[NDMS]

Being dyslexic does not actually make you dumb at all, some of the most intelligent people of all time were also dyslexic, the fact that all you can do is come out with some vitriol rather than actually debate the issues, says much more about your failure to grasp what is being talked about than anything else, so I think you need to reserve the name calling for yourself.

Dyslexia Alert!

Everybody please tiptoe around ak400 and treat him with political correctness!

ak400 is here to debate the issues!

Unbelievable!

You give zero impression of being intelligent, with or without dyslexia.

P.S.  But now that you have given warning, I promise never ever ever to read any of your "debate the issues" posts.  Not that I was actually reading them with any seriousness in the first place.

[ljs]

when you lot grow up and reach 30 yourselves you will see that Federer is aging most gracefully and pulling a very pleasant income at the same time

aging gracefully , debatable , losing gracefully   

[ak400]

Still milking that one AK400?
I'm certain he won't win one, unless he is even more fortuitous than he has always been in the past.
Its not even Nadal Novak (yes AK, Andy Murray too) he has to worry about. Others in the top 10 can give him a very hard time too.
Furthermore I predict he shall leave the top 4 this year and then things shall get very tricky indeed.

Apart from a freak loss to Tsonga at Wimbledon last year who Roger went on to destroy at the Open, it was only Nadal and Djokovic that have been a problem in the majors.


Murray a threat to Roger in a Slam based on what? 2 straight sets losses? Good one!  If you are saying this on the back of Murray's plucky performance against Djokovic in Australia, then you are wrong again, as it was just one performance, Verdasco even took Nadal to 5 sets to year he won the Australian Open for crying out loud.

As for Roger's victory over Novak at the French, nobody is saying that, this one victory means that Roger was better than Novak last year because clearly Novak was the best player in the world, but the fact that Roger beat him in Paris and was therefore the only person to beat him in a major all year, and the only other time the Serb faced match points in a major was in NYC also against Roger, does show that he is closer than anyone to taking out Novak in the majors, sure he lost to guys Nishikori but we are talking about the majors, you know the pinnacle of the game, that is where the top dogs shine.

[theycanbillme]

Apart from a freak loss to Tsonga at Wimbledon last year who Roger went on to destroy at the Open, it was only Nadal and Djokovic that have been a problem in the majors.


Murray a threat to Roger in a Slam based on what? 2 straight sets losses? Good one!  If you are saying this on the back of Murray's plucky performance against Djokovic in Australia, then you are wrong again, as it was just one performance, Verdasco even took Nadal to 5 sets to year he won the Australian Open for crying out loud.

As for Roger's victory over Novak at the French, nobody is saying that, this one victory means that Roger was better than Novak last year because clearly Novak was the best player in the world, but the fact that Roger beat him in Paris and was therefore the only person to beat him in a major all year, and the only other time the Serb faced match points in a major was in NYC also against Roger, does show that he is closer than anyone to taking out Novak in the majors, sure he lost to guys Nishikori but we are talking about the majors, you know the pinnacle of the game, that is where the top dogs shine.

If that is where the top dogs shine then I'm afraid Roger is now in the kennels, he hasnt won a slam in 2 years.
Also Roger was the only player to beat Novak in a slam last year partially because he was the one out of himself or Andy, due to the draw, that had the most opportunity to take him on in the semis. They were in the same half the entire year! If not for Jo Wilfreds heroic performance, oh sorry `Freak` performance,
He would have met him in Wimbledon too.
He got a win, good for him but thats all it is. One from Five!
A 20% winning average is simply not good.
And please, give it a rest with the `plucky performance` bull.
You are not in the position to patronise Andy or Rafa now or ever.
Murray is a threat to Roger in a slam because he is about to peak and become an even better player. Thats the thing with Andy, he is realising his potential now, as Novak has done before him. Where will Roger be going, other than down?
Oh and he has a superior head to head against him. Something Novak did not have when he started to beat Federer in slams. This is the present and the future, not the past. You are aware that Andy is 6 years younger than Federer are you not?
And lets face it, the only reason you respect Novak is that he stopped Nadal from catching up with Roger in the slam count stakes.

[deb]

The only chance short of injury or non appreance of the other 3 that Roger has of getting any titles at all, never mind slams is if they start building roofs over all of them. Otherwise forget it!
He avoided the asian swing after the pasting he got from Murray there, so he could be ready for his beloved Indoor courts. Which also explains his reapperance at Rotterdam too.
He actually hasn't won an outdoor event for nearly 2 years!
Honestly if he doesnt bag the Olympics gold he should consider hanging up his raquets, and I'm not just saying that to be horrible.
Everyone has their time & Roger's is almost up.

well said could not agree more.

[theycanbillme]

^^^ he could make just as much money as a full time ambassador for lindt chocolates no doubt. Its certainly worth considering.

[deb]

 :

^^^ he could make just as much money as a full time ambassador for lindt chocolates no doubt. Its certainly worth considering.

.