The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now - Page 38 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 09-29-2013, 07:10 AM   #556
country flag tribalfusion
Banned!
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,313
tribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiebreak100 View Post
You must be fucking joking.
Yea that one had me rolling too...Roddick is a better player than Murray in some alternate universe maybe.
tribalfusion is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 09-29-2013, 02:05 PM   #557
country flag Han Solo
Registered User
 
Han Solo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Age: 37
Posts: 1,682
Han Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond reputeHan Solo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpistolero7 View Post
Here's the thing. Fuck Murray, fuck Djokovic, fuck them all. Here's fun fact, and yes its a fucking fact. If they were in the same age group, Federer would barely have gotten past 10-12 slams cause even as a fucking 19 year old Nadal owned Federer. Their head to head on clay and outdoor hard courts is so lop sided, and those are 3 of the 4 slams. Sure, Roger would have had a fair few Wimbys and grass court titles, but never close to fucking 17 of them.


Player Rafa had to deal with to win many titles - For his first 6-8, Roger was there always, always.
For the next, a peak Djokovic.

For his first 10, Roger had to deal with Hewitt and Roddick. And you say there's no difference? Are you fucking retarded?
There's always a creeping sense of dread when I read a "fact" that involves players needing the use of a time machine.
Han Solo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 03:39 PM   #558
country flag Litotes
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 41
Posts: 31,879
Litotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Han Solo View Post
There's always a creeping sense of dread when I read a "fact" that involves players needing the use of a time machine.
It's just an acronym, you know

FACT: Facetious Assertion, Commonly Trolling
__________________
.
(August 27th)
ST rank 4 (best 4) - 5 wins, 0 titles
vBookie net amount won: 20280 (2014: +13585, 2013: +6795, 2012: -100)
TT singles rank 90, TT doubles rank 100.
Detailed Tennis Tipping and DTT results

Member of Suicide Tennis board
Litotes is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 04:50 PM   #559
country flag Aristotle
Registered User
 
Aristotle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
Aristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by shanks View Post
This is just your foolish, ignorant, biased and misguided opinion. Nothing more than that. You are unable to prove anything. Just repeating the same nonsense without seeing the actual matches. So now 3 set matches are not important? Masters series matches are not important? Who the hell do you think you are? Each and every tournament was extremely important to Fed in his peak years 04-07. He was losing only 4-5 matches in his peak years. Overall level of play was down when you look at ANNUAL performance over each and every tournament. In your juvenile world, only grand slams matter. If he was in the best form of his life , he would not be losing Masters to Fish, Karlovic,Roddick. Again Nadal & Djokovic are irrelevant in this discussion. Bringing Del Potro in this discussion is funny and hilarious. He is nowhere in the same league as Federer. Shows your utter lack of knowledge of 04-07 era. Go back and watch some matches . Else stop posting repeated nonsense wasting everyone's time. How dumb can you get?

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
Aristotle is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 04:54 PM   #560
country flag Kiedis
Registered User
 
Kiedis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,459
Kiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond reputeKiedis has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

^^ The nerd rage in his post is just pure awesome
__________________
Free Edward Snowden | Free Brad Manning | Free SDG | Free CD

God is killing me
Kiedis is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 05:12 PM   #561
country flag Aristotle
Registered User
 
Aristotle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
Aristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lenders View Post
The problem is that this logic is very circular. Why are Roddick, Hewitt and co. not regarded as 'top, top quality'? Because they lost to Federer every time; had Federer not been there at all or been a weaker player, they could have won 5+ Slams each playing at the exact same level, in which case no one would be claiming they were weak. In other words, they are regarded as weak because of Federer.

Imagine a player shows up on tour in the next few years and is so strong he will win 5 consecutive CYGS. Using this logic, we have to automatically assume he was in a weak era since the rest of the field won nothing; not to mention that if he starts losing more often after those 5 dominant years, the next generation would be considered strong. In reality, things can't really be analysed like that. Not having beaten Federer doesn't prove those players are weak; in fact it doesn't even prove that Roddick and Hewitt weren't the second and third highest levels ever on HC/grass (which they weren't btw of course, but it's not proved by not beating Federer) - all that proves was that Federer was much better than them.
Hewitt, Roddick and co are weak not just because they lost to Federer. They were weak because they were ineffective against many other players too. For example old Agassi was good enough to often take out Federer's main competition and get to the finals of tournaments himself right till his retirement.

Hewitt could not do a single shit right in slams after 2001. He lost to Alberto martin in the first round in AO 2002, Agassi in USO 2002. Ferrero, Karlovic and Ferrero in slams in 2003. Where was Federer? Was he denying him slams in 2001, 2002 and 2003? No. Just 2004.

Same with Roddick but I sympathize with him a little because he was clearly undone at Wimbledon by the slowed down grass. I am quite sure Roddick would have managed a victory over Federer in 2004 had the grass not been slowed down. Federer is a kind of a player whose belief could shatters when somebody refuses to give up. 2004 was the last year in which Roddick had some belief running into Federer.

But the end point of it all is that Hewitt or Roddick are no Nadal or Djokovic. There are results to see for everyone. And I haven't even spoken about Hewitt and Roddick's RG results which are way inferior to Djokovic's let alone Nadal's.
Aristotle is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 05:36 PM   #562
country flag Aristotle
Registered User
 
Aristotle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
Aristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassist View Post
Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are greater combined than Roddick, Hewitt and Safin, but in terms of depth, the likes of Ferrero, Coria, Nalbandian, Moya and even old Agassi are easily superior to Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych, Gasquet and Tsonga.
You could be right but the amount of greatness Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have over Roddick, Hewitt and Safin is infinitely greater than the edge which the likes of Ferrero, coria, old agassi have over Ferrer, Del po, Berdych.

In homogenized eras 2001-2006 and 2007-present, the competition that really counts at grandslams are only the top players. It was never about players ranked outside top 5. Just a question of which era top players were better. That is the reason why there are many supporters of weak era argument for 2001-2006 than any other era.

You either have killer surface specialists ranked randomly but could take out anyone on their day or have 3 or 4 great players at the top. The problem with 2001-2006 is that it had neither of the two qualities. It was a transitional era which accommodated a lot of one slam wonders. There was only one great player capitalizing on the glaring weakness of the era and that was Federer.
Aristotle is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 05:48 PM   #563
country flag rocketassist
Banned!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,682
rocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle View Post
You could be right but the amount of greatness Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have over Roddick, Hewitt and Safin is infinitely greater than the edge which the likes of Ferrero, coria, old agassi have over Ferrer, Del po, Berdych.

In homogenized eras 2001-2006 and 2007-present, the competition that really counts at grandslams are only the top players. It was never about players ranked outside top 5. Just a question of which era top players were better. That is the reason why there are many supporters of weak era argument for 2001-2006 than any other era.

You either have killer surface specialists ranked randomly but could take out anyone on their day or have 3 or 4 great players at the top. The problem with 2001-2006 is that it had neither of the two qualities. It was a transitional era which accommodated a lot of one slam wonders. There was only one great player capitalizing on the glaring weakness of the era and that was Federer.
2001 is nowhere NEAR as homogenised as the current era. Wimbledon was faster, USO was faster and AO was played on Rebound Ace. That's why Coria, Gaudio, Costa, Guga et al excelled on the clay but nowhere else, Ivanisevic won Wimbledon and wouldn't threaten elsewhere, while Agassi continued to be a presence on the hard courts. For all the age points aimed at the era he was only able to be that good at 33-35 because he missed a lot of tennis when younger plus the crystal meth year where he disappeared into obscurity.

Put it this way though if that field was so homogenised AND bad, why was Ferrer, a couple of months older than Roddick, a complete non-entity during that period and has managed to make #3 in this far superior generation?
rocketassist is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 06:16 PM   #564
country flag Aristotle
Registered User
 
Aristotle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
Aristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassist View Post
2001 is nowhere NEAR as homogenised as the current era. Wimbledon was faster, USO was faster and AO was played on Rebound Ace. That's why Coria, Gaudio, Costa, Guga et al excelled on the clay but nowhere else, Ivanisevic won Wimbledon and wouldn't threaten elsewhere, while Agassi continued to be a presence on the hard courts. For all the age points aimed at the era he was only able to be that good at 33-35 because he missed a lot of tennis when younger plus the crystal meth year where he disappeared into obscurity.

Put it this way though if that field was so homogenised AND bad, why was Ferrer, a couple of months older than Roddick, a complete non-entity during that period and has managed to make #3 in this far superior generation?
Ferrer would never have been #3 had Nadal not missed the season. 4th rank at best. To your question, like I said it is not about whether a player is ranked in the top 10, it is about whether or not he is a top 3 player of this generation with potential to actually go all the way and win a slam by beating anyone, those who make up for the real competition in slams. Ferrer is definitely not that and neither were Roddick, Hewitt and others. So the point about Ferrer or some other player capitalizing on lack of depth at the bottom is moot because that is not what competition is being defined with these days.

2001 was already a heavily homogenized year. It only appears fast in comparison because Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic are beastly athletes who can make any court look slow with their sick defense.

Grass was slowed down in 2000 just after Wimbledon that year. Ashe was slowed down quite heavily in 2001. Sampras who enjoyed easy speed off the deck had to switch to a lot of baseline shots in his two USO campaigns in 2001 and 2002.
Aristotle is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 10:41 PM   #565
heya
Senior Member
 
heya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,433
heya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond reputeheya has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Ferrer clearly has a brain on indoor fast courts & clay courts.
Ferrer can go a few hours without vomiting junk food. He plays tennis because he's good at it.
He's not one of those evil unathletic nuisances that has a shameless spoiled mother who treated him as a hero for kids (play the victim & overbearing lecturer to the less-wealthy & less-respected tourney directors, players & umpires). Nothing more pitiful than a pseudo-super role model, money-whoring clown.

Ferrer respects his opponents & didn't try to help Federfraud win. Any flaw he has doesn't compare to tennis-killing sycophantic Fed fan playes' antics and the subsequent unconditional love given back to them by the Fed troll media.

Roddick was too embarrassing to watch with his inability to play on fast indoor courts & any clay court. A fluke Slam against an injured Nalbandian won't change this fact.

Rusedski humiliated him at Wimbledon. Mahut & Mutis beat him at the French Open. No surface assisted his overrated serve.

Sampras emasculated Roddick at a Slam. Surely, 2002 US Open wasn't too slow, as Roddick depended on easy draws & out of form players to win matches. He was just doing predictable serves & returns. He couldn't chase down any of Sampras' shots. If US Open was faster, Roddick wouldn't have been able to read any Sampras serve.

He beat Sampras on clay where Sampras beat Agassi. That didn't change the fact that he didn't belong on any tennis tour.
He even mouthed off about needing to avoid getting interviewed on espn by someone like John McEnroe. How ironic.
The so-called humble, ungreedy Roddick family was upset because no coach could help him & when Darren Cahill mentioned how terrible Roddick's head to head records were, they complained to espn & bragged that he beat Fed in Miami.

Roddick could've quit tennis and he admitted to the girlfriend that he hated tennis enough to quit. However, he used his money to buy his "trophy wife" so that they could share their financial security, no matter how stupid, bitter & fake they were.

He knew little kids thought he was being "clever" when he tried to disguise his insecurity & meltdowns with his fake "macho tantrums" (cheating & distracting opponents). Everyone knew what 'special treatment' he would receive as the American Idol, so he enjoyed annual fake injury excuses during clay seasons. It's "a pity" that Fed fanatics declare Roddick as a tennis hero.
heya is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 08:15 PM   #566
country flag Kyle_Johansen
Registered User
 
Kyle_Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Age: 22
Posts: 9,023
Kyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond reputeKyle_Johansen has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Federer's run from USO 2011 to USO 2012 at the age of 30-31 pretty much shows what would have happened if Roger was in his prime with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Roger well past his prime won 9 titles in 12 months and became world #1. The Fed of 2003-2007 was a vastly superior player from a physical, mental, and consistency standpoint, and the only guy that would have gotten in his way consistently would be Nadal. And in this situation if Djokovic and Murray are in their primes as well, then Rafa would be susceptible to being upset by one of them at 3 of the 4 Slams and Fed might not have had to go through Rafa at every Slam.

And another thing, Rafa's peak hasn't lasted longer than Roger's - but it has been broken up whereas Fed's was pretty much consistent from TMC 2003 to TMC 2007. Rafa's started in 2008 and then lasted almost a year to the clay season 2009, then picked up again in 2010, and now has picked up again in 2013 (and 2011 was a great year for him where only Nole stopped him consistently).
__________________
Federer fan, writer, tennis player.
Top 10 all-time list (Open Era)
1) Federer 2) Sampras 3) Nadal 4) Laver 5) Borg
6) Rosewall 7) Agassi 8) Lendl 9) Connors 10) McEnroe
Top 10 favourite all-time list
1) Federer 2) Safin 3) Agassi 4) Sampras 5) Edberg
6) Lendl 7) Haas 8) Hewitt 9) Connors 10) Becker
Kyle_Johansen is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios