The 2006 Clown Era [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The 2006 Clown Era

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 06:37 PM
Seriously. Using the following MTF excuses, how could Roger Federer be considered the greatest player ever if everybody else is such a no-talent clown? Let's look at the list (comments compiled using MTFers own words):

2006 CLOWN ERA LIST
2nd - Nadal, R. - nothing but a junk dirtballer
3rd - Roddick, A. - one dimensional, is nothing without his serve
4th - Davydenko, N. - no weapons; King of Mediocrity
5th - Ljubicic, I. - only plays his best during Davis Cup
6th - Robredo, T. - hahaha!
7th - Nalbandian, D. - out of shape headcase
8th - Blake, J. - Mr Nice Guy can't bring the goods in the big tournaments; still hasn't won a five-setter
9th - Baghdatis, M. - no weapons to hurt anybody with, lacks killer instinct
10th - Ancic, M. - beat Federer a million years ago, so what
11th - Haas, T. - pretty boy is world's worst No. 2 ever

Clearly, there's no depth or talent here. It's like Roger's stuck on the short bus. So if everybody sucks, who is Roger supposed to be measuring his own greatness against?

asl
09-12-2006, 06:40 PM
You should use your braincells to some more useful purposes.

Both of them.

Sjengster
09-12-2006, 06:42 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29 :shrug:

bokehlicious
09-12-2006, 06:45 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29 :shrug:

:yeah: Tangy you're a clown :wavey:

stebs
09-12-2006, 06:49 PM
Seriously. Using the his diehard fans' own excuses, how could Roger Federer be considered the greatest player ever if everybody else is such a no-talent clown? Let's look at the list (comments compiled using the Federer fans own words):

2006 CLOWN ERA LIST
2nd - Nadal, R. - nothing but a junk dirtballer
3rd - Roddick, A. - one dimensional, is nothing without his serve
4th - Davydenko, N. - no weapons; King of Mediocrity
5th - Ljubicic, I. - only plays his best during Davis Cup
6th - Robredo, T. - hahahaha!
7th - Nalbandian, D. - out of shape headcase
8th - Blake, J. - Mr Nice Guy can't bring the goods in the big tournaments
9th - Baghdatis, M. - no weapons to hurt anybody with
10th - Ancic, M. - beat Federer a million years ago, so what
11th - Haas, T. - pretty boy is world's worst No. 2 ever

Clearly, there's no depth or talent here. It's like Roger's stuck on the short bus. So if everybody sucks, who is Roger supposed to be measuring his own greatness against?


Why post this garbage. As Sjenster so aptly implied. If you want to go around telling others to confine their stupid threads about one player to player forums then do that yourself as well.

LLeytonRules
09-12-2006, 06:49 PM
There where alot of clowns in the Sampras era who where overrated!!!Especially that Goran guy.He was a choker.Dont knock the competition, Fed just destroys u mentally!!!Just like Pete did.

rofe
09-12-2006, 06:52 PM
And to think she put so much effort in culling supposedly Fedtard responses....tsk, tsk

You might as well have created a "Federer sucks because he is winning in this weak era" and received the same number of responses to this thread.

"Clownish" is the right way to describe this thread.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 06:52 PM
I agree with some of the definitions, but this is utter nonsense.

shaoyu
09-12-2006, 06:59 PM
Inspired by Rafatards, Fed haters are now no longer going into hiding mode after their favorite's loss and Federer's title. Instead they are coming out in droves to degrade Federer, even without hesitation sacrificing their own favorite to one-dimentional-serving-machine status.

MurrayFan1
09-12-2006, 07:02 PM
I'm no Federer fan but some of these arguments in the first post are really weak haha.

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 07:03 PM
Besides the fact that I'm also a clown, do I not make a good point?

I've been purusing the Federer threads for a while and basically the consensus amongst the fans is the same: everybody else sucks.

How will we ever know how great Roger is if everybody is such a hack? :shrug:

And to think she put so much effort in culling supposedly Fedtard responses....tsk, tsk
This thread didn't require a whole lot of effort. Just my two braincells!

You might as well have created a "Federer sucks because he is winning in this weak era" and received the same number of responses to this thread.
Isn't that what a lot of the Federer fans have been saying about Sampras' era?

shaoyu
09-12-2006, 07:07 PM
Shall we note two other clowns who can not even stay in the top 10 now but somehow managed to humiliate your supposed GOAT in usopen finals?

stebs
09-12-2006, 07:07 PM
Besides the fact that I'm also a clown, do I not make a good point?
No not really.

I've been purusing the Federer threads for a while and basically the consensus amongst the fans is the same: everybody else sucks.
That's not at all the consensus. A fairly high percentage of Federer fans such as myself respect Rafa, Roddick and most of the guys on tour. This thread has been created with the use of gross selective reading.

Isn't that what a lot of the Federer fans have been saying about Sampras' era?
Put simply, no. It is what maybe one or two of the hundreds of Federer fans on this board have been saying. More selective reading, quoting and typing.

prima donna
09-12-2006, 07:11 PM
Seriously. Using the his diehard fans' own excuses, how could Roger Federer be considered the greatest player ever if everybody else is such a no-talent clown? Let's look at the list (comments compiled using the Federer fans own words):

2006 CLOWN ERA LIST
2nd - Nadal, R. - nothing but a junk dirtballer
3rd - Roddick, A. - one dimensional, is nothing without his serve
4th - Davydenko, N. - no weapons; King of Mediocrity
5th - Ljubicic, I. - only plays his best during Davis Cup
6th - Robredo, T. - hahahaha!
7th - Nalbandian, D. - out of shape headcase
8th - Blake, J. - Mr Nice Guy can't bring the goods in the big tournaments
9th - Baghdatis, M. - no weapons to hurt anybody with
10th - Ancic, M. - beat Federer a million years ago, so what
11th - Haas, T. - pretty boy is world's worst No. 2 ever

Clearly, there's no depth or talent here. It's like Roger's stuck on the short bus. So if everybody sucks, who is Roger supposed to be measuring his own greatness against?

Still recovering from the torching that Andy suffered at the hands of Roger ? Would this be your idea of venting your frustrations ? I mean, obviously this thread has nothing to do with any of the other 10 players of which you've for some unknown reason decided to mention in this post. There's something that I find a bit peculiar about this type of erratic behavior.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to have their own opinion, which in turn would mean that at times some toes are gonna get stepped on, I'm sorry if you just can't accept that and move on with your life.

You've reduced yourself to the lowest of lows, you've badrepped, you've cried as if you were a 10 year old and now your shenganigans continue. Remember your posts a few months ago in which you cried over the fact that you felt as though certain fans of Roger were living vicariously through his success ? Lady, stop your fucking constant mopping around.

Roger is not only the best ever of his era, but one of the best ever of all time, he deserves to dominate players like Roddick because he's a superior player, anything else would simply be uncivilized.

marcRD
09-12-2006, 07:13 PM
Besides the fact that I'm also a clown, do I not make a good point?


No, you dont. Neither are you funny. So I dont consider you a clown.

You just seem very frustated, I recommend you to take some time away from these forums and tennis and then come back.

On the other side I totaly understand you, we all had these kind of moments (I specialy used to have them in soccer when my favorite team lost, sometimes I totaly lost my reason and just wanted to mock with my rivals)

DrJules
09-12-2006, 07:13 PM
Seriously. Using the his diehard fans' own excuses, how could Roger Federer be considered the greatest player ever if everybody else is such a no-talent clown? Let's look at the list (comments compiled using the Federer fans own words):

2006 CLOWN ERA LIST
2nd - Nadal, R. - nothing but a junk dirtballer
3rd - Roddick, A. - one dimensional, is nothing without his serve
4th - Davydenko, N. - no weapons; King of Mediocrity
5th - Ljubicic, I. - only plays his best during Davis Cup
6th - Robredo, T. - hahahaha!
7th - Nalbandian, D. - out of shape headcase
8th - Blake, J. - Mr Nice Guy can't bring the goods in the big tournaments
9th - Baghdatis, M. - no weapons to hurt anybody with
10th - Ancic, M. - beat Federer a million years ago, so what
11th - Haas, T. - pretty boy is world's worst No. 2 ever

Clearly, there's no depth or talent here. It's like Roger's stuck on the short bus. So if everybody sucks, who is Roger supposed to be measuring his own greatness against?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Really.

I certainly consider the defense of Nadal to be better than Chang and Nadal has more offensive weapons.

I have always considered Roddick a more solid server than Ivanisevic and mentally tougher.

Nalbandian has more talent and more complete game than Kafelnikov in my view.

Top ten year end 1996:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 CHANG, MICHAEL
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN
5 MUSTER, THOMAS
6 BECKER, BORIS
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD
8 AGASSI, ANDRE
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE

I do not consider the current top 10 inferior to that 10 years ago.

Rogiman
09-12-2006, 07:14 PM
9th - Baghdatis, M. - no weapons to hurt anybody with
Did anyone actually say that? :confused:

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 07:15 PM
Shall we note two other clowns who can not even stay in the top 10 now but somehow managed to humiliate your supposed GOAT in usopen finals?
Hewitt and Safin? Well, Safin clearly has a lot of talent, according to MTFers. But he's like the scarecrow: no brain.

Hewitt is Pong, another backboard will nothing to offer tennis. Never mind the fact that he's won a ton of titles. Like all the others he has no talent.

I think Rafa's wins over Roger were all flukey.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 07:18 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: Really.

I certainly consider the defense of Nadal to be better than Chang and Nadal has more offensive weapons.

I have always considered Roddick a more solid server than Ivanisevic and mentally tougher.

Nalbandian has more talent and more complete game than Kafelnikov in my view.

Top ten year end 1996:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 CHANG, MICHAEL
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN
5 MUSTER, THOMAS
6 BECKER, BORIS
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD
8 AGASSI, ANDRE
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE

I do not consider the current top 10 inferior to that 10 years ago.


Awful example. '96 top 10 was one of the best since '90.

prima donna
09-12-2006, 07:19 PM
Did anyone actually say that? :confused:

No.

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 07:22 PM
Prima donna :wavey: This reminds me of one of your better posts trashing the no-talent Nadal:

Really, didn't want it to come to this, but Nadal is a freak and no matter how many times he wins against Roger everyone knows the truth. It's a major matchup problem, more things are defective in Roger's brain and game than Nadal's attacking game.

How utterly disgusting, thought someone like Richard [Gasquet] would come along and challenge Roger. Instead we get this thing that loves to retrieve and turn tennis matches into playground games. What a mess this entire situation is.

Could have been Tomas [Berdych], Richard or even Marat. Things didn't quite end up that way. Tough pill to swallow when your favorite continues to lose to a player he's obviously superior to not only in tennis, but when it comes to being a person in general.

Roger contributes to charities, speaks mutiple languages, tries to do all that he can for tennis and here comes a ball boy on wheels armed with a tennis racquet causing a commotion, wins tournaments and needs a translator by his side for each one because he can't speak a word of the native tongue.

Absolute filth.

What an embarassment. This is equivalent to urinating on a Picasso painting, I mean, if you're going to ruin something of that magnitude atleast have the common decency to use something aside from a fluid that comes from one's body. Not agitated or frustrated, just getting down to what makes it so disgusting to see Roger lose to that thing.

So my question again: how can Roger be considered great if he loses to such "filth" like Nadal (who obviously can't play real tennis)? :shrug:

R.Federer
09-12-2006, 07:23 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29 :shrug:
You should use your braincells to some more useful purposes.

Both of them.

You guys are so good at these clever repartees! :lol: :haha:

DrJules
09-12-2006, 07:24 PM
Awful example. '96 top 10 was one of the best since '90.

Really. I picked it because it was 10 years ago to avoid bias issues.

Yes. In depth probably stronger, but I feel Nadal and Roddick are more complete than Chang and Ivanisevic at the top end. Nalbandian I feel has more to offer than Kafelnikov. Ancic has a game similar to Krajicek, but a slightly better mover.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 07:26 PM
Really. I picked it because it was 10 years ago to avoid bias issues.

Yes. In depth probably stronger, but I feel Nadal and Roddick are more complete than Chang and Ivanisevic at the top end. Nalbandian I feel has more to offer than Kafelnikov. Ancic has a game similar to Krajicek, but a slightly better mover.

Plain wrong. Nadal only wins more than Chang because claycourters today are a lot weaker. The rest can't be compared. Ivanisevic is nothing like Roddick, except being a big server.

All players there are stronger than nowadays top 10.

Purple Rainbow
09-12-2006, 07:27 PM
Wow, it has come to a part where Tangy has to take down Roddick to feel good about herself. That's a pretty messed up situation you've got there.

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 07:27 PM
So my question again: how can Roger be considered great if he loses to such "filth" like Nadal (who obviously can't play real tennis)? :shrug:

Well, even Sampras lost to Bastl. Same thing.

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 07:27 PM
Yes. In depth probably stronger, but I feel Nadal and Roddick are more complete than Chang and Ivanisevic at the top end. Nalbandian I feel has more to offer than Kafelnikov. Ancic has a game similar to Krajicek, but a slightly better mover.
Isn't Roddick considered to be the new Michael Chang by some? A flukey one slam wonder?

And don't forget that Roddick never would've won USO anyway if it weren't for the biased USTA scheduling. Chang never had such luxuries at RG.

rofe
09-12-2006, 07:30 PM
Besides the fact that I'm also a clown, do I not make a good point?

I've been purusing the Federer threads for a while and basically the consensus amongst the fans is the same: everybody else sucks.

How will we ever know how great Roger is if everybody is such a hack? :shrug:


This thread didn't require a whole lot of effort. Just my two braincells!


Isn't that what a lot of the Federer fans have been saying about Sampras' era?

Since it didn't require too much effort can you actually post some responses from these so called Federer fans?

Prove to me that most (I am not even talking about all) Fed fans have said what you described in the 1st post.

rofe
09-12-2006, 07:32 PM
Wow, it has come to a part where Tangy has to take down Roddick to feel good about herself. That's a pretty messed up situation you've got there.

:lol: So true. I feel annoyed as an Andy fan (not as a Fed fan).

atheneglaukopis
09-12-2006, 07:34 PM
:rolls: Tangy, stop baiting the Fedtards. http://img2.menstennisforums.com/793/icon_no_no.gif

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 07:41 PM
Well, even Sampras lost to Bastl. Same thing.
That was a one-off. Roger keeps losing to this nasty Nadal.

Top ten year end 1996:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 CHANG, MICHAEL
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN
5 MUSTER, THOMAS
6 BECKER, BORIS
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD
8 AGASSI, ANDRE
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE

I do not consider the current top 10 inferior to that 10 years ago.
There are more slam champions on that list than the current one.

I think Roger was just trying to save Andy's face by not bageling him twice in the final in front of the home crowd the other day. Roger is a very compassionate man! :hatoff:

Wow, it has come to a part where Tangy has to take down Roddick to feel good about herself. That's a pretty messed up situation you've got there.
I know. I'm pathetic. :sobbing:

R.Federer
09-12-2006, 07:41 PM
Tangerine-dream, your posts have been full of bitterness and aggression since Federer won the title on Sunday. Adding the :lol: and :) emoticons to your posts has done nothing to dispel your apparent frustration, as neither has your helpful directions to Roger's own forums. You might not realize but there are posters who enjoy watching you unable to control your frustrations, especially when you fail to hide it with a few happy symbols. This was a big achievement in tennis, so it is being discussed in GM as well as the Federer forum.

Regarding the current post, many posters think 1, 2 or a few of the ones you've listed are clowns and really no good, but there is no one who has said that all of those are clowns and thus no competition for Federer. You've simply collected different opinions of many different people. But in everyone's mind, at least some big fraction of those listed are non-clowns and so Federer is earning his status as ONE OF the best ever.

DrJules
09-12-2006, 07:43 PM
There are more slam champions on that list than the current one.


That is because 1 player keeps winning them now and you should only consider the grand slams they held up to 1996.

sawan66278
09-12-2006, 07:46 PM
To begin, just look at the number of slams in the #10 list from 1996...the current top 10 is a complete joke as far as career accomplishments are concerned.

But someone made an interesting point, if Roger is the best ever...and I personally do not believe there is a best players ever because there are many solid arguements for and against Roger, Peter, Bjorn, Connors, Lendl, Laver, etc....how can he be considered the best ever when he has a 2-6 record against the current #2 who is not anywhere near his prime?

I love Rafa, but as far as his career is concerned, I think he will probably max out at the Wilander level...seven majors...

The current crop of players must get beyond the idea that matches are not best of three...they are best of five...how many times have we seen players lose the third set to Roger, and then completely give up? Oh, I forgot, only players like Tiger and Roger can understand because at times they are "invincible" :rolleyes:

Fedex
09-12-2006, 07:46 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29 :shrug:
:worship: :worship:

rofe
09-12-2006, 07:48 PM
To begin, just look at the number of slams in the #10 list from 1996...the current top 10 is a complete joke as far as career accomplishments are concerned.

But someone made an interesting point, if Roger is the best ever...and I personally do not believe there is a best players ever because there are many solid arguements for and against Roger, Peter, Bjorn, Connors, Lendl, Laver, etc....how can he be considered the best ever when he has a 2-6 record against the current #2 who is not anywhere near his prime?

I love Rafa, but as far as his career is concerned, I think he will probably max out at the Wilander level...seven majors...

The current crop of players must get beyond the idea that matches are not best of three...they are best of five...how many times have we seen players lose the third set to Roger, and then completely give up? Oh, I forgot, only players like Tiger and Roger can understand because at times they are "invincible" :rolleyes:


I have yet to see a Fed fan claim that Fed is the best ever. :shrug:

As for the rest of your post, I won't even bother responding.

adee-gee
09-12-2006, 07:52 PM
Valid points from the thread starter :hatoff:

However, it would appear that Fedtards can only bash his opposition when it suits them :shrug:

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 07:53 PM
Since it didn't require too much effort can you actually post some responses from these so called Federer fans? Prove to me that most (I am not even talking about all) Fed fans have said what you described in the 1st post.
Oh man, that's going to take all day. This was supposed to be just for my Lunch hour. :(

GlennMirnyi
09-12-2006, 07:54 PM
Sampras lost 3 times to Yzaga, from Peru. One of 'em in the 1994 US Open.

Purple Rainbow
09-12-2006, 07:56 PM
Plain wrong. Nadal only wins more than Chang because claycourters today are a lot weaker. The rest can't be compared. Ivanisevic is nothing like Roddick, except being a big server.

All players there are stronger than nowadays top 10.

Though this may be true, we ought not forgot that Smpras in his prime didn't just lose to fellow top 10 players. In 1994-1996 Sampras lost amongst others to: Alami, Eltingh, Yzaga, Haarhuis (three times), Gross, Schaller and Karbacher. The last time Federer lost to a true clown was in 2003 when Luis Horna beat him at RG.
But I will stop baiting now.

Dirk
09-12-2006, 08:07 PM
Tangy has never provided any posts from the Fed Forum apart from PD's which were probably made in the GM. All the Federer fans there value the higher ranked players as possible threats and even some lower ranked ones. We don't write off anyone especially in nasty manner. Tangy has just been bitter we turned on her back in the Gstaad 04 thread (please read it starting on page 10) and we never welcomed her there because of all of her phony attitude towards Roger.

Tangy get a life and if you want to keep following tennis and Andy as you do in your lame ass blog then try to control your anger and bitterness when he loses because he isn't the most talented and never will be and will never be as consistent year round as Roger and Nadal so if you are going to support him then take the good with the bad and stop acting like the bad he has is unexpected and undeserving.

Dirk
09-12-2006, 08:10 PM
Though this may be true, we ought not forgot that Smpras in his prime didn't just lose to fellow top 10 players. In 1994-1996 Sampras lost amongst others to: Alami, Eltingh, Yzaga, Haarhuis (three times), Gross, Schaller and Karbacher. The last time Federer lost to a true clown was in 2003 when Luis Horna beat him at RG.
But I will stop baiting now.

I will add some more bait. I have nothing but love and respect for Pete's game and his accomplishments despite never being a fan (because of Rafter feud) but Pete in 94 which was his best year lost 12 matches. Roger lost a total of 10 matches when you add them up from 04 and 05 so Pete wasn't as dominate and never went deep in as many clay events as Roger did.

Dirk
09-12-2006, 08:10 PM
Oh man, that's going to take all day. This was supposed to be just for my Lunch hour. :(

Hey can you eat really fast and like um choke. :lol:

adee-gee
09-12-2006, 08:18 PM
Tangy has never provided any posts from the Fed Forum apart from PD's which were probably made in the GM. All the Federer fans there value the higher ranked players as possible threats and even some lower ranked ones. We don't write off anyone especially in nasty manner. Tangy has just been bitter we turned on her back in the Gstaad 04 thread (please read it starting on page 10) and we never welcomed her there because of all of her phony attitude towards Roger.

Tangy get a life and if you want to keep following tennis and Andy as you do in your lame ass blog then try to control your anger and bitterness when he loses because he isn't the most talented and never will be and will never be as consistent year round as Roger and Nadal so if you are going to support him then take the good with the bad and stop acting like the bad he has is unexpected and undeserving.
What happened to the truce? :awww:

Dirk
09-12-2006, 08:21 PM
What happened to the truce? :awww:

Look what you did to my truce thread, but with Tangy there isn't a truce and just because I am making a truce with fans like yourself doesn't mean I have to stop debating them.

Adam, you are a good guy and have fun here. I don't like some of your posts but you are not a sick morbid poster who goes around and lies about other posters and constantly bad reps people because they are upset they were exposed by them.

lordmanji
09-12-2006, 08:30 PM
you cannot compare roger federer to his contemporaries. you can only compare roger federer to the all time greats.

Deivid23
09-12-2006, 08:32 PM
Why is Roddick ranked 3rd in the list? :scratch:

adee-gee
09-12-2006, 08:43 PM
Look what you did to my truce thread, but with Tangy there isn't a truce and just because I am making a truce with fans like yourself doesn't mean I have to stop debating them.

Adam, you are a good guy and have fun here. I don't like some of your posts but you are not a sick morbid poster who goes around and lies about other posters and constantly bad reps people because they are upset they were exposed by them.
Thank you sir :hatoff:

But Tangy isn't so bad :hug:

stebs
09-12-2006, 08:45 PM
Why is Roddick ranked 3rd in the list? :scratch:
It's the champions race.

Rogiman
09-12-2006, 08:46 PM
11th - Haas, T. - pretty boy is world's worst No. 2 ever
:wavey: This one is mine!

Deivid23
09-12-2006, 08:46 PM
It's the champions race.

Thanks

ExpectedWinner
09-12-2006, 09:10 PM
Fed's dominated for 3 years. He left only 1 non clay Slam to win for the rest of the field. Of course, they all look like clowns now. But Sourdream, just stay patient. Fed's 25 now, he won't be able to dominate in the future. It means that so called clowns will start picking up Slams/TMS titles soon enough.

ABandt
09-12-2006, 09:13 PM
Here's a scary thought that just occured to me. If Roger is this good without being challenged on a consistent basis could he not have been even better with someone nipping at his heels. We've sort of seen this with his backhand...it's long been considered his weakest link...Nadal began picking at it and he's been working it into a more consistent weapon in his arsenol...imagine how good his other parts could be/become if someone were to push those more regularly...

~Amy

bokehlicious
09-12-2006, 09:19 PM
Here's a scary thought that just occured to me. If Roger is this good without being challenged on a consistent basis could he not have been even better with someone nipping at his heels. We've sort of seen this with his backhand...it's long been considered his weakest link...Nadal began picking at it and he's been working it into a more consistent weapon in his arsenol...imagine how good his other parts could be/become if someone were to push those more regularly...

~Amy

"Fedbot" would adapt his skills and figure out any player of any generation :o :p

pistolmarat
09-12-2006, 09:21 PM
People say that Nadal is nothing but a junk dirtballer...
Then they say that he's the only one to give Federer a match:retard:

And some posters here think that Roger already is the best ever...

:wavey:

tangerine_dream
09-12-2006, 09:23 PM
Why is Roddick ranked 3rd in the list? :scratch:
Because I quickly copied the Champion's Race off the ATP home page. The ATP rankings look basically the same, the clowns were just mixed up differently.

:wavey: This one is mine!
Somebody owns up! :worship:

Fed's dominated for 3 years. He left only 1 non clay Slam to win for the rest of the field. Of course, they all look like clowns now. But Sourdream, just stay patient. Fed's 25 now, he won't be able to dominate in the future. It means that so called clowns will start picking Slams/TMS titles soon enough.
Sourdream :lol:

you cannot compare roger federer to his contemporaries. you can only compare roger federer to the all time greats.
As a variation of your IF ROGER WERE DEAD RIGHT NOW... thread, where would Roger rank amongst the greats right now (right now being alive and well at 25)?

This list is in no particular order but for top ten players of all time, where would Roger fit and who would fall off the list?

Pete Sampras
Rod Laver
Björn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
John Newcombe
John McEnroe
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg

Boris Franz Ecker
09-12-2006, 09:26 PM
Federer is no 3 behind Sampras and Borg (last 35 years)

Winston's Human
09-12-2006, 09:28 PM
Given there are a finite number of slams each year, it is axiomatic that Federer's dominance (9 out of the last 14) would make his competition seem unduly weak.

The other tennis players with 9+ slams (Sampras, Emerson, Borg & Laver) won their slams over greater periods of time; which meant there was greater number of slam opportunities during their period for their competition to win.

kronus12
09-12-2006, 10:05 PM
tangerine you should really let it go your excuses are really sad.
We all know you have personal problems with fed its unbelievable what crap you come up with but at least we have a good laugh at how frustrated a certain poster gets lol...i think you need a break from the forum and go see a shrink about your problem, all your last post are about hating fed.
Don't think that a a good thing.

PamV
09-12-2006, 10:07 PM
Seriously. Using the his diehard fans' own excuses, how could Roger Federer be considered the greatest player ever if everybody else is such a no-talent clown? Let's look at the list (comments compiled using the Federer fans own words):

2006 CLOWN ERA LIST
2nd - Nadal, R. - nothing but a junk dirtballer
3rd - Roddick, A. - one dimensional, is nothing without his serve
4th - Davydenko, N. - no weapons; King of Mediocrity
5th - Ljubicic, I. - only plays his best during Davis Cup
6th - Robredo, T. - hahahaha!
7th - Nalbandian, D. - out of shape headcase
8th - Blake, J. - Mr Nice Guy can't bring the goods in the big tournaments
9th - Baghdatis, M. - no weapons to hurt anybody with
10th - Ancic, M. - beat Federer a million years ago, so what
11th - Haas, T. - pretty boy is world's worst No. 2 ever

Clearly, there's no depth or talent here. It's like Roger's stuck on the short bus. So if everybody sucks, who is Roger supposed to be measuring his own greatness against?

Obviously your looking at one or two particular people's words not the majority of Federer fans around the world.

Roger's records stand for themselves, however, no one is proclaiming him the best ever yet. He's up there with the greats and he still has more time to do more. We have to see what unfolds.

atheneglaukopis
09-12-2006, 10:13 PM
Has a link to this thread (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78615) been posted yet?

Salvy41
09-12-2006, 10:22 PM
Has anyone mentioned the way he plays? You just have to watch him play to see that he (at least potentially) deserves to be recognised as one of the all-time greats. Has there ever been a player with a more complete game than Roger Federer? His achievements in tennis so far reflect his ability, and I believe the original poster is wrong in proclaiming all other players to be 'clowns'.

Corey Feldman
09-13-2006, 02:50 AM
To begin, just look at the number of slams in the #10 list from 1996...the current top 10 is a complete joke as far as career accomplishments are concerned.

But someone made an interesting point, if Roger is the best ever...and I personally do not believe there is a best players ever because there are many solid arguements for and against Roger, Peter, Bjorn, Connors, Lendl, Laver, etc....how can he be considered the best ever when he has a 2-6 record against the current #2 who is not anywhere near his prime?

I love Rafa, but as far as his career is concerned, I think he will probably max out at the Wilander level...seven majors...

The current crop of players must get beyond the idea that matches are not best of three...they are best of five...how many times have we seen players lose the third set to Roger, and then completely give up? Oh, I forgot, only players like Tiger and Roger can understand because at times they are "invincible" :rolleyes: heh i dont know seriously to take this thread Tangy :p but anyhow.. to sawan...
Sampras' 90s era was great (thats when i began to love tennis and alot of those players) , since 2000 when the 'new balls generation' came along it has been good as well as far as good depth of top players UNTIL this year and a bit of last when suddenly the likes of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi (now retired) ,Ferrero, Kuerten, Coria, Moya have all fallen away for some reason or another... well A-Rod is on the way back.

but no matter what anyone says.. Fed , like Sampras, has taken all comers and beaten them in his era.... take his slam final victims (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick x 3, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal) nearly all top players of the era... with the exception of baggy.. who will get there one day im sure.
the 1996 top ten looks better as it was an older generation of champion and characters, compared to this year.. does not mean the standard was better or tougher then.
dont forget in 2004 Fed was top with a dominant year and that was when the likes of roddick, hewitt, safin, agassi, coria, ferrero, henman, moya, nalbandian occupied the top 10... top10 of that year wouldnt look so outta place compared to 96.

the game changes.

i also wouldnt be close to calling Fed the best ever yet acchievment wise, even Agassi is ahead of him for me despite now being a slam down.. but i will enjoy watching fed getting there over the next 5-6 years :p

thrust
09-13-2006, 03:04 AM
Anyone who claims that the top ten of 2006 is superior to the 1996 is either ignorant or extremely biased. Chang would beat Nalbandian 2 of three times for sure.