Carillo was totally classless. wouldn't you agree?
only human
Shortly after Federer went down 2 sets to none suddenly Mary carillo
opens her big mouth to try to discredit Federer's goatness. that's
called kicking a guy when he's down. this lady is a piece of shit! of
course J-mac then chimmed in to pretty much agree with this frog saying
you can make the case Nadal is the goat of tennis. no you can't John!
Ted as usual
was dumb as ever.
tennis
They are acknowledging what everyone knows,
Nadal is a better tennis player than Federer. How do I know that,
because Nadal beats Federer every time they meet. Their remarks are
the same as the world press and about everyone else.
When Federer has a winning record over Nadal, you may have a point,
until then....VAMOS!
TT
>
> Shortly after Federer went down 2 sets to none suddenly Mary carillo
> opens her big mouth to try to discredit Federer's goatness.
From what I hear she was all praise for Federer first set of the
match...and then suddenly changed her tune.
She's one of the most hated fedfan commentators amongst Nadal fans...but
sure as hell doesn't seems a pretty damn fickle.
Then again one could say that it has to be pretty obvious if a fedf*cker
as Carillo says it...
I never liked her commentary or her voice, from what little I've heard.
Full of herself, I thought.
drew
Nadal is a grinder. A really good grinder.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's MR. GRINDER to you!
:))
P
Gracchus
At least with McEnroe, it is a former champion talking. What was Mary
Carillo's claim to tennis greatness? Winning one FO MIXED DOUBLES
championship, wasn't it?
But that aside, what all of these people are doing (including other
past champions) is trying to preserve whatever status they have as
pundits. If Federer hadn't made the final, they wouldn't even be
having a discussion about his "goatness." Instead, they would be
watching Djokovic crush Nadal in the final while they distanced
themselves from past claims of him being "clay goat" or in the running
for "general goat."
There are some classy pundits. Most are self-serving vultures who
change their tune every week. If Federer were to win Wimbledon, Mac
would be the first to re-anoint him and volunteer to wash his feet.
uly...@mscomm.com
makes any bones about it. Obviously a talented genius like Mac is not
going to embrace the grinding and "ugly" style of Nadal. I say "ugly"
only in comparison to Federer's beautiful style.
You guys are misrepresenting what Carillo said. After she made her
tasteless remarks, Mac grudgingly agreed, but said three times in the
match that Federer was 'the greatest,' thus contradicting what he said
in the third set. At the beginning of the second set, Mac said he put
Rafa currently in #4 position as GOAT, after Roger, Pete and Laver. He
added, "But Nadal is moving up as we speak."
McEnroe is paid to generate interest in the match he's calling. In the
FO Final of 2006, he said he was ready to annoit Roger as GOAT if he
won... even though that would have meant 7 slams to Pete's 14. He says
these things to generate copy because he's a shameless glory hog.
Ali Asoag
> On Jun 7, 3:54 pm, surfer...@webtv.net (only human) wrote:
>> Shortly after Federer went down 2 sets to none suddenly Mary carillo
>> opens her big mouth to try to discredit Federer's goatness. that's
>> called kicking a guy when he's down. this lady is a piece of shit! of
>> course J-mac then chimmed in to pretty much agree with this frog saying
>> you can make the case Nadal is the goat of tennis. no you can't John!
>> Ted as usual
>> was dumb as ever.
>
> They are acknowledging what everyone knows,
> Nadal is a better tennis player than Federer.
If Nadal was better than Federer, why does he only have 10 Slams and Fed
16? FYI: Against same field.
RahimAsif
On the contrary, she made an excellent point. Like a lot of other ppl,
she is confused about greater vs. better which nicely explains the odd
situation we have with Fed and Nadal, but otherwise she said out loud
what many are thinking in private...
RahimAsif
Because Fed is older, and racked up slams when Nadal was a baby. If
Nadal can stay fit, he should overcome Fed's record...
Joe Ramirez
Babies don't make slam finals. Post-Nadal launch, Federer still leads,
12 slams to 10.
> If Nadal can stay fit, he should overcome Fed's record...
... and? AND? You left out the conclusion. What's next? Don't keep us
in suspense.
RahimAsif
> > Because Fed is older, and racked up slams when Nadal was a baby.
>
> Babies don't make slam finals. Post-Nadal launch, Federer still leads,
> 12 slams to 10.
Remember, Nadal was so good on clay, that even when he was a baby in
tennis terms he was still winning everything in sight there. He didn't
become a force on other surfaces until after winning his 2nd FO...
> > If Nadal can stay fit, he should overcome Fed's record...
>
> ... and? AND? You left out the conclusion. What's next? Don't keep us
> in suspense.
And he can become both GREATER and BETTER than Fed...
Joe Ramirez
> On Jun 7, 11:28 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > Because Fed is older, and racked up slams when Nadal was a baby.
>
> > Babies don't make slam finals. Post-Nadal launch, Federer still leads,
> > 12 slams to 10.
>
> Remember, Nadal was so good on clay, that even when he was a baby in
> tennis terms he was still winning everything in sight there. He didn't
> become a force on other surfaces until after winning his 2nd FO...
Nadal won three hard court tournaments in 2005, including two Masters
events. He also made the final of a third Masters event and took
Federer to five sets. I'd say he was a force off clay. More generally,
having room for improvement does not mean a player is a "baby" whose
weaker results shouldn't count. If he's launched, he's launched. He's
a highly capable pro and will be judged accordingly.
RzR
boy, am i glad i shitcanned that tennis clueless moron :))
kaennorsing
Better is often used for a shorter time frame (who's/what's better
right now) and greater in the long run (who's/what's been better
overall). So in that sense you are correct that Rafa is better and Fed
is greater. However, for comparison it's more accurate to think in
specific terms. So asking who's better or greater *in what*? As it
stands now: Rafa is greater on clay, Federer is greater in tennis.
Iceberg
all he does is hit moonballs with an over-sized snowshoe!!
Iceberg
the clowns were quite happy to go all-out against the likes of Nadal
and co to protect Fed.
kaennorsing
A secret clown mission they let you in on?
uly...@mscomm.com
she basically never uttered another word? Literally true! The Tennis
Channel repeated the match last night. After Carillo bashed Roger, she
was silent for the remainder of the entire third set and only spoke
again at the beginning of the fourth set and at the end of the match.
I wonder if NBC put on a muzzle on her?
TT
She was crying inside, broken by sorrow of fed losing. His comment was
to impress viewers and mac about her impartiality.
Hahahahaha
uly...@mscomm.com
are both fairly open about their Federer bias. They try not to show it
in the booth but when interviewed at other events, they constantly
gush over Fed. Not as much as in the past, but it's still fairly
blatant.
Both were also very pro-Agassi, especially post-1999 and practically
openly rooted for Andre over Pete whenever they played.
The anti-Fed announcers are Robbie Koenig, Brad Gilbert, Mats and (to
a more limited extent), Becker, when he calls matches for the BBC. P-
Mac has been increasingly snide about Fed too.
Katya
It's possible that more natural causes took Carillo off-the-air:
inspired by Roger, she maybe wanted to put a streaky, impetuous Number
2 in its place.
bob
wrote:
i dislike carillo, but mac and ted agreed, and i have nothing against
them.
bob
bob
launched my arse. how bout lauching meaning he won a slam on 2
surfaces, you know, to rule out the 1 surface wonder kind of thing?
bob
bob
adn i was ready to annoint him GOAT had he beat rafa last wk; problem
is fed keeps losing these matches.
bob
Court_1
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:48:10 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>
> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would you be willing to label him as GOAT based on one match where
he would possibly defeat Rafa? I know it was the FO (Fed's worst
surface) and Fed is almost 30 but how could you possibly attribute the
GOAT moniker based on one match win?
People forget that Federer defeated Novak something which Nadal was
not able to do himself in his last four attempts. That is pretty
impressive for Federer to do. Nobody else was able to do that. Fed was
the only one capable of doing that.
Joe Ramirez
longest winning streaks in history, smacked the No. 1 four times in a
row, but is still a "baby" in bobworld because he hasn't won a slam on
clay or grass?Like Gasquet, he still hasn't launched, the poor guy?
None of his losses to Nadal count because he "hasn't come into his
own" yet? A mighty LOL to you.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wonder what's happened to bob? He used to sound like Whisper's side
kick, now he sounds like the love child of Whisper and Iceberg...???
P
rux
Joe Ramirez
player who is not Sampras, McEnroe, or Hoad: abstractly, dismissively,
reflexively, like a dust bunny to be swept up. bob appears to be
nursing a more personal, visceral grudge against Fed, which doesn't
encourage concession or compromise, and perhaps is more logically
debilitating in the long run.
TennisGuy
> You listen to Mary C???.......WHY???
Good question!
When I saw the three musketeers faces pop up on my screen just before
the final started I hit my mute button as quick as you can say, "Don't
park any garbage on my curb!"
That was the only way I was going to watch the match given the
circumstances.
Patrick Kehoe
bob used to say something like... Federer could still win 7th and put
GOAT debate beyond question... statements like that... then in the
last 3 months, since his latest 'return' he's become Fan like in his
anti-Fedness... it's a matter of degree and rhetorical venom...
there's no knowing, I understand...
Even TT is now letting loose with gay-Fedisms and ala Fan and Ice...
he/she has taken off the gloves and has become ruthless and vitriolic
in denegrating all aspects of Federer's career, personality and
marriage... and right as Rafa has continued to soar as a superstar of
the sport???
P
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Patrick I accept what your saying but to the life of me I can't
understand why this has happened to TT. If he is a Nadal fan then
fine, post about Nadal and please don't condemn any other player.
TT
Is this an attempt on insult?
> has taken off the gloves and has become ruthless and vitriolic
> in denegrating all aspects of Federer's career, personality and
> marriage...
Nothing new there...
But I have not really...my latest comments have rather been reactive to
Ulysses bs etc.
> and right as Rafa has continued to soar as a superstar of
> the sport???
>
> P
Of course these are the moments when fedfans are at their most venomous.
Drop your bias and see the discussion from all sides, who's initiating
it and who's responding to it.
bob
that's the entire point i'm making: you use the launch date as the
time a guy won a slam regardless of how well his overall game is at
that time VS how much higher it might get. you can review on a guy's
career after the fact and see marked movements in his level, and your
defn of 'launch date' is usually way off in what it attempts to
predict.
your 'launch' theory is wrong, joe, just like your multispinner VS
smasher VS topspinner, as repeatedly proved.
bob
bob
fed did personal favors for my family, i have nothing personal against
federer. what i do have against fed, after watching sports for 30 yrs,
is the same thing i (and 99% of RST) against SW: arrogance after
winning, excuse making after losing. if fed could somehow control that
(and wow, at age 29 he seems a little better) i'd feel different.
none of this has anything to do with my belief that great grass court
players would beat him on grass, great clay players would/have beaten
him on clay.
bob
bob
<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
i said day before FO final, right here, that if fed beat nadal, i
would never utter a word about him not being GOAT again, and i would
actually believe in a GOAt and he would be it. probably wouldnt' even
mention BOAT again either. in fact, believe whisper agreed to the
GOAT if he won.
if he makes a 7th wimbledon, going through nadal in the process, i'll
also say he's GOAT - but not BOAT.
bob
bob
ylysses is very dumb, don't fall into that trap.
bob
bob
because he would have proven that he COULD DO IT. he, to date, has
not. yet he gets humongous credit for his FO win, beating soderling
and haas while nadal lost with bad knee.
>People forget that Federer defeated Novak something which Nadal was
>not able to do himself in his last four attempts. That is pretty
>impressive for Federer to do. Nobody else was able to do that. Fed was
>the only one capable of doing that.
lots of room between 'impressive' and 'goat'.
bob
Joe Ramirez
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
You've mentioned that before; tickets or something, wasn't it?
>i have nothing personal against
> federer. what i do have against fed, after watching sports for 30 yrs,
> is the same thing i (and 99% of RST) against SW: arrogance after
> winning, excuse making after losing. if fed could somehow control that
> (and wow, at age 29 he seems a little better) i'd feel different.
If a celebrity had done favors for my family, I wouldn't spend years
bashing him online. If I didn't like his public actions for some
reason, I think I'd just shut the hell up.
TennisGuy
> your 'launch' theory is wrong, joe, just like your multispinner VS
> smasher VS topspinner, as repeatedly proved.
But has it been proven?
Don't forget what the former great Prime Minister Chretien said about
proofs:
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
bob
he recognized them and told guard to let them enter RG grounds with
him, they had no tickets that day. was his 1st or 2nd yr on tour i
think.
>>i have nothing personal against
>> federer. what i do have against fed, after watching sports for 30 yrs,
>> is the same thing i (and 99% of RST) against SW: arrogance after
>> winning, excuse making after losing. if fed could somehow control that
>> (and wow, at age 29 he seems a little better) i'd feel different.
>
>If a celebrity had done favors for my family, I wouldn't spend years
>bashing him online. If I didn't like his public actions for some
>reason, I think I'd just shut the hell up.
many players gave me tickets over the years. sampras gave me 1 full wk
player guest pass to wimbledon, think 1992. i just call things like i
feel them and seem them, no need to sugar coat.
bob
bob
<Jeffer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 12:56 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> your 'launch' theory is wrong, joe, just like your multispinner VS
>> smasher VS topspinner, as repeatedly proved.
>
>
> But has it been proven?
multispinner, etc. has been proven. launch cannot be proven, it is an
opinion, not a theory.
>on't forget what the former great Prime Minister Chretien said about
>proofs:
>"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
>proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
that's what happens when politicians speak in real terms.
bob
TennisGuy
> >on't forget what the former great Prime Minister Chretien said about
> >proofs:
> >"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
> >proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
>
> that's what happens when politicians speak in real terms.
>
> bob
No, that's what happens when a dodo PM speaks about something he
hasn't got a clue about (Bush's explanation as to why it was justified
to go to war with Iraq, WMD etc.)
Chretien was asked whether they had enough proof about WMD etc.
Gracchus
> many players gave me tickets over the years. sampras gave me 1 full wk
> player guest pass to wimbledon, think 1992. i just call things like i
> feel them and seem them, no need to sugar coat.
So Federer gave you tickets but no hug and you've held a festering
grudge against him ever since. That explains much, bob, thank you. I
feel your pain.
bob
federer didn't give anything to me.
bob
Gracchus
> federer didn't give anything to me.
>
> bob
So you admit that you *wanted* him to, and his refusal is the source
of your grudge? Thank you for clarifying.
steve jaros
bob has a grudge against fed. he thinks he's not nearly the good sport
people thin he is. i agree with bob that fed's sportsmanship is
overrated. he's broken a racket or two on court and he's not always
generous to his opponent in post-match interviews. but bob takes it to
an extreme.
***************************
goodbye pooch ... 8/9/95 - 6/10/11
bob
wtf are you talking about? of course not. i never met him, never had
reason for him to give anythig to me.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 6/10/2011 9:48 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 7:11 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> federer didn't give anything to me.
>>>
>>> bob
>>
>> So you admit that you *wanted* him to, and his refusal is the source
>> of your grudge? Thank you for clarifying.
>
>bob has a grudge against fed. he thinks he's not nearly the good sport
>people thin he is. i agree with bob that fed's sportsmanship is
>overrated. he's broken a racket or two on court and he's not always
>generous to his opponent in post-match interviews. but bob takes it to
>an extreme.
i think maybe i do take it too far. but only because so many others
refuse to see it at all. if more people would simply post what you
did, what a shock it would be.
did u lose a pooch?
bob