Federer hoping to drop his ranking soon

First topic message reminder :

Obviously what Roger wants through the RG & Wimbledon phase will be to be immune to playing Nadal before a final.

With Rafa highly likely to recover enough points to push David Ferrer out of #4, the absolute best thing for Fed is to get down there to #3 - something that's a cast-iron certainty soon.

He can then eye the RG draw hoping to be placed with Andy Murray and have legitimate hopes of making a move in a final against Djokovic or Nadal immediately after some absurdly ridiculous marathon.


I love it when a plan comes together.

*strokes white cat*

Red - I stand corrected, and am happy to do so.

lags72 wrote:Red - I stand corrected, and am happy to do so.

No worries

JuliusHMarx wrote:Slight being the operative word

Its more than a slight embarassment it has brought him to tears on multiple occasions and Mcenroe had to counsel him in a postmatch interview. It is the one glaring poo potato in the feast of riches that has been Federer's career. Maybe if he didn't cry so often after slam matches with Nadal, observers like myself wouldn't claim he was terrorized by the prospect of facing him in a slam match. Not to mention his own fans doing threads that fed should or would tank matches just to avoid Nadal in a five set match. To me that is more denigrating to federer than the use of the word terrorized.

When two players of the very highest quality meet there is no shame in losing. Federer may have a losing record against Nadal but this will not affect his legacy. Some of their matches have been of such high quality that in the future people will forget who won. Who won that tie break between Borg and McEnroe?

socal I love your hyperbole so much I don't even mind when you make things up.

We're all aware of AO 2009 but I must have missed those "multiple occasions" - could you perhaps enlighten us socal...??

I can certainly recall Johnny Mac gently mocking Fed for his tears immediately after an RG Final ; but it happened, IIRC, when he had just completed his career Slam in 2009, so tears of joy one could safely say ; in common with many tears shed in the wake of various Wimbledon triumphs.

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal I love your hyperbole so much I don't even mind when you make things up.

I alway like compliments, but what exactly did I make up? What factual assertion do you deem to be imagined or simply made up? Because I would posit you made up the fact that I made things up. We had Lags on here talking about how conceivably federer could easily have been .500 in slams against Nadal, now that is something that was just made up.

lags72 wrote:We're all aware of AO 2009 but I must have missed those "multiple occasions" - could you perhaps enlighten us socal...??

I can certainly recall Johnny Mac gently mocking Fed for his tears immediately after an RG Final ; but it happened, IIRC, when he had just completed his career Slam in 2009, so tears of joy one could safely say ; in common with many tears shed in the wake of various Wimbledon triumphs.

Tears of anguish are a great deal different than tears of joy. He cried in the wimby final and in the AO final 09, last time I checked that qualifies as multiple occasions right there. And mac consoling federer was after wimby 08, I didn't even remember him crying after an FO loss to Nadal, but he probably did. And by the way as angry as he was after "the shot" and loss to Novak he never blubbered like a teenage girl after a break up from losses to anyone else on tour that I can remember. Which tells me that he is traumatized to an extent by his history with Nadal at the slams. If I was him I would be to, when you consider the stakes they have played for.

I just find it funny that you missed the "multiple occassions" he cried after losses to Nadal and then you go on to name 3 times off the top of your head. Now if that isn't kafkaesque I don't know what is. Does 3 not qualify as multiple now? Do we have to pervert the plain meaning of words in order to play gotcha with me?

Nothing wrong with men crying socal - doesn't mean they're acting like teenage girls. Respect for cultural and individual differences, I say.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nothing wrong with men crying socal - doesn't mean they're acting like teenage girls. Respect for cultural and individual differences, I say.

I don't have issue with him crying, I have issue with people claiming that I made things up and providing absolutely no back up for said contention. Or trying to change the meaning of the word multiple, apparently multiple now means at least 4 times I was unaware of this development in the english language has anyone let the people at Webster's know?

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal I love your hyperbole so much I don't even mind when you make things up.

I alway like compliments, but what exactly did I make up? What factual assertion do you deem to be imagined or simply made up? Because I would posit you made up the fact that I made things up. We had Lags on here talking about how conceivably federer could easily have been .500 in slams against Nadal, now that is something that was just made up.

"Hyperbole - Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
Unless you meant Mac was literally counselling him on court

1: consisting of, including, or involving more than one <multiple births>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

I suggest you take your dispute up with the people at webster, and inform them that multiple means more than 3 and not more than 1. And that you retract said contention that I made anything up, I am still waiting for the factual assertion that made that supposedly is made up.

Or to put it another way, Djokovic was so utterly devastated by his defeat to Murray that he locked himself away in his hotel room and sysematically destroyed his rackets with a hacksaw in a fit of rage and grief rarely seen in a top sportsman.

My opinion that Mac was trying to comfort or counsel him after the loss was my opinion of the interview, it is not a factual assertion. Watch the interview and see what opinion you have of it. Stating that he cried multiple times is a factual assertion and is true, stating that he hasn't beat Nadal in a slam in years is also a factual assertion and true. Stating his record is 8-2 against Nadal is a factual assertion and true. And if you watch the interview again you might see what I am talking about.

Julius I don't think you understand the difference between opinion and a factual assertion julius or at least you are playing dumb on this thread in your typical role as devil's advocate, you must of really liked that Pacino movie.

Like JHM says, you do exaggerate at times socal (even if it is in the good cause of entertainment ..... )

I mentioned one well-known incident of tears after losing to Nadal ; and then various other occasions which brought tears of joy.

I best be off to my bed before I feel terrorised, traumatised or become part of some dreadful kafkaesque scenario ........!

Enjoy the tennis, night all

Lags do you not remember when he cried in anguish at AO 09 and wimby 08, there is multiple for you, plain and simple as the dictionary indicates.

Enjoy your rest and hope you have a great night.

socal1976 wrote:Julius I don't think you understand the difference between opinion and a factual assertion julius or at least you are playing dumb on this thread in your typical role as devil's advocate, you must of really liked that Pacino movie.

You'll have noticed, I'm sure, that I said that (with good hyperbole) I don't mind when you make things up. 'When', of course, being an indefinite period of time, not necessarily referring to recent posts. Don't tell me I slipped that one past you without you noticing the careful wording, in true devil's advocate fashion?

Well it is actually very suggestive that if you make that comment on a particular thread implicetly you are saying that I am making something up in this particular argument. But I take you at your word, if you say I wasn't making something up on this thread that is fine. Now am I starting to wonder about what history of fabrication you are talking about? Either way Ill just ignore the second part of the sentence and focus on the first part that was complimentary. With this audience I guess I have to take what little affirmation and positivity is available. Everyone is a critic very few are true artists.

The only reason we know he cried after wimbledon is because he said he did which means he did it privately which was ok by your universal standards? You talk so much sh!t socal but I'll try to find it funny from now on.

Lol Mac had to counsel him after the match... From what I remember, he chose to and it was more embarassing for him. Didn't he publically offer to be Feds coach shortly after at some stage?

There was some crying after the Acapulco final, too.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The only reason we know he cried after wimbledon is because he said he did which means he did it privately which was ok by your universal standards? You talk so much sh!t socal but I'll try to find it funny from now on.

Lol Mac had to counsel him after the match... From what I remember, he chose to and it was more embarassing for him. Didn't he publically offer to be Feds coach shortly after at some stage?

Look do you think I care federer cried I don't, but it seems that people want to deny that Nadal is in his head and especially in grandslam. It is ok that he did cry, the dispute was over the idea that his losses to Nadal were a minor blemish and not that traumatizing, they are no such thing. Federer has an immaculate resume, but that is by far the most telling dark point in that the biggest matches of his career against his top rival he lost the vast majority of. People took me to task for saying that these losses had terrorized or traumatized FEderer the only reason I brought up the crying was to show how seriously he took those beatings and how they are not minor, at least not the way fed sees and saw it at the time. I did not criticize him for the act of crying just as illustration that 8 grandslam losses against his chief rival against his biggest rival was not minor and had left a very deep mark. If you have a problem with my opinion fine. I don't like all th bullsheet I have to read at times either, your last post falls into that category.

If it is so slight of embarassment as some have proposed and not something terrorizing to him why is it that in a 1000 matches the only time we have seen the man cry in aguish has come after grandslam losses at the hands of Nadal? It is really silly to try to pass it off as no big deal, it won't cost federer any money, but it very certainly has cost him dearly and he does not take it as minor deals. If anything it shows how much it meant to him.

You're assuming that the reason for the tears was Nadal, not the loss.
He's lost to Nadal 8 times in slams and only cried twice - perhaps he viewed those matches as more important. Perhaps he didn't care about the others.
Nadal cried after losing to Fed at Wimby 2006, in the locker room. Because he lost, or because he lost to Fed?

Are we really in a position to know exactly why a person cries? I suspect it's a combination of circumstances.

Dark, anguish, terrorizing, traumatising and deep. It's a wonder Fed didn't hang himself after such obvious torment. Or at least destroy his rackets

socal1976 wrote:If it is so slight of embarassment as some have proposed and not something terrorizing to him why is it that in a 1000 matches the only time we have seen the man cry in aguish has come after grandslam losses at the hands of Nadal? It is really silly to try to pass it off as no big deal, it won't cost federer any money, but it very certainly has cost him dearly and he does not take it as minor deals. If anything it shows how much it meant to him.

I am inclined to agree with BITF. He cried after beating Baggy at AO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQM9RMRN8pI (This is not a home video of me winning AO. Listen to his speech if you can - It is all coming out now...). There was also Rocket Rod, so the occasion was overwhelming.

If you do not like the man, stop writing about the player you dislike. Stay with praising Djokovic, a wonderful player in his own right.

@JHM..

Do any of Federer fans know if he cried after losing to Benneteau? or Berdych? or Monfils? or Baggy? SoCal, do you?

I think the Wimbledon loss was significant in that Nadal was really invading Federer's turf for the first time by beating him on his best surface, and the AO defeat confirmed it.

Particularly the latter, with Fed marooned on 13 slams at the time and having lost despite playing a great match on the day - I think that he may have wondered whether he'd ever break the record and win another slam if Nadal kept up that relentless form, regardless of how well Federer himself played. Prior to those two losses, only clay had been a no-go for him, but now he was staring down the barrel of potentially being superceded by his main rival on all surfaces. Maybe

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nadal cried after losing to Fed at Wimby 2006, in the locker room.

Incorrect.

Wimby 2007.

I disagree with Socal on this, I think it's good to see these people show a bit of emotion.

Federer :-
"Some I obviously I wish I didn't cry after losses, like in Australia (after the epic five-set final defeat by Nadal). But I was just so exhausted. When I sat down (at the end) I was actually calm about it but when I got on the podium and saw all the fans so respectful and had to speak, it (the tears) all of a sudden came out.

But I don't regret any of my outbursts. Some people think it's strange, some people think it's fantastic. I'm happy it all happened to me so that I could savour it and also feel the pain because it's not always that easy out there. It shows that I do care about the sport very dearly."

Rubbish, Rog - it shows that you were darkly and deeply traumatized and terrorized by Rafael Nadal. Wise up, man! Remember socal's maxim, Roger, and let him speak the truth on your behalf, instead of pretending you know something about your own feelings.

For a "true" H2H in grandslams go back through all the grandslams 2005+ and decide who would have won between N and F if they had played. That might be fun to watch the vicious arguing.

That's the fundamental problem with H2Hs, it excludes all potential matches where either player has not been good enough to get to the later stages, so it's inherently a very biased statistic. As has been said many times, if Federer was pish on clay the H2H would be about even.

Well I think it is a possibility that Roger's tears might have been partly due to who he lost to, losing to Nadal again that particular time I think hurt him.
Of course he's not going to say that though is he.

Anyway I think it's good for players to show some emotion.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nadal cried after losing to Fed at Wimby 2006, in the locker room.

Incorrect.

Wimby 2007.

Fair enough.

Good point YGB
I don't think the H2H itself is a very important stat, for me it just tells me what I already know.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nadal cried after losing to Fed at Wimby 2006, in the locker room.

Incorrect.

Wimby 2007.

Fair enough.

You haven't still answered any of my quiz questions correctly yet

Red wrote:Well I think it is a possibility that Roger's tears might have been partly due to who he lost to, losing to Nadal again that particular time I think hurt him.
Of course he's not going to say that though is he.

Which makes it very easy to form an opinion that suits us, without fear of contradiction.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nadal cried after losing to Fed at Wimby 2006, in the locker room.

Incorrect.

Wimby 2007.

Fair enough.

You haven't still answered any of my quiz questions correctly yet

I got bored with it very quickly.

Red wrote:Good point YGB
I don't think the H2H itself is a very important stat, for me it just tells me what I already know.

Objectively, of course

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Nadal cried after losing to Fed at Wimby 2006, in the locker room.

Incorrect.

Wimby 2007.

Fair enough.

You haven't still answered any of my quiz questions correctly yet

I got bored with it very quickly.

Just admit it, you were flailing. They were too difficult.

TBH I didn't bother reading them. Sorry.

You did, and you gave some speculative answers.
Unfortunately they were all incorrect.

I don't remember reading them - maybe the first one - it all seemed a bit childish.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't remember reading them - maybe the first one - it all seemed a bit childish.

It was a quiz which you couldn't answer.
Sour grapes?

If it makes you feel better to think that, then yes, sour grapes must be the only possible reason. Please take pity on me as I bow to you superior tennis knowledge. I am truly not worthy. Where's my hacksaw?

JuliusHMarx wrote:If it makes you feel better to think that, then yes, sour grapes must be the only possible reason. Please take pity on me as I bow to you superior tennis knowledge. I am truly not worthy. Where's my hacksaw?

The quiz was barely to do with tennis, you clearly haven't read it properly enough I feel.

Was the answer South Carolina? or Judy Garland?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Was the answer South Carolina? or Judy Garland?

Both incorrect.

The Treaty of Versailles?