next »

[Littlebuddha]

He is a good tennis player but as a person I very much have my doubts. His attitude towards other players is terrible. For instance the semi final of the Australian Open of this year swearing at Andy if it had been the other way around I am sure Andy would have lost a point. The trouble with Federer he is so big headed and he always gets priority treatment. It is time he was treated like the other players and take his share of playing in the heat. That is the fault of the tournament officials he should be treated like the rest of the top players. As to his family life the only thing that would say is it is obvious that his children will soon be going to school will he retire. He cannot expect Mirka to trail after him when they do. Perhaps if he treated his opponents in a better manner he would be better liked (his own fans seem to think he can do no wrong).

[Emma Jean]

I’ve always maintained that the RG is/was the weakest field of them all in the Fedal era, where we saw only two men competing for the title.

Take a look at the 90s FO champions. Most of them are great clay court players; some of them are specialists even.
 
Jim Courier (1991, 1992),
Sergi Bruguera (1993, 1994)
Thomas Muster (1995) (his overall clay results were untouchable at that time despite winning only 1 FO)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1996)
Carlos Moya (1998)
Andre Agassi (1999)
Gustavo Kuerten (1997, 2000, 2001)

[Ferrero and Gaudio were the other two winners of RG (2003 & 2004). This was essentially the gap before Nadal showed up.]

Now name 5 players of that caliber from the Fedal era.

In fact, from 2006 to 2012, there have been only two men making the finals at RG. The only exception was Soderling and he didn’t even get to win 1 RG despite making the final twice. Last year was another exception with Nole making the final but he too has yet to win RG.

So while Nadal is still really great on clay, it is hard to assess how he would have fared against Muster, Bruguera or Kuerten. Not taking Courier for granted either. Federer would have struggled against all of them immensely. This is the reason why Federer resume looks so good on clay. He had it easy too.

Btw, I did not ask you surface to surface but overall as to who is the better player – is it Federer? Or is it Nadal? Also, I am not sure why you are referring to the GOAT term when I specifically mentioned “the better player”. I’ve been to many “GOAT” – a term invented by the Fedtards mainly – discussions but only to dismiss it. Because when you say “Greatest of All Time”, you are including “all time” as in the past, present, future and future is something we have yet to experience. In Laver’s era, people could have easily labeled him as the GOAT but now we know that they would have been wrong or untrue. We, after all, live in the realm of relativity and everything is in relative terms; therefore, nothing is absolute. Whatever is right or true now/today will be dismissed by another occurrence in the future. So who is to say who’s the GOAT? Who is to say Federer every single record won’t be broken by someone else in the future? We have seen him breaking Sampras’ records after all. And Sampras Laver’s.

So again, who IYO is the better player between the two in their era – Federer or Nadal? Also, why do you choose Federer over Nadal on hard when the H2H on the surface suggest 6-5 Federer but Nadal leading the 2 Major win in GS? Their encounter on grass is 2-1 Federer and the last one was won by Nadal. Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer and has 11 Slams already. I hope you do take these into account simply because you must.

No, I have agreed with many people on many accounts. You just don’t pay attention to that because you are selective. And you probably don’t like the fact that I don’t like Federer. I’ve stated from day one that I am an avid fan of Sampras and Andy of course, so no hidden agenda there. As to disagreements or not sharing views - that will always happen if I feel I have something more to offer on certain topics.

The same rules apply to everyone, yes but you are very specific about Federer. People have complained about Nole’s chest thumping many times and Berdych being a cocky player and Nadal complaining about too much off late. I don’t see you getting tired of those. If these players have certain character traits that people don’t like then the same rule should apply to Federer as well. Just because you say Federer ‘plays amazing tennis’ – again a relative term – doesn’t and shouldn’t excuse his behaviour. There are far too many players who play amazing tennis but they are not as dedicated or consistent as Federer or some other great players; therefore, you can always say that Federer’s dedication is outstanding and you’d be right too (but that won’t take away the fact that he’s an arrogant ego maniac). In other words, that’s what separates Federer and all the great ones from the rest of the field– dedication and consistency. Any true tennis fan – tards aside – should know this.

(Sorry about the long post guys)

[Emma Jean]

You are not forgiven. Gonna start reading it so dont be surprised if I quit from MW

I will miss Andy's pictures and that's all I will miss.

[Sabine]

I will miss Andy's pictures and that's all I will miss.

Me not talkin to ya 

[robbie]

Liking it Emma.

[silver lining]

I’ve always maintained that the RG is/was the weakest field of them all in the Fedal era, where we saw only two men competing for the title.

Take a look at the 90s FO champions. Most of them are great clay court players; some of them are specialists even.
 
Jim Courier (1991, 1992),
Sergi Bruguera (1993, 1994)
Thomas Muster (1995) (his overall clay results were untouchable at that time despite winning only 1 FO)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1996)
Carlos Moya (1998)
Andre Agassi (1999)
Gustavo Kuerten (1997, 2000, 2001)

[Ferrero and Gaudio were the other two winners of RG (2003 & 2004). This was essentially the gap before Nadal showed up.]

Now name 5 players of that caliber from the Fedal era.

In fact, from 2006 to 2012, there have been only two men making the finals at RG. The only exception was Soderling and he didn’t even get to win 1 RG despite making the final twice. Last year was another exception with Nole making the final but he too has yet to win RG.

So while Nadal is still really great on clay, it is hard to assess how he would have fared against Muster, Bruguera or Kuerten. Not taking Courier for granted either. Federer would have struggled against all of them immensely. This is the reason why Federer resume looks so good on clay. He had it easy too.

Btw, I did not ask you surface to surface but overall as to who is the better player – is it Federer? Or is it Nadal? Also, I am not sure why you are referring to the GOAT term when I specifically mentioned “the better player”. I’ve been to many “GOAT” – a term invented by the Fedtards mainly – discussions but only to dismiss it. Because when you say “Greatest of All Time”, you are including “all time” as in the past, present, future and future is something we have yet to experience. In Laver’s era, people could have easily labeled him as the GOAT but now we know that they would have been wrong or untrue. We, after all, live in the realm of relativity and everything is in relative terms; therefore, nothing is absolute. Whatever is right or true now/today will be dismissed by another occurrence in the future. So who is to say who’s the GOAT? Who is to say Federer every single record won’t be broken by someone else in the future? We have seen him breaking Sampras’ records after all. And Sampras Laver’s.

So again, who IYO is the better player between the two in their era – Federer or Nadal? Also, why do you choose Federer over Nadal on hard when the H2H on the surface suggest 6-5 Federer but Nadal leading the 2 Major win in GS? Their encounter on grass is 2-1 Federer and the last one was won by Nadal. Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer and has 11 Slams already. I hope you do take these into account simply because you must.

No, I have agreed with many people on many accounts. You just don’t pay attention to that because you are selective. And you probably don’t like the fact that I don’t like Federer. I’ve stated from day one that I am an avid fan of Sampras and Andy of course, so no hidden agenda there. As to disagreements or not sharing views - that will always happen if I feel I have something more to offer on certain topics.

The same rules apply to everyone, yes but you are very specific about Federer. People have complained about Nole’s chest thumping many times and Berdych being a cocky player and Nadal complaining about too much off late. I don’t see you getting tired of those. If these players have certain character traits that people don’t like then the same rule should apply to Federer as well. Just because you say Federer ‘plays amazing tennis’ – again a relative term – doesn’t and shouldn’t excuse his behaviour. There are far too many players who play amazing tennis but they are not as dedicated or consistent as Federer or some other great players; therefore, you can always say that Federer’s dedications is outstanding and you’d be right too (but that won’t take away the fact that he’s an arrogant ego maniac). In other words, that’s what separates Federer and all the great ones from the rest of the field– dedication and consistency. Any true tennis fan – tards aside – should know this.

(Sorry about the long post guys)

Hmm, considering I don't like him, I actually don't really care. I would be very happy though if you weren't a fan of Andy.

[Iluvandy]

Yes, no?

Nice short post Emma!!!   More like that please.

[Emma Jean]

True. It really is a shame.

It would be a great shame if Andy fans become that obnoxious. One Federer was enough.