Nadal Says Knees Still Not Right
by Sean Randall | July 30th, 2009, 12:05 am
  • 171 Comments

So the story of Rafael Nadal and his troublesome knees continue. Nadal said on his website in an interview with TVE today that he “would like” to play in Montreal, but that it still depends on his health of his knees.

Maybe he’s just being overly cautious, but this does set up for another soon-to-come cliffhanger announcement from Nadal on whether he will or will not play Montreal. Look for that in your local listings in about a week or so.

And I know many of you think I’m being mean-spirited toward Rafa, I am not. I want him back on the court just as much as anyone else, I just hope he handles this issue better going forward then he has the past few months.

My guess on it is he’ll play Canada and then he’ll play Cincinnati, too. But that said, from my own experience knee tendinitis comes and goes. It’s a strange one.

In other news, I don’t often say it much but women’s tennis is actually in the forefront this week in Stanford with the Williams sisters, Serena and Venus, lighting things up. Jelena Jankovic and Elena Dementieva are also there along with Maria Sharapova who I see hammered Nadia Petrova, 6-1, 6-2. Nadia’s a complete basket case when it comes to Maria!

Maria will now likely meet Venus on Friday.

Down the coast in Los Angeles, it’s all about the guys with the big guns. John Isner and Marat Safin both are into the quarterfinals. Mardy Fish (who plays The Gooch), Robert Kendrick, Sam Querrey are scheduled to play second rounders Thursday.

Top seed Tommy Haas and Jesse Levine are heading out on court right now.

L.A. resident Pete Sampras played Safin in an exo Monday and then chimed in on Roger Federer’s new twins.

“He’s going to be on the road as soon as he can,” Sampras said. “He’s going to be playing, like, 40 weeks a year. … I don’t see Roger changing diapers at 4 o’clock in the morning in New York. What do you think?”

I think Pete’s right!


Also Check Out:
Rafael Nadal’s Knees Are Still Sore, He Hopes They Will Hold Up For South America [Video]
David Ferrer: Rafa Doesn’t Have Pain In His Knees Anymore
Rafael Nadal Confirms Knees OK, ‘Preventitive Measure’ Led to Barcelona Withdrawl
Bad Knees Are Still Bad, Rafael Nadal Forced Out Of Cincinnati For First Time In Career; US Open In Jeopardy?
Nadal Withdraws From Queens Due to Bad Knees

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

171 Comments for Nadal Says Knees Still Not Right

sports fan Says:

I think Rafa will be just fine…….But I agree if he decides not too play him and his team need to handle it better………My prediction for the US Open is a Federer vs Murray Final again with Federer coming out on top in 4 or 5 sets………I would love some people to comment on my prediction in a positive or negative way because it does not matter to me.


mquill Says:

It’ll be in straight sets not four or five… LOL


Mina Says:

I’m hoping Rafa and his team will be smart and rest his knees when necessary. There’s no point pushing forward with the hardcourt season if there is a chance that he could be facing more severe or even permanent injury.


grendel Says:

sports fan

I’d be surprised if Federer makes it to the final. Fortune has smiled on Federer the last few months, and that certainly will turn, it’s just a matter of when. That’s in the nature of things.

Murray seems a good bet, who knows where Nadal is, Djokovic surely will show up soon, if Roddick and del Potro are fit they’re going to be around towards the death, look for Cilic to impress….


Marcus Says:

I am not sure Federer will win but if I were to bet, my money will still be on him. The bigger probability is that Nadal will not win. If he plays in events prior to the US Open, it will increase the chances of his tendinitis becoming reaggravated. If he doees not play them, then he will be lacking in match play going into a big event. No wonder that Nadal sounded unsure in his intervies.


Maso Says:

Interesting, Grendel, considering the last time Roger did not make it to a slam final was the Australian in 08 and those were special circumstances (though there’s nothing to be said about the whooping he took from Djoko in straight sets in the semis, Novak just played too good). He’s also won the U.S. Open 5 times in a row, making him the favorite by a long shot. It’s Murray I don’t see going to the final, I think he’s got too much pressure on his shoulders and he’s going to crack. Djokovic hasn’t had such a good season, but he’s one I would love to see going to the final and perhaps even taking his first U.S. Open crown. If Roddick can pull the tennis he showed us at Wimbledon, he’s gonna be a serious contender as well. Del Potro was disappointing at Wimbledon but terrifying at Roland Garos so… we’ll see what he can do at Flushing Meadows. But anyway, my money’s on Roger or Novak.


Dan Martin Says:

It is a balancing act for Nadal at this point. If he can play his way through a few rounds then skipping some events might be for the best, but not being match tough and drawing someone ranked 33-50 in the world who has a good fast court game could be disastrous in the first 2 rounds and he might be looking at a seeded player in the 3rd round if the draw holds up. If he wins 3 matches that will be at least 9 sets under his belt and he might be ready for the second week at that point.


Marcus Says:

Hopefully, Nadal’s matches will have shorter games and not go the full 5 sets, otherwise, his knees may become a problem. If he wins in straight sets then have a rest day in between, he may do well enough. Another factor to consider is that the other players may have gained some confidence in playing him knowing that Nadal may have some impediment and that the longer they can keep him on court, the chances of beating him increases. It would be interesting to see how Nadal plays in his first return tournament. Hopefully he is fine. Tennis looks much better when he is around.


Scottish Says:

Hope Rafa comes back soon. He would be a fool to push it and then do more damage but it sure isn’t the same without him. He needs to forget about rankings right now and focus on getting healthy again. The rankings will only get worse for the long term if he plays injured.

As for Fed at the USO I would love to see him beat Murray in the final in 3 but realistically the guy just can’t keep it up forever. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t even make it to the final. It will all depend on how he handles being dad to twins and how his game holds up in Montreal and Cincy.

Would love to see him win at least 3 more slams before his career is over. I don’t think anyone really can say he’s done after this year. If he stays healthy and keeps playing for several more years who knows how far he can go.

Hope everyone has a great day!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Marcus, that’s a good point. Players would now KNOW that Nadal will not want to play 5 hours on a hard court. Till now, players would eventually give in since they knew that Nadal would want to just keep going. A big psychological shift.

Re. Sampras’s comments – he made some rather arrogant and contradictory comments in LA. on one hand, he keeps saying “Federer is the GOAT”. On the other hand, he keeps making digs that “Federer didn’t have enough competition, he has a losing record to Nadal (on clay)”, blah blah blah.

Its fine – Sampras is certainly entitled to his opinions. I am just puzzled by the contradictions – either he thinks Fed faced legitimate competition and is the legitimate GOAT, or he feels otherwise. He has been saying both, from both sides of his mouth.

So which one is is Pete?

And ya, his arrogant comment about Agassi as well:

“You know, I didn’t beat Andre every time; he beat me — ah, just not in the big matches.”

Sampras was 20-14 overall on Agassi. 6-3 in slams (includes 2-0 at wimbledon, so 4-3 outside of wimbledon), and 9-7 in finals. That doesn’t seem like Agassi didn’t beat Sampras in big matches – he beat Sampras in 7 finals, and thrice in slams. He does have an edge over agassi, but its not an overwhelmingly one-sided record or anything.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Nadal also said this:

“My main objective is not to regain the number one ranking. My main goal is to be well and happy to be playing tennis,” Rafa said.

Well, playing all those clay tournaments to defend his ranking points year after year doesn’t support this. There’s nothing wrong in wanting the No 1 ranking, so why the need to deny it just to be politically corrent? Or just in case he doesn’t get back the ranking, not to seem like a loser?


Marcus Says:

I think that Nadal, after this setback from tendinitis which forced him to miss tournaments, realized how volatile an athlete’s career can be. I am sure he would like to be number one again but realizing the toll it will take on his body, he has to accept some lessening of his goal. If his body would allow it, I have no doubts that he will try to be the best that he could be, including being number one again. I believe his statement reflects on how much he loves and misses the game.


Marcus Says:

About Sampras, great champions have big egos. Sometimes it is hard to accept that there may be somebody who may be greater. Having been excellent champions during their prime, I could not fault them for thinking that maybe, just maybe, if he and the new champion met during both their prime, he would have come out the victor. Possible but that is something that there is no answer to. But having been a champion, I will allow him some slack and have him continue to feel like a champion. Every champion deserves that.


snrao Says:

I think Nadal will be Back and will make it three in a row.2 Masters 1000 and US Open for carrier Grand slam.


SG Says:

Fed is GOAT Says:

Re. Sampras’s comments – he made some rather arrogant and contradictory comments in LA. on one hand, he keeps saying “Federer is the GOAT”. On the other hand, he keeps making digs that “Federer didn’t have enough competition, he has a losing record to Nadal (on clay)”, blah blah blah.

Its fine – Sampras is certainly entitled to his opinions. I am just puzzled by the contradictions – either he thinks Fed faced legitimate competition and is the legitimate GOAT, or he feels otherwise. He has been saying both, from both sides of his mouth.

So which one is is Pete?

And ya, his arrogant comment about Agassi as well:

“You know, I didn’t beat Andre every time; he beat me — ah, just not in the big matches.”

*************************

I’d agree…Pete should stop talking about this stuff. You what would be even better? If you stopped talking altogether. Your level of hypocrisy is just nauseating. It’s OK to bash Sampras at will right F.I.G.? But, let’s attack anyone that says anything negative about good ‘ole Rog! Like he’s beyond reproach. It’s like you’ve intentionally painted a target on yourself. If you’re gonna’ dish it, be prepared to take it. I don’t remember Sampras weeping like baby after any of his losses. I’ll bet Sampras was laughing his ass off watching Federer cry in front of a whole stadium.


Von Says:

“Players would now KNOW that Nadal will not want to play 5 hours on a hard court. Till now, players would eventually give in since they knew that Nadal would want to just keep going. A big psychological shift.”

Maybe yes, but then again this could backfire on them. Perhaps this is what Nadal would like for his opponents to think, lulling them into a false sense of security as it were, and then finally blowing them away. It’s not a very easy thing for a player to play one who is deemed ‘injured’ because they go into the match waiting for the injured one to cave in at any time, and if that doesn’t happen when playing Nadal, then it will be shock attack. Not every player can shift into a higher gear when that which they are hoping for doesn’t happen.

Roddick going into the QFs at the USO thought Djokovic was injured and got a good thrashing in the first set; he tried upping his play in the second and third sets, but it was too late. The players need to live by the motto ‘be prepared’.


SG Says:

As for Nadal. He’s at a dangerous point in his career. If he stops playing for 6 month, he could lose his edge. I can’t think of one player that stopped playing and came back to be dominant.

If he comes back, he could prevent himself from healing. You’d think modern medicine could help fix sore knees. It’s like his knee is shredded the way Bobby Orr’s was.

Well, if Nadal is never the same at least he’ll have his millions of dollars to console himself with. Bobby Orr never had that.


jane Says:

Fed is goat says “Well, playing all those clay tournaments to defend his ranking points year after year doesn’t support this. There’s nothing wrong in wanting the No 1 ranking, so why the need to deny it just to be politically corrent? ”

Nadal also said -in the same interview- that he made mistakes with his schedule and shouldn’t have played Madrid. So I think he’s being honest. All he is saying is that, at the moment, number 1 is less of a priority than being healthy and fit on the court. That sounds pretty sensible and honest to me – esp. when you consider that in addition to those reprioritisations he admits that he needs to play less. The two considerations fit.


Von Says:

FIG:

“Sampras’s comments – he made some rather arrogant and contradictory comments in LA. on one hand, he keeps saying “Federer is the GOAT”.”

Sampras has not come out and stated affirmatively that ‘Federer is the Goat’. He was asked a question if he thinks Federer is, and he said he’d ‘most probably’ give Federer the nod, but that was continget upon other factors, e.g., Federer’s H2H v. Nadal, etc.

Anyway, why is it so important for Sampras or any of the former greats, for that matter, to acknowledge Federer is the GOAT? That’s what I’d like to know? Why this fixated need for validation?


jane Says:

SG says “I can’t think of one player that stopped playing and came back to be dominant.”

Agassi might be the exception?


Von Says:

Agassi wasn’t injured, he was on a sabbatical. It’s very difficult for an ‘injured’ player to return to a competitive level once they’ve been laid up for several months.


jane Says:

Von asks “Why this fixated need for validation?”

Great question! It might be that there is no *official* “GOATdom” and therefore people need to affirm it? After all, there is no award denoting “GOAT” status, except in people’s minds, which makes it precarious. It’s an opinion, derived from statistics and records. But it’s still an opinion or an interpretation, nothing official.


jane Says:

I do realise Agassi wasn’t injured. SG stated a “player that stopped playing” so I wasn’t sure if that meant injured or merely away from the game for an extended period – hence the question mark after my posing Agassi as a possible example.

If it’s a mental thing, then Agassi’s break proves a player can leave and come back even better and more focused than ever. I guess it just depends on the person.


Von Says:

jane: “After all, there is no award denoting “GOAT” status, except in people’s minds, which makes it precarious.”

I watch several other sports, and I’ve yet to hear the GOAT designation thrown about as it is in tennis.

On Sunday, I watched Michael Phelps compete in Worlds and he was mentioned as ‘the most decorated swimmer’. Michelle Kwan has the same acknowledgemnt ‘the most highly decorated in figure skating’. Thus, what’s this obsession for GOAT status in tennis by some who’ve probably never played the game?

I was recently told by a Federer fan that his fans have the ‘advantage’ over the fans of other players in the tennis world, because they picked a ‘winner’. Hello, isn’t every other opponent a ‘winner’ when he/she wins a title? Weren’t Ginepri and Davydenko winners last week?


Voicemale1 Says:

Wanna know how dominated this board’s article writers are by Federer Kool Aid Drinkers? Just look at this Randall post, the biggest Federer Kool Aid Drinker here. Only he could write something about Nadal and his injuries and STILL find a way to inject Federer’s name into it, frivolous as it is. As if anyone cares or has any relevance at all to Nadal & his knees what Sampras thinks about Federer’s kids.

SG: It’s best just to roll eyes and snicker at someone like Federer Is GOAT. After all, anyone with a posting name like that tells you all you need to know: he lives vicariously through Federer as though he WAS Federer, or because he wishes to BE Federer. That’s why he blasts, berates and belittles every other player, especially the ones who beat Federer. We all understand that when FIG bleats on endlessly defending Federer on this board it amounts to an ipso-facto self defense. Just treat him like the rest of us do: he’s like that guy in any Boobie Hatch who has severe delusions of grandeur, living through the accomplishments of others because they have no accomplishments of their own to live through. He’s the ultimate example of hero-worship morphed into dementia.


Sean Randall Says:

Still with the GOAT talk…remember folks:

15 > everything else


Sean Randall Says:

Voicemale1, yup. Ya got me again. The whole post as anyone can clearly see is about… FEDERER! Yawn…


jane Says:

Von,

I don’t watch a lot of other sports, but about the few I do, I could say the same; for example, while Gretzky was nickname “the great one”, he wasn’t resolutely declared the GOAT in hockey. In fact, many players are honored as being great and as contributing to the sport. And since any sport evolves quickly, that means new great players are evolving along with the game itself, all the time.

To my mind, the facts are easier to deal in: most dominant of a certain time period, most titles, record weeks at number 1, most grass titles, most clay titles, longest surface streak, calendar slam, golden slam, etc. These are straightforward accolades that can be acknowledged by anyone.


tenisbebe Says:

sportfan says: “My prediction for the US Open is a Federer vs Murray Final again with Federer coming out on top in 4 or 5 sets………I would love some people to comment on my prediction in a positive or negative way because it does not matter to me.”

I said at the start of Wimbledon, Roddick winning Wimby, Nadal or Murray the USO. Given Rafa’s ongoing knee problems, am definitely leaning toward Murray. And if it doesn’t matter to you, why ask for others to comment? Obviously it does, sheesh.


jane Says:

Sean, “15 > everything else” All this means “offically” is that Fed has the most slam titles. 1 more than Pete. It doesn’t officially mean he’s the greatest player of all time, ever to pick up a racquet, to dance on the court, or whatever! He doesn’t have a longer streak on any surface than Nadal; he’s not been at number 1 longer than Sampras; he doesn’t have a golden slam, like Graf, or a calendar slam, like Laver. You make it sound so final, and you know what? GOAT is final only in your mind and other like-minded folks. Many people disagree; many could care less.


Von Says:

Sean;

Last night when I read your article, (and it’s the reason I didn’t post then) I thought to myself that this article will turn into a bashing for Sampras by some Federer fans, and will detract from Nadal’s knee problems, as is evidenced by the posts speculating/predicting about how much Federer will win, with nary a hint of Nadal’s knees. You very craftily/cunningly added that subtle hint of Pete’s comments with respect to Federer but to some, it appears ever so innocently. You’re a smart one Sean Randall. And, this says it all @ 1:32 pm.

“Still with the GOAT talk…remember folks:

15 > everything else.”

You thrive on this stuff, Sean, and it’s such a pity.


Polo Says:

Hi, Von,

Thanks for always keeping me in your mind. I guess my comments hit you really hard. It could only mean that my that you got the message and there is a lot of truth in it which you cannot shake off.

Good luck to Roddick at the US Open.


Von Says:

jane: I’ve watched (and still do) baseball, swimmikng, hockey, basketball, football (least loved), soccer, and everything in between, and I’ve yet to hear GOAT.

Until Federer came along, aided by the one who’s in his pre-dotage stage, (John McEnroe) Pete was referred to as ‘the great Pete Sampras’. He was ‘the greatest’ if we’re only thinking GS numbers, yet no one, and I mean no one, saw fit to acknowledge Pete as the greatest, especially not the American commentators. The only ones who referred to Pete as ‘the great Pete Sampras’ were the Brit commentators, and I reiterate, never the Americans. Therefore, this GOAT nonsense, and it’s nonsense IMO, is all John McEnroe’s and his two side-kicks’ invention, and that’s what it is, an ‘invention’. I hope they can patent and sell the darn thing, and let’s see how much money it will make if they can sell shares on the stock exchange. LOL.


Von Says:

“Thanks for always keeping me in your mind. I guess my comments hit you really hard. It could only mean that my that you got the message and there is a lot of truth in it which you cannot shake off.

Sure Polo, why not — if it tickles your fancy, why not indulge. Remember, we’re talking huge advantage here that will earn some marketing dollars. Wanna try marketing this stuff, but do yourself a favour, don’t, and I reiterate, DON’T quit your day job.

“Good luck to Roddick at the US Open.”

I would take this as a good faith gesture, had it been from a different source, but I can see the hint of mockery in it. Enjoy, Polo, enjoy. BTW, i hope you’re having some ‘fun’.


grendel Says:

Sportsfan says:”sportfan says: “My prediction for the US Open is a Federer vs Murray Final again with Federer coming out on top in 4 or 5 sets………I would love some people to comment on my prediction in a positive or negative way because it does not matter to me.”

Tenisbebe responds:”if it doesn’t matter to you, why ask for others to comment? Obviously it does, sheesh.”

It doesn’t matter to Sportsfan, I think, whether a reaction to his prediction is positive or negative.


Sean Randall Says:

Jane, true. But total Slams is the measuring stick we use, and it’s the same stick used in other sports like golf.

Von, sorry, Pete’s comment was funny and relevant, I though. It wasn’t meant to spark a GOAT debate. But that was likely to happen regardless. I could write about watering my lawn but even that would dissolve into a GOAT discussion.


margot Says:

Would surely love to see Andy M win US Open but let’s see how he’s playing first! None of the top top players seem to have had much match practise do they? It must be almost as much as they get at Christmas. Does this always happen, can’t remember last year.
von: from other thread agree. Of course I, as a woman, can appreciate female as well as male beauty and likewise for men. Yes, Lizz T., just gorgeous but Julie Christie kind of makes your heart stop. As for beautiful men….well the list would be too long and this is a tennis blog….


Von Says:

“Von, sorry, Pete’s comment was funny and relevant, I though. It wasn’t meant to spark a GOAT debate. But that was likely to happen regardless.”

Alright Sean, we’ll put it down to conversational implicature or maybe both conversational and conventional implicature. And, that will get you off the hook.

“I could write about watering my lawn but even that would dissolve into a GOAT discussion.”

Nah, how about writing on your insightful strategies on how to set the Sampras/Federer/Nadal fans in motion, giving all they’ve got simultaneously going for the jugular, while sitting in your ‘Lazy boy’. LOL.


Von Says:

margot: I liked Julie Christie in Dr. Zhivago, but I still have to say Liz and Sophia. As for the guys, the Scot does it for me, 007.


steve Says:

“My knees might be OK, but then again they might not.” So he’s saying nothing we didn’t already know.

There’s no informational content in this announcement, so it must have been intended to manage expectations on his return.


andrea Says:

grendel,

where the hell have you been?


Von Says:

SG: “I’ll bet Sampras was laughing his ass off watching Federer cry in front of a whole stadium.”

And, I’ll bet Pete’s wife had a box of tissues ready in the event he lost, but I’m not going to think or say that. LOL.


Fed is GOAT Says:

SG, Voicemale1, and similar folks:

It still hurts, ha? So all the venom and defensiveness. My post was about Sampras and his contradictions, related to Sean Randall’s comments, but you obviously can’t see that.

Just have the balls to take one stance, Pete….

Oh yes, and SG, Voicemale1 etc? Its going to really hurt you guys forever (or until someone overtakes Federer) – so get used to it.


Von Says:

Who gives a fig if anyone doesn’t overtake Federer? We’ll all eat, sleep, work, and play, just as we’ve been doing before and after numero 15. who knows the ATP will come up with a better measurement on how to judge greatness in a couple of years, but even then I wouldn’t care. Now, what is of importance to me is when the stock market will go up. However, I can see not even Federer’s GS record moved it one iota, but I’m not going to say any of this because I don’t give a fig.


blah Says:

I think being match tested isn’t that big of an issue for Nadal. His game doesn’t require him to be firing on all cylinders. Staying rested and injury free is more important as his game is built on counter punching.

Murray and Djokovic both need to step up. Djokovic especially, he’s been there and needs to show that he’s tough enough to stay there. I don’t think Murray will go in with too much pressure as he was almost the favorite to win Ao and wimbledon because he’s from there. The focus will again be on federer and nadal, and also on Roddick to since it is the us open and one would want to see if he could rebound. I don’t see why he wouldn’t get to the semis if he keeps up the unpredictable and aggressive tennis style he recently adopted.

I think Del Potro could be that guy to grab some of the hard court titles this season as Nadal and Murray did last year. I like his chances at the U.S. Open. Outside of the top 6, I really don’t see anyone with a good enough game to be consistent all the way to the champs. Favorite is still undoubtedly Federer though.

It would be interesting to see whether his game would fall just enough for him to stop making it to semis and finals regularly before or after Nadal gets burned out, and whether Roddick could outlast both of them in keeping a high level of play. (I actually think there is a good chance of this happening now, Roddick’s the only one whose game and movement progressed the most this year and his serve won’t be that much affected by age.)


jane Says:

Sean says, “total slams is the measuring stick we use”. May I ask, who is the “we” to whom you refer in this sentence? Tennis journalists? And if so, how come many do not agree, or refuse to coin one player the GOAT? Did you see the ESPN article a while back which considered all sundry of variables? To me, that type of calculation made / makes much more sense since it is more encompassing, taking in all variables.

See: “Greatest Ever? We have a surprise” by David Schoenfield

And here’s another journalist who patently disagrees with your “we”:

Google: “Stop the Greatest of All Time Talk in Tennis” by Tim Joyce.

As I say, GOAT is secure only in yours and like-minded people’s heads.

Otherwise, we can put GOAT out to pasture, where, eventually Fed will end up, along with the other “legends.” Nothing lasts “all time” after all; no one is immortal. His records and stats may last, to those who give a hoot about them, but that’s all.

To quote Keats: “here lies one whose name was writ in water”.

All Fed did at Wimbledon was break the “most slam titles” won record, for men that is; lest we forget that the great Steffi Graf has 22!!


Federer Streak Says:

“He doesn’t have a longer streak on any surface than Nadal”?

Really?

1. Federer holds the longest winning streak on hard courts during the open era: 56 matches (2005–06). Nadal is not even close to Federer’s 2nd match streak on hard court, which reached 36 consecutive wins (US Open 2006 through IW 2007).

2. Federer’s grass court streak is all time record, 65 consecutive wins.

3. Along with Borg, Federer has held a record of five winning streaks of more than twenty matches, the longest being the record 41 matches (2006 US Open through 2007 Dubai).

4. Federer has open era record of winning 24 straight finals from 2003 Vienna through 2005 Bangkok.

5. Federer set a record of 94.1% finals appearance, reaching the finals in 16 of the 17 tournaments entered (2006).

6. Federer is the only player to have won at least 9 tournaments on Clay, Hard and Grass, surpassing Connors’ 8 Grass tournaments.

7. Federer has held no. 1 for record 237 consecutive weeks.

He has broken over 100 records of the open era, over a dozen in Grand Slams alone.


jane Says:

I meant, Nadal has the longest streak on any surface; that was worded wrongly but I didn’t bother to re-word it. But Nadal has a longer streak on clay than Fed has on any other surface.

Those records are amazing, but there are many things he hasn’t done that other players have done also.

Fed’s definitely one of the greats, no doubt. But it’s my contention that goats make cheese, eat grass and bleat. There are no GOATs in the acronym sense. No matter what numerical stats are weilded, it’s still an opinion only.


grendel Says:

Maso:

The fact that Federer has been in every slam final since RG ’08 must (I agree) make him favourite for the US. On the other hand, just because he’s been in all those finals prompts one to ponder, surely not this time. It is true, this is an example of the gambler’s fallacy but the odd thing is, most people who understand the reasoning behind the gambler’s fallacy still tend to fall foul of it. (most people? how do I know that? just do, you know..).

Also, at some point – and presumably Federer will be overwhelming favourite at that point – Federer WILL fail to reach a final. Even though etc, etc. And I think there are good reasons for supposing that the forthcoming US Open may be the one. They are not exactly compelling, but I just find it slightly hard to believe that Federer can be as psyched up for this one as he was for Paris and Wimbledon – I assume there is a limit to the store of psychic energy. Good fortune certainly comes and goes. Plus there are a lot of likely looking contenders out there.


Von Says:

jane: Sir Bobby Charlton is supposed to be the greatest in football (‘soccer’) and the kids playing soccer whenever he’s mentioned, ask: WHO? The same happens for most greats. Ask your son if his soccer coach has ever heard of Sir Bobby. He’ll probably say, who?

jane: Let’s not forget Chris Evert, Martina navratilova and Billy jean King. I don’t see a GOAT attached to their names. John McEnroe …. OY VEY!!!!!!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Von,

the stock market aint going up much either, so get used to that as well!

For SO many years (almost since 2004), the most commonly repeated statement from some quarters has been “Yes federer is good/great, but Sampras has 14 majors, the max., and its the majors that count” (notwithstanding his abysmally poor record at one major, the FO).

Now, surprisingly, all of a sudden, I see many people trying to reduce the important of majors. So the tone now is “yes, but who cares just about majors?”, or “what about women players”, or “they are all great players”, blah blah.

Quite interesting, I must say! The only thing that has caused this change in tone seems to be Federer winning the 15th major. So obviously, major titles will now not be the gold standard anymore. In fact, NOTHING will be the gold standard anymore, since, by most measures, Federer comes out on top.

So we have these philosophical vomits.


SG Says:

Fed is GOAT Says:

Oh yes, and SG, Voicemale1 etc? Its going to really hurt you guys forever (or until someone overtakes Federer) – so get used to it.

**************************************

I suspect that the day when someone passes Federer, we won’t hear anything but sour grapes out of you.

FIG, records are made to be broken. Yup, even the almighty Fed will one day be in second place in the major championship count. People said Nicklaus’ records would never be broken. There’s guy about to challenge that. I don’t sit around lamenting the fact that Fed has 15 slams. I don’t really care if he has 20 or 30. Fact is, a guy who wins 20 or 30 slams probably had a favorable environment to do it in. Look at Indy as an example. If Federer goes to Indy, he plays either Querrey or Ginepri in the final. A proverbial turkey shoot if there ever was one. Competition matters. Like it…don’t like it. I don’t care. It’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it. You want to say that Federer played in the toughest era and won more majors than anyone…well you can believe that.

Interestingly, I see Fed and Tiger pretty much the same way. Very talented hard workers…not very good losers though. Kind of aloof too. Saw Tiger play in person during a pro-am. Didn’t mingle with the crowd at all. Nick Price on the other hand, he was hamming it up like a champ.

I see Sampras and Nicklaus the same way. Classy guys. Knew how to lose and knew how to win. Never saw Sampras toss a racket or Jack slam a club. Fed & Tiger can have all the majors they want. They’ll never be the class guys that Jack & Pete are. And I’m going to throw in Roddick as a class guy. His stand in Qatar over Shaar Peer and the way he handled the loss at Wimbledon. Very few people in modern sport represent what’s right. These three guys do.


SG Says:

jane Says:
SG says “I can’t think of one player that stopped playing and came back to be dominant.”

Agassi might be the exception?

***********************************

I believe that a when a player goes away from the competitive tennis world for any significant period of time due to a non-tennis related issue like burnout or personal stuff, they don’t come back to the form they had before.

Agassi had the wrist injury but I don’t think he ever lost his drive. He needed to find a different way to play that gave him more consisten success which Brad Gilbert helped him with. Sampras drove him into the dumper a few times. Particularly that 95 US Open loss in the finals where I think Andre really thought he was going to win 2 USO’s in a row.

Borg, McEnroe, Seles & Hingis couldn’t come back after sabbaticals. If you’re away too long the game passes you by. Particularly in men’s tennis. Only Jennifer Capriati comes to mind as someone who fell completely off the tennis earth only to come back as a better player.


jane Says:

Von, LOL, I was thinking “who?” myself. Actually, re: my earlier post, Margaret Court has more slam singles titles than any tennis player, male or female, but I purposely chose Graf as more posters would know of her. We remember the recent.

And it’s not only sons/daughters who don’t know historical greats; remember that Fed himself wasn’t sure who Althea Gibson was when asked and he’s enmeshed in the sport.

So the point stands: greats come; greats go, and there are many of them. Fed is one in a long line, and the most recent.

——————————————

grendel, I’d be curious to know what the “not-so-compelling” reasons are, besides the “lack of psychic energy”, that you have for adopting the gambler’s fallacy where Fed’s USO chances stand.

To me, Fed is the favorite to win the USO for a few reasons:
1.) experience (he’s won 5 after all);
2.) less pressure (he’s broken the record so now he can ‘swing freely’ as they say);
3.) no rival??? Nadal, his main rival, is not at his best, so who can beat Fed at the USO, were they to meet in a semifinal or final? There are possibilities, hence the many question marks I used above – to wit, JMDP, Murray, Djoko and Roddick – but none who’ve been able to do it before/yet.
4.) confidence: has Fed ever been more confident? Yeah, maybe. But coming off winning the French and Wimbledon and now the birth of his baby girls, he should be raring to go.

There are counter-arguments, however:

1.) Sometimes lack of pressure can produce lacklustre results, depending on the player. Fed’s won what he wanted most: the French and Wimbledon. Last year he fought hard for the USO title precisely because there was a lot of pressure to prove himself after, by his standards, a weaker year.

2.) If one of the other players steps up. Those five others in the top six can beat Federer if they apply themselves and believe: JMDP and Roddick were VERY close at the French and Wimbledon respectively. Murray and Djoko can and have beaten Fed on more than a few occasions; Djoko at a slam. And of course Rafa can beat Fed – anywhere, imo. But his knees….

3.) Distraction – it could very well be that Roger’s head will be elsewhere with the birth of those wee ones. Maybe not, but it is a profound event – as profound as death, a birth changes the lives of those around.

4.) Decline – regardless of his recent results, Fed’s standard isn’t back to where is was pre-2007. So it is more possible for opponents to beat him, provided they hang tough and don’t let themselves cave in mentally. I may be foolish, but Fed is beatable.

So, counter-arguments and arguments considered, he’s still the fave, because of the “ifs” and speculations in the counter-arguments.

But it’s not black and white in any way. Other players COULD win it!! There are many gray areas which will be illuminated, perhaps after the Masters Series?


Fed is GOAT Says:

SG said: “Fact is, a guy who wins 20 or 30 slams probably had a favorable environment to do it in”.

OR, he was probably that good.

Jack Nicklaus had 18. He probably had a favorable environment as per your logic. Or he was probably THAT good.

So its not really a FACT that a high number of slams is necessarily due to a favorable environment.

Golf is MUCH more competitive today than 20 or 30 years ago. Many more people play it from many more countries – it used to be very exclusive a generation ago. So Tiger probably has faced pretty tough competition to win his 14 slams so far. I wouldn’t take anything away from him.

“I don’t really care if he has 20 or 30″ That’s exactly what I said above – suddenly, many people have stopped caring about the number of major titles! Quite extraordinary.


SG Says:

Voicemale1 Says:

Wanna know how dominated this board’s article writers are by Federer Kool Aid Drinkers? Just look at this Randall post, the biggest Federer Kool Aid Drinker here. Only he could write something about Nadal and his injuries and STILL find a way to inject Federer’s name into it, frivolous as it is. As if anyone cares or has any relevance at all to Nadal & his knees what Sampras thinks about Federer’s kids.

********************************

This is Tennis X (for extreme views) and Sean is just living up to the site’s mission statement. I wouldn’t want Sean Randall to be PC. PC is BS and doesn’t make for much fun. If Sean wants to toss in his Sampras/Fed kids talk in the middle of an article about Nadal…well…that’s his perogative. And because this is the Tennis X site and not the Tennis PC site, you have every right to tear him down for it. With that said, pin back your ears and blast away.


Federer Streak Says:

“there are many things he hasn’t done that other players have done also.”

Federer may not have done everything, but he has broken more records than any other player in the open era. GOAT or no GOAT, he holds most records (Mr.) in men’s tennis. He is the Mr. of men’s mennis. I like his new name, the Mr. of Men’s tennis.


SG Says:

Fed is GOAT Says:

“I don’t really care if he has 20 or 30″ That’s exactly what I said above – suddenly, many people have stopped caring about the number of major titles! Quite extraordinary.

********************************

I’m not saying that the majors aren’t worth the same thing they were 20 year ago. I meant that I don’t care about how many majors he wins because I don’t like Roger Federer. If I liked the guy,
than yeah, I’d think it was pretty cool that he has 15.


jane Says:

Fed is Goat,

Perhaps many people said that about Sampras and about the majors being what count, but not me. I like Sampras a lot but I have never used him or any other player as a so-called GOAT benchmark. If you find my posts on the GOAT topic from two years ago, for example, I don’t defer to Sampras. My arguments are the same: there are too many variables; time waits for no one. There is no such thing as ONE greatest. That’s just a standpoint.

Yours is very different and based on numbers. That’s your opinion, to which your entitled.

But just because someone disagrees, and especially if that someone presents valid reasons forthwith, there is no reason to call their opinion “philosophical vomit” is there?


jane Says:

Federer Streak “he holds the most records” – perhaps. And if so, that’s quite a straight up and no one can really disagree. Of course, I suppose a committee would have to come together, list all of the potential records one can hold in tennis, tally all of the record holders, and then factually declare that it is indeed true that Federer “holds the most records” in the Open Era. I, for one, wouldn’t want to be on such a committee. Have never been too enamoured with maths.


FoT Says:

I won’t say Roger is the GOAT and he hasn’t really said that either. This is mostly the journalist and former players who keep bringing it up in interviews and articles. I think Roger is ONE OF THE Greatest of all times to ever play the sport. Even he said “it’s good to be mentioned up there with the greatest players”.

I think fans just have to (need to) have something to argue about on internet forums! lol!

On the US Open… I guess I’ll need to see how players are playing in the warm-up tournaments – although this isn’t really an indication of how they will perform in the grand slams. You’ve had hot players playing up to the slam then fizzle out in the slam. With Roger, at least history has shown that he knows how to get to the final of the US Open. Whether or not he does this year – who knows…but if I were betting, I wouldn’t put it past him. Those who have been betting against him have been wrong for the last 5 years. So my bet, until he shows he can’t do it any longer, is on Roger to at least make the final.

On the other side? Who knows until the draw is out. But if Roddick is on the other side, he has a good shot because he’s been playing very well lately. Nadal is a big question mark.

One more…I don’t think we can really compare what the women have done vs the men (and no disrespect to the women) but playing best of five is a lot different than playing best of 3. Watching that 5th set at Wimbledon should show that. lol! So yes, 22 slams is fantastic. But 15 slams is also amazing for the men.

To Zola and the other Nadal fans…I really do hope your boy gets healthy and come back on tour ready to play. He does bring a lot to the tour and he is missed when he can’t compete. Good luck with his health and his comeback.


grendel Says:

Andrea: I’ve been here, I’ve been there and (furthermore) I’ve been in betwee-en. Not sure what that means actually (sounds a touch lewd?), but you don’t worry too much about that when King Crimson are smoothing it out. One of the things I bin-a doin’ is to get tickets for the Masters Cup in good old London Town, November. Anyone who wants to go better get a move on, tickets be flyin’. Wimbledon’s a nightmare unless you know god and his wife, but this one’s sort of accessible. I be stayin’ one end of London, the O2 stadium is t’other end. So if night match goes on late, we’re talking taxis. Better start saving. Or practice my sprinting, perhaps…..


grendel Says:

FoT, using your line of reasoning, you’re gonna be wrong one day, unless of course Fed wins for ever more…..


Von Says:

“I think Roger is ONE OF THE Greatest of all times to ever play the sport.”

Really? LOL.


Dan Martin Says:

If there is one funny thing about the idea of Federer being born 10 years earlier or Sampras born 10 years later, it is that neither would likely be in the GOAT talks the way they are if an exceptionally player who generally drew water from similar spots had a career that overlapped with their own. The two are basically 10 years apart and in an exercise that ridiculously over simplifies things 1 of these two would lose a major from their total at the following events had the 10 year shift taken place in either direction:

Wimbledon 93/03, Australian Open 94/04, Wimbledon 94/04, Wimbledon 95/05, U.S. Open 95/05, U.S. Open 96/06, Australian Open 97/07, Wimbledon 97/07, Wimbledon 99/09. Roger has yet to play Wimbledon 2010 or U.S. Open 2012 so the wins could overlap even more.

That means somehow between the two at least 9 majors would have to be subtracted from their current joint total of 29. Maybe the Fed fans say Pete loses 6 of his and Roger 3 of his and the Pete fans reverse it – either way the likely scenario would have been neither guy gets 14 or 15 majors if their careers overlapped.


Von Says:

FIG: “Von, the stock market aint going up much either, so get used to that as well!”

Nah, this is a hard one to get used to, and one which I’m hoping will be a sure thing to rebound.
My two bits of stock have depreciated to two farthings worth, and this is cause for some worry, which means I’m not going to be concerned whether Federer is GOAT or not, because there are things that are waaayyyy more important and then some, other than ‘the Federer’. I’ll leave the FIG situation in your capable hands and you can lose sleep over that, if you chose to do so.


tennisontherocks Says:

SG says
‘I see Sampras and Nicklaus the same way. Classy guys. Knew how to lose and knew how to win. Never saw Sampras toss a racket or Jack slam a club. Fed & Tiger can have all the majors they want. They’ll never be the class guys that Jack & Pete are.’

Thanks for reminding me about Sampras’s classiness. Here is one example: When asked about the difference between himself and Rafter following the Cincinnati final, Sampras stated “10 grand slams” (see the wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Rafter). So as much as you may appreciate his class, Sampras may very be kicking himself for not playing long enough to win a couple more majors.


Fed is GOAT Says:

SG:

“I meant that I don’t care about how many majors he wins because I don’t like Roger Federer. If I liked the guy,
than yeah, I’d think it was pretty cool that he has 15.”

That’s an honest statement…. Its fine to have a personal dislike for someone. That explains much of your remarks diminishing his achievements.

And Von, Federer being ONE of the greatest to ever play tennis is something nobody would argue against. So LOL to that seems nonsensical.

As for Sampras’s classiness – people can make their own judgements, of course. But there are tons of his statements, including some this week, that are nowhere near classy (e.g., his comment on Agassi never beating him in the big matches). Of course, you can choose to ignore all of those…..


Fed is GOAT Says:

Rafter on Sampras:

Rafter pointedly took issue with Sampras’ refusal to show him respect in defeat: “That is what really upsets me about him,” Rafter said, “and the reason why I try to [tick] him off as much as I can.”

And Rafter was one of the most sporting and respectful players of his time.

Sampras made PLENTY of arrogant and unsporting remarks during his years, and continues to do till today. If that is your definition of classy, then yes, he is certainly “classy”.


Fed is GOAT Says:

As for Sampras not playing long enough to win another slam – Sampras knew there was miniscule probability that he would win another slam after the 2002 Open, that’s why retired. And Federer was not even a factor then.

Sampras had gone 2 years and 28 tournaments without winning any. Then suddenly he had lady luck smile on him at the 2002 Open. Yes, it was lady luck. If Agassi had played Schalken and Sampras had played Hewitt in the semis, just one day before the final, Sampras would not have won the Open, most probably. He would not have beaten a fresh Hewitt and a fresh Agassi on consecutive days. Instead, luck smiled and he got a fresh Schalken and a tired Agassi….

So Sampras probably knew he got lucky at the 20002 USO, and that was the perfect way to end his career. He was already at 14. the last guy to reach double figures was Borg, who managed 11 and retired in 1981. Given that backdrop, Sampras surely felt his 14 would survive several decades, maybe even his lifetime.

That’s why he is so shell shocked that the record went away in less than 7 years!!! That’s actually incredible, if you think about it. Even theoretically, someone winning all majors a year would need about 4 years to break the record. So doing it in 7 is about as close to perfection as we will probably see in our lifetime!

It wasn’t even some player from the future who broke it – it was the player who ended his run at Wimbledon just a year earlier (2001). No wonder Sampras is so sore about it, and continues to make snide remarks about Federer’s competition. Sampras has got to be bitter about it, and he shows it quite often.

That’s class.


Von Says:

FIG; One of the greatest is fine, but ‘of all times”, is what the LOL is about.


Von Says:

FIG; Footnote @ 6:42pm, in a nutshell, we can only have ‘one’ greatest of all time, but we can’t have one of the ‘greatest of all time’, which will signify we have several greatest of all time, so who then is the greatest and who is more nonsensical? capiche?


Fed is GOAT Says:

And if you want to really see how Sampras’s game had declined from 2000 onwards, look at his last 33 losses (the 33 tournaments he lost prior to winning the 2002 USO – it wasn’t 28). He lost to some pretty ordinary players, on all surfaces. He had dropped out of the top 10. He was 31. He just didn’t have it any more. He even lost to Alex Corretja on grass at Houston!

No, odds are pretty high that he wouldn’t have won a 15th slam, even if he had continued.


Sean Randall Says:

Jane, yes, Fed’s not getting to Steffi’s 22 unless he visits Andre’s house.

Yes, Pete’s made some comments unclassy comments but then again so too has Fed. And they both make more. They are bound to. So you can either get used to it or get over it. For me, I think it’s fun.

And I’ll venture to say that in the next 15-20 someone will pass whatever Federer (or Nadal) end up with and we’ll have this same discussion again.

SG, rallying the troops, tear me down! Love it.


Sean Randall Says:

FIG, I could have seen Pete winning a few more Slams and his final US Open. Another Wimbledon, maybe a US Open. Not out of the question.


grendel Says:

jane – there doesn’t seem much to add to your pros and cons except that “events, dear boy, events”, as a certain English politician pointed out, have a way of upsetting the best laid calculations. In short, you never know what lady luck has up her sleeve – but you do know she is fickle. And of late, she has been fluttering her eyelashes at Federer. He’d be wise not to get too dependent….


Skorocel Says:

SG said: „Fact is, a guy who wins 20 or 30 slams probably had a favorable environment to do it in.“

Could be true or not, but then again, by your reasoning, the same could then also be said about „Sampras’s environment“ ;-), which I don’t think it’s true, however…


Dan Martin Says:

I think Roger will add at least 1-2 more to his current 15. Even if he stops making every semifinal if he just makes 1/2 the semis every year sooner or later you get a draw you manage or hit the zone and bingo another slam title. If he keeps making every semi then the rate of titles obviously rises, but Steffi and Margaret Court are safe at 22 and 24.


steve Says:

Why is it so unreasonable to think Federer could equal Graf’s record? We’re talking about a man who has won three Slams a year in three different years, and for two of those years, he was one match away from winning the calendar Slam.

If he wins the US Open, that’ll be four times he’ll have won three Grand Slams in one year, and three times he’ll have been one match away from taking the calendar Slam.

Why is it so crazy to think that someone with that kind of record could win twenty or more majors?

As long as Federer maintains his motivation, and stays healthy, he will probably remain at or near the top of the game. He has enough variety that he can still keep finding ways to win even at a relatively advanced age.

I’m not saying he’ll win that many majors for sure, and it’ll take a lot of work and a little luck, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss his chances out of hand.


FoT Says:

Von, I stick by my statement to say Roger is one of the greatest of all times. My thinking is that all times goes back to the beginning of tennis – when records were kept, etc. Otherwise I would say Roger is one of the greatest in this generation or something, but I will put Roger up against anyone who has played professional tennis so that’s why I said “of all times”.

Personally I don’t think you had a problem with the wording – probably with who said it! lol!


Daniel Says:

Regarding Goats in other sports, I at least heard a lot of mentions:

- Soccer: Pele (some argue Maradonna)
- Basketball: Jordan
- Golf: Nicklaus (Tiger as potential)
- F 1: Schumacher
- Swimming: It was Stich, now is Phelps

Just to mention a few, there is more. I don’t see it that in tennis the hype is more than in other sports. The problem is that we here are all tennis freaks and we are living a historcal tennis year. Our perception is a litlle dsiturbed.

If in London 2012 Phelpls wins a gold for the third time in his many attempts (an unprecedent in swim history – there is no three time gold winner), the swim world will go crazy!

Jane, your post 5:06 hs is perfect. But I am with grendel, something is telling me that Fed will not have the ‘urge’ for it. But, this can change depending on the Master Series and who he might face if he runs deep. Specially the spanirad factor!

Boy I can’t wait to see Nadal play. Never thought I would miss that long serve prep. this much! :)


Von Says:

FoT: You don’t get what I’m saying. There can only be ‘one’ greatest of all time in every sport, and that’s why there is so much dissension among the tribes, because some want to dub Federer as the GOAT, and some don’t. Hence, your stating that Federer is ‘one of the greatest of all times’,(I’m assuming you’re talking about only tennis here, yes?) doesn’t make sense to me, because by so stating you’re acknowledging that there are many other ‘greatest of all time’ in tennis, yes? Alright then, if you believe that, then tell me how many other ‘greatest of all time’ in tennis are there? Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Emerson, Borg, Connors, Nadal, et al?

“I stick by my statement to say Roger is one of the greatest of all times. My thinking is that all times goes back to the beginning of tennis – when records were kept, etc. Otherwise I would say Roger is one of the greatest in this generation or something, but I will put Roger up against anyone who has played professional tennis so that’s why I said “of all times”..

This is contradictory. So then he’s the GOAT, but not one of the GOATs, yes?.

Anyway, if it will make you happy, I’ll agree with you and make matters simple by saying, Federer is devant l’Éternel. Are you happy now?


furqi Says:

Well! Nadal career is still in infancy. He is just 23. He will be consistent as he is getting out of his infancy career. He can come back strong and be dominant. He is a very good competitor and for better tennis, its good, that he comes back healthy and strong.

However Fed will stay for atleast another 4 to 5 years and he can get 1 to 2 titles per year.

Fed and Nadal are winning most of Grand Slams. So in next 5 years, if it stays the same, then, if Fed wins 5 to 7 titles and Nadal wins 12 titles, the total would be:
Nadal: 18 Slams
Fed: 22 Slams

Another 5 years Nadal will get another 4 to 5 titles and Nadal total would be 22 Slams, same as Fed.

Well these are just imaginary numbers. Lets see how both will proceed with their careers.


Von Says:

Daniel: If Federer doesn’t win the USO, will there be excuses from some of his fans to the effect that the babies are causing him to be sleep deprived, or he has too many distractions which are affecting his game? I can see the trend of excuses already taking root, and there will be many creative excuses, e.g., colic, diaper rash, teething, hyper-activity, crying, baby laughed when daddy was about to serve, et al. Just remember guys, when ‘the Federer’ steps onto the court, he’s 100 percent fit to play in body, mind and spirit, hence no excuses, e.g., as was in ’08 mono. If he loses, he lost to the better player on that day, and bag the excuses.


Sean Randall Says:

Remind me, Von, what were Roger’s excuses this year for all his losses?


Von Says:

Daniel: “Swimming: It was Stich, now is Phelps”

Whatever happened to Mark Spitz?


Von Says:

Sean, Please note, I specifically mentioned ’08, e.g., mono. I didn’t state anything about January ’09, to the present. However, should he lose from now until the end of ’09, what will his losses be attributed to the babies? BTW, wasn’t his back a problem at the AO this year, yeah, come to think of it, he had back problems up until the FO, yes? Thanks for reminding me, Sean, you’re such a good sport.


Von Says:

Sean: Also of importance, please also bear in mind, I didn’t say Federer made excuses for any of his losses this year, I said ‘his fans’ will come up with excuses.

BTW, are you watching Fish/Guccione — a pretty good match.


tenisbebe Says:

Jane says: “4.) Decline – regardless of his recent results, Fed’s standard isn’t back to where is was pre-2007. So it is more possible for opponents to beat him, provided they hang tough and don’t let themselves cave in mentally. I may be foolish, but Fed is beatable.” 5:06pm

Absolutely, and the players know it as well, particularly Djoko (Rome, Miami), Murray (Doha, Indian Wells), Stans (Monte Carlo). I would also put DelPo on that list: although he has yet to beat Fed, he seems to be no longer in awe of him. And of course Rafa goes without saying. Good post Jane!


Sean Randall Says:

Von, it’s the implication…

And what of your guy Roddick? What was it unruly crowd at Davis Cup last fall, the fading light in France and of course the hip in the Wimbledon final. And I’m sure if he doesn’t win Washington next week then his hip would not have been healed.

When it comes to excuses, you are the queen!


tenisbebe Says:

Sean Randall says: “Remind me, Von, what were Roger’s excuses this year for all his losses?” Sean, where were you? Fed spoke after he pulled out of Dubai that his back had been bothering him since the FALL of 2008, giving the impression that this was one of the reasons he lost to Rafa at AO ’09. I will have to search for the interview/remarks but I clearly remember it. As for the worn out mono issue, let’s not go into that one….


Daniel Says:

Von,

To me the babies are the small of his “problems”, if any when the Open comes.

I was thinking more like mental lazyness after a month that was, let’s face it, hystoricaly demanding.

Both Nadal and Federer are in transition phases: Nadal coming from injury and Federer after a month where he achieved what I think 3 out of 4 life goals (RG, GS 15 and regain n. 1 – only missing total weeks as n. 1 to persuit for, I think).
So I am not seeding future excuses, because we don’t know how it is going to be for him after this, no such player was in this situation before. Borg retire too soon and Pete was in his last days after US Open 2002.

Fed is steping in unknown territory now, a very dangerous one.
We have to see how the race for n. 1 will motivate him until the end of the year and the years to come.
But one thing is for sure, we are watching a 15 GS winner with potential for more to come who will enter the third and final phase of his career. I am just glad to watch this under the microscope!

Btw, your last sentence “If he loses, he lost to the better player on that day, and bag the excuses.”
Well, that was not what you were saying after Wimby 2009 ref Roddick.

You see excuses will aways show up depending on the circunstances, this is a very ‘hard’ statement because some factor play along. But I agree with it, whoever gets the win deserves the credit for it. If you won, something right you were doing and that gave you what matters msot, the win!


Daniel Says:

Von, you are right, I wanted to say Spitz and it come as Stich, go figure! Reminds me Lost in Translation.


Daniel Says:

Fish saved a match point on second set tiebreaker with a extraordinary volley that changed the entire match.


Sean Randall Says:

Tennisbebe, I have never said Roger had a back issue. I don’t buy it just I doubt Andy’s hip was so bad that he couldn’t play DC or Indy.

Both cases are similar, both Fed and Roddick lost extremely tough, mentally draining matches so it’s natural to not want to go back out there and play, and I think Fed did that after Australia and Andy’s doing that now…


Sean Randall Says:

Daniel, I caught that. Gooch had 3 mps but couldn’t get the job done. Credit to Mardy, but you see why the Gooch will probably never crack the Top 30. He’s got a big game but he doesn’t have the belief.


tenisbebe Says:

Sean – I didn’t say that you said Fed had a back issue – Fed said it, (& somewhat inappropriately I might add). Your question to her was “what were Roger’s excuses this year for all his losses?” That’s the question to which I was responding.

Roddick’s has yet to indicate that his hip injury may have contributed in his loss to Federer. As to whether the back & hip injuries were sufficient enough to justify them pulling out of upcoming tournaments or if it was solely mental fatigue, well I believe it’s probably both. After all, an injury appears more acute after a particularly devastating loss but that doesn’t make it any less real.


jane Says:

tenisbebe says, “Fed spoke after he pulled out of Dubai that his back had been bothering him since the FALL of 2008, giving the impression that this was one of the reasons he lost to Rafa at AO ‘09. ”

You’re right: Fed brought this up again during Wimbledon when interviewers were asking him about Murray’s winning H2H over him. If I am not mistaken, Fed referred to the Shanghai match as a kind of bust because of his back, so therefore Murray’s win was somewhat compromised.

The players often make “excuses” when they lose: sometimes they are fair enough, though. In other words, an injury, illness, etc. can certainly contribute to a loss. (just like I might be late for work because of a traffic accident; it’s a valid excuse/reason, but I was still late) However, if the player goes onto the court, then s/he has to take that loss how, if, and when, it comes. It’s messy business in some ways, particularly when an “injury” or excuse is used more than once, even if valid.

Fed’s mono and back and Nadal’s knees we have heard (and hear) about the most I think; maybe that’s because they’re the top guys? Or because the press ask? I dunno.

Roddick, for instance, is not one to bring up his own injuries as a reason for his losses. I admire that about him.


Von Says:

Sean; I answered you, but my post got chewed up.
Anyway, if I’m the Queen of excuses, you are the Don. Sheesh. You wore out the mono and back issues ad nauseam. Up to the present time, Djokovic still cannot get his AO win cleared of the Fed mono excuse from you, nor can any player who beat him during ’08 to whenever he won in ’09.

BTW, just in case you don’t realize this, I’m about the only Roddick fan who’s not afraid to speak up on his behalf — the others have to keep quiet for the obvious reasons. Not to mention those who left out of disgust. And, I’ll keep on defending Roddick until I stop posting. Every counter argument I use in Andy’s defense has merit, but I can’t say the same for youj with respect to Federer.

Bottom line Sean, Federer is the only flesh and blood athlete in tennis in your sight and in most of his fans eyes. The other athletes are just mere robots who haven’t got feelings. Hence, the multiple hand-picked and ready-made excuses. do you think if roles were reversed and it was Federer’s knees aching instead of Nadal’s you wouldn’t have been more sympathetic? I think so. Or if Federer had hurt his shoulder like Roddick did before ’08 Wimby, you’d have written ‘Federer stunk up Wimbledon’? I don’t think so.


tenisbebe Says:

Von says: “Sean…if I’m the Queen of excuses, you are the Don.” ROFL!!!!!


Sean Randall Says:

“Roddick, for instance, is not one to bring up his own injuries as a reason for his losses.” True, he has Von to take care of that!

Von, when I have made an excuse for a Fed loss this year? I did last with Novak and Fish, when else? Refresh me.

And yes, Roddick did stink it up at Wimbledon last year and sun really does set well past 9pm in Paris in June. Sorry.


Von Says:

Sean: Federer alluded to his back on several occasions, and the inference was there since Shanghai last year. How about if we call it conversational implicature. There’s a huge problem with comments made on Tennis.X when it concerns Federer and when you’re the writer, because it places you in an advantageous arguing position over the non-Fed posters/dissenters and, we have no choice but to be somwehat less aggressive than you have to be whenever there’s a disagreement. That’s all I’ll say, but I hope you get my drift.


Sean Randall Says:

Yes, I am aware Fed has mentioned his back, but when I have used that as an excuse for a Fed loss?

You write: “You wore out the mono and back issues ad nauseam” so clearly you must have piles upon piles of evidence. Show me.


Von Says:

Sean: “True, he has Von to take care of that!”

I see you keep a ledger of checks and balances. LOL.

I don’t think I can come close to you and the Fed fans who defend Federer. You’re all in a class by yourselves to the tenth exponent and then some. Do you read the posts from the Fed fans who vigorously defend him? If you did, you wouldn’t even venture to make such statements about my Roddick defense. Just look at the name calling that Roddick and other posters have been been subjected to, and you turn a blind eye and remain mute on that subject. I’m in the limelight because as I stated, I’m the only vociferous one who’s not afraid to speak up, and I’ll reiterate, I’ll do so until I stop posting. I don’t see you telling any Fed poster ‘enough’.


Von Says:

Sean: Oh what a tangled web we weave:

You wrote: “Remind me, Von, what were Roger’s excuses this year for all his losses?

Posted July 31st, 2009 at 12:36 am
_______________________

Your answer: “Yes, I am aware Fed has mentioned his back, but when I have used that as an excuse for a Fed loss?

Posted July 31st, 2009 at 1:46 am
______________________

So let’s get this straight, first you needed to be reminded, and then when you were reminded, you suddenly became aware?
***************

Sean: “You write: “You wore out the mono and back issues ad nauseam” so clearly you must have piles upon piles of evidence. Show me.”

Answer: Give me a few days, and I’ll dig them up for you. However, please don’t tell me ‘enough’ when I do so. Is that a deal, yes?


Von Says:

Sean: “Von, when I have made an excuse for a Fed loss this year? I did last with Novak and Fish, when else? Refresh me.”

Ahh soo! You admit you made an excuse for Fed’s loss to Djoko and Mardy. We’re getting close, and closer and closest! LOL.

Anyway, Sean, it was all done in good faith, humor, et al., I hope you know that, so let’s put the matter to rest. Yes?


tenisbebe Says:

Sean – you seem to be jumping all over the place here. Von stated that IF Fed losses USO then look out because the his fans on this sight will jump in with the baby excuse (you know this will happen by the way, guarantee it!). You questioned “Remind me, Von, what were Roger’s excuses this year for all his losses?”, insinuating that Fed has not tried to excuse his losses in 2009. When we (myself, Jane & Von) pointed out that he had, you turned around and said ““Yes, I am aware Fed has mentioned his back, but when I have used that as an excuse for a Fed loss?” Huh???
Then you said that Von makes excuses for her fave Roddick but where have you done so this year for Fed? Oh wait, you did with his losses to Novak & Mardy. What the hell dude! I am lost – What is your point?


tenisbebe Says:

Sean btw – Don’t know about the FO light thing but I don’t remember Von using the hip injury in the 5th set vs Roger as an “excuse” for him losing. I do however recall her expressing concern when he pulled out of DC due to a “hip flexor injury” that she thought he may have sustained this when diving for a shot in the 5th vs Roger. There is a big difference in my book.


Skorocel Says:

Daniel: „Never thought I would miss that long serve prep. this much! :)“

Ha ha, same here!


margot Says:

jane: how interesting it’s Margaret Court with most titles! She was a very tall woman in the days when women tennis players tended not to be. Is it Navratilova with most titles, singles and doubles?
sean randall: I’m right with you, I’m so fed up with the saga of Rafa’s b—-y knees! Just play or not will you. It’s like in the interminable “Lord of the Rings” trilogy when someone shouts, “For God’s sake give him the ring!”
grendel: I too have tickets for O2, like you found them much easier to get, stadium sounds massive though. I’m like seat zzzzz10061!!
von: beautiful, beautiful man – George Clooney, sexy, very- Shane Warne. I couldn’t find ANY tennis players, which must mean my motives for watching are pure of heart………splendid.


jane Says:

grendel, margot is also going to the year-end championships at O2. Have you seen Federer play live before? The YEC would be quite fun, given that you get to see the top guys of the season have a go at each other, sometimes more than once. And you’ll have all the fun Murray-mania to go along with. Lucky you.

Daniel, you musy know god and his wife? Since you made it to Wimbledon and all… ; )


jane Says:

margot – looks like we were writing simultaneously. Fun! I am not sure, but it must be Martinia with most combined doubles, given her tremendous doubles success, both womens and mixed, eh? I’d say so.


jane Says:

typos, oh lord: @5:28 “musy” s/b “must” and @ 5:33 “martinia” s/b “martina” (or maybe “martini”? lol)


jane Says:

and…@ 5:33 “combined doubles” s/b “combined titles”. I either need more sleep or a coffee. Yawn…


Maso Says:

Grendel:

Yeah, I get your point, there’s always a point where a streak’s bound to end, like when he didn’t make it to the final of the AO, etc. etc. I also apologize for making my post about Federer, and not even mentioning Nadal, considering the title of the thread. Really hope Rafa’s knees are going to get better, he is a treasure for the game! I don’t feel him winning the U.S. Open this year but what chance we would have to live in an era where two players have a career grand slam! And wouldn’t it be the world turned upside down with Federer winning the French and Wimbledon, and Nadal taking the Australian and the U.S.? Just a funny thought.


grendel Says:

Daniel

Yes, I’d like to see Nadal against Federer in US Open. Leaving aside the fact it might galvanize Federer out of any lingering complacency, such a match might answer a critical question.

There are those who say that Nadal is in Fed’s head, and he just grinds him down – especially if it comes to a fifth set. For instance, in the 5th against Roddick at Wimbie, Federer was rock solid on his serve. He just was not going to give anything away there – Roddick had to take it from him, if he could. But against Nadal, there is the suspicion that Federer will have, at some point, a mental lapse on serve. On the other hand, there are those who insist Fed’s game just does not match up with Nadal’s. The high ball to the onehanded bh and so on.

There is a possibility this conundrum will be resolved at the Open. Because if Nadal meets Federer, he will, by definition, be in good shape. Federer’s confidence at the moment will be as high as it’s ever been, so now if ever he should feel at least the equal of Nadal. So if he beats him, and let’s assume Nadal is on song, this will certainly imply that it was the mental factor which prevailed in Nadal’s victories.

However, in a sense, all this is nonsense because, as usual, the reasons for Nadal’s strong edge over Federer probably boil down to a mixture of the two factors. In any case, it should be an exciting battle.

jane: no, I never have seen Federer live, which is why I have bought tickets for four sessions, to make absolutely sure I will see him. I even wanted to buy the most expensive tickets – one can lash out for a one-off occasion – but all gone. That’s annoying if the stadium is, as Margot says, huge. Seems you have to plan these things months and months and months ahead.


scineram Says:

“They’ll never be the class guys that Jack & Pete are.”

You mean Pete “there is 10 slams between me and Rafter” Sampras?

“remember that Fed himself wasn’t sure who Althea Gibson was when asked and he’s enmeshed in the sport.”

Althea Gibson in no Bobby Charlton. Rest assured Federer knows very well who Bobby Charlton is.


SG Says:

Skorocel Says:
SG said: „Fact is, a guy who wins 20 or 30 slams probably had a favorable environment to do it in.“

Could be true or not, but then again, by your reasoning, the same could then also be said about „Sampras’s environment“ ;-), which I don’t think it’s true, however…

**********************************

Someone was mentioning Steffi’s 22 slams. An incredible number. But, is Seles doesn’t have that tragic stabbing in the middle of her career, Steffi’s slam total isn’t 22. Maybe it’s 18. Competition matters.


Dan Martin Says:

The GOAT title is not a real title like a boxing belt Sampras had to hand over to Fed after Roland Garros ended. In the 1990′s Kentucky and Duke each won 2 NCAA titles, UK won more games, had a better winning percentage but Duke reached one more final four so “team of the decade” was debated and well you know – no one cares. GOAT is bigger than greatest of a decade, but there is no objective criteria to settle this for everyone. Tennis becoming an olympic sport seems to have made the sport even more international so one could say greater depth leads to more upsets and easier second weeks of slams or that greater depth makes everything harder. The data can be spun so many ways. I would place Roger ahead of Pete, but anyone whose career stradled the open era or occured before the open era I can’t say much about because it was so different – surfaces, opportunities, travel (taking a boat to Oz may have made Budge winning down under bigger than Agassi flying in on a private jet with a chef and no risk of scurvy)….


tenisbebe Says:

“Althea Gibson in no Bobby Charlton. Rest assured Federer knows very well who Bobby Charlton is.” ???? LOL, Surely you jest, eh scineram?

Daniel – Are you also going to O2 in November? If so you Margot and Grendel can have a Pims together! Just curious, are the YEC matches the best of 5?

Dan Martin says: “In the 1990’s Kentucky and Duke each won 2 NCAA titles, UK won more games…” Dan you just can’t help yourself can you, finding a way to bring your beloved UK team into the debate. :-)
“anyone whose career straddled the open era or occurred before the open era I can’t say much about because it was so different – surfaces, opportunities, travel…” And let’s not forget technology: racket and the new strings, which at times allow even me to play like a tennis prodigy.


Dan Martin Says:

Tenisbebe,

To be fair, the University of Louisville and Indiana University used to debate team of the decade at the close of the 1980′s. Both teams are anathema in my book, but the analogy holds even without the Wildcats in the mix.


MMT Says:

“Sampras was 20-14 overall on Agassi. 6-3 in slams (includes 2-0 at wimbledon, so 4-3 outside of wimbledon), and 9-7 in finals. That doesn’t seem like Agassi didn’t beat Sampras in big matches – he beat Sampras in 7 finals, and thrice in slams. He does have an edge over agassi, but its not an overwhelmingly one-sided record or anything.”

I’m sure Agassi and his die-hard supporters aren’t crazy about this comment, but there is more truth than flattery in it – first, Sampras lost only 1 grand slam final to Agassi at the AO in 1995 – the other finals were not in slams. Second, Sampras beat Agassi twice as often as he lost to him in slams, 6-3.

I suppose it depends on one’s definition of big matches, but generally I’d have to agree that Sampras beat Agassi more often when it counted in slams.

“As for Nadal. He’s at a dangerous point in his career. If he stops playing for 6 month, he could lose his edge. I can’t think of one player that stopped playing and came back to be dominant.”

I think Agassi qualifies – he played sporadically and did have injuries to contend with, but mostly just lost motivation to play regularly – nevertheless he came roaring back from part-time tennis in 1996, 1997, 1998 to his best year in 1999 and early 2000. Only Pancho Gonzales’ semi-retirement from 1951-1953 compares – although he did play sporadically, not nearly as consistently as the year before or the years after when he really dominated the touring professionals.

It is quite coincidental that they are related by marriage (Gonzales to Agassi’s sister Rita).


tenisbebe Says:

Dan – Jeez, tell us how you really feel. And you don’t have to worry about being fair to me; I don’t care about college basketball. That said, don’t know enough about the U of L’s record in the 80′s to see how they could possibly be in the debate vs the infamous IU dynasty.


tenisbebe Says:

MMT says: “It is quite coincidental that they are related by marriage (Gonzales to Agassi’s sister Rita).” Really? MMT you are just full of interesting tennis tidbits.


MMT Says:

Here’s another totally unrelated one – Stefan Edberg’s wife, aptly named, “Annette”, was previously Mats Wilander’s girlfriend.


MMT Says:

BTW – Pancho Gonzales died completely broke, and Agassi paid for his funeral. His father, Mike Agassi, after years of abject hatred towards Gonzales, including allegedly contemplating having him killed, eventually promised to care for his grandson shortly before Gonzales died.


tenisbebe Says:

MMT – OK you have to tell me more or perhaps provide links? Why did Mike Agassi hate Pancho so, something with daughter Rita or that he lost everything?


Fed is GOAT Says:

MMT,

Look at Sampras’s comment again – he said Agassi never beat him in the big matches. That’s not true, even if Sampras beat Agassi more than Agassi beat Sampras. Agassi did beat Sampras in many big matches – grand slam final, other grand slam matches, master series finals, and other tour finals.

Quite a classy statement from Sampras. Reflects his class.


Fed is GOAT Says:

And there was a guy (forgot his screen name) who was dreaming of Nadal winning 18 or 22 slams or something! Said that Nadal was still in his “infancy” at 23 years of age.

buddy, start following tennis. Many top players have peaked before 23, and stopped winning slams at 23, or 24, or 25. Very few people have won slams past the age of 26 in men’s tennis in the open era. Its too physical a game now.

And Nadal’s game requires more physical prowess than anyone else’s. So assuming that he will win slams after a ripe old age of 24 or 25 (maybe 26) will certainly fall in the category of dreaming….


Dan Martin Says:

Tenisbebe I have to throw out some strong opinions to help us get that web impression/hit count up…


MMT Says:

tenisbebe: Primarily Agassi hated the fact that his daughter Rita, whom he had pushed to become a tennis champion just as he had Agassi, gave up the game (in his view) to marry Gonzalez. Furthermore, Agassi felt Gonzalez was sticking it in his craw every time they saw each other, for basically “taking” his daughter away from him.

Also, Gonzalez who was as mean to and dismissive of officials as anyone on the history of the game, had one time berated Mike Agassi over some calls he’d made as a linesperson in one of his matches to the point that Agassi walked off the court.

Here’s a link to an article on the subject from Sports Illustrated:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1026099/index.htm


vared Says:

[A] coy Bartoli said that she preferred to face crushed Jankovic rather than the German because ‘ I always beat her.’ Bartoli is 4-3 against Jankovic and has won their last three matches. JJ was a bit stunned to hear the comments.

“She talks like she’s Serena Williams,” Jankovic said. “Everybody had a right to say what she wants. I’m not really focused on Bartoli. She’s not like my biggest rival or someone I look up to or I’m scared of. She’s just one of the players on tour, not a big name, or someone who is making the big results or headlines in the game.”

When she left the press conference to go for a doping test (something she wasn’t pleased about given that she might have to stay on site past midnight), Jankovic added with a smile, “Bartoli is going to get it tomorrow.”


tenisbebe Says:

MMT – thanks for the article. I have to run out so will finish reading it later, good stuff so far. Many, many thanks.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Well, the real test will happen when Nadal plays a few matches on hard courts and really pushes it. Then there is the factor of longer term wear – suppose he is in the finals of both montreal and cinci – that’s 10 matches in about 12 days. That would be the ultimate test.

Lets see, it will be very interesting how he fares in the hardcourt season. He certainly has to be very motivated, losing the no 1 ranking, losing at the French, knowing that he probably has only a couple of good shots left at winning the USO. Lets see.


margot Says:

tennisbebe: Pims, London, November??? More likely to be a hot chocolate! BTW Agassi’s father sounds a piece of work.


Von Says:

margot: George Clooney is like a big, cuddly teddy bear!

Yes, Agassi’s father was a piece of work, and he nearly destroyed Andre in the process. It’s a shame really how parents strive to push their offspring to attain ridiculous heights in an attempt to vicariously live their lives through their children. ugh


Von Says:

tenisbebe/jane: FYI, ESPN2 is broadcasting some WTA and ATP matches from LA today, so check your local TV listings. Also, ADTHE.net is broadcasting LA at 11:00 pm US Eastern time, and you might want to check that out also. Enjoy!! I’m glad I’m not working today which means I’ll be married to my TV today. LOL.


Veno Says:

Hey Von, here I am….wrote on the previous thread…
I see you, Jane, Bebe and some Fed Fanatics(I distance myself from people with names like Fed is Goat) are hammering away on a variety of topics(none of which you will ever reach agreement, but that’s not the issue I guess)
I suspect, Von, you feel like a fish in water during these debates. It’s a joy to read hehehehe.


Von Says:

Veno:

I answered you on the other thread and left some info on tonight’s LA match which can be seen on live streaming at 5:00 CET. Now don’t say I’ve never done anything for you LOL. Anyway, read my post as there’s more info there.

“I suspect, Von, you feel like a fish in water during these debates. It’s a joy to read hehehehe.”

You betcha! As you can see from the posts, I can’t even defend Roddick truthfully without Sean taking me to the guillotine, while bissecting and/or dissecting my every word. It’s his prerogative to do so since it’s his article, and in these instances he’s the ‘Don’. LOL.


Veno Says:

LOL……good 1….I replied on the other thread to make things less confusing lol


Fed is GOAT Says:

A nice post from another forum:

Pete is just doing what he’s always done…passive-agressiveness with enough class to not get called out on it. The reason most people (including someone like me who has seen both players throughout the duration of their careers) like Federer better is because he has ALWAYS been HONEST when asked questions….even if that honesty has been less than tactful (i.e. his loss to Mantilla a few years ago, talking about Roddick after 04 Wimby final, facing Agassi in 05 Aus).

You can always trust that when you talk to Federer you will get a classy but honest answer, even if that honest answer isn’t politically correct. With Sampras you could never tell, because he’d say one thing and then change once things didn’t go his way…you started seeing this with how he talked about Rafter once Rafter started winning US Opens. Pete never started belittling Federer until Fed came close to breaking his records…that’s classic Sampras behavior (in addition to acting like the media owed him something because he condescended to talk to them) — completely opposite from Federer’s approach.

You reap what you sow. Pete can’t pretend now to be this lovable figure by the media and tennis public now, because everyone saw what he was like when he was on top — classy, but passive-aggressive and keeping people at arm’s length.

This is why there is no double standard in how Federer is treated versus Sampras. Again…you reap what you sow.

You truly find out what people are all about when things aren’t going their way…that’s why last year was so special to watch — you really saw that Federer’s class and dignity were genuine and not some facade constructed for the press — his press conference after losing to Rafa at Wimbledon is a prime example. Pete should learn from Federer’s example.


Fed is GOAT Says:

This this Sampras interview, after 2009 wimbledon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08yYv-TwaJ4

And now read Sampras’s comments in LA this week.

A complete 180 degree turn.

Classy. A 180 degree turn in one month is very classy.


Von Says:

FIG:

“You truly find out what people are all about when things aren’t going their way…that’s why last year was so special to watch — you really saw that Federer’s class and dignity were genuine and not some facade constructed for the press — his press conference after losing to Rafa at Wimbledon is a prime example. Pete should learn from Federer’s example.”

Do you honestly believe this stuff you write? sheesh. Please get a grip, and cease being an ostrich with your head in the sand when it comes to ‘the Federer’. Some huge reality checks are needed!


andrea Says:

grendel,

Andrea: I’ve been here, I’ve been there and (furthermore) I’ve been in betwee-en. Not sure what that means actually (sounds a touch lewd?), but you don’t worry too much about that when King Crimson are smoothing it out. One of the things I bin-a doin’ is to get tickets for the Masters Cup in good old London Town, November. Anyone who wants to go better get a move on, tickets be flyin’. Wimbledon’s a nightmare unless you know god and his wife, but this one’s sort of accessible. I be stayin’ one end of London, the O2 stadium is t’other end. So if night match goes on late, we’re talking taxis. Better start saving. Or practice my sprinting, perhaps…..

anyone who mentions king crimson in a post has to be given a shout out. would you believe that the day i got my front row centre court tickets in wimbledon (and you’ll hate me for this as i walked up to the ticket booth 10 mins after the first match had started and got that baby) federer wasn’t playing?

but i did see him beat novak at the US open final a couple years ago and that was fantastic.

i recommend some of the smaller masters tournaments – all the top guys are there (usually), tickets are easier to get since the events aren’t as huge and the venues are more intimate. i saw a pile of the top guys – including fed and nadal – at the paris event last october. and got to see louvre in the same trip!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Von,

Read the first sentence of my post – it was from another forum. It was not my own words (though I largely agree with it). Learn to read more carfully.

I know, your pretty boy Sampras is pissed Fed got to 15. So all you queens are now pissed since Sampras is pissed. Its not going to change anything!

As Sean Randall said before:

15>14. Period.

Gosh, if it gets to 16, 17, or 18, I can’t imagine what some of you people might end up doing!


Von Says:

FIG: Sorry for the mixup on who posted what, where, and when.

I really don’t care if you believe me or not, I’m not at all unhappy Federer broke Pete’s records. If Federer didn’t do it, someone else would have done so, and that’s a reality. What I’m unhappy about is that Pete was so gullible as to be sucked into the media’s web and has placed himself into a situation whereby everything he says will be determined as sour grapes. I also wish he had remained in LA and not shown up at Wimby, and be suckered into the friendship he now has with Federer. And, that’s all I’m unhappy about.

Tell me FIG, what’s the reason for your unhappiness? Why do you have such a fixation and/or a compelling need to keep on harping on what you perceive to be Sampras’ fake and unclassy motives, his remarks et al? And, why do you feel this overwhelming need to tear down Pete in order to exalt your guy? That’s what I’d like to know. You don’t have to answer, because I’m now done with this Sampras/Federer stuff, which unfortunately, became the main topic on this thread, and is a far cry from Nadal’s knee problems. Enjoy the ride. BTW, was there any need to change your name? I suppose anonymity has its advantages, but there’s no need to be sarcastic and use name calling, because when you used the old name we got along just fine, minus the semantics, isn’t it?


margot Says:

von: how interesting because Agassi seems to have turned out really well in spite of dad. Obviously I don’t know him, but he seemed so good natured and sweet towards Steff in that doubles they played at Wimbledon snd she seemed very happy too. Whereas it’s plain to see that poor Safina carries all the weight of too much parental pressure on her shoulders and always looks so very, very miserable.
BTW alas, alas my teddy did not look at all like gorgeous George……


Von Says:

margot: Steffi was Andre’s saving grace. I doubt he would have become the man he is today had it not been for Steffi’s stable influence on his life, at a time when things were really falling apart for him. It’s amazing how some people can touch our lives and engender a 360 degree turnaround.

Ref: Handsome George and your teddy, I’m also unlucky because my 3 foot bear is a far cry from cuddly George. LOL.


Veno Says:

Hey Von, I applaud your effort to try and educate someone who clearly doesn’t have the capacity to open his mind to knowledge let alone wisdom.
Why bother?

Von says: “I also wish he had remained in LA and not shown up at Wimby, and be suckered into the friendship he now has with Federer.”

I’m surprised seeing you state it so bold…
Sometimes you can’t turn away from certain things if you’re a public figure. Pete knew that and he definitely did the right thing coming to Wimby.
And, reading between all the lines the media writes regarding both, I don’t think he got suckered in to a friendship with Fed. I really think they like eachother and respect eachother….
Yes, everything he says will be put under a microscope and he’ll get scrutinized for saying certain things, but Pete knows it’s just temporarily and he’ll just have to drag it out till then.


scineram Says:

“It’s amazing how some people can touch our lives and engender a 360 degree turnaround.”

What is the point of a 360 degrees turnaround?


Veno Says:

looooooool @scineram….


tennisontherocks Says:

‘scineram Says:
“It’s amazing how some people can touch our lives and engender a 360 degree turnaround.”

What is the point of a 360 degrees turnaround?’

common…don’t just focus on final outcome, enjoy the journey :)


Skorocel Says:

grendel: „Federer’s confidence at the moment will be as high as it’s ever been, so now if ever he should feel at least the equal of Nadal.“

I bet that once he sees Nadal at the other side of the net, it will be quickly back to „normal“ level :-)


Skorocel Says:

MMT: „I’m sure Agassi and his die-hard supporters aren’t crazy about this comment, but there is more truth than flattery in it – first, Sampras lost only 1 grand slam final to Agassi at the AO in 1995 – the other finals were not in slams. Second, Sampras beat Agassi twice as often as he lost to him in slams, 6-3.

I suppose it depends on one’s definition of big matches, but generally I’d have to agree that Sampras beat Agassi more often when it counted in slams.“

Completely agree with this one. Btw, Sampras actually has a 7-2 record vs Agassi in slams…

——————-

„Here’s another totally unrelated one – Stefan Edberg’s wife, aptly named, “Annette”, was previously Mats Wilander’s girlfriend.“

Actually, when you mentioned this „tidbit“ about Edberg, I somehow recalled that one freak accident which happened to him when he played the juniors at the USO (can’t remember the year), and which no one seemed to mention on this site… I was quite surprised to hear about this (I’ve found about it only recently), but anyway, what happened? In one of his matches, he allegedly hit a ball (it was probably a serve) which accidentally hit one of the line judges, who, while trying to avoid it, stumbled and badly injured his head, and then later died from the consequences of this fall… Of course, it was totally unintentional from Edberg, but still, I guess it must’ve been pretty hard for him (and it still is) to live with this fact not only for his entire professional career but also for his entire life…


Skorocel Says:

Fed is GOAT said: „Agassi did beat Sampras in many big matches – grand slam final, other grand slam matches…“

Should be other grand slam match, not matches ;-)

————-

„knowing that he probably has only a couple of good shots left at winning the USO“

LOL! How do you know what Nadal knows? ;-)

————-

P.S. If you consider that Sampras’s remark about Rafter as unfair or unclassy, then how about that one interview which Fed gave to Dick Enberg?! There, he not only belittles Nadal (his main rival, who he btw should be thankful to not only for improving his game – particularly his BH, but moreover for improving his LEGACY via all those 5 set wars which these two have waged since 2005), he does that to ALL the other players on the tour… I can honestly say, I’m a Fed fan, first and foremost, but I have to admit – the guy looked like an idiot there… A complete idiot!


Von Says:

Veno: Thanks for your input. It really gnaws at me the endless stuff on Pete is this, he’s that, he’s not classy, et al, ad nauseam. I mean, is there any good at all in Pete Sampras? Then, if not, why was Federer constantly text-messaging Pete after the FO for Pete to be present at Wimby? There has to be something good in Pete that Federer likes for him to take the time to communicate with Pete, and thank God Federer is not FIG.

“I’m surprised seeing you state it so bold…”

Sometimes, there’s no other way to be than just come right out and say it.


Veno Says:

That’s ok, but addressing a statement in an unequivocal manner only is efficient when the addressée is open to hearing things in unambiguous terms(sorry that I’m getting philosopical)

I agree Von. Pete was and is a class act. He didn’t get half the respect and praise he deserved when still playing…..and even now he gets scrutinized at every turn, stop harassing Pete and respect the man for his accomplishments!


Veno Says:

Skorocel…

The H2H Sampras-Agassi is 6-3 in Grand Slams.
4-1 in GS finals(Pete 3 USO and 1 Wimby, Andre 1 AO)
0-1 in Clay Grand Slam matches
4-2 in HC Grand Slam matches
2-0 in Grass Grand Slam matches


Von Says:

Veno: Sambo is cooking with his FH. I think the 5:00 CET match is Safin v. Haas, so please use the live stream and give us some input. I’ll be watching and posting, so join me.


Veno Says:

hey Von, looks like Sam is getting the better of Sela and Isner is already in the semis…
Pity Mardy had to pull out due to injury.
are you looking forward to the Haas-Safin match?

I won’t be getting up at 5 am tonight to watch the stream lol.


tenisbebe Says:

Von – Am at my brothers and he has TC – yippee! So great to see these matches. Dudi has hit some eye-opening BH’s today but not enough. Looks like a 2-setter.

Veno – thought Ball beat Isner?


Von Says:

Veno: Yes, I’m lookikng forward to watching Marat tonight. However, I wonder which Marat will show up. LOL. I agree with you, I wouldn’t wake up at 5:00 am to watch live streaming; TV yes, but not sitting at my computer for 2 or more hours while feeling sleepy, borringgg!!!

Yes, what a pity Mardy had to pull out, which makes his win last night even more meaningful.


Von Says:

Veno: Isner lost to Carsten ball.


Veno Says:

oh, ugh…ATP website posted it the other way around….Isner won 4 and 4, but it’s actually the other way around….sorry


Skorocel Says:

Sorry FIG and Veno, it’s indeed 6-3. My bad!


max619 Says:

Newspapers from Spain reporting Nadal might skip Montreal. I am not good at doing the ATP ranking points math but he might lose his # 2 spot if Murray wins and/or reaches semis.


Maso Says:

Ah, completely not tennis related, but a shout out to Grendel for mentioning King Crimson (as suggested by Andrea). Robert Fripp is the bloody GOAT, not Federer, Sampras or Laver! … ahem. Just let him use his Gibson as a racket, you’ll see.


hibcbcbc Says:

Guys, guys, guys…

Couple things: First, please dispense with the “Murray if the favorite talk.” He isn’t. He simply doesn’t have the weapons (does he have one shot that can dominate a match?) and cannot beat a Fed or Nadal in a major when those guys are playing well and aggressively.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Murray never wins a major. He is just a counterpuncher with no weapons. Just because he wins the tournaments that don’t really matter to Fed/Nadal doesn’t make him the favorite in ANY major.

Nadal’s best days are behind him. I think we can agree on that. He is physically breaking down at 23, and the history of guys missing significant injury time, then coming back to greatess, doesn’t support Nadal’s re-ascension to greatness.

Fed IS the greatest that’s ever played the game. Sorry, I don’t get the debate. 15 majors, and he is a MUCH MORE well rounded player than Pete ever was, as Fed wins on all surfaces. The Nadal issue is kind of pointless. Sampras, Graf, Laver…all had some players they struggled with.

Nadal won’t be in the GOAT debate in 10 years.

Fed will.

End of story.


grendel Says:

andrea – for some reason, only just caught your post. Perhaps Wimbie is easier these days, but I remember queuing for hours and hours after cycling there (and coming off when some idiot opened his car door without looking). At least it didn’t rain. I’m a bit of a non-traveller, but you’re right, Paris at least is accessible. My elder son’s going to China soon as part of his degree course. So he’s taking in the Beijing tourney, and he’s wondering about Shanghai, too – but that’s a helluva trip. I remember your live posts from – well, somewhere or other…..


Giner Says:

steve Says:

“Why is it so unreasonable to think Federer could equal Graf’s record? We’re talking about a man who has won three Slams a year in three different years, and for two of those years, he was one match away from winning the calendar Slam.”

Steffi did better than that. She won the Grand Slam twice, including the Golden slam with an olympic gold medal, something Federer has not been able to do in singles. Winning 3 slams a year is incredible, but it’s still less than what Steffi did, and not enough to get to 22. He needs 7 more, which isn’t realistic. He has a losing record against Murray and Nadal, and sooner or later he’ll have to face them again in a slam final.

Top story: Poll: Who Should Switzerland Play In The Doubles Saturday? Federer-Wawrinka?
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Nov 17 WTA - Nov 17
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Roger Federer2 Maria Sharapova
3 Rafael Nadal3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 Kei Nishikori5 Ana Ivanovic
6 Andy Murray6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Tomas Berdych7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Milos Raonic8 Caroline Wozniacki
9 Marin Cilic9 Angelique Kerber
10 David Ferrer10 Dominika Cibulkova
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.