Pete Sampras on Roger Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Pete Sampras on Roger Federer

markiiii
02-12-2009, 08:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx0MtThBLjc

ORGASMATRON
02-12-2009, 08:36 PM
Very interesting thanks for this. Its pretty much exactly what i expected him to say. Go to the net more and put doubt in Rafa's mind. It annoys me that Roger hasnt seen this, he seems so dumb when playing Rafa. He seems to be out of his comfort zone. The answer to beating Rafa is to take Rafa out of his comfort zone which means coming to the net more.

MalwareDie
02-12-2009, 08:49 PM
It's just sad that everybody knows what Roger has to do to beat Mugboar except Roger himself.

andylovesaustin
02-12-2009, 09:25 PM
Good interview.

Pete speaks the truth. I also like the way he gave some love to Rafa.

Thanks for posting.

Erica86
02-12-2009, 09:37 PM
It is easy to know what to do, it is easy to say too, but it is much more difficult to put it into practise; and sometimes when you put it into practice Nadal answers this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-lvdvrw5yA

Andi-M
02-12-2009, 09:38 PM
Pete is great.

Shame Fed is too arrogant to listen to anyone!

duong
02-12-2009, 11:44 PM
It's just sad that everybody knows what Roger has to do to beat Mugboar except Roger himself.

Federer is as much as experiences as anybody about tennis,

and he is the one who has played against Nadal.

Last but far from being least, he knows his game.

Sampras may know how HE would play against Nadal (anyway he would have no other choice than going to the net considering his poor backhand),

but Federer knows better than Sampras how HE has to play.

The ones who are arrogant are the fans who think they know Federer's and Nadal's tennis better than Federer himself.

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 12:00 AM
Federer is as much as experiences as anybody about tennis,

and he is the one who has played against Nadal.

Last but far from being least, he knows his game.

Sampras may know how HE would play against Nadal (anyway he would have no other choice than going to the net considering his poor backhand),

but Federer knows better than Sampras how HE has to play.

The ones who are arrogant are the fans who think they know Federer's and Nadal's tennis better than Federer himself.


I don't consider myself arrogant. I just don't like seeing Roger so frustrated. Apparently, whatever he is doing isn't working for him right now, so we fans--I'm a long-time fan of Roger's among others--are just giving our opinion as pointless as it might be. Besides, Pete didn't say for Roger to change his game completely: he just said to made mix it up a bit more. Pete even admitted Roger is just losing a few games, but those few games have been enough for Rafa to win some grand slam tournaments at Roger's expense.

As far as the AO, at least Pete gave Rafa some credit, saying that Rafa could play at a very high level for an extended period of time. In fact, it appeared to me Pete said there just wasn't a lot Roger could do differently because Rafa was just an "animal." At one point, a person has to give the Rafa credit for something, and that's exactly what Pete did.

So, I don't think anybody is being arrogant at all. To me, Pete really respects BOTH Roger and Rafa, and said as much. He's just giving some suggestions, but also implied maybe this has just been Rafa's time, and there ain't a whole lot Roger has been able to do about it, but weather the storm, regroup and try again.

A_Skywalker
02-13-2009, 12:06 AM
Tennis match is won by your mind. Federer can play like he wants, to the net or rallying, but he has to believe and fight for every point. This is how you win.

Dini
02-13-2009, 12:30 AM
IMO that was a bit of a silly comment by Pete. Try to mix it up a little, S&V etc...

Yeah how can that be achieved when the first serve is just 51% throughout the match?

The serve let him down, plain and simple.

SaFed2005
02-13-2009, 01:47 AM
Tennis match is won by your mind. Federer can play like he wants, to the net or rallying, but he has to believe and fight for every point. This is how you win.

I could not agree more with that statement.

chammer44
02-13-2009, 04:58 AM
IMO that was a bit of a silly comment by Pete. Try to mix it up a little, S&V etc...

Yeah how can that be achieved when the first serve is just 51% throughout the match?

The serve let him down, plain and simple.

Even at 51% 1st serve, you can still come in behind a good one occasionally, no?

duong
02-13-2009, 07:36 AM
I don't consider myself arrogant. I just don't like seeing Roger so frustrated. Apparently, whatever he is doing isn't working for him right now, so we fans--I'm a long-time fan of Roger's among others--are just giving our opinion as pointless as it might be. Besides, Pete didn't say for Roger to change his game completely: he just said to made mix it up a bit more. Pete even admitted Roger is just losing a few games, but those few games have been enough for Rafa to win some grand slam tournaments at Roger's expense.

As far as the AO, at least Pete gave Rafa some credit, saying that Rafa could play at a very high level for an extended period of time. In fact, it appeared to me Pete said there just wasn't a lot Roger could do differently because Rafa was just an "animal." At one point, a person has to give the Rafa credit for something, and that's exactly what Pete did.

So, I don't think anybody is being arrogant at all. To me, Pete really respects BOTH Roger and Rafa, and said as much. He's just giving some suggestions, but also implied maybe this has just been Rafa's time, and there ain't a whole lot Roger has been able to do about it, but weather the storm, regroup and try again.

I didn't say that Sampras was arrogant, his tone is always quite reasonable comparing to others.
He gives his opinion, he says Federer should serve and volley,
and I remember Borg said that Nadal was beatable from the baseline.

Well ...

I just said many of the fans are arrogant, saying that "everybody knows what Federer should do except him" or that "he's just stupid stubborn arrogant".

Thinking they know better than Federer what he should do
... of thinking that Federer just doesn't WANT to win or wants to win with the same style as Nadal because he's arrogant and stubborn,
which is the silliest thing I've heard :
maybe their first meetings but since then I don't think Federer likes always losing to Nadal and didn't use his intelligence.

Some speak of arrogance,
others speak of mental,

but basically the fact is that Nadal is a bad match-up to Federer and is as good on quick surfaces and far far better on clay.

duong
02-13-2009, 07:38 AM
Even at 51% 1st serve, you can still come in behind a good one occasionally, no?

Don't you think you underestimate an in-form Nadal ?

OF course, if Federer had Sampras's serve and volley, no doubt he should do it.

But he hasn't (he has some other qualities but he isn't Mr Cameleon)

CescAndyKimi
02-13-2009, 07:54 AM
All Federror has to change is his mental attitude. He looks like he wents himself everytime he sees Nadal on the other side of the net. There is no point giving out advice, simply because Federer knows his game, he knows what is possible to change and what isn't. Besides things like this against a beast like Rafa are easier said than done, no?

HattonWBA
02-13-2009, 08:01 AM
Agree with what he said to be honest, and rafa is an animal, lol

Primus
02-13-2009, 09:24 AM
IMO that was a bit of a silly comment by Pete. Try to mix it up a little, S&V etc...

Yeah how can that be achieved when the first serve is just 51% throughout the match?

The serve let him down, plain and simple.

Exactly! Finally some fed fan with brains :) With 51% first serves in and the best passing man on the other side, well let's say it's not the brightest idea.
And since all are so clever, how to play Nadal (Wilnder, Sampras,...)..well none of them has actually do it. It's easy to stand by and be smart..do this, server & volley better, but this is theory. I really doubt that Federer didn't think of this, maybe it's just impossible to do it.

Bobby
02-13-2009, 09:43 AM
Serve and Volley is not the answer against Nadal. Federer's serve is not good enough, his percentage is not high enough and he's volleys are not the best ones.

In conclusion, he would be banging his head against the wall. Nadal would pass him form the left and right and that would bring Federer's spirit down pretty fast.

oranges
02-13-2009, 10:07 AM
Nadal is not the best returner out there and passing shots don't count for much if you literally S/V. People successfully mix in S/V against Murray and he's a far superior returner IMO, so I fail to see why that is such a bad idea. Pretty much anything other than accepting Nadal's play is far better idea and mixing up and trying out different things can't end up worse. I didn't see Nadal pass Tsonga left and right in the famous semi, so you're building some kind of myth here.

duong
02-13-2009, 10:48 AM
I didn't see Nadal pass Tsonga left and right in the famous semi, so you're building some kind of myth here.

Nadal is totally different when he puts a lot of physical intensity or not.

The Nadal whom Tsonga met in Australia last year (and even worse the one he will meet tonight) was totally different from the one Federer met two weeks ago.

Btw I don't say that it's a totally bad idea (and Federer does it sometimes), but you have to consider that :

if you look at Nadal when he's physically mean (like this week in Rotterdam :lol:), you have no idea about the Nadal we saw in the grand slams he won.

Henry Kaspar
02-13-2009, 10:54 AM
Federer tried to come to the net early in last year's Wimbledon final, but soon realized that this was a bad idea.

yavore
02-13-2009, 10:58 AM
Noughty swiss miss just likes to get slapped by the masculine spartans :lol: And then the joyful tears come out ...

yavore
02-13-2009, 11:02 AM
Noughty swiss miss just likes to get slapped by the masculine spartans :lol: And then the joyful tears come out ...

Foxy
02-13-2009, 11:16 AM
"Fed should do this, Fed should do that... He is mentally weak... " Stop it. He played Rafa 19 times. It is not that Rafa's style is new to him and Rog played more than a dozen GS finals. Probably he can't do much more and accept it Rafa is better matchup-wise.

oranges
02-13-2009, 11:18 AM
Federer tried to come to the net early in last year's Wimbledon final, but soon realized that this was a bad idea.

Because he came with the approach shots that my grandmother would have a chance against, it doesn't mean he's essentially unable to do better

duong
02-13-2009, 11:22 AM
Because he came with the approach shots that my grandmother would have a chance against, it doesn't mean he's essentially unable to do better

yes it's a pity that your grandma never tried to play against Nadal, maybe she has a chance :haha:

oranges
02-13-2009, 11:24 AM
"Fed should do this, Fed should do that... He is mentally weak... " Stop it. He played Rafa 19 times. It is not that Rafa's style is new to him and Rog played more than a dozen GS finals. Probably he can't do much more and accept it Rafa is better matchup-wise.

What wise words, I'm sure you'd advise that to Nadal next time he plays Nalby, it's a bad mathcup, give it up, nothing better you can do. With that mental outlook, there'd be hundreds of turkey mathcups on tour.

oranges
02-13-2009, 11:25 AM
yes it's a pity that your grandma never tried to play against Nadal, maybe she has a chance :haha:

You're actually saying those were not really disgraceful approach shots for any top 50 player, let alone multiple GS champion?

duong
02-13-2009, 11:27 AM
You're actually saying those were not really disgraceful approach shots for any top 50 player, let alone multiple GS champion?

yes in a way, but most of all, I was really interested about your grandma :yeah:

(only humour ;))

ORGASMATRON
02-13-2009, 11:30 AM
Federer is as much as experiences as anybody about tennis,

and he is the one who has played against Nadal.

Last but far from being least, he knows his game.

Sampras may know how HE would play against Nadal (anyway he would have no other choice than going to the net considering his poor backhand),

but Federer knows better than Sampras how HE has to play.

The ones who are arrogant are the fans who think they know Federer's and Nadal's tennis better than Federer himself.

I agree that he poster you respondd was arrogent but oi dont agree with what you are saying necessarily. Roger seems like a different player against Rafa. I dont think he thinks as well as he does against other players. Sure its easier said then done but i feel he needs to do what Pete is saying.

duong
02-13-2009, 11:41 AM
Roger seems like a different player against Rafa. I dont think he thinks as well as he does against other players.

he plays differently against Nadal because he has thought for more than 3 years about how to play Nadal. Also with Roche and with Higueras.

He has suffered a lot because of Nadal for more than 3 years, he's directly concerned, he's an intelligent experienced player, he has thought far more than us, he has experienced some things, he has improved his backhand for Nadal ...

then WTF we know anything to tell him ?

And even when he doesn't play against Nadal, he doesn't play the way Sampras says ...

Then yes he plays differently against Nadal : he adapts his game to Nadal because he has thought about his tactics, it's absolutely normal.

Then well, if he doesn't know as well as Oranges' grandma how to approach the net, that's his problem :lol:

oranges
02-13-2009, 11:50 AM
I really don't see much variation or intelligence for that matter in the way he plays those matches. In fact, the last few times, I see him getting sucked right into Nadal's play and unable to come up with anything for any considerable amount of time. He seems more a stubborn and set in his ways, than a master tactician.Joking about my grandmother so as to reinforce the myth that it's simply impossible to play against this guy any different, doesn't change that fact. And I don't even like the guy, I just wish that if they are going top play the finals, I have some interesting to watch, not the same ol' same ol' time after time.

duong
02-13-2009, 12:05 PM
He seems more a stubborn and set in his ways, than a master tactician.

Federer has adapted his game to many players he met.

He changes his game according to the player he meets far more than many players.

Some of the players who were used to winning against him he beat later (namely Nalbandian, Henman etc ...).

We are talking about a player so "stubborn" that he didn't play at all the same game at 25 and 20 years old.

Then I'm sorry that you are fed-up with him losing against Nadal.
The same for me.

But all this "stubborn" thing is the craziest bullshit I've ever heard.

He's lost 13 times against Nadal ... but well he thinks "no problem, I don't need to think and adapt, sooner or later I will beat him the way I decided 3 years ago".

If I listen to you guys, Federer is the God of talent, nobody like him has better been able to do anything the fans want, but he's also the most idiotic and stubborn person on earth. He's proved both throughout his carreer : he's got no tennis limits, but he is the most stupid tennis player on earth.

Well ... I know who is stubborn and arrogant :zzz:

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 12:11 PM
I just want to clarify I don't think Pete implied Roger should just accept losing to Rafa in Grand Slam finals. I didn't mean to imply this either.

I just think Pete has a good point about just accepting that Rafa has risen to the challenge against Roger. In other words, it's not about Roger necessarily: it's about Rafa unwillingness to lose and giving some credit where credit is due. Nonetheless, the matches were pretty close for the most part. So, Roger really doesn't have a whole lot to beat himself over. It's just really more about Roger just saying, "Hey, hat's off to Rafa, but I'll be back." That's all.

Something else that I brought up in other threads. Roger made it to 3 of the 4 gs finals last year, and won one. Rafa only made it to two, the FO that he was favored to win. Then of course there was Wimby, but that was an epic match. So, I agree with Pete that writing-off Roger is pretty premature. And also, IF Roger is a little down, in retrospect, he shouldn't be too down. Rafa just had a better day at Wimby, and then now at this year's AO, so now that's 4 GS finals in a row for Roger, winning 1 and losing 3 to Rafa. The thing is Roger was at least there. It's just about getting there again and being ready to win.

oranges
02-13-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm not fed up with him losing, I just don't want to watch the same scenario again and again. It's tiresome whoever wins or loses.

Well, I know, there's no way he can play any differently, that Nadal guy has an answer to everything, no one has ever come up with the solution outside of clay. God forbid thinking that the fact whether he imposes his game or not and to what extent has something to do with hte the way the other guy plays :zzz:

ORGASMATRON
02-13-2009, 12:22 PM
he plays differently against Nadal because he has thought for more than 3 years about how to play Nadal. Also with Roche and with Higueras.

He has suffered a lot because of Nadal for more than 3 years, he's directly concerned, he's an intelligent experienced player, he has thought far more than us, he has experienced some things, he has improved his backhand for Nadal ...

then WTF we know anything to tell him ?

And even when he doesn't play against Nadal, he doesn't play the way Sampras says ...

Then yes he plays differently against Nadal : he adapts his game to Nadal because he has thought about his tactics, it's absolutely normal.

Then well, if he doesn't know as well as Oranges' grandma how to approach the net, that's his problem :lol:

Once again i cant totally agree with you. There is definitely more going on here then simply Roger not being able to beat Rafa. Given Rafa is playing amazing tennis but look at what happened at the AO. Roger should have won that match period. He needs to come up with the gameplan Pete talks about and exicute it to the T no questions ask. And he cant afford to be timid. He needs to make a clear decision, he seems t be in two minds way to much against Rafa. Sorry but i think you are wropng on this one.

duong
02-13-2009, 12:27 PM
God forbid thinking that the fact whether he imposes his game or not and to what extent has something to do with hte the way the other guy plays :zzz:

No God said it has something to do with the way Federer plays,

but forbid thinking that Federer could do something else :lol:


Well, I know, there's no way he can play any differently, that Nadal guy has an answer to everything, no one has ever come up with the solution outside of clay.

it depends how Nadal plays : Federer has already beaten the crap Nadal, on clay, on grass, and on hard courts :rolleyes:

Many guys have found a solution to beat Federer, but not many succeeded in grand slams :lol:

duong
02-13-2009, 12:30 PM
Once again i cant totally agree with you. There is definitely more going on here then simply Roger not being able to beat Rafa. Given Rafa is playing amazing tennis but look at what happened at the AO. Roger should have won that match period. He needs to come up with the gameplan Pete talks about and exicute it to the T no questions ask. And he cant afford to be timid. He needs to make a clear decision, he seems t be in two minds way to much against Rafa. Sorry but i think you are wropng on this one.

Actually there was a very easy way to win this match, that's for sure : not make tons of UE the way he did in the 5th set.

Nadal was tired, and Federer would have won if he had played well, that's for sure.

Yes I'm a great tactician : I have found THE way :
Roger, don't make errors !

I'm so proud of my intelligence :angel:

Henry Kaspar
02-13-2009, 12:35 PM
Because he came with the approach shots that my grandmother would have a chance against, it doesn't mean he's essentially unable to do better

Maybe this is related to the fact that good approach shots are difficult in response to line-scratching, brutal topspins. Certainly Sampras never played against a guy like this.

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 12:36 PM
Actually there was a very easy way to win this match, that's for sure : not make tons of UE the way he did in the 5th set.

Nadal was tired, and Federer would have won if he had played well, that's for sure.

Yes I'm a great tactician : I have found THE way :
Roger, don't make errors !

I'm so proud of my intelligence :angel:


What about the fact that Rafa came-out swinging in the 5th set?

You don't think Rafa had anything to do with Roger's loss?

Part of the reason Roger didn't play well was due to Rafa picking up his game a bit in the 5th.

I am as much of a Federer fan as anybody. Frankly, I didn't think Rafa had a chance at the AO against Roger. But Rafa won that match more than Roger lost it. There is just no question about it.

Henry Kaspar
02-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Actually there was a very easy way to win this match, that's for sure : not make tons of UE the way he did in the 5th set.

Nadal was tired, and Federer would have won if he had played well, that's for sure.


I agree, and acutally here Sampras said something very true: Federer doesn't get slammed by Nadal, he is only 5 balls away or so from winning. On his day he will win.

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 12:39 PM
I agree, and acutally here Sampras said something very true: Federer doesn't get slammed by Nadal, he is only 5 balls away or so from winning. On his day he will win.

Yeah, well at least Pete gave Rafa some credit for winning.

IMO, it is a big mistake on a variety of levels NOT to give Rafa credit.

Foxy
02-13-2009, 12:47 PM
What wise words, I'm sure you'd advise that to Nadal next time he plays Nalby, it's a bad mathcup, give it up, nothing better you can do. With that mental outlook, there'd be hundreds of turkey mathcups on tour.

Hey, wiseman, Rafa - Nalby played only 2 times both on indoor hard in one MONTH time. ANd it was 2007. So it is not a reasonable comparison. Rafa - Fed played 19 times over 3 surfaces(including GS finals) + indoor hard. All that in a peroid of 6 years. Accept it Rafa is just better.

Henry Kaspar
02-13-2009, 12:51 PM
What about the fact that Rafa came-out swinging in the 5th set?

You don't think Rafa had anything to do with Roger's loss?

Not really. Federer strangely deteriorated in the 5th, many unforced errors, unreliable serve. Just when he needed to get his act together the most. To me it looked as if he chocked a little bit. And against Nadal this means of course that you are dead. Even against a tired Nadal.

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 01:09 PM
Not really. Federer strangely deteriorated in the 5th, many unforced errors, unreliable serve. Just when he needed to get his act together the most. To me it looked as if he chocked a little bit. And against Nadal this means of course that you are dead. Even against a tired Nadal.

I've got disagree with you. IF Roger choked, it was because Rafa wasn't going anywhere, and Roger knew it. Rafa was going to fight for the win, and his attitude intimidated Roger.

I repeat: Rafa won that match more than Roger lost it. Does that mean I don't think Roger is still the superior player? No, I still think Roger is the superior player technically-speaking. I still think Roger is the GOAT, and he has the record and longevity to prove it. But in this match-up, Rafa has the edge--as "ugly" as his winning might appear to tennis purists. He still manages to win.

Only time will tell if Rafa will be able to have the longevity at #1 and have the same success Roger or Pete has had over the years. Even if Rafa can be just as formidable as Roger or Pete still doesn't mean he will be considered the GOAT technically-speaking. But if he can somehow prove himself as formidable a champion as Roger or Pete, then Rafa might be considered the greatest tennis champion of all time in spite of not being considered the greatest techinically.

Of course, Rafa has a huge mountain to climb still even after all his early success. The good news for Rafa fans is at least Rafa is well-aware of how difficult task this might be.

So concerning Rafa and Roger, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

duong
02-13-2009, 01:11 PM
What about the fact that Rafa came-out swinging in the 5th set?

You don't think Rafa had anything to do with Roger's loss?

Part of the reason Roger didn't play well was due to Rafa picking up his game a bit in the 5th.

in the first set yes, on the breakpoints in the 3rd, yes.

In the 5th, no.

But well, it's not at all the first time he's played so badly in one set : last year against Simon, Fish, Stepanek, Ramirez-Hidalgo, Ginepri ...

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 01:15 PM
in the first set yes, on the breakpoints in the 3rd, yes.

In the 5th, no.

But well, it's not at all the first time he's played so badly in one set : last year against Simon, Fish, Stepanek, Ramirez-Hidalgo, Ginepri ...

I disagree with you there. I'd have to go back and watch the 5th, but I think Rafa picked it up a bit in the 5th. In other words, after losing the 4th, Rafa didn't go away. Sure he was tired, not as fresh as he was in the first, but.. no, I have to disagree with you.

As I recall, I think the commentators even said it was amazing that Rafa could just put the past sets behind him and focus on the 5th.

ORGASMATRON
02-13-2009, 01:18 PM
I disagree with you there. I'd have to go back and watch the 5th, but I think Rafa picked it up a bit in the 5th. In other words, after losing the 4th, Rafa didn't go away. Sure he was tired, not as fresh as he was in the first, but.. no, I have to disagree with you.

As I recall, I think the commentators even said it was amazing that Rafa could just put the past sets behind him and focus on the 5th.

I think in the fifth Roger was suffering from regret and Rafa was playing purely on adrenaline. I dont think Rafa raised his game at all, Rogers brain was just fried.

duong
02-13-2009, 01:22 PM
I disagree with you there. I'd have to go back and watch the 5th, but I think Rafa picked it up a bit in the 5th. In other words, after losing the 4th, Rafa didn't go away. Sure he was tired, not as fresh as he was in the first, but.. no, I have to disagree with you.

As I recall, I think the commentators even said it was amazing that Rafa could just put the past sets behind him and focus on the 5th.

of course Rafa picked his game a little bit up from the end of the 4th, as he did in the end of the 3rd,

but it was only a bit ... whereas Federer played absolutely horrible in that set.

He said it himself in the conference press actually.

andylovesaustin
02-13-2009, 01:32 PM
I think in the fifth Roger was suffering from regret and Rafa was playing purely on adrenaline. I dont think Rafa raised his game at all, Rogers brain was just fried.

Didn't Pete just say in this interview Rafa played at a very high level for an extended period of time? Even if he didn't raise his game, per se, Rafa didn't fall apart. And Rafa being able to keep it together, if not necessarily perceptably raise his game is what intimidated Roger. The bottom line is Rafa won, period. He won Wimby, and he won the AO. His success was not just due to Roger's mistakes.

Rafa created his own success, imo. But you all can believe what you want.

duong
02-13-2009, 01:57 PM
Rafa created his own success, imo. But you all can believe what you want.

I think not many say anything else.

About the AO, if Nadal hadn't won the 1st and the 3rd set, there would have even not been a 5th set.

And it's not Nadal's fault that Federer made such a horrible 5th set :shrug:

I think that more than anything, in this Australian Open, Nadal was extremely brave in his two final matches.

And this is all hats off to him :worship:

And in Wimbledon, he might have won both in 2007 and 2008.

oranges
02-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Hey, wiseman, Rafa - Nalby played only 2 times both on indoor hard in one MONTH time. ANd it was 2007. So it is not a reasonable comparison. Rafa - Fed played 19 times over 3 surfaces(including GS finals) + indoor hard. All that in a peroid of 6 years. Accept it Rafa is just better.

:rolleyes: All this says is that you're happy with the way things are and you'll force it upon anyone that's the way it should stay. In reality, you have no say on the issue. It's for Federer fans to lament and an occasional disinterested observer to put in some input.

Once again, you think Nadal should not reconsider and adjust his strategy next times he meets Nalbandian if he wants a better score. (Rhetorical question) It's safe to say if it comes to that meeting and he's made it that far, Nalby will come to play.

mediter
02-13-2009, 02:23 PM
The transitional champ has 13 fluke titles to his name and it should stop right there for sake of justice.

manuel84
02-13-2009, 07:36 PM
I wonder if KingFed actually likes unsolicited advices. Bah.

Henry Kaspar
02-13-2009, 08:01 PM
I've got disagree with you. IF Roger choked, it was because Rafa wasn't going anywhere, and Roger knew it.

But this still means that Federer choked.

I think the increase in unforced errors in the 5th speaks for itself.

This takes nothing away from Nadal, btw.

tennizen
02-13-2009, 08:22 PM
Sampras has never played Rafa. I wish he plays him once in an exho or something before he starts giving advice to Fed.

andylovesaustin
02-14-2009, 01:03 PM
But this still means that Federer choked.

I think the increase in unforced errors in the 5th speaks for itself.

This takes nothing away from Nadal, btw.

But my point is Rafa CAUSED Roger to choke--IF one sees Roger as choking at all. I just look at it that Rafa beat-up on Roger. I don't know if it was a mental thing. I don't know if as Pete said that Rafa just played better over an extended period of time. But Rafa beat Roger, period.

When I watch a boxing match, for example, sometimes an opponent just wears the other one down. It might be more the mental fatigues first then the physical follows. And that's when otherwise great boxers make costly mistakes.

Following this analogy, Rafa wore Roger down to where Roger made mistakes, and you know whether one likes it or not, this is an acceptable strategy to win. It just bugs me that it APPEARS some are reluctant to give Rafa any credit for beating Roger--and I admire Roger very much. It's more like some fans are suggesting Roger beat himself, but that's not the way it happened from my perspective. Rafa wore Roger down, and I just feel that he deserves all the credit for beating him.


That's not to say Roger isn't a great player. He is. He'll be back. And maybe next time, the outcome will be different.

superslam77
02-14-2009, 01:14 PM
pete to invite rafa for xmas dinner at the end of the year :confused:

i wonder the scream of joy from pete when he saw rogi choke that 3rd set :rolleyes:

andylovesaustin
02-14-2009, 01:25 PM
pete to invite rafa for xmas dinner at the end of the year :confused:

i wonder the scream of joy from pete when he saw rogi choke that 3rd set :rolleyes:

I saw an interview where Pete said he wants to be there when Roger breaks his record, not if. I believe this was even after the Australian Open? He said Australia was too far for him to travel, but he's he'd go to London. So, I don't think Pete has any doubts about Roger's chances. It's just a matter of when.

dark_ambient
02-14-2009, 01:35 PM
Is Sampras the new ClayDeath? :confused:

star
02-14-2009, 05:19 PM
But my point is Rafa CAUSED Roger to choke--IF one sees Roger as choking at all. I just look at it that Rafa beat-up on Roger. I don't know if it was a mental thing. I don't know if as Pete said that Rafa just played better over an extended period of time. But Rafa beat Roger, period.

When I watch a boxing match, for example, sometimes an opponent just wears the other one down. It might be more the mental fatigues first then the physical follows. And that's when otherwise great boxers make costly mistakes.

Following this analogy, Rafa wore Roger down to where Roger made mistakes, and you know whether one likes it or not, this is an acceptable strategy to win. It just bugs me that it APPEARS some are reluctant to give Rafa any credit for beating Roger--and I admire Roger very much. It's more like some fans are suggesting Roger beat himself, but that's not the way it happened from my perspective. Rafa wore Roger down, and I just feel that he deserves all the credit for beating him.


That's not to say Roger isn't a great player. He is. He'll be back. And maybe next time, the outcome will be different.

Welcome to MTF. :lol:

Here it acceptable only if certain players who are deemed talented win matches. Otherwise, no credit is given to the winner -- not even though he is the number one player in the world. It's crazy! :silly:

Henry Kaspar
02-14-2009, 05:57 PM
But my point is Rafa CAUSED Roger to choke--IF one sees Roger as choking at all. I just look at it that Rafa beat-up on Roger. I don't know if it was a mental thing. I don't know if as Pete said that Rafa just played better over an extended period of time. But Rafa beat Roger, period.

When I watch a boxing match, for example, sometimes an opponent just wears the other one down. It might be more the mental fatigues first then the physical follows. And that's when otherwise great boxers make costly mistakes.

Following this analogy, Rafa wore Roger down to where Roger made mistakes, and you know whether one likes it or not, this is an acceptable strategy to win. It just bugs me that it APPEARS some are reluctant to give Rafa any credit for beating Roger--and I admire Roger very much. It's more like some fans are suggesting Roger beat himself, but that's not the way it happened from my perspective. Rafa wore Roger down, and I just feel that he deserves all the credit for beating him.


That's not to say Roger isn't a great player. He is. He'll be back. And maybe next time, the outcome will be different.

Well acutally I don't think that we disagree on anything of substance. Except, I think Roger's brittle nerves contributed to his defeat down under. All the break points he squandered. All the unforced error in the fifth. Not clear to me whether you see it like this too, but then, that's a minor point.