Federer fails his history exam

[britbox]

What are your Favourite childhood memories of Edberg?

They played 86,87... or 87,88,89... Becker won a couple then Edberg won one after.

They actually met 3 times in 88,89,90 with Edberg winning 2 of the 3.

Courtesy of stefanstennis:

http://stefanstennis.free.fr/index.php?option=com_hwdvideoshare&task=viewvideo&Itemid=50&video_id=262

 

[brokenshoelace]

This partnership is off to a bad start. Ominous signs.

 

[Kieran]

From the same interview (I think ) he was asked about Steffi:

"For sure, Steffi was great, I mean, she has long legs that go on forever, they called her Fraulein Forehand for a reason, you know. But Seles was like, winning every match easily before she was stabbed, it's just ridiculous. But you know, I benefitted from Rafa's knees, so I know how hard it was for Steffi to take those titles that weren't hers. But I prefer plump women, you know? I like a bit of meat, something to hang onto, so it has to be Monica for me..."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

From the same interview (I think ) he was asked about Steffi:

"For sure, Steffi was great, I mean, she has long legs that go on forever, they called her Fraulein Forehand for a reason, you know. But Seles was like, winning every match easily before she was stabbed, it's just ridiculous. But you know, I benefitted from Rafa's knees, so I know how hard it was for Steffi to take those titles that weren't hers. But I prefer plump women, you know? I like a bit of meat, something to hang onto, so it has to be Monica for me..."

Troll?

 

[Kieran]

Oh, grow a sense of humour, will you, pal?

I'm tipping one at Britbox. Stefan and Steffi are his twin peaks. But I'm sure that if Federer WAS asked that question, that's how he'd reply...

 

[brokenshoelace]

From the same interview (I think ) he was asked about Steffi:

"For sure, Steffi was great, I mean, she has long legs that go on forever, they called her Fraulein Forehand for a reason, you know. But Seles was like, winning every match easily before she was stabbed, it's just ridiculous. But you know, I benefitted from Rafa's knees, so I know how hard it was for Steffi to take those titles that weren't hers. But I prefer plump women, you know? I like a bit of meat, something to hang onto, so it has to be Monica for me..."

Troll?

No, joke.

 

[DarthFed]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

 

[Kieran]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Ah, the joke is always a sore one for Federer fans. :nono

Anyhow, it was a little josh at Britbox, I know he argues well for Steffi. I imagine his heart sank when he thought Roger had dissed both his idols... :snigger

 

[britbox]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Ah, the joke is always a sore one for Federer fans. :nono

Anyhow, it was a little josh at Britbox, I know he argues well for Steffi. I imagine his heart sank when he thought Roger had dissed both his idols... :snigger

Heh, heh.... I could spot the joke as Roger would never sink so low to mention knees as a factor in results...

 

[DarthFed]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Just as reasonable to assume he would get upset as it is to assume he'd win it. Those upsets came at age 26 and 27, the latter of which was last year which is likely his 2nd best year ever. It's not like he rolled through everyone in his path in 2006-2010 or have you forgotten all the 5 setters he survived against the nobodies?

 

[brokenshoelace]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Just as reasonable to assume he would get upset as it is to assume he'd win it. Those upsets came at age 26 and 27, the latter of which was last year which is likely his 2nd best year ever. It's not like he rolled through everyone in his path in 2006-2010 or have you forgotten all the 5 setters he survived against the nobodies?

I didn't say Nadal got old and that's why he got upset. The 2006-2010 run you're referring to saw him reach the final in each of his showings, including two titles. That weighs in more heavily than a couple of five setters he ended up winning on his way to winning the whole thing. I wouldn't say it was just as reasonable to assume he would get upset than to assume he'd win it, otherwise an upset wouldn't be an upset.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Ah, the joke is always a sore one for Federer fans. :nono

Anyhow, it was a little josh at Britbox, I know he argues well for Steffi. I imagine his heart sank when he thought Roger had dissed both his idols... :snigger

Heh, heh.... I could spot the joke as Roger would never sink so low to mention knees as a factor in results...

Nope. Just back problems, as a result of having so many matches "on his racket." Eventually, carrying the weight of all these matches on a single Wilson BLX Pro Staff is bound to damage your back.

 

[DarthFed]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Just as reasonable to assume he would get upset as it is to assume he'd win it. Those upsets came at age 26 and 27, the latter of which was last year which is likely his 2nd best year ever. It's not like he rolled through everyone in his path in 2006-2010 or have you forgotten all the 5 setters he survived against the nobodies?

I didn't say Nadal got old and that's why he got upset. The 2006-2010 run you're referring to saw him reach the final in each of his showings, including two titles. That weighs in more heavily than a couple of five setters he ended up winning on his way to winning the whole thing. I wouldn't say it was just as reasonable to assume he would get upset than to assume he'd win it, otherwise an upset wouldn't be an upset.

He only won 2 out of 5 finals on top of losing to 2 clowns. I'm not sure by what logic, aside from an extremely biased one, it is reasonable to assume he'd win in 2009 or any year for that matter.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Just as reasonable to assume he would get upset as it is to assume he'd win it. Those upsets came at age 26 and 27, the latter of which was last year which is likely his 2nd best year ever. It's not like he rolled through everyone in his path in 2006-2010 or have you forgotten all the 5 setters he survived against the nobodies?

I didn't say Nadal got old and that's why he got upset. The 2006-2010 run you're referring to saw him reach the final in each of his showings, including two titles. That weighs in more heavily than a couple of five setters he ended up winning on his way to winning the whole thing. I wouldn't say it was just as reasonable to assume he would get upset than to assume he'd win it, otherwise an upset wouldn't be an upset.

He only won 2 out of 5 finals on top of losing to 2 clowns. I'm not sure by what logic, aside from an extremely biased one, it is reasonable to assume he'd win in 2009 or any year for that matter.

He won only 2 out of 5 finals as a result of losing to the greatest player of all time and one of the greatest grass courters ever, and a man who beat everyone else in 2011. Hardly an embarrassment.

Are you seriously wondering by which logic would it have been reasonable to assume he'd win in 2009? How about the logic that he was the best player in the world back then, the defending Wimbledon champion, and that the other Wimbledon favorite is a man who, just a few months earlier, Nadal had forced to tears... a man who you, Darth, say would never bet on to beat Nadal in any slam ever?

So let's say Nadal loses to Soderling at the FO, but has no knee troubles, and participates in Wimbledon. Who would have been the favorite for the tournament? Nadal: yes or no? The number 1 player in the world, the man who had already won a slam and 3 Masters 1000 events up until that point, who holds a historical dominance over his main rival. So yeah, he would have been the favorite, and I'm not sure how that's even debatable.

 

[britbox]

It was a joke? Seemed completely random. I'd say the joke would be to assume Wimbledon was his when he has as many clownish upsets there as he has wins :nono

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Ah, the joke is always a sore one for Federer fans. :nono

Anyhow, it was a little josh at Britbox, I know he argues well for Steffi. I imagine his heart sank when he thought Roger had dissed both his idols... :snigger

Heh, heh.... I could spot the joke as Roger would never sink so low to mention knees as a factor in results...

Nope. Just back problems, as a result of having all these matches "on his racket." Eventually, carrying the weight of all these matches on a single Wilson BLX Pro Staff is bound to damage your back.

Backs are higher up than knees. Anything below the waist is unforgivable.

 

[DarthFed]

This makes no sense since he had zero clownish upsets at Wimbledon in 2009, when the tournament was "assumed his," especially since he proceeded to win it the subsequent year and made the final the year after that. It's not exactly reasonable to judge that based on an upset that materialized 3 years later.

Just as reasonable to assume he would get upset as it is to assume he'd win it. Those upsets came at age 26 and 27, the latter of which was last year which is likely his 2nd best year ever. It's not like he rolled through everyone in his path in 2006-2010 or have you forgotten all the 5 setters he survived against the nobodies?

I didn't say Nadal got old and that's why he got upset. The 2006-2010 run you're referring to saw him reach the final in each of his showings, including two titles. That weighs in more heavily than a couple of five setters he ended up winning on his way to winning the whole thing. I wouldn't say it was just as reasonable to assume he would get upset than to assume he'd win it, otherwise an upset wouldn't be an upset.

He only won 2 out of 5 finals on top of losing to 2 clowns. I'm not sure by what logic, aside from an extremely biased one, it is reasonable to assume he'd win in 2009 or any year for that matter.

He won only 2 out of 5 finals as a result of losing to the greatest player of all time and one of the greatest grass courters ever, and a man who beat everyone else in 2011. Hardly an embarrassment.

Are you seriously wondering by which logic would it have been reasonable to assume he'd win in 2009? How about the logic that he was the best player in the world back then, the defending Wimbledon champion, and that the other Wimbledon favorite is a man who, just a few months earlier, Nadal had forced to tears... a man who you, Darth, say would never bet on to beat Nadal in any slam ever?

So let's say Nadal loses to Soderling at the FO, but has no knee troubles, and participates in Wimbledon. Who would have been the favorite for the tournament? Nadal: yes or no? The number 1 player in the world, the man who had already won a slam and 3 Masters 1000 events up until that point, who holds a historical dominance over his main rival. So yeah, he would have been the favorite, and I'm not sure how that's even debatable.

In coming off a loss at RG, Nadal would never be the favorite at Wimbledon. Had he been healthy and stormed to the RG title than it'd be a little more reasonable to peg him a heavy favorite.

To assume he wins means you think he would have a much greater than 50% chance if he had played. That is way out there, this isn't Nadal on clay or Roger of 2004-2007 at Wimbledon and USO. This is a guy who was routinely taken to 5 sets and barely won in 2008 when he was on a crazy winning streak. The way it played out with Roger winning RG, he was going to be the favorite at Wimbledon regardless of Nadal's participation. We all know who was way more likely to avoid an upset at a GS until 2010 and maybe Roger would've stepped up and actually played a good match in 2009. I wouldn't bet on it, but it wasn't impossible.

 

[Kieran]

Oh Darth, at the first mention of "2009" you leap like a wide eyed salmon.

It was a gag, kiddo, a bit of ribbing. I know it touches a raw nerve, but actually it was meant up be so exaggerated that it was obviously a joke. Actually the main part was the Seles thing: I know that brother BB lifts the cudgels handily like Calzaghe when anyone mentions po' Monique and her bleedin' sufferings...

 

[Tennis Miller]

So true, Kieran, and not just about Steffi's legs.

Roger mentioning Nadal's knee problems as a reason for Fed's success are as likely as Sampras similarly acknowledging Andre's virtual disappearance for a couple of years starting after 1995 USO.

Not gonna happen, ever.

Can you imagine that kind of honesty from either of them?

Cheers

TM

 

[Kieran]

Ah! I feel I've touched a raw nerve. Pete didn't need Agassi to go missing, he could handle him fine.

But yeah, Steffi's legs. :heart: Actually, the rest of her too. I always thought Steffi was one of the most beautiful women to play sports, both physically and in how she carried herself...