Roddick Nearly Tumbles Out Of San Jose; Federer Wins; Caroline Continues To Crumble

The more appropriate headline is

“Federer wins a tennis match. Order restored.”

February 16th, 2012 at 11:14 am

I like that HR. =:)

February 16th, 2012 at 11:23 am

Good to see Victoria still on a roll. Maybe the #1 WTA player can actually HANDLE being #1 for a change! Go Victoria!

February 16th, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Anytime now the tennis media is going to mis-translate Federer’s latest comments in Dutch about Richard Krajicek: “The fans are really happy that I’m here, but Krajicek not so much.”

What Federer actually said was “niet slecht” – literally translated, “not bad.”

But some incompetent tennis media took out the niet and turned what Fed said into “bad”… or worse they mispronounced the slecht into…

In fact, colloquially in the Netherlands, when you ask someone how they are, they usually answer, “not bad!” And what they actually mean is “pretty good!”

In fairness, Dutch is Federer’s ninth language. He speaks it fairly well, although not perfectly…”

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/02/14/laffaire-federer-lost-in-translation/

February 16th, 2012 at 6:36 pm

This topic has already been discussed to death. Every conceivable scenario has been brought up. Is anybody still interested in prolonging this? It is time to move on. Life’s too short.

February 16th, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Gasquet, Berdych and Delpo are all winning in Rotterdamn too, I see. Could be an interesting tournament if all these guys and Fed get through. I haven’t looked at the draw, though, so don’t know who is playing whom.

February 16th, 2012 at 11:08 pm

This topic has already been discussed to death.
—
Not really. We have to give every Arrotard an opportunity to defend his or her God. Some Arrotards haven’t had that opportunity. It will end someday.

February 17th, 2012 at 1:57 am

Polo: “This topic has already been discussed to death. Every conceivable scenario has been brought up.”

Geez, it was only satire on a slow day. Lighten up :)

Why so sensitive to satire? Maybe because you helped to prolong the issue by prematurely jumping to conclusion after conclusion without checking the facts: “Nobody should be singled out for whatever happens… It does support the contention that Federer was blaming Wawrinka for Switzerland’s loss to the USA… Federer does give the best, most honest, most gracious, most fair, most intelligent interviews. There should be no reason for any man whatsoever to interpret his interviews otherwise.”

–

Humble Rafa: “Not really. We have to give every Arrotard an opportunity to defend his or her God. Some Arrotards haven’t had that opportunity. It will end someday.”

And here’s another who also helped prolong the issue. But really, your earlier comment made more sense: “If you live in a cave, everything is dark. You have get your head out to see what is right and what is wrong.” Except you made it while still on the bandwagon of those who believed Fed’s mistranslated comments were true.

February 17th, 2012 at 4:03 am

Oh Dave, I am amazed at how obsessed you are on this attempt to prove that your idol is infallible. Too sensitive about this topic that you had to dig up everything that was ever mentioned about it. You are a truly devoted worshiper of Federer. I am truly sorry to have hurt your feelings. I hope you will be OK. I will no longer complain so that you can continue talking about it until you have convinced every single person in this planet that Roger was indeed misinterpreted and was treated so unfairly by those who doubted his infallibility.

February 17th, 2012 at 6:50 am

HR, you are a prophet.

February 17th, 2012 at 6:58 am

Polo, polo. It took me less time to copy paste your hypocrisy than for you to construct your retort. So lighten up. And grow up.

February 17th, 2012 at 7:27 am

Hehehe!

February 17th, 2012 at 7:31 am

By the way, Dave, my hypocrisy comes naturally so it does not take any time at all. And thank you for the advise.

February 17th, 2012 at 7:35 am

As you may be aware, The Arrogant One lost 3 matches in a row. That is 1 – 2 – 3. But he doesn’t get his own seat in the Trunk. WTF?

February 17th, 2012 at 9:08 am

Geez, some arrogant nitpickers think losing a time-wasting Davis Cup singles and double matches glass deserves banishment into a trunk.

On the other hand, a smart tennis observer saw Federer lose a doubles match, but instead of seeing a trunk he saw opportunity: “As (Federer) shows every time he shares half the court with someone, Roger is hand’s down the best doubles player in the world. The pinpoint serving and knifing volleys, the incredible peripheral vision, the innate court sense and ability to find even the tiniest seam in his opponents’ defenses: Federer was custom-made for doubles. Bob and Mike Bryan are just placeholders at the top of the rankings until Roger decides to get in the game. This is no idle thought. Tennis more than ever needs Roger Federer. Chris Oddo over at The Fan Child’s Two Cents put it succinctly after watching Djokovic and Nadal club each other for five-plus hours in the Australian Open final: “do we really want tennis to be like this?” By which he meant: Do we want our tennis heroes to become increasingly like The Terminator — or do we still value beauty of play over sheer mammoth physicality? Those who are drawn to tennis’ old-school aesthetics over its present-day artillery exchanges want to keep Federer around as long as possible. On top of that, the Swiss legend could help resuscitate doubles’ reputation — another dream of old-school fans.”
http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2012/02/are_you_ready_for_roger_federe.html

http://www.thefanchild.blogspot.com/2012/02/djokovic-nadal-was-it-really-that-good.html

February 17th, 2012 at 9:33 am

What bothers me about Perry is the quantity of platitude and triviality in his blogs.

I sometimes read “The Spin of the Ball”, and I have to admit that his “parti pris” is more obvious that Ruan’s, in “Ruan’s FEDERER blog” (excellent blog, BTW). But Ruan never tries to hide that he is a Roger’s fan, when Perry hides behind the big and empty word of “esthetics”.

Come on. Roger is a baseline player. I waited years to hear, finally, what was clear to me from the beginning: he isn’t a good volley player, he doesn’t bend his knees enough. What finesse? The man is exceptionally strong and finishes most of his points with his serve and his power forehand. You can’t really compare his game with the play of Stepanek, or Llodra, who are more efficient – and elegant – at the net than Roger will ever be, and, of course, are better double players.

In fact, Federer buried the old school and open the path for the new generation of power baseliners. Even Djokovic, the incarnation of the baseline play, is inspired by Federer: he tries to improve his offensive game and ability to finishes the point of the net… But it is not the classical net game. No, just a way to finish overwhelming attacks.

February 17th, 2012 at 12:31 pm

^What finesse? Have you watched his matches 2004-07? Don’t know what Roger Federer you are talking about. The one I watch has the best finesse shots ever(drop shot?, short cross court chip off a rocket serve? ex;) Roger is by far the best “all court player”, ever. Saying he is just a baseline player is funny. Who has a better transition game? He can volley fine, just doesn’t live at the net as Llorda and Stepnek have too. There is no one who has more shotmakng abilities, at that covers most shots. Don’t know what cross your trying to bear here? C’mon man.

February 17th, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Federer is done in slams, who cares a ATP 500 Rotterdam, his fans probably, but they say if your “god” wins, “He still has a chance to win a major”, nonsense talk, at least a title always good at such an advanced age.

February 17th, 2012 at 1:53 pm

@ Dave

Roger lost those matches and that is all that matters. While I agree with you about the current tennis style, I think guys like Rafa and Novak can not help it. They were born and brought up in a different time. They grew up playing that extremely ugly grinding style but look at the amount of success it has brought them. This is what is effective in the slower conditions today. They are intelligent enough to ace the prevailing slow conditions. Even Roger had to shift primarily to the baseline but he has not been able to reinvent his game or physique to suit modern demands whereas Rafa has incorporated many things along the way. Roger used to serve and volley a lot in the early part of his career but that is a folly now. The body seems more important now than the skills. If it continues like this, tennis will become more of a game about outlasting or outblasting the opponent. The space for the middle ground seems to be shrinking all the time. The warped sense of “aesthetics” then will be about endurance, stamina, roaring and chest-thumping ability. Some of them will hail savagery as “poetry” and dismiss “finesse” as BS.

February 17th, 2012 at 2:59 pm

@ steve27

Roger has to fight for the crumbs now as he is well past his best. Everyone will go through that phase and then retire eventually. He had his time under the sun but his game is not good enough to beat the cyborgs of the modern game. Even Rafa is slipping. This is the time of Novak and his domination of the game. This could continue for a while unless a stronger cyborg emerges from somewhere.

February 17th, 2012 at 3:11 pm

rogerafa, why so anti-Nole today? Just wondering. Your posts aren’t usually like that.

February 17th, 2012 at 3:21 pm

Delpo/Berdych in one semi at Rotterdamn, Fed versus either Gasquet or Davy.

Also, Almagro continues to win – this is his time of year. He loves it.

February 17th, 2012 at 3:24 pm

mat4, totally a couch perspective (or armchair, if you will), but to me it seems like a constant evolution in each player, with small changes to adjust for rivalries. Sampras was more of a serve and volleyer, perhaps like Mac and Edberg, but not as pure? – Sampras still had a lot of power, that running forehand, etc. Meanwhile, Agassi was more in the vein of Lendl, as a baseliner, but both seemed to me to be aggressive, and both were influenced by the rivalries/styles ahead of them. Fed seems like a hybrid of all this, say Pete and Andre, and thus with an all court game. But Nadal is unique in that his style evolved from clay and he’s the guy who has made defensive play into offense most recently. Nole and Murray seem like hybrids of Rafa and Fed, in that Nole is more of an attacking baseliner (someone noted he has the power of Safin but moves better), looks for winners/angles to end a point, like perhaps Roger/Agassi, yet he’s added in Nadal’s defence/retrieval skills, which makes him hard to hit through. Murray has natural touch and gentle hands, and he tends toward counter-punching, but that’s evolving too, and he’s clearly adding in more power and aggression. Technology, surfaces, all these elements play a part in the evolution too, but it seems, too, that players influence and change each other. Maybe Roger and Nole changed elements of their games due to Rafa. Certainly Rafa changed due to Roger, to win on grass especially. And now maybe Rafa has to make some changes to play more aggressively versus Nole, just as Muzza needs to makes some changes to win his first slam, etc. And so it goes – a constant evolution, in part due to the rivalries and the changes those force. Like natural selection, mutation, adaptation.

February 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Jane @4:05PM

Very nice post and way to explain the things …..for a difference of some other posters who cannot handle the truth. You have to feel sorry for them;(

February 17th, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Should say ” ….and POLITE way to expalin…”

February 17th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Yes, Wog boy, indeed. Jane does great, as usual.

February 17th, 2012 at 6:56 pm

Watching Novak’s back court game is a strategist dream come true. This is why Fed still has success against him, as he can hit the ball short and deep, with slice, etc, to mix it up basically. Get Nole off the baseline!

Rafa is stuck ( like Fed was against Rafa ) trying to bash it out with Novak from the back court( and as Fed tried to do to Rafa, no didn’t work ). Nole, now, is a master strategist back there and knows all the possible angles and odds if a ball is struck to a position anywhere on the court. Never seen anyone able to actually cover Rafa’s full tilt FH and survive.

Rafa is never going to beat Novak again this way, that is, just bullying him around the court as he has done in the past to Fed. Interesting times, nobody is better that everybody anymore.

Fed into another semi’s of a ATP Tourney? Go Fed!!!

February 17th, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Sometimes short balls and change of pace do bother Nole skeeze, you’re right. And Fed, Rafa, Murray have all had some success with the slice, but Nole has also dealt fairly well with some slices, and he takes advantage more than he used to of Rafa’s short balls – although not as much in the AO final as I’d’ve liked to see. There were times he stayed back when he should have come forward as he had Rafa behind the line, far behind. Alas, this is an area he still needs to evolve. And if his rivals keep forcing him in, it may actually help in the long run. These great players we watch continue to work on their shortcomings sometimes even transforming them into weapon! We are lucky to watch the bar shifting and raising.

Leon and Wog Boy you’re both too kind. I am probably just stating the obvious.

skeezer, I think Fed should handle Davy, but who would you rather see him play in the final – Berdy or Delpo??

February 17th, 2012 at 7:33 pm

No, jane, not over the top. Apart from quite a good insight, your posts are always very tactful, and I appreciate that very much.
For the final (if Roger will be there – I hope, of course), I’d prefer Berdych. In my book, Federer still remains head and shoulders above Del Potro, moreover, indoor (I don’t count that WTF loss seriously, always thought that was a sort of hidden joke on poor Murray), so, normally, there should be nothing special so far. Whereas the match vs Berdych should have more nerve. Just my preference.

February 17th, 2012 at 8:01 pm

jane,

For sure Delpo, he is a fan charmer, humble, appreciative, and fun to watch. I haven’t got over the Almagro/Birdsh!t match either so there ya go :). How about u?

February 17th, 2012 at 9:06 pm

skeeze, Leon, I can see where you’re both coming from: both Delpo and Berdych have won a few matches versus Fed in the last couple of seasons, so that makes it interesting no matter which one gets through. I probably prefer Delpo overall, so I would rather watch Fed/Delpo, but either final would probably result in a good match. BTW, I’d be shocked if Davy upsets Fed, but if he does play the way he is capable of doing, along the lines of late 2009-early 2010, he might make it a match anyhow.

February 17th, 2012 at 9:21 pm

I haven’t seen Davydenko playing for a while but I would rather wait until he and Federer finish their match, last time I watched them playing was in Rod Laver Arena few years back, I was there, Davydenko was all over Federer, then Federer took bathroom break and I went outside to buy drink, came back and everything changed…don’t know whether because of my beer or Federer bathroom break:-)
I know, Davydenko is not that good as then but neither is Federer. I would like to see the match, have to check Foxtel?
Of course, Delpo is my man, he will go through to final, probably in two sets.

February 17th, 2012 at 9:49 pm

Dear mat4: You claimed “What finesse?” and “Federer buried the old school”. You can’t blame Federer for the blindness of his critics and the top players to the possibilities he has shown the Tennis World. E.g., this SI article after Federer’s first grand slam win at 2003 Wimbledon: “Federer’s finesse offers new hope for old order… Wimbledon champion Roger Federer restored the tradition of serve and volley tennis at the All England Club on Sunday. A year after Lleyton Hewitt stormed to the title without hitting a single volley winner against fellow baseliner David Nalbandian, Federer displayed his sublime skills from the net to become the first Swiss man to lift a Grand Slam title… serve and volley has been a dying art form over the past decade. Nine of the world’s top 10 players prefer to do battle from the back of the court… Federer and Philippoussis laid to rest fears that the premier grass-court event was being hijacked wholesale by the baseliners. “Finally you see a player with old technique; he plays the serve and volley tennis and plays the slice and doesn’t need the 140 mph serve to succeed,” Becker said while commenting on Federer’s artistry on Sunday. From the moment Federer rushed to the net on the first point of the match, he dished out a class in old-school tennis to Philippoussis. With his deft touches and acute angled volleys — he even hit one from just inside the baseline — the 21-year-old ripped apart Philippoussis’ Wimbledon dreams in one hour and 56 minutes. (Said Philippoussis:) “He’s a competent serve and volleyer and showed today that he can do everything on the court.”…With his textbook serve-volley technique, panther-like prowling of the baseline and unruffled on-court demeanor, Federer has plenty in common with (Pete Sampras)”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/06/federer_sider/

February 17th, 2012 at 10:54 pm

mat4 , you said “Federer buried the old school and open the path for the new generation of power baseliners.”

In addition to what I wrote in my first paragraph… you really mean Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Lleyton Hewitt, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic are the culprits who buried the old school.

To characterize Federer as simply a power baseliner, or even as just a baseline player shows lack of understanding of the dimensions Federer brings to tennis that formulaic players like Djokovic and Nadal are unable to master. Lleyton Hewitt touched on what makes Federer unique: “Apart from outrageous talent and textbook technique, Hewitt says Federer’s most bankable asset is intangible. The X factor. “Roger is the guy that’s been able to change his game up the most, purely because he doesn’t give you a lot of rhythm most of the time,” Hewitt said. “He’s sort of changed tennis. “There are a lot of guys out there now – (Tomas) Berdych, (Marcos) Baghdatis and (Fernando) Gonzalez – who can hit through anything, hit extremely hard. (Juan Martin) Del Potro, guys like that. “But Roger is able to nullify their pace by using different shots, different shot selections and spin. “Whereas Rafa has sort of got his A-game and sticks to it the whole time, Roger is actually able to do a lot of different things.” Power baseliner? You miss his genius and you presume that Federer must remain static.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/tennis/lleyton-hewitt-builds-the-perfect-player/story-fn793zm5-1225984245759

February 17th, 2012 at 10:56 pm

Mat4, we’ve heard your assessment of Federer’s net game (“he isn’t a good volley player”), doubles game (Llodra/Stepanek are “are better double players”) and finesse/elegance (“What finesse?”). Now let’s understand the views of a serve-and-volley expert with actual credibility in net play and doubles. John Newcombe won 25 Grand Slam titles singles and men’s doubles titles (27 if you include his 2 mixed doubles with Margaret Smith-Court) on the strength of his serve and volley game. Rod Laver, Jack Kramer and many greats consider Newcombe on their list of greatest players. Newk considers Fed’s net game as good as Sampras’s was on Wimbledon grass. At 2005 Wimbledon, the 3-time Wimbledon singles champ Newcombe compared Federer with Sampras and other great players who played Wimbledon: “(Federer’s) playing a quality of tennis that is probably the best I’ve ever seen here (wimbledon). It’s amazing. If you line him up against Sampras, give Pete an edge on the serve (remeber, Fed’s serve quality and stats improved further after 2005). Groundstrokes, both sides, you have to give the edge to Federer. Net game and mobility are about the same. Roger may be even a little better mover than Pete. Certainly his backhand is far better than Pete’s was.” He has a creativity about him that few players have — or ever have had, I suggested. “Absolutely,” Newcombe said. “He’s just fun to watch. I haven’t heard anybody, of all the past champions that are here, who has come up with a weakness.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon05/news/story?id=2099903

You claim that “Stepanek, or Llodra, who are more efficient – and elegant – at the net than Roger will ever be, and, of course, are better double players.” Are they, really? Federer has played far less doubles matches (195) than either Llodra (500) or Stepanek (309). And Fed played the vast majority of his doubles matches before hitting his peak since late 2003. Yet how do you explain that Fed has: (a) a better doubles winning percentage and better doubles titles won to matches played percentage than Stepanek and (b) a similar doubles winning percentage and similar doubles titles won to matches played percentage as Llodra??? Given that Stepanek and Llodra have relied so much on their net game, we have to ask why haven’t they they become even better volleyers, won more net points than they have and achieved better doubles results than they have? If Federer played as much at the net and played as much doubles as they do, don’t you think Federer’s net and doubles results results would have been even better than what they have done?

February 17th, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Forgive me for asking, but if Federer was and is so PERFEKT, and Rafa (and Nole) are not, hawcome he has such bad H2H with Rafa, and if we take out first five matches when Nole was young, not so PERFEKT H2H with Nole either. If you look at Federer face when he is playing Nadal you can see that he doesn’t believe he can win, even when he winns first set, AO. Such a PERFEKT “best ever” allround player should be able to beat those one way players ( Rafa, Nole) easy, don’t you think so ?

February 17th, 2012 at 11:18 pm

C’mon Wog boy, respect, but no one here is saying Fed is perfect. Who said that in these posts?

Are you serious in saying that Fed can’t believe he can win? How did he get 16 slams? It’s now a known fact that every top player has a bad matchup. So?

You, along with the Rafa love fest, want to hang your hat on the H2H and that is all that matters, but it will NEVER qualify. “IF” scenarios are fun, but is not what “IS”.

We have discussed this in an endless beatdown. The Tennis tournament format is based against a “field of players”, not a H2H competition. If you want to debate that scenario, let’s go. Nole and Rafa have there own thorns for H2H, and for all its an endless, fruitless scenario to judge or determine each individual’s greatness.

The debate about greatness obviously is a never ending target as of late Nole has written his own stamp on things. But as the records of achievements stands today, there is no denying who stands at the top.

February 17th, 2012 at 11:37 pm

Skeeze, the way I read comments is that Federer has everything in his game, baseline game, net game drop shots and so on on, and so on… On the other side Rafa and Nole are grindig baseliners and nothing else, with raw power that are destroying beauty of the game. Even if you don’t use word “perfekt” (german spelling) suggestion is clear!
If I am wrong, and I don’t think so, then I am sorry.

February 17th, 2012 at 11:51 pm

Skeeze, I am uni drop out with a lot of life experience a that is what I am using to judge people, not uni deegree. I can tell you that Federer doubts his chances when he plays Nadal same as he is pretty confident when he plays Novak. That is the way it is. Trust me :)

February 18th, 2012 at 12:03 am

Wog boy,

Respect. Understand what you are trying to say.

February 18th, 2012 at 12:50 am

Wog Boy: Why is it when bad arguments against Federer are debunked… that the retort is irrational (e.g., oooo, Federer is so perfect we cannot critcize him with nosensical arguments whenever we need to feel good about ourselves).

Your arguments about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic misses the big picture and fails the reverse argument test:
– To be the best, you do not have to be perfect in everything — just better in more things that matter than your rivals are able to achieve. No sportsman, human, machine or anything on earth is perfect — this has been true throughout human history so it is ridiculous to use arguments like this or that player should be perfect otherwise he is not the best. Gymnast Nadia Comaneci won 7 perfect 10 scores at the 1976 Olympics, but even Comaneci was not perfect — even though no other gymnast has scored more perfect scores at any Olympics. Success is relative in any meritocratic system — e.g., a player is more successful relative to other players in the field based on how well he did on the various measures that define success. At the end of the day, Federer may lose some matches to Nadal, but Nadal loses even more matches to other players in the field of competition than Fed does. That’s why Federer has won more grand slam titles (12) than Nadal (10) ever since Nadal won his first grand slam title — and why Bjorn Borg won more grand slam titles (11) than Nadal (10) around the time of Nadal’s 25th birthday in June 2011.

And that’s why Federer’s resume of success is more comprehensive and complete — by far — than any other player in tennis history. It’s not just the 22 major titles — 16 grand slam and 6 year-end championships — that Federer has continued to add every year since 2003. Do a search for how many times and where the name ‘Federer’ appears throughout this link. Nadal could still beat Fed another 10 times and will never come close to what Federer has achieved. No one has in the ATP era since 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records

In 20 or 30 years, most people — except diehard fans — will remember what Federer has achieved and disregard his losses to Nadal. Few remember or realize that Rod Laver or Pancho Gonzalez lost more major finals to Ken Rosewall (whom I consider a greater player than what Nadal has so far achieved)

Now for the reverse argument test:

Since 2009 Cincinnati,

– Djokovic in his prime has beaten Nadal in his prime 10-2

– Aging Federer past his prime has beaten Djokovic in his prime 7-6

– Nadal in his prime has beaten aging Federer past his prime 5-2

I guess Federer should feel complimented that critics like you are so impressed by his standard of play that you forget that Federer and Nadal are really in different generations (even though Nadal matured early) while Nadal and Djokovic are from the same generation.

But bottom line, Federer was able to handle all his rivals from the his generation. Nadal has failed to handle his rival from his generation. Djokovic has failed to handle Federer (despite his recent success, he not only is 6-7 but almost lost two grand slam semifinals to Federer). And Nadal is less successful with Djokovic than Federer is with Nadal.

Let’s not forget two other key differences between Federer and the younger generation of Nadal and Djokovic:

– Federer and his generation had to make the transition and adapt from the different court speed and string/racquet technology of the late 1990s to the changes since 2002 — while Nadal and Djokovic started their careers on these surfaces and using these technologies.

– since 2008, Federer not only was leaving his physical prime, he had other disadvantages (e.g., illness/ailments such as mono, pneumonia, back injuries; fatherhood with twins; president of ATP Players Council since mid-2008; growing philantrophic and endorsement/business responsibilities; etc that took him away from tennis. As well as a mediocre coach in Paul Annacone who has failed to achieve grand slam success in over a decade.

Again I ask: so what if Nadal beats Federer if he has failed even worse against a rival from his own generation and his success outside clay is far less comprehensive than Federer? Just because Nadal and Uncle Toni were obsessed about beating Federer, put a target on Fed’s back and trained to beat Federer does not mean they can hijack Fed’s success that Nadal has not earned.

February 18th, 2012 at 11:18 am

@Dave:

Read finally your posts. Sorry I didn’t do it sooner, but I didn’t have access to the net.

I didn’t really mean to sound so serious, but when I look at my post, it seems serious.

Your arguments, though perspicacious (I enjoyed reading your posts), are just like mine: flawed and debatable. (Be convinced that I have an argument for every one of yours. It is a professional deformation.)

The truths that are quantifiable are in the ATP world tour records. The rest… is a matter of debate and point of view.

I plan to assess Roger’s game like an improved Lendl in one of my following post…

February 18th, 2012 at 3:03 pm

Dave, I explained myself in two posts to Skeezer.
I don’t have a problem with Federer beeing GOAT, if you read my old posts you would see that I was saying ” arguably GOAT” and the only reason for using word “arguably” was Rod Laver not beeing able to play 4-5 years GS tournaments when he was most superior player at the time, winning all four before and after the ban. One more thing when it comes to Ken Rosewall, he won most of his GS against amaters and that was always question mark against his name.
So yes, Federer is GOAT but Novak is #1 and best in the world and that is what matters at the moment, to me, present and not past, even him beeing grinding baseliner and not so nice to watch as floating Federer:-)
Cheers

February 18th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

@Wog bog:

Nah… those Fed fans…

February 18th, 2012 at 3:35 pm

@mat4

:-)

February 18th, 2012 at 6:24 pm

mat4 Says:
@Wog bog:

Mat4, is it a typo or smth intentional? If the latter, then you should use a capital…

February 18th, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Leon, I didn’t know you are familiar with Serbian (Slavic) languages. There is only one Bog and that is definitely not me:-)
It was mistake by mat4, Y and G letters are one above other, I am sure. I am not even as good posters as quite few of you, but I am doing my best to get closer to some of you, posters.

February 18th, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Wog boy, that was a light joke, of course. Yes, I am familiar…to some extent…
If you’re watching RF-JMDP, I hope you have some aesthetic pleasure, even not being a Roger fan. It’s only first set, though…

February 19th, 2012 at 8:43 am

Leon, o no……not again:)

I am not his fan, but only moron can say that his game is not aesthetic, like I said once, he moves around the court like Casper the Friendly Ghoast, if you remember Casper:)

February 19th, 2012 at 3:29 pm