Wall Of Fame Contest.

The ONLY logical and reasonable explanation that can counter the PED accusation for Federer for having won a Slam and a Masters 1000 title over Nadal among other obvious 'problems' can be summed up in three words:

- - - s - - - l   - - - w - ss   vs   - - - - r - - - - e

What are they?

Explain how?

HINT: See above in red.

First correct answer = Wall Of Fame listing.

Winner / Correct answer: Friday, March 31, 2017. 

Comments

[Veglia]

*
Even if you gave me the first 15 days, I won't be able to solve this... Think the first word is pressure. And I guess it's pressure to gain as much ground (titles) and create as much space as possible during this opportunistic moment when he seems to be playing great while Rafa, Nole, Stan and Andy are struggling and no credible young guns are showing any results.

Good luck comrades, off to the meeting ...

Thanks TP for staying true to the promise!

[Gary Moser]

First word can't be "pressure" because that's EIGHT letters long,
and TP is displaying 3 hyphens followed by an "s" followed by three more hyphens
for a total of SEVEN characters [ unless that large black dot at the beginning is also supposed to be a letter... ]

[Stella/Olga]

entry from Stella and Olga combined.
Passion growing v Retirement
or Passion showing v Retirement

[Stella/Olga]

another Stella/Olga.

Passion flowing v Retirement

[Adrian]

I followed a similar approach to Tennis Planet. I first looked at lists of all words with the two hints: number of letters in a word and a specific letter in a given position in that word.

There are 1777 words with 7 letters and S in the fourth position. I obviously didn’t consider weird words like “baaskap”, “apishly”, “ekistic”, that didn’t seem to fit in a tennis related phrase (or whose meaning I didn’t even know!)… but I browsed the entire list (possibly missing some important words… but oh well…)

So here are the words that I wrote down as possible for the first guess:
Abashed
Abusing
Airshot
Amusing
Arising
Awesome
Beastly
Blasted
Blessed
Blister
Blossom
Boaster
Boosted
Chasing
Classes
Closely
Closest
Closets
Closeup
Closing
Closure
Coastal
Consent
Consist
Consume
Crashed
Crassly
Crusher
Dessert
Dogskin
Drastic
Dressed
Dresser
Elusive
Erasers
Erasing
Erosion
Evasion
Evasive
Eyespot
Falsely
Fiestas
Flushed
Freshen
Ghostly
Glasses
Godsend
Godship
Godsons
Gossips
Grossly
Guessed
Guesses
Gunship
Gunshot
Hotshot
Irksome
Leasing
Leisure
Lessons
Loosely
Lousily
Lousier
Maestro
Mansion
Massive
Measure
Message
Missing
Mission
Monster
Nonstop
Nursing
Offsets
Offside
Oneself
Outshot
Outside
Outsize
Passive
Pensive
Persist
Pursuit
Pissing
Plusses
Presage
Preside
Presser
Presume
Prosper
Raising
Ransack
Reasons
Reusing
Sassier
Seasons
Sensors
Spastic
Subside
Subsidy
Subsist
Sunsets
Topspin
Teasing
Tension
Toaster
Tossing
Trashed
Trusted
Unusual
Version

Then I did the same for the other two words. There are 504 words with seven letters and W in the fourth position. My candidates:
Viewing
Xxxwise
Upswing
Xxxwork
Showman
Slowing
Showing
Xxxward
Xxxware
Prowess
Xxxwarm
Outwear
Outwill
Network
Midweek
Hogwash
Growing
Flowing
Eyewear
Flowing
Crowing
Crowned
Drowsed
Drowner
Chewing
Catwalk
Browser
Brownie
Blowjob
Awkward
Airwise
Answers
Anyways
Artwork
Blowoff
Blowout
Flowery
Flowers
Legwork
Meowing
Outweep

And then for the third word, there are 3075 words with 10 letters and letter R in the fifth position. These are some possibilities:
Aberration
Abhorrence
Abnormally
Absorption
Absurdness
Accuracies
Admiration
Affirmance
Affordable
Afterbirth
Afterglows
Afterlives
Aftermaths
Afternoons
Aftershock
Bankrolled
Bankruptcy
Biographic
Boyfriends
Bipartisan
Castrating
Cheeriness
Compromise
Concretize
Confronter
Congruence
Contradict
Contracted
Contrarian
Contravene
Contribute
Controller
Controlled
Daydreamer
Deferences
Demoralize
Departings
Deportable
Deservedly
Destroyers
Destroying
Destructed
Destructor
Determined
Dethroners
Diarrhetic
Discrepant
Discrowned
Disgruntle
Distracter
Distressed
Distraught
Endorphins
Endurances
Enterprise
Expertises
Experience
Flourisher
Forerunner
Generalist
Generosity
Honoraries
Humoristic
Hypermaniac
Impervious
Importance
Importuned
Inebriated
Infortunes
Infuriated
Inharmonic
Interferer
Intermarry
Interviews
Inwardness
Matureness
Mispraised
Mistreated
Moderating
Moderation
Modernized
Modernizer
Naturalism
Neutralize
Nondrinker
Nonprofits
Obdurating
Observatory
Obstructed
Otherworld
Outbrawled
Outbreathe
Outtrumped
Outwrestle
Overreacts
Paternally
Pederastic
Pejorative
Polarizing
Powerhouse
Powerplays
Powertrain
Prearrange
Progresses
Quadriceps
Railroaded
Rebirthing
Recurrence
Referenced
Reformable
Remoralize
Restrained
Restricted
Resurfaced
Resurgence
Resurrects
Retirement
Reversible
Stairsteps
Staircases
Sugarcoats
Superbitch
Superbrain
Superiorly
Supermacho
Supersized
Superwives
Superwoman
Swearwords
Synergizes
Theoretics
Tiebreaker
Toleration
Tolerating
Unarrogant
Uncerebral
Underclass
Underdoing
Undereaten
Underminer
Undermines
Undersells
Underscore
Underreact
Underwhelm
Unheralded
Unmarried
Valourously
Veneration
Vigorously

Then I made smaller lists based on what I thought were possible combinations.

*For first word:
Abusing
Amusing
Beastly
Blessed
Chasing
Closing
Elusive
Erasing
Evasive
Loosely
Maestro
Massive
Missing
Mission
Monster
Nonstop
Outside
Passive
Persist
Pursuit
Topspin
Tension
Trusted
Unusual

*For second word:
Viewing
Showing
Prowess
Answers
Flowing
Legwork

*For third word:
Afterbirth
Compromise
Determined
Distressed
Distraught
Endurances
Experience
Importance
Matureness
Moderation
Modernizer
Neutralize
Outtrumped
Rebirthing
Remoralize
Retirement
Restrained
Restricted
Resurfaced
Resurgence
Tiebreaker
Underdoing
Underwhelm

And so, looking at these lists and possible combinations, here are my nominees:
Missing answers vs. retirement
Passive showing vs. retirement
Missing answers vs. experience
Passive showing vs. experience
Unusual prowess vs. underdoing
Elusive/evasive legwork vs. experience
Chasing answers vs. compromise
Missing answers vs. matureness

In reality, I was looking for something that reflected that Federer has matured and reinvented himself, his game “flows” now given how much he’s worked on his backhand, coming more to the net, etc… while Nadal is doing the same he’s always done. So that’s why I liked words like “rebirthing”, “afterbirth” and such for Federer… and “underdoing” or “underwhelm” or “distressed” for Nadal. But couldn’t find the appropriate combination. Maybe someone can build up on my research! :)

[Adrian]

"Abysmal" could be a good first word. Abysmal showing vs. experience, for instance... or one of the combinations I proposed! :)

[Peter D]

How about "Misisng Answers vs archrivals"?
Meaning, that Nadal lately has been unable to come with answers to his archrivals Djokovic and now Federer. So, it is not only Federer who improved but also Nadal who lost ability to adapt, therefore no PED explanation is needed

[Adrian]

Yes, I agree. This is partly what I meant. "Missing answers vs. modernizer" (as in "Federer, the one who modernizes") could also be? jeje...

[Tennis Planet]

HINT: Last letter of the first word is 'l'. Last letter of the last word (third one) is 'e'. And last two words of the second letter are two 's'.

And that's to compensate for my mistake: I missed one blank for the first word. It's added now.

[O]

Unusual Prowess vs Resurgence. PED is only needed for the latter.

[Alpha]

physical prowess vs experience
physical prowess vs resurgence

No tennis involved, more "hangman" skills. I don't like these.

[Stella]

geez TP I've been ratting this over in my brain all afternoon and then it turns out you gave us the wrong number of letters.

[Veglia]

Are we doing crosswords or Wall of Fame??!!

[Alpha]

TP, it's your site and you can do what you want, but a request please.

We seem to be moving toward to HOF habit which really comes down to filling in the blanks. That means it often comes down to one's knowledge of English rather than tennis or, as you often favor, tennis strategy and psychology. It's less fun and, perhaps more importantly, it is harder for those for whom English isn't a first language.

Can we please have more old time HOF contests? Focus on tennis rather than English.

[Veglia]

Alpha, 100% agree! If you ever run for TP office, you have my vote

[O]

Yes, talking about tennis. It's "Perfect Tennis" vs "Being extremely strong". Federer is playing perfect tennis, as he did during 2004-2007. Stan also played perfect tennis to win three slams. Rafa and Djokovic are just extremely strong.

It's not hard to prove my point scientifically. It's like watching an F1 race. All I see from Nadal and Djokovic is running fast for 50-100 laps. I want to see the moments a player found the space to pass another car. The acceleration is missing in those guys games. In tennis, you see Federer and Stan hit many more winners. That's the acceleration, they win by those moments that others cannot keep up, the matches themselves do not have to be grueling. Also there is the genius of those winners have little margin of error.

Nadal and Djokovic may be more dominant at times. We'll see what happens. I think perfect tennis outlast extremely strong men.

[Fred]

you have mine too

[Veglia]

O, I agree with a lot of your point, but the word "strong" is not the right one. I assure you both Stan and Roger are stronger than Djokovic. Like, if they go to the gym and do weights or arm wrestle. Especially Stan, there's a reason they call him Stanimal, because he's considered one of the physically strongest players on tour. Maybe you're thinking endurance. With that I agree. My theory has always been that Djokovic wins by grinding and has not real big weapons. Grinding becomes more difficult as you get older.
Back to this WoF, I think Federer won AO and IW because he's playing great but also because the rest of the top dogs are in a slum for one reason or another. However, his physical display at age 35 after playing so long on the tour still raises some eyebrows wrt PED, however godlike you want to see him.

[O]

You are right that being strong includes endurance, Veglia. However I believe that PED accusations are ridiculously misplaced, especially on Stan winning slams and now Fed, by TP of course. Then there is 35, what does 35 have to do with anything? Everybody who wins AO is 35 right? What about Rafa at 30 beating Dimitrov 25 in the most grueling match of this tourney? Point is that PED and genius need to be separated, or are you saying that PED means genius?

[Stella]

definitely. These WOF tests that boil down to choosing the same words TP would use for a certain situation are a crap shoot.

My first language is English but my brain isn't wireed like Teep's

I preferred the old days when the answer was a fact and you either got it correct or wrong

[Adrian]

TP!!!! you made me waste so much time!!! jajajaja

Anyway, here Excel was a big help. These are ALL the words in the English language with 8 letters AND L in the last position AND S in the fourth position:

BLUSHFUL
BONSPELL
CAPSIDAL
CESSPOOL
COISTRIL
COYSTREL
FOOSBALL
GHASTFUL
LAYSTALL
MARSHALL
MERSALYL
PRESSFUL
SENSEFUL
SUBSKILL
TRUSTFUL
BLISSFUL
BOASTFUL
BONSPIEL
CAPSIZAL
COYSTRIL
EGGSHELL
FRISKFUL
MINSTREL
NUTSHELL
OUTSMELL
PAUSEFUL
PERSONAL
PHYSICAL
PROSOMAL
REASSAIL
SEASHELL
UNISONAL
BORSTALL
GOSSYPOL
OUTSPELL
PESSIMAL
SEASONAL
CHESTFUL
DEISHEAL
EPISODAL
GLASSFUL
MOISTFUL
NOISEFUL
OUTSWELL
BARSTOOL
DOWSABEL
EPISOMAL
LOESSIAL
MENSEFUL
TRISTFUL
FEASTFUL
HOUSEFUL
INOSITOL
MENSURAL
NEWSGIRL
NUMSKULL
PIGSWILL
PLASTRAL
SESSPOOL
CAESURAL
COISTREL
DAYSHELL
DIASTRAL
FISSURAL
MISSPELL
NEWSREEL
PINSWELL
PURSEFUL
SUBSHELL
TESSERAL
UNUSEFUL
URUSHIOL

There are very few of these that seem appropriate for describing either Nadal or Federer, and one that sticks out is "physical". The only other ones that I see could fit the bill are "seasonal", "personal", and "trustful".

Second word has to be "prowess", which I deciphered yesterday, and it goes with "physical"... so that's that!!

And so, with that I have to revisit my choices for third word... these are my candidates:

DETERRENCE
OBSERVANCE
AFFIRMANCE
EXPERIENCE
ENTERPRISE
RESURGENCE
INSURGENCE
RECURRENCE

I'd say TP would choose "experience"... but I would argue that "deterrence" is a much better, more specific choice. Looking at the definition:

deterrence, n. - the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

I think that Federer's ability to reinvent himself, improve his backhand, contributed to instill that doubt in Nadal that hitting to Fed's backhand is not going to do it anymore, affecting Nadal's self-confidence. Perhaps Fed's reinvention of himself was due to his experience... perhaps it was something else that has more to do with his own personality, with something Ljubicic taught him, etc.

I also like "enterprise", defined as "a project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort," for the same reasons related to Fed undertaking the project of improving his backhand, which required a lot of years and a lot of effort, and it finally seems to be paying off!!

[Adrian]

jajaj come on, Alpha!! Don't be unfair to TP! It is true that this type of HOF contest seems to require some language skills but you do have to know tennis in order to pick the right words! I am no native English speaker (I'm from Mexico and live down here!) and I don't think the words TP picked are too bad...!

But agree that other types of HOF contests are good. I'd say it's good to have different types of games since that gives a chance to different types of people with different skills...! :)

[Adrian]

I have a few extra guesses. The first two words are for sure "physical prowess" but we typically associate that trait with Nadal. Actually, I'm now thinking a more appropriate association may be with Federer, given how old he is, how much he's endured, how much he can still play five-setters and outplay even the Nadals of this world.

In this case, the third word could be associated with Nadal and could be something like "invariance" or "unvariable" for the reasons I've explained before. Others may be "recurrence", "returnable" (as in his shots are now returnable!), and "underdrive" (as in meaning he's not very driven or motivated).

jajaj sorry, I do like this game. But I'll stop now...! :D

[O]

Interesting analysis, Adrian. Probably it's: Physical Prowess vs Resurgence, as Alpha listed above. It's Rafa's Physical Prowess, no doubt, but it has declined to a diminished level. Federer's Resurgence, on the other hand, is at its all mighty level.

I've long pointed out that Fed's game became obsolete ever since 08. He was not as dominant as previous years with a small racket. I also predicted that he will do well with a new bigger racket, like a new career. The Resurgence of Federer bring about an all time best level, against the diminished Physical Prowess of Rafa Nadal. Therefore Federer beats Nadal is not surprising.

[Tennis Planet]

ALPHA

You got it. But you have to figure out which one of the two it is AND explain how it counters - somewhat - the near Slam dunk PED accusation.

[Tennis Planet]

ALPHA

Thanks for the input.

Here's the rationale:

It allows MANY MORE people to participate as nearly 25-50% of the puzzle is solved after just filling the blanks. However, you don't get to win the contest without explaining and connecting the dots - allowing the 'tennis strategy and psychology' bit to 'remain'.

Remember one WOF contest where you provided the link to the site to solve the blanks and someone did and still nobody won?

Imagine this contest without the 'blanks'. It's so wide open that it may even seem irrational or like a wild spaghetti shot on the wall leaving most to pass without even attempting. This way there's hope with a credible 'hint' and direction.

Why not have a poll? Let's try that.

[Adrian]

Thanks, O! Agree with you analysis.

Hey, TP, maybe you could consider to throw me a little bone (like an honorable mention, at least), given my efforts and that I provided the potential candidates even when you led me astray giving me the wrong hint!!?? jaja

I'm still around even if I don't post often... miss you, guys.

[O]

Definitely deserve a gesture from TP, Adrian! I don't know how you got all those words, otherwise nobody can solve this one.ever

[Jabali]

Physical prowess vs experience! Nadal is not only losing his hair but also the movement which he used to have before and that devastating powerful forehand is missing for quite some time now. There is without a doubt that the physical prowess Nadal had before is missing. Fed has lost to Rafa so many times already that it was about time he changed his approach. Experience of losing so many times has helped Fed. Especially he stopped the slice return and was very aggressive with his returns especially from that backhand side.
Sampras said before sometime back it takes 3-4 years to completely adjust to a new racquet. The new racquet with wider frame is finally showing its full potential and it is the MAIN reason in my opinion that Fed has outplayed Rafa. It was not like Fed suddenly started playing aggressively. Even before he used to be aggressive with his backhand but always shanked a lot due to the smaller frame against Rafa. I remember in 2007 wimby finals Fed had like 51 unreturned serves! He tried to be aggressive but always missed! After a point of time he started slicing more with his return against Rafa cause he wanted to stay in the point rather than losing it altogether in the beginning itself. THE MAIN reason is his aggressive returns which stayed inside the court, all thanks to his new racquet. After watching Fed play for the past two decades I can clearly feel that his new racquet has helped Fed especially against Rafa!!

[Veglia]

I have a new theory ... besides PED ... Not only is Roger using new stick, he's also using new STRINGS. More bite on the ball, more spin. If you look closely, even his FH has more spin, in every direction. Slices stay lower, topspin bounces higher, side spin goes wicked off the court. Watch that matchpoint against Rafa at AO. Everyone on the planet thought that was going out, but the ball dropped right on the line. More spin, my friend. Also, if you observe his bh top spin, it does not seem to be hit with a huge amount of power, yet it bounces so strongly that opponents cannot do what they once could playing his bh back.

So, new stick combined with NEW strings and improved bh approach are all contributing to the change we're currently seeing. I am convinced 100% that new strings play a big part in the change.

[Jabali]

Yes! true Vegila :)

[O]

At IW, Moya mentioned that Rafa was not allowed to do anything. Rafa mentioned that he couldn't cope well with Federer's first two shots. Federer's serve and return are of such quality, he took control with one or two shots and keep the points incredibly short.

It looks like Federer is holding serve better than ever, and he is returning server better than ever.

He has a perfect game, perfect game plan, perfect attitude. He beat Nishikori, Wawrinka and Nadal similarly. No tiebreakers except one with Nishikori? just holding and breaking more easily. He also control longer rallies, running others from side to side.

In a word, the shots are just too much better than before. He clearly has finally figured out his game.

My opinion is that PED enables you to win dog fights, it doesn't enable you to serve 20 aces and hit lines.

[Alpha]

TP, as the hint doesn't solve the question, then if nobody has even solved the hint by the 30th, how about giving us the full hint. No mulligan for Veglia though.

[Tennis Planet]

ALPHA

This IS the 'full hint'. If you have solved it, now you just have to expand on it and see if that expansion answers the question:

'The ONLY logical and reasonable explanation that can counter the PED accusation for Federer for having won a Slam and a Masters 1000 title over Nadal among other obvious 'problems'.

[O]

I think there is a scientific explanation to counter the PED accusation. This:

Nothing special is needed by Federer to beat Nadal, he beat Nadal exactly like a Nishikori or a Wawrinka. His game is great now. Sometimes it's the serve, forehand, other times it's the BH.

People think Nadal automatically beat Federer, Nadal forehand beat Federer BH. It used to be true, now it's proven false.

In the 5th set when Nadal served at 3:2. He attacked Federer BH, Federer BH hit a winner. Nadal had to go to Federer FH instead, hit long and was BP down. He save it, but a few plays later, Fed hit another BH winner to bring up another BP, Nadal again went to Federer FH, made another error, and got broken back.

Another example is when Fed served for the match. He was able to come up with solid serves and forehands.

In one word, he played great, believed the win, for 3+ hours. If that's PED, than tell me what's not PED.

[Tennis Planet]

O

35 and 6 (now 8) months?

Three five setters?........

[O]

There were so many reasons for Federer to believe in victory. Nadal had to withdraw from FO indicating that something was seriously wrong because he wouldn't do that otherwise. Also Dimitrov of all people almost took out Nadal.

When Federer beat Nadal to win AO, he did one thing that he always did when he won slams - to win some beautiful/long rallies.

Those plays came in the 5th set when Nadal served at 3:4. JMAC kept saying we'll be here for awhile, not thinking Nadal would get broken again. Nadal quickly dropped to triple BP down thanks to Federer's good returns and his own DF. Nadal to his credit saved all three. Then came the longest and perhaps the most beautiful rally ever played. Federer won to bring about another BP, Nadal saved that one, but only to be bossed around in another rally and eventually was broken the 2nd time.

Federer actually never won these rallies anymore the last ten years? but he was himself with his new game and the belief.

[O]

35 and 6 (now 8) months, and he is himself. With the new racket he STILL played the same tennis he ALWAYS played to win him slams (below). Although he won many many slams, most of his wins were dominating wins, that other guys had little/no chance. The only reason for his decline is the small racket versus other player's big racket. With six months of recovering, he returned physically to a peak level.

[O]

AO was very fast. You touch the ball, the ball flies, no big effort was needed. Everybody was fine physically. PED wouldn't even be needed. IW and MIA are getting progressively harder.

[O]

Talk about 35 36, he didn't arrive at this age overnight. He won his last slam in 2012, in some dominating fashion. Since then he changed racket, only Djokovic - arguably the most dominant player in history, the four straight guy, stopped him. Federer was runnerups in 3 slams and 3 WTFs because he was not good with the new racket and didn't know what to do. Physically he was always the same. If that's PED, since when? After that came the injury and the recovery.

The only thing for us to see when he beat Nadal is 100+ genius points. When he broke Nadal the 2nd time in the 5th set, he used short slices or short blocks to place the ball right over the net. They were not drop shots but short. Rafa didn't quite react to them and lost BP on such a shot from Federer.

The tennis ball here in MIA are more like bowling balls. It's making everybody look old. Maybe one of the worst events, is that the reason they are talking about moving?

[O]

Federer losing slam finals against Djokovic:

2014 Wimbledon 6–7(7–9), 6–4, 7–6(7–4), 5–7, 6–4 3:56
2015 Wimbledon 7–6(7–1), 6–7(10–12), 6–4, 6–3 2:55
2015 US Open 6–4, 5–7, 6–4, 6–4 3:20

PED?

[O]

Nadal lead 3-2 with the break in the 5th set, but lost to Federer, history repeating itself? In 2012 AO final, Nadal lead 4-2 against Djokovic in the 5th set, but Djokovic beat him 9-7?

Two big AO losses for Nadal.

[O]

Coming into AO final, Nadal did 30% more work per shot than Federer. Playing same number of sets, but 9 more games? Nadal performed 70% more work than Federer coming into the final.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ZyT9Vo8wMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ZyT9Vo8wM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ZyT9Vo8wM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ZyT9Vo8wMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8ZyT9Vo8wM

[Alpha]

Yeah, the "evidence" is poor. First, even though they were five setters, the time on court was not that great. Second, he had a day off between the QF and SF and two days off between the SF and F.

[Veglia]

Seriously people, you have to get real here. I love Federer. But if anyone believes there's no PEDs in professional sports they have to get a reality check. It is not possible to compete at the highest levels without it. Not all PEDs are detrimental you ones health, especially if we're flexible with the definition and don't limit the concept to just formal drugs. Oxygen chambers, special baths and other recovery techniques, etc. It all costs a lot of money, which is btw one of the reasons why it's so hard to break the Big 4. They simply have the most resources. Take this simple example: Federer arrives at the tournament in his private jet, with his entire team of specialists, nutritionists, even a freakin' hair stylist... Some poor soul outside top 50 arrives on a commercial jet that was delayed for 3 hours, sitting between a crying baby and a farting old fart. And you think tomorrow morning they compete on equal grounds??!! Federer then receives the special massage, injections for this and that, pills for this and that. Poor soul goes to McDonalds for dinner.
It takes time and money these days to break into top 10, than another level of investment for top 5. And this is the perfect storm: you have 4 extraordinary talents and athletes with limitless resources at the top of the game for freakin' 14 years now. They are all on PEDs, as is everyone else. This does not remove any of the love and admiration for the game of tennis in my eyes.
END RANT

[Alpha]

Your logic is that Roger has more money and so has better PEDs? Btw, massages, private plane, and PEDs are not the same thing. One. Is about resources, the second about morality.

If you're arguing that the system is skewed in favour if the top players, I agree. Seedlings are one example. But you seem to be arguing that somehow PEDs are keeping the top guys at the top. Not sure how that goes.

[Alpha]

Personally I think the sport is clean. Almost completely clean.

[O]

I like a Fedal match but AO17 was the best. IW was good I can't imagine a MIAMI rematch.

It's good fun and I assume they play on equal terms. What does PED has to do with this match?

Federer/Kyrgios, Nadal/Fognini these are good matchups, people at high places like TP would worry about and take care of the fairness.

[Veglia]

Yes, real PEDs are about morality. I would love to think the sport is clean, especially at the top. I was hurt badly after many late nights watching Lance ride his bike in the mountains of France. And those scars are still with me. Supplemented by TP's very reasonable logic: how can one at almost 36 after putting so many miles behind him still compete and win at this level??!! Even if he's our beloved Roger the Mighty ... In today's society, business, sports, politics, you name it, some level of aiding your cause is a precursor for success. And PED is a very old discussion. Is taking supplements PED? Why not, they enhance your performance, right? Or even Aspirin...

[Veglia]

O, did you ever think Sharapova was on PEDs before it was announced? And, do you think right now she was actually on PEDs? In other words whatever she took, was it PED? Is Gasquet on PEDs because he kissed the girl who was high?

[Veglia]

... and yes, seeds system is solely in place for tournament organizers to make money. But let's not forget tennis is a professional sport. It's not about fair play, it is about making money! Sorry girls and boys, that's just it. Did it ever cross your mind that Roger continued to play after W 2012 because Roger Federer Inc. is a 100-million a year corporation? Many people work there and have employment contracts. There are business obligations, there are penalties.

[Alpha]

Amazing cynicism Roger in it just for the money? If that is true, why does any high flyer retire? You know, if you're Roger, you can make almost as much whine being happily retired. Ask Jordan, Nicklaus, Norman. And you don't need to do the maniacal training required to compete at that level.

AND just because Armstrong did it, doesn't mean others are. Really silly to suspect Roger -- what he did was play superb tennis, not win an endurance battle. Forget 5 setters, check time on court. Plus, 6 months break, two day break before final, most matches at night. I could go one but never mind. You know a PED that improves a gut's BH? if so, I want some too.

[Alpha]

Not whine I meant money. Darn typo and autocorrect.

[Veglia]

Oh, he's in for the money. Not just, but yes for the money. Don't be fooled by his beautiful game. He likes his $800 haircuts, private jets, ugly house in the Alps, Mercedes CLS 500 and so on. And I don't mean this in a bad way. Who does not love money ... well maybe Bernie :)
Bottom line, I hope Rogers is clean but the world will not be the same one day if they announce something was found in his fluids. It just does not make sense that he competes at this level at this age. Does not. Maybe he's defying biology or physics or chemistry or my lame logic, but it does not make sense. That's why I don't want to be dismissive of the remote possibility.

[O]

To Veglia's question, I don't give a damn look or thought to people I don't even like nothing I don't watch much tennis. I don't know what's going on, but then tennis is as fair as it gets. I don't like shouting PED every time people win, what's the point?

[O]

I like Federer that his body never changed over the years, win or lose. His slice BH was dominating those days and he could do it all day long. Nadal and then everybody else made it obsolete.

The domination by others was more by physical power. Federer reinvented his game and made it perfect now. Sure it's expensive to do, Stan also did it to some extent. The others in my opinion are not playing properly.

Nadal for example, has had numerous injuries and recoveries. Thankfully he is still strong these days, but NOT in that good shape or form right? With that power and slow events, maybe there will be Nadal's moments right? maybe?

[O]

By the time Nadal lost AO to Federer, he also exhausted all his challenges. Of course he did, why should he leave the challenges unused if he lost the match. It probably showed that Federer precision game won it for him.

[Gary Moser]

He might be using. They ALL might be using. Might, sure.

But I have to dismiss your "does not make sense" that he isn't.

Consider that in 2014 and 2015, Federer was usually losing to Djokovic in the same manner:
BEING OVERTAKEN LATE IN THE MATCH.

Roger's superior technical talent would keep him ahead --- or at least within striking distance ---
of Novak for the first 1-to-2 hours, but thereafter the Serb would emphatically pull away.

If Roger HADN'T been repeatedly fading in those contests, THEN I might've suspected PED use.

As for this year, let's face it, one can posit that it's more a case of the competition being
in a ( possibly temporary ) lull phase than it is that Roger has improved so much from what he was.

Djokovic clearly hasn't been the same since finally completing his Career Slam at last year's FO;

Murray hasn't been the same since finally achieving a year-end #1 ranking;

Nadal has had a series of minor injuries and isn't CONSISTENTLY the force-of-nature he once was, regardless;

And the "next generation" [ Raonic / Nishikori / Dimitrov/ Et al. ], sad to say, has been a relative wash-out.

Another point to cogitate on: Roger re-wrote the record book without a legitimate full-time coach.

AFTER he did that, guys like Tony Roche and Paul Annacone and Stefan Edberg chose to become associated with him.

If there was any REAL suspicion about his using or having used PEDs, there's no way IMO that they would have
run the risk of having their own sterling reputations sullied if-and-when Roger was ever exposed.

[Gary Moser]

Sharapova -- she admitted to taking a drug for 10 years that was created and marketed for HEART PATIENTS.

That's called trying to get an unfair advantage.

Gasquet -- per his Wikipedia page, "The tribunal stated that the quantity of cocaine detected
in Gasquet's sample was 'very small, about the size of a grain of salt'."

That's called being foolish.

[Tennis Planet]

• Correct answer.