when Fed is through they will need a warehouse to store>>his trophies...>>
But so many of his trophies are of so little merit. Who cares> all that much for wins in Nova Scotia and North Dakota? I am> not saying that dominance such as his is easy or freakish (we> still remember McEnroe's dominance in 1984), I am as impressed> as anybody about his level of play, he obviously has it in him> to peak on big occasions. Yet I am struck by occasions when he> *has* lost since last Wimbledon. Olympics may not mean much in> tennis today but 40-50 years later, it may become a big thing> and people would browse through yesteryears' results. Don't> tenis players sense the possibility today? They should, IMO,> and Olympic Tennis will automatically become huge. It's frequency> also makes it more difficult to win. Federer was lucky to be in> the form of his life around Olympic 2004, and yet he managed to> lose there. His next loss was in 2005 AO, after winning several> unimortant tournaments. Same thing happened to Mac and Martina> in 1984 when their rare losses came in 1984 FO and 1984 AO resp,> just the occasions which could have meant so much to their legacy.>
It's true that great champions like Nicklaus tend to amass several> 2nd place finishes as well; but Federer has shown a knack of losing> in really big matches over last 10-12 months, never mind his> incredible record against other top-10 players. In Aug 2004 to> Jan 2005 span, he lost in 2 out of 3 big tournaments he entered,> a poor record IMO for someone who dominated those months in such> an impressive fashion when stakes were lesser.>
Yes, you've pretty much nailed it here. It's much better to win less often but make them really count. Fed really needs to win the slams to give these Hamburg titles legitimacy. Laver's 17 titles in '69 is a big deal, but only because he won calendar slam. Had he won 20 tune-ups but 1 or 0 slams then it wouldn't be discussed much...
coop-a-loop wrote:> What? So a guy is supposed to go undefeated forever or something?
No, the point is no one cared who held the record previously - that's no coincidence.
He's not allowed to lose and show that he's human? And if he actually> won every match he'd played, all you'd be doing is denigrating the> level of his competition, saying how it's pathetic.
No, open era is all valid.
So he's lost a couple of big matches, like the one against Safin. That> diminishes everything else he's done and makes it all worthless? Over> the last 10-12 months, he was won all of his Finals.
But hasn't always made the final, in big tournaments (Slam + Olympics) - woulda been better to lose in tune-ups.
In the last 7> Slam tournaments he's entered, Fed's come out the winner in 4 of them.> That may not be Sampras or McEnroe or Laver-like, but it's impressive> enough.
It is, but he doesn't want to be like Lendl & bomb out in slams - or Agassi winning 4 USO tune-ups but losing USO.
If Slams are all that matter, why even bother with the rest of the tour> matches? Just hold the 4 Slams and forget about everything else. How> fun would that be?>
Because they're fun & the tennis can be top-notch quality - but that's not the same as playing well at Wimbledon.....
In article <1116249840.147695.201790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, blanders0604@hotmail.com () wrote:
Eh, Fed is winning slams. There is an old saying that is a bit crude> and insensitive that I will pass along to you: "If rape is inevitable,> might as well lie back and enjoy it".
There's another old saying: "What have you done for me lately?"
See, Federer hasn't won a Slam since *2004*. MY GOD, that's a year! He's finished!
"...we still remember McEnroe's dominance in 1984...">>
i think the tour is much, much deeper than it was in 1984. I think >> the top>> 50 today is much better than the top 50 in 1984.>>
That's not original. Every generation thinks exactly the same way....>
Need not be original to be true. In this particular case, you may be alone in the world in thinking that the glory days of tennis happened 20 years ago.
Wake up. Watch a random GS finals match from then and the final round of a GS qualifier tournament now. Perhaps a light bulb will turn on somewhere.
Mikko Ämmälä wrote:> <blanders0604@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä> news:1116251913.497422.237270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Well Connors himself made USO SF at age of 39...
Good point. But he didn't make W and USO. And Connors was playing>more than just tennis out there, that's for sure. Mac jr., Krickstein>and Haarhous (sp) were all too timid and freaked out by Jimbo's>nonesense. It was disgraceful and watching the endless replays every>year at USO is more than I can stomach--Connors complaining about his>age on line calls, etc. Not exactly the way Rosewall comported>himself. Thankfully, Jimmy was shown his proper place by the real>players of the day. Lendl, Courier and Agassi matches come to mind>where Connors obsolescence was apparent.
Above is true. The reason why Rosewall managed to get 2 finals 1974 was that pro tennis was in a slump that year. Only Connors played well (+ he played magnificent year 100-3 matches). Earlier top pros (Nastase, Smith, Newcombe, Laver, Ashe) were having a minor slump/were over the hill that year...
In article <1116249840.147695.201790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > blanders0604@hotmail.com () wrote:>
Eh, Fed is winning slams. There is an old saying that is a bit crude>>and insensitive that I will pass along to you: "If rape is inevitable,>>might as well lie back and enjoy it".>
There's another old saying: "What have you done for me lately?">
See, Federer hasn't won a Slam since *2004*. MY GOD, that's a year! He's > finished! >
No, but it's important to highlight he absolutely needs at least 1 slam win this yr else he's diminshed, no doubt about it. All the greats say winning 1 slam is a good yr, 2 a great yr - winning 0 is then a bad yr.
Roberts wrote:> Yes, it's much more physically demanding today- today's tennis players> are top-notch athletes, the guys from the 60s and 70s didn't need to be.>
In article <1116249840.147695.201790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> blanders0604@hotmail.com () wrote:>>
Eh, Fed is winning slams. There is an old saying that is a bit crude>>> and insensitive that I will pass along to you: "If rape is inevitable,>>> might as well lie back and enjoy it".>>
There's another old saying: "What have you done for me lately?">>
See, Federer hasn't won a Slam since *2004*. MY GOD, that's a year! >> He's finished!>> wg>>
No, but it's important to highlight he absolutely needs at least 1 slam > win this yr else he's diminshed, no doubt about it. All the greats say > winning 1 slam is a good yr, 2 a great yr - winning 0 is then a bad yr.
"...we still remember McEnroe's dominance in 1984...">>>
i think the tour is much, much deeper than it was in 1984. I think >>> the top>>> 50 today is much better than the top 50 in 1984.>>>
That's not original. Every generation thinks exactly the same way....>>
Need not be original to be true. In this particular case, you may be > alone in the world in thinking that the glory days of tennis happened 20 > years ago.>
Wake up. Watch a random GS finals match from then and the final round of > a GS qualifier tournament now. Perhaps a light bulb will turn on somewhere.>
Not that I will be holding my breath.
It's not a black/white issue - get thee to the newbie ng....
Jesper Lauridsen 17 May 2005 00:47:20 [ permanent link ]
On 2005-05-16, naniwadekar <nani3skip45@hotmail.com> wrote:>
Federer was lucky to be in> the form of his life around Olympic 2004, and yet he managed to> lose there. His next loss was in 2005 AO, after winning several> unimortant tournaments.
Jesper Lauridsen 17 May 2005 00:47:20 [ permanent link ]
On 2005-05-16, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:> coop-a-loop wrote:>
So he's lost a couple of big matches, like the one against Safin. That>> diminishes everything else he's done and makes it all worthless? Over>> the last 10-12 months, he was won all of his Finals.>
But hasn't always made the final, in big tournaments (Slam + Olympics) - > woulda been better to lose in tune-ups.
So AO and Olympics are more important than USO and Masters? Well, in that case Agassi >>> Sampras.
In article <1116249840.147695.201790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> blanders0604@hotmail.com () wrote:>>>
Eh, Fed is winning slams. There is an old saying that is a bit crude>>>> and insensitive that I will pass along to you: "If rape is inevitable,>>>> might as well lie back and enjoy it".>>>
There's another old saying: "What have you done for me lately?">>>
See, Federer hasn't won a Slam since *2004*. MY GOD, that's a year! >>> He's finished!>>> wg>>>
No, but it's important to highlight he absolutely needs at least 1 >> slam win this yr else he's diminshed, no doubt about it. All the >> greats say winning 1 slam is a good yr, 2 a great yr - winning 0 is >> then a bad yr.>
So what's a three-slam year called?
Depends on the mix - if it includes Wim/USO (like Fed) then it's super - moreso than Wilander's '88....
Whisper wrote:>>Yes, but if you have tier 1 aspirations you have to be pretty>
close...>
Fed can coast to tier 3 status (1 more blue chip), but it gets harder>
crack tier 2 (3 more after that), & tier 1 (10 slam minimum, with>>healthy mix of Wim/USO)...>
*HE HAD THE SINGLE BEST YEAR OF THE MODERN ERA*, you demented gibbering> mandril. There are thousands of germane reasons to quibble. Are you> really too dumb to find even *one* of them?>
Wtf..?
A guy who has the best yr in open era is supposed to make tier 1 with Sampras/Borg? Your value system is whacked out....
On 2005-05-16, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>
coop-a-loop wrote:>>
So he's lost a couple of big matches, like the one against Safin. That>>>diminishes everything else he's done and makes it all worthless? Over>>>the last 10-12 months, he was won all of his Finals.>>
But hasn't always made the final, in big tournaments (Slam + Olympics) - >>woulda been better to lose in tune-ups.>
So AO and Olympics are more important than USO and Masters? Well, in that> case Agassi >>> Sampras.
Wrong ng - go to rec.sport.tennis.newbie.retard.>
Getting back to point:>
Number of Tournaments played on hardcourts: 31 (2 Grand Slams, 5> Masters)> Number of Tournaments played on clay: 23 (1 Grand Slam, 3 Masters)> Number of Tournaments played on grass: 6 (1 Grand Slam)> Number of Tournaments played on carpet: 6 (1 Masters)>
Shouldn't the "tire 1-ness"/whatever of the current crop players be> based on a healthy mix of FO/USO/AO?>
Wrong ng - go to rec.sport.tennis.newbie.retard.>>
Getting back to point:>>
Number of Tournaments played on hardcourts: 31 (2 Grand Slams, 5>> Masters)>> Number of Tournaments played on clay: 23 (1 Grand Slam, 3 Masters)>> Number of Tournaments played on grass: 6 (1 Grand Slam)>> Number of Tournaments played on carpet: 6 (1 Masters)>>
Shouldn't the "tire 1-ness"/whatever of the current crop players be>> based on a healthy mix of FO/USO/AO?>>
See Whisper's answer below. It is not supposed to be reasonable. It is supposed to make sense to the great W. That is all.
Please do not post logical responses to random repetitive (a rare breed indeed) tier and bumrooting postings. It demeans what W stands for.
I think I am beginning to get W's brain (I hate to use that word in this context) in the same way that W knows Federer's every thought. Pretty soon I will be able to share secrets about the inner workings (or not) thereof.
Whisper wrote:>>> Shouldn't the "tire 1-ness"/whatever of the current crop players be>>> based on a healthy mix of FO/USO/AO?>>>
See Whisper's answer below. It is not supposed to be reasonable. It is > supposed to make sense to the great W. That is all.>
Please do not post logical responses to random repetitive (a rare breed > indeed) tier and bumrooting postings. It demeans what W stands for.>
I think I am beginning to get W's brain (I hate to use that word in this > context) in the same way that W knows Federer's every thought. Pretty > soon I will be able to share secrets about the inner workings (or not) > thereof.>
no.>>
You're just frustrated because you know I'm 100% right. I think I'll leave the last word to Federer himself, & you can stew in your own ignorance ;
"ROGER FEDERER, crowned Hamburg Masters champion at the weekend, cannot wait to get stuck into Wimbledon. Federer will be the top seed at the French Open, which begins in Paris on Monday, but he is already thinking of Wimbledon, where he won the title in 2003 and 2004.
âIf I win in Paris it would mean I have won all of the grand slams, which would be great,â Federer said. âBut I guess Wimbledon will always remain No 1 in my heart. It was where I won my first grand slam, and all my heroes have played there.â
Ask Fed if he thinks the ultimate best mix is a healthy combo of FO/USO/AO titles.
No, but it's important to highlight he absolutely needs at least 1>
slam>
win this yr else he's diminshed, no doubt about it. All the greats>
winning 1 slam is a good yr, 2 a great yr - winning 0 is then a bad>
yr.>
Yes, and even more so given the high expectations after winning three> slams in 2004- and who knows? Maybe this year or next year could be the> last years in which Federer is far ahead from the rest of the field,> therefore he needs to maximise his slam wins from this period of his> career. This is similar to Sampras, who won the bulk of slams between> 1993 and 1997, but then won only one slam per year from then on:> 2004-2006 could be the equivalent period for Fed.>
Given the raised expectations and the fact that Fed is clearly trying> to crack tier 1, it would very much be a big disappointment if he> failed to win a slam this year given how far he *appears* to be ahead> of everyone else. Winning one slam this year would only be> satisfactory it it was the big W.>
Wimbledon would give him the biggest legacy boost - 3 straight is something special. Next would be USO as 2 straight would be huge, & 3rdly FO as it would give him a footnote with Emerson/Agassi types with career slam. I think he'll be extremely disappointed if he fails at Wimbledon, even if he wins USO/FO....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:w2Eie.103$Eb5.3480@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Hops wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:xW6ie.391$q33.7558@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
Scott wrote:>>>
that's because it is true with every generation.>>>>
That's not original. Every generation thinks exactly the same way....>>>>>
Clearly that's false. eg Mac v Becker '92 AO tells us much.>>
what does Connors vs. Edberg USO 89 tell us?>>
You tell me.
Once in a while an old fart will beat a young gun, and drawing any hard conclusions based on one match is dumb. Like looking at Becker vs. Mac hth, seeing that Becker won 8 out of the final 9 meetings, and focusing on the one Mac win as evidence of something other than an off-day for Becker.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
Clearly that's false. eg Mac v Becker '92 AO tells us much.>>>
what does Connors vs. Edberg USO 89 tell us?>>>
You tell me.>
Once in a while an old fart will beat a young gun, and drawing any hard> conclusions based on one match is dumb.
So let's draw conclusions based on Yury types 'Because I said so' idiocy....
Like looking at Becker vs. Mac hth,> seeing that Becker won 8 out of the final 9 meetings, and focusing on the> one Mac win as evidence of something other than an off-day for Becker.>
He wasn't off - have a look & you'll be pleasantly surprised....
"Scott" <scottloughrey@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:sINhe.1982$uR4.1914@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...> when Fed is through they will need a warehouse to store his trophies...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:F_Yie.115$Qf6.3647@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Hops wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>
Clearly that's false. eg Mac v Becker '92 AO tells us much.>>>>
what does Connors vs. Edberg USO 89 tell us?>>>>
You tell me.>>
Once in a while an old fart will beat a young gun, and drawing any hard>> conclusions based on one match is dumb.>
So let's draw conclusions based on Yury types 'Because I said so'> idiocy....
why not? that's your usual method.
Like looking at Becker vs. Mac hth,>> seeing that Becker won 8 out of the final 9 meetings, and focusing on the>> one Mac win as evidence of something other than an off-day for Becker.>>
He wasn't off - have a look & you'll be pleasantly surprised....
that Mac channelled the past a bit for one match? ok. so?
