Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Tarnish his legacy imo.
Show More
Tarnish his legacy imo. 
He's already won it.
Well in to Autumn, probably mid winter of his career... Could get to a Wimbledon semi or final. Doubt very much he'll add to his 20 Grand Slams. Tarnish! dunno if thats the right word. tbh.
He's already won it.
Well in to Autumn, probably mid winter of his career... Could get to a Wimbledon semi or final. Doubt very much he'll add to his 20 Grand Slams. Tarnish! dunno if thats the right word. tbh.
he's not got much time left so wants to maximise his chances to win slams. he skipped clay last year then won Wimbledon. clay is the most physically demanding surface he wants to be fit for SW19
Very little chance of winning on clay, makes all the sense in the world just to play on his best surfaces. If he had played on the clay and lossed. Nobody`s going to remember if he played or not years down the line, think Borg wanted to play less match`s but they wouldn`t let him, so he retired. at least we still get to see him play. Don`t think it makes people think him a lesser player that he didn`t play on clay imo
Don't know why they still play on clay now that we have perfectly good all-weather surfaces
at his age he has got to pick n choose,the Golden Age will soon be over as time waits for no man
Mesmerised has a grudge against Federer. In addition to constantly soiling the tennis forum with his nonsense he also has to put it up on chit chat. He wrote Federer off years ago and can't bear it that Federer has proved him wrong time and time again.
Have no idea what aspargus is saying as he was blocked for being caught out trolling with his alias account, fatslogger.
In regards to Federer.
The reason why he is allowed to skip the clay season is because of the rules dictate that a player whose played over 600 matches, is over 31 years old and given 12 years service on tour has exemptions from Masters 1000 tournaments, the Grand Slams themselves are not mandatory.
Which is unfair on 2 fronts, 1) it gives him a distinct and unfair advantage going into the Grass season, which is very short, as a player much fresher and fitter than his biggest rivals,. 2) Playing the tour on a part time basis, cleaning up the slams at the age of 36 makes a mockery of the game, if you're not fit enough to play on tour where the vast majority are forced to, it's time to retire.
Don't see why the tour should be tailored to his needs, Mats Wilander even suggested increase the number of faster courts to suit his game.
Kind Regards.
In regards to Federer.
The reason why he is allowed to skip the clay season is because of the rules dictate that a player whose played over 600 matches, is over 31 years old and given 12 years service on tour has exemptions from Masters 1000 tournaments, the Grand Slams themselves are not mandatory.
Which is unfair on 2 fronts, 1) it gives him a distinct and unfair advantage going into the Grass season, which is very short, as a player much fresher and fitter than his biggest rivals,. 2) Playing the tour on a part time basis, cleaning up the slams at the age of 36 makes a mockery of the game, if you're not fit enough to play on tour where the vast majority are forced to, it's time to retire.
Don't see why the tour should be tailored to his needs, Mats Wilander even suggested increase the number of faster courts to suit his game.
Kind Regards.
mesmerised what's your excuse for federer winning the last 2 australian opens?
2017 - came into the Australian open after missing the previous 6 months, had not played since Wimbledon 16
2018 - No excuse, other than he didn't play any of the big 3 or any Top 5 player.
A big part of the reason why he's recently won slams is because Novak Djokovic's form fell off a cliff after completing the Grand Slam sweep of all 4 majors at the French Open 2016 combined with personal issues and lack of motivation, prior to that, he had won 5 of the previous 6 Australian Opens. I think even Murray would have beaten him in Australia if weren't for injury, he's been out for over a year now.
I've made the argument that if Nadal and Djokovic had of been born in the same year as Federer, the Grand Slam count would be very different, Federer came in off of the back of the Sampras era and cleaned up the hard courts before Novak came to prominence in 2011.
Put a different way, there are young players now on tour who will start to win slams once the top 4 are gone, the likes of Zverev (certainly), Kyrgios, (if he gets his head together,) Shapovalov (maybe) and Chung, and there's a good chance they will be multiple champions, yet, Murray is more talented than them all and he only has 3, players less talented than him will win more simply because they were lucky enough to have avoided the golden era of Tennis, it's all about timing.
2018 - No excuse, other than he didn't play any of the big 3 or any Top 5 player.
A big part of the reason why he's recently won slams is because Novak Djokovic's form fell off a cliff after completing the Grand Slam sweep of all 4 majors at the French Open 2016 combined with personal issues and lack of motivation, prior to that, he had won 5 of the previous 6 Australian Opens. I think even Murray would have beaten him in Australia if weren't for injury, he's been out for over a year now.
I've made the argument that if Nadal and Djokovic had of been born in the same year as Federer, the Grand Slam count would be very different, Federer came in off of the back of the Sampras era and cleaned up the hard courts before Novak came to prominence in 2011.
Put a different way, there are young players now on tour who will start to win slams once the top 4 are gone, the likes of Zverev (certainly), Kyrgios, (if he gets his head together,) Shapovalov (maybe) and Chung, and there's a good chance they will be multiple champions, yet, Murray is more talented than them all and he only has 3, players less talented than him will win more simply because they were lucky enough to have avoided the golden era of Tennis, it's all about timing.
Maybe Mesmerised has blocked me. That's his prerogative but just to put the record straight for anybody else reading this thread i've never even heard of fatslogger and have no idea what he is talking about. Bizarre. I certainly have no alias account.
Amazing how upset people become if you dare question their hero, all sports are about opinions, Chelsea fans in particular are quite sensitive to history.
when they're 36 Djokovic, Murray and Nadal will be able to play lighter schedules too and add to their slam tally
Mesmerized please stop using the age and injury cards to show how bad Federer is. Federer does not control these things. The fact that people get injured and Fed doesn't shows his fitness level.
I am sure if marylin Monroe was a man and born 40 years later and played tennis he would have given Federer a run for his money. And Nadal and co wouldn't even have been near the two. make sense? Exactly.
I am sure if marylin Monroe was a man and born 40 years later and played tennis he would have given Federer a run for his money. And Nadal and co wouldn't even have been near the two. make sense? Exactly.
You've the wrong end of the stick detraveller
Federer is one of the greatest Sportsman of all time let alone just in Tennis, he is a great player on all surfaces and I have always like watching him play, it's not about doing him or his career down for the sake of it.
The issue is two fold 1) fairness and 2) perspective of legacy.
It's unfair as explained in previous posts as to why you should not be allowed to cherry pick tournaments to suit your needs.
The legacy part is because he is perceived to be the Greatest Tennis player of all time because he has won the most slams, as also explained above he benefited from good timing and he was not even the greatest in his own era considering Nadal has beaten him something like 23 times to 14 including a positive h2h in slams. As does Djokovic. If you refuse to play your biggest rival on his favourite surface it taints his legacy. Age is just an excuse, his game style is not at all punishing and with his ability can get through the first few rounds comfortably.
Murray and Djokovic can also benefit from the age rule, but Murray looks like his body would not hold up that long and Novak seems to semi retired atm, that's not even the issue, it's players allowed to play when they want peaking perfectly at the right time whilst the rest of the competition have more miles in the legs by the time Wimbledon comes round. Makes a mockery of it all.
Federer is one of the greatest Sportsman of all time let alone just in Tennis, he is a great player on all surfaces and I have always like watching him play, it's not about doing him or his career down for the sake of it.
The issue is two fold 1) fairness and 2) perspective of legacy.
It's unfair as explained in previous posts as to why you should not be allowed to cherry pick tournaments to suit your needs.
The legacy part is because he is perceived to be the Greatest Tennis player of all time because he has won the most slams, as also explained above he benefited from good timing and he was not even the greatest in his own era considering Nadal has beaten him something like 23 times to 14 including a positive h2h in slams. As does Djokovic. If you refuse to play your biggest rival on his favourite surface it taints his legacy. Age is just an excuse, his game style is not at all punishing and with his ability can get through the first few rounds comfortably.
Murray and Djokovic can also benefit from the age rule, but Murray looks like his body would not hold up that long and Novak seems to semi retired atm, that's not even the issue, it's players allowed to play when they want peaking perfectly at the right time whilst the rest of the competition have more miles in the legs by the time Wimbledon comes round. Makes a mockery of it all.
“I am a clay-court player, essentially. I grew up on clay,” Roger Federer, March 2018 at Match for Africa.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539