Re: Federer - More Opportunist Than Best Ever?

On Mar 19, 4:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:35 pm, "RuPEDski" <datacip...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"EFill4Zaggin" <EFill4Zag...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:etkc9o41716@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RuPEDski wrote:
"robin" <robinson.n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174246440.602656.271100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 18 Mar, 19:12, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We know Fed struggled v great volleying
Evidence?
Rafter 3-0
Henman 6-1 first 7 meetings with Fed. Fed did not turn it around until
2004 when Henman was 30.
Lost to Ancic at Wimbledon, lost to Mirnyi at USO... there are many
examples and of course, NONE
of these players hold a candle to the Edbergs and Mac level. So yes,
there is ample evidence that Federer
has been bothered by SV attackers at times.
But these were all matches before Fed was at his peak.
Naturally I'm aware of that. The question was for evidence that Fed
struggled against great volleying. I gave the answer. This is no secret nor
is it controversial. The end.

Wrong... He didn't just struggled against volleying -- he struggled,
full stop.

Yes, but you can't assume he'd be beating class s/v'ers just as easily
as middling bumrooters (note he can't beat great bumrooters like Rafa).

That would be like saying 'Lendl beat Mac in early 80's thus would beat
Jimbo too if he were around' - well he was around & belted Lendl in
'82/'83 USO finals.

I wasn't assuming anything -- all I was saying was that his losses
against s/v'ers came when Federer struggled against anyone with a
racquet.

I am not the one trying to extrapolate things from his losses -- you
are. I am not assuming that "he'd be beating class s/v'ers just as
easily as middling bumrooters" --- you are assuming that I am.

All we know is that after Federer became super-Fed, he has barely lost
and I refuse to use matches from before to extrapolate anything since
I have personally seen Fed v Hewitt h2h reversed dramatically.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Federer - More Opportunist Than Best Ever?
    ... Henman 6-1 first 7 meetings with Fed. ... Lost to Ancic at Wimbledon, ... is ample evidence that Federer ... Does Sampras being pushed to 5 sets the rd before v Cowan give us a hint at Sampras' form at that time? ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Federer - More Opportunist Than Best Ever?
    ... Henman 6-1 first 7 meetings with Fed. ... Lost to Ancic at Wimbledon, ... Federer had also been bothered by Hewitt and other baseliners (Hrbaty, ... Does Sampras being pushed to 5 sets the rd before v Cowan give us a hint ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Federer - More Opportunist Than Best Ever?
    ... Henman 6-1 first 7 meetings with Fed. ... Lost to Ancic at Wimbledon, ... Federer had also been bothered by Hewitt and other baseliners (Hrbaty, ... Of course - which wasn't the case v Cowan. ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Federer - More Opportunist Than Best Ever?
    ... Henman 6-1 first 7 meetings with Fed. ... Lost to Ancic at Wimbledon, ... is ample evidence that Federer ... maybe not, but the fact that fed did beat the 4-time defending champ, ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Federer - More Opportunist Than Best Ever?
    ... Henman 6-1 first 7 meetings with Fed. ... Lost to Ancic at Wimbledon, ... is ample evidence that Federer ... The fact Fed turned the tables on Hewitt, which coincidentally is the same time Hewitt started losing to everyone, tells us nothing about how he'd go v great s/v'ers..... ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)