Federer's hints about his poor form....

First topic message reminder :

Federer: But you find a way to win when maybe someone is not playing so well or when your opponent is playing well, and that's what the beauty is of this game, I think, is trying to find a way when you're not feeling great That's what I maybe was able to do today.

That, imo, kind of confirms he is not 100%.

I never said my grammar was perfect and even when I do make my errors, what I'm saying makes perfect sense, scroll back and read what SA wrote and it doesn't. Ask any of the other posters and they'll confirm that for you.

SA, don't patronize me and tell you I don't know Latin when it was one of the modules on my degree, insinuating that I'm lying is disrespectful and rude. I got no reason to lie. Your sides are mostly insulting and condescending, it's best you quit them.

luciusmann wrote:I never said my grammar was perfect and even when I do make my errors, what I'm saying makes perfect sense, scroll back and read what SA wrote and it doesn't. Ask any of the other posters and they'll confirm that for you.

SA, don't patronize me and tell you I don't know Latin when it was one of the modules on my degree, insinuating that I'm lying is disrespectful and rude. I got no reason to lie. Your sides are mostly insulting and condescending, it's best you quit them.

Well I was following you
Until I got to the part where 'don't patronize me and tell you I don't know latin'
The whole post was lost to me. For someone setting the bar on grammar, you disappoint me Luciusmann

I don't patronize at all, pointing out you make numerous grammatical mistakes is perfectly reasonable. Blaming the UK education system is not, unless you were educated at one of our primary or secondary schools? Can you clarify for us if you did or not?

By one mistake? Mmm, you will be easily disappointed in life if someone makes one mistake like I did. In your case, making multiple errors is fine, as you usually do, as that's not disappointing, is it?

luciusmann wrote:I don't patronize at all, pointing out you make numerous grammatical mistakes is perfectly reasonable. Blaming the UK education system is not, unless you were educated at one of our primary or secondary schools? Can you clarify for us if you did or not?

By one mistake? Mmm, you will be easily disappointed in life if someone makes one mistake like I did. In your case, making multiple errors is fine, as you usually do, as that's not disappointing, is it?

One mistake? Since declaring youself grammar perfect, every 2nd post of yours had an error. You put in the work and edited this one, well done.

Tenez wrote:Who needs tinted glasses when gauging the greatest talent of tennis history, Lydian?

I know you praised him and I can only guess how much it must have pained you as you are desperately trying to appear as a "fair and serious" poster here. But you have too much history and some here know you well as you have constantly tried to diminish his record in the most serious manner at every single opportunity. You have come up with the weak era, slow 2001 grass, less skilled than Bjorkman, benefited from slow courts, fitter than Nadal, not as good as Pete etc...arguments on every single point that could alter his talent and increase whichever rival you could compare him with.

I liked Catalan Power cause though he disliked Federer he was frank about it and he knew his tennis.

Greatest talent in history according to you. You're entitled to your opinion, but unlike you I dont feel compelled to ram my opinion down other people's throats. Praising Federer caused me no such pain, I genuinely enjoyed watching him so cut the bull. I dont need to justify myself on here to anyone, least of all you - however, I'd love to know how I've sought to diminish his record "at every single opportunity". In terms of all those things you mention thanks for listing them - however, I've disputed socal's weak era theory on this forum (I've discussed 3 eras - fast-court, transitional, slow-court....all different, not weaker or stronger), I gave countless references to the grass changing in 2001 so I'm not getting into that again, Federer WAS a less skilled volleyer or returner than Bjorkman (but then most people were...did anyone ever see Jonas returning Sampras' serve at Queens halfway between the baseline and service line?), Federer grew up on clay and honed his baseline game but the point about benefitting is that Fed (like many others) in this slower surface era didnt have to adjust his game across surfaces as much as his forebears did to be able to dominate all slams/surfaces - for example, would Nadal have won all slams in the 90s? And so if slow courts made it easier for him, then it stands to reason it also would made it easier for Federer or anyone else too. I've never said he's fitter than Nadal, that's your exaggeration (as usual) but I've never seen the guy barely break sweat and he went toe-to-toe with Nadal for 5 hrs on clay at Rome 2006 for a start, plus we've all read (remember the reference I gave?) about the military regime Federer underwent with Paganini to become the fittest player on tour. And finally, in many areas of the game yes I do believe Fed wasnt as good as Pete but thats hardly a relevation really - Sampras is commonly acknowledged as having the best ever serve for one thing.

These are all rational discussion points. I put it to you that its simply your shortcoming that you interpret any statement that doesnt kneel or grovel at the "altar of Federer's talent" as an attack on the player. And so you tribally go on the attack yourself. I've seen it countless times against countless posters, including myself. We all know its led you to being banned from mulitple forums so dont come the "fair and serious" poster rubbish. Regarding tennis knowledge....yeah whatever....we all know you always know best Tenez

Incorrect, if you read what I wrote, I said recent posts. My posts make good sense, address the fact yours don't. My posts have spelling errors or typos which I promptly correct or occasionally miss out the verb is, the sense is still clear. I've never declared my posts are grammatically perfect, can you show me where I said that instead of making it up? Come on, where? If you're going to say I have, show me the proof.

Can you answer some of the points I raised instead of selectively answering one point. It's the sign of someone losing the argument when he chooses to selectively answer what they want instead of all the other points.

I know for a fact I'll be waiting a long time before you ever address most of the points raised in my previous post, but that's just typical.