FEDERER or WOODS

[MaccaKnowsBest]

yes a handful amongst a few non roger fans that post here.How many people post here? i would say 15-20 individual posters.Backed up by 2-3 of them is not bad...go to MTF, you can find plenty who agrees with me.You lose.

You a few hundred/thousand people?? Out of how many tennis fans around the world? Still think it's a fact with such a small sample size?? Keep trying

The light was bad and there were 2 players playing there.Or you think rafa has super sensor contact lenses out there?? call about having a whinge.. NOT ONCE in that interview he said rafa beat him, everytime he said..how he didnt play well in that match...surprise surprise.Amazingly last year when he won, he said, rafa was so awesome, he will start winning wimbledon soon and he is such a better serve now..blah blah..what happened to all those?? oh i forgot he lost.

Of course Rafa didn't whinge, he won! I reckon he would have mentioned the light if he lost

He was ASKED if he was tired for the Murray match in the semi final, he replied "I want to win no? i cannot be tired". Do you understand that? or do i need to spoonfeed you again?

One minute you stated that Rafa said "what do you think?" when asked if he was tired leading into the US Open. In other words, he agreed that he was tired. I could do the TP and read further into this and state that this is a whinge

 

[MaccaKnowsBest]

Secondly, if you dont know...Nadals motion was supported by 82% of ATP players on a vote.. the ATP calender is set to be revised from 2010. Whats wrong with his notion anyway? tennis is the only sport in the world without an off season. Dont you support that? or you think tennis should go on for 50 weeks a year???? and since you are NEW TO TENNIS, this issue was first raised by tommy robredo and then jim courier..

Oh so it's ok for Rafa to whinge as long as others agree with him? I though Rafa doesn't complain??

 

[Total Power]

You a few hundred/thousand people?? Out of how many tennis fans around the world? Still think it's a fact with such a small sample size?? Keep trying

ever heard of the subject called statistics? i dont think you did. In random sampling, you dont choose the data..you choose a random data and insert a probability error median in it.In sampling you dont ask each and every person who buys your product, you choose a group of people who are your target sample..here MTF is my target sample, i can go to other websites as well, but i dont. Well, this is your second lesson of the day, remember that.

Of course Rafa didn't whinge, he won! I reckon he would have mentioned the light if he lost

Show me one interview where he blamed anyone or anything in a loss... just one.He was asked about his knee last wimbledon final, when he got injured and took a medical timeout, he replied "thats not an excuse, i had my chance and i blew it".. keep trying.

One minute you stated that Rafa said "what do you think?" when asked if he was tired leading into the US Open. In other words, he agreed that he was tired. I could do the TP and read further into this and state that this is a whinge

that was in the first round of the tournament and he was asked me the semi finals the same question try and keep up please

 

[Total Power]

Oh so it's ok for Rafa to whinge as long as others agree with him? I though Rafa doesn't complain??

why do you disagree with him? dont you think tennis players deserve off season? how come most tennis players dont last after 27 years of age, ever thought about that?? that is a valid point and ofcourse all tennis players and supporters will agree with this, unless its maccaknowsnothing ofcourse

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Federer after losing to Djokovic in Aussie open

ROGER: You know, I don't trust his injuries...[general laughter] It's not funny, yeah? I'm serious.

INTERVIEWER: He was running around pretty well....

ROGER: Well, that's what I'm saying. I think he's a joke when it comes down to his injuries. I mean, the rules are there to be used but not abused. He was doing it many times, that's why I was not happy to see him doing that and then running around like a rabbit again, so... [more laughter] Yeah, it was a good handshake for me. I was happy to beat him.



Another example...hmmm keep digging, as i said, if you have half a brain you can see he doesnt pay respect when he loses

He's telling it like it is there, and he's completely correct. Why should Federer show respect to Djokovic when he doesn't deserve any?

 

[Total Power]

Federer after losing to Djokovic in Aussie open

ROGER: You know, I don't trust his injuries...[general laughter] It's not funny, yeah? I'm serious.

INTERVIEWER: He was running around pretty well....

ROGER: Well, that's what I'm saying. I think he's a joke when it comes down to his injuries. I mean, the rules are there to be used but not abused. He was doing it many times, that's why I was not happy to see him doing that and then running around like a rabbit again, so... [more laughter] Yeah, it was a good handshake for me. I was happy to beat him.



Another example...hmmm keep digging, as i said, if you have half a brain you can see he doesnt pay respect when he loses

You wanna comment on this one macca? you think roger is soooo funny omfg roflmao lolzzzzzzzzz

 

[Total Power]

He's telling it like it is there, and he's completely correct. Why should Federer show respect to Djokovic when he doesn't deserve any?

lol calling someone a joke when he just kicked your ass? and calling someones style crap when he just beat you? all class isnt it??? classic.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Fed's comments about Djokovic are simply an honest statement about his frutrations at gamesmanship. Good on him. Equally his occasional swipes at Rafa's unpunished timewasting are simply an attempt to have the rules of the game applied.

Good on him for pointing out cheating and gamesmanship. If the game's top name cannot then who can?

 

[Total Power]

Fed's comments about Djokovic are simply an honest statement about his frutrations at gamesmanship. Good on him. Equally his occasional swipes at Rafa's unpunished timewasting are simply an attempt to have the rules of the game applied.

Good on him for pointing out cheating and gamesmanship. If the game's top name cannot then who can?

dont you find it surprising that maggot only complains after he loses?? or its just a conincdience ?

And secondly, gamesmanship makes the sport more interesting.How come no one talks about Agassi mocking Karol Kucera during US OPEN 1999? that was gamesmanship and it was good to see some emotion in the game or do you want robots playing the game? See sampras might have been a great player but he was a **** boring player.Rafa takes 20 seconds between points, when he doesnt he is given a warning.He is ALLOWED 20 seconds between serves to he uses it up, its not illegal, he is allowed 20 seconds legally and he can take it.I dont see why people whinges all the time against that..sour grapes perhaps? rafa > roger in 2008 and its only the beginning

 

[Lloydy4Pope]

seriously, you need a brain. He basically CRITICISED his style, criticism means he didnt like his style and he THINKS he wont last long with his style, this is why he said... he stands too far behind the baseline, this style will wear him down in 3 years.Thats federer opinion of a guy who just owned him. FFS

Secondly, if you dont know...Nadals motion was supported by 82% of ATP players on a vote.. the ATP calender is set to be revised from 2010. Whats wrong with his notion anyway? tennis is the only sport in the world without an off season. Dont you support that? or you think tennis should go on for 50 weeks a year???? and since you are NEW TO TENNIS, this issue was first raised by tommy robredo and then jim courier..

Even if 100% of people have the same OPINION - it is ot FACT. You are a grade A dumbass mate

 

[BLPC08]

I'd take Federer - both champions of course, but Federer has achieved his success in front of billions of tennis players around the world. There are far more tennis players than Golfers around the world - I think this makes Federers efforts slightly better than Woods'.

 

[Lloydy4Pope]

I'd take Federer - both champions of course, but Federer has achieved his success in front of billions of tennis players around the world. There are far more tennis players than Golfers around the world - I think this makes Federers efforts slightly better than Woods'.

Thanks for steering the topic back on to something remotely concerned with the thread. Better than reading boring posts by Total Power all day - that blokes an A-grade flog

 

[cozmoz]

i am an indian and barrack for australia in sport, tennis is my favourite sport

in all the talk about federer, people need to know about the man who is easily the best ever called rod rocket laver

guys he won 11 slams, 3 aussie opens, 4 wimbledons, 2 french and 2 us opens

he swept all the slams in 62 and 69 and guess what, from 63 aussie open to 68 aussie open, he was not allowed to play in 21 slams in a row in his prime as he turned pro

if that was not enough, he could not play in sevral slams in the 70s as he was a contracted pro, he did not even defend his title in 1970 at aussie open and french open coz he did not play, he never played at the french after 1969

irrespective of the fact that he had to miss so many slams coz he was not allowed, rocket laver is easily the greatest of all-time

rocket won atleast more than 185 singles titles which is a record and the list could be a lot more than 185

wake up australia

give due respect to aussie sporting legends

margaret court is the greatest female player of all-time

she won a record 24 slams despite of retiring twice to come when she had her first two children, when she was expecting her third child, she retired for the third time, she won a record 194 singles titles

 

[gaelictiogar]

Cozmoz you are quite right to point out laver's huge presence in the history of the sport. he is the top man.

however Aussie opens only became real genuine slams in the 1980s. Before that they were slams in name only. So man of Courts slams are Aussie Opens ( not real slams at the time) that her 24 is a highly dubious claim. In reality across the decades Wimbledon and New York have been the two unchanging pinnacles of the game with paris and melbourne relatively recently really attaining some semblance of equality.

 

[Total Power]

Federer is on borrowed time, Murray, Nadal have figured his game out and soon it will be Nole and Del Potro.He is 27 and his body is getting old.Murray beat him pretty comfortably id suggest, although the scoreline suggested a tight game.Murray had several break chances he couldnt convert and Federer only had 3 for the whole match.Face it, Fed is finished...it will now be interesting to see if the bandwagoners abandon Fed again like last time

 

[cozmoz]

Cozmoz you are quite right to point out laver's huge presence in the history of the sport. he is the top man.

however Aussie opens only became real genuine slams in the 1980s. Before that they were slams in name only. So man of Courts slams are Aussie Opens ( not real slams at the time) that her 24 is a highly dubious claim. In reality across the decades Wimbledon and New York have been the two unchanging pinnacles of the game with paris and melbourne relatively recently really attaining some semblance of equality.

mate, if u ask the players, they would say wimbledon is no 1, now paris no 2, before it was us open no and aussie open has always been last but the fact is that these four have always been regarded the slams
court deserves 24(all our slam worthy) and laver deserves 11(all our slam worthy) but the fact remains that they would have won many more had court not been a mother before retiring and had laver not been a pro and contracted pro, they are the 2 greatest of all time, really but sadly aussie public is sleeping

 

[Lloydy4Pope]

Federer is on borrowed time, Murray, Nadal have figured his game out and soon it will be Nole and Del Potro.He is 27 and his body is getting old.Murray beat him pretty comfortably id suggest, although the scoreline suggested a tight game.Murray had several break chances he couldnt convert and Federer only had 3 for the whole match.Face it, Fed is finished...it will now be interesting to see if the bandwagoners abandon Fed again like last time

Murray is a very good player - both Federer AND Nadal lost to up-and-comers. People scratched their heads when Simon beat Federer, well it looks like that form has stood up now he has knocked off Nadal.

 

[Total Power]

Murray is a very good player - both Federer AND Nadal lost to up-and-comers. People scratched their heads when Simon beat Federer, well it looks like that form has stood up now he has knocked off Nadal.

indoors is not the surface that people expect nadal to win, face it, the surface is fast.However the difference between number 1 and number 2 is more than 1,200 atp points , yes rafa ended feds 5 year dominance

 

[Lloydy4Pope]

indoors is not the surface that people expect nadal to win, face it, the surface is fast.However the difference between number 1 and number 2 is more than 1,200 atp points , yes rafa ended feds 5 year dominance

You must sit at home and bat yourself over Rafa. Is your whole life spent trawling the net looking for something to do with Federer or Nadal so you can then jump on here and argue with someone about something ridiculous like whether or not Federer is arrogant or not? I can't believe that you have tried to use the excuse of 'is not the surface that people expect Nadal to win;. That is the worst excuse ever!! You've got some probs young TP*.

*Well, I hope your young, it would be REAL sad if you weren't.

 

[X_box_X]

This time last year I would have said Federer.

This time, both players have spent 2008 playing injured, yet both have still won a US Grand Slam.

I reckon Woods is better, but only narrowly.

 

[RedWhiteBlack]

Have thought about the issue long and hard and here is my conclusion...

Federer has to beat seven opponents to win a Grand Slam title.
Tiger has to beat 154 opponents to win a Grand Slam title.

If Federer completely shanks a ball, he loses the point.
If Tiger completely shanks a shot, it can cost him a victory.

Federer still can't win a Major on clay.
Tiger has won on every type of course in the world.

Furthermore, Federer has not held all four Grand Slam titles.
Tiger has done so twice.

And finally... if you look at Tiger's recent winning streak at the start of 2008 (seven events), he was better than 899 other players without losing to one of them that entire time. All of this achieved in varying environments and changing conditions that the great man has had to adapt his game to suit each time (and won each time).

They are both brilliant athletes, but golf is a far harder sport to dominate. Look at the game before Tiger. There was a new winner almost every week and the favourite was priced around 10.00 to 11.00 compared to 3.00 to 4.00 on Tiger these days. His dominance is absolutely phenomenal and superior to Federer's IMO.

 

[X_box_X]

Have thought about the issue long and hard and here is my conclusion...

Federer has to beat seven opponents to win a Grand Slam title.
Tiger has to beat 154 opponents to win a Grand Slam title.

If Federer completely shanks a ball, he loses the point.
If Tiger completely shanks a shot, it can cost him a victory.

Federer still can't win a Major on clay.
Tiger has won on every type of course in the world.

Furthermore, Federer has not held all four Grand Slam titles.
Tiger has done so twice.

And finally... if you look at Tiger's recent winning streak at the start of 2008 (seven events), he was better than 899 other players without losing to one of them that entire time. All of this achieved in varying environments and changing conditions that the great man has had to adapt his game to suit each time (and won each time).

They are both brilliant athletes, but golf is a far harder sport to dominate. Look at the game before Tiger. There was a new winner almost every week and the favourite was priced around 10.00 to 11.00 compared to 3.00 to 4.00 on Tiger these days. His dominance is absolutely phenomenal and superior to Federer's IMO.

You said so yourself, Federer only has to beat seven opponents. Meaning he has no choice in the matter. You can only beat who you come up against.

Having said that, I agree with you Tiger is better, but not because he has to beat 854 players or whatever it is.

 

[RedWhiteBlack]

You said so yourself, Federer only has to beat seven opponents. Meaning he has no choice in the matter. You can only beat who you come up against.

Having said that, I agree with you Tiger is better, but not because he has to beat 854 players or whatever it is.

Just because Tiger doesn't engage in match play against each opponent, he still has to compete against them and shoot a lower score!

 

[DaveW]

Actually Woods only has to beat one opponent: the guy with a better score than all the other competitors.

 

[Total Power]

You must sit at home and bat yourself over Rafa. Is your whole life spent trawling the net looking for something to do with Federer or Nadal so you can then jump on here and argue with someone about something ridiculous like whether or not Federer is arrogant or not? I can't believe that you have tried to use the excuse of 'is not the surface that people expect Nadal to win;. That is the worst excuse ever!! You've got some probs young TP*.

*Well, I hope your young, it would be REAL sad if you weren't.

Thats like me saying federer is going to RG as a favourite.Do you agree then?? Rafa hates fast surfaces, without a doubt he is not a favourite on indoor courts, whats so confusing about that???

P.S What happened to your alias?? you tried someone to back you up.Too bad it was your alias