Cincinnati 99/09 : Sampras 10 years ago and Federer now [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Cincinnati 99/09 : Sampras 10 years ago and Federer now

Satanic Pasteur
08-24-2009, 12:07 PM
Sampras and Federer were both born in august, 1971 for the former & 1981 for the latter so exactly 10 years was always very easy to compare their career with age factor.
In 1999 Sampras won his 60th title at Cincinnati and yesterday Roger won at the same tournament 10 years later his 61st one...
Sampras then went to win only 4 titles after (Masters 99, Miami 00, Wimbledon 00 & USO 02). I hope Fed will achieve more than that for rest of his career.

Echoes
08-24-2009, 12:14 PM
I remember that tournament very well. Sampras was playing better than ever. It was the first time he beat Rafter in August since at least two years.

And he beat Krajicek earlier in the tournament for the first time in 5 years. :mad:

I think he could have won the US Open that year if it was not for a foot injury which forced him to retire at the very last moment.

Dini
08-24-2009, 12:20 PM
That's creepy, I hope Federer doesn't stop at 65 titles. :p

FedFan_2007
08-24-2009, 12:45 PM
I have a feeling Roger was made by God to do a lot more then anyone expects.

ballbasher101
08-24-2009, 01:00 PM
Sampras was good but Federer is a class apart.

Arkulari
08-24-2009, 01:18 PM
Roger is younger and has won GS tournaments non stop for years ;)

Certinfy
08-24-2009, 01:19 PM
Hopefully he follows the 'prophecy'

Shadow Knows
08-24-2009, 01:37 PM
I think he could have won the US Open that year if it was not for a foot injury which forced him to retire at the very last moment.

Herniated disc.

duong
08-24-2009, 01:38 PM
Yes, it's true ... and also Sampras had just gone back to number 1 two weeks before :lol: (he gave it up to Agassi after the US Open, considering his withdrawal)

Federer does not have recurrent medical problems as Sampras had in that time, which is very important of course

... but comparing to Sampras, he has several disadvantages :

- his competitors are harder than Sampras had in that age (I will not develop my idea that Sampras had tougher opponents in his youth until 1996, and less complicated afterwards, whereas it's the opposite for Federer : the older he is the better his opponents are)

- he doesn't have a surface which specifically suits his game, and doesn't suit many of his opponents, as Sampras had with grass (Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Kuerten or Safin couldn't play on grass in that time) to win at least one grand slam a year (apart from the legendary US Open 2002, the last 4 GS which Sampras won were all Wimbledon)

- and he's a father of two lovely little twins :lol:

We will see, but personally I see every tournament where he succeeds as one of the final ones :wavey:

ShotmaKer
08-24-2009, 02:08 PM
We will see, but personally I see every tournament where he succeeds as one of the final ones :wavey:

A couple more GS would be cool ;)

Serenidad
08-24-2009, 02:16 PM
- he doesn't have a surface which specifically suits his game, and doesn't suit many of his opponents, as Sampras had with grass (Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Kuerten or Safin couldn't play on grass in that time) to win at least one grand slam a year (apart from the legendary US Open 2002, the last 4 GS which Sampras won were all Wimbledon)



And outside of Roddick and Porky name some grass aces lately? :rolleyes:

He definitely has that surface in grass. Fanboying.

maxardy
08-24-2009, 02:18 PM
agassi won career grand slam in 99 and federer in 2009

Haelfix
08-24-2009, 02:19 PM
I do think a major difference is that Federer is a threat on every surface, whereas in the latter years Sampras was really only about the fast hards, carpet (when he cared) and grass.

Also body wise they are different. Federer might not move like he did in 2004, but he still is lightning fast relative to most of the rest of the tour. I think he'll age better than Sampras did physically, something about the effortless glide which seems so unstrenous.

Keep in mind, you actually need less wheels when you are a offensive ground game guy, than a S/Ver (which requires very fast forward movement). Eg, Agassi was a threat on the baseline, well into his thirties, despite the fact that by that point most people could run windsprints around him.

Durability and injuries will start to plague Roger and sideline him from more masters, and that will goof with his shot timing (so more shanks) but I have no doubt he'll still be competitive at a slam or two a year for quite some time. Wimbledon in particular.

Burrow
08-24-2009, 02:22 PM
This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:

duong
08-24-2009, 02:33 PM
And outside of Roddick and Porky name some grass aces lately? :rolleyes:

He definitely has that surface in grass. Fanboying.

The grass has changed, Federer does not have Sampras's serve neither volley.

Nadal has reached 3 finals in Wimbledon and been equal to Federer in 2 of them.

Murray semi-finalist and was favorite this year.

etc etc ...

What more do you want ?

Serenidad
08-24-2009, 02:35 PM
Murray will always be more comfortable on a hardcourt.

Federer's absolute best surface is grass. The only other player who would say that in the current Top 10 is Roddick.

He has even less people who know how to play on grass than Sampras. Quit fanboying.

duong
08-24-2009, 02:37 PM
Keep in mind, you actually need less wheels when you are a offensive ground game guy, than a S/Ver (which requires very fast forward movement). Eg, Agassi was a threat on the baseline, well into his thirties, despite the fact that by that point most people could run windsprints around him.

that's very true as well :yeah:

The same for Lendl, even Connors (yet it was a less quick period for Connors)

They all needed a great physical disciplin for that ... which Federer did in the beginning of the year.

Benny_Maths
08-24-2009, 02:41 PM
During the '99 Cincinnati final one of Sampras' shots sent the ball right through his opponent's racquet.:D

bokehlicious
08-24-2009, 02:46 PM
This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:

2000 was a great year because Safin won a slam? :scratch: Rather the other way around, he was lucky that there wasn't any real good player around back then so he could fluke his way to a USO title... :o :p

Echoes
08-24-2009, 02:46 PM
Herniated disc.

Correct.

I don't know why I said foot injury. He already had terrible back problems at the end of 1998 (in Bercy).

But I'm convinced that Sampras was still the best in 1999 and maybe in 2000 as well.

BigJohn
08-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Sampras and Federer were both born in august, 1971 for the former & 1981 for the latter so exactly 10 years was always very easy to compare their career with age factor.
In 1999 Sampras won his 60th title at Cincinnati and yesterday Roger won at the same tournament 10 years later his 61st one...
Sampras then went to win only 4 titles after (Masters 99, Miami 00, Wimbledon 00 & USO 02). I hope Fed will achieve more than that for rest of his career.

He will achieve more than Sampras. This year is not finished and he will be playing at least 3 more years after that.

This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:

You forgot real #1 Djokovic...

GlennMirnyi
08-24-2009, 04:20 PM
Fakervic is not in contention anymore.

Sampras would have won at least 5 more GSs if he played in this mug era.

rwn
08-24-2009, 04:38 PM
Fakervic is not in contention anymore.

Sampras would have won at least 5 more GSs if he played in this mug era.

Exactly. Sampras wouldn´t have to play giants like Schaller or Yzaga in this era.

GlennMirnyi
08-24-2009, 04:41 PM
Exactly. Sampras wouldn´t have to play giants like Schaller or Yzaga in this era.

:lol:

Kunistyn and Capdeville.

Next.

stebs
08-24-2009, 04:55 PM
But I'm convinced that Sampras was still the best in 1999 and maybe in 2000 as well.

He could be the best when he gave big performances but his average level of that time wasn't so great. A lot of average players had chances to beat him, especially past the turn of the century.

duong
08-24-2009, 05:04 PM
:lol:

Kunistyn and Capdeville.

Next.

I guess you realize that he didn't choose them hazardously : both of them beat Sampras in slams (Yzaga -who was quite good actually- even did it twice, as he had already done it when Sampras was a "baby" in 1988).

But well it's just kidding : don't take it too seriously :)

ballbasher101
08-24-2009, 05:12 PM
This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:


Keep convincing yourself that this is a week era. You know what they say, If you tell a lie long enough you will start to believe it.

GlennMirnyi
08-24-2009, 05:16 PM
I guess you realize that he didn't choose them hazardously : both of them beat Sampras in slams (Yzaga -who was quite good actually- even did it twice, as he had already done it when Sampras was a "baby" in 1988).

But well it's just kidding : don't take it too seriously :)

Federer lost to Horna, Clement, Arazi... it's not like those players are giants of the game.

NYCtennisfan
08-24-2009, 05:20 PM
It was too bad he couldn't compete in the '99 USO due to injury because he would have had a great chance to win it. Sampras was full of confidence after the Wimbledon final where he dominated Agassi and often refers to that match as the best he's played overall in any match.

duong
08-24-2009, 05:24 PM
Federer lost to Horna, Clement, Arazi... it's not like those players are giants of the game.

Ok better choice than Capdeville and Kunitsyn ;)

GlennMirnyi
08-24-2009, 05:36 PM
Ok better choice than Capdeville and Kunitsyn ;)

Soon he'll be losing to Capdevilles and Kunitsyns.

duong
08-24-2009, 05:37 PM
Back to the topic, someone made me realize that in 1985, just before the US Open where he (definitely) lost his number 1 crown (losing to Lendl in the final) and started his 2nd (bad) carreer,

McEnroe had also been astonishing in summer, outdoing all of his opponents (including Lendl in the final) in both summer tournaments of Stratton Mountain and Montreal.

Let's hope that the story doesn't repeat again :eek:

Echoes
08-24-2009, 06:00 PM
He could be the best when he gave big performances but his average level of that time wasn't so great. A lot of average players had chances to beat him, especially past the turn of the century.

In 2000 he was World N°1 again after his defeat to Safin at the US Open. He lost that rank because he no longer played before the Masters. But I agree he was no longer the same player.

As far as 1999 is concerned I really think he was better than he has ever been. In Cincinnati I was surprised by the way he beat Krajicek (I was so disappointed, Krajicek was my favourite). He just played so well on his weaker strokes (backhands and returns of serves). It seemed that he had no more weakness. Agassi got the World N°1 rank coz' Pete missed the US Open and the whole end of the season but the Masters where he destroyed Agassi in the final.

Echoes
08-24-2009, 06:02 PM
[QUOTE=duong;9007019][...] (Yzaga -who was quite good actually- [...]
QUOTE]

Schaller was not that bad either on clay. I remember him coming back from one set and one break down against Berasategui in Hilversum (or A'dam?) to win the match.

Satanic Pasteur
08-24-2009, 06:22 PM
This "weak/mug era" stuff that I read often on this board and here by Burrow and GlennMirnyi is right for the depth of opponents (in quantity) but quality wise is plain false one as Sampras surely had Agassi in his prime and then likes of Marat, Hewitt & Kuerten in his last years but a guy like Nadal is a lot tougher than Safin, Hewitt (even the 2002 Lleyton version) and Guga even reunited. Nadal alone is more a threat and could be compared more to Agassi but I have feeling Nadal will achieve more than Andre too and I am no Porky fan at all.

Djokovic & Murray are indeed 1 or more classes below Nadal in terms of game depth but are still not that weaker from Sampras opponents he faced after his prime.

Its more a matter of Federer that made his era looking weak than being weak in real (apart from 2004 maybe when nobody could contend with him at all).

Sampras faced bunch of skillfull dudes but most of them were weak mentally (almost all but Hewitt actually). Nadal will always be the tougher "thing" one of them had to face because Pete owned Agassi when it mattered.

duong
08-24-2009, 07:16 PM
and then likes of Marat, Hewitt & Kuerten in his last years

very last (they were not a big force before 2000)

Before that, there were several years when it was more a matter of Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Chang, Moya, Corretja, Rusedski, Krajicek ;)... and Ivanisevic only in Wimbledon.

But this is a polemic topic :rolleyes:

More interesting (for me), did you see that the same story you relate about Sampras also arrived to McEnroe in a certain extent ?

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-24-2009, 07:44 PM
In 2000 he was World N°1 again after his defeat to Safin at the US Open. He lost that rank because he no longer played before the Masters. But I agree he was no longer the same player.

As far as 1999 is concerned I really think he was better than he has ever been. In Cincinnati I was surprised by the way he beat Krajicek (I was so disappointed, Krajicek was my favourite). He just played so well on his weaker strokes (backhands and returns of serves). It seemed that he had no more weakness. Agassi got the World N°1 rank coz' Pete missed the US Open and the whole end of the season but the Masters where he destroyed Agassi in the final.

IMO Pete produced the best tennis of his career in 1999. I'm surprised that you don't quote his other famous matches in that year, specifically the Wimbledon final win vs Agassi. I remember watching him in the early rounds at Wimbledon that year and thinking "wow, he's really found his game." But the ridiculous British media didn't notice as they were too busy hyping up Henman before he took the inevitable beating in the semis. In fact Henman's best chance to beat Sampras at Wimbledon was in 1998 as Sampras was relatively speaking quite poor that year (although he still edged past Henman and then Ivanisevic).

Satanic Pasteur
08-24-2009, 08:00 PM
Yes Duong of course the list of players you name are the ones I referenced "a bunch of skillfull dudes but most of them were weak mentally" : Chang, Rios, Moya, Corretja and Rusedski never had much impact on Sampras ; Rafter and Kafel were pretty lucky to beat him in a sole grand slam semi each but yes Krajicek of course was always tough competitor for him and Goran owned Pete 5/2 in their first years on tour before becoming such a headcase (he was my all time favorite so:o)).
Becker was the best competitor for Sampras I think apart from Agassi during Pete's prime.

Non Duong (understand this language too i presume hehe ?) je n'avais pas fait le lien avec Mcenroe en 85 car je suis ton cadet d'une dizaine d'années et que je n'ai pas pu voir son déclin en "live";)
Nevertheless, an interesting point you made.

Ichiban1920
08-24-2009, 08:16 PM
Keep convincing yourself that this is a week era. You know what they say, If you tell a lie long enough you will start to believe it.

Mug fucking era moron.

Nadull with 6 slams is more than enough proof.

duong
08-24-2009, 08:22 PM
Non Duong (understand this language too i presume hehe ?) je n'avais pas fait le lien avec Mcenroe en 85 car je suis ton cadet d'une dizaine d'années et que je n'ai pas pu voir son déclin en "live";)
Nevertheless, an interesting point you made.

To be honest (I'll speak English not to take the others away :lol: ), I had forgotten that episode, but someone reminded it to me.

The declining Sampras and McEnroe both played great during the summer just before the US Open before their final (or nearly final) falldown (for different reasons however).

That's not encouraging :eek: ... but well, Federer's game and physical conditions are more like Agassi's and Lendl's than Sampras's.

Brad Gilbert (an "ugly" player who beat the great McEnroe in the Masters in the end of that year 1985) said that Federer was "a mixture between Sampras and Lendl".

That's the encouraging part :D

dam0dred
08-24-2009, 08:49 PM
Sampras would have won at least 5 more GSs if he played in this mug era.

Bullshit. The fact that Sampras let a player like Courier win multiple slams and get to number one under his watch tells me all I need to know about him and his era. Fedal would never have let that happen.

Comparing eras is inherently pointless, but when a guy like Agassi says publicly and repeatedly that Federer is the best he's ever seen, and that the guys he played against at the end of his career were stronger, faster, fitter, and better than those he played at the beginning is enough evidence for me.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-24-2009, 08:59 PM
Comparing eras really is pointless. Players may have been stronger at the end of Agassi's career than at the beginning but in ten years' time Murray will be saying the same..."The guys now are much stronger/faster/harder hitting than in the Fedal era." The game has always evolved over time.

Ichiban1920
08-24-2009, 09:05 PM
Bullshit. The fact that Sampras let a player like Courier win multiple slams and get to number one under his watch tells me all I need to know about him and his era. Fedal would never have let that happen.

Comparing eras is inherently pointless, but when a guy like Agassi says publicly and repeatedly that Federer is the best he's ever seen, and that the guys he played against at the end of his career were stronger, faster, fitter, and better than those he played at the beginning is enough evidence for me.

Stronger, fast, fitter and better because of advanced racket technology, and new diet and fitness programs/regiments. Obviously players are naturally going to be stronger and faster today then they were in the 90s.

Mug era.

CyBorg
08-24-2009, 09:06 PM
I have a feeling Roger was made by God to do a lot more then anyone expects.

Maybe you're a schizophrenic or have a tumour.

Satanic Pasteur
08-24-2009, 09:31 PM
Lol Duong, Gilbert really often talks crap but maybe here it's an ok comment even if I think Lendl & Agassi were more fit than Federer (it was their main force obviously even if Agassi was not fit at first but became while maturing but for Roger I still feel fitness can be a weakness for him and can be exposed against very fit guys like Nadal or Murray). Fed collapsed physically during Wimbledon final 08 and Melbourne semi 05 and you can see it because he can't dance around the ball anymore when drained and begin spraying forehands all over the place (at least i had this precise feeling when watching both these matches live, also a fit Safin was the king of 5 setters in his prime with natural endurance).

I don't think Fed will collapse so soon (my hope is he keeps numero uno position until RG 2010 to surpass Sampras weeks on top spot) but I think Murray may have great chance to become 1 at Melbourne and then it's a lock for Nadal if he is healthy from Madrid I fear but who knows.


Damodred, Sampras "didn't let" Courier be number 1 as this last one dominated the game before him (Sampras was too young to really dominate during Courier's reign). Once Sampras was 1 it was all over for Courier who was also a very good match up for Sampras.
It's same for Hewitt who had success before Fed reign but collapsed when Fed and co. really rised in 2003 and then became Roger's pigeon.
Courier & Hewitt were interim number ones.

rwn
08-24-2009, 09:35 PM
:lol:

Kunistyn and Capdeville.

Next.

That´s all you've got ?

Corey Feldman
08-24-2009, 09:37 PM
the comparisons between them are always there

in 99 Sampras was having a horrible year then won 4 in a row from Queens, a bit like Fed from Madrid

and 1998 was Pete's first slowing down year winning 4 titles and only 1 GS, same as Fed in 2008.

BigJohn
08-24-2009, 09:38 PM
Courier & Hewitt were interim number ones.

What about Nadal?

rwn
08-24-2009, 09:39 PM
the comparisons between them are always there

in 99 Sampras was having a horrible year then won 4 in a row from Queens, a bit like Fed from Madrid

and 1998 was Pete's first slowing down year winning 4 titles and only 1 GS, same as Fed in 2008.

Sampras was superior in one thing: winning mickey mouse titles :D

abraxas21
08-24-2009, 09:45 PM
Bullshit. The fact that Sampras let a player like Courier win multiple slams and get to number one under his watch tells me all I need to know about him and his era. Fedal would never have let that happen.

Comparing eras is inherently pointless, but when a guy like Agassi says publicly and repeatedly that Federer is the best he's ever seen, and that the guys he played against at the end of his career were stronger, faster, fitter, and better than those he played at the beginning is enough evidence for me.

i'm pretty sure sampras has made similar comments about federer but we should obviously take gleenmirnyl and burrow's opinion about this era instead of the opinions of tennis nobodies like agassi and sampras. it's blatantly obvious that glenn and burrow are far more knowledgable about the game than a guy like agassi ever was.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-24-2009, 09:47 PM
Stronger, fast, fitter and better because of advanced racket technology, and new diet and fitness programs/regiments. Obviously players are naturally going to be stronger and faster today then they were in the 90s.

Mug era.

Heh. So you admit the players today are stronger and faster than in the 90s but still call it a mug era? What can you possibly base that on? You're looking at today's players and somehow managing to work out what they would be like without the superior training regimes (you must be pretty smart to manage this) and concluding that they are mugs. Absolute nonsense, I'm afraid.

duong
08-24-2009, 09:49 PM
Sampras was superior in one thing: winning mickey mouse titles :D

As a Swiss guy, Fed plays in Basel (not even Gstaad :lol: ).
As an American Sampras played some of the multiple MMs they have :lol:

abraxas21
08-24-2009, 09:50 PM
Stronger, fast, fitter and better because of advanced racket technology, and new diet and fitness programs/regiments. Obviously players are naturally going to be stronger and faster today then they were in the 90s.

Mug era.

errr... aren't you contradicting yourself there, pal? if the players are faster and stronger nowadays then you have to conclude that this era is better, at least in those regards.

duong
08-24-2009, 10:01 PM
Lol Duong, Gilbert really often talks crap but maybe here it's an ok comment even if I think Lendl & Agassi were more fit than Federer (it was their main force obviously even if Agassi was not fit at first but became while maturing but for Roger I still feel fitness can be a weakness for him and can be exposed against very fit guys like Nadal or Murray). Fed collapsed physically during Wimbledon final 08 and Melbourne semi 05 and you can see it because he can't dance around the ball anymore when drained and begin spraying forehands all over the place (at least i had this precise feeling when watching both these matches live, also a fit Safin was the king of 5 setters in his prime with natural endurance).

Yes you're right, I actually said that to reassure ;) but I guess Federer is more the Sampras and Mac's style than the Lendl and Agassi's.

I mean comparing to the other ones in the same era.

Lendl had a superior physical condition, and Agassi also took benefit from the same comparing to their opponents.

Whereas Fed has more success in his "moments of grace" like in the end of Cinci, as McEnroe and Sampras had
... comparing to the great physical of Murray especially, or Nadal when he's on top.

But still Fed has some common points with Lendl and Agassi, in the fact that he relies far more on baseline attacks than on attacks to the net (which need speed and precision) ... and also that he still has a great physical, very seldom injured especially (comparing to Sampras) ... and also good endurance (he can lose more in speed -and concentration- than basic endurance, I guess)

More importantly, I guess Lendl and Agassi's example shows that there is one main basis for a player of that age to stay at the top : practicing, practicing, practicing physical exercises especially for the quickness of the legs ... and that's what Federer did in the beginning of the year, and which he sees himself as a key to his success this year. People talked about the coach and all this, but I also thought that the physical condition was the main key at his age, especially to stay quick on his legs.

I guess he likes tennis enough to keep on practicing a lot in coming years ... and not lose focus like McEnroe.

But he has very good opponents (comparing to the old Agassi especially).

GlennMirnyi
08-24-2009, 10:35 PM
Bullshit. The fact that Sampras let a player like Courier win multiple slams and get to number one under his watch tells me all I need to know about him and his era. Fedal would never have let that happen.

Comparing eras is inherently pointless, but when a guy like Agassi says publicly and repeatedly that Federer is the best he's ever seen, and that the guys he played against at the end of his career were stronger, faster, fitter, and better than those he played at the beginning is enough evidence for me.

:lol:

Players today can't even tie Courier's shoelaces.

I can't read a post where the word Fedal is used. I'm sorry if I can't even read the rest.

out_here_grindin
08-25-2009, 12:02 AM
What about Nadal?

That was just a warmup for his domination next decade.

Satanic Pasteur
08-25-2009, 12:11 AM
What about Nadal?

Hmm rankings wise now he can seem interim but I won't forget the first reason he lost his top spot is not being able to play at Queen's and Wimbledon because in normal shape he was probably winning the former and being at least finalist in the latter:confused:
If he is just interim number 1 will be due to bad luck so but he is my first pick to be number one in august 2010 if he can play full year.


... and also good endurance (he can lose more in speed -and concentration- than basic endurance, I guess)
More importantly, I guess Lendl and Agassi's example shows that there is one main basis for a player of that age to stay at the top : practicing, practicing, practicing physical exercises especially for the quickness of the legs ... and that's what Federer did in the beginning of the year, and which he sees himself as a key to his success this year.

I am not sure he loses that much speed, I still rate him as one of the best sprinter on short distances in the game (at least in his prime he was quicker on short sprints than the likes of Nadal and company, the quickest player on tour in this department was Kiefer when younger hence his very muscular legs). The problem is Fed very rarely plays very long matchs so it's hard to rate his sheer endurance, I think it's ok but not near a Nadal for instance:confused:
I didn't know he worked hard last winter hehe, I think he has very good natural legs but he was growing a bit of a belly last years so is he really a hard practicer ?:p

dam0dred
08-25-2009, 12:23 AM
:lol:

Players today can't even tie Courier's shoelaces.

Interesting theory. Who to believe - Grand Slam champions or bitter, anonymous trolls who spend half their lives on an internet forum?

It's a tough call.

Ichiban1920
08-25-2009, 01:22 AM
Heh. So you admit the players today are stronger and faster than in the 90s but still call it a mug era? What can you possibly base that on? You're looking at today's players and somehow managing to work out what they would be like without the superior training regimes (you must be pretty smart to manage this) and concluding that they are mugs. Absolute nonsense, I'm afraid.

If the players back then were playing with the racquets they have now and had the same fitness programs, they'd blow these current mugs out of the water. It's obviously you're a fed/nadull fanboy/glory-hunter so obviously you're blind to the obvious.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 01:27 AM
Interesting theory. Who to believe - Grand Slam champions or bitter, anonymous trolls who spend half their lives on an internet forum?

It's a tough call.

Common sense isn't for everybody. Don't be sad.

BigJohn
08-25-2009, 02:23 AM
That was just a warmup for his domination next decade.

... or his couple of months off were a warmup for his early retirement due to his body breaking down in 3 years. It's either that or becoming a Williams sister. And I do not think he is the type. I do not wish him to get injured but I doubt his knees will get stronger as he gets older.

Hmm rankings wise now he can seem interim but I won't forget the first reason he lost his top spot is not being able to play at Queen's and Wimbledon because in normal shape he was probably winning the former and being at least finalist in the latter:confused:
If he is just interim number 1 will be due to bad luck so but he is my first pick to be number one in august 2010 if he can play full year.



I really like Nadal but I think his stint as #1 was the result of a perfect storm.

1- It had to do with Federer's annus horribilis. (health issues, pressure to equal Sampras, mounting pressure to win RG)

2- At the same time Nadal played out of his mind and had major wins on all surfaces, having a Federer-like year. With more losses, but you get the point.

3- The Olympics, the pressure, the extra points.

So both Federer and Nadal lost their #1 spot partly because of health issues while the other guy played well. The difference being Nadal's was a sport injury caused by his playing style, while Federer's was an illness unrelated to tennis. Just because of that, I give the edge to Federer for the #1 spot a year from now. That and the fact the PapaFed's game looks so sharp now that the pressure is gone.

BigJohn
08-25-2009, 02:32 AM
Interesting theory. Who to believe - Grand Slam champions or bitter, anonymous trolls who spend half their lives on an internet forum?

It's a tough call.

I find it hard to give Agassi any credibility since he does not seem to use the words mug, moonballer or gloryhunter often enough.

abraxas21
08-25-2009, 02:57 AM
Sampras after Federer won RG: "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

Agassi on Federer: "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky".

The funny thing is that the same people that around here talk about how muggy this era is and how great was the era in which Sampras and Agassi played continally tend to ignore their own favourite players' opinions on Federer. If this era is so muggy and Federer is the greatest ever --according to what their own heros say-- then how is it possible that Federer can struggle to defeat guys like Nalbandián, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic among others of his era?

nostalgia can be bitter.

BigJohn
08-25-2009, 03:07 AM
If this era is so muggy and Federer is the greatest ever --according to what their own heros say-- then how is it possible that Federer can struggle to defeat guys like Nalbandián, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic among others of his era?

nostalgia can be bitter.

What the hell? Djokovic is on that list?

I would like to know who are the others.

mark73
08-25-2009, 03:07 AM
Yes we are in a weak era. Federer wins because everyone sucks and not because he is an incredible player.

Every year tennis players get worse.

In 1890 tennis had its best players and its gone down every year since then. All other sports show improvements.

Look at phelps and bolt. It must be that tennis is infected with the horrible disease of tennisitis. How else can tennis be the only sport where players are not improving?

abraxas21
08-25-2009, 03:17 AM
What the hell? Djokovic is on that list?

I would like to know who are the others.

the djoker has beaten fed 4 times or 1 third of the number of matches between the 2. granted, fed's got the upper hand against him but it's still a dangerous player for him.

as for the others, just look up everyone who has beaten federer. i'm sure there are many

...and if there are many, it would indicate that the players of this era can present a decent competetion to federer. and if we believe sampras' and aggassi's assertion that federer is the greatest to have ever played the game then it's only logical to say that in this era there are many players who can present a decent competition to the greatest ever. thus, if many players of this era can get to the point of defeating the greatest ever then we have to conclude that this is a great era for tennis.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 03:35 AM
I find it hard to give Agassi any credibility since he does not seem to use the words mug, moonballer or gloryhunter often enough.

He does, when he looks at the mirror.

FedFan_2007
08-25-2009, 03:37 AM
Yes we are in a weak era. Federer wins because everyone sucks and not because he is an incredible player.

Every year tennis players get worse.

In 1890 tennis had its best players and its gone down every year since then. All other sports show improvements.

Look at phelps and bolt. It must be that tennis is infected with the horrible disease of tennisitis. How else can tennis be the only sport where players are not improving?

:haha: Typical GM "logic". :haha: :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::h aha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

FedFan_2007
08-25-2009, 03:38 AM
He does, when he looks at the mirror.

You realize that exactly 0 people on MTF like you? You sir, are the very definition of a masochist.

GlennMirnyi
08-25-2009, 04:06 AM
You realize that exactly 0 people on MTF like you? You sir, are the very definition of a masochist.

Couldn't care less. :)

mark73
08-25-2009, 04:26 AM
:haha: Typical GM "logic". :haha: :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::h aha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Glad you enjoyed my sarcasm. :)

BigJohn
08-25-2009, 05:10 AM
the djoker has beaten fed 4 times or 1 third of the number of matches between the 2. granted, fed's got the upper hand against him but it's still a dangerous player for him.


He just seemed the odd man out on that list.

But I think only Nadal owns Federer. I do not think Murrays's positive H2H will stand much longer. And it is negative when it matters: USO and Bangkok.

duong
08-25-2009, 06:47 AM
I didn't know he worked hard last winter hehe, I think he has very good natural legs but he was growing a bit of a belly last years so is he really a hard practicer ?:p

he practiced a lot during spring actually (after the Australian Open and until Roma from what I understood http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=145686 ),
and lost several kilogrammes from what I heard.

Arkulari
08-25-2009, 07:14 AM
Roger lost 10 pounds ;)

duong
08-25-2009, 08:15 AM
Roger lost 10 pounds ;)

yes I remember, and he said that he now looks more carefully at his diet

... sounds like old Lendl and Agassi actually ;)

leng jai
08-25-2009, 08:17 AM
You realize that exactly 0 people on MTF like you? You sir, are the very definition of a masochist.

Are you talking about yourself?

rwn
08-25-2009, 08:55 AM
It was too bad he couldn't compete in the '99 USO due to injury because he would have had a great chance to win it. Sampras was full of confidence after the Wimbledon final where he dominated Agassi and often refers to that match as the best he's played overall in any match.

It was also too bad that Philippoussis injured his knee in the quarterfinals at Wimbledon when he was outplaying Sampras.:)

rwn
08-25-2009, 09:07 AM
As a Swiss guy, Fed plays in Basel (not even Gstaad :lol: ).
As an American Sampras played some of the multiple MMs they have :lol:

It´s just funny to see how many MM titles Sampras has won, when some of his fans are constantly claiming how Sampras only cared about the slams.

chenx15
08-25-2009, 09:31 AM
got to love MTF.

Echoes
08-25-2009, 09:46 AM
It´s just funny to see how many MM titles Sampras has won, when some of his fans are constantly claiming how Sampras only cared about the slams.

He didn't. Or else he wouldn't have been World n°1 for 6 years.

I don't know how fans can claim that. I hate champions who only care about the 'big events' in any sports.

Echoes
08-25-2009, 09:49 AM
IMO Pete produced the best tennis of his career in 1999. I'm surprised that you don't quote his other famous matches in that year, specifically the Wimbledon final win vs Agassi.

You're right. This match against Agassi was his best. I talked of Cincinnati because it was the main topic of this thread. I remember that my grandad gave him no chance against Andre after his win against Henman, but I wish I could have watched his earlier matches. :(

Echoes
08-25-2009, 09:53 AM
It was also too bad that Philippoussis injured his knee in the quarterfinals at Wimbledon when he was outplaying Sampras.:)

Winning one set by 6 games to 4. Is that outplaying?

HattonWBA
08-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Federer will achieve more than 4 titles from now until the end of his career.

buzz
08-25-2009, 10:09 AM
Winning one set by 6 games to 4. Is that outplaying?

I remember after seing that first set I thought pete couldn't do anything. Philipousis was playing very good and had deffinitly a good shot at the win there. With pete's serve and game, a 6-4 set could be a set were 1 player outplayed the other

rwn
08-25-2009, 10:41 AM
Winning one set by 6 games to 4. Is that outplaying?

I saw that match, and yes, Sampras was totally outplayed until Philippoussis got injured.

Echoes
08-25-2009, 11:19 AM
You can't draw conclusions after just one set.

buzz
08-25-2009, 11:33 AM
You can't draw conclusions after just one set.

True, see de Fed-berdych match. But I would give phillipouses big chance if he didn't got injured. It all looked very controlled.

Satanic Pasteur
08-25-2009, 12:23 PM
he practiced a lot during spring actually (after the Australian Open and until Roma from what I understood http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=145686 ),
and lost several kilogrammes from what I heard.

Thx for the link:)
On dirait du Jean Claude Van Damme dans le texte (the french version indeed;)).

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 01:02 PM
Yes we are in a weak era. Federer wins because everyone sucks and not because he is an incredible player.

Every year tennis players get worse.

In 1890 tennis had its best players and its gone down every year since then. All other sports show improvements.

Look at phelps and bolt. It must be that tennis is infected with the horrible disease of tennisitis. How else can tennis be the only sport where players are not improving?:lol::yeah:

weak era = players you dont like are winning the titles

thrust
08-25-2009, 01:42 PM
This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:

I agree, plus I think Rogers game is more suited for longevity than Pete's was. In the late nineties, bigger and more sophisticated racquets came into play which changed the game Pete used to play. Pete stayed with his older racquet, which he now says was a mistake. That is why he was still very competitive on only fast hard or grass courts. I think that Pete, if he were young today, would play a game very similiar to Roger's. He would still play the net more than Roger, but would realize he woud have to sharpen his ground game and be more selective about coming to the net. Two minor tragedies in sports are that, Pete and Roger like Tiger and Jack, were not at in theri prime at the same time.

thrust
08-25-2009, 01:46 PM
:lol::yeah:

weak era = players you dont like are winning the titles

Since Nadal reached his peak, who has been able to defeat Roger in a Slam or any other important final? This fact is a testament to the greatness of both players and to the non greatness of the rest of the main competition. NOONE, other than Rafa, has ever defeated Roger in a Slam final!

Serenidad
08-25-2009, 04:39 PM
Now Gugu accuses Agassi of moonballing. :spit:

leng_jai keeps dropping the hammer.

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 05:23 PM
Since Nadal reached his peak, who has been able to defeat Roger in a Slam or any other important final? This fact is a testament to the greatness of both players and to the non greatness of the rest of the main competition. NOONE, other than Rafa, has ever defeated Roger in a Slam final!so Fed has been too good for them, what can you do - he's the GOAT and he's always gonna bring his best tennis to the GS finals

dont forget this - Sampras only lost to 4 players in GS finals in his career .. and 2 of them are players Fed beat himself in finals

if Fed was in the 90's it would be the same thing, and i'd love to hear all the 'weak era' bullshitters then

Satanic Pasteur
08-25-2009, 05:30 PM
Federer actually beat 3 of the 4 conquerors of Sampras in GS finals (Safin AO 04, Hewitt USO 04 & Agassi USO 05) only Edberg was not defeated by Fed because never met of course.

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 05:39 PM
Federer actually beat 3 of the 4 conquerors of Sampras in GS finals (Safin AO 04, Hewitt USO 04 & Agassi USO 05) only Edberg was not defeated by Fed because never met of course.
the Edberg who led Sampras 2-0 in GS matches

GOATS: 1)Federer 2)Edberg 3)Sampras

Echoes
08-25-2009, 06:07 PM
Yeah Edberg, great champion of a great era ! ;)

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 06:09 PM
Yeah Edberg, great champion of a great era ! ;)

and 80's were Edberg's.. in the 90's he was older but still too good for Sampras

so 80's >>>> 90's

dont hear the 90's tards mentioning much of that do you

Echoes
08-25-2009, 06:17 PM
Sampras - Edberg 8-6. There's more than GS events in tennis.

In 1990, Edberg was 24.

Commander Data
08-25-2009, 06:21 PM
Sampras after Federer won RG: "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

Agassi on Federer: "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky".

The funny thing is that the same people that around here talk about how muggy this era is and how great was the era in which Sampras and Agassi played continally tend to ignore their own favourite players' opinions on Federer. If this era is so muggy and Federer is the greatest ever --according to what their own heros say-- then how is it possible that Federer can struggle to defeat guys like Nalbandián, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic among others of his era?

nostalgia can be bitter.

Logical thinking won't get you anywhere around here. Just insult the others and use the words Mug and Choke to make your point ;)

duong
08-25-2009, 06:28 PM
and 80's were Edberg's.. in the 90's he was older but still too good for Sampras

Edberg's peak was 1990-1992 (a great period by the way with also Courier, Becker, Stich, Agassi ... that's also the reason why the young Sampras didn't win any slam between 1990 and 1993 ; in my opinion that period was great ; I don't understand much people like Glenn Mirnyi praising the end of the 90s)

Before, Edberg was not so great.

The 80s are not much about him (Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, Becker...)

Arkulari
08-25-2009, 06:31 PM
to me, the 60's and 70's were much better than the supposed "golden era of tennis" in the 90's ;)

jcempire
08-25-2009, 09:59 PM
This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:

This is turth.

I agree

Corey Feldman
08-25-2009, 10:09 PM
This is a weak era therefore he will win more. Sampras obviously did play better opponents in 2000+ Who does Federer have to contend with? Nadal and Murray and that's it? :lol:do you know who Pete beat to win Wimbledon 2000? (probably not as i doubt you watched tennis back then).. Vanek, Kucera, Gimelstob, Bjorkman, Gambill, Voltchkov, Rafter.

chenx15
08-25-2009, 10:13 PM
comparing era was the start of all the major wars in the world

Vida
08-25-2009, 10:36 PM
hard to say for obvious reasons, but despite all the Feds talents I still get the feeling he is a mental midget compared to Sampras. I mean for Fed it happened with a huge dose of luck, he got on a roll took the whole thing. granted, luck follows the brave and we cant take anything from him, but hypotethically speaking if the things were 'even' between them, I'd take Sampy any day of the week. he hardly gave a fuck while Fed needs prima for his donna.

jcempire
08-26-2009, 01:23 AM
do you know who Pete beat to win Wimbledon 2000? (probably not as i doubt you watched tennis back then).. Vanek, Kucera, Gimelstob, Bjorkman, Gambill, Voltchkov, Rafter.

how about in 1997? how about in 1993?

why you only talked about 2000.

straitup
08-26-2009, 01:31 AM
do you know who Pete beat to win Wimbledon 2000? (probably not as i doubt you watched tennis back then).. Vanek, Kucera, Gimelstob, Bjorkman, Gambill, Voltchkov, Rafter.

Of course players are bound to have weaker draws to get to finals...it's a basic idea of competition and the fact that upsets occur. And Bjorkman was great at his best, and Rafter of course was an excellent player who certainly got close to winning Wimbledon

MrChopin
08-26-2009, 02:07 AM
Another great showing by nostalgiatards. I'm doubly convinced now.

Calidreth
08-26-2009, 02:44 AM
Another fine performance where you all embarrass yourselves -- you all make for some fine entertainment.

rwn
08-26-2009, 07:45 AM
hard to say for obvious reasons, but despite all the Feds talents I still get the feeling he is a mental midget compared to Sampras. I mean for Fed it happened with a huge dose of luck, he got on a roll took the whole thing. granted, luck follows the brave and we cant take anything from him, but hypotethically speaking if the things were 'even' between them, I'd take Sampy any day of the week. he hardly gave a fuck while Fed needs prima for his donna.

Wasn't Sampras the guy who was relieved the US Open title was taken away from him in 1991 because the pressure was too much for him ?

Echoes
08-26-2009, 09:49 AM
Yeah that's not the bravest thing he said in his youngest days but reducing him to that ... :rolleyes:

rwn
08-26-2009, 09:57 AM
Yeah that's not the bravest thing he said in his youngest days but reducing him to that ... :rolleyes:

If someone claims Federer is a mental midget compared to Sampras I have the right to remind them of this little episode.

Vida
08-26-2009, 11:38 AM
If someone claims Federer is a mental midget compared to Sampras I have the right to remind them of this little episode.

please don't start on 'episodes' of mental midgetry. fed's got shit load stacked in his chicken bag.:)

stebs
08-26-2009, 01:38 PM
please don't start on 'episodes' of mental midgetry. fed's got shit load stacked in his chicken bag.:)

Like every player who has played a lot of big matches. Including Sampras, including Borg, everyone. Federer has had episodes of mental midgetry but his big point play is incredible. 18-3 in GS final TB's. That is a serious record.

Lebeuf
08-26-2009, 02:18 PM
Well no matter the numbers you just have to give it to Roger in term of talent , at his peak he was the best tennis to watch like ever.Pete was great but was less versatile.

rwn
08-26-2009, 06:53 PM
please don't start on 'episodes' of mental midgetry. fed's got shit load stacked in his chicken bag.:)

Sampras gave up on winning the French after a couple of tries. That beats everything Federer has done in mental midgetry :)

Echoes
08-26-2009, 08:35 PM
:lol:

Corey Feldman
08-26-2009, 10:56 PM
how about in 1997? how about in 1993?

why you only talked about 2000.

97? you mean the year Pete played one player from top20 to win Wimbledon - which was an old and retiring Becker

anyway, my point is.... none of them had weak era's, they both (pete and Fed) were the true best of many good players.

if there was such a thing as weak era half the idiots on this forum would be out playing on the tour and winning the way they talk about it.

Vida
08-26-2009, 10:56 PM
Like every player who has played a lot of big matches. Including Sampras, including Borg, everyone. Federer has had episodes of mental midgetry but his big point play is incredible. 18-3 in GS final TB's. That is a serious record.

yes but numbers do not tell it all but the context and circumstances in which someone takes the silverware. I don't wan't to go over the 'weak era' garbage but a strong case can made that Fed's got a load of luck taking what he has now. sounds shallow but basically thats what it is. what I'm saying is that if things a bit more different (just a bit), the story of Fed's success would have been just another of a talent gone to waste. still, I repeat, nothing can be taken away from Fed, he did his best and it is written in stone so nothing can be taken away from him. just if it were 'do or die' I'd take Pete anytime over Fed.

Sampras gave up on winning the French after a couple of tries. That beats everything Federer has done in mental midgetry :)

please, Sampras and French is a tale long told. guy just didn't bother. his game wasn't suited for it and he knew it. this has nothing to do with Federer or relation between the two. if it matters to you - Fed is 'greater'.

BigJohn
08-27-2009, 03:22 AM
if it were 'do or die' I'd take Pete anytime over Fed.

... and die?


please, Sampras and French is a tale long told. guy just didn't bother. his game wasn't suited for it and he knew it. this has nothing to do with Federer or relation between the two. if it matters to you - Fed is 'greater'.

That has been obvious for a while now.

bokehlicious
08-27-2009, 09:15 AM
hard to say for obvious reasons, but despite all the Feds talents I still get the feeling he is a mental midget compared to Sampras. I mean for Fed it happened with a huge dose of luck, he got on a roll took the whole thing. granted, luck follows the brave and we cant take anything from him, but hypotethically speaking if the things were 'even' between them, I'd take Sampy any day of the week. he hardly gave a fuck while Fed needs prima for his donna.

yes but numbers do not tell it all but the context and circumstances in which someone takes the silverware. I don't wan't to go over the 'weak era' garbage but a strong case can made that Fed's got a load of luck taking what he has now. sounds shallow but basically thats what it is. what I'm saying is that if things a bit more different (just a bit), the story of Fed's success would have been just another of a talent gone to waste. still, I repeat, nothing can be taken away from Fed, he did his best and it is written in stone so nothing can be taken away from him. just if it were 'do or die' I'd take Pete anytime over Fed.



please, Sampras and French is a tale long told. guy just didn't bother. his game wasn't suited for it and he knew it. this has nothing to do with Federer or relation between the two. if it matters to you - Fed is 'greater'.

All luck this Frauderer... Definitely :sad: :bigcry:

Vida
08-27-2009, 10:04 AM
All luck this Frauderer... Definitely :sad: :bigcry:

well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.

lazybear
08-27-2009, 10:58 AM
well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.

It's relative. While i think indeed, it was luck, i think he deserved it. But if you put it this way, facing the greatest clay court player of all-time, four years in a row, three times in the finals... Well, it sure doesn't look like luck to me, more of the opposite.

bokehlicious
08-27-2009, 12:33 PM
well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.

Nadal and Faker got lucky that Fed caught mono last year :shrug: Works both ways ;) oh wait, that mono thing was bullshit, right? :lol:

rwn
08-27-2009, 12:37 PM
well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.

"Mr. Charisma" Sampras was lucky Krajicek was injured all the time :D

Commander Data
08-27-2009, 12:44 PM
well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.

Being there as 2nd best claycourter in the world for 5 years to finally win RG when the main opponent is not at his best. hanging in there all the time and then taking his chance, yeah, what unbelievable luck, this frauderer has...


Just like that unbelievable luck Nadal had when he finally could take no. 1 spot when fed declined. this guys, luck, luck , luck..

Vida
08-27-2009, 01:20 PM
It's relative. While i think indeed, it was luck, i think he deserved it. But if you put it this way, facing the greatest clay court player of all-time, four years in a row, three times in the finals... Well, it sure doesn't look like luck to me, more of the opposite.

I never said Federer didn't deserve what ever happened to him. I don't know if you've lurked much, but my 'complaints' have always been in the realms of abstract 'greatness' that some fed freaks like to dwell on. never on what actually happened. I mean, if nadal isnt there, who else is going to win RF and W? guy's been in the finals for years. so yeah it was luck, but that doesn't take away from him.

Nadal and Faker got lucky that Fed caught mono last year :shrug: Works both ways ;) oh wait, that mono thing was bullshit, right? :lol:

naturally. funny, recently we agree on so many topics. last time both of us agreed that fed crying was pathetic.

"Mr. Charisma" Sampras was lucky Krajicek was injured all the time :D

well why was Krajicak injured 'all the time'? was he stupid and played too much or was something wrong with him? ... see the point?

well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.

exactly.

Being there as 2nd best claycourter in the world for 5 years to finally win RG when the main opponent is not at his best. hanging in there all the time and then taking his chance, yeah, what unbelievable luck, this frauderer has...
Just like that unbelievable luck Nadal had when he finally could take no. 1 spot when fed declined. this guys, luck, luck , luck..

problems with logic again man? those are apples and oranges you speak of.

bokehlicious
08-27-2009, 01:39 PM
naturally. funny, recently we agree on so many topics. last time both of us agreed that fed crying was pathetic.


How do you know Fed was bullshitting with his mono last year while you seem to know for sure that Rafa's knees were badly injured this Summer? Are you an ATP doctor or something?

I know you're not biased and as objective as it can get, that's why I am asking, if you were a troll or a hater I wouldn't bother :hug: :o

Commander Data
08-27-2009, 02:10 PM
problems with logic again man? those are apples and oranges you speak of.

Not that I know of, I graduated University as the best of my year.:shrug:

maybe you got some problems with logic? I explain it again: If somebody hangs in there as second best, thru hard work, determination and talent, it is just a natural concequence, that someday he will end up on top. it happened for Fed this year at RG and it happened for Nadal last year at Wimbledon. Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. You can't say it is luck when somebody has 4 straight finals and finally wins the title. WTF are you talking about? Given Nadals game it was evident that he won't stay healthy forever. Feds win was no luck, it was a law of nature. survival of the fittest..

stebs
08-27-2009, 02:18 PM
Fed's got a load of luck taking what he has now. sounds shallow but basically thats what it is. what I'm saying is that if things a bit more different (just a bit), the story of Fed's success would have been just another of a talent gone to waste.

Yep, if things were just a bit different Fed would be far less succesful. For me that is the difference between winning 18 of 21 GS final TB's and winning just 10 of them. That is the difference, Federer has been strong enough and it is down to him. The difference isn't luck, he IS the difference.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2009, 02:43 PM
well I don't know how else you can call what happened this summer. nadal's decision to play barca and madrid (or someone else's decision?) can be seen as nothing else than a gift from heaven for frauderer. he himself said zillion times: 'maybe this year, you know, rafa will, you know, not be there, you know'.its not as if Nadal had looked as ivincible anyway on clay leading up to those events... and the fact still is - he did play RG and got his arse kicked

:rolleyes:

Echoes
08-27-2009, 03:06 PM
"Mr. Charisma" Sampras was lucky Krajicek was injured all the time :D

For once, I agree with you :cool:

Vida
08-27-2009, 04:16 PM
its not as if Nadal had looked as ivincible anyway on clay leading up to those events... and the fact still is - he did play RG and got his arse kicked

:rolleyes:

considering how much he played and looking at previous clay seasons he did look pretty much invincible. :shrug:

we will never know if he would have won RG if he had not played as much as he did prior to that Slam, but it is hard to speculate he would loose the way he did if he played less. as far as we know, the issue with him is clearly playing too much tune ups which screwed up his tendonitis. look at him now - two months of rest and he is up and running, though rusty.

Vida
08-27-2009, 04:20 PM
Not that I know of, I graduated University as the best of my year.:shrug:

maybe you got some problems with logic? I explain it again: If somebody hangs in there as second best, thru hard work, determination and talent, it is just a natural concequence, that someday he will end up on top. it happened for Fed this year at RG and it happened for Nadal last year at Wimbledon. Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. You can't say it is luck when somebody has 4 straight finals and finally wins the title. WTF are you talking about? Given Nadals game it was evident that he won't stay healthy forever. Feds win was no luck, it was a law of nature. survival of the fittest..

law of nature? fuck, as if fed is playing with himself. whatever. I bet not even him is as twisted to say he had zero luck and won 15 GS's.

bokehlicious
08-27-2009, 04:24 PM
To win the lottery you need luck, not tennis slams ;)

Vida
08-27-2009, 04:30 PM
How do you know Fed was bullshitting with his mono last year while you seem to know for sure that Rafa's knees were badly injured this Summer? Are you an ATP doctor or something?

I know you're not biased and as objective as it can get, that's why I am asking, if you were a troll or a hater I wouldn't bother :hug: :o

well for one, nadal missed two mayors that matter the most for him, while fed missed nothing. Im not saying Fed lied having mono (I never said that), that hard to believe and Im not high on conspiracy, but that it is overblown - it is.

he had a bad chicken prior to AO 08, shit a river, missed that tune up (brisbane?) so as far as not being ready for the season thats it. later on his pr team used mono as an excuse for his lack of success, and the fact that he played entire season (and played well) while using one misty at best excuse bugged me.

but anyway, I cant remember the last time I mentioned mono in seriousness, while you dish it out every time I see your post. almost.

ultimately, mono no mono, the way djoker played at the begging of last season doesn't garantee fed would have won it; nadal also was terrific and fed still took USO and played 2 more finals. so no, mono cant be used in the same context as with rafa now, not by a mile.

Echoes
08-27-2009, 04:37 PM
well why was Krajicak injured 'all the time'? was he stupid and played too much or was something wrong with him? ... see the point?

He did not play too much. Usually two or three weeks in a row (except in june of course and in the end of the 1997 season when he fought for a qualification for the Masters). He even dropped the Davis Cup in 1997 because his progrram already very heavy.

I think he was just very unlucky. ;)

bokehlicious
08-27-2009, 04:37 PM
well for one, nadal missed two mayors that matter the most for him, while fed missed nothing. Im not saying Fed lied having mono (I never said that), that hard to believe and Im not high on conspiracy, but that it is overblown - it is.

he had a bad chicken prior to AO 08, shit a river, missed that tune up (brisbane?) so as far as not being ready for the season thats it. later on his pr team used mono as an excuse for his lack of success, and the fact that he played entire season (and played well) while using one misty at best excuse bugged me.

but anyway, I cant remember the last time I mentioned mono in seriousness, while you dish it out every time I see your post. almost.

ultimately, mono no mono, the way djoker played at the begging of last season doesn't garantee fed would have won it; nadal also was terrific and fed still took USO and played 2 more finals. so no, mono cant be used in the same context as with rafa now, not by a mile.

Fed could have easily chickened out at last year's AO and withdraw, just like Nadal did this year at Wimbledon. Thing is, if a monoed Fed can reach a slam semi, that should tell you something about the guy's abilities, Nadal was sent home at his favourite slam within the first week, blaming it on fatigue and some knee pain... :o

I think talent and work ethic have more to do with Fed's success than luck, but I could be wrong... :angel: :)

Commander Data
08-27-2009, 05:22 PM
law of nature? fuck, as if fed is playing with himself. whatever. I bet not even him is as twisted to say he had zero luck and won 15 GS's.

zero luck? of course some some luck is involved. You also have luck that no alien invaded earth today or that cern did not produce a black hole, no airplane crushed on your head... thats not the point. when you say fed won a slam by luck it implies he won it by chance and not due to his playing. and frankly, I think thats BS.

Vida
08-27-2009, 05:29 PM
zero luck? of course some some luck is involved. You also have luck that no alien invaded earth today or that cern did not produce a black hole, no airplane crushed on your head... thats not the point. when you say fed won a slam by luck it implies he won it by chance and not due to his playing. and frankly, I think thats BS.

in that particular case he won them by the other guy making dumb decisions (playing too much prior). whether it is luck, chance or his own playing is a question of semantics. I stand it is luck. we can only guess how Fed felt when he heard rafa lost to sod, but they say the local priest had a busy schedule that day.

Vida
08-27-2009, 05:31 PM
Fed could have easily chickened out at last year's AO and withdraw, just like Nadal did this year at Wimbledon. Thing is, if a monoed Fed can reach a slam semi, that should tell you something about the guy's abilities, Nadal was sent home at his favourite slam within the first week, blaming it on fatigue and some knee pain... :o

I think talent and work ethic have more to do with Fed's success than luck, but I could be wrong... :angel: :)

now who's trolling?

Ichiban1920
08-27-2009, 06:56 PM
LMAO at Frauderer fans getting their panties tied up in a bunch.

Satanic Pasteur
08-28-2009, 10:17 AM
well for one, nadal missed two mayors that matter the most for him, while fed missed nothing.

Come on man you are talking as if Nadal withdrew from RG as some other posters here. Don't forget he seemed very fit 2 days earlier during his demolition of Hewitt on central court so give credit where is due to Soderling who just outplayed him that particular day.
Of course Fed got very lucky because Nadal was probably winning the whole thing again had he won against the Toad but the fact is Toad was too good that day. I always read Rafa/Fed stuff during this RG 09 but not much about Robin and this particular fortnight (for a change) was not all about the 2 and for a lot of people it was the best slam we had in years (except the final which was a bit crap). Was best slam in my opinion since Wimbledon 2001 with great matches in early stages and huge semis, but 2001 had great final too.

in that particular case he won them by the other guy making dumb decisions (playing too much prior). whether it is luck, chance or his own playing is a question of semantics. I stand it is luck. we can only guess how Fed felt when he heard rafa lost to sod, but they say the local priest had a busy schedule that day.

He got a bit lucky not having to play Murray in Wimbledon final probably and avoiding Nadal too in potential Wimbledon final but again you give 0 credit to Toad saying Fed just got lucky Nadal played too much before RG. The point is he always played all those tournies prior to RG and won the whole thing after.
Concerning RG Fed just got lucky that Soderling was able to play huge and kick Nadal out.

Commander Data
08-28-2009, 10:41 AM
in that particular case he won them by the other guy making dumb decisions (playing too much prior). whether it is luck, chance or his own playing is a question of semantics. I stand it is luck. we can only guess how Fed felt when he heard rafa lost to sod, but they say the local priest had a busy schedule that day.

Rafa always played so much before RG. Söderling just spanked his ass that day. A bit luck is always included. Djokovic got luck Fed had mono in 2007 and Rafa got lucky that Wimbledon 2008 was right after RG 2008, so he had a mental edge over Fed and Fed took 2 sets to overcome that.


besides I'm pretty sure Fed would have prefered Rafa over Söderling in the RG final. why, becasue he wants to be the best and therefore he wants to beat his main rival.

Satanic Pasteur
08-28-2009, 05:41 PM
besides I'm pretty sure Fed would have prefered Rafa over Söderling in the RG final. why, becasue he wants to be the best and therefore he wants to beat his main rival.

Sure he would have prefered to BEAT Nadal but I think he knows he can't beat Nadal on this particular court (Chatrier one on which Fed has often seemed a bit lost) and that it must have been such a huge relief for him (and for his fans at least was for me) when Toad emerged against Nadal.
This so poor start against Haas wouldn't have occured if Fed wasn't aware it was 2009 or never for him at RG after Nadal exit.

Vida
08-28-2009, 06:35 PM
Come on man you are talking as if Nadal withdrew from RG as some other posters here. Don't forget he seemed very fit 2 days earlier during his demolition of Hewitt on central court so give credit where is due to Soderling who just outplayed him that particular day.
Of course Fed got very lucky because Nadal was probably winning the whole thing again had he won against the Toad but the fact is Toad was too good that day. I always read Rafa/Fed stuff during this RG 09 but not much about Robin and this particular fortnight (for a change) was not all about the 2 and for a lot of people it was the best slam we had in years (except the final which was a bit crap). Was best slam in my opinion since Wimbledon 2001 with great matches in early stages and huge semis, but 2001 had great final too.


He got a bit lucky not having to play Murray in Wimbledon final probably and avoiding Nadal too in potential Wimbledon final but again you give 0 credit to Toad saying Fed just got lucky Nadal played too much before RG. The point is he always played all those tournies prior to RG and won the whole thing after.
Concerning RG Fed just got lucky that Soderling was able to play huge and kick Nadal out.

sorry, but Soderling didn't 'just outplay him' that day. few weeks earlier he managed like one game against Nadal in Rome (I think). and Nadal didn't seem very fit at all. he might have been fit generally but doggy knees just took too much beating during th clay season (which was shorter for one week if Im not mistaken), he basically had only two weeks of rest between the end of Miami and start of RG. entire planet was wondering 'how much more can he take it'. so we may have a difference in opinion but to me, knowing how tendonitis works and how things developed, Nadal was far from ready for the French. he simply made a huge mistake, as he himself said so. of course, that doesn't take it way from Sod who still had to win that, and he delivered, so :shrug: yeah you can say that Fed was twice as lucky that both Rafa got to Paris wasted and that Sod played great. but that might be pushing it a bit too far.

I totally disagree Fed was 'lucky not playing Murray in Wimbledon'. he would have trashed him in straight sets while this was a hard fought match against an inspired and rejuvenated Roddick, regardless of how inevitable the outcome might have seemed.

Vida
08-28-2009, 06:43 PM
Rafa always played so much before RG. Söderling just spanked his ass that day. A bit luck is always included. Djokovic got luck Fed had mono in 2007 and Rafa got lucky that Wimbledon 2008 was right after RG 2008, so he had a mental edge over Fed and Fed took 2 sets to overcome that.


besides I'm pretty sure Fed would have prefered Rafa over Söderling in the RG final. why, becasue he wants to be the best and therefore he wants to beat his main rival.

well please don't take it personally, I have nothing against you but your posts seem like a total and complete blind worship to me. especially since they appear like you really mean what you wright, as opposed perhaps to our dear friend P.Antonius with his smilies and occasional 'bouts' of common sense. just occasional though.

so Rafa didn't always play so much, we established, and he didnt 'just get his ass spanked that day' he got trashed as a helpless kid against the monster. and why is that? exactly. djokovic was in fantastic form and Fed was due for a spanking mono or no mono. (BTW, when in 07 did he have mono than? during M Cup - which he won - or in the following weeks, around new year? he seemed fine to me. so whatever you might answer here, just mind that someone like Mario Ancic doesn't hear you). as for Nadal and W, W is always after RG, so how come Nadal wasn't as lucky in 07 when he lost? so what was that academy you were in top of your class again? please.

as for that last line of yours. - :lol:

Commander Data
08-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Sure he would have prefered to BEAT Nadal but I think he knows he can't beat Nadal on this particular court (Chatrier one on which Fed has often seemed a bit lost) and that it must have been such a huge relief for him (and for his fans at least was for me) when Toad emerged against Nadal.
This so poor start against Haas wouldn't have occured if Fed wasn't aware it was 2009 or never for him at RG after Nadal exit.

Yeah I too was relieved when Toad killed Rafa. No shame admitting that.

Commander Data
08-29-2009, 11:36 AM
well please don't take it personally, I have nothing against you but your posts seem like a total and complete blind worship to me. especially since they appear like you really mean what you wright, as opposed perhaps to our dear friend P.Antonius with his smilies and occasional 'bouts' of common sense. just occasional though.

so Rafa didn't always play so much, we established, and he didnt 'just get his ass spanked that day' he got trashed as a helpless kid against the monster. and why is that? exactly. djokovic was in fantastic form and Fed was due for a spanking mono or no mono. (BTW, when in 07 did he have mono than? during M Cup - which he won - or in the following weeks, around new year? he seemed fine to me. so whatever you might answer here, just mind that someone like Mario Ancic doesn't hear you). as for Nadal and W, W is always after RG, so how come Nadal wasn't as lucky in 07 when he lost? so what was that academy you were in top of your class again? please.

as for that last line of yours. - :lol:

Look, it is not personal but I can't have serious discussion with people that believe Fed did not have Mono and that Fed was 100 % in 2008. It was just obvious for anybody with eyes. he was pale, skinny and sweated like a pig after 10 min on court. The mono thing has been discussed to death. I agreed that there are different levels of mono and that Ancic had a more severe sickness then Fed, I don't know why we have to discuss that over and over again. Just because one other guy suffered more does not mean Fed did not suffer. same people die from flu, I survived, doesn't mean I faked flu, does it? I have always agreed that Nadal was not 100 % in RG. But do you seriously think Fed was at his best in Wimbledon 2008? But hey, they played and lost. so what does it matter now, who gives a shit about the exact circumstances? lets move on.

Bottom line for me is that all the wins were fair and square. I just bring up the mono stuff when people bring up that Nadal was not fit at RG and that Roger gets lucky al the time.

"what was that academy you were in top of your class again? please."

It was ETH Zurich.

Satanic Pasteur
08-29-2009, 05:42 PM
sorry, but Soderling didn't 'just outplay him' that day. few weeks earlier he managed like one game against Nadal in Rome (I think). and Nadal didn't seem very fit at all. he might have been fit generally but doggy knees just took too much beating during th clay season (which was shorter for one week if Im not mistaken), he basically had only two weeks of rest between the end of Miami and start of RG. entire planet was wondering 'how much more can he take it'. so we may have a difference in opinion but to me, knowing how tendonitis works and how things developed, Nadal was far from ready for the French. he simply made a huge mistake, as he himself said so. of course, that doesn't take it way from Sod who still had to win that, and he delivered, so :shrug: yeah you can say that Fed was twice as lucky that both Rafa got to Paris wasted and that Sod played great. but that might be pushing it a bit too far.

I totally disagree Fed was 'lucky not playing Murray in Wimbledon'. he would have trashed him in straight sets while this was a hard fought match against an inspired and rejuvenated Roddick, regardless of how inevitable the outcome might have seemed.


Against tight Murray maybe but Fed was so tight himself in final I think against Murray it would have been tough too.

Soderling didn't killed Nadal for sure (except first set & tie break) but this 2009 Nadal was not going to lose to likes of Fed, Djokovic, Davydenko (in 1/4) or Gonzalez (1/2). The only guy who would had stand a great chance was Del Pony in a potential final if he played the way he did against Fed in the semis for the first 3 sets.
The Rome match is irrelevant as people who know well the players know Soderling is the most up and down dude of the Top 100 and as Nadal said even if he just lost one game at Roma most the games were very tight and Soders the kind of guy Nadal will always fear because he can outpower every player except fed against who he has no confidence at all as he respects him too much I think.
Yes Nadal looked dodgy in first round for sure against Daniel, then average against Gabashvili but he was great against Hewitt and i didn't find him hampered against Sods he was lacking something mentally yes and I was fealing he was nervous because Toad throwed everything at him in first set and collapsed only at the end of second, so yes at this precise point Nadal should have turned the tide but Sod hung on really hard and finally prevailed because for a change he was able to maintain his focus.

This Nadal loss was for me the hugest shock in modern tennis a long way before the Krajicek win over Sampras at Wimbledon 96 quarters which is the only other massive shock I can compare it with (I am very hard tennis follower since 1989 so it's been a while...) but yes nothing comparable to this RG09 1/8.

Satanic Pasteur
08-29-2009, 05:57 PM
djokovic was in fantastic form and Fed was due for a spanking mono or no mono.


Vida you should know a normal Fed is never "thrashed" and even a not fully fit Fed never gets thrashing (the sole exception being RG final 08). Just look at the records of his defeats since 2003... When he loses it's almost always very tight matches and it's very common he wins more points than the winner but still lose...
Nadal on the other hand most of his defeats he gets "thrashed" as he very rarely lose the tight ones. All players gets thrashing sometimes except Fed in fact which just shows he is still above the rest when not in Federror mode.

Djokovic was great for sure at AO 08 but he can't "spank" Fed ;for sure he can beat even a fit Fed as he did in Canada final 2007 (but look the score 7/6 2/6 7/6 typical Fed loss...).
Fed in "unspankable" when playing with his brain that's also why he is the GOAT and will remain it.