If Federer had lost in the first round of every clay-court tournament ...
Calimero
GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
Am I right here?
Max
PeteWasLucky
Yes, he has not done himself a favor by playing well and showing up in
every clay final.
TT
In that case he wouldn't have won RG.
In fact, he would be a big-serving clay pigeon and would have had exact
success of Roddick during this era of strong baseliners.
Superior Logic (a csman production)
I agree with the sentiment. You'll tend to find that people who
actually fight the good fight but come out 2nd (like Federer on clay)
tend to pity those who snipe and judge from the sidelines.
TennisGuy
> > ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> > GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> > Am I right here?
>
> > Max
>
No you are wrong, unfortunately.
You see you can never be right with Fed-haters.
If Fed had lost in the early rounds at clay tournie's thus making h2h
against Nadal a non-issue, they would have found SOMETHING ELSE to put
Federer down for.
IOW, it's hopeless to argue with them.
Shakes
He is already GOAT, and his losses to Nadal at the FO have no bearing
on his standing. But if Fed had held Nadal at bay on either grass or
HC, like Nadal has done on clay, it would've been even better.
Whisper
If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
career. The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game.
He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
You & other fools are making the mistake of comparing him to Sampras,
just that he's better. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Sampras was the king of real grass & HC, & there is little doubt in my
mind he'd beat Fed at least 4/5 at Wim/USO.
The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any
surface where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best
surface (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player
when he plays his best.
bob
not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
bob
felangey
Oooh...hurtyangryaggressive! :)
> You & other fools are making the mistake of comparing him to Sampras, just
> that he's better. This couldn't be further from the truth.
>
> Sampras was the king of real grass & HC, & there is little doubt in my
> mind he'd beat Fed at least 4/5 at Wim/USO.
Well that is couldashouldawoulda....which you keep telling us means
absolutely squatdiddly heehaw....so stfu already and stop bleating on like a
sulking teenager. Fed nailed Sampras at Wimby...and you are just going to
have to make your peace with that. It was a tight match...but Fed just
wasn't ready to "win yet on grass", right? :)
> The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any surface
> where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best surface
> (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player when he
> plays his best.<
So where are all the wins from the "better" player in the same time span at
all Fed's worse surfaces? Five in a row in two slams....yet you cite the
surface he could only get one win on as his best surface...you are kidding,
right? And also, Fed beat up on Sampy on a surface that wasn't even his
best?? Eeesh you don't think much of Sampy!
Joe Ramirez
> > The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any surface
> > where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best surface
> > (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player when he
> > plays his best.<
>
> So where are all the wins from the "better" player in the same time span at
> all Fed's worse surfaces? Five in a row in two slams....yet you cite the
> surface he could only get one win on as his best surface...you are kidding,
> right? And also, Fed beat up on Sampy on a surface that wasn't even his
> best?? Eeesh you don't think much of Sampy!
Defending Wimbledon champ Sampras was ousted by a claycourter. :)
felangey
:D
Joe Ramirez
> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>
> > ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> > GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> > Am I right here?
>
> > Max
>
> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
> career. The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game.
> He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
> did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
> would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>
the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
relies on scads of losses on clay.
If someone asks, "Would Sampras' record be stronger if he had 6 Wims
and 1 FO instead of 7 Wims and 0 FOs?" the proper answer is not,
"Could never happen because Pete refused to lose at Wim and couldn't
be arsed at the FO." That's a dumb answer. A smart answer considers
the relative values of the stated resumes, even if one is actual and
the other is not.
If you must have some sort of concrete rationale for hypothetical
losses in order to think about them, just tell yourself Fed tanked
repeatedly in an extended fit of pique. Then perhaps you'll be able to
reflect on the real issue (though I doubt it).
Court_1
THIS! 100%. Always something to pick at. Always. Envy perhaps? The man
has 16 slams and is worth over $200 million. It is a joke that people
try to criticize him so much with all he has accomplished.
uly...@mscomm.com
Court_1
> Swiss newspapers say it's 400 million, but who's counting?
Net worth? I think I read it in Forbes recently that it was around
$200 million net worth, but, it is probably a lot more! :)
Javier González
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>
> >... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> >GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> >Am I right here?
>
> not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
> mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
>
> bob
If you apply the premise of the original post, h2h at the slams would
be 2-2, with both Nadal wins 5 set affairs. DOMINATION!
steve jaros
you're right.
--
"I guess everybody thinks about old times,
even the happiest people".
"Some memories are realities, and are better
than anything that can ever happen to one again".
- Willa Cather, My Antonia
John Liang
Most time Nadal has himself on the bay on HC.
reilloc
> On Jun 10, 7:49 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>
>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>> Am I right here?
>>
>>> Max
>>
>> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
>> career. The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game.
>> He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
>> did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
>> would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>>
> What you are doing is called "fighting the hypothetical." The point of
> the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
> Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
> up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
> relies on scads of losses on clay.
Speaking of scads of really early round losses on clay and what happens
when a guys has them, does this mean that Sampras didn't really win all
those slams? His biggest supporter here just said that wouldn't happen.
LNC
Whisper
Very good analysis. It's amazing Fedfuckers are so logically
challenged. The guy's a baseliner ffs & won all those slams from the
baseline. Why the fuck would he suddenly be a hack on clay?
Whisper
Incorrect.
You see it as 'putting Fed down', but it's an honest attempt to assess
how good Fed is in absolute terms - ie v very good/great players. It's
a given he tries 100% v Blake types & thus beats them 99% of the time.
Past greats didn't have Fed's obsession to win every meaningless tune-up
& you saw some upsets.
What we want to know is how good is Fed when another great player steps
up to take him on. We now know the answer. He puts up a very good
fight, but is invariably the loser.
Whisper
100% wrong in my case.
Whisper
bay? Can someone translate this post again please?
Whisper
>> He sure as fuck<
>
> Oooh...hurtyangryaggressive! :)
>
>> You & other fools are making the mistake of comparing him to Sampras,
>> just that he's better. This couldn't be further from the truth.
>>
>> Sampras was the king of real grass & HC, & there is little doubt in my
>> mind he'd beat Fed at least 4/5 at Wim/USO.
>
> Well that is couldashouldawoulda....which you keep telling us means
> absolutely squatdiddly heehaw....so stfu already and stop bleating on
> like a sulking teenager. Fed nailed Sampras at Wimby...and you are just
> going to have to make your peace with that. It was a tight match...but
> Fed just wasn't ready to "win yet on grass", right? :)
This was already covered. Sampras was losing everywhere at the time, &
fe's level wasn't good enough to beat Henman. Even if Sampras won that
match he wouldn't have won Wimbledon that yr. There's nothing to make
peace about as neither guy was ranked in top 10 & it wasn't remotely
close to a final. What matters is slam finals, & especially when both
guys are at peak - like Rafa v Fed in 8 slam finals. All of those count.
>
>> The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any
>> surface where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his
>> best surface (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better
>> player when he plays his best.<
>
> So where are all the wins from the "better" player in the same time span
> at all Fed's worse surfaces? Five in a row in two slams....yet you cite
> the surface he could only get one win on as his best surface...you are
> kidding, right?
Rafa beat Fed in 5 FOs, & I don't see anyone else in the field who
woulda beaten him, thus he'd have 6 FOs by now - ie his best surface.
You'll also note Rafa beat Fed in grass & HC slam finals. The surface
is not relevent when Fed plays Rafa in slams as they are both
baseliners, & Rafa is better from there.
> And also, Fed beat up on Sampy on a surface that wasn't
> even his best?? Eeesh you don't think much of Sampy!
That was 2001. Barry cowan pushed Sampras to 5 the rd before. I'm
talking peak Sampras - Fed would maybe take a set.
Whisper
Yes, in 2001 when barry Cowan almost beat him & Sampras couldn't even
wina tune-up for > 2 years.
I think bob was right about you? You don't seem particularly switched on.
Whisper
> On Jun 10, 7:49 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>
>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>> Am I right here?
>>
>>> Max
>>
>> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
>> career. The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game.
>> He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
>> did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
>> would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>>
> What you are doing is called "fighting the hypothetical." The point of
> the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
> Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
> up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
> relies on scads of losses on clay.
There is an absence of many Fed wins in slam finals v Rafa in general.
Why was Rafa able to hold off Fed at FO, but Fed couldn't do likewise v
Rafa at Wim & AO every time?
You're the type who would say Laver wasn't necessarily better than
Emerson in slam finals in 1962 because they were 1-off wins every time.
Laver won calendar slam but we have to make it a tie with another guy
because each was 1-off.
>
> If someone asks, "Would Sampras' record be stronger if he had 6 Wims
> and 1 FO instead of 7 Wims and 0 FOs?" the proper answer is not,
> "Could never happen because Pete refused to lose at Wim and couldn't
> be arsed at the FO." That's a dumb answer. A smart answer considers
> the relative values of the stated resumes, even if one is actual and
> the other is not.
>
> If you must have some sort of concrete rationale for hypothetical
> losses in order to think about them, just tell yourself Fed tanked
> repeatedly in an extended fit of pique. Then perhaps you'll be able to
> reflect on the real issue (though I doubt it).
The real issue is Rafa is a better player than Fed in the biggest tennis
matches. It doesn't matter if Fed won more slams v
Blake/Ljubo/Baghditis types. You disagree & that's your right, but I
can't see the logic beating lesser players more often means he's better
than rafa in the biggest matches.
Whisper
Links?
I also said Fed & Sampras are different players you senile old cunt.
Joe Ramirez
For you, very uninspired invective. What makes you and bob blood-
brothers, even more than love of Pete and loathing of Fed, is
pettiness under pressure.
Whisper
The problem is you have to quarantine & qualify every Fed loss to make
Fed look less hapless. What kind of moron doesn't consider the totality
of the evidence to come to a conclusion? By 'totality' I don't mean a
handful more slam wins v Baghditis types in slam finals to negate his
h2h in slam finals v Rafa. What the hell kind of logic is that?
You're suggesting we don't know Rafa's best is better than Fed's because
it happened only once, same as AO. Same in 1962 - Laver beat Emerson
once in AO final, once in Wimbledon final & once in USO final. We don't
know who was better at those slams because they were 1-off on each occasion.
arnab.z@gmail
> On 11/06/2011 11:34 AM, Javier Gonz lez wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:29 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>
> >> <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> >>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> >>> Am I right here?
>
> >> not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
> >> mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
>
> >> bob
>
> > If you apply the premise of the original post, h2h at the slams would
> > be 2-2, with both Nadal wins 5 set affairs. DOMINATION!
>
> The problem is you have to quarantine & qualify every Fed loss to make
> Fed look less hapless. What kind of moron doesn't consider the totality
> of the evidence to come to a conclusion? By 'totality' I don't mean a
> handful more slam wins v Baghditis types in slam finals to negate his
> h2h in slam finals v Rafa. What the hell kind of logic is that?
Using only the slam finals between Nadal and Federer as some kind of
metric to determine who is better is wrong.
In the tour, only 1 out of 4 slam finals are on clay. But in the case
of slam finals between Fed-Nad, *half* their slams finals are on clay,
a surface where Nadal is probably better than anybody in the history
of the game. So the data is inherently biased towards Nadal. Anyone
who is using this set of data as proof of something has some kind of
an agenda.
Nadal is a legitimate all-time great as well, with 10 slams in his
pocket. So losing several important matches on a surface like clay
where Nadal is at his strongest doesn't really prove anything
conclusive. Nadal has lost to Federer 3 times in YEC, where Federer is
at his strongest. At best we can say that this is a great rivalry,
where we have two players who are better than any other greats in the
1980s or in the 1990s. Based on their performance so far, Federer and
Nadal are two of the best tennis players ever, if not the two very
best.
As always, the most unbiased way to determine the "bestness" of a
player it to count the values of his trophies at the end of his
career.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Superb post!
John Liang
For the fool of newcastle I would not be bother.
RzR
> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> Am I right here?
>
yes
Whisper
> On Jun 11, 9:41 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 11:34 AM, Javier Gonz lez wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 10, 8:29 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>>
>>>> <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>>> Am I right here?
>>
>>>> not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
>>>> mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
>>
>>>> bob
>>
>>> If you apply the premise of the original post, h2h at the slams would
>>> be 2-2, with both Nadal wins 5 set affairs. DOMINATION!
>>
>> Fed look less hapless. What kind of moron doesn't consider the totality
>> of the evidence to come to a conclusion? By 'totality' I don't mean a
>> handful more slam wins v Baghditis types in slam finals to negate his
>> h2h in slam finals v Rafa. What the hell kind of logic is that?
>
> Using only the slam finals between Nadal and Federer as some kind of
> metric to determine who is better is wrong.
>
> In the tour, only 1 out of 4 slam finals are on clay. But in the case
> of slam finals between Fed-Nad, *half* their slams finals are on clay,
> a surface where Nadal is probably better than anybody in the history
> of the game. So the data is inherently biased towards Nadal. Anyone
> who is using this set of data as proof of something has some kind of
> an agenda.
>
> Nadal is a legitimate all-time great as well, with 10 slams in his
> pocket. So losing several important matches on a surface like clay
> where Nadal is at his strongest doesn't really prove anything
> conclusive. Nadal has lost to Federer 3 times in YEC, where Federer is
> at his strongest. At best we can say that this is a great rivalry,
> where we have two players who are better than any other greats in the
> 1980s or in the 1990s. Based on their performance so far, Federer and
> Nadal are two of the best tennis players ever, if not the two very
> best.
>
> As always, the most unbiased way to determine the "bestness" of a
> player it to count the values of his trophies at the end of his
> career.
So why criticize 7543?
Anyway 7543 can never measure 'bestness', only greatness.
Clay is a strong surface for Fed. Like I said he'd most likely be 6
time FO champ if no Rafa - equal clay goat. He won a lot of other slams
because Rafa was missing from the finals. To me that's the only difference.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell us why Nadal could not reachi the finals because he could have
won 20+ slam by been
in the final ?
John Liang
> On 11/06/2011 11:34 AM, Javier Gonz lez wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:29 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>
> >> <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> >>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> >>> Am I right here?
>
> >> not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
> >> mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
>
> >> bob
>
> > If you apply the premise of the original post, h2h at the slams would
> > be 2-2, with both Nadal wins 5 set affairs. DOMINATION!
>
> The problem is you have to quarantine & qualify every Fed loss to make
> Fed look less hapless. What kind of moron doesn't consider the totality
> of the evidence to come to a conclusion? By 'totality' I don't mean a
> handful more slam wins v Baghditis types in slam finals to negate his
> h2h in slam finals v Rafa. What the hell kind of logic is that?
You seemd to forge it is exactly the Baghditis type of player that
Nadal repeatedly
lost on HC. The real totality is to look at their result across the
board against
all players. When the tour has literallly 00's of player what sort of
totallity is
there to look at 1 h2h ?
>
> You're suggesting we don't know Rafa's best is better than Fed's because
> it happened only once, same as AO. Same in 1962 - Laver beat Emerson
> once in AO final, once in Wimbledon final & once in USO final. We don't
> know who was better at those slams because they were 1-off on each occasion.
Of course when is 2 Wimbledon better than 6, 1 AO better than 4, 1 USO
is better than 5 ?
2 HC GS final better than 9 ? Even Krajicek can say his best is
better than Sampras but
he just did not have the result to back it up. It is pretty
meaningless if you can only win
2 HC GS compare to your rivals 9 even if your best is better than
his. At the end of their
career is not whose best is better but whose grand slam result is
better.
Whisper
>>> As always, the most unbiased way to determine the "bestness" of a
>>> player it to count the values of his trophies at the end of his
>>> career.
>>
>> So why criticize 7543?
>>
>> Anyway 7543 can never measure 'bestness', only greatness.
>>
>> Clay is a strong surface for Fed. Like I said he'd most likely be 6
>> time FO champ if no Rafa - equal clay goat. He won a lot of other slams
>> because Rafa was missing from the finals. To me that's the only difference.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Tell us why Nadal could not reachi the finals because he could have
> won 20+ slam by been
> in the final ?
You should be happy about that no?
Whisper
>>
>> You're suggesting we don't know Rafa's best is better than Fed's because
>> it happened only once, same as AO. Same in 1962 - Laver beat Emerson
>> know who was better at those slams because they were 1-off on each occasion.
>
> Of course when is 2 Wimbledon better than 6, 1 AO better than 4, 1 USO
> is better than 5 ?
> 2 HC GS final better than 9 ? Even Krajicek can say his best is
> better than Sampras but
> he just did not have the result to back it up. It is pretty
> meaningless if you can only win
> 2 HC GS compare to your rivals 9 even if your best is better than
> his. At the end of their
> career is not whose best is better but whose grand slam result is
> better.
>
It's not meangless when you have 7-2 h2h record v Federer in slams. If
Fed is really better than Rafa then he shouldn't have lost 7 out of 9.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
We broke that h2h down before didn't we ? 5 of those on Nadal's
favourit surface.
And there were 7 clay court slam during 2004-2011 and at the same time
there
werer twice as many HC slams. Was Nadal really better than Federer
when he could
reached only 2 finals out of 13 attempts in HC slam at the same time
Federer was in
9 finals ? By same way I can also say Sampras is not better than clay
court journeyman.
How many times did Sampras lost to clay court journey mens in 1st and
2nd round ?
If he is really beter than them he shouldn't have lost 8 first/second
round matches.
steve jaros
> Past greats didn't have Fed's obsession to win every meaningless tune-up
> & you saw some upsets.
Really?
slams/tuneups ratio among career titles won:
fed: 23.8%
sampras: 21.8%
nadal: 21.7%
borg: 17.4%
edberg: 14.3%
becker: 12.2%
mac: 9.1%
lendl: 8.3%
connors: 7.3%
So slams actually make up a HIGHER percentage of Federer's overall
titles than for any of these other top champs. So yeah, he obviously put
more effort in to tuneups than other champs, LOL.
--
I don't feel we did wrong by taking this great country away
from the Indians. There were a great number of people who
needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to
keep it for themselves.
- John Wayne
steve jaros
> 11.6.2011 1:21, Calimero kirjoitti:
>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>> Am I right here?
>>
>
you do realize this is a 'what if' scenario and thus your answer is
completely irrelevant?
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
bob
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 9:08 pm, "ulys...@msomm.com" <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>> Swiss newspapers say it's 400 million, but who's counting?
>
>Net worth? I think I read it in Forbes recently that it was around
>$200 million net worth, but, it is probably a lot more! :)
steve jobs' lunch tab.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>> Am I right here?
>>
>>
>> Max
>
>
>If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
>career. The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game.
>He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
>did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
>would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>
>You & other fools are making the mistake of comparing him to Sampras,
>just that he's better. This couldn't be further from the truth.
>
>Sampras was the king of real grass & HC, & there is little doubt in my
>mind he'd beat Fed at least 4/5 at Wim/USO.
>
>The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any
>surface where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best
>surface (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player
>when he plays his best.
absolutely. the absolute root of many arguments in RST is the failure
to comprehend that fed wins/won all his slams from the baseline,
showing an absolute disdain and fear of coming to net, and being good
enough against the field to do it.
yet a great s/v player, or even just good enough to take advantage of
it on short baseline rallies, has a large automatic advantage over
baseline huggers at Wim/USO type surfaces, and likely to take
advantage of it. whysampras won the 12 Wim/USO. why i think sampras
and maybe even mac/becker would beat fed majority on Wim/USO.
bob
bob
joe, multispinner/topspinner/smasher wasn't personal, it was judged
strictly on its merits. if anyone else said it, i'd have flushed it
down the toilet all the same.
please don't take it to heart. just let it drift away and move on to
next theory.
bob
Whisper
> On Jun 11, 7:33 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's not meangless when you have 7-2 h2h record v Federer in slams. If
>> Fed is really better than Rafa then he shouldn't have lost 7 out of 9.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> We broke that h2h down before didn't we ? 5 of those on Nadal's
Again with the qualifying of Fed's losses.
You said Hewitt had surpassed Sampras game in absolute terms in 2001
USO. You paid no concession to age, old guy playing 10 yrs younger
opponent etc.
> favourit surface.
> And there were 7 clay court slam during 2004-2011 and at the same time
> there
> werer twice as many HC slams.
This makes it even more remarkable Rafa could beat Fed all 5 times at
FO, never even going to 5 sets.
> Was Nadal really better than Federer
> when he could
> reached only 2 finals out of 13 attempts in HC slam at the same time
> Federer was in
> 9 finals ? By same way I can also say Sampras is not better than clay
> court journeyman.
Meaningless. We're talking about only matches that matter - slam
finals. Journeymen, tune-ups etc can't be used to make any point as
they are worthless measures.
> How many times did Sampras lost to clay court journey mens in 1st and
> 2nd round ?
> If he is really beter than them he shouldn't have lost 8 first/second
> round matches.
Sampras was mentally gearing for Wimbledon during FO. If Fo was 3 or
more months removed from Wimbledon I have no doubt he woulda won a
couple titles.
Whisper
> On 6/10/2011 5:41 PM, TT wrote:
>> 11.6.2011 1:21, Calimero kirjoitti:
>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>> Am I right here?
>>>
>>
>> In that case he wouldn't have won RG.
>
> you do realize this is a 'what if' scenario and thus your answer is
> completely irrelevant?
>
>
No it's not.
Fed wins with his great baseline skills. For him to not factor at FO,
where his skills are amplified, is pretty poor thinking. Now that I've
highlighted it I think this line of discussion will cease. It makes
perfect sense.
Remember we had something similar a few yrs ago to discredit 7543 -
'What if a guy wins 21 AOs & nothing else?'. What kind of abomination
could win AO every yr for 2 decades & flop at every other slam? That
kind of player would win 50 slams easy, & a couple calendars at least.
Ali Asoag
Well, we have Sampras as an excellent example for this kind of
abomination: It could win 14 Slams day in day out but just sucked on
clay. So it is a possible real scenario for Fed to have been the same.
The question of the OP was just to reveal how ridiculous the H2H crap is
and how Sampras just escaped this H2H "issue" being just uncapable to
play on clay. LOL.
Ali Asoag
> On 11/06/2011 9:10 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>> Am I right here?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No you are wrong, unfortunately.
>>
>> You see you can never be right with Fed-haters.
>> If Fed had lost in the early rounds at clay tournie's thus making h2h
>> against Nadal a non-issue, they would have found SOMETHING ELSE to put
>> Federer down for.
>>
>> IOW, it's hopeless to argue with them.
>>
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
> You see it as 'putting Fed down', but it's an honest attempt to assess
> how good Fed is in absolute terms - ie v very good/great players.
Exactly, Fed only lost (but also sometimes won!!!) to the best
claycourter of all time *onl clay* while your "great" boy sucked against
nobodies! On other surfaces Fed is superior winning much more Slams than
anyone. And you are saying it's not "putting Fed down", dumbo?
> It's a
> given he tries 100% v Blake types & thus beats them 99% of the time.
... which even your new hero Nadal could not do.
> Past greats didn't have Fed's obsession to win every meaningless tune-up
> & you saw some upsets.
LOL, stats say something different.
> What we want to know is how good is Fed when another great player steps
> up to take him on.
Sampras didn't even get that chance on clay. That must have been a big
wound for you.
We now know the answer. He puts up a very good fight,
> but is invariably the loser.
On clay, he faced the clay GOAT, so he could be considered the second
best of all time on clay, whereas Sampras and Co. couldn't even make it
to the second round. Now to say Fed sucks and Sampras was great is just
stupid. Go die, Whisper.
steve jaros
> On 11/06/2011 10:31 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>> On 6/10/2011 5:41 PM, TT wrote:
>>> 11.6.2011 1:21, Calimero kirjoitti:
>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>> Am I right here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In that case he wouldn't have won RG.
>>
>> you do realize this is a 'what if' scenario and thus your answer is
>> completely irrelevant?
> No it's not.
> Fed wins with his great baseline skills.
Of course it is. Max's question is purely about how H2H is valued by
dummies around here, has nothing to do with the 'reality' of whether fed
could actually produce those results or not.
It's just "what if a given player had such-such results", how would H2H
be viewed?
Your and TT's effort to answer with "well, if fed lost 1st round on clay
events he never woulda won all those other slams" is just a way of
dodging the question, and you do that because you know the true answer
debunks your emphasis on H2H.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Patrick Kehoe
coulda? woulda?
Wasn't that your manta 5 years ago?
P
Patrick Kehoe
Ali Asoag
> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>> Am I right here?
>>
>>
>
>
> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
> career.
Fed could also have just went as far as the semis of the FO. He would
not have a lop-sided H2H against NAdal then. And his would have still
been able to win everthing else like he did. So now?
> The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game. He
> sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he did
> it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay would
> mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
LOL
> You & other fools are making the mistake of comparing him to Sampras,
> just that he's better. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Right. Comparing Sampras to Fed is an insult for FEd.
> Sampras was the king of real grass & HC, & there is little doubt in my
> mind he'd beat Fed at least 4/5 at Wim/USO.
LMAO. I guess you said "4/5" and not "5/5" because Fed already won the
first match, right? LOLOLOL.
Why don't say Fed lead 1-0? Why always chew this couldawoulda crap??
>
> The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any
> surface where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best
> surface (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player
> when he plays his best.
Yeah, Fed is the second GOAT con clay. That's what it shows.
Ali Asoag
> On 11/06/2011 10:35 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 8:32 pm, "felangey"<o...@cloudnine.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> surface
>>>> where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best surface
>>>> (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player
>>>> when he
>>>> plays his best.<
>>>
>>> span at
>>> all Fed's worse surfaces? Five in a row in two slams....yet you cite the
>>> surface he could only get one win on as his best surface...you are
>>> kidding,
>>> right? And also, Fed beat up on Sampy on a surface that wasn't even his
>>> best?? Eeesh you don't think much of Sampy!
>>
>> Defending Wimbledon champ Sampras was ousted by a claycourter. :)
>
>
> Yes, in 2001 when barry Cowan almost beat him & Sampras couldn't even
> wina tune-up for > 2 years.
But I thought it's because he was never interested in tune-ups? LMAO.
Ali Asoag
> move on to
> next theory.
Theory. Exactly. LOL.
Superdave
Sure and without Rafa Fed would have already won 6FO and 8W and 25 slams and
would be even further ahead of that one trick pony Sampras.
Ali Asoag
> On 11/06/2011 11:43 AM, reilloc wrote:
>> On 6/10/2011 7:42 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 7:49 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>>> Am I right here?
>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in
>>>> his
>>>> He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
>>>> did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
>>>> would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>>>>
>>> the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
>>> Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
>>> up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
>>> relies on scads of losses on clay.
>>
>> Speaking of scads of really early round losses on clay and what happens
>> when a guys has them, does this mean that Sampras didn't really win all
>> those slams? His biggest supporter here just said that wouldn't happen.
>>
>> LNC
>
>
> Links?
>
> I also said Fed & Sampras are different players you senile old cunt.
It's just Fed is a much better player.
Joe Ramirez
disagreement is heartbreaking to others. Actually, no. Anyone's
arguments are welcome if they have any merit at all (although in this
thread, the "arguments" of your team consist of nothing but evasions,
as several of us have pointed out to you). It's your boorishness
rather than your positions that is winning you so many friends.
Ali Asoag
> On 11/06/2011 10:42 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 7:49 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>> Am I right here?
>>>
>>>> Max
>>>
>>> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
>>> career. The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game.
>>> He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
>>> did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
>>> would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>>>
>> What you are doing is called "fighting the hypothetical." The point of
>> the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
>> Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
>> up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
>> relies on scads of losses on clay.
>
>
>
> Why was Rafa able to hold off Fed at FO, but Fed couldn't do likewise v
> Rafa at Wim & AO every time?
Where was Nadal from 2003 - 2005 regarding Wimby? Where was he on AO ans
USO HC from 2004 - 2008/2009? Just because he won one AO and USO he is
even to Fed there? Ridiculous "Fed couldn't do likewise ...". You must
say "Nadal could not do likewise on HC as Fed on clay"!
So here is another feat from you fools: If Rafa had been more successful
on grass and HC, his H2H against Fed would probably be worse. LOL.
> The real issue is Rafa is a better player than Fed in the biggest tennis
> matches. It doesn't matter if Fed won more slams v Blake/Ljubo/Baghditis
> types. You disagree & that's your right, but I can't see the logic
> beating lesser players more often means he's better than rafa in the
> biggest matches.
How do you explain Nadal just sucked against those "Blake/..." types on HC?
The stats just say Fed is superior on all surface, it's just he has to
face the clay GOAT on clay so that he could not win more FOs. At the
same time you can say Nadal just sucked on HC until recently. This shows
you it is possible for a player to be very good on a certain surface but
very poor on others: SAmpras, Nadal ... Only Fed is superb on all
surfaces! GOAT stuff!
Ali Asoag
LOL. If you win most, you are the best. Period.
> Clay is a strong surface for Fed.
Not only that. He is second GOAT there.
> He won a lot of other slams
> because Rafa was missing from the finals. To me that's the only difference.
LOLOLOL. Why was Rafa missing all those finals? Did he skip those
tournaments? How stupid are you really?
felangey
Losing! :)
Ali Asoag
5 of those 7 came on clay. So your question is answered: FEd is not
really better than Rafa on clay. Nobody denies this.
But Fed is much better than Rafa and all the other players because he
won most SLams on all surfaces.
felangey
>Wim/USO<
Is this a factoid....or is this couldashouldawoulda? Enquiring minds wish to
know.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know where Nadal was! Actually, Nadal has only played in 6 Wimblys
where Federer played in 12. Now I'm not saying anything other then a
"woulda, coulda situation" which I stole the phrase from Joe, Anyway,
there is still enough time for Nadal considering the age difference
between him and Feder, that is if Nadal holds up physically.
Shakes
> On 11/06/2011 10:42 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > What you are doing is called "fighting the hypothetical." The point of
> > the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
> > Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
> > up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
> > relies on scads of losses on clay.
>
> There is an absence of many Fed wins in slam finals v Rafa in general.
> Why was Rafa able to hold off Fed at FO, but Fed couldn't do likewise v
> Rafa at Wim & AO every time?
>
Yes, for me, that's the complaint I have against Fed. He was not as
impenetrable on grass/HC (vs. Nadal) as Nadal was on clay, even though
he had the capability game-wise. It had mostly to do with the mental
aspect, IMO. If all Fed's losses to Nadal had come on clay, I wouldn't
have cared as much.
Shakes
> On Jun 11, 1:41 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/06/2011 11:34 AM, Javier Gonz lez wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 8:29 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>
> > >> <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> > >>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> > >>> Am I right here?
>
> > >> not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
> > >> mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
>
> > >> bob
>
> > > If you apply the premise of the original post, h2h at the slams would
> > > be 2-2, with both Nadal wins 5 set affairs. DOMINATION!
>
> > Fed look less hapless. What kind of moron doesn't consider the totality
> > of the evidence to come to a conclusion? By 'totality' I don't mean a
> > handful more slam wins v Baghditis types in slam finals to negate his
> > h2h in slam finals v Rafa. What the hell kind of logic is that?
>
> Nadal repeatedly
> lost on HC. The real totality is to look at their result across the
> board against
> all players. When the tour has literallly 00's of player what sort of
> totallity is
> there to look at 1 h2h ?
>
>
>
> > You're suggesting we don't know Rafa's best is better than Fed's because
> > it happened only once, same as AO. Same in 1962 - Laver beat Emerson
> > know who was better at those slams because they were 1-off on each occasion.
>
> Of course when is 2 Wimbledon better than 6, 1 AO better than 4, 1 USO
> is better than 5 ?
> 2 HC GS final better than 9 ? Even Krajicek can say his best is
> better than Sampras but
> he just did not have the result to back it up. It is pretty
> meaningless if you can only win
> 2 HC GS compare to your rivals 9 even if your best is better than
> his. At the end of their
> career is not whose best is better but whose grand slam result is
> better.
Actually, this post brings a very good point into focus - Nadal's
performance on HC. Even though Nadal started his slam winning career
in 2005, why was it that until 2008 that he did not reach at least the
SF on a HC slam ? Obviously, it's because HC is Nadal's worst
surface, like clay was Fed's worst (relatively). And yet, Nadal
improved on HC, like Fed improved on clay. For me, the difference,
though, is that Nadal improved enough on HC to beat Fed, while Fed
didn't improve enough to beat Nadal on clay.
I don't think it's fair to say that Nadal was peak on HC since 2005.
Patrick Kehoe
I support Federer, but, I've never seen the rationality of trying to
posit Federer over Rafa h2h because the evidence simply isn't there...
thee only aspect of their 'rivalry' would be the fact Fed as so much
stronger on 2 surfaces, for a long time, getting to so many finals
with Rafa falling at earlier hurdles... that's not insignificant
either and does point out that in tournament tennis, you have to beat
the field and Feds clearly did that better in hardcourts and on grass
for a long time... as recently as Novemeber in YEC... a big event...
still Rafa shakes up Roger to be sure :))
P
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
However, do we really know how the final outcome will be when Nadal
plays in 12 Wimbledons like Federer has?
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's fair to say certainly... Fed bunched in a lot of big wins
during his best years... and Rafa did the same to an extent, while
doing so he had the difficult task of netting majors by beating
Federer, which he did! Federer's consistency is reaching legendary
levels as well... and therein we might have an interesting tale when
Feds' career is over... how did the last phase of his career go? Will
Annacone and Luthi be able to get Feds to a level often enough to
continue to tactically chip away a Rafa as Rafa's career phase moves
out of his best years... we saw some of that at the YEC and again at
the French Open, aided by Team Djokovic who have taken the same
template to combat Rafa's style... Rafa now has to fight a war on 2
fronts... with Murray optionally either to make it a 3rd or not this
season... can Murray join the hunt (the hunt that for 6 years was all
about hunting Federer)...
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, certainly 2011 and 2012 will have Federer in with a decent shot
for a win... Fed can be master of his own fate if he can get that
done... win at least one of the next 2... getting to 7 wins at
Wimbledon would put Fed in the clear vs Rafa... I would think...
P
Whisper
>>
>> No it's not.
>>
>> Fed wins with his great baseline skills. For him to not factor at FO,
>> where his skills are amplified, is pretty poor thinking. Now that I've
>> highlighted it I think this line of discussion will cease. It makes
>> perfect sense.
>>
>> Remember we had something similar a few yrs ago to discredit 7543 -
>> 'What if a guy wins 21 AOs & nothing else?'. What kind of abomination
>> could win AO every yr for 2 decades & flop at every other slam? That
>> kind of player would win 50 slams easy, & a couple calendars at least.
>
> Well, we have Sampras as an excellent example for this kind of
> abomination: It could win 14 Slams day in day out but just sucked on
> clay. So it is a possible real scenario for Fed to have been the same.
No, as in those days you couldn't win more than 1 Wimbledon from the
baseline so would have to hone a fast court game, that wouldn't work at FO.
You're looking like a fool trying to paint Fed as someone who had all of
Sampras' talents + great baseliner as a bonus. That's simply not true.
He wins all his slams as a baseliner - couldn't get away with that on
slick grass.
>
> The question of the OP was just to reveal how ridiculous the H2H crap is
> and how Sampras just escaped this H2H "issue" being just uncapable to
> play on clay. LOL.
Even if Sampras made 4 FO finals & lost them all to Guga or Muster, it
would just tell us Guga/Muster were better claycourters. However if
Guga/Muster also beat Sampras in Wimbledon & AO finals (grass & HC as
well), & Sampras only got them twice in slams at Wimbledon when they
were young, we'd have to conclude Guga/Muster were better big match
players, & certainly better than Sampras in absolute terms.
Whisper
> On 6/11/2011 8:13 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 10:31 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> On 6/10/2011 5:41 PM, TT wrote:
>>>> 11.6.2011 1:21, Calimero kirjoitti:
>>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>>> Am I right here?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In that case he wouldn't have won RG.
>>>
>>> you do realize this is a 'what if' scenario and thus your answer is
>>> completely irrelevant?
>
>> No it's not.
>
>> Fed wins with his great baseline skills.
>
> Of course it is. Max's question is purely about how H2H is valued by
> dummies around here, has nothing to do with the 'reality' of whether fed
> could actually produce those results or not.
>
> It's just "what if a given player had such-such results", how would H2H
> be viewed?
>
> Your and TT's effort to answer with "well, if fed lost 1st round on clay
> events he never woulda won all those other slams" is just a way of
> dodging the question, and you do that because you know the true answer
> debunks your emphasis on H2H.
>
>
>
I firmly believe if Fed wasn't good enough to reach FO finals v Rafa
he'd have maybe 5, 6 slams to his name tops. Then we wouldn't be
talking goat/boat & it wouldn't be a big deal.
Whisper
> On 6/10/2011 5:49 PM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>> Am I right here?
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>
>>
>> If Fed did lose like that then he wouldn't have won a single slam in his
>> career.
>
> Fed could also have just went as far as the semis of the FO. He would
> not have a lop-sided H2H against NAdal then. And his would have still
> been able to win everthing else like he did. So now?
If he only got to semis of FO regularly it would mean there are several
players better than Fed from baseline, aside from Rafa. That means his
game would be greatly diminished & far less successful at other slams too.
>
>> The reason he won so much is due to his great baseline game. He
>> sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he did
>> it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay would
>> mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>
> LOL
>
>> You & other fools are making the mistake of comparing him to Sampras,
>> just that he's better. This couldn't be further from the truth.
>
> Right. Comparing Sampras to Fed is an insult for FEd.
>
>> Sampras was the king of real grass & HC, & there is little doubt in my
>> mind he'd beat Fed at least 4/5 at Wim/USO.
>
> LMAO. I guess you said "4/5" and not "5/5" because Fed already won the
> first match, right? LOLOLOL.
Gotta allow for the 1-off accidents. Remember Sampras refused to lose a
2nd time to same guy in slam final.
>
> Why don't say Fed lead 1-0? Why always chew this couldawoulda crap??
Because Sampras lost in every tournament for 2 years. To just single
Fed out & only give him credit for a win over Sampras would be
disrespectful to all the other guys who beat him too, particularly Bastl.
>
>>
>> The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any
>> surface where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best
>> surface (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player
>> when he plays his best.
>
> Yeah, Fed is the second GOAT con clay. That's what it shows.
>
Not really, but you can argue it at least.
Court_1
> On 11/06/2011 10:45 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 7:10 pm, TennisGuy<Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> >>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> >>>> Am I right here?
>
> >>>> Max
>
>
> >> You see you can never be right with Fed-haters.
> >> If Fed had lost in the early rounds at clay tournie's thus making h2h
> >> against Nadal a non-issue, they would have found SOMETHING ELSE to put
> >> Federer down for.
>
> >> IOW, it's hopeless to argue with them.
>
> > has 16 slams and is worth over $200 million. It is a joke that people
> > try to criticize him so much with all he has accomplished.
>
> 100% wrong in my case.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well you may be the only exception. I am starting to think that only
people that are unsuccessful in their own careers are the ones who
really hate Fed for all of the fame and wealth he has accomplished.
How can one explain all of the hate towards Fed otherwise? It makes no
sense.
reilloc
> On 11/06/2011 11:43 AM, reilloc wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 7:49 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2011 8:21 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>>> Am I right here?
>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>> his
>>>> He sure as fuck wasn't winning Wim/USO playing a fast court game - he
>>>> did it via great baseline skills. For him to lose like that on clay
>>>> would mean kaput in slams in general as he wouldn't have those skills.
>>>>
>>> the OP is not to imagine a different but plausible career arc for
>>> Federer; rather, the point is to force you and people like you to face
>>> up to the illogic of the head-to-head argument to the extent that it
>>> relies on scads of losses on clay.
>>
>> when a guys has them, does this mean that Sampras didn't really win all
>> those slams? His biggest supporter here just said that wouldn't happen.
>>
>> LNC
>
>
> Links?
>
No, you didn't and even had you it wouldn't have been necessary due to
the spelling of their names: they're completely different. What you said
was if a guy who's currently got 17 grand slams had performed as badly
on clay as a guy who'll never have more than...what is it? 12? That the
neither one would ever even have won one.
Yes, as...interesting...as it is, that's what you said. Occupying the
same delusion space in your head is the notion that somehow your
200-slam prediction for Roddick really did come true.
Frankly, I'll take senile, if that's what I've got, over your psychosis.
Tell the group why it is that you have your lips so firmly clamped
around the weenies of the American men? It still won't convince us to
let you in the club, you know. You'll always be the wannabe seppo with
the Kramer Autograph and the kewl MacEnroe shoes that made them snicker
back in '85.
LNC
LNC
drew
. Then we wouldn't be
> talking goat/boat & it wouldn't be a big deal.
You introduced us to the BOAT concept shortly after Federer won #15 at
Wimbledon.
At least you had a formula for your GOAT concept. It was based on
garbage weightings of the four majors. As a formula
for determining the GOAT it was a house of cards built on a foundation
of loaded dice and stuck together with dogshit
and duct tape but it was yours.
This BOAT thing cannot even be discussed because you have made it 100%
subjective. When pseudo-science fails,
Whisper re-invents himself.
Our resident Scientologist is now looking to the music of the spheres
for his answers. The BOAT floats in something
like ether. Only it is invisible, odourless gas. To know the BOAT
you must capture a popcorn fart, bottle it and convince
the masses of fuckwits that it is valuable and it is the truth.
Ali Asoag
> On 12/06/2011 1:33 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Fed wins with his great baseline skills. For him to not factor at FO,
>>> where his skills are amplified, is pretty poor thinking. Now that I've
>>> highlighted it I think this line of discussion will cease. It makes
>>> perfect sense.
>>>
>>> Remember we had something similar a few yrs ago to discredit 7543 -
>>> 'What if a guy wins 21 AOs & nothing else?'. What kind of abomination
>>> could win AO every yr for 2 decades & flop at every other slam? That
>>> kind of player would win 50 slams easy, & a couple calendars at least.
>>
>> Well, we have Sampras as an excellent example for this kind of
>> abomination: It could win 14 Slams day in day out but just sucked on
>> clay. So it is a possible real scenario for Fed to have been the same.
>
>
> No, as in those days you couldn't win more than 1 Wimbledon from the
> baseline so would have to hone a fast court game, that wouldn't work at FO.
>
> You're looking like a fool trying to paint Fed as someone who had all of
> Sampras' talents + great baseliner as a bonus. That's simply not true.
> He wins all his slams as a baseliner - couldn't get away with that on
> slick grass.
It doesn't matter which style you play to win. The only thing it matters
is you win.
I can imagine someday you will say it must be one-handed backhand (or
so) to be GOAT. LMAO.
>>
>> The question of the OP was just to reveal how ridiculous the H2H crap is
>> and how Sampras just escaped this H2H "issue" being just uncapable to
>> play on clay. LOL.
>
>
> Even if Sampras made 4 FO finals & lost them all to Guga or Muster, it
> would just tell us Guga/Muster were better claycourters.
Exactly, Rafa winning against Fed at FO just says he is a better
claycourter than Fed.
> However if
> Guga/Muster also beat Sampras in Wimbledon & AO finals (grass & HC as
> well), & Sampras only got them twice in slams at Wimbledon when they
> were young, we'd have to conclude Guga/Muster were better big match
> players, & certainly better than Sampras in absolute terms.
The only subtle difference you don't seem to see here is: It was just
that Guga/Muster were not as good as Rafa doing well on grass/HC as well
so that Sampras had to play and lose against other players at Wimby
(Kraijek) and AO (Agassi).
Further, your double standard is laughable: Kraijek-Sampras 1-0 is
one-off comparison. But Rafa-Fed (at Wimby as well as at AO) is the same
(even Fed lead 2-1 in Wimby) must mean Rafa better than Fed. Stupid,
just stupid.
Ali Asoag
Then STFU until Rafa gets 6 or 7 Wimbies.
Ali Asoag
But 1-0 for Rafa at Wimby (where he even lost twice to Fed) and AO means
to you he is better than Fed?
Nobody is dumber than you.
>> Why don't say Fed lead 1-0? Why always chew this couldawoulda crap??
>
>
> Because Sampras lost in every tournament for 2 years. To just single Fed
> out & only give him credit for a win over Sampras would be disrespectful
> to all the other guys who beat him too, particularly Bastl.
Someone like you talking respect? How about showing some for Fed?
>>> The fact Fed loses all the time to Rafa on clay (in reality on any
>>> surface where the stakes are highest) doesn't mean clay wasn't his best
>>> surface (imo it probably is), it's just that he loses to a better player
>>> when he plays his best.
>>
>> Yeah, Fed is the second GOAT con clay. That's what it shows.
>
> Not really, but you can argue it at least.
Of course you can argue this. Rafa can be considered much better than
Borg on clay, Fed is very close to Rafa on clay, even better in 2009. So
Fed could be considered second GOAT on clay. GOAT overall is he anyway.
Ali Asoag
> On Jun 11, 1:05 am, John Liang<jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 1:41 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/06/2011 11:34 AM, Javier Gonz lez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 10, 8:29 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>>
>>>>> <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>>>>>> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>>>>>> Am I right here?
>>
>>>>> not really as the matches fed would've won were against kid rafa
>>>>> mostly. since 2008, rafa dominates him on off-clay slams.
>>
>>>>> bob
>>
>>>> If you apply the premise of the original post, h2h at the slams would
>>>> be 2-2, with both Nadal wins 5 set affairs. DOMINATION!
>>
>>> Fed look less hapless. What kind of moron doesn't consider the totality
>>> of the evidence to come to a conclusion? By 'totality' I don't mean a
>>> handful more slam wins v Baghditis types in slam finals to negate his
>>> h2h in slam finals v Rafa. What the hell kind of logic is that?
>>
>> You seemd to forge it is exactly the Baghditis type of player that
>> Nadal repeatedly
>> lost on HC. The real totality is to look at their result across the
>> board against
>> all players. When the tour has literallly 00's of player what sort of
>> totallity is
>> there to look at 1 h2h ?
>>
>>
>>
>>> You're suggesting we don't know Rafa's best is better than Fed's because
>>> it happened only once, same as AO. Same in 1962 - Laver beat Emerson
>>> know who was better at those slams because they were 1-off on each occasion.
>>
>> Of course when is 2 Wimbledon better than 6, 1 AO better than 4, 1 USO
>> is better than 5 ?
>> 2 HC GS final better than 9 ? Even Krajicek can say his best is
>> better than Sampras but
>> he just did not have the result to back it up. It is pretty
>> meaningless if you can only win
>> 2 HC GS compare to your rivals 9 even if your best is better than
>> his. At the end of their
>> career is not whose best is better but whose grand slam result is
>> better.
>
> Actually, this post brings a very good point into focus - Nadal's
> performance on HC. Even though Nadal started his slam winning career
> in 2005, why was it that until 2008 that he did not reach at least the
> SF on a HC slam ? Obviously, it's because HC is Nadal's worst
> surface, like clay was Fed's worst (relatively). And yet, Nadal
> improved on HC, like Fed improved on clay. For me, the difference,
> though, is that Nadal improved enough on HC to beat Fed, while Fed
> didn't improve enough to beat Nadal on clay.
>
> I don't think it's fair to say that Nadal was peak on HC since 2005.
It isn't either to say Fed was still peak after 2008.
Whisper
> On 6/11/2011 2:31 PM, Whisper wrote:ridiculous the H2H crap is
>>> and how Sampras just escaped this H2H "issue" being just uncapable to
>>> play on clay. LOL.
>>
>>
>> Even if Sampras made 4 FO finals & lost them all to Guga or Muster, it
>> would just tell us Guga/Muster were better claycourters.
>
> Exactly, Rafa winning against Fed at FO just says he is a better
> claycourter than Fed.
>
>> However if
>> Guga/Muster also beat Sampras in Wimbledon & AO finals (grass & HC as
>> well), & Sampras only got them twice in slams at Wimbledon when they
>> were young, we'd have to conclude Guga/Muster were better big match
>> players, & certainly better than Sampras in absolute terms.
>
> The only subtle difference you don't seem to see here is: It was just
> that Guga/Muster were not as good as Rafa doing well on grass/HC as well
> so that Sampras had to play and lose against other players at Wimby
> (Kraijek) and AO (Agassi).
You could argue that, but it doesn't take much to prove it's just a
weaker field, & homogeneous surfaces that allow 2 guys in same era to
win career slam, 6 times at a slam, rank 1 & 2 for 8 years, & possibly
be the 2 top guys leading all time slam count - & all from the baseline
in a field that includes other baseliners, thus no versatility. There's
no way a guy like Rafa would make a Wimbledon final on slick grass. If
you think he would you don't understand tennis.
>
> Further, your double standard is laughable: Kraijek-Sampras 1-0 is
> one-off comparison. But Rafa-Fed (at Wimby as well as at AO) is the same
> (even Fed lead 2-1 in Wimby) must mean Rafa better than Fed. Stupid,
> just stupid.
Krajicek never even made a slam final v Sampras so their h2h is
essentially null.
Fed v Rafa is not a 1-off type analysis. They played in 8 slam finals
thus far on all 3 surfaces.
Sure you can break anything down to 1-off type analysis - eg 1 off slam
final in June when it was cloudy/cold etc. None of it washes. History
will record they played in 8 slam finals on all 3 surfaces. Nothing you
can do to change it.
Whisper
1 time FO champ has little chance of being ranked so highly on clay.
Guga, Lendl & Wilander all have 3 FOs - doubt Fed will go down as
greater claycourter than them.
John Liang
Denial. Krajicek beat Sampras and went on to win Wimbledon.
> Fed v Rafa is not a 1-off type analysis.
Let us know how many times Nadal beat Federer on HC slam ? 1-off
analysis is exactly the type of analysis you had with that 1-off HC
slam win Nadal had over Federer to claim his superiority on HC and
grass.
>They played in 8 slam finals
> thus far on all 3 surfaces.
They play 4 times on clay. How many time did Nadal play Federer on
non-clay court surface ?
>
> Sure you can break anything down to 1-off type analysis - eg 1 off slam
> final in June when it was cloudy/cold etc. None of it washes. History
> will record they played in 8 slam finals on all 3 surfaces. Nothing you
> can do to change it.
History will also record they play 1-off slam final in AO and 3 times
in Wimbledon and was enough for some idiot to claim Nadal's
superiority on HC on 1 match.
Whisper
> On Jun 12, 2:37 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2011 2:16 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/11/2011 2:31 PM, Whisper wrote:ridiculous the H2H crap is
>>>>> and how Sampras just escaped this H2H "issue" being just uncapable to
>>>>> play on clay. LOL.
>>
>>>> would just tell us Guga/Muster were better claycourters.
>>
>>> Exactly, Rafa winning against Fed at FO just says he is a better
>>> claycourter than Fed.
>>
>>>> However if
>>>> Guga/Muster also beat Sampras in Wimbledon& AO finals (grass& HC as
>>>> were young, we'd have to conclude Guga/Muster were better big match
>>
>>> The only subtle difference you don't seem to see here is: It was just
>>> that Guga/Muster were not as good as Rafa doing well on grass/HC as well
>>> so that Sampras had to play and lose against other players at Wimby
>>> (Kraijek) and AO (Agassi).
>>
>> You could argue that, but it doesn't take much to prove it's just a
>> win career slam, 6 times at a slam, rank 1& 2 for 8 years,& possibly
>> be the 2 top guys leading all time slam count -& all from the baseline
Did you read the Sun Herald today? They had a full page article & were
declaring Rafa goat over Federer. You seem to be raging at the whole
world calling everyone idiot.
Need to take a long hard look at yourself before it's too late.
John Liang
No, I didn't and I don't waste money and resources buying newspaper as
I can read them online. And just
when did Sun Herald's article represent the opinion of the whole
world ?
>
> Need to take a long hard look at yourself before it's too late.- Hide quoted text -
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I think that's the job of the media to create controversy and
sell papers because Nadal needs 6 more slam win results. Plus, don't
you remember we talked about discounting Nadals' wins on clay?
felangey
> declaring Rafa goat over Federer<
You mean you managed to get a few lines published in the letters column
again? :)
>Need to take a long hard look at yourself before it's too late<
What does that mean? When will it be too late? Too late for what? What are
you twittering on about now?
steve jaros
ok, what if he'd lost in the semis of those slams that he lost to nadal?
that sound better?
fundamental flaw in h2h logic is that it penalizes a player for having
better results, i.e., nonsensical.
> Then we wouldn't be talking
> goat/boat
no one but a few dummies are talking 'boat and goat', and as mac/borg
shows that is a pure CEIBS discussion with no lasting effects anyway.
--
Particles come in, and particles go out: that's the long view of history.
- Leonard Susskind
Joe Ramirez
As we've discussed, the black mark on Borg's record certainly isn't
his head-to-head against McEnroe. The two are them are simply
remembered for having a great "rivalry" -- one No. 1 battling the next
No. 1. Anyone who's asked about Borg's resume today will say something
like this: "Won an incredible five straight Wimbledons, completely
dominated the French Open with six titles -- but just couldn't win the
U.S. Open."
Federer's losing head-to-head against Nadal is going to end up as
interesting, juicy footnote to Fed's resume. Sampras' failure to win
the French is a permanent, top-line item on his.
John Liang
Obviously Whisper believe the opinion of a Sydney tabloid newspaper
writer is world's view on this matter. But just when did an opinion
published by a tabloid represent a world wide view on any matter ? I
also wonder what he means by taking a long hard look.
Quincy
> ... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
> GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
> Am I right here?
>
To be honest, you are an idiot and you love big noses, BUT:
You are right here.
Joe Ramirez
> Did you read the Sun Herald today? They had a full page article & were
> declaring Rafa goat over Federer.
So Sampras is no better than No. 3? Smart of you to abandon a sinking
ship.
steve jaros
Yes, only black mark on Borg is failing to win USO. He didn't win AO
either but back then nobody cared about that.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Sakari Lund
>... he would have a positive H2H against Nadal and be considered the
>GOAT even by Rafa nutters.
>Am I right here?
Yes.
bob
if there is anything that fed/nadal is not, it is a 1-off.
bob
bob
the pt is that first mcenroe, then carillo, mainstream tennis
analysts, now an aussie newspaper, last yr the commentators on what is
now mainstream versus channel, etc. - pt is isn't not just 3 guys in
RST seeing this thing unfold.
bob
bob
wrote:
absolutely correct analysis.
what ifs are fine, but irrelevant, and if we're going to do a 'what
if' at least make it LOGICAL. i swear for the life of me the lack of
lack logic in RST. fed wins/loses every match playing the same game,
it's good for clay, probably as good or better as any other surface.
just like borg.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Jun 11, 4:35 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>. Then we wouldn't be
>> talking goat/boat & it wouldn't be a big deal.
>
>You introduced us to the BOAT concept shortly after Federer won #15 at
>Wimbledon.
>
>At least you had a formula for your GOAT concept. It was based on
>garbage weightings of the four majors. As a formula
>for determining the GOAT it was a house of cards built on a foundation
>of loaded dice and stuck together with dogshit
>and duct tape but it was yours.
>
>This BOAT thing cannot even be discussed because you have made it 100%
>subjective. When pseudo-science fails,
>Whisper re-invents himself.
GOAT is also subjective. it's all subjective. try to insert some logic
into teh argument, some rational thought.
>Our resident Scientologist is now looking to the music of the spheres
>for his answers. The BOAT floats in something
>like ether. Only it is invisible, odourless gas. To know the BOAT
>you must capture a popcorn fart, bottle it and convince
>the masses of fuckwits that it is valuable and it is the truth.
BOOE is easier to judge than BOAt. :-)
bob
bob
his retiring due to what many believe was inability to beat mcenroe
sure as heck is a big mark. maybe the reason a lot of people threw him
out of GOAT - a quitter.
> The two are them are simply
>remembered for having a great "rivalry" -- one No. 1 battling the next
>No. 1. Anyone who's asked about Borg's resume today will say something
>like this: "Won an incredible five straight Wimbledons, completely
>dominated the French Open with six titles -- but just couldn't win the
>U.S. Open."
>Federer's losing head-to-head against Nadal is going to end up as
>interesting, juicy footnote to Fed's resume. Sampras' failure to win
>the French is a permanent, top-line item on his.
so u hope. i don't think so. this goes deeper than mac/borg because
the H2H in slams is about 3:1 in count. it's ingrained in us. God
forbid if nadal beats him a couple more. it'll get ugly.
bob
bob
wrote:
failure to win USO plus quitting in his prime due to what many believe
was inability to stomach losing to mac are actually the 2 black marks.
those 2 stand way above all else.
bob
bob
wrote:
> >On 6/10/2011 10:18 PM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> Past greats didn't have Fed's obsession to win every meaningless tune-up
>> & you saw some upsets.
>
>Really?
>
>slams/tuneups ratio among career titles won:
>
>fed: 23.8%
>
>sampras: 21.8%
>
>nadal: 21.7%
>
>borg: 17.4%
>
>edberg: 14.3%
>
>becker: 12.2%
>
>mac: 9.1%
>
>lendl: 8.3%
>
>connors: 7.3%
>
>So slams actually make up a HIGHER percentage of Federer's overall
>titles than for any of these other top champs. So yeah, he obviously put
>more effort in to tuneups than other champs, LOL.
bad use of statistics steve, not a relevant argument. and i believe u
know this already.
bob