Blake is just useless against Federer
only human
Even now with Fed in his 30's Blake still can't do much of anything
against Rog.
it almost looks like Blake isn't trying his best when ever he loses
against this guy.
Rog must have been playing really badly to lose to Blake in the
Olympics.
ed scheuert
Yeah, since Blake hasn't gotten older and has been beating up on
everyone else. He just has a Federer problem.
Iceberg
he often played like he was in awe of Fed, even if he had the upper
hand. The Olympics was an incredible moment, Blake had a great form of
play during that time.
TT
> he often played like he was in awe of Fed, even if he had the upper
> hand.
Blake said Federer is just WAY 2 GOOD!
Superdave
which he is and everybody but you and whisper say so as well.
Iceberg
great attitude for going into a match eh!
uly...@mscomm.com
said that his loss to Blake at the Olympics "was probably the most
devastating loss for me ever." I don't think I've ever heard him say
that before.
Booger
Last week he said his loss to Del-potro at the US Open was his most
devastating loss.
Whisper
It's either that one or the '08 Wimbledon final to Rafa. Both 5 set
losses, & both woulda given him 6 straight Wim & USO titles. Had he won
those 2 his legacy would be about 30% greater than it is currently.
Yes, definitely his 2 biggest & most devastating losses.
uly...@mscomm.com
agree his legacy would be 30% higher with six straight W.'s and USO's,
but close enough.
RaspingDrive
It was utterly devastating to Federer because it provided ammunition
for a critic(s?) to harp on losses over *three* different surfaces! He
immediately fathomed the existence of astute poster(s?) at RST who he
reckoned would readily pounce on this supposed frailty of his and so
he was much dismayed, no utterly devastated. He has since been having
nightmares.
RzR
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote in message
news:OOCdnZJjBrI0GdPT...@westnet.com.au...
good thing he still has percentages to spare in front of the rest of the
field
Shakes
For me, the '08 Wim F loss (and even the '09 AO F) hurt a lot more than
the '09 USO loss. The loss to Del Po can be considered a one-off, esp.
given what Fed had accomplished that summer.
But the '08 and '09 losses to Nadal were like a power shift. What made
it worse was they were not sporadic, they were on the trot,
consecutive. If Fed had won either of these two, esp. the Wim F, it
would've given me the satisfaction that Fed is the dominant player on
at least one surface, even against Nadal, like Nadal was on clay.
jdeluise
On 19-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . If Fed had won either of these two, esp. the Wim F, it
> would've given me the satisfaction that Fed is the dominant player on
> at least one surface, even against Nadal, like Nadal was on clay.
Sampras really dodged a bullet by being born when he was :) Seriously
though, when will they hold a Sampras-Nadal exo series? That would be fun.
TT
Yeah. Compared to that Dasco appears like a mental giant and true fighter.
TT
Well if said that - he's lying. Most devastating would be 08 FO or W.
Also 09 AO would be a strong contender, if you recall the trophy ceremony.
Shakes
So did Nadal, by being born when he was. :)
Actually, I think a Sampras-Nadal exo would've been a lot more fun than
Sampras-Fed exo. Too bad, it never happened. A true contrast in styles
that would've been. Now I think it's too late, Sampras crossing over
40. Back in 2006-2007, it would still have been a good exhibition.
Whisper
> On 2011-08-19 08:40:39 -0700, Whisper said:
>
>> On 20/08/2011 1:26 AM, Booger wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 9:16 am, "ulys...@msomm.com"<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>>> In Rog's post-match interview with P-Mac, Fowler and some others, he
>>>> said that his loss to Blake at the Olympics "was probably the most
>>>> devastating loss for me ever." I don't think I've ever heard him say
>>>> that before.
>>>
>>> Last week he said his loss to Del-potro at the US Open was his most
>>> devastating loss.
>>
>>
>> It's either that one or the '08 Wimbledon final to Rafa. Both 5 set
>> losses, & both woulda given him 6 straight Wim & USO titles. Had he
>> won those 2 his legacy would be about 30% greater than it is currently.
>>
>> Yes, definitely his 2 biggest & most devastating losses.
>
> For me, the '08 Wim F loss (and even the '09 AO F) hurt a lot more than
> the '09 USO loss. The loss to Del Po can be considered a one-off, esp.
> given what Fed had accomplished that summer.
Yes, but the legacy benefits of winning a 6th straight USO woulda been
huge. He woulda gone past Sampras & Connors as the dominant USO figure.
As it stands all 3 won 5 times, with Sampras making 8 finals, Connors
7 & Fed 6.
>
> But the '08 and '09 losses to Nadal were like a power shift. What made
> it worse was they were not sporadic, they were on the trot, consecutive.
> If Fed had won either of these two, esp. the Wim F, it would've given me
> the satisfaction that Fed is the dominant player on at least one
> surface, even against Nadal, like Nadal was on clay.
Yeah, Fed goofed big time by losing on grass, HC & clay slam finals to
Rafa. Can't take it back. Imo he copped a big break by losing to
Djoker in last USO semi, as on form Rafa woulda torn him a new one in
the final. That means Rafa would have beaten Fed in all 4 slam finals.
Unprecedented ownership of a tier 1 goat level player. It's still big
ownership, but that would have put the cherry on top.
I guess it's still possible Fed & Rafa could meet in a 1st USO final
this yr? Probably last real chance.
Whisper
> On 19-Aug-2011, Shakes<kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> . If Fed had won either of these two, esp. the Wim F, it
>> would've given me the satisfaction that Fed is the dominant player on
>> at least one surface, even against Nadal, like Nadal was on clay.
>
> Sampras really dodged a bullet by being born when he was :)
I think it's the other way round. Sampras woulda won 14 slams in any
era. Fed & Rafa could probably only win big in this era?
Whisper
In terms of legacy cost it's def Wim/USO.
Whisper
Yeah, that would be a true contrast in styles. Remember Rafa s/v'd only
once in a 64 64 67 67 97 Wimbledon final. McEnroe woulda been in 300 times.
John Liang
>
> >> . If Fed had won either of these two, esp. the Wim F, it
> >> would've given me the satisfaction that Fed is the dominant player on
> >> at least one surface, even against Nadal, like Nadal was on clay.
>
> > Sampras really dodged a bullet by being born when he was :)
>
> I think it's the other way round. Sampras woulda won 14 slams in any
> era. Fed & Rafa could probably only win big in this era?
No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't win 14 in the era that had Edberg,
Becker and Lendl.
Certainly not in the current era because of the slow medium pace
court. He would
win 14 because there were No.1s like mental midget like Kafelnikov and
Rios,
players who were only good on 1 surface like Muster, Moya and Kuerten
and of
course Agassi who in your own word wasn't that good manage only two
USO against
the likes of Martin even that went for five sets.
John Liang
> On 20/08/2011 5:54 AM, Shakes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-08-19 11:57:38 -0700, jdeluise said:
>
>
> >>> . If Fed had won either of these two, esp. the Wim F, it
> >>> would've given me the satisfaction that Fed is the dominant player on
> >>> at least one surface, even against Nadal, like Nadal was on clay.
>
> >> Sampras really dodged a bullet by being born when he was :) Seriously
> >> though, when will they hold a Sampras-Nadal exo series? That would be
> >> fun.
>
> > So did Nadal, by being born when he was. :)
>
> > Actually, I think a Sampras-Nadal exo would've been a lot more fun than
> > Sampras-Fed exo. Too bad, it never happened. A true contrast in styles
> > that would've been. Now I think it's too late, Sampras crossing over 40.
> > Back in 2006-2007, it would still have been a good exhibition.
>
> Yeah, that would be a true contrast in styles. Remember Rafa s/v'd only
>
> - Show quoted text -
And been past 250 times.
Iceberg
lol since when did Tsonga get passed by Nadal at the AO.
Iceberg
when asked at the end of 2010, I'm sure people remember, but he said
that Halle to Hewitt was the worst > than Wimbledon. And the Fedfans
all backed him up!
Iceberg
lol, the fact that Fed got to so many FO finals says it all to me, no
other era could/would that happen.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lol, Nadal didn't eat the pizza, had he eat that pizza he would pass
Tsonga 3000 times. Just like sampras would win
the FO had he eat that pizza in 96.
TT
Definitely not USO.
TT
You have it backwards. The only era is Sampras' own era. This era he
would have been passed too easy...previous era his serve wouldn't have
had same power because of equipment and era before that they were not
allowed to jump when serving on top of that.
While a strong baseliner would be a strong baseliner in any era.