Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Wilander: Federer played during the weakest era ever

85 views
Skip to first unread message

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:15:46 AM12/16/10
to
FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter.
It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.” As for Nadal, Wilander
said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of
breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been
healthy. He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good
luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
greatest.” When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,
for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
forever. Nobody was stopping him.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-mandarin-miners-pistol-packin-mama/

Iceberg

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:21:23 AM12/16/10
to
> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...

wow that pretty much confirms it, when one of Fed's biggest advocates
even admits the clown era, it says a lot. It's also funny how Fed is
the 'greatest' cos of the slam count race that Sampras invented plus
he's the greatest cos of his health. This is classic Fedfan logic,
they been saying he the GOAT since about 6 slams.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:35:19 AM12/16/10
to

That is of course something we knew all along. It's easy to see the
level of his opponents after the fact, looking what happened to careers
of Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero etc...3rd tier rank ones. Of course the
clueless keep on posting clips from fed matches against powerless and
weaponless Hewitt, some legacy.

Then again fedfans argument will be "He beat who he faced". But the
truth is he didn't, he was beaten by baby-Rafa on Rafa's worst surface.

Jimmy Connors:
"Roger is surrounded by players who just let him run away with it...he
couldn't be in a better position...If I was Roger, I'd be very, very
grateful".

Gustavo Kuerten:
"It's like in car racing where Schumacher gained his titles after
Senna's death. Roger has taken advantage of the hole left by Sampras"

Thomas Muster:
"These players today...when they see Roger hit a few great shots they
give up. They shouldn't be playing Roger...they should be playing tennis.

CASH
"I think (Juan Martin) del Potro and Andy Murray are really
troubling him lately and I just hope we haven't seen Federer peak when
there weren't any challenges."

"It doesn't really make it a fair indication of how good he really is
if there hasn't been anyone really to challenge him," Cash said. "It
will almost be a false impression of how good he really is.

"But I think over the next few years we'll see how good he really is.
You've got to look at who you play. You can't just put a man in a
boys' tournament and say, 'Wow, how good is he?'

"Because suddenly you drop another man in there and think, 'He's not
as good as we thought he was'. And at the moment for me, that's what
is still in question.

--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692

Fan

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 4:10:09 AM12/16/10
to
> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...

I disagree with Mats. Federer is not as good as he was but he can be
from time to time. He showed it at the last YEC that he still has what
it takes but his intensity has dropped and that makes him vulnerable
to players today who are no better than the players of the weak ear
Mats is talking about.
The only difference is Nadal becoming a real threat not only on CC but
on GC and HC also. The rest of the players can occasionally surprise
Nadal and Federer but not on a consistent basis.
Murray is becoming almost as much of a disappointment as Nalbandian
was. He also has the talent but not the ability to keep winning big
matches consistently. He gives Federer a tennis lesson only to have
Federer give him a tennis lesson the next time they meat.
Soderling and Berdych showed promised but their game and confidence
seem to have evaporated.
It is Nadal-Federer era and if anything happens to either of them, the
other can rule absolute. Nobody other than insane fans would want
that.
Let us all hope for a healthy Nadal and a healthy Federer in 2011 and
many great finals between them. That would be super.

wkhedr

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 6:20:34 AM12/16/10
to
Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
And how is it that other players are better than Federer and he is
still at 29 able to beat them all to continue to win slams?
And what a great display was that when Federer demolished at YEC all
these > BETTER PLAYERS < that are at their peak?!

wkhedr

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 6:33:10 AM12/16/10
to
The guy can't hide his frustration, every time he picks Murray or
another Federer's opponent to win it all, he ends up looking like an
idiot.
Anyway, I hope he keeps saying this stuff about Fed since it seems to
keep Federer motivated and pushes him to win more slams.

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 7:49:42 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
> him.

old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
never beat federer...what does that tell us lol

also a note to wilander...its ok to be old, man...you were good in
tennis once, now you are shit in everything else...the circle of life

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 7:52:36 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 9:35, TT wrote:

>
> Jimmy Connors:
> "Roger is surrounded by players who just let him run away with it...he
> couldn't be in a better position...If I was Roger, I'd be very, very
> grateful".
>
> Gustavo Kuerten:
> "It's like in car racing where Schumacher gained his titles after
> Senna's death. Roger has taken advantage of the hole left by Sampras"
>
> Thomas Muster:
> "These players today...when they see Roger hit a few great shots they
> give up. They shouldn't be playing Roger...they should be playing tennis.
>
> CASH
> "I think (Juan Martin) del Potro and Andy Murray are really
> troubling him lately and I just hope we haven't seen Federer peak when
> there weren't any challenges."
>
> "It doesn't really make it a fair indication of how good he really is
> if there hasn't been anyone really to challenge him," Cash said. "It
> will almost be a false impression of how good he really is.
>
> "But I think over the next few years we'll see how good he really is.
> You've got to look at who you play. You can't just put a man in a
> boys' tournament and say, 'Wow, how good is he?'
>
> "Because suddenly you drop another man in there and think, 'He's not
> as good as we thought he was'. And at the moment for me, that's what
> is still in question.
>

ahahaha

all of those above cant hold rogers jockstrap

jelaousy is a motherfucker :))))))))))))))))))))))

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 7:53:36 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 12:20, wkhedr wrote:

> And what a great display was that when Federer demolished at YEC all
> these> BETTER PLAYERS< that are at their peak?!

DOMINATED them...just like he said he would, and people here made fun of
it...idiots lol

ocean

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:08:33 AM12/16/10
to
> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...

Ouch. That's why they call him Frauderer..... In the land of the
blind, the one-eyed man is king.

ocean

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:11:41 AM12/16/10
to

> Jimmy Connors:
> "Roger is surrounded by players who just let him run away with it...he
> couldn't be in a better position...If I was Roger, I'd be very, very
> grateful".
>
> Gustavo Kuerten:
> "It's like in car racing where Schumacher gained his titles after
> Senna's death. Roger has taken advantage of the hole left by Sampras"
>
> Thomas Muster:
> "These players today...when they see Roger hit a few great shots they
> give up. They shouldn't be playing Roger...they should be playing tennis.
>
> CASH
> "I think (Juan Martin) del Potro and Andy Murray are really
> troubling him lately and I just hope we haven't seen Federer peak when
> there weren't any challenges."
>
> "It doesn't really make it a fair indication of how good he really is
> if there hasn't been anyone really to challenge him," Cash said. "It
> will almost be a false impression of how good he really is.
>
> "But I think over the next few years we'll see how good he really is.
> You've got to look at who you play. You can't just put a man in a
> boys' tournament and say, 'Wow, how good is he?'
>
> "Because suddenly you drop another man in there and think, 'He's not
> as good as we thought he was'. And at the moment for me, that's what
> is still in question.
>


Fed benefitted from the biggest clown era ever.

felangey

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 9:51:21 AM12/16/10
to
These old farts need to learn to hold their tongue....it just ends up making
them look old and sad. Not to mention the disrespect it shows to some great
players that in the end just weren't able to match the brilliance of Fed.

Rodjk #613

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:52:12 AM12/16/10
to
> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...

Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
same clowns.
Right?

Rodjk #613

Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 9:32:01 AM12/16/10
to


Tell us something we don't know.


Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 9:40:04 AM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 12:52 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:15 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, �Roger

>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>> when he played was the worst of all time. That�s why he was winning so
>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they�re better than
>> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we�ve had � the
>> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That�s one of the reasons why Roger
>> dominated so much. He�s not worse (now). He�s still fighting hard and
>> he�s not winning. That�s the only way I see it. How can you be that
>> dominant in this day and age? It�s impossible. But that doesn�t matter.
>> It�s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.� As for Nadal, Wilander
>> said, �If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of

>> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
>> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he�s been
>> healthy. He�s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He�s had good
>> luck, he�s had no health issues. That�s why you have to say he�s the
>> greatest.� When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
>> Wilander replied, �I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
>> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn�t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,

>> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
>> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>>
>> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>
> Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
> same clowns.
> Right?
>
> Rodjk #613


But he won his 1st 6 slams through Federer, & beat him on all 3 surfaces
in slam finals. Because of this we know Fed isn't the 'best' of all
time, while for Rafa it's still an open question. He's better than Fed
in big slam matches (even when dead tired & Fed fresh as a daisy eg '09
AO final), so at least he can argue he'd possibly match up ok v past greats.

It's pretty tough to argue against clown era when 2 guys win career
slam, & 5 times at a slam, rank no.1 & 2 probably over a decade by the
time they're done etc. Mats is right - how can 2 guys when *everything*
there is to win if the opposition is kosher?

It's not Fed's fault the next best players are guys who'd traditionally
rank about no.20 based on absolute skill level (eg Djokovic, Murray), &
no 40 (eg Berdych, Soderling etc). No one is blaming Fed for the poor
overall standard, because it's not his fault.


Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 9:41:41 AM12/16/10
to


It's not just Mats, but pretty much every single past player thinks the
same thing. They won't say it now because it'll really hurt tennis, but
when Fed is retired you'll see all the knives come out.

I don't know why anyone finds this controversial?


SliceAndDice

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 9:48:06 AM12/16/10
to

So this means Sampras played in a weak era too, since he started
getting trashed regularly once Hewitt/Safin/Federer arrived on the
scene?

Vari L. Cinicke

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 10:04:49 AM12/16/10
to

You can't expect Wilander to appreciate brilliant shotmaking. Now
hitting the same shot over and over until your opponent goes for too
much ... that he can understand and enjoy! :)

--
Cheers,

vc

Vari L. Cinicke

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 10:11:33 AM12/16/10
to

Wilander might want to see who has been #2 or #1 since Nadal reached #2
in 2005. And how many slams Federer has won since nadal reached #2 for
the first time.

So what will Wilander say about Nadal should Nadal win more slams than
Federer? Will Nadal's era be deemed worthy or will he trash Nadal too?

I think Wilander is taking potshots at Federer because he can see the
talent gap between him and Federer and it rankles.

Wilander talking about eras and weaknesses? Didn't he win a slam once by
tossing in weak first serves all tournament long without getting
punished? Sheesh!

--
Cheers,

vc

wkhedr

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 10:19:23 AM12/16/10
to

What does he need more to learn to stop saying sh$$t about Federer? He
has been wrong again and again and again.
He said the "Federer needs to grow some balls" thing some time ago and
then went to apologize later.
What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
a f**ck about people like Wilander and let his game does all the
talking.
btw, I thought the king was dead in 2008.

Fan

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 10:26:39 AM12/16/10
to
I do not agree with some things Mats said but it is stupid to talk
down on him. A former #1 and winner of seven slams is a very
impressive accomplishment against the field he faced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Wilander
However, there is more to Mats than that. What I value about him is
his ability to talk to other players without his ego. He always talks
about other s players, their strengths, and their weaknesses. He is
and interesting commentator. He takes himself out of it and gives us
his experience and expertise without putting himself in the picture.
He is not afraid to change his mind.
I have seen other greats try commenting during tournaments and failed
because they spent too much time talking about the time they won the
tournament they were covering. You get sick of braggarts but a normal
guy like is easy to follow.
An added bonus is that he pisses insane freddy fans off :)

wkhedr

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 10:33:48 AM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 4:41 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> It's not just Mats, but pretty much every single past player thinks the
> same thing.  They won't say it now because it'll really hurt tennis, but
> when Fed is retired you'll see all the knives come out.
>
> I don't know why anyone finds this controversial?

Yes I agree, we even knew that Roddick is a Sampras version on the
juice and that he will win at least 12 slams while you would be
surprised if Federer wins more than one slam. What does this make of
Federer's achievement for you?!

LOL.

Rodjk #613

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 10:40:17 AM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 8:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2010 12:52 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 2:15 am, TT<d...@do.it>  wrote:
> >> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> >> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, Roger

> >> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> >> when he played was the worst of all time. That s why he was winning so
> >> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they re better than

> >> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we ve had the
> >> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That s one of the reasons why Roger
> >> dominated so much. He s not worse (now). He s still fighting hard and
> >> he s not winning. That s the only way I see it. How can you be that

> >> dominant in this day and age? It s impossible. But that doesn t matter.
> >> It s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.  As for Nadal, Wilander
> >> said, If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of

> >> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
> >> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he s been
> >> healthy.  He s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He s had good
> >> luck, he s had no health issues. That s why you have to say he s the
> >> greatest.  When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
> >> Wilander replied, I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
> >> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,

> >> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
> >> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>
> >>http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>
> > Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
> > same clowns.
> > Right?
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> But he won his 1st 6 slams through Federer, & beat him on all 3 surfaces
> in slam finals.  Because of this we know Fed isn't the 'best' of all
> time, while for Rafa it's still an open question.  He's better than Fed
> in big slam matches (even when dead tired & Fed fresh as a daisy eg '09
> AO final), so at least he can argue he'd possibly match up ok v past greats.

And in that same time period...how many slams did each guy win?

> It's pretty tough to argue against clown era when 2 guys win career
> slam, & 5 times at a slam, rank no.1 & 2 probably over a decade by the
> time they're done etc.  Mats is right - how can 2 guys when *everything*
> there is to win if the opposition is kosher?
> It's not Fed's fault the next best players are guys who'd traditionally
> rank about no.20 based on absolute skill level (eg Djokovic, Murray), &
> no 40 (eg Berdych, Soderling etc).  No one is blaming Fed for the poor
> overall standard, because it's not his fault.

Just to be clear...your answer is 'yes'?

Rodjk #613

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:19:04 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 16:26, Fan wrote:
> I do not agree with some things Mats said but it is stupid to talk
> down on him. A former #1 and winner of seven slams is a very
> impressive accomplishment against the field he faced.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Wilander
> However, there is more to Mats than that.

no there isnt...he was a great tennis player, but now he sounds like
bitter old man whose time has past, along with some new guys passing his
slamcount lol


TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:30:38 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?

???

Nadal beat Federer a lot...

> And how is it that other players are better than Federer and he is
> still at 29 able to beat them all to continue to win slams?

What slams did he win at 29?

He's been beaten at slams by these same players, Murray trashed him
twice in bo3 before yec too.

> And what a great display was that when Federer demolished at YEC all
> these> BETTER PLAYERS< that are at their peak?!

So you're saying that Mats is correct that Fed is playing his best still?

He did beat home pressure Murray, DC-focused Djokovic and tired Nadal at
BO3.
However Djokovic did beat him where it matters, at USO.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:36:18 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010 17:19, wkhedr wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:53 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 12:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>
>>> And what a great display was that when Federer demolished at YEC all
>>> these> BETTER PLAYERS< that are at their peak?!
>>
>> DOMINATED them...just like he said he would, and people here made fun of
>> it...idiots lol
>
> What does he need more to learn to stop saying sh$$t about Federer? He
> has been wrong again and again and again.
> He said the "Federer needs to grow some balls" thing some time ago and
> then went to apologize later.
> What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
> a f**ck about people like Wilander

Yeah, he's all class...gracious in defeat and modest in victory...not!

I thought he did give a fuck about Wilander when he refused interviews
by him after "no balls"-comment.

> btw, I thought the king was dead in 2008.

He wasn't, just that Nadal moved well past him.

felangey

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:39:44 PM12/16/10
to
>Yes I agree, we even knew that Roddick is a Sampras version on the
juice and that he will win at least 12 slams while you would be
surprised if Federer wins more than one slam. What does this make of
Federer's achievement for you?!<

:OD

felangey

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:40:33 PM12/16/10
to
>What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
a f**ck about people like Wilander and let his game does all the
talking.<

Agreed.

felangey

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:41:03 PM12/16/10
to
> You can't expect Wilander to appreciate brilliant shotmaking. Now
> hitting the same shot over and over until your opponent goes for too
> much ... that he can understand and enjoy! :)<

Roffle! :)

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:44:55 AM12/16/10
to

He beat Federer.

Besides those clowns have not been taking top spots in long time. Apart
from Roddick...who has been below Djokovic, Murray all along the way.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:48:53 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010 14:49, RzR wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
>> him.
>
> old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
> never beat federer...what does that tell us lol

Third set tb doesn't qualify as "Blasts"

It tells us two things:

Ljubicic clowned around against Federer

Big serve is never out of fashion.

>
> also a note to wilander...its ok to be old, man...you were good in
> tennis once, now you are shit in everything else...the circle of life

You really are an unpleasant idiot.

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:49:22 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>
> ???
>
> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>

so?

federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see

you retards need to shut the fuck up, and lay low for a while, see if
nadal can find the right mix of steroids again...otherwise it will be
borefest once more with federer winning most of the things he plays in

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:51:27 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 17:44, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 15:52, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 2:15 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, �Roger

>>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>>> when he played was the worst of all time. That�s why he was winning so
>>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they�re better than
>>> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we�ve had � the
>>> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That�s one of the reasons why Roger
>>> dominated so much. He�s not worse (now). He�s still fighting hard and
>>> he�s not winning. That�s the only way I see it. How can you be that
>>> dominant in this day and age? It�s impossible. But that doesn�t matter.
>>> It�s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.� As for Nadal, Wilander
>>> said, �If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of

>>> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
>>> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he�s been
>>> healthy. He�s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He�s had good
>>> luck, he�s had no health issues. That�s why you have to say he�s the
>>> greatest.� When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
>>> Wilander replied, �I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
>>> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn�t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,

>>> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
>>> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>>>
>>> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>>
>> Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
>> same clowns.
>> Right?
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
> He beat Federer.
>

ye...fed was losing motivation, and didnt really feel like wasting his
time figuring out nadal...big mistake that cost him many slams...i think
from now on, nadal is toast against federer

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:53:26 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 17:48, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 14:49, RzR wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
>>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
>>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>>> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
>>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
>>> him.
>>
>> old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
>> never beat federer...what does that tell us lol
>
> Third set tb doesn't qualify as "Blasts"
>

ljubo is old

> It tells us two things:
>
> Ljubicic clowned around against Federer
>
> Big serve is never out of fashion.
>

ljubo has bad back and beat nadal

LOL

>>
>> also a note to wilander...its ok to be old, man...you were good in
>> tennis once, now you are shit in everything else...the circle of life
>
> You really are an unpleasant idiot.
>

nah...you are the one wearing idiot title along with your agreenig
fed-hating buddies

wilander is compromising his status by saying shit like this

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:55:04 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 17:36, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 17:19, wkhedr wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 2:53 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 16.12.2010. 12:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>>
>>>> And what a great display was that when Federer demolished at YEC all
>>>> these> BETTER PLAYERS< that are at their peak?!
>>>
>>> DOMINATED them...just like he said he would, and people here made fun of
>>> it...idiots lol
>>
>> What does he need more to learn to stop saying sh$$t about Federer? He
>> has been wrong again and again and again.
>> He said the "Federer needs to grow some balls" thing some time ago and
>> then went to apologize later.
>> What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
>> a f**ck about people like Wilander
>
> Yeah, he's all class...gracious in defeat and modest in victory...not!
>
> I thought he did give a fuck about Wilander when he refused interviews
> by him after "no balls"-comment.
>
>> btw, I thought the king was dead in 2008.
>
> He wasn't, just that Nadal moved well past him.
>

LOL

in what?

most fake injury time-outs used?
more prohibited substances injected?

you are right about that one then, cause fed is still at count 0

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:57:17 AM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010 18:49, RzR wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
>>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>>
>
> so?
>
> federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see

Seems to have lots of trouble against Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych,
Söderling, DelPotro...

Sometimes he doesn't get more than 4 games in a slam final!

Iceberg

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:58:34 AM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 8:35 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 10:21, Iceberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 8:15 am, TT<d...@do.it>  wrote:

> >> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> >> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
> >> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> >> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
> >> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
> >> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
> >> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
> >> dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
> >> he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
> >> dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter.
> >> It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.”  As for Nadal, Wilander
> >> said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of

> >> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
> >> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been
> >> healthy.  He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good
> >> luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
> >> greatest.”  When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
> >> Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
> >> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,

> >> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
> >> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>
> >>http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>
> > wow that pretty much confirms it, when one of Fed's biggest advocates
> > even admits the clown era, it says a lot. It's also funny how Fed is
> > the 'greatest' cos of the slam count race that Sampras invented plus
> > he's the greatest cos of his health. This is classic Fedfan logic,
> > they been saying he the GOAT since about 6 slams.
>
> That is of course something we knew all along. It's easy to see the
> level of his opponents after the fact, looking what happened to careers
> of Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero etc...3rd tier rank ones. Of course the
> clueless keep on posting clips from fed matches against powerless and
> weaponless Hewitt, some legacy.
>
> Then again fedfans argument will be "He beat who he faced". But the
> truth is he didn't, he was beaten by baby-Rafa on Rafa's worst surface.
>
> Jimmy Connors:
> "Roger is surrounded by players who just let him run away with it...he
> couldn't be in a better position...If I was Roger, I'd be very, very
> grateful".
>
> Gustavo Kuerten:
> "It's like in car racing where Schumacher gained his titles after
> Senna's death. Roger has taken advantage of the hole left by Sampras"
>
> Thomas Muster:
> "These players today...when they see Roger hit a few great shots they
> give up. They shouldn't be playing Roger...they should be playing tennis.
>
> CASH
> "I think (Juan Martin) del Potro and Andy Murray are really
> troubling him lately and I just hope we haven't seen Federer peak when
> there weren't any challenges."
>
> "It doesn't really make it a fair indication of how good he really is
> if there hasn't been anyone really to challenge him," Cash said. "It
> will almost be a false impression of how good he really is.
>
> "But I think over the next few years we'll see how good he really is.
> You've got to look at who you play. You can't just put a man in a
> boys' tournament and say, 'Wow, how good is he?'
>
> "Because suddenly you drop another man in there and think, 'He's not
> as good as we thought he was'. And at the moment for me, that's what
> is still in question.

Very good post TT, you deserve 5 Google stars for those quotes.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:58:45 AM12/16/10
to

Federer has played several years against lefties in practice. Guess you
haven't figured out yet why...

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:01:18 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010 18:55, RzR wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 17:36, TT wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010 17:19, wkhedr wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 2:53 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.2010. 12:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And what a great display was that when Federer demolished at YEC all
>>>>> these> BETTER PLAYERS< that are at their peak?!
>>>>
>>>> DOMINATED them...just like he said he would, and people here made
>>>> fun of
>>>> it...idiots lol
>>>
>>> What does he need more to learn to stop saying sh$$t about Federer? He
>>> has been wrong again and again and again.
>>> He said the "Federer needs to grow some balls" thing some time ago and
>>> then went to apologize later.
>>> What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
>>> a f**ck about people like Wilander
>>
>> Yeah, he's all class...gracious in defeat and modest in victory...not!
>>
>> I thought he did give a fuck about Wilander when he refused interviews
>> by him after "no balls"-comment.
>>
>>> btw, I thought the king was dead in 2008.
>>
>> He wasn't, just that Nadal moved well past him.
>>
>
> LOL
>
> in what?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3612519255_766ef3df2c.jpg?v=0

Iceberg

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:03:47 PM12/16/10
to

how many more times, pls they came along AFTER Sampras had hit the
slam total + they were hungry and enthusiastic tennis players - Hewitt
is brilliant example, COME ON all the time, then he won Wimbledon, got
married, had a kid and that was it, until pretty much this year, when
he's had a bit of a resurgence.

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:07:56 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 17:57, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 18:49, RzR wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
>>> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
>>>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>>>
>>
>> so?
>>
>> federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see
>
> Seems to have lots of trouble against Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych,
> Söderling, DelPotro...

still increasing the count...apart from nadal, how many slams do nole,
murray, berd, soder and delpo have? 2? LOL LOL LOL

>
> Sometimes he doesn't get more than 4 games in a slam final!

slam final? interesting lol

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:09:23 PM12/16/10
to

keep that picture in the safe place...cause that is all youre gonna have
pretty soon lol

pathetic fake nadal fans

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:16:32 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 17:58, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 18:51, RzR wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 17:44, TT wrote:
>>> On 16.12.2010 15:52, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 16, 2:15 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>>>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>>>>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger

>>>>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>>>>> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
>>>>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
>>>>> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
>>>>> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
>>>>> dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
>>>>> he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
>>>>> dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t
>>>>> matter.
>>>>> It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.” As for Nadal, Wilander
>>>>> said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of

>>>>> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
>>>>> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s
>>>>> been
>>>>> healthy. He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good
>>>>> luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
>>>>> greatest.” When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
>>>>> Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot
>>>>> of us
>>>>> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn

>>>>> Borg,
>>>>> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
>>>>> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
>>>> same clowns.
>>>> Right?
>>>>
>>>> Rodjk #613
>>>
>>> He beat Federer.
>>>
>>
>> ye...fed was losing motivation, and didnt really feel like wasting his
>> time figuring out nadal...big mistake that cost him many slams...i think
>> from now on, nadal is toast against federer
>
> Federer has played several years against lefties in practice. Guess you
> haven't figured out yet why...
>

he didnt give it full 100% attention...no way 100% skill ever loses to
100% mindless running tennis

Iceberg

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:16:51 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 4:48 pm, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 14:49, RzR wrote:
>
> > On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
> >> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> >> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
> >> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> >> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
> >> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
> >> him.
>
> > old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
> > never beat federer...what does that tell us lol
>
> Third set tb doesn't qualify as "Blasts"
>
> It tells us two things:
>
> Ljubicic clowned around against Federer
>
> Big serve is never out of fashion.

It tells us that Ljubicic joins the other players who will go ALL OUT
maxing everything they have to beat Nadal/Murray, yet totally fold
against Fed cos of the media pressure, paid off officials etc.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:18:13 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010 19:07, RzR wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 17:57, TT wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010 18:49, RzR wrote:
>>> On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>>>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
>>>>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>>>>
>>>
>>> so?
>>>
>>> federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see
>>
>> Seems to have lots of trouble against Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych,
>> Söderling, DelPotro...
>
> still increasing the count...apart from nadal, how many slams do nole,
> murray, berd, soder and delpo have? 2? LOL LOL LOL
>

How is their slam count relevant to beating Federer at slams?

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:20:15 PM12/16/10
to

lol

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:21:11 PM12/16/10
to

lol yeah right...for this display search berdych, soderling and djokovic
whose highlights in slam is not winning it, but actually beating fed

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:22:26 PM12/16/10
to

In other words beating fed didn't help jack shit against rafa...

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:22:40 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 18:18, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 19:07, RzR wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 17:57, TT wrote:
>>> On 16.12.2010 18:49, RzR wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
>>>>> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>>>>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
>>>>>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>>>
>>>>> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so?
>>>>
>>>> federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see
>>>
>>> Seems to have lots of trouble against Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych,
>>> Söderling, DelPotro...
>>
>> still increasing the count...apart from nadal, how many slams do nole,
>> murray, berd, soder and delpo have? 2? LOL LOL LOL
>>
>
> How is their slam count relevant to beating Federer at slams?
>

fed is allowed to lose some matches isnt he? even in slams...

he will be back for next year, and you will be gone from here as usual
when fed does well

SliceAndDice

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:26:07 PM12/16/10
to

And somehow that logic does not apply to Federer?

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:27:03 PM12/16/10
to

yes...exactly goes for your "nadal was injured" claims

was he injured this year in YEC final?

the best tennis player of the year gets destroyed 6:1 in the final, when
fed feels like it...priceless

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:27:31 PM12/16/10
to

in other words, beating fed WAS their slam wins

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:31:02 PM12/16/10
to

But you just said fed wins slams at nadal era "without too much trouble"...

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:35:04 PM12/16/10
to

So you're saying fed gave Nadal full attention only now despite training
with lefties for years...
Guess Fed's gonna beat Rafa from now on...ha-ha.

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:37:57 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 18:31, TT wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 19:22, RzR wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 18:18, TT wrote:
>>> On 16.12.2010 19:07, RzR wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.2010. 17:57, TT wrote:
>>>>> On 16.12.2010 18:49, RzR wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
>>>>>>>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
>>>>>>>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to have lots of trouble against Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych,
>>>>> Söderling, DelPotro...
>>>>
>>>> still increasing the count...apart from nadal, how many slams do nole,
>>>> murray, berd, soder and delpo have? 2? LOL LOL LOL
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is their slam count relevant to beating Federer at slams?
>>>
>>
>> fed is allowed to lose some matches isnt he? even in slams...
>>
>> he will be back for next year, and you will be gone from here as usual
>> when fed does well
>
> But you just said fed wins slams at nadal era "without too much trouble"...
>

exactly...how many slams did he win? how many did others besides nadal did?

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:38:33 PM12/16/10
to

i guess your only hope is that he doesnt...you got nothing else lol

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:47:20 PM12/16/10
to

Losing to players like Berdych at Wimbledon is not "winning without too
much trouble".
Losing to Nadal 1,3 and 0 at FO final is not "winning without too much
trouble"

You still ducked my question how are slam amounts of Djokovic etc
relevant to them beating fed.

Arguing with you gets nowhere, you try to change the topic all the time.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 12:50:03 PM12/16/10
to

On the contrary, your only hope is that he does beat Nadal. At slam
finals. Not gonna happen.

Manco

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 1:20:43 PM12/16/10
to
Trollander, 'nuff said! The guy was run out tennis for coke usage!

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:04:03 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 12:15 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
> dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
> he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
> dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter.
> It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.”  As for Nadal, Wilander
> said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of
> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been
> healthy.  He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good
> luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
> greatest.”  When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
> Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,
> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>
> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...

I don't think Federer and Nadal's slams are worth less than players of
other generations... that's just lunacy... you have to understand
Wilander the commentator, of course... Wilander's at IT again...
stirring the pot... "Headline Matts" is teeing off yet again! Atta
boy!

P

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:12:38 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 12:21 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 8:15 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> > Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
> > is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> > when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
> > much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
> > him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
> > Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
> > dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
> > he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
> > dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter.
> > It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.”  As for Nadal, Wilander
> > said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of
> > breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
> > greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been
> > healthy.  He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good
> > luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
> > greatest.”  When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
> > Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
> > who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,
> > for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
> > forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>
> >http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>
> wow that pretty much confirms it, when one of Fed's biggest advocates
> even admits the clown era, it says a lot. It's also funny how Fed is
> the 'greatest' cos of the slam count race that Sampras invented plus
> he's the greatest cos of his health. This is classic Fedfan logic,
> they been saying he the GOAT since about 6 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

With "adovcates" like Wilander, Fed's historical ranking is in a free
fall! :)))

Phew... some advocate!

P

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:19:24 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 12:35 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
> --
> "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
> life God will give you blood to drink"
> -Sarah Good, 1692- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Ya, TT's right... Federer stinks... it was all just luck... Whisper
too... the guy's a no at-the-net non-talent and as Iceberg says
overrated with fans who should be caged... all those 60plus wins...
the 16 majors... the career slam... the 5 YECs... the global
adulation... the countless magazine covers and having been lauded and
written about more than any player in history doesn't 'actually' mean
much...

r-iiiiiii-g-h-t...

P

Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:47:16 PM12/16/10
to
On 16/12/2010 11:49 PM, RzR wrote:

> On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
>> him.
>
> old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
> never beat federer...what does that tell us lol


er, it tells us Rafa couldn't get arsed for a tune-up? Why can't Ljubo
get past 2nd rd of a slam?

If Ljubo was a good player he'd beat Rafa & Fed in slams, not lose to
nobodies in 1st or 2nd rds.

reilloc

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:48:24 PM12/16/10
to
On 12/16/2010 2:15 AM, TT wrote:
> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
> dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
> he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
> dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter.
> It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.” As for Nadal, Wilander
> said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of
> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been
> healthy. He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good luck,
> he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
> greatest.” When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
> Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,
> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>
> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-mandarin-miners-pistol-packin-mama/
>

The weakest era ever has in it a guy, Nadal, who might be the best
player ever but the most successful guy in the era isn't the best player
ever because it's the weakest era ever.

That's why when I need a logical, sensible answer I always consult a
disgruntled former athlete.

LNC

Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:52:30 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 1:48 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:41 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2010 1:51 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>> These old farts need to learn to hold their tongue....it just ends up
>>> making them look old and sad. Not to mention the disrespect it shows to
>>> some great players that in the end just weren't able to match the
>>> brilliance of Fed.
>>
>> It's not just Mats, but pretty much every single past player thinks the
>> same thing. They won't say it now because it'll really hurt tennis, but
>> when Fed is retired you'll see all the knives come out.
>>
>> I don't know why anyone finds this controversial?
>
> So this means Sampras played in a weak era too, since he started
> getting trashed regularly once Hewitt/Safin/Federer arrived on the
> scene?


We know this is false because Sampras was old, unmotivated & close to
retirement, but we also know it's false because Sampras beat both Safin
& Hewitt in straight sets USO semis in 2000 & 2001, despite these
setbacks. Yes Fed beat these guys too, but so did Sampras at that stage
of his career so says volumes.

Thus you have no argument.


Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:53:22 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 2:04 AM, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:

> On 12/16/2010 9:51 AM, felangey wrote:
>> These old farts need to learn to hold their tongue....it just ends up
>> making them look old and sad. Not to mention the disrespect it shows to
>> some great players that in the end just weren't able to match the
>> brilliance of Fed.
>
> You can't expect Wilander to appreciate brilliant shotmaking. Now
> hitting the same shot over and over until your opponent goes for too
> much ... that he can understand and enjoy! :)
>


No one doubts Fed's ability to hit pretty shots, but what Mats says is
spot on.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:56:20 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 2:11 AM, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 8:52 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:

>> On Dec 16, 2:15 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
>>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>>> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
>>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
>>> him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the
>>> Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger
>>> dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and
>>> he’s not winning. That’s the only way I see it. How can you be that
>>> dominant in this day and age? It’s impossible. But that doesn’t matter.
>>> It’s all statistics. So Roger is the greatest.” As for Nadal, Wilander
>>> said, “If he physically stays healthy, he has a real good chance of
>>> breaking the [all-time Slam] record. Staying healthy is part of
>>> greatness. You have to say that Roger is the greatest because he’s been
>>> healthy. He’s gone through bad draws, tough matches. He’s had good
>>> luck, he’s had no health issues. That’s why you have to say he’s the
>>> greatest.” When asked if Nadal will retain his focus and inner fire,
>>> Wilander replied, “I think he can. But then again, there are a lot of us
>>> who had the focus that Nadal has who couldn’t last mentally. Bjorn Borg,
>>> for example, or me. Nadal is more like Jimmy Connors, who lasted
>>> forever. Nobody was stopping him.
>>>
>>> http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-manda...
>>
>> Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
>> same clowns.
>> Right?
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
> Wilander might want to see who has been #2 or #1 since Nadal reached #2
> in 2005. And how many slams Federer has won since nadal reached #2 for
> the first time.
>
> So what will Wilander say about Nadal should Nadal win more slams than
> Federer? Will Nadal's era be deemed worthy or will he trash Nadal too?


He'll trash Nadal too, but he'll justly be able to say Fed was never the
best of all time given Rafa was better than him.


>
> I think Wilander is taking potshots at Federer because he can see the
> talent gap between him and Federer and it rankles.


Doubt it. He just sees what most of us see. Fed is no hack, but the
rest are.


>
> Wilander talking about eras and weaknesses? Didn't he win a slam once by
> tossing in weak first serves all tournament long without getting
> punished? Sheesh!
>


It's not all about pace, but where & how you hit the serve. Sure
hitting patsys to a guys' fh is dumb, but that's not what Mats did.


Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 2:58:42 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 2:33 AM, wkhedr wrote:

> On Dec 16, 4:41 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not just Mats, but pretty much every single past player thinks the
>> same thing. They won't say it now because it'll really hurt tennis, but
>> when Fed is retired you'll see all the knives come out.
>>
>> I don't know why anyone finds this controversial?
>
> Yes I agree, we even knew that Roddick is a Sampras version on the
> juice and that he will win at least 12 slams while you would be
> surprised if Federer wins more than one slam. What does this make of
> Federer's achievement for you?!
>
> LOL.


I said Roddick would win 5 to 12 slams in this coming clown era. If No
Fed he most certainly would have done just that.


Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:01:26 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 2:40 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:40 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> But he won his 1st 6 slams through Federer,& beat him on all 3 surfaces
>> in slam finals. Because of this we know Fed isn't the 'best' of all
>> time, while for Rafa it's still an open question. He's better than Fed
>> in big slam matches (even when dead tired& Fed fresh as a daisy eg '09
>> AO final), so at least he can argue he'd possibly match up ok v past greats.
>
> And in that same time period...how many slams did each guy win?

er, Rafa was essentially a junior so astonishing he could do what he
did. The more relevant comparison is he is actually ahead of Fed's pace
at same age.


>
>> It's pretty tough to argue against clown era when 2 guys win career
>> slam,& 5 times at a slam, rank no.1& 2 probably over a decade by the
>> time they're done etc. Mats is right - how can 2 guys when *everything*
>> there is to win if the opposition is kosher?
>> It's not Fed's fault the next best players are guys who'd traditionally
>> rank about no.20 based on absolute skill level (eg Djokovic, Murray),&
>> no 40 (eg Berdych, Soderling etc). No one is blaming Fed for the poor
>> overall standard, because it's not his fault.
>
> Just to be clear...your answer is 'yes'?
>
> Rodjk #613


Of course it's yes, but in Rafa's case he still has a claim as 'best'
because he's also racking up phenomenal paper record, while also being
better than Fed.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:02:19 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 3:19 AM, RzR wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 16:26, Fan wrote:
>> I do not agree with some things Mats said but it is stupid to talk
>> down on him. A former #1 and winner of seven slams is a very
>> impressive accomplishment against the field he faced.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Wilander
>> However, there is more to Mats than that.
>
> no there isnt...he was a great tennis player, but now he sounds like
> bitter old man whose time has past, along with some new guys passing his
> slamcount lol
>
>


Doesn't sound bitter at all. I think all the bile is coming from
Fedfuckers just because his intelligent arguments get up your nose?


Whisper

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:04:47 PM12/16/10
to
On 17/12/2010 3:53 AM, RzR wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 17:48, TT wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010 14:49, RzR wrote:

>>> On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
>>>> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
>>>> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, “Roger
>>>> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
>>>> when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so
>>>> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than
>>>> him.
>>>
>>> old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
>>> never beat federer...what does that tell us lol
>>
>> Third set tb doesn't qualify as "Blasts"
>>
>
> ljubo is old

>
>> It tells us two things:
>>
>> Ljubicic clowned around against Federer
>>
>> Big serve is never out of fashion.
>>
>
> ljubo has bad back and beat nadal
>
> LOL
>
>>>
>>> also a note to wilander...its ok to be old, man...you were good in
>>> tennis once, now you are shit in everything else...the circle of life
>>
>> You really are an unpleasant idiot.
>>
>
> nah...you are the one wearing idiot title along with your agreenig
> fed-hating buddies
>
> wilander is compromising his status by saying shit like this
>
>
>


So what part of Wilander's argument do you find outrageous? Seems
reasonable on the surface.


jdeluise

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:16:07 PM12/16/10
to

On 16-Dec-2010, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> I said Roddick would win 5 to 12 slams in this coming clown era. If No
> Fed he most certainly would have done just that.

But you also said it was a very, very deep field back then.

TT

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:24:51 PM12/16/10
to

I'm sure all these clown era claims are only out of jealousy and malice...

r-iiiiiii-g-h-t...

SliceAndDice

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:25:38 PM12/16/10
to

Sampras retired around 30-31, and Federer is now 29. Therefore, the
argument that he is losing nowadays because it is a stronger era (as
Wilander suggests) is patently false. It is wrong to apply different
standards to Federer and Sampras. Federer is also losing more because
he is older, a father of twins and oh, also the GOAT. To suggest that
his physical abilities and motivation are the same as when he was
23-24 is being dishonest.

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:39:18 PM12/16/10
to

feds results make him sound stupid...there is really no way around it

fed trashed sampras on grass...and sampras was supposably playing in
strong era...

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 3:40:42 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 21:04, Whisper wrote:

>
> So what part of Wilander's argument do you find outrageous? Seems
> reasonable on the surface.
>

niki lauda was talking shit about todays F1 cars and how they are easy
to drive...then went out and spun like a fecking newb 4-5 times in one lap

RzR

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 4:05:13 PM12/16/10
to
On 16.12.2010. 18:47, TT wrote:

> Losing to players like Berdych at Wimbledon is not "winning without too
> much trouble".

birdshit has a strong game when he plays without expectations...we all
saw how he folded in the finals when he actually had something to win


> Losing to Nadal 1,3 and 0 at FO final is not "winning without too much
> trouble"
>

awwwww...that score will fucking fade if you write it another 100
times...youre right on schedule

now in feds dominant years, did anyone beat him 6:1 in the final
tournament of the year, and made him look like shit?

fed did it in nadals dominant year lol


> You still ducked my question how are slam amounts of Djokovic etc
> relevant to them beating fed.
>

they are one hit wonders...making some unbelievable shots vs fed, but
then they get content and cant produce shit anymore


Inglourious Basterd

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 5:59:06 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 5:27 pm, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 18:20, TT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16.12.2010 19:16, RzR wrote:
> >> On 16.12.2010. 17:58, TT wrote:
> >>> On 16.12.2010 18:51, RzR wrote:
> >>>> On 16.12.2010. 17:44, TT wrote:
> >>>>> On 16.12.2010 15:52, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> >>>>>> Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
> >>>>>> same clowns.
> >>>>>> Right?
>
> >>>>>> Rodjk #613
>
> >>>>> He beat Federer.
>
> >>>> ye...fed was losing motivation, and didnt really feel like wasting his
> >>>> time figuring out nadal...big mistake that cost him many slams...i
> >>>> think
> >>>> from now on, nadal is toast against federer
>
> >>> Federer has played several years against lefties in practice. Guess you
> >>> haven't figured out yet why...
>
> >> he didnt give it full 100% attention...
>
> > lol
>
> yes...exactly goes for your "nadal was injured" claims
>
> was he injured this year in YEC final?
>
> the best tennis player of the year gets destroyed 6:1 in the final, when
> fed feels like it...priceless

I wouldn't say winning a best of 3 match in 3 sets is a destruction,
no matter what the score in the final set is, sir.

Inglourious Basterd

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 5:59:50 PM12/16/10
to

He's a little bit like McEnroe. Always seeking attention.

John Liang

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:13:29 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 17, 3:57 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
> On 16.12.2010 18:49, RzR wrote:
>
> > On 16.12.2010. 17:30, TT wrote:
> >> On 16.12.2010 13:20, wkhedr wrote:
> >>> Does this mean Nadal's slams are worth nothing too winning them
> >>> playing against the same opponents Federer played against?
>
> >> ???
>
> >> Nadal beat Federer a lot...
>
> > so?
>
> > federer is winning slams in nadals era without too much trouble i see
>
> Seems to have lots of trouble against Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych,
> S derling, DelPotro...

What was Federer's record against Djokovic, Berdych, Soderling and Del
P ?

>
> Sometimes he doesn't get more than 4 games in a slam final!

That happened once against the best clay court player in his era on
his worst surface. How many time did Nadal failed to get to a HC
final and losing to clowns like David Ferrer, James Blake or Gonzo.
How many game did he win against Gonzo and Tsonga in AO ?

John Liang

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:21:19 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 17, 6:47 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2010 11:49 PM, RzR wrote:
>
> > On 16.12.2010. 9:15, TT wrote:
> >> FEDERER PLAYING IN THE WEAKEST ERA?: When IT asked Mats Wilander if
> >> Federer was the best player of all time, the former No. 1 said, Roger
> >> is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era
> >> when he played was the worst of all time. That s why he was winning so
> >> much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they re better than
> >> him.
>
> > old ass ljubo blasts nadal just this year...and thats the guy who could
> > never beat federer...what does that tell us lol
>
> er, it tells us Rafa couldn't get arsed for a tune-up?  Why can't Ljubo
> get past 2nd rd of a slam?

Of course USO and AO are tune up and Rafa decide it was good to get a
thrashing from Del Poltro or Gonzalez or Tsonga.

>
> If Ljubo was a good player he'd beat Rafa & Fed in slams, not lose to
> nobodies in 1st or 2nd rds.

Didn't you tell us he and Blake were Federer's main challenger in
2004/2005/2006 ?

John Liang

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:25:29 PM12/16/10
to

Sampras was the reigining Wimbledon champion and was in 2nd slam final
of the years when
he played Safin. Sampras was unmotivated then how did he win
Wimbledon 2000? Can you
tell us how many players in the history win Wimbledon without been
motivated ? I am sure
most people here will be eager to know that answer.

>
> Thus you have no argument.- Hide quoted text -

John Liang

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 8:27:15 PM12/16/10
to

then why was Nadal's slam record is inferiror against the same
competition ?
Isn't the slam level success the measure of how good a player is/was ?

>
>
>
> > I think Wilander is taking potshots at Federer because he can see the
> > talent gap between him and Federer and it rankles.
>
> Doubt it.  He just sees what most of us see.  Fed is no hack, but the
> rest are.
>
>
>
> > Wilander talking about eras and weaknesses? Didn't he win a slam once by
> > tossing in weak first serves all tournament long without getting
> > punished? Sheesh!
>
> It's not all about pace, but where & how you hit the serve.  Sure

> hitting patsys to a guys' fh is dumb, but that's not what Mats did.- Hide quoted text -

Ali Asoag

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 9:21:26 PM12/16/10
to
"Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than him."

LMAO. Who are those guys? If they are better than Fed, why didn't we see
anyone other than Fed as number one for a long time? ATP cheats?

I guess Wilander already ate his words after the WTF London.

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Dec 16, 2010, 11:44:14 PM12/16/10
to
On Dec 16, 2:59 pm, Inglourious Basterd
> He's a little bit like McEnroe. Always seeking attention.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Exactly... AND just a few months ago during the USO run up he was
talking about the standard of play being superior and deeper now than
ever "in my memory"...

So, which is it Mats?

He's getting nervous because with Rafa moving up the ladder so quickly
he's going own into the basement at an ever quickening pace?

P

Fan

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 12:02:07 AM12/17/10
to
On Dec 16, 5:19 pm, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16.12.2010. 16:26, Fan wrote:
>
> > I do not agree with some things Mats said but it is stupid to talk
> > down on him. A former #1 and winner of seven slams is a very
> > impressive accomplishment against the field he faced.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Wilander
> > However, there is more to Mats than that.
>
> no there isnt...he was a great tennis player, but now he sounds like
> bitter old man whose time has past, along with some new guys passing his
> slamcount lol

Only an insane freddy fan would snip my post saying why there is more
to Mats than his #1 ranking and seven slams. How could he be a bitter
old man? He has it all and looking from here, he is just a young man
with a great job, enjoying what he does and playing some tennis.
You try to have a life like that. I wish I did. I bet you all wish you
did.

TT

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 12:57:46 AM12/17/10
to
On 17.12.2010 7:02, Fan wrote:
> On Dec 16, 5:19 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16.12.2010. 16:26, Fan wrote:
>>
>>> I do not agree with some things Mats said but it is stupid to talk
>>> down on him. A former #1 and winner of seven slams is a very
>>> impressive accomplishment against the field he faced.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats_Wilander
>>> However, there is more to Mats than that.
>>
>> no there isnt...he was a great tennis player, but now he sounds like
>> bitter old man whose time has past, along with some new guys passing his
>> slamcount lol
>
> Only an insane freddy fan would snip

rzr insane? Is pope catholic?

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 1:10:41 AM12/17/10
to

Wilander also knows that to survive and flourish in thee current
sports entertainment media universe, you need to be 'sensational' in
the sense of stimulating debate via opinions that stir up
controversial reactions OR heated partisanship in readers/viewers...
sad but often true... AND IT IS ALSO TRUE/TENDS TO BE TRUE, when you
commentate or write for long enough you will contradict yourself...
it's when the contradictions begin to define your adjudications/
judgements instead of being the exception, coming ever faster...
then... you are becoming a caricature of your own fictions...

P

Fan

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 1:39:08 AM12/17/10
to
I see Mats as an entertainer, with some insight who speaks his mind as
he sees it. I disagree with him about Federer being finished but I
still find him entertaining. Federer is far from finished.
I was very impressed with Federer’s new cross court killer backhand
against Nadal in the YEC final but for me Mats’ backhand will always
be the classic beautiful backhand.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 3:23:25 AM12/17/10
to
On 17/12/2010 4:40 AM, felangey wrote:
>> What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
> a f**ck about people like Wilander and let his game does all the
> talking.<
>
> Agreed.


That's simply not true. Fed does not just let his racket do the
talking. He seems very insecure & feels the need to tell us how great
he is.

He should be more humble like Laver.


felangey

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:29:10 AM12/17/10
to
>Sampras was the reigining Wimbledon champion and was in 2nd slam final
of the years when
he played Safin. Sampras was unmotivated then how did he win
Wimbledon 2000? Can you
tell us how many players in the history win Wimbledon without been
motivated ? I am sure
most people here will be eager to know that answer.<

There was one year I wasn't arsed that I'm pretty sure I could have won
it....but alas, the entry form posting deadline coincided with the day our
local network showed a 24hr Baywatch special. Suffice to say my motivation
was such that Erika Eleniak won the day. I regret it now though, for sure.
And to think now that that envelope had a stamp on it alrady and
everything....sigh.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 3:54:14 AM12/17/10
to


Not in quality.


Whisper

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:00:56 AM12/17/10
to

'Trashed' 7-5 in the 5th?

Why did Fed lose easily to Tim Henman the next rd?


Whisper

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:05:29 AM12/17/10
to
On 17/12/2010 12:27 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Dec 17, 6:56 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> So what will Wilander say about Nadal should Nadal win more slams than
>>> Federer? Will Nadal's era be deemed worthy or will he trash Nadal too?
>>
>> He'll trash Nadal too, but he'll justly be able to say Fed was never the
>> best of all time given Rafa was better than him.
>
> then why was Nadal's slam record is inferiror against the same
> competition ?
> Isn't the slam level success the measure of how good a player is/was ?
>
>>


Because Rafa was young & still learning the game. He's ahead of Fed at
same age.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:07:17 AM12/17/10
to


Hmm - I do.


MBDunc

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:15:42 AM12/17/10
to
On 17 joulu, 10:54, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2010 7:16 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>
> > On 16-Dec-2010, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> I said Roddick would win 5 to 12 slams in this coming clown era.  If No
> >> Fed he most certainly would have done just that.
>
> > But you also said it was a very, very deep field back then.
>
> Not in quality.

Quality particular. Just check your own posts like. "Johansson's AO
win proves that the field is extra deep in quality and anyone in top50
can win a slam which makes Sampras' like domination impossible in the
future, may be Roddick has a chance though".

Even after AO 04 everything was still fine and you still praised the
current state of men's tennis. Wimb 04 was the turning point when your
drawing card failed at the final. Then add one year of constant
personal disappointments (Wimb 05 and Fed's 3rd Wimb title) there was
only one path to go: "hypotetical clown era".

.mikko

CloudsRest

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:17:30 AM12/17/10
to

Only at French. Behind at the other three majors.

MBDunc

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:24:05 AM12/17/10
to

I rather take the real personality than fake humble personality
(Agassi?).

This is professional entertaiment. If you feel you are the best you
should not hide it. A little extra arrogance and general friction
always create better stories.

.mikko

Fan

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 4:36:46 AM12/17/10
to
On Dec 17, 9:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2010 4:40 AM, felangey wrote:
>
> >> What I like about Federer, is that he is a class act and doesn't give
> > a f**ck about people like Wilander and let his game does all the
> > talking.<
>
> > Agreed.
>
> That's simply not true.  Fed does not just let his racket do the
> talking.  He seems very insecure & feels the need to tell us how great
> he is.

You have to forgive for that. His sorry h2h with Nadal would make most
aspiring "incredible, amasing, fantstic" would be "goat" insecure.

Superdave

unread,
Dec 17, 2010, 5:27:19 AM12/17/10
to

BUT he will never last as long as Fed. He has just about shot his wad already in fact.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages