Almost 4 years ago, Wilander said Federer had no balls against Nadal [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Almost 4 years ago, Wilander said Federer had no balls against Nadal

andy neyer
04-20-2010, 09:13 PM
These were his comments:

"I think Roger Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls," and claimed the Swiss suffered a "mental block in terms of tennis smartness" and lacked an aggressive mindset even while winning the first set 6-1.
"He should have realised in the second set, surely, after two games, 'Wow I'm not hitting the ball quite as well, let me try going back to the game plan', which surely couldn't have been staying at the baseline as much as he did... "So I think he choked from the first point to the last point because I don't believe that he thinks he can beat Nadal from the baseline. I can't imagine that. Because if he can't beat him from the baseline on hardcourts, then he sure as hell can't beat him from the baseline on clay. That's crazy."

Wilander said Nadal was the first player to challenge Federer in a grand slam final. "After the first set today, Hewitt would have thrown the towel in, Roddick would have thrown his towel in," Wilander said.
"Everybody says Federer is too good, and he is too good, but they don't have the balls that Nadal has to say, 'Listen, if you play like that throughout the whole match, then it's true, you are the greatest player ever … but if you're not the greatest player in the world, then you're not going to be able to keep that up'.
"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) (andy neyer here: that must have been funny as hell :lol:)

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."


Do you agree with that?

He said all that after Federer lost the 2006 French Open final and also probably in consideration of other several tight matches in which Federer had lost to Nadal before.
Nowadays, I think that -in all fairness- in a few of the matches he's played against Rafa he's showed some tough resiliance, even when he lost (like Wimby 2008, coming from 2 sets down to play a fifth set). Nevertheless, I see the point of Mats. Federer. For a tennis great, I'd say Federer lacks a bit of mental strenght and that factor becomes particularly more important when he faces Nadal. I'm not saying he's a mental clown like many here would probably want to exaggerate (after all, you don't dominate tennis the way Federer has if you don't have a winning mentality) but he's certainly not amongst the best in the mental department.
I'm talking of Federer match-wise (mental strenght in tight matches, to be clutch and produce the big shots when it counts the most) and not career-wise (to be consistent with your game and not let your head get clouded by success as it happens to many-in that department Federer is awesome, imo).

All that said, I think Mats would fit it perfectly here. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's a regular user of MTF :)

PS: I couldn't find the original 2006 thread in which these declarations were discussed. If someone can find it, I'd have no problems in continuing the discussion there.

DualMedia
04-20-2010, 09:14 PM
ooh!! karma is a B*TCH

Pirata.
04-20-2010, 09:16 PM
:rolleyes:

Certinfy
04-20-2010, 09:19 PM
:o

alter ego
04-20-2010, 09:47 PM
Yeah and 15 years ago Fed was a virgin with zits. Debate that!

Sjengster
04-20-2010, 10:00 PM
Excellent topic, you've hit upon an untouched gem that is sorely lacking in debate and discussion on MTF.

Regardless of what Wilander said back in 2006, time and tide have proven that he does not have a clue what he's talking about as a pundit (and I'm talking about far more aspects of the game than just Federer, although for the record he completely backtracked on the above comments last year in feeble fashion). The most recent pearler at the AO this year was his announcement during Federer-Andreev that he picked the latter to win RG back in 2007 when he got to the quarters - which is either a lie or an incredibly stupid prediction.

DJ Soup
04-20-2010, 10:39 PM
Wilander is talking about the tennis he likes, which is the one of a gritty fighter.

CyBorg
04-20-2010, 11:03 PM
I don't see how Wilander's wrong.

Federer never did figure out Nadal and, as Wilander points out, Federer indeed played like he had no balls in that match.

So, he's right. The Connors comment points to a hypothetical matchup in which supposedly Connors' determination would win out. Not necessarily a statement suggesting that Connors was the greater player.

HKz
04-20-2010, 11:04 PM
Well Mats clearly changed his mind about Roger. I've never really heard him be critical about Roger after 2006. If I remember correctly, Mats apologized for his comments. Mats likes to talk A LOT, so he occasionally says really strange things even on air commentating matches..

Bottom line is Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer, and clearly Nadal got the early upper hand in some important matches. Couple that with a few years of similar scenarios between the two mainly on clay and you have a Federer who can't bring his A+ game against Nadal as quickly as he can against most other opponents.

Kolya
04-20-2010, 11:16 PM
No balls... too many balls... so many problems...

Wilander speaks his mind.

Roamed
04-20-2010, 11:18 PM
To be fair to Wilander, I think the worst thing about those comments is how harshly-worded and demeaning they are, as they probably contain an element of truth - Federer plainly isn't as confident facing Rafa as against most others, but that doesn't mean most times he is simply going to let Rafa walk all over him without a fight (Wimby 08 final as an example).

Interestingly he (along with Borg) backed Federer to beat Rafa in the French Open 2008 :p Article about it here, where he kind of expands on the same theme but in a more positive light:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/frenchopen/2302647/French-Open-Bjorn-Borg-and-Mats-Wilander-are-backing-Roger-Federer-to-beat-Rafael-Nadal.html

Wikipedia also has a link to Peter Bodo claiming tennis fans used to use Wilanders as a euphemism for balls as a result of it, not something I remember but kind of funny anyway! :lol:

andy neyer
04-20-2010, 11:58 PM
Well Mats clearly changed his mind about Roger. I've never really heard him be critical about Roger after 2006. If I remember correctly, Mats apologized for his comments.

Yeah, he personally apologized to Federer when he was interviewing him once.

andy neyer
04-21-2010, 12:00 AM
Wikipedia also has a link to Peter Bodo claiming tennis fans used to use Wilanders as a euphemism for balls as a result of it, not something I remember but kind of funny anyway! :lol:

lol. I've never heard people using wilander's name in such a way. It's funny in any case and I might start using it just for fun.

SetSampras
04-21-2010, 12:25 AM
Still doesn't until proven otherwise.. In the big matches, Federer has folded like a cheap suit more times than not.. is this disputable? 7-13 h2h with losses in the finals of every surface and 3 of the 4 slam finals. You know Nadal is on the end of the net.. Fed's game takes a downswing.. This has been evident time and time again... Was very evident in wimbledon in 2008 when he reached the final without losing a single up until that point, and soon as he sees Nadal he finds himself in a 2 set hole. nadal is the only player never to cower to Roger's prescence in the big matches. Unlike so many others. Its just shame Nadal had to get injured when he did right at his peak because he was the hands down most dominant player on tour.. Roger an afterthought. it wasnt until Nadal went down did we see Roger win again since with no Nadal around, he had a free ticket to slam wins

Or Levy
04-21-2010, 01:31 AM
The problem is probably the VERY extreme wording, aimed against a guy who, aside from being a multi GS champion, really isn't used to be talked to like that (and doesn't talk this crudely himself, either).

Had Mats said Roger doesn't have the right tactics against Rafa, or isn't feeling as confident against him - it would have been a none-issue.


I think the timing is also important. This was after Roger lost in Dubai to Rafa, lost MC, lost Rome after 2 MP, then lost the French - but before two important victories on grass and in the TMC.

I dare say that Mats wouldn't have said it at the end of 2006.

Plus, I think by now it is all clear that Roger has a match up problem with Rafa which goes beyond choking or balls.

And yeah, there was a feeable apology. Before the FO 2008 final(Maybe Mats regreted it after the final...), Mats kinda apologized, on camera, for 'those things he said' without eleborating and Roger graciously accepted. Roger, as far as I know, was never asked about the apology in any interview (well, his next presser was the one after the FO final, so they had better things to ask), but I do admit I'm curious.

Or Levy
04-21-2010, 01:32 AM
lol. I've never heard people using wilander's name in such a way. It's funny in any case and I might start using it just for fun.

Posters on TW (tennis world) do.

andy neyer
05-16-2010, 08:08 PM
Federer imo showed some wilanders today but still was clownish at the big points.

Anyhow, he wasn't gonna win...

abraxas21
01-25-2012, 03:16 AM
is mats back on the commentators' room?

Topspindoctor
01-25-2012, 03:21 AM
Mugts Willander's "opinions" should never be taken seriously. He's a bigger clown than John MugEnroe and that's saying a lot :o

Pirata.
01-25-2012, 03:25 AM
Mugts :lol:

Henry Chinaski
01-25-2012, 03:45 AM
is mats back on the commentators' room?

yeah, and he's more stoned than ever

finishingmove
01-25-2012, 04:04 AM
new balls, please

Chirag
01-25-2012, 04:20 AM
Mugts Willander's "opinions" should never be taken seriously. He's a bigger clown than John MugEnroe and that's saying a lot :o

I agree :) Mugts :worship:

Il Primo Uomo
01-25-2012, 05:06 AM
Wilander is such a bird. I can't believe some are still taking him seriously. He is a mess.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-25-2012, 05:47 AM
of course mats is right

i mean its not like fed bagled nada on clay when nadal was on a 81 unbeaten streak

its not like federer bagled nadal on grass

its not like federer bagled nadal just a weeks ago on a hard court

................

nadal's strings generate so much topspin it is almost a game breaker-

the spagetti strings were banned but i doubt they were as good as the current strings

for federer to even beat nadal shows just how good he actually is

Mystique
01-25-2012, 05:56 AM
I am sure Trollander is one of the most consistent trolls in MTF. Come out in the open man.

Arakasi
01-25-2012, 08:13 AM
I don't know what drugs they were giving him in the hospital but now he's back at Eurosport he's genuinely worse than ever. He spent the first two sets of the Berdych-Nadal match complaining endlessly that Hawk Eye was the most unfair thing in all of sport and that it was a disgrace.

I've blocked out most of the rest of his tripe. But honestly it was unbelieveable even by his standards. Utter shit just endlessly spewing out of his mouth. It's extraordinary.

nalbyfan
01-25-2012, 09:36 AM
He's already out of the hospital ? Maybe someone should lock him in some Psychatric hospital for good this time...what a moron this Seedish guy is. I guess Paella fat butt wil beat goat cheese tomorrow but Wilander has always been nasty to every players, he always criticize all over the place. We're fed up with him, why don't they fiire him ? He brings nothing as a commentator or as a so called "expert"

BroTree123
01-25-2012, 09:51 AM
Hahahah good ol' Mugts :yeah:.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-25-2012, 09:55 AM
Mugts Willander's "opinions" should never be taken seriously. He's a bigger clown than John MugEnroe and that's saying a lot :o

you are still assholedoctor :wavey:
deal with it

bandabou
01-25-2012, 09:58 AM
There was a time when it seemed like Federer couldn't handle the ocasion against Rafa....

sexybeast
01-25-2012, 12:44 PM
Wilander said Federer of 2007 would not win a set against Federer 2012 and that Federer at 30 moves better than he ever did in game, set and Mats.

Maybe he also thinks Federer 2012 has magically grown a set of balls?

Sophocles
01-25-2012, 01:05 PM
Wilander's opinions are ridiculous, but his actual match commentary is all right.

DrJules
01-25-2012, 01:24 PM
It is more a game issue rather than a balls issue.

The top spin forehand high to the Federer backhand and the sliced serve to the Federer backhand make it difficult for Federer to do anything.

Sophocles
01-25-2012, 01:35 PM
It is more a game issue rather than a balls issue.

The top spin forehand high to the Federer backhand and the sliced serve to the Federer backhand make it difficult for Federer to do anything.

This is the main issue, but Fed also lets it affect his confidence in the rest of his game. He misses more regulation forehands against Nadal than against anybody else. It's as though he gets over-excited just having the chance to hit one.

guille&tati4life
01-25-2012, 05:54 PM
Wilander's opinions are ridiculous, but his actual match commentary is all right.

No, if anything his commentary is even more ridiculous.
He spent five minutes or so of Nadal v Berdych explaining that it reminded him of some animated movie about wild horses as well as the movie Friday the 13th. He started rambling about a man with an axe and horses running over mountains.
In Hewitt v Djokovic he claimed that Hewitt had never had much talent and that if Djokovic wanted he could win 6-0 6-0 6-0. On Hewitt winning the third set he said that he would be "stunned" if Hewitt took more than 2 games in the 4th. He also claimed that in this match Hewitt was playing the best tennis of his career.
His opinions are just ludicrous, but one shouldn't underestimate how bad his commentary is.

Sophocles
01-25-2012, 06:31 PM
No, if anything his commentary is even more ridiculous.
He spent five minutes or so of Nadal v Berdych explaining that it reminded him of some animated movie about wild horses as well as the movie Friday the 13th. He started rambling about a man with an axe and horses running over mountains.
In Hewitt v Djokovic he claimed that Hewitt had never had much talent and that if Djokovic wanted he could win 6-0 6-0 6-0. On Hewitt winning the third set he said that he would be "stunned" if Hewitt took more than 2 games in the 4th. He also claimed that in this match Hewitt was playing the best tennis of his career.
His opinions are just ludicrous, but one shouldn't underestimate how bad his commentary is.

Well okay. His match commentary is all right when he isn't on acid.

shiaben
01-25-2012, 06:48 PM
He's kind of right but I thought it was kind of rude how he spoke his mind so sincerely out in public LOL.

But my personal opinion, Fed has changed a lot. If you look at the last Roland Garros, if he was hitting that damn ball incredibly hard. He wasn't going for winners and all his shots. Nadal was just too good that day. So I believe with that same mentality he had at last year's RG, I believe he will win the Australian Open here against Nadal because it's quicker than Roland Garros so it should play to his advantage.

Orka_n
01-25-2012, 07:05 PM
Wilander's opinions are ridiculous, but his actual match commentary is all right.Agreed... mostly.

samanosuke
01-25-2012, 07:05 PM
Wilander is 99% wrong but he was right in this one and still is right if the thinks like that

Mateya
01-25-2012, 07:38 PM
He spent five minutes or so of Nadal v Berdych explaining that it reminded him of some animated movie about wild horses as well as the movie Friday the 13th. He started rambling about a man with an axe and horses running over mountains.


:haha: :haha: :haha:
I rememeber that part. He was talking about how Nadal already saw this movie nine times (nine wins). And same for Berdych. Ok, whatever.

He sometimes takes it too far and makes some nonsense comments out of the blue. But he's still better than many other comentating mugs...

EddieNero
01-25-2012, 07:41 PM
Federer can prove him wrong tomorrow.

MaxPower
01-25-2012, 09:13 PM
Wilander is way more qualified than most so called "experts" in analyzing matchups. He's been in finals himself and he made it his business to carefully study all his opponents and then try to pick their games apart. He made a career out of it. He never had any major weapons or insane physicality, he was a master tactician.

But yes he is also a passionate and kind of poetic guy that lives tennis in the moment. He calls things like he sees them right there and right then. Think many people take his statements to literally and especially that people act like they are valid for all time.

I think he was 100% right in this case though. Fed has had a problem with lack of balls vs Nadal. Often he has generated a ton of chances. Often he's had the entire match in his hands. Then on important points played Nadals game trying to rally him from the baseline. He would never have his dreadful BP conversion ratios vs Nadal if he adapted a counter strategy. Maybe go for broke on all BPs. Maybe do a ton of drop shots even if he loses the points just to tire him out and distract Nadal and actually force him to the net. Point is he often got lulled down into some pushing baseline rally that could only end one way and then got stuck with some 1/10 ratio when he could just have gone for broke and probably secured a 3/10 ratio and the match.

Orka_n
01-25-2012, 10:46 PM
Wilander said Federer of 2012 wouldn't lose a set to Federer 2007, because "look at how he ran around his backhand today" - as if Fed wasn't even faster in his prime. :facepalm: What a complete moron.

abraxas21
01-26-2012, 10:29 AM
wilander was spot on

r3d_d3v1l_
01-26-2012, 10:34 AM
Say it once again.

jonas
01-26-2012, 11:08 AM
It's so true. Roger can't cope with Rafa mentally. He doesn't have the will power. To see him go away again in a GS against Nadal is painful.

ZaZoo)
01-31-2012, 10:20 AM
At least Trollander got one thing right. :lol:

yonexforever
01-31-2012, 10:26 PM
Roger needs to realize a few things if he is to beat Rafa in a major again much less at all:
1) Stop trying to convince Rafa your 1 handed backhand will stand up from the baseline.. Roger you are fooling yourself, in this case 2 hands r better than .
2) Roger time to hit the gym harder to get stronger.
3) You HAVE to try and get to the net especially on Rafa's serve.
4) Use your SLICE backhand during rallies, a well struck slice will force Nadal to at least hit up or not be able to crush off the ground.
Short of that its a lost casue. I still think Rger can get Novak playing the way he does now.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-31-2012, 10:28 PM
And he was right.

Shinoj
02-01-2012, 06:28 AM
Its crazy to even think that never once Federer changed his strategy against Nadal after suffering so many losses. Its ridiculous really.

General Suburbia
02-01-2012, 07:37 AM
Its crazy to even think that never once Federer changed his strategy against Nadal after suffering so many losses. Its ridiculous really.

Um, Federer HAS tried many different things with Nadal. In the end it's just a matchup issue on most surfaces, and the rest is an issue with Federer's head.

Federer's tried slicing more to the Nadal forehand but that doesn't work on a consistent basis.

Probably the biggest tactical change he tried early on was staying away from BH-FH exchanges by hitting his backhand down the line away from Rafa's forehand. But Rafa was too quick and it just opened up the court, putting Federer on the defensive.

I can't recall Federer charging the net as an adjusted strategy against Nadal, unless someone can correct me.

Nowadays it just feels like Federer rallies from the back with Nadal and prays every point for a forehand to smack as he just doesn't know how else to beat him.

leng jai
02-01-2012, 08:32 AM
Um, Federer HAS tried many different things with Nadal. In the end it's just a matchup issue on most surfaces, and the rest is an issue with Federer's head.

Federer's tried slicing more to the Nadal forehand but that doesn't work on a consistent basis.

Probably the biggest tactical change he tried early on was staying away from BH-FH exchanges by hitting his backhand down the line away from Rafa's forehand. But Rafa was too quick and it just opened up the court, putting Federer on the defensive.

I can't recall Federer charging the net as an adjusted strategy against Nadal, unless someone can correct me.

Nowadays it just feels like Federer rallies from the back with Nadal and prays every point for a forehand to smack as he just doesn't know how else to beat him.

Federer's backhand down the line is nowhere near good enough to be a viable tactic. Not enough consistent power and half the time its still angling into the middle the court. Tactics from Federer have usually been solid (besides 2008 RG) but he can't execute consistently and once he starts losing he reverts back to his own usual game.

MatchFederer
02-01-2012, 08:39 AM
Exactly the problem. For consecutive sets on a relatively dead indoor hard court surface Fed can continually use the dtl bh to further control the rallies and stay away from Rafa's forehand unless it's on his terms but generally it isn't a sustainable shot for Roger and as leng jai says, it often angles inward toward centre.

MatchFederer
02-01-2012, 08:41 AM
Wilander said Federer of 2012 wouldn't lose a set to Federer 2007, because "look at how he ran around his backhand today" - as if Fed wasn't even faster in his prime. :facepalm: What a complete moron.

It is strange, yes, almost like he forgot that Roger has always been extremely eager to run around his backhand to hit the forehand.

Shinoj
02-01-2012, 08:51 AM
There is no match up issue of Federer with Nadal. Only thing is he freezes. I forgot the count of how many approach shots he rammed into the net against Nadal.

tests
02-01-2012, 09:04 AM
There is no match up issue of Federer with Nadal. Only thing is he freezes. I forgot the count of how many approach shots he rammed into the net against Nadal.

He freezes because nadal is ridiculously stuck in his head

leng jai
02-01-2012, 09:32 AM
He freezes because Rafito has one of the simplest and most effective tactics against him in the history of tennis.

General Suburbia
02-01-2012, 09:56 AM
Federer's backhand down the line is nowhere near good enough to be a viable tactic. Not enough consistent power and half the time its still angling into the middle the court. Tactics from Federer have usually been solid (besides 2008 RG) but he can't execute consistently and once he starts losing he reverts back to his own usual game.
Not saying the tactics are wrong, just tired of people who think Federer's doing "the same thing" vs Nadal when he's really tried it all.

fivebargate
02-01-2012, 01:53 PM
Always surprised when it gets to these discussion that so many people want to look so far beyond the obvious....the matchup and critically the surface on which it is played.

Even at the ripe old age of 30, Fed has no problem (no mental freeze ups...etc) in dispatching Nadal comfortably indoors. His game was constructed around the ability to make winners....on surfaces that reward positive attacking play.

Give Fed a surface which gives something positive towards shotmaking (fast ball/low bounce)...and he is always in with a shout. Play on lethargic surfaces like AO and he will always struggle against those with more robust/defensive games and the ability to punish the weaknesses intrinsic in a OHBH.

It is no more complicated than that. Fan fictions about the ball-less mental-midgeted Swiss are just indulgent nonsense.

FWIW....I like what Fed and Annacone are trying to chip away at the Nadal game....but the reality is that on slow surfaces, it still going to take great execution and a very good match from Fed to have a chance of success. This performance wasn't that.

Roland Garros
07-10-2014, 01:04 PM
Years later Wilander still proven right :yeah:

Christian Keys
07-10-2014, 01:09 PM
Dulltard going for random bump of the year award.

JoWilly
07-10-2014, 01:47 PM
Well it is true that Roger is a mental midget against Nadal. But the way he worded it is very harsh.

Fargif
07-10-2014, 01:50 PM
Well it is true that Roger is a mental midget against Nadal. But the way he worded it is very harsh.


Almost like a few posters here right?

Loveall
07-10-2014, 01:58 PM
Well it is true that Roger is a mental midget against Nadal. But the way he worded it is very harsh.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Roland Garros
07-10-2014, 02:03 PM
Dulltard going for random bump of the year award.

I'm not even a Nadal fan

bokehlicious
07-10-2014, 02:05 PM
I'm not even a Nadal fan

What he said, you're an obvious tard ;)

Joey Tribbiani
07-10-2014, 03:20 PM
Sadly, he's right.

Roger always forgets his balls in the locker room when facing Rafa, I never liked this.

Rychu
07-10-2014, 03:42 PM
I'm not even a Nadal fan

Of course not

Mungo
07-10-2014, 05:54 PM
Let's celebrate the anniversary of these wise words!

phase3
07-10-2014, 06:08 PM
Well it is true that Roger is a mental midget against Nadal. But the way he worded it is very harsh.Thats because he is playing the best that's ever been in the game. And Federer can't handle players who can boss him on a court. Once Federer can't dictate a match he is going to lose.

DavisCup2014
07-10-2014, 06:22 PM
Despicable and totally uncalled for words from Wilander, I said it back then and it's even more the case now, it says alot about Roger's nature that he forgave him and still granted him interviews

how about 8 years on, we congratulate Federer on taking 4 sets from Nadal and making it somewhat of a match in those 06, 07, 11 finals as well as the 05 SF, I mean who else has given Nadal those type of matches in Paris other than one Soderling monstrous display and a few battles with Djokovic

and bare this in mind, Nadal 2005-2008 on clay was far more brutal than 2010 onward, I wonder why Wilander the slander had no harsh words for Djokovic, who has now lost more times at RG to Rafa than Roger did, and I don't remember Roger wimping out with a double fault.. TWICE.

Leo
07-10-2014, 06:26 PM
Despicable and totally uncalled for words from Wilander, I said it back then and it's even more the case now, it says alot about Roger's nature that he forgave him and still granted him interviews

how about 8 years on, we congratulate Federer on taking 4 sets from Nadal and making it somewhat of a match in those 06, 07, 11 finals as well as the 05 SF, I mean who else has given Nadal those type of matches in Paris other than one Soderling monstrous display and a few battles with Djokovic

and bare this in mind, Nadal 2005-2008 on clay was far more brutal than 2010 onward, I wonder why Wilander the slander had no harsh words for Djokovic, who has now lost more times at RG to Rafa than Roger did, and I don't remember Roger wimping out with a double fault.. TWICE.

Yeah but at least Djokovic beats Nadal often, just not at Paris. With Federer it's almost never.

DavisCup2014
07-10-2014, 06:29 PM
And know what makes Wilander's comments even more laughable, I remember on Game sets and Mats, either this year or last, he was talking about the nightmare of playing Nadal in best of 5 on clay and how he had no clue how he'd approach it and that he felt scared in the locker room for guys even before the match started. An absolute phony hypocrite, I suspect he knew what a tough task Federer had as far back as 2006, but he chose to be irrational and foul mouthed about Federer losing to Nadal rather than reason and tennis iq understanding. sell out.

DavisCup2014
07-10-2014, 06:38 PM
Face it, the ex players are absolute hypocrits and they change tune every few years, on a related note someone told me the other day that they watched Roddick-Federer 2007 US Open match on youtube, Agassi was commentating, speaking about how remarkable Roger was doing in such a tough era and that Roddick was the most difficult serve he (Andre) ever faced

fast forward 7 years and Agassi is all "Roger titles came in a weak era where all he had to do was beat Hewitt and Roddick"

FOUND. OUT.

DavisCup2014
07-10-2014, 06:41 PM
If anyone doesn't believe me on the Agassi Hypocritical comments, I can tell you the youtube video and at which minute he said the words.

JolánGagó
07-10-2014, 06:51 PM
Wilander knows his shit.

Loveall
07-10-2014, 07:12 PM
Face it, the ex players are absolute hypocrits and they change tune every few years, on a related note someone told me the other day that they watched Roddick-Federer 2007 US Open match on youtube, Agassi was commentating, speaking about how remarkable Roger was doing in such a tough era and that Roddick was the most difficult serve he (Andre) ever faced

fast forward 7 years and Agassi is all "Roger titles came in a weak era where all he had to do was beat Hewitt and Roddick"

FOUND. OUT.

Rafa, Novak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt, Roddick.
I think that is what Agassi meant . Agassi praised Roddick for his serve rightly BUT then Roddick has nothing else in his arsenal. Yet he mad all those finals.

Later on when the two gladiators emerged, Roger could not be the boss any more.

I do not see any contradiction here.