nole and nadal took tennis to another dimension???? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

nole and nadal took tennis to another dimension????

juan27
06-09-2012, 09:43 PM
discuss.....

for me , yes , they took the tennis into another level.....

more far of the classic tennis and into in a very physicall tennis and with very long rallys like robots.

I miss a lot the kind of tennis of sampras , agassi , edberg or the best roger

abraxas21
06-09-2012, 09:44 PM
Another dimension of mugginess, yes.

156mphserve
06-09-2012, 09:57 PM
only because of the slow ass courts

Madrid proved it

TennisOnWood
06-09-2012, 09:58 PM
Sure, with no young players and no competition from players from their generations

RNW
06-09-2012, 10:00 PM
discuss.....

for me , yes , they took the tennis into another level.....

more far of the classic tennis and into in a very physicall tennis and with very long rallys like robots.

I miss a lot the kind of tennis of sampras , agassi , edberg or the best roger

Yes, but there are reasons for that. A short list:

First: Court homogenization. Too slow courts.
Even Paris-Bercy and Wimbledon are relatively slow nowadays.

Second: Balls. Heavy balls, not so fast as in years before.

Third: Athletisism. Both are fantastic athletes.

Fourth: Fitness & condition. They can play for 4 or 5 hours like Murray, Wawrinka or other players. The new generation is in general more fit.

Fifth: Defense. Defensive shots, passing shots, returns.
They can do all those shots so well that the offensive player won't have much success and can't play his tennis for more than 2 sets.

Sixth: Best of five sets.
Everything is different with Best-of-three sets.


So, both are incredible.
Fantastic tennis players.
Fantastic in defensive, the two best players of all time in terms of defense.


But with Best-of-3 on a fast hard court (or grass court) everything could be different.

Or Blue Clay Court.

TigerTim
06-09-2012, 10:00 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif

the 4th dimension eh?

juan27
06-09-2012, 10:01 PM
maybe it`s true that slow courts is a very important point for this new kind of tennis , the tennis in the future will be like this???? run and very long rallys from the baseline without beatiful points or technique???

I hope no

juan77
06-09-2012, 10:02 PM
Yes, they have. The 6 hour final at AO was such a treat. Let us hope they treat us to an 8 hour gladiatorial battle at RG.

Corey Feldman
06-09-2012, 10:04 PM
yah, another dimension of boredom

SerialKillerToBe
06-09-2012, 10:06 PM
I much prefer classic tennis a la: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_TW5L8bHkk

Such great form on that serve. :worship:

juan27
06-09-2012, 10:08 PM
after the Australain open 2012 and after 6 hours they still running like animals , for me yes....I mean djokovic after battle 5 hours with murray keep running very very good with nadal in a match of 6 hours....that physicall level was never existed in the past

TigerTim
06-09-2012, 10:17 PM
I much prefer classic tennis a la: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_TW5L8bHkk

Such great form on that serve. :worship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf4wrrpzdYc&feature=related

more like this ;)

EDIT: can I just say I much more I prefer the camera work here to todays matches.

JurajCrane
06-09-2012, 10:29 PM
yah, another dimension of boredom

T H I S

Fireballer
06-09-2012, 10:46 PM
maybe it`s true that slow courts is a very important point for this new kind of tennis , the tennis in the future will be like this???? run and very long rallys from the baseline without beatiful points or technique???

I hope no

stop posting you mug.No technique....you Fedtards are the most stupid beings on this planet

Johnny Groove
06-09-2012, 10:49 PM
Just another hater thread :zzz:

Looner
06-09-2012, 10:50 PM
They've added another dimension to my watching of tennis -- the :zzz: that is.

noddzy
06-09-2012, 10:52 PM
They definitely added to the 4th (time) dimension, playing 6-7 hour matches in the finals.

GOAT = Fed
06-09-2012, 11:08 PM
They've definitely taken defensive tennis to another dimension and have set the standard for defensive tennis.

In terms of attacking tennis though, I'm not sure. Djokovic is not an all out defensive player, but his primary weapon is his defense so he hasn't revolutionised offensive tennis as much as he has to defensive tennis. Rafa, well he hardly plays attacking tennis, so he hasn't done much to it in that regard.

Jimnik
06-09-2012, 11:26 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif

the 4th dimension eh?
:worship:

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 12:33 AM
maybe it`s true that slow courts is a very important point for this new kind of tennis , the tennis in the future will be like this???? run and very long rallys from the baseline without beatiful points or technique???

I hope no

You're one of the biggest mugs here and just proved that with your random posts that you don't have any idea about tennis. If you had even a little bit, you would know that these two players have huge amounts of skills and technique. Stop embarrassing yourself amigo.

AntiTennis
06-10-2012, 12:43 AM
No :facepalm:

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 01:06 AM
They, with the aid of the slow courts, have turned it into whoever's the sternest physical defensive brick wall will win the slams. This SHOULD happen on a clay court. No complaints. But it's happening at every other slam. Work out why, doesn't take Einstein.

It's a sport of defence >>>> attack now. At least football doesn't allow this.

Matt01
06-10-2012, 01:17 AM
stop posting you mug.No technique....you Fedtards are the most stupid beings on this planet

Just another hater thread :zzz:


Excellent posts.

Looner
06-10-2012, 01:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf4wrrpzdYc&feature=related

more like this ;)

EDIT: can I just say I much more I prefer the camera work here to todays matches.

What a gem of a post. The haters of proper tennis (which there are quite a few of in this thread) can continue rolling in the dirt and defending their idols of boredom :zzz:.

Topspindoctor
06-10-2012, 01:50 AM
Well, I dunno know if they took it to next dimension, but their slam finals sure beat Olderer double bageling Hewitt in slam final and needing 50 aces to beat Rodmug.

leng jai
06-10-2012, 01:57 AM
Rafito certainly uses the more dimensions of the sky.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 01:57 AM
They, with the aid of the slow courts, have turned it into whoever's the sternest physical defensive brick wall will win the slams. This SHOULD happen on a clay court. No complaints. But it's happening at every other slam. Work out why, doesn't take Einstein.

It's a sport of defence >>>> attack now. At least football doesn't allow this.

You probably missed Chelsea and Inter eliminating the best attacking juggernaut of the XXI century through mug defensive tactics/parking the bus in their own area.

Defensive football does succeed, otherwise Barca would be on 4 consecutive Champions Leagues, not 2 in 4 years.

In tennis, with the right surfaces, attack has an edge over defense. In football, defensive tactics prevail too often regardless of conditions, even against the unparalleled genius of Messi, Xavi and Iniesta.

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 02:02 AM
You probably missed Chelsea and Inter eliminating the best attacking juggernaut of the XXI century through mug defensive tactics/parking the bus in their own area.

Defensive football does succeed, otherwise Barca would be on 4 consecutive Champions Leagues, not 2 in 4 years.

In tennis, with the right surfaces, attack has an edge over defense. In football, defensive tactics prevail too often regardless of conditions, even against the unparalleled genius of Messi, Xavi and Iniesta.

The bold words are the big words.

BauerAlmeida
06-10-2012, 02:05 AM
You probably missed Chelsea and Inter eliminating the best attacking juggernaut of the XXI century through mug defensive tactics/parking the bus in their own area.

Defensive football does succeed, otherwise Barca would be on 4 consecutive Champions Leagues, not 2 in 4 years.

In tennis, with the right surfaces, attack has an edge over defense. In football, defensive tactics prevail too often regardless of conditions, even against the unparalleled genius of Messi, Xavi and Iniesta.

Yeah.

It sucks that teams like Chelsea and Inter won the CL defeating Barca. But Chelsea was pretty lucky, Messi missed a penalty, hit a ball in the post and in the first match Busquets missed and incredible shot.

leng jai
06-10-2012, 02:07 AM
Defensive teams in football have nothing to do with a change in surface or conditions. It's more like a combination of luck, choking and poor execution. Of course a solid defense can work as well but Barca didn't lose to Chelsea due to that. The problem with tennis is that conditions have changed so much that it makes attacking tennis far less effective/feasible than it was previously.

Looner
06-10-2012, 02:11 AM
Yup, what Barcelona has proven is that a good attack can be almost unbeatable in sports. What tennis has proven is that it's a sport where an amazing attack can be made insignificant when the desire for money and media hype is present.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 02:13 AM
The bold words are the big words.

True. But at least the situation is controllable in tennis. All that needs to be done is change conditions for attacking tennis to be more rewarded. In football, cowardly defensive tactics can succeed regardless of conditions.

Chelsea winning the Champions League over the two best attacking teams in Europe - Barca and Bayern - is a testament to that.

Yeah.

It sucks that teams like Chelsea and Inter won the CL defeating Barca. But Chelsea was pretty lucky, Messi missed a penalty, hit a ball in the post and in the first match Busquets missed and incredible shot.

Indeed, it sucks big time. And yeah, Chelsea were incredibly lucky, I still can't believe it :sad:

I'm not without bias as I've always been a huge Barca supporter, but Guardiola's team is the best thing to happen to football in a long time. A true breath of fresh air in a time where defensive tactics are taking over the game like never before.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 02:17 AM
Yup, what Barcelona has proven is that a good attack can be almost unbeatable in sports. What tennis has proven is that it's a sport where an amazing attack can be made insignificant when the desire for money and media hype is present.

Well, almost. Super defensive teams like Inter and Chelsea managed to put a blemish in Pep's Barca's record. It's sad for the game that teams with such lack of artistry managed to beat a team containing genuises like Messi, Xavi and Iniesta :sad:

True about the second part. Defense is too important these days in tennis. I loved the Madrid tournament, especially watching Berdych play, seeing his brand of effortless power play succeed so naturally was such a huge breath of fresh air. Too bad 10 hour grindathons are better for business :O

I'm not against those, just wish there was more variety.

leng jai
06-10-2012, 02:17 AM
Irrelevant point. Cowardly defensive tennis can succeed regardless of conditions as well. They succeed far more often now due to the current state of the game.

Of Barca won 98% of their matches playing attacking football. The GOAT missing a penalty has nothing to do with amazing defense. Chelsea winning isn't a testament to your point - it's a testament to their immense luck and incredible heart.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 02:23 AM
Look at the only super fast court tournament we had recently in Madrid. Federer, Berdych, Del Potro and Tipsy were the last four, all attacking players in their own way and great shotmakers. And when did pushers ever succeed/thrive in super fast conditions? Ideally, there'd be tournaments for all kinds of players in the tour, equal share of fast, medium and slow conditions.

Fair enough about Messi's missed penalty, I guess. Barca's wastefulness is to blame for the final outcome, but if the sport didn't reward defensive tactics, Chelsea wouldn't even have been in it in the first place; the difference in talent between both sides is just colossal.

leng jai
06-10-2012, 02:30 AM
Thats exactly the point. Madrid was a shit court but at least it rewarded attacking play. I never said pushers would thrive in fast conditions - I just said it was possible for them to win due to choking/luck/bad play from the opponent. Same as how Barca managed to lose against Chelsea. The end of the day is that there should be tournaments of all speeds, which is what you said.

Chelsea were crap in the domestic league. The reason they made the CL final was due to the perk of the format, luck, heart and some brief moments of brilliance. They weren't there because of some colossal defensive effort made possible by the conditions.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 02:36 AM
I mostly agree. All I was saying is that football is worse than tennis in this regard, because in tennis you can change conditions in order to benefit attacking players. After all, those players once ruled tennis pretty comfortably. In football, there's nothing you can do to stop defensive teams from having their fair share of success.

In tennis, all it takes is to speed up the surfaces and the weaponless pushers will fall down the rankings rather quickly and players with big weapons will thrive. But I do get your point: the situation in tennis is worse because it was orchestrated for profits, while in football it's just 'natural'.

Mr. Oracle
06-10-2012, 02:38 AM
Like star trek where spock was awesome with that gotee!

Pirata.
06-10-2012, 04:31 AM
Mark Lenders would be a Barca fan :lol:

Mjau!
06-10-2012, 04:47 AM
for me , yes , they took the tennis into another level.....

more far of the classic tennis and into in a very physicall tennis and with very long rallys like robots.

after the Australain open 2012 and after 6 hours they still running like animals , for me yes....I mean djokovic after battle 5 hours with murray keep running very very good with nadal in a match of 6 hours....that physicall level was never existed in the past

Their incredible athleticism wobbles the mind. :eek:

Mjau!
06-10-2012, 04:49 AM
Barcelona have the best high defense (pressing game) in the sport.

born_on_clay
06-10-2012, 02:05 PM
yes, thay have :D

Poirot123
06-10-2012, 02:09 PM
These two have not taken tennis to another dimension. They are just the ultimate grinders. Very very fit and very very consistent ground strokes which are the key attributes for tennis in slow conditions. That's it. They don't play exceptional shots or the pure tennis of we know who.

buzz
06-10-2012, 02:13 PM
In my opinion,

Nadal: Took the heavy topspin forehand to a whole new level and then another one... Also movement and intensity to a new level a little better than Hewitt Federer at their peak in that respect.

Djokovic: For movement reached Nadals level. (he is a more complete player than Nadal but didn't reached a unprecedented level in that regard)

bluesoleil
06-10-2012, 02:32 PM
Mark Lenders would be a Barca fan :lol:

The real Mark Lenders wouldn't,
because...
http://i47.tinypic.com/15ogx34.jpg

juan27
06-10-2012, 02:58 PM
Look at the only super fast court tournament we had recently in Madrid. Federer, Berdych, Del Potro and Tipsy were the last four, all attacking players in their own way and great shotmakers. And when did pushers ever succeed/thrive in super fast conditions? Ideally, there'd be tournaments for all kinds of players in the tour, equal share of fast, medium and slow conditions.

Fair enough about Messi's missed penalty, I guess. Barca's wastefulness is to blame for the final outcome, but if the sport didn't reward defensive tactics, Chelsea wouldn't even have been in it in the first place; the difference in talent between both sides is just colossal.

it`s true , in the very fast tournys that kind of tennis has nothing to do....

because the technique it`s the main weapon in that surfaces

juan27
06-10-2012, 03:00 PM
You're one of the biggest mugs here and just proved that with your random posts that you don't have any idea about tennis. If you had even a little bit, you would know that these two players have huge amounts of skills and technique. Stop embarrassing yourself amigo.

jajaj a fan boy try to tell me something about tennis!!!

many experts said the same thing than me , you only are a fan boy , nothing more.

you discover the tennis in 2011 it seems......like your nick , only a fan , you must see videos of McEnroe , edberg ,sampras or agassi

philosophicalarf
06-10-2012, 03:04 PM
Barcelona have the best high defense (pressing game) in the sport.

Another sport that has basically decided to give up on dopetesting.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/le-monde-fuentes-treated-real-madrid-and-barca-9415/
" The documents, in Dr Fuentes' handwriting, allegedly detail the preparation plans for the two clubs for the 2005-2006 seasons. The plan showed that the main objective of FC Barcelona was the Champions League in May, which it won, as well as having the players peak for the World Cup. The training programs include circles and 'IG' symbols that correspond to preparation or rest periods. These are the same symbols used by Dr Fuentes in his plans for the Liberty Seguros riders, according to Le Monde. The Spanish Guardia Civil believe that these symbols correspond to anabolic steroids (circle) and Insulin Growth Factor - IGF-1 (IG). Other symbols are used in the team plans, including a rounded 'e', and a circle with a dot in it."



He's said he treated tennis players, but it all got buried so we'll never find out who.

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 03:30 PM
What we're seeing right now is definitely 'another level'- another level of just horribly dull, teeth pulling tennis.

LaFuria
06-10-2012, 03:31 PM
If this is the future of tennis, then god help us all.

bokehlicious
06-10-2012, 03:56 PM
Such a borefest on chatrier right now :yawn:

alfonsojose
06-10-2012, 04:04 PM
:zzz:

tripwires
06-10-2012, 04:16 PM
Yeah another dimension of shit judging from the RG final. Even last year's final was better in quality.

Dmitry Verdasco
06-10-2012, 04:18 PM
I agree with almost everything said in the last few posts. :worship:

Poirot123
06-10-2012, 04:33 PM
Yeah another dimension of shit judging from the RG final. Even last year's final was better in quality.

To be fair, last year's final was played in different conditions. The balls were a lot faster for starters. Had they been the same this year, Djokovic would probably be doing a lot better.

tripwires
06-10-2012, 04:39 PM
To be fair, last year's final was played in different conditions. The balls were a lot faster for starters. Had they been the same this year, Djokovic would probably be doing a lot better.

True. I should clarify though - I hate Fedal matches. ;)

GOAT = Fed
06-10-2012, 04:41 PM
Judging by todays match they have taken a dimension backwards as opposed forwards.

Corey Feldman
06-10-2012, 04:41 PM
No Federer, No party

GOAT = Fed
06-10-2012, 04:43 PM
No Federer, No party

The time will come soon when Federer sweeps USO and Wimberz.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 04:50 PM
I'm a Fedtard and I'm so butthurted thread :yawn:

Jamoz
06-10-2012, 04:51 PM
Close encounters of the boring kind :p

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 04:52 PM
No Federer, No party

Federer is that guy who consistently has been ***** 'prison style'in this court by Rafa?

What good times those were! :rolleyes:

GOAT = Fed
06-10-2012, 04:54 PM
Federer is that guy who consistently has been ***** 'prison style'in this court by Rafa?

What good times those were! :rolleyes:

Only once was he ever spanked at RG. All the other matches have been good and pretty tight.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 04:56 PM
Only once was he ever spanked at RG. All the other matches have been good and pretty tight.

A boy spanking an alleged GOAT in his peak is embarrassing to watch IMO, mate.

Johnny Groove
06-10-2012, 05:00 PM
At least when it is Fedal in the RG F, there is some drama, and the crowd is into it and Fed normally gets a set.

This match today is just one way traffic.

Looner
06-10-2012, 05:02 PM
A boy spanking an alleged GOAT in his peak is embarrassing to watch IMO, mate.

What's embarrassing is you demonstrating your total lack of intelligence time and again and being proud of it.

Burrow
06-10-2012, 05:04 PM
I'm a Fedtard and I'm so butthurted thread :yawn:

Most Federer supporters support him because of the style of tennis he plays. They don't support the style of tennis he plays because of their admiration for him.

That's the difference between those who admire Federer and those who admire Djokovic and Nadal.

Those are the real fans of the sport.

I enjoy watching tennis for what it traditionally became, a few decades ago. Many varying playing surfaces encouraged varying styles of play. This meant that the number 1 player would be the one who could adapt best over all surfaces and often the man with the most complete game.

I'm sure many people miss the days where it was like watching two different sports in as many weeks. You'd have Costa and Ferrero in the final of Roland Garros and you'd know for a fact that they wouldn't have a hope at Wimbledon. Then it'd be an interesting contest to see who could master the hardcourts, no one could say for certain who would come out on top. Now with homogenisation, we can expect the same players late in each tournament. These players are excellent at what they do, playing consistent tennis based on athleticism, but they are so good at what they do because they're not encouraged to do anything else. They are in constant rhythm. I find it mundane. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but I'd like to see other aspects of what made the sport interesting and unique.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 05:11 PM
Most Federer supporters support him because of the style of tennis he plays. They don't support the style of tennis he plays because of their admiration for him.

That's the difference between those who admire Federer and those who admire Djokovic and Nadal.

Those are the real fans of the sport.

I enjoy watching tennis for what it traditionally became, a few decades ago. Many varying playing surfaces encouraged varying styles of play. This meant that the number 1 player would be the one who could adapt best over all surfaces and often the man with the most complete game.

I'm sure many people miss the days where it was like watching two different sports in as many weeks. You'd have Costa and Ferrero in the final of Roland Garros and you'd know for a fact that they wouldn't have a hope at Wimbledon. Then it'd be an interesting contest to see who could master the hardcourts, no one could say for certain who would come out on top. Now with homogenisation, we can expect the same players late in each tournament. These players are excellent at what they do, playing consistent tennis based on athleticism, but they are so good at what they do because they're not encouraged to do anything else. They are in constant rhythm. I find it mundane. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but I'd like to see other aspects of what made the sport interesting and unique.

bla, bla, bla

I enjoy the effort, determination, desire to excel and overcome yourself. About that is the sport. That motivates me and is something that I can use in mi life. What type of credit has to be blessed with a natural talent? You hero had that kind of talent and he squandered all his career. That is despicable and truly is bad for the sport.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 05:15 PM
What's embarrassing is you demonstrating your total lack of intelligence time and again and being proud of it.

Believe me, you're not the one to talk about intelligence here :angel:

BigJohn
06-10-2012, 05:16 PM
http://blogs.theage.com.au/screenplay/Pong%20screenshot.jpg

That dimension was created in 1972...

Quadruple Tree
06-10-2012, 05:16 PM
bla, bla, bla

I enjoy the effort, determination, desire to excel and overcome yourself. About that is the sport. That motivates me and is something that I can use in mi life. What type of credit has to be blessed with a natural talent? You hero had that kind of talent and he squandered all his career. That is despicable and is bad for the sport.

You heard it here first guys. Federer squandered his talent by winning ONLY 16 Slams, 20 TMSs/1000 Series, and 7 TMCs/WTFs; being #1 for over 4 straight years; setting a record for most consecutive Slam finals, SFs, and QFs. Just when I think the level of tardation can't get any lower on here, someone comes along to prove me wrong.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 05:22 PM
You heard it here first guys. Federer squandered his talent by winning ONLY 16 Slams, 20 TMSs/1000 Series, and 7 TMCs/WTFs; being #1 for over 4 straight years; setting a record for most consecutive Slam finals, SFs, and QFs. Just when I think the level of tardation can't get any lower on here, someone comes along to prove me wrong.

Yeah, and Nadal will win quite possibly as many GS without talent at all. If you put a racket in the hands of Swacheneger sure he would have done even better. Sure, mate.

In fact both have won so much because they have a right balance of talent and effort. Deny Rafa's talent is so stupid as deny Roger's effort.

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 05:57 PM
Most Federer supporters support him because of the style of tennis he plays. They don't support the style of tennis he plays because of their admiration for him.

That's the difference between those who admire Federer and those who admire Djokovic and Nadal.

Those are the real fans of the sport.

I enjoy watching tennis for what it traditionally became, a few decades ago. Many varying playing surfaces encouraged varying styles of play. This meant that the number 1 player would be the one who could adapt best over all surfaces and often the man with the most complete game.

I'm sure many people miss the days where it was like watching two different sports in as many weeks. You'd have Costa and Ferrero in the final of Roland Garros and you'd know for a fact that they wouldn't have a hope at Wimbledon. Then it'd be an interesting contest to see who could master the hardcourts, no one could say for certain who would come out on top. Now with homogenisation, we can expect the same players late in each tournament. These players are excellent at what they do, playing consistent tennis based on athleticism, but they are so good at what they do because they're not encouraged to do anything else. They are in constant rhythm. I find it mundane. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but I'd like to see other aspects of what made the sport interesting and unique.

Brilliant post.

munZe konZa
06-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Most Federer supporters support him because of the style of tennis he plays. They don't support the style of tennis he plays because of their admiration for him.

That's the difference between those who admire Federer and those who admire Djokovic and Nadal.

Those are the real fans of the sport.

I enjoy watching tennis for what it traditionally became, a few decades ago. Many varying playing surfaces encouraged varying styles of play. This meant that the number 1 player would be the one who could adapt best over all surfaces and often the man with the most complete game.

I'm sure many people miss the days where it was like watching two different sports in as many weeks. You'd have Costa and Ferrero in the final of Roland Garros and you'd know for a fact that they wouldn't have a hope at Wimbledon. Then it'd be an interesting contest to see who could master the hardcourts, no one could say for certain who would come out on top. Now with homogenisation, we can expect the same players late in each tournament. These players are excellent at what they do, playing consistent tennis based on athleticism, but they are so good at what they do because they're not encouraged to do anything else. They are in constant rhythm. I find it mundane. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but I'd like to see other aspects of what made the sport interesting and unique.

Most Federer fans watch him only because of carnal desires and majority were not his fans before 2003. When they want to watch tennis and everything , I guess they watch today's match.

Burrow
06-10-2012, 06:13 PM
bla, bla, bla

I enjoy the effort, determination, desire to excel and overcome yourself. About that is the sport. That motivates me and is something that I can use in mi life. What type of credit has to be blessed with a natural talent? You hero had that kind of talent and he squandered all his career. That is despicable and truly is bad for the sport.

This seems to be a recurring trend of Djokovic and Nadal lovers. This inability to discuss and have a civil conversation. Why join a message board if you're against discussing and analysing the sport in depth?

I genuinely dislike generalising, but the following also seems to be a recurring trend; those who follow Djokovic and Nadal don't seem to want anything other than endless rallies, weak serving and lack of variation. It's the Federer fans who don't discredit what these two men are doing but only encourage the other aspects of tennis which we once had. That's why I have more time for the latter.

Brilliant post.

Thanks. :)

Houstonko
06-10-2012, 06:14 PM
Federer is the one who took tennis to new dimension, hence he enjoy the rewards by turning his generation of players into mugs. Today Djoker and Nadal is clay courter, unfortunately works in all surfaces. Players like Tsonga & Berdych are today's grass and hard courter. Both players who don't need a serve to stay on top tells a lot. They refined tennis? Nah, clay tactics are old tennis.

Garson007
06-10-2012, 06:16 PM
Oh wow. Burrow is back?

Looner
06-10-2012, 06:45 PM
Most Federer supporters support him because of the style of tennis he plays. They don't support the style of tennis he plays because of their admiration for him.

That's the difference between those who admire Federer and those who admire Djokovic and Nadal.

Those are the real fans of the sport.

I enjoy watching tennis for what it traditionally became, a few decades ago. Many varying playing surfaces encouraged varying styles of play. This meant that the number 1 player would be the one who could adapt best over all surfaces and often the man with the most complete game.

I'm sure many people miss the days where it was like watching two different sports in as many weeks. You'd have Costa and Ferrero in the final of Roland Garros and you'd know for a fact that they wouldn't have a hope at Wimbledon. Then it'd be an interesting contest to see who could master the hardcourts, no one could say for certain who would come out on top. Now with homogenisation, we can expect the same players late in each tournament. These players are excellent at what they do, playing consistent tennis based on athleticism, but they are so good at what they do because they're not encouraged to do anything else. They are in constant rhythm. I find it mundane. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but I'd like to see other aspects of what made the sport interesting and unique.

Sigged.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 07:08 PM
This seems to be a recurring trend of Djokovic and Nadal lovers. This inability to discuss and have a civil conversation. Why join a message board if you're against discussing and analysing the sport in depth?

I genuinely dislike generalising, but the following also seems to be a recurring trend; those who follow Djokovic and Nadal don't seem to want anything other than endless rallies, weak serving and lack of variation. It's the Federer fans who don't discredit what these two men are doing but only encourage the other aspects of tennis which we once had. That's why I have more time for the latter.

Thanks. :)

What's the problem, mate? I have not insulted you, I just have contradicted you in a polite way. Do you think you're a forum star to which anyone can talk back or something?

We know that Rafa is a disgrace according some haters like you. But someone so bad has dominated your god of variety badly. Take it on as a man and stop of mourning. And yes, I prefer a player who knows how to build points, which is brilliant tactically than a server bot or a brainless ball basher.

Problem with Federer fans is you are unable to respect the tastes of others, perhaps because you believe the world of tennis revolves around your god but he didn't invent tennis, the sooner you understand this the better.

Orka_n
06-10-2012, 07:13 PM
The Snoozefest Dimension, sure

Matt01
06-10-2012, 07:17 PM
I genuinely dislike generalising, but the following also seems to be a recurring trend; those who follow Djokovic and Nadal don't seem to want anything other than endless rallies, weak serving and lack of variation. It's the Federer fans who don't discredit what these two men are doing but only encourage the other aspects of tennis which we once had. )


Cool story, bro.

heya
06-10-2012, 07:30 PM
At least when it is Fedal in the RG F, there is some drama, and the crowd is into it and Fed normally gets a set.

This match today is just one way traffic.

:o arrogance earned free candy for fed and you:wavey:

Nr 1 Fan
06-10-2012, 07:31 PM
Yes they did.

The main reason why these two are so much better than all the rest is of course the mental issue: they sure are the toughest competitors in the game. But the reason why they are so strong mentally is of course because of their physical superority: they know that they can outlast their opponents, they are always ready to grind for 5 long sets and they just won't go away. This also why their most recent matches were always so close: they both have incredible stamina and I although the difference is very small now I feel like part of Djokovic' rise the last Two years is largely due to him closing the physical gap with Rafa and in the process, while he felt he was getting tougher and stonger, becoming mentally stronger and more confident. He is know the only player Rafa can't outlast: he is saying:" I am ready to fight and hit through You, no matter how lang it takes" cause he is up to the task. This breaking of Rafa's physical dominance has also affected his confidence and was IMO the key issue in Djokovic' rise.

I even think he may have surpassed Nadal in the physical department: last year in USO final, Rafa was dead in his feet in the fourth set, while Djokovic had back issues but didn't seem tired. This year Nole won their 6hour classic at the AO, after having already played grueling 5hour match against Murray only two todays earlier.

They have taken tennis intoo the dimension where force, stamina, endurance (the physical department) has become the most important part of the game. Also mentally you have to be very strong to compete nowadays. Whereas, in the early days it was mostly talent, touch and technique that won matches.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-10-2012, 07:33 PM
hate to break it to you but moonballing isnt exactly world class talent

wozniacki would be proud today

nole played better of the 2

Myrre
06-10-2012, 07:45 PM
Science took Nole and Nadal to another dimension.

Matt01
06-10-2012, 07:48 PM
hate to break it to you but moonballing isnt exactly world class talent


I couldn't watch the whole RG final today :sad: but from what I've seen, there hasn't been a single moonball.

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 07:50 PM
Burrow must be one of the oldest trolls in MTF. get back to the hole you came from. :wavey:

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 07:51 PM
I couldn't watch the whole RG final today :sad: but from what I've seen, there hasn't been a single moonball.

Posters are mistaking a moonball for a lob - :o

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 07:54 PM
Burrow must be one of the oldest trolls in MTF. get back to the hole you came from. :wavey:

Why he must get back? He is just in the right place for a troll as you, he and me know :D

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 08:02 PM
Cool story, bro.

That comment is exactly why you are a clown. You have no answer to a guy who won the ACC a few years ago other than that.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-10-2012, 08:06 PM
this is how nadal and nole play

nole hits to nadals backhand

nadal has 2 options- if he has time to run around it will be offensive
if he doesnt he moonballs it back to nole


1 in 10 times nadal tries to hit a bh winner

thats all that happens

and dont forget to include
hours of time wasting
faking injuries
towelling off
warming up

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 08:07 PM
Federer forum. :zzz:

Nr 1 Fan
06-10-2012, 08:09 PM
I actually think this is a very good thread topic and a very interesting question to ask, sad to see it get ruined by some clowns.

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 08:12 PM
Federer forum. :zzz:

This has SWEET FA to do with Federer. It's about tennis as a WHOLE.

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 08:14 PM
I actually think this is a very good thread topic and a very interesting question to ask, sad to see it get ruined by some clowns.

I'll be serious for once and answer with you :). Tennis changed in 2002, not 2012. In 2002 Hewitt and Nalbandian played the Wimbledon final. Two baseliners at Wimbledon. This ends the serve volley era and heralded the era of defensive baselines/counterpunchers we have today. Nadal vs. Djokovic is a continuation of this, the two players taking tennis in this era to new heights. Defensive tennis has never been so good.

Thats my thoughts anyways :)

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:14 PM
this is how nadal and nole play

nole hits to nadals backhand

nadal has 2 options- if he has time to run around it will be offensive
if he doesnt he moonballs it back to nole


1 in 10 times nadal tries to hit a bh winner

thats all that happens

and dont forget to include
hours of time wasting
faking injuries
towelling off
warming up

Why then the GOAT is the Turkey of such a bad player since he was a teenager? :confused:

Arrogance and ineptitude, Fedtards preferred combination :o

Orka_n
06-10-2012, 08:15 PM
Federer forum. :zzz:So when people say what they think about Djokovic you want the thread removed. Why do you ever come out of Nole forum if you're this sensitive? This doesn't have anything to do with Federer btw.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:16 PM
This has SWEET FA to do with Federer. It's about tennis as a WHOLE.

Your boy is unable to win nothing in such terrible era... poor Murraytard :D

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 08:17 PM
Your boy is unable to win nothing in such terrible era... poor Murraytard :D

I'm not a fucking tard. A tard is someone who is deluded about their fave.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-10-2012, 08:19 PM
Why then the GOAT is the Turkey of such a bad player since he was a teenager? :confused:

Arrogance and ineptitude, Fedtards preferred combination :o

if you understood matchups you'd not even post that

1 handed backhand technique

nadal plays 1 dimensional 99% to the bh and it beats federer

but someone who isnt half the player federer is (nole) can own nadal in 3 slam finals without that backhand issue

Commander Data
06-10-2012, 08:19 PM
Yeah, the game has completely changed, it is not anymore who hits the winner but who hits the error. with the slow balls and their way of play it is an endless cycle of the same thing :worship:

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:21 PM
Yeah, the game has completely changed, it is not anymore who hits the winner but who hits the error. with the slow balls and their way of play it is an endless cycle of the same thing :worship:

How many winners your boy did over Nole last time, mate?

philosophicalarf
06-10-2012, 08:21 PM
I'll be serious for once and answer with you :). Tennis changed in 2002, not 2012

Late 90s really - that's when you can see a clear intent to start slowing things. They brought in the possibility of increasing permitted ball size (this never actually happened, but the intent was clear), and Indian Wells adopted a surface rated outright slow, the first hard court event to be rated as that.

First slam major change was the US Open slowed its court surface in 2001 (then again in 2003, then 05-07 the balls went from minimum size allowed, to maximum).

juan27
06-10-2012, 08:23 PM
I actually think this is a very good thread topic and a very interesting question to ask, sad to see it get ruined by some clowns.

yes , but for a few tards , this is a federer forum.

this is for talk about tennis , but the fan boys always say bullshits.

for me , this is very far of the tennis of sampras , agassi and more

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 08:25 PM
Late 90s really - that's when you can see a clear intent to start slowing things. They brought in the possibility of increasing permitted ball size (this never actually happened, but the intent was clear), and Indian Wells adopted a surface rated outright slow, the first hard court event to be rated as that.

First slam major change was the US Open slowed its court surface in 2001 (then again in 2003, then 05-07 the balls went from minimum size allowed, to maximum).

Switching from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion slowed the AO down.
Wimbledon changed to rye grass in 2002 but has been slowed significantly since
US Open has been slowed, but was still medium fast till the 2011 event when it was again slowed down
Roland Garros is faster than it used to be for the most part, although the weather can change the conditions

Not a lot of difference anymore

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:27 PM
if you understood matchups you'd not even post that

1 handed backhand technique

nadal plays 1 dimensional 99% to the bh and it beats federer

but someone who isnt half the player federer is (nole) can own nadal in 3 slam finals without that backhand issue

The GOAT should be capable of overcome such simple tactic, don't you think so? If is so ease to beat your god:

First, can we say that he is the GOAT? I don't think so...

Second, is so easy to beat him with so such poor maneuver, why then more players have been unable to do the same that Nadal all these years? :confused:

Third, Nadal win against many other players besides Federer. A lot more. All they have the single backhand problem?

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 08:34 PM
Late 90s really - that's when you can see a clear intent to start slowing things. They brought in the possibility of increasing permitted ball size (this never actually happened, but the intent was clear), and Indian Wells adopted a surface rated outright slow, the first hard court event to be rated as that.

First slam major change was the US Open slowed its court surface in 2001 (then again in 2003, then 05-07 the balls went from minimum size allowed, to maximum).

I agree with this also. I just used the Wimby final of 2002 as a watershed :).

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 08:37 PM
These tards want tennis to be all about the serve. :worship:

heya
06-10-2012, 08:38 PM
yeah. fed hit aces and lost to djokerdal

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 08:40 PM
These tards want tennis to be all about the serve. :worship:

no. I just want a bit of variation in slams.

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 08:40 PM
Late 90s really - that's when you can see a clear intent to start slowing things. They brought in the possibility of increasing permitted ball size (this never actually happened, but the intent was clear), and Indian Wells adopted a surface rated outright slow, the first hard court event to be rated as that.

First slam major change was the US Open slowed its court surface in 2001 (then again in 2003, then 05-07 the balls went from minimum size allowed, to maximum).

And do you know why? Let's say it and be open about it. BECAUSE VIEWERS WERE DESERTING TENNIS BORED WITH THE SERVE MUGFESTS DAY IN DAY OUT. Tennis was a boring sport back then and organizers needed to do something to stop losing spectators.

Commander Data
06-10-2012, 08:40 PM
How many winners your boy did over Nole last time, mate?

yeah. fed hit aces and lost to djokerdal

16 GS and knees still ok :worship:

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 08:41 PM
And do you know why? Let's say it and be open about it. BECAUSE VIEWERS WERE DESERTING TENNIS BORED WITH THE SERVE MUGFESTS DAY IN DAY OUT. Tennis was a boring sport back then and organizers needed to do something to stop losing spectators.

What, in 2003-2004? :lol:

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 08:42 PM
What, in 2003-2004? :lol:

It all started in the 90s. Blame Sampras.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:42 PM
These tards want tennis to be all about the serve. :worship:

It's a pity that the acefest of the late ninety repelled to the people of go to the tournaments and see tennis :sad:

Looner
06-10-2012, 08:42 PM
And do you know why? Let's say it and be open about it. BECAUSE VIEWERS WERE DESERTING TENNIS BORED WITH THE SERVE MUGFESTS DAY IN DAY OUT. Tennis was a boring sport back then and organizers needed to do something to stop losing spectators.

Nole fan do no get upset about this thread. It's mainly about Nadal and his pushing. We know Nole can play great tennis against players who do the same :inlove:. Djokovic would never have been so defensive if he had the conditions of 2000-2005. That would have been nice to see.

rocketassist
06-10-2012, 08:43 PM
It all started in the 90s. Blame Sampras.

2003-04 surfaces are incomparable to 2012's. That's nothing to with Sampras at all.

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 08:45 PM
Yep. Tennis from that era had no crowds at all :facepalm:

http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Federer-Henman.jpg

Quadruple Tree
06-10-2012, 08:45 PM
And do you know why? Let's say it and be open about it. BECAUSE VIEWERS WERE DESERTING TENNIS BORED WITH THE SERVE MUGFESTS DAY IN DAY OUT. Tennis was a boring sport back then and organizers needed to do something to stop losing spectators.

Tennis is not more popular now. You can't even see the early rounds of Slams in the US anymore unless you get The Tennis Channel, and none of the 1000 Series except for Canada and Cincy. It used to be that those were on network channels like CBS/NBC or at least the basic cable channels.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:45 PM
16 GS and knees still ok :worship:

Because he is a good tennis player. Nobody deny this. But the question is, how many winners he did over Nole the last time? And over Nadal in AO this year? His only problem are the UE?

Commander Data
06-10-2012, 08:48 PM
His only problem is the UE?

Yes.

Jamoz
06-10-2012, 08:49 PM
Yes.

That avatar! you're a one sick puppy Data! :D

Looner
06-10-2012, 08:49 PM
Because he is a good tennis player. Nobody deny this. But the question is, how many winners he did over Nole the last time? And over Nadal in AO this year? His only problem are the UE?

Lol, let me entertain you. If the surface suits King Roger, he owns his opponents. Remember 6-3, 6-0, yeah?

juan27
06-10-2012, 08:49 PM
The GOAT should be capable of overcome such simple tactic, don't you think so? If is so ease to beat your god:

First, can we say that he is the GOAT? I don't think so...

Second, is so easy to beat him with so such poor maneuver, why then more players have been unable to do the same that Nadal all these years? :confused:

Third, Nadal win against many other players besides Federer. A lot more. All they have the single backhand problem?

for me , the goat doesn`t exist.

but for be one goat , you need not only the great records and archivements , he needs the great tennis too.

federer won all his titles and records playing great quality tennis , for be the goat for me it`s necessary the great tennis and after that the records....

players like big mac had a great quality tennis but his archivements were short in comparassion with his great tennis , if he would won much , he will one of the goats for me.

federer with laver is the player that could combine the great archivements with quialuty tennis.

nole fan you wants to made the tennis a running sport and with 1 hour rallys....

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 08:51 PM
you say that crowds pack tennis today people lets see....

"About to start first men's semi final of a grand slam and there's about 100 people in the place. Absolutely shocking." Niel Harman on day of Semi's of the French Open (a tweet, check it for your self)

Ravi, Roland Garros, via text on 81111: "Travelled from to London to watch this... Can't believe the amount of empty seats... wouldn't be the same at Wimbledon."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18366030

Quadruple Tree
06-10-2012, 08:51 PM
I wish people who just want to see 2 guys run around as much as possible in 5 hours would just watch marathons instead of trying to ruin tennis with their idea of what the game should be.

TigerTim
06-10-2012, 08:53 PM
I wish people who just want to see 2 guys run around as much as possible in 5 hours would just watch marathons instead of trying to ruin tennis with their idea of what the game should be.

Marathons for the Elites only last around 2hrs to 2 1/2 hrs today. Even they are twice as fast as Nadal vs. Djokovic matches.

Commander Data
06-10-2012, 08:54 PM
That avatar! you're a one sick puppy Data! :D

;)

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:55 PM
Yes.

Show me the numbers, mate. You are good with this, or at least you brag about it.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 08:57 PM
Lol, let me entertain you. If the surface suits King Roger, he owns his opponents. Remember 6-3, 6-0, yeah?

A good player can win on his best surface. I already know that, but what is your point? What happened to Roger at Wimbledon or Australia?

Looner
06-10-2012, 08:59 PM
A good player can win on his best surface. I already know that, but what is your point?

My point is that all surfaces suit pushers and Roger does not get rewarded for his attacking style which leads to a stupid number of UEs which you claim is his weakness. The point many have made is we need variety and it's not going to happen when you're punished for being a good attacker as in the case of Federer.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 09:00 PM
My point is that all surfaces suit pushers and Roger does not get rewarded for his attacking style which leads to a stupid number of UEs which you claim is his weakness. The point many have made is we need variety and it's not going to happen when you're punished for being a good attacker as in the case of Federer.

I repeat, what happened to Roger at Wimbledon or Australia? Rafa always give a shit when USO finish, we all know that (years ago even before)

philosophicalarf
06-10-2012, 09:03 PM
And do you know why? Let's say it and be open about it. BECAUSE VIEWERS WERE DESERTING TENNIS BORED WITH THE SERVE MUGFESTS DAY IN DAY OUT. Tennis was a boring sport back then and organizers needed to do something to stop losing spectators.

I'd tend to agree with that.

As others have said though, a wider range of speeds and bounces now might be nice. Shanghai 2011 was quicker, because the organisers thought they could attract more viewing audience that way.

Bercy 2010 was also widely welcomed because of the difference. It's pretty telling why it changed for 2011 though: the players wanted tournaments in a section of the season to be similar, so Bercy and Basel had to be slowed to match WTF (and Valencia, which was already medium/slow).

Homogenization is a market pressure, so it needs the ATP to alter the structure of the season - faster (or slower!) courts must be grouped together, so they don't feel the constant pressure back towards medium speed from tournaments in adjacent weeks.

juan27
06-10-2012, 09:09 PM
I repeat, what happened to Roger at Wimbledon or Australia? Rafa always give a shit when USO finish, we all know that (years ago even before)

roger in wimbledon and australia was not in his peak anymore.

but a very important factor was the cahnges of the surfaces , especially in australia , rebound ace was very much faster than lexicushion and the grass suffers another change in the rolls after 2007 too.

emotion
06-10-2012, 09:13 PM
Second dimention maybe
djokovic's game is okay actually, he's a typical somewhat defensive player
but no doubt nadal's is harmful

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 09:17 PM
Tennis is not more popular now. You can't even see the early rounds of Slams in the US anymore unless you get The Tennis Channel, and none of the 1000 Series except for Canada and Cincy. It used to be that those were on network channels like CBS/NBC or at least the basic cable channels.

I'm not saying it's more popular now, just pointing out to the truth behind the slowing of the surfaces. :shrug:

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 09:19 PM
roger in wimbledon and australia was not in his peak anymore.

but a very important factor was the cahnges of the surfaces , especially in australia , rebound ace was very much faster than lexicushion and the grass suffers another change in the rolls after 2007 too.

How mamy years then was Federer at his peak? Only three years, while Nadal & Nole were teenagers?

Action Jackson
06-10-2012, 09:20 PM
Pretty easy really. These two are the best in the current conditions.

Of course they have benefited from surface homogenisation in different ways and different surfaces. There is a lack of diversity when it comes to surfaces, it has gone too far the other way to the point where certain skills aren't needed or even tested. The status is now saved that they are able to make the surfaces faster and use a lighter ball, no this does not mean you can see your reflection on the courts.

Yes, this makes sense to the ATP as they are about the money, not the growth of the sport at all. Homogenise the surfaces to a point where the only difference is the movement for example Davy and Del Potro stink on grass, first one at his peak, the latter will struggle. As this is done, much easier to market the sport and the top guys since they are guaranteed to always be there at the latter stages of the events, brings in more revenue for the ATP.

Most Nadal and Djokovic fans wouldn't want the status quo to change too much, since it's their faves that benefit the most.

juan27
06-10-2012, 09:50 PM
How mamy years then was Federer at his peak? Only three years, while Nadal & Nole were teenagers?

nole and nadal are differents generations in comparassion with fed , never peak fed faced peak nole and rafa( only in clay).....but it`s logic.

fed had 4 years in his peak.

but you not say nothing about the most slow courts after 2007 too , autralia with the plexicushion was very slow in comparassion to rebound ace in where federer was very very good and wimbledon was more slow too.......even the masters cup is slow in comparassion with shangai and houston.

now the cours are differents too in comparassion with fed`s dominance

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 10:05 PM
nole and nadal are differents generations in comparassion with fed , never peak fed faced peak nole and rafa( only in clay).....but it`s logic.

fed had 4 years in his peak.

but you not say nothing about the most slow courts after 2007 too , autralia with the plexicushion was very slow in comparassion to rebound ace in where federer was very very good and wimbledon was more slow too.......even the masters cup is slow in comparassion with shangai and houston.

now the cours are differents too in comparassion with fed`s dominance

You're not good wih math, I fear. Roger dominance start in 2004 and he lose Winbledom in 2008 against a teenager clay court specialist. These are only 3 years then.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 10:06 PM
Pretty easy really. These two are the best in the current conditions.

Of course they have benefited from surface homogenisation in different ways and different surfaces.

Roger believe that this homogenisation has benefited to him, too.

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 10:07 PM
Roger believe that this homogenisation has benefited to him, too.

Yes, he's admitted that in interviews. :yeah:

Burrow
06-10-2012, 10:27 PM
You're not good wih math, I fear. Roger dominance start in 2004 and he lose Winbledom in 2008 against a teenager clay court specialist. These are only 3 years then.

How does 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 equate to 3 years?

Looner
06-10-2012, 10:29 PM
Roger believe that this homogenisation has benefited to him, too.

Against lesser players. You can try to quote Federer wrongly as much as you'd like but your opinion would still be the same. WRONG. Federer on fast courts is a monster. Perhaps you'd like to include the quote from Murray where he said that if more tournaments are played on fast courts, Fed would be number one. Or is that too inconvenient for your desired narrative. Pointless arguing with you people.

Nr 1 Fan
06-10-2012, 10:30 PM
I'll be serious for once and answer with you :). Tennis changed in 2002, not 2012. In 2002 Hewitt and Nalbandian played the Wimbledon final. Two baseliners at Wimbledon. This ends the serve volley era and heralded the era of defensive baselines/counterpunchers we have today. Nadal vs. Djokovic is a continuation of this, the two players taking tennis in this era to new heights. Defensive tennis has never been so good.

Thats my thoughts anyways :)

Yeah, the game has completely changed, it is not anymore who hits the winner but who hits the error. with the slow balls and their way of play it is an endless cycle of the same thing :worship:

I agree the level of defense is higher than ever, but You cannot blame these guys for getting themselves as strong as they can physically and hence getting more balls back, making it harder for one another to finish the point. It seems people are complaining that they train hard to improve their physique and in that way making it harder for the opponent to finish the point. The increased level of defense forces Players to patientally construct their points, and if people think that's boring I Don't think these people are tennis fans. I like long rallies with good point construction and of you watch carefully you will see that quite a lot of points end in winners also. The game has evolved into a more physical dimension, but I think that's logical and evolution also present in other sports and I think it is good because it proves hard work can get You at the top also, not only talent.

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 10:32 PM
Against lesser players. You can try to quote Federer wrongly as much as you'd like but your opinion would still be the same. WRONG. Federer on fast courts is a monster. Perhaps you'd like to include the quote from Murray where he said that if more tournaments are played on fast courts, Fed would be number one. Or is that too inconvenient for your desired narrative. Pointless arguing with you people.

Federer: "Every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him (nadal) and myself".

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=195928

Looner
06-10-2012, 10:35 PM
Nole fan, dear, perhaps you might want to read what I wrote. I said it helped against lesser players. Just how exactly is a slower surface helping Federer against the best defenders of all time. Please explain it to me and stop trolling. I am not a Federer devotee - what he says can sometimes (often) be BS just so people stay happy. He says he'll fit and next thing you know he was actually injured.

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 10:39 PM
Nole fan, dear, perhaps you might want to read what I wrote. I said it helped against lesser players. Just how exactly is a slower surface helping Federer against the best defenders of all time. Please explain it to me and stop trolling. I am not a Federer devotee - what he says can sometimes (often) be BS just so people stay happy. He says he'll fit and next thing you know he was actually injured.

I'm just quoting the Maestro. :shrug:

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 10:41 PM
Regarding Federer, surface speed helped him being less vulnerable to on-fire big hitters/servers, who could have maybe hit through him more often in faster surfaces - this is essentially the biggest problem of slowing down surfaces. Top players are less prone to upsets, which is good for the business but bad for the sport's competitiveness.

It of course didn't help him in his matchups with Nadal and Djokovic, who are probably the two best defensive players tennis has ever seen. But on the whole, I don't think he can complain much, which is why he doesn't really.

As for Murray's quote, he said Federer could (not would) be #1 again if there were more fast courts, which seems like a fair assumption. He would definitely have very good chances.

Looner
06-10-2012, 10:48 PM
Exactly, ML. That's what I tried to say with my post. He cannot complain much but he might have won a few more slams if the courts had more diverse conditions.

Fed's always been very good at adapting to different surfaces - see Madrid. What I am saying is that homogenisation is not that good for Fed, as it deprives him of one of his biggest strengths - adaptability and allows his rivals to challenge him at all places.

He also ate big hitters for breakfast when he was in his prime.

Matt01
06-10-2012, 10:53 PM
That comment is exactly why you are a clown. You have no answer to a guy who won the ACC a few years ago other than that.


I don't even need an answer for such a guy :shrug:

J99
06-10-2012, 10:57 PM
only because of the slow ass courts

Madrid proved it

For a clay court Madrid isn't slow. :scratch:

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 11:01 PM
Exactly, ML. That's what I tried to say with my post. He cannot complain much but he might have won a few more slams if the courts had more diverse conditions.

Fed's always been very good at adapting to different surfaces - see Madrid. What I am saying is that homogenisation is not that good for Fed, as it deprives him of one of his biggest strengths - adaptability and allows his rivals to challenge him at all places.

He also ate big hitters for breakfast when he was in his prime.

Agree about the first part. In a way, Federer was a bit harmed, but on the whole I think he has no big reason to complain.

Disagree about him eating big hitters for breakfast in his prime. You're probably thinking Roddick, which I must disagree. I consider Roddick a big server, not a big hitter. Even at his best, he had a big forehand, but not that big a backhand, and his game was very based on serve, not on overpowering his opponent off the baseline. Federer always owned big servers, but even in his prime some of his defeats came against players who can hit big off both wings: a young Berdych in Olympics 2004, Safin in AO 2005 (although Marar wasn't a traditional big hitter), Gonzalez at WTF... There was a scarcity of big hitters in the top 10 in Fed's generation, Gonzalez is the only really good one and even he had a huge liability in his backhand.

That kind of player is always dangerous because even if you have a 10-0 h2h vs them, they can redline at any given day and become unplayable. One of the effects of slowing down the courts is that the top guys are less likely to be sent packing by an on-fire big hitter.

Federer always owned big servers, still does even now past his prime. Not convinced at all about big hitters; just like every player, he can do little when guys are hititng lines and corners at 100mph+ consistently without missing their shots (which happens rarely, otherwise these guys would dominate the sport, but brings the potential for upsets).

Looner
06-10-2012, 11:04 PM
I am not thinking of Roddick as a big-hitter.

I am thinking more of Safin (who had variety though) and Ancic. He's beaten both quite a lot. Roger did quite well against Soderling as well when he played and I remember Soderling playing quite.

I mean there's probably more but Federer was able to beat pretty much any tennis player when on, especially over 5 sets. So I definitely think he'd found it easier in majors but possibly harder at other events. You can never really say.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 11:13 PM
I am not thinking of Roddick as a big-hitter.

I am thinking more of Safin (who had variety though) and Ancic. He's beaten both quite a lot. Roger did quite well against Soderling as well when he played and I remember Soderling playing quite.

I mean there's probably more but Federer was able to beat pretty much any tennis player when on, especially over 5 sets. So I definitely think he'd found it easier in majors but possibly harder at other events. You can never really say.

Fair enough. He did fare well against big hitters, but the thing is you never know when those guys will catch fire, so there's always potetial for upset regardless of past confrontations, especially if the court is fast. Guess we'll never know what would have happened in different conditions: still man, your guy won 16 Slams and like a gazillion other titles, and is still among the best players. No reason to complain at all ;)

Agree about the last part. I don't think Federer's level was unreachable though, he could be beaten while playing very well (when on) on any given day - proeminent examples would be Safin AO 2005 and Nalbandian Masters Cup same year. What made him so impressive was his ability to play at that stratospheric level match after match, tournament after tournament, year after year... It must surely be the most consistent level of 'peak' play ever seen, hardly any fluctuations.

You see many players who can be unplayable sometimes when on but then go back to a normal level the following matches, but for Federer it was like every match for a 4-5 year stretch, it was incredible. I never felt he was unbeatable, but always felt it'd take an otherwordly performance from his opponents to beat him (namely at Slams) since his level was always incredibly high. He definitely felt far less vulnerable than Nadal and Djokovic do now.

Nole fan
06-10-2012, 11:17 PM
Different styles of play, people. :shrug:
Federer for sure is a gifted player.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 11:21 PM
Indeed he is. One of the most gifted players tennis has ever seen. What always impressed me most about Federer is his tennis IQ. He makes everything seem very effortless and natural and always plays the right shot and moves the right way... almost like he was really born to play tennis. Everything just flows perfectly in his game, all seems very natural.

One of the reasons for his immense popularity is that what he does on court is what any kid starting out wishes he could do, it's hard to explain.

This might sound a contentious opinion, but I never thought any of Federer's shots, even his forehand, was the best on tour (although he had no particular weaknesses either, of course). What made him so special and dominant was the ability to pretty much always do the best things at the right time. The game just came so natural to him...

Looner
06-10-2012, 11:32 PM
Hm, the tennis IQ thing is very true. On Federer's site, there are a couple of guys from whom I have learned heaps about tennis. And they keep talking about Roger the Thinker in his peak years. He just always seemed to play the right shot and a huge part of his decline has been his inability to utilise the most appropriate strategy as often as he did in the past. It all started with his stubbornness regarding RN's style of play really.

His FH is considered the best because he could do so much with it - not because of one single aspect. I'm not sure if it's the best weapon ever but in his peak years it was the weapon that won him so many points and crucial ones as well. Really, Fed's weapon has always been his knowledge of when to play the right shot and execute it as well as he needs to.

As for the RN and ND, well I think Djokovic could have been a bit of a Safin type of player (not as strong physically but better able to grind it out, typical of the modern era) if he kept playing as aggressively as before and surfaces did not change as much. He could have had a very good serve, amazing BH and solid FH. He's not bad at the net as well.

RN, for me, is as one-dimensional as you can get. He can 'adapt' but for a few points. He can force himself to play a shot he's not used to playing and make it very often but he usually moonballs. Nothing amazing about that. That's why he'll probably finish his career as the best #2 in history. He never had the ability assert himself for long enough.

Kiedis
06-10-2012, 11:33 PM
Indeed he is. One of the most gifted players tennis has ever seen. What always impressed me most about Federer is his tennis IQ. He makes everything seem very effortless and natural and always plays the right shot and moves the right way... almost like he was really born to play tennis. Everything just flows perfectly in his game, all seems very natural.

One of the reasons for his immense popularity is that what he does on court is what any kid starting out wishes he could do, it's hard to explain.

This might sound a contentious opinion, but I never thought any of Federer's shots, even his forehand, was the best on tour (although he had no particular weaknesses either, of course). What made him so special and dominant was the ability to pretty much always do the best things at the right time. The game just came so natural to him...

Thats is the reason why I admire Nadal. He isn't so gifted but he has been able to overcome that. Between David and Goliath you praises Goliath but I prefer little David and his courage ;)

Its a question of different tastes and visions of life after all, but the arrogance of some fed-bullies don't allow them to seeing it in this way.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 11:47 PM
Hm, the tennis IQ thing is very true. On Federer's site, there are a couple of guys from whom I have learned heaps about tennis. And they keep talking about Roger the Thinker in his peak years. He just always seemed to play the right shot and a huge part of his decline has been his inability to utilise the most appropriate strategy as often as he did in the past. It all started with his stubbornness regarding RN's style of play really.

His FH is considered the best because he could do so much with it - not because of one single aspect. I'm not sure if it's the best weapon ever but in his peak years it was the weapon that won him so many points and crucial ones as well. Really, Fed's weapon has always been his knowledge of when to play the right shot and execute it as well as he needs to.

As for the RN and ND, well I think Djokovic could have been a bit of a Safin type of player (not as strong physically but better able to grind it out, typical of the modern era) if he kept playing as aggressively as before. He could have had a very good serve, amazing BH and solid FH. He's not bad at the net.

RN, for me, is one-dimensional as you can get. He can 'adapt' but for a few points. He can force himself to play a shot he's not used to playing and make it very often but he usually moonballs. Nothing amazing about that. That's why he'll probably finish his career as the best #2 in history. He never had the ability assert himself for long enough.

I agree with that. The main difference between Federer today and back then is that he can't play the right shot as often as back then, although he still does that more often that just about anyone on tour. Roger The Thinker seems a quite apt description. He made things look easier because he always did the right thing on court.

Always thought his forehand as an individual shot was overrated though. It's obviously a great shot, but Fed is quite prone to getting overpowered off that wing. The best example of that in his prime would be Gonzalez completely overpowering Federer off the forehand in AO 2007 final, forcing Roger to go all Nadal on him and hammer his backhand as much as possible. Those days it's become even more evident imo, the most proeminent example being the USO 2009 final where he was constantly overpowered in forehand exchanges. It is a great shot, very versatile (can do a lot with it), and very consistent, but definitely not the best forehand of all-time, and one that can definitely be attacked. It was made to look better than he is by Federer's immense tennis IQ imo, even today he still manages to hit his forehand in the best possible situations for him.

Agree about Djokovic. Nadal, shot for shot, you'd never guess he had won so much. But he's an amazing athlete with an impressive work ethic; his pure tennis ability is surely not on a par with Federer and co., but the way he maximized it is amazing. And he has been the pioneer of a new style of tennis, which is the dominant one today. Djokovic had to become fitter and more defensive to hang with Nadal, and so will others I'm afraid. It's definitely not the kind of tennis I prefer, but gotta admire how much effort and hard work it took him to become this good.

Mark Lenders
06-10-2012, 11:51 PM
Thats is the reason why I admire Nadal. He isn't so gifted but he has been able to overcome that. Between David and Goliath you praises Goliath but I prefer little David and his courage ;)

Its a question of different tastes and visions of life after all, but the arrogance of some fed-bullies don't allow them to seeing it in this way.

I definitely do admire Nadal too. He doesn't play the kind of tennis that I enjoy, but the hard work he put in to become what he is today is nothing short of admirable. He's definitely not as gifted as Federer, or even Djokovic, and many other players, but he willed himself to the top of the game.

Since you mention David, when I watch Nadal play Nalbandian I admire what he did even more. On the one hand, you see a guy with every shot in the book, and some not on it, who never had the work ethic needed to be at the top, on the other hand you see a guy with far more limited tennis ability who worked his ass off to become a champion.

tennishero
06-10-2012, 11:59 PM
comedy gold this thread

TBkeeper
06-11-2012, 12:27 AM
For a clay court Madrid isn't slow. :scratch:

:worship: congratulations now you officialy have no logic !

FedvsNole
06-11-2012, 12:35 AM
No your just comparing federer when he is not only in decline but has suffered multiple declines since his first decline in mid to late 2007. Father time gets everyone. He was amazing athletically and has lost little by little over time, then it moved to his power shots like forehand, then to his endurance levels, and then to his mental strength during matches. Here's what I've tracked over time:

1. prime fed Level 100 2004-2007 july with a peak fed level 120 at 2006

2. First decline started mid to late 2007.. slower mov't surfaced in wimbledon final and us open that year.

3. Second decline started in early 2009 ( 27.5 years old) australina open 2009 awful match against nadal that he should not have lost going awol in 5th set and his serve was not the same anymore neither was his movement... wimbledon.. .really roddick 5 sets... del potro chokerer..?

4. Third decline post australia 2010 (28.5 years old); no longer capable to beat big hitters on clay (soderling french open), grass (berdych) nearly losing in first round on grass to falla 5 sets, letting sets go due to worries about endurance see us open djokovic match 2010 losing sets 6-1 and 6-2. This fed realized he can no longer rally and win with the likes of djokovic/nadal and had to change to a more attacking game thus adding annacone. His stamina was also a few notches below what it used to be since he would never let sets just go to "save" energy for the next match.

5. Fourth decline started wimbledon 2011 (Essentailly 30 years old)

It was now affecting him mentally. Losing matches up 2 sets to love. Started against tsonga then djokovic and almost djokovic at the french earlier that year. He would lose focus more and go awol. Unable to finish djokovic at us open 2011 was the nail in the coffin. Would never have lost a match like that in his prime.

6. Fifth decline Rome 2011:

Federer had been on a roll and some thought the match was an anomally. But it was visible that fed looked slow and now rather than choosing not to baseline rally with nole he would just not do it at all. He also now can just as easily not show up for a match first seen in 2011 miami match where he got toasted by nadal. He no showed a match against novak. And then just played awful at their french 2012 rematch.

I feel he now may have a mental hurdle against novak after that us open 2011 match as he's no showed twice aginst him and i feel if it happens again at wimbledon he will never beat him again ever anywhere.

rocketassist
06-11-2012, 01:07 AM
I don't even need an answer for such a guy :shrug:

The only thing wrong with his post is him bigging up Fedtards as some protectors of tradition when their opinion of Davis Cup suggests otherwise.

Your two faves are winning everything. Therefore you can't see the lack of variety in the slams, the fact only one style of play can succeed at the top of the game because of the changes, it doesn't matter to you cause your players are cleaning up the big events every single time.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 01:12 AM
The only thing wrong with his post is him bigging up Fedtards as some protectors of tradition when their opinion of Davis Cup suggests otherwise.

Your two faves are winning everything. Therefore you can't see the lack of variety in the slams, the fact only one style of play can succeed at the top of the game because of the changes, it doesn't matter to you cause your players are cleaning up the big events every single time.

Mate, you are fan of a damn pusher without courage. His 'success' (:lol:) is based on his good defensive skills and his physical condition. Can you have the decency to be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself so often? :o

Murray is a poor man Djokovic.

Houstonko
06-11-2012, 01:19 AM
My point is that all surfaces suit pushers and Roger does not get rewarded for his attacking style which leads to a stupid number of UEs which you claim is his weakness. The point many have made is we need variety and it's not going to happen when you're punished for being a good attacker as in the case of Federer.

So is berdych and Tsonga, they are much better than people think. Surface punished them.

Looner
06-11-2012, 01:29 AM
So is berdych and Tsonga, they are much better than people think. Surface punished them.

Completely agree. I love Tsonga's aggressive attitude and Berdych's game. I just want some attacking tennis damn it.

rocketassist
06-11-2012, 01:58 AM
Mate, you are fan of a damn pusher without courage. His 'success' (:lol:) is based on his good defensive skills and his physical condition. Can you have the decency to be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself so often? :o

Murray is a poor man Djokovic.

I'm a fan of tennis, end of. I wanna be entertained. If my faves win shiny pots, great, but I want to be able to enjoy the sport to its maximum like I used to. Right now, I don't.

A lot of people agree with me and certainly don't think I'm 'embarrassing myself' indeed I make very valid points that you don't want to debate.

Your fave wins loads of shiny pots on these homogenized courts, so you want them to stay. That's more tardish than anything you're suggesting I am.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 02:12 AM
I'm a fan of tennis, end of. I wanna be entertained. If my faves win shiny pots, great, but I want to be able to enjoy the sport to its maximum like I used to. Right now, I don't.

A lot of people agree with me and certainly don't think I'm 'embarrassing myself' indeed I make very valid points that you don't want to debate.

Your fave wins loads of shiny pots on these homogenized courts, so you want them to stay. That's more tardish than anything you're suggesting I am.

I admire Nadal (among others) and I told you my reasons before. But you are fan of player who you should despise intensely taking into account your vision of tennis. You can't enjoy Nole tennis but your fave is a poor version of him... seriously mate, I can't understand you at all.

A Murray fan, aka the pusher grinder, praising attacking tennis and variety :eek:

At least Nadal has a powerful forehand...

Too good this guy :worship:

tripwires
06-11-2012, 02:34 AM
I admire Nadal (among others) and I told you my reasons before. But you are fan of player who you should despise intensely taking into account your vision of tennis. You can't enjoy Nole tennis but your fave is a poor version of him... seriously mate, I can't understand you at all.

A Murray fan, aka the pusher grinder, praising attacking tennis and variety :eek:

At least Nadal has a powerful forehand...

Too good this guy :worship:

He said he's a fan of tennis.

Do you have some reading issues or something?

Jimnik
06-11-2012, 02:53 AM
No question, these are the first 4-dimensional players. MIT should take a look at them.

rocketassist
06-11-2012, 03:03 AM
I admire Nadal (among others) and I told you my reasons before. But you are fan of player who you should despise intensely taking into account your vision of tennis. You can't enjoy Nole tennis but your fave is a poor version of him... seriously mate, I can't understand you at all.

A Murray fan, aka the pusher grinder, praising attacking tennis and variety :eek:

At least Nadal has a powerful forehand...

Too good this guy :worship:

Yeah variety. Slice, net game...Hewitt was the same.

I don't hate players who rely on defence. In fact never had a problem with defensive-minded players either until they started monopolising every surface and grand slam tournament in sight and turning the tour into a borefest. No attack-minded players can win grand slams on these courts. Only one style of play can succeed. Is that really right?

juan27
06-11-2012, 03:06 AM
Federer: "Every surface is very similar today, otherwise we couldn't have achieved all these things on all these different surfaces so quickly, like him (nadal) and myself".

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=195928

federer maybe said that because he was talking about nadal but for not has problems with rafa incluides himself too , federer in the last months talk against the slow cours especially in wimbledon , us open and indoor.

the speed of the courts now are very slower in comparassion with the years of federer`s dominance

Jimnik
06-11-2012, 03:06 AM
They've interfered with the space time continuum.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://abduzeedo.com/files/posts/back-future/back-future-6.jpg&sa=X&ei=blLVT7qCJpKI8QTek4zwAw&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNH_QqvVRcZ7KFHUAksgQA_McOyZHQ

It explains everything. Federer never stood a chance.

abraxas21
06-11-2012, 04:19 AM
nole and rafa took tennis to a single dimention

heya
06-11-2012, 04:31 AM
fedhyenas need to justify the fake fed idol praise by upgrading the skill and fitness level of each habitual loser or underwhelming pretender who nabbed a lucky grand slam

kafkavert
06-11-2012, 04:46 AM
discuss.....

for me , yes , they took the tennis into another level.....

more far of the classic tennis and into in a very physicall tennis and with very long rallys like robots.

I miss a lot the kind of tennis of sampras , agassi , edberg or the best roger

Yes, the PUSHER level lol

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 07:18 AM
He said he's a fan of tennis.

Do you have some reading issues or something?

Yes, he said. And he said that he is fan of attacking tennis an variety in the game.... and this is the reason why he don't enjoy the game of Nadal and Djokovic... but his fave is Murray, a defensive player, a grinder, a untalented pusher, a poor man version of Djokovic. I guess only I can see the contradiction :wavey:

Have you had a good weekend? I see you a little upset.

tripwires
06-11-2012, 07:23 AM
Yes, he said. And he said that he is fan of attacking tennis an variety in the game.... and this is the reason why he don't enjoy the game of Nadal and Djokovic... but his fave is Murray, a defensive player, a grinder, a untalented pusher, a poor man version of Djokovic. I guess only I can see the contradiction :wavey:

Have you had a good weekend? I see you a little upset.

Any fan of attacking tennis and variety would not be a fan of Rafole matches because those two things are contradictory. In any case Rocketassist explained it already so I won't bother talking about this.

Yes I am really upset. I'm very upset that Rafa didn't get the job done yesterday when he was up 2-0 in the third.

Action Jackson
06-11-2012, 07:24 AM
Surface homogenisation helped all the top guys in different aspects.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 07:33 AM
Any fan of attacking tennis and variety would not be a fan of Rafole matches because those two things are contradictory. In any case Rocketassist explained it already so I won't bother talking about this.

Then he should explain this to you in petit committee, because to me, the person he was arguing, he was unable to explain anything. I still would like to know the reason why he enjoys Murray tennis and not Djkovic or Nadal :rolleyes:

Yes I am really upset. I'm very upset that Rafa didn't get the job done yesterday when he was up 2-0 in the third.

The rain changed the conditions :mad:

tripwires
06-11-2012, 07:43 AM
Then he should explain this to you in petit committee, because to me, the person he was arguing, he was unable to explain anything. I still would like to know the reason why he enjoys Murray tennis and not Djkovic or Nadal :rolleyes:


What's petit committee? :confused:

The rain changed the conditions :mad:

Or maybe Rafa got scared. :mad:

viruzzz
06-11-2012, 07:46 AM
What's petit committee? :confused:



Or maybe Rafa got scared. :mad:

Hey Tripwires.
Relax, don't feed him.
He can't argue with anyone. He wont accept a different point of view.

tripwires
06-11-2012, 07:48 AM
He's actually all right...if you don't take him seriously. :D

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 08:02 AM
Hey Tripwires.
Relax, don't feed him.
He can't argue with anyone. He wont accept a different point of view.

I would accept it, but the problem here is I haven't any point of view about why he likes Murray tennis and not Rafa or Nole. Querido, Rafa fans are not the talibans here about others points of views and you know it.

What's petit committee? :confused:

is a know french expression. It's easy to translate if you know something about french. I think it would be good to take advantage of the French Open to dive a little bit in their beautiful language.

Or maybe Rafa got scared. :mad:

Rafa is not Roger.

tripwires
06-11-2012, 08:06 AM
Please, even a tard like yourself can't deny that Rafa losing 3 finals in a row to Nole had some bearing on Rafa's psyche.

And no I don't know French.

viruzzz
06-11-2012, 08:11 AM
I would accept it, but the problem here is I haven't any point of view about why he likes Murray tennis and not Rafa or Nole. Querido, Rafa fans are not the talibans here about others points of views and you know it.


Exactly. Rafa fans. But I don't consider you a Rafa fan.
I consider you an extreme-Rafa-Tard. That can't accept any other opinions. Of course Rafa fans are funny people. But FANS, not tards.
Don't get me wrong! You're not the only one! Start da game, who I see you support, was one of them. I called him a "living unforced error" once.
And i'm pretty proud of that definition for that kind of fans.

Edit: I would luuuuuuuuuuuuv keep talking to you, but it's like 4 AM here in Argentina and tomorrow I need to work.
So, big hug, love Rafa, he is de best, no? blah blah blah, I love you, you're the best user in MTF. I hope all users would be like you, go Blake.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 08:18 AM
Exactly. Rafa fans. But I don't consider you a Rafa fan.
I consider you an extreme-Rafa-Tard. That can't accept any other opinions. Of course Rafa fans are funny people. But FANS, not tards.
Don't get me wrong! You're not the only one! Start da game, who I see you support, was one of them. I called him a "living unforced error" once.
And i'm pretty proud of that definition for that kind of fans.

Your personal considerations, if not accompanied by reasoning, are pure shit, mate. You're a fan of Dr. Ivo, a server machine mug with zero variety in his game. IMO you are not the right person to question anyone's tennis tastes.

Do you know why he love Murray tennis and not Nole one or not? If you know about it, tell me why, but if you don't know nothing about the discussed issue the educated behavior is to stay on the sidelines. Thank you.

PS: Hay que joderse con los defensores de pleitos prodidos

bokehlicious
06-11-2012, 08:23 AM
petit committee is not french, stick to spanish kiedis.

tripwires
06-11-2012, 08:30 AM
What the fuck is 'petit committee'?

Shinoj
06-11-2012, 08:31 AM
To me, those who havent played Outdoor sport or havent known what Sporting Skills are but just like the Drama created on Television are Nadal Fans..

P.S: No Disrespect. Because different taste for Different Folks. I having played Outdoor sports enough appreciate what Federer,Murray and Dkokovic bring to the Table but not that Defensive Moonballing.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 08:32 AM
petit committee is not french, stick to spanish kiedis.

I said Petite comité (http://www.wordreference.com/fren/comit%C3%A9) (look at the second meaning)

viruzzz
06-11-2012, 08:41 AM
Your personal considerations, if not accompanied by reasoning, are pure shit, mate. You're a fan of Dr. Ivo, a server machine mug with zero variety in his game. IMO you are not the right person to question anyone's tennis tastes.

Do you know why he love Murray tennis and not Nole one or not? If you know about it, tell me why, but if you don't know nothing about the discussed issue the educated behavior is to stay on the sidelines. Thank you.

PS: Hay que joderse con los defensores de pleitos prodidos

Ivo doesn't has variety in his game, but he has variety in tennis nowadays.
And please, dude, you can't talk about pure shit. Read your own posts and you'd probably sense the smell two forums away.

I can imagine why he likes Murray's game and not Djokovic, but, I don't agree with noone of those styles, so, i'm not the right one to give my opinion about it.

But it seems YOU, the one who disrespects every single opinion on earth besides yours, are the tennis genius who can do it.
You talk about educated behaviour right after talking abour pure shit?
You're really an unforced error. You don't understand the sport and the world. Magic about tennis, is it's an individual sport, and every player plays how the fuck he wants.

Really dude, more autocritic. You're the one who can't stand other opinions. Read the bullshit you wrote here before talking about me.

:wavey:

PS: I didn't understood your spanish sentence. Try talking in english, please.
PS2: Really? 39 years old? Now I understand everything, you're so fuckin frustrated.

bokehlicious
06-11-2012, 08:44 AM
I said Petite comité (http://www.wordreference.com/fren/comit%C3%A9) (look at the second meaning)

petit comité is correct ;)

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 08:51 AM
Ivo doesn't has variety in his game, but he has variety in tennis nowadays.
And please, dude, you can't talk about pure shit. Read your own posts and you'd probably sense the smell two forums away.

I can imagine why he likes Murray's game and not Djokovic, but, I don't agree with noone of those styles, so, i'm not the right one to give my opinion about it.

But it seems YOU, the one who disrespects every single opinion on earth besides yours, are the tennis genius who can do it.
You talk about educated behaviour right after talking abour pure shit?
You're really an unforced error. You don't understand the sport and the world. Magic about tennis, is it's an individual sport, and every player plays how the fuck he wants.

Really dude, more autocritic. You're the one who can't stand other opinions. Read the bullshit you wrote here before talking about me.

:wavey:

PS: I didn't understood your spanish sentence. Try talking in english, please.
PS2: Really? 39 years old? Now I understand everything, you're so fuckin frustrated.

Well, Dr. Ivo is the master of variety and your opinion is a very polite and reasoned one. Now I understand it :p

And of course I am the frustated too, but obviously I am not the one who is insulting other guy at the 5 a. m. :wavey:

Pure comedy this argie.

viruzzz
06-11-2012, 08:55 AM
Well, Dr. Ivo is the master of variety and your opinion is a very polite and reasoned one. Now I understand it :p

I am the frustated too, but obviously I am not the one who is insulting other guy at the 5 a. m. :wavey:

Pure comedy this argie.

Karlovic gives variety to the sport.
I like his style, I like Isner too.
I also think he's a cool guy, with an amazing story of life.

I think yes, you're the frustrated one.
I'm also finishing some work, so that's why I am awake. I need to wait 'till they answer me. Because I don't work for Argentinians companies.

And yeah, probably i'm pure comedy. I try to be a funny one in the forum, but I also want to answer some trolly-crap when i'm bored.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 09:03 AM
Karlovic gives variety to the sport.
I like his style, I like Isner too.
I also think he's a cool guy, with an amazing story of life.

Is funny for you watch a guy serving? Well, it's ok for you but not for me. But I have no problem with that. You apparently have problems with my tastes.

I think yes, you're the frustrated one. I'm also finishing some work, so that's why I am awake. I need to wait 'till they answer me. Because I don't work for Argentinians companies.

And yeah, probably i'm pure comedy. I try to be a funny one in the forum, but I also want to answer some trolly-crap when i'm bored.

Meanwhile, an hour ago

Edit: I would luuuuuuuuuuuuv keep talking to you, but it's like 4 AM here in Argentina and tomorrow I need to work.

Unintentional clowns are the best :haha: :smash:

Matt01
06-11-2012, 12:59 PM
Your two faves are winning everything. Therefore you can't see the lack of variety in the slams, the fact only one style of play can succeed at the top of the game because of the changes, it doesn't matter to you cause your players are cleaning up the big events every single time.


Such BS.
I've even posted that I would like to see less surface homogenization even though I want to see Rafole in as many Slam finals as possible.

ossie
06-11-2012, 01:01 PM
djoker did, nadal not so much lately apart from his time against fed. their rivalry is pretty boring as well.