[Master Yoda]

It's an interesting question to determine if Federer really is a complete player, take Djokovic for example who has been the man to beat on any surface at a certain point, you can make a case even for Nadal.

If we had to give Federer a time period in which he was the man to beat on clay, we most likely have to dig deep somewhere before Nadal showed up. After analysing Federer's results I came to a very, very and I mean very disappointing loss during Federer's prime. Federer as top seeded lost in the 3rd round at the FO (2004). Federer also lost in the second round in Rome the same year. This is the moment I decided to pull the plug, because I simply lost faith I would find anything in which would help Federer's case. Federer has won multiple clay Masters, but was never considered the man to beat, like Djokovic in 2011, who absolutely dominated Nadal in straight sets, heading with a 40+ winning streak to Paris.

It bothers me quite alot knowing Federer was never the man to beat on clay, yet managed to steal one FO.

 

[pepita1964]

It's an interesting question to determine if Federer really is a complete player, take Djokovic for example who has been the best on any surface at a certain point, you can make a case even for Nadal.

If we had to give Federer a time period in which he was the man to beat on clay, we most likly have to dig deep somewhere before Nadal showed up. After analysing Federer's results I came to a very, very and I mean very disappointing loss during Federer's prime. Federer as top seeded lost in the 3rd round at the FO (2004). Federer also lost in the second round in Rome the same year. This is the moment I decided to pull the plug, because I simply lost faith I would find anything in which would help Federer's case. Federer has won multiple clay Masters, but was never considered the man to beat, like Djokovic in 2011, who absolutely dominated Nadal in straight sets, heading with a 40+ winning streak to Paris.

It bothers me quite alot knowing Federer was never the best player on clay, yet managed to steal one FO.

If he was the best player then why Federer beat him in SF at FO 2011?! Why Federer won WB2012 vs Djokovic and Murray?!

 

[caisenma]

well, technically he had the best clay results in a way in 2009 when he won madrid and RG back to back, but he was never "the man to beat" on clay.

in fact, i'd say that nadal has been the man to beat on clay since 2005 or so. 2011 included and i think novak would even agree with that.

 

[17-6-302]

"Master Yoda I have been following you for quite a while now. I dont agree with everything you stated, but you sure do make me laugh. What are your thoughts on Nadal’s form, any hopes he might return and win the FO? Anyway I hope to hear from you soon, because you might be the only Djoko fan I can get along.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, 17-6-302 again. I’m wondering why you’re not writing back. I have seen you post with your recent activity I doubt you could have missed my private msg. What’s the deal here?
If you want me to fully devote meself to Djokovic fanbase then give me a sign please, anything at all is much apreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you have posted a selfie. Is that really you? You look absolutely amazing. Do you have any pictures lying down on the beach, or maybe something more daring? My apology if I’m obtrusive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please stop fucking bothering me.
Thank you,
Master Yoda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've asked for a screenshot for this about 3 times already. You keep running away. Admit you were exposed, little troll.

 

[Master Yoda]

If he was the best player then why Federer beat him in SF at FO 2011?! Why Federer won WB2012 vs Djokovic and Murray?!

Djokovic was the man to beat during that period, you cant possible deny that. After having 4 days off there is no way you can expect Djokovic to start the match with same intensity and rythm. It's also impossible to play every match at the highest level.

 

[Han Solo]

It's an interesting question to determine if Federer really is a complete player, take Djokovic for example who has been the best on any surface at a certain point, you can make a case even for Nadal.

If we had to give Federer a time period in which he was the man to beat on clay, we most likly have to dig deep somewhere before Nadal showed up. After analysing Federer's results I came to a very, very and I mean very disappointing loss during Federer's prime. Federer as top seeded lost in the 3rd round at the FO (2004). Federer also lost in the second round in Rome the same year. This is the moment I decided to pull the plug, because I simply lost faith I would find anything in which would help Federer's case. Federer has won multiple clay Masters, but was never considered the man to beat, like Djokovic in 2011, who absolutely dominated Nadal in straight sets, heading with a 40+ winning streak to Paris.

It bothers me quite alot knowing Federer was never the best player on clay, yet managed to steal one FO.

Federer's never been the man to beat on clay. he was the best clay player in 2009 though. Similarly, hard to argue that Djokovic has ever been the man to beat on grass, I would say. Or Nadal on hard/grass/indoor hard.

 

[Master Yoda]

Federer's never been the man to beat on clay. he was the best clay player in 2009 though. Similarly, hard to argue that Djokovic has ever been the man to beat on grass, I would say. Or Nadal on hard/grass/indoor hard.

Thats exactly my point, Federer stole the FO in my opinion and was never able to repeat the same feat which makes it disgraceful. We all know why Federer won Madrid final, after that grueling 4 hour match semis against Djokovic. Infact Federer stole not only FO, but Madrid also.

 

[The Triumvirate]

fuck off you crappy troll

 

[Han Solo]

Thats exactly my point, Federer stole the FO in my opinion and was never able to repeat the same feat which makes it disgraceful. We all know why Federer won Madrid final, after that grueling 4 hour match semis against Djokovic. Infact Federer stole not only FO, but Madrid also.

You bolded my assertion that Federer was best clay court player in 2009, and agree, but then contradict it with your allegations of "stealing". I'm confused. You don't know how to develop an argument correctly. That is something students are taught in year 8 English classes.

Weird.

 

[17-6-302]

Rutinos was a better troll than this guy :spit: Btw, welcome to my signature and let everyone see what a liar you are "Master Yoda"

 

[masterclass]

Federer was indisputably the best clay court player for the European Clay season in 2009. There was no robbery, only opportunity, which he took, while others with a chance failed to measure up.

He beat Rafa in Madrid, and beat Robin Soderling in the final at Roland Garros who had legitimately defeated Rafa in an earlier round.

Roger had a total of 3450 points that clay season, the all important slam victory and didn't need a 500 tourney to garner additional points.

Rafa was a clear second with 3280.

/thread. :wavey:

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Master Yoda]

You bolded my assertion that Federer was best clay court player in 2009, and agree, but then contradict it with your allegations of "stealing". I'm confused. You don't know how to develop an argument correctly. That is something students are taught in year 8 English classes.

Weird.

Ofcourse you will be named the player of the claycourt season after winning FO and Madrid, but still doesnt make you the man to beat. It's like you ignored all the other arguments, including my openings post.

The only reason Federer won madrid is because Nadal played Djokovic in a 4 hour grueling semis day before the finals. It's a fact Federer was never the man to beat on clay and hasnt repeated the same feat. Fluke happens only once in a while and Federer is a living proof.

 

[JoWilly]

Not sure what this thread is trying to prove, but he was undoubtedly the best player on clay during 2009.

 

[Johnny Groove]

I've asked for a screenshot for this about 3 times already. You keep running away. Admit you were exposed, little troll.

:spit:

 

[acefreely]

That's what makes Federer so amazing. He played in a strong era and still managed to win 17 slams.

Djokovic is playing in a weak era with no good young players coming up and he still can't win RG or more than 1 slam a year.

 

[Cloren]

He was never the man to beat on clay but tbf, he never got the chance to compete against a declined Nadal like this one in his prime. He had to contend with a much better and solid version of Nadal. and in any case, it doesn't mean shit really. not sure what your point. Just because you aren't the man to beat on a certain surface, doesn't mean you aren't complete. Federer's results on clay shows that he is a very solid player on clay.

 

[Han Solo]

It's an interesting question to determine if Federer really is a complete player, take Djokovic for example who has been the best on any surface at a certain point, you can make a case even for Nadal.

If we had to give Federer a time period in which he was the man to beat on clay, we most likly have to dig deep somewhere before Nadal showed up. After analysing Federer's results I came to a very, very and I mean very disappointing loss during Federer's prime. Federer as top seeded lost in the 3rd round at the FO (2004). Federer also lost in the second round in Rome the same year. This is the moment I decided to pull the plug, because I simply lost faith I would find anything in which would help Federer's case. Federer has won multiple clay Masters, but was never considered the man to beat, like Djokovic in 2011, who absolutely dominated Nadal in straight sets, heading with a 40+ winning streak to Paris.

It bothers me quite alot knowing Federer was never the man to beat on clay, yet managed to steal one FO.

Federer's never been the man to beat on clay. he was the best clay player in 2009 though. Similarly, hard to argue that Djokovic has ever been the man to beat on grass, I would say. Or Nadal on hard/grass/indoor hard.

Thats exactly my point, Federer stole the FO in my opinion and was never able to repeat the same feat which makes it disgraceful. We all know why Federer won Madrid final, after that grueling 4 hour match semis against Djokovic. Infact Federer stole not only FO, but Madrid also.

You bolded my assertion that Federer was best clay court player in 2009, and agree, but then contradict it with your allegations of "stealing". I'm confused. You don't know how to develop an argument correctly. That is something students are taught in year 8 English classes.

Weird.

Ofcourse you will be named the player of the claycourt season after winning FO and Madrid, but still doesnt make you the man to beat. It's like you ignored all the other arguments, including my openings post.

The only reason Federer won madrid is because Nadal played Djokovic in a 4 hour grueling semis day before the finals. It's a fact Federer was never the man to beat on clay and hasnt repeated the same feat. Fluke happens only once in a while and Federer is a living proof.

Errr...

 

[JoWilly]

That's what makes Federer so amazing. He played in a strong era and still managed to win 17 slams.

Djokovic is playing in a weak era with no good young players coming up and he still can't win RG or more than 1 slam a year.

Yep,he only beat Nadal 3 times, the GOAT once, Murray 3 times and Tsonga once to win slams. How terrible. Most of the time he played another of the big 3 players in the semi too.

Much easier than Nadal playing Melzer and Youzhny in semi finals and Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer in finals. Much easier than Federer playing Phillappousis and Baghdatis in finals too

Roger played many tough players but to say it was tougher than Novak is wrong.

 

[acefreely]

Yep,he only beat Nadal 3 times, the GOAT once, Murray 3 times and Tsonga once to win slams. How terrible. Most of the time he played another of the big 3 players in the semi too.

Much easier than Nadal playing Melzer and Youzhny in semi finals and Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer in finals. Much easier than Federer playing Phillappousis and Baghdatis in finals too

Roger played many tough players but to say it was tougher than Novak is wrong.

I'm just trolling the troll, don't take it too serious.

 

[Master Yoda]

Errr...

You seem like a guy who would brag about a grandslam win even if all 7 opponents retired. My point is clear Federer was never the man to beat on clay, which in my opinion as an expert indicates true meaning of the very best, not achievements like in your case.