Sorry Federer fans, your man is gonna lose

Hi,

thought Id register after years of following this board and the old 606.

I haven't got an axe to grind against Roger Federer. I think he's the most talented and varied player on tour and historically has played the highest level of tennis we've ever seen.

However, he has almost zero chance of beating Rafa tomorrow.

It's laudable that Fed fans are so doggedly supportive of their man (not necessarily on this board, but other forums) but I think a dose of realism is in order. Whenever this matchup occurs we hear the same recycled reasons for why Federer can win but the outcome is nearly always the same.

Federer's had so many close-but-no-cigar moments against Nadal in the last 5-6 years that this match is a virtual formality.

He could have evened the score at 1 set all in the 2008 WIM if he'd held serve.

He could have led by a set in the 2009 AO if he'd held serve.

He could have led Nadal by a set in the 2011 FO if he'd held serve.

He could have led by 2 sets in the 2012 AO if he'd held serve.

Federer had only been broken twice in the grass season in the lead up to the 2008 final; Fed still lost.

Nadal played more than 5 hours in the semi final while Fed had an easier time in the earlier semi in 2009; Fed still lost.

Federer was the guy who stopped Novak's run in 2011, while Nadal went to 5 sets in the first round, and was a point away from losing a 3rd set several times against Anujar in the second; Fed still lost.

Federer was the guy on the winning streak at the start of 2012 after dominating the indoor 2011 season, and after thrashing Nadal in the WTF, and not losing a set en route to their meeting (compared to the 1 Nadal lost to Berdych in the round before); Fed still lost.

These are just a few examples; there are many more.

I agree that Federer's playing well (compared to 2013), and that Nadal's form has dropped in the last couple of rounds (but was awesome against Monfils in night conditions), but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that that's rarely mattered in the past so I fail to see why it should matter tomorrow. Indeed, Fed was playing even better at the AUS open in 2012, while Rafa was arguably playing worse, and still lost. In the two years since then Fed has gotten slower while Rafa has maintained his level. The slower night conditions will make it very difficult for Federer to get the ball past Rafa.

Oh and by the way, Rafa was practising without any tape today   

Anyway, sorry about the long post

Rafa in 3 tight sets.

Rafa to beat Warwinka in 3 for slam number 14.

Well that post should leave you open to a few comments from the
"im not such a lover of Rafa Nadal club".. A fan I maybe but Im not so optimistic and
Bye the way I have already corrected you on the other thread.. Rafa is indeed wearing a dressing on the palm of his hand.   

zzzzzzzzzzzz

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzz

See what I mean ZZ    and he is taking it easy on you !!!!

No worries Haddie, thanks for the update.

Cant wait for the match. I have a day off work tomorrow   

I think on here the people you are really talking to are the Nadal fans trying to downplay his chances with this crate / chasm thing.

I agree with you; 32/33 year old Federer has next to no chance at this stage of their careers and on this very bouncy surface; it could only be worse at RG.

crate ???????   

Haddie-nuff wrote:crate ???????   

I meant to say crater, which actually is as stupid as crate but the difference being the person who called it a crater wasn't joking.

There certainly seems to be a sense among Federer fans that Fed will lose. And among Rafa fans that Rafa will lose. Luckily for us Murray fans he's already lost so we don't have to say he'll lose.

Oh dear Boggo are you losing it ???... been away from the forum too long.. not as sharp as you once were.??.. just like your idol 

JuliusHMarx wrote:There certainly seems to be a sense among Federer fans that Fed will lose. And among Rafa fans that Rafa will lose. Luckily for us Murray fans he's already lost so we don't have to say he'll lose.

Speaking quite honestly I think the one with the best chance to win the championship is Stan.. and thats not downplaying Rafa´s chances its giving credit where its due

The way I see it is that this is the best chance Roger has had to beat Rafa for a few years. Why?

Well going by posters here, pundits and all reports Roger is displaying form like we haven't seen for around two years (at least)so that is a positive for him straight away.

Rafa has looked vulnerable in his last two matches. Nishikori should have won at least a set and Dimitrov did win a set and may have been two. If players not deemed in the same class as Fed can cause Rafa problems then Roger certainly can. I know I would not be shocked if Roger won.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh dear Boggo are you losing it ???... been away from the forum too long.. not as sharp as you once were.??.. just like your idol 

Unlike yourself, who is instantly recognisable by using words like idol and so on.

By the way, did you reply about exactly what you meant Julius was being predictable about on the other thread?

CaledonianCraig wrote:The way I see it is that this is the best chance Roger has had to beat Rafa for a few years. Why?

Well going by posters here, pundits and all reports Roger is displaying form like we haven't seen for around two years (at least)so that is a positive for him straight away.

Rafa has looked vulnerable in his last two matches. Nishikori should have won at least a set and Dimitrov did win a set and may have been two. If players not deemed in the same class as Fed can cause Rafa problems then Roger certainly can. I know I would not be shocked if Roger won.

You mean Mats   Wilander don't you?   

Fed will be down to #8 after this event; there are 7 better players than him right now and I'm a realist.

Yup - I think Nadal is going to win in 3 or 4 sets regardless of blisters, and I think he's going to be looking at #14 and 2 career slams as well.

No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

lol, if you think I was serious about it being a crater, you must have thought the guys who called peak Federer a magician/artist were loons who needed urgent treatment, since there is nothing magical about a guy and a racquet. or are Nadal fans incapable of metaphors, and such? come off it, please.

in geography, a crater is a bowl shaped depression, with a raised rim, in the world of similes I'd hazard a guess and say that calling that blister a crater is a lot closer than calling Federer a magician of some sort... or saying his forehand was liquid vapour, when every single component which went into hitting the forehand is quite obviously a solid. or calling Pete Sampras pistol Pete when wielded a racquet, not a gun. or calling Borg iceman, when he quite obviously wasn't made of ice, or calling McEnroe "superbrat" when brat is only applicable to a child... but no, jokingly referring to a particularly bad blister as a crater is going too far, must be absolutely dumbfounded when you hear of boxers called "the cobra" when they're quite obviously humans... or "St. George" when they've never undergone beatification... or a football team called arsenal when they are all human beings who arent allowed to carry any firearms onto the field... Or an English national team called the Three Lions when lions aren't even native to England....

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh dear Boggo are you losing it ???... been away from the forum too long.. not as sharp as you once were.??.. just like your idol 

Unlike yourself, who is instantly recognisable by using words like idol and so on.

By the way, did you reply about exactly what you meant Julius was being predictable about on the other thread?

I did answer you... as I said you tell me you know more about what I am thinking than I do. Now would I argue with someone who knows it all !!!!!  

kingraf wrote:lol, if you think I was serious about it being a crater, you must have thought the guys who called peak Federer a magician/artist were loons who needed urgent treatment, since there is nothing magical about a guy and a racquet. or are Nadal fans incapable of metaphors, and such? come off it, please.

in geography, a crater is a bowl shaped depression, with a raised rim, in the world of similes I'd hazard a guess and say that calling that blister a crater is a lot closer than calling Federer a magician of some sort... or saying his forehand was liquid vapour, when every single component which went into hitting the forehand is quite obviously a solid.  or calling Pete Sampras pistol Pete when wielded a racquet, not a gun. or calling Borg iceman, when he quite obviously wasn't made of ice, or calling McEnroe "superbrat" when brat is only applicable to a child... but no, jokingly referring to a particularly bad blister as a crater is going too far, must be absolutely dumbfounded when you hear of boxers called "the cobra" when they're quite obviously humans... or "St. George" when they've never undergone beatification... or a football team called arsenal when they are all human beings who arent allowed to carry any firearms onto the field... Or an English national team called the Three Lions when lions aren't even native to England....

Are the BBC loons in this article? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/25816658

We didn't think you were seriously calling it a crater, but we did think you might be exaggerating for the purpose of making Rafa appear even more impressive when he wins tomorrow - beating Fed against insurmountable odds playing with a career-threatening crater of a blister - you know the sort of thing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:lol, if you think I was serious about it being a crater, you must have thought the guys who called peak Federer a magician/artist were loons who needed urgent treatment, since there is nothing magical about a guy and a racquet. or are Nadal fans incapable of metaphors, and such? come off it, please.

in geography, a crater is a bowl shaped depression, with a raised rim, in the world of similes I'd hazard a guess and say that calling that blister a crater is a lot closer than calling Federer a magician of some sort... or saying his forehand was liquid vapour, when every single component which went into hitting the forehand is quite obviously a solid.  or calling Pete Sampras pistol Pete when wielded a racquet, not a gun. or calling Borg iceman, when he quite obviously wasn't made of ice, or calling McEnroe "superbrat" when brat is only applicable to a child... but no, jokingly referring to a particularly bad blister as a crater is going too far, must be absolutely dumbfounded when you hear of boxers called "the cobra" when they're quite obviously humans... or "St. George" when they've never undergone beatification... or a football team called arsenal when they are all human beings who arent allowed to carry any firearms onto the field... Or an English national team called the Three Lions when lions aren't even native to England....

Are the BBC loons in this article? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/25816658

We didn't think you were seriously calling it a crater

Really?

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:crate ???????   

I meant to say crater, which actually is as stupid as crate but the difference being the person who called it a crater wasn't joking.

Sounds like he thought I was serious, no?

Julius. I don't think it's possible to make Nadal "more impressive" he is already at 10   Also to be fair so is Federer  

Like I said on another thread - Rafa has a blister. Will it hinder him. Obviously, but not to the point it will lose him the match. Just as Roger is 32 but will this hinder him? No as proved V Murray. All possible excuses eradicated now may the best man win.

Nicely side-stepped kr

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I don't think it's possible to make Nadal "more impressive" he is already at 10   Also to be fair so is Federer  

I agree - makes you wonder why so many try so hard to do it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

He can last, he's just not as fast as he used to be. Age is precisely the issue, otherwise they'd all be playing at 45.

think its time for my bi annual sabbatical from this board which seems to co-incide with Bogbrush making his return....

And for the record - I haven't side-stepped anything, but since we are on the subject - Conrad Stoltz won his first three Xterra world titles with a calf injury that meant his weekly jogging mileage was less than what his opponents did as a warm down... Does this mean that the calf injury was only a minor impediment? He also sliced his foot open just before a race... won it. Went for surgery... the staples then got open, and he won the next race nonetheless...
The point I'm making is that I don't buy the myth you and Bogbrush seem to be selling that a player is only massively impeded if he loses, and that it's only a minor impedment if he wins... It's a black and white fantasy I have no time for, and especially have no time for it if its going to be purported by you two putting words in my mouth - I find it quite poor to be frank... I didn't once call it a career-threatening injury... I didn't even call it a serious injury - all I said is he had a crater in his hand - hyperbolic perhaps, but anyworse than posters calling Federer "grandpa Fed" despite him being only 32? Again, come off it. Its quite unbecoming. Did I answer it to your satisfaction, Julius?

kingraf wrote:think its time for my bi annual sabbatical from this board which seems to co-incide with Bogbrush making his return....

And for the record - I haven't side-stepped anything, but since we are on the subject - Conrad Stoltz won his first three Xterra world titles with a calf injury that meant his weekly jogging mileage was less than what his opponents did as a warm down... Does this mean that the calf injury was only a minor impediment? He also sliced his foot open just before a race... won it. Went for surgery... the staples then got open, and he won the next race nonetheless...
The point I'm making is that I don't buy the myth you and Bogbrush seem to be selling that a player is only massively impeded if he loses, and that it's only a minor impedment if he wins... It's a black and white fantasy I have no time for, and especially have no time for it if its going to be purported by you two putting words in my mouth -  I find it quite poor to be frank... I didn't once call it a career-threatening injury... I didn't even call it a serious injury - all I said is he had a crater in his hand - hyperbolic perhaps, but anyworse than posters calling Federer "grandpa Fed" despite him being only 32? Again, come off it. Its quite unbecoming. Did I answer it to your satisfaction, Julius?

   well said kr.. I entirely agree.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

He can last, he's just not as fast as he used to be. Age is precisely the issue, otherwise they'd all be playing at 45.

Fast enough to comprehensively beat Murray so should have no problem V Rafa either.

kr, apart from putting words in my mouth about some sort of myth I seem to be selling, yes you did.
 
Did you read the link from the BBC? That was the part I felt you didn't address (apologies if the term side-stepped offended in any way, it's just that you didn't respond to that point).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

He can last, he's just not as fast as he used to be. Age is precisely the issue, otherwise they'd all be playing at 45.

Fast enough to comprehensively beat Murray so should have no problem V Rafa either.

But not fast as he used to be. Blimey, that's been obvious for ages now, little else was said about him for the last year!

kingraf wrote:think its time for my bi annual sabbatical from this board which seems to co-incide with Bogbrush making his return....

And for the record - I haven't side-stepped anything, but since we are on the subject - Conrad Stoltz won his first three Xterra world titles with a calf injury that meant his weekly jogging mileage was less than what his opponents did as a warm down... Does this mean that the calf injury was only a minor impediment? He also sliced his foot open just before a race... won it. Went for surgery... the staples then got open, and he won the next race nonetheless...
The point I'm making is that I don't buy the myth you and Bogbrush seem to be selling that a player is only massively impeded if he loses, and that it's only a minor impedment if he wins... It's a black and white fantasy I have no time for, and especially have no time for it if its going to be purported by you two putting words in my mouth -  I find it quite poor to be frank... I didn't once call it a career-threatening injury... I didn't even call it a serious injury - all I said is he had a crater in his hand - hyperbolic perhaps, but anyworse than posters calling Federer "grandpa Fed" despite him being only 32? Again, come off it. Its quite unbecoming. Did I answer it to your satisfaction, Julius?

Nadal is not good enough to beat Federer while carrying a massive impediment. That's the point.

Sorry Haddie, but he isn't.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

He can last, he's just not as fast as he used to be. Age is precisely the issue, otherwise they'd all be playing at 45.

Fast enough to comprehensively beat Murray so should have no problem V Rafa either.

But not fast as he used to be. Blimey, that's been obvious for ages now, little else was said about him for the last year!

It seems BB that you are just as guilty as what Rafa fans are being accused of. Trying to down play Roger's chances as much as possible on the chance if he wins you can use it as a trump card in GOAT debates.

Not really. 32 is 32, it's kind of....... quite old to be a top level tennis player, especially one who's played >1000 matches. Kind of proven by him being Slamless, Mastersless, and scheduled for #8 after this tournament - below a number of guys who couldn't hold his racquet in his prime.

I can't quite see what's shocking about that.

bogbrush wrote:Not really. 32 is 32, it's kind of....... quite old to be a top level tennis player, especially one who's played >1000 matches.

I can't quite see what's shocking about that.

Since you hold no hope then and the way you are talking you think it will be a comprehensive loss then I take it you won't be taking an interest in the match then?

kingraf wrote:think its time for my bi annual sabbatical from this board which seems to co-incide with Bogbrush making his return....

And for the record - I haven't side-stepped anything, but since we are on the subject - Conrad Stoltz won his first three Xterra world titles with a calf injury that meant his weekly jogging mileage was less than what his opponents did as a warm down... Does this mean that the calf injury was only a minor impediment? He also sliced his foot open just before a race... won it. Went for surgery... the staples then got open, and he won the next race nonetheless...
The point I'm making is that I don't buy the myth you and Bogbrush seem to be selling that a player is only massively impeded if he loses, and that it's only a minor impedment if he wins... It's a black and white fantasy I have no time for, and especially have no time for it if its going to be purported by you two putting words in my mouth -  I find it quite poor to be frank... I didn't once call it a career-threatening injury... I didn't even call it a serious injury - all I said is he had a crater in his hand - hyperbolic perhaps, but anyworse than posters calling Federer "grandpa Fed" despite him being only 32? Again, come off it. Its quite unbecoming. Did I answer it to your satisfaction, Julius?

KR don't go we need your wisdom and youthful exuberance. Nadal's blister does look awful and I am sure it will hamper him to some extent but we all know barring a serious injury or degradation of the crater like blister he will defeat federer and rather easily. And you are spot on about the whole grandpa fed issue when like half the top 100 is very close to federer's age. Modern training and medical technology is allowing players to play great tennis into there thirties. These guys have been saying Fed has been physically degraded since he was in his mid twenties. It is a cop out and we all know it. Don't let Julius and BB get to you, I know I have had my issues with them. But BB's sarcasm and prickly nature can actually be quite amusing and well Julius is usually trying and failing to be funny, I find that endearing as well.

If you find it endearing, I may have to stop it. On the other hand if you don't find it funny, then I know that it almost certainly is, so that's reassuring.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not really. 32 is 32, it's kind of....... quite old to be a top level tennis player, especially one who's played >1000 matches.

I can't quite see what's shocking about that.

Since you hold no hope then and the way you are talking you think it will be a comprehensive loss then I take it you won't be taking an interest in the match then?

It's a Slam semi so I'll be interested for sure but unfortunately I've got an unavoidable customer meeting tomorrow from 10 so I'm stuffed.
Actually the only factor that goes for Fed is the interesting value of the new racquet; I liked the reliability of the BH against Murray, virtually no shanks. Wish he'd used it years ago.

I have no issue with Federer losing tomorrow, though of course I hope that he can overturn some heavy odds. I sincerely hope that the blister doesn't affect Nadal - or if it does, not to a great extent. It would be desperately sad to see the match decided by an injury either way.

So no shanks then is certainly a plus for him then. Just like there are others. I am not saying he is a favourite to win or anything but he is certainly not without a chance.

Federer to win in 4 bilstering sets!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Federer to win in 4 bilstering sets!

I think you just popped the atmosphere with that one, LK

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

He can last, he's just not as fast as he used to be. Age is precisely the issue, otherwise they'd all be playing at 45.

Fast enough to comprehensively beat Murray so should have no problem V Rafa either.

But not fast as he used to be. Blimey, that's been obvious for ages now, little else was said about him for the last year!

It seems BB that you are just as guilty as what Rafa fans are being accused of. Trying to down play Roger's chances as much as possible on the chance if he wins you can use it as a trump card in GOAT debates.

Exactly Fed fans have been doing the fed is old schtick since my dog was a puppy. Fed fans are the last people to take anyone to task for excuse making.

Federer's age is a massive factor that's just reality. Rafa's blister is an unknown.

Federer's best is not what if was. He is 8 years past his best tennis. And though he can still pull out something close to his old form, he has not managed it consistently over the course of a slam since AO 2010. I don't see how that can be controversial.

He has little chance and if he wins this major, I would consider it by far and away his most impressive title

JuliusHMarx wrote:If you find it endearing, I may have to stop it. On the other hand if you don't find it funny, then I know that it almost certainly is, so that's reassuring.

If I say I find it endearing you will honestly stop? Ok then I find it endearing, real endearing, super endearing.

Is that you trying to be funny now? It's not endearing at all - it's too out of character.

I'm so glad ZZ who is really a fan of Federers finally decided to sign on here just to tell us how and why Federer is guaranteed to lose. After years of just browsing, he knew this was the one time he could teach everyone the truth so decided to make this amazing analysis his 1st post... Thanks ZZ!!

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not Mats BB. Other pundits and all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I see you have not addressed the other points either?

Can you give me the reverse psychology of why Roger has no chance and you can scrub the age thing out as Roger coped very well over three and a half hours yesterday in a very physical match.

He can last, he's just not as fast as he used to be. Age is precisely the issue, otherwise they'd all be playing at 45.

Fast enough to comprehensively beat Murray so should have no problem V Rafa either.

But not fast as he used to be. Blimey, that's been obvious for ages now, little else was said about him for the last year!

It seems BB that you are just as guilty as what Rafa fans are being accused of. Trying to down play Roger's chances as much as possible on the chance if he wins you can use it as a trump card in GOAT debates.

Exactly Fed fans have been doing the fed is old schtick since my dog was a puppy. Fed fans are the last people to take anyone to task for excuse making.

 
Don't be a twerp Socal
 
From 2003-2007 there were 20 slams: Federer won 12, Nadal won 3 and the other five were shared by Roddick, Agassi, Safin, Gaudio, Ferrero.  Any Federer fan knew he was the overwhelming favourite away from RG for most of that period.
 
Since the end of 2007 there have been 24 slams: Federer has won 5, Nadal has won 10, Djokovic has won 6, Murray 2, and Del Potro 1.  The cracks in Federer's invincibility appeared at Miami/Indian Wells in 2007 - and as 2008 developed, and since that time, any Federer fan has approached his chances at slams with circumspection.
 
Slams have been far more difficult for him to win since the end of 2007 - you know that because you are always saying it with little disguised glee because you are a week era adherent.  You also say that age is no longer an impediment, but the only evidence of that is guys doing well into their thirties who haven't got the mileage they might have done because of career interruptions (like Agassi or Haas).  Federer has both age and a huge mileage in a career with an unprecedented quantity of high-quality matches.  Only three players have played more matches than him in the Open era, Connors/Lendl/Vilas, and they played plenty of small tournaments with week fields on specialist surfaces where the main opposition was somewhere else.  The bulk of Federer's 1000+ matches have been played at Slams/Masters/TMS where it's been impossible to avoid the rest of the top 10.  It would be quite astonishing if after all that he was as good as he had been 6 years ago - and guess what, he's jolly well not, and the record shows that he has been in slow decline ever since his peak in 2007.
 
Nadal is the very hot favourite and if Federer wins this slam it will be one of his greatest ever single achievements.  If Nadal wins it will be a great achievement too, but he'll have to wait another 6 years and 350 matches before he faces a comparable challenge to that facing Federer right now.
 
You don't want to accept that, because you can't bear the idea that Federer might have a chance to validate further his status as a great slam Champion over his entire career regardless of era and competition.

Oh barry, I didn't say age wasn't an impediment of course it is. I just have been saying that I have heard that excuse now for 5 years or so and that makes the people saying it back in 08 and 09 look rather silly that today Fed is in a grandslam semi and they have been use that excuse now for over half a decade. You claim fed has been in slow declined since 2007 but fail to mention how much better his 3 toughest rivals Novak, Nadal, and MUrray have been in that time period. It all comes down to Fed's age and could not possibly be a result of tougher competition as well. I am sure Fed is not nearly as good as he used to be, but the slow rot argument is belied by your own analysis showing that fed has won 5 slams in the so-called slow rot period and was ranked in the top 3 up till last year. Fed fans have been using his age as an excuse long before it was valid, sure any athlete at 32 is not as good as he was at 25 this is not a newflash to me or to anyone else.

My point stands when it comes to excuse making: ie (mono, age, slow courts, big balls, luxilon strings, too much technology, PED using opposition, bad back) Fed fans complaining about other people's excuse making is pretty funny.

socal1976 wrote:Oh barry, I didn't say age wasn't an impediment of course it is. I just have been saying that I have heard that excuse now for 5 years or so and that makes the people saying it back in 08 and 09 look rather silly that today Fed is in a grandslam semi and they have been use that excuse now for over half a decade. You claim fed has been in slow declined since 2007 but fail to mention how much better his 3 toughest rivals Novak, Nadal, and MUrray have been in that time period. It all comes down to Fed's age and could not possibly be a result of tougher competition as well. I am sure Fed is not nearly as good as he used to be, but the slow rot argument is belied by your own analysis showing that fed has won 5 slams in the so-called slow rot period and was ranked in the top 3 up till last year. Fed fans have been using his age as an excuse long before it was valid, sure any athlete at 32 is not as good as he was at 25 this is not a newflash to me or to anyone else.

My point stands when it comes to excuse making: ie (mono, age, slow courts, big balls, luxilon strings, too much technology, PED using opposition, bad back) Fed fans complaining about other people's excuse making is pretty funny.

The difference is that those are not excuses for an individual loss. Those are part of the explanation for Federer's overall decline in performance. That's a very different thing

Excuses Excuses... from both sides of the coin, never has a record been on repeat for soo long.
For what its worth I dont but Rafa as the hot fav for this match, I saw him play ahainst Kei and Grigor, and he was a class below his best. Given Roger stays at a high level, Rafa needs to step it up again