Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Don't fedfans realise that if there were no djoker/rafa
31 views
Skip to first unread message
MuzzasaurusreX - 0 slams and counting.
May 22, 2012, 5:24:39 PM5/22/12
to
Fed would win 3 possibly even 4 slams a year every year still and
would probably have gone on to rack 30+ slams. If Rafa/djok didn't
exist. Fed-fans would never even think fed had 'declined'
hint-hint - Federer hasn't there are just now two other guys that can
play at a higher level.
As Sampras and Federer himself have said, as well as following the
logic of my statement fed is as good now as he ever was.
would probably have gone on to rack 30+ slams. If Rafa/djok didn't
exist. Fed-fans would never even think fed had 'declined'
hint-hint - Federer hasn't there are just now two other guys that can
play at a higher level.
As Sampras and Federer himself have said, as well as following the
logic of my statement fed is as good now as he ever was.
moduli
May 22, 2012, 5:32:03 PM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-22, MuzzasaurusreX - 0 slams and counting. <suebo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fed would win 3 possibly even 4 slams a year every year still and
> would probably have gone on to rack 30+ slams. If Rafa/djok didn't
> exist. Fed-fans would never even think fed had 'declined'
You're correct that most would not see the differences. However it
> Fed would win 3 possibly even 4 slams a year every year still and
> would probably have gone on to rack 30+ slams. If Rafa/djok didn't
> exist. Fed-fans would never even think fed had 'declined'
would still be likely that he would be experiencing the odd upset ala Tsonga,
Berdych, del Potro, Isner, whose to say that the other players would not have disrupted
him more consistently since they would only see one obstacle as opposed to three in the current
reality.
arahim
May 22, 2012, 5:39:56 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 2:24 pm, "MuzzasaurusreX - 0 slams and counting."
his weaknesses are still few. Though the argument is in the land of
imagination. If there was no McEnroe how many more slams would Borg
have?
<sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fed would win 3 possibly even 4 slams a year every year still and
> would probably have gone on to rack 30+ slams. If Rafa/djok didn't
> exist. Fed-fans would never even think fed had 'declined'
>
This is what makes him exceptional that over a relatively long time
> Fed would win 3 possibly even 4 slams a year every year still and
> would probably have gone on to rack 30+ slams. If Rafa/djok didn't
> exist. Fed-fans would never even think fed had 'declined'
>
his weaknesses are still few. Though the argument is in the land of
imagination. If there was no McEnroe how many more slams would Borg
have?
felangey
May 22, 2012, 5:42:29 PM5/22/12
to
> You're correct that most would not see the differences. However it
> would still be likely that he would be experiencing the odd upset ala
> Tsonga,
> Berdych, del Potro, Isner, whose to say that the other players would not
> have disrupted
> him more consistently since they would only see one obstacle as opposed to
> three in the current
> reality.
Exactly that. Couldashouldawoulda is the lowest form of conversation around
> would still be likely that he would be experiencing the odd upset ala
> Tsonga,
> Berdych, del Potro, Isner, whose to say that the other players would not
> have disrupted
> him more consistently since they would only see one obstacle as opposed to
> three in the current
> reality.
here....for the embittered.
Patrick Kehoe
May 22, 2012, 5:43:43 PM5/22/12
to
Never mind...
P
TT
May 22, 2012, 6:59:41 PM5/22/12
to
TOTAL POINTS WON
2012 - 55
2011 - 55
2010 - 55
2009 - 54
2008 - 55
2007 - 55
2006 - 56
2005 - 55
2004 - 55
Basically Fed's groundgame peak was in 2005-2008, but his level has not
dropped much since:
2nd RETURN POINTS WON
2012 - 50
2011 - 51
2010 - 51
2009 - 51
2008 - 53
2007 - 52
2006 - 54
2005 - 52
2004 - 52
2nd SERVE POINTS WON
2012 - 61 !
2011 - 57
2010 - 56
2009 - 57
2008 - 58
2007 - 59
2006 - 59
2005 - 59
2004 - 58
His overall level though has been pretty much the same since he has
compensated by improving his 1st serve:
1st SERVE POINTS WON
2012 - 79
2011 - 79
2010 - 78
2009 - 79
2008 - 77
2007 - 77
2006 - 77
2005 - 76
2004 - 78
bob
May 22, 2012, 9:49:23 PM5/22/12
to
this yr he's focused and playing hard. hasn't got the results yet, but
he might. either way, no doubt minus nadal in 08-10 he wins slams as
same pace as 03-07. he did lose to berdy/tsonga last 2 wimbledons
though.
bob
Gracchus
May 22, 2012, 9:49:00 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 4:24 pm, "MuzzasaurusreX - 0 slams and counting."
either...just feeling "burned out." It obviously wasn't the case.
Every player is declining by Federer's age. It may be a difference of
just losing a step, but when you play at the highest level, the
difference of a step is enormous.
<sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As Sampras and Federer himself have said, as well as following the
> logic of my statement fed is as good now as he ever was.
Sampras thought that he himself hadn't physically declined at 30
> As Sampras and Federer himself have said, as well as following the
> logic of my statement fed is as good now as he ever was.
either...just feeling "burned out." It obviously wasn't the case.
Every player is declining by Federer's age. It may be a difference of
just losing a step, but when you play at the highest level, the
difference of a step is enormous.
Gracchus
May 22, 2012, 9:50:58 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 4:42 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> Exactly that. Couldashouldawoulda is the lowest form of conversation around
> here....for the embittered.
It's sad that this is what X has been reduced to.
> Exactly that. Couldashouldawoulda is the lowest form of conversation around
> here....for the embittered.
wkhedr
May 22, 2012, 10:14:54 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 5:24 pm, "MuzzasaurusreX - 0 slams and counting."
Don't Murray fans realise that if Federer was not there, Murray would
have won a USO and AO, and if Djokovic was not there, he would have
added another AO.
have won a USO and AO, and if Djokovic was not there, he would have
added another AO.
Gracchus
May 22, 2012, 10:18:05 PM5/22/12
to
There's more than one?
drew
May 23, 2012, 12:43:24 AM5/23/12
to
> As Sampras and Federer himself have said, as well as following the
> logic of my statement fed is as good now as he ever was.
No he's not. Federer isn't as fast, consistent or as precise as he
> logic of my statement fed is as good now as he ever was.
once was. You don't
get better at 30....in tennis unless you're a club player...you just
get older and slower
and your game has been deconstructed by hundreds of coaches for years
so it gets
even harder to win with your best stuff.
I would say we saw something pretty special when Federer was in his
prime and Nadal was
moving up.
But it's all but over for Federer and Nadal won't be much behind
him.
Nobody is as good at 30 as he was at 25 if he's an all-time great,
results notwithstanding.
Shakes
May 23, 2012, 1:20:58 AM5/23/12
to
Pelle Svanslös
May 23, 2012, 1:23:15 AM5/23/12
to
--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif
Iceberg
May 23, 2012, 6:58:06 AM5/23/12
to
shot selection has improved.
Iceberg
May 23, 2012, 6:57:09 AM5/23/12
to
Gracchus
May 23, 2012, 7:19:23 AM5/23/12
to
what he's lost physically. As I implied yesterday (with the Pedro
Martinez example), Fed's like a pitcher who had a 100 mph fastball but
now is only hitting upper 80s. He compensates with shrewdness and
greater variety to keep opponents off balance. It is doubtful that
he'd still be in the top 5 without that ability.
Apologies to the UK guys for using a baseball example. It just happens
to be apt. :)
drew
May 23, 2012, 9:22:16 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 6:58 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> did you see him play the FO last year?? also most here agree that his
> shot selection has improved
Experience and guile have a place in tennis. This keeps guys over
>
> did you see him play the FO last year?? also most here agree that his
> shot selection has improved
thirty in business. A guy with
the kind of tennis smarts that Federer has is going to learn something
with experience but it never
compensates for the erosion of physical strengths.
bob
May 24, 2012, 5:51:40 PM5/24/12
to
teaching him something at that college. :-)
bob
bob
May 24, 2012, 5:54:08 PM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 04:19:23 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 5:58 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 5:43 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> > Nobody is as good at 30 as he was at 25 if he's an all-time great,
>> > results notwithstanding.
>>
>> did you see him play the FO last year?? also most here agree that his
>> shot selection has improved.
>
>That is a matter of compensation. He has to play smarter because of
>what he's lost physically. As I implied yesterday (with the Pedro
>Martinez example), Fed's like a pitcher who had a 100 mph fastball but
>now is only hitting upper 80s. He compensates with shrewdness and
>greater variety to keep opponents off balance. It is doubtful that
>he'd still be in the top 5 without that ability.
we're all aware of the analogy and it's not completely wrong. the
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 5:58 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 5:43 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> > Nobody is as good at 30 as he was at 25 if he's an all-time great,
>> > results notwithstanding.
>>
>> did you see him play the FO last year?? also most here agree that his
>> shot selection has improved.
>
>That is a matter of compensation. He has to play smarter because of
>what he's lost physically. As I implied yesterday (with the Pedro
>Martinez example), Fed's like a pitcher who had a 100 mph fastball but
>now is only hitting upper 80s. He compensates with shrewdness and
>greater variety to keep opponents off balance. It is doubtful that
>he'd still be in the top 5 without that ability.
question is if making up for a slight drop in physical performance
with improved experience and smarts really equates to an overall drop
of any sorts.
>Apologies to the UK guys for using a baseball example. It just happens
>to be apt. :)
jdeluise
May 24, 2012, 7:18:22 PM5/24/12
to
On 24-May-2012, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ?? X has shone through brightly in recent months. they must be
> teaching him something at that college. :-)
manager!
drew
May 25, 2012, 1:42:28 AM5/25/12
to
On May 24, 5:54 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> we're all aware of the analogy and it's not completely wrong. the
> question is if making up for a slight drop in physical performance
> with improved experience and smarts really equates to an overall drop
> of any sorts.
You simply look at the results of players over 30. If experience ever
>
> we're all aware of the analogy and it's not completely wrong. the
> question is if making up for a slight drop in physical performance
> with improved experience and smarts really equates to an overall drop
> of any sorts.
compensated
for loss of speed, flexibility and reflexes it certainly isn't evident
in the statistics.
It's sad but real. By the time these pros are 25 they've got a
lifetime's worth of
experience. Experience winning the big ones is something else.
It's difficult
handling the pressure of the big moment and multi-major winners have
this
advantage over those who have never won a major event.
Patrick Kehoe
May 25, 2012, 2:35:43 AM5/25/12
to
capable of patience when required, their physical technique sustains
itself even with the onset of fatigue and they truly enjoy the battle,
even the fear and trepidation as opportunity begins to clarify itself
on the day as glory or ruin, victory or defeat... into the fires of
unscripted destiny they RUN...
P
Gracchus
May 25, 2012, 2:26:59 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 12:42 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> You simply look at the results of players over 30. If experience ever
> compensated
> for loss of speed, flexibility and reflexes it certainly isn't evident
> in the statistics.
And that says it all. You pointed to the results over past decades and
> You simply look at the results of players over 30. If experience ever
> compensated
> for loss of speed, flexibility and reflexes it certainly isn't evident
> in the statistics.
showed how dismal results were for players over 30. But rather than
face what is plain as day, bob tries to cherrypick from *basketball*
to find counterexamples.That is a mark of desperation when we can
simply look at the past half-century of tennis instead. The bottom
line: players who applied the necessary athletic skill set for tennis
throughout their careers rarely could manage to win a slam after age
30 regardless of how good they were in their primes or how they tried
to compensate afterward. bob would readily acknowledge this unless he
had an agenda to uphold. God knows why, but it is important for him.
MuzzasaurusreX - 0 slams and counting.
May 25, 2012, 3:49:06 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 12:18 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol. It's crazy man, there are people who have been there for >10
years (no jke) you'd be amazed. Only 4months to go till uni AGAIN now
for degree no.2. I'm literally counting down the days. Paid off my
credit card and £500 of overdraft. Still got another £1000 to pay
off :-S
years (no jke) you'd be amazed. Only 4months to go till uni AGAIN now
for degree no.2. I'm literally counting down the days. Paid off my
credit card and £500 of overdraft. Still got another £1000 to pay
off :-S
Iceberg
May 25, 2012, 3:59:16 AM5/25/12
to
would probably win every major he's played since turning 30.
Gracchus
May 25, 2012, 4:13:06 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 2:59 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> all this despite the fact that if Djoker and Nadal weren't about, Fed
> would probably win every major he's played since turning 30.
It's speculation to talk about what "would" happen "if," but as I've
> all this despite the fact that if Djoker and Nadal weren't about, Fed
> would probably win every major he's played since turning 30.
said before, what he can still do now is just a testament to how much
ability he started with.
Whisper
May 25, 2012, 5:27:58 AM5/25/12
to
bob
May 26, 2012, 8:15:12 AM5/26/12
to
bob
bob
May 26, 2012, 8:18:32 AM5/26/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 12:42 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> You simply look at the results of players over 30. If experience ever
>> compensated
>> for loss of speed, flexibility and reflexes it certainly isn't evident
>> in the statistics.
>
>And that says it all. You pointed to the results over past decades and
>showed how dismal results were for players over 30. But rather than
>face what is plain as day, bob tries to cherrypick from *basketball*
>to find counterexamples.
it's not really a cherrrypick, i chose the 2 best basketball players
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 12:42 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> You simply look at the results of players over 30. If experience ever
>> compensated
>> for loss of speed, flexibility and reflexes it certainly isn't evident
>> in the statistics.
>
>And that says it all. You pointed to the results over past decades and
>showed how dismal results were for players over 30. But rather than
>face what is plain as day, bob tries to cherrypick from *basketball*
>to find counterexamples.
of past 25yrs, and finest athletes, maybe ever, and showed they can
peak at or over 30.
>That is a mark of desperation when we can
>simply look at the past half-century of tennis instead. The bottom
>line: players who applied the necessary athletic skill set for tennis
>throughout their careers rarely could manage to win a slam after age
>30 regardless of how good they were in their primes or how they tried
>to compensate afterward. bob would readily acknowledge this unless he
>had an agenda to uphold. God knows why, but it is important for him.
and he's a little different. no injuries. huge motivation to feed the
ego. no reason for him to dip now. but i do believe he'll show a
strong dip in 2013.
bob
Gracchus
May 26, 2012, 8:32:59 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 7:18 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> remember we're talking about federer. he's the GS champ, many say GOAT
> and he's a little different. no injuries. huge motivation to feed the
> ego. no reason for him to dip now. but i do believe he'll show a
> strong dip in 2013.
Isn't that at odds with with your opinion of him? You think he's
> remember we're talking about federer. he's the GS champ, many say GOAT
> and he's a little different. no injuries. huge motivation to feed the
> ego. no reason for him to dip now. but i do believe he'll show a
> strong dip in 2013.
merely a good player who benefited from a weak era, and inferior to
Sampras. In that scheme, why would Federer be an exception to the rule
if Sampras wasn't?
Now obviously I don't see it quite that way, and believe Federer *is*
the GOAT. But I also see that he is as mortal as all the great
champions who came before him. Although he has done a great job of
compensating in ways that have kept him in the top 3, what time has
taken from him is still keeping him from winning more slams.
bob
May 26, 2012, 6:12:23 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 7:18�am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> remember we're talking about federer. he's the GS champ, many say GOAT
>> and he's a little different. no injuries. huge motivation to feed the
>> ego. no reason for him to dip now. but i do believe he'll show a
>> strong dip in 2013.
>
>Isn't that at odds with with your opinion of him?
not in the least.
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 7:18�am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> remember we're talking about federer. he's the GS champ, many say GOAT
>> and he's a little different. no injuries. huge motivation to feed the
>> ego. no reason for him to dip now. but i do believe he'll show a
>> strong dip in 2013.
>
>Isn't that at odds with with your opinion of him?
>You think he's merely a good player who benefited from a weak era, and inferior to
>Sampras.
only til about 07. he's won serious slams since then too.
>In that scheme, why would Federer be an exception to the rule
>if Sampras wasn't?
you seem to misinterpret my position. my position on fed is he has
very high talent level, highly motivated from day 1 til now, loves
tennis and the tennis life probably more than most top pros, has been
injury free for longer than anyone i can remember, plays more
consistently than anybody i ever saw and plays as close to an
"effortless" type of game as can possibly be played on a high level.
my opinions of him winning a lot of slams VS a weak field have nothing
to do with any of these positives. fed would be a strong player, near
top, in any era VS any competition, however i think, as whisper said
many times, he would not be the absolute #1 guy on clay, grass or fast
HC if we take him VS nadal/borg (clay) or sampras/mac (grass, fast hc)
at peaks. we have proof of the nadal/clay issue the others are
opinions, so no need to get irritated here.
>Now obviously I don't see it quite that way, and believe Federer *is*
>the GOAT. But I also see that he is as mortal as all the great
>champions who came before him.
immortal (go ahead, no need for denial), you have a hard time
admitting that he must (as an immortal) still be playing at/near his
best at 30. :-)
listen, i wouldn't say he'd be peak at 40 or 35 or even 32. but at 30,
i see the smallest of drops. honestly, if anybody was primed to play
at/near his best at 30, he is that guy. at 32 however, i believe he's
in for a huge dropoff. IMO after this yr.
> Although he has done a great job of
>compensating in ways that have kept him in the top 3, what time has
>taken from him is still keeping him from winning more slams.
likely correct, i won't hold it against ya in future rounds. :-)
bob
0 new messages