

For me, neither is taking **** until proven otherwise.

No it is not obvious that it is other way around. Not at all.

Also this is not about NamRanger who is doing a great job, this is about that lying fool who has Soderling as his avatar and who hijacked this thread which should be about Novak's numbers and achievements, to push his hate agenda.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Talking about numbers, does anyone know how many times Joker has beaten Nadal in Slams?
 

aphex

Banned
You should stop supporting trolls and tin foil hat theories. You should know better.

The fact is Federer from 2004 is just as suspicious as Djokovic in 2011. To me none of them are suspicious, but if you want to accuse Djokovic of something based on difference in performance, you better do the same with Federer. (And Nadal too).

End of story.

Please stop speculating.
Do you have any proof to support your crazy theory that Noel is not doping?

Didn't think so...:oops: :)
 

tenis1

Banned
Please stop speculating.
Do you have any proof to support your crazy theory that Noel is not doping?

Didn't think so...:oops: :)

Here is another miserable one with the hate agenda. Couple of them are on the mission here. Too bad for them it just make them look foolish.
Ok I will give you one sentence and that is too much for you.

Innocent until proven guilty. Where do you live?
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
No it is not obvious that it is other way around. Not at all.

Also this is not about NamRanger who is doing a great job, this is about that lying fool who has Soderling as his avatar and who hijacked this thread which should be about Novak's numbers and achievements, to push his hate agenda.

PED has nothing to do with this discussion. It's one's opinion that has no logic basis and I wanted to point that out.
So now YOU're gonna argue that Djokovic in 2011 compared to 2010 looks less suspicious than Federer in 2004 compared to 2003?

Gimme 1 single reason

Cause I said that in a season before going on a run Federer won Wimbledon and went 5 out of 5 wins against the best players in the world at the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup. There was already speculation before 2003 even finished what this guy is going to achieve in the future. Tons of former pro players, analysts, commenators predicted that Federer would go on a huge run in the future years.

Name me 1 guy who predicted that Djokovic would go unbeaten in 2011 for the first couple of months at least. Not even the most obsessed *********s predicted that!
 
Last edited:

aphex

Banned
Here is another miserable one with the hate agenda. Couple of them are on the mission here. Too bad for them it just make them look foolish.
Ok I will give you one sentence and that is too much for you.

Innocent until proven guilty. Where do you live?

We know you're dumb. Are you blind as well?

Now, back to the subject. Please provide proof that Noel is not doping.

Only a blind person would believe these crazy glutenoid theories. (see what I did there?:) )

Again, please stop speculating he's not doping.
 
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
Ok, this will be my last post in this thread.

No, im not a rascist, i judge people by their behaviour, not the colour of their skin, very cliche, right? Anyaway, thats the truth.

As I said earlier, im OK with Djokovic and i ADORE that he smacks the buttpicker.

I just think he and his family are very unpleasant to watch, creepy and show no class or respect whatsoever. If my mum and dad sat at my matches with pictures of me on their shirts i would be freaked out, telling them "Okay...time to have some space"...

If Djokovic raises 3 fingers into the air after a win, saluting the father son and the wholy ghost, thats fine with me, i personally think its BS, but still i have no problems with that. Maybe the father, son and thw wholy ghost are tennisfans?
 

tenis1

Banned
So in Greece they throw people in jail first and than they ask them to prove they are innocent. Good to now.
 
Top