Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks

Velvetcat
04-26-2006, 12:29 PM
Don't think this has been posted yet. An interesting article in a variety of ways.
Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks
JAY CLARK
Packet columist
Published Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Is Roger Federer as great as everyone proclaims?

No question, the guy has been utterly dominant in men's tennis the past few years. He's breaking records and creating new ones. Kicking butt and taking names. He steps onto the court, and just when you think guys like Andre Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis have a chance, Federer is smiling his seemingly toothless grin and waving in victory to the crowd and girlfriend Mirka.

That leaves viewers to wonder, "Who can beat this guy?" and, "Her?" And he does it all with an affable off-court demeanor, surprising accessibility to the media and arms that rival the Olsen twins' in their modest circumference.

Yet, his superiority remains unconvincing.

Look beyond the hairy Pete Sampras-like exterior, and there is an underlying vulnerability to Roger. Think I'm crazy? Who would you pick in a bar fight -- Jennifer Capriati or Federer? On second thought, given Capriati's background, maybe that's not the best comparison. ... I would pick her in any competition against anyone at any bar. The body shot is the shot she does best.

Anyway, thank goodness there is someone who can beat Federer on the tennis court. With the arrival of Rafael Nadal, the Mighty Fed (favorite nickname of journalists), the Fed Express (overused by ESPN), R. Fed (OK, I made that one up) has become human. Bring on the comic book metaphors, because with four of five meetings going to Nadal, it appears we have found Federer's kryptonite. And this kryptonite continues to rock the capri pants. In fact, their matches cannot even be considered fair until Roger dons an Old Navy vest to level the playing field.

Nadal's most recent victory over Federer, on clay at Monte Carlo in the final this past Sunday, must have been particularly sweet. Beforehand, when the press questioned Federer about Nadal's game, R. Fed temporarily forgot to be diplomatic, saying Nadal was "quite one-dimensional." Also, Federer predicted it was only a matter of time before he figured out the teenager's game.

Four-sets and another loss later, Federer still contends this to be true: "The more I play against him, the more I'll be able to figure out his game."

This argument would hold a little more weight if the same couldn't be said by Nadal. Or have these two secretly been playing each other without the other one knowing it?

There is an expression Federer's face makes, particularly when he misses a shot at an inopportune moment in the match. His lips contort in a scrunched up, Walter Matthau-esque fashion. His eyes narrow into darkened slits, and he transforms into a petulant 8-year-old who hasn't gotten his way. Then he berates himself, storms to the opposite side of the court and reverts to normal.

We will most likely see this face in the French Open final, when Roger shanks yet another backhand due to Nadal's lefty forehand spin.

Let the tantrum begin.
http://www.islandpacket.com/editorial/col/clark/story/5693255p-5102076c.html

bokehlicious
04-26-2006, 12:33 PM
:worship:

Sundays' final showed the world that Roger was just an average tennis player ! He had had a lot of luck the past 3 years, that's all... :o

nobama
04-26-2006, 12:52 PM
:yawn:

alfonsojose
04-26-2006, 12:57 PM
He's so inmature :o

Mrs. B
04-26-2006, 01:03 PM
:worship:

Sundays' final showed the world that Roger was just an average tennis player ! He had had a lot of luck the past 3 years, that's all... :o

lol, what a loser. he's so bad for the sport. he should just quit tomorrow and join a Guggen Band for the Basel Fasnacht! ;)

Velvetcat
04-26-2006, 01:10 PM
:yawn:
Wake up sleepy head. Surely The Federer Defense never rests? :)

anserq
04-26-2006, 01:12 PM
Rofl @ you guys. You're joking right?

anserq
04-26-2006, 01:13 PM
So ehh, Nadal is the only one who can beat Federer? When is the next hard court tournament coming up? Which Nadal and Fed both will be attending.

nobama
04-26-2006, 01:14 PM
lol, what a loser. he's so bad for the sport. he should just quit tomorrow and join a Guggen Band for the Basel Fasnacht! ;):lol: I'm just waiting for the media to start droaning on and on about how tennis is so boring because Nadal wins everything and has no competition. ;)

nobama
04-26-2006, 01:16 PM
Wake up sleepy head. Surely The Federer Defense never rests? :)No it just gets bored with the same shit different day. :zzz:

Solid_Snake
04-26-2006, 01:16 PM
Look beyond the hairy Pete Sampras-like exterior, and there is an underlying vulnerability to Roger.

:haha:

rofe
04-26-2006, 01:17 PM
This is just unbelievable. My thoughts on this.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=3405185&postcount=7

mangoes
04-26-2006, 01:23 PM
:lol: I'm just waiting for the media to start droaning on and on about how tennis is so boring because Nadal wins everything and has no competition. ;)

Another Friggin Federer hater takes a jab at Roger............So what's new this morning :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Sooner or later, the media will also turn on Nadal, I hope this thread starter also post those articles...........It's reasonable to assume that there have been journalist that weren't exactly peachy keen about Roger..........Well, they're now coming out of the woodwork to take their shots at Roger........It happens to every athlete......... :rolleyes:

almouchie
04-26-2006, 01:38 PM
it appears we have found Federer's kryptonite. And this kryptonite continues to rock the capri pants

I like that
looks like someon people have converted
just shows u the media can at one point lift a player into starom & perfection
& then the next deem he merely ordinary
Federer is neither, he is in between
can u imagine if Fed loses next time to Rafa
what will happen in the press

nobama
04-26-2006, 01:47 PM
It's one thing to say that Nadal is in Roger's head, will always cause him troubles, will be difficult for Roger to beat, ect. But to say this proves Roger isn't "all that"? That's taking it a bit far, isn't it? I mean James Blake has beaten Nadal in 2005 and 2006 but he has yet to win an encounter against Roger. I'm sure you could say that about other players that have beaten Nadal as well. So what. Nadal's a bad match up for Roger. How does that translate into Roger's not as great as everyone thinks? :confused:

Velvetcat
04-26-2006, 01:51 PM
Another Friggin Federer hater takes a jab at Roger............So what's new this morning :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Sooner or later, the media will also turn on Nadal, I hope this thread starter also post those articles...........
:wavey:

I find the manner of criticism in this article interesting. But I'm not a blinkered Fed fan.

anserq
04-26-2006, 01:51 PM
I CANT BELIEVE THERE ARE FEDERER HATERS? LOL?

Castafiore
04-26-2006, 01:59 PM
How does that translate into Roger's not as great as everyone thinks? :confused:
The title of the article is: "Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks" --> "he" as in Federer, not "everyone"

I think that this goes back to some of the things Fed said before the final that have come to haunt him a bit, like some of the Fed fans (Mirkaland and Allez for example) have predicted.

For the record: of course the article does exaggerate but it's a column so it's not supposed to be objective just like Pete Bodo's blog is not objective either.
Everybody who follows tennis coverage in the media knows the overreactions. For example, I found many of the articles written after Roddick's defeat in the USO 2005 exaggerated as well and you can find many overreactions about victories and defeats of many players.

You know as well as I do that Federer is very much respected by most sports journalists. OK, maybe not everybody adores every step he takes but hey, you can't win them all.
Federer is a class act and he will soon return to his winning mood and you will see the adoring articles coming again.

mangoes
04-26-2006, 02:00 PM
:wavey:

I find the manner of criticism in this article interesting. But I'm not a blinkered Fed fan.


No, you're a friggin Nadal fan who dislikes Roger, so of course, you must find this article interesting....................that was such a stretch of imagination..... :rolleyes: Anyway, you've filled my quota of crap for today, chow......... :wavey:

Hagar
04-26-2006, 02:06 PM
His seemingly toothless grin. :lol:

ezekiel
04-26-2006, 02:22 PM
Roger is getting challenged only from the new and younger players

Velvetcat
04-26-2006, 02:29 PM
No, you're a friggin Nadal fan who doesn't care for Roger, so of course, you must find this article interesting....................that's was such a stretch of imagination..... :rolleyes: Anyway, you've filled my quota of crap for today, chow......... :wavey:
What a nauseous post. What's wrong with Nadal fans? He has some great supporters, it's just a shame they're not Fed fans instead of dolts like you.

mangoes
04-26-2006, 02:35 PM
What a nauseous post. What's wrong with Nadal fans? He has some great supporters, it's just a shame they're not Fed fans instead of dolts like you.

:confused: :confused: :confused: What?? Most Nadal fans are very nice posters..............what are you talking about???

bokehlicious
04-26-2006, 02:52 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused: What?? Most Nadal fans are very nice posters..............what are you talking about???

I laughed at this one too :angel:

purple_star
04-26-2006, 03:07 PM
His seemingly toothless grin. :lol:
so true. he does seem toothless when he smiles.. :tape:

Dirk
04-26-2006, 03:08 PM
Pete had losing records to some guys too. Roger will figure out how to hold his mentality longer in matches with Rafa soon.

NYCtennisfan
04-26-2006, 03:15 PM
Wow! What amazing journalism! This piece has rendered all future pieces (and past pieces for that matter) irrelevant and inconsequential.

Face it people. Federer has just played about 200 lucky matches in a row and has hit about 100,000 lucky groundstrokes in those matches. Most of his competitors probably had to go to the bathroom during their matches and that's why they didn't play all that well. Either that or Federer's Nike headband emitted some kind of spellbinding rays that prevented his opponents from beating him.

He is not as good as he thinks. MAYBE, MAYBE this might change if he gets to 13 finals in a row, or if he had won 5 TMS events in a row instead of a paltry 4, or he wins 50 times in a row on grass instead of a shitty 36, or if he had won 50 in a row instead of a crappy 35, or if he had won 20+ in a row more than just 4 crappy times, of if he actually wins more than just 3 lousy slams in a row, or if he if beats top 10 opponents more than 24 times in a row, or if he had won 50 finals in a row instead of just 24, or if....ah, just forget it. He just plain sucks.

Neely
04-26-2006, 03:31 PM
That's how the media sometimes works. In good times he took the praise and endless peoms of praise. Now, after one stupid comment and a deserved loss after that, it's normal that he gets critisized for it and that (exaggarated) negative things are written because only positive things are too boring in long-term for some of the writers. It happened to others before, too. Not only in tennis, in many sports.

Skyward
04-26-2006, 03:59 PM
Trash. But we have to understand: everyone needs quick money now and then.

azinna
04-26-2006, 04:00 PM
Yep. This is definitely a lesson learned for Federer. In some of the spin we're getting on this last loss, it's pretty obvious that the media is making him pay for his slip pre-MC final.

Besides the above, I think it's pretty normal for the media to start asking the #1 player about his recent string of losses to the world #2. This isn't really a case of the media building up an icon only to bring it down.

Fed-Express
04-26-2006, 04:02 PM
Too many people think they can write and be funny.
What have we learned from this article, has he told us anything of importance?
No insights, no interesting remarks - just abysmally written.

lucashg
04-26-2006, 04:04 PM
The title of the article is: "Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks" --> "he" as in Federer, not "everyone"

I think that this goes back to some of the things Fed said before the final that have come to haunt him a bit, like some of the Fed fans (Mirkaland and Allez for example) have predicted.

Err? The question asked right below the title of the article is "Is Roger Federer as great as everyone proclaims?" and that word should have been used for the main title as well as he's not the one talking about how he's already the best player of all time, is so superior to the rest of the field, etc.

I don't know why you try so hard to be impartial when you only come up with such stuff in Federer related issues.

For the record: of course the article does exaggerate but it's a column so it's not supposed to be objective just like Pete Bodo's blog is not objective either.
Everybody who follows tennis coverage in the media knows the overreactions. For example, I found many of the articles written after Roddick's defeat in the USO 2005 exaggerated as well and you can find many overreactions about victories and defeats of many players.

So? The Rafadork Anti-Fed thread starter pointed out this article for us at MTF, and people are only laughing amused with its idiocy, it has nothing to do with what happened in the past with other athletes. It's not like people are creating a case about it, so there's no need to point out how normal it is.

And of course, only Rafatards and Fed Haters will find something interesting inside this article.

ugotlobbed
04-26-2006, 04:08 PM
u guys are jumping on it too early, theyve only played 5 times, and hes only beaten federer 1 time on hard, miami doesnt count federer was sick

media has nothing to write about in tennis until nadal started beating federer, of course they will grab this chance to exxagerate the story

same for the nadal fans here on mtf u guys have been waiting for something little, but u dont realize nadal has only won 1 gs

if 2 years come accross and nadal is still beating federer and wins more grand slams, then talk, for now, u can only fool the noobs

AgassiDomination
04-26-2006, 04:10 PM
:retard:

bokehlicious
04-26-2006, 04:10 PM
:worship: :worship: :worship:

nobama
04-26-2006, 04:22 PM
What I find laughable is some people think this article was written because of Roger's pre-match comments. That's just crap. Had Roger never made those comments this article probably still would have been written. When he wins everyone kisses his ass, then when he looses (esp to Nadal) they proclaim his dominance is over or he's struggling.

I guess this guy doesn't know anything about matchups. He thinks it's just as simple as Nadal's beaten Federer several times now so obviously Federer is not as good as people think. I'd be interested to know of all those players that have beaten Nadal in the past 2 years or so, how many of them who have played Roger have a winning record or even sheet against him. I used Blake as an example. He beat Nadal at US Open and this year at Indian Wells. But he's yet to win a match against Federer. There are far better measures of how great someone is than their h2h record against another player.

Scotso
04-26-2006, 05:43 PM
Federer is a great player... but I do tend to think he thinks he's even better than he really is.

Mechlan
04-26-2006, 06:22 PM
The title of the article is: "Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks" --> "he" as in Federer, not "everyone"


How does the author know how great Federer thinks he is? How does anyone know how great Federer thinks he is? This is just the author's spin using the same flak about his pre-match comments as a guise. Whatever. When you're so nice generally and win as much as Roger, I can see why the press would have a field day for getting a boneheaded comment followed by a loss.

nobama
04-26-2006, 06:28 PM
Federer is a great player... but I do tend to think he thinks he's even better than he really is.Based on what, exactly?

morningglory
04-26-2006, 07:17 PM
when it rains, it pours... la la la... :rolleyes:
A big :ras: at the writer of the article... just riding the wave eh? Around Wimby you'll be licking Fed's feet again...

ChloeLove
04-26-2006, 07:29 PM
The title is misleading . . . Roger is great, and he definitely isn't cocky. I just think he could've handled this loss better, maybe given Nadal some more credit. He didn't have the best pre-match, or post-match interviews. Roger is frustrated, that's all. There's way too much fuss over this loss, and how Roger handled it.

Pea
04-26-2006, 07:30 PM
OMG! Did he actually attend any journalism classes?

Jairus
04-26-2006, 08:17 PM
I don't think any good tennis player is as good as s/he thinks s/he is. You have to be super confident to have a chance at the top level. I'm sure Nadal, Roddick, and all the rest all believe at their core that they can be the greatest player on the planet. What I wonder is what Ljubicic really thinks about his chances against Fed. He publicly started downplaying his chances, but surely to be competitive he still has to believe that he can be the best...

Scotso
04-26-2006, 08:48 PM
Based on what, exactly?

Based on his comment that Nadal isn't better than him on clay?

daze11
04-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Nadal has shown Federer isn't as great as he thinks
JAY CLARK
Packet columisti think this is only the beginning.

the follow-up article will be: "Clark has shown he'd really dig licking Nadal's ass crack" (pack-it columnist)

Scotso
04-26-2006, 08:58 PM
Yeah, he loves it after Nadal plays a 5 hour match :D

daze11
04-26-2006, 09:05 PM
Yeah, he loves it after Nadal plays a 5 hour match :D:lol: yeah, when its extra gooey. http://yelims1.free.fr/Beurk/Beurk01.gif

Godiva
04-26-2006, 09:10 PM
I'd pick Jen Cap too :lol: Seriously though, people will be singing a different tune this time next year. Do NOT underrate The Fed.

dkw
04-26-2006, 09:10 PM
Too many people think they can write and be funny.
What have we learned from this article

:shrug: That whatever it is Roger's puffin on that got him thinking he's Superman, Nadal got the Kryptonite to smack him with his d*ck and his stick

DMX rhyme... I couldn't resist. I guess I'm one of those humor challanged individuals.

Jogy
04-26-2006, 09:30 PM
There is an expression Federer's face makes, particularly when he misses a shot at an inopportune moment in the match. His lips contort in a scrunched up, Walter Matthau-esque fashion. His eyes narrow into darkened slits, and he transforms into a petulant 8-year-old who hasn't gotten his way. Then he berates himself, storms to the opposite side of the court and reverts to normal.

We will most likely see this face in the French Open final, when Roger shanks yet another backhand due to Nadal's lefty forehand spin.

Let the tantrum begin.
LOL :haha: :haha:
best part of article
good to see that some journalists finally wake up and see Federer's true double-face :lol:
the more Federer looses the more he will show his true face, like in junior and earlypro years when he was a jerk with tantrums, racket throwing and penalties given

:worship: :hatoff: to the writer to have the guts to say true about Federer and not lick his ass :hatoff:

Rogiman
04-26-2006, 09:46 PM
the more Federer looses the more he will show his true face
You mean looses as in: taking it easy, smoking some pot, chilling out etc. ?
In that case I'd say his true face should be pretty :cool:

:smoke:

Allez
04-26-2006, 10:13 PM
At least some people are finding something to be happy about in this loss. Win or lose, Roger tends to make people very happy. Were it not for this loss, these sad anti feds would have nothing to smile about.

dkw
04-26-2006, 10:20 PM
At least some people are finding something to be happy about in this loss. Win or lose, Roger tends to make people very happy. Were it not for this loss, these sad anti feds would have nothing to smile about.

I know!!! I for one always say thank you to Roger for losing. It makes my day :)

lucashg
04-26-2006, 10:28 PM
I know!!! I for one always say thank you to Roger for losing. It makes my day :)

I'm glad you know it's always in his hands. :lol:

dkw
04-26-2006, 10:48 PM
I'm glad you know it's always in his hands. :lol:
:p

R.Federer
04-26-2006, 10:53 PM
Its no surprise journalists are happy they also have a chance to write something about "petulant" Roge, after having to write about how affable he is for so long.... its alright, its normal

nobama
04-26-2006, 11:36 PM
Based on his comment that Nadal isn't better than him on clay?So you're statement is based on one comment. Good grief. :rolleyes:

heya
04-26-2006, 11:43 PM
Omg. What's wrong with Roger? I wish Borg and Laver could be as gentlemanly as him.

Scotso
04-27-2006, 01:57 AM
So you're statement is based on one comment. Good grief. :rolleyes:

That's all it takes, yes.

anserq
04-27-2006, 02:05 AM
ROFL! :D
i think this is only the beginning.

the follow-up article will be: "Clark has shown he'd really dig licking Nadal's ass crack" (pack-it columnist)

connectolove
04-27-2006, 09:32 AM
Poor Rog, he is the best and the media is almost retiring him. There is a lot of Fed still to go around.

I think that we are being manipulated, what else is new.

heya
04-27-2006, 09:40 AM
:baby: :tears:

TheMightyFed
04-27-2006, 09:46 AM
American journalists are so pissed off to have a bunch of journeymen as top players, they have to free their frustration on someone, and Roger is the ideal target, he often says what he thinks, and now he loses to someone, so he must pay for all the ass-kicking he's made recently...

mallorn
04-27-2006, 10:01 AM
Yep, sure are...
but ive got the feeling alot of them (things ive read since nadal beat him on sunday) have been waiting for a time like this, when they can really turn on Fed, showing what they thought of him all along... arrogant, stage managed, boring No1 of tennis.

apparently not allowed to show emotion, have a temper or show disgust at a bad shot, cos its not like any other player does that when they hit poor shots is it
:retard:
Do you really think it's personal? :confused: I think it's just the way things go. As long as you're winning everybody loves you. As soon as you lose they pounce on you. Watch the same thing happen to Rafa in future.

Roger has set such high standards, both in terms of results and his behaviour off court, that this turn of events (losses to the same player coupled with not-so-gracious comments) is considered unexpected and, as such, interesting. Unfortunately, these days most reporters seem to think that good journalism means creating hype rather than e.g. providing in-depth, expert analysis.

roger is finding the pressures of being No1 now, there is actually alot of hatred, jealousy to be dealt with.
There definitely is, and it must be a particularly difficult time for Roger. He probably could've avoided getting so much flak if he had kept his opinion to himself and stuck to being PC and "boring". As it was, he gave sensationalists a target and they were more than happy to shoot.

emile32
04-27-2006, 10:22 AM
I think this is a frustrated american journalist because their top players Roddick,blake,ginepri,dent etc don't win anything big anymore. The second thing because some journalist say that federer is better than Sampras and that hurts because nobody can be better than Sampras.The remarks from bruguera that federer is 10 times better that didn't help either.For me Rod Laver is still the greatest tennis player of all time and if hadn't turned pro he would have had more grandslams than the great Sampras.

heya
04-27-2006, 10:33 AM
I could've sworn that no one put a gun to his head when he voluntarily described better players as idiots and one dimensional and jerks.
It's classy when you smile and say you hope you're opponents lose in the early rounds. You indulge in euphoric glee over opponents' losses, tough Davis Cup schedule and consequential exhaustion.
Smile and protest tennis rule changes. Everyone owes you special treatment. The computer Line Call Challenge system is bad, and injured players deserve bashing because they withdrew from a 1-CELEBRITY TOURNAMENT.
Fans commend your actions at your official website and tournaments.
A predictable loss is looming. The airs of maturity and presumptuous commentary about your opponents quickly change
into scowls and antagonizing mind games.

sylacauga
04-27-2006, 01:31 PM
but ive got the feeling alot of them (things ive read since nadal beat him on sunday) have been waiting for a time like this, when they can really turn on Fed, showing what they thought of him all along...


I could've sworn that no one put a gun to his head when he voluntarily described better players as idiots and one dimensional and jerks.
It's classy when you smile and say you hope you're opponents lose in the early rounds. You indulge in euphoric glee over opponents' losses, tough Davis Cup schedule and consequential exhaustion.
Smile and protest tennis rule changes. Everyone owes you special treatment. The computer Line Call Challenge system is bad, and injured players deserve bashing because they withdrew from a 1-CELEBRITY TOURNAMENT.
Fans commend your actions at your official website and tournaments.
A predictable loss is looming. The airs of maturity and presumptuous commentary about your opponents quickly change
into scowls and antagonizing mind games.


:o

tangerine_dream
04-26-2009, 02:36 AM
Jay Clark may have had a point.

miura
04-26-2009, 02:42 AM
id like to stay in discuss this intruiging article... or maybe ill just get hammered and let the retards of mtf argue..

ORGASMATRON
04-26-2009, 02:58 AM
Look beyond the hairy Pete Sampras-like exterior, and there is an underlying vulnerability to Roger. Think I'm crazy? Who would you pick in a bar fight -- Jennifer Capriati or Federer? On second thought, given Capriati's background, maybe that's not the best comparison. ... I would pick her in any competition against anyone at any bar. The body shot is the shot she does best.

Ok no need to discuss this article any further.

habibko
04-26-2009, 03:32 AM
I could've sworn that no one put a gun to his head when he voluntarily described better players as idiots and one dimensional and jerks.
It's classy when you smile and say you hope you're opponents lose in the early rounds. You indulge in euphoric glee over opponents' losses, tough Davis Cup schedule and consequential exhaustion.
Smile and protest tennis rule changes. Everyone owes you special treatment. The computer Line Call Challenge system is bad, and injured players deserve bashing because they withdrew from a 1-CELEBRITY TOURNAMENT.
Fans commend your actions at your official website and tournaments.
A predictable loss is looming. The airs of maturity and presumptuous commentary about your opponents quickly change
into scowls and antagonizing mind games.

http://apronstrings.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f9552a3883401156ff13cb8970b-500wi

JolánGagó
04-26-2009, 04:30 AM
Who would you pick in a bar fight -- Jennifer Capriati or Federer? On second thought, given Capriati's background, maybe that's not the best comparison. ... I would pick her in any competition against anyone at any bar. The body shot is the shot she does best.

:haha: fu.ken.great.

i'd pick Capriati too :shrug:

kingfederer
04-26-2009, 04:43 AM
federer would cry like a little girl if capriati messed up his pretty little girly hair. federer is a pansy, its not cool to cry in public especially if ur a grown man. sometimes i wish federer was a woman, then he wouldnt embarrass the male species who are renouned for toughness! btw capriati would smash federer in a fist fight!

iSzavay.
04-26-2009, 04:46 AM
:haha: I think that article was current until I got to the part about Nadal beating him in the Monte Carlo final

Stefwhit
04-26-2009, 06:03 AM
^It was an article before its time, it's more meaningful and relevant today than it was back when it was written then.

kingfederer
04-26-2009, 07:40 AM
federer is a weak era bully boy. he was a caretaker number 1 after sampras retired, some mug had to do the job, until a real number 1 gained experience such as nadal.

vamosinator
04-26-2009, 07:46 AM
federer is a weak era bully boy. he was a caretaker number 1 after sampras retired, some mug had to do the job, until a real number 1 gained experience such as nadal.

And his GOATness was a product of the media being desperate to lift the profile of tennis at a time when all we had was Agassi and a semi-retired Sampras to keep us interested. I can see why the media and ex-pros did it, but some good depth (at least top4) now in mens tennis can bring deserved media-hype to the game.

ORGASMATRON
04-26-2009, 08:26 AM
Its not he end of the world anyway. Fed still have time to put this behind him and become the undisputed modern era GOAT. He just needs to win 1 or 2 more slams and he has more then enough time to do it. This is becoming a Rafatard thread now.

morningglory
04-26-2009, 08:40 AM
federer is a weak era bully boy. he was a caretaker number 1 after sampras retired, some mug had to do the job, until a real number 1 gained experience such as nadal.

I've been meaning to ask... why is your name kingfederer if you consider him a mug? :confused:
Or are you being sarcastic?

FlameOn
04-26-2009, 09:08 AM
It's funny that back then Roger was all like "Nadal has a one-dimensional game which I will figure out no problem", whereas now he's been saying things like, "I always thought Rafa was fantastic". Like in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwklrO9EgA :lol:

Nadal really has humbled Federer. I don't think that Federer can or will be the modern era GOAT until he wins a French Open, and we all know the likelihood of that happening.

Sean
04-26-2009, 10:20 AM
federer is a weak era bully boy. he was a caretaker number 1 after sampras retired, some mug had to do the job, until a real number 1 gained experience such as nadal.

:yeah:

heya
04-26-2009, 07:21 PM
He probably watched Brad Gilbert and the McEnroe genius brothers' endless gloating about Federer and their own stardom on ESPN.

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 05:14 PM
Yes I think Roger Federer is very overated.
A few years agy when he won lots of tournaments the tennis era was very very weak.
There was no competition at all.
Federer had open acces to all tournaments without breaking to much of a sweat.
Dont get me wrong I think Federer is a very good player, but certainly not the ''greatest''
Not even close.
Despite all off his prices
Now the tennis era has become a bit stronger, with players like Nadal.
And now finally Federer is exposed, he isnt the undefeated the unbreakable player that people claim he is.
Now every time federer has faces a great opponent, nine out of ten times he loses it.
Some of his fans say yeah but this is a different Federer, he is not in his prime anymore.
No he's still the same.
This shows that Roger isnt one of the all time greatest.

You know if you wanne be up there with the best, winning tournaments in a weak era isnt enough.
In order to be one of the greatest you must defeat legendary opponents
That rule doesnt count just for tennis but for almost every sport.

I like Boxing to, Mike Tyson defeated almost every man he faced, most of his opponents, or do I need to say victims dont make it threw the 1st round.
But who did he defeat?
Thats why Tyson isnt listed in the top 10, or top 50 of all time great boxers.
Also Federer should be listed as an all time greatest eighter, despite all off his victories.
Also consistentie is the key to succes, you wanne be up there you have to have consistentie


Yes Nadal can be the greatest tennis player off all time, if he keeps this up.
He is going to be testes a lot, the tennis era is getting stronger so will see how Nadal will last.

I believe that every sportman has a time where he is at his best.
Maybe Nadal is the best player in the world in this stage?
But you have to keep it up in order to be one of the greatest.


I hope this will not get deleted, I dont have anything against Federer.
And I havent insulted anybody

maconick
04-27-2009, 05:20 PM
lol

Jōris
04-27-2009, 05:20 PM
This thread doesn't add anything to the discussions MTF had on the same subject.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_05/TysonMAVRIX_468x623.jpg

Put another fried chicken in your mouth and be quiet.

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 05:21 PM
Mike maybe fat now but he can still kick your ass

Dini
04-27-2009, 05:23 PM
Mike Tyson :eek::eek::eek:

Jōris
04-27-2009, 05:23 PM
Mike maybe fat now but he can still kick your ass

I doubt he can lift his feet off the floor to reach there.

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 05:26 PM
I doubt he can lift his feet off the floor to reach there.

Yeah your right before he can does that your already 6 blocks away

Nederlanders zijn namelijk helden op sokken ;)

Jōris
04-27-2009, 05:28 PM
Yeah your right before he can does that your already 6 blocks away

Nederlanders zijn namelijk helden op sokken ;)

I see your posts match his intellectual prowess too. Get lost.

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 05:33 PM
I see your posts match his intellectual prowess too. Get lost.

Well your the one who started with that stupid picture of Mike...
That picture doenst tribute anything postive to this thread.
I guess your a huge Federer fan.

FedFan
04-27-2009, 05:47 PM
Yes I think Roger Federer is very overated.
A few years agy when he won lots of tournaments the tennis era was very very weak.
There was no competition at all.
Federer had open acces to all tournaments without breaking to much of a sweat.
Dont get me wrong I think Federer is a very good player, but certainly not the ''greatest''
Not even close.
Despite all off his prices
Now the tennis era has become a bit stronger, with players like Nadal.
And now finally Federer is exposed, he isnt the undefeated the unbreakable player that people claim he is.
Now every time federer has faces a great opponent, nine out of ten times he loses it.
Some of his fans say yeah but this is a different Federer, he is not in his prime anymore.
No he's still the same.
This shows that Roger isnt one of the all time greatest.

You know if you wanne be up there with the best, winning tournaments in a weak era isnt enough.
In order to be one of the greatest you must defeat legendary opponents
That rule doesnt count just for tennis but for almost every sport.

I like Boxing to, Mike Tyson defeated almost every man he faced, most of his opponents, or do I need to say victims dont make it threw the 1st round.
But who did he defeat?
Thats why Tyson isnt listed in the top 10, or top 50 of all time great boxers.
Also Federer should be listed as an all time greatest eighter, despite all off his victories.
Also consistentie is the key to succes, you wanne be up there you have to have consistentie


Yes Nadal can be the greatest tennis player off all time, if he keeps this up.
He is going to be testes a lot, the tennis era is getting stronger so will see how Nadal will last.

I believe that every sportman has a time where he is at his best.
Maybe Nadal is the best player in the world in this stage?
But you have to keep it up in order to be one of the greatest.


I hope this will not get deleted, I dont have anything against Federer.
And I havent insulted anybody


If you think Roger is still in his prime you are a :retard:

At this stage of career Sampras had not the problems of Roger, because he regularly lost to same no names. And he has a negative head to head against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Fed.

He can not be the GOAT then? :unsure:

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 05:53 PM
If you think Roger is still in his prime you are a :retard:

At this stage of career Sampras had not the problems of Roger, because he regularly lost to same no names. And he has a negative head to head against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Fed.

He can not be the GOAT then? :unsure:

I believe Roger is still in his prime.
Even so it doesnt look like it.
Its because he's losing a lot, we are not used to that.
Because players like nadal sometimes completly owned federer all kind of ways.
Thats why we say Federer is not in his prime anymore.

But he still is, this is the same Roger as the roger of 5 years ago.

FedFan
04-27-2009, 06:04 PM
I believe Roger is still in his prime.
Even so it doesnt look like it.
Its because he's losing a lot, we are not used to that.
Because players like nadal sometimes completly owned federer all kind of ways.
Thats why we say Federer is not in his prime anymore.

But he still is, this is the same Roger as the roger of 5 years ago.


Then you know nothing about tennis, what a surprise with such a name. ;)

Why do yo think that he loses more and more to players, he has not lost before like Blake, Karlovic, Wawrinka? :confused: It seems to me you have never followed one of Rogers match in his prime, otherwise you could not spread such stupidity.

Apart from the French Open last year Nadals does not own Federer completely. Please concentrate on boxing you would do us a favour. ;)

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Then you know nothing about tennis, what a surprise with such a name. ;)

Why do yo think that he loses more and more to players, he has not lost before like Blake, Karlovic, Wawrinka? :confused: It seems to me you have never followed one of Rogers match in his prime, otherwise you could not spread such stupidity.

Apart from the French Open last year Nadals does not own Federer completely. Please concentrate on boxing you would do us a favour. ;)

Ňhh please give me a break
I dont watch boxing anymore because the heavyweight division is dead, just like the era of Federer was dead.
Im sorry but it's the truth Federer is not an all time greatest, he will never be.
Because he loses to often from example Nadal.
I believe it was 13 wins for Nadal and 6 for Federer?

FedFan
04-27-2009, 06:18 PM
Ňhh please give me a break
I dont watch boxing anymore because the heavyweight division is dead, just like the era of Federer was dead.
Im sorry but it's the truth Federer is not an all time greatest, he will never be.
Because he loses to often from example Nadal.
I believe it was 13 wins for Nadal and 6 for Federer?

It is not up to you to decide, if someone is an all time great or not, fortunately. ;)

It is a shame enough, that some :retard: fans are allowed to discuss here.

Mike Tyson
04-27-2009, 06:26 PM
It is not up to you to decide, if someone is an all time great or not, fortunately. ;)

It is a shame enough, that some :retard: fans are allowed to discuss here.

Its a shame that this conversation has to be like this.
About 15 years from now, I will ask u the same question again, I hope you wont be dead by then.
And you will say that I was right, and you will appologize

scarecrows
04-27-2009, 06:34 PM
you know there's something wrong with the forum when someone nicknamed Mike Tyson comes and makes deep analysis

FedFan
04-27-2009, 06:35 PM
Its a shame that this conversation has to be like this.
About 15 years from now, I will ask u the same question again, I hope you wont be dead by then.
And you will say that I was right, and you will appologize

:haha: You gave me a good laugh, thanks. ;)

Forehander
04-28-2009, 03:22 AM
Actually Federer did solve Nadal's game (other than clay where he's simply physically limited) for a while until his own physical decline lol.

Jōris
04-28-2009, 06:01 AM
Actually Federer did solve Nadal's game (other than clay where he's simply physically limited) for a while until his own physical decline lol.

That may be true. Or Fed was able to beat him only because Nadal hadn't reached his physical and mental peak yet. The answer depends on which fanbase you're talking to.

vamosinator
04-28-2009, 07:20 AM
Federer was very fortunate Nadal suffered a quad injury in 2007 Wimbledon's 5th set, that was Federer in his prime and needed a lucky break to beat Nadal on Federer's best surface.

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 07:31 AM
Federer was very fortunate Nadal suffered a quad injury in 2007 Wimbledon's 5th set, that was Federer in his prime and needed a lucky break to beat Nadal on Federer's best surface.

NAdal was very forunate Federer suffered a mental injury in Wimbledon 08. 9-7 in the fifth could have gone either way. That was Nadal in his prime and he needed a lucky break to beat Federer by the smallest of margins :cool:

FedFan_2007
04-28-2009, 07:35 AM
Federer was very fortunate Nadal suffered a quad injury in 2007 Wimbledon's 5th set, that was Federer in his prime and needed a lucky break to beat Nadal on Federer's best surface.

Very true. :worship:

vamosinator
04-28-2009, 09:59 AM
NAdal was very forunate Federer suffered a mental injury in Wimbledon 08. 9-7 in the fifth could have gone either way. That was Nadal in his prime and he needed a lucky break to beat Federer by the smallest of margins :cool:

No, Nadal will never lose a close match to Federer, because Nadal is clutch while Federer is not. So you may think 9-7 is close, but its actually not close at all, its further proof that Nadal is a pressure player who can't lose a close 5-setter to Federer (unless Nadal gets a quad injury etc.).

It's like saying Karl Malone is almost as good as Michael Jordan. I mean nobody would ever say that, but if Jordan's shot in game 6 didn't go in then Utah would have played game 7 in Utah. My point is, Jordan is considered as the GOAT while Malone isn't even considered top 15, because Jordan won the important moments (while Malone missed free-throws and lost the ball at the end of games).

Same with Nadal and Federer, Nadal is better and has the lopsided head-to-head record because he wins all the important moments. It could even be said that a 9-7 victory is more convincing than a 6-2 victory, because 9-7 shows how much mentally stronger a player is, while 6-2 is just a run of the mill win.

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 10:17 AM
No, Nadal will never lose a close match to Federer, because Nadal is clutch while Federer is not. So you may think 9-7 is close, but its actually not close at all, its further proof that Nadal is a pressure player who can't lose a close 5-setter to Federer (unless Nadal gets a quad injury etc.).

It's like saying Karl Malone is almost as good as Michael Jordan. I mean nobody would ever say that, but if Jordan's shot in game 6 didn't go in then Utah would have played game 7 in Utah. My point is, Jordan is considered as the GOAT while Malone isn't even considered top 15, because Jordan won the important moments (while Malone missed free-throws and lost the ball at the end of games).

Same with Nadal and Federer, Nadal is better and has the lopsided head-to-head record because he wins all the important moments. It could even be said that a 9-7 victory is more convincing than a 6-2 victory, because 9-7 shows how much mentally stronger a player is, while 6-2 is just a run of the mill win.

Rubbish, you are talking in circles. Federer won that close match in Miami that Nadal choked away and he won in five in Wimbledon 07. Nuff said.

General Suburbia
04-28-2009, 10:41 AM
Rubbish, you are talking in circles. Federer won that close match in Miami that Nadal choked away and he won in five in Wimbledon 07. Nuff said.
In his defense, that was a long time ago. Nadal has improved a lot.

RedFury
04-28-2009, 11:25 AM
:lol: I'm just waiting for the media to start droaning on and on about how tennis is so boring because Nadal wins everything and has no competition. ;)

Your wait is over.

Enjoy.

The Oracle
08-22-2009, 04:12 AM
Well, then Federer has to prove himself.

Nadal WOULD STILL BE NO. 1 HAD HE NOT BEEN INJURED!?

mark73
08-22-2009, 04:19 AM
Well, then Federer has to prove himself.

Nadal WOULD STILL BE NO. 1 HAD HE NOT BEEN INJURED!?

Ya but part of being great is training, playing and scheduling in such a way as to minimize injuries. No excuses, Federer deserves to be number 1.

The Oracle
08-22-2009, 04:43 AM
Ya but part of being great is training, playing and scheduling in such a way as to minimize injuries. No excuses, Federer deserves to be number 1.

huh?..........

Are you suggesting that Nadal was injured because of his own fault!?

That is the common Fed-Tard excuse and that simply will not stand.

We all know that injuries happened and Nadal would still be no. 1.

Because of this misfortune, Nadal is no. 3 for the first item in 3 yrs

mark73
08-22-2009, 04:49 AM
huh?..........

Are you suggesting that Nadal was injured because of his own fault!?

That is the common Fed-Tard excuse and that simply will not stand.

We all know that injuries happened and Nadal would still be no. 1.

Because of this misfortune, Nadal is no. 3 for the first item in 3 yrs




Too some extend it does have to do with his more physical game. This is widely believed not some "fedtard" response. Also many people think his scheduling has been poor. Finally it does not matter if it was his fault or not. He was absent, fed won, end of story. Again he has nothing to prove.

Arkulari
08-22-2009, 05:20 AM
Q. How strange or not does it feel to you that you’re going into a No. 1 versus No. 2 matchup tomorrow and the other guy isn’t Rafa?

ROGER FEDERER: "Look, I don’t even pay that close attention to the rankings, because I always said that No. 1 is sort of what I’m focused on. If you’re not No. 1, well then you’re a former Grand Slam champion, you know, in my case and Rafa’s case and so forth. So I never looked at Rafa as, for instance, No. 2 in the world, you know. I always saw him as the great champion he is, you know."

:worship: :worship: :worship: yeah, Roger never gives his rivals any credit :rolleyes:

and from a Nadal fan: his time out of the tour was his own fault, he didn't plan well his schedule and put more pressure on his own knees than he could take, it's not a FedTard stuff, it's just the truth, had he planned his season better he might still be #1, but the coulda, shoulda, woulda way of thinking doesn't lead anywhere, things are the way they are, and there's nothing we can do to change it ;)

Joao
08-22-2009, 05:40 AM
Nadal WOULD STILL BE NO. 1 HAD HE NOT BEEN INJURED!?

Nadal would never had been #1 had Federer not had Mono !? :rolleyes:

Shoulda woulda coulda ... stop running in circles and enjoy Nadal being almost back to his best level without putting down other players!

peribsen
08-22-2009, 01:24 PM
Don´t people ever tire of discussing the obvious? ALL players deserve the ranking they've got, period. Rankings are only about results in the last 12 months, which is an objective measurement, not about comparative quality. Do players improve their ranking through other players injuries? Yes. Is it their fault? No.

Are rankings really relevant? Only for seeding purposes. Hewitt was nr 1 two years on a row, Becker only for 12 lousy non-consecutive weeks. Anyone care to say Hewitt means more in tennis history than Becker? BS.

But one thing I would discuss is Rafa's responsibility for his own injury. His schedule may have been overdemanding, true enough (though whether he was really free to opt out of Madrid -being a Spaniard and it being the inaguration of Madrid's new HC venue- is open to question). But can he help his style being too physical? That's just the way he is.

And there is a deeper medical argument. People talk like if everyone's knees were alike, so that a player's knee problems are his own fault, since other players' play as much and don´t get injured. That is clearly not the case. Some knees are more prone to injury than others. The aligment of Rafa's kneecaps with the weight-bearing axis of his legs is sub-optimal. That condition is very frequent (kneecap syndrome) and people with it are far more prone to develop knee injuries. Rafa has two choices, either to play top level sports, in which case knee trouble will surface sooner or later, or to abandon sport. A choice he does not have is to play less physically, because that is the main characteristic (and the most atractive one, IMO) of his style of play. He may modulate it, but not really change it. So he can learn things that may reduce the probability of injury, but he cannot be held responsible for his anatomy.

So no, players who avoid knee problems are not any 'smarter', they may simply not share Rafa's knee conformation.

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 05:01 PM
I'm not sure about Rafa being responsible for his own injury. I wouldn't call it being "responsible." Stuff just happens sometimes. But I do think he might have to learn to pace himself better, regardless of his style of play. To me, it looked like Rafa was going for broke in each tournament as if he were proving he was worthy of being #1 time and time again. It's like he wanted to win every.single. tournament he entered leading up to the French, and he wore himself out!

On the other hand, Roger paces himself really well. It's like Roger is in a marathon, and knows when to sprint. I'm not saying he tanks, but it's like if doesn't exhaust himself for a win when he doesn't have to. He can win most 2 out of 3 matches not playing his best, so he doesn't push himself! :lol: And if he has push for a win, I think he's really selective when he does it--to make a statement, perhaps? Or then again, I he might actually pull-up, so he can have more energy for a grand slam.

Against most players, both of these guys can get into the quarters not playing their best, in my opinion. So I think they can conserve some energy here and there. Rafa might need to look at his long term goals, and possibly not "pushing" in every event he enters.

P.S. A lot sprinters do "pull-up" in qualifying heats, for example. They push enough to make sure they qualify for the final heat without necessarily coming in first every. single. race. They conserve their energy until the final heat.. I'm just saying... :shrug:

Arkulari
08-22-2009, 05:17 PM
Rafa's genetic disposition to knee injury is not his fault, but his crappy scheduling is, there are tournaments like Rotterdam whom he should have never entered :shrug: