Looking Through The Years: Federer Is Better than Ever
by Ben Pronin | December 8th, 2012
  • 221 Comments

Throughout the Open Era, we have actually seen a lot of mesmerizing performances. I say actually because when something nuts happens it seems rare, but the Open Era is barely over 40 years old. And in such a short time we saw the legends in the 70s and 80s in Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander; in the 90s we had Pete Sampras, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Andre Agassi; and in the last decade we’ve been treated to and are still treated by Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, and Novak Djokovic.

And of course a ton of other great players that I didn’t mention. Each of these guys has done something extraordinary at one time or another in their careers. Connors, Wilander, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic all managed to win three slams in one year at least once. Agassi, Nadal, and Federer have career slams. Sampras was number one for six consecutive years. McEnroe had the best winning percentage ever in 1984. The list of achievements is endless.

And the player who has achieved more than everyone else is Federer. The fact of the matter is that no one ever dominated the game quite like he had from 2004-2007. He won 11/16 majors and numerous Masters titles, as well as 4/5 year end championships. And from 2004-2006 alone, he only lost a total of 15 matches (just three less than his total in 2012 alone). But we all know the greatness that is Roger Federer. We know that, at this point, literally every match he places bares some kind of historic significance.

The reason I mentioned past greats is because there have actually been a lot of “this is the greatest year by one player ever” years. I mentioned McEnroe’s 1984. There was Wilander’s 1988. Sampras, while never winning three majors, still had beastly years in from 1993-1995. Just recently, after Federer’s great years, we saw Nadal light it up in 2008 and even more so in 2010. And of course, Djokovic and the wonder year that was 2011. Of course we can argue all day about whose year was better and why, but for now, let’s focus on Federer (shocking, I know).

Statistically, and based on the level of play, I believe 2006 was Federer’s most incredible year. He reached 16 out of 17 possible finals, winning 12. He won three of the four majors for a second time and reached all four finals. He won then-record-tying four Masters titles and went undefeated for a third Tennis Masters Cup crown. His overall record was 92-5 (19-4 against top 10 players). He was virtually flawless.

But 2012 was even better. His record was a mere 71-12. He only won six out of 10 finals played (while playing 17 tournaments). He won three Masters and won only one major (his record breaking 17th at Wimbledon) in his lone final of the year. And he reached the final of the World Tour Finals, losing once in the round robin stage, as well. However, his mastery over the top 10 hardly diminished. He went 16-9 over his fiercest rivals (17-9 if you include his win over Juan Martin del Potro ranked 11th during the Australian Open). And that is a huge reason why I believed 2012 is Federer’s best year.

He started the year at 30 years of age and ended it at 31 (obviously). He’s now six years removed from his best statistical year. He hadn’t won a slam since the 2010 Australian Open and had only reached one final in 2011, losing to Nadal at the French Open. Djokovic and Nadal were dominating every big tournament on every surface. Murray had just hired Lendl and was supposed to make a big breakthrough (which he did). Djokovic remained number one and added to his slam total in Australia. Nadal won a record breaking seventh French Open title. Murray won the Gold medal at the Olympics and his first US Open title. So these three guys, all either 25 or 26 years old, are clearly the best in the world. And Federer was right there with them. He won Wimbledon, he won those three Masters (only Djokovic matched him there). He won the Silver medal at the Olympics. And the biggest accomplishment of his year? Spending about half of it ranked number one in the world. At 30/31 years old, Roger Federer was the best tennis player in the world, above all of these young guys.

Just recently, Djokovic said that in a lot of ways, his 2012 was even better than his 2011 because he managed to stay number one even when the competition grew considerably fiercer and the playing field was unbelievably and uncharacteristically even. The majors were split between the Big Four (last time this happened was in 2003, before the Federer Era). Both Djokovic and Federer showed that, when everyone is winning big titles, you have to amp up your consistency. And both did that. Djokovic doing it shouldn’t be a big deal; this should be his time and era to shine. But, almost unfortunately, he was forced to share that spotlight with that old guy on tour still beating up on the young kids.

When Federer won Wimbledon, the consensus was that he turned back the clock. The reality is, Federer didn’t have to turn anything back, he’s just done a great job of staying ahead. People will always argue about whether or not Federer is the greatest. And there are a few things that detractors can latch on to. But in my mind, there’s nothing that can be said to definitively disprove it. Not when he produces his best tennis in 2012. It’s one thing to still love the game when you’re entering your twilight years. But to be the best? Only Federer.

Fun fact: Federer has 17 slams to Nadal+Djokovic+Lleyton Hewitt+Murray+del Potro’s 20.


Also Check Out:
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: “Apparently French Players Get Better After 27 Years Old”
Rafael Nadal Says He’ll Need 4 Years Of Good Health, Results To Pass Federer’s 17 Slams
Poll: Will Rafael Nadal Ever Win Wimbledon Again?
Rafael Nadal a ‘More Complete Player’ Says Coach Roig
Andy Murray’s Been Using The Same Tennis Racquet For 11 Years!

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

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

221 Comments for Looking Through The Years: Federer Is Better than Ever

gannu Says:

feddy bear is the best ever…enjoy ur time in south america feddy baby…


Vidzy Says:

2006 was definitely Federer’s best year. Federer might be playing better in 2012 than he was in 2006 but to say Federer’s best year in 2012 is statistical wrong statement. Federer’s backhand is definitely better than ever, definitely better than 2006. he might not be invincible now because the courts have slowed down drastically specially Melbourne and Wimbledon but Federer is still making it count.I don’t think Federer will win 2 majors in any year from here onwards. winning 1 major will be a huge achievement from here as before Federer only had Nole and Rafa to be worried about but now he also has Andy who seems to have entered his prime so it will only get difficult for fed specially at his fav hunting place -Wimbledon.


bstevens Says:

To me, Federer’s career was complete in 2009 when he won the French. Everything he has accomplished since then is icing on the cake.


Deborah Says:

Many oh us have wondered what Roger’s career would be like in the post GS record era. Even in my wildest dreams, I would have never expected a year like 2012. To think he was able to regain titles he hadn’t been able to recently such as IW. He played so well at Madrid and Cincy. Of course front loading the season and playing the gold medal match at the Olympics probably doomed his efforts for the fall indoor season but this Fedfan has no complaints.


Dave Says:

I expected Federer’s year in 2012 – for Roger to regain the No. 1 ranking and win another Grand Slam – since the day he won the 2011 World Tour Finals. For example, after Federer won Dubai, I posted the arguments, facts and data in my posts on March 3rd, 2012 at 4:51 pm and March 4th, 2012 at 1:33 pm:
- Federer could become No. 1 by 2012 US Open. Federer actually did it by Wimbledon.
- Crafty Federer seemed to be programming himself to peak for the next 5 to 7 months after Dubai. That’s what actually happened for about five months until Federer took his foot off the gas a little after winning Wimbledon and regaining the No. 1 ranking.
- Federer would have to win 6,000 to 7,000 points between Indian Wells and US Open: Federer actually won 6,995 points (8805 – 1810) during that period.
- Federer could have to win three to five more titles between Indian Wells and US Open, including 1 to 2 gand slam titles. Federer actually won four more titles (IW, Madrid, Wimbledon, Cincinnati), which included 1 grand slam title.
- It would be even better if Djokovic suffered a mini-meltdown for a few tourneys. Djokovic actually did suffer a mini-meltdown, by his standards, for a few tourneys between Monte Carlo to Olympics from the pressure of defending the No. 1 ranking and winning the career grand slam.
- 2012 would not be a two-horse race as Djokovic and Nadal would have more challengers in future. Djokovic and Nadal now do have more challengers who can threaten them.
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-03-03/8986.php

No brilliance needed to sketch these scenarios. The data was always there for anyone (open to the plausible possibilities) to reach similar conclusions – given Federer is exceptional as the greatest player ever, it is plausible he could do these things.


Dave Says:

McEnroe’s 1984 wasn’t “the best winning percentage ever.” Bill Tilden’s 1925 remains the best match winning percentage in a single season on record: 98.73%, with a 78-1 win-loss record, 15 titles (including US national championships, as well as titles on grass, clay, wood, etc.). Tilden had a 98-match winning streak from 1924 to 1925.

I saw, as a spectator in good seats, Federer play several matches in 2006. There may be a few technical improvements in Federer’s game in 2012 but the whole of his game in 2006 was greater than the sum of his parts in 2012. In 2006 Federer had slightly greater synergy of confidence, swiftness and fluency in his game than this year. The tournament conditions were also tougher in 2006 as the top players had no first round byes in non-Grand Slam tournaments (i.e., they had to play an extra match in most events) and many more finals were best-of-five sets (even events such as Basel) – it’s likely the top 10 players of 2012 would have suffered as a consequence. In my view, 2006 Federer would have probably beaten 2012 Federer in four sets. I could cite several of Fed’s winning matches as examples, but I’m going to pick Federer’s loss to Nadal at Dubai to illustrate my point. Despite Federer being rusty upon returning from his post-Australian Open break and losing the match, Bjorn Borg, who had watched in the stands, said that Federer’s play in the first set was some of the best tennis he’d ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOYNSSSrFQ

What’s really special about Federer’s ATP performance results in 2012 – indeed over the last 17 months — is that (a) Roger still virtually matched 2012’s best player Djokovic in terms of overall results despite his performance potential compromised by his 30-31 years age and (b) he achieved these ATP results while dividing his time/efforts between the ATP Tour, Davis Cup and the ATP Player Council. Had Federer been 100% focused on the ATP Tour – as Djokovic, Murray and Nadal were – there’s a good probability Federer would have finished No. 1. After Wimbledon and regaining the No. 1 ranking, Federer took his foot off the gas a little, playing just six events (only at Cincinnati did he look well-prepared and motivated to bounce back from the Olympic defeat) while Djokovic played eight events (looking more focused, trained and prepared after effectively sacrificing the Olympics). This was the first year since 2006 that Federer had won six titles by Cincinnati, yet showed none of the urgency after the US Open that he had in 2010 and 2011 as he dissipated his energies in Davis Cup in Netherlands as well as Player Council negotiations with Grand Slams on prize money. As well, deborah is right: Federer’s excessive efforts to get to the Olympic gold medal match came back to bite Federer in the US Open sub-season — as I had predicted the possibility before the Olympics (on the other hand Djokovic the marathon man did not bother to go beyond a certain level of effort in his two Olympic losses — argiuably his two worst significant losses in the past two seasons –probably to conserve himself for Toronto).
- The old Federer played the maximum possible ties and matches (singles and doubles) for his country during 2012 (indeed during the past 1.5 years). On the other hand young Djokovic, Murray and Nadal all in their prime ditched Davis Cup in 2012 to focus on their ATP results (Djokovic has failed to win a set of Davis Cup in the past two seasons) – had these players played maximum Davis Cup this season, it would have probably negatively affected their ATP results (Djokovic in 2010 had his worst season as a top 10 player while Nadal completely ditched Davis Cup in 2010).
- Federer has been distracted over the past 4.5 years since mid-2008 by his role as president, ATP Player Council. Though Nadal and, to a lesser extent, Djokovic had roles on the Player Council for one to two years, Federer level of involvement and responsibility has been much greater and for a longer period. Had Nadal, Djokovic and Murray been as involved as Federer in Player Council activities during Grand Slams and Masters events, it would have likely affected their results. USA Today: “…his off-court endeavors. Much of Federer’s behind-the-scenes work this year has focused on persuading the four majors to share a larger piece of the revenue pie with players. He has also lobbied that a larger percentage of prize money go to earlier rounds to rectify a growing income distribution gap. …Take his pre-tournament schedule last month at the Masters event in Shanghai. Under added security because of death threats, Federer arrived on a Friday and discussed strategy with ATP player and board representatives till about 1 a.m. He practiced the next morning, spent about 7 hours in meetings with various representatives of the Grand Slams and still attended the player party Saturday night. On Sunday evening, he hosted three hours of meetings in his hotel room with the Player Council, ATP executive staff, and U.S. Open executives — all before he struck a match ball. “Roger has so many demands on his schedule and the fact that he is investing so much time into the player council and these negotiations shows his character and how much he cares for the future of the sport,” doubles specialist and council member Eric Butorac of the USA wrote in a recent email. “I believe it is very unprecedented to have a top player so involved.” (Google: “Federer takes on role as backroom power broker”)

Had Federer — in the past 4.5 years since mid 2008 — not wasted his time and efforts on the ATP Player’s Council and Davis Cup (e.g., he played not just more DC matches but also more DC ties than Nadal during his period) it’s highly likely Federer would have won a few more Grand Slam titles and several dozen more No. 1 weeks.


Sienna Says:

Dave,
I think you are as always on the money with your analyse of the current affairs in tennis.

But still itwasnt all plain sailing for Fed for 2012.

Hed did get injured prior to AU Open which let to anotjher loss against Nadal. Back problem. Als the clay season was compromised leading to lesser results and straight set loss to Djokovic. We know a fully fit Fed would beat Novak on clay,

Also the spasm at wimbly? WOW how he came through those was a thriller on its own!
The sheer mind blowing power he showed was a glimpse into the soul of the championRoger Federer.

It was a very though year that with hardly any immagination could have been turned into his 4th TMF year.
With a little less injury problem he could get antoher shot at 1 or 2 slams in 2013.


roy Says:

looking through the years: the tennis-x federer worship is stronger than ever.

but we can do better. why not write more articles about federer? for instance, instead of 4 of the last 6 articles featuring a federer subject line, why not have 5 of the 6? or just rename the site federer-x?
i suppose he did make 3 slam finals this year, win the year end and finish no.1.
oh wait, that was djokovic.


Vidzy Says:

Look at this shot Roger hit today against Tsonga. Is this guy really 31 ? UNBELIEVABLE..

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=529408207070976&set=vb.136026553075812&type=2&theater


alison Says:

Roy if your not a fan fair enough,but this thread is for those fans that are,and for those fans that wish to comment,you have a choice its the age of the internet,if it bothers you so much why waste the nervous energy?pretty pointless i would have thought.


skeezer Says:

When a guy has dominated the Tennis scene like Fed, its no wonder so much is written about him.

roy,

Why don’t you create your own tennis Rafa web site, then you can worshp all u want. Happy Holidays, say hi to Mr. Grench.


skeezer Says:

There is stuff that Ben pointed out that no one will ever achieve for a very long time. Feel privileged to be in the era of the GOAT.


El Flaco Says:

Federer’s ball striking is still excellent, but he is a bit slower with his movement. This effects your ability to play defense against power shots and also how often you can run around your backhand to hit forehands. You can also see his reaction to 1st serves is a little slower.


Dave Says:

Sienna, you’re right. Federer had several ailments throughout the year: at Doha (back), Indian Wells (flu), February/March (feet problems, which he revealed to Swiss journalist Rene Stauffer in April), clay season (hip injury), Wimbledon (back problem), etc. Had Federer not had the injuries, Davis Cup and Player Council duties, yeah, he certainly could have had a good shot at 1 to 2 more grand slam titles.

Federer had a good shot to finish No. 1 even after the US Open had he done what Pete Sampras did in 1998: Sampras ditched Davis Cup semifinals to play seven ATP events in October and November to finish No. 1 ahead of Marcelo Rios and Pat Rafter. Federer could have done what he did in 2010 (five events after USO, no DC) plus add Beijing to warm up for Shanghai. It was disappointing but in the end Federer wasn’t obsessed about challenging Djokovic for the No. 1 or as motivated as he was in the first half of the year (he didn’t look prepared enough or play his best in Shanghai and Basel for various reasons, and it caught up with him at World Tour Finals). Had Fed put more effort into finishing the year strong, instead of wasting time on Davis Cup and negotiating higher prize money for other players at US Open and Shanghai, he would have had a good chance to finish No. 1. But he didn’t put in the necessary effort I think.

According to Swiss press, Federer will make about $12 million from his South American Tour — whihc is more than the $10 million prize money he made in 2007 best year. He has done the right thing by doing these exhibitions in the off season, so he can focus on results in the ATP season.

A lot was made of the fact that Fed dropped Miami and Basel from his schedule in 2013. Those two events brought him only about 350 points this year so he’s not losing much if he arrives healthy and well trained for his remaining events. The possibility exists for Federer to have a similar or better year in 2013.


alison Says:

Just to say congrats to Roger Federer and all his fantastic fans,Gannu,Madmax,skeezer,the much missed Ajet and Swiss Maestro,and especially Dave the cleverest and most knowledgeable tennis poster on this forum,your guy had another stellar year this year,and im sure he will have another one next year.


Swiss Maestro Says:

Thanks Alison. Good luck to Nadal too.

Looking forward to a great 2013.


The Great Davy Says:

I weep to think of all of the Grand Slam I could be mine if it were not Federer the GOAT…

Australian Open 2006…
US Open 2006…
French Open 2007…
US Open 2007…
Australian Open 2010…

The Shamed Davy now weeps…


alison Says:

Swiss Maestro thanks for those sweet words about Rafa,yeah absolutely looking forward to another great tennis year in 2013,cant wait for it to get started again,may i say its fantastic to see you posting again,as i know how busy you are,have a happy xmas and new year,take care.


Tennislover Says:

“His overall record was 92-5 (19-4 against top 10 players). He was virtually flawless.”

It is safe to say that Fed was at his peak and in his absolute prime. Raf was the only player who beat him. All the losses were in finals at Dubai, MC, Rome and RG. Raf was also the only player who took a set off Fed at Wimby. Murray also beat a rather tired Fed at Cincy after the event’s organizers declined Fed’s request for a Wednesday evening start for his first match against Srichapan. Fed had just won the Toronto final in four sets and was rather sluggish in his R64 and R32 matches at Cincy. It just shows how tough it was to beat Fed that year and how well Raf did to beat him even on clay courts. He prevented Fed from virtually sweeping everything. It remains a big feather in Raf’s cap.

“But 2012 was even better.”

This is extremely questionable unless you are going purely by the improbability of a player of his age and that much top-flight tennis in his body doing what he did.

“Just recently, Djokovic said that in a lot of ways, his 2012 was even better than his 2011 because he managed to stay number one even when the competition grew considerably fiercer and the playing field was unbelievably and uncharacteristically even.”

Djoko’s consistency right through the season was remarkable but I have my doubts about the competition growing considerably fiercer. Raf’s shocking loss at Wimby and his absence thereafter actually helped Fed, Murray and Djok in different ways. Ferrer was consistent without being a big threat. Delpo rarely threatened consistently. Ditto for Berd. Tsonga actually was a much bigger threat in 2011.

“Not when he produces his best tennis in 2012. It’s one thing to still love the game when you’re entering your twilight years. But to be the best? Only Federer.”

Very rarely did Fed produce, as is often the case nowadays, his best tennis but that, to me, is natural and understandable. He just can not be anywhere as consistent as he was in his glory days. All his main rivals and some of the lesser players are more consistent than him from the baseline and Fed surely is physically way past his prime. Of course, he has incredible variety and he uses that to overcome some of these difficulties. Mentally, he is unlikely to be as focused, hungry or motivated as he used to be given that there is very little left for him to achieve and has two growing kids to give him more ‘perspective’. Some of his off-court preoccupations suggest he is not as fiercely focused and determined to do well on the court as some of his younger rivals are. That single-minded devotion is obviously not so easy at this stage of his life and career.

As for his game, the only thing a bit better as compared to 2006 is the bh. Almost every other area of his game has deteriorated or become inconsistent. The most glaring being the ROS and break point conversion rate. His serve goes off much more often and the fh is not as consistently lethal as it once was. What Fed achieved this year, despite the inconsistencies in his game, was quite incredible. He did play some very good tennis in the wimby sf and, especially, in the final but I can’t recall any other really big match where he came close to playing his best tennis with any degree of consistency.


alison Says:

Tennislover you have given Dave a run for his money in the stats stakes,and that indeed takes some doing well done for that lol,Rogers not my favorite player however i like him,and will always admire and respect all his achievements which are indeed second to none,he continues to break records,many of which will never be broken,congrats to him and his fans.


volley Says:

@ Tennislover ….. “in the final but I can’t recall any other really big match where he came close to playing his best tennis with any degree of consistency”

he played consistently at his best @ IW, the sf and final. he was also near his best against raonic and berdych at madrid. imho


Brando Says:

@dave: 86!:-)


skeezer Says:

Re; 2012.

“Very rarely did Fed produce, as is often the case nowadays, his best tennis….”

But….yet…he just won his 17th Slam in his 30′s against a field of top players in there prime.

No, and indeed, Fed pulled the Rabbit out of the hat for those naysayers, “he is passed his prime” , ” he is olderer”, “he is exposed against these players now in there prime”, ” he is done producing his best tennis”. LMAO.

Twist it any way you want, he has won many big titles with big players in the past and present. He is the GOAT no doubt for a very long time here now and many years to come.


Alok Says:

“Murray also beat a rather tired Fed at Cincy after the event’s organizers declined Fed’s request for a Wednesday evening start for his first match against Srichapan.”

This should put to rest the stuff that always being toytted out that Fed gets preferential scheduling.

“‘Just recently, Djokovic said that in a lot of ways, his 2012 was even better than his 2011 because he managed to stay number one even when the competition grew considerably fiercer and the playing field was unbelievably and uncharacteristically even.’”

It’s similar to him stating that this is the best era ever. I think the competition got weaker due to Nadal’s absence from June through end of November, 2012.

I think we would most probably would have seen some different results at the Olympics, Shanghai, USO and WTF, had Nadal played at those tournaments. The playing field became uneven.


Dave Says:

Thanks much Alison, the nicest person on this forum. It would not surprise me if Rafa has an excellent year in 2013.

I’m posting while on vacation in the mid-Atlantic, so my posts may not be entirely sober, lol.

Actually the reason why Federer was tired at 2006 Cincinnati was because he had just won Toronto (a) by playing six matches and (b) his last four matches from R16 to final went the distance to deciding sets (however, unlike other Masters events, Toronto and Cincinnati were both best-of-three-set finals). Federer came into Toronto looking a little under-prepared and paid the price in later stages of the tournament. Because the top players also had to play six rounds in Cincinnati, Federer had to play his first match on Tuesday against Srichapan. Federer played tired matches against Srichapan and Murray, and commentators such as Mary Carillo openly suggested that Fed had tanked the Murray match to rest for the US Open, which wasn’t implausible because that’s probably what he did in Cincinnati against Hrbaty in 2004 given the Olympics. [Regardless, when tournament conditions were made easier from 2007/2008 (first round byes to top players, no best-of five set matches in ATP tournaments, including Masters events) it became easier for players like Djokovic and Nadal to succeed in recent years. Can you imagine, for example, after this Olympics, Djokovic playing 2012 Toronto and Cincinnati with the extra first round matches in both events? ]

Nadal did well in 2006 to win those matches against Federer. There are several reasons for this: First, Federer came into 2006 Dubai a little underprepared because, after 2006 Australian Open, Federer rested his ankle and legs (to complete his recovery from the torn ligament he suffered in 2005 Fall but played at the World Tour Finals). Second, Federer became consistently successful on clay only from 2006 (he could have had an excellent 2005 clay season but an injury affected his Monte Carlo and he still had to withdraw from Rome several weeks later as a consequence) — and it was a historical quirk that that 2006 was also the year that Nadal began peaking and dominating on clay. Third, I suspect Federer expected Nadal to be a fleeting threat who would fizzle out by 2006. Given Nadal’s injuries in 2005 and the injuries to several other players (Hewitt, Kerten, etc, etc), I don’t think Federer or other experienced players expected Nadal’s body to last or that he would return playing so well in Spring 2006 after such a long break. Consequently, I doubt Federer devoted too much of his training to beat Nadal – Nadal was such a unique player (lefty, tactics, style, etc.) that focusing on him would come at the expense of beating the rest of the field with more conventional styles. Had Federer become obsessed with trying to counter Nadal’s lefty pounding of his backhand, it probably would have resulted in Federer losing more matches against the other players. Fourth, Nadal’s goal in since 2004 was simple: train to beat Federer, because if he could beat No. 1 Federer’s ‘complete game’ he would be able to beat 95% of the other players. So Uncle Toni programmed Nadal with the game basically targeted to beat Federer, and it worked against a lot of other players. That’s why Nadal in those days tended to lose to certain other players – in 2006, Rafa lost all eight non-clay tournaments after the clay season, taking only one match to a deciding set: Queen’s Club QF (Hewitt), Wimbledon F (Federer), Toronto R16 (Berdych), Cincinnati QF (Ferrero), US Open QF (Youzhny), Stockholm (Johansson), Madrid QF (Berdych), World Tour Finals (Blake, Federer). In all, Nadal lost 12 matches in 2006 (also to Blake, Moya and Clement before the clay season) while Federer lost 5 (three on clay). So while it was a feather in Rafa’s cap to get those four wins against Federer, Rafa’s obsession with beating Federer came at the expense of beating other players and winning non-clay titles. And conversely Rafa’s wins partly came because of the conundrum that Federer faced: whether to focus on beating Nadal or focus on winning titles, the No. 1 ranking and beating the other players which is how the tennis tour works today. If this was the pre-open era before 1968, and Federer had to play 100 matches against Nadal on a one-on-one tour, it’s likely Federer would have programmed his game to improve his chances of beating Nadal, just as he did between 2006 Wimbledon to 2007 World Tour Finals, on all surfaces (and as Gonzales did to Lew Hoad in 1958, after losing their initial matches).

Actually I din’t think Rafa’s loss at Wimbledon and his absence thereafter actually helped Federer. With Rafa’s absence, Federer took his foot off the gas after winning Wimbledon and regaining the No. 1 ranking and he just did not seem as motivated thereafter as he did in the first half. Had Nadal been around, Federer was surely looking forward to beating him on grass and hardcourts, given Roger’s form by Wimbledon. With Rafa out of the picture, I don’t think Federer considers Djokovic and Murray in the same light as Nadal. After Wimbledon, Federer took an extended vacation in Sardinia, while Murray almost immediately returned to Wimbledon to practice for the Olympics.


Humble Rafa Says:

I assume people use the “dead time” of the year to make themselves feel better.

The Arrogant One may be GOAT, I am the GOAT Owner.


Giles Says:

^ lol :-))


Sienna Says:

It is always easier to be the hunter then the hunted .

Nadal had a goal he saw the level needed to become #1. It si alway easier for a player to get ahead by being the underdog or the player no one is expecting to win.
Novak ditto. He saw for years the level (in consistency) that was needed to become the best.

To think that Fed was lucky that he arrived first is a misconception. Fed was the anomoly in time. He was the odd one out. He did what the other cannot and that is lift single handedly tennis to 2 levels further. There would have been no other way round.
If Nadal was arriving first he would not have gone to raise the bar like Fed did. He would have been content with beating the #1 at the time. Good enough but no anomoly.

Fed is the game changer and he succeded to raise his own level to stay ahead or at ar when the going got tough.

We live in terrific tennis years just because of the never ever say die attitude of Fed. ….and along the way he is taking some guys with him who also want a piece of the history pie.


rogerafa Says:

@ “Humble” Rafa

“The Arrogant One may be GOAT, I am the GOAT Owner.”

Where is your humility? You sound extremely arrogant here. You may be the “GOAT Owner” but the Great Davy may protest and proudly proclaim that he owns the “GOAT Owner”. At this point the followers of the “Arrogant One” may say that he not only owns the owner of the “GOAT Owner” but he made him his slave and showed some mercy only twice in seventeen meetings. Of course, at this point you will say, with all “humility”, that you own the owner of the player who owns you……


rogerafa Says:

@ Tennislover

I agree with volley that Roger played very well at Indian Wells and Madrid against Rafa and Tomas respectively. Both of them played very well and Roger had to play at a high level to beat them.


skeezer Says:

rr @ 2:36

a bigger LOL….hehe

in this fandom era they talk h2h like it is better than all the tennis records………………………………………

but it isn’t.


alison Says:

Rogerafa @2.36pm LMAO.


alison Says:

Dave appreciate that comment but Nah,i would give that title to Madmax,Margot,Jane,Lulu(BTW wonder where Lulu Iberica is these days,miss her fair and wise posts),anyway thanks for those kind words about me,and those words about Rafa too,however we will see what unfolds,hope your enjoying your vacation,and the weathers nice,its bloody freezing here in the UK,as for having a good old drink tis the season to eat,drink and be merry,so go forth and enjoy yourself.


Tennislover Says:

I stand corrected, thanks to Dave, regarding the 2006 Toronto final. It was indeed three sets and not four. I don’t know how or why it came up in my mind. I was going purely by memory although I am pretty sure that Fed requested an evening start for his match against either Srichapan or Murray.

Alok – That was not the first time Fed’s scheduling request was denied. There have been quite a few other occasions. He once requested a Sunday start at the French Open – I can’t quite recall if it was 2010 or 2011 – but the organizers, allegedly always pro-Fed as per Fed’s detractors, simply refused to do so. No big deal though. The requests of many other players are accepted or denied depending on the assessment and judgment of the event’s authorities.

Alison – Please do not bracket me with Dave. He is in a league of his own and I do not deserve to even tie his shoe laces in the stats department. What meaning or significance we attach to those stats and how we interpret them is an entirely different matter though. By the way, I agree with Dave, although I have told you earlier, that you probably are a genuinely nice person in real life and not only on this blog. The kind of job you do is quite commendable. I saw on the other thread that it was your b’day a few days back. Here’s wishing you, albeit late, many happy returns of the day! I hope you had a nice day!

volley and rogerafa – On second thoughts, maybe the IW semi against Raf was a very good match for Fed considering that Raf played very well and IW is probably his favorite hard surface although the conditions in the match were not to Raf’s liking. I disagree about Madrid though. As well as Fed played, a Fed at a very high level would probably beat Berd in straight sets even if Berd were playing very well. The very fact that a player like Berd, who Fed used to handle relatively easily, has become a bit of a nemesis reflects some of the issues in Fed’s game that I alluded to earlier.

“Twist it any way you want, he has won many big titles with big players in the past and present.“

skeezer – I didn’t mean to take any credit away from Fed. As I said the other day, I find it absolutely incredible that he could achieve what he did this year despite all his biggest rivals being considerably younger than him and in their absolute prime. However, I do feel strongly about the inconsistencies and deterioration in almost all aspects of his game. I understand that this probably will not go down very well with some of his fans on this blog but I can’t help it.

rogerafa – Quite a funny post there at 2:36 pm. Puts H2H and match-ups into some perspective.


Tennis Guy Says:

Federer is playing very good right now, but surely he is not playing the very best he can.

At his very best, Roger doesn’t let people like monfils, baghdatis or berdych get wins over him after he has match points. Surely, federer is not as hungry as he used to be in the peak of his career.

The hunger is what makes a top3 player more lethal than the rest of the tour. More than the skillset, it is this “I want it more than you” that determines a lot of the matches in tennis. That must be very hard for Roger to keep competing with these young guys who want everything much more than he does [because they don't have as many titles as he does].

best example – the year ending. surely novak wanted it much more than Fed. and similarly the olympics – as Dave stated, fed went on a vacation as opposed to murray who hit the practice courts.


alison Says:

Tennislover @6.21pm December 10th lol but thankyou though,Daves deffinetly in a league of his own,but i enjoy your posts too though all the same.


Dave Says:

Humble Rafa: Ouch!! That sharp pain in your ear was Uncle Toni twisting your ear. Didn’t Uncle Toni teach you that IT DOES NOT MEAN MUCH that Nadal has a favorable head-to-head record against Federer because Federer is better than Nadal (since Federer can play better tennis and Federer’s titles prove he is better) — in the same way that Nadal is better than Davydenko even though the Russian has a favorable head-to-head record against Nadal.

Since Nadal’s H2H with Fed does not mean much, your goatish delusion about being the GOAT Owner does not mean much – especially when you’ve been bageled 0-6 three times by the GOAT (only when the GOAT was compromised by the aftermath of mononucleosis and tanking the match to conserve his energy for Halle did you manage your only bagel against the GOAT); you’ve lost two out of your last three matches to the GOAT; in your prime you’ve lost four out of the last nine matches against the GOAT; you’ve run away from the ATP Tour for six months this year and for two months in 2009 in the face of imminent defeats by the in-form GOAT; but you stayed around like a vulture from April 2008 to January 2009, ready to take advantage of the GOAT compromised by mononucleosis aftermath and back injuries.

*****

Tennislover: I think the reason why you thought it was four sets at 2006 Toronto was because you remembered that Federer had four long matches, so you got the ‘four’ right. I think Federer played a tight night match on Tuesday against Srichapan but the next day had to play an afternoon match against Murray. Observers were scratchin their heads why the Federer-Murray match was not scheduled for the night, especially since it was the highest ranked match up (No. 1 vs No. 21) but the organizers wanted to put Roddick-Vilegen or Blake-Ferrero in prime time, I think.

And I agree with you that Federer wasn’t at his best against Berdych or Raonic in Madrid. How could he with that hip injury? Federer used his guile, adaptability, experience and talent to find a way to survive and win his matches despite the injury.


Giles Says:

There we go with the boring Mono….. excuse again! Nah, don’t buy that one!! #RafaGoatOwner


Kimberly Says:

Dave, I don’t think anyone in their right mind tanks a grand slam final in favor of a 250. I would assume if you show up in a GS final you at least have a delusion of winning. Otherwise why bother? I do agree however, once he was down the two sets he realized it was a lost cause that day and perhaps didnt set forth his best effort in the third. But considering the price people are playing for the seats you as a player really owe it to the people to at least attempt to put on a show. I don’t know if you follow basketball but it’s like the spurs benching their four starters against the heat. THankfully I didn’t go to that game but if I had paid big bucks to go there I would have been POed.


madmax Says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/11/roger-federer-football_n_2276374.html

Hi everyone!

A great vid of fed and haas playing football on court.

Nice Roger, nice.


Giles Says:

@ Kimberly. On the Year-End Review – The Clay Season : Nonstop Nadal thread. Read the post from Madmax to me Dec 1st 2012 at 4.08 am. “……. Anyone that could seriously accuse Federer of tanking is just grasping at straws…. “. Hmmm. And here we have Dave accusing Fed of tanking!!


juljo724 Says:

Everyones fave poster, Dave, seems to love giving excuses why fed may have lost this or that ( mono, bad back, hip injury, age), but God forbid if anyone else dares to try that with their player. I thought, from previous history on here, that excuses weren’t tolerated (if you are hurt, don’t play)? This seems to be getting the norm on here with excuses on losses, along with the thousand “if scenerios”.


jane Says:

“…stayed around like a vulture” – Perhaps this was meant to be a facetious response to HR, but what is a player supposed to do if the other player is ill or injured but still playing his or her matches – pull out? Of course Rafa “stayed around” and played. :)

It’s a bit of a double-edged sword to bring up extenuating circumstances. OF COURSE these exist. Players are human! They can be tired, ill, injured, distracted by off-court circumstances, and so on and so forth. I tend to think it’s fair to mention these. But I know that it can also sound like excuse-making and taking credit away from the opponent. Many other posters here have argued that if a player takes the court, then no excuses should follow.


juljo724 Says:

Thank you Jane for being rational about it. Your posts always are. I have a thing against the hypocrites who are the opposite and offer up all the excuses, yet, do not tolerate any other player being afforded that, and even accuse many of faking things.


Kimberly Says:

Anyone who plays tennis knows there are days where for some reason one cannot bring their “A” game or sometimes even their “B” game. It could be injury, viral illness, a fight with ones sig other or parent, work issues etc. ANd sometimes it is just simply not your day. But if you take the court you accept the loss or the win.

But you see it, your wife had a baby, you want to go see the baby and maybe your distracted. Your grandfather died, maybe you don’t have the heart and spriit for what you know will be a knock down drag out fight for the win, you have just recovered from mono, your timing and footwork may be off. You are having problems with your girlfriend, tennis can seem less important and you can lose essential focus. But you took the court, you must have thought you had a chance and hoped you could play well enough and you just couldn’t, for mental or physical reasons. The reasons are there but it doesn’t change that the other player beat you.

From a club level player like me, to a champion like Federer, we are all competitive. We want to win. And we believe that if we bring out best it should be enough. If I lost to an equal or worse player, you can bet I will say to myself and my husband and a few buddies that i had a hamstring pull and couldn’t move well (if it was true) or I was simply flat but I would believe in my ability to win under neutral conditions. Unless I was just outclassed and then you just have to take your hat off.

Excuses, reasons etc are ways highly competitive people rationalize less than stellar performances or results to themselves. The key is to keep the belief but at least to publicly (whether public is the local tennis clique or the entire world) credit the opponent.


alison Says:

Tennis is pretty much cut and dried,the winner wins the loser loses,whichever way you cut it its as simple as that really.


juljo724 Says:

“The key is to keep the belief but at least to publicly (whether public is the local tennis clique or the entire world) credit the opponent.”

Kimberly, I believe wholeheartedly in what you say. There are days that, even though someone may be a better player than the other, the winner is the one was “on” that day or just had the better day. Why not just give a player the credit for it instead of finding excuses or discrediting a surface?


Wog boy Says:

“Twist it any way you want” Nole was The Best Player in 2012 … same as in 2011, some people just cannot digest that, as simple as that.

skeezer,

I hope you don’t mind I used your line:)


Sienna Says:

he was a vulture because he smelt an opportunity to beat Fed. You might call him a rat also. But vulture just has some more class.

Rafa knows he cannot beat a fully fit and flowing Fed at wimbly or US Open. So that is why he took time of after tje rosol loss. There was not other way around. He stayed around for thos tourneys when Fed was below par. Hence the comparisson to a vulture or rat.


Wog boy Says:

skeezer,

BTW, just to clarify, I only used line from your comment, rest has nothing to do with your posts;)


skeezer Says:

@ K

Spot on post @ 1:36.

We need more comments from actual “tennis players” like yourself who actually play on a regular basis. Just observing the game and trying to say you know this and that doesn’t cut the mustard.


skeezer Says:

Wog boy,

Using my lingo, post language or metaphoric statements is not a problem. Just so you know it comes at a cost, that being when and if we meet you buy me a drink of your favorite alcohol content. And of course whilst embibing we must discuss Nole and Fed, all others are mal of discontent. ;)


Wog boy Says:

skeezer,

It is a deal.


alison Says:

@December 11th 4.47pm, you should go back and read that great post from Kimberly@1.38pm December 11th,and the one from Skeezer about Kimberlys post@1.35am December 12th,enough said really,both really know what they are talking about,sorry no disrespect but im not sure that you do.


madmax Says:

I feel sorry for the likes of Roy and Giles, same poster? After this fantastic array of comments, genuine discussion and yes, alison, YOU have to be the most objective poster on this forum, I don’t know how you do it. You can occasionally get irritated by the likes of Roy and Giles, but then even the most saint like would – they test the grapes, that’s for sure.

Loved your response to Roy alison, and I can’t beat it.

roy Says:
looking through the years: the tennis-x federer worship is stronger than ever.

but we can do better. why not write more articles about federer? for instance, instead of 4 of the last 6 articles featuring a federer subject line, why not have 5 of the 6? or just rename the site federer-x?
i suppose he did make 3 slam finals this year, win the year end and finish no.1.
oh wait, that was djokovic.

December 9th, 2012 at 6:17 am

Roy, probably the reason why there aren’t so many articles on rafa is because he hasn’t been participating in any tournaments the last 6 months, so what is there to write about? Any ideas? Perhaps you should try your hand at putting something together, or do what Skeezer suggests and start up your own Rafa channel, it will keep you happy for hours, you can post away on your own, and even reply to your own posts, have a good old laugh at that one Roy.

Giles, Dave is entitled to his opinion. I made mine clear, why would Federer want to “tank”. Your only purpose here is to be like a vulture, pick up on the pickings of others as you have nothing of any relevance to discuss except the aftermath. Your voice is bland.

Dave, awesome, awesome posts throughout this. I have spent an hour reading everything. Your comments are interesting to read about, thank you – and you are on holiday drinking? But they sound so balanced, not alcohol induced at all!

Keep ‘em coming Dave and keep Roy and Giles in the blackness that they have become accustomed to. They should go and watch The Hobbit, and become accustomed to the hobbit hole, but actually that is way too comfortable for them, perhaps the deep, dark forest, where the goblins live!

Federer is awesome and will remain so. Time immemorial.

He is not of this earth.


Giles Says:

Madmax. Now, now, temper, temper. Ranting and raving!!! #CrazyDude


Dave Says:

Uncle Toni: “This is true. Federer is better than Rafael because the titles say so…. Although Rafa has a favorable (head-to-head) history, it does not mean much. Rafa has an unfavorable history against (Nikolay) Davydenko and is much better than him…
Federer is the player who could play better tennis.”
http://www.lancenet.com.br/minuto/Toni-Nadal-Federer-melhor-sobrinho_0_786521562.html

Thanks much, madmax. I’m just back from vacation. And do intend to watch the Hobbit, hopefully this weekend when it opens.


Dave Says:

juljo724, Giles, jane and Kimberly: Instead of reading your dubious personal opinions (especially given you’ve each hypocritically failed to criticize the comments of Humble Rafa yet jumped to criticize my response to Humble Rafa’s comments) feeding off each other like a pinball machine, let’s read the insightful views of an expert and an analyst who are much more experienced, involved and intelligent about tennis at the highest levels than any of you are. Unless you delusionally believe you know more about high-level tennis than Uncle Toni and SI’s Jon Wertheim.

Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim (“Strokes Of Genius”): ‘A bout with mononucleosis had cost Federer twenty days of practice during tennis’s winter off-season… Still a step slow, Federer slogged through the next few months… On sheer talent, Federer carved his way through the draw of the 2008 French Open… If Federer laid an egg in the final (against Nadal), it was of the ostrich variety. The same rational thinking and self-awareness that make him such a likeable champion can serve him poorly on the court. Midway through the match, he became convinced it wasn’t his day. And he could not or would not try to trick himself into thinking otherwise. Federer shook his head, furrowed his considerable eyebrows, and scowled as he lumbered to his chai on changeovers. Once he gave himself no chance to win, he figured he’d do the next best thing and get the hell offstage as soon as possible. Operating at an auctioneer’s pace, he made only halfhearted efforts to retrieve balls. The third set flew by in twenty-seven minutes, a souffle-like collapse that ended 6-0. It was strictly a cover-your-eyes affair… Nadal claimed that he barely noticed Federer’s vacant effort. Not so the rest of his entourage. Before the match had ended, Toni Nadal, Rafael’s numinous coach and uncle, nudged his neighbors in the stands and used the word “bizarre” to describe Federer’s disposition. “I must read the papers tomorrow to find out what was going on in his head,” Toni said after the match. “I never sensed any determination. He never put himself in that state. I was watching his face. Closed. He wasn’t sending any messages to Rafa. He didn’t have a winner’s mentality. It wasn’t the real Roger.” At some level, Federer had fallen to his own dizzyingly high standards. By any objective measure, he was having a very respectable year. But, be it on account of the mono, his advancing age (almost a doddering twenty-seven!), or simply the finite shelf life of excellence, it was all so… un-Federerian. When you win ninety-two percent of your matches and then suddenly reach the halfway point of a season with only one title (a rinky-dink one at that, the Estoril Open) to your credit, the contrast is conspicuous.’
http://tinyurl.com/busokcb

No matter how much you deny it, their expert insights substantiate what I had posted to Humble Rafa about Nadal’s only bagel to Federer being the result of Federer tanking: “Since Nadal’s H2H with Fed does not mean much, your goatish delusion about being the GOAT Owner does not mean much – especially when you’ve been bageled 0-6 three times by the GOAT (only when the GOAT was compromised by the aftermath of mononucleosis and tanking the match to conserve his energy for Halle did you manage your only bagel against the GOAT); you’ve lost two out of your last three matches to the GOAT; in your prime you’ve lost four out of the last nine matches against the GOAT; you’ve run away from the ATP Tour for six months this year and for two months in 2009 in the face of imminent defeats by the in-form GOAT; but you stayed around like a vulture from April 2008 to January 2009, ready to take advantage of the GOAT compromised by mononucleosis aftermath and back injuries.”

Given mononucleosis is a serious and unpredictable illness for any high-performance athlete, Federer should have left the tour for a few months to convalesce, recover his fitness and game. But, as Federer’s conditioning coach Pierre Paganini explained, Roger’s dilemma was that if he left the tour even for a few events he would cede the No.1 ranking to Nadal without a fight (e.g., had Federer withdrawn from the 2008 Australian Open due to food poisoning and mono, he would have already lost the No.1 ranking to Nadal — this precarious situation remained for several months through spring and summer of 2008). So Federer chose to stay on the tour and courageously fight at each event. But there is no script for dealing with mono’s afthermath for an athlete at Federer’s No. 1 level — so Roger was in uncharted territory, making it up tournament by tournament while working through the mono’s aftermath. Federer was basically in survival mode — relying on his talent and picking his spots to spend his energy in order to win enough points and titles to stay ahead of Nadal in the rankings. By reaching the 2008 French Open final, Federer defended his 2007 French final — in other words, mission accomplished for the clay season despite the adversity of mono (overall, Federer won about as much in the 2008 clay season as he did in the 2007 season).

Unfortunately the consequence of defending the French Open final was a match against Nadal who smelled blood and vulnerability in Federer (like Rafa did against Djokovic in the 2012 clay season). A compromised Roger was in no shape to beat the in-form Nadal that day. Federer would have been utterly foolish wasting his body on a futile attempt to beat Nadal. At best, the match would have been three closely fought sets or maybe Fed would steal a set — but Federer would probably lose in the end. Given that Federer had to withdraw from 2007 Halle due to the groin inury he picked up at the 2007 French Open, the mono-compromised Federer could not afford to debilitate his body from a futile match with Nadal on clay that would cause him to skip Halle again. From Federer’s perspective, it made much more sense to make his stand during the grass season: Halle was a bonus 250 points (since he did not play in 2007) and he needed Halle to win a titles and warm up for Wimbledon, where he could make his stand against Nadal and create some momentum to turnaround his season. So while in Kimberly’s amateur mind she doesn’t think anyone in their right mind would tank the French Open final — once it was clear Federer was not going to win it — in favor of the 250 Halle, this would make a lot of sense from Federer’s perspective. Part of being a great player is to be smart enough to know when to pick your battles. To Federer, the real disaster was losing 2008 Wimbledon, regardless of the closely fought match, while losing the 2008 FO was an acceptable professional loss.

Why did Federer bother to show up and play the French Open final? Simple, duh. Federer was hoping for the 20% chance that Nadal would have a bad day and he (Fed) would somehow get on a roll and perhaps win the first set easily. If Federer was winning, he had no reason to tank given the points he stood to win. But by the middle of the second set it was obvious that Federer was not playing well enough to turn the losing match around. Some posters here wrongly presume that tanking is a premeditated decision before a match (i.e., player goes into a match intending to tank) but the decision to tank could also be made during the match — I’ve aready provided an expert’s insight on taking in one of my posts earlier this year to another poster.

In any case, even in the aftermath of mono, the vast majority of ticket-buying spectators and other fans had the good sense to cut Federer some slack as they wanted to see him more than any other player. That’s why 2009 French Open spectators cheered wildly for Federer — despite what happened in the 2008 final (they also cheered for Soderling as he crushed Nadal earlier in the tournament). If anything, those French Open spectators who paid big bucks for tickets appreciated that the mono-compromised Federer made the effort to play the French Open and harbored no unhappiness toward Federer.

Kimberly: “if I had paid big bucks to go there I would have been POed.” Rational ticket buyers are not POed with Federer because he very rarely lets them down. Federer has conceded only 1 bagel (2008 French Open) in 13.5 years since 1999 Wimbledon. On the other hand, Nadal has conceded at least 10 bagels in the eight years since 2005: 2011 (3), 2009 (1), 2008 (1), 2007 (2), 2006 (1), 2005 (2), etc. And let’s not forget the POed paid spectators when Nadal withdrew from the US Open claiming to be injured while playing a gold competition the same week; the POed paid spectators when Nadal withdrew from the 2012 Miami semifinals against Murray (after Rafa played losts of doubles at both Miami and Indian Wells); etc, etc. Why don’t you tell Nadal: “considering the price people are playing for the seats you as a player really owe it to the people to at least attempt to put on a show.”

Kimblerly: “I don’t think anyone in their right mind tanks a grand slam final in favor of a 250…. Anyone who plays tennis knows… From a club level player like me, to a champion like Federer, we are all competitive. We want to win. And we believe that if we bring out best it should be enough… Excuses, reasons etc are ways highly competitive people rationalize less than stellar performances or results to themselves.” Even a player outside the top 20 (who has never reached the very top or won a major title) is unlikely to really understand the mindset and intensity of competitiveness of most of the top 10 players — let alone understand the level of competitiveness of Federer, one of the greatest sportsmen in modern sports history. Any No. 50 or No. 100 male player can fart an opinion about Federer’s competitiveness but they have not actually experienced it and therefore do not understand what it means. If these male players really did it’s likely they would be far more successful than they actually are today. I don’t think any club player in her right mind would have the arrogance to categorize herself in the same competitive boat as Federer or pretend to understand the nature and psychology of competitiveness pertaining to Federer. The hubris of such amateur-hour opinions is amusing but irrational. The most successful people in very different endeavors (e.g., top athletes like Federer, top CEOs of successful businesses, top students of the best universities, etc) are likely to have more in common in their competitive nature than a mediocre club player has with the very best tennis players. Let’s face it: the biggest winners in the world we live in are usually the most effective competitors… if everybody else understood and had this competitive intensity they’d also be winners as well on court, in their careers, in life.

Kimberly’s views may explain how club players react to adversity — because that’s what she thinks she knows as an amateur club player who has never played or been embedded in the top tier of the ATP tour — but her generalizations do not adequately explain someone with the competitive intensity of a Federer. For example, in the interview I posted earlier, Federer explained how he managed to win two Masters 1000 titles while sick or hurt: “if one considers this season, it is striking that I won sick in Indian Wells, injured (hip) in Madrid and in Rome. I was hurt. But also thanks to these three tournaments in the end I was number 1. This is a phenomenon of Tennis: When injured or ill — as I was affected at Wimbledon in 2003, when my back was hurt and I still won the tournament — you sometimes play your best. Because the pressure triggers you to only play point by point, so that your level rises.” In any case, how an amateur player reacts to adversity in her amateur matches differs from how a top pro manages his ATP season to deal with adversity. There was more pressure on Federer to succeed in Indian Wells and in Madrid (as well as survive Rome) — despite the ailments — and he simply dug deeper and found a way to win those ranking points. Had the No.1 ranking not been on the line, would Federer have put in all that effort? Probably not. He knows he can’t keep squeezing his body without eventually suffering consequences. He was playing to the numbers in the rankings table, as he has done for many years.


the DA Says:

@dave – oh please! You praise the ”expert” opinions depending on whether they conform to your own and are quick to ridicule the ”experts” when you disagree with them.

And when Federer loses you have more excuses than Fed has shots. If it’s not mono it’s a hip injury, something controversial Nadal said to the press, he was tired, a bad back, distracted by ATP Council business, twins keeping him awake, etc, etc. Occasionally another player performs better. End of story.

Oh and save any responding screed, they’re pure scroll bait.


madmax Says:

the DA Says:
@dave – oh please! You praise the ”expert” opinions depending on whether they conform to your own and are quick to ridicule the ”experts” when you disagree with them.

And when Federer loses you have more excuses than Fed has shots. If it’s not mono it’s a hip injury, something controversial Nadal said to the press, he was tired, a bad back, distracted by ATP Council business, twins keeping him awake, etc, etc. Occasionally another player performs better. End of story.

Oh and save any responding screed, they’re pure scroll bait.

December 12th, 2012 at 10:18 am

DA, I just want to add for the “umpteenth” time that Federer’s mono was legit. Doctor’s statements are out there if you care to bother to read them. Everyone knows it existed, it is just you want to be blind to it. It isn’t an excuse. It is a serious condition, which has debilitated Roddick, Soderling and made Ancic retire as a result of it. For anyone to say it’s an excuse is just plain ignorant of the facts.


Giles Says:

Dave says: “But, as Fed’s conditioning coach Pierre Paganini explained Roger’s dilemma was that if he left the tour even for a few events he would cede the No 1 ranking to Nadal without a fight”. So, what you are saying is that Fed gave precedence to the No 1 ranking over his health!!! Oh boy, I would say this is one arrogant, hungry, greedy individual. Why didn’t he fight to end 2012 as No 1? Why did he withdraw from Paris? Oh, let me guess, he was suffering with toothache!! #ExcusesExcuses


Alok Says:

@dave, Fed’s always stated since contracting mono, that his fitness has suffered the most. We should all be thankful (his fans) that he had a mild case, because he could have had serious complications similar that of Ancic, Soderling Vaidisova, and Roddick.

Fed got beaten by Canas, a dirt-baller, back-to-back, on HC, at IW and Miami. During that year, he lost to several other players, to whom he’s never lost previously, in 2008, while recovering. His muscle deterioration is more pronounced in his shoulders, legs and arms.

Roddick, Isner and Nicole Vaidisova (it ended her career) also contracted mono. Roddick stated that his fitness suffered the most also, and has not felt 100% since contracting the disease. He has mild relapses and found adhering to his fitness routine very difficult. There were days he just couldn’t practise. Since then, Roddick has been beaten by players to whom he’s never lost to pre-mono.

Isner, after he had passed through the worst, said he still has periods where he feels wiped out and it shows in his game, especially his foot-work.

IMO, considering all these players have suffered they should be admired not condemned.


Dave Says:

Video: In Brazil, Federer meets Pele, considered by many to be the GOAT of Football/Soccer. Pele gave Federer a shirt from his first World Cup (Sweden in 1958), where 17-year old Pele became the youngest ever goalscorer in a World Cup, scoring six goals (including a hat-trick).
http://www.lematin.ch/sports/tennis/federer-rencontre-pele/story/29027241


juljo724 Says:

dave..” I don’t think any club player in her right mind would have the arrogance to categorize herself in the same competitive boat as Federer or pretend to understand the nature and psychology of competitiveness pertaining to Federer. The hubris of such amateur-hour opinions is amusing but irrational.”

The hubris and arrogance of yourself to consider yourself the “expert” on how fed feels competitively (do you know him personally and talk to him about it?) and the gall to insult anyone who disagrees with you. You just can’t seem to denigrate Rafa enough, can you? You are like a broken record with your complaints about him.

The whole point, which you missed, was that this site has, in the past, made much of the fact that fed never makes excuses for any loss. Now, thanks to you, we have proof that fed has done that, just like many other players.

madmax, i do not doubt fed suffered from mono and even I made the mistake of saying he lost because of that and was soundly castigated by fed fans saying “fed NEVER makes excuses!” As jane said, some will agree that they are excuses and some won’t.
I think mono is a valid excuse, but that does not mean that the winner should not also be credited. Sometimes a player is just better on that day and should be credited that. A win is a win, regardless when it comes to dave’s precious stats and fed’s records, which are impressive. No one is doubting that.


Dave Says:

Pele in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QEmnP48PEc&list=PLE0F3F30B9569E982&index=2

****

the DA: Oh puh-leeze!! Now you’re even trying to discredit the opinion of Uncle Toni — what, he’s not expert enough for you?! That’s hilarious. You praise the ”expert” opinions depending on whether they conform to your dubious personal opinions and are quick to ridicule the ”experts” when you disagree with them — despite the fact that you’re not qualified or experienced to judge these experts. Lol.

It’s monumentally ignorant and asinine to pretend that mononucleosis does not affect a top athlete’s performance in its aftermath. You’re not qualified to ridicule Federer’s mono. Even Dr. Walter Frey (the renown chief medical doctor of the entire 2008 Swiss Olympics team and medical director of the Swiss Olympics medical center) had to assess Federer’s mononucleosis since Federer was a gold medal prospect for Switzerland in the 2008 Olympics. In interviews with the Swiss newspapers (Tages Anzeiger and others), Doctor Walter Frey confirmed that (a) Federer played the Australian Open while suffering mononucleosis, (b) Federer’s spleen became dangerously enlarged because of the effort, (c) Federer would take longer to recover from mononucleosis because he over-taxed his body by playing the Australian Open with mononucleosis, and (d) mononucleosis is a difficult illness to overcome whose effects will linger for some time. According to his condtitioning coach Federer had to work extra hard to recover from the mono, all without turning his problem into a soap opera the way Nadal does with his injuries.

It’s also obvious that you’re not qualified to evaluate Federer since you’re ignorant about Federer’s shots. The reason why we can’t take posters like you seriously is that you fart opinions as fact. Rarely are posters like you able to back your personal opinions with facts or expert opinions.

****

Pop quiz: would you listen to the village idiioot or a real tennis expert? Federer continued to play the ATP tour in the aftermath of mono because:
- Giles: “I would say this is one arrogant, hungry, greedy individual.”
- Jim Courier: Federer played through the aftermath of his mono because of his commitment and responsibility to the ATP Tour. ["Federer was ill all season long, and the story was completely missed," Courier says. "He hid it from everybody because it's his responsibility to not show weakness, and he played through it because of his commitment to the tour. Which was a mistake. Mario Ancic [the Croatian once ranked No. 7] missed more than six months on the tour with a mono bout; it’s a serious illness for a high-level performance athlete. Roger needed to get off the tour and get healthy again.”]

Giles: “So, what you are saying is that Fed gave precedence to the No 1 ranking over his health!!!” Either you missed the ‘reading comprehension’ class during your school years and/or you are spewing fiction culled from your morass of ignorance. Listen, you might learn something: After the active phase of mono is over (in Federer’s case that was late December to mid February) and any secondary ailments are healed (in Fed’s case the dangerously enlarged spleen from playing the Australian Open), there is usually little danger to the mono patient’s health or life from training, practising or playing. The main problem the mono patients face is not have their fitness and endurance levels and capacity dropped, they go through hours, days, weeks or months where their body responds negatively to physically exertion as well as their body feels lethargic, debilited and flu-like (even though they don’t have the flu) where they don’t feel like getting out of bed or the couch. Try to imagine how achy and blah your body and mind felt (minus the cold and coughing and fever) when you suffered the worse flu symptoms in your life — that’s a crude way of describing how a mono patient may feel when these episodes happen in the aftermath of mono. An athlete has to persevere, remain very disciplined, suck in the pain and not lose hope as they attempt to train, practice and play in this adversity. For athletes used to being in control of their bodies, this is a tough phase to go through. Federer’s conditioning coach said that it was only at 2009 Australian Open — one year after the mono — that Federer felt he had regained most of his fitness and endurance, and by 2009 French Open he was back to normal. In the entire sports world, very few athletes have been able to return to a high level of performance after a bout of mono to the extent Federer has done.

Giles: “Why didn’t he fight to end 2012 as No 1?” Why don’t you ask Federer, then tell us?


jane Says:

“Fed got beaten by Canas, a dirt-baller, back-to-back, on HC, at IW and Miami”

This was in 2007, not 2008, when Fed had mono…


Giles Says:

Dave. “Why don’t you ask Federer then tell us”. I am asking you because you claim to be the oracle on everything “Federer”.


jane Says:

When Nole played Monte Carlo, even though he lost his grandfather, which Dave did say was a legitimate reason for Nole to withdraw, Dave called it “big mistake” and suggested Nole was just being greedy about points and hubristic about his chances against Nadal; to quote: “Djokovic took part in Monte Carlo hoping to gain some easy points to buffer his No. 1 ranking from Federer’s assault” (November 30th).

The fact of the matter is that Nole has *always* played Monte Carlo (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012), so it’s presumptuous to say that’s why Nole played there in 2012. The only year Nole didn’t play there was 2011, in all likelihood to try to keep alive the amazing streak he was on then!!

But when Fed played through his mono, purportedly so he could not concede #1 without a fight, Dave called it courageous.

Why wasn’t it thus “courageous” of Nole to play through pain and try not to concede his #1 without a fight. Isn’t playing on courageous for Nole too? I personally think it was. And it wasn’t risky to his health either. Moreover, he skipped the Serbia Open to spend time with his family. Had he played it and won, he’d've held onto to his number 1 even after Wimbledon.

I just don’t think we can always presume the player’s motives so easily. And I just think we should consider standards evening, that’s all. I am not trying to be unduly argumentative.


jane Says:

*evenly not evening, sorry.


juljo724 Says:

dave wrote “You’re not qualified to ridicule Federer’s mono.” No one is ridiculing mono. Calm down and quit acting like someone accused fed of murdering someone!

Plus, unless you are a doctor, I don’t think your OPINION about effects of mono (which vary depending on severity of case) is any smarter than anyone else here on this site. Just because you can copy and paste your google searches faster than anyone else who has a job or a life, does not make you any smarter or give you the right to insult anyone you please.


Dave Says:

juljo724: Do you also suffer from a comprehnsion problem or are you just completely daft? What I said on how fed feels competitively was supported by experts such as Uncle Toni and Jon Wertheim. Given your affliction with hubris and arrogance, it’s amusing that you fail to understand the meaning of these terms. It’s not hubristic or arrogant to have reasonable views shared by intelligent, experienced and reasonable people considered experts in the field.

People like you and the others I mentioned are full of yourselves: It’s hubris (excessive pride and arrogance) to have such an exaggerated opinion of one’s own self-importance, merit and ability to foist your personal opinions on us — even though it’s unsupported by any top expert — and arrogantly expect us to acept your dubious views. You consider it an huge insult on your fragile egos when someone like me uses fact, logic and expert opinion to disagree with and debunk your dubious views. Grow up. If your dubious, unsubstantiated personal opinions crumble before logical and substantiated rebuttal, your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Like other idol-worshippers, since you claim that I denigrate Rafa, why don’t you put your big mouth where your money is: why don’t you pick something I said where you feel I denigrated Rafa, and let’s you are I have a debate about it. Let’s see whether you have what it takes.

juljo724: “The whole point, which you missed, was that this site has, in the past, made much of the fact that fed never makes excuses for any loss.” What a ridiculous statement. First, two or three posters do not make up this entire site. Second, Federer has had almost 200 losses — so what if he gives factual exceses for three or four losses without milking it? It’s minute compared to the carefully-orchestrated excuse-making of certain other top players — and that’s the point: compared to other players, Federer rarely makes excuses. In any case, there is almost no tennis player in history who hasn’t made at least a veiled excuse for a loss somewhere.

****

Giles: “I am asking you because you claim to be the oracle on everything “Federer”.”

Now put your money where your big mouth is: prove that I claimed to be oracle on Federer.


Dave Says:

juljo724: You need to curb your ridiculous exaggerations (“acting like someone accused fed of murdering someone!”) designed to distract us from the facts. What the DA said can be interpreted as ridiculoing Federer’s mono, so stop covering for that poster. Stop being dishonest.

Your opinion is worthless about my opinions on mono. I am certain I know much more about such medical info than you do and that I could debate with a qualified doctor on such information. If you have the guts, show us what you actually know about mono so that I can then show you what you don’t know. Otherwise, be quiet.


juljo724 Says:

“Your opinion is worthless about my opinions on mono. I am certain I know much more about such medical info than you do and that I could debate with a qualified doctor on such information. If you have the guts, show us what you actually know about mono so that I can then show you what you don’t know. Otherwise, be quiet.”

Dave, I have a Bachelor’s degree in Medical Technology, which relates to a major in Biology and minor in Chemistry. I graduated with a 4.0 GPA. I have worked at a hospital for over 16 years. I have also suffered from a major bout of mono. Do not attempt to tell me what I know and what I don’t know.


skeezer Says:

Minefield!


the DA Says:

@ Jane – “Why wasn’t it thus “courageous” of Nole to play through pain and try not to concede his #1 without a fight”

Because Dave is a hypocrite. He’s a caricature of a passionate fan. He does do great satire, he should write for The Onion.


Dave Says:

Jane, you naughty girl. Why did you cherry pick part of what I wrote instead of honestly quoting my complete sentence in full: “Panicked by the thought of losing the No. 1 ranking, this pressurized Djokovic into making a big mistake: Djokovic took part in Monte Carlo hoping to gain some easy points to buffer his No. 1 ranking from Federer’s assault — instead of doing what he did in 2011 (i.e., skip MC and face Nadal in Madrid/Rome only when the Serb was trained and ready on clay).” My intention was clearly to contrast what Djokovic did in 2012 with what he did in 2011, NOT what he did 2006-2010 (which is not “*always*”). Nothing presumptious about what I wrote once you see it in its entirety. The rest of my comment is in this link — there’s no need to rely on Jane’s selective quotes and dubious interpretations.
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-11-27/11072.php#comment-372656

Here is Jane twisting my context to create a false contradiction: “But when Fed played through his mono, purportedly so he could not concede #1 without a fight, Dave called it courageous.” First, what Federer did in the aftermath of his mono was courageous — he would have lost the No.1 ranking if he skipped one or two events. So Fed had no choce. On the other hand, Djokovic was in no immediate danger of losing the No.1 ranking if he skipped Monte Carlo. So Novak had a chocie to skip MC. The blog in which I wrote the comments about Djokovic was “Year-End Review – The Clay Season: Nonstop Nadal” and the issue I had addressed was the author Pronin’s point that “Nadal finally got his revenge, and snapped his seven match losing streak, turning away Novak three straight times” (especially the outcome of the French Open). I said playing Monte Carlo “was arguably Novak’s biggest mistake of the season as his pathetic loss to Nadal re-ignited the Spaniard’s belief that (what he was doing was working and that he was able to beat Djokovic again)”.

So while playing Monte Carlo may not have been risky to Djokovic’s health, but it was probaly key to destroying Djokovic’s biggest ambition for the year (winning French Open): Novak’s failure to complete the Nole Slam and Career Grand Slam ultimately had its roots in Djokovic’s loss to Nadal at Monte Carlo. Had Djokovic done so (won the French Open), the No. 1 ranking would have been secure.

[On another issue, Djokovic made 600 points from Monte Carlo (since he did not play in 2011). Perhaps that gave him a false sense of security and he decided to skip the 250-point Serbia Open.]


Dave Says:

the DA: “@ Jane – “Why wasn’t it thus “courageous” of Nole to play through pain and try not to concede his #1 without a fight”
“Because Dave is a hypocrite. He’s a caricature of a passionate fan. He does do great satire, he should write for The Onion.”

Lol, once again you prove my point — you don’t know what you’re yapping about. You really need to check your facts before jumping to the wrong conclusions that jane was right (see my previous post). Unfortunately your writing does not even qualify for great satire, so no Onion articles for you. Stick to understanding what you read first.

****

juljo724: Since you claim to be so qualified on mono and so smart, let’s debate it. Until then do not attempt to jusdge the value of what I know about mono.

Already I find your generalized comment ["effects of mono (which vary depending on severity of case)" ] ignorantly disregards the individual’s response to illness. Two individuals are likely to respond, for various reasons, in different ways and with different level’s of success to the same severity of illness. 16 years in a hospital? SMH


Daniel Says:

Juljo724

We Fed fans didn’t need to make excuses for Fed in the old days because he didn’t lose:)


skeezer Says:

^Ditto Daniel. Also, There are other Fed fans ( like ….ME! ) who don’t make excuses now when he is “olderer” either. Other than…uh…he is older, lol.

2012 was, as a Fed fan, his greatest ever year. Why? He won a ANOTHER Slam 31, and got back to #1 in the world @ 31. Sweet. Excuses? He needs none.


jane Says:

Nole skipped the Serbia Open to be with his family: his grandfather had just passed away!! It WAS courageous of him to play on at Monte Carlo, and he played there just like he always has. Nole is as courageous a fighter as the other top 4 guys are – ALL of them are courageous.


Wog boy Says:

jane,

Lost cause, he is going to find thousands exuses why Federer “took his foot off the pedal” and let Andy win Olympic gold and USO and Nole reagain #1 and win YEC, if Federer wanted it, as he didn’t;) Andy and Nole wouldn’t stand a chance.

Lucky most of the Federer fans are not like this one and do accept that overall Nole was the best player in last two years.

No morning sickness, no mono, no extra DC burden, no players council duties you name it, just a fact that Nole was the BETTER player in the last two years, fullstop.
It is 7:3 H2H in 2011/12 !
Bring on 2013 :)


jane Says:

Wog Boy, yeah, I am looking forward to 2013 too – cheers! :)


john Says:

live stream

COPA CLARO NOKIA, FEDERER vs. DEL POTRO, Argentina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUJFEdS_1us


Dave Says:

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner said after meeting Federer On Wednesday: “Roger is so sweet. Too bad he’s married,” quoted Argentine news media. Roger gave her an autographed t-shirt and a racket. According to Swiss media, Federer was treated in Argentina as a state guest. 800 media representatives were accredited for Federer’s first press conference in Argentina.
http://f1.blick.ch/img/incoming/origs2138739/6565565066-w644-h429/0000000009368371.jpg

Former Argentinian player Jose Luis Clerc said “Federer is the John Lennon of tennis”.

A total of 40,000 spectators paid big bucks to watch Federer’s two matches against Juan Martin del Potro in Argentina — both matches sold out within six hours. The specially constructed stadium is temporarily the world’s second biggest after US Open’s Arthur Ashe stadium — but the first match on Thursday was delayed by an hour as one of steel tubes supporting the stands sank by 10 centimeters before the match began. As well, there were chaotic conditions at the stadium entrance. But once the match got going the 20,000 spectators gave the tennis exhibition the atmosphere of a soccer match in noisy South American style.
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/sport/tennis/Jeder-Kilometer-hat-sich-gelohnt/story/22338534

Federer at the Iguazu Falls in Argentina/Brazil, one of the world’s most spectacular waterfalls and voted one of the New 7 Wonders of Nature.
http://www.lematin.ch/sports/tennis/federer-chutes-iguazu/story/24590020


Dave Says:

Federer’s Air Jordan/Sampras smash against Tomy Haas in Brazil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWWQVLhUhIw


skeezer Says:

^ you forgot the “Pele” action too! ;)


juljo724 Says:

from dave:
“juljo724: Since you claim to be so qualified on mono and so smart, let’s debate it. Until then do not attempt to jusdge the value of what I know about mono.”

First off, there has never been a need to debate mono. I have said I never doubted fed had mono. Others on this site, in the past (which dates back to 2008, not just recently as you seem to think), which I restate again in case you forgot to read that part before, have stated that fed never made excuses as to why he lost and when people tried to say that it was understandable after mono, some fed fans became irate and acted like Daniel. (Of course no one needs an excuse when they win, Daniel……DUH!)

The whole point was that I have been used to no excuses for fed mentality since 2008, but that has obviously changed, but other players are not afforded the same and are accused of faking injuries if they use an excuse.

Dave wrote: “Already I find your generalized comment ["effects of mono (which vary depending on severity of case)" ] ignorantly disregards the individual’s response to illness. Two individuals are likely to respond, for various reasons, in different ways and with different level’s of success to the same severity of illness. 16 years in a hospital? SMH”

I laughed long and hard at that one!
How is your statement of 2 individuals are likely to respond in different ways different from me stating that the effects of mono can vary depending on the severity of case? I have had mono twice, (once it is in your system, it is there for life) and each time was different than the other and many celebrities and athletes have suffered with mono in many varying degrees. I just said that in fewer sentences than you!

You definitely don’t take criticism of your opinions well at all. But to insult me and the others that disagreed with you with the arrogance that you exude went over the line.


jane Says:

Here’s the pic of Maria with both RF’s; Fed looks like his dad.

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481760_10151127114027680_2139999319_n.jpg


alison Says:

Nice pictures lol,she has great legs as do the other girls,looks like in one picture shes trying to protect her modesty though,good job her skirt was long.


alison Says:

Jane Fed looks very much like his dad.


Dave Says:

skeezer: I should have added the ‘Pele’ but frankly Roger looks like he hasn’t played football/soccer in a while. Tommy Haas (wearing the Brazil away football t-shirt/shots) still has some good skills in football.

****

Daniel: “We Fed fans didn’t need to make excuses for Fed in the old days because he didn’t lose:)”

On the rare occasions that Federer did lose, at the post-match press conference the news media tried to put a string of excuses into Federer’s mouth — and Roger would have to deny each excuse. Read, for example, the news conference after Roger’s early loss to Italian Flippo Volandri at 2007 Rome, which was quite funny with Roger’s witty answers:
Q. Were you feeling well? Were you okay? Was there a problem?
FEDERER: No fever.
Q. No fever?
FEDERER: No injury either.
Q. Was it the heat?
FEDERER: I practice in Dubai in 45 degrees, so I don’t think the heat was a problem today. This was cool…
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-05-11/i.php

****

jane: “Nole skipped the Serbia Open to be with his family: his grandfather had just passed away!!”
Puhleeze. Djokovic’s grandfather died on Thursday, April 19 (he was told of the news during a practice session before his third round match), during the week of the Monte Carlo Masters April 17 to 22. Djokovic was not scheduled to play the week after Monte Carlo. The Serbia Open was held two weeks after Monte Carlo, so Djokovic would have played Thursday May 3 to Sunday May 6 (Djokovic would have played a maximum four rounds in the 28-man draw). Djokovic had 11 days between the Monte Carlo final and his first match at Serbia Open to be with his family (14 days between the death of his grandfather and first match at Serbia Open).

So let’s stop exaggerating the death of Djokovic’s grandfather. In the business world, no company would permit an adult employee 14 days off from work, yet this is what was taken by this 25-year old multi-millionaire adult Novak Djokovic. In my working life, I have seen several workers who did not take even a day off work to grieve the death of a grandparent, while others take only a day or two. How many days off school does a kid get if a grandparent dies? Certainly not 14 days.

jane: “It WAS courageous of him to play on at Monte Carlo, and he played there just like he always has. Nole is as courageous a fighter…”

Please stop stop twisting the facts, otherwise tears will fall. Originally, you misleadingly stated (December 12th, 2012 at 1:50 pm): “When Nole played Monte Carlo, even though he lost his grandfather, which Dave did say was a legitimate reason for Nole to withdraw, Dave called it “big mistake” and suggested Nole was just being greedy about points and hubristic about his chances against Nadal.” You misrepresented what I said — you made it appear as if I said it was a big mistake for Nole to play Monte Carlo “even though he lost his grandfather”. That’s utter nonsense. Fact is I did not say it was a big mistake for Nole to play Monte Carlo “even though he lost his grandfather”. I said it was a big mistake for Nole to play Monte Carlo because (a) it was a deviation from his winning formula in 2011 (when he skipped Monte Carlo) and (b) the conditions in Monte Carlo were favorable for Nadal to beat a vulnerable Djokovic.

- Fact is Djokovic skipped Monte Carlo in 2011, the previous year. So it’s nonsense that Djokovic played Monte Carlo “just like he always has”.

- Fact is Djokovic’s grandfather did not die when Djokovic started playing Monte Carlo. His grandfather died on Thursday April 19, a few hours before Djokovic’s third round match (Novak got a cellphone call during his practice session and had a few hours to decide whether or not to keep playing Monte Carlo). In other words, Djokovic was already in the middle of playing Monte Carlo when his grandfather died. My original point was clearly about Djokovic playing Monte Carlo in the first place (even before his grandfather died). I’m sure you’re smart enough to realize the difference. But you’re twisting the facts for the benefit of puppets such as Wog Boy.

- Fact is I clearly stated that it was a big mistake for Djokovic to enter and play Monte Carlo (including regardless of his grandfather’s death) and that he should have done what he did in 2011 (i.e., skip Monte Carlo). This was what I originally wrote in the other blog on the clay season: “Panicked by the thought of losing the No. 1 ranking, this pressurized Djokovic into making a big mistake: Djokovic took part in Monte Carlo hoping to gain some easy points to buffer his No. 1 ranking from Federer’s assault — instead of doing what he did in 2011 (i.e., skip MC and face Nadal in Madrid/Rome only when the Serb was trained and ready on clay). But Djokovic played Monte Carlo, which was Nadal’s favorite clay court event outside of the French Open. And Nadal adapts to clay from hardcourts faster than anyone else. To make matters worse, Djokovic had the far tougher path to the final (Berdych, Dolgopolov, Seppi) than Nadal (Wawrinka, Simon). Add the (legitimate) mental upset relating to the death of Djokovic’s grandfather – it all combined to make Djokovic vulnerable to Nadal. For once Novak had a legitimate excuse to withdraw from the final to attend his grandfather’s funeral (i.e., do to Rafa what Rafa did to Murray in Miami semifinal), but I suspect that Novak in his hubris presumed he could still beat Rafa on clay and, besides, Novak was desperate for the points to protect his No.1 ranking from Federer. But Rafa smelled blood and went for the kill, and Djokovic seemed to tank as the match wore on. It was arguably Novak’s biggest mistake of the season as his pathetic loss to Nadal re-ignited the Spaniard’s belief that he had finally turned the ship around and his hard work and new tactics were working…” [In reality, Djokovic had a 3,790 point lead in the world tour rankings over Federer during Monte Carlo, so he was in no immediate danger of losing the No. 1 ranking. But Federer was just 640 points behind Djokovic on the year-to-date rankings as well as Federer had a 1,800-point lead over Djokovic in ranking points since Fall 2011 -- so the pressure was on Djokovic to make points over Federer (playing Monte Carlo gave Novak an opportunity to made a huge chunk of extra points) ].
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-11-27/11072.php#comment-372656

****

Wog Boy: Oh, be quiet. I haven’t forgotten your arguably racist comments regarding Monica Seles’s heritage in Serbia/Yugoslavia.

DAVIS CUP burden? Djokovic not only deserted his Davis Cup team this year 2012 to focus 100% on his ranking on the ATP Tour, Novak has failed to win a set of singles/doubles at Davis Cup in over two years since early December 2010. Not even one DC set. Yeah, overall Nole was the best player in last two years — partly by ditching Davis Cup and focusing his efforts on the ATP Tour. When Djokovic last played a full season of Davis Cup in 2010, it was his worst season on the ATP tour since he became a No. 1 player. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that Federer had a good chance to finish No.1 had he done what Djokovic did — 100% focus on ATP Tour, no Davis Cup, no ATP Player Council.

You want to cherry pick H2H? Federer in the last six months is 2-1 over Djokovic (strange you forget to mention the 0-6 bagel that Djokovic in his prime surrended to 31-year old Federer on hardcourts) — the one win Djokovic got at WTF was razor thin, just 96-95 in total points. Federer past prime is 9-9 with Djokovic in prime since 2009 Cincinnati. Even since 2010 Shanghai, the H2H is just 6-7. Big deal for a player in his prime. And, while you are cherry picking, why not mention Federer’s outdoor winning percentage 88.2% is the best on tour in 2012 while Djokovic is third with 86.4%, among many other things :)

I love how certain posters are a lost cause because they think their personal opinions are the right opinions :)


Dave Says:

skeezer: I should have added the ‘Pele’ but frankly Roger looks like he hasn’t played football/soccer in a while. Tommy Haas (wearing the Brazil away football t-shirt/shots) still has some good skills in football.

****

Daniel: “We Fed fans didn’t need to make excuses for Fed in the old days because he didn’t lose:)”

On the rare occasions that Federer did lose, at the post-match press conference the news media tried to put a string of excuses into Federer’s mouth — and Roger would have to deny each excuse. Read, for example, the news conference after Roger’s early loss to Italian Flippo Volandri at 2007 Rome, which was quite funny with Roger’s witty answers:
Q. Were you feeling well? Were you okay? Was there a problem?
FEDERER: No fever.
Q. No fever?
FEDERER: No injury either.
Q. Was it the heat?
FEDERER: I practice in Dubai in 45 degrees, so I don’t think the heat was a problem today. This was cool…
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-05-11/i.php


Dave Says:

jane: “Nole skipped the Serbia Open to be with his family: his grandfather had just passed away!!”
Puhleeze. Djokovic’s grandfather died on Thursday, April 19 (he was told of the news during a practice session before his third round match), during the week of the Monte Carlo Masters April 17 to 22. Djokovic was not scheduled to play the week after Monte Carlo. The Serbia Open was held two weeks after Monte Carlo, so Djokovic would have played Thursday May 3 to Sunday May 6 (Djokovic would have played a maximum four rounds in the 28-man draw). Djokovic had 11 days between the Monte Carlo final and his first match at Serbia Open to be with his family (14 days between the death of his grandfather and first match at Serbia Open).

So let’s stop exaggerating the death of Djokovic’s grandfather. In the business world, no company would permit an adult employee 14 days off from work, yet this is what was taken by this 25-year old multi-millionaire adult Novak Djokovic. In my working life, I have seen several workers who did not take even a day off work to grieve the death of a grandparent, while others take only a day or two. How many days off school does a kid get if a grandparent dies? Certainly not 14 days.

jane: “It WAS courageous of him to play on at Monte Carlo, and he played there just like he always has. Nole is as courageous a fighter…”

Please stop stop twisting the facts, otherwise tears will fall. Originally, you misleadingly stated (December 12th, 2012 at 1:50 pm): “When Nole played Monte Carlo, even though he lost his grandfather, which Dave did say was a legitimate reason for Nole to withdraw, Dave called it “big mistake” and suggested Nole was just being greedy about points and hubristic about his chances against Nadal.” You misrepresented what I said — you made it appear as if I said it was a big mistake for Nole to play Monte Carlo “even though he lost his grandfather”. That’s utter nonsense. Fact is I did not say it was a big mistake for Nole to play Monte Carlo “even though he lost his grandfather”. I said it was a big mistake for Nole to play Monte Carlo because (a) it was a deviation from his winning formula in 2011 (when he skipped Monte Carlo) and (b) the conditions in Monte Carlo were favorable for Nadal to beat a vulnerable Djokovic.

- Fact is Djokovic skipped Monte Carlo in 2011, the previous year. So it’s nonsense that Djokovic played Monte Carlo “just like he always has”.

- Fact is Djokovic’s grandfather did not die when Djokovic started playing Monte Carlo. His grandfather died on Thursday April 19, a few hours before Djokovic’s third round match (Novak got a cellphone call during his practice session and had a few hours to decide whether or not to keep playing Monte Carlo). In other words, Djokovic was already in the middle of playing Monte Carlo when his grandfather died. My original point was clearly about Djokovic playing Monte Carlo in the first place (even before his grandfather died). I’m sure you’re smart enough to realize the difference. But you’re twisting the facts for the benefit of puppets such as Wog Boy.

- Fact is I clearly stated that it was a big mistake for Djokovic to enter and play Monte Carlo (including regardless of his grandfather’s death) and that he should have done what he did in 2011 (i.e., skip Monte Carlo). This was what I originally wrote in the other blog on the clay season: “Panicked by the thought of losing the No. 1 ranking, this pressurized Djokovic into making a big mistake: Djokovic took part in Monte Carlo hoping to gain some easy points to buffer his No. 1 ranking from Federer’s assault — instead of doing what he did in 2011 (i.e., skip MC and face Nadal in Madrid/Rome only when the Serb was trained and ready on clay). But Djokovic played Monte Carlo, which was Nadal’s favorite clay court event outside of the French Open. And Nadal adapts to clay from hardcourts faster than anyone else. To make matters worse, Djokovic had the far tougher path to the final (Berdych, Dolgopolov, Seppi) than Nadal (Wawrinka, Simon). Add the (legitimate) mental upset relating to the death of Djokovic’s grandfather – it all combined to make Djokovic vulnerable to Nadal. For once Novak had a legitimate excuse to withdraw from the final to attend his grandfather’s funeral (i.e., do to Rafa what Rafa did to Murray in Miami semifinal), but I suspect that Novak in his hubris presumed he could still beat Rafa on clay and, besides, Novak was desperate for the points to protect his No.1 ranking from Federer. But Rafa smelled blood and went for the kill, and Djokovic seemed to tank as the match wore on. It was arguably Novak’s biggest mistake of the season as his pathetic loss to Nadal re-ignited the Spaniard’s belief that he had finally turned the ship around and his hard work and new tactics were working…” [In reality, Djokovic had a 3,790 point lead in the world tour rankings over Federer during Monte Carlo, so he was in no immediate danger of losing the No. 1 ranking. But Federer was just 640 points behind Djokovic on the year-to-date rankings as well as Federer had a 1,800-point lead over Djokovic in ranking points since Fall 2011 -- so the pressure was on Djokovic to make points over Federer (playing Monte Carlo gave Novak an opportunity to made a huge chunk of extra points) ].
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-11-27/11072.php#comment-372656

****

Wog Boy: Oh, be quiet. I haven’t forgotten your arguably racist comments regarding Monica Seles’s heritage in Serbia/Yugoslavia.

DAVIS CUP burden? Djokovic not only deserted his Davis Cup team this year 2012 to focus 100% on his ranking on the ATP Tour, Novak has failed to win a set of singles/doubles at Davis Cup in over two years since early December 2010. Not even one DC set. Yeah, overall Nole was the best player in last two years — partly by ditching Davis Cup and focusing his efforts on the ATP Tour. When Djokovic last played a full season of Davis Cup in 2010, it was his worst season on the ATP tour since he became a No. 1 player. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that Federer had a good chance to finish No.1 had he done what Djokovic did — 100% focus on ATP Tour, no Davis Cup, no ATP Player Council.

You want to cherry pick H2H? Federer in the last six months is 2-1 over Djokovic (strange you forget to mention the 0-6 bagel that Djokovic in his prime surrended to 31-year old Federer on hardcourts) — the one win Djokovic got at WTF was razor thin, just 96-95 in total points. Federer past prime is 9-9 with Djokovic in prime since 2009 Cincinnati. Even since 2010 Shanghai, the H2H is just 6-7. Big deal for a player in his prime. And, while you are cherry picking, why not mention Federer’s outdoor winning percentage 88.2% is the best on tour in 2012 while Djokovic is third with 86.4%, among many other things :)

I love how certain self-important posters are a lost cause because they think their personal opinions are the right opinions :)


alison Says:

No wrong on every level,and in every sense of the word,this is how some sportspersonalities conduct themselves,some been the operative word,race and nationality shouldnt and doesnt even come into question,that particular post just hit an all time low.


jane Says:

Racist AND irrelevant.


alison Says:

^ YES DEFFINETLY^.


alison Says:

i just wonder if theres such a thing as moderation on this site sometimes(sigh).


skeezer Says:

Kinda wish as the Holiday season comes around the contensious posts would mellow a bit…..*sigh* ….oh well Happy Holidays anyways.


alison Says:

Happy holidays Skeezer,to you too.


Wog boy Says:

How desperate one can be to bring Monika Seles into discussion that has nothing to do with her. Even if you cherry pick my posts or just one sentence out of my posts you will not find anything that comes even close to definition of racism. But hang on, look who is popping up when you mentioned racism, who else but your sister in arm…Sienna!

The rest of your post is as weak as piss, not worth commenting.


jane Says:

Thanks Staff for deleting that post!! Cheers! :)

Wog boy, hang in there my friend, perhaps just scroll. ;)


alison Says:

Yeah thanks staff,racism has no place on a tennis forum.


Wog boy Says:

jane,

No worries, I’ll do it;)


Alok Says:

I don’t know what you guys are talking about concerning racism as I don’t see anything on this thread, having only signed one about 30 minutes ago and am now reading.

Even if there was one, why is it that some posters are still talking about it as if they want to keep the fire burning? Why not leave it alone.


jane Says:

^ There was one (not “even if”) and it was deleted.


Margot Says:

@Dave 3.26 12/12/12 and elsewhere.
By all means have a difference of opinion with jane (and Kimberly) but do try to avoid being patronising and sexist while you do it.


alison Says:

Alok@ December 13th6.54pm a certain lady poster sent in a football link,about the serbian football team,which was promptly removed,enough said really.


alison Says:

I think we should all remember that this is only a tennis forum,people should feel free to agree or disagree,and we should respect each others opinions even if we do disagree,one poster may know more statistically than another,one may know alot less than another(i know i do),but as posters we are all on an equal footing,to be honest nobodys posts are any better than anybody elses,just probably better in some peoples opinions thats all,be nice if people remembered that and left hate and not to mention race and nationality in the real world,and not bring in onto an internet forum,thank goodness for the Nole cheese thread,some light relief,merry xmas and happy new year to all tennis x posters.


Dave Says:

Federer (light shorts) and Del Potro (dark shorts) playing tennis-football against Gabriel Batistuta (in blue jeans, one of Argentina’s greatest ex-footballers) and another former argentinain footballer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRLxuW84dUM


Dave Says:

Video clip: Federer meeting the Argentinian president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXuV5tdt8LY


madmax Says:

Juljo,

Only just seen yours above:

madmax, i do not doubt fed suffered from mono and even I made the mistake of saying he lost because of that and was soundly castigated by fed fans saying “fed NEVER makes excuses!” As jane said, some will agree that they are excuses and some won’t.

I think mono is a valid excuse, but that does not mean that the winner should not also be credited. Sometimes a player is just better on that day and should be credited that. A win is a win, regardless when it comes to dave’s precious stats and fed’s records, which are impressive. No one is doubting that.

December 12th, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Firstly, it is certain people here (who have a double identity) who decide to discredit fed’s legitimate Mononucleosis…and it is not an excuse, it is a REASON. You cannot argue with a doctor’s statement put out on various tennis sites CONFIRMING Federer’s inability to play at maximum capacity, yet still people question this. Why? I don’t know. What do they want to do? For things to be different? Well, it isn’t different. It is what it is.

You know who these people are. I am not particularly interested in those people, but it gets tiring when the statement is there, and people just choose, because that is what it is, a “conscious decision” to “disregard” fact. I am surprised at Jane’s comment (that you say she made, I haven’t read it, too long posts here), Mono is not an excuse, it’s a fact. Simple.

If she disagrees with that, then she is disagreeing with a fact. I don’t know how anyone can disagree with a fact. That’s all I want to say on the matter.

If someone looks out of the window, and it is snowing, these people still say…Nope. it’s not snowing, the sun is shining. D’uhhhhhh. Can’t keep trying to explain why people choose to argue with fact. It makes no sense.

I have not had the time to read all of the posts here, way too long, so kept it to the shorter ones, like “mine field” from Skeezer. It can only be the mulled wine I think that is affecting some of the brain cells.

It’s a great tennis site this, that is a given. Just wish some of the nasty remarks about federer and others are kept well out of it.

A large part of Dave’s posts have been information about stats – fact, so again, I can’t argue with what he writes, because it is out there. May be he irritates people with his tennis knowledge, I don’t know. I guess I can’t answer for others. For me, I learn a lot from the stats,so I stick to that.

If you want me to respond to something in particular, I am happy to do that.


Dave Says:

juljo724: “But to insult me and the others that disagreed with you with the arrogance that you exude went over the line.”
Insult You? Are you out of your mono-fogged mind?! Fact: on this blog, YOU initiated the exchange with me with three direct/indirect posts as early as December 11th, 2012 at 12:50 pm where YOU first insulted me (see below). Only 20 hours later on December 12th, 2012 at 8:37 am later did I respond to your provocations.
- juljo724: “Everyones fave poster, dave, seems to love giving excuses why fed may have lost this or that… excuses on losses, along with the thousand “if scenerios”. (December 11th, 2012 at 12:50 pm)
- juljo724: “I have a thing against the hypocrites who are the opposite and offer up all the excuses, yet, do not tolerate any other player being afforded that, and even accuse many of faking things.” (December 11th, 2012 at 1:04 pm)

You beg me to respond to your insults then later hypocritically whine that I insulted you, lol. You’re a self-righteous, pompous and dishonest hypocrite, like certain posters who respond to my posts.

juljo724: “Others on this site, in the past (which dates back to 2008, not just recently as you seem to think)…”
Your mono-fogged mind made this up since I never gave the impression that this was a recent issue that did not exist in the past. I’m aware of the hypocritical comments rejecting Fed’s mono on this site in 2008.

Hypocrisy regarding Federer on this site has been going on a long time. For example, in September 2007, jane criticized Federer for wearing his sponsor’s Nike shoes with Swiss flags denoting his Wimbledon and US Open titles: “Was it distasteful for Federer to wear Swiss flags on his shoes to demarcate all of his wins at the USO, or to wear crests on his “blazer” at Wimbledon to indicate each of his wins there? In other words, to wear “badges” of his wins, notches on his belt. Had any other player done so – Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Connors, or Rafa at RG for that matter – would it have been seen as tacky by the press or by fans, or maybe even as boasting? I wonder, but frankly, I think so.” Yet jane as well as those Rafa fans who criticized Federer were silent when Rafa himself wore shoes with similar badges denoting his three titles the next year at 2008 French Open.

Hypocrites apply double standards.

juljo724: “when people tried to say that it was understandable after mono, some fed fans became irate and acted like Daniel. (Of course no one needs an excuse when they win, Daniel……DUH!)”
You’re mumbling incoherently. Regardless, since you accused Daniel, you have to provide facts to support your incoherent accusations. When did Daniel become as irate as you are on this blog? On this blog it is you (not Daniel) who is irate because you definitely did not take criticism of your opinions well at all.

juljo724: “I have been used to no excuses for fed mentality since 2008, but that has obviously changed, but other players are not afforded the same and are accused of faking injuries if they use an excuse.”
Your argument would be laughed at in a court of law. It is reasonable and intelligent to consider credible injuries, illnesses and other extenuating circumstances. But it is another thing to blindly accept injuries, illnesses and other extenuating circumstances that are reasonably discredited by contradictory evidence, duh.

Experts such as Rafa’s coach Uncle Toni are too intelligent to limit themselves to your half-explanation that “there are days that, even though someone may be a better player than the other, the winner is the one was “on” that day or just had the better day. Why not just give a player the credit for it instead of finding excuses or discrediting a surface?” That’s why, during the 2008 French Open final, Toni Nadal used the word “bizarre” to describe Federer’s disposition during that match. “I must read the papers tomorrow to find out what was going on in his head,” Toni said after the match. “I never sensed any determination. He never put himself in that state. I was watching his face. Closed. He wasn’t sending any messages to Rafa. He didn’t have a winner’s mentality. It wasn’t the real Roger.” Uncle Toni was obviously looking at the WHOLE match involving two players.

Uncle Toni’s example should be good enough for the rest of us. It’s arrogant of posters like you to expect us to conform to your personal requirement to analyze only one side of the match. What you are used to is irrelevant. If such broader and more intelligent views agitate your self-restricted thinking, there is a simple solution: skip those posts.

It’s reasonable to analyze the big picture of factors that affect both players. Intelligent people do such performance analysis all the time in business, sports, life, school. It’s silly, for example, to simply say that the stock of a company like Apple fell because its biggest competitors were “on” in recent weeks or just had the better weeks recently. Or that your child is among the worst students of his grade because the top students were “on” this year or just had the better year.

juljo724: “First off, there has never been a need to debate mono.”
We need to debate mono because of your incompetent, pompous attempt to judge the value of my views about mono. juljo724: “unless you are a doctor, I don’t think your OPINION about effects of mono (which vary depending on severity of case) is any smarter than anyone else here on this site.”

Like I had said: Since you claim to be so qualified on mono and so smart, let’s debate it. Until then do not attempt to judge the value of what I know about mono. If you can’t prove that you know more about mono than me, who are you to downplay my views on mono?

Like you, I too laughed long and hard because you admit you were incompetent in dealing with your own mono to be an authoritative judge on my views about mono. You comment “I have had mono twice (once it [mono] is in your system, it is there for life)” indicates to me that you have been ineffective at treating your recurring chronic infectious mononucleosis (also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis or yuppie flu).

juljo724: “I laughed long and hard at that one! How is your statement of 2 individuals are likely to respond in different ways different from me stating that the effects of mono can vary depending on the severity of case?” (in response to Dave: “Already I find your generalized comment ["effects of mono (which vary depending on severity of case)" ] ignorantly disregards the individual’s response to illness. Two individuals are likely to respond, for various reasons, in different ways and with different levels of success to the same severity of illness.]

Stop twisting. You stated “effects of mono”: an effect is something which is produced immediately and directly by a primary cause (e.g., an effect of the flu is fever; or some effects of chronic mono may include subcortical injury, neuropsychological impairments; fatigue from post-exertional crash; oxygen toxicity problems). High-grade fever might be the effect of a severe case of flu. Two individuals might have the same measured high-grade fever of 104 degrees F, yet respond differently to the fever (the 104 degree fever puts one individual in bed while the other individual continues to do 70% of his normal activities despite feeling sick). There can be various factors at play, e.g., maybe that second individual simply has a stronger will to rise above his illness… or maybe his doctor was Patch Adams, etc.

****

Margot: Be quiet and stop being a hypocrite. Patronizing and sexist? Pffftt. You think Kimberly wasn’t being patronizing herself? If you think what I said was sexist then put your money where your big mouth is and let’s debate what you claim was sexist about my comments.


madmax Says:

Ben/Sean/Staff, as this mono topic has caused such debate (all for that), could you please write a thread on all the tennis players who have ever suffered from mono and the affects…we have already three players who we know, as tennis fans, that mono has “affected substantially” “ruined” or whatever else you want to call it, has affected their careers. That’s
a) Ancic – now retired from the game – suffered irrevocably.
b) Soderling – in the balance, but we know that it is unlikely he will return.
c) Roddick – now retired, but that it can be argued this was coupled with a dip in form (was this due to mono?), or that he just wasn’t prepared to put in the training or the hours anymore? I read a variety of reasons about this, though I know he did have his bout of mono and he did say he was never the same since then.

Ben, a thread on this would promote some proper discussion I feel.

I have never had glandular fever, just continuous bouts of tonsilitis when I am run down, swollen glands, etc., so can imagine that having mono must be excruciatingly painful.

Dave, I am going to read your post above, came on to just type this.


Ben Pronin Says:

I’m not putting up a post on mono for pseudo-doctors to argue with pseudo-facts. We know who’s had mono. You wanna know more about it just google it. Like a few people have said, mono effects different people in different ways.

Mono can’t be used as a reason for why Federer lost matches. If he played them, he was healthy enough to play, so he was healthy enough to win. I think it was visible in some ways that his fitness was hurt, but he still went out on the court and won a LOT more than he lost. So not a reason for his losses no matter how you slice it.


skeezer Says:

“Mono can’t be used as a reason for why Federer lost matches. If he played them, he was healthy enough to play, so he was healthy enough to win. I think it was visible in some ways that his fitness was hurt, but he still went out on the court and won a LOT more than he lost. So not a reason for his losses no matter how you slice it.”

Yep!


the DA Says:

“Mono can’t be used as a reason for why Federer lost matches. If he played them, he was healthy enough to play”

Exactly.


Dave Says:

madmax: An article on tennis players who have suffered from mono (and other post-viral fatigue, e.g., Justine Henin) is an excellent idea, but the writer would first have to enough competent understanding about mono to write intelligently on the illness and its effects — if they don’t, they aren’t qualified write on it or pretend they understand who is a pseudo-doctor and who isn’t. But I do wish an article would be written about tennis players who have had to retire or whose careers plunged due to injuries or illness.

Sports Illustrated senior writer S.L. Price (and author of several sports books) gives insightful and intelligent perspective on Federer’s mono: “Strangely enough 2008 might have been Federer’s greatest year — better than his 92-5 run in ’06, better than the three years in which he won nine majors — because he battled his body from start to finish. A bout of mononucleosis in late 2007 had enlarged his spleen, ravaged his powers of recovery and ruined his off-season training; from the ’08 Australian Open on, he played a step slow, which threw off his timing and sent his confidence tumbling. Yet Federer still made the Australian Open semifinals and the French Open final, labored back from two sets down to lose the longest Wimbledon final ever by the slimmest of margins, and won the U.S. Open — Hall of Fame stuff for anyone else.
“Federer was ill all season long, and the story was completely missed,” Jim Courier says. “He hid it from everybody because it’s his responsibility to not show weakness, and he played through it because of his commitment to the tour. Which was a mistake. Mario Ancic[the Croatian once ranked No. 7] missed more than six months on the tour with a mono bout; it’s a serious illness for a high-level performance athlete. Roger needed to get off the tour and get healthy again.”
Last October, Federer conceded at last, retiring from a tournament for the first time in 763 matches because of lower back pain. It has continued to bother him, but history won’t care. Nadal “shot him through the heart by winning Wimbledon,” Courier says. “Roger was not at full tilt, but it doesn’t matter, because it changed the energy between them — possibly for the rest of their careers.”
(Note: Coincidentally, three days after this bleak SI article was published, Federer won 2009 Madrid, beating Nadal in the final in straight sets. Over the next nine months Federer came within two points of winning all four grand slam championships consecutively between 2009 French Open to 2010 Australian Open.)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/sl_price/05/14/federer.nadal/2.html


Dave Says:

Federer playing football with Brazilian kids from the slums of Sao Paulo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7ULTsza5Z0


jane Says:

Echoing skeezer and the DA, thanks to Ben for being concise and straightforward. It’s true, actually – Fed won a hella lot more than he lost during 2008. He made 3 slam finals, won 1 and lost 2. So he obviously was doing well enough to have yet another great year.


Sandra Says:

“Mono can’t be used as a reason for why Federer lost matches. If he played them, he was healthy enough to play”

I agree with this 100%, but the same logic must be used when discussing some of nadal’s losses, or novak’s losses or whomever really. If you decide to play your fit enough.


juljo724 Says:

Dave, this is not a competition on who is smarter or knows more about something. Calm down!!!!!! Anyone can google stuff and post it. Doesn’t make you better or smarter than the other posters on this site.

Agree with Ben and all the others who agreed with him also.


alison Says:

It seems like Humble Rafa opened up a can of worms that started a war of words,very much agree with Skeezers post,you cant blame the loss on mono,if your fit enough to play your fit enough to win,let the chips fall wherever they may,if Fed had won Wimby that year,the headlines would have been Federer wins wimbledon in spite of having mono,he loses its because he had mono acording to some hmm,Madmax has a point why not open a thread on the topic and have a proper discussion about itas its quite a serious and nasty condition,but i have to say otherwise the subject of mono is getting tedious,and one that personally im getting sick and tired of hereing about(no pun intended),as im not making light of it honestly.


madmax Says:

okay Ben. I hear you. All I offered was a FACTUAL discussion of FACTUAL players who suffered FACTUAL mono,so disbelievers here cannot argue with FACTS.

Not talking about making excuses about whether he lost matches due to mono. You misunderstand me. Completely agree that if he lost, he lost.

Just saying for goodness sake people, you stop making excuses that he WASN’T suffering from mono, when he was. Fact. That is what I was saying.

End of.


Ben Pronin Says:

I totally get what you’re saying, madmax. But I can already see how that thread will turn out. Maybe someone else can write it. I’m not going to spend time researching and writing for the comments section to turn into a pissing contest of who can post the most hypocritical things.


Alok Says:

@alison, 5:03am, Thanks for the info.


alison Says:

Alok no problem.


Alok Says:

On the “if you play, you’re fit”, I hope those posters who like to make a ton of excuses for their faves will remember this at all times, especially those who are quick to criticize Fed. In other words, same rule for ALL players, without exceptions.


Margot Says:

Dave @ 9.29am
“Margot. Be quiet.” OMG a perfect example. Are you my father or something? You are making a bit of a habit with this.
To respond to an adult female poster with the words, “jane, you naughty girl….” is both patronising and sexist. You might say them to a 5 year old child I suppose. With those words you attempted to diminish her argument and promote yourself as some sort of all knowing adult.
You responded to Kimberly’s post, as a very experienced and knowledgeable club player, in an equally dismissive way. Furthermore, neither poster has been rude or offensive to you as far as I can tell, they are merely expressing a different point of view/opinion.
If your argument is strong enough there is no need to put down female posters in this way.


alison Says:

Alok@ December 14th 7.04pm,yep same for all no ifs,buts,wouldas,couldas,shouldas,your fit to play your fit to win,never seen the point in making excuses whomever you are,it changes nothing,its as cut and dried as that,the winner wins the loser loses,end of story,it just suits some people to believe otherwise,and they seem to seek some comfort in that knowledge,the real world doesnt care about such BS.


madmax Says:

Okay Ben.

Dave, thank you for Price’s article. I wasn’t aware of this, so I will read it later.


Dave Says:

ben pronin: “he still went out on the court and won a LOT more than he lost. So not a reason for his losses no matter how you slice it.”

This is a misleading comment when you take an objective look at the actual data — which of course I produce below. It’s a meaningless statement to reiterate that Federer still “won a lot more than he lost” — obviously he would still win lost of matches because of his breath and depth of talent and competitiveness (given he is the very greatest player in tennis history). With his complete game, Federer was able to rely more on his serve and find other ways to win, despite deficiencies in his fitness and rest of his game compromised by the debilitating mononucleosis.

Here are the facts: Federer lost 21 matches duirng his slump in the aftermath of the mononucleosis and back problems (back problems probably happened because he over-relied on his serve to compensate for the drop in his game due to mono) in the 16 months between 2008 Australian Open and 2009 Rome. In 2008, Federer was 66-15 (81%) and in the first four months of 2009 (including Rome) he was 21-6 (78%) — his total win-loss was 87-21 (80%) during this 16-month period. The rest of 2009 after Rome he was 40-6 (87%), indicating he was getting back to form (until he was hit by a bout of pneumonia in mid-February 2010 that sent him into a temporary slump).

It’s obvious that Federer’s 66-15 win-loss (81%) in 2008 as well as 87-21 (80%) between 2008 Australian and 2009 Rome were anomalous — it was clearly Federer’s worst winning percentage in the ten years since 2002.
- 2003: 82%
- 2004: 93%
- 2005: 95%
- 2006: 95%
- 2007: 88%
- 2008: 81%
- 2009: 84%
- 2010: 83%
- 2011: 84%
- 2012: 86%

This negative deviation in performance (2008 Australian Open to 2009 Rome) is stunning considering that Federer won only one Grand Slam during these 16 months even though (a) before 2008 Australian, Federer won three Grand Slams (from reaching all four straight finals) as well as won Year-End Championship in 2007 and (b) after 2009 Rome, Federer won three Grand Slams (from reaching the next four straight finals, just two points away from winning all four finals).

Any intelligent analysis would consider factors at play that could have caused this anomalous deviation in Federer’s performance. If it’s good enough for Jim Courier to consider mononucleosis “a serious illness for any high-level performance athlete” and “Federer was ill all season long.. Roger was not at full tilt” — then it should be good enough for a serious analyst to consider. The mononucleosis is a legitmate reason for Federer’s losses. If those who do not have even a fraction of Jim Courier’s expertise and wisdom want to disagree, hey, it’s a free world. As was pointed out, there is a difference between considering the mono as a reason for the losses and using the mono as an excuse.


Dave Says:

juljo724: “this is not a competition on who is smarter or knows more about something… Anyone can google stuff and post it. Doesn’t make you better or smarter than the other posters on this site.” juljo724: “Plus, unless you are a doctor, I don’t think your OPINION about effects of mono (which vary depending on severity of case) is any smarter than anyone else here on this site.”

I repeat again: you are NOT competent to judge whether or not my views and facts about mono are better or smarter than the other posters on this site. Since you are (a) unwilling to debate me on mono to prove that you have any competence to judge my views on mono and (b) ineffective in dealing with your own claimed mono, I consider you unqualified to arrogantly judge my views on the subject. Either put your money where your big mouth is and prove your competence — or just shut up.

On the other hand, I have no doubt I woud be able to have an intelligent discussion with 99% of doctors on medical topics such as mono. I don’t need Google to do so (e.g., at the height of the SARS outbreak, I was on a five-hour flight having a long discussion on SARS treatment with a senior medical doctor heading to a conference to present a paper.

In any case, over 99% of doctors tend to be relatively ineffective/incompetent at treating systemic illnesses such as chronic infectious mono (that’s why patients such as Robin Soderling have failed to resolve their illnesses in a timely way, no matter how much money is spent on doctors and drugs). Only a tiny minority of medical doctors, such as the guy in link below, seem to be more intelligent in how they treat chronic mono. Regardless, conventional medicine provides only partial answers for understanding and dealing with systemic illnesses such as chronic mono. A more effective solution requires a multi-disciplinary, integrated approach.
http://tinyurl.com/cavdxgh


Dave Says:

Margot: “To respond to an adult female poster with the words, “jane, you naughty girl….” is both patronising and sexist… With those words you attempted to diminish her argument and promote yourself as some sort of all knowing adult.”

It’s prejudiced, irresponsible and ludicrous of you to completely disregard jane’s disingenuous cherry picking of my comments to twist and misrepresent my posts in order to diminish my argument, falsely discredit my facts and misrepresent my views as hypocritical. You completely disregarded my exposes of jane’s deceitful posts in order to criticize my responses as “patronizing and sexist” and “attempted to diminish her argument” and “promote yourself as some sort of all knowing adult”.

Which is the far greater ‘crime’ — jane’s deceit or my response? Jane being a female poster does not give her immunity when she plays such games.

As for my post to Kimberly, it was five times longer than Kimberly’s original post. Yet you hypocritically disregarded Kimberly’s patronizing, presumptuous and/or dismissive comments to my post: “Dave, I don’t think anyone in their right mind tanks a grand slam final in favor of a 250… if I had paid big bucks to go there I would have been POed… Anyone who plays tennis knows there are days where for some reason one cannot bring their “A” game… From a club level player like me, to a champion like Federer, we are all competitive. We want to win…”

You are exaggerating and sensationalizing to make a mountain out of the few molehills in my post which were sarcastic responses to specific parts of Kimberly’s post, such as “I don’t think any club player in her right mind would have the arrogance to categorize herself in the same competitive boat as Federer or pretend to understand the nature and psychology of competitiveness pertaining to Federer.” The vast majority of my comments in that post (December 12th, 2012 at 8:37 am) were reasonable, logical and measured. I’m not here to sugercoat my responses to views I consider dubious.

You need to stop playing the sexist card, it’s pathetic. Nadal’s coach Uncle Toni has said “Serena would lose to any top 300 male player” because “her shots hurt the women, but I do not think that they would be sufficient against a man. Her condition is also not as good as a man, and it lacks flexibility.” No. 5 David Ferrer agrees with Toni Nadal. Ferrer also sees in the footwork, the largest deficit of the WTA’s dominant player. “For Serena, it would be very difficult to win against a top 100 player. Simply because of the speed of the legs and because of the physique. Although she is very fit, I think a big difference to the men there.” No. 51 ranked women’s player Anabel Medina Garrigues, said that the assessment of Toni Nadal and David Ferrer have nothing to do with chauvinism. “Serena may be physically superior to other women but when compared to a man it would be different.”
http://tinyurl.com/8tcckv5

Bottom line, it’s hypocritical, prejudiced and ludicrous for you to accuse me “you responded to Kimberly’s post… in an equally dismissive way”. Thus, I repeat: Be quiet (I am saying this like a judge, I’m not interested in being your father).


the DA Says:

margot @2:14 am – spot on! Just remember he’s doing it to get attention otherwise almost every poster would scroll past his screeds (as they do on tennis.com).

You should follow the advice of George Bernard Shaw: “never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”


jane Says:

Margot, reasonable, as always. And as the DA says “spot on” too.


jane Says:

” 2008: 81%
- 2009: 84%
- 2010: 83%
- 2011: 84%”

Pretty consistent…


skeezer Says:

Wow, any chance of getting back to discussing tennis rather than arrows being launched at each other? In light of recent tragedy, you would think the heart would be a little softer for awhile…


alison Says:

Dave no offence as i have said many times your a very clever and knowledgeable man,who puts alot of research into your posts,and generally i like and have alot of admiration for them,but over the past 48 hours youve verbally attacked any poster who has dared to disagree with you,Jane,Kimberly,Margot,The DA,Juljo 724,factually or otherwise you might be right or wrong i dont know,but all everybodys is trying to do is give their own personal opinion thats all,why the need to talk down to everybody?No harm or foul just saying sorry.


alison Says:

Skeezer amen to that,really puts all this arguing into perspective,its only a game when all said and done,there are things in life which are far more important.


the DA Says:

Okay, here’s a momentary distraction. Andy’s fans have sent pix of their pets emulating his point-to-the-sky gesture. The last pic of the cat is best:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pets-impersonate-andy-murrays-victory-1490935


Giles Says:

I bet “you know who” was the school bully!!. Lol


alison Says:

The DA interesting pictures,hope he goes onto win the British SPOTY tomorrow night,that would be fantastic.


the DA Says:

He won’t win, Bradley Wiggins will. Andy will probably make top 3. I don’t think he’ll be too bothered either way.


Dave Says:

Giles, jane, the DA: What I said in my first post to you on December 12th, 2012 at 8:37 am continues to apply to you: “Instead of reading your dubious personal opinions (especially given you’ve each hypocritically failed to criticize the comments of Humble Rafa yet jumped to criticize my response to Humble Rafa’s comments) feeding off each other like a pinball machine” — the same few pinballs holding each other’s BS. After a while of holding all that BS for each other, don’t your hands feel dirty? If you were consistent in your principles (not hypocrites), you’d have first jumped on Humble Rafa’s “I am the GOAT Owner” at December 10th, 2012 at 12:04 pm.

the DA: “almost every poster would scroll past his screeds”
You have the chutzpah to say this even though you seem to read everything I write, given how much you’ve responded to my posts, lol.

jane (December 15th, 2012 at 1:27 pm): “Pretty consistent…”.
yes, yes, your continual cherry picking and weaseling is pretty consistent (as shown in my earlier responses to your deceitful posts). My original post is pretty clear, and no one needs to know basic statistics to see where the obvious deviation is.

*****

Wog Boy: “Even if you cherry pick my posts or just one sentence out of my posts you will not find anything that comes even close to definition of racism.”

Let’s review what you actually said and the context in which you said it (if you claim I cherry picked your posts, prove it).

- In that blog, I had responded to mat4′s claim regarding the the global relevance of tennis in Nadal’s era today versus Illie Nastase’s era around 1973. Dave (May 3rd, 2012 at 3:33 pm): “Anyone who actually looked at drawsheets in the 1970s knows how global tennis players already were. There were much more succesful Indians playing in the 1960s and 1970s than today’s Somdev. Manuel Santana had already won Wimbledon for Spain long before Nadal was born. And Niki Pilic was a Yugoslav who won a Slam title long before Djokovic was born.” (Yugoslav is an accepted term that has long been used to refer to the peoples of then Yugoslavia, which was a country and state in the western part of the Balkans during most of the 20th century).

- Wog Bog was upset with what I had said on Niki Pilic and Djokovic. Wog Bog’s subsequent babbles were irrelevant to my point but was clearly bigoted and arguably racist (May 3rd, 2012 at 6:59 pm): “Nikola Pilic is Croat from Yugoslavia, so Novak is first Serbian who won GS. There is no such thing as Yugoslavs (as nation) it was always Serbs, Croats, Slovenians etc. Yugoslavs were people from mix marirages who didn’t want to insult one of the parents. Same as Ana Ivanovic is first Serbian girl who won GS even Monika Seles won 8-9 of them but for Yugoslavia as Hungarian born in Serbia. She never took Serbian citizenship, but she did get Hungarian few years back… One should know more about things before posting them.” Later Wog Boy even accused me of being a bigot (May 3rd, 2012 at 11:10 pm): “Yes you are right, Yugoslavia was different in 1973, you bigot.” Dave (May 5th, 2012 at 12:37 pm): “Monika could do the same thing (take Serbian citizenship after the break up of Yugoslavia) but she chose to take Hungarian one instead, what is fair enough but that makes Ana Ivanovic first Serbian to win GS.” I have paid to watch live Monica Seles, who was born in Yugoslavia (today her city of birth is in Serbia), in the early 1990s while she was still a citizen of Yugoslavia — I have never heard her describe herself as a “Hungarian born in Serbia” or Hungarian born in Yugoslavia.

- In response, Dave (May 3rd, 2012 at 7:53 pm): “I correctly stated “Niki Pilic was a Yugoslav who won a Slam title long before Djokovic was born”. I never claimed Pilic won a singles Slam. So what if he won a GS doubles title? It’s still a Slam title. And Pilic reached the 1973 French Open singles final and reached a career high ranking of 12. It is not true there is no such thing as Yugoslavs. That’s what your people were officially called in 1973…” Dave (May 4th, 2012 at 10:14 am): “There were 3 to 4 Yugoslavs among the top 100 players in the mid 1970s (Nicola Spear was the only Serbian, the rest Croatians). In 1973, they were were officially called Yugoslavs by the state of Yugoslavia at the time… Don’t call me a bigot because I’m not willing to be a revisionist historian about Yugoslvia in 1973… when you’re the real bigot about Yugoslavia in 1973.” Dave (May 5th, 2012 at 10:20 am): “I find your bigoted comments about Monica Seles particularly disturbing given that Seles was born in Novi Sad in then Yugoslavia — you cannot take that away from her. Today Novi Sad is the second largest city in Serbia. Seles won 8 of her 9 Grand Slam titles while she was still a citizen of Yugoslavia. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up by 1992. After Seles became a US citizen in 1994, Seles won her 9th Slam in 1996 (her first after her stabbing). She became a Hungarian citizen only in 2007. What you said just shows your attitude to non-Serbians. Regardless, Niki Pilic was officially a Yugoslav citizen in the 1970s. There is no need highlight 1970s Pilic as a Croat… or give us your bigoted revisionist history on the factional divisions between the Yugoslav peoples. Pilic saw beyond Djokovic’s Serbian ethnicity in 2000 — a few years after the ethnic tensions erupted between Serbs and Croats — to train the boy for a reduced fee and later Pilic helped Serbia’s Davis Cup team… ” Dave (May 5th, 2012 at 4:15 pm): “So what if Monika Seles chose not to take Serbian citizenship after how she was treated by Serbians and Croatians while she was playing — I remember there was a lot of criticism against her even from Serbians. She was probably fed up with all the ethno-nationalism and bigotry. Bottom line, Seles was born in Novi Sad (Yugoslavia) and she won about 8 Slam titles while she was a citizen of Yugoslavia.”
(from “Inside Rafael Nadal’s Incredible Statistics On Clay”)

Like I said: “your arguably racist comments regarding Monica Seles’s heritage in Serbia/Yugoslavia”. Several definitions of racism exist. But racism can be defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the ideology that humans are divided into distinct, separate and exclusive biological or cultural groups called “races” and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole desirable/undesirable or inferior/superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist

alison: Not interested, so stay out of it.


the DA Says:

scroll…scroll….


alison Says:

Dave fair enough,i just thought this was supposed to be an open forum,for everyone to state their own personal opinions,obviously i was wrong,ill say no more about it(sigh),just giving my opinion thats all.


jane Says:

alison, for sure you’re entitled.

the DA, yep, scrolling…


alison Says:

Thankyou Jane,appantly not though it would seem.


alison Says:

^Apparantly not appantly duh^.


alison Says:

The DA nah probably not,im sure hes just delighted to win a GS this year,my money would actually be on Mo Farrah,but you could make a case for anyone thats nominated TBH.


Sienna Says:

Dave
the truth is out. You said it it first.

Please do not take offence by the tagteams who try to team up on you.

I have seen this to many times on tennistalk. The persons you are trying to educate are anobg of the few who are still there to create a hostile environment towards everybody with a different view. Their sole purpose is to ridicule nd try to get you to leave this site. SO they can endulge themselves in commenting eachothers greatness in pitty things.


Alok Says:

A very interesting situation here from the above comments.


Margot Says:

the DA @ 1.07
Very sensible advice, will try to follow but some words just jump out, don’t they?
Lol re other comment, but why so harsh sirree, about darling piggies?
Do you know, I really thought dinosaurs had died out long ago. Silly me.
@ Dave
For the VERY last time, I have absolutely no problem with you challenging opinions, after all we are here to discuss/argue about tennis. No, it’s the dismissive, denigrating and all too frequent, sexist way in which you do it. Your obvious smoke screen doesn’t work with me either.
And if you really don’t understand why it is NEVER acceptable to call an adult woman “a naughty girl,” then may I suggest you put down your multitudinous books about Federer facts and pick up one on “sexism and language” instead.
You might even learn something new.


the DA Says:

@margot – I only meant the chauvinist variety ;)


Lady Gu Ga Says:

dave: 100s read this site. Bet majority like ur posts. Too bad same minority 4 or 5 gang up on your posts. Why? Thy’re jealos bullies. They look desperate attacking u as sexist >:\ Their smokescreen doesnt work on majority. Ur right bout them. Dave, keep ur posts coming :-)


madmax Says:

Federer madness

Enjoy federer fans – it’s a christmas treat!

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/roger-federer-madness-2012/


Dave Says:

ATP’s Top Achievements of 2012:
1. Federer Tops Sampras’ Reign, Reaches 300 Weeks At No. 1

2. Nadal’s Eighth Straight Monte-Carlo Title

3. Djokovic & Nadal Contest Four Straight Major Finals

4. Back-To-Back No. 1 Finishes For Djokovic

5. Nadal Breaks Borg’s Roland Garros Titles Record

6. Blackjack! Roger & Rafa Win 21st Masters 1000 Titles

7. Federer Ties Wimbledon Titles Record

8. Andy Murray’s Sizzling Summer

9. Roddick Joins Elite Compan

10. Ferrer Leads The Pack In Titles & Match Wins

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/12/Features/Top-Achievements-Of-2012.aspx


juljo724 Says:

All of us who disagreed with dave have been told to be quiet or just shut up. I’ll just quietly scroll past his books. Moderators must love dave or maybe dave IS the moderator–lol.


alison Says:

Happy for Federer and all his fans this year,pleased Rafa broke one or two records of his own too.


Dave Says:

juljo7984, the DA, jane: Your smoke screen does not fool us: your remarks to “scroll” past my posts are simply a pathetic attempt to manipulatively influence the greater majority of people who read this site. As Sienna and Lady Gu Ga stated, you few critics represent only a tiny minority of the numerous people — hundreds? thousands? — who read this website every day. It’s arrogant of you to behave as if the views of your tiny minority should determine the views of everybody else who reads this site. People who read this site are not as brainless as you treat them: they know that you carefully read every word I write and that my views ring true to you — otherwise you would not be reacting in such a manner. And every time you react the way you do, you lose more and more credibility. Let me help you: if you want to successfully rebut my posts, then do what I do: use arguments with facts, logic and principles. But don’t try insulting or twisting what I say without expecting a rebuttal from me. And don’t post weak arguments that sound like ‘I’m a Fifth Grade 10-year old student who knows exactly how the world’s top Phd university student thinks’ without expecting it to be debunked.

****

Margot: “if you really don’t understand why it is NEVER acceptable to call an adult woman “a naughty girl,” then may I suggest you put down your multitudinous books about Federer facts and pick up one on “sexism and language” instead. You might even learn something new.”

My mind is all for learning something new so I followed your draconian advice. I burned my “multitudinous books about Federer facts” (if burning books worked for China’s first emperor over two thousand years ago, I figured it would work for me).

I then started on my journey of discovery and enlightenment about sexism in language, like a Hobbit (okay, more like a Gandalf).

I spent $437 to buy the one and only book in Amazon titled “Sexism and language” by Alleen Pace Nilsen. I scrutinized the book’s 200 pages for “naughty girl”. Zilch. Not a single reference to “naughty girl” as sexist. Ugh. What a total waste of money.

Having burned my wallet, I opted for a cheaper option to enlightenment: Googleverse.

When I Googled [ "naughty girl" ] this was the top of the list: Naughty Girl, 2003 song by Beyonce… a woman (ugh, I really did not mean to equate jane with Beyonce).

Ok, ok, I know what you’re thinking: I failed to include ‘sexist’ as a search term because of my smokescreen. However, when I Googled [ sexist words OR remarks OR comments "naughty girl" ] this was the top of the list:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/02/09/the-morning-after-naughty-girl-edition/

Google also taught me that several books such as “Naughty Girl”, “Naughty Girls”, “One Naughty Girl”, “A Very Naughty Girl” were mostly written by… women such as L. T. Meade!

Enlightenment complete. There is no clear, authoritative, objective rule that designates “naughty girl” as sexist. It’s clear that a few feminist nutters are trying to foist and impose their dubious worldview about sexism on the rest of the world. I should have known better than to allow Margot to sucker me into wasting money on a book.

Margot your obvious smoke screen does not work on the vast majority of this site’s readers. You lose credibility when you accuse me of being dismissive, denigrating, blah, blah, blah while you fail to accuse others who do it to me (you’re practicing a double standard, i.e., hypocrisy). And DON’T accuse me of sexism based on your questionable feminist worldview — while you conveniently disregard jane’s deceitful misrepresentation of my comments in order to misrepresent my views as hypocritical. You don’t like it that I called jane “naughty girl” for her far greater naughty act? Read my lips: I-d-o-n-t-c-a-r-e. You don’t get to set the standards on what is sexist and what is not, especially given the attitudes on the term even by females.

****

alison: First, I find it hypocritical of you to accuse me of attacking posters The DA, Juljo 724, jane while you hypocritically disregarded the fact that they were the ones who first attacked and/or misrepresented my views. It’s nonsense that they were just trying to give their opinion (go back and read what they first wrote). Second, it’s a bad argument to claim that this open forum suddenly stops being an open forum because I posted my disagreement to someone’s disagreement of my view. If everyone is entitled to state their personal opinions, then that includes me as well — otherwise you’re using a double standard. This remains an internet forum: I have no power over people to shut down the openness of this forum. What you are not saying is this: my rebuttals don’t give those who attacked and disagreed with me much room to maneuver because their arguments were weak in the first place. Too bad, I’m not here to accept dubious disagreements, insults or attacks that I don’t agree with. Like I said: give me a solid disagreement based on solid facts, logic and principles, that’s the best way to disagree with anyone.

*****

OK, enough is enough and let’s get back to Tennis and this blog topic. The minority of you should stop wasting the time of the majority — unless the minority of you have a really good argument.

Madmax’s clip (“Federer’s Madness”) is an excellent of some of Federer’s best points in 2012.


autoFilter Says:

Margot, the DA, jane, alison, juljo7984,

I just want you all to know that there absolutely is at least one (mostly) silent reader out here who supports you all in this matter. I happen to be a male Federer fan (primarily, but by no means exclusively), but I definitely do not think that you guys are the ones treating the readers of this site as though they/we are brainless.


autoFilter Says:

I apologize, juljo724, for getting your name wrong; it appears I must’ve drawn it from an unreliable source.


alison Says:

Dave you said in the last line of your post,Alison not interested,so stay out of it,and thats what i have done,so ill say no more about it,personally i couldnt care less,as theres more important things going on in the world at the moment,scoring points over another poster on an internet forum is not on the top of the list of my priorities ATM.


alison Says:

Thankyou Autofilter.


the DA Says:

@ autoFilter – thanks. Nice to hear from one of the (many) reasonable fans out there.


jane Says:

Cheers autoFilter – good to know you! Perhaps you shouldn’t be so silent? There’s much for you to cheer about as a Fed fan; he had a great 2012.


Alok Says:

Dave your posts are fine, hang in there. I learn a lot of important info from your posts because I simply don’t have the luxury of time to google several sites for tennis info and players’ personal info, due to a demanding job.

I’m sure many know to use the scroll button without being sarcastically told to do so.


Alok Says:

LOL, @5:39 and 5:55pm.


jane Says:

Speaking of which, has anyone ever heard of the “Golden Bagel” award? LOL. I hadn’t either, until I saw the link to this page posted on another forum; it’s worth a quick look, just for fun. Nole had won it the last two years apparently, Fed’s won it a number of times, and Rafa too. Also Ferrer. Andy M’s made the top list the past 3 years…. Anyhow, here’s the Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Bagel_Award

I notice they call what we normally call breadsticks, “fries”. ;)


the DA Says:

@jane – hehe, great link.


Wog boy Says:

autoFilter,

It is nice company to be with, even though there is only one Nole fan, what I have to do to qualify since I missed it (place on your list), I will be happy just to have a status of candidate not even a full member of the group. I can change ;)


courbon Says:

Naughty girl,naughty girl,naughty girl, naughty girl, naughty girl,naughty girl……..


Margot Says:

the DA @ 7.47 16/12: oh very good sirree, poor piggies though, such a bad name….. ;)
Dinosaur Dave @ 2.15 7/12: whatever…..
autoFilter @ 17/12 4.03: love your moniker, cheers and welcome
@ Lady Gobbledygook somewhere: u r wrong, DD has upset so many people on here it’s not a “gang” it’s an army.


Wog boy Says:

courbon,

“Be quit” and “stay out of this” or uncle dave is going to get upset and we will have to call in RSPCA, or whatever is called in North America, to sort out DD.

Now repeat with me “be quiet” and “stay out of this” .. you see it is not so hard.

BTW, are you already in London?


Wog boy Says:

“Be quiet”


jane Says:

Andy’s best points 2012 (part 1 – can’t find part 2?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WspYh8S313E


alison Says:

Jane Thanks for putting up those links,Nole topping the Golden Bagel list the last couple of years hardly surprising lol,loved Andys points which were fantastic,i enjoy Daves links too,but they tend to be done for Federer fans and from a Federer fan point of view,and while theres nothing wrong in that its nice when fans do it for fans of other players thanks.


skeezer Says:

“Looking Through The Years: Federer Is Better than Ever”

Well, *sigh*, it was a nice written piece to talk about.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/12/Features/Federer-Inspires-Skier-Vonn.aspx

“Of all the athletes I’ve ever met, Roger is the kindest and most genuine,” declares Vonn. “He really cares about people and what he’s done with his foundation and his humanitarian efforts has been incredible. He’s hard-working and extremely humble, but the thing I respect most about him is he’s the same person every day whether he wins or loses. 

“He cares about being a role model and that kids can look up to him. I consider him a hero because I want to be like him. I want to be a good role model for kids, too.”

———————-

Ooops. Sorry for the interruption. You all were sayin something? Really, sometimes me wonders what peeps do with there spare time. Not. Me? Got to finish Christmas shopping and buy 1 Partridge in a Pear tree. WTF? Where does one find such a thing anyways? God bless all you Merry Men/Women on this thread……and even Trolls.


alison Says:

Skeezer given whats been going on in the world over the last few days,all this arguing seems rather petty and pointless,over what is basically only a game,and hardly the end of the world when alls said and done,as for spare time i dont get much ill even be working christmas day,as care for the elderly never stops,lol no partridge or pear tree for us we will have to make do with a turkey,so go finish your christmas shopping and watch it as the shops will be very busy,failing that the internet has great stuff you can buy online,and you might just get it on time if your lucky,yeah and happy xmas to you and all tennis x posters,and yeah even the trolls and the ones i dont get on with too.


juljo724 Says:

Thank you autofilter for your support of all of us.

Thank you jane for that link. It’s nice to see Rafa did so well in something. Will be so nice just to see him on court again playing tennis. Like alison, I am not counting my chickens before they’re hatched, so I will be content just to see him compete again.

alison, you are so right. It is still very hard to watch the news here without “losing it.” And so close to Xmas, too. Was very nice to see the NFL players with logos on their helmets commemorating the school and a few of the players with the names handwritten on their shoes.


Giles Says:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=522884037735604&set=a.278980528792624.75686.278612362162774&type=1&relevant_count=1. Bon Nadal and a happy 2013 to all. For those who don’t know, Nadal in Catalan means Christmas.


Brazil Federer Fan Says:

Thank you Dave for all the statistics and wonderful research you do. Do not be discouraged by these bullies.

Federer fans appreciate all your efforts!


courbon Says:

@Wog Boy:Hi Mate,
yesterday I just read one part of the blog where somebody called ‘Naughty girl’ sexist.I thought, that was over the top so I joked…then I read whole post (including Daves post!) which took good hour and relised how patronising and rude Dave been towards quite a lot of people.Usually he is Ok, but something got to him….


courbon Says:

@ Wog Boy: I forgot to tell you my theory!
Because Dave knows all personal fellings, conversations and smallest details about Federer and his team I came to conclussion that person that post this post is….wait a minute…..
FEDERE HIMSELF!!!!But he puts them under name Dave…(because he us to like watching Fools and Horses and Rodney-Triger, you know the story..)


autoFilter Says:

Thank you all for the warm reception!

jane, I appreciate the encouragement, but we’ll see how it goes. I’m not convinced opening the floodgates at this very moment is likely to lead to any tennis-related dialogue.

Margot, glad to know you appreciate the moniker (especially since most here seem to have actual names).

Wog boy, I had not intentionally excluded you, sorry. I’m not sure what you can do to be retroactively included, but I will admit that I am not opposed to accepting large sums of money.


Dave Says:

Hate to burst your bubble about autoFilter. autoFilter: “I just want you all to know that there absolutely is at least one (mostly) silent reader out here…. I happen to be a male Federer fan (primarily, but by no means exclusively)… I definitely do not think that you guys are the ones treating the readers of this site as though they/we are brainless…. Thank you all for the warm reception!”

“Thank you all for the warm reception” for a silent reader”?? autoFilter is treating the readers of this site as though we’re brainless.

You will find dozens of posts from autoFilter on this site between August 17, 2011 and October 2012 by Googling [ autoFilter site:http://www.tennis-x.com/ ]. Over the past 18 months, autoFilter has interacted with several people here including jane. After 18 months of postings, why does autoFilter claim to be a silent reader getting a warm reception now??

Furthermore, its posts do not prove it is “a male Federer fan” since it has made generalized posts about several players (autoFilter seems most excited by “Vika”). In blogsites over the last six or seven years, several posters have claimed to be a “Federer fan” for ‘credibility’ to peddle their ‘unbiased viewpoint’.

This is what I mean: their postings lack honesty and truth. Why should the majority of us have to accept such BS? How brainless do they think we are?

Another one bites the dust.

But don’t me stop this tiny minority group from its group therapy, support and hugs. :)


alison Says:

Autofilter your a very classy unbiased Federer fan,classy very much like the man himself,shame the same cannot be said about one or two of his fans,for the most part who are mostly fantastic Madmax,Skeezer,Gannu,Ajet,Huh,Swiss Maestro,and Dave(who is most of the time),maybe a certain lady poster can learn a thing or two from you.


Dave Says:

Courbon:: “Dave, you can not compare the eras. If Roswell played.or was banned…if this, if that…If Borg was living in Majorca (like a Nadal) he would not win any tile because he would enjoy sun, beach and Mojitos.But coming from Sweden, what else to do, then some kind of sport (with all that cold…)”

If this, if that… First, Borg was born in the Stockholm area, which is warmer than Chicago in winter. Young Borg enjoyed Stockholm’s sun and beaches in summer. You are obviously ignorant about Sweden’s weather and Stockholm’s beaches because you don’t travel much, so here, learn something from the link below. Second, Borg legally resided in Monte Carlo for about 20 years since 1974 as an 18 year old (i.e., since winning his first Grand Slam title) to escape Swedish taxes – so Borg sipped lots of drinks while enjoying Monte Carlo’s sun and beautiful beaches (living in Mallorca would have been a drop in his living standards). Borg was tennis’s biggest sex symbol at the time. Third, despite enjoying the sun and beaches of Monte Carlo during his prime years, Borg did not win ‘tiles’ – he won TITLES (more than Nadal did at the same age).
http://www.visitstockholm.com/en/To-Do/Tips/Swimming-in-Stockholm/

OK, we’ve established that you don’t know what you’re yapping about — yet you want to yap as if you know something. I once played with Borg’s Donnay racquet model during Bjorn’s peak – and you’re trying to teach me about Borg, lol. Do you even know anything about Borg? Have you even seen him play a match? SMH

It’s not “Roswell” (that’s the UFO incident in New Mexico). It’s Ken ROSEWALL, duh. I’ve seen Rosewall-the-doomsday-stroking-machine play. Have you? Do you even know anything about Rosewall?

You can’t compare eras because you lack the knowledge, context and framework to make such comparisons.

I’m sure you’ll accuse me of being rude and patronizing to you while conveniently ignoring the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about — yet your big mouth arrogantly asserts “Dave, you can not compare the eras.” You naughty boy.

Another one bites the dust.


skeezer Says:

^ a weak attempt at dirt digging Fed…I mean really? Life must be so boring for you since your Love can’t play that you scour google for this?

The guy is 31, not 25, and has played for his country a plenty. He has earned the right after 1000 matches on tour to do whatever the h3ll he wants. Wawa is a whiner. End of story.


jane Says:

There’s stuff about that at Tennis.com and Tennistalk: I read it yesterday.


Vinny Says:

Federer’s greatness can only be measured by his accomplishments in comparison to others and in taking into account the rising level of tennis quality which he himself has led the way to. By that I mean that for a period of significant time, maybe about 3 years or more, Federer was clearly playing at the highest quality ever seen and the next batch of players behind him were just trying to keep the gap from widening. Rafa was able to display that he could match Federer in certain areas to nuetralize Fed’s skills and abilities and became his greatest rival (except on clay where no one will deny that Rafa is the king of all time).

I think the issue comes down to what’s between the ears. Rafa has had a significantly better record against Fed in finals (not sure of the stats), and I think the 2009 Australian final exemplifies this best. Fed was in his prime as was Rafa and Rafa had just played a grueling 5 setter against fellow spaniard, _____, and could hardly run for many hours afterwards. Rafa showed the type of great champion he also is by battling and countering Fed throughout 4 sets in what I personally regard as the greatest example of high quality tennis ever played (not necessarily the greatest match thought, but very close). It is the 5th set which shows between the ears. Rafa’s mental ability to not crack and keep the ball coming back like a wall finally got to Fed and he was not able to match Rafa mentally, crumbling badly, to give Rafa his first Grand Slam hard court title. Both of these great players come from a different background and have made adjustments over the years to improve and expand their game. But Roger is definately in my opinion the most skilled and greatest tennis athlete to ever play and I don’t think we will ever see such a specimen again after he finally retires – like Bobby Orr in hockey.


Giles Says:

skeezer. Shhhhhhh!!


the DA Says:

@ jane – “There’s stuff about that at Tennis.com and Tennistalk”

Not only those two sites, it’s also featured in this week’s Beyond the Baseline and Jon Wertheim’s mailbag.

@ Vinny – good post.


volley Says:

skeezer:- “Well, *sigh*, it was a nice written piece to talk about.” & “Ooops. Sorry for the interruption. You all were sayin something? ”

i expect you’ll do the same the next time a Rafa/Nole thread gets derailed instead of joining in the fracas?


Sandra Says:

I never get really why federer gets criticized for his davis cup commitment he has played alot of ties and matches for his country. One of the most of all active players and yet it’s still not enough for some people. Odd.


autoFilter Says:

Dave,

You’re not bursting anybody’s bubble about me, and it is becoming increasingly clear that you are quite interested in bullying as well as in tennis. Although I have appreciated the statistics you’ve been inclined to compile here from various sources, I find your behavior towards other posters beyond off-putting. You treat people as if they are beneath you, yet many of your own posts are replete with logical fallacies and deceptive rhetorical devices. My feeling is that constructing faulty arguments and being biased are understandable/forgivable/normal in the context of trying passionately to explain one’s perspectives with regard to tennis, but you very visibly employ deceptive tactics intentionally and with the direct purpose of insulting/damaging the credibilities of/putting in their places posters with whom you disagree (such that, apparently, they should “bite the dust”). Your methods are easily identifiable by anyone familiar with Logic, and insulting someone does not serve as a substitute for a sound argument.

Let’s see what we can learn by taking, for example, the post in which you attack me:

First, Dave aims to discredit me by attacking my claim of being a silent reader. Yet I made no such claim. Dave initially quotes me correctly (which is to say that you include the sole modifier “mostly”), but then he conveniently abandons it thereafter and begins to construct an argument opposing this new alleged claim. Of course, this is already an exercise in futility since “mostly silent” and “silent” are two entirely different things. For those unfamiliar, this is a version of the Straw man. Essentially, Dave has established a weak misrepresentation of his (perceived) opponent’s argument so that he may appear to refute it easily. It turns out, though, that this wasn’t so easy for Dave, because as we’ll soon see he still needed to employ further deception.

Second, Dave provides misinformation and gives a source to allegedly verify that misinformation. He claims, “You will find dozens of posts from autoFilter on this site between August 17, 2011 and October 2012 by Googling [ autoFilter site:http://www.tennis-x.com/ ].” What you will actually find are approximately 6 pages of results (this may vary by browser and setting; I’m not sure), most of which are related to other posters’ comments and some of which are redundant. My examination reveals that I had posted less than 2 dozen (18, I think) unique comments (prior to stating that I have been mostly silent), therefore NOT “dozens of posts.” I would very much like to see Dave support his evidently exaggerated claim (even though it is irrelevant for the reasons mentioned above).

Third, Dave reiterates his Straw man and attempts to further refute it by employing a faulty measure: “After 18 months of postings, why does autoFilter claim to be a silent reader getting a warm reception now??” The length of time between my first post on Tennis-x and my recent post is not an indicator of my level of activity during that time period. It does show, however, that I’ve been aware of this site for at least that long (years longer, really) and could be said to further emphasize (when examined along with my limited volume of comments) just how relatively silent I have been. Now, to actually address Dave’s question: I wasn’t making a claim; I was quite literally expressing gratitude for a warm reception. I have previously had posters reply to or reference comments I’ve made here, but I hadn’t really engaged in such relatively personal interaction.

Fourth, Dave employs an Appeal to Ignorance in an effort to convince others that I am not actually a Federer fan but am only seeking credibility: “Furthermore, its posts do not prove it is ‘a male Federer fan’ since it has made generalized posts about several players (autoFilter seems most excited by ‘Vika’).” This is an empty argument that basically says “there is no conclusive evidence; therefore I am correct.” Furthermore, Dave’s supposed supporting evidence approaches the realm of a False Dichotomy that suggests one can EITHER be a Federer fan OR make generalized posts about several players. In reality, these actions are, of course, NOT mutually exclusive. Also, Dave has yet again conveniently omitted any mention of my modifying clause (“by no means exclusively”) as well as the facts that many of my posts relate to Federer and most are in articles that involve Federer. Discriminating readers will find the actual evidence entirely congruent with my original statement: “I happen to be a male Federer fan (primarily, but by no means exclusively).” Dave has show that while there is not a shred of evidence to dispute my claim, there is a preponderance of evidence to support my claim. Thanks Dave!

Finally, Dave, having now lumped me into a group of undesirables, concludes, “This is what I mean: their postings lack honesty and truth. Why should the majority of us have to accept such BS? How brainless do they think we are?” The irony of it all, though, is that the only lack of honesty illuminated by Dave’s post is his own. But that doesn’t stop Dave from gloating “Another one bites the dust” once he feels he has demonstrated his superiority over someone he doesn’t know in the least. He’s not done there, though, for he continues by mocking the entirety of his pool of victims: “But don’t me stop this tiny minority group from its group therapy, support and hugs. :)” Apparently, it was not enough that he had (in his mind) so impressively conquered the repugnant faction; he felt he must also make an effort to shame them for finding common ground… Because, you know, people who feel wronged should never be allowed to turn to each other for support without feeling ridiculed or embarrassed.


Alok Says:

It’s amazing how much time some posters spend on visiting those sites that spread gossip on the players. and why am I not amazed that some of those same posters can’t resist the urge to defile Fed’s image any which way they can, so as to build up their own fave players.

If Fed’s a bad guy for not playing DC, then big deal. At least he didn’t use DC to gain a medal then drop out after doing so. Fed has consistently played DC and more times than some of the other top 4 players, but still the ridicule goes on.


jane Says:

So far, on this thread alone, Dave has insulted or taken issue with the following posters: juljo724, jane, margot, the DA, Giles, Wog boy, courbon, Ben, autoFilter, Kimberly and alison. As far as I can tell, this is a disparate group of tennis fans:
juljo724, Giles, alison and Kimberly are predominately Rafa fans; jane, Wog boy, and courbon mainly Nole fans;
Ben and autoFilter mainly Federer fans;
and margot and the DA, Murray fans.
Thus, there are fans of all of the top four players in this bunch of now 11 posters with whom Dave’s taken issue. So why is this considered a “tiny minority group”? It seems to me that these are largely regular Tennis-X posters who enjoy tennis and simply wanted to post some alternate viewpoints. It’s unclear why anyone has to “bite the dust” as it were.

As autoFilter says in his cogent rebuttal, it’s faulty to assume “one can EITHER be a Federer fan OR make generalized posts about several players. In reality, these actions are, of course, NOT mutually exclusive.”


Wog boy Says:

autoFilter,

What is large sum of money needed to include me on your list.
As I stated before, you convinced me, it is definitely good company to be with, as long as the others don’t object.
Australia’s economy is in pretty good shape, so I guees I will be able to fork the money … even if that means taking the loan.


the DA Says:

So Sports Illustrated is a site that spreads gossip on the players? Who knew? And there I thought they were simply reporting an interview that Wawrinka gave.

@ autoFilter – (applause)


Alok Says:

To be fair to Dave the argument began with two posters then others intervened, and it has now become several posters, because he’s had to defend his arguments against the original two and those who have included themselves in the group.


Alok Says:

Hit the submit too soon. I wanted to add:

This kind of thing happens a lot because friends feel it necessary to defend their friends and then it becomes a huge argument. If the argument was left between the original posters then it would eventually stop and they’d all move on.

But now, this is not going to happen as too many players are involved.


Wog boy Says:

What you plant now, you will harvest later.


sienna Says:

Dave has just gotten to matchpoints while autofilter double faulted.


skeezer Says:

@Sandra

Its called “Fed hating”, and there is plenty “closet” ones here. I just call it Jealousy. Records speak for themselves, and Fed has most of them.

____________

“the DA Says:
So Sports Illustrated is a site that spreads gossip on the players? Who knew? And there I thought they were simply reporting an interview that Wawrinka gave.

@ autoFilter – (applause)”

#unlike -1
#silence +1

Geez…..who said this?
Also, true, they reported it, so? And who said it was gossip, you?

The issue is a Rafa love/Fed hater decides to post it to defame Fed ( “Whats this?” ). It has nothing to do with SI…..


Alok Says:

Only the dirt on Fed is posted by the closet haters, but we never see the dirt on their faves where it can be found.


Alok Says:

#unlike -1
#silence +1
@skeezer, I don’t understand.help!


skeezer Says:

Alok @ 7:53 post so true.

Re; My 7:27 post;

secret code, sorry.


the DA Says:

@ skeezer – “who said it was gossip, you?”

Not me, my post was a response to the post @ 5:22 pm.


Margot Says:

@autoFilter
standing ovation
@Wogboy
always welcome


Giles Says:

Fed fans. Why so touchy on that interview? Wawrinka was only speaking the truth. #GrowUp


Wog boy Says:

Margot,

Thanks :)


juljo724 Says:

autofilter, you rock!! Great post, well written and thought-provoking!

jane, your post was SPOT ON!


Alok Says:

It’s good to see that things have quieted down, some have again cemented friendships, and/or reclaimed their stranglehold and have received what they needed, so maybe things will return to normal.


Alok Says:

@skeezer, hidden code, haha. I guess you’re a double agent and is giving out a street address or a phone number in that coded post?


Alok Says:

Fed’s views on playing DC:

Let’s talk about a very current topic. You are very esteemed abroad, but some of your harshest critics are Swiss. This is particularly true regarding your reluctance to play Davis Cup. How do you feel about this?
A lot it’s said about me, sometimes I can’t even comment or explain it all. I can’t fight against everything. I’m not frightened of making unpopular decisions. I have always planned to played Davis Cup in the future.

What are the difficulties of the Davis Cup?

“I’d need hours to explain all of them. In some countries, and for some people, this competition is not that important, but for others it’s different. When I make decisions, I think a lot about it. I arrived at the conclusion that for me the best option is not to play against the Czech Republic in February.

“I could have played, but then I would have had to take off several Masters 1000 events.”

Top story: Top Seeds Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka Cruise In Monte Carlo; Ferrer v Dimitrov Thursday
Most Recent story: Roger Federer Could Miss The French Open Or Wimbledon For Birth Of Third Child
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Apr 14 WTA - Apr 14
1 Rafael Nadal1 Serena Williams
2 Novak Djokovic2 Na Li
3 Stanislas Wawrinka3 Agnieszka Radwanska
4 Roger Federer4 Victoria Azarenka
5 Tomas Berdych5 Simona Halep
6 David Ferrer6 Petra Kvitova
7 Juan Martin Del Potro7 Angelique Kerber
8 Andy Murray8 Jelena Jankovic
9 Richard Gasquet9 Maria Sharapova
10 Milos Raonic10 Dominika Cibulkova
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Twitter | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2013 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.