Heaven a little closer tonight....

[felangey]

....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?

An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
interview. Wow.

[RzR]

it wouldnt have mattered even if it was on clay

[SliceAndDice]

Now wait for the injury excuses to start flowing from the Nadal camp/
Rafa foot soldiers :)

[felangey]

Meant to say....some very interesting tactics from Federer tonight. There
were definitely some plays in there borrowed from the Djokovic playbook vs.
Nadal. Especially variety of ball placement....Nadal didn't know where to
expect it. Often Nadal would be trying to punish to the backhand side....and
Fed punished the forehand.

Serve, reduced power....wide kicking...opening the whole court more
reliably. No hurray to finish any point. Feet/foot on the ground backhand
crosscourts (ball just not Kicking up for Nadal)....backhand - depth power
and spin from everywhere. Gush gush...I could go on! :)

[Wile E.]

You poor Fedfannies are delusional if you think for a moment this expo
proves anything, well, only that Nadal wasn't there.

Haha
"astonishing display"
etc, etc.

Sure, only if the player is lower tier and not in form Nadal
your Fed looks great!

[arnab.z@gmail]

Yeah, and most importantly, he wasn't missing while experimenting all
that stuff. I think Federer is at peace with himself and plays without
tension against Nadal these days. And this means his tennis flows
without many nervous errors. I noticed it at this year's FO too.

[RzR]

On 22.11.2011. 22:29, felangey wrote:
>There
> were definitely some plays in there borrowed from the Djokovic playbook vs.
> Nadal.

dont ruin it, man..

[Shakes]

Fed always beat Nadal decisively at the YEC, even way back in 2006,
2007, and also last yr. Fact is he is a much better indoor player than
Nadal is. Always has been. I would say this victory does not show us
anything new.

[RzR]

one can only hope that they can play 10 more times before nadal retires :D

[TennisGuy]

On Nov 22, 4:36 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>... Fact is he is a much better indoor player than

> Nadal is. Always has been.

Have they ever played any indoor clay tournaments?
Are there any? If not, it's high time they started. :)

[AliAsoag]

BH cross court, yes. I have been saying this again and again. Don't
fear Nadal's FH.

Unbelievable how Fed was dominating. The commentator said Nadal was
never dominated like this before (match just took an hour and 1
minute), and it was like they did a drill. LOL.

[Booger]

When did the 5th biggest tournament on the tour become an expo? I'm
pretty sure winning it still gets you 1300 or 1500 ranking points.

[Court_1]

On Nov 22, 4:24 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
> Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>

Nadal is definitely not 100%. To me he seems like he is on a serious
decline. If he does not change certain things in his game, he is
toast.

[arnab.z@gmail]

It's ok. I made a somewhat acute observation and you are out of focus.

[Court_1]

Nadal is on the fast boat to decline. If he continues to play like he
has been for the past 6 months Djokovic will devour him if Nadal even
makes it that far.

[Court_1]

Federer seems definitely at peace with himself and as a consequence
whatever happens happens for him. If he is able to win more, that is
great, if he is unable to, oh well. He is in a good position.

[Shakes]

My response was to this part of your statement: I think Federer is at

peace with himself and plays without tension against Nadal these days.

I said it always appeared that way when watching Fed dismantle Nadal at
the YEC in the past.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Yes, the manner in which it happened was quite unusual given Rafa was
on the other side of the net. Federer just didn't give Rafa any
breathing space there. And he wasn't missing anything. It would be
sweet if Federer can produce this kind of tennis for one or two
matches in the coming slams.

[arnab.z@gmail]

I see your point. I don't agree. I think Federer has shown less nerves
this year when playing against Nadal than any other previous years.
Even when he was playing on clay at the FO. Sure, the end results have
not been different, but that was not my point. It's the manner in
which Federer has been playing lately against Nadal that seems
different to me.

And I thi

[arnab.z@gmail]

Accidently hit the send button there. This is supposed to be the first
draft. I thought this got lost in the cybervoid.

To finish off that last sentence: I think this newfound peace that
Federer has now against Nadal has some kind of connection with the
tennis he produced today. If you believe Federer's tennis today was no
different from his tennis in the past YECs against Nadal, then you're
kidding yourself.

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab....@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you believe Federer's tennis today was no
> different from his tennis in the past YECs against Nadal, then you're
> kidding yourself.

If Sampras didn't do it, it couldn't be all that great!

[Sakari Lund]

Interesting reading all the praise here. I watched the first set at
work from the corner of the eye (really only saw some points here and
there). When Fed broke in the 1st game of the 2nd set, I left and
thought I watched the end at home. But it was already over. Really the
feeling I got from the 1st set was that it was more Nadal playing
badly than Fed playing especially well. But from all the comments it
sounds like it was something exceptional. Have to watch it from
Youtube or somewhere at some point.

Everyone knows this, but this just shows how little H2H is worth. If
they had played as much in these kind of conditions as they have
played in Monte Carlo and Rome and FO the numbers would be very
different.

[AliAsoag]

Don't you know he is a troll? Don't feed a troll.

[Shakes]

I suggest that you see Fed's performance in the 1st and 3rd set of last
yrs YEC F (Fed won those sets 6-3,6-1). His serve to Nadal's BH in the
deuce court was mentioned as a new tactic. As was his BH.

Here is a thread about that match.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/e52269f85633e72f/ca054f564ec0db7f?q=

Here's

one about his BH last yr:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/2d644f06a6abe8e4/6b688595f0724b4?q=

You

can also watch his SF and F of the YEC in 2007. He hit some BH stunners
in those two matches.

[Shakes]

That is really lame. Why bring Sampras into a thread when I didn't
mention him at all ?

[Booger]

> anything new.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Last year was a much closer 3 set match in the finals. You can't say
this match doesn't show us anything... it at least shows that Nadal
probably peaked last year.

[Shakes]

It was closer only because Fed took a walk in the 2nd set. Fed won the
1st and 3rd sets 6-3,6-1. He won the 3rd set going away. He only lost 1
game more in those two sets than he lost today. Not to mention that
that was the F. He also beat Nadal 6-4,6-1 in the YEC SF in 2007.

They were all impressive displays. Personally, Fed appeared at ease
against Nadal in all those matches, like he did today.

[TennisGuy]

On Nov 22, 5:35 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:

> Everyone knows this, but this just shows how little H2H is worth. If
> they had played as much in these kind of conditions as they have
> played in Monte Carlo and Rome and FO the numbers would be very
> different.

As strange as it may seem, given their ages, I think Nadal's decline
now will be at a faster pace than Federer's.

[Iceberg]

On Nov 22, 9:28 pm, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22.11.2011. 22:24, felangey wrote:
>
> > ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
> > Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>
> > An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
> > interview. Wow.
>

> it wouldnt have mattered even if it was on clay

LOL

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If Sampras didn't do it, it couldn't be all that great!
>
> That is really lame. Why bring Sampras into a thread when I didn't
> mention him at all ?

Why do you have a problem with my statement? I never brought you into it at
all.

[arnab.z@gmail]

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/e52...

>
> Here's
>
> one about his BH last yr:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_frm/thread/2d6...

>
> You
>
> can also watch his SF and F of the YEC in 2007. He hit some BH stunners
> in those two matches.

I see no point further discussing this.

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It was closer only because Fed took a walk in the 2nd set.

By definition a three-set match is closer than a straight-sets affair... not
sure what your point is here. Whatever the case... while Federer was sharp
last year too, he was not as sharp as today.

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, TennisGuy <Jeffer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> As strange as it may seem, given their ages, I think Nadal's decline
> now will be at a faster pace than Federer's.

Perhaps, but Nadal could have a major resurgence too. That being said, if
Federer had the desire he could probably remain competitive on the tour
longer than Nadal. At some point though, he's going to have to put his
family first...

[Shakes]

Well, Nadal was sharper too last yr, when compared to this yr. That
makes a difference too, and that way Fed's victory last yr is probably
more impressive.

How about the YEC SF in 2007 ? Fed won that 6-4,6-1. Surely that's a
pretty decisive victory ? He was probably as sharp then.

My point was that, when playing indoors, Fed always appeared
superior/more poised etc. against Nadal. Nothing new there.

[Shakes]

Yeah, right. You know you were targetting me. Neither Arnab nor you
care much for Sampras today, so it must have been intended for me. Feel
free to laugh away. I won't stop you.

[jdeluise]

It was just a joke, Shakes. You have spent so much time here defending
Whisper's (and even TT's at times) "jokes" and "exaggerations" at Fed's
expense I thought you had a better sense of humor than this.

[Shakes]

As you wish. At least if you would've elaborated on what you think he
did differently this yr, it would've made a better point than just
saying it was different.

[Court_1]

On Nov 22, 7:23 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Exactly. That is why I can't see Federer staying on tour for longer
than a year and a half or two years at the very outset. What is he
going to do when his kids reach school age? I can't see Federer
travelling the world without his family and I can't see that he would
not want to have his kids in one place at one school with some
security. If he decides to travel with them with private tutors I
think that is selfish but I really can't see him doing that. That is
why I stick with my prediction that he will be done by the end of 2013
the latest.

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, Nadal was sharper too last yr, when compared to this yr. That
> makes a difference too, and that way Fed's victory last yr is probably
> more impressive.

Well, I remember a lot of excuse making last year, along the lines that
Nadal was too tired and that's why it appeared that he didn't run anything
down in the third set.

>
> How about the YEC SF in 2007 ? Fed won that 6-4,6-1. Surely that's a
> pretty decisive victory ? He was probably as sharp then.
>
> My point was that, when playing indoors, Fed always appeared
> superior/more poised etc. against Nadal. Nothing new there.

True, Nadal has never beaten Fed indoors whereas Fed has beaten him on clay
a couple of times and has had some close loses on the surface as well.

[Shakes]

On 2011-11-22 17:02:36 -0800, jdeluise said:

> On 22-Nov-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, Nadal was sharper too last yr, when compared to this yr. That
>> makes a difference too, and that way Fed's victory last yr is probably
>> more impressive.
>
> Well, I remember a lot of excuse making last year, along the lines that
> Nadal was too tired and that's why it appeared that he didn't run anything
> down in the third set.

Nadal played better last yr than he did this yr. He won all his league
matches, played very well to beat Murray in the SF. He played better
against Fed too in the F. Fed just played too good.

>
>>
>> How about the YEC SF in 2007 ? Fed won that 6-4,6-1. Surely that's a
>> pretty decisive victory ? He was probably as sharp then.
>>
>> My point was that, when playing indoors, Fed always appeared
>> superior/more poised etc. against Nadal. Nothing new there.
>
> True, Nadal has never beaten Fed indoors whereas Fed has beaten him on clay
> a couple of times and has had some close loses on the surface as well.

I have been burnt in the past when using Fed's YEC matches as a general
barometer against Nadal.

[felangey]

>If he decides to travel with them with private tutors I think that is
>selfish

I am sure they will bear that in mind while deciding on a working
arrangement. ;)

[Court_1]

Oh hush you! :)

Let's see if I am correct in my prediction shall we?

[Ulysses]

And let's throw something else in the mix. Nadal is an ANCIENT 25
years old. He's mentally and physically compromised, if not burnt
toast already.

Consider this: if Federer continues to play like he has the last 3
weeks, their head to head literally can be reduced to something like
19-16 or Fed may even it up or surpass him. Rafatards will laugh. He's
a basketcase at this point, totally gone. That's what 'roids and a
brutal style of play will get you. While the Maestro continues on and
on. HA!

[only human]

Court_1 girl you can't be a real Federer fan. you just can't

[Superdave]

Because whisper was about to and he wanted to have the upper hand?

[Superdave]

yup. Rafa is a washed up has been now.

[Superdave]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:03:41 -0800 (PST), Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 22, 4:30 pm, "Wile E." <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Nov 22, 2:24 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
>> > Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>>
>> > An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
>> > interview. Wow.
>>

>> You poor Fedfannies are delusional if you think for a moment this expo
>> proves anything, well, only that Nadal wasn't there.
>>
>> Haha
>>  "astonishing display"
>>  etc, etc.
>>
>> Sure, only if the player is lower tier and not in form Nadal
>> your Fed looks great!
>

>Nadal is on the fast boat to decline. If he continues to play like he
>has been for the past 6 months Djokovic will devour him if Nadal even
>makes it that far.


it's a done deal and i said a while ago that nadal would never beat djock again.
djock has his number. Fed now has it too. Rafa is a washed up has been. He will
retire before Fed does. i said that before too.

[Vlado]

On Nov 22, 4:24 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
> Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>
> An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
> interview. Wow.

fed fans are something else. His every decent win is his best win ever
and then
when he loses come excuses

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, Vlado <vlad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> fed fans are something else. His every decent win is his best win ever
> and then
> when he loses come excuses

Umm, look at your posting history first, "Vlado". How many times have you
excused Djok's losses to Fed for the most ridiculous of reasons?

[Court_1]

On Nov 22, 8:49 pm, surfer...@webtv.net (only human) wrote:
> Court_1 girl you can't be a real Federer fan. you just can't

Oh yes only human I am a BIG Federer fan. You need to learn that being
a fan for some does not mean hanging on his every word or thinking he
is some kind of perfect God. That is just silly to me.

[Superdave]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:49:55 -0500, surf...@webtv.net (only human) wrote:

>
>Court_1 girl you can't be a real Federer fan. you just can't

well she is so .... get used to it!

[Court_1]

On Nov 22, 9:08 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:49:55 -0500, surfer...@webtv.net (only human) wrote:
>
> >Court_1 girl you can't be a real Federer fan. you just can't
>
> well she is so .... get used to it!

I guess only human missed my numerous posts praising the natural
talent of Federer over Nadal. ;)

[TennisGuy]

only human thinks that Federer is only immortal, that he will live
and play forever, and anyone who tries to predict his retirement
before he actually retires is committing the greatest sin on earth and
can't possibly be a legitimate fan of his. :)

[only human]

Court_1 you seem to be all over the map regarding Federer. if your a fan
its hard to believe your a solid fan. but hey i don't know you so i
can't really know. i can only judge by what you post.

[RahimAsif]

On Nov 22, 3:24 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis.

Off the top of my head I can recall a couple - Fed against Djoker last
year's semi, and Nadal against Fed at FO 2008 final...

[Court_1]

Ha, ha. The fans who worship a player like said player is a God drive
me nuts. These fans don't know the real person and yet if you go on
some of these fan forums some of these fans think they know when
Federer or Nadal or whomever go to the washroom and they are convinced
they "know" the real deal when it comes to a player. To me this
Stepford mentality is beyond laughable and extremely bizarre. If all
of these fans I just described were adolescents I would understand but
many of these fans are adults. All I can think is that these adult
fans are not savvy about the outside world of business, advertising,
etc. etc. I am talking about the over the top fans only here, not your
average run of the mill fan.

[Court_1]

But that is the problem. I have posted nothing that says I am not a
Federer fan yet you seem to believe that a true Federer fan has to
behave like some kind of ignorant adolescent when it comes to a
player. Your definition of a fan is too restrictive IMO.

[Whisper]

On 23/11/2011 8:24 AM, felangey wrote:
> ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
> Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>
> An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
> interview. Wow.
>
>

You keep forgetting being classy in victory means very little. It's
when you lose that real class is tested. Federer fails spectacularly in
that dept. He's one of the worst losers I've ever seen amongst the
great champions. He's about the same category as Serena Williams.

That's why I object to every one of his good sportsmanship awards -
makes a mockery of the traditional definition of being a good sportsman.
He should get a sub-category award of being a 'great sport only when
he wins'.

Rafa showed how to be classy in defeat today. My hat's off to him.

[Whisper]

On 23/11/2011 8:37 AM, RzR wrote:
> On 22.11.2011. 22:30, Wile E. wrote:

>> On Nov 22, 2:24 pm, "felangey"<th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>>> ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I
>>> am sure
>>> Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>>>
>>> An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
>>> interview. Wow.
>>

>> You poor Fedfannies are delusional if you think for a moment this expo
>> proves anything, well, only that Nadal wasn't there.
>>
>> Haha
>> "astonishing display"
>> etc, etc.
>>
>> Sure, only if the player is lower tier and not in form Nadal
>> your Fed looks great!
>

> one can only hope that they can play 10 more times before nadal retires :D


If it's in slams it will only get worse for Roger. When was the last
time Fed beat Rafa in a slam?

[Whisper]

On 23/11/2011 8:58 AM, arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Nov 23, 3:39 am, AliAsoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:

>> On Nov 22, 2:29 pm, "felangey"<th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Meant to say....some very interesting tactics from Federer tonight. There
>>> were definitely some plays in there borrowed from the Djokovic playbook vs.
>>> Nadal. Especially variety of ball placement....Nadal didn't know where to
>>> expect it. Often Nadal would be trying to punish to the backhand side....and
>>> Fed punished the forehand.
>>
>>> Serve, reduced power....wide kicking...opening the whole court more
>>> reliably. No hurray to finish any point. Feet/foot on the ground backhand
>>> crosscourts (ball just not Kicking up for Nadal)....backhand - depth power
>>> and spin from everywhere. Gush gush...I could go on! :)
>>

>> BH cross court, yes. I have been saying this again and again. Don't
>> fear Nadal's FH.
>>
>> Unbelievable how Fed was dominating. The commentator said Nadal was
>> never dominated like this before (match just took an hour and 1
>> minute), and it was like they did a drill. LOL.
>
> Yes, the manner in which it happened was quite unusual given Rafa was
> on the other side of the net. Federer just didn't give Rafa any
> breathing space there. And he wasn't missing anything. It would be
> sweet if Federer can produce this kind of tennis for one or two
> matches in the coming slams.


Fed always plays this way in slams. Rafa just steps it up to a level
where Fed can't catch him.

[Superdave]

so is your gaping asshole

[Gracchus]

On Nov 23, 4:32 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> Fed always plays this way in slams.  Rafa just steps it up to a level
> where Fed can't catch him.

Make that convenient simplification past tense. Regardless of what Fed
does in 2012, Rafa is done.

[SliceAndDice]

How many times in the last few years has Fed played Rafa outside of
Roland Garros?

[SliceAndDice]

Here is an example of Federer "failing spectacularly":
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2008-06-08/h.php

[SliceAndDice]

lol.

[SliceAndDice]

On Nov 23, 1:28 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

Here is another example of Federer "failing spectacularly"

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2008-06-08/h.php

[Whisper]

Opinion noted.

[Whisper]

Evidence suggests that's irrelevent. Rafa has beaten Fed in grass,
Hardcourt & clay slams. Fed only got him on grass and only before Rafa
peaked, & even then needed a boatload of tie-breaks to squeak home.

[SliceAndDice]

Rafa's TWO victories against Fed on grass and hard were squeakers that
could have gone either way, and occurred when Fed started going into
decline and Rafa hit his absolute peak (the Wimbledon loss occurred
after a morale sapping RG loss, so you can imagine Fed's mental
state). So no, my point is absolutely relevant. Rafa's record against
Fed is heavily heavily clay inflated.

[SliceAndDice]

Rafa's TWO victories against Fed on grass and hard were squeakers that
could have gone either way, and occurred when Fed started going into

decline and Rafa hit his absolute peak (the Wimbledon loss occured

after a morale sapping RG loss, so you can imagine Fed's mental

state). So no, they are absolutely relevant. Rafa's record against Fed

[arnab.z@gmail]

Well stated.

But this has been pointed out to Whimpy a long time ago, over and over
again. Why bother rehashing the same old tired exchange?

[Whisper]

>>> Hardcourt& clay slams. Fed only got him on grass and only before Rafa
>>> peaked,& even then needed a boatload of tie-breaks to squeak home.

>>
>> Rafa's TWO victories against Fed on grass and hard were squeakers that
>> could have gone either way, and occurred when Fed started going into
>> decline and Rafa hit his absolute peak (the Wimbledon loss occurred
>> after a morale sapping RG loss, so you can imagine Fed's mental
>> state). So no, my point is absolutely relevant. Rafa's record against
>> Fed is heavily heavily clay inflated.
>
> Well stated.
>
> But this has been pointed out to Whimpy a long time ago, over and over
> again. Why bother rehashing the same old tired exchange?

It simply doesn't wash. The lasting image in every imparial tennis fan
is Rafa beating Fed in the biggest matches, irrespective of surface.

Sampras allowed Agassi only 1 wim in a slam final, & that was a tight AO
final. This leaves no room for anyone to say Agassi was a better player.

If Fed truly is/was the best player ever, he should have made his slam
final h2h v his biggest rival conclusive. He lost most of them & has to
wear the consequences. His rabid fans making excuses for every single
loss is laughable & nobody buys it.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 23, 5:54 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> If Fed truly is/was the best player ever, he should have made his slam
> final h2h v his biggest rival conclusive.  He lost most of them & has to
> wear the consequences.  His rabid fans making excuses for every single
> loss is laughable & nobody buys it.

Your really should preface each post with a disclaimer restating your
agenda and lifelong mission to advance it. Even in a discussion like
this, you have to bring Sampras into it, even though his record
against Agassi couldn't be less analogous. Throwing around "everybody"
and "nobody" liberally doesn't evoke a phantom army of sycophants who
agree with you. In most cases, it simply means "Whisper." For God's
sake, abandon your agenda as a lost cause and just start over with a
clean slate.

[jdeluise]

On 22-Nov-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> That's why I object to every one of his good sportsmanship awards -
> makes a mockery of the traditional definition of being a good sportsman.
> He should get a sub-category award of being a 'great sport only when
> he wins'.
>
> Rafa showed how to be classy in defeat today. My hat's off to him.

Let me get this straight... you base your concept of sportsmanship on
post-match sound bites and trophy speeches? Are you not aware of what
happens on the court?? Of course you're not.... you said it yourself!

[TT]

23.11.2011 11:28, SliceAndDice kirjoitti:
> Rafa's record against Fed
> is heavily heavily clay inflated.

This is incorrect, now.

Actually at the moment their h2h is greatly WTF inflated - Most of Fed's
wins come from a single tournament.

[jdeluise]

On 23-Nov-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> He lost most of them & has to
> wear the consequences. His rabid fans making excuses for every single
> loss is laughable & nobody buys it.

Nobody makes excuses for his favorite player like you... it's almost as if
you suffer from an incredible inferiority complex... strange.

[Superdave]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:45:11 -0800 (PST), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Truth Verified.

[Superdave]

What really matters you mean is that Fed massacred Sampras not only on GRASS but
at the World Championships at Wimbledon.

Still sicks in your craw like superglue and pretending that a BUMROOTER like
Rafa surpasses Federer only makes your glorious Pete look even WORSE!

You really are a numbnuts.

[Superdave]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:28:16 -0800 (PST), SliceAndDice <vish...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually Rafa CHEATED a lot in BOTH and in one he even won by accident in the
DARK.

[Superdave]

No. The lasting image is Fed cleaning Sampras clock at Wimbledon.


Most people all over the world will remember that beating as the defining match
in tennis history when Roger Federer threw out the all time Wimbledon champion
and became the greatest tennis player in history.

Federer 1 Sampras 0 will stand the test of time for eternity.

And, there is absolutely nothing you can fucking do about changing it !

ALL your words are meaningless.

[Iceberg]

lol

[TT]

>> Hardcourt& clay slams. Fed only got him on grass and only before Rafa
>> peaked,& even then needed a boatload of tie-breaks to squeak home.

>>
>
>
> What really matters you mean is that Fed massacred Sampras not only on GRASS but
> at the World Championships at Wimbledon.
>

Nadal d. Federer at World Championships at Abu Dhabi.

[Superdave]

That and $5 at Starbucks will get yu a cup of coffee.

[TT]

Throw in a defeat of Rafa at WTF RR and 10 bucks for a donut.

[Iceberg]

oh yes Fed's 'in-decline' despite yesterday's performance and that he
played his best clay court tennis ever this year at the FO.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 23, 7:17 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> oh yes Fed's 'in-decline' despite yesterday's performance and that he
> played his best clay court tennis ever this year at the FO.

Do you not understand yet that in pro tennis, being "in decline"
doesn't mean a player can't still play great matches? It's all about
consistency and resilience, the reason why even the greatest players
win fewer slams after 30.

[Superdave]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:09:02 -0800 (PST), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

But the greatest players STILL DO win slams after 30 and since Roger Federer is
the greatest player of them all I also expect him to win the most slams after 30
ever.

Nadal sure won't !!!! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[TT]

23.11.2011 14:18, Superdave kirjoitti:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:09:02 -0800 (PST), Gracchus<cernu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 7:17 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> oh yes Fed's 'in-decline' despite yesterday's performance and that he
>>> played his best clay court tennis ever this year at the FO.
>>
>> Do you not understand yet that in pro tennis, being "in decline"
>> doesn't mean a player can't still play great matches? It's all about
>> consistency and resilience, the reason why even the greatest players
>> win fewer slams after 30.
>
> But the greatest players STILL DO win slams after 30 and since Roger Federer is
> the greatest player of them all I also expect him to win the most slams after 30
> ever.
>

But if he isn't greatest...how about 0 slams in teens and thirties?

[Superdave]

Oh but he IS the greatest with Rafa, Uncle Toni, their parents, and grandmothers
as well as John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, and 99.9% of all tennis pros and 99% of
all tennis experts including chucky cheese in agreement.

[Vlado]

On Nov 22, 7:59 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 7:23 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22-Nov-2011, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >   As strange as it may seem, given their ages, I think Nadal's decline
> > > now will be at a faster pace than Federer's.
>
> > Perhaps, but Nadal could have a major resurgence too.  That being said, if
> > Federer had the desire he could probably remain competitive on the tour
> > longer than Nadal.
>
> At some point though, he's going to have to put his family first...
>
> Exactly. That is why I can't see Federer staying on tour for longer
> than a year and a half or two years at the very outset. What is he
> going to do when his kids reach school age? I can't see Federer
> travelling the world without his family and I can't see that he would
> not want to have his kids in one place at one school with some
> security. If he decides to travel with them with private tutors I
> think that is selfish but I really can't see him doing that. That is
> why I stick with my prediction that he will be done by the end of 2013
> the latest.

His kids are 2 years old or so , kids don't reach concious stage
until
they are 6 years old so they can travel with him for 4 more years at
least.
I see him playing until 35 at least baring unforeseen circumstances.

[Court_1]

On Nov 23, 3:28 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> On 23/11/2011 8:24 AM, felangey wrote:
>
> > ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I am sure
> > Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>
> > An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
> > interview. Wow.
>

> You keep forgetting being classy in victory means very little.  It's
> when you lose that real class is tested.  Federer fails spectacularly in
> that dept.  He's one of the worst losers I've ever seen amongst the
> great champions.  He's about the same category as Serena Williams.
>

> That's why I object to every one of his good sportsmanship awards -
> makes a mockery of the traditional definition of being a good sportsman.
>   He should get a sub-category award of being a 'great sport only when
> he wins'.
>
> Rafa showed how to be classy in defeat today.  My hat's off to him.

Right, he is always classy in defeat. He has the medical encyclopedia
of diseases in his back pocket whenever he loses. After every loss a
page of that book is earmarked which tells him which disease to use
for that loss.
I agree he does not diss his opponents when he loses but always using
some condition as an excuse is tiresome.

[Court_1]

On Nov 23, 3:31 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/2011 8:37 AM, RzR wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22.11.2011. 22:30, Wile E. wrote:

> >> On Nov 22, 2:24 pm, "felangey"<th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> >>> ....I am not sure I can recall a better two set display of tennis. I
> >>> am sure
> >>> Nadal wasn't 100%....but would it have mattered?
>
> >>> An astonishing display from start to finish....followed up with a classy
> >>> interview. Wow.
>

> >> You poor Fedfannies are delusional if you think for a moment this expo
> >> proves anything, well, only that Nadal wasn't there.
>
> >> Haha
> >> "astonishing display"
> >> etc, etc.
>
> >> Sure, only if the player is lower tier and not in form Nadal
> >> your Fed looks great!
>
> > one can only hope that they can play 10 more times before nadal retires :D
>
> If it's in slams it will only get worse for Roger.  When was the last

> time Fed beat Rafa in a slam?-

But Roger has defeated Nadal is slams before. Most of Roger's defeats
came on clay where Rafa was king. Their off clay results are not
dominated by Rafa at all.

Also, I think that what went on before in slams is history. Rafa to me
looks like he is a shadow of the player he was before. Now I could be
wrong and he could come back in 2012 refreshed but I don't think so
this time. I think all of those years on tour with his grinding style
have finally taken its toll. I think the best part of Rafa is behind
us. What has he changed in his time off in the past 2 months that is
going to make him defeat Djokovic as long as Djokovic is healthy?

[Court_1]

> peaked, & even then needed a boatload of tie-breaks to squeak home.-

It is not irrelevant. Take away the clay wins and Rafa does not
dominate Roger. That IS the point. Rafa is a very very gifted clay
player who no doubt worked hard to try and win off clay and he did
succeed in doing that, but he is still essentially known as the best
clay player and always will be known for that.

[Court_1]

Yes it simply does wash. Rafa owns Roger only on clay. I don't
understand why people try and deny this fact. The record speaks for
itself.

[Court_1]

> > Hardcourt & clay slams.  Fed only got him on grass and only before Rafa
> > peaked, & even then needed a boatload of tie-breaks to squeak home.

>
> Rafa's TWO victories against Fed on grass and hard were squeakers that
> could have gone either way, and occurred when Fed started going into
> decline and Rafa hit his absolute peak

THIS.

[TennisGuy]

On Nov 23, 9:44 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>... He has the medical encyclopedia

> of diseases in his back pocket whenever he loses. After every loss a
> page of that book is earmarked which tells him which disease to use
> for that loss.

LOL! :)

[Court_1]

On Nov 23, 7:18 am, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:09:02 -0800 (PST), Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com>

LOL.

[Court_1]

> I see him playing until 35 at least baring unforeseen circumstances.-

Where I come from kids start school at age 4 or tops age 5.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 23, 10:44 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Right, he is always classy in defeat. He has the medical encyclopedia
> of diseases in his back pocket whenever he loses. After every loss a
> page of that book is earmarked which tells him which disease to use
> for that loss.
> I agree he does not diss his opponents when he loses but always using
> some condition as an excuse is tiresome.

Yeah, saying things like "I didn't even know if I'd be able to play
yesterday, but I was ok for the match" is only slightly better than
saying your knees were sore or you couldn't serve without pain. No one
is forcing Rafa to give his whole medical history before and after
every match. He can say he was alright or simply give no comment.

[Court_1]

No he does NOT understand that. That much is very clear. What 30 year
old tennis player is still in his prime. To even suggest it is insane.