The GOAT of backhanded compliments
TT
“Two years ago he didn't really deserve the victory. I believe he played
a lot better today, and he deserved it today,”
“He beat me at Wimbledon… so I don't know how much of a surprise it is,”
said Federer. “He's playing well. I thought if he was going to play well
again, me not at my best, he could do it again."
So Federer is saying that Tsonga deserved his win because he was playing
well...but that he won because fed was not playing his best now (so did
he really deserve it...) - and that he didn't deserve it two years ago...
Fed never fails to deliver, he has made backhanded compliments an art form!
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Fed is very annoying sometimes.
Court_1
when Fed is playing well. Better than saying that everybody and his
dog is a better player than he is like some other players do ad
nauseam. ;)
Tsonga is essentially a clown. He gets a big win here and there and
then he falls behind again. He can't consistently win like the greats
do. Plus he is injured a lot.
Paul
VERY TRUE. THIS IS THE ONLY REALM WHERE FEDDY TRAIN IS STILL
GOAT!!!
Whisper
Fed can only play as well as opponent allows, so all you can do when you
lose is give credit to opponent for outplaying you on the day.
How would you feel if Rafa said the only reason Fed beat him twice in
slams was because he was very young at the time? This is also true.
Rafa has too much class for cattiness, while Fed is the epitome of a diva.
bob
if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
bob
bob
wrote:
good post. i cannot believe, still, after what i thought was fed
maturing just a little bit, he pulls this crap again.
bob
TT
> How would you feel if Rafa said the only reason Fed beat him twice in
> slams was because he was very young at the time?
Hahahaha!
Of course Fedfans would say that Rafa is correct and is merely speaking
the truth. And that they find this kind of "straight talk" genuine and
refreshing. Or maybe not...
RzR
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote in message
news:6eKdnZcKYM6VBdrT...@westnet.com.au...
hahaha
you guys can keep on crying as much as you want...
nothing will ever change the fact that federer is the greatest tennis player
ever
RzR
"TT" <as...@usenet.org> wrote in message
news:dJO1q.68202$mX5....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
it doesnt really matter
djoker pretty much took care of your bullshit nonsense h2h theories :)))
RzR
"Paul" <quill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j27e37$sn9$1...@dont-email.me...
he is a goat by a good margin, and nothing you can do about it :D
drew
Two years ago Federer coughed up a 5-1 lead somehow and it wasn't
because Tsonga
was suddenly playing great. But Federer shouldn't have mentioned
this.
It is the ego that has kept Federer in the game this long. If he'd
believed the critics he'd have
folded the tent in 2008 or else he'd have expected (and delivered)
much less on the court.
I think most of these top guys have super-healthy egos. Even the
process of getting yourself
into the best kind of condition means getting a lot of people around
you to pander to your every need.
The creation, care and maintenance of a champion isn't a one man
show. When you realize how these
top guys get all the breaks....the money for the best coaching,
personal masseur, the very best food, training
and medical advice, a first round bye in most events. Not to mention
preferential treatment at the venues
themselves.
When I see less than 100% effort from guys at these smaller events it
makes me want to puke. It's like having
a luxury suite comped to you and you piss on the carpet because you
couldn't be bothered to walk to the toilet....
or there's nobody there to bring the urinal to you.
Paul
HOW CAN HE BE GOAT, WHILE BEING BEATEN BY NADAL EVERYTIME THEY
PLAY???
WAKE UP, SHIT-WIT!!!
Wile E.
Federer is not goat and that is what's driving the fednuts crazy.
>
> WAKE UP, SHIT-WIT!!!
They know, they just don't want to admit it on rst. The embarrasment
must be too much so they stick their heads in the sand.
reilloc
> if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
> surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
I know. You'll take false humility any day because that's the road to
success--or at least subsequent dim public recollections that you might
have done better if you'd not been so artificial modest.
LNC
Paul
YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. THEY ARE A BUNCH OF WIMPS AND COWARDS
AND CUNTS! OR SHOULD I SAY ONE CUNT? LOL!!!
NOW FEDDY TRAIN IS GETTING BEATEN AND SLAPPED AROUND BY EVERYONE,
AND WILL SOON BE VERY, VERY LUCKY TO MAKE IT TO THE QUARTERS...BUT
HIS HUGE EGO REFUSES TO ALLOW HIM TO ADMIT HIS DEFEAT IN THE HANDS
OF PLAYERS WHO ARE YOUNGER, FASTER, SMARTER, AND STRONGER.
THE OLD MAN WILL RETIRE SOON, AS HE SHOULD,
THANKS BE TO ALLAH!!!
bob
doesn't have to be false modesty to speak in tones of respect.
fed rarely does.
bob
reilloc
Your backwoods, baptist notions of manners are quaint.
LNC
Court_1
You people who sit around analyzing and dissecting Federer's comments
have too much time on your hands. I have never seen a bunch of grown
male adults so obsessed in a negative way with an athlete. If you
don't like him, don't read or listen to his press conferences. He is
my favorite player and I don't listen or read all of his press
conference stuff all of the time so why would a person who does not
like him read and obsess over his comments? Very strange.
All you can come up with is Federer has a big ego? Most pro athletes
and people that are super successful in any area of life, have fairly
big egos. That is just the way it is. Nadal has got one too but he
just presents himself differently.
In any case all of this negative energy spent on Federer is not going
to change the fact that he is currently one of the greatest players of
all time. He is ranked higher on the greatness scale than Nadal so get
over yourselves. Give it a rest!
Court_1
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:39:01 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I am sure Federer really cares what you think. He is still the
most popular tennis player worldwide so your opinion is in the
minority.
Court_1
The day that Nadal decides to actually speak the truth in a press
conference instead of resorting to his fake humility will be a
miraculous day! That is Nadal's style. Some people like it and some
don't. Personally I don't mind it but I know it is his "standard
fare." Fed's style is different. Some like it , some don't. Big deal.
I don't take what either of them say in any press conference as the
gospel. It is all a lot of BS and may or may not represent their true
feelings.
TT
> djoker pretty much took care of your bullshit nonsense h2h theories :)))
That makes no sense.
bob
and if he spoke the truth, that fed only beat him in 2 slams because
he was a kid, and he can virtually beat fed like a drum at will, that
would be a 'miraculous day' for you? lol.
bob
bob
because i prefer great athletes to be speak respectfully toward their
opponents after both winning and losing? wow.
bob
TT
> You people who sit around analyzing and dissecting Federer's comments
> have too much time on your hands. I have never seen a bunch of grown
> male adults so obsessed in a negative way with an athlete.
Says someone who obsessed for a month about Nadal's peach pics.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Federer winning slams while Nadal was a kid is NOT "the" reason Fed
won those slams. That is the reason Fed haters give for the Fed wins
at that time. Of course, why would any Fed hater say Fed won those
slams because he deserved to and was the better player? Fed haters
would never dream of giving Fed a compliment.
The fact is Nadal did not start winning slams against Fed until 2008
after Fed's prime. Fed's prime was from 2004-2007. I know YOU think
Federer is still in his prime or close to it. That thought in and of
itself should be enough of a reason for any sane individual not to
listen to a word you say. Nice try though.
Court_1
I am not obsessed about Nadal or his beach pics which "you" post
obsessively. I just commented on them, that is hardly obsession. You
seem to think Nadal's staged beach pics with Xisca seem to mean he is
a virile stud. I am not so easily fooled.
I don't hate Nadal regardless of his sexual orientation. I don't hate
him as a tennis player. You, on the other hand hate Federer and yet
you can't stop talking about him in any thread. You don't seem to get
that do you?
Court_1
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:46:13 -0500, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 8/14/2011 1:32 PM, bob wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/14/2011 6:44 AM, bob wrote:
>
> >>>> if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
> >>>> surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
>
> >>> I know. You'll take false humility any day because that's the road to
> >>> success--or at least subsequent dim public recollections that you might
> >>> have done better if you'd not been so artificial modest.
>
> >> doesn't have to be false modesty to speak in tones of respect.
> >> fed rarely does.
>
> >Your backwoods, baptist notions of manners are quaint.
>
> because i prefer great athletes to be speak respectfully toward their
> opponents after both winning and losing? wow.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So don't listen to Fed's press conferences or read them in print. Is
that so difficult for you. If I don't like somebody I don't have
anything to do with that person in any way. It boggles my mind how
people on here claim to hate Federer yet dissect his every move. That
is scary stuff.
TT
> I am not obsessed about Nadal or his beach pics
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah!
bob
of course it is. we're only speaking truth here now, recall.
> That is the reason Fed haters give for the Fed wins
>at that time. Of course, why would any Fed hater say Fed won those
>slams because he deserved to and was the better player?
because we're talking truth now - fed was able to beat 19-21 yr old
rafa only, and usually, not even then.
> Fed haters would never dream of giving Fed a compliment.
>The fact is Nadal did not start winning slams against Fed until 2008
>after Fed's prime. Fed's prime was from 2004-2007.
no - recall fed won 3/4 of slams from summer 09-jan 2010 - so he was
still peak. we're speaking truth here now, recall. no sugar on top.
> I know YOU think
>Federer is still in his prime or close to it.
no, i don't think so. in slams, he's off his peak a little. non-slams,
he doesn't give a hooot.
> That thought in and of itself should be enough of a reason for any sane individual not to
>listen to a word you say. Nice try though.
glad we were able to speak truth here finally.no sugar on top.
bob
bob
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 14, 4:33�pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:46:13 -0500, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 8/14/2011 1:32 PM, bob wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:08:15 -0500, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> �wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 8/14/2011 6:44 AM, bob wrote:
>>
>> >>>> if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
>> >>>> surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
>>
>> >>> I know. You'll take false humility any day because that's the road to
>> >>> success--or at least subsequent dim public recollections that you might
>> >>> have done better if you'd not been so artificial modest.
>>
>> >> doesn't have to be false modesty to speak in tones of respect.
>> >> fed rarely does.
>>
>> >Your backwoods, baptist notions of manners are quaint.
>>
>> because i prefer great athletes to be speak respectfully toward their
>> opponents after both winning and losing? wow.
>>
>> bob- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>So don't listen to Fed's press conferences or read them in print. Is
>that so difficult for you.
i heard/read many of them why do you think i started calling it out?
wtf r u talking about?
bob
Court_1
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
Fed was NOT in his peak in 2009. Not even close. He won those slams
because he was still better than the field.
Nobody in his/her right mind who has a clue about tennis thinks
Federer was in his prime/peak in 2009. It is a laughable claim.
You just keep repeating it to downplay Fed's accomplishments because
you love him so much. ;)
Nobody with a brain takes your claim seriously.
RzR
single matches do not count moron, the tournaments do
RzR
with 6 more slams than the next active player (in decline), and 13 more
(LOL) then the next dominating player
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Ali Asoag
> On 14/08/2011 12:57 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> But it is true what Federer is saying--i.e.he is better than Tsonga
>> when Fed is playing well. Better than saying that everybody and his
>> dog is a better player than he is like some other players do ad
>> nauseam. ;)
>>
>> Tsonga is essentially a clown. He gets a big win here and there and
>> then he falls behind again. He can't consistently win like the greats
>> do. Plus he is injured a lot.
>
>
>
> Fed can only play as well as opponent allows, so all you can do when you
> lose is give credit to opponent for outplaying you on the day.
>
> has too much class for cattiness, while Fed is the epitome of a diva.
If Nadal were to say the truth once, he would say he beat Fed some times
in Slams because Fed was not at his best in those finals.
Your "Nadal was young" argument doesn't hold since we all know Nadal
"peaks" very early. Or would you say Sampras only beat Safin 2001
because Safin was still young?
John Liang
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:46:13 -0500, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 8/14/2011 1:32 PM, bob wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/14/2011 6:44 AM, bob wrote:
>
> >>>> if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
> >>>> surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
>
> >>> I know. You'll take false humility any day because that's the road to
> >>> success--or at least subsequent dim public recollections that you might
> >>> have done better if you'd not been so artificial modest.
>
> >> doesn't have to be false modesty to speak in tones of respect.
> >> fed rarely does.
>
> >Your backwoods, baptist notions of manners are quaint.
>
> because i prefer great athletes to be speak respectfully toward their
> opponents after both winning and losing? wow.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like Sampras after losing to Rafter in Cincci 99 or Nadal whenever he
lost on HC slams.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
The truth is Federer only care about Wimbledon and FO was just a tune
up for
Wimbledon. Federer adopted the same attitude toward FO as Sampras.
John Liang
Bob does and of course we know he is a moron.
>
> Nobody with a brain takes your claim seriously.- Hide quoted text -
John Liang
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
According to tier 0 analyst like bob Federer was peak and remain at
peak for all his career. He lost to
Nadal when he was peak and when Nadal lost to him Nadal was a kid.
Federer was a bad sportsman
and I am just wondering if any of Federer's press comments came
remotely as rude as Sampras'
on Rafter.
Sakari Lund
>Fed after losing to Tsonga:
>
>“Two years ago he didn't really deserve the victory. I believe he played
>a lot better today, and he deserved it today,”
>
>“He beat me at Wimbledon… so I don't know how much of a surprise it is,”
>said Federer. “He's playing well. I thought if he was going to play well
>again, me not at my best, he could do it again."
>
>
>So Federer is saying that Tsonga deserved his win because he was playing
>well...but that he won because fed was not playing his best now (so did
>he really deserve it...) - and that he didn't deserve it two years ago...
>
>Fed never fails to deliver, he has made backhanded compliments an art form!
And you never fail to start threads about Federer. Nobody here is as
interested in Federer as you, even though he is past it and you are
not at all interested in him any more.
bob
from the day rafa lost FO with bad knees until AO 2010 fed won 3
slams, lost the 4th in which he had match pts. similar to his very
best years prior - and all against somewhat better competition.
yes, he was peak you dumbo.
bob
bob
wow- thanks. if tier IV is worse than tier III and tier III is worse
than tier II and tier II is worse than tier I than tier I must be
worrse than tier 0; are you calling me RST GOAT? thanks john!
> Federer was peak and remain at peak for all his career.
no. he's not peak since end of 09 IMO.
> He lost to Nadal when he was peak and when Nadal lost to him Nadal was a kid.
he lost to nada at peak and after peak too. but nadal certainly was an
improving youngster in 2005-2007.
>Federer was a bad sportsman and I am just wondering if any of Federer's press comments came
>remotely as rude as Sampras' on Rafter.
sampras said it laughing. making a joke. a funny one. fed is a whiny
little guy.
bob
Iceberg
> 14.8.2011 12:39, Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > How would you feel if Rafa said the only reason Fed beat him twice in
> > slams was because he was very young at the time?
>
> Hahahaha!
>
> Of course Fedfans would say that Rafa is correct and is merely speaking
> the truth. And that they find this kind of "straight talk" genuine and
> refreshing. Or maybe not...
lol yeah it's hilarious how they can justify stuff like this. I expect
if Fed made derogatory remarks about how Monfils looked they just say
it's alright cos he was being honest.
Iceberg
LOL, he repeatedly kept on and on about them for over a month, along
with Uselessysees and is certainly obsessed about Nadal's sexuality as
his repeated comments on the Armani underwear ad have proved.
Iceberg
> On 8/14/2011 1:32 PM, bob wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:08:15 -0500, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 8/14/2011 6:44 AM, bob wrote:
>
> >>> if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
> >>> surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
>
> >> I know. You'll take false humility any day because that's the road to
> >> success--or at least subsequent dim public recollections that you might
> >> have done better if you'd not been so artificial modest.
>
> > doesn't have to be false modesty to speak in tones of respect.
> > fed rarely does.
>
> Your backwoods, baptist notions of manners are quaint.
The difference is Nadal hasn't been brought up to speak about others
rudely and arrogantly like Fed has, it's like when Uncle Toni told him
as a kid that if he smashed a racket it was wrong as many people can't
even afford to buy a racket, , that is genuine Nadal, Fed was
obviously just spoilt/pandered to.
Iceberg
The difference is Nadal hasn't been brought up to speak about others
rudely and arrogantly like Fed has, Uncle Toni told him as a kid that
if he smashed a racket it was wrong as many people can't even afford
to buy a racket, that is genuine Nadal.
Iceberg
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I expect the USO final match against Agassi, they'll be saying Fed
wasn't at peak cos he lost a set.
Iceberg
Really? AO 2009 final - NOT PEAK??? also Wimbledon 2008, are you
telling us he wasn't peak there either??? sorry just cos he lost is
not a case for saying he wasn't 'at peak'. Fed played his best 'peak'
FO tennis ever this year or do you disagree with that.
Whisper
>>> Nobody with a brain takes your claim seriously.
>>
>> from the day rafa lost FO with bad knees until AO 2010 fed won 3
>> slams, lost the 4th in which he had match pts. similar to his very
>> best years prior - and all against somewhat better competition.
>>
>> yes, he was peak you dumbo.
>
> I expect the USO final match against Agassi, they'll be saying Fed
> wasn't at peak cos he lost a set.
No, in Fedfucker's mind Fed was never at peak as he lost points in every
match he played. He's such a good sport he let opponents win some points.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
The genuine rafa always he was injured when he lost a match and that
was the way he was
brought up to speak about the others and of course Federer was never
like that. Uncle Toni
told the kid to waste as much time as rules allowed and it was never
wrong as long as you can
take the rule to max. That is the genuine Nadal. Federer never learn
to cheat or seek max
advantage by bending the rules.
John Liang
Yes, he was joking like bob is a retard.
John Liang
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
He had a good year without been at his peak. Dumbo like you always
had
Federer at his peak through out his career.
John Liang
Whisper, I am always interested to know why sampras on steroid never
able to play that 70%
of his max. Sure that would be able to beat this peak or non peak
Federer every time.
Was Sam on steroid suc a good sport he has to lost 17 time to proove
that.
Whisper
No, Roddick was never remotely close to Sampras in ability. Fed is a
much better player than Roddick, but if he wasn't around Roddick would
easily have 8 slams in this soft era no doubt about it.
Superdave
since you predicted Roddick to have 12 but he only had 1 that means in this era
Sampras would have only 1/12 of 14 because it was a far tougher era than the
previous sampras era?
i mean YOU predicted Roddick BASED on the Sampras caliber of opponent to win 12
slams.
instead he only won 1 slam.
that means either the Fed era is far more strong OR .....
OR .....
YOU are an asshole of an analyst.
which is it ?
we are all dieing to know.
Sakari Lund
<DaveHa...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>since you predicted Roddick to have 12 but he only had 1 that means in this era
>Sampras would have only 1/12 of 14 because it was a far tougher era than the
>previous sampras era?
>
>i mean YOU predicted Roddick BASED on the Sampras caliber of opponent to win 12
>slams.
That is a good point actually. Whisper saw young Roddick, and based on
the tennis he had seen previously, predicted great things for Roddick.
Not sure if it was exactly 12, maybe 9-12 or something, but anyway.
>instead he only won 1 slam.
>
>that means either the Fed era is far more strong OR .....
>
>OR .....
>
>
>YOU are an asshole of an analyst.
>
>
>which is it ?
>
>we are all dieing to know.
The latter is right obviously. The first one is debatable, but I think
it is safe to say that at least the Sampras era (after the first years
anyway) i.e. Agassi, Chang, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Haas etc. wasn't
tougher than what we have had after Sampras era.
Superdave
Thank you Sakari for appreciating my point.
It certainly is NOT tougher than Nadal, Dkokovic, Murray, Tsonga, etc right now.
In fact, I think this is the toughest era ever.
Only Borg, Connors, MacEnroe, Vilas, etc is comparible.
Paul
>
> "Paul" <quill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j28vvh$8ph$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/14/2011 8:36 AM, RzR wrote:
>>>
>>> "Paul" <quill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:j27e37$sn9$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 8/13/2011 4:12 PM, TT wrote:
>>>>> Fed after losing to Tsonga:
>>>>>
>>>>> played
>>>>> a lot better today, and he deserved it today,�
>>>>>
>>>>> �He beat me at Wimbledon� so I don't know how much of a surprise it
>>>>> is,�
>>>>> said Federer. �He's playing well. I thought if he was going to play
>>>>> well
>>>>> again, me not at my best, he could do it again."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So Federer is saying that Tsonga deserved his win because he was
>>>>> playing
>>>>> well...but that he won because fed was not playing his best now (so
>>>>> did
>>>>> he really deserve it...) - and that he didn't deserve it two years
>>>>> ago...
>>>>>
>>>>> Fed never fails to deliver, he has made backhanded compliments an art
>>>>> form!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VERY TRUE. THIS IS THE ONLY REALM WHERE FEDDY TRAIN IS STILL
>>>> GOAT!!!
>>>
>>> he is a goat by a good margin, and nothing you can do about it :D
>>
>>
>> HOW CAN HE BE GOAT, WHILE BEING BEATEN BY NADAL EVERYTIME THEY
>> PLAY???
>>
>> WAKE UP, SHIT-WIT!!!
>>
>
> single matches do not count moron, the tournaments do
INCORRECT, DUMBFUCK. FEDDY TRAIN IS OWNED BY NADAL,
CASE-CLOSED. GAME-SET-MATCH!!!
Whisper
Yes, players like Blake, Bagditis, Ljubo, Berdych & Denko are commonly
regarded by analysts as the fiercest opposition in tennis history.
There are many books written about the wondrous talent of these guys,
thus Fed is goat because he beat them.
Whisper
The only weaker era I can recall is late 70's when Navratilova/Evert
were essentially the only 2 players on tour - eerily like Fed/Rafa last era.
Court_1
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
He was not peak in 2009. But you keep believing it if it makes you
feel better. It is such an absurd claim I don't even know why I keep
responding to it. Clearly you have your own thoughts but please don't
think you are going to change the thoughts of people who have half a
brain. Only an idiot would think Federer was peak in 2009. Fed's prime
was 2004-2007. There is not an intelligent tennis analyst who would
ever say otherwise. So please don't project that stupidity on others.
Fed won slams past 2007 because he was still better than the field at
the time but he was no longer in his prime or peak or whatever else
you want to call it.
Didn't Sampras win slams past his prime? Didn't Agassi? Top pro
players continue to win slams past their primes in most cases because
they are talented and can still outplay most of the field.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are saying Fed is STILL peak because he played well at this year's
FO?
LOL, now I have heard it all. Federer played well in the FO this is
true and he was able to keep it consistent during that entire
tourament, but normally Fed has had trouble doing that in the past
year and a half or more. He can play incredibly for a few matches in a
tournament and then play like crap the next few days. His consistency
can't be counted on now. If he happens to get it together for the
duration of an entire slam in the future it will be a tall feat IMO.
I'm hoping he can do it but I would not bet my house on it that much
is certain.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fed is the only tennis pro in history who will still be at his peak at
age 35. The laws of gravity and physics apply to every other tennis
player in history, but not Fed, don't you know? Come on wise up to
this new agenda! Ha, ha. Such nonsense you just have to laugh at it.
TT
> You are saying Fed is STILL peak because he played well at this year's
> FO?
At least it was his peak performance ever at RG.
TT
> Fed is the only tennis pro in history who will still be at his peak at
> age 35.
No, he's the only player in tennis history who was 30 years old at the
age of 27.
Court_1
Let me ask you a question, is Rafa still in his peak/prime according
to you?
Iceberg
are you denying Fed was peak in 2009 AO and 2008 Wimbledon?
TT
That's irrelevant and has nothing to do with Fed's perf.
Court_1
Right. Just as it is irrelevant in 99.9% of the threads not about Fed
where you bring up Fed's name.
It is a totally relevant question. You just don't want to answer it
honestly because you know it will receive a backlash! No player who
has been on the tour and winning for over 5 years is likely to still
be at his peak or prime unless David Copperfield is involved. These
guys have a very short shelf life.
TT
> You just don't want to answer it
> honestly because you know it will receive a backlash!
Nope. I didn't answer because the question was irrelevant.
fyi, I don't know if Nadal is peak/prime now.
> No player who
> has been on the tour and winning for over 5 years is likely to still
> be at his peak or prime unless David Copperfield is involved
Agassi, Laver, Lendl, Rosewall etc etc.
Court_1
Yes I am completely 100% denying that Fed was at his peak in either of
those matches. For me Fed was in his peak or prime or whatever between
2004-2007. How many different ways can I say this so it is understood?
He was still good after that obviously but he was not the same
explosive Fed from the earlier years.
For me Nadal is a little past his peak/prime now. He has been playing
and winning since he was a young teen. A lot of mileage. He is still
good enough to make finals and probably still win slams but I have a
feeling he will never be as explosive as he was from 2007-2010. That
is the way it goes. Djokovic is in his prime now. Will probably
continue for a couple of years if he can keep the mental part up. He
may crash and burn who knows.
John Liang
> On 15/08/2011 11:44 PM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:32:17 +0800, Superdave
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, player like Blake, ljubo and Denko were major slam contender and
just how
many slam final did these three guy got to during their career. You
keep using
these names as Federer's main opposition in winning the slams how
about telling
RST how many slam finals these guys contested. How did they compare
to likes
of Washington, Voitchov, Pioline, Masur, Volkov, Stoltenberg who were
slam finalists
and semi finalist in Sampras era.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was around and you said Roddick would have to play 70% of his max
to
beat Federer at 100%. Roddick wasn't remotely close to Sampras in
abliity and yet you predict a 12 slam potential.
bob
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 15, 9:39�pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/08/2011 8:52 PM, Iceberg wrote:
>>
>> >>> Nobody with a brain takes your claim seriously.
>>
>> >> from the day rafa lost FO with bad knees until AO 2010 fed won 3
>> >> slams, lost the 4th in which he had match pts. similar to his very
>> >> best years prior - and all against somewhat better competition.
>>
>> >> yes, he was peak you dumbo.
>>
>> > I expect the USO final match against Agassi, they'll be saying Fed
>> > wasn't at peak cos he lost a set.
>>
>> No, in Fedfucker's mind Fed was never at peak as he lost points in every
>> match he played. �He's such a good sport he let opponents win some points.
>
>Whisper, I am always interested to know why sampras on steroid never
>able to play that 70%
>of his max.
after he displayed potential as a kid, he went hollywood in his head.
that was all it took.
bob
jdeluise
On 16-Aug-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> after he displayed potential as a kid, he went hollywood in his head.
> that was all it took.
Just look at his GAME. It was never that great to begin with...
bob
nope - but he was in 2009.
bob
bob
no. no offense, but your replies frequently are either way off topic
or misquote the other participants in the thread. this is again the
case. c'mon, snap out of it.
bob
bob
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 14, 7:46 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/14/2011 1:32 PM, bob wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:08:15 -0500, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 8/14/2011 6:44 AM, bob wrote:
>>
>> >>> if these were recent quotes after montreal, it never ceases to
>> >>> surprise me how far fed's ego can take him astray.
>>
>> >> I know. You'll take false humility any day because that's the road to
>> >> success--or at least subsequent dim public recollections that you might
>> >> have done better if you'd not been so artificial modest.
>>
>> > doesn't have to be false modesty to speak in tones of respect.
>> > fed rarely does.
>>
>> Your backwoods, baptist notions of manners are quaint.
>
>The difference is Nadal hasn't been brought up to speak about others
>rudely and arrogantly like Fed has, it's like when Uncle Toni told him
>as a kid that if he smashed a racket it was wrong as many people can't
>even afford to buy a racket, , that is genuine Nadal, Fed was
>obviously just spoilt/pandered to.
seems so.
bob
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO, he was NOT!!! Not even close.
Was Pete Sampras in his prime from 1998-2002? Yay or nay? When were
Sampras' prime years according to you?
Court_1
What are you talking about? We are discussing Fed's prime/peak so I
asked if Fed was still in his peak in the FO. Now STFU and stop
barking orders like you own the place. Thanks kindly.
Whisper
Yes, but it woulda been good enough to win 7, 8 slams if no Fed. That
tells you what kind of opposition Fed had in his glory days.
felangey
Sampras on steroids would have got 7 or 8....u think?
bob
wrote:
i agree - but for an *18* yr old, it showed that, if he showed normal
signs of improvement, effort, dedication, that he *might* become great
one day. and he never did. so mostly i agree.
bob
bob
sampras overall level didn't vary by a huge amount from 93 til Wim
2000. nor did fed's from 2003 til AO 2010.
bob
bob
i'm pointing out that you get confused easily. i'm simply asking that
you think harder before stating falsehoods. thanks again.
bob
Court_1
Pardon me, but I do not get confused easily. Far from it. I am the
first one to admit if I make a mistake or say something incorrect.
There are no falsehoods on here if you really want to analyze it
carefully. We are stating our opinons. These comments are not up for
review in Congress as far as I know. Your comments on here to me are
some of the dumbest I have ever read but I know it is just your
opinion. I sincerely hope you don't think your comments are the truth
set in stone such as Federer was in his prime in 2009. That is your
opinion but it is a laughable one. I certainly do not agree with it as
I am sure others do not as well unless they are imbeciles. ;)
bob
let's analyze your "brilliant" theme: "i believe PEDs are more
widespread in sports than people think". wow, what a profound
statement. what a "gutsy" call by you. egads.
if you want to state your opinion, say something relevant like:
-fed is/is not on PEDs since (insert date)
-djok is/is not on PEDs since (insert date)
-nadal is/is not on PEDs since (insert date)
bob
arahim
> On 15/08/2011 11:55 PM, Superdave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:44:56 +0300, Sakari Lund<sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:32:17 +0800, Superdave
> >> <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>
> >>> since you predicted Roddick to have 12 but he only had 1 that means in this era
> >>> Sampras would have only 1/12 of 14 because it was a far tougher era than the
> >>> previous sampras era?
>
> >>> i mean YOU predicted Roddick BASED on the Sampras caliber of opponent to win 12
> >>> slams.
>
> >> That is a good point actually. Whisper saw young Roddick, and based on
> >> the tennis he had seen previously, predicted great things for Roddick.
> >> Not sure if it was exactly 12, maybe 9-12 or something, but anyway.
>
> >>> instead he only won 1 slam.
>
> >>> that means either the Fed era is far more strong OR .....
>
> >>> OR .....
>
> >>> YOU are an asshole of an analyst.
>
> >>> which is it ?
>
> >>> we are all dieing to know.
>
> >> The latter is right obviously. The first one is debatable, but I think
> >> it is safe to say that at least the Sampras era (after the first years
> >> anyway) i.e. Agassi, Chang, Ivanisevic, Pioline, Haas etc. wasn't
> >> tougher than what we have had after Sampras era.
>
>
> > It certainly is NOT tougher than Nadal, Dkokovic, Murray, Tsonga, etc right now.
>
> > In fact, I think this is the toughest era ever.
>
> The only weaker era I can recall is late 70's when Navratilova/Evert
> were essentially the only 2 players on tour - eerily like Fed/Rafa last era.
So this must be the toughest era for women's tennis then ... perhaps
in how comparable tehy are but certainly not standard wise.
Court_1
You are side-stepping my question and not answering it properly. When
was Sampras out of his prime?. Every player in history has a prime and
a period where they start to decline. Sampras is not an exception to
this rule. He is as dull as the day is long but that is besides the
point. :)
Court_1
> - Show quoted text -
Shut up! If I don't state it the way you want it you bitch about it? I
will state it however I wish to state it and I do not have to get more
specific. I made a general statement that I think PED's are used in
pro sports. I don't know who is using and who is not using. State
whether Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are using PED's and insert date
they started? You are nuts, lol! As if even if I actually knew that
information I would state it that way.
You will just have to live with my general statement.
John Liang
Sampas overall level did not vary by large amount from 93 to 2000 but
that did not mean
he was at his peak after 1997. It was pretty clear by 98 his level
dropped enough for
players like Moya and Kafelnikov to be No.1. Players only have to
drop a little bit in form
to start losing big matches. Federer's form after 2007 was certainly
below his best and it
may not be a huge drop but certainly enough for him to lose tight
matches in all tour level
tournaments including grand slams.
bob
the day after Wim 2000. i said this 3 sentences back. and fed's
decline, IMO, started around very end of 09 to very early 2010. do u
have a reading comprehension problem hon?
>. Every player in history has a prime and
>a period where they start to decline. Sampras is not an exception to
>this rule. He is as dull as the day is long but that is besides the
>point. :)
lol. as if i give a shite if you think sampras is dull. who, on this
planet could possibly be more DULL than federer?
bob
Court_1
Ahhh, but you DO give a shit. I can tell by your defensive response.
There are many on this planet and many other planets I am sure who
would think Sampras is duller than Federer. No contest there. Federer
as a number one was way more popular than Sampras ever was. Don't even
go there.
Note that you still did not answer my question. When did Sampras start
his decline according to you?
bob
fair enough - depending on how you define peak. it's pretty hard to
say a peak narrows down to a month, season, or even a year IMO. for
great players, it should continue for some yrs. for sampras i define
it as quite long (93-2000 Wim). for fed, similar.
>It was pretty clear by 98 his level dropped enough for
>players like Moya and Kafelnikov to be No.1. Players only have to
>drop a little bit in form to start losing big matches. Federer's form after 2007 was certainly
>below his best and it may not be a huge drop but certainly enough for him to lose tight
>matches in all tour level tournaments including grand slams.
your displacement out of the cellar by court1 has given you the
confidence to make a fairly relevant post. congrats.
i think of it like this, which is only slightly different fom what
you're saying. a player's peak is when his overall level is within
around 5% or so of his best level, over a reasonable period of time.
results are not a guarantee of the player's level, or vice versa, as
there are other factors like competition level, motivation at
non-slams, etc. but results are a nice indicator. fed's results in 09
to 2010 AO - in slams particularly - are as good or better than any of
his peak yrs. if not, show me where not.
bob
jdeluise
On 17-Aug-2011, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Note that you still did not answer my question. When did Sampras start
> his decline according to you?
It doesn't matter. bob hates Federer (and openly admitted it) and really,
really likes Sampras. He's going to say things that support Sampras no
matter what.
bob
fine, then take the warranted criticism of your post like an adult.
> I made a general statement that I think PED's are used in
>pro sports. I don't know who is using and who is not using. State
>whether Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are using PED's and insert date
>they started? You are nuts, lol! As if even if I actually knew that
>information I would state it that way.
>You will just have to live with my general statement.
lol. of course. which is no statement at all. might as well not have
said it.
bob
bob
heck no, i think most people that didn't know him found sampras
personality dull. but who's duller than fed? really now?
>There are many on this planet and many other planets I am sure who
>would think Sampras is duller than Federer. No contest there. Federer
>as a number one was way more popular than Sampras ever was. Don't even
>go there.
fed is as dull as it gets. bar none. and for some reason it's
bothering you. who cares that he's dull?
>Note that you still did not answer my question. When did Sampras start
>his decline according to you?
the day after Wim 2000 ended. which is what i said for 10 yrs here.
bob
bob
wrote:
i don't really like sampras though.
bob
Court_1
I know this but what does that have to do with answering my question?
It has zero to do with it. All I want is an answer to the question.
jdeluise
On 17-Aug-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> i don't really like sampras though.
Right right right, I forgot.