• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Roddick vs Federer

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Bagpuss View Post
    Yeah 15 grand slams, grossly overrated

    You can't be that good if you are lucky not to lose to a limited player such as Roddick. Yes, Federer is overrated because his opponents have been pretty poor over the past few years. Look what happened when somebody good came along, such as Nadal last year.

    On top of that, Murray has beaten Federer about four times recently.
    Last edited by Cyberman; 5 July 2009, 21:56.

    Comment


      #12
      Yes, but Nadal only just beat him 9-7 in the fifth last year. Federer beat him in 2006 and 2007.

      Also, Federer won his first grandslam in 2003, Nadal won his first in 2005 so it's not like Nadal has just turned up. He's been around for 4 of the 6 years Federer has been winning grandslams.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by Bunk View Post
        Yes, but Nadal only just beat him 9-7 in the fifth last year. Federer beat him in 2006 and 2007.

        Also, Federer won his first grandslam in 2003, Nadal won his first in 2005 so it's not like Nadal has just turned up. He's been around for 4 of the 6 years Federer has been winning grandslams.
        Don't worry, CyberIdiot never lets the facts get in the way of his argument
        ǝןqqıʍ

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Bunk View Post
          Yes, but Nadal only just beat him 9-7 in the fifth last year. Federer beat him in 2006 and 2007.

          Also, Federer won his first grandslam in 2003, Nadal won his first in 2005 so it's not like Nadal has just turned up. He's been around for 4 of the 6 years Federer has been winning grandslams.

          I take your point, but it appears to me that Federer is going to have it much harder over the next couple of years as Murray and Nadal mature. Nadal was a late developer and so was Murray in comparison to Federer. What may help Federer and also Murray is that Nadal seems to be having major knee problems which could curtail his career.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
            Nadal was a late developer
            He won his first grand slam 2 days after his 19th birthday FFS! I wonder if you have even the slightest idea how dim you sound most of the time? You are thicker than a whale omelette!!
            “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
              I take your point, but it appears to me that Federer is going to have it much harder over the next couple of years
              Fine, but what does that prove? New players always come along and knock the established guys off the top.

              For what it's worth, Roddick played incredibly but I definitely didn't see Federer playing his scintillating best for most of the game. Many times he missed shots which were crazily difficult but you'd expect him to make.
              Originally posted by MaryPoppins
              I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
              Originally posted by vetran
              Urine is quite nourishing

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                I definitely didn't see Federer playing his scintillating best for most of the game. Many times he missed shots which were crazily difficult but you'd expect him to make.
                He seemed to struggle with his single handed backhand in the wind a bit. Made him revert to the slice most of the time which allowed Roddick to dictate from the back of the court a bit more than he normally would.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                  Fine, but what does that prove? New players always come along and knock the established guys off the top.

                  For what it's worth, Roddick played incredibly but I definitely didn't see Federer playing his scintillating best for most of the game. Many times he missed shots which were crazily difficult but you'd expect him to make.

                  That is precisely what I am saying. The guys earlier in Federer's carreer were relative rubbish. Even Henman was regarded as one of the best and he was clearly rubbish. Tennis goes in phases and Federer has been through a phase of dirth of talent IMO. Let's see how well he does from hereon in.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
                    The guys earlier in Federer's carreer were relative rubbish. Even Henman was regarded as one of the best and he was clearly rubbish.
                    Henman was no 4 in the world. How that makes him rubbish I will never understand so don't bother sprouting any rubbish to try and convince me.

                    Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
                    Let's see how well he does from hereon in.
                    If he dropped dead tomorrow most people with any tennis knowledge would regard him as the greatest ever. What he does from here on in is irrelevant, rather like your pontifications on something you obviously dont' understand.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      IMHO, Federer is one of the greatest players in history. The graceful movements, pinpoint footwork, moments of sheer genius, his humility and charisma. He deserves his success.

                      I don't think yesterday was one of his finest hours - he looked tired, as if he was having an off-day. His first serve was inconsistent, his one-handed backhand loose. Had he been totally on form he may well have demolished Roddick. As it was it turned into a tit-for-tat epic.

                      Now if he can beat Roddick (Who may well have a limited range, but was going all-guns to win this, and whose serve would demoralise most) on an off day, then woe-betide his opponents when he feels fully on form.

                      I think Nadal will continue to be a nemesis of sorts, and Murray will have to significantly up his game to be a contender - but I think they all have many years of success ahead of them.

                      I thoroughly enjoyed the game - and that's what counts. Another successful Wimbledon - looking forward to the US Open.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X