Canadian Masters 1000

Interview from yesterday.....
Interviewer (1mn05s): What convinced you this year to play Montreal, you were hesitating isn't it?
RF: I had to wait and see how I felt. I took a 10day break right after WImby, then I returned to CH. Then I started to train and after 5 days, I play tennis and  evaluate the situation....how are the "courbatures" (aching, stiffness), how is the back? and then you take a decision, shall I take a little risk and play Montreal or should I stay home and get another week of rest?

Needless to say that fed is really hesitating with words here, cause of course it is not his first language but mostly cause he is very careful about what he says.

Then he finishes the interview: "yes I will go and watch the match Shapo.Zverev while having treatment"!

Federer was clearly injured there.

DECIMA wrote:Federer was clearly injured there.

Indeed.  Either that or he was faking an injury (though not clear to me why he would).

Funny though that one time Tenez is right the whole forum gangs up on him and laughs at him.  Isn't it just like The Boy Who Cried Wolf story?

He probably was, but in that case he was all tournament. His play was if the same low standard throughout with no decent bacihand.

If he was injured, then he should not have played.  As I keep reminding some of you, when you get on that court, you are there because you believe you can win.  There are no excuses.  It's not surprising to me that Decima agrees with the injury nonsense, because he/she dos it with Nadal too much as well.  It's just fanboy excuse making. I'm supposed to believe a Masters finalist is "clearly injured" lol  Yeah.  Ok. And what does it change even if he were?  Nothing.  HE LOST.  Get the f over it.  Why is it even relevant to bring it up?  I'll tell you why... To put the opponent down.  Fanboyism is a mental disorder. Like being a liberal.

Daniel wrote:There are no excuses.

But it does not have to be an excuse.  Just a fact. I am also not a big fan of saying "he was injured so it does not really count".  It counts as any other loss, and it is up to him to make sure he is not injured.  And if he is injured, tough luck.

But, that said, it is still a valid topic.  No reason to refuse to discuss injury outright.

In this case, you could see he was not moving well, and was getting worse as the match progressed.  By the end of the match he was not going even after the balls that were quite reachable.

An even bigger tell was that, unless I am very mistaken, the last few games he stopped bending on his returns.  You know, Fed's usual, bend at the waist, twirl the racquet, getting ready to receive.  Towards the end he would just remain upright.  Unlikely he would change his routine like that if he was all fine.

OK let's go through this calmly, step by step

Daniel wrote:If he was injured, then he should not have played.

Reasonable opinion, but if he had withdrew he would have also come under criticism. Bit unfair on Federer as whatever he does he will be criticised.

Daniel wrote:It's not surprising to me that Decima agrees with the injury nonsense, because he/she dos it with Nadal too much as well.

Possible with Nadal, but in this instance it would be quite a stretch to claim I have fanboyism for Roger Federer.

Daniel wrote:There are no excuses....
next para: It's just fanboy excuse making. I'm supposed to believe a Masters finalist is "clearly injured" lol  Yeah.  Ok. And what does it change even if he were?  Nothing.  HE LOST.  Get the f over it.  Why is it even relevant to bring it up?  I'll tell you why... To put the opponent down.  Fanboyism is a mental disorder.

I agree that it is the job of a player to come into a match fully fit. No one like sore losers.

However, thinking sensibly, there are two analytical points for which talking about injury is legitimate:
a) When looking to make predictions in future H2H. For example Federer vs Stakhovsky, the knowledge that Federer was injured would make it less likely that you bet on Stak if they met again at Wimbledon.
b) Looking at short-term medium term future for the player. Maybe Federer's poor performances here were due to him not taking training seriously, or just a bad patch of form. If this was the case, it doesn't really impact his chances in short term future. However if it's an injury, depending on the extent of the injury, there is a greater impact on future tournaments. If it's a minor injury he may be affected for Cincy but not USO etc.

Does that sound reasonable?

Stakhovsky played a blinder and hit a ridiculous number of winners.  I'm not sure it's relevant to again blame that on  injury? I'm not going to do that.  Federer played. Federer lost.   It isn't discussing injury that bothers me - it's that it's way over the top and definitely being used to justify a favourite player losing. Way too often. And no one is going to convince me that an injured pro reaches a final and loses because of that injury when they are clearly competing and not retiring.  Instead of being happy that Zverev played well and won, all I saw here and elsewhere were posts droning on with excuses and put downs.

The absolute implication of many of these posts is "But he only won because x was injured and wouldn't have won otherwise".  Which is poppycock. But Tenez and NITB use circular reasoning anyway, so I don't expect much else.

Federer only loses when he isn't fully fit > Federer lost, so wasn't fully fit.  Fully fit = when Fed wins.

summerblues wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Federer was clearly injured there.

Indeed.  Either that or he was faking an injury (though not clear to me why he would).

Funny though that one time Tenez is right the whole forum gangs up on him and laughs at him.  Isn't it just like The Boy Who Cried Wolf story?

You are no better than Daniel.

I only cry wolf cause Fed is 36. So unlike you I have a bit of an understanding what it is to play competitive tennis at that age.

I only need  to see 2 unusual move from Fed (mostly on serve) to know there is something wrong...someone like Daniel and yourself can;t even see it after a whole match and weird result. At least BB can see he is playing crap all week. I did not comment on his previous 4 matches cause I did not watch them. So I only suggested stiffness an tiredness, something you woudl get after every single match at that age.

I never said there was something wrong prior to that Wimby semi so you are actually making the cry wolf up.

Are you jealous I always get it right actually?

I can see the result, but I don't find it weird.  Aches and pains and poor form happen more and more as a player ages.  They are no cause for implying that the opponent either couldn't or wouldn't win otherwise, or as an excuse. I don't think it's relevant.  Firstly, that's the game; secondly, you and NITB go on like Fed is playing with 3 broken ribs. I find it an insult to Zverev to simply magic wand his win away.

When Federer was playing at the Aussie Open final v Nadal, you were trying to convince me that Federer was done for because of injury.  And yet there was no sign of this phantom ailment in set 5. He came close to losing, but it wasn't any injury to blame.

Crikey it’s all kicked off on here!

 

I saw Federer’s first match and match against Haase. It was vintage Federer this week, however when looking at his opponents: Polanksy, Ferrer, Agut, Haase. Players that don’t possess big serves or power based game. Even if Federer’s advantage was neutralised by niggle/injury, his groundstrokes are still in my view much better than that collective. Zverev had the power and the serve to beat Federer. It’s a case of match up’s. Zverev had the tools the others didn’t in that regard.

 

Not sure if Federer will play Cinncy if he is carrying a niggle/injury.

So will Fed now play Cincy? If he genuinely has back issues, he will surely pull out? Makes no sense to risk making it worse - priority has to be the US Open.

Daniel wrote:I can see the result, but I don't find it weird.  Aches and pains and poor form happen more and more as a player ages.  They are no cause for implying that the opponent either couldn't or wouldn't win otherwise, or as an excuse. I don't think it's relevant.  Firstly, that's the game; secondly, you and NITB go on like Fed is playing with 3 broken ribs. I find it an insult to Zverev to simply magic wand his win away.

What are you on about? We never said anything else that there is something wrong with him. That's you, one, can't see it, secondly are making all those other presumptions. We are just saying what we see. end of. It's a forum and here to be said. I knew federer would mostly likely feel it yesterday, I said it and it happened. And no I do not always say it.

When Federer was playing at the Aussie Open final v Nadal, you were trying to convince me that Federer was done for because of injury.  And yet there was no sign of this phantom ailment in set 5. He came close to losing, but it wasn't any injury to blame.

And you know what? Federer himself turned out to say he had a groin injury. I am also 99.9% certain that without those 2 days rest before the final, he would have lost.

legendkillar wrote:Crikey it’s all kicked off on here!

 

I saw Federer’s first match and match against Haase. It was vintage Federer this week, however when looking at his opponents: Polanksy, Ferrer, Agut, Haase. Players that don’t possess big serves or power based game. Even if Federer’s advantage was neutralised by niggle/injury, his groundstrokes are still in my view much better than that collective. Zverev had the power and the serve to beat Federer. It’s a case of match up’s. Zverev had the tools the others didn’t in that regard.

 

Not sure if Federer will play Cinncy if he is carrying a niggle/injury.

Where were those tools when he lost 61 64 v Fed 2 months ago?

Slippy wrote:So will Fed now play Cincy? If he genuinely has back issues, he will surely pull out? Makes no sense to risk making it worse - priority has to be the US Open.

Again, it is not as straightforward. Back problems can come and go. He won Wimby 2012 with a back issue. Likewise when he won the DC. Coudl not move in the WTF final (walk over) and played poorly in the DC a week later....but managed to pull it through.

People with back problems are advised to keep walking, not lie down.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Crikey it’s all kicked off on here!

 

I saw Federer’s first match and match against Haase. It was vintage Federer this week, however when looking at his opponents: Polanksy, Ferrer, Agut, Haase. Players that don’t possess big serves or power based game. Even if Federer’s advantage was neutralised by niggle/injury, his groundstrokes are still in my view much better than that collective. Zverev had the power and the serve to beat Federer. It’s a case of match up’s. Zverev had the tools the others didn’t in that regard.

 

Not sure if Federer will play Cinncy if he is carrying a niggle/injury.

Where were those tools when he lost 61 64 v Fed 2 months ago?

Maybe he was injured

Slippy wrote:So will Fed now play Cincy? If he genuinely has back issues, he will surely pull out? Makes no sense to risk making it worse - priority has to be the US Open.

Depends on what kind of back injury it is.
It it's the old one, tons of brufens and two days rest can fix it.

I am assuming his core is super strong, so this latest flare up is either temperature induced or some sudden movement/stretch or stg.

I hope it's not stg new.

Nadal is certainly in a good position now to finish year number 1.

Lucky Nadal!

In equal measures Ten Federer has been lucky this year. What should've been the main competition has died out physically (bar Nadal).

It's been an odd year.

legendkillar wrote:In equal measures Ten Federer has been lucky this year. What should've been the main competition has died out physically (bar Nadal).

It's been an odd year.

True. But that's what makes Nadal even luckier as all his main opponents were out of form.

And his main rival can't manage a full schedule. Given Nadal isn't firing on the dominant cylinders, does have the feeling he is the best of a bad bunch at present. Taking into account his last tournament win was the FO and he looks set to get the ranking by getting deeper into a tournament than his rival, well, it feels odd.

It's ripe for the youngsters to lay siege, but they are struggling even with that task!

Daniel wrote:
Federer only loses when he isn't fully fit > Federer lost, so wasn't fully fit.  Fully fit = when Fed wins.
But Tenez and NITB use circular reasoning anyway, so I don't expect much else.

To be fair to you, Tenez did say a few years ago that every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured. Hence Summerblues, who is normally very fair on Tenez, used the 'stopped clock right twice a day' line... but still Federer was actually injured yesterday. He's right here.

Daniel wrote:And no one is going to convince me that an injured pro reaches a final and loses because of that injury when they are clearly competing and not retiring.

Why are you saying no one will convince you of that? It's something that is perfectly possible, especially with his age making him more injury prone. Federer is actually good enough to beat the players he did beat this week without being at full capacity.

Also I made 2 cases where I thought it was very reasonable to talk about injuries, and you didn't respond directly to that Daniel.

DECIMA wrote:
To be fair to you, Tenez did say a few years ago that every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured. Hence Summerblues, who is normally very fair on Tenez, used the 'stopped clock right twice a day' line... but still Federer was actually injured yesterday. He's right here.  

That is a lie. I always said that Fed losses to Nadal, besides the slower conditions, were down to nadal's physical game and bringing a new game Federer had to cope with. Likewise about his losses to Djokovic. I am the one who said Fed already struggled at his so-called peak versus young RRunners. Unlike Daniel who gave the excuse of age since 2007! You are mixing things up.

Bad faith!

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:
To be fair to you, Tenez did say a few years ago that every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured. Hence Summerblues, who is normally very fair on Tenez, used the 'stopped clock right twice a day' line... but still Federer was actually injured yesterday. He's right here.  

That is a lie.

No, it's not. I'm not using that line as a summary, or my interpretation of what you said... 'every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured' is an exact quote which I remember.

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:
To be fair to you, Tenez did say a few years ago that every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured. Hence Summerblues, who is normally very fair on Tenez, used the 'stopped clock right twice a day' line... but still Federer was actually injured yesterday. He's right here.  

That is a lie.

No, it's not. I'm not using that line as a summary, or my interpretation of what you said... 'every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured' is an exact quote which I remember.

out of context. I have mentioned enough time that Fed had to improve his game to stay with the new generation that I do not have to justify this quote.

I still think that yes had he trained with the larger frame an new string since young, like this new generation, he woudl have beaten them consistently...like he did beat his generation consistently.
He is simply the best player ever....in case you had not noticed.

Tenez wrote:

No, it's not. I'm not using that line as a summary, or my interpretation of what you said... 'every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured' is an exact quote which I remember.

out of context. I have mentioned enough time that Fed had to improve his game to stay with the new generation that I do not have to justify this quote.

No, it was not out of context. I remember the context actually, you were talking about how Fed was fatigued for the USO final in 2009, I challenged you, and then you said that line.
As for the fact you have said things that are contradicting that... two wrongs don't make a right.

Jahu wrote:Tenez has the Crystal Ball too, see he even saw Zverev say something to Fed at the net. You are  a Legend Ten 

yep Jahu....even Zverev noticed something was wrong...so I guess he did have a word about it at the net. Imagine if you had a forum full of Daniels and SBs...completely blind to what's on the court!

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:
To be fair to you, Tenez did say a few years ago that every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured. Hence Summerblues, who is normally very fair on Tenez, used the 'stopped clock right twice a day' line... but still Federer was actually injured yesterday. He's right here.  

That is a lie.

No, it's not. I'm not using that line as a summary, or my interpretation of what you said... 'every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured' is an exact quote which I remember.

And your interpretations are heavily tainted by your fandom.

You need to stand back and have an objective view.

While you think Nadal is better than Federer there is no hope for you...

... wrote:You need to stand back and have an objective view.

You are a partisan Djokovic/Federer fan, and I am a partisan Nadal fan.
People who write or read this forum can judge for themselves who out of two of us makes arguments on logic and evidence to a greater extent, and who doesn't.

... wrote:

And your interpretations are heavily tainted by your fandom.

Oh I'm sure it is, but luckily for you and Tenez this quote is not based on my interpretation, I've remembered it word for word.

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:

No, it's not. I'm not using that line as a summary, or my interpretation of what you said... 'every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured' is an exact quote which I remember.

out of context. I have mentioned enough time that Fed had to improve his game to stay with the new generation that I do not have to justify this quote.

No, it was not out of context. I remember the context actually, you were talking about how Fed was fatigued for the USO final in 2009, I challenged you, and then you said that line.
As for the fact you have said things that are contradicting that... two wrongs don't make a right.

So I was right...2009 is out of context for me. Different as saying it in 2011 or 12 for instance. Fed was tired in that 2009 Final. You will not convinced me otherwise. he had played a tough 3 setter the day before and suddenly dropped his level from end of second set onwards.

And yes in 2009, he was winning almost everything on HC. he was 2 or 3 points away from winning all 4 GS that year. he took a 2 months break for his back after the AO09.

DECIMA wrote:

... wrote:You need to stand back and have an objective view.

You are a partisan Djokovic/Federer fan, and I am a partisan Nadal fan.
People who write or read this forum can judge for themselves who out of two of us makes arguments on logic and evidence to a greater extent, and who doesn't.

... wrote:

And your interpretations are heavily tainted by your fandom.

Oh I'm sure it is, but luckily for you and Tenez this quote is not based on my interpretation, I've remembered it word for word.

I am not anyone's partisan fan any more.
I used to be one.

That is why I have this liberating new poster name.

I love Nole as he is a Serb but not blind to his weaknesses.
Federer...how can you not love his tennis...I always have, even during my craziest Nole fandom days.

Back to tennis...

Tenez wrote:

Jahu wrote:Tenez has the Crystal Ball too, see he even saw Zverev say something to Fed at the net. You are  a Legend Ten 

yep Jahu....even Zverev noticed something was wrong...so I guess he did have a word about it at the net. Imagine if you had a forum full of Daniels and SBs...completely blind to what's on the court!

Even Zverev, 20, says he is tired and doesn't know how he'll fare in Cinci.

But Fed, a married man and a father of 4 little children seems is not allowed to be tired by some here, at 36 and 2 slams under his belt this year...

Tenez wrote:

So I was right...2009 is out of context for me. Different as saying it in 2011 or 12 for instance. Fed was tired in that Final. You will not convinced me otherwise. he had played a tough 3 setter the day before and suddenly dropped his level from end of second set onwards.

A 28 year old Federer was tired for the US Open final because he won his Super Saturday semi in 3 sets, ok mate

But that's not even what I was saying, that quote is not about Del Potro defeat 2009, you said every Slam defeat since 2006 is due to injury or fatigue... and you said this at some point in 2013.
I even remember your exact excuses tournament by tournament. 2012 FO and USO he was injured, 2012 AO he was beating Nadal but ran out of energy, 2011 USO he fatigued so lost (), 2011 Wimby he was injured against Tsonga etc. you went on

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:

So I was right...2009 is out of context for me. Different as saying it in 2011 or 12 for instance. Fed was tired in that Final. You will not convinced me otherwise. he had played a tough 3 setter the day before and suddenly dropped his level from end of second set onwards.

A 28 year old Federer was tired for the US Open final because he won his Super Saturday semi in 3 sets, ok mate

Weren't you also laughing when I said Fed was tired/stiff this week? Players were complaining about the super saturday before you were born when the game was played in slow mo! You are so blind to what it takes to play 2 days in a row. Even nadal was dead stiff in both 2007 and 2008 hamburg finals until his body warmed up! How old was Nadal then?

I even remember your exact excuses tournament by tournament. 2012 FO and USO he was injured, 2012 AO he was beating Nadal but ran out of energy, 2011 USO he fatigued so lost (), 2011 Wimby he was injured against Tsonga etc. you went on

Has not he made a case for what I have been saying this year actually? AT 35, he lessons your man 3 times. wins 2 slams, 2 TMS1000 and loses one cause most likely impeded. ....what else do you need? he has just proven my words!

... wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Jahu wrote:Tenez has the Crystal Ball too, see he even saw Zverev say something to Fed at the net. You are  a Legend Ten 

yep Jahu....even Zverev noticed something was wrong...so I guess he did have a word about it at the net. Imagine if you had a forum full of Daniels and SBs...completely blind to what's on the court!

Even Zverev, 20, says he is tired and doesn't know how he'll fare in Cinci.

But Fed, a married man and a father of 4 little children seems is not allowed to be tired by some here, at 36 and 2 slams under his belt this year...

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

In a forum full of hilarious quotes, the idea that Federer has it tougher than someone stocking shelves at Tesco may be my favourite yet!

My interest in an injury or not is not to put any spin on the loss but to inform me as to his chances at the USO and of gaining #1.

I think he might play Cincy anyway as I think this back thing can go away as easily in play as not. Certainly he had a Lazarene recovery at Wimbledon 2012.

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

How do you know nothing stops these fathers? Federer didn't pick up a racquet and win all those Slams as a married father did he.

You missed the point completely with mine and BB's point about freshness and tiredness. Every player will get tired after playing a string of matches, however to attribute it to be a dominating factor in a loss to a player on the back of a 3 month break is silly. And before the 36 year old thing is reeled out again, bear this in mind. Radek Stepanek in 2016 at the tender age of 37 played 84 matches both singles and doubles. I don't think he would be rolling out the excuse of tiredness for defeats. Tiredness is part and parcel of any sport at any age. They deal with it and play with it.

Rumours are swirling is that Federer might've been carrying an injury or niggle. Totally different game to freshness or tiredness.

Slippy wrote:

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

In a forum full of hilarious quotes, the idea that Federer has it tougher than someone stocking shelves at Tesco may be my favourite yet!

Context. As glamorous as playing on Centre Court or winning Slams or doing photo shoots, commercials, there is the crap that no-one sees. I can't say the thought of travelling quite literally the globe week in week out for 11 months would appeal to me. I mean imagine this: Auckland-Melbourne-DC Venue-Rotterdam-Doha-Indian Wells-Miami-Monte Carlo-Barcelona-Madrid-Rome-Paris-Stuttgart-Halle-London-Washington-Toronto/Montreal-Cincinnati-New York-Tokyo-Shanghai-Basel-Paris-London. I know this isn't Federer's current schedule, but just an example of what it could look like.

Now to some that could be a travellers wet dream, however factor in airports, acclimatising to different countries and time zones. Body clock must be shot to bits.

Now I'd gladly rock up on Centre Court, though I don't think my enthusiasm would be so high if I was travelling from far away to do it.

legendkillar wrote:

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

How do you know nothing stops these fathers? Federer didn't pick up a racquet and win all those Slams as a married father did he.
You missed the point completely with mine and BB's point about freshness and tiredness. Every player will get tired after playing a string of matches, however to attribute it to be a dominating factor in a loss to a player on the back of a 3 month break is silly. And before the 36 year old thing is reeled out again, bear this in mind. Radek Stepanek in 2016 at the tender age of 37 played 84 matches both singles and doubles. I don't think he would be rolling out the excuse of tiredness for defeats. Tiredness is part and parcel of any sport at any age. They deal with it and play with it.
Rumours are swirling is that Federer might've been carrying an injury or niggle. Totally different game to freshness or tiredness.

Of course Federer didn't start playing when he was a father.
It's painful having to spell everything out to some people....

Slippy wrote:

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

In a forum full of hilarious quotes, the idea that Federer has it tougher than someone stocking shelves at Tesco may be my favourite yet!

Well, just shows you can't appreciate a genius and what it takes.
No wonder you are a Murray fan.

Wow. Yesterday's match is the first of 2017 in which Federer didn't have a match point!

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:
'every slam defeat since 2006 Federer has either been fatigued or injured' is an exact quote which I remember.

he has just proven my words!

Fantastic!

OK let's play a game then shall we, I'll name a Slam defeat from 2006-2013 (when u said that quote), and you say whether it was either a) injury or b) fatigue.
Start us off with Wimby 2011.

So if Fed does play in Cinc and loses... the result is null and void? And if he wins...  he's the greatest.  So he can't lose really, can he? 

Edit.  Seems he's pulled out anyway.  Shame Nadal gets to N1 this way, but that's tennis.  Sometimes you get aches and pains and niggles - and at 36 that's the price you will always pay for playing.  Roger does have a good chance of YEN1 though. Nadal deserves to be WN1 on the back of his season so far - consistency during clay season and being fitter.

Slippy wrote:

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

My heart bleeds for the man. I bet many married fathers out there wish they could take a 3 month break from their job... And then say after it "I'm still tired!"

Nothing stopping those married fathers picking up a racquet and starting winning 19 slams...
Much easier sitting behind the computer looking busy or packing shelves in TESCO....

In a forum full of hilarious quotes, the idea that Federer has it tougher than someone stocking shelves at Tesco may be my favourite yet!

NITB... honestly, I have to believe you've never played this game with statements like that.  Most tennis (I think pretty much all of them) players came from wealthy (loaded) parents and wealthy neighbourhoods. They were getting the best tennis tutoring from a very young age. Even Murray had a middle class upbringing with a tennis coach at his back, and he had the money to vamoose to Spain for further training. The lack of those connections and finances instantly stops almost all people from becoming a pro. Tennis is an elitist sport by virtue of the money alone.  But you go one further and suggest that you don't need to start young.. you can just pick up a racquet at any old age, with any income, and become a top pro.  What planet are you on? That's utterly stupid.

Tenez wrote:I am so tempted to put money on Federer not winning Canada...and even less likely to win Cincy if he goes far here.

Should have.....

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am so tempted to put money on Federer not winning Canada...and even less likely to win Cincy if he goes far here.

Should have.....

Well I hope you didn't put money on Agut