And Nadal can't beat Roger on the masters england indoor court

[Morbius X]

Court service is what this slanted h2h is all about between Nadal &
Federer period. Nadal is the clay king without a doubt. but Nadal hasn't
been a good enough player on the other surfaces over the years to meet
Roger in enough other court surface finals to even up the h2h. but Roger
has beaten Nadal on clay 2 times. Nadal has yet to beat Roger on a fast
low bounce indoor court. and the truth is Roger has been past his best
since 08 when he got a illness that year that i don't believe he ever
fully recovered from. it's remarkable even that year Roger still had no
match retirements all year. mono makes you very tired as most of you
should know.

[DavidW]

A repost from 2009?

[Whisper]

On 24/05/2013 8:38 PM, Morbius X wrote:
>
> Court service is what this slanted h2h is all about between Nadal &
> Federer period. Nadal is the clay king without a doubt. but Nadal hasn't
> been a good enough player on the other surfaces over the years to meet
> Roger in enough other court surface finals to even up the h2h.

The assumption you're making here is Fed would have won those matches
had Rafa made more finals. I completely disagree with this.

> but Roger
> has beaten Nadal on clay 2 times. Nadal has yet to beat Roger on a fast
> low bounce indoor court. and the truth is Roger has been past his best
> since 08 when he got a illness that year that i don't believe he ever
> fully recovered from. it's remarkable even that year Roger still had no
> match retirements all year. mono makes you very tired as most of you
> should know.
>

The fact Roger has had no retirements, still beat everyone else like he
always did, ranked No.1, made 4 slam finals every yr etc should tell you
he never had mono. Anyone who seriously believes Fed had mono has to be
pretty fucking stupid let's face it.

[Court_1]

On May 24, 7:29 am, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail> wrote:

>Anyone who seriously believes Fed had mono has to be
> pretty fucking stupid let's face it.

Oh, but a person believing in Nadal's "seriously injured knees" must
be an Einstein huh? ;)

In all seriousness, I am pretty sure I don't believe either story from
either camp.

[guypers]

Nadal is effed, fork time!

[felangey]

> The assumption you're making here is Fed would have won those matches had
> Rafa made more finals. I completely disagree with this.

Yeah but mate....you think that Sampras would beat Nadal on clay. That's why
you are no more than white noise and a laughing stock/

[Whisper]

Where is the evidence Fed would have beaten Rafa if he made more finals?

We see when he did make the finals Fed was cowered & lost. When Rafa
made the final he was playing well, which is bad news for Fed.

[felangey]

> Where is the evidence Fed would have beaten Rafa if he made more finals?
>

Even at 30+ he was ending Nadal on the lower bouncing surfaces. I know you
want their h2h to be about "cowering" (such a needy word you always use,
which *really* shows your Pete butthurt)....sadly for you, it's about
matchup and surface....which if you had the first clue about tennis and any
semblance of impartiality you would recognise. Big fat hee-haw chance on
both counts then! :))

[Whisper]

Look mate I said yrs ago what Fed had to do to beat Rafa. What he had
was good enough for the field as they were lower skilled, but taking
Rafa on from the baseline was always going to end in pain.

I prefer Fed's game & watching him over Rafa, but no way am I going to
say he's better than Rafa on pretty much any court. Your position is
'If Rafa made more finals & lost them to Fed, then Fed would have better
h2h'.

Do you see how moronic that position is?

[felangey]

> Look mate I said yrs ago what Fed had to do to beat Rafa. What he had was
> good enough for the field as they were lower skilled, but taking Rafa on
> from the baseline was always going to end in pain.
>
> I prefer Fed's game & watching him over Rafa, but no way am I going to say
> he's better than Rafa on pretty much any court. Your position is 'If Rafa
> made more finals & lost them to Fed, then Fed would have better h2h'.
>
> Do you see how moronic that position is?

No, tell me more. In their h2h, Fed beats Nadal on the low bouncing
courts......check the matches. Nadal has hardly made any low-bouncing finals
during Feds reign (like Drew rightly points out, all bets are now off....you
can't keep on counting everything against Fed forever...he is nearly 32). No
stretch to say that this is how his h2h is so healthy. Mate.

Also....you are on record so often as saying that there is surface
amalgamation.....palpably this has been in slowing things down and making
the ball bounce higher/move through the air slower. We can say that this is
a move towards clay conditions all over. This has been a huge disadvantage
to the one hander and the attacking player, for obvious reasons......and
it's grossly disingenous of you if you are going to brazenly say otherwise.
Whatever we can say....Pete would be toast in the current arenas, bar one or
two exceptions. So pipe down and seethe in silence until you have something
that isn't a rant or a whinge or a bitch....it gets monotonous.

[Iceberg]

we're not the ones who absolutely hate Nadal. If the h2h wasn't such a
huge indicator of the blatantly obvious, you and your Fedfan ilk
wouldn't mind Nadal at all. it most amusing.

[rec.sport.tennis]

The moron was you, but your continuous repeat of lie that Fed will
lose to Rafa at any slam match did implement in many's minds here in
rst such as Court 1, shakes etc. Part of reasons was that Fed cried in
AO final which gave wrong information. If a logic, objective mind
looks at this issue from a neutral point, it is easy to get
Rafa does give Fed hard time beyond clay due to matchup issue but Fed
should have a better chance in USO and W before 30 should they meet
say 10 times (to make it statistically meaningful), even if it's in
slower courts. Your and shake's trend analysis based on two 5 sets
final in W. and AO is statistically limited. Note that I don't have to
say that Fed was not young by that AO. Even he is still at the
absolute peak, a guy who consistently dominating field day after day
couldn't be as fresh as a younger hunger like Rafa in one or two
particular matches. It is easily understandable. Of course he could
still dominate other players easily because they didn't give him a
matchup problem.
The real ownership was Richard krajicek over Sampras although you
repeatly said that it is only one slam match between them, but
(1) Both were in a same generation.
(2) Richard beat Pete convincingly in Pete's strongest courts: Grass
and indoor.
(3) I remember that after that W, Pete tried very hard against Rich
but always came short so in one interview after another indoor loss,
he admitted (with embarrassed face in Eurosport) that when he put
everything together, he is the REAL no.1 (pete's words, yes!). Until
both being older, finally Pete started beating a training-lack
Krajicek in your mickey-mouse tournaments. Luckily to Pete, their ages
are close.

Now stop lying and enjoy watching tennis. Fed is almost in history but
your lie is as fresh as daisy (just for sake of Pete).

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 24.5.2013 12:38, Morbius ZZZ wrote:
>
> Court service is what this slanted h2h is all about between Nadal &
> Federer period. Nadal is the clay king without a doubt. but Nadal hasn't
> been a good enough player on the other surfaces over the years to meet
> Roger in enough other court surface finals to even up the h2h.

Rogi was lucky to get those two Ws when Rafa was still a grass nestling.
Otherwise it's nothing but tears for Rogi in slam matches.

You need to have beefed up tealeaves to rip a positive H2H for Rogi out
of that.

What saves the day for Rogi is indoor Yuletide plywood. Without that it
would be 376-2 for Rafa and we wouldn't be seeing these threads.

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Whisper]

On 25/05/2013 12:05 AM, felangey wrote:
>> Look mate I said yrs ago what Fed had to do to beat Rafa. What he had was
>> good enough for the field as they were lower skilled, but taking Rafa on
>> from the baseline was always going to end in pain.
>>
>> I prefer Fed's game & watching him over Rafa, but no way am I going to say
>> he's better than Rafa on pretty much any court. Your position is 'If Rafa
>> made more finals & lost them to Fed, then Fed would have better h2h'.
>>
>> Do you see how moronic that position is?
>
> No, tell me more. In their h2h, Fed beats Nadal on the low bouncing
> courts......check the matches.

No, Fed beats Rafa in the off season in matches that have no historical
significance. You can't possibly be this stupid can you?

> Nadal has hardly made any low-bouncing finals
> during Feds reign (like Drew rightly points out, all bets are now off....you
> can't keep on counting everything against Fed forever...he is nearly 32). No
> stretch to say that this is how his h2h is so healthy. Mate.

The simple truth is Fed only beat Rafa in slams 2 times, & both were far
from convincing when Rafa was very young & just learning to play on
grass, while Fed was 4 time Wimbledon champ. It really wouldn't have
taken much to make it 10-0 to Rafa on all 3 surfaces.

>
> Also....you are on record so often as saying that there is surface
> amalgamation.....palpably this has been in slowing things down and making
> the ball bounce higher/move through the air slower. We can say that this is
> a move towards clay conditions all over. This has been a huge disadvantage
> to the one hander and the attacking player, for obvious reasons......and
> it's grossly disingenous of you if you are going to brazenly say otherwise.
> Whatever we can say....Pete would be toast in the current arenas, bar one or
> two exceptions. So pipe down and seethe in silence until you have something
> that isn't a rant or a whinge or a bitch....it gets monotonous.
>
>

Sampras would not lose to Rafa off clay. Why do you think Fed plays
like Sampras? Fed is a baseliner who doesn't serve as well/hard or hit
his groundies as hard as Sampras. All that spin & sticking to the
baseline feeds right into Rafa's strengths. Sampras would be a complete
nightmare for all the top 4 guys today. They would hate playing someone
who serves like that & is constantly on the attack. You won't see any
40 stroke rallies with Sampras.

[Whisper]

Not playing Rafa from the baseline he won't. Imo Fed's biggest career
break was losing those 2 USO semis to Djoker, because I'm 99% certain
Rafa beats Fed in 2 USO finals as well as all the other slams.

> Your and shake's trend analysis based on two 5 sets
> final in W. and AO is statistically limited. Note that I don't have to
> say that Fed was not young by that AO. Even he is still at the
> absolute peak, a guy who consistently dominating field day after day
> couldn't be as fresh as a younger hunger like Rafa in one or two
> particular matches. It is easily understandable. Of course he could
> still dominate other players easily because they didn't give him a
> matchup problem.
> The real ownership was Richard krajicek over Sampras although you
> repeatly said that it is only one slam match between them, but
> (1) Both were in a same generation.
> (2) Richard beat Pete convincingly in Pete's strongest courts: Grass
> and indoor.

Sampras & Krajicek never played a GS semi or final. They are not rivals.

Do you think anyone would be talking about Fed & Rafa if they only
played each other in 2 slam Q/fs? Are you guys this dumb seriously?

> (3) I remember that after that W, Pete tried very hard against Rich
> but always came short so in one interview after another indoor loss,
> he admitted (with embarrassed face in Eurosport) that when he put
> everything together, he is the REAL no.1 (pete's words, yes!). Until
> both being older, finally Pete started beating a training-lack
> Krajicek in your mickey-mouse tournaments. Luckily to Pete, their ages
> are close.
>
> Now stop lying and enjoy watching tennis. Fed is almost in history but
> your lie is as fresh as daisy (just for sake of Pete).
>

I never lie. I like Fed the most of all current players, by far. I'd
have to be a gay moron to ignore all the evidence & say he's also better
than Rafa. You guys really need to have a good look in the mirror -
completely delusional.

[rec.sport.tennis]

Look at the first paragraph of your reply. You still claim that you
never lie?
Actually think why Rafa lost so badly in 7 finals? Part of resones was
that after a very strong dominating year, it took a lot out of him
(the other part was that Djok put everything together). Make sense to
you? Think how long Fed has dominated like that Rafa's year before
losing 2008 W to Rafa. You still can't understand that the freshness
issue at the highest level match? Sampras never had even A dominating
year as Fed or Rafa three slam year plus he always had a ligher clay
season (compared with big four right now).
Sampras' admitance that when he (Richard) puts everything together, he
is the REAL No.1. Translation: when both are at absolute best, he beat
me at my best courts. Case closed. This evidence is the real 99% sure
evidence. Sorry!!!

[felangey]

> Sampras would not lose to Rafa off clay.

Lol. Just. Lol.

> You won't see any 40 stroke rallies with Sampras.

"Pete Serves....he moves to the net....he watches the ball fly past him for
yet another winner."

^^....wow...you are right....^^.....2 to 4 stroke max. :)

Seriously Limper, some fantasties are good to share....but these
couldawoulda fantasies are really pointless...and you can see the reaction
they get from most reasonable posters. Now if Pete was to play Nadal in the
conditions that prevailed in the 90's....then Pete would likely make things
very different for Nadal....but as we can see from the few places that still
play that way, so would Fed. Bring Pete through the clouds of history and
plonk him on court now....I just don't see him getting much success
*anywhere*....neu-grass included. His game just wasn't developed for the
current era and conditions. Leave him where he was king, in the days of
yore. And stop being so curmudgeonly bitter in your disingenous remarks
about Fed, who by Pete's own admission, is a more complete player than him.

[felangey]

> we're not the ones who absolutely hate Nadal. If the h2h wasn't such a
> huge indicator of the blatantly obvious, you and your Fedfan ilk
> wouldn't mind Nadal at all. it most amusing.

I love how you are an rst sheep as well as a real-world sheep Icecube!
Baaaaa! :)

[Court_1]

On May 24, 12:19 pm, "rec.sport.tennis" <changjame...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 24, 9:52 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24/05/2013 10:32 PM, felangey wrote:
>
> > >> Where is the evidence Fed would have beaten Rafa if he made more finals?
>
> > > Even at 30+ he was ending Nadal on the lower bouncing surfaces. I know you
> > > want their h2h to be about "cowering" (such a needy word you always use,
> > > which *really* shows your Pete butthurt)....sadly for you, it's about
> > > matchup and surface....which if you had the first clue about tennis and any
> > > semblance of impartiality you would recognise. Big fat hee-haw chance on
> > > both counts then! :))
>
> > Look mate I said yrs ago what Fed had to do to beat Rafa.  What he had
> > was good enough for the field as they were lower skilled, but taking
> > Rafa on from the baseline was always going to end in pain.
>
> > I prefer Fed's game & watching him over Rafa, but no way am I going to
> > say he's better than Rafa on pretty much any court.  Your position is
> > 'If Rafa made more finals & lost them to Fed, then Fed would have better
> > h2h'.
>
> > Do you see how moronic that position is?
>
> The moron was you, but your continuous repeat of lie that Fed will
> lose to Rafa at any slam match did implement in many's minds here in
> rst such as Court 1, shakes etc. Part of reasons was that Fed cried in
> AO final which gave wrong information.

I never said I thought Federer would lose in any and every slam match
he would have played against Nadal in Fed's prime(in fact I always say
that the only place Nadal completely dominates Federer is on clay)
don't put words in my mouth, but it is obvious that the match-up
favors Rafa especially over time when an obvious mental advantage has
crept in.

Re the AO, Fed should have cried when he lost to Rafa there as he had
given up ownership of not only W grass the year before but also hc at
the AO in 2009. No matter how you slice it, Federer should NOT have
lost any slam match to Rafa on grass and hc. That was the last nail in
the coffin mentally for Fed when he lost that AO 2009 imo. Stop trying
to make stupid excuses for those losses like so many Fed fans, it is
obnoxious. Just accept the losses for what they are--i.e. bad losses,
end of story.

> If a logic, objective mind
> looks at this issue from a neutral point, it is easy to get
> Rafa does give Fed hard time beyond clay due to matchup issue but Fed
> should have a better chance in USO and W before 30 should they meet
> say 10 times (to make it statistically meaningful), even if it's in
> slower courts.

Wasn't Federer younger than 30 at both W 2008 and AO 2009? I agree
Federer would have had his best chance at the USO against Nadal back
in Fed's prime, but it was not to be. Now with the mental edge and
Fed's older age, I would say Nadal would probably even have an
advantage there sadly.

[Ulysses]

Yes, comparing Fed against Nadal at this stage is like contrasting
Jimmy Connors in 1984 against Lendl. Connors never beat Lendl again
because he was by then the same age as Fed is, 31 (damn near 32 now),
and Lendl was then 25.

Just because Jimmy never beat again with Lendl doesn't mean he was the
lesser player. In fact, many would say his career was better than
Lendl's, especially since he managed to win Wimbledon several times.
It just means that he was the OLDER player than Lendl!

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:49:52 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 25/05/2013 12:05 AM, felangey wrote:
>>> Look mate I said yrs ago what Fed had to do to beat Rafa. What he had was
>>> good enough for the field as they were lower skilled, but taking Rafa on
>>> from the baseline was always going to end in pain.
>>>
>>> I prefer Fed's game & watching him over Rafa, but no way am I going to say
>>> he's better than Rafa on pretty much any court. Your position is 'If Rafa
>>> made more finals & lost them to Fed, then Fed would have better h2h'.
>>>
>>> Do you see how moronic that position is?
>>
>> No, tell me more. In their h2h, Fed beats Nadal on the low bouncing
>> courts......check the matches.
>
>
>No, Fed beats Rafa in the off season in matches that have no historical
>significance. You can't possibly be this stupid can you?
>

No. But you could be.

[ca1houn]

It true that Mono is common but i have never had it and i also had the vaccine

[ca1houn]

Oh that a new way to come out the closet, you could have just said I'm gay whisper. However, that not way your a moron so stop with the self-hate we care about whisper and want to help your delusional ass. We are tier 1 brazier poster back, you know the one who saw so much potential in Andy Roddick.

P.S Were not going to even get on the lying part it to much

[Whisper]

The evidence is always the factual record, not what people say.

The actual record proves Sampras & Krajicek were never rivals;

Slams won

Sampras : 14
Krajicek : 1

Slam finals contested : 0

Slam h2h : 1-1 (2 x Q/f's)



The record proves Fed & Rafa were extreme top notch rivals;

Slams won

Fed : 17
Rafa : 11

Slam finals contested : 8

Slam h2h : 8-2 to Rafa


Like I said if you give Rafa Krajicek's stats nobody would be saying he
& Fed were rivals.

You must be stupid to not grasp this very simple concept.

[Whisper]

Let's not forget the very 1st meeting between Fed & Rafa took place on
HC in 2004 when Fed won 3 slams & was at peak, yet Rafa tore him apart
63 63. How is this possible if Fed was so superior over Rafa 'in his peak'?

[Whisper]

On 25/05/2013 7:58 AM, Ulysses wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't Federer younger than 30 at both W 2008 and AO 2009? I agree
>> Federer would have had his best chance at the USO against Nadal back
>> in Fed's prime, but it was not to be. Now with the mental edge and
>> Fed's older age, I would say Nadal would probably even have an
>> advantage there sadly.
>
> Yes, comparing Fed against Nadal at this stage is like contrasting
> Jimmy Connors in 1984 against Lendl. Connors never beat Lendl again
> because he was by then the same age as Fed is, 31 (damn near 32 now),
> and Lendl was then 25.
>
> Just because Jimmy never beat again with Lendl doesn't mean he was the
> lesser player. In fact, many would say his career was better than
> Lendl's, especially since he managed to win Wimbledon several times.
> It just means that he was the OLDER player than Lendl!
>

It's more than that. Rafa crushed peak Fed 63 63 in 2004 on hardcourt
when he was a teen & Fed at youthful peak (3 slams won in 2004). The
simple fact is Rafa has always been fave v Rafa in any match on any
surface, at any time. It's nothing like the Jimbo v Lendl situation.

[rec.sport.tennis]

with Sampras' crystal clear admission, you don't have to sugercoat:
Krajicek's best in grass and indoor beats' pete's. Period.
Now you list numbers, fine. Yet you are 99% sure that Rafa beats Fed
in every US and W final based on numbers? (should Rafa have such an
edge over Fed, there wouldn't be any chance for Fed to dismantle Rafa
in YEC so easily, even if it were a 500 event).
So you are a liar or moron, please pick one.

[Whisper]

On 25/05/2013 11:31 PM, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
> On May 25, 5:11 am, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail> wrote:
>> On 25/05/2013 3:27 AM, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
>>
>> Slam finals contested : 0
>>
>> Slam h2h : 1-1 (2 x Q/f's)
>>
>> The record proves Fed & Rafa were extreme top notch rivals;
>>
>> Slams won
>>
>> Fed : 17
>> Rafa : 11
>>
>> Slam finals contested : 8
>>
>> Slam h2h : 8-2 to Rafa
>>
>> Like I said if you give Rafa Krajicek's stats nobody would be saying he
>> & Fed were rivals.
>>
>> You must be stupid to not grasp this very simple concept.
>
> with Sampras' crystal clear admission, you don't have to sugercoat:
> Krajicek's best in grass and indoor beats' pete's. Period.

No it doesn't. No tennis expert holds this view, & Sampras never said
Krajicek's best tennis beats his best. He said Krajicek's best can beat
him, with no reference to him playing his own best stuff. Your
desperation is palpable & seeps through your posts - I can genuinely
sense your pain & frustration with accepting the bold Rafa truth.

You're best just to accept the warts & bask in the glory of Fed's
overall slam titles won in the softer years. Nobody will ever say Fed
was the best player ever (thanks to Rafa), but on the other hand no one
can take his slam titles away either.

There's no point getting angry at me mate, or offering up Krajicek's 6-4
h2h v Sampras (1-1 in slams) as some kind of parable to Fed v Rafa.
Absolutely nobody buys that. If Rafa had the same record over Fed that
Krajicek had over Sampras nobody would be talking about Rafa at all.
He'd be like a Del Potro.

> Now you list numbers, fine.

But you are not fine with it. You seem to want to accept facts/numbers
only when they favour Federer.

> Yet you are 99% sure that Rafa beats Fed
> in every US and W final based on numbers?

I have 1% doubt Rafa woulda beaten Fed in 2010 & 2011 USO finals had Fed
made it (blew mp's in semis to Djoker in both yrs).

>(should Rafa have such an
> edge over Fed, there wouldn't be any chance for Fed to dismantle Rafa
> in YEC so easily, even if it were a 500 event).
> So you are a liar or moron, please pick one.
>

What I said is the plain truth. WTF is not a slam & adds nothing to the
top player's legacies. That's not just my idea, it's the objective
truth of the matter.

You also agree with this & I can prove it if you answer the following
question honestly;

If Federer had 8-2 slam h2h record over Rafa, beating him in grass, hard
& clay finals, and only ever lost slam finals to him at FO, would you
say Rafa is better than him?

Now flip the names over to change from fantasy to reality, & you'll see
that's exactly what you're doing.

It's ok to admit the truth. It is what it is. If it really pains you I
suggest you get a grip. It's only a fucking sport & relatively
meaningless in the context of your life. Fed doesn't give a fuck about
you personally, so no need to lie & cheat for him. That makes you an idiot.

[Court_1]

Excuse me, how on earth does the Krajicek/Sampras slam h2h of 1-1
compare to the slam h2h of 8-2 for Nadal/Federer? Whisper is correct,
Krajicek was not a main rival for Sampras the way Nadal is for
Federer. Stop making dumb excuses. Just accept the h2h for what it is.
Federer is greater and has the slam record and weeks at number one
record. Isn't that enough for you? I am sure Federer is just fine with
it when he goes to sleep at night. The one weakness Federer has is his
h2h against Nadal. That is pretty good if that is his only weakness
and he has a million other strengths and records. Just let it go. You
are making dumb comparisons now.

[Court_1]

On May 25, 9:59 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> It's ok to admit the truth.  It is what it is.  If it really pains you I
> suggest you get a grip.  It's only a fucking sport & relatively
> meaningless in the context of your life.  Fed doesn't give a fuck about
> you personally, so no need to lie & cheat for him.  That makes you an idiot.

Who is this rec.sport guy? Is he a sock of somebody?

[Whisper]

Yes, I have always said Fed's record is better than Rafa's & I'd much
rather watch him than Rafa. That's not enough for the hardcore
Fedfuckers. For them you you have to lie & say Fed is better than Rafa
in every aspect, even on clay 'but for poor tactics'.

I'm getting sick of replying to these bozos. Kehoe seems to finally get
it (though he's still struggling with other aspects of tennis analysis),
so why can't the rest? It's all clear cut & on the record so I don't
get the confusion? It's not like we're hypothetically comparing Fed to
Laver - we are actually looking at cold hard facts.

[Ulysses]

Whisper is right that Krajicek and Sampras were not real rivals. They
never played often enough! The best that can be said is that Pete paid
him the ultimate compliment when he said he didn't like to play the
Dutchman. And Pete never said that about anyone else, certainly not
Agassi.

As Fed's career begins to wind down, the only thing that can be said
is that Nadal usually beat Fed (and almost always in the slams), but
that Fed beat the field. Nadal did not, off clay. Fed's tennis resume
is so vastly more varied and superior than Nadal's it's not worth
discussing. Nadal is too old at 27 to possibly surpass the records Fed
has built up. Sure, he can still win the FO for awhile, but he's not
approaching 17 slams, weeks at #1, 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO's, ad infinitum.

[Whisper]

Finally a sensible, real world post on rst.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

I rhink you need to be reminded that was a tune up tournament. The simple fact is if Nadal is always as you claimed the better player why did he failed in defending a single non clay court tournament in his who;le career.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:59:36 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 25/05/2013 11:31 PM, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 5:11 am, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail> wrote:
>
> >> On 25/05/2013 3:27 AM, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Slam finals contested : 0
>
> >>
>
> >> Slam h2h : 1-1 (2 x Q/f's)
>
> >>
>
> >> The record proves Fed & Rafa were extreme top notch rivals;
>
> >>
>
> >> Slams won
>
> >>
>
> >> Fed : 17
>
> >> Rafa : 11
>
> >>
>
> >> Slam finals contested : 8
>
> >>
>
> >> Slam h2h : 8-2 to Rafa
>
> >>
>
> >> Like I said if you give Rafa Krajicek's stats nobody would be saying he
>
> >> & Fed were rivals.
>
> >>
>
> >> You must be stupid to not grasp this very simple concept.
>
> >
>
> > with Sampras' crystal clear admission, you don't have to sugercoat:
>
> > Krajicek's best in grass and indoor beats' pete's. Period.
>
>
>
>
>
> No it doesn't. No tennis expert holds this view, & Sampras never said
>
> Krajicek's best tennis beats his best. He said Krajicek's best can beat
>
> him, with no reference to him playing his own best stuff. Your
>
> desperation is palpable & seeps through your posts - I can genuinely
>
> sense your pain & frustration with accepting the bold Rafa truth.
>

No tennis expert dispute the fact Krajicek got those wins over Sampras during Sampras peak. He dominated Sampras on the surface that Sampras played his best tennis. What Krajicek did to Sampras was what Sampras did to other players. Krajicek would overpower Sampras with his serve and render Sampras serve less efective than his own. Krajicek had no fear of Sampras game even if the game was played on Sampras' best surface. Nadal's win over Federer were largely played on Nadal's favour surface clay. It could not be more clearer when we analyze those GS victory over Federer base on surface. 5 of those 8 wins were on clay, 2 were on slow HC. I can see why you want to ignore these facts.

>
>
> You're best just to accept the warts & bask in the glory of Fed's
>
> overall slam titles won in the softer years. Nobody will ever say Fed
>
> was the best player ever (thanks to Rafa), but on the other hand no one
>
> can take his slam titles away either.
>
>
>
> There's no point getting angry at me mate, or offering up Krajicek's 6-4
>
> h2h v Sampras (1-1 in slams) as some kind of parable to Fed v Rafa.
>
> Absolutely nobody buys that. If Rafa had the same record over Fed that
>
> Krajicek had over Sampras nobody would be talking about Rafa at all.
>
> He'd be like a Del Potro.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now you list numbers, fine.
>
>
>
>
>
> But you are not fine with it. You seem to want to accept facts/numbers
>
> only when they favour Federer.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yet you are 99% sure that Rafa beats Fed
>
> > in every US and W final based on numbers?

Base on that 2 AO win. If Sampras and Agassi did not play USO in their career would you say Agassi would be 99% sure he would win against Sampras base on exact same number of wins that AGassi had over Sampras in AO ?

>
>
>
>
>
> I have 1% doubt Rafa woulda beaten Fed in 2010 & 2011 USO finals had Fed
>
> made it (blew mp's in semis to Djoker in both yrs).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >(should Rafa have such an
>
> > edge over Fed, there wouldn't be any chance for Fed to dismantle Rafa
>
> > in YEC so easily, even if it were a 500 event).
>
> > So you are a liar or moron, please pick one.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What I said is the plain truth. WTF is not a slam & adds nothing to the
>
> top player's legacies. That's not just my idea, it's the objective
>
> truth of the matter.

What is also plain truth is Nadal never beat Federer indoors.

>
>
>
> You also agree with this & I can prove it if you answer the following
>
> question honestly;
>
>
>
> If Federer had 8-2 slam h2h record over Rafa, beating him in grass, hard
>
> & clay finals, and only ever lost slam finals to him at FO, would you
>
> say Rafa is better than him?

I would rated Nadal better if he has 17 grand slam and Federer has 11 and also he was more successful in defending grand slam titles.

>
>
>
> Now flip the names over to change from fantasy to reality, & you'll see
>
> that's exactly what you're doing.
>
>
>
> It's ok to admit the truth. It is what it is. If it really pains you I
>
> suggest you get a grip. It's only a fucking sport & relatively
>
> meaningless in the context of your life. Fed doesn't give a fuck about
>
> you personally, so no need to lie & cheat for him. That makes you an idiot.

Same reason Sampras doesn't give a fuck you personally, no need to defend and lie for him as well.

[Whisper]

The real question is if Fed is better than Rafa why the deplorable h2h?
He wasn't arsed in slams?

[jlia...@gmail.com]

Couldn't be assed when the wimbledon is around the corner and clay court skill doesn't demonstrate real tennis skill.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

Also play more often on Nadal's favour tyupe of court and Federer's least favour surface. If Fed is deplorable in his h2h because he played the best clay courter in history on clay what is Sampras excuse for losing to 8 different journeymen in first round of FO, it could not be more deplorable for 'BOAT to have such a record against joueneymen.

[rec.sport.tennis]

> approaching 17 slams, weeks at #1, 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO's, ad infinitum.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pete told press that privately he has the ego of a king so you figure
that when he had to admit that to the Dutchman, what did that mean?
Really in this case, it is beyond the shadow of doubt that when
Dutchman was on, a taller Sampras was playing (with a same mobility
and volley ability, unlike other big serves). The problem of the
dutchman was lack of consistency going through 7 matches in GS, more
injury-prone and lack of hard working (as compared with Sampras'
"often can't sleep well" in order to dominate the field). Again
Sampras' clearly honest admission in this case is too strong
indication and nothing else we need to see who beats who in grass and
indoor when both are at absolute best!

Court1 finally jumps out of shell when I present this well guarded
evidence. So I have to believe what Dave said about her may have a
ground. Before that I thought she was just affected by Whisper's
brains washing day after day (often making a lie a truth by doing so).

[Court_1]

On May 26, 11:33 am, "rec.sport.tennis" <changjame...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Court1 finally jumps out of shell when I present this well guarded
> evidence.

Evidence? What evidence, I did not see anything that resembles
evidence. Whisper, Uly and I have successfully argued against your so-
called evidence that Krajicek was a major rival for Sampras. No player
can be considered a major rival for another player when their slam h2h
is 1-1. Now sit down you dumb moron! You are clearly out of your
element.

[rec.sport.tennis]

I am not talking what you called "rival". I am talking what whisper's
main point that H2H betweem rafa and Fed indicates that at a
hypotheticall absolute best when both are on, who beats who. My
evidence is beyond shadow of doubt that the dutchman beats pete in
such a situation in grass and inddor as pete himself honestly admits!
Plue in their case due to similar style of playing, everyone can see
this easily.
Of course Pete is an infinitely greater player based on results and it
also means better in common sense. But clearly whisper likes to use
the above concept to supersede the achievement based best, in which he
and you must first admit that the dutchman is better than pete in
grass and indoor. Sorry there is no other way around.
If your logic can't handle what we are discussing here, please take a
couple of more advanced math courses to sharpen your mind or reduce
your volume of posts here. Or you are another whisper in making (much
worse than him you pretend to be fair and balanced among three sides
of Sampras). That's enough.

[rec.sport.tennis]

correction: among three sides of Sampras, Nadal and Federer.

[Whisper]

Look you can't be this dumb. I said if you substitute Rafa's
achievements with Krajicek's (eg include a 1-off straight set win over
Federer in Wimbledon Q/F & 1 loss at USO q/f), then nobody would be
talking about Rafa as a rival. Rafa has somewhat more than a 1-off slam
win over Fed in a slam q/f.

[Dave Hazelwood]

You can't be a major competitor if you CHEAT either.

[ca1houn]

He doesn't dig in his ass as much which take away from his game.

[ca1houn]

because federer was able to get to 5 FO finale, He has for the most part played Nadal on Nadal terms. Nadal has not been good enough doing roger peak form to play fed at peak in a slam on different surfaces beside 2008 Wimbledon.