Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[Moxie]

Prime Nadal was his competition too you fucking dope and Nalbandian beat Federer a lot. The h2h is 11-8 to Federer meaning Nalbandian was a very good player but you're too fucking dumb to cop that. How many slam semis and finals did prime Federer face Nalbandian in and how many did he play versus prime Nadal?

Remove your head from Nadal's ass and you might be able to see clearer.

Nadal didn't hit "prime" years until 2008, for sure. Not sure where you guys put Roger by then, though I know Darth kind of likes to put Roger out of his "prime" by then. Lots of debate, as that seems awfully early to me. No debate that Nalbandian was an excellent player. Also, he's generally rated as one of the great underachievers of recent years, if not of all time. Credit to him that he did so well against Roger in his peak years, for sure.

 

[Jelenafan]

Nadal didn't hit "prime" years until 2008, for sure. Not sure where you guys put Roger by then, though I know Darth kind of likes to put Roger out of his "prime" by then. Lots of debate, as that seems awfully early to me. No debate that Nalbandian was an excellent player. Also, he's generally rated as one of the great underachievers of recent years, if not of all time. Credit to him that he did so well against Roger in his peak years, for sure.

Federer’s “peak” was versus Andy Roddick.

 

[Front242]

Nadal didn't hit "prime" years until 2008, for sure. Not sure where you guys put Roger by then, though I know Darth kind of likes to put Roger out of his "prime" by then. Lots of debate, as that seems awfully early to me. No debate that Nalbandian was an excellent player. Also, he's generally rated as one of the great underachievers of recent years, if not of all time. Credit to him that he did so well against Roger in his peak years, for sure.

How many slams had he won before 2008 and yet that dipshit is saying Nalbandian was his main competition?! How many semis and finals had he made? That shows how utterly retarded his post was.

 

[Front242]

Federer’s “peak” was versus Andy Roddick.

Who incidentally in his prime would have destroyed Nadal in all the Wimbledon finals he lost in along with much faster USO in 2003. Nice try though but fail. The problem with the dumb slagging of Roddick by Nadal and some Djokovic fans is you fail to realize that just cos it was a nightmare match up against Federer that does not mean he wasn't a top player. How many times do people need to remind you that his (Roddick's) forehand and serve were beastly in his prime. Idiots who slag him have no memories and only recall his last years on tour when his movement was crap from all his injuries and his forehand had gone from super flat, fast and aggressive to loopy and pedestrian. He ended his h2h 5-4 against Djokovic who only started beating him when he was old and bashed up from injuries and the only reason he didn't win around 5 slams was Federer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why is it irrelevant? You want to ignore it because that is something that you don't want to talk about. Plain simple.

It's irrelevant because you're being deliberately obtuse (or maybe un-deliberately?)

The whole idea is comparing apples to apples: ie the major Nadal one only once, to the one Fed/Djokovic won only once. Does it take that much effort to actually scroll up and read how it started?

Because if you want to talk about Wimbledon, the argument is not only irrelevant, but completely shuts down your silly narrative, since as shaky as Nadal has been there, he still managed to win it twice. 2 > 1 ""plain simple" no?

Actually, let's discuss that topic in the most basic terms:

I'm criticizing Roger's clay resume. You, apparently, are criticizing Nadal's clay resume. OK good....

Well despite the fact that there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more clay tournaments a year, Nadal's grass court resume is better than Roger's clay resume. Again, 1 major and only 3 Masters 1000 events is pitiful for a player of Fed's pedigree and caliber especially when you factor in there are 3 Masters 1000 events on clay every year.

Meanwhile, while there are no grass court masters, Nadal has won Queens and Stuttgart, while winning Wimbledon twice (and skipping A LOT of grass court tournaments over the years). Even if you want to bring up Roger's finals at Roland Garros, remember that Nadal managed to reach the Wimbledon final 5 times in a row (well, 5 times in 5 straight appearances since he missed Wimbledon 2009).

So actually, I am neither ignore it, nor is it something I don't want to talk about...if anything it bolsters my point: Federer's clay resume is a major knock against him if we start nitpicking their accomplishments.

Next.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's irrelevant because you're being deliberately obtuse (or maybe un-deliberately?)

The whole idea is comparing apples to apples: ie the major Nadal one only once, to the one Fed/Djokovic won only once. Does it take that much effort to actually scroll up and read how it started?

Because if you want to talk about Wimbledon, the argument is not only irrelevant, but completely shuts down your silly narrative, since as shaky as Nadal has been there, he still managed to win it twice. 2 > 1 ""plain simple" no?

Actually, let's discuss that topic in the most basic terms:

I'm criticizing Roger's clay resume. You, apparently, are criticizing Nadal's clay resume. OK good....

Well despite the fact that there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more clay tournaments a year, Nadal's grass court resume is better than Roger's clay resume. Again, 1 major and only 3 Masters 1000 events is pitiful for a player of Fed's pedigree and caliber especially when you factor in there are 3 Masters 1000 events on clay every year.

Meanwhile, while there are no grass court masters, Nadal has won Queens and Stuttgart, while winning Wimbledon twice (and skipping A LOT of grass court tournaments over the years). Even if you want to bring up Roger's finals at Roland Garros, remember that Nadal managed to reach the Wimbledon final 5 times in a row (well, 5 times in 5 straight appearances since he missed Wimbledon 2009).

So actually, I am neither ignore it, nor is it something I don't want to talk about...if anything it bolsters my point: Federer's clay resume is a major knock against him if we start nitpicking their accomplishments.

Next.

Nadal may have won two Wimbledon titles, but his losses at Wimbledon are way more terrible than Fed's or Novak's losses in any slam.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Nadal may have won two Wimbledon titles, but his losses at Wimbledon are way more terrible than Fed's or Novak's losses in any slam.

It's less terrible than losing a Wimbledon final after having 2 match points on your serve...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's less terrible than losing a Wimbledon final after having 2 match points on your serve...

You are mixing up with terrible and regretful losses. Roger's loss is very regrettable.

However, Nadal's losses are not regrettable as he was so crappy and no opportunity was lost.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

You are mixing up with terrible and regretful losses. Roger's loss is very regrettable.

However, Nadal's losses are not regrettable as he was so crappy and no opportunity was lost.

It doesn't matter. If Nadal for example wins next year's Wimbledon, all these losses you are talking about will make his win even the more spectacular. As a random example I'd rather have something like "W, F, F, 3R, 4R, 2R, SF, SF, W" then have something like "W, F, F, SF, SF, F, SF, F". I'd also rather have something like "W, W, SF, 3R, 4R, 2R, SF, 3R" then "W, F, F, SF, SF, F, SF, F". At the end of the day 2 titles is better than 1 title.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It doesn't matter. If Nadal for example wins next year's Wimbledon, all these losses you are talking about will make his win even the more spectacular. As a random example I'd rather have something like "W, F, F, 3R, 4R, 2R, SF, SF, W" then have something like "W, F, F, SF, SF, F, SF, F". I'd also rather have something like "W, W, SF, 3R, 4R, 2R, SF, 3R" then "W, F, F, SF, SF, F, SF, F". At the end of the day 2 titles is better than 1 title.

2 is definitely better than 1. But, I thought we were discussing about the quality of the losses here (and not talking about the wins).

 

[Fiero425]

2 is definitely better than 1. But, I thought we were discussing about the quality of the losses here (and not talking about the wins).

It's called "not too sly" deflecting! Typical of some fans! I try to keep it real; admit my biases, but that isn't true of all of us! :whistle:

 

[Nadalfan2013]

2 is definitely better than 1. But, I thought we were discussing about the quality of the losses here (and not talking about the wins).

Kyrgios has proven that he can beat anyone on any given day so looking back it was not a bad loss. The match vs Muller even though it was in the 4R wasn't a bad loss as Muller is a solid player especially on grass. One of the early losses Nadal has said many times that he was injured and even missed the hardcourt summer season. Maybe one other loss against Brown was bad but Brown was playing unbelievable and is a tricky opponent. Overall, it's not as bad as you think... In the past few years order has been restored with solid SF results and I expect nothing less than a title next year.

 

[Front242]

Kyrgios has proven that he can beat anyone on any given day so looking back it was not a bad loss. The match vs Muller even though it was in the 4R wasn't a bad loss as Muller is a solid player especially on grass. One of the early losses Nadal has said many times that he was injured and even missed the hardcourt summer season. Maybe one other loss against Brown was bad but Brown was playing unbelievable and is a tricky opponent. Overall, it's not as bad as you think... In the past few years order has been restored with solid SF results and I expect nothing less than a title next year.

Losing to Brown was far from bad and was expected. He beat him at Halle too. A lot of players including Federer have been lucky that Brown hasn't made it past qualifying in recent years or even been offered a wild card at Wimbledon. They 100% should have awarded him a wild card. He's great to watch on grass. Losing to Muller was no shock either since he beat him in the 2nd round in 2005.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal may have won two Wimbledon titles, but his losses at Wimbledon are way more terrible than Fed's or Novak's losses in any slam.

You can hold onto that tight, if it helps you sleep better at night, by saying Rafa's losses on grass are worse than Roger's losses on clay, but it's really the W's that count. In that case, Broken is right that Nadal's grass resume is better than Roger's clay one, given the number of opportunities per season.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal may have won two Wimbledon titles, but his losses at Wimbledon are way more terrible than Fed's or Novak's losses in any slam.

Luckily success is assessed with how much you win. He’s got a better resume at Wimbledon than they do at the FO whether you like it or not. It’s not even a debate. He’s reached as many finals and won more. Period.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This Monday Roger will be listed as #3 player for the 200th time. Roger becomes the first player to hold #1, #2, #3 each for at least 200 weeks.

 

[Moxie]

This Monday Roger will be listed as #3 player for the 200th time. Roger becomes the first player to hold #1, #2, #3 each for at least 200 weeks.

This is very nice for him. I will mention how long and how much Nadal and his fans got sneered at for his record number of weeks at #2. I guess it's all good when Roger breaks records as an also-ran.

 

[Fiero425]

This Monday Roger will be listed as #3 player for the 200th time. Roger becomes the first player to hold #1, #2, #3 each for at least 200 weeks.

Just another embarrassment where Fedalovic own most if not all the "records" dealing with the ATP and its history! Each NG group that fails to displace them are complicit in them "owning" all of tennis from here on out with little chance of any player in our lifetime being able to dominate as they have for well over a decade and a half! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is very nice for him. I will mention how long and how much Nadal and his fans got sneered at for his record number of weeks at #2. I guess it's all good when Roger breaks records as an also-ran.

When you have #1 record, then it makes sense to talk about gravy stuff like this. If Fed were never #1 or #1 just for 30 seconds, no point talking about 200 weeks at #3.

 

[brokenshoelace]

When you have #1 record, then it makes sense to talk about gravy stuff like this. If Fed were never #1 or #1 just for 30 seconds, no point talking about 200 weeks at #3.

Luckily Nadal has been #1 for over 30 seconds so it's fair game.