Double La Decima

[Bharath Purohit]

Amazing stuff by Rafa.

Is Federer talented enough to win 2 tournaments (a master and a 500 event) 10 times each?

[RaspingDrive]

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:41:47 PM UTC-4, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> Amazing stuff by Rafa.
>
> Is Federer talented enough to win 2 tournaments (a master and a 500 event) 10 times each?

Rafa's 10 is admirable. Awesome even. However, he is also admirable in some other ways: e.g. in the way he is perceived: that he is a champion when he reaches finals on HC (which are few and far between) but is 'out of sorts' when he loses.

[Whisper]

But when Fed makes Wimbledon final in straight sets but loses to Rafa
it's because he had mono?

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

Or even better 2015.
He makes wim final without losing a set, and USO final without
losing a serve.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[John Liang]

He made the final of slams well into his 30s, how about your hero Djokovic what has he done in the last few months and he is only 29?

[John Liang]

But Fed made 10 Wimbledon finals how many W final was Nadal in ? Did he have a broken leg or some sort of injury that effect him with losses to guys like Darcis ?

[John Liang]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:41:47 PM UTC+10, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> Amazing stuff by Rafa.
>
> Is Federer talented enough to win 2 tournaments (a master and a 500 event) 10 times each?

No, he has far bigger plan than winning micky mouse events like master and 500 events ? He is talented enough to win 5 AO, 7 Wimbledon, 5 USO and 6 YEC. Nadal is only talented enough to win 4 fewer AO, 5 fewer Wimbledon and 3 fewer USO and never won a YEC.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

My hero?

[Whisper]

On 1/05/2017 9:45 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:50:36 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>> On 1/05/2017 1:55 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:41:47 PM UTC-4, Bharath Purohit wrote:
>>>> Amazing stuff by Rafa.
>>>>
>>>> Is Federer talented enough to win 2 tournaments (a master and a 500 event) 10 times each?
>>>
>>> Rafa's 10 is admirable. Awesome even. However, he is also admirable in some other ways: e.g. in the way he is perceived: that he is a champion when he reaches finals on HC (which are few and far between) but is 'out of sorts' when he loses.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But when Fed makes Wimbledon final in straight sets but loses to Rafa
>> it's because he had mono?
>
> But Fed made 10 Wimbledon finals how many W final was Nadal in ?

Woodbridge won Wimbledon 10 times, Roger only 7.

If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.

[John Liang]

Of course he is greater than Sampras who also has 7, is that what you want to say ?

[RaspingDrive]

Quick reply: 7/10 is a very good conversion rate, 3/7 not so. Especially when the seven is out of 24 and the 10 is out of 14. Have to go now but will chime in soon.

[RaspingDrive]

Like Sampras had a bleak so-called two year period but served very well in the middle of the bleak period.

[*skriptis]

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

If you serve very well then you don't lose serve very often.

I think you're too much into stats for that match which is
obviously misleading.
What does serve speed mean if Sampras wasn't able to put good spin
on his serve?
What's serve percentage good for if he does it with a lousy placement?

Not much really.


To factor in Sampras being burnt out and out of sorts at the time
means to realize he probably wasn't at his best regarding mixing
serve, having idea etc.

[RaspingDrive]

Compare Federer of 2005 at USO with Federer of 2008 at USO. The carefree shot making of 2005 was perceptibly replaced with more calculated 'rapier thrusts'. Now move forward to 2015. He has been playing for 12 years from the 2005 instance. Is it likely he lacked the same stamina as in 2005? No? Enter Stan with his carefree approach and he decimates Novak. You fill in the missing blanks.

[stephenJ]

> On 5/1/2017 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:

> If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
> to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.

Incorrect. In non-Olympic tennis, singles is far more important than
doubles.

But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.
You'll never hear athlete X saying to athlete Y "I won gold in the men's
400 meter sprint and yours is for women's field hockey, so mine is
better". That's not the way it is.

Why do you think Venus, who knows something about Wimbledon singles
titles and gold medals, entered the Olympic mixed doubles last year
after she crashed out of doubles? Because she wanted a Gold Medal, no
matter what it is in.

That said, yes, any tennis player would rather win gold in singles than
doubles, but the gap is narrow, tiny, because gold is gold. Whereas at
Wimbledon, doubles is nothing compared to singles.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[The Iceberg]

he decimated Djoker mostly cos Djoker was nervous.

[The Iceberg]

you said it wasn't scientifically possible for Nadal to EVER in history get to the final of the USO and he won it not just once, but twice, he must be FRAKIN AMAZING!

[The Iceberg]

On Monday, 1 May 2017 12:45:10 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:

yes but everyone knows guys like Darcis play out of their skin when they play Nadal and totally fold when playing Fed, prob cos they are threatened and all made to vote for him in the Sportsmanship award thing.

[The Iceberg]

On Monday, 1 May 2017 19:04:45 UTC+1, StephenJ wrote:
> > On 5/1/2017 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
> > If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
> > to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.
>
> Incorrect. In non-Olympic tennis, singles is far more important than
> doubles.
>
> But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.
> You'll never hear athlete X saying to athlete Y "I won gold in the men's
> 400 meter sprint and yours is for women's field hockey, so mine is
> better". That's not the way it is.
>
> Why do you think Venus, who knows something about Wimbledon singles
> titles and gold medals, entered the Olympic mixed doubles last year
> after she crashed out of doubles? Because she wanted a Gold Medal, no
> matter what it is in.
>
> That said, yes, any tennis player would rather win gold in singles than
> doubles, but the gap is narrow, tiny, because gold is gold. Whereas at
> Wimbledon, doubles is nothing compared to singles.

erm I think you'll find we've discussed this quite thoroughly before and this is why Murray is now a GOAT contender because Olympic Gold is the equivalent of 16 slams and he's won Gold not once, but twice!

[The Iceberg]

Sampras didn't even know why he was playing those last 2 years - he'd broken the slam record and invented the slam chase race, he was then pretty much retired, but didn't know what else to do. He lost to George Bastl and Wimbledon and that guy's doubles partner called Federer the year before.

[RaspingDrive]

Nervous? Is this like 'out of sorts'?

[*skriptis]

Tennis is so much about h2h.

Imo, djoker has done so much more homework to deconstruct games of
Nadal, Federer, Murray than he ever did vs Wawrinka. His "nerves"
might be partially explained with that. When you don't know what
to do on court you become nervous.

It's all about effort. These guys are giving their 100% all the
time and at one point you simply can't cover all.


I still think Wawrinka is not the guy that should be
insurmountable obstacle for Djokovic. He has neither superior
serve, nor fabulous retern, nor is a great net player.


But he matches up well vs Djokovic's standard game from the baseline.


Djokovic was dumb not to mix it up more. I'm not suggesting net
play as he too isn't great at it, but imo if he made it into
hitting winner contest there's huge chance of him crushing
Wawrinka because djokovic could hit winners if not the same or
better but at least almost as well, yet but Wawrinka couldn't
return or defend nearly as well.

What he was doing was feeding Wawrinka who only had to set up for
hitting a winner. Stan was given a gift of not worrying that
djokovic could try to hit a winner.

Choosing to send deep balls to Wawrinka that bother other guys but
not him is a failed approach and he deserved to lose FO and USO.
That AO wasn't even bad as it was fifth set loss. But instead of
intensifying his game vs Wawrinka in future matches he softened.
Can't feel sorry for him.


But that's the thing whisper rightly points at when comparing
Sampras vs these modern guys. They get easily discouraged from
attacking.

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Murray has 7 all time majors!!
3 slams
1 dc
1 yec
2 Olympics (huge and a probably a divine pay off for losing 5 AO
finals)
Both records/achievements are rarities and will remain so probably.

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 20:50:29 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

what do you think of rafa's form so far this year? i feel like i'm the
only guy here that notices some definite style differences, strategy
differences and overall level differences from rafa of 08-2014 and
now.

bob

[Court_1]

And it's those differences that are helping Nadal make finals and win tournaments. His serve for example has been looking much better than I can remember (with the exception of the USO 2010.) His backhand has also looked better than ever. If he gets his forehand clicking (which he has on clay), he will be dangerous on any surface. He has to make changes with his serve and groundstrokes and be more aggressive (which he has been) in order to compensate for being slightly slower.

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 13:04:41 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On 5/1/2017 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
>> to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.
>
>Incorrect. In non-Olympic tennis, singles is far more important than
>doubles.
>
>But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.

to you and i, yes. but you're talking about the ego of roger federer
here. :-))

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 16:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:04:57 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 20:50:29 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/05/2017 1:55 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:41:47 PM UTC-4, Bharath Purohit wrote:
>> >>> Amazing stuff by Rafa.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is Federer talented enough to win 2 tournaments (a master and a 500 event) 10 times each?
>> >>
>> >> Rafa's 10 is admirable. Awesome even. However, he is also admirable in some other ways: e.g. in the way he is perceived: that he is a champion when he reaches finals on HC (which are few and far between) but is 'out of sorts' when he loses.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >But when Fed makes Wimbledon final in straight sets but loses to Rafa
>> >it's because he had mono?
>>
>> what do you think of rafa's form so far this year? i feel like i'm the
>> only guy here that notices some definite style differences, strategy
>> differences and overall level differences from rafa of 08-2014 and
>> now.
>>
>> bob
>
>And it's those differences that are helping Nadal make finals and win tournaments.

it's those differences IMO that allow him to beat weak opponents, and
stay healthy, but not play his peak game.

> His serve for example has been looking much better than I can remember (with the exception of the USO 2010.) His backhand has also looked better than ever. If he gets his forehand clicking (which he has on clay), he will be dangerous on any surface. He has to make changes with his serve and groundstrokes and be more aggressive (which he has been) in order to compensate for being slightly slower.

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:51:53 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> >And it's those differences that are helping Nadal make finals and win tournaments.
>
> it's those differences IMO that allow him to beat weak opponents, and
> stay healthy, but not play his peak game.

Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.

If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form. I agree with you that his fh has been inconsistent on hc (at IW and Miami) but it looks better lately on clay and he's made improvements in other areas to compensate for inconsistent fh and slower movement.

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:51:53 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> >And it's those differences that are helping Nadal make finals and win tournaments.
>>
>> it's those differences IMO that allow him to beat weak opponents, and
>> stay healthy, but not play his peak game.
>
>Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
>
>If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.

it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
(2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).

> I agree with you that his fh has been inconsistent on hc (at IW and Miami) but it looks better lately on clay and he's made improvements in other areas to compensate for inconsistent fh and slower movement.

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> >Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
> >
> >If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.
>
> it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
> (2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).

That's a whole other argument though. The rest of the field is weak outside of the Big Four but that doesn't mean Nadal is weak compared to Federer in their older years. Nadal is continuing to make improvements just like Federer is. Nadal was going toe to toe with Federer on a faster hc(his weakest surface) at the AO and nearly won the AO! If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.

Federer is the better player off clay than Nadal is. Only a fool would argue otherwise. Now Federer has improved his two weak areas vs Nadal--his bh and his mentality. Of course Federer would be the favorite off clay vs Nadal with those two improvements! Use some common sense.

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> >Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
>> >
>> >If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.
>>
>> it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
>> (2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).
>
>That's a whole other argument though.

not really. the minute djok/murray dropped and started getting upset
by nobodies, federer suddenly won his first slam in 27 and nadal's
"new style" (which is 2 notches below his peak IMO) gets him to some
finals.

> The rest of the field is weak outside of the Big Four but that doesn't mean Nadal is weak compared to Federer in their older years. Nadal is continuing to make improvements just like Federer is. Nadal was going toe to toe with Federer on a faster hc(his weakest surface) at the AO and nearly won the AO! If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.
>Federer is the better player off clay than Nadal is. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

he's more consistent over the years, but H2H IMO nadal was as good or
better than fed on all surfaces. granted it was a matchup issue, but
matchup counts.

> Now Federer has improved his two weak areas vs Nadal--his bh and his mentality.

i'm sorry, but poppycock.

> Of course Federer would be the favorite off clay vs Nadal with those two improvements! Use some common sense.

bob

[Carey]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
<If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>

No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.

It's (still!) all about Sampras, and pathetic attempts to make Fed look bad in comparison. Hence the latest incarnation of the Clown Era meme: "the field's so
bad even old Nadal can win!" Too funny.

As I said before, they got nuthin'.

[RaspingDrive]

What you are saying is similar to what I have said about Federer -- that he played carefree tennis in 2005, that comes with the insouciance of youth, but by 2008 the predatory instincts and shot-making was, arguably, on its way down. The edge is lost with many slam titles, passage of time indicating marginal aging, as well as a surfeit of tennis. In the same way it is not surprising Djok lost the edge as well after playing consistently excellently for three plus years.

> But that's the thing whisper rightly points at when comparing
> Sampras vs these modern guys. They get easily discouraged from
> attacking.

The modern guys are three ATG and GOAT contenders (18, 14, 12 slams). Stop talking about them in pejorative terms. You and your W worship :)

[RaspingDrive]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:35:27 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >
> >> >Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
> >> >
> >> >If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.


> >>
> >> it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
> >> (2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).
> >
> >That's a whole other argument though.
>
> not really. the minute djok/murray dropped and started getting upset
> by nobodies, federer suddenly won his first slam in 27 and nadal's
> "new style" (which is 2 notches below his peak IMO) gets him to some
> finals.

Leave Murray out of this. He has beaten Federer, what, once in slams? That was in AO 2013, a poor season for Federer by his exalted standards. Nadal and Djok are the two main obstacles for Federer.

[John Liang]

Of course Sampras knew what he was playing for in the last two years, he wanted to win more grand slams and there was no secret about it. He battled on like many other great that always believe they have one more slam left in them. Idiot like you never understand that and the only thing you ever came up that was both dumb and funny was the Sampras and pizza thing at FO 96

[The Iceberg]

nah once he'd hit his target he kind of retired, he didn't win a tournament for 2 years, you must be pretty dumb not to realise that, mind you, you said that it was absolutely scientifically and technically impossible for Nadal to even consider winning the USO and still refuse to say who had the best year in 2013.

[The Iceberg]

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 00:22:11 UTC+1, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2017 13:04:41 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 5/1/2017 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >
> >> If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
> >> to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.
> >
> >Incorrect. In non-Olympic tennis, singles is far more important than
> >doubles.
> >
> >But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.
>
> to you and i, yes. but you're talking about the ego of roger federer
> here. :-))

it nice that they reckon this!

[Whisper]

On 2/05/2017 4:04 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 5/1/2017 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
>> to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.
>
> Incorrect. In non-Olympic tennis, singles is far more important than
> doubles.
>
> But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.
> You'll never hear athlete X saying to athlete Y "I won gold in the men's
> 400 meter sprint and yours is for women's field hockey, so mine is
> better". That's not the way it is.
>
> Why do you think Venus, who knows something about Wimbledon singles
> titles and gold medals, entered the Olympic mixed doubles last year
> after she crashed out of doubles? Because she wanted a Gold Medal, no
> matter what it is in.
>
> That said, yes, any tennis player would rather win gold in singles than
> doubles, but the gap is narrow, tiny, because gold is gold. Whereas at
> Wimbledon, doubles is nothing compared to singles.
>

I get what you're saying, but imo the difference between gold in singles
& doubles is like the difference in gold between Phelps' relay gold &
individual gold, same with Bolt.

Individual means you get sole credit. That's a massive difference. You
could be the worst player on a soccer team, maybe only play 5 minutes in
the final, yet you get a gold medal if your team wins. That can't
compare to an individual gold medal in any sport.

Fed won a gold in doubles, but his partner may end up with a career slam
so no way can Roger take full credit.

[Whisper]

Excellent post.

[Whisper]

Murray is definitely a legend of the game. 2 Wimbledons, USO, defended
Olympic gold (not likely to ever be repeated), Davis Cup.

[John Liang]

Tier 4 great at the best below Edberg, Becker and Wilander.

[Federer Fanatic]

In GB perhaps. Is Wawrinka a legend of the game? My point is he Wawrinka is not
and Murray is also not a legend and both Andy and Stan have 3 slams.

FF

[The Iceberg]

Murray's a legend cos he won Wimbledon, did it twice in-fact and more importantly he was the first Brit to win it in decades - he also won the Olympics twice - these are giant global marketing factors - you either don't understand that or live in a basement, after Fed and Nadal, he's definitely the world's most well known tennis player.

[Federer Fanatic]

After Djoker? LOL. You know what kings did with court jesters right that failed to please?
You're living dangerously Icey...;-)

Murray is a disgruntled, melencholy Scot....is he a capable talent....certainly...not a legend
in the world outside of GB. Nobody would miss him if he quit tomorrow...at least no one with
any rational thoughts coursing through their brains....I guess that excludes you? ;-)

FF

[Federer Fanatic]

On Tue, 02 May 2017 11:14:39 -0500, Federer Fanatic <TheRelen...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
| On Tue, 2 May 2017 08:37:10 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
|| Murray's a legend cos he won Wimbledon, did it twice in-fact and more importantly he was the first Brit to win it in
|| decades - he also won the Olympics twice - these are giant global marketing factors - you either don't understand that
|| or live in a basement, after Fed and Nadal, he's definitely the world's most well known tennis player.
|
| After Djoker? LOL. You know what kings did with court jesters right that failed to please?

Before Djoker LOL....

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
<raspin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:35:27 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
>> >> >
>> >> >If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
>> >> (2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).
>> >
>> >That's a whole other argument though.
>>
>> not really. the minute djok/murray dropped and started getting upset
>> by nobodies, federer suddenly won his first slam in 27 and nadal's
>> "new style" (which is 2 notches below his peak IMO) gets him to some
>> finals.
>
>Leave Murray out of this. He has beaten Federer, what, once in slams?

demolished him in an OG final at wimbledon.

> That was in AO 2013, a poor season for Federer by his exalted standards. Nadal and Djok are the two main obstacles for Federer.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
>
>No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
>then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.

don't think so. IMO federer won 10 slams against a weak field, but
they all count, and those last 8 he won against the likes of nadal,
djok, murray more or less. i surely don't think he beat a peak nadal
at AO this year, but he's 35 and he did make it to the finals. i'm not
criticizing his AO whatsoever.

>It's (still!) all about Sampras, and pathetic attempts to make Fed look bad in comparison. Hence the latest incarnation of the Clown Era meme: "the field's so
>bad even old Nadal can win!" Too funny.

sampras held the record a good while, and since then federer and 2
other players have either passed or approached his record. plus 3 guys
have a career slam, something not achieved for 40yrs before agassi. so
like mikko said, either something's fishy in the air or these are the
3 best players in history all at one time, by chance.

if you think they're the 3 best players in history, it's possible. for
fun, we could compare to other sports:
magic johnson and michael jordan played together, but peaked many yrs
apart. are they the 2 greatest ever?
jack nicklaus and arnold palmer played together, but peaked many yrs
apart. are they the 2 greatest ever?
wayne gretzky and mario lemieux played together (i believe), but
peaked many yrs apart. i doubt they're the 2 greatest ever.

we could go on and on, but the odds that 3 guys are the greatest in
history all play same time, and peak within 3-5 years of each other?
could be, but not likely.

>As I said before, they got nuthin'.

nobody can make an argument that sampras or anyone else has achieved
as much as fed, or even that close. 18 slams is way ahead of the rest
including nadal with his OG.

but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:56:18 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
>
> No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
> then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.

No he wouldn't. He'd be calling Federer a chump who only won so many slams back in the day because it was a weak era. We'd be hearing how Nadal has owned Fed and continues to do so therefore Fed can't be GOAT and Nadal is superior. Bob would be telling us how strong a comeback Nadal made after looking so out of it the past few years. He wouldn't be harping on about how poor Nadal's form is if Nadal beat Fed in that AO final that's for sure! He can't accept that Fed has made some positive changes on the bh side and that's the main reason he's beating Nadal off clay these days. It has to be all about Nadal's poor form for him and his agenda.

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> i'm not
> criticizing his AO whatsoever.

Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form. But an out of form Nadal doesn't make hc finals and an out of form Nadal wouldn't have been up a break in the fifth set at the AO! Nadal could have won that AO if Fed had done what he did in the past vs Nadal i.e. collapse mentally. Instead Fed changed the script and took it to Nadal. Nadal was shocked and pissed off! Nadal's forehand was working as it always had in the past vs Fed in that AO final. The difference was Fed's bh (both in his bh groundstroke and his bh ROS!)

[RaspingDrive]

one off. not a slam. nothing unusual that Berdych and Blake didn't do. After that Federer shut out Murray in AO 2014 and Wimbledon 2015. Don't forget Wimbledon 2012 final where Murray cried after losing.

[John Liang]

That was coming off a 4.5 hour semi final against Del P on the previous day when a 30 years old could not recover in the final.

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 10:12:55 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
> >
> >No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
> >then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.
>
> don't think so. IMO federer won 10 slams against a weak field, but
> they all count, and those last 8 he won against the likes of nadal,
> djok, murray more or less. i surely don't think he beat a peak nadal
> at AO this year, but he's 35 and he did make it to the finals. i'm not
> criticizing his AO whatsoever.

Weak field, OK he played Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal, Phillipousis and Fernandez and Bagdadhis to win his first 10 slam. Contrast that to Sampras' first 10 slam wins were against Agassi, Courier, Piolines two times, Martin, Moya, Chang, Ivanisevic and Becker.

Of course no proof is need for any opinion, just like .... So a 20 years old Federer beat 30 years old defending champion in 5 sets at Wimbledon, what do you make off Sampras lost at Wimbledon to Van Rensburg when he was the same age as Federer but also with a slam win under his name ?

>
> bob

[TT]

1.5.2017, 6:41, Bharath Purohit kirjoitti:
> Amazing stuff by Rafa.
>

Go for the triple!

[Whisper]

Sure, but he's achieved some very big things that guarantee his legend
status, particularly in Britain.

If you win multiple Wimbledons, USO, multiple singles gold medals, Davis
Cup you can't be considered a failure in any way.

--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[stephenJ]

> On 5/2/2017 7:12 PM, bob wrote:

> but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
> i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
> nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
> no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
> makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
> easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.

... but you always fail to mention that even though Sampras wasn't at
his peak, he was closer to his than Fed was to *his*. Sampras played
better that year than Fed did.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[stephenJ]

I agree that it *shouldn't* compare. But the reality is that it does
compare. The guy on the bench of the soccer team walks around with a
gold medal draped around his neck just like the winner of the 400m
individual freestyle does. In olympic culture, the difference is small.

And that's even considering that the comparison here isn't fair, as
tennis doubles means two players not 15 like on a soccer team, and you
have to play the entire time.

[Whisper]

Tier 1 quality post.

[Whisper]

er, Rafa was coming off a 5 hour semi at '09 AO v a fully rested, fresh
& peak Federer. What is your excuse for that one?

[Whisper]

What I make it is how much a better player Sampras was than Federer. He
just turned 19 when he won USO, beating 4 no.1 level players.

[Whisper]

On 3/05/2017 9:40 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 5/2/2017 7:12 PM, bob wrote:
>
>> but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
>> i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
>> nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
>> no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
>> makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
>> easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.
>
> ... but you always fail to mention that even though Sampras wasn't at
> his peak, he was closer to his than Fed was to *his*. Sampras played
> better that year than Fed did.
>

But Sampras still couldn't win a tune-up at the time. That's important.

Sampras lost in every tournament he entered for more than 2 yrs. That's
where his level was at that time.

[John Liang]

He had one day rest between the final and semi, Federer did not .

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 10:45:17 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

Apart from not fully covered and we all know Rafa waste more time on just bouncing the ball between each of his serves. The actual play time probably not even half of 5 hour 14 minutes.

[John Liang]

Yes, with more losses at slam level, half ass attitude, could not even get to a single FO final, even with a five year head start the Fedexpress still express through Sampras' record in less time that make him a much better player than Sampras.

[John Liang]

Well, you told us if a player reaches a slam final he was in middle of his peak, stay consistent with your post.

[stephenJ]

No, that's where it was as of the 2002 USO. But at 01 W, he had won
Wimbledon a year earlier. At the time of that match, Sampras was #12,
Federer was #14.

And Pete actually outplayed Federer the rest of the year. Year-end 2001,
Sampras was #10, Federer #13.

[RaspingDrive]

Good observations.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Quit lying.

Federer played his semi in Thursday in 2009. Nadal in Friday.

I actually always maintained that the guy who finished in Thursday
is at disadvantage. Almost 3 days days rest might be too much if
your opponent is hot and quick starter.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[grif]

Not sure why this myth keeps persisting. Federer did have a rest day (4th August 2012) between the semi and the final. Murray on the other hand had to play two mixed doubles matches when Fed was resting, so Murray was the one who did not have a rest day.

"The match was decided on the 'champions tie break', with the British pair winning 10-8 having trailed 7-5 and 8-6, to set up a semi-final against Germany's Sabine Lisicki and Christopher Kas, which is scheduled to take place later this afternoon."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/tennis/9451915/London-2012-Olympics-Andy-Murray-and-Laura-Robson-through-to-mixed-doubles-semi-finals.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Calendar

[stephenJ]

I actually screwed one thing up: At the time of their 01 W match,
Sampras was actually #6 and Federer #14.

Trivia: The loss to Federer at 01 W knocked Sampras out of the Top 10
for the first time in almost 11 years. Sampras had been in the Top 10
for 565 straight weeks, since the week of 9/10/1990, after he won his
first US Open.

After losing to Federer, Sampras's ranking dropped from 6 to 12.

[John Liang]

There is no myth, I just went according to what I can remember and I did not check the fact. Murray had a much shorter match against Djoker in semi.

[RaspingDrive]

Thanks again. bob says he expected the 14th ranked novice to beat the 6th ranked ATG in fewer than 5 sets. Like he expected a Fed AO 2017 finals win in fewer sets perhaps ;)

[Whisper]

Federer had 6 days rest I believe, earlier opponents pulled out etc?

[The Iceberg]

What happened when he lost to George Bastl?

[John Liang]

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 9:59:16 PM UTC+10, The Iceberg wrote:
> What happened when he lost to George Bastl?

I guess he did not eat pizza or eat the special hamburger....

[stephenJ]

> On 5/4/2017 6:59 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> What happened when he lost to George Bastl?
>

Sampras's ranking fell from 13 to 16.

[bob]

On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
<raspin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:02:01 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> <raspin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:35:27 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> >> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
>> >> >> (2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).
>> >> >
>> >> >That's a whole other argument though.
>> >>
>> >> not really. the minute djok/murray dropped and started getting upset
>> >> by nobodies, federer suddenly won his first slam in 27 and nadal's
>> >> "new style" (which is 2 notches below his peak IMO) gets him to some
>> >> finals.
>> >
>> >Leave Murray out of this. He has beaten Federer, what, once in slams?
>>
>> demolished him in an OG final at wimbledon.
>

>one off. not a slam.

one off, yes. but it was a slam (and then some) to federer.

> nothing unusual that Berdych and Blake didn't do. After that Federer shut out Murray in AO 2014 and Wimbledon 2015. Don't forget Wimbledon 2012 final where Murray cried after losing.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> i'm not
>> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
>

>Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.

i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.

i'm also not saying federer is the same as his peak, but he sure is
closer to it than rafa is.

> But an out of form Nadal doesn't make hc finals and an out of form Nadal wouldn't have been up a break in the fifth set at the AO! Nadal could have won that AO if Fed had done what he did in the past vs Nadal i.e. collapse mentally. Instead Fed changed the script and took it to Nadal. Nadal was shocked and pissed off! Nadal's forehand was working as it always had in the past vs Fed in that AO final. The difference was Fed's bh (both in his bh groundstroke and his bh ROS!)

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 06:40:56 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On 5/2/2017 7:12 PM, bob wrote:
>
>> but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
>> i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
>> nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
>> no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
>> makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
>> easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.
>
>... but you always fail to mention that even though Sampras wasn't at
>his peak, he was closer to his than Fed was to *his*. Sampras played
>better that year than Fed did.

not IMO. in time, sampras was about equally close. in level no way
IMO. plus you have a kid playing his idol, and an old man playing an
unknown kid. huge difference.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 11:15:19 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 5/3/2017 7:54 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 3/05/2017 9:40 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2017 7:12 PM, bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
>>>> i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
>>>> nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
>>>> no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
>>>> makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
>>>> easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.
>>>
>>> ... but you always fail to mention that even though Sampras wasn't at
>>> his peak, he was closer to his than Fed was to *his*. Sampras played
>>> better that year than Fed did.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But Sampras still couldn't win a tune-up at the time. That's important.
>>
>> Sampras lost in every tournament he entered for more than 2 yrs. That's
>> where his level was at that time.
>
>No, that's where it was as of the 2002 USO. But at 01 W, he had won
>Wimbledon a year earlier. At the time of that match, Sampras was #12,
>Federer was #14.

no way to convince you of any of it, but you could be #1 one day, and
then break your leg the next day and not be able to beat #100,000.
however you're only "1 day removed from #1." that's the fallacy of the
argument.

sampras, the very day after wim 2000, was a different person. i saw it
on court, but the people working with him said so to me personally.
nobody has to believe it if they don't want, doesn't matter, i know
what i know and sampras from wim 2000 - spring 2002 just went through
the motions. he showed up to slams hoping to win, trying for 2 weeks
to win, but not prepping/training as usual, and motivation way gone,
and oft with minor nagging injuries, plus aging by his standard. his
LEVEL was way off, regardless if it was "1 year removed" from a wim
championship.

>And Pete actually outplayed Federer the rest of the year. Year-end 2001,
>Sampras was #10, Federer #13.

by then, ranking meant 0 to sampras. the fact he was ranked 12 should
tell you something.

bob

[bob]

does that tell you anything?

> Sampras had been in the Top 10
>for 565 straight weeks, since the week of 9/10/1990, after he won his
>first US Open.
>
>After losing to Federer, Sampras's ranking dropped from 6 to 12.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 4 May 2017 04:59:15 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What happened when he lost to George Bastl?

i guess sampras was only 2 yrs removed from being wimbledon champion,
hence was almost peak. :-)

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:56:18 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
>>
>> No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
>> then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.
>

>No he wouldn't. He'd be calling Federer a chump who only won so many slams back in the day because it was a weak era. We'd be hearing how Nadal has owned Fed and continues to do so therefore Fed can't be GOAT and Nadal is superior. Bob would be telling us how strong a comeback Nadal made after looking so out of it the past few years. He wouldn't be harping on about how poor Nadal's form is if Nadal beat Fed in that AO final that's for sure! He can't accept that Fed has made some positive changes on the bh side and that's the main reason he's beating Nadal off clay these days. It has to be all about Nadal's poor form for him and his agenda.

fed is no chump, his hardware is the GOAT. but there's always a story
to go with everything. i do fully agree fed won in a very short
domination period of a poor field everything in sight, leading to 10
slams very quickly. that is partly due to his greatness, partly due to
hewitt/roddick. but he also made many F and SF where rafa/djok beat
him, so that counts for greatness too - consistency like none other.

btw, nadal isn't what he was. you admitted it yourself.

bob

[John Liang]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:14:19 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:56:18 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> >> <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
> >>
> >> No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
> >> then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.
> >
> >No he wouldn't. He'd be calling Federer a chump who only won so many slams back in the day because it was a weak era. We'd be hearing how Nadal has owned Fed and continues to do so therefore Fed can't be GOAT and Nadal is superior. Bob would be telling us how strong a comeback Nadal made after looking so out of it the past few years. He wouldn't be harping on about how poor Nadal's form is if Nadal beat Fed in that AO final that's for sure! He can't accept that Fed has made some positive changes on the bh side and that's the main reason he's beating Nadal off clay these days. It has to be all about Nadal's poor form for him and his agenda.
>
> fed is no chump, his hardware is the GOAT. but there's always a story
> to go with everything. i do fully agree fed won in a very short
> domination period of a poor field everything in sight,

So Federer dominated a very short period of time. OK. Federer was the dominating player in 2004-2007 that is 4 years and he also dominated 2009 so in all his dominance lasted 5 years. Compare that to Djoker who dominated 2011, 2014,2015 and then early half of 2016 that is 3.5 years, Sampras from Mid 1993-Mid 1994, then a short period in 1995, then 1997-1998, Sampras wasn't the dominating player in 1999 onward so his true dominance only lasted about 3 years despite finish 6 years as No.1. If you think the Federer's field was poor then so was Sampras' you just don't often get Piolines type and Martins type in grand slam finals twice in four time in this era. Going further back Lendl dominated the field in 1985-1987, that was also three years. So the suggestion by Mr 104% made about this short reign by Federer does not hole up very well when we listed facts about all previous No.1s.

leading to 10
> slams very quickly. that is partly due to his greatness, partly due to
> hewitt/roddick.

Well, Hewitt/Roddick were Martins/Piolines/Washingtons/Volkovs/Masurs.

[John Liang]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 9:29:06 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >
> >> i'm not
> >> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
> >
> >Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.
>
> i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
> the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.

At 27 Federer won 12 slams and Nadal 14, however Federer won another 6 to get to 18. bob like his master is trying to say Federer needs to win 12 slams after he turned 27 to prove his greatness while the others do not have to be held to the same lofty standard.

[RaspingDrive]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
> <raspin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:02:01 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 May 2017 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
> >> <raspin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:35:27 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> >> >> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Oh stop! You are running yourself into a wall with your statements.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If Nadal continues making improvements to his serve and backhand and his forehand starts clicking he will beat a healthy in form Djokovic and Murray on clay for sure! So you can't continue to use the out of form Nadal theory if that happens. Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years so he can't be that out of form.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> it is a testament to how very weak the tour is without djok and murray
> >> >> >> (2 of the top 4 players of past 5 yrs).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's a whole other argument though.
> >> >>
> >> >> not really. the minute djok/murray dropped and started getting upset
> >> >> by nobodies, federer suddenly won his first slam in 27 and nadal's
> >> >> "new style" (which is 2 notches below his peak IMO) gets him to some
> >> >> finals.
> >> >
> >> >Leave Murray out of this. He has beaten Federer, what, once in slams?
> >>
> >> demolished him in an OG final at wimbledon.
> >
> >one off. not a slam.
>
> one off, yes. but it was a slam (and then some) to federer.

How true! It was first a slam (WImbledon 2012, which he wins and sheds tears of joy, looking animatedly at his family) and then some, which is O. With the main goal achieved (Reference: see his comment after he fired Annacone), he was 'out of sorts' for the second show (Icey, he he he). As for statements about O, Federer says things for general consumption.

The Wimbledon 2012 win was arguably the real deal for Federer, initiating a (local) downward spiral that ended only a year or so later (early exits in USO 2012, Wimbledon 2013 etc).

Lest we forget the main point, "leave Murray out" was based on Wimbledon 2012, 2015, and AO 2014 wins. I didn't say "leave out Djok and Rafa'.

[Whisper]

Yes, Fed would have gone into that match playing, in his mind, the
goat/boat & would have played the best tennis he was capable of.

Fore Pete it was just another routine match he had trouble getting up
for. It's a real shame they didn't play in the same era. Pete might
have had a real rival forcing him to play his best stuff.

[stephenJ]

On 5/6/2017 6:28 PM, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>>
>>> i'm not
>>> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
>>
>> Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.
>
> i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
> the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.
>
> i'm also not saying federer is the same as his peak, but he sure is
> closer to it than rafa is.

Difficult to imagine how Fed, at 35, could be closer to his form-peak
than Rafa is at 30?

What I think you overlook is that unlike Fed or Joker, Rafa was never,
even between 08-14, an all-time titan anywhere but on clay. He's won a
total of 5 non-clay slams, 2 AO, 2 W, and 1 USO. That's great, of
course, but not by GOAT-contender standards. E.g., Fed and Joker have
won at least that many AOs alone.

So you can't expect Rafa to ever have shown GOAT-level form at non-clay
events, which is what you are basing your judgment on when you denigrate
his current form by referencing the past four months of HC play.

Now, if he crashes out badly at the FO, that would be powerful evidence
in your favor. But we do have to wait and see how he plays on clay to
truly judge his current form compared to the past, and so far, his clay
form has been gangbusters.

[stephenJ]

On 5/6/2017 7:14 PM, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:56:18 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 5:30:58 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>> <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
>>>
>>> No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
>>> then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.
>>
>> No he wouldn't. He'd be calling Federer a chump who only won so many slams back in the day because it was a weak era. We'd be hearing how Nadal has owned Fed and continues to do so therefore Fed can't be GOAT and Nadal is superior. Bob would be telling us how strong a comeback Nadal made after looking so out of it the past few years. He wouldn't be harping on about how poor Nadal's form is if Nadal beat Fed in that AO final that's for sure! He can't accept that Fed has made some positive changes on the bh side and that's the main reason he's beating Nadal off clay these days. It has to be all about Nadal's poor form for him and his agenda.
>
> fed is no chump, his hardware is the GOAT. but there's always a story
> to go with everything.

Tom Brady is probably exhibit A, B, and C in that regard. :)

[stephenJ]

It's kind of poetic that the guy who would surpass Sampras as Open Era
GOAT would be the one to knock him out of the top 10 after 11 years.

But the fact that even after that loss and drop, Sampras was still
ranked higher than Fed, and would remain so the rest of 2001, indicates
clearly that he was still closer to his peak than Fed was to his.

[stephenJ]

I can buy that after winning 2000 W Pete's general motivation at most
events slagged off. But it beggars belief that Pete wasn't fully
motivated for a 4th-round match at Wimbledon. And FWIW, he played lights
out and fought tooth and nail to the very end.

Same with USO, that's why even during that stretch, he always made USO
finals playing lights out tennis there.

[Guypers]

Stimpy realized that Fed was a better player, had more talent than himself and was bitter for a long time!

[The Iceberg]

Fed said long ago his main reason for playing was Olympics 2016.

[The Iceberg]

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 13:06:34 UTC+1, StephenJ wrote:
> On 5/6/2017 6:28 PM, bob wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> > <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >>
> >>> i'm not
> >>> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.
> >
> > i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
> > the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.
> >
> > i'm also not saying federer is the same as his peak, but he sure is
> > closer to it than rafa is.
>
> Difficult to imagine how Fed, at 35, could be closer to his form-peak
> than Rafa is at 30?

it difficult to imagine,but that's just the way it is. He was only narrowly losing in 2015/2016 at masters/slams to freak guys serving consistently at 140mph and to near-peak level Djoker. The Fedfans seems to refuse to accept this proof that I said for a long time, Fed is clearly well at peak level, I dunno what more he has to do to prove I right.

[The Iceberg]

yep just really good to have official confirmation of what is quite obvious really to anyone who's watch/studied him during this time.

[The Iceberg]

was he really up for and fully motivated when he played George Bastl at Wimbledon?

[stephenJ]

On 5/7/2017 11:16 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 May 2017 13:06:34 UTC+1, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 5/6/2017 6:28 PM, bob wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>>> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> i'm not
>>>>> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.
>>>
>>> i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
>>> the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.
>>>
>>> i'm also not saying federer is the same as his peak, but he sure is
>>> closer to it than rafa is.
>>
>> Difficult to imagine how Fed, at 35, could be closer to his form-peak
>> than Rafa is at 30?
>
> it difficult to imagine,but that's just the way it is.

Only in the minds of those with an agenda to push. 😴

[stephenJ]

On 5/6/2017 6:37 PM, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2017 11:15:19 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2017 7:54 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 3/05/2017 9:40 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/2017 7:12 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
>>>>> i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
>>>>> nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
>>>>> no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
>>>>> makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
>>>>> easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.
>>>>
>>>> ... but you always fail to mention that even though Sampras wasn't at
>>>> his peak, he was closer to his than Fed was to *his*. Sampras played
>>>> better that year than Fed did.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But Sampras still couldn't win a tune-up at the time. That's important.
>>>
>>> Sampras lost in every tournament he entered for more than 2 yrs. That's
>>> where his level was at that time.
>>
>> No, that's where it was as of the 2002 USO. But at 01 W, he had won
>> Wimbledon a year earlier. At the time of that match, Sampras was #12,
>> Federer was #14.
>
> no way to convince you of any of it, but you could be #1 one day, and
> then break your leg the next day and not be able to beat #100,000.
> however you're only "1 day removed from #1." that's the fallacy of the
> argument.

But ... after the W loss, Pete was #12 and Fed #14, yet 5 months later
at year-end, Sampras was #10 and Fed #13, so the lagging indicators of
ranking points actually favored Sampras, not Fed.

There's no way around it: Neither was peak, but Pete was closer to his
peak than Fed was to his. Every indicator says so.

[stephenJ]

Maybe not as much as at 2001 W, because by 2002, he'd had his Wimbledon
balloon burst by Fed, plus a year's worth of losing to hurt his
confidence. But also, he wasn't as good. Sampras of 1997 would beat
Bastl 2, 2, and 1 in his sleep, no matter how motivated.

[RaspingDrive]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:06:34 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> On 5/6/2017 6:28 PM, bob wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> > <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >>
> >>> i'm not
> >>> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.
> >
> > i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
> > the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.
> >
> > i'm also not saying federer is the same as his peak, but he sure is
> > closer to it than rafa is.
>
> Difficult to imagine how Fed, at 35, could be closer to his form-peak
> than Rafa is at 30?

This is bob who even said Nadal was injured while playing against Rosol! Never mind the fact that the match extended to the full five sets (6-4 in the last). Rafa did not have to run much because Rosol was crashing shots to his left and right with disdain. The probable mistake was in presuming that 'not allowed to run' meant 'couldn't run' and hence Rafa was injured.

> What I think you overlook is that unlike Fed or Joker, Rafa was never,
> even between 08-14, an all-time titan anywhere but on clay. He's won a
> total of 5 non-clay slams, 2 AO, 2 W, and 1 USO. That's great, of
> course, but not by GOAT-contender standards. E.g., Fed and Joker have
> won at least that many AOs alone.

Skriptis, otherwise a nice guy who can write stunning posts (seriously), took a few pages out of bob's (jaundiced) book and claimed that Rafa is unbeatable on HCs at his best level. Go figure. I countered saying 3 out 7 is poor returns for someone touted unbeatable at his best level on HCs, especially when the 7 is out of 20 or more chances.

> So you can't expect Rafa to ever have shown GOAT-level form at non-clay
> events, which is what you are basing your judgment on when you denigrate
> his current form by referencing the past four months of HC play.
>
> Now, if he crashes out badly at the FO, that would be powerful evidence
> in your favor. But we do have to wait and see how he plays on clay to
> truly judge his current form compared to the past, and so far, his clay
> form has been gangbusters.

Great post.

[RaspingDrive]

For consumption of folks like you. In 2008 he loses O to B and then beats M for the USO title.