The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Front242]

Then also we can say just because you have beaten a player once or twice in your whole career doesn't mean you will always continue to do so. Those players can play better now (?) or the opponent worse (Nadal) but at the end the best one wins again unless to be under some injuries or psychology problems which usually are temporary

That's what I said just said. Head to heads mean very little. On paper who had Wawrinka as the favourite to beat Djokovic at RG given his head to head record? Very few I'd imagine.

H2H means a lot when both players have played against a bunch of matches (and not just 3 or 4) and one of them has more wins

Tell that to all the millions of people who lost money backing Djokovic to win the French Open this year. It only means so much.

 

[the AntiPusher]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I think we just have different definitions of the terms is all. Roger winning Wimbledon going on age 31 is mostly an old guy who was still very good who stepped it up at the right time for what might be one last ride of glory. Did Roger play as well at Wimbledon 2012 as he did in his younger years? I'd say no. Roger is greater on grass than everyone else in this era by a country mile. So if he plays a little less than he did in his prime it still is no surprise that he has a decent chance to win. That's what Wimbledon 2012 and 2014 were IMO. An old timer who is still very good that played above his (new) average level throughout (aside from a couple early rounds in 2012). This year was one really great performance in the semi followed by a poor final that made Roger look his age and then some.

I most definitely disagree, a player has to be at their peak playing level to beat two 25 year-old s who were ranked both inside of the top four ranking position as were Murray and Djokovic at SW19 2012. A example of a old player who was past his prime years but was able to peak and beat top ranked players was Sampras 2002 run at the US open. The only players he beat close to age was Greg R and his pigeon Agassi. Would you say Roger level was the same as Pete's level, heck no. Pete hadn't won anything in almost 2 years whereas Roger was still a factor at the grand slams and masters series event. Nuff Said

 

[DarthFed]

And I'm sure that you can now see how not only "tennis related" injuries or operations can have a detrimental effect on a player, eh?


Even when he's suffering from mono and played almost five hours in the heat two days before... :dodgy:

Mono is intermittent. Soderling couldn't play at all at Wimbledon 2011 against Tomic and was dizzy and sweating like Michael Jackson in the school playground. Then in November 2011 at his last tournament in Bastad he was 100% fine and destroyed Berdych 6-0 6-1 in the semi and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final. And neither are those guys are exactly bad on clay. Then a few days later his mono relapsed and got so bad he hasn't played since. See: intermittent

Now on the other if you actually do want to cite an example of otherworldly recovery, then look no further than a certain Rafael Nadal who played or 5 hrs 14 minutes against Verdasco in the AO '09 semi and was then fresh as a daisy against Federer in the final. I'd say give up on slagging Federer beating the mighty Berdych and Blake at the AO '08 after a whole 2 days off as Blake had never beaten him before at that stage and Roger was a terrible match up for him (always targeted Blake's weak backhand) and Berdych only started really troubling Roger from 2010 onwards. The big hitters started troubling him from 2010 onwards. Soderling at RG 2010, Berdych at Wimbledon 2010 and Tsonga the year after. Before that, in his prime, he handled them easily. That was no mighty feat beating them though in 2008. It was expected, mono or not.

He hadn't declined as much as he did from early 2010 onwards. And even then, I give Soderling and Berdych credit there, they played great. Tsonga the year after at Wimbledon 2011 played great too but that was a clear indication that Roger's game had gone south that he couldn't get any proper read on Tsonga's serve for the last 3 sets as his ROS had declined a lot. He lost each of the last 3 sets straight from the start going down an early break and never recovered.

Yeah, mono is intermittent. When he played well, it didn't affect him because it's intermittent. And when he was beaten, well it's because of mono, it stuck then because it's intermittent.

His recovery was remarkable, buddy. Insane and incredible. If he was Spanish, you'd be all over it, quoting the Pope and all. Regardless, it was a strong comeback to defeat Berdy in straights. Which utterly negates federbergs foolish assertion that the Tipsy match drained him before he was hammered by Nole...

His play was pretty dreadful the entire first 4 months of the year. You use a semifinal drubbing at the Oz as some sort of proof he was playing decent. And the loss of confidence made him weaker long after he recovered from mono. Aside from USO he won a few small tourneys and stunk the rest of the year.

 

[Kieran]

That's what I said just said. Head to heads mean very little. On paper who had Wawrinka as the favourite to beat Djokovic at RG given his head to head record? Very few I'd imagine.

H2H means a lot when both players have played against a bunch of matches (and not just 3 or 4) and one of them has more wins

Tell that to all the millions of people who lost money backing Djokovic to win the French Open this year. It only means so much.

Tell it even faster to the millions of people who'll bet on Roger beating Rafa in a slam... :laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I think we just have different definitions of the terms is all. Roger winning Wimbledon going on age 31 is mostly an old guy who was still very good who stepped it up at the right time for what might be one last ride of glory. Did Roger play as well at Wimbledon 2012 as he did in his younger years? I'd say no. Roger is greater on grass than everyone else in this era by a country mile. So if he plays a little less than he did in his prime it still is no surprise that he has a decent chance to win. That's what Wimbledon 2012 and 2014 were IMO. An old timer who is still very good that played above his (new) average level throughout (aside from a couple early rounds in 2012). This year was one really great performance in the semi followed by a poor final that made Roger look his age and then some.

I most definitely disagree, a player has to be at their peak playing level to beat two 25 year-old s who were ranked both inside of the top four ranking position as were Murray and Djokovic.A example of a old player who was past his prime years but was able to beat top ranked players was Sampras 2002 run at the US open. The only player he beat close to age was Greg R and his pigeon Agassi. Would you say Roger level was the same as Pete's level, beck no. Pete hadn't won anything in almost 2 years whereas Roger was still a factor at the grand slams and masters series event. Nuff Said

Pete lost motivation after getting the record. Roger has admirably stayed pretty motivated long after he broke the record in 2009. So yes, Roger has aged a lot better than Pete seeing as how he is still out there and highly ranked. You do realize Roger was the same age in 2012 that Pete was in 2002 right? Roger would have to be the most blessed tennis player by tenfold to have a prime that spans 10 years. I don't think I've seen that in any sport honestly.

 

[Front242]

Many people called it "the miracolous mono" :snicker

You can roll your eyes so considering Roger won only 1 slam that year in 2008 and I'll roll my eyes at Nadal's absolutely dreadful knee injury in 2009 that was so bad he came back and won 3 slams in 2010 and then his other woefully bad knee injury in 2012 that was so bad he came back and won 2 slams and 5 masters titles lol. Nadal fans, you can't beat them for sheer unintentional comedy value :laydownlaughing If you want to roll your eyes at least have a better defense 'cos it's pretty obvious who's had the more miraculous recoveries!

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think we just have different definitions of the terms is all. Roger winning Wimbledon going on age 31 is mostly an old guy who was still very good who stepped it up at the right time for what might be one last ride of glory. Did Roger play as well at Wimbledon 2012 as he did in his younger years? I'd say no. Roger is greater on grass than everyone else in this era by a country mile. So if he plays a little less than he did in his prime it still is no surprise that he has a decent chance to win. That's what Wimbledon 2012 and 2014 were IMO. An old timer who is still very good that played above his (new) average level throughout (aside from a couple early rounds in 2012). This year was one really great performance in the semi followed by a poor final that made Roger look his age and then some.

I most definitely disagree, a player has to be at their peak playing level to beat two 25 year-old s who were ranked both inside of the top four ranking position as were Murray and Djokovic.A example of a old player who was past his prime years but was able to beat top ranked players was Sampras 2002 run at the US open. The only player he beat close to age was Greg R and his pigeon Agassi. Would you say Roger level was the same as Pete's level, beck no. Pete hadn't won anything in almost 2 years whereas Roger was still a factor at the grand slams and masters series event. Nuff Said

Pete lost motivation after getting the record. Roger has admirably stayed pretty motivated long after he broke the recoyrd in 2009. So yes, Roger has aged a lot better than Pete seeing as how he is still out there and highly ranked. You do realize Roger was the same age in 2012 that Pete was in 2002 right? Roger would have to be the most blessed tennis player by tenfold to have a prime that spans 10 years. I don't think I've seen that in any sport honestly.

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

 

[Front242]

I most definitely disagree, a player has to be at their peak playing level to beat two 25 year-old s who were ranked both inside of the top four ranking position as were Murray and Djokovic.A example of a old player who was past his prime years but was able to beat top ranked players was Sampras 2002 run at the US open. The only player he beat close to age was Greg R and his pigeon Agassi. Would you say Roger level was the same as Pete's level, beck no. Pete hadn't won anything in almost 2 years whereas Roger was still a factor at the grand slams and masters series event. Nuff Said

Pete lost motivation after getting the record. Roger has admirably stayed pretty motivated long after he broke the recoyrd in 2009. So yes, Roger has aged a lot better than Pete seeing as how he is still out there and highly ranked. You do realize Roger was the same age in 2012 that Pete was in 2002 right? Roger would have to be the most blessed tennis player by tenfold to have a prime that spans 10 years. I don't think I've seen that in any sport honestly.

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

 

[Federberg]

Many people called it "the miracolous mono" :snicker

You can roll your eyes so considering Roger won only 1 slam that year in 2008 and I'll roll my eyes at Nadal's absolutely dreadful knee injury in 2009 that was so bad he came back and won 3 slams in 2010 and then his other woefully bad knee injury in 2012 that was so bad he came back and won 2 slams and 5 masters titles lol. Nadal fans, you can't beat them for sheer unintentional comedy value :laydownlaughing If you want to roll your eyes at least have a better defense 'cos it's pretty obvious who's had the more miraculous recoveries!

It's an intermittent knee injury :snicker

 

[Federberg]

Pete lost motivation after getting the record. Roger has admirably stayed pretty motivated long after he broke the recoyrd in 2009. So yes, Roger has aged a lot better than Pete seeing as how he is still out there and highly ranked. You do realize Roger was the same age in 2012 that Pete was in 2002 right? Roger would have to be the most blessed tennis player by tenfold to have a prime that spans 10 years. I don't think I've seen that in any sport honestly.

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Pete lost motivation after getting the record. Roger has admirably stayed pretty motivated long after he broke the recoyrd in 2009. So yes, Roger has aged a lot better than Pete seeing as how he is still out there and highly ranked. You do realize Roger was the same age in 2012 that Pete was in 2002 right? Roger would have to be the most blessed tennis player by tenfold to have a prime that spans 10 years. I don't think I've seen that in any sport honestly.

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

Yet you still missed the point again because we are referring to the end of Federer peak, 2012. I can't try to get you to understand, Federerberg maybe you can break it down to Front'sunderstanding. I give up because this is turning into an exercise of futility for me.

 

[the AntiPusher]

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

thanks FB. :clap

 

[Front242]

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

It was just one tournament imo where an over the hill, ageing top player rolled back the years to win a slam. I mean, think of it this way, Connors reached the semis of the USO in 1991 which was pretty incredible for a 39 year old but was he in his peak/prime at the age of 39? Of course not and that's my reasoning when I say no. Roger played a fantastic match against Murray at Wimbledon this year. The serving was unbelievable. But that wasn't peak or prime, that was just one match as we soon saw in the final, where he was nowhere near as good. Roger was just able to do it 2 matches in a row in 2012 but I'd argue Murray was better this year in the semi than he was against Federer in the 2012 final, despite losing in straights this time but Djokovic was definitely not as good in 2012 when Federer beat him imo. He's improved a lot the last 2 years on grass.

 

[Federberg]

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

It was just one tournament imo where an over the hill, ageing top player rolled back the years to win a slam. I mean, think of it this way, Connors reached the semis of the USO in 1991 which was pretty incredible for a 39 year old but was he in his peak/prime at the age of 39? Of course not and that's my reasoning when I say no. Roger played a fantastic match against Murray at Wimbledon this year. The serving was unbelievable. But that wasn't peak or prime, that was just one match as we soon saw in the final, where he was nowhere near as good. Roger was just able to do it 2 matches in a row in 2012 but I'd argue Murray was better this year in the semi than he was against Federer in the 2012 final, despite losing in straights this time but Djokovic was definitely not as good in 2012 when Federer beat him imo. He's improved a lot the last 2 years on grass.

I still think there's a misunderstanding here. No one is saying that Roger rolled back the years to his prime. What we're saying is that he was able to get his performance to peak. He was playing at the best of his current capabilities. This has nothing to do with his prime years at all. Just like a sprinter is able to get their performance to a peak for the Olympics. It's nothing to do with their all time best performance, it's all about optimising their performance at that particular time. Nothing to do with Roger reliving his glory years

 

[Kieran]

Many people called it "the miracolous mono" :snicker

You can roll your eyes so considering Roger won only 1 slam that year in 2008 and I'll roll my eyes at Nadal's absolutely dreadful knee injury in 2009 that was so bad he came back and won 3 slams in 2010 and then his other woefully bad knee injury in 2012 that was so bad he came back and won 2 slams and 5 masters titles lol. Nadal fans, you can't beat them for sheer unintentional comedy value :laydownlaughing If you want to roll your eyes at least have a better defense 'cos it's pretty obvious who's had the more miraculous recoveries!

Not a sensible argument, buddy. First off, Roger "only won 1 slam" in 2008? Rafa hit his peak then, so how many slams did you expect? And Nole has shown himself to be the most efficient champ at Flinders Park that we've seen, so his win in 2008 can't be seen as being extraordinary.

Rafa skipped Wimbledon in 2009 - and didn't play well again until clay 2010. How's that for a speedy recovery. :cover

And he skipped time in 2012, and wasn't at his best again until clay the following year. Superfast. You get so inconsistent and hypocritical over this thing about fast recoveries, given how well federer did while suffering from (intermittent when it suits you :cover ) mono. You'd be wiser to give credit to others and not draw too much attention to your own glass house..

 

[Front242]

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

It was just one tournament imo where an over the hill, ageing top player rolled back the years to win a slam. I mean, think of it this way, Connors reached the semis of the USO in 1991 which was pretty incredible for a 39 year old but was he in his peak/prime at the age of 39? Of course not and that's my reasoning when I say no. Roger played a fantastic match against Murray at Wimbledon this year. The serving was unbelievable. But that wasn't peak or prime, that was just one match as we soon saw in the final, where he was nowhere near as good. Roger was just able to do it 2 matches in a row in 2012 but I'd argue Murray was better this year in the semi than he was against Federer in the 2012 final, despite losing in straights this time but Djokovic was definitely not as good in 2012 when Federer beat him imo. He's improved a lot the last 2 years on grass.

I still think there's a misunderstanding here. No one is saying that Roger rolled back the years to his prime. What we're saying is that he was able to get his performance to peak. He was playing at the best of his current capabilities. This has nothing to do with his prime years at all. Just like a sprinter is able to get their performance to a peak for the Olympics. It's nothing to do with their all time best performance, it's all about optimising their performance at that particular time. Nothing to do with Roger reliving his glory years

Well yeah, but any professional athlete can practice and hope they perform their best on the day so Roger played his peak/best match of this year's Wimbledon against Murray, no doubt about it. It's still all pretty much dependent on nerves, the way the other guy is playing, etc and when Federer had the invincible aura from 2004-2007 none of that mattered as he was winning so much and so brimming with confidence the nerves were probably massively different. Btw, wouldn't bother bringing sprinters into this as we all know how they "optimise" their performance. Tennis may well be the same but at least in athletics they control them better and catch some of the dirty b******s.

 

[Federberg]

It was just one tournament imo where an over the hill, ageing top player rolled back the years to win a slam. I mean, think of it this way, Connors reached the semis of the USO in 1991 which was pretty incredible for a 39 year old but was he in his peak/prime at the age of 39? Of course not and that's my reasoning when I say no. Roger played a fantastic match against Murray at Wimbledon this year. The serving was unbelievable. But that wasn't peak or prime, that was just one match as we soon saw in the final, where he was nowhere near as good. Roger was just able to do it 2 matches in a row in 2012 but I'd argue Murray was better this year in the semi than he was against Federer in the 2012 final, despite losing in straights this time but Djokovic was definitely not as good in 2012 when Federer beat him imo. He's improved a lot the last 2 years on grass.

I still think there's a misunderstanding here. No one is saying that Roger rolled back the years to his prime. What we're saying is that he was able to get his performance to peak. He was playing at the best of his current capabilities. This has nothing to do with his prime years at all. Just like a sprinter is able to get their performance to a peak for the Olympics. It's nothing to do with their all time best performance, it's all about optimising their performance at that particular time. Nothing to do with Roger reliving his glory years

Well yeah, but any professional athlete can practice and hope they perform their best on the day so Roger played his peak/best match of this year's Wimbledon against Murray, no doubt about it. It's still all pretty much dependent on nerves, the way the other guy is playing, etc and when Federer had the invincible aura from 2004-2007 none of that mattered as he was winning so much and so brimming with confidence the nerves were probably massively different. Btw, wouldn't bother bringing sprinters into this as we all know how they "optimise" their performance. Tennis may well be the same but at least in athletics they control them better and catch some of the dirty b******s.

Haha! I hear you. I was desperate to get my point across. Shocking revelations in the Times over here. Same stuff from the German tv channel from earlier on in the year. Getting more coverage now as we get close to the World champs

 

[Front242]

Many people called it "the miracolous mono" :snicker

You can roll your eyes so considering Roger won only 1 slam that year in 2008 and I'll roll my eyes at Nadal's absolutely dreadful knee injury in 2009 that was so bad he came back and won 3 slams in 2010 and then his other woefully bad knee injury in 2012 that was so bad he came back and won 2 slams and 5 masters titles lol. Nadal fans, you can't beat them for sheer unintentional comedy value :laydownlaughing If you want to roll your eyes at least have a better defense 'cos it's pretty obvious who's had the more miraculous recoveries!

Not a sensible argument, buddy. First off, Roger "only won 1 slam" in 2008? Rafa hit his peak then, so how many slams did you expect? And Nole has shown himself to be the most efficient champ at Flinders Park that we've seen, so his win in 2008 can't be seen as being extraordinary.

Rafa skipped Wimbledon in 2009 - and didn't play well again until clay 2010. How's that for a speedy recovery. :cover

And he skipped time in 2012, and wasn't at his best again until clay the following year. Superfast. You get so inconsistent and hypocritical over this thing about fast recoveries, given how well federer did while suffering from (intermittent when it suits you :cover ) mono. You'd be wiser to give credit to others and not draw too much attention to your own glass house..

Right so he missed 1 tournament (Wimbledon) in 2009 due to an unbelievably bad (hmmm) knee injury and then missed the AO '13 'cos he had a sore tummy (this one was his own choice as he was physically fine by this stage except mummy wouldn't let him outside till his poor tummy was better). I'd say missing 2 slams which may he not even have won anyway (only 1 with a semi proper manly excuse btw) and then coming back and winning 5 slams makes for a pretty decent comeback personally And btw, Nadal reached the semis of the 2009 USO which considering how tragically bad his knee was after RG seems pretty good and actually quite miraculously fast for most people who don't worship Nadal. Plus, he's rarely ever been good in the 2nd half of the year so this slow comeback is all in your imagination. He reached the semis of the last slam of the year and performed not a whole lot differently than previous years in the latter half of the year.

You've also just shot yourself in the foot with your first paragraph (well done) by acknowledging that Roger won only 1 slam because Nadal had reached his peak and clearly you also know Federer's had now ended and yet just yesterday I was sifting through pages of garbage where you denied that Federer's prime ending and coinciding with Nadal's prime had no effect on their head to head going from 6-8 in Nadal's favour to just plain ugly 'cos the old guy wasn't getting any better with age.

 

[Front242]

I still think there's a misunderstanding here. No one is saying that Roger rolled back the years to his prime. What we're saying is that he was able to get his performance to peak. He was playing at the best of his current capabilities. This has nothing to do with his prime years at all. Just like a sprinter is able to get their performance to a peak for the Olympics. It's nothing to do with their all time best performance, it's all about optimising their performance at that particular time. Nothing to do with Roger reliving his glory years

Well yeah, but any professional athlete can practice and hope they perform their best on the day so Roger played his peak/best match of this year's Wimbledon against Murray, no doubt about it. It's still all pretty much dependent on nerves, the way the other guy is playing, etc and when Federer had the invincible aura from 2004-2007 none of that mattered as he was winning so much and so brimming with confidence the nerves were probably massively different. Btw, wouldn't bother bringing sprinters into this as we all know how they "optimise" their performance. Tennis may well be the same but at least in athletics they control them better and catch some of the dirty b******s.

Haha! I hear you. I was desperate to get my point across. Shocking revelations in the Times over here. Same stuff from the German tv channel from earlier on in the year. Getting more coverage now as we get close to the World champs

Yeah, it's unreal. For anyone who didn't read it, here it is. Can't believe all the corruption in sport these days. Frankly makes me sick.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33749208
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/athletics/leaked-iaaf-data-reveals-extraordinary-extent-of-cheating_sto4842195/story.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/02/athletics-facing-new-doping-crisis

 

[Carol]

Many people called it "the miracolous mono" :snicker

You can roll your eyes so considering Roger won only 1 slam that year in 2008 and I'll roll my eyes at Nadal's absolutely dreadful knee injury in 2009 that was so bad he came back and won 3 slams in 2010 and then his other woefully bad knee injury in 2012 that was so bad he came back and won 2 slams and 5 masters titles lol. Nadal fans, you can't beat them for sheer unintentional comedy value :laydownlaughing If you want to roll your eyes at least have a better defense 'cos it's pretty obvious who's had the more miraculous recoveries!

When you get mono the first thing the doctor tells you is that you have to rest, to avoid any kind of effort , otherwise you are going to feel worse and worse, to have more complications and the sickness can last forever. My brother was a swimmer, he got mono and he couldn't even to do an stroke, he felt the arms and legs so tired and heavy that he wasn't able to do anything and he didn't get the worse mono but he was off for three months
Then do you think that Nadal took just a long vacation when he was first out of the court for three months and later for seven months due to his very known knee injury and he was threaded by the doctors that if he didn't go through an intense knee treatment it would be the end of his career? come on, don't mix the bacon with the speed, two cases completely diferent :cover :nono