Federers ego trip

[ManWithNoName]

exactly well said, the guy is a w***er...who has "look at me i am the best ever" written on his face.

Probably because he IS the best ever...

 

[d-mac3276]

exactly well said, the guy is a w***er...who has "look at me i am the best ever" written on his face.

Thats coz he is u stiff necked little ****.
That was probably u who ran on the court last night to try and distract the Fed man.
In one of the above posts u sit there and accuse one of the guys for being one eyed and his hatred for Nadal yet we could say the same for u the other way around.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA GO THE FED EXPRESS

U ****EN SUPERSTAR

YEE HAR

 

[Total Power]

Probably because he IS the best ever...

you completely missed my point.That guy is always beating his own drum.How people can like him is beyond me.Sure he is a good player but a terrible person, specially when he loses.

His comments like "when my forehand is working well its difficult to beat me" lmao.Tell us something we dont know w***er.He is always pumping his tyres up with obvious comments we all know about.I think egomanic is the right word, which actually proves my point in this thread.Thanks all for acknowledging that and now we can close this thread.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Probably because he IS the best ever...

No he isnt. Until he wins a grand slam he'll never be the greatest of all time.

Nadal will be when he's finished his career but.

 

[Hot Spenny]

you completely missed my point.That guy is always beating his own drum.How people can like him is beyond me.Sure he is a good player but a terrible person, specially when he loses.

LOL...that autograph incident is going to haunt you for the rest of your life. Next time you approach someone for an autograph, consider these things:

- Your age (I am guessing 30-odd)
- The location of the tennis player siting
- The potential 'loser' qualities of asking for an autograph, taking into consideration the points above.

 

[Skeeta Olly]

If you know so much about tennis how about you ****ing act like it? you are a one eyed fed fan blinded by your hatred for rafa.Shall i bring up your predictions again? those predictions had no fundamentals behind it just pure hatred.Glass houses mate, before accusing me take a hard look at yourself.

and...

You are a one eyed Rafa fan blinded by your hatred for Fed.

14 Grand Slams. I think Federer has earned the right to be arrogant. Also, you would know that tennis is much a mental game as it is physical. If by "pumping up his own tyre's" Federer gains confidence, well why not? He is out there to do a job, not to mess around.

 

[samwise]

already posted this in rolland garros thread but i just cant stand people who obviously have only watched tennis for like 15 years and think federer or even rafa are the greatest ever.

i have several players ahead of federer including laver, mcenroe, hoad, gonzales and rosewall.
after his french open win i will accept if you think he is better than bjorg, sampras and agassi.

i will just give a little comparison with laver otherwise this will be a novel.
i hope that you all know what went on with amateur and professional tennis.
laver won all 4 grand slam tournaments in '62 before turning pro where you were not allowed to compete in them. from '65-'67 laver won 52 titles. having to compete with the likes of rosewall and gonzales. in '68 the open era came and he won wimbledon beating another great in ashe in the semi and roche in the final. runner up to rosewall in the french. he also won several other big titles on other circuits they played on beating the likes of newcombe.
then in '69 laver won all 4 grand slam tournaments..again..against amazing opposition also including emerson and stolle as well as others already mentioned. in '70 there was only 2 main grand slams played by the best - the US open won by rosewall and Wimbledon won by newcombe. laver won several tournaments (15) some of which are the equivalent of the masters series today. newcombe has said that that year laver was still the best. in '71 laver didnt play much due to back and knee injuries.
during the open era alone, laver's win loss percentage was 80% placing him 5th behind Borg, Connors, Lendl and Mcenroe but still ahead of Sampras and Federer even though his competition was more than twice as hard as federer's
he also won 27 doubles titles including the australian open and wimbledon.
and dont forget his davis cup efforts. Laver helped Australia win the David Cup 4 consecutive times from '59-'62. In '73, professionals were permitted to play in the Davis Cup for the first time, and Laver was on a winning team for the fifth time, claiming two singles and a doubles rubber in the final as Australia beat the United States 5–0.

now for federer:
besides not winning a grand slam for 5 years whilst he used to absolutely lose the plot regularly, hard for some to believe if they didnt watch tennis then, the people he beat in the grand slams were hardly ken rosewalls.
i could go into who he lost to in grand slams but i will just say who he beat in order. in wimbledon '03 he beat phillopousis (lost 4th round of the us to nalbandian couldnt help saying that one because he lost to him a fair bit), beat safin in australian, roddick in wimbledon and hewitt in us, roddick wimbledon, agassi us (nearly retired by then), bagdahtis australian, wimbledon nadal, us roddick, australian open gonzales, wimbledon nadal, us djokovic, us murray and now the french against soderling

now nadal, djokovic and murray were all really young when he beat them. federer was not in a final (and im pretty sure a semi final) in a grand slam until 2003 - started in 1998. like hewitt (besides his US win against sampras) he has had a ridiculously easy run of opponents with only now murray nadal and djokovic looking like they will be good players as shown by there ability to continually beat federer now that they arent rookies.

now i know this is a ridiculously long post so i wont go into why about 5 others are better than federer but if you still disagree i will

 

[Skeeta Olly]

I've watch tennis for less than 15 years. - I'm 17

I think Federer isn't the greatest, but is one of. That is undeniable.

 

[The_Eagles]

With all those Australians featuring during Laver's time it suggests to me maybe the competition Laver faced wasn't actually that global.

And that Federer 'only' started dominating in 2003 after 5 years of being a pro is a stupid argument
All those players he beat would have more slams to their name if he wasn't around, making them seem better

 

[samwise]

I've watch tennis for less than 15 years. - I'm 17

I think Federer isn't the greatest, but is one of. That is undeniable.

sure he is one of the greatest but he still isnt great enough to be in the argument for greatest of all time

 

[samwise]

With all those Australians featuring during Laver's time it suggests to me maybe the competition Laver faced wasn't actually that global.

well australia did dominate the davis cup during that period. it was just because we were strong in that era. there were still people like gonsalez, seixas, trabert, gimeno but the australians just had amazing depth making them have probably the top 2 best davis cup teams ever.

And that Federer 'only' started dominating in 2003 after 5 years of being a pro is a stupid argument
All those players he beat would have more slams to their name if he wasn't around, making them seem better

so you think the likes of roddick, hewitt, gonsalez, bagdahtis, djokovic (at least at that age), murray (at least at that age) and soderling would come close to beating rosewall, hoad, mcenroe, gonsalez, newcombe or borg??

 

[The_Eagles]

so you think the likes of roddick, hewitt, gonsalez, bagdahtis, djokovic (at least at that age), murray (at least at that age) and soderling would come close to beating rosewall, hoad, mcenroe, gonsalez, newcombe or borg??

God only knows those hypotheticals, but I wouldnt bet on it. Only remember the twilight years of McEnroe. Those older guys are from a taken from a wider range of years though.
Federer is at least as good as them, God and I both know that.

 

[Total Power]

LOL...that autograph incident is going to haunt you for the rest of your life. Next time you approach someone for an autograph, consider these things:

- Your age (I am guessing 30-odd)
- The location of the tennis player siting
- The potential 'loser' qualities of asking for an autograph, taking into consideration the points above.

You are a little obsessed with me arent you? considering he has a "good guy" image on him his reaction was disappointing.The incident happened several years ago and never in my life i had a problem with that.Even lleyton hewitt was nice enough for that.Are you suggesting if i am 30 odd then its ridiculous to ask for an autograph? i have met many "stars" in pubs or various locations and never had a problem with that.Maybe you need to lighten up and get over your little obsession you have over me

 

[Total Power]

already posted this in rolland garros thread but i just cant stand people who obviously have only watched tennis for like 15 years and think federer or even rafa are the greatest ever.

i have several players ahead of federer including laver, mcenroe, hoad, gonzales and rosewall.
after his french open win i will accept if you think he is better than bjorg, sampras and agassi.

i will just give a little comparison with laver otherwise this will be a novel.
i hope that you all know what went on with amateur and professional tennis.
laver won all 4 grand slam tournaments in '62 before turning pro where you were not allowed to compete in them. from '65-'67 laver won 52 titles. having to compete with the likes of rosewall and gonzales. in '68 the open era came and he won wimbledon beating another great in ashe in the semi and roche in the final. runner up to rosewall in the french. he also won several other big titles on other circuits they played on beating the likes of newcombe.
then in '69 laver won all 4 grand slam tournaments..again..against amazing opposition also including emerson and stolle as well as others already mentioned. in '70 there was only 2 main grand slams played by the best - the US open won by rosewall and Wimbledon won by newcombe. laver won several tournaments (15) some of which are the equivalent of the masters series today. newcombe has said that that year laver was still the best. in '71 laver didnt play much due to back and knee injuries.
during the open era alone, laver's win loss percentage was 80% placing him 5th behind Borg, Connors, Lendl and Mcenroe but still ahead of Sampras and Federer even though his competition was more than twice as hard as federer's
he also won 27 doubles titles including the australian open and wimbledon.
and dont forget his davis cup efforts. Laver helped Australia win the David Cup 4 consecutive times from '59-'62. In '73, professionals were permitted to play in the Davis Cup for the first time, and Laver was on a winning team for the fifth time, claiming two singles and a doubles rubber in the final as Australia beat the United States 5–0.

now for federer:
besides not winning a grand slam for 5 years whilst he used to absolutely lose the plot regularly, hard for some to believe if they didnt watch tennis then, the people he beat in the grand slams were hardly ken rosewalls.
i could go into who he lost to in grand slams but i will just say who he beat in order. in wimbledon '03 he beat phillopousis (lost 4th round of the us to nalbandian couldnt help saying that one because he lost to him a fair bit), beat safin in australian, roddick in wimbledon and hewitt in us, roddick wimbledon, agassi us (nearly retired by then), bagdahtis australian, wimbledon nadal, us roddick, australian open gonzales, wimbledon nadal, us djokovic, us murray and now the french against soderling

now nadal, djokovic and murray were all really young when he beat them. federer was not in a final (and im pretty sure a semi final) in a grand slam until 2003 - started in 1998. like hewitt (besides his US win against sampras) he has had a ridiculously easy run of opponents with only now murray nadal and djokovic looking like they will be good players as shown by there ability to continually beat federer now that they arent rookies.

now i know this is a ridiculously long post so i wont go into why about 5 others are better than federer but if you still disagree i will

I said it on the other thread and i will say it again here, that is exactly the point i was making.People who wanna look for quality and quantity and understands the game properly will surely understand this point.Cant expect this on bigfooty

 

[Hot Spenny]

You are a little obsessed with me arent you? considering he has a "good guy" image on him his reaction was disappointing.The incident happened several years ago and never in my life i had a problem with that.Even lleyton hewitt was nice enough for that.Are you suggesting if i am 30 odd then its ridiculous to ask for an autograph? i have met many "stars" in pubs or various locations and never had a problem with that.Maybe you need to lighten up and get over your little obsession you have over me

So you are burnt from it. That's a shame. Time heals all wounds. BTW, do you carry around a pad and pen with you, or did you get him to sign a napkin or something??

 

[samwise]

God only knows those hypotheticals, but I wouldnt bet on it. Only remember the twilight years of McEnroe. Those older guys are from a taken from a wider range of years though.
Federer is at least as good as them, God and I both know that.

firstly, i wasnt talking about federer not being as good as them i was talking about the average people he beat not being as good as them as you were saying they would have more slams to their names if federer wasnt around but i dont understand what you are trying to say from that. they are underrated? if so that is why i asked if you think they would beat the players i listed.

secondly if you want to say federer would beat them then can you first clarify if you think gonsalez, bagdahtis, soderling...etc would beat them and then explain why you think federer is better than say..rosewall?

 

[peternorth]

why do players fall to the ground as soon as they win?

 

[Total Power]

So you are burnt from it. That's a shame. Time heals all wounds. BTW, do you carry around a pad and pen with you, or did you get him to sign a napkin or something??

wow if your humour skills are as good as your pickup skills you will remain a virgin for life.Vulture is the right ID for you, ever heard of term called "synchronicity"?

Your inability to win an argument has now lead to cheap sniping.Carry on, someday when you leave your armchair, you might find out that majority actually thought sampras was pretty boring

 

[Total Power]

firstly, i wasnt talking about federer not being as good as them i was talking about the average people he beat not being as good as them as you were saying they would have more slams to their names if federer wasnt around but i dont understand what you are trying to say from that. they are underrated? if so that is why i asked if you think they would beat the players i listed.

secondly if you want to say federer would beat them then can you first clarify if you think gonsalez, bagdahtis, soderling...etc would beat them and then explain why you think federer is better than say..rosewall?

if federers era was as tough was lavers or sampras or borgs he would have won half of what he has now.Playing borg at wimbledon is the same as playing gonzalez i am sure so would the fed bandwagoners say

 

[Hot Spenny]

wow if your humour skills are as good as your pickup skills you will remain a virgin for life.Vulture is the right ID for you, ever heard of term called "synchronicity"?

Your inability to win an argument has now lead to cheap sniping.Carry on, someday when you leave your armchair, you might find out that majority actually thought sampras was pretty boring

Sorry, humour?? I was being deadly serious. Was it a pad and pen that you carry around, in a little 'Vamos Rafa' bumbag or something???

I'm not the first one to pick up on your pathetic arguments, pal. As I said, you are known for that around here.

I know you are hurting at the moment, this latest victory has stung big time. But time will heal all wounds.

 

[whythelongface]

i will just give a little comparison with laver otherwise this will be a novel.
i hope that you all know what went on with amateur and professional tennis.
laver won all 4 grand slam tournaments in '62 before turning pro where you were not allowed to compete in them. from '65-'67 laver won 52 titles. having to compete with the likes of rosewall and gonzales. in '68 the open era came and he won wimbledon beating another great in ashe in the semi and roche in the final. runner up to rosewall in the french. he also won several other big titles on other circuits they played on beating the likes of newcombe.
then in '69 laver won all 4 grand slam tournaments..again..against amazing opposition also including emerson and stolle as well as others already mentioned. in '70 there was only 2 main grand slams played by the best - the US open won by rosewall and Wimbledon won by newcombe. laver won several tournaments (15) some of which are the equivalent of the masters series today. newcombe has said that that year laver was still the best. in '71 laver didnt play much due to back and knee injuries.
during the open era alone, laver's win loss percentage was 80% placing him 5th behind Borg, Connors, Lendl and Mcenroe but still ahead of Sampras and Federer even though his competition was more than twice as hard as federer's
he also won 27 doubles titles including the australian open and wimbledon.
and dont forget his davis cup efforts. Laver helped Australia win the David Cup 4 consecutive times from '59-'62. In '73, professionals were permitted to play in the Davis Cup for the first time, and Laver was on a winning team for the fifth time, claiming two singles and a doubles rubber in the final as Australia beat the United States 5–0.

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.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Fed. The greatest.

More fail for Total Power

 

[Total Power]

Sorry, humour?? I was being deadly serious. Was it a pad and pen that you carry around, in a little 'Vamos Rafa' bumbag or something???

I'm not the first one to pick up on your pathetic arguments, pal. As I said, you are known for that around here.

I know you are hurting at the moment, this latest victory has stung big time. But time will heal all wounds.

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


And secondly whats wrong with rafa bag (not that i own one) or something? people can wear ManU shirts, ronaldo shirts, schumi ones , so whats wrong with that? man you are despertely trying to bring me down i know but its a FAIL try again

 

[samwise]

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.

your point being - i want to know before i reply

 

[Cheshire Cat]

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


And secondly whats wrong with rafa bag (not that i own one) or something? people can wear ManU shirts, ronaldo shirts, schumi ones , so whats wrong with that? man you are despertely trying to bring me down i know but its a FAIL try again

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.