The Fed party's Central Committee Approved List for explaining fed defeats

First topic message reminder :

1. The courts were slower than mud if on clay and green clay if the loss derives on grass, or blue clay if on hardcourt.

2. His opponents are juicing

3. His opponents are just moonballing lung merchants who play a game aided by slow conditions to tire out the aged Federer

4. Federer is too old and would trounce said victor of the match in his prime.

5. The technology aided in his defeat after all the tour should play with whatever strings and rackets suit Federer.

6. Federer has a bad back

Note: Any deviation from the Central Committees approved reasons for Federer losses will result in a blitzkrieg of online acrimony from the shock troops. And in terms of punishment involves being sent to the gulags where you will be allowed 5 days of turnip soup for your labor in the salt mines. It could by no means ever be because the opponent was just better that day or that the opponent is a supremely talented player in his own right.

socal1976 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:This sounds like goat talk to me? Which is fine but we made the goat sticky so that it wouldn't clutter up current affairs.

No it isn't. I am not saying Novak or Nadal is better than Federer. I am taking issue with this idea that Fed's decline was the primary reason for the rise of these two players and the fact that instead of giving Nadal mainly and Djokovic as well credit for supplanting him in 09-11 all we heard in that period is how old Roger was when he was basically the same age Nadal and Djoko are now.

I think though that players peak and pass their sell by dates at differing ages. Look at Federer compared to Nadal for example. Roger's first slam win didn't come until his early 20s whilst Nadal was a teenage slam winner. Rafa and Andy (may) be past their best already by their late 20s whilst Roger won slams into his 30s. For me it is again about consistency and the longevity of it - hence Roger's slam count record. If we talk talent across the board I'd say it is too close to split the likes of Roger and Rafa but Federer holds sway on his consistency lasting longer than Rafa.

Well Fed won only one slam in his 30s so far, ie Wimbledon 2012. It's not like he's regularly winning slams these days. In fact from 2010 onwards, Fed reached only one slam final a year (except 2013 where he made none). It's too early to say that Rafa is not going to win any slam(s) when he approaches 30 or in his 30s. We can talk about Fed's consistency and longevity, but if Rafa can win slam(s) this and next year, he would be like Fed in that he's winning slam in his 30s! By next year, Rafa would have played in the main tour for a good 14 years, and 15-16 years if we includes his days playing futures and challengers,that's not a short career, I believe, longer than some of Fed's peers, like Gonzo, Nalby, Roddick, Safin for examples.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:This sounds like goat talk to me? Which is fine but we made the goat sticky so that it wouldn't clutter up current affairs.

No it isn't. I am not saying Novak or Nadal is better than Federer. I am taking issue with this idea that Fed's decline was the primary reason for the rise of these two players and the fact that instead of giving Nadal mainly and Djokovic as well credit for supplanting him in 09-11 all we heard in that period is how old Roger was when he was basically the same age Nadal and Djoko are now.

I think though that players peak and pass their sell by dates at differing ages. Look at Federer compared to Nadal for example. Roger's first slam win didn't come until his early 20s whilst Nadal was a teenage slam winner. Rafa and Andy (may) be past their best already by their late 20s whilst Roger won slams into his 30s. For me it is again about consistency and the longevity of it - hence Roger's slam count record. If we talk talent across the board I'd say it is too close to split the likes of Roger and Rafa but Federer holds sway on his consistency lasting longer than Rafa.

Yes that is true, but I frankly think it unjust and not supported by the facts for the period immediately following the mono. In 08 the excuse was Mono, and almost without any break we went straight into Federer is old. And yes different players peak at different ages but considering that Fed would win a slam and play so well in his early 30s it in my mind sheds serious doubt on the idea that back in 09 and 10 when Nadal supplanted him that he had all of a sudden fallen off. One guy beating you in slams and major events who is the only guy to do it consistently maybe has more to do with that player as opposed to Fed's dramatic decline. Especially, considering the fact that Fed played in 8 straight grandslam finals winning three of them in that period and his loss at a slam to someone not named Nadal was a close match against an absolutely on fire Del PO.

Age I don't buy as the sole reason Roger can't win a slam now. He has reached slam finals in recent times and fell short. Fatigue? No. Novak was just playing at a consistently higher level. Some people will accept that but others will look for explanations as to why Roger never win when the simple reason is that he was beaten by the better player on the day.

Yep that credit they don't want to give to the other guy and haven't ever dating back to god knows when that is what annoys me as well.

I am under the impression that those fed fans of yours  that you like to talk so obsessively about Socal, are  mostly living in your fantasies. The majority of fed fans have abandoned this site long ago or post here very sporadically like I do.
It is ironic though  that a poster that has wasted thousands of posts in the desperate attempt to belittle Federer's achievements gets so upset that those bad fed fans don't want to give enough credit for Djokovic's wins.....to a champion who happens to be in the twilight of his career btw.

Hahhahah, comment of the month Kyle

So it comes to what I've been saying forever, no one likes Djoko or ever will, now we have Djoko fans protesting at other fans why is Djoko not liked

Though socal deserves credit for being a master manipulator, git

He's liked and respected by the majority of world tennis, fans and players alike, the way he handles himself nowadays is superb. He is after all tennis new big thing and will probably lead the way alone in a few years

You mean Socal??

socal1976 wrote:Yep that credit they don't want to give to the other guy and haven't ever dating back to god knows when that is what annoys me as well.

And your credit is calling slam winners as 'lost generation'.... By the same token, Wawrinka is part of the lost generation, too.

temporary21 wrote:He is after all tennis new big thing and will probably lead the way alone in a few years

Is this about Djokovic - "new thing", "lead alone in a few years"? More like "old thing likely to start declining this year or next"?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I am under the impression that those fed fans of yours  that you like to talk so obsessively about Socal, are  mostly living in your fantasies. The majority of fed fans have abandoned this site long ago or post here very sporadically like I do.
It is ironic though  that a poster that has wasted thousands of posts in the desperate attempt to belittle Federer's achievements gets so upset that those bad fed fans don't want to give enough credit for Djokovic's wins.....to a champion who happens to be in the twilight of his career btw.

Yeah fed fans never said those things, I just made that up I suppose. (sarcasm) Please let me know whenever I upset you JK, I won't be able to sleep at night if I know I have upset you, you poor thing.

[quote="socal1976"]

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Yeah fed fans never said those things, I just made that up I suppose. (sarcasm) Please let me know whenever I upset you JK, I won't be able to sleep at night if I know I have upset you, you poor thing.

Don't worry guys, Socal's just upset that after banging on about a weak era for so many years, his favourite player is no1 in an era where his main rival is a 34 year old whose movement to his right side makes him look like he is on the seniors tour.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I am under the impression that those fed fans of yours  that you like to talk so obsessively about Socal, are  mostly living in your fantasies. The majority of fed fans have abandoned this site long ago or post here very sporadically like I do.
It is ironic though  that a poster that has wasted thousands of posts in the desperate attempt to belittle Federer's achievements gets so upset that those bad fed fans don't want to give enough credit for Djokovic's wins.....to a champion who happens to be in the twilight of his career btw.

Put him in his place there, endgame

greengoblin - you must take care when 'capturing'  quotes ....you have implied (albeit not intentionally of course) that comments made by socal were made by JK !

Anyway, that aside, I guess there is something in what you say re the ageing World No 2.

In all fairness to socal, he tends to be wholly rational  -  and indeed, very balanced, insightful, and good value overall - when discussing his man Djokovic 'in isolation', as it were.

However, as soon as he brings Mr Federer into the conversation (as was pointed out just recently, he actually seems to talk about Federer more than most of the Federer fans here .... ) he is soon waffling on for the millionth time about mythical wee Kieras, and before you know it, he is back once more into a parallel world inhabited only by socal.

The article itself was pretty amusing I must say Good stuff !!

(Will be interesting to see if the 'Central Committee' reconvenes in five years or so to enumerate the various reasons for Djoko's losses - assuming he is still competing at the top level into his mid-thirties ......)

lags72 wrote:greengoblin - you must take care when 'capturing'  quotes ....you have implied (albeit not intentionally of course) that comments made by socal were made by JK !

Anyway, that aside, I guess there is something in what you say re the ageing World No 2.

In all fairness to socal, he tends to be wholly rational  -  and indeed, very balanced, insightful, and good value overall - when discussing his man Djokovic 'in isolation', as it were.

However, as soon as he brings Mr Federer into the conversation (as was pointed out just recently, he actually seems to talk about Federer more than most of the Federer fans here .... ) he is soon waffling on for the millionth time about mythical wee Kieras, and before you know it, he is back once more into a parallel world inhabited only by socal.

The article itself was pretty amusing I must say Good stuff !!

(Will be interesting to see if the 'Central Committee' reconvenes in five years or so to enumerate the various reasons for Djoko's losses - assuming he is still competing at the top level into his mid-thirties ......)

You are quite right and I apologise to Jeremykyle for inadvertently attributing that comment to him (though the contents of my message showed otherwise).
I think there is a debate to be had about 'weak eras'. For instance Fed would have had a harder time if nalb, safin, haas had been more consistent. Unfortunately we also get the completely incorrect inference that this 'proves' Federer is overrated. Also, it's the double standards that's shown by the likes of socal.