tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 16 Jan 2009 03:36:38
From: Stapler
Subject: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!




 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:08:24
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 3:36=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!

Divine intervention is indeed what is required to stop poor old Roger
frauderer from fadering into oblivion


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:01:37
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!

Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
FO left in him.


  
Date: 17 Jan 2009 02:44:04
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...


Whisper wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >
> > I watched a little of him matches against Moya and Verdasco and he
> > looks fine. I still see him as
> > the slight favorite for this AO, although I grant you it's somewhat of
> > a toss-up between him and Murray.
> > Can't count Nadal out but I see him as No. 3 right now.
>
>
>
> Rafa will be very tough to beat this yr. He's a slam player now &
> that's where you'll see his top efforts. Look at his progress curve &
> it's all on the up on all surfaces - he's gotten better on clay, grass &
> HC's last yr than previous yrs. No reason that will come to a grinding
> halt at age 22.

Personal bet available?


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:09:03
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 12:43=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:

> BUT IS FEDS SERVING fallen off... that back issue SEEMS to have taken
> something off his serve and he's not as pinpoint with it so far...
> THAT'S something to track over the season ahead... because with out
> his 2007-2008 level of serving he's in trouble...
>
> P


Patrick if it wasn't for your posts (and very few others'), I
wouldn't be hanging around here.
Thank goodness there are still some level-headed people in rst.



   
Date: 17 Jan 2009 05:41:49
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), google3luo359@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Jan 16, 12:43 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> BUT IS FEDS SERVING fallen off... that back issue SEEMS to have taken
>> something off his serve and he's not as pinpoint with it so far...
>> THAT'S something to track over the season ahead... because with out
>> his 2007-2008 level of serving he's in trouble...
>>
>> P
>
>
> Patrick if it wasn't for your posts (and very few others'), I
>wouldn't be hanging around here.
>Thank goodness there are still some level-headed people in rst.


never fear roger is saving his big serve now for slams as people won't
be able to adjust to it as well via tune-ups and it will add more of
an element of surprise when it matters most.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 19:23:54
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...


wkhedr wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:36?pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
> FO left in him.

No, no no- the Lisper has pronounced on this topic, and
Federer's Number is *eleven*. Oh, wait..


   
Date: 17 Jan 2009 22:01:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
Carey wrote:
>
> wkhedr wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 10:36?pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
>> FO left in him.
>
> No, no no- the Lisper has pronounced on this topic, and
> Federer's Number is *eleven*. Oh, wait..



I'd hate to see your liver.



  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 15:02:22
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On 16 Jan, 17:23, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:09=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 4:37=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> > > > > Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and=
one
> > > > > FO left in him.
>
> > > > ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
>
> > > > =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
>
> > > Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > Agassi over 11 years
> > > Becker over 11 years
> > > Connors over 9 years
> > > Edberg over 7 years
> > > Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > period? That's would seem pretty
> > > unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of clownera=
), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than any other gre=
at?
>
> #Taking the chalk from the Professor# Could be... then again maybe
> Fed's actually learning to dig in for a real fight, ready to pull a
> Connors - in his own fashion - getting that cardigan dirty, his
> champagne tennis spilling while he's rushing the net, giving back in
> kind (eg to youngblood Murray at USO) with all these newbie slam
> winning wannabes crowding into his office, centre court finals of the
> slams...
>
> P

I think he needs mostache , then he'll be back to his rocking self

Just some tweaks here and there you know .

I wonder if the cardigan will reappear - id be willing to be NOT


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 14:10:55
From: Hops
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 9:23=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, an=
d one
> > > >>>> FO left in him.
> > > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis=
.
> > > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > > >> Becker over 11 years
> > > >> Connors over 9 years
> > > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater th=
an
> > > > any other great?
>
> > > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > > --
> > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> > yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> > that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> > NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)
>
> How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
> more than 1 Slam in
> a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
> certain extent, isn't it only
> logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
> and there to break the record?
>
> > Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> > period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
> be up there among the better post-peak
> performances.


in the open era nobody has won more than 5 slams after age 26.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_age.html




   
Date: 18 Jan 2009 13:56:48
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
In article
<8e4ffcf8-f850-441e-8142-cdb67a7e208e@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com >,
kev8128@yahoo.com (Hops) wrote:

>
> in the open era nobody has won more than 5 slams after age 26.
>
> http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_age.html

I like that page. And...look forward to its being updated. :)

wg


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 13:32:56
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 4:09=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:23=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
> > > > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > > > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, =
and one
> > > > >>>> FO left in him.
> > > > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > > > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tenn=
is.
> > > > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > > > >> Becker over 11 years
> > > > >> Connors over 9 years
> > > > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > > > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > > > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater =
than
> > > > > any other great?
>
> > > > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland=
"
>
> > > yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> > > that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> > > NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)
>
> > How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
> > more than 1 Slam in
> > a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
> > certain extent, isn't it only
> > logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
> > and there to break the record?
>
> > > Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> > > period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
> > be up there among the better post-peak
> > performances.
>
> Wrong. Pete won his first slam at 19. Fed at 22. What makes you think
> Fed will win slams until 31 like Sampras? Their careers are not
> exactly alike since Pete started winning slams much younger than Fed
> and Pete could also end up winning slams at a much older age than Fed.-

I assume you're responding to some other post I made because:

Me: Six Slams post-peak would be great
You: Wrong. Pete won his first slam at 19. Fed at 22.

is totally incoherent.

But whatever, back to your point. Sure, anything's possible in sports.
I mean McEnroe was a dominant champ and who would've thought he would
win nothing after '84?

I'm just saying I find it a bit hard to believe we're going to look
back on Fed's career and see some brief run of incredible Slam success
and then - despite all the desire in the world to win more - nothing
else after that.

I agree this current group is good but I don't see any player out
there - Murray included - who is going to dominate everything and keep
Fed Slam-less from here on out.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 13:16:02
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 12:43=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:23=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
> > > > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > > > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, =
and one
> > > > >>>> FO left in him.
> > > > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > > > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tenn=
is.
> > > > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > > > >> Becker over 11 years
> > > > >> Connors over 9 years
> > > > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > > > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > > > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater =
than
> > > > > any other great?
>
> > > > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland=
"
>
> > > yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> > > that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> > > NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)
>
> > How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
> > more than 1 Slam in
> > a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
> > certain extent, isn't it only
> > logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
> > and there to break the record?
>
> > > Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> > > period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
> > be up there among the better post-peak
> > performances.
>
> ++ I am one of the few around here that likes Pete and Feds... Fed
> trying to get to 15 will be more difficult than getting from 15 to 18,
> IMO... if Fed gets 15 I think he gets to 18... the pressure valve
> opening up, his game reasserted to some significant extent, etc., if
> he's not too mentally beat up and it doesn't take him 4 seasons to get
> 2 more slams, :) ... the new momentum and post-pressure phase might
> just allow him to do it... but... 14 and 15 are going to really test
> him emotionally and psychologically... 14 and 15 are going to be
> FIGHTS, tennis battles all the way... that's where he's going to be
> tested to his core, imo... technically he has the game... his back
> notwithstanding... because he knows he can beat Novak and has shown
> it... and though beating Murray is problematic, he's done it and at a
> slam final as well so the template of mental resolve is there,
> embedded... though he has to play closer/at to his best to beat
> Murray... (For this 2009 AO Murray goes in ON THE CUSP of a slam win;
> that's going to be interesting to see how that plays out!) and Nadal
> has yet to reach HC status with Feds; so, outside the French and
> Wimbledon Nadal is not thee Fed spoiler on HC slams...
>
> BUT IS FEDS SERVING fallen off... that back issue SEEMS to have taken
> something off his serve and he's not as pinpoint with it so far...
> THAT'S something to track over the season ahead... because with out
> his 2007-2008 level of serving he's in trouble...
>


You are probably one of the fools that thought Schumacher would win 10
WDCs. Dont be surprised if Fed wins 14 slams and no more.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 13:14:21
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
Federina has one at the most 2 slams left to win. It is the universal
balance. Ying and yang. As soon as he would get closer and closer to
Sampras 14 slams, Fed would start winning less and less slams per
year. Equilibrium. Notice how Schumacher only won 2 WDCs more than
Fangio.... but his fans thought he would win 10 WDCs. Dont make me
laugh.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 13:09:54
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 12:23=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, an=
d one
> > > >>>> FO left in him.
> > > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis=
.
> > > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > > >> Becker over 11 years
> > > >> Connors over 9 years
> > > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater th=
an
> > > > any other great?
>
> > > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > > --
> > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> > yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> > that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> > NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)
>
> How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
> more than 1 Slam in
> a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
> certain extent, isn't it only
> logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
> and there to break the record?
>
> > Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> > period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
> be up there among the better post-peak
> performances.



Wrong. Pete won his first slam at 19. Fed at 22. What makes you think
Fed will win slams until 31 like Sampras? Their careers are not
exactly alike since Pete started winning slams much younger than Fed
and Pete could also end up winning slams at a much older age than Fed.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 13:06:07
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...

> yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than
> any other great?


Exactly.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 13:04:09
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 11:37=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> > > Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
> > > FO left in him.
>
> > ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
>
> > =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
>
> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> Agassi over 11 years
> Becker over 11 years
> Connors over 9 years
> Edberg over 7 years
> Wilander over 6 years
>
> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> period? That's would seem pretty
> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.

Federina has one at the most 2 slams left to win. It is the universal
balance. Ying and yang. As soon as he would get closer and closer to
Sampras 14 slams, Fed would start winning less and less slams per
year. Equilibrium. Notice how Schumacher only won 2 WDCs more than
Fangio.... but his an thought he owuld win 10 WDCs. Dont make me laugh.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:52:15
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 12:43=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:23=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
> > > > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > > > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, =
and one
> > > > >>>> FO left in him.
> > > > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > > > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tenn=
is.
> > > > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > > > >> Becker over 11 years
> > > > >> Connors over 9 years
> > > > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > > > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > > > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater =
than
> > > > > any other great?
>
> > > > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland=
"
>
> > > yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> > > that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> > > NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)
>
> > How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
> > more than 1 Slam in
> > a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
> > certain extent, isn't it only
> > logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
> > and there to break the record?
>
> > > Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> > > period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
> > be up there among the better post-peak
> > performances.
>
> ++ I am one of the few around here that likes Pete and Feds... Fed
> trying to get to 15 will be more difficult than getting from 15 to 18,
> IMO... if Fed gets 15 I think he gets to 18... the pressure valve
> opening up, his game reasserted to some significant extent, etc., if
> he's not too mentally beat up and it doesn't take him 4 seasons to get
> 2 more slams, :) ... the new momentum and post-pressure phase might
> just allow him to do it... but... 14 and 15 are going to really test
> him emotionally and psychologically... 14 and 15 are going to be
> FIGHTS, tennis battles all the way... that's where he's going to be
> tested to his core, imo... technically he has the game... his back
> notwithstanding... because he knows he can beat Novak and has shown
> it... and though beating Murray is problematic, he's done it and at a
> slam final as well so the template of mental resolve is there,
> embedded... though he has to play closer/at to his best to beat
> Murray... (For this 2009 AO Murray goes in ON THE CUSP of a slam win;
> that's going to be interesting to see how that plays out!) and Nadal
> has yet to reach HC status with Feds; so, outside the French and
> Wimbledon Nadal is not thee Fed spoiler on HC slams...
>
> BUT IS FEDS SERVING fallen off... that back issue SEEMS to have taken
> something off his serve and he's not as pinpoint with it so far...
> THAT'S something to track over the season ahead... because with out
> his 2007-2008 level of serving he's in trouble...
>
> P- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I watched a little of him matches against Moya and Verdasco and he
looks fine. I still see him as
the slight favorite for this AO, although I grant you it's somewhat of
a toss-up between him and Murray.
Can't count Nadal out but I see him as No. 3 right now.


   
Date: 17 Jan 2009 21:33:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
Jason Catlin wrote:
>
> I watched a little of him matches against Moya and Verdasco and he
> looks fine. I still see him as
> the slight favorite for this AO, although I grant you it's somewhat of
> a toss-up between him and Murray.
> Can't count Nadal out but I see him as No. 3 right now.



Rafa will be very tough to beat this yr. He's a slam player now &
that's where you'll see his top efforts. Look at his progress curve &
it's all on the up on all surfaces - he's gotten better on clay, grass &
HC's last yr than previous yrs. No reason that will come to a grinding
halt at age 22.





    
Date: 17 Jan 2009 12:47:00
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:33:47 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Jason Catlin wrote:
>>
>> I watched a little of him matches against Moya and Verdasco and he
>> looks fine. I still see him as
>> the slight favorite for this AO, although I grant you it's somewhat of
>> a toss-up between him and Murray.
>> Can't count Nadal out but I see him as No. 3 right now.
>
>
>
>Rafa will be very tough to beat this yr. He's a slam player now &
>that's where you'll see his top efforts. Look at his progress curve &
>it's all on the up on all surfaces - he's gotten better on clay, grass &
>HC's last yr than previous yrs. No reason that will come to a grinding
>halt at age 22.


broken ankle ?


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:43:29
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 9:23=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, an=
d one
> > > >>>> FO left in him.
> > > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis=
.
> > > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > > >> Becker over 11 years
> > > >> Connors over 9 years
> > > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater th=
an
> > > > any other great?
>
> > > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > > --
> > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> > yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> > that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> > NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)
>
> How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
> more than 1 Slam in
> a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
> certain extent, isn't it only
> logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
> and there to break the record?
>
> > Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> > period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
> be up there among the better post-peak
> performances.

++ I am one of the few around here that likes Pete and Feds... Fed
trying to get to 15 will be more difficult than getting from 15 to 18,
IMO... if Fed gets 15 I think he gets to 18... the pressure valve
opening up, his game reasserted to some significant extent, etc., if
he's not too mentally beat up and it doesn't take him 4 seasons to get
2 more slams, :) ... the new momentum and post-pressure phase might
just allow him to do it... but... 14 and 15 are going to really test
him emotionally and psychologically... 14 and 15 are going to be
FIGHTS, tennis battles all the way... that's where he's going to be
tested to his core, imo... technically he has the game... his back
notwithstanding... because he knows he can beat Novak and has shown
it... and though beating Murray is problematic, he's done it and at a
slam final as well so the template of mental resolve is there,
embedded... though he has to play closer/at to his best to beat
Murray... (For this 2009 AO Murray goes in ON THE CUSP of a slam win;
that's going to be interesting to see how that plays out!) and Nadal
has yet to reach HC status with Feds; so, outside the French and
Wimbledon Nadal is not thee Fed spoiler on HC slams...

BUT IS FEDS SERVING fallen off... that back issue SEEMS to have taken
something off his serve and he's not as pinpoint with it so far...
THAT'S something to track over the season ahead... because with out
his 2007-2008 level of serving he's in trouble...

P


   
Date: 17 Jan 2009 21:31:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> ++ I am one of the few around here that likes Pete and Feds... Fed
> trying to get to 15 will be more difficult than getting from 15 to 18,
> IMO... if Fed gets 15 I think he gets to 18... the pressure valve
> opening up, his game reasserted to some significant extent, etc., if
> he's not too mentally beat up and it doesn't take him 4 seasons to get
> 2 more slams, :) ... the new momentum and post-pressure phase might
> just allow him to do it... but... 14 and 15 are going to really test
> him emotionally and psychologically... 14 and 15 are going to be
> FIGHTS, tennis battles all the way...




Agree.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:23:25
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 12:18=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Professor X wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> > >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and =
one
> > >>>> FO left in him.
> > >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> > >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
> > >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > >> Agassi over 11 years
> > >> Becker over 11 years
> > >> Connors over 9 years
> > >> Edberg over 7 years
> > >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> > >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > >> period? That's would seem pretty
> > >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than
> > > any other great?
>
> > Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> > --
> > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
> that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
> NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)

How do you figure that? Sampras' peak was from 1993-97. He never won
more than 1 Slam in
a year after that. Since Roger's career has paralleled Pete's to a
certain extent, isn't it only
logical that his peak was from 2003-2007 and now he'll win a few here
and there to break the record?

> Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
> period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!- Hide quoted=
text -

No it wouldn't. Six Slams post-peak? Where's Mikko? That would have to
be up there among the better post-peak
performances.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:23:15
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 9:09=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 4:37=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> > > > Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and o=
ne
> > > > FO left in him.
>
> > > ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
>
> > > =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
>
> > Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> > Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> > Agassi over 11 years
> > Becker over 11 years
> > Connors over 9 years
> > Edberg over 7 years
> > Wilander over 6 years
>
> > Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> > period? That's would seem pretty
> > unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of clownera),=
who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than any other great=
?


#Taking the chalk from the Professor# Could be... then again maybe
Fed's actually learning to dig in for a real fight, ready to pull a
Connors - in his own fashion - getting that cardigan dirty, his
champagne tennis spilling while he's rushing the net, giving back in
kind (eg to youngblood Murray at USO) with all these newbie slam
winning wannabes crowding into his office, centre court finals of the
slams...

P


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:18:00
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
> >>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and on=
e
> >>>> FO left in him.
> >>> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
> >>> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
> >> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> >> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> >> Agassi over 11 years
> >> Becker over 11 years
> >> Connors over 9 years
> >> Edberg over 7 years
> >> Wilander over 6 years
>
> >> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> >> period? That's would seem pretty
> >> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> > yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> > clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than
> > any other great?
>
> Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

yes if fed fails to break sampras record then we can be 100% certain
that he was king in a clown era. Remember fed should be at his peak
NOW and not declining ( from a purely age related perspective.)

Even if fed were to finish with 18 slams it would still show this
period to be stronger than winning 14 slams in 5 years lmao!




  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:09:38
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 4:37=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> > > Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
> > > FO left in him.
>
> > ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
>
> > =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
>
> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> Agassi over 11 years
> Becker over 11 years
> Connors over 9 years
> Edberg over 7 years
> Wilander over 6 years
>
> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> period? That's would seem pretty
> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.

yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than
any other great?


   
Date: 17 Jan 2009 18:55:59
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
In article
<3ab3fe2c-e842-4d64-9f76-531f4db90427@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com >,
suebokaian@hotmail.com (Professor X) wrote:

>
> yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater
> than
> any other great?

That would be Wilander, who fell off a cliff in 1989, having lost all
motivation. I can't see Federer doing that.

wg


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 19:13:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
Professor X wrote:
> On Jan 16, 4:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 11:01 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 10:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>>>> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
>>>> FO left in him.
>>> ahahahahahahhahaha. DELUSIONAL.
>>> Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
>> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>>
>> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
>> Agassi over 11 years
>> Becker over 11 years
>> Connors over 9 years
>> Edberg over 7 years
>> Wilander over 6 years
>>
>> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
>> period? That's would seem pretty
>> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.
>
> yes but since feds peak was also greater than any other (bc of
> clownera), who is to say that his decline cannot also be greater than
> any other great?

Actually that would fit clown era theory perfectly.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 08:45:31
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 11:37=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> > > Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
> > > FO left in him.
>
> > ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
>
> > =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.
>
> Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?
>
> Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
> Agassi over 11 years
> Becker over 11 years
> Connors over 9 years
> Edberg over 7 years
> Wilander over 6 years
>
> Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
> period? That's would seem pretty
> unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.

Even Borg managed to win slams over 7 years, and he walked away from
the game when he was still in his physical (though not mental) prime.
Lendl won over 6 year, and he blew his his first *four* finals. Fed
started off winning.

Rosewall won over a 19-year period!

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 08:37:13
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> > Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
> > FO left in him.
>
> ahahahahahahhahaha. =A0DELUSIONAL.
>
> =A0Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.

Do you realize how unlikely your prediction is?

Sampras won Slams over 12 years.
Agassi over 11 years
Becker over 11 years
Connors over 9 years
Edberg over 7 years
Wilander over 6 years

Do you really think Fed is only going to win Slams over a 5 year
period? That's would seem pretty
unfathomble really considering how great of a player he is.


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:47:59
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 16, 9:41=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:09:03 -0800 (PST), google3luo...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 16, 12:43=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> BUT IS FEDS SERVING fallen off... that back issue SEEMS to have taken
> >> something off his serve and he's not as pinpoint with it so far...
> >> THAT'S something to track over the season ahead... because with out
> >> his 2007-2008 level of serving he's in trouble...
>
> >> P
>
> > Patrick if it wasn't for your posts (and very few others'), I
> >wouldn't be hanging around here.
> >Thank goodness there are still some level-headed people in rst.
>
> never fear roger is saving his big serve now for slams as people won't
> be able to adjust to it as well via tune-ups and it will add more of
> an element of surprise when it matters most.

++ Well Dave he CERTAINLY served well today... and loaded up a few
times and got them in, even playing in the wind... he a good wind
player... any wind at all and he's a clear favourite it looks like...

P


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 08:04:45
From:
Subject: Re: Please God let Roger win the Australian Open...
On Jan 15, 11:01=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll sell my soul for just one more slam win!
>
> Don't worry Federer still has one AO, two Wimbledon, one USO, and one
> FO left in him.

ahahahahahahhahaha. DELUSIONAL.


Fed will be lucky to win 1 more slam in this new era of tennis.