Federer sacrificing #1?

... wrote:
Only one gear - like a tractor.

What Tractor has one gear? They have 4-5-6 normal, than 3 low range gears, even 2 reverse.

Even IMT 539 that you seen when young had 3 Fwd gears and 2 low range, BrziHod, i SporiHod  

Don;t mind fed missing clay one bit, it's slow and why risk get tired/injured for Stuttgart, Halle, W.

Clay is a beautiful, natural surface that can produce great tennis.
Problem is, Nadal has turned it into a arm-wrestling mudpit over the years.

A few more words in the topic from the Man himself:

===================================



"Wimbledon has to be the biggest goal. The American hard courts I guess as well. The French Open I guess to some extent. It's just we'll see what happens, you know. No pressure there really because I won't have a preparation as such.
But all of the grass really is important to me because I'll play Stuttgart and Halle there, too. Then of course I am looking very good for the World Tour Finals, for the year-end championships, where I've been very successful. I like the indoors as well. So for me basically the second half of the season is a big priority now. That's why I'll take a break as well.

I think that the way I'm playing right now is the right way for me moving forward as well. 
Of course I'll always recalibrate every tournament I go to depending on the speed of the ball, the speed of the courts, who I play. I'm happy that I was able to stay on the offensive more or less throughout this swing here, Indian Wells and Miami. I think once you win a big tournament like the Australian Open, or any big tournament for that matter, you can just bank usually on some confidence, you know.

I think I am definitely profiting from confidence, and then also from the right mindset, able to compress all my energy into one single match and not be distracted by everything else going on around me."

================================================================

... wrote:Clay is a beautiful, natural surface that can produce great tennis.
Problem is, Nadal has turned it into a arm-wrestling mudpit over the years.

Yeah, sadly he kicked ass on it, and made it a surface no one wants to play on it.

A big hitter can still kick him out of the court on clay.

The thing is I am not convince long breaks makes you fresh unless you need fixing an injury. The body gets tougher by keeping it working. I am sure he and his team know all this but to me what really excites me about Federer is how is solves his challenges, for instance the high bouncy BH. The only challenge
Left in him is beating Nadal at the FO. Very disappointed he won't give it a go.

You admit finally, you want Fed to play RG so he can only beat Nadal? 

His body won't get tougher playing, no one gets tougher at 36, you can just hurt yourself from too much work.

Tenez wrote:The thing is I am not convince long breaks makes you fresh unless you need fixing an injury. The body gets tougher by keeping it working. I am sure he and his team know all this but to me what really excites me about Federer is how is solves his challenges, for instance the high bouncy BH. The only challenge
Left in him is beating Nadal at the FO. Very disappointed he won't give it a go.

As I said in one of my previous posts, it's not about freshness as much as his knee not liking clay post surgery.

If his team feel it may risk another disaster of falling flat on his  face like vs Raonic in Wimbledon last year, it is wise for him to take risk.

I don't think he has anything to prove with Nadal, not even this challenge on clay.

I watched Federer's body language, facial expressions very carefully in Miami.

He has a whole new range of them, some young excitement, stubborn determination, his face is free of any darkness.

It's a brand new world he's entered.

I think he really treasures it and won't go back to the old for anything.

And why should he!

Tenez wrote:The thing is I am not convince long breaks makes you fresh unless you need fixing an injury. The body gets tougher by keeping it working. I am sure he and his team know all this but to me what really excites me about Federer is how is solves his challenges, for instance the high bouncy BH. The only challenge
Left in him is beating Nadal at the FO. Very disappointed he won't give it a go.

Yeah, Damn you Roger Federer, for not granting us one more RG title
You egocentric maniac!

I think he'll be there and provided he doesn't get some freakish bad draw he will be played in to clay by the 3rd or 4th round. It's not like he don't be training on it.

On balance I think he's got it right.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:The thing is I am not convince long breaks makes you fresh unless you need fixing an injury. The body gets tougher by keeping it working. I am sure he and his team know all this but to me what really excites me about Federer is how is solves his challenges, for instance the high bouncy BH. The only challenge
Left in him is beating Nadal at the FO. Very disappointed he won't give it a go.

Yeah, Damn you Roger Federer, for not granting us one more RG title
You egocentric maniac!

It's not so much about me wanting him to have another RG, it;s about him wanting to solve his life's biggest challenge. I am convinced that with his biggest frame the FO is in his reach.

In fact I think it might even be easier than Wimby where a big server can take him out there. Plus clay is also easy on the body.

bogbrush wrote:I think he'll be there and provided he doesn't get some freakish bad draw he will be played in to clay by the 3rd or 4th round. It's not like he don't be training on it.

On balance I think he's got it right.

If he plays the FO yes....but I am not sure he is going to commit fully.

roger in seattle april 29th
i wonder how much bill gates will contribute form his $90 billion fortune 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjpeHLEack

FO is within his reach?  Not at all likely.  There is a reason he is skipping nearly all clay. The reason is it is his weakest surface and just takes it out of him physically. His aggressive shots are useless on clay. The favourites for the FO are Djok and Nadal by a clear margin.  Djok is not going to stay in his recent form, you know.

Daniel wrote:FO is within his reach?  Not at all likely.  There is a reason he is skipping nearly all clay. The reason is it is his weakest surface and just takes it out of him physically. His aggressive shots are useless on clay. The favourites for the FO are Djok and Nadal by a clear margin.  Djok is not going to stay in his recent form, you know.

You are still stuck in 2006? When will you finally embrace reality? Federer has just won the main 3 events of the year so far, beating Nadal convincingly even when knackered.

Clay is his worth surface? If it was not for Nadal, He could have won the FO in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (he did actually!), 2011! Everytime he was stopped by Nadal. I am not sure Nadal represents a problem for him now, regardless the surface. And in fact my point is not about having Fed to win teh FO I just want him to face his biggest challenge: Nadal on clay over bo5.

The rest is in his racquet and whether he wins or not Wimbledon is simply down to him....we know that...not the case on clay maybe.

Daniel wrote:FO is within his reach?  Not at all likely.  There is a reason he is skipping nearly all clay. The reason is it is his weakest surface and just takes it out of him physically. His aggressive shots are useless on clay. The favourites for the FO are Djok and Nadal by a clear margin.  Djok is not going to stay in his recent form, you know.

OK, Daniel...so who is going to win RG?

In plain English, please.

... wrote:

Daniel wrote:FO is within his reach?  Not at all likely.  There is a reason he is skipping nearly all clay. The reason is it is his weakest surface and just takes it out of him physically. His aggressive shots are useless on clay. The favourites for the FO are Djok and Nadal by a clear margin.  Djok is not going to stay in his recent form, you know.

OK, Daniel...so who is going to win RG?

In plain English, please.

LOL, NITB, don't poke the bear

... wrote:

Daniel wrote:FO is within his reach?  Not at all likely.  There is a reason he is skipping nearly all clay. The reason is it is his weakest surface and just takes it out of him physically. His aggressive shots are useless on clay. The favourites for the FO are Djok and Nadal by a clear margin.  Djok is not going to stay in his recent form, you know.

OK, Daniel...so who is going to win RG?

In plain English, please.

I don't know, but Djok and Nadal are the favourites.  It's right there above. Use your eyes

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:FO is within his reach?  Not at all likely.  There is a reason he is skipping nearly all clay. The reason is it is his weakest surface and just takes it out of him physically. His aggressive shots are useless on clay. The favourites for the FO are Djok and Nadal by a clear margin.  Djok is not going to stay in his recent form, you know.

You are still stuck in 2006? When will you finally embrace reality? Federer has just won the main 3 events of the year so far, beating Nadal convincingly even when knackered.

Clay is his worth surface? If it was not for Nadal, He could have won the FO in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (he did actually!), 2011! Everytime he was stopped by Nadal. I am not sure Nadal represents a problem for him now, regardless the surface. And in fact my point is not about having Fed to win teh FO I just want him to face his biggest challenge: Nadal on clay over bo5.

The rest is in his racquet and whether he wins or not Wimbledon is simply down to him....we know that...not the case on clay maybe.

God, you're impossible.  You think a 35 year old who is skipping nearly all clay tournaments will suddenly come good for a tournament he has won only once.  You have no logic at all.  What next, proclaiming him to do the calendar slam, like you were Djokovic - despite me adding at the time how unlikely that was too?

You don't reason - you wish.  You are the wishing well of tennis. You want something to be true, whether it's a player doping, or whatever, and then you decide it is true. I have the same chance of winning the FO as Federer.  Zero.

1. Federer's current good form won't last.
2. Djokovic's poor form won't last.
3. Federer's weakest surface is clay
4. Federer's aggressive shots that are bringing him so much success of late are nullified on clay.
5. Federer is 35 and the last thing he can deal with is running marathons and having a war of stamina. He has no hope.

I know you'll be bookmarking this post, but that's also a waste of your time. 

As for Wimbledon, I am gunning for Kyrgios.  I think it will be his time.  Dimitrov, Zverev, and Murray are outside chances.  But I'm gonna shove a bet on Kyrgios winning the whole thing.  It's just a matter of discipline and remaining injury free.

Daniel wrote:You don't reason - you wish.  You are the wishing well of tennis. You want something to be true, whether it's a player doping, or whatever, and then you decide it is true. I have the same chance of winning the FO as Federer.  Zero.

Don't know if you noticed, whether you are checking reality or you are still dreaming about how great Federer was in 2006....but the fact is Fed exceedingly, beyond my wildest dream proved my point beyond reason even.

1. Federer's current good form won't last.

How perspicacious of you!

2. Djokovic's poor form won't last.

Because you said so? Strange cause not so long ago you were saying exactly the opposite.

3. Federer's weakest surface is clay

Typical of your poor logic. Nadal made Federer is least successful surface. It does not mean fed's worst surface is clay. That's were yu logic fails you.

4. Federer's aggressive shots that are bringing him so much success of late are nullified on clay.

He has bagelled Nadal on clay

5. Federer is 35 and the last thing he can deal with is running marathons and having a war of stamina. He has no hope.

The bigger frame gives him the possibility to avoid long rallies and even force his opponent into rallying. But since you still think fed's BH and game overall was better in 2006, there is obviously many things that escape you...besides logic.

Typical of your poor logic. Nadal made Federer is least successful surface. It does not mean fed's worst surface is clay. That's were yu logic fails you. 

So Nadal stopped Federer winning the FO every year apart from 2009? Are you sure?  And, again, Federer was reaching all those finals in his peak and prime (The Federer I contend was better. NOT YOU!). Nadal didn't stop him reaching finals recently. You shouldn't use the word logic when you come up with all this ridiculous nonsense. And Nadal kicked Federer out of every clay tournament?  You sure?

He has bagelled Nadal on clay 

Hmm... remind us all again when he did this?  Oh, yes, it was again in his physical and peak prime years (2007 Hamburg Open).  The very Federer I am using in MY argument- The argument you are trying to counter.  You are countering my argument by using my argument. Also, when have bagels ever been used as a basis of determining when a player is better or worse?  Scraping the barrel. One set does not win you a match.  You do realize that? And how, exactly, does using a bagel or two from years ago help your argument that Federer NOW, at the age of 35, stands a chance in the FO?  You just want something to be true, don't you? I seriously suggest you do not place ANY bets on this unless you want the bookie to take your money from you.  I mean that.  

   

The bigger frame gives him the possibility to avoid long rallies

Oh, so his frame now has a special power of stopping the opponent from returning?  Wow. Wish I had a racquet like that.


You have no argument at all. You've decided that Federer at 35 is as good as Federer at 25 - even on his worst surface. Even when Federer has actually told us all why he is skipping the clay season. Age. Federer doesn't believe he can be competitive on clay... but apparently you know more about his body and his mind than he does.

1. Are you suggesting Federer wasn't far better than the 3rd best clay player through that period? Like, miles better?

2. Yes, the new racquet does have a magic power that stops the opponent from returning. It involves hitting the ball hard and far enough away from them that they don't hit it back well. I suggest for reference checking out most of either the Australian Open, Indian Wells or Miami 2017.

3. It's not logical to conclude that Federer doesn't think he's competitive in clay. He has indicated his knee wasn't secure in it last year.

Wow....your thinking process is getting worse Daniel.

So federer losing all his slams matches v Nadal from 2008 means Federer's worst surfaces are also grass and Hard courts on top of clay? cause according to your logic, losing v Nadal is  synonym of "worst surface". Without Nadal Federer may have won more FO than AOs (slow HC).

That's why you are talking nonsense. Now the reason fed got to all those finals on clay is because he was excellent on clay, even unbeaten on very slippery blue clay. Now the reason he lost all those slams on clay is because of Nadal.

So now that he has beaten Nadal in what coudl be his worst surface (slow HC), I woudl like to see him beat Nadal on clay.

Whether he will do it or not is another question. But that's his only challenge left for him, imo...bar maybe proving he can be the only one in the universe to win 8 Wimbies.

Without Nadal Federer coudl have won 6 FO and 14 TMS 1000 on clay. And that is his worst surface?

Tenez wrote:Without Nadal Federer coudl have won 6 FO and 14 TMS 1000 on clay. And that is his worst surface?

Who is to say that with a totally different draw that would be the case? Who is to say Federer would still have won?  Got a crystal ball? And, again, he was achieving all this success in his prime and peak - the years I am using for my argument. You can't defeat my argument by using Federer of 2004-2009 :P. Federer is 35 now - and you are claiming he can win all these lovely clay tournaments now. What's he been doing on clay the last 5 years?

bogbrush wrote:1. Are you suggesting Federer wasn't far better than the 3rd best clay player through that period? Like, miles better?

2. Yes, the new racquet does have a magic power that stops the opponent from returning. It involves hitting the ball hard and far enough away from them that they don't hit it back well. I suggest for reference checking out most of either the Australian Open, Indian Wells or Miami 2017.

3. It's not logical to conclude that Federer doesn't think he's competitive in clay. He has indicated his knee wasn't secure in it last year.

Yeah, you're only here 'cause you are butt hurt that I called you out on your ridiculous modus operandi :P So transparent.

1. No. Never made that argument. That also has nothing to do with the argument we are having here.  Not sure where you are even reading that in. I make it clear with a lot of posts that Federer of 2004-09 (more specifically 6-7) was the greatest player to ever play tennis. Tenez is claiming that Federer at 35 - now - is just as good if not better (he usually argues better). He's now extended that logic to clay - just like that. PING!

2. No, it doesn't. On clay, the best players will still reach and return the ball.  Nadal was still able to reach most of Federer's shots at the Aussie Open this year.  You do recall that ridiculous point that Federer won?  That was on a "fast" hardcourt.  You think Federer is going to be able to get winners all the time on clay? Oh get real. And prepare for disappointment. You're also debating this like Federer now is as good as 2006. He isn't. You just want it to be true, like Tenez. Because of fanboyism.

3. Hahaha, so please tell us all why he is choosing not to play the clay court season?  Honestly, I have totally overestimated you.  You are clearly a Federer fanboy.  Federer says it clearly:

"I'm not 24 any more so things have changed in a big way and I probably won't play any clay-court event except the French."

Yeah, I can definitely see in that statement "I feel like I can win clay tournaments".     It just oozes confidence in his clay court prowess. I dunno how you can even argue with that with a straight face.

Also note that he says "a big way", Tenez.  So much for your 'age doesn't matter' nonsense.  

I think he'll enter Rome just before the French open despite what he's saying now.

Daniel wrote:
3. Hahaha, so please tell us all why he is choosing not to play the clay court season?  Honestly, I have totally overestimated you.  You are clearly a Federer fanboy.  Federer says it clearly:

"I'm not 24 any more so things have changed in a big way and I probably won't play any clay-court event except the French."

Yeah, I can definitely see in that statement "I feel like I can win clay tournaments".     It just oozes confidence in his clay court prowess. I dunno how you can even argue with that with a straight face.

Also note that he says "a big way", Tenez.  So much for your 'age doesn't matter' nonsense.  

Federer actually said the main reason he was not playing clay was because his operated knee does not respond well to it, so he does not want to risk any further injury.

As for Federer not being good on clay, remember he was the only one able to stop Djokovic in his unbeatable streak in 2011. On clay.

Nadal could not touch Djokovic all that year, not even on clay.

Daniel wrote:

bogbrush wrote:1. Are you suggesting Federer wasn't far better than the 3rd best clay player through that period? Like, miles better?

2. Yes, the new racquet does have a magic power that stops the opponent from returning. It involves hitting the ball hard and far enough away from them that they don't hit it back well. I suggest for reference checking out most of either the Australian Open, Indian Wells or Miami 2017.

3. It's not logical to conclude that Federer doesn't think he's competitive in clay. He has indicated his knee wasn't secure in it last year.

Yeah, you're only here 'cause you are butt hurt that I called you out on your ridiculous modus operandi :P So transparent.

1. No. Never made that argument. That also has nothing to do with the argument we are having here.  Not sure where you are even reading that in. I make it clear with a lot of posts that Federer of 2004-09 (more specifically 6-7) was the greatest player to ever play tennis. Tenez is claiming that Federer at 35 - now - is just as good if not better (he usually argues better). He's now extended that logic to clay - just like that. PING!

2. No, it doesn't. On clay, the best players will still reach and return the ball.  Nadal was still able to reach most of Federer's shots at the Aussie Open this year.  You do recall that ridiculous point that Federer won?  That was on a "fast" hardcourt.  You think Federer is going to be able to get winners all the time on clay? Oh get real. And prepare for disappointment. You're also debating this like Federer now is as good as 2006. He isn't. You just want it to be true, like Tenez. Because of fanboyism.

3. Hahaha, so please tell us all why he is choosing not to play the clay court season?  Honestly, I have totally overestimated you.  You are clearly a Federer fanboy.  Federer says it clearly:

"I'm not 24 any more so things have changed in a big way and I probably won't play any clay-court event except the French."

Yeah, I can definitely see in that statement "I feel like I can win clay tournaments".     It just oozes confidence in his clay court prowess. I dunno how you can even argue with that with a straight face.

Also note that he says "a big way", Tenez.  So much for your 'age doesn't matter' nonsense.  

He's probably choosing not to play the clay season because he fears injury. I think everyone except you gets that.

You wasted a lot of words getting all that wrong there, but I do think you colour your posts in very well. Very nicely presented. 

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:Without Nadal Federer coudl have won 6 FO and 14 TMS 1000 on clay. And that is his worst surface?

Who is to say that with a totally different draw that would be the case? Who is to say Federer would still have won?  Got a crystal ball? And, again, he was achieving all this success in his prime and peak - the years I am using for my argument. You can't defeat my argument by using Federer of 2004-2009 :P. Federer is 35 now - and you are claiming he can win all these lovely clay tournaments now. What's he been doing on clay the last 5 years?

About as well as he's been doing at Australia, Indian Wells and Miami and obviously nothing's changed in 2017.

So your rebuttal to my post is... nothing.    Glorious.

Even if I accepted your premise that Federer's decision is based solely on his fear of injury - that still means you are wrong. Physicality is a huge part of tennis. It isn't some separate abstract notion. The bottom line is that Federer does not believe he can compete on clay. Whatever bullshit reason you give me, that's the end result.  

And it's more than fear of injury. He has said so. Clay requires most what age takes away most, and there is nothing wrong with that. A proper tour has a place for clay and grass and hard court (which is why they should all play differently). It makes the tour interesting. Carpet should never have been removed.

You should read your own posts from a year or so ago; they make interesting reading. You've gone from proclaiming Federer finished in virtually every match to now jumping around like an insane fanboy (which you are). According to you, Federer's "Neo Backhand" means all bets are off.  He can be Wn1 again, Wimbledon Champion is right around the corner, and he is a clay powerhouse (oh, but he is probably skipping them all... whoops). 

Fanboyism is a really sad thing to see, especially in someone who is intelligent. It cripples your mind, and it makes the bookies happy (if you bet). Even if Federer somehow accomplishes the impossible, it will not make your statements any less the fanboy droolings they are. The difference between me and you is that I support Federer, but not to the point of blind worship.  I criticized Federer when he wore that jacket with the number woven into it at Wimbledon (while Roddick was there heartbroken). I criticized him for fawning over money in an interview when he is already a millionaire. I criticized him for being ridiculously stubborn when playing Nadal the same way every time and, consequently, losing the same way every time. The other day, I criticized the crowd for deciding the match (Kyrgios lost the match because of crowd interference). And I don't see a small slice of time as indicative of a larger trend, just because I support the person it is currently being generous to. That's the difference between me and you, BB. 

You are a fanboy. I am not. 

Also, it doesn't take me long to type a reply like this, despite your comments trying to insinuate otherwise. I am a fast typer, a fast thinker, and I am more intelligent than you. 

Well the rebuttal was devastating, so much so it's impossible for you even to approach it.

I feel like I'm performing a service here. You have tension issues and you need to go through this. OK, it means you not reading properly or confusing posters (the neo backand is NITB's thing) but it makes me feel charitable and that's what's important.

Kyrgios lost the match because of his tennis shots; the shout came on Federers stroke and the aftermath was all played in Kyrgios head. Inability to retain your cool under pressure is a damaging thing, as you are only too aware.

Oh, and unlike yourself I'm not one of those people who keep bookies in Jags to fill their day.

Yes, Tenez is right: Federer is now ready to take the clay courts by storm... Shame he is skipping most of the clay season (if not all).  Oops.  I guess I have to think like a fanboy to understand your logic?  And I think I can do that.  Let's see...

Federer WOULD HAVE taken the clay courts by storm IF HE HAD entered the tournaments. One wonders why we even bother having competitions when we can just come to Bogbrush and Tenez Limited for the results before they happen, and even when they don't happen.  HAHAHAHA!

Daniel wrote:So your rebuttal to my post is... nothing.    Glorious.

Even if I accepted your premise that Federer's decision is based solely on his fear of injury - that still means you are wrong. Physicality is a huge part of tennis. It isn't some separate abstract notion. The bottom line is that Federer does not believe he can compete on clay. Whatever bullshit reason you give me, that's the end result.  

And it's more than fear of injury. He has said so. Clay requires most what age takes away most, and there is nothing wrong with that. A proper tour has a place for clay and grass and hard court (which is why they should all play differently). It makes the tour interesting. Carpet should never have been removed.

You should read your own posts from a year or so ago; they make interesting reading. You've gone from proclaiming Federer finished in virtually every match to now jumping around like an insane fanboy (which you are). According to you, Federer's "Neo Backhand" means all bets are off.  He can be Wn1 again, Wimbledon Champion is right around the corner, and he is a clay powerhouse (oh, but he is probably skipping them all... whoops). 

Fanboyism is a really sad thing to see, especially in someone who is intelligent. It cripples your mind, and it makes the bookies happy (if you bet). Even if Federer somehow accomplishes the impossible, it will not make your statements any less the fanboy droolings they are. The difference between me and you is that I support Federer, but not to the point of blind worship.  I criticized Federer when he wore that jacket with the number woven into it at Wimbledon (while Roddick was there heartbroken). I criticized him for fawning over money in an interview when he is already a millionaire. I criticized him for being ridiculously stubborn when playing Nadal the same way every time and, consequently, losing the same way every time. The other day, I criticized the crowd for deciding the match (Kyrgios lost the match because of crowd interference). And I don't see a small slice of time as indicative of a larger trend, just because I support the person it is currently being generous to. That's the difference between me and you, BB. 

You are a fanboy. I am not. 

Also, it doesn't take me long to type a reply like this, despite your comments trying to insinuate otherwise. I am a fast typer, a fast thinker, and I am more intelligent than you. 

thats funny daniel,cause i think any one reading your comments about donald trump would definitely conclude or say that youre a fanboy 
im just curious why you have to claim that youre more intelligent
i mean if that were true,wouldnt it just be a given without even having to say it?
the fact that you have to claim you are means that you have to try and convince someone that you are,which in turn suggests that the person didnt believe or think that to begin with

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Sure an 8th Wimbledon is also a must. But to me not as important as a 2nd FO at 35 maybe.

It's a matter of probabilty. Playing RG could decrease his chances at Wimbledon. It's not worth it.

The problem is that Bogbrush and Tenez think the "Neo Backhand" now gives Federer a clear chance to win the FO (Tenez actually makes Federer the favourite, bizarrely).  You're looking at this logically (his chances of winning it are very low), whereas they are not. And your point about it ruining his chance on grass is also well taken.  If Federer has any sense, he will skip the entire clay court season. That will give him a decent chance of winning Wimbledon.  I still don't think he would do it, but it would give him a fighting chance.


Edit.

This is how Tenez and Boggy imagine Federer at 35:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcGNqrAtsgg

Winner!  Winner! Winner! Backhand Winner!  Hooooooooooooooo.  

Roger Federer is on the move
Neo Backhand is loose!
Feel the magic, hear the roar
The larger racquet is loose!

I am not as obsessed with PRESIDENT Trump as you are, Veejay.  That's why I left you to talk to yourself in the political thread.  Be a nice chap and keep your political ramblings to a place where it is on topic

Daniel wrote:Yes, Tenez is right: Federer is now ready to take the clay courts by storm... Shame he is skipping most of the clay season (if not all).  Oops.  I guess I have to think like a fanboy to understand your logic?  And I think I can do that.  Let's see...

Federer WOULD HAVE taken the clay courts by storm IF HE HAD entered the tournaments. One wonders why we even bother having competitions when we can just come to Bogbrush and Tenez Limited for the results before they happen, and even when they don't happen.  HAHAHAHA!

You're sort of ranting to yourself here, which is a entertaining if a bit worrying.

bogbrush wrote:

Daniel wrote:Yes, Tenez is right: Federer is now ready to take the clay courts by storm... Shame he is skipping most of the clay season (if not all).  Oops.  I guess I have to think like a fanboy to understand your logic?  And I think I can do that.  Let's see...

Federer WOULD HAVE taken the clay courts by storm IF HE HAD entered the tournaments. One wonders why we even bother having competitions when we can just come to Bogbrush and Tenez Limited for the results before they happen, and even when they don't happen.  HAHAHAHA!

You're sort of ranting to yourself here, which is a entertaining if a bit worrying.

In my neck of the woods, we actually talk in plain English and debate properly.  I've realized you can't do that, so I am adapting my approach and using language you understand.  Also, unless I am dreaming, you have been here replying to me constantly. Like just now.  Imagine that.

It's nice to know I am getting to you though   If you want to start being a pain in the ass, you may want to do it to someone you can beat.  

Daniel wrote:I am not as obsessed with PRESIDENT Trump as you are, Veejay.  That's why I left you to talk to yourself in the political thread.  Be a nice chap and keep your political ramblings to a place where it

nothing political here daniel,just pointing out how youre once again contradicting yourself 
i mean talk about the pot calling the kettle a fanboy..

This is great, I've got you so well trained you perform on command.

 woof woof

PS. You missed a semicolon. That's a comma splice. 

Good boy! 

Daniel wrote:So your rebuttal to my post is... nothing.    Glorious.

Even if I accepted your premise that Federer's decision is based solely on his fear of injury - that still means you are wrong. Physicality is a huge part of tennis. It isn't some separate abstract notion. The bottom line is that Federer does not believe he can compete on clay. Whatever bullshit reason you give me, that's the end result.  

And it's more than fear of injury. He has said so. Clay requires most what age takes away most, and there is nothing wrong with that. A proper tour has a place for clay and grass and hard court (which is why they should all play differently). It makes the tour interesting. Carpet should never have been removed.

You should read your own posts from a year or so ago; they make interesting reading. You've gone from proclaiming Federer finished in virtually every match to now jumping around like an insane fanboy (which you are). According to you, Federer's "Neo Backhand" means all bets are off.  He can be Wn1 again, Wimbledon Champion is right around the corner, and he is a clay powerhouse (oh, but he is probably skipping them all... whoops). 

Fanboyism is a really sad thing to see, especially in someone who is intelligent. It cripples your mind, and it makes the bookies happy (if you bet). Even if Federer somehow accomplishes the impossible, it will not make your statements any less the fanboy droolings they are. The difference between me and you is that I support Federer, but not to the point of blind worship.  I criticized Federer when he wore that jacket with the number woven into it at Wimbledon (while Roddick was there heartbroken). I criticized him for fawning over money in an interview when he is already a millionaire. I criticized him for being ridiculously stubborn when playing Nadal the same way every time and, consequently, losing the same way every time. The other day, I criticized the crowd for deciding the match (Kyrgios lost the match because of crowd interference). And I don't see a small slice of time as indicative of a larger trend, just because I support the person it is currently being generous to. That's the difference between me and you, BB. 

You are a fanboy. I am not. 

Also, it doesn't take me long to type a reply like this, despite your comments trying to insinuate otherwise. I am a fast typer, a fast thinker, and I am more intelligent than you. 

Learn to summarise.

As for the bold part - Trump also has an IQ of 156

Veejay wrote:

Daniel wrote:So your rebuttal to my post is... nothing.    Glorious.

Even if I accepted your premise that Federer's decision is based solely on his fear of injury - that still means you are wrong. Physicality is a huge part of tennis. It isn't some separate abstract notion. The bottom line is that Federer does not believe he can compete on clay. Whatever bullshit reason you give me, that's the end result.  

And it's more than fear of injury. He has said so. Clay requires most what age takes away most, and there is nothing wrong with that. A proper tour has a place for clay and grass and hard court (which is why they should all play differently). It makes the tour interesting. Carpet should never have been removed.

You should read your own posts from a year or so ago; they make interesting reading. You've gone from proclaiming Federer finished in virtually every match to now jumping around like an insane fanboy (which you are). According to you, Federer's "Neo Backhand" means all bets are off.  He can be Wn1 again, Wimbledon Champion is right around the corner, and he is a clay powerhouse (oh, but he is probably skipping them all... whoops). 

Fanboyism is a really sad thing to see, especially in someone who is intelligent. It cripples your mind, and it makes the bookies happy (if you bet). Even if Federer somehow accomplishes the impossible, it will not make your statements any less the fanboy droolings they are. The difference between me and you is that I support Federer, but not to the point of blind worship.  I criticized Federer when he wore that jacket with the number woven into it at Wimbledon (while Roddick was there heartbroken). I criticized him for fawning over money in an interview when he is already a millionaire. I criticized him for being ridiculously stubborn when playing Nadal the same way every time and, consequently, losing the same way every time. The other day, I criticized the crowd for deciding the match (Kyrgios lost the match because of crowd interference). And I don't see a small slice of time as indicative of a larger trend, just because I support the person it is currently being generous to. That's the difference between me and you, BB. 

You are a fanboy. I am not. 

Also, it doesn't take me long to type a reply like this, despite your comments trying to insinuate otherwise. I am a fast typer, a fast thinker, and I am more intelligent than you. 

thats funny daniel,cause i think any one reading your comments about donald trump would definitely conclude or say that youre a fanboy 
im just curious why you have to claim that youre more intelligent
i mean if that were true,wouldnt it just be a given without even having to say it?
the fact that you have to claim you are means that you have to try and convince someone that you are,which in turn suggests that the person didnt believe or think that to begin with

Suggests an inferiority complex, doesn't it.

But seriously guys I think we should give Daniel a break. He's not quite a normally adjusted person - I suspect he has a mild personality disorder and I fear that too much goading might tip him over the edge.

We all saw the result of a pretty innocuous comment by NITB just a few days ago.

Fair point, I'll lay off.

One would almost think this is a clique?   And I can't read TMF's replies, but I know they are agreeing with Bogbush hahaha
Very likely also full of insults, because he is rather unintelligent.

It's no wonder Amri left.  You even managed to bore him/her to death.  I never thought I'd sympathize with a Nadal fan, but I'm beginning to think the Federer fanboys are even worse.    At least Amri didn't have their head up their arse to the point of believing their own opinion to be fact - and further telling me that my opinion isn't what I really believe. And I respected the fact that he/she didn't resort to ad hominems every post. Takes a special kind of stupid that.

bogbrush wrote:This is great, I've got you so well trained you perform on command.

You're a very disturbed individual.  I can see why you were forced here, banned a few times from the other forum and then basically being forced off it. I always thought they were being heavy handed with you, but now I see that I just didn't know you as well as they did.  They are well shut of you. Sadly, this place is now lumbered with your inane posts and put downs.   I think Amri did it on purpose as some sort of tactical maneuver.   Even worse, you seem to have acquired a few sycophants here. No doubt this hero worship validates you. Heaven knows, you need that. 

Let's put it this way: If you didn't have a problem, you wouldn't have been forced here. Clearly, a lot of people are fed up with you.  Me, I never went back there after I realized that was a rather crap clique - but I only frequent one forum - This one. I don't feel the need to tell everyone what they are thinking, like you, BB. But, of course, in your mind you are perfect.  Must be a bit of a come down to know you got slapped off the other forum. Sooooo wise. 

Anyway, I have absolutely no intention of replying to you again, either. You aren't a genuine person who comes onto forums for a genuine debate. You're a bit of a looney with delusions of grandeur. Also a fanboy.  You've joined TMF, ..., and veejay in the land of Foe. I gave up trying to argue with flat earthers a long time ago. I make an exception for Tenez because it's his forum and he's not heavy handed. Plus he actually states his opinion clearly. Because he actually has one.

It's great being foed. Now I can write whatever I like about Daniel.