Our Great Era Debunked!

First topic message reminder :

Now is a good time to reflect on the previous seasons and get a better understanding of what happened to our game in the last 5 years. We hear of course all the fans of Nadal, Murray, Djoko and even some of Federer say that we are experiencing the strongest era in tennis and they support their belief by belittling the players of the past, particularly the time when Federer was dominant and had no opposition outside clay.

Nowadays, the players we perceived as great in 2006 such as Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Ljubo even are no longer remembered that great and compared to Nadal Djoko and Murray seem inconsistent and erratic. There is something about the way Nadal, Djoko and Murray consistently reach the last rounds of slams, all slams!, that certainly make them look very good even if in Murray’s case, he has not won a slam yet.

However as some of us explained in other threads, the main difference between now and then is that the game is simply played differently and the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then. To compare the 2 “eras” I have highlited 2 matches played by the best players of those eras from the USO (06 and 11) and highlighted how the game and conditions have changed.

In short I have clocked the number of shots (length of court) played (that is how many times the ball travels the length of a court) on a few rallies and worked out the average time to get a more precise result. And here are the staggering results that you can check for yourself on youtube:


Nadal v Djoko USO 11
# rallies / seconds / time the ball takes to complete a length on average(ex: 1.32sec)
22 in 29s 1.318182s per length
22 in 29s 1.318182
31 in 44s 1.419355
14 in 18s 1.285714
Average 1.34s per length of court

Djokovic Murray AO 2011

14rallies in 19s 1.357142857
12rallies in 16s 1.333333333
18rallies in 26s 1.444444444
Average 1.38s per length

Federer v Blake USO 06
18 in 22s 1.222222
12 16s 1.333333
8 8s 1
12 13s 1.083333
13 15s 1.153846
13 16s 1.230769
8 7s 0.875
Average 1.13s per length of court

What this table says is that the rhythm played in 06 was nearly 20% faster than in 2011!! In some shorter rallies over 50% faster, helped by taking the ball earlier and hitting much flatter. This is a huge difference!!!

So what does that mean? It means that the players then, the best ones were the sharpest ones. Great reflexes, taking the ball early and flat and they were trying to take time away from their opponent to dictate and rushed the opponent into mistakes as opposed to today’s tennis where the retrievers push the opponent into mistakes by giving them smaller targets thanks to amazing retrieving skills that were unseen up to 2006.

But that’s not all. The game was faster, cause the conditions were faster, and that generation learnt their game with natural strings while spin was harder to generate and not as beneficial as hitting flat and shortening the point. Tennis was played at a smooth rhythm and everybody then was playing within the 20s rule. It was understood that there was no other choice so no need to learn a different tennis that could not be sustained over long distances, especially on those fast surfaces where taking risk was rewarding.

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What a lot of people here fail to realise is that the game has seriously changed and the skills are different but certainly not better. When the courts were fast in 2005/06, Nadal was being beaten by Blake…..3 times in a row in fact. Yet Nadal was good enough to have 2 FOs. The very talented Davydenko could not take time away from Blake. The latter holds a 7/0 H2H against the Russian cause whom could take the ball earlier and inject pace was simply better at that time. Davydenko could not handle Blake or Federer but we know he loves Nadal’s slower pace as long as he can handle a fair bit of running with the Spaniard.

For those reasons above, I think it is ignorant to believe that 2003-06 was a weak era. In fact in terms of tennis played under the rules and on fast conditions, it’s been the best tennis we have had and we don’t know how Nadal or Djoko would fare in those. Well I am certainly more optimistic about Djoko’s success than Nadal, especially if we were to apply the 20s rule but I would expect Djoko to lose more often than he did in 2011 being rushed by players who spent their life learning to take time away from their opponents (Nalbandian, Blake, Safin and others). We have to stress as well that in those days, there was no recipe to run as long and as fast while keeping UEs down, so no-one had a choice to play differently than taking risk and the more talented were the better at it. And Federer was simply the best when it came to “skilled” tennis. We wii never know how great his peers would have been without him. But on fast surfaces, it was not Nadal that stopped him from accumulating his slams. It was other very talented players trying their best but falling short. Saying it was a weak era, is as stupid as saying Nadal had a weak era on clay cause no-one was physical enough to fight with him there and noone won anything significant on clay bar Nadal. But as we have seen this year, it’s changing fast now that we have another physical player.

In conclusion, the game evolves and I don’t want to fall in the trap of some posters here, that is belittling today’s era, but we have to recognise that the game changed thanks to a few factors and those changes are extremely important is changing the scenery of tennis when we know small margins can have a huge impact on a game, a match and a career.

Source:
Federer Blake USO 2006 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8
Djokovic Nadal USO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYkXZwhdRBk
Djokovic Murray AO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQpKJYhjEcA
Difference obvious to the naked eye.

Tenez wrote:He appears as "fair minded" in his discussions but I can tell you that arguing with him for a few years, there is not a piece of single data he provided that did not help Federer winning his slams and not a piece of data that helped Nadal and Peter win theirs.

Hey? What are you on about?

Tenez wrote:- As we can read here being 30 helps Federer but not Pete. But it's not all according to Lydian

How did I say being 30 "helps" Federer? Why would being 30 help any player? This is too wishy-washy a point to reply to.

Tenez wrote:- Slow grass and slow courts helped Federer win his slams. Faster conds would have seen him struggle more.

Again, where did I say that? I have said that Federer is much a beneficiary of slower conditions as Nadal given his clay upbringing, plus he didnt have to change his game plan as much from surface to surface...making it easier to dominate with the same game.

Tenez wrote:- Wimby 2001 was slow grass of course helping Fed over Pete (despite having a goran Patrick final)

Tenez, we've argued this many times and I have provided loads of references before that the courts were slowed prior to the 2001 champs. I am not about to revisit this topic. You'll note that it RAINED the rest of the 2nd week making the courts greasy/quicker when Goran/Pat were quicker to SF/F...remember Henman being rained off for 3 days? When Fed and Pete played it had been dry.

Tenez wrote:- Pete had declined in Wimby 01 more than Fed was further from his peak.

Quote me where I actually said that? You are putting words into my mouth on quite a few of the points here and I'm not happy about that. I said recently, IMO, that I believe Pete in 01/02 had fallen further from his peak than Federer has currently.

Tenez wrote:- 2003-2007 was a weak era filled with names we can laugh about

Again source please? I certainly dont agree that Luber and Blake were the greats you make them out to be - or as you were trying to say yesterday, that Luber was the equal of Pete but born in the wrong era.

Tenez wrote:- Federer is more physical than Nadal (yep! it's there too)

This is getting tedious now. "Yep its there too" - so source then please? You are really putting words into my mouth now, or extrapolating what I said wildly to support your attack here. I have always said that Federer is just as much a physically trained and conditioned a player as Nadal - again read this link: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004
The 5hr+ ROME 2006 match always disproves your stance that Nadal is caveman lungs and Federer is fragile ballerina talent.

Tenez wrote:- Federer is beaten nowadays by better players, Pete was declining and no way would he lose v those new players if in form.

zzzzz....source? And grossly generalised and mixed together statements too. Which "players" are we talking about anyway?

Tenez wrote:- The best of Fed is not better than teh best of Nadal and Djoko on HC.

zzzzzzzzz....source? That said, if you put 100% Federer against 100% Nadal or Djokovic, then I dont agree he is "better", i.e. he would win.

Tenez wrote:- Fed's mono is a myth. Well certainly after the AO08.

The way you go on about his mono is a myth. Federer said he was virus-free after 3 weeks. Virus-free. Within weeks he was playing full events, getting to finals and improving on his results from 2007, getting to FO final, SW19 final and winning USO - and we're supposed to believe the guy was hamstrung by lingering mono? Yeah right.

Tenez wrote:etc...etc..

Thanks for the infinite statements inference.

Tenez wrote:Lydian honestly says he doesn't like very much Federer but recognises his great talent to set the tone as a fair poster but I'll challenge anyone and him, even, to provide a piece of text from him where parameters have not helped Federer in his slams quest.

I dont care for the man, never have. He's too arrogant for my liking. Yes I recognise he's very talented. Big deal.
Piece of text? What are you talking about? Sometimes I cant follow your English.

Tenez wrote:When not discussing Federer directly his views are very good and balanced I have to add.

Thank you for the patronising finale.

Nice try Tenez, lots of hot-air, generalities, word-twisting, extrapolations and no sources.
For a start, why dont YOU provide medical proof that Federer had mono beyond 3-4 weeks post-AO. If you cant then you saying he had mono beyond that is absolute unsubstantiated rubbish. Like alot of things you come out with.
The smell of hypocrisy concerning the general direction of what you say about me regarding bias is also overpowering.

2008 Australian Open
Australia Hard Q Federer, Roger
7-5, 7-6(5), 6-4 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-4 Stats
2006 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard F Federer, Roger
6-0, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
2006 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
7-6(7), 6-0, 6-7(9), 6-4 Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
7-6(2), 6-4 Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
7-5, 6-3, 6-0 Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
Ohio, USA Hard R64 Federer, Roger
7-6(3), 7-5 Stats
2003 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R32 Federer, Roger
6-3, 7-6(4), 6-3 Stats

Fed had won all his matches pretty convincingly v Blake 21 sets to 1!!!! But then he loses in straight sets. And he certainly looks clearly lethargic in the clip LF posted.

To add to that, Tenez's point in this article is that if defensive are at the top of the game i.e. 1+2 in the rankings then the court must be slow. This in itself is a naive point which has obviously not been thought out well enough. Of course in 2006 neither Nadal or Djokovic were at their peak so they would not reach the latter stages of most events on hard courts. This is irrelevant of how fast the court was.
Has it crossed your mind that these 2 'talentless' players are just playing good tennis and hence they are world numbers 1+2. The court might as well be the same pace but they have improved as tennis players- whether or not they are defensive is irrelevant.
So your whole theory is completely wrong, unless you can prove
1/ The courts did actually slow down
2/ AND that Nadal and Djokovic would NOT have been able to play well on fast hard courts at their peak. I seem to remember a certain 17 year old beating Federer in Miami in 2004 on fast hard courts. Or was that just my imagination?
And Tenez, if you do reply, which you probably won't, try to refrain from calling me names in an immature manner.

And Lydian, it would be good to have your opinion on this. :Do you agree?

Tenez wrote:Yes Mono is well documented for just giving you bad days. Again, it's about knowing!

Or not knowing! Do you work in medicine per chance? I think not.
As usual I have to provide references to discount what you say:

From New York times, 2008:
But Federer, who complained of feeling sluggish during the Open, said it now appears that the mononucleosis was the more serious issue. "The doctors said I must have had it for at least six weeks, which went all the way back to December," Federer said in a telephone interview from Dubai, explaining that he had now been medically cleared to compete. Mononucleosis is an infection caused by the Epstein-Barr virus. It can produce flu-like symptoms and extreme, lingering fatigue. Physicians often discourage those with mononucleosis from taking part in intense physical activity because of the risk of rupturing the spleen, which can become enlarged because of the infection. "When I heard it was mono I was actually even more happy to have made the semifinals of the Australian Open, because probably a doctor would have said. 'You're not allowed or can't play,' " Federer said. But Federer was still quite concerned initially. He was well aware that mononucleosis forced Mario Ancic, a former top 10 player from Croatia, to miss six months of the 2007 season, including Wimbledon. "There was a soccer player in my home club in Switzerland who was out for two years," Federer said. "You hear two years and you hear six months. So I was like, 'Oh my God.' "Federer said he was unable to practice for about 10 days in February and received medical clearance to begin training normally five days before the tournament in Dubai began on Monday. "They weren't sure I was over it, but now I'm creating antibodies and this really shows you are over it," he said.

Dubai Champs started March 3 in 2008. He received clearance from being virus free at least 5 days before then, so Feb 27 at the latest but given what he said he was probably virus-free earlier than that. Given that AO ended Jan 27, 2008...this fits the 3-4 weeks period after AO within which he had become virus free.

But according to Dr. Tenez, Federer had mono at least 5 months later on despite Federer saying he was over it, and producing better pre-FO results than 2007, a prime year of his!

I'll find later but look at those who have had mono. They keep saying they are getting better but then keep delaying their comeback. SO clearly even when you think its over you still have lethargic days.

If you don't want to see that Federer's 2008 year is full of weird one-off results, fine. I can't help you.

Maybe he lost the match because his opponent played better than him...

Off the top of my head in 2007 Federer lost to the likes of Volandri and Canas (twice). Was he suffering from the pre-mono condition- the state you are in before you get the virus? I think Tenez is right, infact I'll expand all his points. All of Federer's losses are repercussions of his mono virus suffered between Jan-Feb 2008. The doctors said his virus was gone by Feb.. but what do they know?

All players get weird one-off results, they can all have bad days in the office.
You're talking like Federer had full-blown EBV where you cant get out of bed for weeks because your immune system is shot. Had he had this yes you can imagine some weeks later after recovery he might feel sometimes jaded but not with the mild case he had. He didnt even know he had it until AFTER the AO! He had been training in Dubai as usual and in reality only lost a few days training in total. He had a very very mild, dose of EBV that quickly passed, from which you would expect no residual effects. This seems like wishful thinking to me on behalf of Fed-fans as an excuse for why he lost at Olympics, FO and SW19.

“it is without question one of the strongest eras of all time”
Andy Murray on TV some minutes ago on Sports Personality.

Henman Bill wrote:“it is without question one of the strongest eras of all time”
Andy Murray on TV some minutes ago on Sports Personality.

Physically certainly. Shotmaking and creativity wise I have seen better.

Federer was crap through 2008, losing to people he destroyed throughout his career (Roddick and Blake being the most outrageous).

He struggled desperately past Tipsy at the AO.

He lost to Fish.

This is so obvious it's like a smack in the face with a big wet fish but as it suits Nadal fans to promote Federer that year they must not accept that.

Tenez wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:“it is without question one of the strongest eras of all time”
Andy Murray on TV some minutes ago on Sports Personality.

Physically certainly. Shotmaking and creativity wise I have seen better.

Yeah, I can't see what on Earth Andy had to gain from saying that.

lydian wrote:All players get weird one-off results, they can all have bad days in the office.
You're talking like Federer had full-blown EBV where you cant get out of bed for weeks because your immune system is shot. Had he had this yes you can imagine some weeks later after recovery he might feel sometimes jaded but not with the mild case he had. He didnt even know he had it until AFTER the AO! He had been training in Dubai as usual and in reality only lost a few days training in total. He had a very very mild, dose of EBV that quickly passed, from which you would expect no residual effects. This seems like wishful thinking to me on behalf of Fed-fans as an excuse for why he lost at Olympics, FO and SW19.

Extreme thinking I am afraid. Fed did not know what he had but he knew he had something. It was obvious seeing him struggling and sweating like pig v Tsiparevic. I bet you watched this match thinking Tsip was playing awsome and Fed was being finally caught up. Fed had just won Nadal 5 times out of the last 7 encounters including an humiliating defeat weeks before in Shanghai 07 . clearly again trying to deny Federer reasons for such weird defeats.

Federer having bad days? How many of those did he have in the previous 3 years combined outside clay? 4 or 5 maybe?

In 2008: He loses many matches for the first time. Including this FO final where clearly only in 2008 you can find a score so one sided on clay. What special talent had Nadal in 2008 on clay that he did not have in WTF a few weeks ago in front of an aging Federer? What had blake in 2008 that he did not have in his other 12 encounters? What Had Karlo Fish and Stepanek got in 2008 that they coudl not find the other 20 times they played Federer.

You not seeing the case about Federer not being his self in 2008 does not help your "fair" and "balanced" image.

Pure comedy this pure comedy

The doctor himself said his virus had gone. Do you even know what antibodies are? Once Fed produced those, in February 2008, there is no chance, and I repeat NO CHANCE IN HELL, the virus was still affecting him. Comical stuff! He also lost to Canas and Volandri in 2007- was he also affected with mono then?
Let's be honest bb and Tenez don't even know what antibodies are.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:“it is without question one of the strongest eras of all time”
Andy Murray on TV some minutes ago on Sports Personality.

Physically certainly. Shotmaking and creativity wise I have seen better.

Yeah, I can't see what on Earth Andy had to gain from saying that.

In a way there is absolutely nothing surprising about saying something like that. Unless half the world stops playing tennis, tennis will be even tougher tomorrow. Now that Djoko has caught up with Nadal we are seeing how weak that clay era was in the last few years. Djoko toying around with peak Nadal on clay won;t make his record any good. People will say Nadal was lucky noone coudl challenge him physically. When the next guy comes along and outsmart Djoko.....same old story.

Murray is in the mix so of course he feels this is the strongest era. Sure...but I have seen tennis players make the game look more easy than those current top players.

A virus affecting you 3 months after the antibodies have been released! You should be a doctor Tenez!

Have you searched what anitbodies are on Google yet?

bogbrush wrote:Federer was crap through 2008, losing to people he destroyed throughout his career (Roddick and Blake being the most outrageous).

He struggled desperately past Tipsy at the AO.

He lost to Fish.

This is so obvious it's like a smack in the face with a big wet fish but as it suits Nadal fans to promote Federer that year they must not accept that.

Even more relevant is that FO 08 final. Fed played knowing he had not the energy to fight. Like GP says he rushed to the net like a headless chiken...cause simply he knew he was not fit enough to engage in proper rally.

amritia3ee wrote: A virus affecting you 3 months after the antibodies have been released! You should be a doctor Tenez!

Have you searched what anitbodies are on Google yet?

I have a 4 year degree in Neurophysiology and the Humoral System if you know what that means.

This is the news report from the NY times:
"Federer said he was unable to practice for about 10 days in February and received medical clearance to begin training normally five days before the tournament in Dubai began on Monday. "They weren't sure I was over it, but now I'm creating antibodies and this really shows you are over it," he said.

It's pretty obvious that Federer was sub par in 2008, at least at some tournaments. It was a weaker Federer than any other year from 2004 to 2011 inclusive I'd say. The results alone demonstrate that. But I don't think we should make two many excuses for him, I don't think he would.

And if you really want to say (and I'm not saying that anyone actually HAS, before anyone says I did!) that Nadal was only cleaning up because Federer was not at his best for whatever reason then surely you have to accept that Federer only took FO and Wimbledon 2009 and the #1 ranking again because Nadal wasn't at his peak either (or even there in the case of the latter). Most players will suffer from ailments at some point, or not have a great year.

So Fed's experts doctors know nothing and Dr.Tenez knows more? Fed himself said he was back to normal- if not he would have atleast talked about it like he did after Berdych 2010; the antibodies had been released and the doctors had confirmed that the virus was completely gone by February.
Tevez however reveals evidence that he lost to Blake months later and shows the stat that he normally beats Blake.
He can't accept that shock results happen.. Did Fed have mono when he lost to Volandri and Canas in 2007. Did he have mono when he lost to Davydenko to break a 12-0 (I think) H2H record. Did he have mono when he lost to Nadal 6-3 6-2 in Miami 2011???

Henman Bill wrote:It's pretty obvious that Federer was sub par in 2008, at least at some tournaments. It was a weaker Federer than any other year from 2004 to 2011 inclusive I'd say. The results alone demonstrate that. But I don't think we should make two many excuses for him, I don't think he would.

And if you really want to say (and I'm not saying that anyone actually HAS, before anyone says I did!) that Nadal was only cleaning up because Federer was not at his best for whatever reason then surely you have to accept that Federer only took FO and Wimbledon 2009 and the #1 ranking again because Nadal wasn't at his peak either (or even there in the case of the latter). Most players will suffer from ailments at some point, or not have a great year.

Well Federer might have played some bad matches in 2008- he wasn't necessarily on top form for the whole year- that's obvious. But to blame it on a virus which the doctors had proved to be gone by Feb while the antibodies had already been released, is quite desperate IMHO

looks like somebody has been told about antibodies.

Pity they didn't finish the story and tell you that antibodies only mean that the body has become equipped to contend an infection; it neither means the infection is quelled, nor that the effects of the illness are gone. And in the case of some illnesses it does not mean it will not recur.

These only go tenfold for a top athlete, who depends even more on peak fitness.

Bupa.co.uk

Once you have been infected with glandular fever, it's unlikely that you will get it again because your immune system learns how to control the infection. The virus will still be in your body but, unlike other herpes viruses, EBV can live in your body without causing any illness. You can carry and spread the virus intermittently throughout your life.

More than nine out 10 adults carry antibodies to EBV in their blood - this shows that they have been infected at some time.


Symptoms of glandular fever

It's possible that you will be infected with EBV but not show any symptoms.

Once you have been infected with the virus, it may take anything from four to six weeks for symptoms to appear. These include:
sore throat - ranging from mild discomfort to severe tonsillitis

fever and/or chills

swollen lymph glands - these will probably be most noticeable in your neck but other lymph glands, under the arms or in the groins for instance, may be affected

fatigue and lethargy - you may find that these continue after your other symptoms have cleared up

lack of appetite

headaches

muscle and joint aches

rash

So wait Federer was feeling fatigued during his singles match with Blake.. and then was OK in the doubles

And Federer of course would have not mentioned this at all. Remember his reaction after the Berdych match? It says you 'may' find this symptom. You need real proof Tenez, cos Fed hasn't mentioned it at all. And shock results isn't evidence- he got beat by Volandri and Canas in 2007, lost to Davydenko after long run of wins in end of 2009, and got beat 6-3 6-2 by Nadal in Miami earlier this year.

amritia3ee wrote:So wait Federer was feeling fatigued during his singles match with Blake.. and then was OK in the doubles

Have you ever played tennis? Do you have any experience of the different demands of singles and doubles? I'm guessing you must not have.

Even at good club standard they are so different as to be virtually different sports from a physical exertion point of view.

I'm with Henman Bill on this - all players get injuries and illnesses. It's part and parcel of the game and shouldn't detract from the success of other players during that time.

I doubt we'll ever know how much any player' injuries really affects them, unless they write about it after their career. Anything else has a large element of speculation.

I do know that Seles wrote about how much missing just a week's training affected her form for a substantial period afterwards and Agassi was afraid of even missing a day's training on Christmas day. So it's quite probable, in Fed's case, that the after-effects of having mono lasted into April/May and mentally even longer. But, ultimately, so what - tough luck.

And can I just add - it appears to be all the rage.

amritia3ee wrote:he got beat by Volandri and Canas in 2007...

Twice to Canas (ranked 60) in IW and Miami back-to-back, First two losses of 2007. Good reading here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Ca%C3%B1as#Return

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm with Henman Bill on this - all players get injuries and illnesses. It's part and parcel of the game and shouldn't detract from the success of other players during that time.

Yes, like Nadal's withdrawal from W 2009, or his loss to Soderling at RG 2009, amongst others.

Now can I do this as well JHM....?

laverfan wrote:amongst others

Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of laughing out of context!

Don't take the p*ss. Smileys are actually the more sensible part of amri's posts.

No Nadal didn't lose to Soderling because of injury
He lost because Soderling got 3 sets before Nadal, simple as. I'm not gonna make pathetic excuses here. ;laugh: If Nadal had to have a scan on a specific injury sustained during/before a match thats understandable. But injury was not and never will be an excuse against Soderling.

Tenez wrote:Don't take the p*ss. Smileys are actually the most sensible part of amri's posts.

Coming from expert Dr.Tenez.
You should teach Federer's doctor about medicine he needs educating.

And did some mention smiley faces out of context

As a conclusion Federer has won every match he has played.

I just realised. Amri's appearence on v2 corresponds with schools breaking off.

I have just realised. Tenez needs to take his medical pill.

amritia3ee wrote:I have good news for Tenez. Federer has suffered 186 losses in his career. However when he was 5 he had a sore throat. To get rid of this sore throat he took special Swiss antibiotics. I have found great evidence, which I cannot show as it is confidential, that one of the possible side effects of this medicine is that in 18.731% of professional matches his backhand will suddenly feel lethargic- and start making numerous unforced errors. His forehand however will stay normal.

Coincidentally Federer has lost 18.731% of his matches- therefore I have amounted enough evidence to ensure that all his losses should be discounted.

Sorry I can't make sense of that. Add a few smileys, it might help.

amritia3ee wrote:To get rid of this sore throat he took special Swiss antibiotics. I have found great evidence, which I cannot show as it is confidential, that one of the possible side effects of this medicine is ....

Ricola, the world-renowned Swiss sore throat medicine is nothing to be at. Even the UN advertisements say that.

So have Dr. Tenez and Dr. Amritia3ee now reached a consensus on the cure for EVB/GF/Mono?

Tenez wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:I have good news for Tenez. Federer has suffered 186 losses in his career. However when he was 5 he had a sore throat. To get rid of this sore throat he took special Swiss antibiotics. I have found great evidence, which I cannot show as it is confidential, that one of the possible side effects of this medicine is that in 18.731% of professional matches his backhand will suddenly feel lethargic- and start making numerous unforced errors. His forehand however will stay normal.

Coincidentally Federer has lost 18.731% of his matches- therefore I have amounted enough evidence to ensure that all his losses should be discounted.

I need my medical pills.

Go to Switzerland, they give great medical pills, however do be wary of the potential side effects.

Falsifying another members posts.

Aharsouleee

amritia3ee wrote:Go to Switzerland, they give great medical pills, however do be wary of the potential side effects.

I have just been told that Tenez is visiting Dr. Igor Cetojevic in Limassol, Cyprus.

bogbrush wrote:Falsifying another members posts.

Aharsouleee

You must provide a Doctor's note to prove that, BB.

(JHM... what is the score in the laughing contest now? )

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Falsifying another members posts.

Aharsouleee

I am an idiot.

(JHM... what is the score in the laughing contest now? )

Geddit?

Screw it, I'm not doing that without admitting it even to make a point. I frigged your post.

This article has gone highly off-topic. Wasn't Tenez making his annual list of excuses for all of Federer's defeats.

bogbrush wrote:
Geddit?

Yes, Gotit...

Screw it, I'm not doing that without admitting it even to make a point. I frigged your post.

Yes, and if someone is doing that, it is pretty

amritia3ee wrote:This article has gone highly off-topic. Wasn't Tenez making his annual list of excuses for all of Federer's defeats.

2008 only, if you please.

laverfan wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:This article has gone highly off-topic. Wasn't Tenez making his annual list of excuses for all of Federer's defeats.

2008 only, if you please.

I apologise for my error.

No wonder Tenez is annoyed I joined the site. I have disrupted his annual 'let's make excuses for as many Federer defeats as possbile' event.
Tenez