Who thinks Federer will go slamless in 2005? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who thinks Federer will go slamless in 2005?

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 01:56 AM
The pressure is on bigtime at wimbledon for the fedexpress. If he doesnt win wimbledon he will be shitting himself at USO. all of a sudden roger playing like he is scared of LOSING while everyone else is gunning for him.
3 slam years usually mean the player has peaked and dont win many more slams (around 0), will same thing happen to federer? the sign is yes.

robinhood
06-08-2005, 01:57 AM
You wish.

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 01:59 AM
i find it funny that the person many say is "BEST EVER" and taking over Sampras record is in critical danger of going slamless during one of his peak years.

the evidence is in pudding, people who were proclaiming great thing for federer were putting cart before horse.

bad gambler
06-08-2005, 02:00 AM
:lol:

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 02:03 AM
whats funny?
its very possible now. slip up at wimbledon and he is GOOOOOONE. I can see it happening and look at those odds, mmmmmmmm.
I just convinced myself so im going to go bet 1 months wages on it.

adelaide
06-08-2005, 02:04 AM
whats funny?
its very possible now. slip up at wimbledon and he is GOOOOOONE. I can see it happening and look at those odds, mmmmmmmm.
I just convinced myself so im going to go bet 1 months wages on it.
ah, the betting.

i can't imagine Roger slipping up at Wimbledon :shrug:

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 02:06 AM
i can't imagine Roger slipping up at Wimbledon :shrug:

why not? hewitt and roddick close to beating him last year and roger was high in confidence, not as much pressure and enjoying tennis.

now he is definetly not confident. has HUGE pressure after everyone say "best ever" and he is slamless. he will be playing not to lose which usually means "loss". :cool:

megadeth
06-08-2005, 02:07 AM
well, there is a curse that 3 slam winners in a year get. mats wilander, who won 3 slams in a year before, didn't win another slam after that.

but i don't think it would happen to roger. it was just a string of bad luck that made him lose in the aussie and RG (birthday curse, and the fact that his streak was at a peak when he got to the semis and eventually had to lose...)

Billabong
06-08-2005, 02:08 AM
I was intrigued by this thread until I saw who started it:lol: why are you so against Federer, hitchhiker;)? Is it because your man is Federer's bitch at the moment:lol:? Or are you still mad because of Rogi's win over Sampras in Wimbledon 2001?

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 02:09 AM
well, there is a curse that 3 slam winners in a year get. mats wilander, who won 3 slams in a year before, didn't win another slam after that.


connors as well and John Macenroe won 80 matches and 3 loss and never won another slam.
I wonder what odds are of federer never winning another slam :eek:

NYCtennisfan
06-08-2005, 02:12 AM
Oh the haters are out in full-force now aren't they? Where were you during all the wins? He's 47-3 right now. When Wilander came back in his slamless year in 1989, he didn't win any tournaments and only made a final or two. The expectations put on this guy are like nothing that I have ever seen before.

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 02:14 AM
this is a serious thread.
what chances federer go slamless in 2005? how will he react? what effect on career? will he still catch sampras? will he still own roddick?

megadeth
06-08-2005, 02:14 AM
i didn't say i hate federer. in fact i want him to win every tourney he enters because i wnat him to break records by the time he retires

bad gambler
06-08-2005, 02:14 AM
Oh the haters are out in full-force now aren't they? Where were you during all the wins? He's 47-3 right now. When Wilander came back in his slamless year in 1989, he didn't win any tournaments and only made a final or two. The expectations put on this guy are like nothing that I have ever seen before.


lol the kid just wants to stir up a bit of trouble

hitchhiker
06-08-2005, 02:15 AM
The expectations put on this guy are like nothing that I have ever seen before.

of course expectations. look at his 2004, now halfway through 2005 and still slamless.

Deivid23
06-08-2005, 02:15 AM
Roger will win Wimbledon. enjoy while u can

lucashg
06-08-2005, 02:17 AM
of course expectations. look at his 2004, now halfway through 2005 and still slamless.

Except that he won 2 of his 3 slams in the last half of the season. So I think he has a chance. :rolleyes: :o

Oh, the trolls.

Skyward
06-08-2005, 02:18 AM
of course expectations. look at his 2004, now halfway through 2005 and still slamless.

So what? The beauty of tennis is that unlike the Olympic Games, the GS happen every few months.

Billabong
06-08-2005, 02:19 AM
Enjoy these quotes from hitchhiker last year before Wimbledon:haha: Fun guaranteed:lol:

the great american hope roddick will win wimbledon in 2004, heard it here first!

who can stop him?

Hewitt? LOL
Henman? LOL
maybe fish? LOL

federer will be tough but if roddick plays his best the swiss mans talent will be blown away. you dont return 153 mph serves even if your houdini

after a 3 year break americans will be back in charge on the lawns of wimbledon

what a einstein
i didnt see any 153 mph serves being returned
funny how i didnt see many 140 mph serves returned in queens. federer looked brilliant because he played nobodies in hale.
roddick has never served at his best against roger but he will be ready this year


i come here to talk tennis and find people far up rogers ass. i gurantee you will all fall out when andy lifts up the trophy

bongbrain watch roddick in uso final, that form can match federer at wimbledon and i think beat him

i will be throwing pie in everryones face if roddick wins

i certainly will when roddick beats federer

i bet everyone will be saying they always knew roddick could do it even though 99% of you in here have said how far superior federer is :haha:

USA will rock you

NYCtennisfan
06-08-2005, 02:19 AM
lol the kid just wants to stir up a bit of trouble

Of course but there are lurkers out there who want to say these things but don't have the balls:) BTW BG, I sent you a private message. :)

oneandonlyhsn
06-08-2005, 02:33 AM
Federer cant win, when he plays well and wins people say that mens tennis is boring he is dominating too much. When he looses people start with the 'will he be slamless'. I think there are far more slamless contenders to worry about than Roger.

hitchhiker I read some of your posts from last year about Roger seriously dude you need to take a chill pill.

Lady Natalia
06-08-2005, 02:37 AM
Federer cant win, when he plays well and wins people say that mens tennis is boring he is dominating too much. When he looses people start with the 'will he be slamless'. I think there are far more slamless contenders to worry about than Roger.


AMEN!! :worship:

PamV
06-08-2005, 02:41 AM
this is a serious thread.
what chances federer go slamless in 2005? how will he react? what effect on career? will he still catch sampras? will he still own roddick?

All those questions do make you sound obsessed with Federer. Come on admit it! Why do you care how he would react? He's already had a better 2005 than Roddick's 2004 and the year is only half over.......so it's nothing to cry over.

If Roger doesn't win a major in 2005, I would imagine he still might win a couple more Masters Series or do what ever it takes to stay #1 this year. He will try to win the Year End Masters Cup. Then he will start to get ready for 2006 and improve what ever he has to.

NYCtennisfan
06-08-2005, 02:43 AM
Federer cant win, when he plays well and wins people say that mens tennis is boring he is dominating too much. When he looses people start with the 'will he be slamless'.

EXACTLY! I think we'll see Federer step it up here. Remember, Sampras was slamless in the first half of the season in '93, '95, '96, '98, '99, '00, '02, with people talking about him being not great anymore after starting off '96 winless in the first 3 slams and not winning that many tournaments either.

PamV
06-08-2005, 02:44 AM
Federer cant win, when he plays well and wins people say that mens tennis is boring he is dominating too much. When he looses people start with the 'will he be slamless'. I think there are far more slamless contenders to worry about than Roger.



Well said. That's just what I think. It wasn't too long ago that people were saying Roger won so much that it was boring. Now when he has a rival who has won more than he has......suddenly they act as if Roger is a has-been.

I think Roger actually has more ATP points than last year at this time. The only difference is that Nadal has also won just as consistently this year. In 2004 there were no other contenders so consistent.

megadeth
06-08-2005, 02:44 AM
the odds of coria winning a slam are worse than for federer to go slamless

Skyward
06-08-2005, 02:46 AM
this is a serious thread.

will he still catch sampras?

You can sleep peacefully. He'll never catch Pete Sampras. Noone will.

Lady Natalia
06-08-2005, 02:47 AM
Well you know Roger has had a horrible year so far. He has lost 3 times in 6 months. He has only won 3 TMS with many many more to go. He's only made it to the semis of the first two GS. Phew...The signs and omens are there...His career is going down the toilet. We should panic. :rolleyes:

Lady Natalia
06-08-2005, 02:47 AM
You can sleep peacefully. He'll never catch Pete Sampras. Noone will.
That I disagree with

lucashg
06-08-2005, 02:49 AM
the odds of coria winning a slam are worse than for federer to go slamless

Ok, that's too harsh on Guille! Vamos Coria! He'll win the Australian Open 2007.

sigmagirl91
06-08-2005, 02:50 AM
I am already in panic mode. Roger has lost three times this year, and has failed to capture a GS title. Never mind the fact that he's won three Masters Series tournaments this year.....no, we won't count that.

oneandonlyhsn
06-08-2005, 02:50 AM
You can sleep peacefully. He'll never catch Pete Sampras. Noone will.

With all the new emerging talent I think Sampras will have his record broken.

lucashg
06-08-2005, 02:51 AM
Enjoy these quotes from hitchhiker last year before Wimbledon:haha: Fun guaranteed:lol:

:haha: :haha:

Thanks, I wasn't around that time last year to catch some of his brilliance. :p

deliveryman
06-08-2005, 02:54 AM
sigh... and I thought I was annoying.

WOW.

PamV
06-08-2005, 02:58 AM
You can sleep peacefully. He'll never catch Pete Sampras. Noone will.

I don't think it's very likely to catch Sampras' record. I find it odd to try to pinpoint what a player's legacy is going to be so early. Why not just wait and see what happens?

NATAS81
06-08-2005, 03:00 AM
Who is John MacEnroe?

Lady Natalia
06-08-2005, 03:01 AM
Who is John MacEnroe?

One of many legends that say Roger could be the best ever.

Skyward
06-08-2005, 03:03 AM
With all the new emerging talent I think Sampras will have his record broken.

Tennis is getting deeper and more physical. The new seeding system " protects" top players, and it's almost impossible these days to see in the semis of a GS someone like Voltchkov. Also Pete was lucky in terms of injures. I truly don't expect to see his records surpassed in my lifetime, and I'm not old. :)

NATAS81
06-08-2005, 03:04 AM
One of many legends that say Roger could be the best ever.
lol, I know I was clarifying one of the brilliant hitchhiker's posts.

megadeth
06-08-2005, 03:13 AM
Ok, that's too harsh on Guille! Vamos Coria! He'll win the Australian Open 2007.

ok, ok, i was harsh. let's change it to the odds of schuttler winning a slam is worse compared to federer going slamless :D

NATAS81
06-08-2005, 03:14 AM
How about Schuettler's odds of winning consecutive matches?

Fumus
06-08-2005, 05:43 AM
he could go slamless if he get injured.

undomiele
06-08-2005, 06:15 AM
he could go slamless if he get injured.

The Rogerfans in here are tempting fate Fumus. ;) :p

Mimi
06-08-2005, 06:34 AM
for sure he will at least win one :cool:

Auscon
06-08-2005, 06:36 AM
no, I dont want to see that "no slam wins in a year following on from a 3slammer" thing come true again....

He'll no doubt win at least one of Wimby and USO, if not both

JeNn
06-08-2005, 06:48 AM
I would be stunned if an uninjured Roger doesn't win Wimbledon.

The only people who think Roger's dominance is over are idiots who expected him to win everything this year and are now shitting their pants because he is 0/2 in GS.

The fact is that Roger's start to the year has actually been better than last year. This time last year he had 4 titles, this year 6 already. This year he has won 3/4 TMS events he has contested, this time last year he had won 2/4. This time last year he had 4 losses, this year he has 3. This year he did much better at Roland Garros.

So what is the evidence for his decline? The fact that he lost one match to Safin after having match points? :haha:

I have said before that subjectively (to me), Roger hasn't played as well this year as at times last year, but he is still as dominant, if not more so, than he has ever been.

Wow, some of you idiots actually have me sounding like a Roger fan, which I never thought I would be :o

TheMightyFed
06-08-2005, 07:41 AM
I would be stunned if an uninjured Roger doesn't win Wimbledon.

The only people who think Roger's dominance is over are idiots who expected him to win everything this year and are now shitting their pants because he is 0/2 in GS.

The fact is that Roger's start to the year has actually been better than last year. This time last year he had 4 titles, this year 6 already. This year he has won 3/4 TMS events he has contested, this time last year he had won 2/4. This time last year he had 4 losses, this year he has 3. This year he did much better at Roland Garros.

So what is the evidence for his decline? The fact that he lost one match to Safin after having match points? :haha:

I have said before that subjectively (to me), Roger hasn't played as well this year as at times last year, but he is still as dominant, if not more so, than he has ever been.

Wow, some of you idiots actually have me sounding like a Roger fan, which I never thought I would be :o
Well said, Switzerland will rock you (a la hitchhicker...) ;)

TheMightyFed
06-08-2005, 07:47 AM
makro120, please come back !! :devil:

jenanun
06-08-2005, 08:00 AM
i dont understand why people compare federer with sampras..

sampras won 14 slams
federer, only 4 at the moment....
10 in between the two!!!

i think someone is going to break sampras record
but i dont think its federer.....

megadeth
06-08-2005, 08:05 AM
it's too early to compare the 10 slams difference since federer will eventually win a couple more. you can start comparing when he retires.

TheMightyFed
06-08-2005, 08:18 AM
These 14 slams are insane and I don't think Fed can reach them if he keeps on winning so many small tournaments and go far in clay tournaments... it's too demanding for his body and for his mind, and we see it these days. If he wants to be a slam-record beater he must absolutely focus on slams like Sampras (esp. fast surfaces) and Agassi (esp. in the 2nd part of his career) did.
I see him doing other sorts of records, like career slam or calendar slam or overall titles record, but he consumes himself with his "Vivaldi 4-season" rythm...

TheMightyFed
06-08-2005, 09:13 AM
this is a serious thread.
what chances federer go slamless in 2005? how will he react? what effect on career? will he still catch sampras? will he still own roddick?
Whatever happens, slamless or not, his game will remain 100 times more enjoyable, classy, varied and fluid then Boom-Bam Roddick, and that's for sure !

Lila
06-08-2005, 09:35 AM
Me thinks so.
There's something going on, his playing lately has been :eek: :help:
dunno what is it with him.

Puschkin
06-08-2005, 09:38 AM
Don't call the king's death too early ;) .

bouncer
06-08-2005, 10:00 AM
no slams...dont think so. i think one slam is a safe bet. wimby

vincayou
06-08-2005, 10:57 AM
i dont understand why people compare federer with sampras..

sampras won 14 slams
federer, only 4 at the moment....
10 in between the two!!!

i think someone is going to break sampras record
but i dont think its federer.....

At the same age, Sampras had won only one more slam than Fed.

england_rules
06-08-2005, 12:10 PM
I don't get why people think Federer is doing bad now. He lost in the SEMIFINAL of Roland Garros to Rafael Nadal, who beat everyone on clay and Federer still probably could of won that match. Now it's ths (short) grass season so he should be fine. If he can make the semis at Paris, I think his WImbledon chances aree VERY good. Better than anyone else! I mean, who's to stop him?

Nimomunz
06-08-2005, 01:06 PM
well lets be honest this thread wasnt meant to be a fed hatnig or fed glorifying thread...tws meant to be about whether he will go slamless in 05...now truth be told if he loses wimby he's done. finito...whether he loses wimby is another topic all together but he played shitty against nadal and that lack of confidence may bite him in the ass!!

wimbledonfan
06-08-2005, 02:03 PM
Sampras went on to win wimbledon 95 and u.s open 95 so Federer probably needs to win the next 2 slams to be on par with Pete and he's still behind by one slam . As for my opinion , I don't think any of the current players will win more than 14 slams. It is probably the second greatest accomplishment by a tennis player only behind retaining his # 1 ranking for 6 consecutive years .

zubzy
06-08-2005, 02:33 PM
the slams that he's most likely to win are coming up... there's a good chance he'll win one of them (at least)

Fumus
06-08-2005, 03:06 PM
The Rogerfans in here are tempting fate Fumus. ;) :p

haha...well at the end of the year, you can bump this up when he has none.. :D

Dirk
07-19-2005, 03:02 PM
Hey Fumus can we bump it up now........PPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSSEE EEEEEE???????? :hug:

its.like.that
07-19-2005, 05:33 PM
:lol: now this is definitely one of the sillier threads going round...

ExpectedWinner
09-20-2005, 07:03 PM
Sorry for being slow. But I've just discovered this crap.

:haha: :haha:

R.Federer
09-20-2005, 07:16 PM
Sorry for being slow. But I've just discovered this crap.

:haha: :haha:
Nice bump.
Roge ate 50% of the Yearly slam pie available. Very greedy for 1 player alone ;)

oneandonlyhsn
09-20-2005, 07:18 PM
haha...well at the end of the year, you can bump this up when he has none.. :D

Just for you Fumus, what happened to your new #1 avatar. I really liked it

RogiFan88
09-20-2005, 09:10 PM
Nice bump.
Roge ate 50% of the Yearly slam pie available. Very greedy for 1 player alone ;)

Not as greedy as in 2004... guess he was a bit too full to eat 3/4 of the pie again. :p

Dirk
09-21-2005, 04:56 AM
Nice bump.
Roge ate 50% of the Yearly slam pie available. Very greedy for 1 player alone ;)

YES ROGER IS A NEO NAZI CAPITALIST DOG as Jorge likes to say. :)

Dirk
09-21-2005, 04:57 AM
Just for you Fumus, what happened to your new #1 avatar. I really liked it

I loved it too.

Daniel
09-21-2005, 05:02 AM
YES ROGER IS A NEO NAZI CAPITALIST DOG as Jorge likes to say. :)


Jorge is gone now :(

Dirk
09-21-2005, 05:03 AM
Why is that Daniel?

Daniel
09-21-2005, 06:12 AM
Because he dislikes some people here .

TennisGrandSlam
09-21-2005, 12:13 PM
The pressure is on bigtime at wimbledon for the fedexpress. If he doesnt win wimbledon he will be shitting himself at USO. all of a sudden roger playing like he is scared of LOSING while everyone else is gunning for him.
3 slam years usually mean the player has peaked and dont win many more slams (around 0), will same thing happen to federer? the sign is yes.


Laver (1969's 4 Slam -> 70's Slamless ~ his post-golden period)


So, only compare Roger Federer with Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander


Jimmy Connors
(1974's 3 Slam ~ Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, in his 22 years old)
(1975's 0 Slam in his 23 years old)


Mats Wilander
(1988's 3 Slam ~ Australian Open, Roland Garros, US Open, in his 24 years old)
(1989's 0 Slam in his 25 years old, and he did not win any Slam after 1988)



Now,


Roger Federer
(2004's 3 Slam ~ Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, in his 23 years old)
(2005's 2 Slam ~ Wimbledon, US Open, in his 24 years old)

hitchhiker
09-21-2005, 12:24 PM
Laver (1969's 4 Slam -> 70's Slamless ~ his post-golden period)


So, only compare Roger Federer with Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander


Jimmy Connors
(1974's 3 Slam ~ Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, in his 22 years old)
(1975's 0 Slam in his 23 years old)


Mats Wilander
(1988's 3 Slam ~ Australian Open, Roland Garros, US Open, in his 24 years old)
(1989's 0 Slam in his 25 years old, and he did not win any Slam after 1988)



Now,


Roger Federer
(2004's 3 Slam ~ Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, in his 23 years old)
(2005's 2 Slam ~ Wimbledon, US Open, in his 24 years old)



talk to the hand :rocker2:

jtipson
09-21-2005, 12:37 PM
talk to the hand :rocker2:

Can you explain what that means and why you used it? (Old lady here.)

hitchhiker
09-21-2005, 12:43 PM
Can you explain what that means and why you used it? (Old lady here.)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=talk+to+the+hand

RonE
09-21-2005, 01:08 PM
talk to the hand :rocker2:

You're not related to the governor of California by any chance are you?

Brilliant thread by the way, thanks for the laughs :rolls: :worship:

Pea
09-21-2005, 01:13 PM
Oucheth.

hitchhiker
09-21-2005, 02:11 PM
i predict roger is slamless in 2005. i am correct in 2 out of 4. i get 50%. i pass the test. so everyone shutup.

Mrs. B
09-21-2005, 02:12 PM
i predict roger is slamless in 2005. i am correct in 2 out of 4. i get 50%. i pass the test. so everyone shutup.

:haha: :haha:

mickymouse
09-21-2005, 02:29 PM
i predict roger is slamless in 2005. i am correct in 2 out of 4. i get 50%. i pass the test. so everyone shutup.

You spin faster than Bill O'Reilly

hitchhiker
09-21-2005, 02:53 PM
You spin faster than Bill O'Reilly

Your just jealos of someone with a 50% strike rate. stick it.

PamV
09-21-2005, 03:03 PM
The other thing is that ....Roger was really close to having won 3 slams again this year. He had a matchpoint in the AO SF, and if he had won that he would have surely beat Hewitt in the final. That would have really been some kind of wow factor to win 3 slams two years in a row. Then imagine how strong the talk of his dominance would be.

hitchhiker
09-21-2005, 03:24 PM
The other thing is that ....Roger was really close to having won 3 slams again this year.

and i was close to winning lottery yesterday. only missed out on 5 numbers.

revolution
09-21-2005, 03:26 PM
Another thread created only for the reason to make more vcash. Time to pull the plug on this one.

R.Federer
09-21-2005, 03:42 PM
Another thread created only for the reason to make more vcash. Time to pull the plug on this one.
This thread was created by the hiker before anyone got v$ for starting a thread. (Not a support of the hitchhiker, but thought I would point this out)

Dirk
09-21-2005, 07:21 PM
Hitch if you score 50% on a test it's a F. You failed this one badly. :haha: Can you post a thread saying Roger won't do the Grand Slam next year? ;)

Art&Soul
09-22-2005, 01:41 AM
i predict roger is slamless in 2005. i am correct in 2 out of 4. i get 50%. i pass the test. so everyone shutup.
I can't help :haha: :lol: :haha: hehe

Federerhingis
09-22-2005, 02:12 AM
Hitch if you score 50% on a test it's a F. You failed this one badly. :haha: Can you post a thread saying Roger won't do the Grand Slam next year? ;)

Nope in my school thats an E, exceptionally poor!

Dirk
09-25-2005, 02:39 PM
Federerhingis even better. :haha: Is there a H grade for Hitchhiker scpre? :devil:

sigmagirl91
09-25-2005, 02:40 PM
This one is totally :haha:

*karen*
09-25-2005, 02:46 PM
Theres no way that would happen. He'll win wimbledon for sure. I'd be extremely shocked if he didn't. and he has to be the strong faviourite for the Aussie and the Us open.

pinky
09-25-2005, 03:06 PM
i predict roger is slamless in 2005. i am correct in 2 out of 4. i get 50%. i pass the test. so everyone shutup.

A chance no one figured out you made your prediction after RG! ;)

=> 0% ...

adee-gee
11-18-2005, 04:15 PM
Me :D

RogiFan88
11-18-2005, 04:18 PM
duh, this was for 2005...

adee-gee
11-18-2005, 04:19 PM
I'm fully aware :)