Federer US bid sabotaged by Fish withdrawal

First topic message reminder :

Federer was building very nicely in this tournament but his hopes have been destroyed because of the bye over Fish.

Clearly he has no chance versus Berdych, who he would otherwise have beaten comfortably.

Curses!

CaledonianCraig wrote:As I hear/read it Federer pointed out the break made no difference as he went six days without a game at Wimbledon a few years ago and still won it that year.

Course he did.

Take note socal.

If people want to mock this era or down play it then that is their look out. I think it is clear that the top four players in the world have supreme consistency at reaching the latter stages at slams. As I pointed out clearly on another thread in times gone by it was commonplace for players ranked at low as 20+ reaching slam semis with virtually no sign of any of the top four players. Now if we consider (as you do) that those top ranked players are the best players of their time yet they are NOT reaching every slam semi or near enought every slam semi then surely that is a sign of weakness on their behalf.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If people want to mock this era or down play it then that is their look out. I think it is clear that the top four players in the world have supreme consistency at reaching the latter stages at slams. As I pointed out clearly on another thread in times gone by it was commonplace for players ranked at low as 20+ reaching slam semis with virtually no sign of any of the top four players. Now if we consider (as you do) that those top ranked players are the best players of their time yet they are NOT reaching every slam semi or near enought every slam semi then surely that is a sign of weakness on their behalf.

.. or of strength of competition?

Seriously Craig, this line of argument is logically unsound - there is no way to determine the cause of concentration of titles. I'd have thought that was well understood by now.

So therefore, as I believe I have said before, does that then disqualify Roger Federer from being GOAT if you feel this era is flawed/weak or call it what you will. Signs are there for how strong this era is.

Roger Federer widely recognised as GOAT.

Rafael Nadal widely regarded as GOAT on clay courts.

Novak Djokovic with multiple slams already.

Andy Murray as world No.4 and even though Tim Henman reached similar heights in some areas he widely accepts Murray to be a far better player than he was.

If, BB, your claim is that there was far more strength in depth, say ten years ago and why it was a stronger era that cannot be proven or disproven I suppose but it certainly isn't stronger in terms of the top players of that time.

The way I see it is that twenty or thirty years down the line when tennis fans speak of eras as we do now then the eras spoken fondly of will be the ones with Borg, Connors and McEnroe, the era of Sampas, Agassi and Courier and the one with Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. Certainly won't be drooling over the era of say Hewitt, Haas, Agassi and Safin (circa 2002) for example. Yes some legends there but also a player that never made it big.

The difference is longevity.
If the 3 players played the best tennis ever and fought it out over a year, but then one got injured, one lost his form totally and the other lost his form a bit but carried on against 2 other not-quite-so-good players for 5 more years - then the era everyone would remember would be the 5-year one, not the 1-year one - despite the best tennis being played in the 1- year era.
Players A and B (Safin and Hewitt, say) would be forgotten in place of, say, Djoko and Murray - who sustained their game for longer. Doesn't mean the first two players weren't as good, but for a shorter period of time.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So therefore, as I believe I have said before, does that then disqualify Roger Federer from being GOAT if you feel this era is flawed/weak or call it what you will. Signs are there for how strong this era is.

Roger Federer widely recognised as GOAT.

Rafael Nadal widely regarded as GOAT on clay courts.

Novak Djokovic with multiple slams already.

Andy Murray as world No.4 and even though Tim Henman reached similar heights in some areas he widely accepts Murray to be a far better player than he was.

If, BB, your claim is that there was far more strength in depth, say ten years ago and why it was a stronger era that cannot be proven or disproven I suppose but it certainly isn't stronger in terms of the top players of that time.

Of course Craig, only someone who wants to pump up the earlier weaker fed contemporaries pushes this idea that today's players aren't better than the top guys in the early to mid 2000s. Clearly the emergence of a strong generation of talent in the Nadal, Novak, Murray, Tsonga, Berdy, and Delpo age range that spans about 4 years has lifted the bar. Both the immediate players before them struggled mightly with this crop of guys and the younger players in the 22-18 group have also struggled to cope with these guys. As Berdy again proved last night there is nothing deficient for the second tier guys.

Henman is a perfect example, I would say he was a strong top ten player a good proffessional. Is he better than Berdy, Tsonga, Ferrer, or Del PO I don't think he is much worse or better than the average of those players. The second tier guys are actually pretty much where you would expect in terms of competive strength, afterall that is why they are second tier guys to begin with.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So therefore, as I believe I have said before, does that then disqualify Roger Federer from being GOAT if you feel this era is flawed/weak or call it what you will. Signs are there for how strong this era is.

Roger Federer widely recognised as GOAT.

Rafael Nadal widely regarded as GOAT on clay courts.

Novak Djokovic with multiple slams already.

Andy Murray as world No.4 and even though Tim Henman reached similar heights in some areas he widely accepts Murray to be a far better player than he was.

If, BB, your claim is that there was far more strength in depth, say ten years ago and why it was a stronger era that cannot be proven or disproven I suppose but it certainly isn't stronger in terms of the top players of that time.

I don't claim either, I'm just pointing out that the cause and effect you cited in your post isn't actually logically sound. You have to go to subjective judgement - which is fine, by the way - but none of it can be proven in the manner you outlined.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So therefore, as I believe I have said before, does that then disqualify Roger Federer from being GOAT if you feel this era is flawed/weak or call it what you will. Signs are there for how strong this era is.

Roger Federer widely recognised as GOAT.

Rafael Nadal widely regarded as GOAT on clay courts.

Novak Djokovic with multiple slams already.

Andy Murray as world No.4 and even though Tim Henman reached similar heights in some areas he widely accepts Murray to be a far better player than he was.

If, BB, your claim is that there was far more strength in depth, say ten years ago and why it was a stronger era that cannot be proven or disproven I suppose but it certainly isn't stronger in terms of the top players of that time.

Of course Craig, only someone who wants to pump up the earlier weaker fed contemporaries pushes this idea that today's players aren't better than the top guys in the early to mid 2000s. Clearly the emergence of a strong generation of talent in the Nadal, Novak, Murray, Tsonga, Berdy, and Delpo age range that spans about 4 years has lifted the bar. Both the immediate players before them struggled mightly with this crop of guys and the younger players in the 22-18 group have also struggled to cope with these guys. As Berdy again proved last night there is nothing deficient for the second tier guys.

Henman is a perfect example, I would say he was a strong top ten player a good proffessional. Is he better than Berdy, Tsonga, Ferrer, or Del PO I don't think he is much worse or better than the average of those players. The second tier guys are actually pretty much where you would expect in terms of competive strength, afterall that is why they are second tier guys to begin with.

Illogical, because it's unnecessary. Federer has won plenty of Slams in the tail end of his career with these contemporaries and has been the best player over the last year, even as he's in his 32nd year. Where would be the need to boost him by ramping any particular era? The guys #1 even though he's some way past his best before date!

Could do the old top trumps match up of say 2002 V 2012.

1. Lleyton Hewitt V Roger Federer

2. Tommy Haas V Novak Djokovic

3. Andre Agassi V Rafael Nadal

4. Marat Safin V Andy Murray

5. Tim Henman V David Ferrer

6. Juan Carlos Ferrero V Jo Wilifried Tsonga

7. Albert Costa V Tomas Berdych

8. Yevgeny Kafelnikov V Juan Martin Del Potro

9. Sebastien Grosjean V Janko Tipsarevic

10. Carlos Moya V John Isner

BB, sorry but posters change like the wind on the subject of Roger Federer. He gets beaten by Berdych and we hear it is because he is past his sell by date yet pre the US Open fans were crowing Roger was in the form of his life on the back of Wimbledon win and form since then and what with regaining the No.1 slot. Hunt around and the drooling posts are there for all to see and pundits have been the same as well. Yet he gets beaten by the better player on the day by Berdych and it is because he is past his sell by date from being in the form of his life?

CaledonianCraig wrote:BB, sorry but posters change like the wind on the subject of Roger Federer. He gets beaten by Berdych and we hear it is because he is past his sell by date yet pre the US Open fans were crowing Roger was in the form of his life on the back of Wimbledon win and form since then and what with regaining the No.1 slot. Hunt around and the drooling posts are there for all to see and pundits have been the same as well. Yet he gets beaten by the better player on the day by Berdych and it is because he is past his sell by date from being in the form of his life?

I don't think you'll find that inconsistency from me, and you can't hold me responsible for what others say.

My view is that Fed is past his best (shock, as he's into his 32nd year), but still good enough to squeeze a Slam or two out and to steal #1 for a while.

And I didn't he lost to Berdy because he's past peak, I said he is past his peak as shown by the aspects of Berdys game that do him. Berdych has lways been capable of beating anyone on the right day.

The only times Federer has really got outplayed, were to Nalbandian and Safin. Pretty much every other time he's lost has been his own misjudgements. Sorry, but he was playing at half pace through most of the match last night. Berdych will obviously go back to his rotten level that he produced a month ago and give Murray a short test before self imploding.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only times Federer has really got outplayed, were to Nalbandian and Safin. Pretty much every other time he's lost has been his own misjudgements.

What about WTF vs Davydenko once

Never said you did but posts are definitely out there creaming over Fed's form. I'd suggest as well that Roger himself feels he was playing excellently and fancied another slam otherwise why was he so crestfallen after his defeat? He did say: "I've got to go back to the drawing board and see what's really a priority. I'm disappointed. I really expected myself to play better.
"I felt good and had such an amazing summer. I really thought I was going to come out and play a solid match. I didn't do that."

Like I have said before why are you so surprised that Fed has achieved what he has (whatever his age)? He is seen as the GOAT and I come to expect the unexpected from GOAT's. It is a trait often seen by GOAT's in all sports to do the unbelievable.

As for his loss - he never turned up with his A-game. It has happened before even when in his prime and a lot younger and against a Berdych strong mentally and playing to a consistently high level then there was only going to be one result.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only times Federer has really got outplayed, were to Nalbandian and Safin. Pretty much every other time he's lost has been his own misjudgements.

What about WTF vs Davydenko once

I think he was flat in that one. I'm talking about when both him and the other player are in the zone or on the cusp of it..

CC at this age it is more common for Federer to throw in bad performances.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only times Federer has really got outplayed, were to Nalbandian and Safin. Pretty much every other time he's lost has been his own misjudgements.

What about WTF vs Davydenko once

I think he was flat in that one. I'm talking about when both him and the other player are in the zone or on the cusp of it..

FO 2008

There's no contradiction between him winning and being past his best. You say the same, so why suggest its a flaw in my logic?

I am surprised he's made #1 for sure; it's not just that he's past his best but the game has changed against his interest (Agassi, in contrast, saw the changes bring it to him in his latter years).

He was outplayed by Nadal first time he played him, and you'd have to say similar at RG2008. All players can get outplayed at times....doesn't mean much in the context of whole careers though.

lydian wrote:He was outplayed by Nadal first time he played him, and you'd have to say similar at RG2008. All players can get outplayed at times....doesn't mean much in the context of whole careers though.

Spot on.

I think BB is right here, in saying Federer is past his best, past his prime.

However when he does play well, he plays as well as ever, I just feel that from time to time he throws in bad matches with more regularity these days.
Would you agree with that Bogbrush?

It Must Be Love wrote:I think BB is right here, in saying Federer is past his best, past his prime.

However when he does play well, he plays as well as ever, I just feel that from time to time he throws in bad matches with more regularity these days.
Would you agree with that Bogbrush?

More or less, yes.

lydian wrote:He was outplayed by Nadal first time he played him, and you'd have to say similar at RG2008. All players can get outplayed at times....doesn't mean much in the context of whole careers though.

Nah, read what I said. When BOTH players are in awesome form and playing top notch tennis. Those wins you wrote, only Nadal was in the zone.

I would say it is more like he is past his consistent best. He can pull it all together and put in performances of old but the consistency isn't what it was. However, it is possible to garner enough points to reach No.1 if his consistency dips only slightly as he can still come through matches where his opponents are not quite at their best so kind of masks the inconsistency. That is how I see it. Remember that returning to No.1 has depended also on Rafa's injury and Djoko's clear dip in form from his remarkable year last year.

He can pull it all together and put in performances of old

Well, I say he can for the first 2 or 3 rounds, and then the age kicks in and decays his game. It's beyond a joke how his very average level has kept his streak of Quarters alive. I believe Federer only really finds his biggest motivation when playing the top 3 now.

CaledonianCraig wrote: I would say it is more like he is past his consistent best. He can pull it all together and put in performances of old but the consistency isn't what it was. However, it is possible to garner enough points to reach No.1 if his consistency dips only slightly as he can still come through matches where his opponents are not quite at their best so kind of masks the inconsistency. That is how I see it. Remember that returning to No.1 has depended also on Rafa's injury and Djoko's clear dip in form from his remarkable year last year.

Ooh, don't agree on Rafas injury.

And 'form'? Well what else is the ranking supposed to be measuring? We might as well say Djokovic has benefitted from Rogers decline, or Pete's for that matter.

A fully fit Rafa against Federer has always caused Roger problems that is beyond doubt so his absence helps. As for form okay point taken but that being the case then proves that Roger has been in very good form this year and not as much past his sell by date as portrayed. He can still display that GOAT form but it just doesn't come as naturally or perhaps as consistently as it used to and when that happens players like Berdych will beat him as will others.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A fully fit Rafa against Federer has always caused Roger problems that is beyond doubt so his absence helps. As for form okay point taken but that being the case then proves that Roger has been in very good form this year and not as much past his sell by date as portrayed. He can still display that GOAT form but it just doesn't come as naturally or perhaps as consistently as it used to and when that happens players like Berdych will beat him as will others.

The only way Nadals injury could have prevented Fed from taking #1 was to have won the final at Wimbledon. Nothing before that implies any impairment. You're stretching it to suggest a years achievement is due to that.

It's agreed he's been in good form. Not peak, but good enough.

But then again I could suggest you are stretching it to say he has regained world No.1 by being past his sell by date. His form in the last year compared to the previous year certainly suggests he wasn't past his sell by date. Consistency I would say is now Roger's biggest problem. He can still dig out golden performances but they aren't as guaranteed as they once were. I would say he was past his sell by date when his tournament wins and slam wins and runs to semis come to an end but we haven't reached that point yet.

I think I said best before date, not sell by. He clearly passed his best before a while back, in that he was.... well, best before.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only times Federer has really got outplayed, were to Nalbandian and Safin. Pretty much every other time he's lost has been his own misjudgements.

What about WTF vs Davydenko once

I think he was flat in that one. I'm talking about when both him and the other player are in the zone or on the cusp of it..

FO 2008

One word: Mononucleosis

Best before when though? Certainly spring 2010 through until say spring 2012 in slams. Pundits and fans (not saying you) have been creaming over how he has been playing the tennis of his life so like I say trying to paint this as heroics getting to No.1 on a half-firing form and game is incorrect in my opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Best before when though? Certainly spring 2010 through until say spring 2012 in slams. Pundits and fans (not saying you) have been creaming over how he has been playing the tennis of his life so like I say trying to paint this as heroics getting to No.1 on a half-firing form and game is incorrect in my opinion.

Such pundits are fools.

I didnt say half-firing, I said past his peak. Hardly controversial is it? GOAT he may be, but all that means is still good enough past best to do some big things.

Yes on the final sentence I'd certainly agree. That, like I said, is what GOAT's do - the unexpected, the unthinkable etc. As for past his peak well when was his peak? Certainly his here and now form beats the hell out of much of his 2010 form and nearly if not all of his 2011 form for a start.

Peak was 2005-7, imho.

So how would you describe his form from spring 2010 through until summer of this year?

CaledonianCraig wrote:So how would you describe his form from spring 2010 through until summer of this year?

Spring 2010 - autumn 2011 very ropey though better than some results suggested.

Autumn 2011 - now. Much better, though mainly enhanced by winning tight matches rather than losing them.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Definitely had enuff when the forum descends to this kind of bickering!!.
-----------
I agree had enuff when this forum panders to poster who troll the same garbage every thread how long ago was Wimbledon ???? get a life

Who is pandering? Are you suggesting Julius or Laver should censor a poster because he writes comments that rile you? We are all a bit repetitive on here - the subject matter (ie tennis and its players is not huge)

I'd rather that the moderators encouraged posters not to launch unnecessary personal attacks on other posters. I don't think with your posting history about Federer in the last few I have seen, you are in any position to take the moral high ground over Josiah.

There is no point whatsoever in a forum if we can't all disagree sometimes!

The problem is 'time please', it's very difficult to stop yourself getting riled by posters who;-

1) Have shown themselves to have no respect for 3 of the Top 4. Rarely have such posters praised a good one win against their favourite player
2) Due to 1) they then have a set of standards for the other members of the top 4, that they refuse to apply to the other 3; i.e. use tiredness as an excuse for their man, but don't accept this for the others and worse talk in a disparaging manner about Nadal and his fitness issue - even alluding to taking naughty stuff
3) Often get caught out, with their daft double talk - but rather than even jokingly admit they are wrong, they then start insulting the poster

I personally fail to see why such posters bother to comment when all they want to do is be rude about the other players and then the fans of these players

I'm all for disagreeing and have done so many many times, with the likes of Bogbrush and Lydian, but can honestly say they come across a good, rounded individuals, who you wouldn't mind having a pint with

Whilst we can never excuse insults, sometimes certain posters not only ask for it, but desire it to get the reaction that fulfills their rather sad lives

i.e. in life there are some people who delight in making people miserable

Hey Banbro - don't really want to stir anything up again, but did just want to respond to some of the points you made

1. You're talking to a Fed fan who always read and sometimes posted on 606 from about 2008 - nuff said!! We were actually a much maligned group IIRC The thing is I am not Federer (shock!) nor am I related to him in any way, so I don't think it is appropriate if I get myself all offended on his behalf - in fact it's a little ridiculous sometimes, and certainly inappropriate.

You mention imagining having a drink with lydian and bogbrush and being able to disagree amicably - that is because you are all tolerant and interested in other points of view, and you all not only have a sense of humour but you get other peoples' - in other words, I imagine all of you being and behaving very much the same in the real world as you do in the virtual one.

We were at a neighbours party watching the tennis during the Olympics when someone made some very jokey comments about Fed's sartorial choices in Wimbledon's past, and a few people joined in with increasingly derisive and one or two 'unpleasant', though it has to be said, funny remarks, and then another lot began on the 'surly Scot' routine. I didn't agree with most of the comments, but I either changed the subject or laughed and chatted with them. Certainly couldn't respond like an enraged lioness protecting her cubs because I wouldn't be allowed out if I did - everyone would haddie-nuff of me very quickly and I doubt my husband would allow me out again, if anyone did feel brave enough to ask!

Okay so forums are for expressing things, or obsessing over things that our friends would bore of, but I still think the basic guidelines of how to behave should be the same. If you meet someone at a party you think is obnoxious you avoid them and talk to someone you like.

Your last point about some people enjoying making others miserable - that can only happen if you let them. I would suggest that sensitive posters keep away from pubs and desist from catching London taxis during next year's Wimbledon if they are so sensitive - there are plenty of robust opinions that guys love to share in both. Better to stay at home with the laptop and they can get all exercised without looking too, too silly!

"Is this love that I'm feeling,
Is this the love, that I've been searching for
Is this love or am I dreaming,
This must be love,
'Cos it's really got a hold on me,
A hold on me... "



Need Julius on backing vocals