So Much for Roger's "Comeback"

[fedfan]

Some may laugh at this and it may indeed be preposterous but give this some thought. Whether Roger would admit this or not I think he wants to be remembered as the GOAT. He realizes Nadal is a threat for that supremacy. He also knows that if it gets close like 17-15 or 16 the H2H discussion really comes into play. Nadal is playing lights out this year and he knows what would've happened if they would've met up in the qtrs.

It's already a ridiculous 10-21 and a loss Wednesday would've made it an even more embarrassing 2-9 in slams, including a loss in every slam if that would've played out.

In Roger's prime, obviously no way. But now a shell of himself and naturally fading with father time, could he be trying to protect his legacy with avoiding Rafa in a slam? I mean three sets to Robredo?!?

This has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. Laughable indeed! Oh yes, Roger's ego is such that he prefers losing to Robredo of all people rather than tarnish his already lopsided h2h tally with Nadal. This makes perfect sense.

oh yeah this fedfan is very smart, he can probably tell you that about Wimbledon as well. As soon as Fed saw that Nadal lost his 1st round (also on path to play QF against him) he was very quick to lose his 2nd round - so he lost because Nadal wasn't in the draw, strange isn't it?

the only reasonable explanation for back to back early losses in Wimbledon/USO is simply that, Fed was pretty sh!t and his opponents were better.

either way only idiots would think players tank in a slam so they can avoid someone. What's really sad, is that someone actually would think that way.

Relax, jackass. It was simply food for thought as I alluded to.

As far as the Wimbledon loss this year, this "idiot" remembers how nervous Fed was when Rafa lost to Sod at RG almost losing to Haas. Also recall how nervous Fed appeared after Rafa lost to Rosol coming close to losing to Benneteau. Both of those matches were right after the mentioned shockers suggesting Fed had the finish line in sight and possibly got a little tight. Who knows, it may have caught up to him this year. Again, simply something to ponder.

This "idiot" is also on record saying Fed would end up with 17 or 18 slams right after AO '10 when a large contingent were knee-jerk predicting in the 20-25+ range. I bet you were one of them.

This "idiot" was also laughed at suggesting(despite breaking down the scenerio thoroughly) there was a legitimate chance Fed wouldn't catch Pete's 286 right after Indian Wells '10. The "sad" part is I busted the bank to witness in person the qtr loss to Sod that ended the slam SF streak and kept Pete's record in tact(at the time).

And yes I was on record saying the 286 ship had sailed, but held strong to 17 "if the stars somewhat aligned one more time" as it turned out with the Rosol shocker.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I think it's time for Fed to take a move out of the Nadal playbook: take an extended training break from big events and work on: getting his back in prime shape, new racket time, and maybe even a new coaching perspective.

We always complained that Nadal needed to follow the Federer playbook with scheduling but it's time for Federer to follow Nadal with the extended time off strategy. Though it worked for Nadal and may not work for Federer, it may be a good way to really see if his head and heart are still in the game.

As far as coaching is concerned, I feel that either he is not listening to Annacone and should start or he is listening and should fire him and get an absolutely fresh perspective. This means listening to the coach and losing the attitude "I'm Federer so I'll listen to what I want." Of course, we're not there and he may very well be listening to his coaches but I have gotten the impression from interviews with Killer Cahill that Federer is selective in the advice he takes.

From your keyboard to Roger's ears. I agree with every part of this. I think he should strongly consider getting a new coach. There is nothing wrong with Annacone but I think Roger needs a fresh perspective. Annacone is just one of the entourage and it seems time for a new voice and different energy.

I agree with his post, too. The most difficult part of this would be finding a new coach. Or convincing him he needs a new coach. Or even convincing him it's worth trying a new coach. I also remember Cahill discussing Roger's selective hearing when being coached. It makes sense, in that obviously he knows what he's been doing has been successful on a historic level -- why change what's worked so well? Can't you imagine him on court with a coach thinking, "He doesn't know what he's talking about. My [insert shot name] is great."

Yet this could be a significant factor of his continued bad results. Change would come hard now, I imagine, and understandably so. Granted, he tried a new racquet, which, without question, demonstrates some willingness to change, but he went right back to his old one. Again, why change what's worked so well? Does anyone honestly think he'll permanently make the switch? I'm not saying he won't, yet I won't be surprised if it never happens.

woger is trying out new sticks after the uso again..esp after this defeat he will find a larger one he feels ok with and decide to use it for the rest of the season..

he has got 5 wks until shanghai, he can have a good run with it in training then carry it on into the tourney.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Some may laugh at this and it may indeed be preposterous but give this some thought. Whether Roger would admit this or not I think he wants to be remembered as the GOAT. He realizes Nadal is a threat for that supremacy. He also knows that if it gets close like 17-15 or 16 the H2H discussion really comes into play. Nadal is playing lights out this year and he knows what would've happened if they would've met up in the qtrs.

It's already a ridiculous 10-21 and a loss Wednesday would've made it an even more embarrassing 2-9 in slams, including a loss in every slam if that would've played out.

In Roger's prime, obviously no way. But now a shell of himself and naturally fading with father time, could he be trying to protect his legacy with avoiding Rafa in a slam? I mean three sets to Robredo?!?

This has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. Laughable indeed! Oh yes, Roger's ego is such that he prefers losing to Robredo of all people rather than tarnish his already lopsided h2h tally with Nadal. This makes perfect sense.

oh yeah this fedfan is very smart, he can probably tell you that about Wimbledon as well. As soon as Fed saw that Nadal lost his 1st round (also on path to play QF against him) he was very quick to lose his 2nd round - so he lost because Nadal wasn't in the draw, strange isn't it?

the only reasonable explanation for back to back early losses in Wimbledon/USO is simply that, Fed was pretty sh!t and his opponents were better.

either way only idiots would think players tank in a slam so they can avoid someone. What's really sad, is that someone actually would think that way.

Relax, jackass. It was simply food for thought as I alluded to.

As far as the Wimbledon loss this year, this "idiot" remembers how nervous Fed was when Rafa lost to Sod at RG almost losing to Haas. Also recall how nervous Fed appeared after Rafa lost to Rosol coming close to losing to Benneteau. Both of those matches were right after the mentioned shockers suggesting Fed had the finish line in sight and possibly got a little tight. Who knows, it may have caught up to him this year. Again, simply something to ponder.

This "idiot" is also on record saying Fed would end up with 17 or 18 slams right after AO '10 when a large contingent were knee-jerk predicting in the 20-25+ range. I bet you were one of them.

This "idiot" was also laughed at suggesting(despite breaking down the scenerio thoroughly) there was a legitimate chance Fed wouldn't catch Pete's 286 right after Indian Wells '10. The "sad" part is I busted the bank to witness in person the qtr loss to Sod that ended the slam SF streak and kept Pete's record in tact(at the time).

And yes I was on record saying the 286 ship had sailed, but held strong to 17 "if the stars somewhat aligned one more time" as it turned out with the Rosol shocker.

the stars aligned for fed at wimb..:s lol wut ?, that didn't include rafa as he lost to early to be relevant on any level..thats like saying lendl 's stars aligned in us open 1986 because McEnroe lost in the 1st rd..rafa was sh1te.

he did lose in the 2nd round when fed won didn't he ?..rafa was completely irrelevant to anything happening at Wimbledon 2012 nadal might as well have been a potted plant for all the tennis effect he had on that tourney..he was deflowered by a rampaging rosol.

Federer won wimb 2012 beacause djokovic had a mental off day in sf..and because he came up with some classic 'peak fed' tennis to fend off a rampant first 2 sets murray in the final.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

this whole roger n rafa saga bores me..

blah blah blah 17-12..blah blah h2h..drone waffle drone 2-8 at majors...

waffle waffle prime fed this baby rafa that..mono this..knee injury excuses that,,,post prime fed yada yada

top spin monkey..smarmy metrosexual ponce..butt picker moan moan. this, that, and wot not.

bleat moan waffle drone moooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

oh how I ache for the glory days of jurgen melzer.

 

[El Dude]

this whole roger n rafa saga bores me..

blah blah blah 17-12..blah blah h2h..drone waffle drone 2-8 at majors...

waffle waffle prime fed this baby rafa that..mono this..knee injury excuses that,,,post prime fed yada yada

top spin monkey..smarmy metrosexual ponce..butt picker moan moan. this, that, and wot not.

bleat moan waffle drone moooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

oh how I ache for the glory days of jurgen melzer.

I have no idea what you're saying but this may be the greatest post this site has ever seen, especially when you cap it off with the random Jurgen Melzer remark. Well done.

 

[fedfan]

Some may laugh at this and it may indeed be preposterous but give this some thought. Whether Roger would admit this or not I think he wants to be remembered as the GOAT. He realizes Nadal is a threat for that supremacy. He also knows that if it gets close like 17-15 or 16 the H2H discussion really comes into play. Nadal is playing lights out this year and he knows what would've happened if they would've met up in the qtrs.

It's already a ridiculous 10-21 and a loss Wednesday would've made it an even more embarrassing 2-9 in slams, including a loss in every slam if that would've played out.

In Roger's prime, obviously no way. But now a shell of himself and naturally fading with father time, could he be trying to protect his legacy with avoiding Rafa in a slam? I mean three sets to Robredo?!?

This has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. Laughable indeed! Oh yes, Roger's ego is such that he prefers losing to Robredo of all people rather than tarnish his already lopsided h2h tally with Nadal. This makes perfect sense.

oh yeah this fedfan is very smart, he can probably tell you that about Wimbledon as well. As soon as Fed saw that Nadal lost his 1st round (also on path to play QF against him) he was very quick to lose his 2nd round - so he lost because Nadal wasn't in the draw, strange isn't it?

the only reasonable explanation for back to back early losses in Wimbledon/USO is simply that, Fed was pretty sh!t and his opponents were better.

either way only idiots would think players tank in a slam so they can avoid someone. What's really sad, is that someone actually would think that way.

Relax, jackass. It was simply food for thought as I alluded to.

As far as the Wimbledon loss this year, this "idiot" remembers how nervous Fed was when Rafa lost to Sod at RG almost losing to Haas. Also recall how nervous Fed appeared after Rafa lost to Rosol coming close to losing to Benneteau. Both of those matches were right after the mentioned shockers suggesting Fed had the finish line in sight and possibly got a little tight. Who knows, it may have caught up to him this year. Again, simply something to ponder.

This "idiot" is also on record saying Fed would end up with 17 or 18 slams right after AO '10 when a large contingent were knee-jerk predicting in the 20-25+ range. I bet you were one of them.

This "idiot" was also laughed at suggesting(despite breaking down the scenerio thoroughly) there was a legitimate chance Fed wouldn't catch Pete's 286 right after Indian Wells '10. The "sad" part is I busted the bank to witness in person the qtr loss to Sod that ended the slam SF streak and kept Pete's record in tact(at the time).

And yes I was on record saying the 286 ship had sailed, but held strong to 17 "if the stars somewhat aligned one more time" as it turned out with the Rosol shocker.

the stars aligned for fed at wimb..:s lol wut ?, that didn't include rafa as he lost to early to be relevant on any level..thats like saying lendl 's stars aligned in us open 1986 because McEnroe lost in the 1st rd..rafa was sh1te.

he did lose in the 2nd round when fed won didn't he ?..rafa was completely irrelevant to anything happening at Wimbledon 2012 nadal might as well have been a potted plant for all the tennis effect he had on that tourney..he was deflowered by a rampaging rosol.

Federer won wimb 2012 beacause djokovic had a mental off day in sf..and because he came up with some classic 'peak fed' tennis to fend off a rampant first 2 sets murray in the final.

We all know that Rafa is in Fed's head. Granted Fed has a 2-1 adv at Wimbly, but those two loses occurred when Rafa was learning the grass game. Rafa was gradually gaining on Fed on grass as he took him to 4 sets('06), 5('07) then won in 5('08). My point was it was likely a psychological relief his MAIN nemesis wasn't in the field after that. I doubt Fed would've been as relaxed to produce some classic "peak fed" tennis knowing Rafa was on the other side of the net. Considering Rafa has reached 5 Wimbly finals(more than Nole and Murray combined)....there's the good fortune.