Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Jan 18 13:14
Date Joined: 05 Oct 09
| Topic/replies: 189 | Blogger: -Morgan-'s blog
Notice how he got very upset today...and did not mention being back next year? Looked like a guy saying goodbye.
Pause Switch to Standard View Last year for Fed?
Show More
Report geordie1956 January 28, 2018 2:54 PM GMT
Might be how the body holds upover the next few months...if he misses the clay it will be helpful...return for the grass court season & go up to the US Open and see how he feels. I can see him going on at least until 2019..after that its health & how he feels himself but he still seems to actually enjoy his tennis where most at his age simply want it all to end & enjoy the home comforts of the wealth they have accumulated
Report Journeyman January 28, 2018 3:34 PM GMT
I hope he plays the French. To spend the last years of his career avoiding a slam that he's won in the past is just going to look a bit odd in years to come.

And if he did win a second title it would erase the idea that clay is his achilles heel as it was for Sampras.
Nothing really to lose, everything to gain imo.
Report bb66 January 28, 2018 3:43 PM GMT
He enjoys playing on grass much more than on clay
Report Journeyman January 28, 2018 3:58 PM GMT
If you worked at MacDonalds
and your job description was to cut up the pickles and take out the trash
and your boss walked in and saw that you had cut up the pickles but the trash was lying all over the place
with flies buzzing around and babies crying
and your excuse was 'I enjoy cutting up the pickles more than taking out the trash'.. would be sacked
Report Journeyman January 28, 2018 4:45 PM GMT
(What's really silly about it all is that unlike Sampras, Fed is actually one of the best clay court players!
  So just roll up your sleeves and do your job Rog. You have nothing to fear.)
Report mesmerised January 29, 2018 7:52 AM GMT
He cried during a speech when he won Wimbledon in 2003, when he lost Wimbledon 14, when he won Australia in 2006, when he lost Australia 2009, when he won French Open 10 and even when he lost to Tiger Tim Henman in the Basel final 2001, he is just a cryer. Doesn't mean anything in terms of retirement. Think he cleared it up after on Eurosport anyway.

Never won Rome, Monte Carlo or the Olympics and only the French Open once, they are the goals really he should be aiming for for a complete career, given Nadal has at least won 2 slams on the 3 surfaces. Also is 118 match wins from breaking Jimmy Connor's all time match wins record on the ATP tour, realistically, that would mean playing full seasons for the next 2 seasons.

Will probably retire in 2020 when he's had that last crack at the singles Gold he's always wanted, I would guess in Basle, maybe the Tour Finals, it's really the biggest thing missing, even if the ATP only saw fit to award it nil pois in Rio (in order to ensure top players prioritised Cincy, one of their own events in which some did) and rank it at the same level as an ATP500 even in London. It's the prestige rather than any points.

There are 2 hard court slams 1 clay court slam, you do have to ask the question, if it was the other way around, or if there were 2 hard and 2 clay, how many slams would Federer/Nadal have, it would be a definite reversal, and then some.

Kind Regards.
Report mesmerised January 29, 2018 7:54 AM GMT
When he won French Open 2009 rather, he must have a shrine at Federer towers in Bottmingen to Robin Soderling, KO Nadal paved the way towards that solitary win.
Report The Bhoys January 29, 2018 10:38 AM GMT
hes achieved everything bar beating nadal at the french, if he done this it would surly confirm his GOAT status like mes said soderling took nadal out for fed to win it but he wont beat nadal so he will probably flee again
Report bb66 January 30, 2018 11:08 AM GMT
I know a time when 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass, imagine who many slams Fed would have made compared to NadullLaugh
Report lurka January 30, 2018 12:08 PM GMT
Rafa goes all out for the French and is usually fecked for Wimbledon. Fed will just be interested in clocking up a few more slams before he goes, why go for the French and risk being spent for Wimbledon?
Report mesmerised January 30, 2018 12:53 PM GMT
I know a time when 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass, imagine who many slams Fed would have made compared to NadullLaugh

1 clay slam
1 grass slam

8 Grass for Federer, 1 clay in 37 slams
10 clay for Nadal, 2 grass in 25 slams

Now imagine if there were 3 clay court slams and 1 grassWink

And Nadal barely drops sets at the French, last year he won dropping the fewest amount of games at any slam ever let alone sets, it's the problems he's incurred with his knees aroubd 2011/2012 that results in not being able to deal as well with the lower ball bounce on grass as he used to.
Report The Bhoys January 30, 2018 1:55 PM GMT
Lets be honest lad if novak was at his peak both wudnt be winning either
Report bb66 January 30, 2018 5:45 PM GMT
Tennis in its roots was a grass court game, so there never would have been a chance for 3 slams to be played on clay. Real tennis is played on grass, clay court tennis is an odd deviation
Report wisewords January 30, 2018 8:40 PM GMT
Roger is 36 and still playing sublime tennis. Rafa is 31 and his body is breaking down on a regular basis. Roger's longevity at the top of the game will ensure he goes down in the history books as the GOAT.
Report Journeyman January 30, 2018 8:44 PM GMT
I just think one day with the benefit of hindsight he will regret swerving the French (if that is what he does again)

He just needs to beat Nadal at Roland Garros once to cement the GOAT argument.

And we're talking about a Nadal who just left Melbourne crocked.
If he turns up and plays Nadal the man and not Nadal the myth, he could cement the argument right here in 2018.
Report Platini January 30, 2018 9:42 PM GMT
we all know Fed will wait to see if Rafa gets over his injury in time for the French. Cos if he doesn't, you better believe Fed will be in the draw at Roland Garos
with bells on Laugh
Report mesmerised January 31, 2018 12:43 AM GMT
very poor argument bb66 considering there are now 2 hard courts slams and Federer has 11 of them. Not sure how or why Grass court Tennis can be described as real Tennis either. Everything and everyone's roots and routes change over time, Evolution, once upon a time we used to live in caves, and before that, trees, now we sleep in secure homes with running water and burglar alarms.
Report mesmerised January 31, 2018 3:54 AM GMT
I should clarify, you can't change roots but you can routes, most players in the top 1000 if you asked them what their favourite surface is, I'd hazard a guess it'd be split roughly evenly with hard/clay with grass being chosen 5% of the time.
Report dlarssonf January 31, 2018 7:37 AM GMT
bb66    30 Jan 18 17:45 
Tennis in its roots was a grass court game, so there never would have been a chance for 3 slams to be played on clay. Real tennis is played on grass, clay court tennis is an odd deviation

LaughLaughLaugh grass is for ballbashers , clay is where proper tennis is played
Report Platini January 31, 2018 9:22 PM GMT
clay is for men

other surfaces are for women, and femboys
Report detraveller February 1, 2018 8:04 AM GMT
Even if Fed does play FO this year and beats Nadal, it will still be 'he couldn't beat Nadal in his prime' or 'he only played the FO because he knew Nadal wasn't 100%'. He cannot cement the GOAT argument any more than he already has, irrespective of whether he plays the French this year or not. I would love to see him play and win but really the time for achieving clay supremacy is gone and he wasn't the best on clay. He's still the GOAT for me.
Report Fatslogger February 1, 2018 1:21 PM GMT
Agee with you det. It’s obvious that the special pleading from some posters won’t stop even if Federer gets two or three more slams including a French; has another season where he beats Nadal repeatedly and gets back to number one for six more months. It is possible that Nadal could still mount a convincing case that isn’t just based on “but the head to head (and for God’s sake don’t pay too much attention to the fact that it’s distorted by mostly being on clay, which is the only surface that really matters because it’s the one Nadal is best on)” to be better with another couple of excellent seasons himself though. That does seems very unlikely with his injury record against him and only really the French as a slam he rates that likely to win, although of course he did capture the US last season.
Report dlarssonf February 1, 2018 3:06 PM GMT
In Grand slam matches Nadal is 9 -3 against the Swiss Ball basher including 3 -1 on hardcourts.  In Grand Slam Finals Nadal is 6 -3 yet the fed fan boys like "Fatty" ( who rarely posts by the way and isn't really bothered ) still think Fed is better .

It beggars belief that people can be so stupid but I suppose when Mammy has to change you out of your Federer pajamas every morning it begins to make a bit of senseLaughLaugh
Report The Bhoys February 1, 2018 3:53 PM GMT
hardly cal fed a ball basher Plain
Report mesmerised February 1, 2018 3:57 PM GMT
Laugh I can't read fatty's posts due to trolling with his sister account, the chump asparagus, but no doubt he's still he's still trying to reshape history the way he wants it to be seen.

As also said, the whole of the tour is tailored towards a hard court player, 2 hard court slams (1 clay), 6 hard court masters 1000 (3 clay) and the World Tour finals always on hard, even the Olympics is practically a hard court event with 2012 a rare exception and that was on grass, yet Nadal still has a good record v Federer on hard. Imagine if there had been 2 clay court slams and 1 hard court during Nadal and Federer's career, you'd be looking at Nadal having about 10 more slams than Federer. Luck of the draw.

Here's another stat, Federer fans like to say he is the GOAT simply because he has won most slams (something to do with being 5 years older and being born 5 years earlier into a weaker era post Sampras/peak Agassi), yet Nadal actually has a better win% in slams than him, Nadal has won 16 slams from 51 (1 per 3.18 slams played), Federer has won 20 slams from 72 (1 per 3.6 played), and 3 of the slams Nadal played he had to retire in, another he might as well as he was clearly injured (Aus final v Wawa).

A shame he had problems with his knees, before that he made 5 from 6 Wimbledon finals, then came the first week exists to players much inferior, still at least he made the effort, unlike Federer ducking the clay seasons.
Report The Bhoys February 1, 2018 4:03 PM GMT
Nadal v fed 08, fed in his prime nadal arguably still young, but nadal beat him on his best surface in a final
Report mesmerised February 1, 2018 4:12 PM GMT
And btw, as Journeyman correctly pointed out on this or another thread, Federer is actually one of the more adept players on clay, it's not like he can't play or win on it, but the sole reason why he's given up is because he wants to a) fatten up his inferior lop sided head to head record with Nadal which he managed to do on hard courts only last year and 2) he knows the chances are he would lose against him on the red dust so doesn't even try, which is poor form.
Report dlarssonf February 1, 2018 4:18 PM GMT
The Bhoys    01 Feb 18 16:03 
Nadal v fed 08, fed in his prime nadal arguably still young, but nadal beat him on his best surface in a final

and check out what Nadal did to him in the French open final in 2008 - Fed utterly humilatedCool
Report Journeyman February 1, 2018 8:07 PM GMT
Fed thinks too much about numbers.
(When not reminding himself how many slams he's won by sewing it on his jacket, he's thinking H2H and raw slam count).

What he's forgetting about is the power of perception.
If Nadal is relatively good-to-go and Roger swerves it again, the PERCEPTION in the minds of the public will be...

(1) Nadal does not fear facing Federer on any surface. He always gives it a go. Trymybest
(2) Federer would rather cower behind the bins for a fortnight than face big bully Nadal at Roland Garros, despite being the second most successful player at the French Open of the last ten years, and having just won the first slam of the year!

Why does nobody talk about Sampras any more despite his slam count being way up there with Fed/Nadal/Djok? Answer - perception. Being perceived as a remenant of a weaker era has done for his legacy, and numbers can't save him.

Perception is more powerful than numbers, and by trying to be too smart for his own good, Federer is in danger of being burned by this.
Report Fatslogger February 1, 2018 10:24 PM GMT
Loving some of the work on this thread.  I've never been blocked before so not sure whether it's usual for the blocker to go on and on about the blockee and keep emerging with different specious justifications for the blocking, just in case they weren't looking silly enough already. Anyway, it's pretty amusing.

Then there's dear larsson with a combination of ludicrous, unbalanced comments about Federer; ad hominems (Federer pjs, really? When you're the one with the fanboy mentality so badly that you can't even begin to accept that Federer just might be a decent player because it might diminish your dear Nadal?) and cherry picked stats.  It's apparently not about the grand slams, unless you can make the head to head look better for Nadal by picking just the slams.  Well done larsson though, at least you didn't invent a fact about Nadal's head to head against Federer this thread (Nadal had apparently beaten Federer multiple times on all surfaces) then studiously ignore it being mentioned to you that you were either lying or wrong but instead get really huffy about it being pointed out that you sounded delusional. 

The absurd distortions about Federer are a phenomenon that's quite widely shared amongst the Nadal fanboys though, because clearly it's not good enough to discuss Nadal's own excellence, which is considerable, as any remotely sensible follower of tennis knows, but you also have to denigrate the record, competence and mentality of Federer.  Best, I think, is the stuff about him ducking the French when he's missed one year without being injured (having had quite a few injuries in the previous couple of years) and has played the clay season so often and so well that his head to head against Nadal is biased towards clay through pretty consistently getting through to play Nadal on the surface Nadal's the GOAT on, despite that being, as has been pointed out, a minority surface on the tour. That Nadal hasn't managed to do as well at getting through himself on his less favoured surfaces, especially grass, is apparently a point in his favour rather than against him. Federer is 36 for FFS! It would frankly be amazing for him even to be able to make the occasional quarter or semi in the slams so far on in his career, let alone winning three of the last five of them and one other semi.  If he wants to prolong his career (at 36 years old, just in case the point hasn't sunk in) then that's pretty much up to him, I'd say and the degree of churlishness in play about it is very revealing.

To be clear, I think Nadal has a superior head to head against Federer partly because of the clay court proportion but also because he's Kryptonite to Federer's Superman: he's clearly not just an exceptional player overall but also has a game style and possibly also an ability to raise his standard in the key matches that gives him the edge.  I don't think this makes him a greater tennis player overall, however, based on Federer's superior career stats, especially in slams; better ability to dismiss lesser players on any surface and astonishing longevity.  The argument that Federer was lucky to get a few years in before the advent of Nagal and Djokovic is not invalid but the counter argument that Federer has played several years of his career past peak age while his rivals have been at their peaks age wise is also valid and during that period, now well, well past what should be his best, Federer is winning more slams than Nadal and beating him in doing so.
Report The Bhoys February 1, 2018 10:41 PM GMT
People seem to think nadal is as good as he was as he played a great roland garros, personally i think he has declined somewhat, federers backhand has improved which gives him more stability v nadal, however most of the wins last year for fed were on quicker surafces suiting him v nadal, people are so involved in this argument of fed v nadal they are forgetting djockovic a man who dominated both for years, also murray not being there has helped both also, if djocovic and murray had have been fit and at the level they were at i cannot see federer or nadal barring the french winning the slams they have won last year and aus this
Report dlarssonf February 2, 2018 7:59 AM GMT
Hey Fatty it's you that keeps cherry picking stats.  The facts are Federer has a weaker head to head against both Nadal and Djokovic.  Going onto to Grand Slams its 9 - 3 to Nadal including a better head to head on both hard and clay,

In grand Slams against Djokovic it Djokovic up 9 -6 including 3 -1 in finals. In ten years Federer has beaten Nadal once in a grand slam tournament ,, yet supposedly he is the GOAT ? Against Djokovic in the same ten year period he has beaten him twice.

The clear facts are in their prime both Nadal and Djokovic are clearly better and superior players than Fed on any surface.  The fact  that anybody thinks Fed is the GOAT is another media sheep who believes everything they are told. You have been hoodwinked , you will be telling me next that Donald Trump is a great business manLaughLaugh  Anyway have a good day Fatty and I look forward to some more meaningless stats from you and make sure Mammy gets them pj's off before she puts you into the bathWinkLove
Report The Bhoys February 2, 2018 9:26 AM GMT
I agree with larrson, both peak novak and peak nadal beat federer, nadal ha declined so has novak but we een a peak novak and he was litray unplayable, nadal run him close and beat him on several ocassions, federer played novak on his best surface grass and lost in the final, a peak nadal beats novak on clay for sure but he dont go through a rg as easy and loses to him on hards more often imo
Report mesmerised February 2, 2018 10:01 AM GMT
Good posts jm, bhoys, larsson.
Only a casual tennis fan would say Federer was the GOAT, they just pick up the lazy media narrative and run with it, a reflection of the casual posters here on the tennis forum such as detraveller and the other fella.
Report The Bhoys February 2, 2018 12:32 PM GMT
Answer me this who wins the 4 slams if novak, murray, fed and nadal at their peak? Cant see fed winning any
Report detraveller February 2, 2018 7:37 PM GMT
I don't get involved in debate here since I don't know much about the game(so yeah me saying Fed is GOAT doesn't hold much value, I know). But when I hear people say things like dlarssonf has just said 4 posts above: "The clear facts are in their prime both Nadal and Djokovic are clearly better and superior players than Fed on any surface" I don't understand why they don't ask themselves the question, why aren't Nadal and Djokovic in their prime now?

I understand Fed has more Slams because he is 6 years older(and so played easier opponents before the other big guys started playng). But then we also do not have any proof of what would have happened if Fed was their age? Surely Fed is at disadvantage playing Nadal and co when they are 6 years younger? And if Fed has more slams becuase he is 6 years older, surely nadal and co should have more slams once they go 6 years past retirement age? But we already know Nadal, Djoko and Murray will never play 6 more years from now, let alone past the age Fed hangs his boots. They aren't even able to finish/compete slams right now because their body doesn't allow. Yet even this is counted against Federer whose game allows him to win slams even at 36.

Both the age and 'in their prime' arguments actually favor Fed but still they are used against him.

I'll appreciate if someone could respond to the above two points in simple words and help me understand why these arguments are repeatedly given against Fed?
Report caramba February 2, 2018 8:51 PM GMT
About the age thing, it goes both ways, like someone, probably Fatslogger mentioned. Fed had the age advantage in earlier years, his rivals have had it in later years and somewhere in the middle age it wasn't that much of a factor since all players could have considered to be in their prime age wise.
It's not exact science, but if we start with Roger vs Rafa, Roger had the age adventage until about 2008 when Rafa hit his prime at age 22. Then I would say both are in their prime until 2012 when Roger hits 31, after that the age factor is a clear advantage for Rafa.
If we do the same for Roger vs Novak, it took longer for Novak to hit his prime (Australian Open 2008 excluded) so in this comparison Roger has the advantage until 2010 when Novak turned 23. Then there's a year or two when they could both be considered to be in their prime age wise. After Roger hits 31 in 2012, it's clear advantage Novak in this department.
And it's debatable if Roger's prime should be said to last until 2012, you could make a fair argument for 2010, so until 29 years and not 31.
Engaging in discussion on what would have happened if they were all the same age is just hypothetical (how would 2011 version of Novak fare against 2005 version of Fed?) but it's fair to assume that since Fed has been racking up Slams at the end of his career when his 5 year younger rivals' bodies are broken down, he would have an even longer timespan to do so if they were all the same age.
Report The Bhoys February 2, 2018 10:31 PM GMT
Personally i think a 2011 djockovic beats them all bar nadal on clay and that would still be pretty dam close
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539