Roland Garros

[Badesumofu]

Are you deficient? He was saying it was a shame that the focus wasn't on Nadal and his victory. You're so obsessed that you can't even comprehend the meaning of things Federer says, you just ascribe whatever meanining fits with this personality that you've invented for him.

You also appear to be projecting your own obsession onto the posters who call you on it.

Seek help.

 

[Total Power]

Don't put me in the same boat as yourself, I respect Roger for the player that he is, you disrespect him for based on the same information provided.

Nadal is a sensational player but he has not yet reached the level of Roger. Yes he is younger & has achieved more on a professional level then Roger at the same age, but rather then fuel you blind hatred for Roger maybe you should focus on the player Roger is & the player that Nadal will become if he continues at this rate.

Let time take its course, that will be the only decider.

you are discounting rafa out of wimbledon already.Thta is not disrespectful? while rafa may pull out of wimby due to his knee thats completely different. Whenever fed has faced rafa he had problems and problems were so big that he was forced into his shell and make uncharacteristic errors.No one else can do that to Fed but rafa.To say that fed will wimbledon is disrespectful

 

[Leon]

Who cares what that Total Power loser thinks.

Well done Roger. A class act on and off the court for many years. Could not happen to a better bloke. Absolutely throughly deserved

A champion.

 

[Total Power]

Are you deficient? He was saying it was a shame that the focus wasn't on Nadal and his victory. You're so obsessed that you can't even comprehend the meaning of things Federer says, you just ascribe whatever meanining fits with this personality that you've invented for him.

You also appear to be projecting your own obsession onto the posters who call you on it.

Seek help.

your comprehension skills are not the best.He was blaming the light.

I'm still a little bit disappointed a match like that was decided at night.

Surely that was respectful Seek help

 

[Kaan]

What does GOAT mean?

 

[premiers06]

great stuff fed well done deserved it, is a true champion.

 

[hans moleman]

What does GOAT mean?

Greatest Of All Time.

 

[Ricketts]

How lucky can fed be the entire draw opened up for him and he had to face this mug in the final.

Probably shows how easy Rafa's draw was too then, look at all these "mugs" he got to play!!: Marcos Daniel, Teimurasz Gabashvili, Lleyton Hewitt, Robin Soderling.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

he is only 23

And his body is falling to pieces already. He'll be lucky if he's still playing when he reaches Federer's age.

 

[Syd Kennets]

one of those days mate one of those days..we all have it.Lucky for fed hey? good on him

Greatest Of All Time.

 

[Kaan]

Fed lost to a mug? That "mug" beat Nadal, Davydenko and Gonzalez

 

[gaelictiogar]

one of those days mate one of those days..we all have it.Lucky for fed hey? good on him

Yes indeed. He has been lucky 14 times now. Lucky ebiugh to make twenty successive grand slam semis. Lucky enough to be ahead of the current No. 1 when not on the No.1 favourite surface. Lucky enough to have no marks like Agassi say he deserves the career clam. I wish I had a share of his luck.

With Federer winning two and finalling in the third of the past three grand slam events and the current No.1 unable to provide real opposition in two of those is seems that transitional period just seems to go on and on an on.

 

[gaelictiogar]

your comprehension skills are not the best.He was blaming the light.



Surely that was respectful Seek help

The problem you have is quite sad. You are a tennis fan but can't enjoy its most graceful, elegant nad sublime player ever. You are like a soccer fan scoffing at Cruyff or Maradona or Bball fans scoffing at Jordan.

Where other sports fans see grace and beauty all you see is arrogance. Where others can respect Rafa whilst recognising the blatantly obvious reality that his gifts are more limited than Federers you simply cannot see beyond dislike.

That Rafa has taken the No.1 spot away from a player of Federers gifts is a phenomenal feat of willpower nd endurance - for which he is now beginning to pay physically but you demean Rafa's achievement by demeaning the player he himself refers to as the best.

 

[Macca19]

Well done Fed! Bloody well deserved!

 

[Cousin Jed]

Total Power think you need to change your name to Totally clueless.

Congrats Federer. Well deserved victory.

 

[Corrosion]

Completely agree also exploit his backhand. How this mug got to the final is beyond me.Even gonzalez would have given a better challenge than this.

Well, he did beat that overrated spud Rafael Nadal.

Onya Fed. Pleasure to watch. The greatest of all time.

 

[Skeeta Olly]

Congrats to Fed, he is a champion of the game.

 

[OzBomber]

Greatest Of All Time.

That's awesome mate.

 

[comrade]

I'm sure Federer will be shattered that an anonymous keyboard warrior refuses to give him the respect he deserves.

I'm also sure his 14 slam victories will help him sleep at night.

 

[samwise]

i actually cannot stand to hear so many idiots say federer is the best of all time. it is actually a joke that so many people can just make stupid calls when obviously they dont know much about the history of tennis.
i have several players ahead of him including laver, mcenroe, hoad, gonzales and rosewall.
after that 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 rosewall. laver won several tournaments (15) some of which are the equivalent of the masters series today. newcombe has said that that year laver was 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 ahead of Sampras and Federer even though his competition was twice as hard as federer's and still harder than sampras'
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

 

[matty p]

Lucky enough to be ahead of the current No. 1 when not on the No.1 favourite surface.

Umm, that's completely wrong:

2008 Wimbledon - Nadal beats Federer in final on Federer's favourite surface

2009 Aus Open - Nadal beats Federer in final on Nadal's least favourite surface

2009 French Open - Federer wins tournament on Nadal's favourite surface

Furthermore, if you take away the rankings points Nadal and Federer have earned on clay over the last year, Nadal in fact has an even greater lead in the rankings than with the clay points added.

 

[Total Power]

Umm, that's completely wrong:

2008 Wimbledon - Nadal beats Federer in final on Federer's favourite surface

2009 Aus Open - Nadal beats Federer in final on Nadal's least favourite surface

2009 French Open - Federer wins tournament on Nadal's favourite surface

Furthermore, if you take away the rankings points Nadal and Federer have earned on clay over the last year, Nadal in fact has an even greater lead in the rankings than with the clay points added.

GT owned

 

[Total Power]

(Click the button to read the original post)

that is very well said and exactly the point i am trying to make over the past year or so. i am glad there are some sensible people out there who can look beyond numbers.Well said brother