The Federer Decline Thread - Page 71 - MensTennisForums.com
View Poll Results: Do you agree with Pete?
No. I think Federer's decline is a fact and he's not winning any major in the future. 39 17.57%
I kinda agree... He's in a great moment, but the other 2 guys are too good. No more slams for Feddy 45 20.27%
I totally agree. Fed's still playing great tennis and he'll probably win another major 105 47.30%
Hello. I'm Rod Laver and my records are intact. Suck it losers. 33 14.86%
Voters: 222. You may not vote on this poll

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1051 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:02 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 46
Posts: 3,574
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
I see more excuses and no proof that Roddick/Gonzalez/Bagdhatis and others are better players than Novak/Murray/Nadal.
Until you can convingcincly prove that they are, you have no valid argument if you assume they would do better than the top players of today who have all played at a much higher level and won more masters/slams.

The burden of proof is on you, who claims that the field was strong and has multiple slamless players making fluke finals in grand slams and never making semis/finals consistently.
All you have are number of slams won against mugs.
U give no proof. U only a gave hypothetical situation with many variables that can't be proven .How do I know or u or anyone else would do if they went back in time. Fed dominated both eras. And the same competition that fed face got older and best the current generation.that is facts I pointed that out multiple times.
Nadull and Novak played the same old fed rivals in 2010/2011.
Absolutely nothing fed can't handle himself as he proved.
U removed fed from the past generation . To see how they will do. The most successful player.
Could u remove the most successful player from this era 2008- and see how fed and his rivals would . Remove nadull who won. 7 slams . See. What fed would do he he.

The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1052 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:11 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 46
Posts: 3,574
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Fed played nadull in his prime. So the only other 2 people are Novak. Murray.
Murray never beat fed at a slam so that leaves just Novak.
Glutenous Novak would be cannon fudder for federer. Gluten free Novak a little challenge. However olderer was still able to beat him. And had match points against him . Prime fed wouldn't choke those USO,s. in any event . He stopped fed at 4 HC slams past prime.
Nalbandian/ Safin stopped Prime Fed from 3. Pretty even.

The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline  
post #1053 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Registered User
 
Greatness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 794
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan27 View Post
maybe the fluke was the 2011 of djokovic.
You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.

A fluke is Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon and losing in the next round.

Quote:
nadal in 2005 won madrid , an indoor tournament.......

that roddick in that fast grass can defeat nole easily , djokovic winning wimbledon from the baseline with zero grass court tennis was bad for this sport
There is more than one way to play the game and it will keep changing with time. Winning from the baseline is harder and more taxing physically, but that's the way a lot of players are playing today. Against Nadal, serve and volley is suicide because of his passing shots. Also, players hit with more pace which makes it tough to redirect shots at the net.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
U give no proof. U only a gave hypothetical situation with many variables that can't be proven .How do I know or u or anyone else would do if they went back in time. Fed dominated both eras. And the same competition that fed face got older and best the current generation.that is facts I pointed that out multiple times.
Nadull and Novak played the same old fed rivals in 2010/2011.
Absolutely nothing fed can't handle himself as he proved.
U removed fed from the past generation . To see how they will do. The most successful player.
Could u remove the most successful player from this era 2008- and see how fed and his rivals would . Remove nadull who won. 7 slams . See. What fed would do he he.
What many variables? Far more skilled players of today would destroy the weaker field Federer faced. You don't need a million variables to realize that Bagdhatis/Roddick/Gonzalez/etc at their best are nowhere near as good as Novak/Rafa/Murray. There are three players competing for slams with a legitimate chance of winning multiple ones each year. Who apart from Federer was making slam semis/finals consistently from 2003-2006 and how good were they? The answer is clear, and your logic is stupid because you keep thinking an old player can't win against a younger player otherwise it proves that he younger player isn't good.

Rafter beat Federer on grass/clay/hardcourt. However, that was 29 year old Rafter vs 20 year old Federer, who was still a baby finding his game. The past greats beating the younger players isn't a shocker. Federer beating Novak/Rafa/Murray doesn't prove they wouldn't dominate he field he faced because even the current Federer is a lot better than most of the players from 2003-2006.
It's a simple concept that you have been dodging all along with nonsense about hypotheticals/variables. Some things are obvious, you can either choose to accept it or delude yourself into thinking prime Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt etc are better than prime Nadal/Novak/Murray.


Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
Fed played nadull in his prime. So the only other 2 people are Novak. Murray.
Murray never beat fed at a slam so that leaves just Novak.
Glutenous Novak would be cannon fudder for federer. Gluten free Novak a little challenge. However olderer was still able to beat him. And had match points against him . Prime fed wouldn't choke those USO,s. in any event . He stopped fed at 4 HC slams past prime.
Nalbandian/ Safin stopped Prime Fed from 3. Pretty even.
Glutinous Novak still straight-setted Federer at AO 2008. Gluten free Novak is 6-2 against Federer starting from AO 2011.

Last edited by Greatness; 08-16-2012 at 08:35 PM.
Greatness is offline  
post #1054 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:31 PM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 51,745
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.
Certainly. He beat all the top players at Toronto - Gasquet, Tipsarevic, Haas, Querrey and Tomic. Absolutely top class there.

You appear to have an especially short memory.
Litotes is online now  
post #1055 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:38 PM
Registered User
 
Greatness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 794
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
Certainly. He beat all the top players at Toronto - Gasquet, Tipsarevic, Haas, Querrey and Tomic. Absolutely top class there.

You appear to have an especially short memory.
You're the one with a short memory, since earlier this year Novak beat Federer in Rome and Roland Garros in straight-sets.
For his title defenses he beat Murray/Nadal for Australian and Murray for Miami. So yes, he still beat top players to defend 2 of 3 tournaments, meaning most of the time.
Greatness is offline  
post #1056 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:42 PM
Registered User
 
IOFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Age: 25
Posts: 3,610
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
In his so called best season, Federer lost 4 times against his rival Nadal. Even at his peak he was still Nadal's puppet.
Compare that to Novak's best season of 2011: All slams won against the top 4 players, with a winning record of 6-0 against Nadal and 4-1 against Federer. Novak wasn't dominated by a single man, he dominated everyone for his 3 slams and record breaking 5 masters.

Yes, Federer only lost to the top 2 players in his prime, such as Hrbarty and Volandri. lol



The facts are that Federer was dominating unseeded players whereas Novak/Nadal dominated top players in their best runs in 2010/2011.



Don't compare underachievers and mugs to Novak and Rafa. Also, it's amusing that you keep saying "Nadull". Dull as he may be he has been owning Federer and making him cry like a helpless bitch for years.



I'm not guessing what they could do, their records prove that they weren't threats to Federer and their performances in slams ranged from flukes to inconsistent.

A weak field, an old Agassi, and only a teenage Rafa to spank him on clay, that's why Federer got so many slams from 2003-2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
The weak era argument is backed 1000% by stats. You had players like Gonzalez making a slam final and never doing it again. You had Roddick losing several times at Wimbledon to Federer being proof of how good Federer was.

That's hilarious considering that a 19 year old Murray straight-setted Roddick in Wimbledon 2006. Why would I be impressed that Prime Federer was beating Roddick if baby Murray could do it when Roddick was still at his best? There is nothing to support the claim that he era was strong, it was just mugs and old players from the Sampras times.


Nadal beat him in Dubai, which has fast hardcourts at a time when Nadal was a mug on that surface. Says a lot about prime Federer to be beaten on fast hardcourts by a clay courter.



Safin was the exception but tennis wasn't a priority. The rest have fluke wins over Novak, as evidenced by how much they have achieved against the top players and in slams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
I see more excuses and no proof that Roddick/Gonzalez/Bagdhatis and others are better players than Novak/Murray/Nadal.
Until you can convingcincly prove that they are, you have no valid argument if you assume they would do better than the top players of today who have all played at a much higher level and won more masters/slams.

The burden of proof is on you, who claims that the field was strong and has multiple slamless players making fluke finals in grand slams and never making semis/finals consistently.
All you have are number of slams won against mugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.

A fluke is Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon and losing in the next round.


There is more than one way to play the game and it will keep changing with time. Winning from the baseline is harder and more taxing physically, but that's the way a lot of players are playing today. Against Nadal, serve and volley is suicide because of his passing shots. Also, players hit with more pace which makes it tough to redirect shots at the net.



What many variables? Far more skilled players of today would destroy the weaker field Federer faced. You don't need a million variables to realize that Bagdhatis/Roddick/Gonzalez/etc at their best are nowhere near as good as Novak/Rafa/Murray. There are three players competing for slams with a legitimate chance of winning multiple ones each year. Who apart from Federer was making slam semis/finals consistently from 2003-2006 and how good were they? The answer is clear, and your logic is stupid because you keep thinking an old player can't win against a younger player otherwise it proves that he younger player isn't good.

Rafter beat Federer on grass/clay/hardcourt. However, that was 29 year old Rafter vs 20 year old Federer, who was still a baby finding his game. The past greats beating the younger players isn't a shocker. Federer beating Novak/Rafa/Murray doesn't prove they wouldn't dominate he field he faced because even the current Federer is a lot better than most of the players from 2003-2006.
It's a simple concept that you have been dodging all along with nonsense about hypotheticals/variables. Some things are obvious, you can either choose to accept it or delude yourself into thinking prime Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt etc are better than prime Nadal/Novak/Murray.




Glutinous Novak still straight-setted Federer at AO 2008. Gluten free Novak is 6-2 against Federer starting from AO 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
You're the one with a short memory, since earlier this year Novak beat Federer in Rome and Roland Garros in straight-sets.
For his title defenses he beat Murray/Nadal for Australian and Murray for Miami. So yes, he still beat top players to defend 2 of 3 tournaments, meaning most of the time.

Educating MTF clowns one post at a time.
So many fanboys to troll, so little time.

Favourite tennis matches: 2011 US Open Final & 2012 Australian Open Final, starring Novak Djokovic & Rafael Nadal, showing us just how far science can take humanity.

The US Open Final was especially enjoyable, with 'Why are there white spots all over my body?' Djokovic and 'Why am I sweating boils?' Nadal embarked on a titanic battle, concluding with the inferior player, Nadal, entering a sort of delirious state of psychosis. This allowed him to, while showing very little fatigue, consume inhuman amounts of energy, before he literally ran his legs from underneath him. This is truly the stuff dreams are made of.
IOFH is offline  
post #1057 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:48 PM
Registered User
 
juan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 3,083
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

nadal and nole are better player man , but murray or del potro not , players like safin , hewitt , ferrero or roddick for example had better things and archivements than him..........murray everyday looks like a medium-tourny player but in the big tournys , he lose.

after see chardy , some people still belive that this era is better???? Gonzalez , davydenko , blake , srachipan , coria , gaudio , ljubicic and more player were much better than today`s top-30
juan27 is offline  
post #1058 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:50 PM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 51,745
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
You're the one with a short memory, since earlier this year Novak beat Federer in Rome and Roland Garros in straight-sets.
For his title defenses he beat Murray/Nadal for Australian and Murray for Miami. So yes, he still beat top players to defend 2 of 3 tournaments, meaning most of the time.
Don't be ridiculous. My memory is excellent, if you're trying to hit a nerve you're barking up the wrong tree. You were talking about beating top players in title defences, not on the way to losing finals, and you did not qualify your statement with "mostly". Also, Djokovic never faced either Federer nor Nadal in Miami. So saying he beat top players, in plural, means you are counting as a top player...Ferrer, perhaps?
Litotes is online now  
post #1059 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:56 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,506
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Simple answer to all this:

Murray and Djokovic are better than anyone Federer faced 03-07 apart from Nadal. Arguably they are not more talented than Nalbandian and Safin but they have made more of themselves than those two. Roddick is not a bad player (although his game was made worse by the changes he made to it post 2004 to beat Fed) but not as good as Murray/ Djokovic.

Having said that, Federer over the course of his career has not faced weaker opposition than anyone else. I remember in 05 ish all the Sampras fans were saying Fed was only winning because the opposition was weak. But I don't think Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian were any worse than the 1990s players apart from Sampras/ Agassi. In fact Hewitt and Safin were both crushing Sampras towards the end of his career.

Arguably the players who have faced the toughest competition are Murray/ Djokovic who were starved of slams early on by Federer/ Nadal. But even this will even out over time because the generation after them is completely useless, much much worse than Hewitt/ Roddick/ Safin. So later on in their careers once Fed (age) and Nadal (hospital) are gone, they will have all the Slams to themselves.
Fed=ATPTourkilla is offline  
post #1060 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:56 PM
country flag sco
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 592
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.

A fluke is Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon and losing in the next round.

There is more than one way to play the game and it will keep changing with time. Winning from the baseline is harder and more taxing physically, but that's the way a lot of players are playing today. Against Nadal, serve and volley is suicide because of his passing shots. Also, players hit with more pace which makes it tough to redirect shots at the net.

What many variables? Far more skilled players of today would destroy the weaker field Federer faced. You don't need a million variables to realize that Bagdhatis/Roddick/Gonzalez/etc at their best are nowhere near as good as Novak/Rafa/Murray. There are three players competing for slams with a legitimate chance of winning multiple ones each year. Who apart from Federer was making slam semis/finals consistently from 2003-2006 and how good were they? The answer is clear, and your logic is stupid because you keep thinking an old player can't win against a younger player otherwise it proves that he younger player isn't good.

Rafter beat Federer on grass/clay/hardcourt. However, that was 29 year old Rafter vs 20 year old Federer, who was still a baby finding his game. The past greats beating the younger players isn't a shocker. Federer beating Novak/Rafa/Murray doesn't prove they wouldn't dominate he field he faced because even the current Federer is a lot better than most of the players from 2003-2006.
It's a simple concept that you have been dodging all along with nonsense about hypotheticals/variables. Some things are obvious, you can either choose to accept it or delude yourself into thinking prime Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt etc are better than prime Nadal/Novak/Murray.

Glutinous Novak still straight-setted Federer at AO 2008. Gluten free Novak is 6-2 against Federer starting from AO 2011.
The counter to your argument is that a 31 year old Federer is #1 in the prime years of Nadal, Novak and Murray. So whether it's Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt or Nadal/Novak/Murray, he's still #1. If you say it that way, gosh, at least Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt had the excuse that Federer was in his prime. What excuse do Nadal/Novak/Murray have to allow a 31 year old, past prime, married with 2 kids (because we all know from past history that marriage and kids are a death knoll to a tennis player) who should be lacking motivation and drive because he's won everything to be sitting at #1. Shame on them.
sco is offline  
post #1061 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:56 PM
Registered User
 
Matt01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,761
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan27 View Post
that roddick in that fast grass can defeat nole easily , djokovic winning wimbledon from the baseline with zero grass court tennis was bad for this sport

Federer and Nadal were winning their Wimbledon titles from the basline, too.

Monaco - Del Potro - Nadal - Wawrinka - Robredo - Simon - Berdych - Djokovic - Chardy


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Kuerten View Post
Djokovic is the people's champion, Federer and Nadal are greedy thugs.
Matt01 is offline  
post #1062 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:57 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 46
Posts: 3,574
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.

A fluke is Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon and losing in the next round.


There is more than one way to play the game and it will keep changing with time. Winning from the baseline is harder and more taxing physically, but that's the way a lot of players are playing today. Against Nadal, serve and volley is suicide because of his passing shots. Also, players hit with more pace which makes it tough to redirect shots at the net.



What many variables? Far more skilled players of today would destroy the weaker field Federer faced. You don't need a million variables to realize that Bagdhatis/Roddick/Gonzalez/etc at their best are nowhere near as good as Novak/Rafa/Murray. There are three players competing for slams with a legitimate chance of winning multiple ones each year. Who apart from Federer was making slam semis/finals consistently from 2003-2006 and how good were they? The answer is clear, and your logic is stupid because you keep thinking an old player can't win against a younger player otherwise it proves that he younger player isn't good.

Rafter beat Federer on grass/clay/hardcourt. However, that was 29 year old Rafter vs 20 year old Federer, who was still a baby finding his game. The past greats beating the younger players isn't a shocker. Federer beating Novak/Rafa/Murray doesn't prove they wouldn't dominate he field he faced because even the current Federer is a lot better than most of the players from 2003-2006.
It's a simple concept that you have been dodging all along with nonsense about hypotheticals/variables. Some things are obvious, you can either choose to accept it or delude yourself into thinking prime Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt etc are better than prime Nadal/Novak/Murray.




Glutinous Novak still straight-setted Federer at AO 2008. Gluten free Novak is 6-2 against Federer starting from AO 2011.
As expected . U fail to see that nadull is part of Feds generation . And federer played him in 05/06. He won on all surface. Nadull entered his Prime in 2007.
So u cannot put nadull in a SEPERATE group because he is Feds main rival. U can't see that then what is the point discussing with u. AGAIN Nadull played in Feds era. Gosh. His simplistic game is more applicable when he is young.
Nadull is an early bloomer. Just like Borg won a slam 18 multiple champion n finalist by 21 . Do u hear anyone young Borg. Becker/ wilander/ Chang/ Hewitt all won slams some multiple before 21 years old they are not young.
That's the concept to cannot grasp. So he is Feds rival during his dominant period.
So if u split nadull in 2 . U are saying old / injury prone nadull greater than young nadull.
Bring up rafter. Is irrelevant as fed has a different game to nadull, rafter played fed in his first ever match. Should I bring up how nadull lost to Blake/ Roddick etc no its irrelevant.
So everyone knows nadull is greater than Gonzalez etc. so what he is Feds rival. Feds career encompassed his entire career most likely.
Murray u say is better that Roddick/ ferrero/ Agassi/Safin/ hewitt. All of them has slams Murray does not.
Is Murray greater than Gonzalez /baghdatis etc. in terms of results so what. Fed beat him and nadull won against Soderling/ Berdych. Similiar in career to Baghdatis and Gonzalez as I already pointed out. So he is better than Feds second tier competition.
Novak . Feds rivals Safin/ Hewitt/ 2003 Agassi than glutinous Novak.
Gluten free Novak has accomplished more. However old fed could still take him down.unsure if he would have discovered his *allergy* winke winke back in those days. Against a faster courts and servers and flat hitters.
That take time "away" to make his FH susceptible .
Roddick has a superior h2h in his old age. PRIME Roddick on faster court I would give the edge.

The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline  
post #1063 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:57 PM
Registered User
 
Looner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 13,127
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Federer and Nadal were winning their Wimbledon titles from the basline, too.
Except for 2009, Fed never won Wimbledon only from the baseline.


The "Who plays tennis?" thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Rod Laver
Roger is like a good red wine, he’s getting better with age.
Looner is offline  
post #1064 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 08:58 PM
Registered User
 
yesyesok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 219
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Lozlles. gonzalez makes one slam final and suddenly he defines an era. i think one fails to grasp the concept that there was a broader field in prime fed era. now we have four players who have a monopoly on most big titles, including past it fed at number one which completely defeats your argument alone. tennis has changed as a result of feeders dominance and all you can seethrough tinted glasses is super novak saving tennis. Besides, tennis was far better to watch before ball bouncing and grunting became normal regardless of what era is 'stronger'
yesyesok is offline  
post #1065 of 1591 (permalink) Old 08-16-2012, 09:02 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,506
                     
Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Of course, another very obvious point is that if the current era is so strong, why do we have the oldest Wimbledon champion since the 1970s and the second oldest world no 1 in the Open Era? Hardly a ringing endorsement for Djokovic, Murray, Nadal.
Fed=ATPTourkilla is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome