--------------------------------------------------- [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

---------------------------------------------------

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 07:35 AM
I think if he doesnt beat good players, he may get a win that looks like a fluke, what do you think?

Caerula Sanguis
01-12-2007, 07:46 AM
Fluke? Federer?

How do they go together?

scarecrows
01-12-2007, 07:47 AM
Fluke? Federer?

How do they go together?

this is a thread started by Just Cause

if it made sense it would be surprising

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 07:48 AM
Fluke? Federer?

How do they go together?
Easy....if he does not beat a top 5/top 10 player before winning the title. I think that would qualify (Nadal and Davydenko are both sick).

Caerula Sanguis
01-12-2007, 07:49 AM
this is a thread started by Just Cause

if it made sense it would be surprising

I see what you mean now.

*Walk away quietly.

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 07:52 AM
I see what you mean now.

*Walk away quietly.
HAHA...actually, there is nothing to scare you. You know what I mean. Everyone thinks Federe can win, but we dont know if it is going to be a fluke win or a real win. If he doesnt beat Nadal..it's a fluke IMO.

Andre♥
01-12-2007, 07:54 AM
The guy gets Youzhny, Gasquet, Djokovic and Baghdatis on his way before quarter finals and he has a cake draw? :eek:

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 07:58 AM
The guy gets Youzhny, Gasquet, Djokovic and Baghdatis on his way before quarter finals and he has a cake draw? :eek:
You mean for the #1 player to walk over non-top 10 player to the QF? Yes, I would expect that to be a cake walk. I dont think Federer will embarass himself with a loss to any of them. Not to mention he didnt get the harder Davydenko (#3) in his half. He probably won need to beat any top 10 player to win the title.

Andre♥
01-12-2007, 08:04 AM
You mean for the #1 player to walk over non-top 10 player to the QF? Yes, I would expect that to be a cake walk. I dont think Federer will embarass himself with a loss to any of them. Not to mention he didnt get the harder Davydenko (#3) in his half. He probably won need to beat any top 10 player to win the title.

The only way to get a Top10 player before QF is to get the number 9 or 10 in 4th round.

Let's face it. Make yourself Federer's draw. He would still win AO.

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 08:09 AM
The only way to get a Top10 player before QF is to get the number 9 or 10 in 4th round.

Let's face it. Make yourself Federer's draw. He would still win AO.

I think we are pretty clear on that..(except this time it's only 10th.). The point I was trying to make was that it shouldnt be a surprise that he walks over these people to the QF since there is not surprise in beating people who dont rank in top 10. But the point is that he doesnt face tough top 10 people and the toughest he will face will be Roddick who never wins on slow surfaces and may even be upset in the early rounds. So I think Federe may not need to beat any top 10 playesr to win the title, which makes it a bit of a fluke.

RonE
01-12-2007, 08:13 AM
Switch the words 'Federer' and 'Nadal' with each other in the title and dare I say you might actually have made an iota of sense for the very first time in your life :tape:

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 08:22 AM
Switch the words 'Federer' and 'Nadal' with each other in the title and dare I say you might actually have made an iota of sense for the very first time in your life :tape:

Well, Nadal has embarassed Federer in both of his slam wins, and Federer had a hard time on grass against Nadal. As for Federer in Melbroune, his shot-making skills are well suited for this surface, but against Nadal, he may have some problems. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about Federer's draw.

If he doesnt beat any top 5 on his run to win the title, it will be a FLUKE...

Caerula Sanguis
01-12-2007, 08:28 AM
Just Cause, you really make me laugh. :yeah:

LK_22
01-12-2007, 08:31 AM
The guy gets Youzhny, Gasquet, Djokovic and Baghdatis on his way before quarter finals and he has a cake draw? :eek:

That's a hard draw for anybody to go through, all of these guys are capable of playing Top 10 tennis, Nadal wouldn't survive this route through

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 08:39 AM
Just Cause, you really make me laugh. :yeah:

My Pleasure..haha:).

Just Cause
01-12-2007, 08:39 AM
That's a hard draw for anybody to go through, all of these guys are capable of playing Top 10 tennis, Nadal wouldn't survive this route through

WHAT??, between the three of them, only ONE slam final was reached, and ZERO slam/TMS won, why are you expecting them hard to beat. So give the credit where the credit is due.


But they are irrelevant, if Federer loses to them, it will be a huge embarrassment as he is expected to walk over them. And I believe this year, iwll be an accountaing.

bokehlicious
01-12-2007, 08:56 AM
But they are irrelevant, if Federer loses to them, it will be a huge embarrassment as he is expected to walk over them. And I believe this year, iwll be an accountaing.


Roger has nothing more to prove to the tennis world. Even a R1 loss wouldn't be an embarrasment :)

oz_boz
01-12-2007, 11:33 AM
Considering his last three years and the 29 match winning streak he is on the word "fluke" is fitting indeed. :cuckoo: :silly:

LK_22
01-12-2007, 11:45 AM
WHAT??, between the three of them, only ONE slam final was reached, and ZERO slam/TMS won, why are you expecting them hard to beat. So give the credit where the credit is due.


But they are irrelevant, if Federer loses to them, it will be a huge embarrassment as he is expected to walk over them. And I believe this year, iwll be an accountaing.

Big deal none of these players have reached their potential yet and are only getting better, I bet Nadal wouldn't like to face Youzhny at a grand slam any time soon (apart from RG :)) When two players meet it's how good they perform on the day, Federer doesn't start off 5-0 up in the first set because he's won grand slam titles, same with Nadal. Have Nadal's results since Wimbledon all been an embarrassment then? Same with Federer's loss to Murray at Cinci. The 'better' player doesn't always win!

If you could pick 20 players people wouldn't want to face at the Australian Open, these four would make the list, as they have the ability to beat the best on any given day.

A 'cake' draw is what Nadal had at Wimbledon. That WAS easy

nobama
01-12-2007, 11:45 AM
Switch the words 'Federer' and 'Nadal' with each other in the title and dare I say you might actually have made an iota of sense for the very first time in your life :tape:Ron, I'm not sure what's ailing you to muck up your mind like that but please get well. :hug:

Roger The Great
01-12-2007, 12:15 PM
Everyone step away from the fence please.... Did people not see the sign that says to not feed the troll??

RonE
01-12-2007, 12:33 PM
Ron, I'm not sure what's ailing you to muck up your mind like that but please get well. :hug:

Ay, it must be the pre-surgical jitters.

I daresay I will feel better in about one and a half week's time :p

Guybrush
01-12-2007, 01:11 PM
I think if he doesnt beat good players, he may get a win that looks like a fluke, what do you think?

Oh my god! :rolleyes:

nobama
01-12-2007, 01:23 PM
Ay, it must be the pre-surgical jitters.

I daresay I will feel better in about one and a half week's time :pI'm sure you'll feel much better when a certain creature is roasted down under. ;)

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 01:34 PM
Roger has nothing more to prove to the tennis world. Even a R1 loss wouldn't be an embarrasment :)
Yeah he needs to prove he's good enough to win RG ;)

RonE
01-12-2007, 02:30 PM
I'm sure you'll feel much better when a certain creature is roasted down under. ;)

That would make me feel better than any painkiller they can administer at the hospital :angel:

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 02:37 PM
I think if he doesnt beat good players, he may get a win that looks like a fluke, what do you think?

You should be banned for trollish comments like this. Anytime Federer wins a GS it isn't a "fluke". In fact I would say most GSs are not flukes and even the ones that are are still counted the same in the history books.

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 02:38 PM
HAHA...actually, there is nothing to scare you. You know what I mean. Everyone thinks Federe can win, but we dont know if it is going to be a fluke win or a real win. If he doesnt beat Nadal..it's a fluke IMO.

A win is a win...Federer doesn't control what Nadal does, just like Nadal couldn't control how is half of the draw at Wimbledon would fall apart.

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Roger has nothing more to prove to the tennis world. Even a R1 loss wouldn't be an embarrasment :)

Well...given that he is playing Bjorn Phau....it might people start question whether Phau is in Fed's head ;)

bokehlicious
01-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Yeah he needs to prove he's good enough to win RG ;)

Who cares ?

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 02:52 PM
Who cares ?

I think Fed does...

bokehlicious
01-12-2007, 02:56 PM
I think Fed does...

Not as much as some haters on here imply. I mean, he doesn't need it to be labelled as the GOAT by the end of his career.

Fumus
01-12-2007, 02:59 PM
Roger has the harder draw of the two tops seeds.

With Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Gasquet, Djokvic, Baghdatis, Acasuso, Roberdo, Ljubicic, and Youzhny all rounding out his half.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 03:00 PM
Change Nadal for Guccione and it would make more sense.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 03:09 PM
Who cares ?

Federer and all those who are gonna sit there and claim that he is undisputibly the best player of all time.

rofe
01-12-2007, 03:19 PM
Well...given that he is playing Bjorn Phau....it might people start question whether Phau is in Fed's head ;)

Exactly. Phau leads the h2h so Fed must be very nervous........NOT.

bokehlicious
01-12-2007, 03:47 PM
Federer and all those who are gonna sit there and claim that he is undisputibly the best player of all time.

Does he really need a RG trophy? Today Sampras is considered the GOAT by most tennis viewers and he never won in Paris either...

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 03:57 PM
Does he really need a RG trophy? Today Sampras is considered the GOAT by most tennis viewers and he never won in Paris either...

The moment Federer gets 15 GS he will be the GOAT. RG doesn't really matter.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:01 PM
The moment Federer gets 15 GS he will be the GOAT. RG doesn't really matter.
Well the fact that the GOAT (now and if Fed gets there) doesn't have a RG title shows pretty much a weakness and flaw in their games. Why do you think fast courts are superior to hard courts. Its actually much harder to win on clay as its physically exhausting.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 04:09 PM
Well the fact that the GOAT (now and if Fed gets there) doesn't have a RG title shows pretty much a weakness and flaw in their games. Why do you think fast courts are superior to hard courts. Its actually much harder to win on clay as its physically exhausting.

Pfff, clay makes moonballers and technique-flawed players favorites. That's :bs:.
Winning on faster courts, especiallly during the 90s was much more harder, as you just couldn't moonball and/or hit from the baseline the whole time. Going to the net demands a whole level of technique most players don't have.

rofe
01-12-2007, 04:11 PM
Well the fact that the GOAT (now and if Fed gets there) doesn't have a RG title shows pretty much a weakness and flaw in their games. Why do you think fast courts are superior to hard courts. Its actually much harder to win on clay as its physically exhausting.

You are equating physical exhaustion to a higher level of play? Do you even play tennis?

Also, faster courts require much better hand-eye coordination and reaction time which is a skill in itself.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:13 PM
Pfff, clay makes moonballers and technique-flawed players favorites. That's :bs:.
Winning on faster courts, especiallly during the 90s was much more harder, as you just couldn't moonball and/or hit from the baseline the whole time. Going to the net demands a whole level of technique most players don't have.

Oh right you're old argument about only being talented if you can volley :rolleyes: That actually is :bs:.

Besides if its so much harder to win on faster courts than slow courts, then why can't they win on slower surfaces. Surely if they are the GOAT they should be able to win anywhere, especially on apparently easier surfaces. You're argument just doesn't fit, pal.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:14 PM
You are equating physical exhaustion to a higher level of play? Do you even play tennis?

Also, faster courts require much better hand-eye coordination and reaction time which is a skill in itself.

So faster courts are harder to win on. Ok I'll ask you the same question, why do GOAT struggle so badly and cannot win there? It seems so easy as you put it.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 04:15 PM
Oh right you're old argument about only being talented if you can volley :rolleyes: That actually is :bs:.

Besides if its so much harder to win on faster courts than slow courts, then why can't they win on slower surfaces. Surely if they are the GOAT they should be able to win anywhere, especially on apparently easier surfaces. You're argument just doesn't fit, pal.

If you think that a guy that can just run and moonball is better than a good slicer/volleyer/server than you have on clue about tennis.

Read the post above yours... equating physical exhaustion to a higher technical level is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

ExpectedWinner
01-12-2007, 04:19 PM
Its actually much harder to win on clay

One very famous man, whose hobby is tecticle measurement, thinks that FO is the easiest Slam to win.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:22 PM
If you think that a guy that can just run and moonball is better than a good slicer/volleyer/server than you have on clue about tennis.

Read the post above yours... equating physical exhaustion to a higher technical level is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I'm not saying physical fitness and technical tennis are anything to do with other. What I'm saying is to win RG you have to have a pretty high level of fitness and it can be quite draining as there are always long points and long matches. Understand? :rolleyes:

You haven't answered my question - why can the GOAT not win RG if its clearly easier to win. I don't think you'll come up with a valid response.

As it happens i don't think someone who can serve well is more talented than anyone. If I were making ATP rules I would change it so everyone can just have one serve, get rid of all the one trick ponys. Then we can see the real talent. Btw I find the likes of Guillermo Coria alot more talented than Max Miryni, but then again records do speak for themselves.

As far as I knew moonballing was something that the likes of Conchita Martinez did when she just hit the ball high in the air on the baseline. Since when did Rafa ever do this.

rofe
01-12-2007, 04:22 PM
So faster courts are harder to win on. Ok I'll ask you the same question, why do GOAT struggle so badly and cannot win there? It seems so easy as you put it.

No, I am countering your argument that the FO is the hardest to win because it demands superior physical capability. So, my question to you is, do you think tennis is only about a player's ability to grind out matches? If so, then any further discussion with you is pointless.

Eden
01-12-2007, 04:23 PM
Besides if its so much harder to win on faster courts than slow courts, then why can't they win on slower surfaces. Surely if they are the GOAT they should be able to win anywhere, especially on apparently easier surfaces.

Are you talking about RG or other tournaments on clay? Sampras and Federer both have tournament victories on clay, Roger even a final at the FO. And his career isn't over ;)

By the way, I don't think that there is a GOAT. You can't compare the achievements of players from different decades. How will you judge them? At the won GS titles or if a player was able to win on all 4 different surfaces? At the level of the competition? Critics will always find arguments to take something away from the achievements of a player - and yes, a new challenger is already waiting to break the records. That's what sport is all about.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:26 PM
No, I am countering your argument that the FO is the hardest to win because it demands superior physical capability. So, my question to you is, do you think tennis is only about a player's ability to grind out matches? If so, then any further discussion with you is pointless.
No, there are many aspects to tennis, but its not all about fast court tennis either is it?

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that you all say Sampras is GOAT because he owned the fast court events, but what about slow courts, does that not count?

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 04:26 PM
The moment Federer gets 15 GS he will be the GOAT. RG doesn't really matter.

RG does matter because if Federer wins it he will be the indisputable GOAT; no other player at any time could claim to be the best player on any surface in the world.

Sampras isn't widely considered the GOAT, is he? I thought Laver, Borg, and Sampras each had their supporters and detractors. Federer in my mind has joined that group and could seperate himself by winning RG over Nadal (although I personally feel that in terms of peak performance Roger is the best that's ever been).

vincayou
01-12-2007, 04:27 PM
Does he really need a RG trophy? Today Sampras is considered the GOAT by most tennis viewers and he never won in Paris either...

the GOAT debate is a useless and endless one. I don't see how you can give a final answer to it. Sampras is the one who has won the more GS. End of.

Roger needs to win in Paris to complete his career. Sampras didn't have the weapons to win there, but Roger can and if he never wins it, it will be a hole in his resume. Because he's considered as a complete tennisman.

Unfortunately for him, there is Nadal and he's a tough nut to crack, the toughest on this surface for a long long time.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 04:28 PM
I'm not saying physical fitness and technical tennis are anything to do with other. What I'm saying is to win RG you have to have a pretty high level of fitness and it can be quite draining as there are always long points and long matches. Understand? :rolleyes:

You haven't answered my question - why can the GOAT not win RG if its clearly easier to win. I don't think you'll come up with a valid response.

As it happens i don't think someone who can serve well is more talented than anyone. If I were making ATP rules I would change it so everyone can just have one serve, get rid of all the one trick ponys. Then we can see the real talent. Btw I find the likes of Guillermo Coria alot more talented than Max Miryni, but then again records do speak for themselves.

As far as I knew moonballing was something that the likes of Conchita Martinez did when she just hit the ball high in the air on the baseline. Since when did Rafa ever do this.

See, you know nothing about tennis. Running any moron can do, but developing technique is far more difficult. That's why few serve well and many can run. That's why many can moonball and just a few know how to volley and slice.
Tennis isn't about running and just waiting for a mistake, tennis is about making your own points, the rest is just anti-tennis and a mockery of the sport.

Sampras is the GOAT and the fact that he never won the FO is just because the slower surface gives the runners and moonballers an edge. That a S&V like him made the SFs there is good enough considering the edge the anti-tennis has there.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:28 PM
Are you talking about RG or other tournaments on clay? Sampras and Federer both have tournament victories on clay, Roger even a final at the FO. And his career isn't over ;)

By the way, I don't think that there is a GOAT. You can't compare the achievements of players from different decades. How will you judge them? At the won GS titles or if a player was able to win on all 4 different surfaces? At the level of the competition? Critics will always find arguments to take something away from the achievements of a player - and yes, a new challenger is already waiting to break the records. That's what sport is all about.

I pretty much agree with what you say, I don't think there is any conclusive proof about the GOAT.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 04:32 PM
RG does matter because if Federer wins it he will be the indisputable GOAT; no other player at any time could claim to be the best player on any surface in the world.

Sampras isn't widely considered the GOAT, is he? I thought Laver, Borg, and Sampras each had their supporters and detractors. Federer in my mind has joined that group and could seperate himself by winning RG over Nadal (although I personally feel that in terms of peak performance Roger is the best that's ever been).

Well, Sampras has 14 GS and this is by far the biggest number of GSs ever won by anyone. I don't think there is much doubt about it nowadays.

And Federer doesn't need to defeat Nadal in RG to be the GOAT. Nadal soon will go downhill and other players will make the final against Federer.

rofe
01-12-2007, 04:33 PM
No, there are many aspects to tennis, but its not all about fast court tennis either is it?

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that you all say Sampras is GOAT because he owned the fast court events, but what about slow courts, does that not count?

I never said Sampras was GOAT. The only reason that I came into this discussion was because you feel RG is the hardest to win among the slams because you have to be super fit. I don't agree with that statement. Every slam requires a different set of skills to win and one is not harder than the other.

I think nobody really knows what GOAT means. It is relative term that means different things to different people. For some it is the total number of slams won. For some it is 4 slams in one year and for others it is the ability to win on all surfaces.

Let me ask you this: if Nadal won in Wimbly, USO, AO but never won on carpet, would you conder him GOAT?

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:35 PM
See, you know nothing about tennis. Running any moron can do, but developing technique is far more difficult. That's why few serve well and many can run. That's why many can moonball and just a few know how to volley and slice.
Tennis isn't about running and just waiting for a mistake, tennis is about making your own points, the rest is just anti-tennis and a mockery of the sport.

Sampras is the GOAT and the fact that he never won the FO is just because the slower surface gives the runners and moonballers an edge. That a S&V like him made the SFs there is good enough considering the edge the anti-tennis has there.

Any moron can't though, because I think you'll find there are very elit players who have won RG and many of them have extremely good results on surfaces other than clay. But I'm sure you over look this fact.

Serve and volley tennis is hardly played any more so you should move on. And if you think players who can serve and helped by fast surfaces and have no clue how to construct points as tennis talent then I guess you really don't know much about tennis either ;)

KaxMisha
01-12-2007, 04:36 PM
Well, Nadal has embarassed Federer in both of his slam wins, and Federer had a hard time on grass against Nadal. As for Federer in Melbroune, his shot-making skills are well suited for this surface, but against Nadal, he may have some problems. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about Federer's draw.

If he doesnt beat any top 5 on his run to win the title, it will be a FLUKE...

I thought you had a double-digit IQ, but now, I'm getting convinced it's in fact just one figure (I'll be kind - it's probably a 9). It won't be a FLUKE, because he can only beat the players that make it far enough. It's not his fault if they go out earlier, and if they do it just shows he probably would have beaten them anyway. A fluke would be if he were to face a player he always loses to (there are no such players, so that would be hard (no, Nadal doesn't qualify - sorry)) who had to pull out right before their match or something like that. Since when is it a fluke when other guys cannot hold their seeding? :retard:

KaxMisha
01-12-2007, 04:37 PM
Considering his last three years and the 29 match winning streak he is on the word "fluke" is fitting indeed. :cuckoo: :silly:

My sentiment exactly.

rofe
01-12-2007, 04:37 PM
Any moron can't though, because I think you'll find there are very elit players who have won RG and many of them have extremely good results on surfaces other than clay. But I'm sure you over look this fact.

Serve and volley tennis is hardly played any more so you should move on. And if you think players who can serve and helped by fast surfaces and have no clue how to construct points as tennis talent then I guess you really don't know much about tennis either ;)

Yet, Nadal is trying really hard to improve that aspect of his game. I wonder why?

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 04:38 PM
I never said Sampras was GOAT. The only reason that I came into this discussion was because you feel RG is the hardest to win among the slams because you have to be super fit. I don't agree with that statement. Every slam requires a different set of skills to win and one is not harder than the other.

I think nobody really knows what GOAT means. It is relative term that means different things to different people. For some it is the total number of slams won. For some it is 4 slams in one year and for others it is the ability to win on all surfaces.

Let me ask you this: if Nadal won in Wimbly, USO, AO but never won on carpet, would you conder him GOAT?
No, I don't really have a GOAT because its far too complex and it involves far too many variable factors for us to know for sure anything. We can only guess, and guessing is not a fact is it.

If Nadal can win all 4 GS he'll have his place in history though.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 04:38 PM
Any moron can't though, because I think you'll find there are very elit players who have won RG and many of them have extremely good results on surfaces other than clay. But I'm sure you over look this fact.

Serve and volley tennis is hardly played any more so you should move on. And if you think players who can serve and helped by fast surfaces and have no clue how to construct points as tennis talent then I guess you really don't know much about tennis either ;)

Of course there are good players that won RG. In fact, great players won RG, but clay levels the technical standards anyway.

If the ATP killed S&V, that's not my problem, that was just the beginning of the campaing to mock the sport, and now it's going to its final stages, with RR.

Moonballing ain't constructing points.

KaxMisha
01-12-2007, 04:41 PM
One very famous man, whose hobby is tecticle measurement, thinks that FO is the easiest Slam to win.

:haha::haha::haha::haha: :D

FluffyYellowBall
01-12-2007, 04:43 PM
I dont cae how unimportant rg seems to some people but if players like fed and sampras have difficulty winning on then whats so easy about it? If it was about moonballing and staying 100meters behind the baseline then isnt that easy to do?? Just go tell roger to moonball and he'll win RG like cake. So easy. Just coz clay courts are non existant in america then it doesnt its not important. American tennis isnt WORLD tennis. SOme people talk as if its sooo slow you dont need tactis going into the match.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 04:45 PM
I dont cae how unimportant rg seems to some people but if players like fed and sampras have difficulty winning on then whats so easy about it? If it was about moonballing and staying 100meters behind the baseline then isnt that easy to do?? Just go tell roger to moonball and he'll win RG like cake. So easy. Just coz clay courts are non existant in america then it doesnt its not important. American tennis isnt WORLD tennis. SOme people talk as if its sooo slow you dont need tactis going into the match.

How are you going to make Roger be a mediocre player? You can't do that.

sykotique
01-12-2007, 04:47 PM
Statistically speaking, Wimbledon is the most difficult slam to win, while the French Open is among the easiest.


Wimbledon has the most repeat winners, so in other words, if you really are the very best on grass, then it's unlikely you'll be beaten. That means that really, out of the 128 players that enter, only 1 person really stands an outright favourite to win.


On the other hand, once you show up at the French Open in good physical condition you have a chance at the French Open, because there are so few repeat winners. Clay is a specialist surface because it requires completely different skills from those required for faster surface, so once you condition your body for Roland Garros, you're in with a chance.


The reason that Sampras struggled at the French Open was not because of lack of talent, but an unwillingness to change technique or form and also due to his lack of stamina brought on by his chronic disease. Sampras was not prepared to "suffer" on clay; he thought he could serve and volley his way to the title.


Federer realised early on in his career that taking an attacking approach to the French Open would not help him to win the French Open, so he started perfecting the necessary skills that would help him to take the title: sliding on clay, generating heavier than usual topspin on his forehand, working on his topspin backhand, bulking up on his upper body and increasing his stamina and physical conditioning.


The reason that Federer can beat almost any claycourter in the world now (except for King Nadal himself) is that, not only does he have the physical conditioning and specific skills necessary to play on clay, but he also has superior technique in all other facets of the game; something that can't be taught.


If Federer were to win the French Open, he would automatically be considered simultaneously the best player on ANY surface in the world at ANY time: #1 on clay, #1 on all hard courts, #1 on all indoor surfaces and #1 on grass. No player has ever achieved such a level of complete surface dominance and GOAT status would almost automatically be conferred on him.

KaxMisha
01-12-2007, 04:49 PM
Statistically speaking, Wimbledon is the most difficult slam to win, while the French Open is among the easiest.


Wimbledon has the most repeat winners, so in other words, if you really are the very best on grass, then it's unlikely you'll be beaten. That means that really, out of the 128 players that enter, only 1 person really stands an outright favourite to win.


On the other hand, once you show up at the French Open in good physical condition you have a chance at the French Open, because there are so few repeat winners. Clay is a specialist surface because it requires completely different skills from those required for faster surface, so once you condition your body for Roland Garros, you're in with a chance.


The reason that Sampras struggled at the French Open was not because of lack of talent, but an unwillingness to change technique or form and also due to his lack of stamina brought on by his chronic disease. Sampras was not prepared to "suffer" on clay; he thought he could serve and volley his way to the title.


Federer realised early on in his career that taking an attacking approach to the French Open would not help him to win the French Open, so he started perfecting the necessary skills that would help him to take the title: sliding on clay, generating heavier than usual topspin on his forehand, working on his topspin backhand, bulking up on his upper body and increasing his stamina and physical conditioning.


The reason that Federer can beat almost any claycourter in the world now (except for King Nadal himself) is that, not only does he have the physical conditioning and specific skills necessary to play on clay, but he also has superior technique in all other facets of the game; something that can't be taught.


If Federer were to win the French Open, he would automatically be considered simultaneously the best player on ANY surface in the world at ANY time: #1 on clay, #1 on all hard courts, #1 on all indoor surfaces and #1 on grass. No player has ever achieved such a level of complete surface dominance and GOAT status would almost automatically be conferred on him.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Eden
01-12-2007, 04:58 PM
Everyone thinks Federer can win, but we dont know if it is going to be a fluke win or a real win. If he doesnt beat Nadal..it's a fluke IMO.

So with your logic Rogers win at the US Open was a fluke win because he didn't have to play against Nadal at the tournament and the TMC has been Rogers masterpiece because he was able to beat Rafa in the semi? :scratch:

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 05:01 PM
Statistically speaking, Wimbledon is the most difficult slam to win, while the French Open is among the easiest.


Wimbledon has the most repeat winners, so in other words, if you really are the very best on grass, then it's unlikely you'll be beaten. That means that really, out of the 128 players that enter, only 1 person really stands an outright favourite to win.


On the other hand, once you show up at the French Open in good physical condition you have a chance at the French Open, because there are so few repeat winners. Clay is a specialist surface because it requires completely different skills from those required for faster surface, so once you condition your body for Roland Garros, you're in with a chance.


The reason that Sampras struggled at the French Open was not because of lack of talent, but an unwillingness to change technique or form and also due to his lack of stamina brought on by his chronic disease. Sampras was not prepared to "suffer" on clay; he thought he could serve and volley his way to the title.


Federer realised early on in his career that taking an attacking approach to the French Open would not help him to win the French Open, so he started perfecting the necessary skills that would help him to take the title: sliding on clay, generating heavier than usual topspin on his forehand, working on his topspin backhand, bulking up on his upper body and increasing his stamina and physical conditioning.


The reason that Federer can beat almost any claycourter in the world now (except for King Nadal himself) is that, not only does he have the physical conditioning and specific skills necessary to play on clay, but he also has superior technique in all other facets of the game; something that can't be taught.


If Federer were to win the French Open, he would automatically be considered simultaneously the best player on ANY surface in the world at ANY time: #1 on clay, #1 on all hard courts, #1 on all indoor surfaces and #1 on grass. No player has ever achieved such a level of complete surface dominance and GOAT status would almost automatically be conferred on him.

Federer learnt to play on clay, he has always known how to slide.

sykotique
01-12-2007, 05:08 PM
Federer learnt to play on clay, he has always known how to slide.

Federer grew up playing on clay as a junior, but he was not the best at it. He recalls that he did not like that you had to move differently there more than anywhere else and that he would get frustrated easily because of the long points. Remember, the calm Federer with nerves of steel that you see out there on the court did not always exist. Just like Marat, he used to break racquets, and just like McEnroe, he used to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs. There is a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing it.


However, he has matured and his experiences have helped him improve. Clay has always been his least favourite surface, but unlike Sampras, he has actually made an effort.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 05:13 PM
Federer grew up playing on clay as a junior, but he was not the best at it. He recalls that he did not like that you had to move differently there more than anywhere else and that he would get frustrated easily because of the long points. Remember, the calm Federer with nerves of steel that you see out there on the court did not always exist. Just like Marat, he used to break racquets, and just like McEnroe, he used to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs. There is a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing it.


However, he has matured and his experiences have helped him improve. Clay has always been his least favourite surface, but unlike Sampras, he has actually made an effort.

I know, but he hasn't changed that much, he still doesn't like the long points. He just has the confidence now to stay cool during them. ;)

rofe
01-12-2007, 05:14 PM
I know, but he hasn't changed that much, he still doesn't like the long points. He just has the confidence now to stay cool during them. ;)

Yes, his impatience on clay has always been his problem.

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 05:16 PM
Federer grew up playing on clay as a junior, but he was not the best at it. He recalls that he did not like that you had to move differently there more than anywhere else and that he would get frustrated easily because of the long points. Remember, the calm Federer with nerves of steel that you see out there on the court did not always exist. Just like Marat, he used to break racquets, and just like McEnroe, he used to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs. There is a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing it.


However, he has matured and his experiences have helped him improve. Clay has always been his least favourite surface, but unlike Sampras, he has actually made an effort.

The fact that he has made an effort is the reason I say he will overtake Sampras for GOAT with or without 14 GSs if he shows that the effort paid off with a Rg title.

Anyways people like different styles of tennis but I think all surfaces should be treated equally.

BTW, sykotique your post above is a gem. Wish there were more like you on these boards :)

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 05:20 PM
So with your logic Rogers win at the US Open was a fluke win because he didn't have to play against Nadal at the tournament and the TMC has been Rogers masterpiece because he was able to beat Rafa in the semi? :scratch:

why even give the troll any more attention :o

sykotique
01-12-2007, 05:21 PM
I know, but he hasn't changed that much, he still doesn't like the long points. He just has the confidence now to stay cool during them. ;)

LOL, yeah, you can see it in his eyes when he's playing that he's just waiting for his opponent to slide a little too far. "That's right...just outside that doubles alley...okay time for a winner!"

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 05:24 PM
LOL, yeah, you can see it in his eyes when he's playing that he's just waiting for his opponent to slide a little too far. "That's right...just outside that doubles alley...okay time for a winner!"

Too bad Nadal rarely slides too far to recover....;)

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 05:41 PM
Any moron can't though, because I think you'll find there are very elit players who have won RG and many of them have extremely good results on surfaces other than clay. But I'm sure you over look this fact.

Serve and volley tennis is hardly played any more so you should move on. And if you think players who can serve and helped by fast surfaces and have no clue how to construct points as tennis talent then I guess you really don't know much about tennis either ;)

And you think rafa constructs points?!? :confused: :lol: :lol: :lol:

MisterQ
01-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Both Federer and Nadal brilliantly construct points within their respective styles.

Fumus
01-12-2007, 05:52 PM
And you think rafa constructs points?!? :confused: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Um no, he doesn't he just bangs serves and hits forehands...:rolleyes:

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 05:53 PM
Federer grew up playing on clay as a junior, but he was not the best at it. He recalls that he did not like that you had to move differently there more than anywhere else and that he would get frustrated easily because of the long points. Remember, the calm Federer with nerves of steel that you see out there on the court did not always exist. Just like Marat, he used to break racquets, and just like McEnroe, he used to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs. There is a difference between knowing what to do and actually doing it.


However, he has matured and his experiences have helped him improve. Clay has always been his least favourite surface, but unlike Sampras, he has actually made an effort.

I don't really agree with you! Clay has probably always been the surface he was the most vulnerable on but he's always said that along with grass it is his favourite surface, the one he feels the most nature to play on!

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 05:56 PM
Um no, he doesn't he just bangs serves and hits forehands...:rolleyes:


Nope, he just retrieves balls!!!

Fumus
01-12-2007, 05:57 PM
Nope, he just retrieves balls!!!

Really, is that so? Interesting, I suppose every tennis player does that then.

Fumus
01-12-2007, 06:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHlQDh-PVo

Please admit exhibit A.

Thank you.

I rest my case, your honor.

RickDaStick
01-12-2007, 06:01 PM
Um no, he doesn't he just bangs serves and hits forehands...:rolleyes:

You just always have to turn every thread into a Roddick discussion dont you?:)

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 06:01 PM
Really, is that so? Interesting, I suppose every tennis player does that then.

Don't be :retard: , you see what I mean!

Fumus
01-12-2007, 06:03 PM
You just always have to turn every thread into a Roddick discussion dont you?:)

hahaha....:worship: :worship:

I didn't even think about it like that but yea, Roddick is good example of someone who has trouble contructing points. Nadal is a good example of someone who makes his meals with it.

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 06:04 PM
And you think rafa constructs points?!? :confused: :lol: :lol: :lol:

yes...he does. There's a reason he is regarded as a very intelligent player.

DwyaneWade
01-12-2007, 06:05 PM
I don't really agree with you! Clay has probably always been the surface he was the most vulnerable on but he's always said that along with grass it is his favourite surface, the one he feels the most nature to play on!

I think Hewitt, Agassi, and Roddick would agree that American HCs are a lot more comfortbale for him than clay.

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 06:14 PM
I think Hewitt, Agassi, and Roddick would agree that American HCs are a lot more comfortbale for him than clay.

I didn't say he prefered clay over hard courts, I said he feels very comfotable on clay since he finds it natural!

A fan's question to fed:

"You seem like a very good grass court player, but which surface do you prefer to play on most? "


And his answer:

"From the movement sand (read clay) and grass are the most natural. You can slide in a very controlled way on sand and take small steps on grass. It is thus comfortable and rather hard to fall out of balance."

Fumus
01-12-2007, 06:19 PM
I didn't say he prefered clay over hard courts, I said he feels very comfotable on clay since he finds it natural!

A fan's question to fed:

"You seem like a very good grass court player, but which surface do you prefer to play on most? "


And his answer:

"From the movement sand (read clay) and grass are the most natural. You can slide in a very controlled way on sand and take small steps on grass. It is thus comfortable and rather hard to fall out of balance."


UUUmmm...

Can we know more?? Not really..

http://www.k-factor.jp/top.html

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 06:26 PM
UUUmmm...

Can we know more?? Not really..

http://www.k-factor.jp/top.html

It is from his own website...

rofe
01-12-2007, 06:28 PM
Both Federer and Nadal brilliantly construct points within their respective styles.

:lol: Talk about being diplomatic. Can you elaborate on that please? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

rofe
01-12-2007, 06:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHlQDh-PVo

Please admit exhibit A.

Thank you.

I rest my case, your honor.

Actually, that is one of the worst examples. All Nadal had to do was to wait for Fed to come in blindly and pass him. No point construction required.

A better example would be the TMC match between them.

Fumus
01-12-2007, 06:50 PM
Actually, that is one of the worst examples. All Nadal had to do was to wait for Fed to come in blindly and pass him. No point construction required.

A better example would be the TMC match between them.

The one where Nadal was slightly injured and in poor form all week. :D ;)

rofe
01-12-2007, 06:51 PM
The one where Nadal was slightly injured and in poor form all week. :D ;)

Uh-huh. Sure.

Anyway, if you want another good example (where Nadal won), the Rome final is a good one.

In general though Nadal does not win because he has superior point construction.

cmurray
01-12-2007, 07:07 PM
sigh. since when are the terms "fluke win" and "Roger Federer" compatible? :rolleyes:

MisterQ
01-12-2007, 07:11 PM
:lol: Talk about being diplomatic. Can you elaborate on that please? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

I'll elaborate slightly... ;)

Constructing points is about playing them in a calculated way that allows your strengths to prevail.

Roger constructs points with great variety. Although there are certainly patterns (such as the slice drawing the opponent into the net to get passed), his opponents never seem to know what he's going to do next. He can improvise new sequences of shots, and he has the abillity to hit whatever is required of him. It's a dazzling display of creativity and virtuosity.

Rafa constructs his points without great variety -- he constructs them with rigor. He understands the effect that his topspin shots can have on the opponent, breaking down their shots, tiring them, or pulling them off court to create an opening. Although his is capable of excellent shotmaking, he knows his greatest strengths are speed, fitness, mental toughness and consistency, and he capitalizes on them. He is patient enough to wait for a high percentage opportunity before going for winners. Many times I have seen Rafa decide against hitting into a small opening on the opponent's forehand side, choosing instead to pound the backhand, trying to draw them off court and enlarge that available opening for a winner. That's point construction in my book.

rofe
01-12-2007, 07:15 PM
I'll elaborate slightly... ;)

Constructing points is about playing them in a calculated way that allows your strengths to prevail.

Roger constructs points with great variety. Although there are certainly patterns (such as the slice drawing the opponent into the net to get passed), his opponents never seem to know what he's going to do next. He can improvise new sequences of shots, and he has the abillity to hit whatever is required of him. It's a dazzling display of creativity and virtuosity.

Rafa constructs his points without great variety -- he constructs them with rigor. He understands the effect that his topspin shots can have on the opponent, breaking down their shots, tiring them, or pulling them off court to create an opening. Although his is capable of excellent shotmaking, he knows his greatest strengths are speed, fitness, mental toughness and consistency, and he capitalizes on them. He is patient enough to wait for a high percentage opportunity before going for winners. Many times I have seen Rafa decide against hitting into a small opening on the opponent's forehand side, choosing instead to pound the backhand, trying to draw them off court and enlarge that available opening for a winner. That's point construction in my book.

Good then we agree.

cmurray
01-12-2007, 07:18 PM
I'll elaborate slightly... ;)

Constructing points is about playing them in a calculated way that allows your strengths to prevail.

Roger constructs points with great variety. Although there are certainly patterns (such as the slice drawing the opponent into the net to get passed), his opponents never seem to know what he's going to do next. He can improvise new sequences of shots, and he has the abillity to hit whatever is required of him. It's a dazzling display of creativity and virtuosity.

Rafa constructs his points without great variety -- he constructs them with rigor. He understands the effect that his topspin shots can have on the opponent, breaking down their shots, tiring them, or pulling them off court to create an opening. Although his is capable of excellent shotmaking, he knows his greatest strengths are speed, fitness, mental toughness and consistency, and he capitalizes on them. He is patient enough to wait for a high percentage opportunity before going for winners. Many times I have seen Rafa decide against hitting into a small opening on the opponent's forehand side, choosing instead to pound the backhand, trying to draw them off court and enlarge that available opening for a winner. That's point construction in my book.


good post, MisterQ. Roger, by the way, agrees with you. He is constantly talking about the fact that Rafa is a MUCH smarter player than people like to give him credit for.

hablovah19
01-12-2007, 07:25 PM
:yawn:

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 07:25 PM
Both Federer and Nadal brilliantly construct points within their respective styles.

Wrong.

Um no, he doesn't he just bangs serves and hits forehands...:rolleyes:

He doesn't bang serves, but it's all forehand... :p

Nope, he just retrieves balls!!!

Almost right.

yes...he does. There's a reason he is regarded as a very intelligent player.

Saying he's intelligent is the same as saying Olivier Rochus is taller than Karlovic.

Uh-huh. Sure.

Anyway, if you want another good example (where Nadal won), the Rome final is a good one.

In general though Nadal does not win because he has superior point construction.

In fact, he rarely does.

I'll elaborate slightly... ;)

Constructing points is about playing them in a calculated way that allows your strengths to prevail.

Roger constructs points with great variety. Although there are certainly patterns (such as the slice drawing the opponent into the net to get passed), his opponents never seem to know what he's going to do next. He can improvise new sequences of shots, and he has the abillity to hit whatever is required of him. It's a dazzling display of creativity and virtuosity.

Rafa constructs his points without great variety -- he constructs them with rigor. He understands the effect that his topspin shots can have on the opponent, breaking down their shots, tiring them, or pulling them off court to create an opening. Although his is capable of excellent shotmaking, he knows his greatest strengths are speed, fitness, mental toughness and consistency, and he capitalizes on them. He is patient enough to wait for a high percentage opportunity before going for winners. Many times I have seen Rafa decide against hitting into a small opening on the opponent's forehand side, choosing instead to pound the backhand, trying to draw them off court and enlarge that available opening for a winner. That's point construction in my book.

Biased. If just hitting moonballs higher and higher to your opponent's backhand is constructing points then Julio Silva is a master constructor. Don't fall for that.

It is known Nadal has only one way to win. He retrieves all balls the higher he can and the most times possible on his opponent's backhand (rarely forehand, when his opponent has a Murray-level forehand) until the opponent makes a mistake. That's not constructing anything.

rofe
01-12-2007, 07:30 PM
Biased. If just hitting moonballs higher and higher to your opponent's backhand is constructing points then Julio Silva is a master constructor. Don't fall for that.

It is known Nadal has only one way to win. He retrieves all balls the higher he can and the most times possible on his opponent's backhand (rarely forehand, when his opponent has a Murray-level forehand) until the opponent makes a mistake. That's not constructing anything.

Actually that is why Q put that disclaimer in the first place - within his style of play. If Nadal's topspin is working and unsettling his opponents then he does construct points but if it doesn't then he falls back to a very reactive style of play.

GlennMirnyi
01-12-2007, 07:48 PM
Actually that is why Q put that disclaimer in the first place - within his style of play. If Nadal's topspin is working and unsettling his opponents then he does construct points but if it doesn't then he falls back to a very reactive style of play.

No, that's being too simplist. He doesn't construct anything. He just pounds on and on the same strike until his opponents make a mistake.

federerfan7465
01-12-2007, 07:57 PM
Just Cause- you're confusing the meaning of fluke. and you're the worst troll on the board.

A fluke would be a 17- year old qualifier winning the tourney with four amazing victories in the second week, then returning to obscurity.

Federer winning with a "weak draw" would just be Federer winning a Grand Slam without tests - not a fluke.

spencercarlos
01-12-2007, 08:48 PM
HAHA...actually, there is nothing to scare you. You know what I mean. Everyone thinks Federe can win, but we dont know if it is going to be a fluke win or a real win. If he doesnt beat Nadal..it's a fluke IMO.
What a retarded thread. Since when Nadal has been the one to beat at a Grand Slam played on hard courts? :rolleyes:

Ouch lets not forget that he won 0 Masters Series or big events on hard courts last year :wavey:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 09:42 PM
Biased. If just hitting moonballs higher and higher to your opponent's backhand is constructing points then Julio Silva is a master constructor. Don't fall for that.

It is known Nadal has only one way to win. He retrieves all balls the higher he can and the most times possible on his opponent's backhand (rarely forehand, when his opponent has a Murray-level forehand) until the opponent makes a mistake. That's not constructing anything.
:rolleyes: Biased. You're a fine one to talk about being biased, aren't you. Constructing a point is knowing what you have to in order to win points. Nadal doesn't just sit there and wait for opponents to miss. Have you not ever seen some of his drop shots, running backhands, forehands down the line? Sure he has a great defence, but if you can't see that Rafa has so much more to his game then just running and waiting for opponents to miss then it really isn't worth discussing anything with you.

kronus12
01-12-2007, 10:28 PM
nadal will be lucky to reach the 3rd or 4th round that would be a fluke with the form he's being showing lately. Its about time they gave fed an easy draw he deserves it it not like his other draws in the slam has been easy such as nadal's one at wimby..only threat i see is marat safin not roddick.

gomarray
01-12-2007, 10:53 PM
I don't like to insult anyone, but this is perhaps the most ridiculous thread title I've ever seen.

The word fluke may apply to a player who has yet to prove himself, and benefits from injuries or scheduling. Johansson's Australian Open and Roddick's US Open come to mind.

When you've already won 9 slams and been No. 1 for 160 consecutive weeks, you don't ever have flukes.

Jim Courier
01-12-2007, 10:54 PM
My impression is that with this draw Nadal can lose R1 or be in final ,but if he does Federer will be there waiting for him.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 10:59 PM
I don't like to insult anyone, but this is perhaps the most ridiculous thread title I've ever seen.

The word fluke may apply to a player who has yet to prove himself, and benefits from injuries or scheduling. Johansson's Australian Open and Roddick's US Open come to mind.


Since when was Roddick's US Open win a fluke? He was the favourite going into the event :confused:

Sunset of Age
01-12-2007, 11:03 PM
My impression is that with this draw Nadal can lose R1 or be in final ,but if he does Federer will be there waiting for him.

Count me in for that second option as well. And may the best win... :angel:

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 11:07 PM
Since when was Roddick's US Open win a fluke? He was the favourite going into the event :confused:

So why would it be a fluke for fed since he is the favourite now!?! :confused:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-12-2007, 11:10 PM
So why would it be a fluke for fed since he is the favourite now!?! :confused:
Well clearly its not is it :rolleyes: Stupid thread to start. But I'm just pointing out that Roddick's wasn't either.

FSRteam
01-12-2007, 11:19 PM
Well clearly its not is it :rolleyes: Stupid thread to start. But I'm just pointing out that Roddick's wasn't either.

Ok, sorry had forgotten it was the troll that started the thread...

I agree, roddick's wasn't a fluke either!

scoobs
01-13-2007, 12:42 AM
Yay Roger - 10th flukey Grand Slam win coming up!

gomarray
01-13-2007, 02:11 AM
I don't mean to say that Roddick's win was a total fluke, but he was strongly assisted by the scheduling in the second week, and was much more rested than anybody else.

Also, there was some jackass in the crowd who yelled out in his semi-final tiebreaker against Nalbandian, and this completely screwed Nalbandian, who had been outplaying Andy.

Don't get me wrong, Andy was playing great that whole summer, but things were stacked in his favour.

Andre♥
01-13-2007, 02:50 AM
Roddick's win was a fluke.

The way he beated Nalbandian in the semis makes that a fluke.

scoobs
01-13-2007, 02:58 AM
Lucky bastard! :mad:
Isn't he?

He plays like an 8 year old girl - with asthma. Goodness knows why the others let him win so much.

GlennMirnyi
01-13-2007, 05:22 AM
Roddick's win was a fluke.

The way he beated Nalbandian in the semis makes that a fluke.

Fluke and cheat.

RickDaStick
01-13-2007, 05:23 AM
Duckman is a fraud.

Just Cause
01-13-2007, 05:38 AM
So why would it be a fluke for fed since he is the favourite now!?! :confused:
Roddick 2003 = CHAMPION
Federer 2007 = who knows?

I dont think there is any dispute with Roddick being the true champion of 2003. You cannot compare Federe with him, Australian Open has see too many fluke winners. Maybe this year, the same will happen. I think the true champion will beat Federer in the final this year.

GlennMirnyi
01-13-2007, 05:42 AM
Roddick 2003 = CHAMPION
Federer 2007 = who knows?

I dont think there is any dispute with Roddick being the true champion of 2003. You cannot compare Federe with him, Australian Open has see too many fluke winners. Maybe this year, the same will happen. I think the true champion will beat Federer in the final this year.

Yeah, you're totally delusional.

Just Cause
01-14-2007, 05:33 AM
Yeah, you're totally delusional.
Delusional about what.........Federer winning everything and takes the seat as the tennis god?:rolleyes: Gimme a break, Federer was nothing before he beat old Samprass during the stone age. Look at who he beats in the final in the slams then you will realize what I am talking about. I am making a good assumption that this is going to be a fluke win...and that's that:angel:

leng jai
01-14-2007, 05:42 AM
Totally agree bro, you're my idol.

KaxMisha
01-14-2007, 05:46 AM
Delusional about what.........Federer winning everything and takes the seat as the tennis god?:rolleyes: Gimme a break, Federer was nothing before he beat old Samprass during the stone age. Look at who he beats in the final in the slams then you will realize what I am talking about. I am making a good assumption that this is going to be a fluke win...and that's that:angel:

Not only are you a complete moron, but you also don't know what the word "fluke" means. Why don't you do everybody a favor and just leave (again)?

Ernham
01-14-2007, 05:28 PM
Do cake draws usually start against players that you have losing record to? :devil:

Just Cause
01-22-2007, 06:21 AM
Holy, still no top 10 for him to beat, or top 20....!?

KaxMisha
01-22-2007, 06:22 AM
Holy, still no top 10 for him to beat, or top 20....!?

HOLY, you are still allowed to post on MTF, even though you never contribute anything, don't understand tennis whatsoever and are a complete retard!

Just Cause
01-22-2007, 06:29 AM
Actually, today he beats top 20.....so it will be interesting if he can get thorugh the next round...haha...

DDrago2
01-22-2007, 09:31 AM
Look at who he beats in the final in the slams then you will realize what I am talking about.


It's not Federer's fault that Nadal was allowed in the Wimbledon finals

crocit
01-22-2007, 09:53 AM
Djokovic, ranked 14th, ahem, Robredo next, you call that a cake draw, w/e