Will Federer break the slam record?

Pages : 1 [2]

mediter
09-09-2008, 12:50 PM
You are missing the point.i am already a scholar.

leng jai
09-09-2008, 12:54 PM
You are missing the point.i am already a scholar.

Everyone here misses your point, your rhetoric is beyond comprehension by mere tennis mortals.

mediter
09-09-2008, 01:02 PM
Everyone here misses your point, your rhetoric is beyond comprehension by mere tennis mortals.

no .for every posters with half baked knowledge like hitler fan and aloimeh, there are other informed observers around who can compensate for their lack of intellectual talent. i am irrefutable. that's the difference.

Mecir
09-09-2008, 01:14 PM
no .for every posters with half baked knowledge like hitler fan and aloimeh, there are other informed observers around who can compensate for their lack of intellectual talent. i am irrefutable. that's the difference.

The reason why Sampras will never be GOAT is because his game never inspired anyone. How did your intellect fail to observe the most obvious?

leng jai
09-09-2008, 01:14 PM
no .for every posters with half baked knowledge like hitler fan and aloimeh, there are other informed observers around who can compensate for their lack of intellectual talent. i am irrefutable. that's the difference.

Are you referring to your biggest fan, me? :p

mediter
09-09-2008, 01:15 PM
Keep it coming, Mediter. :worship: :smooch:

if you admire me so much, why haven't you given me a good rep.

you and fee are like an albatross around my neck. trolling ad spoiling my threads with unintelligent comments all the time.

thrust
09-09-2008, 01:53 PM
The reason why Sampras will never be GOAT is because his game never inspired anyone. How did your intellect fail to observe the most obvious?

Pete won 14 Slams in a far more difficult era than Roger^s. Only Nadal, the past 2 years, has had the mental strength to beat Roger in important finals. The rest of the field is second rate. Good physical players, but not as good as Nadal. Murrary and Nole have potential, but not up to Rafa or Roger yet. Just consider Wimbledon, Rogers best Slam. Until Rafa, he had no competition on grass. Pete had great or outstanding grass court players to overcome: Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Richard K, Stich, Lendl and Agassi. In the past two years Roger had only Rafa to worry about. Roger is an all-time great player, but not superior to Pete in his prime. By the way, Rafa is 12-6 H-H over Roger.

tennis2tennis
09-09-2008, 02:29 PM
Pete won 14 Slams in a far more difficult era than Roger^s. Only Nadal, the past 2 years, has had the mental strength to beat Roger in important finals. The rest of the field is second rate. Good physical players, but not as good as Nadal. Murrary and Nole have potential, but not up to Rafa or Roger yet. Just consider Wimbledon, Rogers best Slam. Until Rafa, he had no competition on grass. Pete had great or outstanding grass court players to overcome: Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Richard K, Stich, Lendl and Agassi. In the past two years Roger had only Rafa to worry about. Roger is an all-time great player, but not superior to Pete in his prime. By the way, Rafa is 12-6 H-H over Roger.

had it ever occured to you that there would be more slam winners in roger's era if he won fewer...oh well continue your penalisation due to excellence..i;)

prima donna
09-09-2008, 02:36 PM
Pete won 14 Slams in a far more difficult era than Roger^s. Only Nadal, the past 2 years, has had the mental strength to beat Roger in important finals. The rest of the field is second rate. Good physical players, but not as good as Nadal. Murrary and Nole have potential, but not up to Rafa or Roger yet. Just consider Wimbledon, Rogers best Slam. Until Rafa, he had no competition on grass. Pete had great or outstanding grass court players to overcome: Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Richard K, Stich, Lendl and Agassi. In the past two years Roger had only Rafa to worry about.

Edberg and Lendl weren't exactly in their prime when Pete finally appeared on the scene. Of course such isn't to imply that they were no longer capable of playing well -- Edberg dispatched Pete in four relatively easy sets at the USO in 1992. Moreover, what accomplishments in particular have prompted this illusion that Rafter, Richard K and Stich are more impressive players than Andy Roddick and Henman, not to mention the dozens of players which routinely throw in 135mph serves ? As for Agassi, since you're apparently willing to count the victories that Pete had over certain players after they were beyond the prime of their respective careers, then I suppose that by the same standard, Agassi can be measured as part of Roger's era of dominance.

Roger is an all-time great player, but not superior to Pete in his prime. By the way, Rafa is 12-6 H-H over Roger.
As for the technical aspect of the game, it's a subjective argument. This is your opinion, I'm sure that you would find those willing to support the assertion that Pete is a better player than Roger, likewise I'm sure you would find plenty of people willing to oppose this idea.

It's not necessary to undermine another person's accomplishments simply because you feel threatened by that individual. Tough luck for Pete, whether or not Roger has what it takes to surpass his record remains to be seen. However, in the minds of many self-proclaimed "experts" Roger has already surpassed him in terms of variety.

As a matter of fact, I vaguely recall Pete conceding the point that Roger possesses more variety than any player in the history of the sport -- including himself.

MacTheKnife
09-09-2008, 02:51 PM
GOAT is, always was, and always will be a matter of opinion. Even if some guy comes along and wins 25 slams, there will be those that come up with reasons that their era was weak, or some other ingenious insights to oppose the opinions of the majority of the tennis world.

Right now, reasonable arguments could be made that 3 to 4 guys are GOAT and I have a hard time seeing that changing in the near future.

Mecir
09-09-2008, 02:58 PM
Pete won 14 Slams in a far more difficult era than Roger^s. Only Nadal, the past 2 years, has had the mental strength to beat Roger in important finals. The rest of the field is second rate. Good physical players, but not as good as Nadal. Murrary and Nole have potential, but not up to Rafa or Roger yet. Just consider Wimbledon, Rogers best Slam. Until Rafa, he had no competition on grass. Pete had great or outstanding grass court players to overcome: Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Goran, Richard K, Stich, Lendl and Agassi. In the past two years Roger had only Rafa to worry about. Roger is an all-time great player, but not superior to Pete in his prime. By the way, Rafa is 12-6 H-H over Roger.

Pete took 15 years to win his 14 GS, while Roger has amassed his in 5. The argument that Roger's era is weaker than Pete's is complety erroneous. Roger has simply made the opposition in his era look weaker than Pete's by his pure brilliance. Rafa's H2H dominance is because he is one of the best clay courters ever.

Chiseller
09-10-2008, 03:05 AM
mediter! :worship:

Synthesis
09-10-2008, 04:52 AM
Pete won 14 slams in 12 seasons. Federer 13 in 6. Also I think winning #14 in January 2009 should make Fed the GOAT because he will have won it alot faster then Pete.

SheepleBuster
09-10-2008, 05:05 AM
Stop it with Goat crap already. Who cares who's the greatest player of all time. You just can't compare really. Different technology, different time, different surfaces. Why is it that we who don't get paid for watching tennis want to pull for some stranger to be the greatest of all time. Who cares!

Foxy
09-10-2008, 07:27 AM
Pete won 14 slams in 12 seasons. Federer 13 in 6. Also I think winning #14 in January 2009 should make Fed the GOAT because he will have won it alot faster then Pete.

I haven't heard Nadal, DJokovic, Murray, Tsonga retired from AO yet. :scratch:

Monteque
09-10-2008, 07:56 AM
Stop it with Goat crap already. Who cares who's the greatest player of all time. You just can't compare really. Different technology, different time, different surfaces. Why is it that we who don't get paid for watching tennis want to pull for some stranger to be the greatest of all time. Who cares!

Yes, different techno, different time or surfaces but one aspect is always the same: COMPETITORS/THE REST OF THE TOUR. You could name someone a GOAT if he/she made the rest of the tour like her/his bitches in his/her era, pretty much what Fed has done till know. Sampras never done such thing like that during his reign at the top.

Mimi
09-10-2008, 08:08 AM
pete's most slams won records will be erased next year, but i think his record for sixth consecutive year ended as no.1 will be intact :cool:

Foxy
09-10-2008, 08:17 AM
pete's most slams won records will be erased next year, but i think his record for sixth consecutive year ended as no.1 will be intact :cool:

Impossible. Rafa has only 5 slams. Probably in a few years time. :yeah:

Mimi
09-10-2008, 08:24 AM
i admire your humour and your positivity :hug::rolls:

Impossible. Rafa has only 5 slams. Probably in a few years time. :yeah:

bokehlicious
09-10-2008, 08:32 AM
but i think his record for sixth consecutive year ended as no.1 will be intact :cool:

MM record.

Mimi
09-10-2008, 08:35 AM
i don't think your idol agree with you :wavey:
MM record.

bokehlicious
09-10-2008, 08:36 AM
i don't think your idol agree with you :wavey:

Lucky Pete never had to deal with Nadal :o :p

maskedmuffin
09-10-2008, 08:37 AM
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, PETE DID NOT PLAY IN THE TIME OF BECKER AND EDBERG


that was the era from 1985-1990; becker was a fucking clown by the mid 90's ,relegated to kidschair at wimby.
pete's adversaries were goran, pioline, krajeck, andre, chang, muster;

becker's adverseries were edberg, wilander, cash, lendl (who spanned first part of 80's as well), mercir

pete's "record" is bout to fall to a player who, on top of owning the game, also has a palpably more pleasing all court game than sampras could dream of maintaining; by the time of 95 pete was a pure server and volleyer. Roger's insipration to the game and state of tennis is something far more reaching than pete's game.


Pete was a naturally gifted server, with the most deltoid -trap flexibility of any tennis player i have ever seen, and cat like quickness around the front part of the court.

Everything else about his game, both in variety AND spin, pale in comparison to roger.

Mimi
09-10-2008, 08:38 AM
is he on fever, praising nadal? :scratch:

nadal is not as great as agassi, pete has agassi :scratch:
Lucky Pete never had to deal with Nadal :o :p

bokehlicious
09-10-2008, 08:40 AM
nadal is not as great as agassi, pete has agassi :scratch:

Nadal does almost everything better than Andre ever did. Nadal >>>>> Agassi :shrug:

leng jai
09-10-2008, 08:43 AM
Nadal does almost everything better than Andre ever did. Nadal >>>>> Agassi :shrug:

Except for return of serve, baseline half volleys, hitting flat, taking the ball early...

Mimi
09-10-2008, 08:59 AM
not the boring moonballer any more ?:scared::scratch:

Nadal does almost everything better than Andre ever did. Nadal >>>>> Agassi :shrug:

bokehlicious
09-10-2008, 09:05 AM
not the boring moonballer any more ?:scared::scratch:

That would be enough to toast Andre anyday... :sad:

madmax
09-10-2008, 11:05 AM
Seriously, Nadull is the most boring player of all time, I always fall asleep watching his endless moonballing matches...You always know that the other guy eventually will get frustrated and hit an error in these looong rallies. We can safely say he's the most boring Nr.1 of all times

Sunset of Age
09-10-2008, 01:44 PM
if you admire me so much, why haven't you given me a good rep.

You got one now, oh Almighty One. :bowdown: :smooch: :D

you and fee are like an albatross around my neck. trolling ad spoiling my threads with unintelligent comments all the time.

More like an ostrich. :angel:

oz_boz
09-11-2008, 12:21 PM
Not beat IMO, but he might equal it.

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, PETE DID NOT PLAY IN THE TIME OF BECKER AND EDBERG


He did, about as much as Roger played in the era of Sampras and Agassi :lol:

Mecir
09-11-2008, 01:06 PM
Not beat IMO, but he might equal it.



He did, about as much as Roger played in the era of Sampras and Agassi :lol:

Will beat easily and set a new record that won't be surpassed till the next century

RagingLamb
09-11-2008, 03:34 PM
He did, about as much as Roger played in the era of Sampras and Agassi :lol:

To be fair, Pete played Edberg and Becker a bit more than Roger played Sampras and Agassi:

Sampras vs. Edbrg: 8-6
Sampras vs. Becker: 12-7

Federer vs. Sampras: 1-0
Federer vs. Agassi: 8-3

Matt01
09-11-2008, 06:03 PM
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, PETE DID NOT PLAY IN THE TIME OF BECKER AND EDBERG


that was the era from 1985-1990; becker was a fucking clown by the mid 90's ,relegated to kidschair at wimby.


Of course Pete did compete in the time of Becker :shrug:

And I didn't know that fucking clowns do win things like AO and ATP finals :retard:

groundstroke
09-11-2008, 06:24 PM
Oh dear oh dear this thread backfired so hard.

groundstroke
09-11-2008, 06:25 PM
To be fair, Pete played Edberg and Becker a bit more than Roger played Sampras and Agassi:

Sampras vs. Edbrg: 8-6
Sampras vs. Becker: 12-7

Federer vs. Sampras: 1-0
Federer vs. Agassi: 8-3
Fed has the better record.

RagingLamb
09-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Fed has the better record.

what do you mean?

Federerhingis
09-11-2008, 10:58 PM
I think so especially now that he has 13. I started to doubt a bit after his slump, but deep down I knew that before he called it quits he could win those elusive three more slams.

Roddickominator
09-11-2008, 11:14 PM
Fed breaking the slam record in an era of mugs is not impressive. Pete should come back and take down a few more Wimbledons and US Opens...but he just doesn't have the fire anymore. Funny how he can still beat an in-form Federer in exhos, even though he's way out of playing shape.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-12-2008, 02:32 AM
If There Is A God, Nooooo!!!!

BigJohn
09-12-2008, 02:55 AM
Then there is no God...

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-12-2008, 02:56 AM
Then there is no God...

But there is all mighty Satan Federer.

platinum
09-12-2008, 05:29 PM
But there is all mighty Satan Federer.

:haha:

freestyler
09-12-2008, 07:01 PM
Of curse!!

nastoff
09-12-2008, 07:08 PM
He won't erase the record...if he retires tomorrow.

Fedex
09-12-2008, 07:25 PM
Except for return of serve, baseline half volleys, hitting flat, taking the ball early...

... And choking. Don't forget that one. Andre was so much better at it :)

Arkulari
09-13-2008, 07:48 AM
YES! just watch him taking the AO next year ;)

MILOS
09-13-2008, 12:35 PM
He will,for sure

Commander Data
09-13-2008, 01:26 PM
Fed breaking the slam record in an era of mugs is not impressive. Pete should come back and take down a few more Wimbledons and US Opens...but he just doesn't have the fire anymore. Funny how he can still beat an in-form Federer in exhos, even though he's way out of playing shape.

Federer beating the shit out of Roddick seems to have taken quite a toll on your brain.

The Oracle
06-08-2009, 04:44 AM
Pete Sampras: Federer just did it.......

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 04:52 AM
#15 coming next month...

ballbasher101
06-08-2009, 04:54 AM
#15 coming next month...

I hope so. It would be nice if Federer could win 7 Wimbledons like Sampras.

Arkulari
06-08-2009, 05:14 AM
It's highly likely that he will :)

Kuhne
06-08-2009, 07:10 AM
bumps are geting out of hand, we get the point people, Fed did it, he is the best ever, he can walk on water, next subject!

FedFan_2007
06-08-2009, 07:12 AM
He can turn water into wine, raise the dead, speak in multiple tongues, cure cancer, bring world peace... :angel:

Gnomey
06-09-2009, 07:59 AM
A rare interview from 2001 - after he just won title #1, back when people were starting to compare him to Anna Kournikova. :lol:
Questions like:
"Is it getting harder for one player to dominate?"
"When do you think you will win a grand slam?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxXDBDRfIA4

Crazy Girl
06-09-2009, 08:30 AM
:eek::eek::eek:He can turn water into wine, raise the dead, speak in multiple tongues, cure cancer, bring world peace... :angel:
:eek::eek::eek:


:worship::bowdown::bolt::woohoo::hatoff::hatoff: :woohoo::bolt::bowdown::worship:

severus
06-25-2009, 06:23 AM
Roger Federer is on on the verdge of breaking the tennis biggest record.Why no one talks about it?:confused:

HKz
06-25-2009, 06:47 AM
Becauese everyone's favorite is still Rafalafa to win this year's Wimbledon.


And the rest of us hide in bomb shelters with our opinion of Roger because we, well at least I can speak for myself, do not want to be thrown in those gas chambers again and catch mono.

Arkulari
06-25-2009, 06:48 AM
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Nightmare30/Funny%20stuff/facepalm.jpg

bokehlicious
06-25-2009, 06:50 AM
Roger Federer is on on the verdge of breaking the tennis biggest record.Why no one talks about it?:confused:

Because nobody gives a damn!! Headlines are all about Murray being the first Brit to win something for centuries!!! Come on Andy you legend! :rocker2:

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 07:00 AM
Roger Federer is on on the verdge of breaking the tennis biggest record.Why no one talks about it?:confused:

Keep these kind of threads in the Roger Federer forum :wavey:

severus
06-25-2009, 07:03 AM
Breaking tennis biggest record is pretty significant.So I think it deserves a thread here.

bokehlicious
06-25-2009, 07:04 AM
Mug era, Chang one slam is way more significant and prestigious since he won it in a spartan era :shrug:

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 07:05 AM
Breaking tennis biggest record is pretty significant.So I think it deserves a thread here.

Nah its just a hypothetical thread and its only about Roger Federer so its not a general tennis issue :cool:

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 07:05 AM
Breaking tennis biggest record is pretty significant.So I think it deserves a thread here.

Sounds like a pretty good argument.

HKz
06-25-2009, 08:01 AM
Lawl. I love when people end up feeling like idiots. It honestly brightens up my day to bring up an old hater thread or post and just prove them wrong. What happened to supposedly "man" Djokovic? He became a woman. And Roger has the Career Grand Slam after dispelling Pete's era and arguably will break Pete's record. It makes absolutely no sense to reason that Roger's win over Sampras doesn't count. Then let's say this. Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin both emerged from 3/4's of Sampras's career and Roger emerged at the end of Sampras's career. Okay let's say Federer's win against Sampras meant nothing. Roger's dominance over players like Lleyton and Safin, etc who also dominated Sampras before he was terrible also continues to just show every era blows ass. So that makes pre-Open Era tennis the winnarrrrrrr.

Maxtour70
06-25-2009, 09:09 AM
Roger will soon break the record

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 10:03 AM
Roger will soon break the record

When you think about it Wimbledon09 is the final chance to break the record :o

Nadal 100% rested/fit for US Open (for the first time ever) and always fresh for Aus Open, and then hellbent on regaining RG next year and Wimbledon :mad:

Audacity
06-25-2009, 10:09 AM
Yes, Nadal is unbeatable.

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 10:13 AM
When you think about it Wimbledon09 is the final chance to break the record :o


Sure THERafa:o, whatever you say:o. Rafa a sure bet for the clander Slam 2009:o remember that pearl of wisdom from you?:o:o:o:o


:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 10:19 AM
When you think about it Wimbledon09 is the final chance to break the record :o

Nadal 100% rested/fit for US Open (for the first time ever) and always fresh for Aus Open, and then hellbent on regaining RG next year and Wimbledon :mad:

HAHA i wonder if you keep this username if rafa doesnt win us open 09

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 10:25 AM
Only injury can stop my predictions (akin to a horse being scratched from a race, so the bet be voided not lost), and there are no injuries left now that Nadal's doctor has declared Nadal will be 100% fit in 3-4 weeks, plus the admission by Nadal that he will think differently about scheduling from now on :wavey:

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 10:26 AM
HAHA i wonder if you keep this username if rafa doesnt win us open 09

It would change to something like RAFAwon2010calendarslam:o

Dini
06-25-2009, 10:27 AM
Yes he will. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Sunday next week maybe? :p

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 10:29 AM
Only injury can stop my predictions (akin to a horse being scratched from a race, so the bet be voided not lost), and there are no injuries left now that Nadal's doctor has declared Nadal will be 100% fit in 3-4 weeks, plus the admission by Nadal that he will think differently about scheduling from now on :wavey:

:o

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 10:30 AM
Yes he will. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Sunday next week maybe? :p

If not Sunday then you guys are going to be distraught and demoralized because as Apollo Creed once (or three times when echoed in Rocky's memory) said THERE IS NO TOMORROW :p

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 10:31 AM
It would change to something like RAFAwon2010calendarslam:o

:haha::haha::smash:

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 10:34 AM
If not Sunday then you guys are going to be distraught and demoralized because as Apollo Creed once (or three times when echoed in Rocky's memory) said THERE IS NO TOMORROW :p

the roof will malfunction somehow and rain halts the final until monday

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 10:35 AM
It would change to something like RAFAwon2010calendarslam:o

I'll never change my username, because the 09 US Open is Nadal's final leg of the career grand slam, hence the most memorable just as Agassi's 1999 RG win was :worship:

TheWall
06-25-2009, 10:41 AM
I'll never change my username, because the 09 US Open is Nadal's final leg of the career grand slam, hence the most memorable just as Agassi's 1999 RG win was :worship:
It could happen, if Nadal plays Medvedev in the final, that is.

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 10:52 AM
It could happen, if Nadal plays Medvedev in the final, that is.

:lol:

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 10:54 AM
I'll never change my username, because the 09 US Open is Nadal's final leg of the career grand slam, hence the most memorable just as Agassi's 1999 RG win was :worship:

:o

miura
06-25-2009, 11:34 AM
The OP looks like a total douche by now.

TheWall
06-25-2009, 11:53 AM
just because Fed lost to Djoko in straight doesn't mean anything. He had his chance in the first set to serve it out, he had his 2 set points in the 3rd set.

There was an excellent reminder about Krajicek's Wimbledon win against Sampras. Sampras still managed 4 wimbledons after that.

What if Djoko just had a great year, and pulls a Hewitt or a Chang? It also goes without saying that Tsonga will be at best a top 20 player, given his past record. I mean, you don't just turn 22 and not show your tennis abilities to the world until you're that old.

Anything could happen in tennis, but Roger is pretty set for 3 more slams. Even if he goes into injury. I think people don't realise that the level of tennis is lowest at Wimbledon, given the sudden transition from clay to grass. He really does have an excellent shot at Wimbly time and time again till he's like 32.

By the way, Federer grew up playing clay right? like the rest of continental Europe. It's odd that grass is considered his best surface. Maybe the rest of the field is just weak.
Good prediction.
It's hilarious how some predicted that Djokovic would go on to dominate and reach #1 within months.

Vida
06-25-2009, 12:11 PM
djoker was very close. if he'd won that hamburg semi - and he was very close, he wouldn't have taken such a confidence hit and things would have been very different.

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 12:14 PM
djoker was very close. if he'd won that hamburg semi - and he was very close, he wouldn't have taken such a confidence hit and things would have been very different.

If Fed just had won that Rom Final 2005...:sad:


Seriously: You are right, sometimes it just takes one match to tip a career into adifferent direction. Nole had a chance to break thru in 2008. But, like Safin, wasn't able to back it up.

TheWall
06-25-2009, 12:16 PM
djoker was very close. if he'd won that hamburg semi - and he was very close, he wouldn't have taken such a confidence hit and things would have been very different.
Had Federer converted the match point against Nadal in Rome 2006 he would've gotten enough confidence to win RG, resulting in a Grandslam in both 2006 and 2007. Things would've been very different :).

Seriously, you do have a point, but beeing very close is just that.
I also think that the Queens final last year affected Djokovic to a bigger extent.

Vida
06-25-2009, 12:27 PM
you two must be the same guy :lol:

seriously, I am right/have a point.

TheWall
06-25-2009, 12:29 PM
WTF, my post is like a echo of Commander Data's.

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 12:47 PM
WTF, my post is like a echo of Commander Data's.

:eek:

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 01:08 PM
Had Federer converted the match point against Nadal in Rome 2006 he would've gotten enough confidence to win RG, resulting in a Grandslam in both 2006 and 2007. Things would've been very different :).

Seriously, you do have a point, but beeing very close is just that.
I also think that the Queens final last year affected Djokovic to a bigger extent.

rome clay is different...

Maxtour70
06-25-2009, 01:08 PM
When you think about it Wimbledon09 is the final chance to break the record :o

Nadal 100% rested/fit for US Open (for the first time ever) and always fresh for Aus Open, and then hellbent on regaining RG next year and Wimbledon :mad:
Only injury can stop my predictions (akin to a horse being scratched from a race, so the bet be voided not lost), and there are no injuries left now that Nadal's doctor has declared Nadal will be 100% fit in 3-4 weeks, plus the admission by Nadal that he will think differently about scheduling from now on

No comment!

TheWall
06-25-2009, 01:20 PM
rome clay is different...
Yes but had Federer won he would've entered RG with a very different mindset.
It's all speculation anyway.

Sunset of Age
06-25-2009, 01:23 PM
When you think about it Wimbledon09 is the final chance to break the record :o

Nadal 100% rested/fit for US Open (for the first time ever) and always fresh for Aus Open, and then hellbent on regaining RG next year and Wimbledon :mad:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/CG_Brouwer/Rogi_Rafa/Rafa_Facepalm.jpg

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 01:23 PM
I'll never change my username, because the 09 US Open is Nadal's final leg of the career grand slam, hence the most memorable just as Agassi's 1999 RG win was :worship:

is that hingis?? funny you would support hingis and nadal who are polar opposites if that is the case

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 01:32 PM
is that hingis?? funny you would support hingis and nadal who are polar opposites if that is the case

Indeed: If that is Hingis the only logical think would be to support Federer, everything else points to a shizophrenic mind.

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 01:39 PM
Yes but had Federer won he would've entered RG with a very different mindset.
It's all speculation anyway.

players don't reflect upon other tournaments when they are playing one. its too bad he let the second slip 6-1

TheWall
06-25-2009, 01:50 PM
players don't reflect upon other tournaments when they are playing one. its too bad he let the second slip 6-1
I don't know how Federer thinks, but the fact that he played so well and still lost must have had a effect on his mind.

twisturhead
06-25-2009, 01:57 PM
I don't know how Federer thinks, but the fact that he played so well and still lost must have had a effect on his mind.

possibly, he always has his lulls in a match and nadal especially took advantage of that there

mediter
07-01-2009, 02:11 PM
which idiot bumped this thread?

the swiss moonballer has not broken the record ,has he?

he will be triple bagelled 63 63 63 in the final.

Sunset of Age
07-01-2009, 03:45 PM
which idiot bumped this thread?

You. :worship: :worship: :worship:

lina_seta
07-01-2009, 04:34 PM
which idiot bumped this thread?

the swiss moonballer has not broken the record ,has he?

he will be triple bagelled 63 63 63 in the final.

You. :worship: :worship: :worship:

:worship: LOL



It of course goes without saying that Federer is not going to win any more slams.... 12 Slams just.... as i predicted !

therefore, worthy of bumping already even if he hasnt broken the record yet

mediter= IDIOT + FAIL

miura
07-01-2009, 04:35 PM
which idiot bumped this thread?

the swiss moonballer has not broken the record ,has he?

he will be triple bagelled 63 63 63 in the final.
Did you find out about tennis at uncyclopedia or something?

HKz
07-01-2009, 05:03 PM
Did you find out about tennis at uncyclopedia or something?

LOL, I'm seriously the one that wrote the article there about "tennis."

But this...

which idiot bumped this thread?

the swiss moonballer has not broken the record ,has he?

he will be triple bagelled 63 63 63 in the final.

I'm quite sure you claimed he would only have 12 Grand Slams, yet he has 14 and possibly can break to 15 very soon. So I think you failed dip shit. Looks like your lover Djokovic totally blows ass, Nadal is about to lose his number one ranking most likely and Roger has already proven you wrong, wow must be a really shitty month/week/day for you, please don't grab that rope in your closet I think you'll misuse it :confused:

FedEXpress91
07-01-2009, 07:53 PM
which idiot bumped this thread?

the swiss moonballer has not broken the record ,has he?

he will be triple bagelled 63 63 63 in the final.

i thought bagelled meant that you don't get any games in a set so wouldn't it have to be 60 60 60?:rolleyes:

Dini
07-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Why do I keep having this vision that Fed will crumble in the 5th set against Murray in the final?

Certinfy
07-01-2009, 07:58 PM
Why do I keep having this vision that Fed will crumble in the 5th set against Murray in the final?Err... Cos he will. :)

calvinhobbes
07-01-2009, 11:41 PM
which idiot bumped this thread?

the swiss moonballer has not broken the record ,has he?

he will be triple bagelled 63 63 63 in the final.

This is the funniest bump I've ever seen! Mediter shot himself in the toe six days after the last post had been released at this thread. It had already disappeared long ago from page 1. A whimsical trick from his computer.......:rolls::rolls::rolls:

mistercrabs
07-01-2009, 11:47 PM
How can you be triple bagelled 63 63 63?

superslam77
07-01-2009, 11:47 PM
How can you be triple bagelled 63 63 63?

You're so new to the forums.

How can you ask that question :eek: ?

barbadosan
07-01-2009, 11:53 PM
How can you be triple bagelled 63 63 63?

lol Do a search on the nick "mediter"... somewhere in his posts is a tortuous, and highly whimsical explanation :D

mediter
07-02-2009, 06:42 AM
You. :worship: :worship: :worship:

you are better off being my fan,lady. are you dutch?


i thought bagelled meant that you don't get any games in a set so wouldn't it have to be 60 60 60? how many times do i have tell these stupid ignoramuses?

6060,6161,6262,6363,6464,7575,7676 are all double bagels.

likewise triple bagels are 606060,616161 and ........


I'm quite sure you claimed he would only have 12 Grand Slams, yet he has 14 and possibly can break to 15 very soon. So I think you failed dip shit.

i come to my conclusions only after impeccable research and flawless analysis.

Mimi
07-02-2009, 06:46 AM
you are better off being my fan,lady. are you dutch?



how many times do i have tell these stupid ignoramuses?

6060,6161,6262,6363,6464,7575,7676 are all double bagels.

likewise triple bagels are 606060,616161 and ........




i come to my conclusions only after impeccable research and flawless analysis.

:sobbing::ras: King Mediter is not right this time, my poor Pete's record will be erased on Sunday :bigcry:

mediter
07-02-2009, 06:49 AM
he will not break pete's record ofcourse.

only flat earth believers think he will.

CescAndyKimi
07-02-2009, 06:59 AM
Federer won't break any record. Guaranteed.

FedFan_2007
07-02-2009, 07:01 AM
he will not break pete's record ofcourse.

only flat earth believers think he will.

NID. :banghead:

austennis22
07-02-2009, 11:19 AM
Lol the guy who started this topic has already been wrong on pretty much every count. So judging by that im guessing Federer will probably beat Murray in the final 6-0 6-0 6-0

HKz
07-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Federer won't break any record. Guaranteed.

I'm pretty sure he has already broken a few records, not to mention he just broke his own record with 21 Grand Slams semis in a row :confused:

he will not break pete's record ofcourse.

only flat earth believers think he will.

If he does whether it be now or next year or the year after that, could you leave the Internet for good?

Burrow
07-02-2009, 11:40 AM
NID. :banghead:

You are really unbelievable.

amonb
07-02-2009, 11:44 AM
I don't think he deserves to break any record. Pistol Pete would have destroyed him if they played when both were at there peaks!!!

Dini
07-02-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't think he deserves to break any record. Pistol Pete would have destroyed him if they played when both were at there peaks!!!

Words fail me.

dodo
07-02-2009, 01:25 PM
how many times do i have tell these stupid ignoramuses?

6060,6161,6262,6363,6464,7575,7676 are all double bagels.

likewise triple bagels are 606060,616161 and ........


so a set ending with any score at all is a single bagel.
so any two sets ending with any two scores are two bagels or a double bagel.

yup, i can see the light now.

dodo
07-02-2009, 01:27 PM
Oh, and nice prediction about Federer's slam count. Spot on, old chap! Nailed it like an atomic powered nailing machine.

Chiseller
07-02-2009, 01:27 PM
you are better off being my fan,lady. are you dutch?

how many times do i have tell these stupid ignoramuses?

6060,6161,6262,6363,6464,7575,7676 are all double bagels.

likewise triple bagels are 606060,616161 and ........


I'm sure you've elaborated this already, but what exactly is a breadstick?

Chiseller
07-02-2009, 01:28 PM
Oh, and nice prediction about Federer's slam count. Spot on, old chap! Nailed it like an atomic powered nailing machine.

:lol:

dodo
07-02-2009, 01:47 PM
I'm sure you've elaborated this already, but what exactly is a breadstick?
6-1
which, incidentally (see above), is also a bagel.

mediter
07-02-2009, 02:27 PM
so a set ending with any score at all is a single bagel.
so any two sets ending with any two scores are two bagels or a double bagel.

yup, i can see the light now.

you are a dud really. two straight sets with the same score is a double bagel. 6060 is a double bagel. so is 6161,6262. 6162 is not. 60 62 is not.

6061,6162... is a breadstick.

Tarvold
07-02-2009, 02:33 PM
you are a dud really. two straight sets with the same score is a double bagel. 6060 is a double bagel. so is 6161,6262. 6162 is not. 60 62 is not.

Are you mentally disabled? The whole reason a 6-0 set is labelled a bagel is because the number 0 resembles a bagel. No other number can be referred to as a bagel. Back to special school for you.

FedFan_2007
07-02-2009, 03:19 PM
No no. Mediter triple bagel is 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 and shall always remain such.

Gnomey
07-03-2009, 12:39 AM
I don't think he deserves to break any record. Pistol Pete would have destroyed him if they played when both were at there peaks!!!
Let's take away Federer's 14 GS and Nadal's 6. None of them mean anything because they didn't play against Sampras, eh?
Wait, let's take away all the ones that Laver has as well.

mediter
07-03-2009, 08:32 AM
Are you mentally disabled? The whole reason a 6-0 set is labelled a bagel is because the number 0 resembles a bagel.

That's only a popular misconception.you believed rumours without ascertaining them.

My understanding is absolutely correct.

Lucilla
07-03-2009, 01:13 PM
YES!! please WIN Roger :bigclap::bounce::hearts::bigclap::clap2::rocker2: :):)

Archer16
01-31-2010, 08:21 PM
One just wonders how many times the young guns will be crowned before the Fed era ends. The thread's opener would make a good journalist :rolleyes:
Who bumps this thread when he hits 16? (that is to say, Pete's record will be broken with room to spare)
Well, me :p
(The quoted post was written following AO 2008.)

luie
01-31-2010, 08:29 PM
No.

Archer16
07-01-2010, 11:12 PM
Two more for Fed until he calls it a career.

mediter
05-04-2015, 11:24 AM
I have been proved wrong.

Mea culpa.

Mr.Black
05-04-2015, 11:27 AM
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/59345700.jpg

JamesXP
05-04-2015, 11:40 AM
I have been proved wrong.

Mea culpa.

Epic OP bump. :worship:

barbadosan
05-04-2015, 11:49 AM
mediter, one of the original proponents of the "weak era" theory, along with his pro-Sampras colleagues on BBC's 606 message board - a theory they came up with as it started to look more and more likely that Fed might just overtake Sampras' slam count

I guess if nothing else, they can truly be proud of the way that inchoate theory took root and flourished :rolleyes:

Fastgrass
05-04-2015, 01:04 PM
Erase = to eliminate completely

I don't think anyone can.

:haha:

invisiblecoolers
05-04-2015, 03:15 PM
Should be one of the dumbest article posted here.

mediter
05-04-2015, 08:06 PM
mediter, one of the original proponents of the "weak era" theory, along with his pro-Sampras colleagues on BBC's 606 message board

we were just serious tennis fans who were opposed to blind hero worship. don't malign us.

mediter
05-04-2015, 08:07 PM
Should be one of the dumbest article posted here.

what are you smoking? it is one of the most thought provoking posts ever seen on a tennis forum.

Maranza
05-04-2015, 08:50 PM
There's something fascinating to me when old threads like this get bumped, it gives you a peek on how things were in what was basically a different era of this forum (although there are some familiar names :D).
Although there already was some trolling/bm, things look to have been friendlier and more relaxed back then...oh well.
Sup weak era poster Olditer

scarecrows
05-04-2015, 09:06 PM
mediter vs. YodaKnowsBest

would be epic

TheBigFourFTW
05-04-2015, 10:20 PM
mediter, one of the original proponents of the "weak era" theory, along with his pro-Sampras colleagues on BBC's 606 message board - a theory they came up with as it started to look more and more likely that Fed might just overtake Sampras' slam count

I guess if nothing else, they can truly be proud of the way that inchoate theory took root and flourished :rolleyes:


Those guys wouldn't be as bad as that 606 troll Unbiased_Educator/tennis_tutor right?

SheepleBuster
05-04-2015, 11:47 PM
why isn't the OP banned? I mean I would tolerate it if my drunken wife said something like this. But a DailyMale reader with Fed hate in his heart? lol

Pusha T
05-05-2015, 04:15 AM
No.

Honestly
05-05-2015, 04:19 AM
A better question is if Federer will break the FO slam record.

Mimi
05-05-2015, 04:34 AM
what are you smoking? it is one of the most thought provoking posts ever seen on a tennis forum.

the legend is back :bowdown: :bowdown:

MTwEeZi
05-05-2015, 04:43 AM
Leave mediter alone. He is an unbiased analyst of the game. And Federer got lucky with 09 Nadal out of the picture for RG and Wimbledon.

Litotes
05-05-2015, 04:53 AM
Leave mediter alone. He is an unbiased analyst of the game. And Federer got lucky with 09 Nadal out of the picture for RG and Wimbledon.

That's how it always is, isn't it? Before it happens it's impossible. Afterwards it was the inevitable result of luck ;)

Strange so few people make allowances for that, considering how prevalent they think luck is. Not much "Unless he get's lucky" to be seen, is it?

Fastgrass
05-05-2015, 05:33 AM
Haha, he should be happy if he ever wins one more Wimbledon, which is the only one winnable with his all-serve game and average groundstrokes.

Bye, Fedmug :wavey:

Bluemug, get a life. :rolleyes:
It's a totaly decent word and it sounds great in my language. :)

Fed is mostly done, he will bounce back by winning Basel and Cremona challenger + Estoril next year.
No more slams for him, maaaaaybe one more Wimbledon with his serve-volley game.



Hello Mateya! :lol:


Very entertaining must read thread.

Mediter! :worship:

atennisfan
05-05-2015, 07:38 AM
Haha, he should be happy if he ever wins one more Wimbledon, which is the only one winnable with his all-serve game and average groundstrokes.

Bye, Fedmug http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/wavey.gif

Bluemug, get a life. http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
It's a totaly decent word and it sounds great in my language. http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/smile.gif

Fed is mostly done, he will bounce back by winning Basel and Cremona challenger + Estoril next year.
No more slams for him, maaaaaybe one more Wimbledon with his serve-volley game.



Hello Mateya! http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/laugh.gif


Very entertaining must read thread.

Mediter! http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/notworthy.gif


LOL.

Mateya is such a big fail.

f1yer
05-05-2015, 10:24 AM
mediter, one of the original proponents of the "weak era" theory, along with his pro-Sampras colleagues on BBC's 606 message board - a theory they came up with as it started to look more and more likely that Fed might just overtake Sampras' slam count

I guess if nothing else, they can truly be proud of the way that inchoate theory took root and flourished :rolleyes:

Also interesting was the use of transitional champ. Great phraseology !

Kudos

f1yer
05-05-2015, 10:33 AM
This thread keeps on giving ..

Good place for digging up some Fed dirt :)

mediter
05-05-2015, 02:46 PM
Those guys wouldn't be as bad as that 606 troll Unbiased_Educator/tennis_tutor right?

"They" changed the face of tennis discussion. you would not have seen a better quality of posts
in your life.

mediter
05-05-2015, 02:48 PM
why isn't the OP banned? I mean I would tolerate it if my drunken wife said something like this. But a DailyMale reader with Fed hate in his heart? lol

You don't have to be a fed hater to bait posters. You only need to be perceived as one ;)

While I am no blind fan of anyone, I was actually more a fan of fed's game than against. But my
posts here convinced many posters otherwise :)

rocketassist
05-05-2015, 02:48 PM
mediter is an example of how to be a genuinely funny troll. His work of calling Federer the 'transitional champion' was awesome. A lesson to all the generic weak era crap trolls we get now.

Sri
05-05-2015, 02:50 PM
There's a chance that Federer might indeed break his own record of 17 slams and win a total of 18.

Surely he is closer to achieving this feat than Djokovic or Nadal.

mark73
05-05-2015, 03:29 PM
Why is the poll closed? :confused:

Litotes
05-05-2015, 03:31 PM
Why is the poll closed? :confused:

No idea. Happened years ago. No way now to see what it once was.

mark73
05-05-2015, 03:32 PM
No idea. Happened years ago.

Can we reopen it? I think I might get this one right.

JohnKramer
05-05-2015, 04:50 PM
Great post by the OP. The OP was right...he posted this in January 2008...the same year Nadal beat him at wimbledon...2008 was the end of prime federer. OP was so right.

Federer just won another atp 250 happens to be a clay title by beating Cuevas in the final...reminds me his easy draws at Halle Open.
Unlimited luck for federer.
I hope that this luck would end soon.

Troll Hunter
05-05-2015, 04:53 PM
I'm going to make a bold prediction and say yes

passingshotDTL
05-05-2015, 04:59 PM
Wow, this is an amazing thread to read through. :worship:

Yolita
05-05-2015, 04:59 PM
Great post by the OP. The OP was right...he posted this in January 2008...the same year Nadal beat him at wimbledon...2008 was the end of prime federer. OP was so right.

Federer just won another atp 250 happens to be a clay title by beating Cuevas in the final...reminds me his easy draws at Halle Open.
Unlimited luck for federer.
I hope that this luck would end soon.
It was posted when Roger lost to Novak in the 2008 Australian Open, Roger had been #1 for over 200 weeks uninterrupted... That loss was a sign of things to come. It was indeed the end of prime, unchallenged Federer. OP was right about that. The mistake was to infer that he would not win anything else after that... Easy mistake to make. :D

TigerTim
05-05-2015, 05:04 PM
No, Graf is too far clear imo

Troll Hunter
05-05-2015, 05:12 PM
No, Graf is too far clear imo

*cough* Margaret Court *cough*

duarte_a
05-05-2015, 08:27 PM
*cough* Margaret Court *cough*

Owned. :lol:

mediter
05-05-2015, 08:34 PM
Easy mistake to make. :D

there was no mistake...I just baited and got lots of bites...end of story ;)

laughingcavalier
05-05-2015, 08:44 PM
Aaaaah the prodigal son Mediter has come back... or should I call you Chetan_pv?? ;)


I used to vividly and fondly remember you/chetan_pv on the ESPN baiting Fed fans with your 'transitional champ' jibe even after he racked up 237 weeks on the bounce... LOL!! Furthermore,does anybody used to also remember the hilarious alliteration he'd use in his thread titles concerning Fed eg


Hurricane Hrbaty to heave havoc on Fed et al.. Loved em.... and then he disappeared for years.I did frequent the BBC sports board forum section and I saw the same 'rinse and repeat' baiting there too.Too funny! ;)


Also used to remember the phrase used to give reason why Federer would lose ''After carefully examining all statistical and scientific data ..... yada yada yada.Never got old :)

mediter
05-06-2015, 09:54 AM
Aaaaah the prodigal son Mediter has come back... or should I call you Chetan_pv??

I am NOT chetanpv...Different individuals. :cool:

But there was an weird unwritten understanding between us(maybe others) as we were trolling for the same
objective :devil:

Yeah wonder where he is nowadays..Maybe just like me he has become a senior pro and cannot find time for trolling anymore :lol:

barbadosan
05-10-2015, 03:20 PM
Aaaaah the prodigal son Mediter has come back... or should I call you Chetan_pv?? ;)


I used to vividly and fondly remember you/chetan_pv on the ESPN baiting Fed fans with your 'transitional champ' jibe even after he racked up 237 weeks on the bounce... LOL!! Furthermore,does anybody used to also remember the hilarious alliteration he'd use in his thread titles concerning Fed eg

Hurricane Hrbaty to heave havoc on Fed et al.. Loved em.... and then he disappeared for years.I did frequent the BBC sports board forum section and I saw the same 'rinse and repeat' baiting there too.Too funny! ;)


Also used to remember the phrase used to give reason why Federer would lose ''After carefully examining all statistical and scientific data ..... yada yada yada.Never got old :)

heh.. I'd almost forgotten the alliteration, the unwavering conviction that Fed would lose the next match, and then the scrambling to find some excuse as to why the prediction had once again failed. - Man, that ESPN msgboard! - which was largely unmoderated, or so it seemed.

barbadosan
05-10-2015, 03:24 PM
It was posted when Roger lost to Novak in the 2008 Australian Open, Roger had been #1 for over 200 weeks uninterrupted... That loss was a sign of things to come. It was indeed the end of prime, unchallenged Federer. OP was right about that. The mistake was to infer that he would not win anything else after that... Easy mistake to make. :D

sorry Yolita, don't think you can really draw the links you and JohnKramer obviously wish to. mediter came to MTF fairly late in his trolling life, and had made similar predictions and posts at least a couple of years before on BBC 606 and ESPN.