Was Federer a transitional champ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was Federer a transitional champ?

FedFan_2007
04-27-2009, 07:09 AM
I know back in 2006 people had a lot of laughs with that one, but in retrospect it seems true. Fed never achieved the kind of H2H domination against his top 5 rivals that Nadal has precisely because Nadal became a force in 2005 so early in Roger's reign. It seems that Roger was just keeping the seat warm until a totally dominant champ would emerge - Nadal.

MalwareDie
04-27-2009, 07:13 AM
Fail.

spacenoxx
04-27-2009, 07:20 AM
You do have a point what with both Rafito and Muzz having such losided H2H against him.

FedFan_2007
04-27-2009, 07:26 AM
I think the evidence grows with every passing month. 2004-2007 was just a blip.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 08:00 AM
Is Fedfan a delusional gloryhunter? No doubt!

jonathancrane
04-27-2009, 08:01 AM
FedFan is right, as usual.

morningglory
04-27-2009, 08:36 AM
When even fed's own fans say that... makes u think it probably is true :lol:

johnny_dhk
04-27-2009, 09:15 AM
Federina was never a champ, not even a transitional one.

Beat
04-27-2009, 09:24 AM
quality thread. :woohoo:

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 09:31 AM
When even fed's own fans say that... makes u think it probably is true :lol:

What makes you bleieve he is a Fed fan, cos his username says so? :lol:

Fed won 13 slams in the hardest era in the history of tennis, he dominated like no other and he's not even done yet.

Now go follow chess.

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 09:52 AM
237 consecutive weeks at no. 1, surely transitional. Nadal has surpassed that by a mile, right?



Now go follow chess.

:lol:

FedFan_2007
04-27-2009, 04:29 PM
What makes you bleieve he is a Fed fan, cos his username says so? :lol:

Fed won 13 slams in the hardest era in the history of tennis, he dominated like no other and he's not even done yet.

Now go follow chess.

Hard cock era only began in August 2008. Since then Nadal has won 2 slams, Federer 1.

tennizen
04-27-2009, 04:37 PM
I think the evidence grows with every passing month. 2004-2007 was just a blip.

If you consider the age of the earth (non-biblical), the whole human existence is a blip.

Fiberlight1
04-27-2009, 04:39 PM
Hard cock era only began in August 2008. Since then Nadal has won 2 slams, Federer 1.

Right..

GOATS like Hewitt, Mental Giant Roddick and Marat "Grass is for the cows" Safin really gave Fed some problems..

Except for Safin, none of those players have ever defeated Federer in a grand slam..

H2H's vs. Federer
Roddick-2-17
Hewitt- 8-14 (Possibly the most competitive, even though Hewitt hasn't beaten Federer since 2004..
Safin 2-9- Has the biggest win over Federer (2005 Australian Open Semis) but still not a rival.

Fact is, Federer had no real rival until Nadal..
And now that we actually have some real tennis players to challenge Federer (Djokovic, Murray) we can really see that Federer had a very weak era.

Joao
04-27-2009, 04:42 PM
If being #1 for over 200 weeks in a row makes you a transitional champ, then all previous #1 were transitional as Federer has the record for most weeks at #1 in a row. So really, what's your point?

The day Nadal loses his #1 ranking he will have been the transitional champ for the next #1 ... All #1 are transitional until the next #1.

Next!

finishingmove
04-27-2009, 04:46 PM
If being #1 for over 200 weeks in a row makes you a transitional champ, then all previous #1 were transitional as Federer has the record for most weeks at #1 in a row. So really, what's your point?

The day Nadal loses his #1 ranking he will have been the transitional champ for the next #1 ... All #1 are transitional until the next #1.

Next!

but some people thought federer will be #1 forever, and go into retirement only when all other players have retired.

Joao
04-27-2009, 04:49 PM
but some people thought federer will be #1 forever, and go into retirement only when all other players have retired.

Those were delusional fans. Nobody is #1 forever. It's common sense ... but what do I know?

Action Jackson
04-27-2009, 04:54 PM
Stop hacking into mediter's account.

Henry Chinaski
04-27-2009, 04:57 PM
I know back in 2006 people had a lot of laughs with that one, but in retrospect it seems true. Fed never achieved the kind of H2H domination against his top 5 rivals that Nadal has precisely because Nadal became a force in 2005 so early in Roger's reign. It seems that Roger was just keeping the seat warm until a totally dominant champ would emerge - Nadal.

spoken like a transitional fan

Bazooka
04-27-2009, 05:01 PM
Yes, this is indeed true. Just as Sampras was a transitional champ and it became so evident when Rios dominated the tour.

So this guy was a Federer supporter. No wonder Roger has gone downhill.

Ivo#1Fan
04-27-2009, 05:03 PM
The period that Fed dominated really was a weak period. If you look back and think that guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and a Nadal too young to need to shave were the main competition. History has shown that Roddick, Hewitt, Federer, and Safin were really just dominating a weak period. We are now in a period of strong players and we will see, by the end of the year, that Federer is really just a distant 4th, if that. Only reason he will finish that high is because of friendly seeding earned by the rank he achieved during the weaker period. If he had to face Murray, Nadal, or Djokovic early in tournament then Federer would really have to struggle to to finish 4th this year. As it is, with his nice seeding, I think he'll make fourth relatively easily.

Art&Soul
04-27-2009, 05:13 PM
FedFan_2007----->NadullFan_2009 :retard: and soon to be changed when Nadull start losing on Clay and being a transitional clay piggy

Matt01
04-27-2009, 05:14 PM
but some people thought federer will be #1 forever, and go into retirement only when all other players have retired.

:lol: How on earth would that be possible?


spoken like a transitional fan

:lol:

calvinhobbes
04-27-2009, 05:21 PM
All champions are transitional. Nobody expect eternal champions. Only rafatards are desperately hoping to have this brute brat as No 1 forever. I would also love to have some piggy-roasting festivals now and then . . . forever.

fred perry
04-27-2009, 05:23 PM
he could still win Halle.

alfonsojose
04-27-2009, 05:27 PM
Sure he was. MTF went from sometimes boring to lame in his era :sad:

Henry Kaspar
04-27-2009, 05:27 PM
Yep,just like Borg was a transitional champ to McEnroe and Sampras was a transitional champ to Hewitt.

finishingmove
04-27-2009, 05:28 PM
he could still win Halle.

is halle the new wimbledon?

Rafattack
04-27-2009, 07:01 PM
What makes you bleieve he is a Fed fan, cos his username says so? :lol:

Fed won 13 slams in the hardest era in the history of tennis, he dominated like no other and he's not even done yet.

Now go follow chess.
Be quiet! The hardest era in the history of tennis? You're having a laugh - Hewitt, Safin Philipussy, Baghdatis! Whereas now it's Djokovic, Murray and Nadal... Go back to the drawing board you mug!

Jōris
04-27-2009, 07:04 PM
is halle the new wimbledon?

You're thinking of Newport.

Ivo#1Fan
04-27-2009, 07:08 PM
You're thinking of Newport.

Yes Newport, that should go to some high level pro this year, I'm guessing Fish, Dent, or possibly Spadea. I wish Ivo would play that one year so he could clean up.

FedFan_2007
04-27-2009, 09:18 PM
Fed 5 Wimbledon + 5 US Open + 5 Halle = GOAT!!! Oh and he's definitely a strong favorite to win 4th straight Basel...

Erica86
04-27-2009, 09:54 PM
237 consecutive weeks at no. 1, surely transitional. Nadal has surpassed that by a mile, right?



:lol:

Roger was lucky that Rafa was just a teenager. We have seen what has happened when both of them are in their twenties.

Shirogane
04-27-2009, 10:18 PM
late twenties for roger

Acer
04-27-2009, 10:33 PM
Roger was lucky that Rafa was just a teenager. We have seen what has happened when both of them are in their twenties.

Sheer ignorance shining through.

And is there a way to get this repulsive glory hunter banned please?

SaFed2005
04-27-2009, 10:33 PM
Be quiet! The hardest era in the history of tennis? You're having a laugh - Hewitt, Safin Philipussy, Baghdatis! Whereas now it's Djokovic, Murray and Nadal... Go back to the drawing board you mug!

Hmm if i said this is now the Nadal era, I am sure most of you would agree with me. So saying that, Nadal's main rival so far are Murray, Djokovic and crappy old Federror? How is that any different from Hewitt, Roddick, Safin in the Federer era?

Murray and Djokovic = 1 slam

Hewitt, Roddick and Safin = 5 slams

So no point in comparing the Fed era to the Nadal era right now. Nadal era hasn't ended. And there is no guarantee that Murray and Djokovic will win over 5 combined slams. They might not even win a slam again if Nadal continues to dominate them in slams the way he is right now.

I mean if Nadal played either Djokovic or Murray in ANY slam final be it USO, AO, Wimby or FO, to me he would still be the favorite to win in 3 of 5 set matches. He is just so tough mentally and physically and has a lot of heart and the desire to win is exceptional. Even if he doesnt play his best I would still consider him the favorite at any slam final against the likes of Djokovic and Murray. Sure they may be able to get him before the final but once Nadal makes the final of something, everyone here knows what happens. Just look at Nadal's finals record.

Anyways, so just like Fed stopped Roddick, safin and Hewitt numerous times from wining other slams Nadal can do the same to Djokovic and Murray.

Joao
04-28-2009, 12:40 AM
Hmm if i said this is now the Nadal era, I am sure most of you would agree with me. So saying that, Nadal's main rival so far are Murray, Djokovic and crappy old Federror? How is that any different from Hewitt, Roddick, Safin in the Federer era?

Murray and Djokovic = 1 slam

Hewitt, Roddick and Safin = 5 slams

So no point in comparing the Fed era to the Nadal era right now. Nadal era hasn't ended. And there is no guarantee that Murray and Djokovic will win over 5 combined slams. They might not even win a slam again if Nadal continues to dominate them in slams the way he is right now.

I mean if Nadal played either Djokovic or Murray in ANY slam final be it USO, AO, Wimby or FO, to me he would still be the favorite to win in 3 of 5 set matches. He is just so tough mentally and physically and has a lot of heart and the desire to win is exceptional. Even if he doesnt play his best I would still consider him the favorite at any slam final against the likes of Djokovic and Murray. Sure they may be able to get him before the final but once Nadal makes the final of something, everyone here knows what happens. Just look at Nadal's finals record.

Anyways, so just like Fed stopped Roddick, safin and Hewitt numerous times from wining other slams Nadal can do the same to Djokovic and Murray.


Great post! :yeah:

Outside Clay, Nadal is not winning as easily as Federer was on grass and HC during his peak years of 06-07. So people think the field must be stronger. But in fact, the field is as strong as it was back then ... it's just that Nadal is (still) not as dominant as Federer was. But things could change ...

And yes, Nadal keeps improving every year but in 2006-2007 when Federer was at his peak, Nadal won 2RG, was in the finals of 2 Wimbledon, won 5 masters, Djokovic won 2 masters and was on his way to win his first slam ... so it's not like Federer didn't have any competition from those 2. Maybe they have improved in the last 6 months (well Murray clearly has but Djokovic I'm not so sure his current level is better than in July 07- March 08), but what's clear is that Federer's level has gone down. His serve and forehand, 2 lethal weapons during 06-07, are nowhere to be seen.