16 slams, an underachievement?

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 2:36 pm

First topic message reminder :

I'm sure any player, including Roger himself, before embarking on their tennis career would say that reaching 16 slams would be more than they could even dream of. With hindsight however I think this can change as a player progresses and you see what they're made of. There's been talk on other articles about matches that could have been won and were so close, in many cases in involving Roger. Its possible for a player to have great success but still leave fans with a sense that they underachieved, for example many think 7 slams for mcenroe was less than what his talent deserved. I'm sure that a lot Federer fans probably feel like they've rarely seen such immense talent and while have enjoyed his success must have felt let down on many occasions not to see it prevail. My question is pretty much in the title, despite having the greatest slam record do you still feel that his talent deserved more? Should he be closer to 20 slams and will you be particularly disappointed if he doesn't win anymore? To answer the question myself: yes to the above.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:19 pm

Okay, that last one was petty. Can I wave the white flag while cautiously clutching tight to my helmet 'just in case'?

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:20 pm

mthierry wrote:Okay, that last one was petty. Can I wave the white flag while cautiously clutching tight to my helmet 'just in case'?

Yes of course you can - I am waving one as well. Have a RedWine

on me!

I am sorry if I sounded all goody two shoes, but without wishing to rehash our boxing

I just did feel that one poster took too much flak, and he is very much a big part of the forum and writes some brilliant articles.

In the meantime, I think we should pick up our glasses, move across to the 606 thread and chuckle over the late lamented wisdom of Dr Sincere that bogbrush has thoughtfully brought for our amusement Laugh

by **laverfan** Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:27 pm

time please wrote: Actually you are quite argumentative but perhaps that is because you choose to respond to a certain poster that you vehemently disagree with a lot of the time.

I agree that I am. I like both players, and as JHM says, 'balanced' posts are better.

time please wrote:I haven't ever commented on you, before this thread, responding to Tenez - I just flew, I admit, at you on 606 thread because you caught all the back lash from me after seeing a lot of posts accusing a fantastic contributor (and that is based on what he brings to the forum, not all his opinions) of driving other posters away which a lot of people leapt on and which I think is unfair and I wanted to say that.

Distinguishing between what he brings to the forum and not all his opinions is a line very easily blurred, especially, if that is an oft-repeated argument. A poster is a sum of all the posts on a forum, nothing more, nothing less. There is very little one knows about a persona, apart from what is on display in this virtual world. Hope you see such a point of view as well.

We all have the 'Navaras' - http://www.ee.caltech.edu/~gowaikar/rand/navaras.html
and do display some or all in this virtual world.

Epilogue - I love the waving 'White' flags. As the Bard said, 'All is well that ends well'. Cool

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:47 pm

laver - I was not carefully typing. The first line of the post was addressed to you because I just couldn't resist another pop at mthierry (all hopefully resolved now) and I was therefore ignoring your attempts for me to be a little reasonable.

The rest of the post, including the bits you quote above, were for mthierry. I did edit later when I feared it all looked as if I was answering you. I was a bit merry, but not that p***sed laughing

I do get your point re about posters being the sum of all their posts on the forum - too bad for me, I guess Laugh

I think we have great posters on here and we are all a little entrenched sometimes, let's face it - without strong opinions or allegiances we probably wouldn't bother to post. I wouldn't ever intervene in someone's argument with a poster over a point, I might agree or disagree with one or the other and express that - but I do feel that it just got a little unfair, as I say, on here. I also think that one should respond to a post at a time and not, perhaps as some were doing, bring a posters history into every discussion even when not relevant - my husband would really be astonished if he could see me writing the last because of my ability to rehash an argument from 5 years ago into one about socks today Laugh

by **laverfan** Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:55 pm

time please wrote:my husband would really be astonished if he could see me writing the last because of my ability to rehash an argument from 5 years ago into one about socks today

I gave up and now meekly collect socks, pants, shirts, shoes and other bits from the floor to take them over the appropriate disposal and/or storage locations. It takes less energy to do that rather than argue.

PS: I did look at the edited version of your post and it makes my response (to the MThierry section) a bit silly. Whistle

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 11:19 pm

laverfan wrote:
I gave up and now meekly collect socks, pants, shirts, shoes and other bits from the floor to take them over the appropriate disposal and/or storage locations. It takes less energy to do that rather than argue.

Again, I am just not big enough laver Wink

Your post didn't look silly at all, just thought I was probably not holding my wine very well at all for a mo!

by eraldeen Thu 27 Oct 2011, 4:03 am

Federer overachieved, actually.

Many of his slams, specially the last 3, were won mainly because he got lucky and avoided both Nadal and Djokovic at FO and Wimbledon 2009 and at AO 2010.....

Bottom line, he overachieved. His last 3 slam wins, even his last 4 slam wins, if we count the USO 2008 were very lucky. Without luck he should be at 12 slams... idea

by legendkillar Thu 27 Oct 2011, 8:04 am

eraldeen wrote:Federer overachieved, actually.

Many of his slams, specially the last 3, were won mainly because he got lucky and avoided both Nadal and Djokovic at FO and Wimbledon 2009 and at AO 2010.....

Bottom line, he overachieved. His last 3 slam wins, even his last 4 slam wins, if we count the USO 2008 were very lucky. Without luck he should be at 12 slams...

So on the basis of that logic (if I can call it that) Nadal's sweep in 2010 was lucky as he didn't meet Federer or Djokovic at the FO 2010 and Wimbledon 2010?

Foot and mouth perhaps?

by **laverfan** Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:02 pm

eraldeen wrote:Federer overachieved, actually.

Should we do the same with the Masters as well, if it is not a Fedal match, it is not a true achievement, is it? Erm

Back to 'weak era'/asterisked slams. Laugh

by legendkillar Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:10 pm

laverfan wrote:
eraldeen wrote:Federer overachieved, actually.

Should we do the same with the Masters as well, if it is not a Fedal match, it is not a true achievement, is it?

Back to 'weak era'/asterisked slams.

Just as things were heading back to normality again Whistle

by time please Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:18 pm

legendkillar wrote:
eraldeen wrote:Federer overachieved, actually.

Many of his slams, specially the last 3, were won mainly because he got lucky and avoided both Nadal and Djokovic at FO and Wimbledon 2009 and at AO 2010.....

Bottom line, he overachieved. His last 3 slam wins, even his last 4 slam wins, if we count the USO 2008 were very lucky. Without luck he should be at 12 slams...

So on the basis of that logic (if I can call it that) Nadal's sweep in 2010 was lucky as he didn't meet Federer or Djokovic at the FO 2010 and Wimbledon 2010?

Foot and mouth perhaps?

Wasn't it MacEnroe who stated that to win a major you needed something like 60 % talent, 30% percent hardwork and 10% luck. I have probably got the first 2 percentages wrong, but I remember clearly that he said you always needed the 10% luck - good calls in his day, net cords, play not getting delayed when you have hit your rhythm - that kind of thing.

If Federer or Nadal have got lucky ever, then I think we can agree that they have made their luck ! BTW - Federer has a pretty good record of beating Djokovic at slams its just that anno domini is turning the h2h around a little now - but I think that in 2009 Fed beat Novak pretty comprehensively in the US semi, so maybe he would have swept him aside elsewhere? Nadal wasn't playing well enough in 2009 to be a contender - so your point is moot.

by barrystar Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:21 pm

In my view the question comes from the wrong place - far greater for me than the enormous achievement of 16 slams is the fact that it was created amid a fantastic narrative in which beauty of play and fallibility were always bedfellows:

2003 - insanely talented young player eventually overcomes suspect temprament to make the best of his gifts

2004-2007 - extraordinary domination, but avoids looking metronomic because of the sheer watchability of his play, his failure to conquer clay despite his very visible best efforts, and his increasing vulnerability to a rising opponent

2008-2009 - looking human, making more mistakes but still a joy to watch when on form. Will he get the slam record, the No. 1 record, will he get the clay slam? He struggles to 2/3 after highs and lows

2010-2011 - the grand old statesman, still playing beautiful tennis, still a trap for the unwary top 3, but more vulnerable than ever and still seemingly chasing goals which look ever more unnatainable.

What characterises Fed for me apart from the beauty of his play is that always the main story is his continued battle for the seemingly unattainable. If he'd strolled the lot, or not made a consistent go for it in his areas of relative weakness it would have been a dull ride (as the story of Sampras's career always was for me except for USO 2002). For me the difficulties Federer faced and never shirked at the edges of what he achieved shows how hard he always had to work and 'underachievement' and 'Federer' don't belong in the same sentence.

by time please Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:25 pm

barrystar wrote:In my view the question comes from the wrong place - far greater for me than the enormous achievement of 16 slams is the fact that it was created amid a fantastic narrative in which beauty of play and fallibility were always bedfellows:

2003 - insanely talented young player eventually overcomes suspect temprament to make the best of his gifts

2004-2007 - extraordinary domination, but avoids looking metronomic because of the sheer watchability of his play, his failure to conquer clay despite his very visible best efforts, and his increasing vulnerability to a rising opponent

2008-2009 - looking human, making more mistakes but still a joy to watch when on form. Will he get the slam record, the No. 1 record, will he get the clay slam? He struggles to 2/3 after highs and lows

2010-2011 - the grand old statesman, still playing beautiful tennis, still a trap for the unwary top 3, but more vulnerable than ever and still seemingly chasing goals which look ever more unnatainable.

What characterises Fed for me apart from the beauty of his play is that always the main story is his continued battle for the seemingly unattainable. If he'd strolled the lot, or not made a consistent go for it in his areas of relative weakness it would have been a dull ride (as the story of Sampras's career always was for me except for USO 2002). For me the difficulties Federer faced and never shirked at the edges of what he achieved shows how hard he always had to work and 'underachievement' and 'Federer' don't belong in the same sentence.

I think that is why the narrative of his career has captured the imagination of people outside the world of tennis - he is one of the world's supreme athletes and rightly respected as such.

by **laverfan** Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:29 pm

barrystar wrote:In my view the question comes from the wrong place - far greater for me than the enormous achievement of 16 slams is the fact that it was created amid a fantastic narrative in which beauty of play and fallibility were always bedfellows:

2003 - insanely talented young player eventually overcomes suspect temprament to make the best of his gifts

2004-2007 - extraordinary domination, but avoids looking metronomic because of the sheer watchability of his play, his failure to conquer clay despite his very visible best efforts, and his increasing vulnerability to a rising opponent

2008-2009 - looking human, making more mistakes but still a joy to watch when on form. Will he get the slam record, the No. 1 record, will he get the clay slam? He struggles to 2/3 after highs and lows

2010-2011 - the grand old statesman, still playing beautiful tennis, still a trap for the unwary top 3, but more vulnerable than ever and still seemingly chasing goals which look ever more unnatainable.

What characterises Fed for me apart from the beauty of his play is that always the main story is his continued battle for the seemingly unattainable. If he'd strolled the lot, or not made a consistent go for it in his areas of relative weakness it would have been a dull ride (as the story of Sampras's career always was for me except for USO 2002). For me the difficulties Federer faced and never shirked at the edges of what he achieved shows how hard he always had to work and 'underachievement' and 'Federer' don't belong in the same sentence.

Have you considered being a poet, Barry? Very succinct, clear, fantastic summation. clap

by legendkillar Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:34 pm

Beautifully summed up barrystar.

clap

by break_in_the_fifth Thu 27 Oct 2011, 12:50 pm

Well eraldeen at least you accept his first 12 Smile

His USO 2008 was the one of the most credible if we're using Murray and Djokovic as strong era players. FO 2009 I think he earned from his semi with del potro, who else can you see coming out of that with the win from that match? The only person he avoided at wimbledon 2010 was Nadal, at the time Tommy Haas was clearly a more dangerous opponent than Djokovic as proved by both his wins over him at the time.

by time please Thu 27 Oct 2011, 1:08 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well eraldeen at least you accept his first 12 His USO 2008 was the one of the most credible if we're using Murray and Djokovic as strong era players. FO 2009 I think he earned from his semi with del potro, who else can you see coming out of that with the win from that match? The only person he avoided at wimbledon 2010 was Nadal, at the time Tommy Haas was clearly a more dangerous opponent than Djokovic as proved by both his wins over him at the time.

You mean Wimbledon 2009 I think break? The struggle through FO 2009 illustrates barry's post beautifully - so often the bridesmaid to the outrageously brilliant clay King, his one chance to take the title in Rafa's absence and yet Tommy Haas and Del Potro both play brilliantly to try and deny him. Tommy Haas even serves for the match, I think? but somehow Fed unleashes a few brilliant shots to turn the whole thing around. It was his best chance, but this was a Fed weakened in spirit after AO 2009, looking lost and vulnerable on court and yet when it really mattered he found what he needed to come through - that's character and that's a great story!

How strange to rate any of the slams as credible or less so - have you ever played competitive sport, but even more odd to pick USO 2008 vs Murray over USO 2007 over Djokovic, a few months before Novak went on to claim his first slam?

I sometimes wonder if posters like eraldeen ever truly try to imagine what it takes to win a tournament, let alone a major. Just the brilliance of bringing your body to peak fitness at the right time is an art - Federer has the three Ds - drive, dedication and discipline which is why he has not wasted his natural abilities of speed, hand-eye co-ordination, and all round athletic flair.

by Tenez Thu 27 Oct 2011, 1:15 pm

yes nice post Barry, but for me, Federer is still an underachiever and 16 is not a fair representation of his hard work and talent. And in a way your post says so cause 2 slams difference with Pete when the former was considerably more talented, doesn't quite reflect on the one-in-a century phenomenon that is Federer.

It was a combination of factors, I already mentioned, that kept him grounded with the others.

by break_in_the_fifth Thu 27 Oct 2011, 1:38 pm

Yeah I meant 2009.

Yeah that French open was a tense time for a fed fan. Nadal's career slam came much easier; I guess the looping topspin shot is an effective play on any surface. Djokovic's career slam is looking to come even easier than Nadal's let alone Federer's as there doesn't seem to be anyone to stop him anywhere.

Barrystar, its true that fed's career is accompanied by a particularly interesting narrative given the records he's had the chance to break and what he went through for the french open title. Perhaps Nadal's career story will take off more now that he has someone to struggle with though its still somewhat dampened by the fact he's won it all.

In response to underachieved and federer not belonging in the same sentence I agree that he's undoubtably put all the work he could in. Sometimes though its not always the amount of effort you put in but how you direct the effort you do put in. In particular he could have maybe had more clay victories were he willing to make changes, e.g. the drop shot, sooner. So while his work ethic can't be faulted, a slightly different attitude could have seen him get more out of his talent.

by eraldeen Thu 27 Oct 2011, 6:35 pm

As I stated earlier, 16 slams was an over-achievement, actually.

Federer was never winning 22 slams.

Federer is not Graf. Doh

by break_in_the_fifth Thu 27 Oct 2011, 6:46 pm

eraldeen wrote:As I stated earlier, 16 slams was an over-achievement, actually.

Federer was never winning 22 slams.

Federer is not Graf.

So winning the same number of slams as someone means you become them Shocked

No wonder feds been throwing all these matches.

by Guest Thu 27 Oct 2011, 6:53 pm

eraldeen wrote:As I stated earlier, 16 slams was an over-achievement, actually.

Federer was never winning 22 slams.

Federer is not Graf.

Hello Pauline.

Congratulations on your recovery; I see that the meds have finally sanitized you... somewhat.

ghost

emancipator - The truth is evident.

by eraldeen Thu 27 Oct 2011, 6:55 pm

emancipator wrote:
eraldeen wrote:As I stated earlier, 16 slams was an over-achievement, actually.

Federer was never winning 22 slams.

Federer is not Graf.

Hello Pauline.

Congratulations on your recovery; I see that the meds have finally sanitized you... somewhat.

emancipator - The truth is evident.

I have no idea who Pauline is? Erm

by Guest Thu 27 Oct 2011, 6:57 pm

eraldeen wrote:
emancipator wrote:
eraldeen wrote:As I stated earlier, 16 slams was an over-achievement, actually.

Federer was never winning 22 slams.

Federer is not Graf.

Hello Pauline.

Congratulations on your recovery; I see that the meds have finally sanitized you... somewhat.

emancipator - The truth is evident.

I have no idea who Pauline is?

Of course not.....

You do not fool me.....

I am the emancipator........

Mwahahahahahahahaha...........

ghost

emancipator - May the serve be with you

by eraldeen Thu 27 Oct 2011, 7:23 pm

emancipator wrote:
eraldeen wrote:
emancipator wrote:
eraldeen wrote:As I stated earlier, 16 slams was an over-achievement, actually.

Federer was never winning 22 slams.

Federer is not Graf.

Hello Pauline.

Congratulations on your recovery; I see that the meds have finally sanitized you... somewhat.

emancipator - The truth is evident.

I have no idea who Pauline is?

Of course not.....

You do not fool me.....

I am the emancipator........

Mwahahahahahahahaha...........

emancipator - May the serve be with you

16 slams, an underachievement? - Page 2 Ee831583c4015537a3b5d510f3962d59

by Sponsored content

16 slams, an underachievement?

16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?

Re: 16 slams, an underachievement?