One thing I think Roger doesn't get credit for is his ability to take defeats and move on quickly. Roger lost in both 2010 and this year in the US Open semis after having MP. Despite this he quickly regrouped and had amazing ends of the year in both years.

In contrast look what happened to murray after he lost the AO final this year. He lost early in IW and Miami as he was clearly affected by another slam final lost.

"I had some tough losses but I found a way to bounce back and now be in a good position for 2012."
"When things aren't going my way I try to see the big picture. Hold my ground."

Roger really is in a good place right now. He knows how to take his loses and he tries to learn from them.

That's why I think in 2012 we'll see Roger lift a slam trophy.

Go Roger.

If we needed any proof that Roger dominated in the weak era, this is it. He never used to train, he was renowned for knocking up for 45 mins during his practice sessions because he knew he would stroll his way to a win. Not so now that he's got real opposition and can't take wining for granted.

As for taking his losses on the chin, this is only after bad mouthing his conqueror.

No one will doubt that Roger is capable of winning slams, but as for everyone else it is not a certainty.

nadline, I don't think that anyone can do everything that Roger did without a lot of training. Otherwise he must have an unreal godgiven amount of talent, because everyone else was busting their ass off, trying to keep up or surpass Roger.

nadline, Nice baiting but I've been around for some time and won't take it.

nadline, I don't think that anyone can do everything that Roger did without a lot of training. Otherwise he must have an unreal godgiven amount of talent, because everyone else was busting their ass off, trying to keep up or surpass Roger.
Bonker , 12/16/11 10:30 AM


Not during the weak era. I often heard his fans in the media bragging about how Roger would only hit for a few minutes on the practice courts and not train as hard like the likes of Rafa.

nadline - actually, I'm not sure that is 100% accurate.

I have it on a reliable source that part of Roger's training regiment was to work very hard between tournaments, but only have light hits during tournaments. I don't think it's fair to say he didn't train.

It IS true that he doesn't train as hard as Rafa does, but then NOBODY trains as hard as Rafa.

Nadline, no professional tennis player can know if he/she can "stroll his/her way to win". Its about building your confidence and knowing you have the skills to overcome your opponents. That confidence doesn't come without hard work, training and dedication.

I agree with Bonker. I don't think anyone will be able to do what Roger has done. His success or anyone's success for that matter, doesn't come without hard work.

Roger won maximum no of Grandslam with Nadal competing on the other side is the weak era..!!!!! yep true :o)

Now fact Rafa started winning AO n USO only after Roger form was dipped !!! :P :P

Roger also played more matches than Nadal and Djokovic during his peak. He was match tough so didn't have to put as much time in off court training.

Hi..Any discussion on the 2 year ranking v/s 1 year ranking?

I know FEd supports 1 year ranking whereas Rafa supports 2 year ranking. However its not made clear anyway how 2 year ranking works? Anybody has an idea and can expalin?

Secondly which side are Novak and Murray on? Are they supporting 2 year or 1 year

Personally I think I would prefer 1 year to be retained, it will be boring if it changes to 2 year. Its the fun of your ranking being on the line week in and week out that adds to the intensity..

Also I think if a 2 year ranking was in place, Rafa wouldnt have overtaken Fed as No 1 in 2008 or Nole wouldnt have overtaken Rafa as No 1 in 2011..and that would be so wrong and unfair..as Feds and Rafas points from 2007, 2010 would have added and prevented it from happening.

Regarding protecting injured players, well its survival of fittest right, isnt it? Also I thought we have something called protected ranking in place , can anyone explain that?

Cheryl, Ricky - Maybe I asked few technical qns, can 1 of you explain what is the proposed 2 year ranking system? And also about protected ranking ?

I'm not sure how the 2 year ranking system will work, but I disagree with Rafa, it will be a very bad idea. They simply need to reduce the number of mandatory tournaments so that players have some leeway to choose when they play. The first 6 months of the year is overcrowded and after the USO, players feel they should be winding down not starting another haul of Masters.

I/W and Miami should be scrapped, at least one of them should be. They are after the h/c slam and are not leading up to anything. The clay season should be moved forward to leave time between RG and Wimbledon for a grass Masters.

Yes nadline, though I am a Rafa fan, I wouldn't want 2 year ranking to come into effect

I agree about adding a grass masters and reducing one f IW or Miami

Also why Shanghai and Paris both masters indoors? Do we need both? I think 1 can be scrapped there too as WTF is not a slam and doesnt need 2 Masters to precede it. Leave it with Shanghai as Asia needs a Masters, Paris also has French Open and doesn't need an indoor Masters.

Also scrap any mandatory stuff for any ATP 500 or 250 events and point penalties if they dont play.

I thnk all players should be mandated to play is 4 slams, WTF (Top 8) and 8/9 Masters (reduce Masters from 9 to 8)..That will be max 18 weeks of play which should be manageable and will give respite.

"Also why Shanghai and Paris both masters indoors? Do we need both?"

That is incorrect. Shanghai is an outdoor masters event i think. But I agree with your post in general.

Yes Nadine I agree! Why is there no Grass masters!?

NNY/nadline..reading reports about problem not just with Rafas knees but also shoulders..it seems he said it in sum interview..whats latest update? bad start to year already?

Well, one thing is certain. Federer's not going to get no. 1 and he is not going to win any slams.
Nadal may win one slam or zero.
It maybe a battle between Djoko and Murray. If Murray wins AO, he will probably end the year at no. 1.
About my favorite Nadal, I am not very optimistic. Maybe I will stop watching tennis if Nadal lets Djoko beat him in one more slam final.
However if it is Murray who rises this year, then I may continue watching.

We can't compare Murray to Fed. Fed had already won 16 slams, so now whether he lost after having MPs or not, he still had his 16 slams to fall back on. Contrast that to Murray who had none and came all the way to the slam final only to lose, of course Murray would be very diasppointed. If Murray was the one with 16 slams and Fed with none, I'm not sure Fed would be able to take things easy like he was doing now.