Federer's sense of invincibility continues to be challenged
Patrick Kehoe
By Tom Tebbutt - The Globe and Mail
INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- It was a man-bites-dog night in tennis on
Tuesday at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells – Roger Federer lost.
If anyone had to beat him, Marcos Baghdatis was probably the peoples-
choice kind of guy.
The likable Cypriot with the rambunctious game style has been through
a lot of adversity since reaching final of the 2006 Australian Open
(losing to Federer) and then hitting a career-high ranking of No. 8 in
May 2006.
Injuries disrupted his bid to establish himself firmly in the top 10.
In 2008, he had a stress fracture in his right wrist that kept him off
the tour for two months and later that year he was troubled by a back
ailment.
His ranking plummeted and by July of last year he was outside the top
150 at No. 151. He then began a hard slog back by winning a Challenger
event in Vancouver in August. He followed that with Challenger titles
in France and Uzbekistan, as well as the ATP event in Stockholm in the
fall and had his ranking up to No. 33 entering the Indian Wells
event.
“Best win of my career,” a happy Baghdatis, 24, said immediately
following his 5-7, 7-5, 7-6 (4) victory over Federer. “I think that
says everything. I lost a lot of matches against those top guys, and,
you know, it’s a relief to win a match like that after being out for
two years, having some tough moments. It’s a great moment for me. I’ll
try to enjoy it.”
Sadly, Baghdatis didn’t have long because he had to return to the
court 19 hours after beating Federer and lost to Tommy Robredo 7-5,
0-6, 6-4 on Wednesday.
After the match on Tuesday, Federer was in a decidedly sombre mood. He
held two match points at 15-40, 5-4 in the second set, and then
another one at 6-5 in the third set. It was only the fourth time since
2002 that he had lost a match after having match point. The others
were (tournament and number of match points in brackets) against
Rafael Nadal (2006 Rome – 2), Richard Gasquet (2005 Monte Carlo – 3)
and Marat Safin (2005 Australian Open – 1).
“It feels something like the (Jo-Wilfried) Tsonga match last year in
Cincinnati,” Federer said by way of explaining his loss. “What
happened after that ... I played great. Or was it in Toronto and I won
Cincinnati. (Actually, he lost to Tsonga after leading 5-1 in the
third set of their quarter-final in Montreal at the Rogers Cup, and
then he went on to win the title in Cincinnati the following week.)
“So it’s just like one of those matches that just happens, you know.
You play good most of the time, and then you just don’t play so well
when you really have to.”
There was one obvious similarity with the loss to Tsonga – on both
occasions he was coming back after five weeks off following a victory
at a Grand Slam. Last summer in Montreal was his first event after
Wimbledon.
Federer has been flying high since recording his 16th Grand Slam title
on January 31 at the Australian Open. There has been some talk of him
winning the Grand Slam (all four majors) this year but the loss to
Baghdatis – and Nadal’s impressive form in Indian Wells so far - will
make people more cautious about making any grandiose predictions.
The loss to Baghdatis was significant for another reason. He had
beaten the Cypriot six times in a row between 2004 and 2008, but that
streak is now over.
That follows a pattern of recent years. Here are four other players he
also had long winning streaks against in recent years before losing to
them:
Federer was 10-0 against Fernando Gonzalez between 2004 and 2007
before losing at the year-end 2007 Masters Cup but has beaten the
Chilean in their two subsequent meetings.
He was 8-0 against James Blake between 2003 and 2008 before losing to
the American at the 2008 Beijing Olympics but has won their two
subsequent meetings.
He was 12-0 against Nikolay Davydenko between 2002 and 2009 before
losing to the Russian at the 2009 year-end championships in London and
in Qatar in January. But he beat the Russian in the Australian Open
quarter-finals in January.
Finally, the Swiss was 6-0 against Ivo Karlovic between 2004 and 2008
before losing to the Croat in Cincinnati in 2008 but has won all three
of their subsequent matches.
All the above players, except Karlovic, are present or former top-10
players, so it was almost inevitable that at some point they would
score a win against the mighty Swiss.
But there is still a group of serious 0-fers versus Federer –
including Robin Soderling 0-12, Mikhail Youzhny 0-10, Jarkko Nieminen
0-10, Robredo 0-9 and David Ferrer 0-9.
But every time a player breaks through as Baghdatis did on Tuesday, a
little bit more of the Federer invincibility vanishes.
arnab.z@gmail
They must be really, really little bits of invincibility. Because
Federer seems to avenge his losses pretty quickly.
TT
> Federer has been flying high since recording his 16th Grand Slam title
> on January 31 at the Australian Open. There has been some talk of him
> winning the Grand Slam (all four majors) this year but the loss to
> Baghdatis – and Nadal’s impressive form in Indian Wells so far - will
> make people more cautious about making any grandiose predictions.
Take notice Pedro.
>
> Federer was 10-0 against Fernando Gonzalez between 2004 and 2007
> before losing at the year-end 2007 Masters Cup but has beaten the
> Chilean in their two subsequent meetings.
> He was 8-0 against James Blake between 2003 and 2008 before losing to
> the American at the 2008 Beijing Olympics but has won their two
> subsequent meetings.
> He was 12-0 against Nikolay Davydenko between 2002 and 2009 before
> losing to the Russian at the 2009 year-end championships in London and
> in Qatar in January. But he beat the Russian in the Australian Open
> quarter-finals in January.
> Finally, the Swiss was 6-0 against Ivo Karlovic between 2004 and 2008
> before losing to the Croat in Cincinnati in 2008 but has won all three
> of their subsequent matches.
> All the above players, except Karlovic, are present or former top-10
> players, so it was almost inevitable that at some point they would
> score a win against the mighty Swiss.
Take notice Pedro.
Gracchus
> They must be really, really little bits of invincibility. Because
> Federer seems to avenge his losses pretty quickly.
Not just that, but the players of this sort who "challenge his
invincibility" do it at tournaments like Indian Wells and not the
slams. When he starts losing in the 3rd round of Wimbledon to the
schmoos, then he'll have something to worry about. People made much of
the wins Murray and Davydenko had against Federer last year too. When
they were challenged to replicate it on the big stage in Australia,
neither could do it. Let's see how Baghdatis does if they meet at
Wimbledon.
arnab.z@gmail
There goes TT trolling again, his favorite activity in this ng.
TT
No, it's you who is trolling here, that's what you are here for, to
release your inner pain by talking about trolls and picking up fights.
I just pointed out that this is very much about same topic we discussed
with Pedro earlier, nothing wrong with that.
arnab.z@gmail
That makes absolutely no sense. I am not picking fights with anybody.
You are a scared little troll, aren't ya?
> I just pointed out that this is very much about same topic we discussed
> with Pedro earlier, nothing wrong with that.
Why unnecessarily needle Pedro and bring him in a thread where he
doesn't belong? It seems that it is YOU who are a troll picking a
fight with Pedro here.
ca1houn
Federer invincibility is still there at slams where it matter. 24
semi or more, what a shitty article
missy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Until he beats Nadal at slam ( at least realitvelty fit one ) esp on
clay , i still question his mental toughness
Superdave
wrote:
i definitely question Rafa's mental toughness afterthe trouncing he got from
Soderling at the FO last year. That was a real disgrace.
Javier González Nicolini
Mental toughness got nothing to do with it - Nadal simply _is_ better
than Federer on clay. If both show up with their best stuff at the FO,
Federer's chances are pretty bleak.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ I agree with you... I liked Tom's article all the same... some
differentiate between events and majors, others look for over all
patterns despite the tournament...
P
Patrick Kehoe
wrote:
> > clay , i still question his mental toughness
>
> Mental toughness got nothing to do with it - Nadal simply _is_ better
> than Federer on clay. If both show up with their best stuff at the FO,
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ And that's been proven again and again... just as Fed's dominance
on hardcourt and grass defines the last decade of play... so fair is
fair...
P
missy
>
> - Show quoted text -
fed 0-1 nadal in hardcourt finals
0 - 3 fo finals
1 - 1 wimbledon finals
rafa 4-0 fed in slam finals = no goat status for fed
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ Fed 9 hc major wins - Rafa 1 hc major win... Fed 6 grass court
major wins - Rafa 1 grass court major win... Rafa 4 clay - Roger 1
clay... so obvious math Fed 15 majors on hc/grass to Rafa's 2 hc/
grass...
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ There IS NO GOAT... it's just a subjective talking point... no one
is REALLY the GOAT, miss missy :))))))
P
felangey
0 - 3 fo finals
1 - 1 wimbledon finals
rafa 4-0 fed in slam finals = no goat status for fed<
Here's a wee chore for ya. Work out how many slams Fed has won where Nadal
was in the draw, but wasn't good enough to make the final to meet him, k?
Have fun! :)
Javier González Nicolini
It's 2-1 in Wimbledon finals.
And it's 16-6 in total slams ;)
Manco
wrote:
>
> And it's 16-6 in total slams ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
and that's the only stat that matters.
felangey
Well, for you there isn't. For many others there is! :)
ca1houn
>
> - Show quoted text -
You didn't watch any Wimbledon before 2008 final? WTF Raja has a fuck
up knee he going to be always injures and who decide if his injure
hopefully not your bias ass. Three three slams play on other
surfaces, which mean federer would be better serve focusing on those
rather then one clay slams of which he already has one.
ca1houn
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:37:40 -0700 (PDT), missy <helenah...@googlemail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
or the Murray i quite match
TT
You mean like Baghdatis beat Federer in the draw and Robredo beat
Baghdatis so Robredo must have played better than Federer?
bob
<helen...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 18 Mar, 17:06, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 8:14�am, Javier Gonz�lez Nicolini <jagon...@gmail.com>
rafa needs to continue this trend for next couple of yrs and THEN it
will be no GOAT for fed. if not, it will be GOAT for him. even though
i think he got 10 slams VS clowns.
bob
TT
16 > 6+Og+3DC ?
7 > 13 ?
StephenJ
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT), missy
>
>
>
rafa won't be relevant again until he makes a slam final, which he
hasn't done in over a year.
as for fed's "invincibility", well that aura left a couple years ago.
But that doesn't mean anything should be read into this Indian Wells
loss. Heck just 2+ months ago fed lost a lackluster match at Doha,
then rolled to the AO title.
IW meant nothing to fed, he's just killing time until the FO.
CloudsRest
Federer wanted to win and rebuild the level of dominance he was at,
but the loss certainly won't kill him. With all his drop shots, it
seems he's already prepping for the French.
Javier González Nicolini
Yes
> 7 > 13 ?
No
Manco
designed for clay. He's already prepping for the dirt.
bob
wrote:
i haven't seen him since AO, but i'll go take a watch in Miami next
wk. his form from May 09 - Jan 10 was 80% of his norm, at best.
>as for fed's "invincibility", well that aura left a couple years ago.
>But that doesn't mean anything should be read into this Indian Wells
>loss. Heck just 2+ months ago fed lost a lackluster match at Doha,
>then rolled to the AO title.
>
>IW meant nothing to fed, he's just killing time until the FO.
of course.
bob
missy
Yes , thats my point - when Nadal isnt a factor he can win -
usually , but when he makes it to the final and its in slam , hes
only beaten him the once , and lost on all 3 surfaces in fact , so who
can he be goat ???
CloudsRest
-Beat Nadal in two Wimbledon finals.
-Federer's the GOAT because he has the most stellar overall record of
any male player in history.
missy
>
> - Show quoted text -
That may not be saying much when also happens to have had the most
unstellar of competition - apart from nadal
Superdave
wrote:
>On 19 Mar, 01:41, CloudsRest <spartan-warrio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
links?
TT
I'm very disappointed for rogi not holding "his end of the bargain" on
hc, again.
john
"missy" <helen...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4f0999bc-caf9-4a24...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
He can be goat because his overall record is superior than Nadal. The
problem
for Nadal is in 3 out of 4 major championships Federer consistantly
outperform
Nadal. Federer has 4 AO titles, 5 USO and 6 Wimbledon compare to Nadal's
2 titles in thsoe slams. Nadal is way ahead of Federer in FO. Your point
is invalid
because you did not take into account the number of failures Nadal has in
his
grand slam record, Federer was in twice as many grand slam finals as Nadal
since
Nadal won his first grand slams.
john
"TT" <n...@email.org> wrote in message news:qRFon.28$4c...@uutiset.elisa.fi...
I am very disappointed when Nadal get hammered by Del P in USO and then by
Murray at AO.
Superdave
??????????
Not me. I am deliriously happy !
missy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, he seems to find a way to lose whenever Rafa shows momentum , I
wonder why ?
hmmm
john
>hmmm
Federer has very little interest in mm type tournament I wonder why Rafa
shows the
momentum in mm tournament and can't deliver in hard court slam when it
really count ?
bob
wrote:
>
>"missy" <helen...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:4f0999bc-caf9-4a24...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>On 18 Mar, 21:50, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>> felangey wrote:
>> >> fed 0-1 nadal in hardcourt finals
>> > 0 - 3 fo finals
>> > 1 - 1 wimbledon finals
>>
>> > rafa 4-0 fed in slam finals = no goat status for fed<
>>
>> > Here's a wee chore for ya. Work out how many slams Fed has won where
>> > Nadal was in the draw, but wasn't good enough to make the final to meet
>> > him, k?
>>
>> You mean like Baghdatis beat Federer in the draw and Robredo beat
>> Baghdatis so Robredo must have played better than Federer?
>
>
>>Yes , thats my point - when Nadal isnt a factor he can win -
>>usually , but when he makes it to the final and its in slam , hes
>>only beaten him the once , and lost on all 3 surfaces in fact , so who
>>can he be goat ???
>
>He can be goat because his overall record is superior than Nadal.
no kiddin - he peaked 4 yrs earlier than nadal and got to play 16
slams VS clowns, of which he own 10. c'mon john.
switch fed's and nadal's ages, and we can switch their slam count. or
worse.
bob
bob
2 reasons. either mono is creeping back or he had to play in low
light.
bob
Administrator
LOL what you smokin'? Federer is 28 and holds 3 slams - Nadal is 23 and
holds none. If Nadal was 5 years older than Federer the Swiss would have
20+ slams at the end of his career.
Manco
Superdave
your fucked in the head bob. get help.
john
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d5haq51lo5e22v73a...@4ax.com...
Federer did not start winning slam until he was 22 and Nadal was near his
peak
from 2005 onward and there is no way to denied that. He competed in 20
grand
slams facing the same competition and Federer won 12 of those compare to
Nadal's
6. If Federer was able to win 16 slams why Nadal could not do the same to
proove
he wasn't a clown. Pretty weak argument with regarding the clowns.
>
> switch fed's and nadal's ages, and we can switch their slam count. or
> worse.
It won't be long before Nadal reaching 27 so wait and see what sort of stats
Nadal come up
with when he is 27.
>
> bob
Rodjk #613
Funny how Nadal does not have a record like Federer's against that
same competition.
(This is getting to sound like the old 'Pete vs Fed' nonsense that
used to go on here before Fed got to 16. Nadal is a great player, and
I am not implying otherwise. I just want to point out that Nadal has
not won nearly the same number of slams against the same competition
that Fed has played. If you call Fed's competition weak, then so is
Nadal's. Truth is, the competition is not weak but we have had two
superstars competing at the same time.)
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
TennisGuy
> Federer invincibility is still there at slams where it matter. 24
> semi or more, what a shitty article
I never thought I'd see the day when I said this but:
"Well-stated ca1houn!"
DavidW
ca1houn states most things well.
bob
let rafa peak 5 yrs earlier, with no fed around, and rafa wins a quick
10 slams VS roddick/hewitt types too. sheesh. "i fucked in the head
though". lol.
bob
TT
Because fed and media got them pussyfied against rogi. Also notice that
Rafa won 81 matches on clay in a row.
> (This is getting to sound like the old 'Pete vs Fed' nonsense that
> used to go on here before Fed got to 16. Nadal is a great player, and
> I am not implying otherwise. I just want to point out that Nadal has
> not won nearly the same number of slams against the same competition
> that Fed has played. If you call Fed's competition weak, then so is
> Nadal's. Truth is, the competition is not weak but we have had two
> superstars competing at the same time.)
>
> Rodjk #613
>
> Rodjk #613
Superstars yes. BOAT and clay BOAT at the same time...no.
CloudsRest
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:43:18 +0800, Superdave
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:57:53 -0400, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:45:57 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
> >>wrote:
>
He wouldn't. In fact, Roddick and Hewitt would own Wimbledon. And
Nadal would still struggle reaching major finals on hard courts.
john
Not a very good argument, in his 12 also failed attempts at hard court
grand slam
Nadal was losing to Murray twice, Del P, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Roddick,
Youzhny, Ferrer, Hewitt and Blake. He was comprehensively beaten by Murray
and
Del P in USO. I think Roddick and Hewitt at their peak were pretty good
player
certainly way above Gonzalez, Tsonga, Youzhny, Ferrer and Blake. I would
even
venture to say Hewitt at his peak was mentally much tougher than Nadal.
There is
no way Nadal would win a quick 10 slam vs Roddick/Hewitt at their peak when
he
get routinely straight set by Murray and Del P in slam at his peak. You are
definitely
fucked in the head .
CloudsRest
> "bob" <stein...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2tmdq5dh565bbhsum...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:43:18 +0800, Superdave
>
> >>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:57:53 -0400, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:45:57 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
> >>>wrote:
>
And why are Murray and Djokovic considered tougher competition in
comparison? In terms of achievements, they aren't even close to
Roddick and Hewitt. 1 Oz vs. 2 UTC, 1 Wimbledon, and many weeks at
#1. bobblehead continues to suffer.
john
"CloudsRest" <spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:500eaae2-e568-44c8...@n39g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
No, I do not consider Murray and Djokovic tougher than Roddick/Hewitt/Safin,
Safin had a much better attacking game than Murray/Djok and Roddick although
soundly beaten by Federer a lot of times highlighted how good he can be when
he
bounced Djok a few matches in a row and beat Murray in Wimbledon. Hewitt
did
not have the power but at his peak mentally much tougher than Nadal. If
there was
no Federer in the game all 3 of them would have won a few more slams and it
was
Federer's ability to beat them in GS matches that really deflated these 3
players mentally.
adam thirnis
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:45:57 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
how foolish of me for one moment i forgot we we're playing "bob's
virtual universes". couldn't shift from my mind the fact that against
this super tough generation federer is champ at 3 of the slams and
clear #1.
TT
Nadal was injured. In 2008 and early 2009 you saw how Bob's hypothesis
would work. And as Bob said, since there's the mental factor too, rogi
would probably have very very few slams. He would've been completely
pussyfied by Rafa.
john
Bob's hypothesis would not work. Nadal was not injured in 2005-2007 and the
people who were beating Nadal in hard court slams were nothing like peak
Roddick
or Hewitt. He was losing to Ferrer, Blake, Youzhny types in slams and those
were
not exactly great hard court players certainly nothing like Roddick and
Hewitt. The
mental factor does not exist on hard court for Federer when you consider
Nadal hardly
make any finals on hard court grand slam and there is where the difference
between the
two is. Federer can get to the final of the most important clay court
tournaments while
Nadal just can not make it on hard court and would pussyfied by any half
decent player
on a good day in any round.
bob
like they did in 07, 08?
bob
bob
adam, we can all observe facts and count slam #s. that's boring.
the "virtual universes" is where our opinions come into play and i
welcome others as well as my own, including yours.
bob
bob
wrote:
agreed, he was not injured. he was 19.
john, your posts are painful to the ears.
bob
adam thirnis
nadal was 19 and already in his peak period - becker peaked early too.
every player has about 4 years where they are at their best and with
nadal and becker that included teenage years. nadal's peak was
19/20/21/22. there is no other way to explain nadal's condition now -
where he is not really injured as such (he's missed what maybe 2
events?) just that his body can no longer cope as well with the
demands he puts upon it. he's been through his peak and is now in slow
physical decline. question is whether he can adapt and still be a
force at the slams.
adam thirnis
yes but yours is just opinion with nothing to back it up. you thought
federer was finished when he lost at AO 2008 and had been overtaken by
a new generation. you were wrong. just swallow it and take it like a
man.
john
Truth are often painful for people like you. Nadal was at or near his peak
since 2005
and he added a little through out that period but yet made some progress on
his hard
court game but was never quite good enough to make a lot of finals on that
surface.
You are a retard to suggest he would win a lot of hard court slam with the
absence
of Federer and certainly his record proove that is not the case.
john
"adam thirnis" <adam.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16500d63-d703-4a88...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
He can't and that is the reason why he said my post are painful to the ear
because
they are the truth and he just can't handle the truth.
TennisGuy
> > Federer invincibility is still there at slams where it matter. 24
> > semi or more, what a shitty article- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Until he beats Nadal at slam ( at least realitvelty fit one ) esp on
> clay , i still question his mental toughness
With Nadal in such a severe decline, I fear Fed will never again be
given the opportunity.
bob
wrote:
he would've won AOs, all FOs and more Wimbledons. i say about 15 slams
worth if he were close to fed's age and fed were his age.
bob
bob
i never bought into the "next generation" taking over fed - what i did
buy into was that if nadal had kept beating him (figure 09 FO, 09
Wimbledon, no bad knees) then i thought it might be too much for fed
to handle mentally and he's crack or go nuts.
i always said specifically that. yes, turns out it was a "virtual
universe". :-)
bob
CloudsRest
> "bob" <stein...@comcast.net> wrote in message
If Nadal could stay 23 years old and injury free forever, he'd win all
the majors for eternity. bobblehead is losing it.
CloudsRest
All the traits that make Nadal so great, focus and going all out for
every point, are detrimental for his longevity. No way can anybody
keep that up. bobblehead must concoct new theories to attack
Federer's legacy, as he can't live with being wrong and is convinced
Federer is overrated.
Administrator
Good point if Nadal had been born 5 years earlier he would not have had
to face at AO those titans of the game Tsonga, Gonzalez and Murray. It's
amazing noone has thought of this before.
CloudsRest
> >> 10 slams VS roddick/hewitt types too. sheesh. "i fucked in the head
> >> though". lol.
>
> >> bob
>
> >He wouldn't. In fact, Roddick and Hewitt would own Wimbledon.
>
> like they did in 07, 08?
>
> bob
Federer's greatness set them all back. What would have happened if
Federer weren't around, right? Many things would be different.
Roddick and Hewitt's chances at Wimbledon clearly increase, they'd be
favorites. Their likely victories would be huge confidence and aura
boosters. Despite all that, it's possible their down years (or
declines) occur in 07 or 08 anyway, as the window for most players
isn't as big as Sampras' or Federer's. Hewitt used to beat Roddick
often, but later the tables turned, shifted in Roddick's favor.
Every year is different, player forms vary. Some get injured, but
form and results change even w/o them. Djokovic hasn't played with
the same 'summer07 to summer08' fervor for quite a while. Federer
does get his share of luck, and he's the last person that needs it. I
can see how it can be upsetting if you wanted to see his demise.
CloudsRest
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:36:28 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Nothing is for certain. Who knows if meeting hot Safin, Gonzalez, or
Bags would be too much for Nadal to handle in Oz? There would be
different Roddick and Hewitt to deal with at Wimbledon and Oz. Too
many ifs. Let's just settle for reality and not get into Mr. Rogers.
CloudsRest
In Sept 2008:
"no - if fed wins 2 slams next yr VS the djok/murray/nadal crowd, i'll
pronounce him GOAT and believe it. because he'll have "made up for"
winning
10 slams VS clowns. keep this post. i won't recant on it. but i don't
see it
happening.
now if fed hangs around 5 more yrs, gets thrashed mostly during that
tiem,
but wins an odd slam to 14 or 15 - then it'll prove what i always
thought -
he beat bad competition.
bob"
There's evidence that you believed in more than just Nadal, and it
wasn't all that difficult to find. You are trying to change history
by saying you backed only Nadal, since Murray and Djokovic haven't
done as well as you originally thought.
CloudsRest
"whatever fed
does, if he struggles next 5 yrs to 2 more slams in 20 attempts, while
being
thrashed mostly by nadal/djok, nobody in their right mind will say
anything
but that he beat clowns.
bob "
Evidence of Djokovic support, but that didn't quite pan out, thus your
attempt to backtrack, remove him from original thoughts.
Unbreakable Spirit
More bob classics:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/ebf8a6c48c823578
"fed should've never won last yr's USO final either. massive choke by a
more
talented djokovic. fed is dangerously close to big trouble. imagine if the
confidence slips (which i'm sure is happening day by day).
i hate to say it again, but i stated over and over in RST: when the slide
starts, it can be extremely fast and happens from nowhere. and is pretty
irreversible. like you said many times, wilander/mcenroe in 88, 84.
bob"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/56a5076458d07243
On Djokovic:
"hating him is very good for tennis. people will want to tune in. i kinow i
will. i predicted a young guy fairly athletic with some talent would come
along one day - i mean how many yrs of clowns could we expect?
looks like we got him, like him or not.
bob"
CloudsRest
>
I think Djokovic is fun to follow also, a great personality. Murray
is fun to follow for other reasons, one of them: to laugh when they
show his teeth while he's returning serve. bobblehead is throwing
both under the bus since they're a combined 1-4 at the majors against
Federer instead of admitting he backed them along with Nadal.
Javier González Nicolini
bob is no better than his master when it comes to remembering what he
said.
Or maybe he's as good as his master at pretending he didn't say
something.
bob
<spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> let rafa peak 5 yrs earlier, with no fed around, and rafa wins a quick
>> >> 10 slams VS roddick/hewitt types too. sheesh. "i fucked in the head
>> >> though". lol.
>>
>> >> bob
>>
>> >He wouldn't. In fact, Roddick and Hewitt would own Wimbledon.
>>
>> like they did in 07, 08?
>>
>> bob
>
>Federer's greatness set them all back.
and here i thought that fed's greatness made em all try harder to be
better. lol.
> What would have happened if
>Federer weren't around, right? Many things would be different.
>Roddick and Hewitt's chances at Wimbledon clearly increase, they'd be
>favorites. Their likely victories would be huge confidence and aura
>boosters. Despite all that, it's possible their down years (or
>declines) occur in 07 or 08 anyway, as the window for most players
>isn't as big as Sampras' or Federer's. Hewitt used to beat Roddick
>often, but later the tables turned, shifted in Roddick's favor.
>Every year is different, player forms vary. Some get injured, but
>form and results change even w/o them. Djokovic hasn't played with
>the same 'summer07 to summer08' fervor for quite a while. Federer
>does get his share of luck, and he's the last person that needs it. I
>can see how it can be upsetting if you wanted to see his demise.
lots of ebbs and flows, but the fact is that rafa's sore knees are
what allowed fed to have the same confidence boost that you accuse
roddick/hewitt of having should fed have not existed.
bob
bob
i remember the post well, and never counted on nadal getting hurt
right at his peak. but still, i don't accuse fed of beating clowns
last yr even w/out nadal, not at all. what i do say is he got a 10slam
headstart VS clowns.
bob
bob
i don't mind a bit at a prediction when it turns out wrong. of course
the only reason it turned out wrong was because nadal overplayed,
developed knee trouble, and allowed fed confidence to boom and win
FO. i have no problem whatsoever with fed winning past 12 months, just
so long as we understnd why.
bob
Superdave
just so long as you know i predicted it and you didn't even factor it in. that's
why i am tier 1 and you are still an amateur.
CloudsRest
It shows Federer would be kicking butt had the recent group been part
of the 2004-07 stretch instead of the "clowns" you refer to.
CloudsRest
> what allowed fed to have the same confidence boost that you accuse
> roddick/hewitt of having should fed have not existed.
>
> bob
Federer got a huge break at the French and capitalized, no one will
deny that. Sore knees or not, Nadal isn't superman on hard courts.
Even when healthy, he's vulnerable to getting hit off the court by
anyone in the top 20 or so. Fed's loss at UTC had nothing to do with
Nadal, nor is his inability to reach non-major finals. So much for
the boost and playing relaxed.
adam thirnis
same clowns who schooled sampras on his home court when pete was the
same age as fed is now i.e. at peak according to bob
adam thirnis
bob's objection to federer appears to be that over a period of 7 odd
years he didn't have to play a rafa frozen in time at age 22. guess
sampras was extremely lucky then that krajicek only got his shit
together at one wimbledon and that like rafa suffered from bad knees
otherwise pete probably wouldn't have won wimbledon at all.
john
You also forgot the same group of clowns who Federer beat routinely in slams
schooled Nadal repeatedly on the hard court.
Superdave
yup. youzhny, blake, berdych,etc have all "owned " Rafa" for a while.
TT
>
> yup. youzhny, blake, berdych,etc have all "owned " Rafa" for a while.
Great, finally you got your use of apostrophes right.
bob
i predicted it - but not until nadal were around 25-27. it came 3 yrs
early.. :-)
bob
bob
actually federer had trouble with even 19yr old rafa. he has big
trouble with rafa all the time. just that rafa, way before his peak,
was losing enough prior to finals, fed was winning em.
let's face it - with fed/rafa at their best, the $ goes on rafa.
bob
bob
it's possible. of course the 1 guy missing or below par past
year........
bob
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ Ya... and then again, it's true enough... Rafa was toxic to
Federer's best game, his style... what interests me now is now that
others from Delpo and Murray are teeing off on the Nadal second serve
(as well as hitting through him) will Fed step in more on those second
serves of Rafa... yes, he did in Madrid... but Rafa's second serve is
becoming a 'marked' liability... and still Fed seems 'somewhat'
reluctant to take full advantage... it will be interesting to see if
Fed can follow the template that even Lubo was able to follow against
Rafa... AND HOW WILL Rafa counter it??? Can he?
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ That's right... Rafa's style and mental toughness, BECAUSE married
to his particular style of speedy defensive soundness and monstrous
deep angled counter hitting was the perfect anti-Fed style... the
French Open 2008 was cathartic and symbolic, overflowing (literally)
later in Melbourne 2009...
P
adam thirnis
not on grass or hardcourt. remember outside of a brief 6 month window
rafa has never beaten federer in a significant grass or hardcourt
match.
adam thirnis
guess you only started watching tennis in 2008...?
TT
I see.
Only slams, of course...
Not on clay, of course...
...And of course not during 7 months from 08W to 09AO
Fed leads 2-0. Wonderful! :D
CloudsRest
> trouble with rafa all the time. just that rafa, way before his peak,
> was losing enough prior to finals, fed was winning em.
>
> let's face it - with fed/rafa at their best, the $ goes on rafa.
>
> bob
On clay, for sure. Everywhere else, not really. And we don't have
much information on how Nadal would deal with the pressures of
constantly defending titles and points.
Whisper
Agree 100%. The evidence backs this up. Fed is greater due to greater
wins, but Rafa at his best would always start fave v Fed - clay, grass & HC.
Whisper
>>
>> actually federer had trouble with even 19yr old rafa. he has big
>> trouble with rafa all the time. just that rafa, way before his peak,
>> was losing enough prior to finals, fed was winning em.
>>
>> let's face it - with fed/rafa at their best, the $ goes on rafa.
>
> not on grass or hardcourt. remember outside of a brief 6 month window
> rafa has never beaten federer in a significant grass or hardcourt
> match.
wow - talk about denial. Fed was the one crying like a baby v Rafa on
grass, HC & clay slam finals.