Federers ego trip

[Total Power]

Your obsession with one human being who you dont know and who does not know you, and obsessive hatred of another human being that you dont know and who doesnt know you, is bordering on psychotic. Its unhealthy and above all its pointless.

I think you need to take a step back and read some of the stuff that you (supposedly a grown man) has written. It's far from rational. I advise that you simply just watch the game and try rather than getting into a state about whether players have an ego.

Hatred is not the right word.Its dislike.Secondly,i have explained why i think he is not the best player ever.Its called having a different opinion.If you disagree so be it.

 

[CanonNo1]

Whilst not doubting Laver's ability as he was a champion of the game, 9 of his 11 grand slams were won on grass courts - 3 of these were against players who you would hardly call greats of the game Mckinley, Mulligan and Gimeno.

Without demeaning the achievements of Laver, which won't ever be beaten (2 grand slams that is), the tennis landscape wasn't even in the same galaxy as today.

- 3 of the slams were played on grass (could you imagine what Sampras would have ended up with)
- 6 of slams were won pre 1962, when Gonzales and Hoad were already on the Pro Circuit. This quote from the man himself .... "I won a lot when Hoad and Rosewall and Gonzalez weren't able to play" [FONT=&quot]http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2009-06-07-french-open-federer-debate_N.htm
- When he did end up playing these guys (late 60's) they were nearing 40 and were far from the dominant force they were in the 50's / early 60's.
- Stolle, Roche were hardly world beaters.
- Emerson has a top record, but even the ardent fans would agree it is inflated due to amateur / professional political landscape.
- Did any non Australian every play the Aus Open before the mid 80's? Borg for one played it once, Connors twice ... and I'm sure there were many others.

Underlying the above, its j[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ust way too hard to compare eras - each one has 2/3 absolute elites and 3/4 top quality.
50's - Hoad, Gonzo, Laver (sort of)
60's - Laver, Emerson, Rosewall, Newcombe (the decade of the aussies pretty much)
70's - Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Villas, Nastase
80's - McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker, Lendl
90's - Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten (clay), Edberg, Becker
00's - Federer, Nadal, Agassi,

Then you have a myriad of other variable factors
- Court speed
- Balls
- Racquet/String technology
- Amateur vs Professional
- Training methods

- Would Sampras have won 20 slams if they were 3 played on Grass?
- Would Borg have won 20 had he played with todays technology?
- Would Borg/Connors racked up more slams had they played the Aus Open?
- Could Laver had matched it with the power game of today?
- Could Sampras have matched Federer shot making?
- Would Gonzo have run everyone else around like headless chicken?

Too many variables, too many unknowns, but that doesn't give rise to suggest that Federer's achievements are 'legendary'.
- 14 slams
- 20 semis in a row
- 15 out of 16 finals

Throw a blanket over Gonzo, Hoad, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, McEnroe and you probably have a decent list of 'legends'.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Hatred is not the right word.Its dislike.Secondly,i have explained why i think he is not the best player ever.Its called having a different opinion.If you disagree so be it.

Fine. Thanks for responding properly.

 

[Hot Spenny]

know for what? having a different opinion? what is this, taliban rule or something? plenty of people share the same opunion as me but only a few knobjockies like you have a problem with it.Build a bridge

You can have an opinion on something, but your opinion is obviously affected by your obsession with one man, and a grudge with another.

You are known for being a complete knob jockey, amongst other things, such as a blaring hypocrite.

I remember in an old thread, you said something like, "how can you comment on people when you dont even know them", in relation to someone commenting on Borg. Yet, you are doing the exact same thing with Federer...what?? do you understand how pathetic this is?? Asking for an autograph in a pub, or living in the same city as the guy, doesn't constitute knowing a person.

You go on to say shit like "borg>>>>>you, so your opinion is nothing". So, who the hell are you claiming to be an expert, continually shooting down people in their 'armchairs' because you presumably attend a few matches,??

You keep saying people are obsessed with you when they own you (it's easy pickings). Yet, a quick look at any thread featuring Federer, finds you shouting your shit, calling him an 'absolute ****wit', 'maggot' and 'a terrible bloke'.

I think you should check yourself. You have a disorder.

 

[Power King]

Here's an interesting question...

who would you call the greater player

laver or soderling?

laver has a legendary list of achievements, however if they played head to head at their peaks (ie laver back then, soderling today), soderling would win comfortably.

thoughts?

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Hatred is not the right word.Its dislike.

This proves he might be a great player but a disgraceful human being.

Yeah, hatred probably isn't the right word...

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Anyone that believes Laver had tougher competition than Federer is deluded and possibly ******ed. Australia dominating tennis back then is stone cold proof the playing field was weaker. The game is more global now, there's more information out there and players can earn a much better living. Competition gets tougher every single year. That's just the plain truth.

 

[Total Power]

You can have an opinion on something, but your opinion is obviously affected by your obsession with one man, and a grudge with another.

You are known for being a complete knob jockey, amongst other things, such as a blaring hypocrite.

I remember in an old thread, you said something like, "how can you comment on people when you dont even know them", in relation to someone commenting on Borg. Yet, you are doing the exact same thing with Federer...what?? do you understand how pathetic this is?? Asking for an autograph in a pub, or living in the same city as the guy, doesn't constitute knowing a person.

You go on to say shit like "borg>>>>>you, so your opinion is nothing". So, who the hell are you claiming to be an expert, continually shooting down people in their 'armchairs' because you presumably attend a few matches,??

You keep saying people are obsessed with you when they own you (it's easy pickings). Yet, a quick look at any thread featuring Federer, finds you shouting your shit, calling him an 'absolute ****wit', 'maggot' and 'a terrible bloke'.

I think you should check yourself. You have a disorder.

Cause thats my own assessment of Federer. Have you never called a footballer a "maggot" or a "knob"?? if you dont, just look around on bigfooty, you can find plenty such examples.So why pick on me? i speak from my personal experience and what i have heard from the people who actually know Federer (i havent spoken to him, i must admit).So why is that a big deal? or am i not allowed to have my own conclusion or i must accept the public opinion? so people call warren tredrea a w***er.Do they know him personally? I know people who are in touch with fed personally and they are more than 1 in number.If all of them being independent sources say the same thing, you can arrive at a conclusion me thinks??

I merely commented on borg thing just because people shot down his opinion. Before borgs commented i went out on a limb saying rafa is not only a claycourter but an all surface player and i was shot down.So reference to borg was merely an example.

So i would suggest you build a bridge asap.This is a forum where we exchange ideas and opinions.Have a look at MTF , a lot of people agree with me too that fed is not the greatets ever and he is a knob.I dont see people get their panties in a knot like you there

 

[Total Power]

Anyone that believes Laver had tougher competition than Federer is deluded and possibly ******ed. Australia dominating tennis back then is stone cold proof the playing field was weaker. The game is more global now, there's more information out there and players can earn a much better living. Competition gets tougher every single year. That's just the plain truth.

yes cause emerson, roche, newcombe, santana, rosewall are worse names than hewitt, roddick, gonzalez, johansson and safin

 

[CanonNo1]

i speak from my personal experience and what i have heard from the people who actually know Federer (i havent spoken to him, i must admit).So why is that a big deal? or am i not allowed to have my own conclusion or i must accept the public opinion?

Just to clarify, you haven't spoken to Federer but you've "heard" from people who have spoken to him (I assume these people are part of the 'public').

So does that mean you, in effect, are basing you opinion on the "public opinion"? Or, are these people who told you things not part of the public?

Just to make sure its clear,

Person X and Y and Z speak to Federer. Person X and Y and Z tell you about their dealings with Federer (with their slant on things) and you use this to form your opinion on Federer? During this whole opinion forming process, the only apparent dealing with him is an attempt to get an autograph, which you said didn't really bother you.

Where you are confusing me is, in one sentence you say you form your own opinions and don't follow the public and then next you say you based your opinions on what people have told you (i.e. the public)?

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

yes cause emerson, roche, newcombe, santana, rosewall are worse names than hewitt, roddick, gonzalez, johansson and safin

The latter group of players would crush the former on a level playing field. The game is more advanced, more global and there's more incentives for people to get into the sport. There's no possible way the level of competition has gone backwards in the last 50 years. You really would have to be an idiot to think that.

 

[Total Power]

Just to clarify, you haven't spoken to Federer but you've "heard" from people who have spoken to him (I assume these people are part of the 'public').

So does that mean you, in effect, are basing you opinion on the "public opinion"? Or, are these people who told you things not part of the public?

Where you are confusing me is, in one sentence you say you form your own opinions and don't follow the public and then next you say you based your opinions on what people have told you (i.e. the public)?

I have friends who know Federer.Hence i can cannot call it a public source can i? They have met federer and they know him in personal life and i have had more than 1 such person telling me the same thing.There must be some truth in it me thinks??

 

[Power King]

argh my question got skipped over (I do realise it doesn't have anything to do with fed)

 

[Total Power]

The latter group of players would crush the former on a level playing field. The game is more advanced, more global and there's more incentives for people to get into the sport. There's no possible way the level of competition has gone backwards in the last 50 years. You really would have to be an idiot to think that.

And ladies and gentleman, this is exhibit 1 why i think bigfooty armchair experts have no clue about tennis. Saying Sampras would crush Borg is as ridiculous as anything.Different generations, different technology, different surfaces, different fitness levels etc.You cannot compare generations like that.Saying that era was easier than this era, comparing the class of roche, emersson, smith, gonzales, santana, newcombe with hewitt and roddick is as ridiculous as it gets.

 

[CanonNo1]

I have friends who know Federer.Hence i can cannot call it a public source can i? They have met federer and they know him in personal life and i have had more than 1 such person telling me the same thing.There must be some truth in it me thinks??

But on the contrary there are thousands of others (Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Laver and ommentators included) who have met him and say he is a great guy and deserves all his success.

In 1996, I went to the Australian Open practice courts, waited for 2 hours to get Stefan Edberg's autograph only to find he gave me the wide berth. Now, I can chose to accept that's the sort of bloke he is, i.e. an arrogant w***er, or I can conclude the timing was right, he's probably busy. Everyone says he is a great bloke, he seems like a good bloke on TV and all the players seem to like him.

People will believe what they want to believe. Clearly you had a bad experience trying to get him to sign somthing and this was compounded by persons x, y and z saying similar things and therefore conclude he is a w***er.

The general populas have not had such extensive first hand experience as you, but are willing to accept the experiences/words of the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Nadal and a plethora of others, who say he is a reasonable good bloke and...... therefore conclude that he is a good bloke.

I'm willing to go with the later on this one.

 

[CanonNo1]

argh my question got skipped over (I do realise it doesn't have anything to do with fed)

Your questoin was ridiculous that's why. You tried to disguise it as a "genuine" question when all you wanted was someone to bite and suggest Soderling was better/greater than Laver.

Let's not treat people as fools.

 

[Total Power]

But on the contrary there are thousands of others (Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Laver and ommentators included) who have met him and say he is a great guy and deserves all his success.

In 1996, I went to the Australian Open practice courts, waited for 2 hours to get Stefan Edberg's autograph only to find he gave me the wide berth. Now, I can chose to accept that's the sort of bloke he is, i.e. an arrogant w***er, or I can conclude the timing was right, he's probably busy. Everyone says he is a great bloke, he seems like a good bloke on TV and all the players seem to like him.

People will believe what they want to believe. Clearly you had a bad experience trying to get him to sign somthing and this was compounded by persons x, y and z saying similar things and therefore conclude he is a w***er.

The general populas have not had such extensive first hand experience as you, but are willing to accept the experiences/words of the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Nadal and a plethora of others, who say he is a reasonable good bloke and...... therefore conclude that he is a good bloke.

I'm willing to go with the later on this one.

I couldnt care less what you are willing to go with.I have my reasons to dislike federer and i have stated it.If you have a problem with that, please build a bridge like your friends here


I would also like to add even if he is a w***er u expect people to come out and state it? from all evidences hewitt is supposedly a w***er on tour.But James blake denies it and calls him a nice guy.You cannot expect people tocome out in the media and state he is a w***er.That will have several other consequences

 

[The_Eagles]

Your reasons are flimsy at best. Your friends have told you stories?? They have met him at a cocktail party and acted starstruck or pestered him at a hotel or something similar?

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

You cannot compare generations like that.Saying that era was easier than this era

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You have done the same thing in this very thread!

if federers era was as tough was lavers or sampras or borgs he would have won half of what he has now.

Tool.

 

[Total Power]

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You have done the same thing in this very thread!



Tool.

are you a dimwit? what i meant is that you cannot compare generations like that i.e roddick vs borg, who will win scenarifcouse roddck iwill win.Better service, better racquet,better fitness.But to say roddick is better than borg is as ridiculous as saying playing hewitt or roddick is more difficult than playing roche and emersson in that era. i hope you finally got it.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

are you a dimwit? what i meant is that you cannot compare generations like that i.e roddick vs borg, who will win scenarifcouse roddck iwill win.Better service, better racquet,better fitness.But to say roddick is better than borg is as ridiculous as saying playing hewitt or roddick is more difficult than playing roche and emersson in that era. i hope you finally got it.

You're calling me a dimwit? How the **** am I supposed to understand what you're attempting to say when you word it completely wrong. You said that you cannot say one era is tougher / easier than the other, but then, in a previous post, you clearly said Federer's era was easier than the era Sampras played in and the era Laver played in.

Nadal has better English than you.

 

[Andronicus]

are you a dimwit? what i meant is that you cannot compare generations like that i.e roddick vs borg, who will win scenarifcouse roddck iwill win.Better service, better racquet,better fitness.But to say roddick is better than borg is as ridiculous as saying playing hewitt or roddick is more difficult than playing roche and emersson in that era. i hope you finally got it.

every post you write is painful and makes the reader dumber for having wasted time reading it.

you are so inconsistent.

i actually dont care if you think fed is arrogant or not. each person has an opinion on the matter. personally i think he is a bit arrogant, and i dont mind rafa, but you have singlehandedly made me enjoy fed's win and rafas loss so much more than i otherwise would have.

 

[Total Power]

every post you write is painful and makes the reader dumber for having wasted time reading it.

you are so inconsistent.

i actually dont care if you think fed is arrogant or not. each person has an opinion on the matter. personally i think he is a bit arrogant, and i dont mind rafa, but you have singlehandedly made me enjoy fed's win and rafas loss so much more than i otherwise would have.

Hmmm lol avoided my post i see.Your idea that hewitt will thrash Roy Emersson if they play was the most clueless rant i have ever heard in any sport

 

[Andronicus]

Hmmm lol avoided my post i see.Your idea that hewitt will thrash Roy Emersson if they play was the most clueless rant i have ever heard in any sport

umm.....yeah you are awesome and all that, but i think you have responded to the wrong person. i havent mentioned hewitt, emerson or anyone else. i was purely making a comment on you and how rediculous your posting is.

you lose.

 

[Total Power]

umm.....yeah you are awesome and all that, but i think you have responded to the wrong person. i havent mentioned hewitt, emerson or anyone else. i was purely making a comment on you and how rediculous your posting is.

you lose.

ah well nvm

Where is inconsistency exactly? i have pointed my reasons why i dislike him and people have a problem with that.People on one hand call me irrelevant here lol yet 300plus replies to this thread makes me think otherwise keep this thread going haters