http://www.insidetennis.com/2010/11/tales-marriage-muster-maria-mandarin-miners-pistol-packin-mama/
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.
--
"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
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.
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
>
> 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 :))))))))))))))))))))))
> 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
Ouch. That's why they call him Frauderer..... In the land of the
blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Fed benefitted from the biggest clown era ever.
Obviously, we must discount Nadal's 9 slams too...since he played the
same clowns.
Right?
Rodjk #613
Tell us something we don't know.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
> 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.
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
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
???
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.
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.
:OD
Agreed.
Roffle! :)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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!
Very good post TT, you deserve 5 Google stars for those quotes.
Federer has played several years against lefties in practice. Guess you
haven't figured out yet why...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3612519255_766ef3df2c.jpg?v=0
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.
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
keep that picture in the safe place...cause that is all youre gonna have
pretty soon lol
pathetic fake nadal fans
he didnt give it full 100% attention...no way 100% skill ever loses to
100% mindless running tennis
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.
How is their slam count relevant to beating Federer at slams?
lol
lol yeah right...for this display search berdych, soderling and djokovic
whose highlights in slam is not winning it, but actually beating fed
In other words beating fed didn't help jack shit against rafa...
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
And somehow that logic does not apply to Federer?
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
in other words, beating fed WAS their slam wins
But you just said fed wins slams at nadal era "without too much trouble"...
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.
exactly...how many slams did he win? how many did others besides nadal did?
i guess your only hope is that he doesnt...you got nothing else lol
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.
On the contrary, your only hope is that he does beat Nadal. At slam
finals. Not gonna happen.
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
With "adovcates" like Wilander, Fed's historical ranking is in a free
fall! :)))
Phew... some advocate!
P
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
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.
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
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.
No one doubts Fed's ability to hit pretty shots, but what Mats says is
spot on.
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.
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.
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.
Doesn't sound bitter at all. I think all the bile is coming from
Fedfuckers just because his intelligent arguments get up your nose?
So what part of Wilander's argument do you find outrageous? Seems
reasonable on the surface.
> 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.
I'm sure all these clown era claims are only out of jealousy and malice...
r-iiiiiii-g-h-t...
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.
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...
>
> 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
> 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
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.
He's a little bit like McEnroe. Always seeking attention.
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 ?
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 ?
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 -
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 -
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.
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
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.
rzr insane? Is pope catholic?
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
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.
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.
Not in quality.
'Trashed' 7-5 in the 5th?
Why did Fed lose easily to Tim Henman the next rd?
Because Rafa was young & still learning the game. He's ahead of Fed at
same age.
Hmm - I do.
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
Only at French. Behind at the other three majors.
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
You have to forgive for that. His sorry h2h with Nadal would make most
aspiring "incredible, amasing, fantstic" would be "goat" insecure.
BUT he will never last as long as Fed. He has just about shot his wad already in fact.