Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[tented]

I'm not so much clear about that video except that he looks hot?

Exactly. When did you ever see him look like that in just the third game? It looks more like a fifth set tiebreak.

But I found this article, which clarified things for me, anyway. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ashe-roof-turns-heat-up-on-usta-idUSKCN1LM3EV

Thanks.

 

[Andy22]

Sorry to tell Federer fan's, but the only season Federer got on top of Nadal was 2017 which most of his 6 wins come from this season it's 1-1 with Nadal leading 4 sets to 3.

 

[DarthFed]

Sorry to tell Federer fan's, but the only season Federer got on top of Nadal was 2017 which most of his 6 wins come from this season it's 1-1 with Nadal leading 4 sets to 3.

Your guy lost to a 38 year old who hasn't been playing well for awhile, pretty pathetic.

 

[Andy22]

Your guy lost to a 38 year old who hasn't been playing well for awhile, pretty pathetic.

Losing to Federer pathetic really wow, anyway Federer lost to 17 year old kid, at Miami 2004 that was Nadal by the way.

 

[DarthFed]

Losing to Federer pathetic really wow, anyway Federer lost to 17 year old kid, at Miami 2004 that was Nadal by the way.

Losing to 38 year old at a major is way worse than losing to a 17 year old in an MS event.

 

[Andy22]

Losing to 38 year old at a major is way worse than losing to a 17 year old in an MS event.

But 38 year old is Federer and Nadal 33 himself, but ok give up its bad you know that's worse 21 match point loses.

 

[DarthFed]

But 38 year old is Federer and Nadal 33 himself, but ok give up its bad you know that's worse 21 match point loses.

33 is way different than 38. Anyone playing a physical sport should be retired by 38 unless they want to stick around and be barely notable like some of the ancient guys in other physical sports. And NFL QB's don't count as that hardly requires any athleticism, strength, or stamina, especially now. Think any other really physical sport and someone Roger's age is done or completely irrelevant.

This is basically unprecedented and highlights just how pathetic the depth in men's tennis is. If you had 4-5 notable youngsters that could take him consistently I'm not sure Roger would still be around. Fed isn't someone who will stick around if he is barely top 10 with no chance at majors. And yes, the 32 and 33 year old top 2 guys who struggle with said 38 year old aren't coming off looking too good either.

 

[Fiero425]

33 is way different than 38. Anyone playing a physical sport should be retired by 38 unless they want to stick around and be barely notable like some of the ancient guys in other physical sports.

This is basically unprecedented and highlights just how pathetic the depth in men's tennis is. If you had 4-5 notable youngsters that could take him consistently I'm not sure Roger would still be around. Fed isn't someone who will stick around if he is barely top 10 with no chance at majors. And yes, the 32 and 33 year old top 2 guys who struggle with said 38 year old aren't coming off looking too good either.

I just can't get over this age thing; one moment all due credit goes to Fed, then others want to say he's too old & the NG'rs are weak since they're allowing an ol man to "run them!" I give him all due credit when he wins, but then others play down his losses! I'm confused!

 

[Chris Koziarz]

33 is way different than 38. Anyone playing a physical sport should be retired by 38 unless they want to stick around and be barely notable like some of the ancient guys in other physical sports.

This is basically unprecedented and highlights just how pathetic the depth in men's tennis is. If you had 4-5 notable youngsters that could take him consistently I'm not sure Roger would still be around. Fed isn't someone who will stick around if he is barely top 10 with no chance at majors. And yes, the 32 and 33 year old top 2 guys who struggle with said 38 year old aren't coming off looking too good either.

Said 38yo has one of the most versatile games in history, so he can adjust his playing style as he is hurt (e.g. when he used to play with mono) or when he grows older and is less likely win long rallies. We've seen him changing racquet in the past and adapting new "aggressive" style to shorten the points. Improvements in sport medicine have contributed to the fact that 38 is "not that old" anymore, while said 38yo beats the youngsters with his experience, while his physical deterioration did not create sizeable gap with the next generation players. I would not be surprised if current no1-2 aged 32-33 still kept going, say until 35 (maybe not until 38-40 as Fed, his versatility is unprecedented) at their top and dominating the rest of the field.

 

[atttomole]

I just can't get over this age thing; one moment all due credit goes to Fed, then others want to say he's too old & the NG'rs are weak since they're allowing an ol man to "run them!" I give him all due credit when he wins, but then others play down his losses! I'm confused!

The thing is Roger is just so good a tennis player. He is the best player of those currently playing the game. However, you can not deny that his age does show these days. I can tell you that if most surfaces were not slowed down, he would be winning a lot even at 40.

 

[DarthFed]

I just can't get over this age thing; one moment all due credit goes to Fed, then others want to say he's too old & the NG'rs are weak since they're allowing an ol man to "run them!" I give him all due credit when he wins, but then others play down his losses! I'm confused!

I do give Fed credit for staying at a good level but yeah there is no excuse for him being #3 and almost winning majors. Shouldn't happen. On paper he shouldn't win a set against Novak or Nadal at this point, and shouldn't be 3 levels above guys in their early-mid 20's. If those young guys didn't suck this wouldn't be possible.

 

[Ricardo]

I do give Fed credit for staying at a good level but yeah there is no excuse for him being #3 and almost winning majors. Shouldn't happen. On paper he shouldn't win a set against Novak or Nadal at this point, and shouldn't be 3 levels above guys in their early-mid 20's. If those young guys didn't suck this wouldn't be possible.

shouldn't win a set against Nadal/Novak? not sure about that. But Fed is pretty smart managing himself and making the right adjustments which the greats before didn't quite do. He took an entire 6 months off to recover, then came out blazing, with larger size racquet and a slightly more aggressive style, whereas the greats before sort of just carried on until they burnt themselves out, without any major tinkering to their game or schedule.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Knew skipping Montreal was a bad choice.

 

[Moxie]

Knew skipping Montreal was a bad choice.

Oh, come on. 2017, playing Montreal was a bad choice. Now not playing it was? What would have been gained?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm not so much clear about that video except that he looks hot? But I found this article, which clarified things for me, anyway. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ashe-roof-turns-heat-up-on-usta-idUSKCN1LM3EV

I think US-Open may be one of the worst, if not the worst, GS in terms of giving players good condition to play in. I am not saying this because of this new suffocating problem. Even before that, Ashe was horrible to play in due to it huge size and unruly fans (not to mention bad court conditions - one year many players including Andy Roddick pointed to big holes in court and Genie had a law suit against them for concussion apparently caused by fall in the locker room which was apparently preventable).

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Oh, come on. 2017, playing Montreal was a bad choice. Now not playing it was? What would have been gained?

Playing Montreal without practicing in 2017 was a bad choice.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Oh, come on. 2017, playing Montreal was a bad choice. Now not playing it was? What would have been gained?

There is some element of truth in what he says.

Players can only decide on how many tourneys they play and not on how many matches they play. The nice thing about playing in Montreal is that if you go deep and think you got enough match practice, you can skip Cincy (as someone did) and on the other hand, if you go out early, you can always play Cincy to get sufficient match practice.

This year there is an added value in playing in Montreal for Fed (as I already elaborated in another post before Montreal started perhaps in this thread). With Novak not playing, if Fed can stop Ralph in Montreal, that will be a huge swing and will get him #2 ranking temporarily and that #2 could possibly even stick with him for USO, getting him a good placement in the draw.

In 2017 also, playing Montreal was not really a bad choice. It was playing there without proper practice and getting there straight from some vacation with Mirka somewhere.

The bad thing in playing in Montreal is that, if you do really want to practice, you need to get to work at least a week before that. That basically gives you exactly two weeks of rest after Wimbledon. That is too short of a break, especially considering he played on Clay this year.

 

[Moxie]

There is some element of truth in what he says.

Players can only decide on how many tourneys they play and not on how many matches they play. The nice thing about playing in Montreal is that if you go deep and think you got enough match practice, you can skip Cincy (as someone did) and on the other hand, if you go out early, you can always play Cincy to get sufficient match practice.

This year there is an added value in playing in Montreal for Fed (as I already elaborated in another post before Montreal started perhaps in this thread). With Novak not playing, if Fed can stop Ralph in Montreal, that will be a huge swing and will get him #2 ranking temporarily and that #2 could possibly even stick with him for USO, getting him a good placement in the draw.

In 2017 also, playing Montreal was not really a bad choice. It was playing there without proper practice and getting there straight from some vacation with Mirka somewhere.

The bad thing in playing in Montreal is that, if you do really want to practice, you need to get to work at least a week before that. That basically gives you exactly two weeks of rest after USO. That is too short of a break, especially considering he played on Clay this year.

I get that the benefit of playing Montreal is that you can see how you're doing before Cincy. And I can see what the benefit might have been to Roger going for it this year. But he didn't. I'm sure you mean that the tricky part about Montreal is having to go back to practice after Wimbledon (not the USO,) but it's not that much of a hardship in this break. I know everyone says that Roger was under-prepared for Montreal in 2017, but I still find that not just unbelievable, but also cavalier on his part, if true. There are several weeks between Wimbledon and the USO swing. Going in unprepared, for a top level player, seems stupid.

 

[DarthFed]

2017 and 2019 were very different situations. In 2017 Roger played Montreal only for the purpose of #1 and he didn't put the work in. He took his eyes off the ball which was the USO where he would've been the heavy favorite. The obvious play was to go to Cincy and keep the momentum going.

In 2019 Roger has very little chance at USO. Gaining the 2 seed was perhaps his only real chance which is why Montreal seemed like a legit possibility. That said I don't blame him for choosing Cincy. And if he could lose easily in an early round at Cincy what are the chances he'd have done well in Montreal? You don't have a special ed loss like Wimbledon final and not have a serious carryover effect. His whole summer was lost in that choke.

 

[Jelenafan]

I just can't get over this age thing; one moment all due credit goes to Fed, then others want to say he's too old & the NG'rs are weak since they're allowing an ol man to "run them!" I give him all due credit when he wins, but then others play down his losses! I'm confused!

The Federerfan tinted glasses. They’ll take any wins he can get as proof of his greatness and any losses as proof of the pathetic state of the rest of the men’s game, aka barely beating an old geriatric has been.

It’s a tennis version of Charles Dicken’s A tale of two Cities: “ It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”