Wilander: Federer better then ever.. But so are his rivals [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wilander: Federer better then ever.. But so are his rivals

SetSampras
02-02-2012, 01:13 AM
Federer better than ever but so are rivals, says Wilander
Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59am IST

By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The good news for Roger Federer, according to former world number one Mats Wilander, is that he hasn't lost any of his skill and is playing as good as ever.

But the bad news for the Swiss maestro is that the opposition has improved as well and he needs to find a way past them to add to his record collection of 16 grand slams.

"There's no question he's better now than he's ever been," Wilander told Reuters in an interview. "He's just not winning."

Wilander said Federer's biggest problem was that his two greatest rivals, Novak Djokovic and Rafa Nadal, were now playing at a much high level than the rivals he was beating when he was scooping up grand slams at will.

"There's no question that Novak Djokovic is way better than the opposition he had four, five years ago," said the Swede.

"You have to take Novak Djokovic now and compare him to Andy Roddick at his best. Not even close. Lleyton Hewitt at his best? Not even close. And those are the guys he was beating in the finals and semi-finals."

Federer won the last of his titles at the 2010 Australian Open. This year was the first time he had gone through a season without winning at least one grand slam title since he broke through to capture his first in 2003.

But Wilander, who won seven majors between 1982 and 1988, said the 30-year-old Swiss had shown he was anything but a spent force, reaching the final at the French Open this year and coming with one point of beating eventual champion Djokovic at the U.S. Open, which ended Monday.

The pair slugged it out over five gripping sets in an enthralling match that could have gone either way. Federer had two match points in the fifth set but Djokovic survived them both and won the decider 7-5.

"The first two sets again Novak were the best I have ever seen from him," Wilander said.

"Djokovic is better this year than Nadal was last year and Nadal last year was better than anyone who ever played the game probably. They just get better, they really do."

The Swede, who won the Australian Open and French Open three times each and the U.S. Open once but never Wimbledon, said there was no comparison between the standard of play between his era and now but Federer was still the best ever.

"I think they're much better (now)," he said. "I think the state of the game is incredible, amazing.

"Is Roger the best of all time? "Yes, because he has 16. That's where it all ends. Sixteen majors makes you the best player of all time."

(Editing by Julian Linden; To query or comment on this story email sportsfeedback@thomsonreuters.com)

Email Article
ŧ Next Article: Facebook shoots for $5 bln in mega-IPO

VolandriFan
02-02-2012, 01:32 AM
Total bullshit. His head must still be reeling from the fall.

Fedfanforever
02-02-2012, 01:38 AM
What an idiot.

rinnegan
02-02-2012, 01:42 AM
:spit:

paseo
02-02-2012, 01:43 AM
lol

Wilander trolling again.

Action Jackson
02-02-2012, 01:44 AM
Listen up people this is how you troll.

mark73
02-02-2012, 01:46 AM
Federer has definetly declined. I do agree that djokovic and nadal are his best two rivals ever. All three are certainly better than Sampras except maybe on extremely fast surfaces.

Sunset of Age
02-02-2012, 01:51 AM
From the second line: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59am
C'mon folks, this is an OLD "article".

SetSampy is on the highway of trollage again. Too bad it's the same sh*t over and over again. :spit:

MatchFederer
02-02-2012, 02:10 AM
Good thread.

Sharpshooter
02-02-2012, 02:21 AM
Lol all the fed fans in here can say is mats is an idiot and a troll but have no way to counter argue the point. I do disagree that fed is better than ever though, he's not at his best, but not far off. Mats is right for the most part though.

Looner
02-02-2012, 02:33 AM
Good thread.

Good humour.

Sri
02-02-2012, 02:49 AM
Better than ever? :lol: Olderer can't even play a decent best of five anymore!

Trollander at his best! :worship:

Macbrother
02-02-2012, 02:51 AM
:rolls:

I don't know what's worse, Wilander's foolishness or SetSampras digging up 5 month old links in desperate, feeble attempts to do anything he can to tarnish Federer's legacy so that it doesn't shine so brightly next to Sampras.

Lol all the fed fans in here can say is mats is an idiot and a troll but have no way to counter argue the point. I do disagree that fed is better than ever though, he's not at his best, but not far off. Mats is right for the most part though.

Actually there's a very easy way. His age. Or do you think Federer has found the fountain of youth and has the same body he had at 24.

neenah
02-02-2012, 03:07 AM
Oh, ouch.

TennisGrandSlam
02-02-2012, 03:58 AM
Wilander is not trolling, but being jealous of Fed's achievements.

ballbasher101
02-02-2012, 04:13 AM
SetSampras hates Federer. I apologize that Federer has more majors than Sampras. They are both greats of the game so cheer up. Laver is the GOAT not Federer or Sampras.

green25814
02-02-2012, 04:13 AM
SetSampras :rolls:

Slice Winner
02-02-2012, 04:26 AM
"You have to take Novak Djokovic now and compare him to Andy Roddick at his best. Not even close. Lleyton Hewitt at his best? Not even close. And those are the guys he was beating in the finals and semi-finals."

Yeah, that's why a crippled, one-legged, nearly 31 year old Hewitt pushed Peakovic to 4 sets this year on Nole's favourite surface.

That's why Roddick has a winning H2H against Nole

Not to mention the counter-argument of this era's common easy draws - see Rafa USO 2010, and many others, for examples.

Wilander smokes some seriously bad weed. Jeez, he could at least check his facts with the Duck h2h......

TennisGrandSlam
02-02-2012, 04:28 AM
Also, SetSampras want to demostrate Sampras is GOAT

Actually, I agree Laver is GOAT, then Federer and Borg, Sampras is only 4th!

tripwires
02-02-2012, 04:35 AM
Wilander is clearly an MTF member.

MatchFederer
02-02-2012, 04:48 AM
Wilander is clearly an MTF member.

Naaaaaaahhh....

Impossible, this isn't a place I'd ever choose to visit.

Sharpshooter
02-02-2012, 07:11 AM
:rolls:

I don't know what's worse, Wilander's foolishness or SetSampras digging up 5 month old links in desperate, feeble attempts to do anything he can to tarnish Federer's legacy so that it doesn't shine so brightly next to Sampras.



Actually there's a very easy way. His age. Or do you think Federer has found the fountain of youth and has the same body he had at 24.

I was talking about Fed's competition when there was no Murray and Djoker and Nadal was teen. So your easy way is wrong because you go off on a tangent and bring up how rog is not what he used to be when i wasnt even talking about that. I even said i disagree with mats about fed being better than ever. I want to know if any of you have a counter argument regarding Fed's competition back then because as I said no Murray, djoker and teen nadal made it very easy for him. You get rid of Murray DJoker and reset Nadal to teen and Fed wins 3-4 majors this year no doubt.

Besides tennis hasn't been too hard on rogers body he's hasnt had any serious injuries over the years. Sure he's not what he used to be but IMO he isn't far off.

EddieNero
02-02-2012, 07:16 AM
Too good this Mats. Wilander puts those kind of arguments into discussion which are impossible to argue with.
Btw, before stating such a crap he should take a look at atpworldworldtour.com and check out some random h2h records between Nole and new balls. Many of them have a positive/very-close record against the player they are supposedly not even close to.

And apparently it's very ease to forget about the slow down of the courts in recent years. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and other guys all had the honour to play on diversed surfaces.

Kiman
02-02-2012, 07:29 AM
That's why Roddick has a winning H2H against Nole

Want to go into h2h? Check out Federer vs Nadal while there.

Pirata.
02-02-2012, 07:33 AM
Seriously, I love when people say Roger had no competition in his peak and this is the only reason he has so many slams, and then use Murray as an example of his rivals. Yeah, as if slam final choker Murray has done any better against Fed than Hewitt, Roddick, etc.

Fed had plenty of competition, what about Safin, who, unlike great rival Murray, actually beat him in a slam?

manadrainer
02-02-2012, 08:09 AM
Wilander is not trolling, but being jealous of Fed's achievements.

This.

Federer is now better than ever... :haha: :haha: :haha:

Has wilander ever watched how Fed played in his peak??

manadrainer
02-02-2012, 08:13 AM
OMG I just realized that wilander might be SDG! :o

Do you remember some months ago his thread about Federer peak being between 2008 and 2011??? :eek::eek:

Time Violation
02-02-2012, 08:24 AM
Yeah, that's why a crippled, one-legged, nearly 31 year old Hewitt pushed Peakovic to 4 sets this year on Nole's favourite surface.

That's why Roddick has a winning H2H against Nole

Kudos to Hewitt for fighting, but he was getting almost embarrassed for 2 and a half sets, held serve just once I think. Novak then completely lost focus, so there was the 4 set, but to say Hewitt "pushed peak Djokovic"... :spit: Hewitt couldn't push Djokovic on grass 5 years ago.
Roddick snatched few wins in a short period when Novak was at his worst, changing his racquet and all, after that they rarely met.

romismak
02-02-2012, 08:29 AM
Wilander is talking all the time for years and saying things out of reality mostly, but this times i donīt think he is that wrong, he is sure about Novak and Rafa being the toughest competition Roger can ever ask for. Also Rogerīs playing as good as ever, Roger declined in movements and mostly i think mentally he is more in Shankerer mode than in Goaterer mode, but for example his serve i believe is better, i mean last 2-3years his serve is better than when he was dominating 04-07. But the most interresting part here that most people didnīt realized is that Wilander basically told us that Federerīs 16 slams is not relevant, that it was achieved against those Hewitts and Roddicsk not against Rafa or Nole. Also he said Roger is best ever,b ecause he has 16 slams- by numbers but he didnīt say best ever by level-game, simply by numbers. So Wilander didnīt think Roger is GOAT.

samanosuke
02-02-2012, 08:34 AM
Why every time after this clueless drugman says something this becomes subject of talking between people who are laughing at him

Mystique
02-02-2012, 08:37 AM
so Wilander is stupid. And SetSampras is ... beyond stupid.
:yawn:
whats new?

Logical
02-02-2012, 08:50 AM
Lol all the fed fans in here can say is mats is an idiot and a troll but have no way to counter argue the point. I do disagree that fed is better than ever though, he's not at his best, but not far off. Mats is right for the most part though.+1.
FedullTards have no logic in their brain.They cannot argue counter points.Wilander is right.Fedull still play very fast and run like young player.He beat Fakovic last year in Roland Garos.FedullTards argue weak era mugs Ducck,Muggwit,Safin,Ljucibic are strong players because they beat young Nadal and young Novak couple times.:lol:Mugbandian is most overrated player:facepalm:

Wilander is most part right.Fedull is not far from best but his fanboys loves to believe Fedull's competition Duck,Mugwitt,Mugbandian are warriors compared to Nadal and Djokovic.:lol:

Vida
02-02-2012, 08:51 AM
Seriously, I love when people say Roger had no competition in his peak and this is the only reason he has so many slams, and then use Murray as an example of his rivals. Yeah, as if slam final choker Murray has done any better against Fed than Hewitt, Roddick, etc.

Fed had plenty of competition, what about Safin, who, unlike great rival Murray, actually beat him in a slam?

most often Ive found the conclusion marked in bold to be an exclusive fed fans contraption.

'no competition' does not touch on that at all. its a bit of luck, yes. but thats what you want in sports.

Vida
02-02-2012, 08:52 AM
in most of his points, wilander is correct.

Li Ching Yuen
02-02-2012, 08:53 AM
Elizabeth Taylor was also peaking sexually at the ripe age of 79. Too bad she quickly passed away.

Logical
02-02-2012, 08:59 AM
Who Fedull lost in Grandslams from 2011.
AO-11 to Novak,RG-11 to Rafa,Wimb-11 to Tsonga,USo-11 to Novak,AO-12 to Rafa
four in five loses to Rafa/Novak:wavey:
:lol:

BlueSwan
02-02-2012, 09:19 AM
Well, Wilander is RIGHT about the following:

- The standard of the top players being higher than ever before.
- Top players these days being far better than in his own time.
- Top players generally getting better and better.
- Federers competition being much tougher now than in the past.
- Djokovic 2011 being better than Nadal 2010.

However, he's WRONG about the following:

- Federer being "better than ever" or even close to as good as how he was around 2006.
- Federer playing the best two sets of his life against Djokovic at the US Open 2011.
- Nadal 2010 being better than anyone before him.

Shirogane
02-02-2012, 09:33 AM
Better than ever? Agassi is more accurate regarding this subject:

"At 29, the wear and tear he has on his body is probably a third more than I had, considerably more, so for him to be injury-free and to get out there at 29 and look like he’s at his best is remarkable."

Vida
02-02-2012, 09:33 AM
feds two sets vs djokovic at us open could easily be his best. he was insanely good vs one of the toughest hes ever faced. I mean you can say yeah but when he was younger he would've moved better, but not only he did move incredibly well, he was arguably more lethal, more versatile and more ingenious off the ground than at his peak (when it was often enough for him to flash few of those screamers and he would win with a zero or a breadstick vs half-players such as roddick or hewitt)- but in the end its just one of those things that cant be said definitely.

ossie
02-02-2012, 09:44 AM
todays federer would destroy his younger self, todays era is simply too strong, all the experts know it and the butthurt fans on mtf are the only people who believe otherwise. face it kiddos, feds and other players of his eras are shown their true colours now that they have seen real competition instead of clowns like roddick and hewitt.

bokehlicious
02-02-2012, 09:52 AM
todays federer would destroy his younger self, todays era is simply too strong, all the experts know it and the butthurt fans on mtf are the only people who believe otherwise. face it kiddos, feds and other players of his eras are shown their true colours now that they have seen real competition instead of clowns like roddick and hewitt.

Obviously. That's why Potro can thank god he could get his one slam in a weak era, he could only dream of it in today's era.

ossie
02-02-2012, 09:54 AM
Obviously. That's why Potro can thank god he could get his one slam in a weak era, he could only dream of it in today's era.http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/members/superquad7-41621-albums-nc-tfw-picture5936-not-sure-if-serious.jpg

oz_boz
02-02-2012, 10:20 AM
Hmmm...so his rivals include Bennetteau, Stepanek, Blake, Karlovic, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Montanes, Gulbis too?

Get a grip, Mats, Fed is not better now, he has been slowly but steadily on decline since early 2007.

Well, Wilander is RIGHT about the following:

- The standard of the top players being higher than ever before.
- Top players these days being far better than in his own time.
- Top players generally getting better and better.
- Federers competition being much tougher now than in the past.
- Djokovic 2011 being better than Nadal 2010.

However, he's WRONG about the following:

- Federer being "better than ever" or even close to as good as how he was around 2006.
- Federer playing the best two sets of his life against Djokovic at the US Open 2011.
- Nadal 2010 being better than anyone before him.

I'd beg to differ on the first three points you have as correct. Players of now are only better because training regime and technology has improved; earlier greats would do just as well with the same possibilities. Of course with modifications like guys living solely on volleys not doing as well now, and baseline-only guys of today would suffer in the 90's).

Also, Fed's competition being much better now is an exaggeration. It is better, but only because there are two other great players (Rafa and Djoko) instead of one like before (only Rafa).

fast_clay
02-02-2012, 10:31 AM
Set Sampras and Mats Wilander are quite correct, objectively speaking...

Beat
02-02-2012, 10:42 AM
why are people writing articles/starting threads on something wilander said??? anyone who's ever watched "game, set & mats" knows that he's just uttering nonsense like nobody else.

scoutreporter
02-02-2012, 11:27 AM
While Nole and Rafa where teens /juniors, up until 2008 Federer won 12 slams. Since 2008 ( you can't say he was beyond hes peak at 2008) Federer has won 4 slams, Nole 4, Rafa 7 and Del Potro 1. If they where the same age, I doubt Federer would have won 16. The simple fact that Nadal is destroying Federer every time they meet, I personally don't see Roger as the GOAT.

Halba
02-02-2012, 11:30 AM
also andy m. is playing extremely high level, took a fresh djoker to 5 set, i think andy m can go places

manadrainer
02-02-2012, 11:37 AM
While Nole and Rafa where teens /juniors, up until 2008 Federer won 12 slams. Since 2008 ( you can't say he was beyond hes peak at 2008) Federer has won 4 slams, Nole 4, Rafa 7 and Del Potro 1. If they where the same age, I doubt Federer would have won 16. The simple fact that Nadal is destroying Federer every time they meet, I personally don't see Roger as the GOAT.

Actually he was beyond his peak in 2008, when he started to lose consistently to random mugs also, not only Rafa. :wavey:

Coincidentally Rafa hit his peak in 2008, when he won RG (without losing a set), Wimbledon, Olympics and AO right at the start of 2009...

bokehlicious
02-02-2012, 11:38 AM
Since 2008 ( you can't say he was beyond hes peak at 2008)

Since mono (early 2008) Federer has gone downhill, anyone that followed the sport prior to that knows it.

Shinoj
02-02-2012, 11:47 AM
yeah, A couple of sneezes during the mono he had, has really taken its toll. :eek:

EddieNero
02-02-2012, 11:59 AM
Wilander forgot to mention about the extreme slow down of the courts, what can explain the rise of "his rivals" and basically why the competition became tougher for Federer.
I'd love to see how this whole rivalry between top players goes basing on previous rules( Rebound Ace at AO, lightening fast USO, faster grass, carpet) where Roger could make a use of all of his attacking qualities.

finishingmove
02-02-2012, 12:07 PM
Wilander > Federer.

He's just being modest.

speedballs
02-02-2012, 12:24 PM
i remember wilander getting so excited while covering the australian open final in 2006, when federer was at his peak and seemingly unbeatable, but was down 1 set to baghdatis.

the guy constantly snipes at federer, sure his technical level is probably the same or better - the whole point is he can no longer physically compete with these guys as well as he could have when he was 24. hence why he can still win the world tour finals, got 20+ matches unbeaten in between slams and outplay djokovic for the first half of a slam semi.

superslam77
02-02-2012, 12:28 PM
While Nole and Rafa where teens /juniors, up until 2008 Federer won 12 slams. Since 2008 ( you can't say he was beyond hes peak at 2008) Federer has won 4 slams, Nole 4, Rafa 7 and Del Potro 1. If they where the same age, I doubt Federer would have won 16. The simple fact that Nadal is destroying Federer every time they meet, I personally don't see Roger as the GOAT.

:rolleyes: if Fed was the same age as them he would win the same or maybe more.

Fed at his peak would beat them at WB,USO and AO... so say he would win 8 slams instead of 12 before being 26...what happens then? nadull would decline and Fed would be winning 2 slams a year till his 30s and then some.

Henry Chinaski
02-02-2012, 12:31 PM
"playing as good as ever?"

seriously NYT?

EddieNero
02-02-2012, 12:47 PM
To be fair, this whole "strong era mantra" doesn't surprise me at all. Since the Tour lacks of good competitors, someone with authority has to state bullshit even if any reasonable tennis fan knows it's completely untrue.
People tend to create a legend around anything they are witnessing in order to make this occurence exceptional and thus feel more special themselves.
The sad truth is current era is utterly boring and predictable, and none of those epic Noldal battles can't change the tendency. It's all about two guys fighting for big titles, Federer and Murray who usually end up as semifinalists and grab some minor crowns, and a bunch of chokers and unfulfilled losers.

Macbrother
02-02-2012, 01:49 PM
I was talking about Fed's competition when there was no Murray and Djoker and Nadal was teen. So your easy way is wrong because you go off on a tangent and bring up how rog is not what he used to be when i wasnt even talking about that. I even said i disagree with mats about fed being better than ever. I want to know if any of you have a counter argument regarding Fed's competition back then because as I said no Murray, djoker and teen nadal made it very easy for him. You get rid of Murray DJoker and reset Nadal to teen and Fed wins 3-4 majors this year no doubt.

Besides tennis hasn't been too hard on rogers body he's hasnt had any serious injuries over the years. Sure he's not what he used to be but IMO he isn't far off.
That's not exactly a tangent when that was one of Mat's primary points, is it? Myself, or anyone else has no need to "counter" Mat's point because it's utter conjecture and opinion with zero factual basis. Federer's declination should easy even for a blind man to see, but if that's not enough just look at Federer's match results starting in '08, people he used to completely destroy on a regular basis he starts losing to. But it's natural. Can't stay young forever, even Federer.

Macbrother
02-02-2012, 02:04 PM
feds two sets vs djokovic at us open could easily be his best. he was insanely good vs one of the toughest hes ever faced. I mean you can say yeah but when he was younger he would've moved better, but not only he did move incredibly well, he was arguably more lethal, more versatile and more ingenious off the ground than at his peak (when it was often enough for him to flash few of those screamers and he would win with a zero or a breadstick vs half-players such as roddick or hewitt)- but in the end its just one of those things that cant be said definitely.

Few of those screamers? Are you really being serious with this comment? In '04 Federer could make you "ooh" and "ahh" 20 times a match. How many times is he doing it now? Please enlighten us as to how this 30.5 year old comparison measures up to peak Federer. Give us a few matches you watched personally from '04, '05, '06 to compare, so that you don't just look like a Djokovic-tard who's blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

Slice Winner
02-02-2012, 02:45 PM
Lol at Djokovic fans who can't bear that Nole doesn't have a winning H2H against Duck.
It doesn't mean Duck is a better player (he's not), but that a way past prime Duck can have a winning H2H against Nole certainly means you should think twice about writing off Fed's slam competitors.
Let's not forget Safin and Hewitt, for example, had a winning H2H against Sampras. (Safin beat Nole the only two times they played - once when Nole was a kid in 2005, the other time famously at Wim 08.)

Sure competition is better now, but mainly in consistency. It's not like guys 5-10 years ago didn't know how to hit a tennis ball.
We could argue whether peak Nalbandian > peak Djokovic (or Nadal or Murray), but the fact is that peak Nalbandian didn't show up year round. That's the big difference - Djokovic Nadal and Murray are extremely consistent.

IMO, the competition in the early 2000s was not weaker in tennis level, but in consistency. Hewitt had the consistency for a while, but Safin, Nalby, etc. were not as reliable as today's grinders.
And Feds quite often played these guys when they were on fire (otherwise they wouldn't have made the final).

Let the flaming commence.

fsoica
02-02-2012, 04:02 PM
wilander...moronish pal...if fed plays better now than in 2004-2007 you need a head check

arm
02-02-2012, 04:04 PM
[B]Lol at Djokovic fans who can't bear that Nole doesn't have a winning H2H against Duck.


:rolls: I couldn't care less. :sport: There are fans who do? :scratch:

LawrenceOfTennis
02-02-2012, 04:06 PM
Thing is, Federer said last year that his 2011 level is better than 2005. I will link that interview if find it.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-02-2012, 04:09 PM
Well, Wilander is RIGHT about the following:

- The standard of the top players being higher than ever before.
- Top players these days being far better than in his own time.
- Top players generally getting better and better.

What a load of bullshit. Standard of top players is being higher than ever before? Are you sane? I doubt it. Well, if you are a top 4 fangirl, that explains.

luie
02-02-2012, 04:13 PM
Better than ever? Agassi is more accurate regarding this subject:

"At 29, the wear and tear he has on his body is probably a third more than I had, considerably more, so for him to be injury-free and to get out there at 29 and look like he’s at his best is remarkable."

Personally I would regard Agassi comments over
Matt's , Agassi played high level tennis until
35.
Wilander was done and dusted after 25 the historic
Age for physical decline in most tennis players.

Pirata.
02-02-2012, 05:01 PM
Ferrer isn't as good a player but I'd argue he's more consistent than Murray. Murray has some really freak losses sometimes--the famous Young-Bogomolov double last year, for example.

MaxPower
02-02-2012, 05:08 PM
Wilander said this right after the USO.

After the USO Federer showed amazing form and pretty much won everything including cleaning the house in WTF vs the top8.

So in that context he was clearly onto something right then and there. Federer had some serious game and should have beaten Djokovic and if the replayed that very match 10 times Federer would probably have won 7-8 of them.

Tbh even in this AO did Federer really look bad? He pretty much cruised to Nadal. Even vs Nadal he didn't look as bad as he's done in some past years despite the horrible matchup and his mental demons.

So while Fed might not be faster/stronger it's pretty clear that he has developed other parts of his game. With his age in consideration I think you could argue that he is better than ever

rocketassist
02-02-2012, 05:10 PM
feds two sets vs djokovic at us open could easily be his best. he was insanely good vs one of the toughest hes ever faced. I mean you can say yeah but when he was younger he would've moved better, but not only he did move incredibly well, he was arguably more lethal, more versatile and more ingenious off the ground than at his peak (when it was often enough for him to flash few of those screamers and he would win with a zero or a breadstick vs half-players such as roddick or hewitt)- but in the end its just one of those things that cant be said definitely.

This is what happens when a country suddenly gets a slam champ and new superstar out of nowhere- its people suddenly think they are tennis experts.

jcempire
02-02-2012, 05:27 PM
What a idiot

Fed way off his best..
maybe like 50% of his prime

100% Roger Federer would easily beat Djoker 6-3 6-2 6-0

duong
02-02-2012, 05:33 PM
I don't know if it has been mentioned on MTF but last thursday before the semi between Nadal and Federer, Wilander said in the French newspaper "l'Equipe" that Fed would crush Nadal in 3 easy sets, as he played the best tennis of his life, he now knew perfectly how to play Nadal blablabla ...

He always speaks in French newspaper l'Equipe and so we've been used to his "predictions" :lol: and his analyses constantly ecstatic and constanly changing.

Wilander is now a media entertainer but contrary to McEnroe, he has chosen his way : the clownish guy.

DDrago2
02-02-2012, 05:51 PM
Federer better then ever. But so are the courts

Slice Winner
02-02-2012, 05:52 PM
:rolls: I couldn't care less. :sport: There are fans who do? :scratch:

I don't care either. See earlier in the thread for people who do.

fsoica
02-02-2012, 05:57 PM
Thing is, Federer said last year that his 2011 level is better than 2005. I will link that interview if find it.

everyone knows that most of the time fed is delusional...he cannot accept the truth and he is imagining things...but the truth is that his level declined big time...not so much as to make him unable to win slams..he will win wimby , olympics and usopen this year, mark my words...and then wilander and all the haters will collapse under the weight of their own predictions...ha ha ha...

r3d_d3v1l_
02-02-2012, 05:59 PM
Peak Federer would have trashed Nadal in the semifinal. The man got a break up in the first and second set but simply couldnīt maintain the level of consistency and Nadal took advantage of that.

Thatīs the main difference between JesusFed and Olderer. You see miracles throughout the match with the first and only some gimplses with the second.

duong
02-02-2012, 06:15 PM
everyone knows that most of the time fed is delusional...he cannot accept the truth and he is imagining things.

no it's not that : it's just that "positive attitude" is Fed's way to deal mentally with tennis. It's a major point to be able to understand Fed.

He's not a journalist, his job is not analyzing, not even entertaining like Wilander, it's doing, playing tennis.

He doesn't have to "tell the truth", only to "believe in his truth".

Has done that for long (remember that he used to work with a psychologist when he was young), and it has been a major success for him, including in the way he deals with defeats.

duong
02-02-2012, 06:18 PM
Peak Federer would have trashed Nadal in the semifinal. The man got a break up in the first and second set but simply couldnīt maintain the level of consistency and Nadal took advantage of that.

Thatīs the main difference between JesusFed and Olderer. You see miracles throughout the match with the first and only some gimplses with the second.

I think Peak Fed would have won, but anyway the conditions in their semi were very slow : cool temperature + plexicushion. All good for Nadal. People speak about Fed's tactics but not about Nadal's : in the beginning Fed played a lot to his backhand but then Nadal moved to his right a little bit to play more those shots with his forehand ... and Fed doesn't cross his shots as much as a Davydenko for instance.

Myrre
02-02-2012, 06:54 PM
http://www.twistappel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/full-retard.gif

Roamed
02-02-2012, 09:00 PM
Wilander stupider than ever.. But so are his rivals

Mjau!
02-03-2012, 02:53 AM
Wilander said Federer moves so much better now... :facepalm:

Sri
02-03-2012, 02:58 AM
Wilander said Federer moves so much better now... :facepalm:
..in the early ‘90s, Mats Wilander tested positive, along with Karel Novacek, for cocaine, adding Wilander’s seven Grand Slam titles to the legacy of “the coke generation.”.. From: http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/10/short-history-drugs-tennis/

Proof that cocaine usage causes lasting damage to the human brain!

TennisGrandSlam
02-03-2012, 03:31 AM
Borg and Edberg are better than Wilander :devil::devil:

Fedfanforever
02-03-2012, 03:32 AM
Wilander stupider than ever.. But so are his rivals
:superlol::superlol::superlol:

TennisGrandSlam
02-03-2012, 03:36 AM
Wilander > Federer.

He's just being modest.

Yes, Federer never won AO-RG-USO in the same year. :devil:

So, all men except Rod Laver are not greater than Wilander.

Wilander says, "Lendl, you are not the King of Hardcourt and Clay, because you never won AO-RG-USO in the same year."

Sri
02-03-2012, 03:36 AM
Borg and Edberg are better than Wilander :devil::devil:
Of course they are.

Wilander is a disgruntled and disgraced, cocaine abusing drug cheat.

BigJohn
02-03-2012, 03:39 AM
Someone bitter started a thread quoting someone envious and confused.

Evitman
02-03-2012, 04:54 AM
Why doesn't Wilander shut his mouth? The guy by far the most terrible and biased tennis commentator ever.

tektonac
02-03-2012, 06:03 AM
wilander just saying the way it is :shrug: and then jmac, and then pat cash.

hipolymer
02-03-2012, 06:06 AM
Wilander is comical in a bitter sort of way.

Vida
02-03-2012, 12:18 PM
fed certainly had his peak like moments last year and there is plenty of material to think how he 'improved' as a player overall, irregardless of the fact that one or two facets of his game have deteriorated over time have and have led to decreased consistency, which is the obvious truth.

generally, if you dont 'improve' you would've scored worse results even if you dont regress, simply by the fact other players are improving, in any sport, hell, in life. ask federer, or better ask annacone, whos been working with fed on many things to either compensate for lack of movement (which, again, is obvious), and adapt to competition, mostly nadal whom fed always had problems with.

in the end, thats probably the point wilander was trying to convey, giving fed the credit for improving in different, tougher conditions.

duong
02-03-2012, 12:25 PM
fed certainly had his peak like moments last year and there is plenty of material to think how he 'improved' as a player overall, irregardless of the fact that one or two facets of his game have deteriorated over time have and have led to decreased consistency, which is the obvious truth.

generally, if you dont 'improve' you would've scored worse results even if you dont regress, simply by the fact other players are improving, in any sport, hell, in life. ask federer, or better ask annacone, whos been working with fed on many things to either compensate for lack of movement (which, again, is obvious), and adapt to competition, mostly nadal whom fed always had problems with.

in the end, thats probably the point wilander was trying to convey, giving fed the credit for improving in different, tougher conditions.

I understand your points, but they are far too argumented for Wilander's talkings : he speaks in a few words with a lot of ecstasy, and doesn't aim for relevant analysis.

Moreover his personal feelings interfere a lot with his opinions : he has a love/hatred relationship with Federer, and clearly has disliked Djokovic for long.

By the way, I like the points which Tignor did about how American commentators (including Gilbert and McEnroe) try to attract audience, and a comparison with Australian ones :

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/talking-tennis.html

It seems that Wilander was inspired by this way of dealing with sport commentating.

Vida
02-03-2012, 12:46 PM
I understand your points, but they are far too argumented for Wilander's talkings : he speaks in a few words with a lot of ecstasy, and doesn't aim for relevant analysis.

Moreover his personal feelings interfere a lot with his opinions : he has a love/hatred relationship with Federer, and clearly has disliked Djokovic for long.

By the way, I like the points which Tignor did about how American commentators (including Gilbert and McEnroe) try to attract audience, and a comparison with Australian ones :

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/02/talking-tennis.html

It seems that Wilander was inspired by this way of dealing with sport commentating.

to me he looks like he's aiming at taking full advantage of being in position to voice his opinions boosting his vanity of course, so sure he'll come out as too opinionated cretin. I watched one of his shows recently, when he said like its soooo important for grand slam countries to have slam champions of their own. just how he said it turned so moronic to me I was left desiring to throw something at my tv. so yea he'll take few points (which can be good) and spin them as he likes to get some feedback.

nalbyfan
02-03-2012, 02:04 PM
Wilander stupider than ever.. But so are his rivals

Yes, this Wilander is a douche.
It's obvious that goat cheese is done basically, only this dear Mats can say the contrary

MIMIC
02-03-2012, 02:12 PM
What a idiot

Fed way off his best..
maybe like 50% of his prime

100% Roger Federer would easily beat Djoker 6-3 6-2 6-0

Like if Federer was 24 and Djokovic was 19 or something?

2006 Monte Carlo: Federer def. Djokovic 6-3, 2-6, 6-3.

:stupid: