roger at 29 ..
bob
fed has never had major injury, plays a very natural and effortless
style, is very fit as always, claims to be as motivated as ever,
claimed recently to be peak til age 30 - yet at 29 i'm hearing excuse
making based on age. very lame.
ask connors or agassi about age, not fed.
bob
TennisGuy
Most pro tennis players retire around the 30 year mark.
Connors and Agassi, although great players, are exceptions for
longevity.
This should be obvious to _most tennis fans.
Manco
>
> Most pro tennis players retire around the 30 year mark.
>
Federer is not like "most tennis players". He's something really
special.
Gracchus
> Most pro tennis players retire around the 30 year mark.
>
> Connors and Agassi, although great players, are exceptions for
> longevity.
>
> This should be obvious to _most tennis fans.
Yes, it should.
1. Referencing Connors and Agassi is pointless. They clearly *were*
past peak after 30 ability-wise, and they had to retool their games to
compensate for loss of speed and reflexes.
2. Connors played in a different era, and Agassi on the cusp of a new
one. Today's game is far more physically taxing on players.
3. Federer at his best makes the game *look* effortless, which is a
tribute to his talent, but he still has a mortal body subject to wear-
and-tear.
4. He may or may not believe he's still in his prime. It doesn't
matter. Even if he did think he was slipping, he obviously would not
want to convey this to his rivals.
bob
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 5, 7:58 am, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Most pro tennis players retire around the 30 year mark.
>>
>> Connors and Agassi, although great players, are exceptions for
>> longevity.
>>
>> This should be obvious to _most tennis fans.
>
>Yes, it should.
>1. Referencing Connors and Agassi is pointless. They clearly *were*
>past peak after 30 ability-wise, and they had to retool their games to
>compensate for loss of speed and reflexes.
yet had some good results *way* past 29.
>2. Connors played in a different era, and Agassi on the cusp of a new
>one. Today's game is far more physically taxing on players.
>3. Federer at his best makes the game *look* effortless, which is a
>tribute to his talent, but he still has a mortal body subject to wear-
>and-tear.
less than most.
>4. He may or may not believe he's still in his prime. It doesn't
>matter. Even if he did think he was slipping, he obviously would not
>want to convey this to his rivals.
i'm hearing constant excuses like rog is an old man. he's TWENTY-NINE.
he's not young for a tennis player, not ancient either.
bob
TennisGuy
> > This should be obvious to _most tennis fans.
>
> Yes, it should.
>
> 1. Referencing Connors and Agassi is pointless. They clearly *were*
> past peak after 30 ability-wise, and they had to retool their games to
> compensate for loss of speed and reflexes.
>
> 2. Connors played in a different era, and Agassi on the cusp of a new
> one. Today's game is far more physically taxing on players.
>
> 3. Federer at his best makes the game *look* effortless, which is a
> tribute to his talent, but he still has a mortal body subject to wear-
> and-tear.
>
> 4. He may or may not believe he's still in his prime. It doesn't
> matter. Even if he did think he was slipping, he obviously would not
> want to convey this to his rivals.
Good points.
bob
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
agassi was 4-1, connors 3-1, in GS finals all after the age fed is
now. no excuses.
bob
Gracchus
> agassi was 4-1, connors 3-1, in GS finals all after the age fed is
> now. no excuses.
>
> bob
You are cherry-picking from history. Invoking Connors is ludicrous.
Why not talk about Rosewall making the Wimbledon final at 40?
Today's tennis is not the tennis of the 70s-80s. There were lots of
30+ players in the game then. Count them now on one hand and wonder
why.
steve jaros
Anyone who has watched fed knows he hasn't had peak form since the
summer of 2007.
--
"..democracy in practice is the rule of the wealthy, the protection
of a governmental elite that serves their interests, and the
constant chatter and opining of everyone else.."
- Jodi Dean
TennisGuy
>
> You are cherry-picking from history. Invoking Connors is ludicrous.
> Why not talk about Rosewall making the Wimbledon final at 40?
>
> Today's tennis is not the tennis of the 70s-80s. There were lots of
> 30+ players in the game then. Count them now on one hand and wonder
> why.
Spot on.
They start earlier and retire earlier today.
I guess cherry-picking is a fun pass time for some. :)
Court_1
That is exactly it. People have to find something supposedly negative
to assign to Federer, even if it makes absolutely no sense to the
level-headed tennis fan. These people use the h2h or the Federer is at
his peak at 30 argument.
How can anybody say that a 30 year old professional tennis player is
as on form physically and mentally as a 22 year old? It is simply an
absurd proposition defying the laws of physics and biology. It drives
me crazy! Would they say a 30 year old human being in general (not a
tennis player) is at the same age biologically and according to the
laws of physics as a 22 year old? I mean, it is too stupid.
*skriptis
"Court_1" <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee88f914-497a-4859...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
You view is too harsh.
Looking at it that way would leave no valid h2h. Fact is yes, Nadal is
younger and closer to his peak age than Federer. He's in a advaantage now.
But Federer had the advantage when he was #1 and peak, and played against a
baby Nadal...
In the end..it all levels...
Ali Asoag
> On 6/4/2011 7:51 PM, bob wrote:
>> ..excuse a little bit worn out.
>>
>> fed has never had major injury, plays a very natural and effortless
>> style, is very fit as always, claims to be as motivated as ever,
>> claimed recently to be peak til age 30 - yet at 29 i'm hearing excuse
>> making based on age. very lame.
>>
>> ask connors or agassi about age, not fed.
>
> Anyone who has watched fed knows he hasn't had peak form since the
> summer of 2007.
Since the beginning of 2008 (when he had had mono).
Ali Asoag
> i'm hearing constant excuses like rog is an old man. he's TWENTY-NINE.
> he's not young for a tennis player, not ancient either.
It's not an excuse, it's a matter of fact! On the other hand, injury or
lack of physical health is an excuse when Nadal loses.
Patrick Kehoe
excuse?
that Roger Federer is 29, soon to be 30?
isn't that a fact?
P
RzR
like the others said
game back then physically was a joke compared to today
those two old farts wouldnt do shit today, as they would be blown off
the courts
ca1houn
Federer can make any claims he want, the fact still remands that at
age 29 he is nowhere near what he used to be. Which mean that federer
level come and goes from time to time, tourney to tourney
bob
um, agassi started around 15. fed, per all fedfans, was a late
bloomer.
bob
bob
you dumbo.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 6/4/2011 7:51 PM, bob wrote:
>> ..excuse a little bit worn out.
>>
>> fed has never had major injury, plays a very natural and effortless
>> style, is very fit as always, claims to be as motivated as ever,
>> claimed recently to be peak til age 30 - yet at 29 i'm hearing excuse
>> making based on age. very lame.
>>
>> ask connors or agassi about age, not fed.
>
>Anyone who has watched fed knows he hasn't had peak form since the
>summer of 2007.
why, cause the other guys got a little better and made fed look a
little worse?
bob
bob
of course it's a fact. and it's no excuse.
bob
bob
to which i reply the same crap everyone else always tells me: doesn't
the player know himself better than we do?
bob
Gracchus
> >Anyone who has watched fed knows he hasn't had peak form since the
> >summer of 2007.
> why, cause the other guys got a little better and made fed look a
> little worse?
Not quite. They got a little better and he got significantly worse.
RzR
del potro and soda would have agassi and connors in the level with back
line judges
steve jaros
No, late 2007. Mono compounded things, but he lost his form when his ego
got the best of him. He started jetting the globe playing glamor
exhibitions against Sampras, lost focus. Never has regained it.
--
As a tourist, you become economically significant but
existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
- D. Foster Wallace
steve jaros
No, because his form hasn't been as good. The explanation is pretty
clear: ego-tripping (like Mac after 1984).
Mac and Fed paid a price for their unprecedented dominance. Mac lost
interest after 1984 because there were seemingly no challenges.
Likewise, after winning 3 slams in a year for the third time in four
years (let that sink in for a minute), Federer's ego soared to the moon.
He started playing those exos, started wearing the pompous michael
jackson costumes at wimbledon, anyone could see it ...
--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.
- John Maynard Keynes
steve jaros
Yeah, that about sums it.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
stei...@comcast.net (bob) wrote:
>
> agassi was 4-1, connors 3-1, in GS finals all after the age fed is
> now. no excuses.
Yeah, though they'd kind of won fewer *before* they turned 29. Agassi
often attributed at least some of his longevity to having had long breaks
from the game earlier in his career. Federer has more miles on his body
than Sampras did at the same age (because Sampras' record on clay was not
remotely comparable to Federer's).
wg
bob
>In article <afolu6dl6v7ujbip4...@4ax.com>,
>stei...@comcast.net (bob) wrote:
>
>>
>> agassi was 4-1, connors 3-1, in GS finals all after the age fed is
>> now. no excuses.
>
>Yeah, though they'd kind of won fewer *before* they turned 29.
is that relevant?
> Agassi
>often attributed at least some of his longevity to having had long breaks
>from the game earlier in his career. Federer has more miles on his body
>than Sampras did at the same age (because Sampras' record on clay was not
>remotely comparable to Federer's).
yet fed never had a serious back or knee injury, his body seems fit as
ever.
bob
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Federer did not start too late either and he turn pro at 17 once he
got his break through at Wimbledon 03 he maintain a very consistant
form for almost 6 years. Agassi on the other hand did not really
concentrate on tennis until 1994. He had two years in 93-94 and then
97-98 where he did absolutely nothing. Agassi also didn't have to
face high quality player in winning some of his slams. Eg he played
Schutler and Clement in two of his AO finals. Seriously do you really
think Federer at this age will have problem against players like
Schutler and Clements? I don't.
John Liang
> ..excuse a little bit worn out.
>
> fed has never had major injury, plays a very natural and effortless
> style, is very fit as always, claims to be as motivated as ever,
> claimed recently to be peak til age 30 - yet at 29 i'm hearing excuse
> making based on age. very lame.
>
> ask connors or agassi about age, not fed.
>
He is 29. At this age most of the players have already past their
peak. Of course
people like you would say Federer was at his peak from day 1 when he
started as
a tennis to the day he retires. He will be the only player that is
at his peak during
his entire career.
Iceberg
lol
Iceberg
Agassi took the ball so early, soda and potro wouldn't know what hit
them until it whizzed past.
RzR
maybe for the 1st set or two...then he would have to go to hospital from
overdosing, fucking bald cheating drug addict...
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agassi himself said he took the ball early but Federer took the ball
much earlier than he did. That is what Agassi said after losing to
Federer in 2003 YEC final.
steve jaros
Since every champ i can think of claimed to be 'peak' long after
everyone else could see he wasn't, the answer has to be "no".
As i demonstrated yesterday, just about no male champs were peak after
age 26.
--
10 years from now we'll still be on top.
- p. diddy, 1997
Whisper
I believe Agassi had no problem with them either.
Whisper
You say Rafa's career started when he was 14 so......
Whisper
Yeah - that joke never gets old.
'Mono' yet absolutely no adjustment to his schedule, training habits etc
Still beat Blake & Ljubo in straights in slams as usual lol
Whisper
Yep. Peak Agassi would be a major force in this era.
Gracchus
> 'Mono' yet absolutely no adjustment to his schedule, training habits etc
> Still beat Blake & Ljubo in straights in slams as usual lol
You left out my favorite part of that story as you used to tell it.
You know, about how he went to his doctor and solicited a fake
diagnosis for the media and public. Never did give us a source for
that though, or for the inside info on Federer's training habits.
RzR
yah...in the first round or two
bob
wrote:
for starters, he'd have nobody in his face hitting volleys and OH all
match long.
every player on tour, with exception of the clay monster, plays to
agassi's general comfort zone. IMO agassi could probably take a few
wimbledons VS todays field, definitely some USO/AOs..
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 6/5/2011 7:27 AM, bob wrote:
you demonstrate they don't win as much, on average, you never
demonstrated they weren't playing their best tennis. apples/oranges.
yet you want to say sampras was peak in 2001, 2002? c'mon...
bob
steve jaros
come on. for ALL of those guys, it just happened to be the case that the
new competition was a lot better when they were 27 and later than before
27? beggars belief.
And the change in results for almost all is dramatic, like falling off a
cliff.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
So now, for Federer alone, time has no hold/bearing on athletic
performance...???
Riiiiighttt...
P
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Federer is the only athlete that will be at his peak from his first
day as pro tennis player to the day when he retires.
bob
wrote:
falling off a cliff means no more slam finals, no more slam SFs, no
more slam wins. clearly not the case.
bob
steve jaros
for a champ, falling off a cliff means that slam wins drop off
dramatically. in the case of every champ we can think of with the
exceptions of agassi and connors, that's what happened from 27 on.
--
like every crusader, she exulted in the opportunity
to be vicious in the name of virue.
- SL, Babbitt
uly...@mscomm.com
More scintillating logic from Master bob.
Agassi is 41 years old and Connors will be 60 next year. One would
presume men of that vintage would have a greater understanding of age
than a 29 year old.
Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing how Federer
will age on court, whether it will be gradual, instant or a slow and
graceful slide into the rocking chair.
Javier González
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:29:50 -0500, steve jaros <sjar...@chill.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6/6/2011 5:55 PM, bob wrote:
Sampras made at least 1 slam final every year from 1992 to 2002. No
cliff then? ;)
bob
um, according to all your fedfan friends, fed fell off a clilff
precisely in 2008, since that's when nadal won 3 slams at fed's
expense, however, he somehow, as if attached to a bungee cord, he
sprung back up 2009 to his normal place, before falling again in 2010
spring. what crystal ball do you need for chrissakes?
bob
bob
sampras dropped like a stone the day after he won Wimbledon 2000.
didn't train much, didn't care much. on raw talent, he made 2 more
slam finals. fed plays a full normal schedule, with no injuries, full
motivation rought through til now. big difference.
bob
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL! Seriously, the suggestion that Fed is still in peak form at
almost 30 years old is comical and outrageous. Just more anti-Fed
spewing. Only a complete moron would say Federer has not been in
decline since 2008.
Can't you guys come up with something more original?
arnab.z@gmail
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Javier Gonz lez
Too bad his raw talent and full motivation in the meat of the 1990s
didn't help him reach a single French Open final, let alone win it,
one of the "blue chip" slams.
Look at Federer on the other hand. Not only has he reached 5 FO
finals, he has managed to snatch one FO during the reign of Rafael
Nadal, the best claycourter of all time with 6 FOs. Sampras had a far
easier job back in the 1990s. There was no one near Rafa's caliber on
clay, and he still couldn't do it.
arnab.z@gmail
He is not at his peak, but boy is he in good physical form for a 30
year old tennis player. In this FO, Federer beat Djokovic. Djokovic is
5 years younger, in the best physical shape of his life and who has
been beating Rafa like a drum relying on his physical and mental
endurance. How on earth Federer got to beat this beast? On clay?
Federer has a way of bending the norms. Which again suggests that he
is probably the GOAT.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, we all know that Fed is not longer in his peak and it's only
people like
bob still believe Fed is still at his peak and he will continue to say
that until
Fed retires.
John Liang
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
Nobody said that but Federer's game certainly dropped a few percent
from his
peak and others improved. That was enough to pushed him off a
dominant
position.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has been winning slams since his decline in 2008. Winning slams
does not mean he is still in his peak. To me it just shows how much
raw talent Federer actually has that he can still go out there and
beat somebody like a hot Djokovic even though he is long past his peak.
John Liang
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Javier Gonz lez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sampras played a normal schedule during the last two years of his
career.
Certainly did not drop like a stone and I don't remember he had any
type
of serious injuries in his last two years. Of course there is no
crystal ball
to tell you how motivate Federer is now. The big difference is Fed
can
still produce the goods even on clay but Sampras never could.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is because he can't stand Fed. All of these people that can't
stand Fed will distort things so that they fit into their anti-Fed
agenda.
Whisper
>>
>> sampras dropped like a stone the day after he won Wimbledon 2000.
>> didn't train much, didn't care much. on raw talent, he made 2 more
>> slam finals. fed plays a full normal schedule, with no injuries, full
>> motivation rought through til now. big difference.
>>
>> bob
>
> Too bad his raw talent and full motivation in the meat of the 1990s
> didn't help him reach a single French Open final, let alone win it,
> one of the "blue chip" slams.
>
> Look at Federer on the other hand. Not only has he reached 5 FO
> finals, he has managed to snatch one FO during the reign of Rafael
> Nadal, the best claycourter of all time with 6 FOs. Sampras had a far
> easier job back in the 1990s. There was no one near Rafa's caliber on
> clay, and he still couldn't do it.
It was harder in Sampras' era. In today's game Fed & Rafa play exactly
the same on grass & clay.
Whisper
So winning no tournaments for > 2 years doesn't peove he dropped like a
stone? That settles it then - Fed is at his peak because he's still
winning tube-ups.
>and I don't remember he had any
> type
> of serious injuries in his last two years. Of course there is no
> crystal ball
> to tell you how motivate Federer is now. The big difference is Fed
> can
> still produce the goods even on clay but Sampras never could.
Fed is a claycourter born & bred.
John Liang
> On 11/06/2011 3:34 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 10:26 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> sampras dropped like a stone the day after he won Wimbledon 2000.
> >> didn't train much, didn't care much. on raw talent, he made 2 more
> >> slam finals. fed plays a full normal schedule, with no injuries, full
> >> motivation rought through til now. big difference.
>
> >> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sampras played a normal schedule during the last two years of his
> > career.
> > Certainly did not drop like a stone
>
> So winning no tournaments for > 2 years doesn't peove he dropped like a
> stone? That settles it then - Fed is at his peak because he's still
> winning tube-ups.
Someone in RTS said reaching GS final proove the player is playing
near his peak,
Sampras was in 3 GS finals in last 3 years. Is a different rule apply
to Federer and Sampras in
judging their peaks.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wouldn't use Federer beating Djokovic as a criteria for Federer
being GOAT because he has a worse losing record against Djokovic then
Nadal does.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are you talking about? Federer and Djokovic have played 23 times
and Fed has won 14 out of those 23 (60%); Djokovic and Nadal have
played 27 times and Nadal has won 16 out of 27 (59%).
The bottom line is the last four times Djokovic and Nadal have played,
Djokovic was running Nadal around like a wet dish rag. Nadal could not
stop his streak and even though Fed lost to Djokovic 3 times prior, he
was able to break Djokovic's streak. Not bad for an almost 30 year old
closer to the end of his career. Nadal who is supposedly in his prime
was not able to do it.
kaennorsing
So a feeble, teenage, underdeveloped 'born & bred claycourter' beat
the greatest Wimbledon champion in tennis history at Wimbledon? Maybe
so, but he's won more slams on hardcourt and more titles on grass than
Sampras did, has a greater winning percentage on those surfaces than
Sampras had and is threatening to equal the Sampras Wimbledon record
in about 3 weeks.
To be able to do that as a 'born & bred claycourter' suggests he he's
the most talented player ever.
steve jaros
No, if we were going to describe when Pete took his most dramatic slam
fall-off, it was after 1997.
Before 1998, Pete won 2 slams a year in 4 of the previous 5 years, and
he averaged 2 slam finals a year over those 5 years.
Heck, as late as August 1997, Pete was the current holder of 3 slam
titles! (96 USO, 97 AO, 97 W).
But then what happened?
98: 1 slam final (won)
99) 1 slam final (won)
00: 2 slam finals (1 win)
01: 1 slam final (0 wins)
02: 1 slam final (1 win)
From 1998 on, Pete plunged hugely compared to his peak year. He
averaged less than 1 slam win a year, and only made 2 slam finals once
in those final 5 seasons.
So Pete didn't take a dramatic plunge after 00. His real dramatic plunge
was after 1997, exactly the same as Federer's plunge 10 years later.
--
Happiness is the poetry of womanhood, as clothes are its disguise.
- H. de Balzac
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
And so the slam count wins and loses Nadal has a better record against
Novak then does Federer.
Federer is 5-2 against Novak in slams
Nadal is 5-0 against Novak in slams.
When I look at players to determine who is GOAT it is the slams and
not 1000 or 500 series events.
Whisper
>>
>> I wouldn't use Federer beating Djokovic as a criteria for Federer
>> being GOAT because he has a worse losing record against Djokovic then
>> Nadal does.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What are you talking about? Federer and Djokovic have played 23 times
> and Fed has won 14 out of those 23 (60%); Djokovic and Nadal have
> played 27 times and Nadal has won 16 out of 27 (59%).
>
> The bottom line is the last four times Djokovic and Nadal have played,
> Djokovic was running Nadal around like a wet dish rag. Nadal could not
> stop his streak and even though Fed lost to Djokovic 3 times prior, he
> was able to break Djokovic's streak. Not bad for an almost 30 year old
> closer to the end of his career. Nadal who is supposedly in his prime
> was not able to do it.
Woulda done it in final obviously.
Whisper
> On 11 jun, 09:19, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 3:34 PM, John Liang wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 10:26 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> sampras dropped like a stone the day after he won Wimbledon 2000.
>>>> didn't train much, didn't care much. on raw talent, he made 2 more
>>>> slam finals. fed plays a full normal schedule, with no injuries, full
>>>> motivation rought through til now. big difference.
>>
>>>> bob- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Sampras played a normal schedule during the last two years of his
>>> career.
>>> Certainly did not drop like a stone
>>
>> So winning no tournaments for> 2 years doesn't peove he dropped like a
>> stone? That settles it then - Fed is at his peak because he's still
>> winning tube-ups.
>>
>>> and I don't remember he had any
>>> type
>>> of serious injuries in his last two years. Of course there is no
>>> crystal ball
>>> to tell you how motivate Federer is now. The big difference is Fed
>>> can
>>> still produce the goods even on clay but Sampras never could.
>>
>
> So a feeble, teenage, underdeveloped 'born& bred claycourter' beat
> the greatest Wimbledon champion in tennis history at Wimbledon?
Yes, in 2001. Barry Cowan almost beat him to it.
Losses at that stage of a champ's career mean nothing. What's
problematic is losing 6 slam finals to your nearest rival, on all 3
surfaces, while you're ranked no.1 or 2.
>Maybe
> so, but he's won more slams on hardcourt and more titles on grass than
> Sampras did, has a greater winning percentage on those surfaces than
> Sampras had and is threatening to equal the Sampras Wimbledon record
> in about 3 weeks.
Tune-ups mean nothing. Yes matching 7 would be huge.
I can see Djoker beating Fed at Wimbledon something like 62 75 54.
>
> To be able to do that as a 'born& bred claycourter' suggests he he's
> the most talented player ever.
No, because claycourters like Rafa can win career slams in this era, all
from baseline. That tells you something about the court speed these
days, & level of top opposition.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not even looking at the win-loss of slams but Federer has been in 12
Wimblys where Nadal has been in 6. Also, Federer will be long gone
while Nadal will be playing since an age difference of almost 5 years.
So a lot can happen after Federer retires.
TT
As opposed to, say, Agassi?
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
How can you say he woulda done it in the final "obviously?" Just
because Nadal has not defeated Djokovic before in a slam final? So
what. Djokovic is playing better than he ever has before. You may be
correct that Nadal probably would have defeated Djokovic in the FO
final but you can't know that for sure especially since Djokovic was
on his incredible winning streak and had defeated Nadal 4 times before
the FO. Let's see what happens moving forward between Djokovic and
Nadal.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
The GOAT thing is so stupid. I don't believe in GOAT, however in my
view, Federer currently tops Nadal in spite of the h2h. Federer is
still above and greater than Nadal because of all that he has achieved
in tennis. Nadal is great too and he could catch up to Federer and
even do better than him, who knows. NOW as it stands, Federer is
greater.
Whisper
Ok not for sure, but I was 90% certain Rafa would beat Djoker. The
pressure of continuing the streak & playing his most important match in
the streak would have been too much. Rafa would have felt less pressure
as he lost 2 clay tune-ups to Djoker.
While I enjoy Fed v Rafa matches, there is a certain inevitability about
them. Rafa v Djoker was more unknown so more interesting, especially in
hindsight when Fed followed the script in final.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
But Rafa had the pressure of winning his 6th FO and equalling Borg's
record. I think the momentum Djokovic had would have probably carried
through to the FO final if he made it there. I guess we will never
know now. I do think Djokovic is going to continue to be a threat for
Rafa. It would really be a shame if Djokovic could not continue in the
form he has shown recently. It would show he really is a headcase if
he does not move forward in great form.
Whisper
>> the streak would have been too much. Rafa would have felt less pressure
>> as he lost 2 clay tune-ups to Djoker.
>>
>> While I enjoy Fed v Rafa matches, there is a certain inevitability about
>> them. Rafa v Djoker was more unknown so more interesting, especially in
>> hindsight when Fed followed the script in final.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But Rafa had the pressure of winning his 6th FO and equalling Borg's
> record. I think the momentum Djokovic had would have probably carried
> through to the FO final if he made it there. I guess we will never
> know now.
Yes I considered that & it would have factored at some level, but
overall Djoker was more under the pump imo.
>I do think Djokovic is going to continue to be a threat for
> Rafa. It would really be a shame if Djokovic could not continue in the
> form he has shown recently. It would show he really is a headcase if
> he does not move forward in great form.
>
I'm certain Djoker will continue to factor the rest of the year. In
fact I'd expect him to beat both Fed & Rafa at Wimbledon. He's playing
his best tennis ever, & his style should be lethal on the grass. The
streak pressure is now off, he's a multi-slam champ already so look out.
arnab.z@gmail
You missed the point.
kaennorsing
> I can see Djoker beating Fed at Wimbledon something like 62 75 54.
Based on what? You think Fed's level will fall/implode from here
(unlikely, but possible) or Djoker tanked that semi and Fed playing
well was just an illusion?
arnab.z@gmail
Whimpy sees things all the time. Especially when it comes to yanking
the chains of a Federer fan.
Whisper
Djoker had set point in 1st set v Fed, & seemed to easily get right back
in the match from 2 sets down - bit unlucky he didn't serve out 4th set.
Fed couldn't play any better & also got a little luck at the right
times, + Djoker wasn't at his freewheeling best given the streak pressure.
I'm very confident Djoker will beat Fed at Wimbledon if they meet.
Whisper
Then why did I say Fed would beat Djoker at FO?
Gracchus
If Djokovic is as susceptible to pressure as you're saying, why would
he be at his "freewheeling best" at "blue chip" Wimbledon? He's only a
"multi-slam winner" if you count the low-rent AO.
Whisper
> On Jun 12, 3:41 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2011 5:28 PM, arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
>>> Whimpy sees things all the time. Especially when it comes to yanking
>>> the chains of a Federer fan.
>>
>> Then why did I say Fed would beat Djoker at FO?
>
> If Djokovic is as susceptible to pressure as you're saying, why would
> he be at his "freewheeling best" at "blue chip" Wimbledon?
Streak pressure is off. People won't be as hysterical about him &
streak as they were before the loss.
> He's only a
> "multi-slam winner" if you count the low-rent AO.
Still that takes pressure off, compared to say Murray.
Gracchus
> Streak pressure is off. People won't be as hysterical about him &
> streak as they were before the loss.
True that streak pressure is off, but pressure is now on to prove he's
the real deal on the biggest stage. His game is more effective on
grass, but so is Federer's. And Federer, over-the-hill or not has won
a load of Wimbledons to Djokovic's zero. Even if Djokovic were to win
such a match, I would be surprised at a straight set result.
Whisper
I wouldn't. Djoker will come out all guns blazing & at this point in
respective careers (Djoker at peak & 6 yrs younger) should overpower Fed.
Gracchus
You are speculating as to how he'll deal with this when in some ways
the stature of Djokovic is an unknown quantity. What he should do and
what he can do in a given situation has yet to be proven. If he does
as you say (and as you desire), then he will have truly arrived.
Further, if all top players got through to the latter rounds and
Djokovic managed to beat both Federer and Nadal, one could then make a
case for crowning him "new king."
Whisper
>
>>> True that streak pressure is off, but pressure is now on to prove he's
>>> the real deal on the biggest stage. His game is more effective on
>>> grass, but so is Federer's. And Federer, over-the-hill or not has won
>>> a load of Wimbledons to Djokovic's zero. Even if Djokovic were to win
>>> such a match, I would be surprised at a straight set result.
>
>> respective careers (Djoker at peak& 6 yrs younger) should overpower Fed.
>
>>> True that streak pressure is off, but pressure is now on to prove he's
>>> the real deal on the biggest stage. His game is more effective on
>>> grass, but so is Federer's. And Federer, over-the-hill or not has won
>>> a load of Wimbledons to Djokovic's zero. Even if Djokovic were to win
>>> such a match, I would be surprised at a straight set result.
>
>> respective careers (Djoker at peak& 6 yrs younger) should overpower Fed.
>
> You are speculating as to how he'll deal with this when in some ways
> the stature of Djokovic is an unknown quantity. What he should do and
> what he can do in a given situation has yet to be proven. If he does
> as you say (and as you desire), then he will have truly arrived.
> Further, if all top players got through to the latter rounds and
> Djokovic managed to beat both Federer and Nadal, one could then make a
> case for crowning him "new king."
I don't 'desire' a Djoker win, I just think he's playing the best
off-clay & on balance is the early fave. I even wouldn't mind seeing
Fed win his 7th, as long as there's great tennis & he really fights for
it & earns it.
I don't have a personal fave this year, so split evenly between the top 4;
Rafa - going for 3rd FO/Wim combo to match Borg, & also match his 11 slams;
Fed - the old goat now looking a little worried his 16 slam haul may be
attainable, so desperate to win any slam;
Djoker - off clay the no.1 player in the world & keen to win a big 3
slam, especially the biggest.
Murray - would erase the disappointment of his 3 finals losses with the
biggest title of all.
Anyone outside the top 4 is a complete moron so don't want to see them
winning.
Gracchus
> I don't 'desire' a Djoker win, I just think he's playing the best
> off-clay & on balance is the early fave. I even wouldn't mind seeing
> Fed win his 7th, as long as there's great tennis & he really fights for
> it & earns it.
> I don't have a personal fave this year, so split evenly between the top 4;
True that it should be very interesting. If Federer gets his 7th, I
can't imagine that it will fall onto his lap barring injuries to the
other top players. I also wouldn't mind seeing Murray break through
and win. Aside from the drama of having a Brit finally prevail, it
would make things even more intriguing going into the USO.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
With Federer aging he should be playing, Beat The Clock instead of
Waiting For Father Time. :)
bob
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 1:27 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 7:52 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 7, 9:30 pm, John Liang <jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 8, 10:54 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jun 5, 5:26 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 22:49:59 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
>>
>> > > > > <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >On Jun 4, 5:51 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >> ..excuse a little bit worn out.
>>
>> > > > > >> fed has never had major injury, plays a very natural and effortless
>> > > > > >> style, is very fit as always, claims to be as motivated as ever,
>> > > > > >> claimed recently to be peak til age 30 - yet at 29 i'm hearing excuse
>> > > > > >> making based on age. very lame.
>>
>> > > > > >> ask connors or agassi about age, not fed.
>>
>> > > > > >> bob
>>
>> > > > > >excuse?
>> > > > > >that Roger Federer is 29, soon to be 30?
>> > > > > >isn't that a fact?
>>
>> > > > > of course it's a fact. and it's no excuse.
>>
>> > > > > bob- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > So now, for Federer alone, time has no hold/bearing on athletic
>> > > > performance...???
>>
>> > > > Riiiiighttt...
>>
>> > > > P- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > Federer is the only athlete that will be at his peak from his first
>> > > day as pro tennis player to the day when he retires.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > LOL! Seriously, the suggestion that Fed is still in peak form at
>> > almost 30 years old is comical and outrageous. Just more anti-Fed
>> > spewing. Only a complete moron would say Federer has not been in
>> > decline since 2008.
>>
>> > Can't you guys come up with something more original?
>>
>> He is not at his peak, but boy is he in good physical form for a 30
>> year old tennis player. In this FO, Federer beat Djokovic. Djokovic is
>> 5 years younger, in the best physical shape of his life and who has
>> been beating Rafa like a drum relying on his physical and mental
>> endurance. How on earth Federer got to beat this beast? On clay?
>>
>> Federer has a way of bending the norms. Which again suggests that he
>> is probably the GOAT.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>He has been winning slams since his decline in 2008. Winning slams
>does not mean he is still in his peak. To me it just shows how much
>raw talent Federer actually has that he can still go out there and
>beat somebody like a hot Djokovic even though he is long past his peak.
yes, in fact his talent magically peaked up again very strongly from
May-Jul 2009.
bob
bob
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 10:26 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Javier Gonz lez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <jagon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 8, 8:05 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:29:50 -0500, steve jaros <sjar...@chill.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 6/6/2011 5:55 PM, bob wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 07:25:49 -0500, steve jaros<sjar...@chill.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> On 6/5/2011 7:27 AM, bob wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 00:01:56 -0700 (PDT), ca1houn
>> >> >>>> <vageta95...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>> On Jun 4, 5:51 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> ..excuse a little bit worn out.
>>
>> >> >>>>>> fed has never had major injury, plays a very natural and effortless
>> >> >>>>>> style, is very fit as always, claims to be as motivated as ever,
>> >> >>>>>> claimed recently to be peak til age 30 - yet at 29 i'm hearing excuse
>> >> >>>>>> making based on age. very lame.
>>
>> >> >>>>>> ask connors or agassi about age, not fed.
>>
>> >> >>>>>> bob
>>
>> >> >>>>> Federer can make any claims he want, the fact still remands that at
>> >> >>>>> age 29 he is nowhere near what he used to be. Which mean that federer
>> >> >>>>> level come and goes from time to time, tourney to tourney
>>
>> >> >>>> to which i reply the same crap everyone else always tells me: doesn't
>> >> >>>> the player know himself better than we do?
>>
>> >> >>> Since every champ i can think of claimed to be 'peak' long after
>> >> >>> everyone else could see he wasn't, the answer has to be "no".
>>
>> >> >>> As i demonstrated yesterday, just about no male champs were peak after
>> >> >>> age 26.
>>
>> >> >> you demonstrate they don't win as much, on average, you never
>> >> >> demonstrated they weren't playing their best tennis. apples/oranges.
>>
>> >> >come on. for ALL of those guys, it just happened to be the case that the
>> >> >new competition was a lot better when they were 27 and later than before
>> >> >27? beggars belief.
>> >> >And the change in results for almost all is dramatic, like falling off a
>> >> >cliff.
>>
>> >> falling off a cliff means no more slam finals, no more slam SFs, no
>> >> more slam wins. clearly not the case.
>>
>> >> bob
>>
>> >Sampras made at least 1 slam final every year from 1992 to 2002. No
>> >cliff then? ;)
>>
>> sampras dropped like a stone the day after he won Wimbledon 2000.
>> didn't train much, didn't care much. on raw talent, he made 2 more
>> slam finals. fed plays a full normal schedule, with no injuries, full
>> motivation rought through til now. big difference.
>>
>> bob- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Sampras played a normal schedule during the last two years of his
>career.
>Certainly did not drop like a stone and I don't remember he had any
>type
>of serious injuries in his last two years.
he had a back problem and contemplated retiring. plus lost motivation,
got lazy after he accomplished his life's dream. if he knew he needed
16 slams instead of 14, he might've done it slightly differently.
now that we settled that, let's not discuss it 30 more times.
bob
bob
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 5:19 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 3:34 PM, John Liang wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 11, 10:26 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> sampras dropped like a stone the day after he won Wimbledon 2000.
>> >> didn't train much, didn't care much. on raw talent, he made 2 more
>> >> slam finals. fed plays a full normal schedule, with no injuries, full
>> >> motivation rought through til now. big difference.
>>
>> >> bob- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Sampras played a normal schedule during the last two years of his
>> > career.
>> > Certainly did not drop like a stone
>>
>> So winning no tournaments for > 2 years doesn't peove he dropped like a
>> stone? That settles it then - Fed is at his peak because he's still
>> winning tube-ups.
>
>Someone in RTS said reaching GS final proove the player is playing
>near his peak,
>Sampras was in 3 GS finals in last 3 years. Is a different rule apply
>to Federer and Sampras in
>judging their peaks.
fed WON 3 GS in 2009, yet you're saying he's way off peak? what a
hypocrite.
bob
bob
wrote:
2001 always gets mentioned, but in reality it was same situation in
2002 Wimbledon, only the 'nobody' got sampras before fed or henman or
whoever else would've.
>>Maybe
>> so, but he's won more slams on hardcourt and more titles on grass than
>> Sampras did, has a greater winning percentage on those surfaces than
>> Sampras had and is threatening to equal the Sampras Wimbledon record
>> in about 3 weeks.
>
>
>Tune-ups mean nothing. Yes matching 7 would be huge.
>I can see Djoker beating Fed at Wimbledon something like 62 75 54.
>>
>> To be able to do that as a 'born& bred claycourter' suggests he he's
>> the most talented player ever.
>
>No, because claycourters like Rafa can win career slams in this era, all
>from baseline. That tells you something about the court speed these
>days, & level of top opposition.
you need to put a shortcut key to the last paragraph, it obviously
needs to be said couple hundred time/day before anyone hears it.
bob
Whisper
John has obsessive compulsive disorder - one of the worst cases I've
seen. 30% of my posts are probably directed to him answering the same 3
questions. I see it as community service, hoping it will cure him 1
day. Just shows how debilitating this condition really is.
John Liang
2 or 3 ? Bob. Are you getting the same disease as your master ?
John Liang
> On 13/06/2011 8:42 AM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:34:24 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
Analysis by a psycho can't trusted.
>30% of my posts are probably directed to him answering the same 3
> questions.
higher percentage of my post was aiming at fools like you. I think
the result is
fools can't be educated and reasoned in a logical way.
>I see it as community service, hoping it will cure him 1
> day. Just shows how debilitating this condition really is.
There is nothing more debilitating as suggesting have skull cut and
with brain on
the table. If you want that assistance just ask me and buy a saw I am
more than happy
to help you and before that prepare a will.
steve jaros
nope, sheer luck that sod did his dirty work for him by beating nadal
(just like fed did nadal's dirty work for him last week by beating
joker) at FO, and then that nadal missed W with injury.
--
.. the profiteers are a consequence not
a cause of rising prices.
- JM Keynes