Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

GOAT  

Latest topics
» Basel 2017
Today at 7:44 pm by Jahu

» The doping program joke of the ITF!!!
Today at 5:31 pm by Jahu

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Today at 2:48 pm by noleisthebest

» Race to London
Today at 10:59 am by Tenez

» Fight for #1
Yesterday at 10:54 pm by naxroy

» Women's (WTA) WTF 2017
Yesterday at 7:43 am by noleisthebest

» Stefanos Tsitsipas
Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:04 pm by noleisthebest

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:56 pm by bogbrush

» Players popularity - What makes it?
Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:34 pm by Tenez

October 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by AceofDeath on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:04 pm

No.

Look at Nadal and then look at Fed now, not years ago, now.

Nadal is the one who looks 35 because he hasn't looked after his body right. Ran himself into the ground and was lucky to make the final.

AceofDeath

Posts : 269
Join date : 2015-04-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:25 pm

A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by AceofDeath on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:31 pm

It only took 10 years because Nadal failed to do anything at a slam in 2015 or 2016. If he did he would have lost in 3 of the 4 slams, his level was way below Federer's the last 2 years.

Writing was on the wall by nearly losing to Dimitrov... a guy who is a poor imitation of Federer.

AceofDeath

Posts : 269
Join date : 2015-04-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Veejay on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:32 pm

TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Veejay

Posts : 3377
Join date : 2012-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:48 pm

Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Veejay on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:07 pm

TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

Veejay

Posts : 3377
Join date : 2012-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:22 pm

Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

I think the only things that could shift this matchup more towards Federer is a rapid decline in Rafa's foot speed (half a step is not enough) and/or speeding up of the conditions, both elements allowing Federer to hit through him. As of now Rafa is clearly fast enough. The main element in his game that was lacking was the mental aspect, especially confidence, and the ability to play the big points. He was the best at that before but for a couple of years he became awful at it. In OZ, particularly against Raonic he looked sharp. If he plays at a similar level for the rest if the year, Federer fans better hope the two of them don't meet or it's gonna be a rude (re)awakening.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:27 pm

Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

I think that's a bit ott...


noleisthebest

Posts : 24967
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Veejay on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:47 pm

TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
so true,federer is to nadal what roddck was to federer
it was harder for nadal to beat davydenko then it is beat federer
i do think that the dynamic has slightly edged in federers favour simply cause i think that nadal is more burnt out then federer is but lets wait and see what happens next

I think the only things that could shift this matchup more towards Federer is a rapid decline in Rafa's foot speed (half a step is not enough) and/or speeding up of the conditions, both elements allowing Federer to hit through him. As of now Rafa is clearly fast enough. The main element in his game that was lacking was the mental aspect, especially confidence, and the ability to play the big points. He was the best at that before but for a couple of years he became awful at it. In OZ, particularly against Raonic he looked sharp. If he plays at a similar level for the rest if the year, Federer fans better hope the two of them don't meet or it's gonna be a rude (re)awakening.
the main question is how much of an impact the semi final against dimitrov had on nadal..
at his age matches like that are gonna to take much longer for his body to recover especially taking into consideration his style of play
in my opinion federer won the match,rather then nadal losing the match
there were several positives for roger,his backhand,his mental strength etc,things that usually cost his against nadal turned out to be his biggest strength

Veejay

Posts : 3377
Join date : 2012-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Tenez on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:49 pm

TMF wrote:Federer might win W

Nadal might win RG

Federer and Nadal both have a shot at the USO

Neither of them have any chance of beating Djokovic if he comes back in 2015 form - but I think he probably won't

Murray is shit. He's only number one by default. He woulda got humiliated by Fed in the quarters in these slightly faster conditions and lucky for him he lost before that match or he'd never be able to play it down. The supposed number one player in the world being humiliated by a 35 year old. Doh

Federer beat Djokovic twice in 2015....If I remember correctly.

Thrice actually. Either on fast conds (DUbai and Cinci) or fresh...What Federer cannot do is bbeat Djoko at teh end of a tournament in slow court...otherwise on the day he is still much better.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Tenez on Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:58 pm

AceofDeath wrote:Writing was on the wall by nearly losing to Dimitrov... a guy who is a poor imitation of Federer.
Good point. What TMF does not see (or does nor want to see) is that had Fed been fresh like in the first week....Nadal woudl not have won a set.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by AceofDeath on Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:48 pm

TMF wrote:
Veejay wrote:
TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.
lets first see what happens the next time they meet before dismissing this win as either a fluke or using it as proof that the dynamic in their rivalry has changed for good

Yes that sounds sensible. I'm not dismissing it as a fluke. Anytime Federer beats Nadal it's an incredible testament to his talent because Nadal holds all the cards in this matchup, and tennis is about matchups. But idiotic fanboys who clearly know nothing about tennis and seem to think that one match (in which, let's face it, Roger had all the scheduling and court advantages) is going turn around the entire dynamic are just embarrassing. They spout this nonsense on forums and then the next time Roger gets hammered by Rafa the rest of the Fed fans have to deal with the fall out.
35 years of age and 6 months without a match.. and you have the balls to blame the schedule drunk

AceofDeath

Posts : 269
Join date : 2015-04-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:50 pm

Tenez wrote:
AceofDeath wrote:Writing was on the wall by nearly losing to Dimitrov... a guy who is a poor imitation of Federer.
Good point. What TMF does not see (or does nor want to see) is that had Fed been fresh like in the first week....Nadal woudl not have won a set.

I agree.

Nadal looked so beatable in the final. Even from the baseline.

The only mystery for me was what happened to Federer in that 2nd set.

I don't want to diminish Dimi's heroic match vs Nadal in the least, but maybe that was another case of Nadal making his opponemt look better than he actually is?

noleisthebest

Posts : 24967
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Tenez on Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:22 pm

Regarding Berdych, he is more consistent than Mofils but frankly what has he done to trouble the top players in slams? he was only lucky to beat Federer twice in slams when Federer was clearly injured. Besides that...he has been the most tamed player in teh top 10.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:13 pm

Berdych has beaten Federer twice, and also Djokovic and Nadal at the slams. That's a better record at the slams than any other player that hasn't won a slam. I don't remember Federer being injured in 2012.

Monfils on the other hand has managed a big fat zero.

The most overrated player in the history of the sport. Complete and utter garbage. If Monfils were in a slam final and he was leading 6-0 6-0 5-0 40-0 on his own serve he'd still find a way to lose.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:14 pm

Didn't Berdych also beat Federer at the OGs? And nearly beat him in AUS one year?

Then again maybe Federer was injured in those matches too..

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by AceofDeath on Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:40 pm

Didn't Fognini, Verdasco and Pouille all beat Nadal at slams in the last 15 months?

I guess Nadal was injured in those matches too..

AceofDeath

Posts : 269
Join date : 2015-04-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:11 pm

Er... we're comparing Berdych and Monfils, not Federer and Nadal. Do try to keep up.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by bogbrush on Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:49 pm

We're arguing over Berdych / Monfils in Slams?

Oh come on, it's Berdych every day and twice on Sundays. I don't see that as even up for debate.

bogbrush

Posts : 1142
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:02 pm

Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by noleisthebest on Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:13 pm

TMF wrote:Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.
He may be a bye, but is a more difficult opponent for Federer than Berdych atm.

He is able to drain him with bis athleticism, and Berdych can't.

One of the reasons Federer lost to Cilic in USO 2014 is Federer was dead after his 5 setter vs Monfils.

He would have probably been fresher had he have to play Berdych.

noleisthebest

Posts : 24967
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by luvsports! on Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:22 pm

spot on nitb

luvsports!

Posts : 4021
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Tenez on Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:54 pm

NITB wrote:
TMF wrote:Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.
He may be a bye, but is a more difficult opponent for Federer than Berdych atm.

He is able to drain him with bis athleticism, and Berdych can't.

One of the reasons Federer lost to Cilic in USO 2014 is Federer was dead after his 5 setter vs Monfils.

He would have probably been fresher had he have to play Berdych.

And also the reason why Federer lost that badly in thae FO08 final! He played Monfils in the semi and knew he was never going to be capable of beating Nadal.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by legendkillar on Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:37 am

TMF wrote:Berdych has beaten Federer twice, and also Djokovic and Nadal at the slams. That's a better record at the slams than any other player that hasn't won a slam. I don't remember Federer being injured in 2012.

Monfils on the other hand has managed a big fat zero.

The most overrated player in the history of the sport. Complete and utter garbage. If Monfils were in a slam final and he was leading 6-0 6-0 5-0 40-0 on his own serve he'd still find a way to lose.

Think Tsonga might have something to say about that Winking

legendkillar

Posts : 1906
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by luvsports! on Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:21 pm

Just want to correct you TMF, soz.
Berdych has beaten Feds twice at slams but has never beaten Rafa or Novak at the slams.

LK is right. Tsonga has beaten Feds (twice), Novak and Rafa at the slams.

luvsports!

Posts : 4021
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Daniel on Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:59 pm

luvsports! wrote:Just want to correct you TMF, soz.
Berdych has beaten Feds twice at slams but has never beaten Rafa or Novak at the slams.

LK is right. Tsonga has beaten Feds (twice), Novak and Rafa at the slams.

And I'll correct you.  Laugh


Berdych has beaten all 3 in Slams.  I noted this earlier. 

2015 Australian Open v Nadal. Won in straight sets.

2010 Wimbledon v Djokovic. Won in straight sets.

Berdych is not "a mug".

As to who poses the biggest problem at the Slams, but hasn't won a Slam, I'd say Tsonga.  But Berdych is in second.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by legendkillar on Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:16 pm

Berdych is Sir Mugalot from the dark allies of Mugville in Mugonia.

legendkillar

Posts : 1906
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Daniel on Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:26 pm

NITB wrote:
TMF wrote:Exactly, Monfils is a bye at the business end of a slam.
He may be a bye, but is a more difficult opponent for Federer than Berdych atm.

He is able to drain him with bis athleticism, and Berdych can't.

One of the reasons Federer lost to Cilic in USO 2014 is Federer was dead after his 5 setter vs Monfils.

He would have probably been fresher had he have to play Berdych.

Where are you getting this from?  Berdych has beaten Federer twice in Slams. Monfils is 0-5. 

Monfils is ALWAYS going to be the easier opponent for Federer and for Nadal.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:10 pm

legendkillar wrote:
TMF wrote:Berdych has beaten Federer twice, and also Djokovic and Nadal at the slams. That's a better record at the slams than any other player that hasn't won a slam. I don't remember Federer being injured in 2012.

Monfils on the other hand has managed a big fat zero.

The most overrated player in the history of the sport. Complete and utter garbage. If Monfils were in a slam final and he was leading 6-0 6-0 5-0 40-0 on his own serve he'd still find a way to lose.

Think Tsonga might have something to say about that Winking

Good call, although I think they have the same number of big wins against the big three

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:11 pm

Daniel wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Just want to correct you TMF, soz.
Berdych has beaten Feds twice at slams but has never beaten Rafa or Novak at the slams.

LK is right. Tsonga has beaten Feds (twice), Novak and Rafa at the slams.

And I'll correct you.  Laugh


Berdych has beaten all 3 in Slams.  I noted this earlier. 

2015 Australian Open v Nadal. Won in straight sets.

2010 Wimbledon v Djokovic. Won in straight sets.

Berdych is not "a mug".

As to who poses the biggest problem at the Slams, but hasn't won a Slam, I'd say Tsonga.  But Berdych is in second.


LOL, amateur hour

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Daniel on Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:41 am

legendkillar wrote:
Daniel wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

Check Berdych's record against Federer - then check Monfils against Fed, Djok, and Nadal. He is always a banana skin. Monfils is a bye.


Any reason as to why you don't want me to check Berdych's record against Djokovic as well as Nadal?  

Berdych is a joke. Proper mug in every sense.

Are you going to revise that opinion in light of him being 2 points from beating the "super new and improved" Federer?

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Daniel on Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:41 am

luvsports! wrote:Berd WAS a hard match up. That hasn't been the case since 2013/14.

Are you also going to revise that opinion?  Devil

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Tenez on Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:48 am

Not really. Berds got creamed in that first set and as many times this year and in the past Fed has a poor 2nd set. Not much to do with Berds himself.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by legendkillar on Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:36 am

Daniel wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Daniel wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

Check Berdych's record against Federer - then check Monfils against Fed, Djok, and Nadal. He is always a banana skin. Monfils is a bye.


Any reason as to why you don't want me to check Berdych's record against Djokovic as well as Nadal?  

Berdych is a joke. Proper mug in every sense.

Are you going to revise that opinion in light of him being 2 points from beating the "super new and improved" Federer?

So you want me to revisit my opinion on a player who still couldn't beat Federer and prior to that lost to Haase and Nishioka?

Let me think

Nope, still and always a mug.

legendkillar

Posts : 1906
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by luvsports! on Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:12 am

Daniel wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Berd WAS a hard match up. That hasn't been the case since 2013/14.

Are you also going to revise that opinion?  Devil

Nope smiley
One swallow does not a summer make Winking

luvsports!

Posts : 4021
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:31 pm

TMF wrote:A few miles on the clock doesn't change the matchup. Nadal was starting to look sharp again until Dimitrov exhausted him. The reason I say this is to temper your expectations. Lots of Fed fans running round shouting about how things are now different. Yeah right, one win in a slam in 10 years changes the whole history and dynamic of this matchup?

Either delusional or just stupid.

Well.. I'm prepared to revise my opinion and admit that I was wrong. It really does look like the matchup has changed, at least on hardcourts. Although I would temper that slightly by saying that Rafa played awful in Miami (Federer was just too good in IW and blew him off the court).

And I apologise to NITB for ridiculing the neo-BH. It does indeed seem to be a neo-BH - certainly better than the old one.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by bogbrush on Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:33 pm

We there's something you don't see on the internet every day, or even every year!

Thumbs Up to TMF!

bogbrush

Posts : 1142
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Daniel on Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:29 pm

So, he's still a mug - and he's still someone who isn't a banana skin for Federer, despite recently being within  2 points of beating him.

Glad we cleared that up Winking Ego and pride are no excuse for letting logic escape.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Emancipator on Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:36 pm

Abu-Daniel talking to himself again.

Emancipator

Posts : 579
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Veejay on Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:14 pm

i bet that daniel unblocks us to read what we are saying and then blocks us again (every time)  Laugh

Veejay

Posts : 3377
Join date : 2012-06-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by bogbrush on Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:20 am

Veejay wrote:i bet that daniel unblocks us to read what we are saying and then blocks us again (every time)  Laugh
Applause

bogbrush

Posts : 1142
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum