The second greatest clay courter since Borg !!!! Guess who ?
Superdave
Roger Federer.
That's right.
Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
own right.
It already is but it's perception is lost because of Rafa's even greater
accomplishments.
Without Rafa it would now be Fed playing to tie Borgs 6 FO titles
with the bonus that he has already passed Borg 6>5 in W's.
Imagine the stats?
22 slams, 6 FO, 6W, 5 USO, 5 AO, 5 CGS and all the rest.
It is well almost unimaginable.
Calimero
What makes you think Federer would have won all those FO titles
without Nadal?
Max
Superdave
er ... because he made 5 finals and only ever lost to Nadal?
TT
That's circular.
Could have easily lost all finals to Djokovic. And why should you count
titles without one's rival...
Whisper
>
> Roger Federer.
>
> That's right.
>
> Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
> own right.
>
Yes, but it's v the current field. Remember even an old busted Guga
thrashed peak Federer at FO. Fed was peak in 2004 because he won 3
slams that year & a shitload of tune-ups. That tells us Fed's absolute
level is nowhere near as good as his record.
Whisper
> 4.6.2011 14:23, Superdave kirjoitti:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Calimero<calim...@gmx.de>
>>>>
>>>> It is well almost unimaginable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What makes you think Federer would have won all those FO titles
>>> without Nadal?
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>
>> er ... because he made 5 finals and only ever lost to Nadal?
>
> That's circular.
>
> Could have easily lost all finals to Djokovic. And why should you count
> titles without one's rival...
Haze wants to start giving credit for coulda/woulda, but only to Roger
it seems....?
Boy, talk about extreme fanfuckery.
bob
tend to agree that fed would be 3-5 time FO champ minus nadal. tend to
agree that fed along with borg, nadal and maybe 2-3 others are 5 best
clay courters of past 30yrs.
of course, minus nadal, can you spell '7yr clown era' instead of only
3-4 yr???? wow.
bob
Superdave
unfortunately for Sampras it's records that count.
John Liang
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:23:05 +0800, Superdave
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >>On 4 Jun., 10:47, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Roger Federer.
>
> >>> That's right.
>
> >>> Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
> >>> own right.
>
> >>> It already is but it's perception is lost because of Rafa's even greater
> >>> accomplishments.
>
> >>> Without Rafa it would now be Fed playing to tie Borgs 6 FO titles
> >>> with the bonus that he has already passed Borg 6>5 in W's.
>
> >>> Imagine the stats?
>
> >>> 22 slams, 6 FO, 6W, 5 USO, 5 AO, 5 CGS and all the rest.
>
> >>> It is well almost unimaginable.
>
> >>What makes you think Federer would have won all those FO titles
> >>without Nadal?
>
> >>Max
>
> >er ... because he made 5 finals and only ever lost to Nadal?
>
> tend to agree that fed would be 3-5 time FO champ minus nadal. tend to
> agree that fed along with borg, nadal and maybe 2-3 others are 5 best
> clay courters of past 30yrs.
>
> of course, minus nadal, can you spell '7yr clown era' instead of only
> 3-4 yr???? wow.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is clown era only because someone like Federer is in the game and
getting to 5
slam finals in all 4 grand slam events. If Roddick was doing the same
there would
never be any claim of clown era.
Superdave
without Fed or Nadal or even both the vacuum would have been filled by
pioline, haas and krajeik types as in the 90's.
John Liang
Federer's peak is between 2004 to 2007 he still made a bunch of FO
finals.
A teenager in Hewitt beat Sampras in USO 2001 and a Sampras' era
number
1 like Kafelnikov only losing 4 games in a grand slam told us the true
level
of competition in Sampras' era when an improving Hewitt in hs best
form could
only get 6 games in USO final against Federer. That tells us Sampras'
Superdave
i see you know whisper like i know whisper oh oh oh what a jerk.
Whisper
Correct. We owe Guga for proving this to us so blatantly in 2004.
Whisper
And without Sampras/Agassi the last 8 yr's slams woulda been won by
Fed/Rafa.
Oh wait!
Whisper
> On Jun 4, 10:07 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/06/2011 6:47 PM, Superdave wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Roger Federer.
>>
>>> That's right.
>>
>>> Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
>>> own right.
>>
>> Yes, but it's v the current field. Remember even an old busted Guga
>> thrashed peak Federer at FO. Fed was peak in 2004 because he won 3
>> level is nowhere near as good as his record.
>
> Federer's peak is between 2004 to 2007 he still made a bunch of FO
> finals.
> A teenager in Hewitt beat Sampras in USO 2001 and a Sampras' era
> number
> 1 like Kafelnikov only losing 4 games in a grand slam told us the true
> level
> of competition in Sampras' era when an improving Hewitt in hs best
> form could
> only get 6 games in USO final against Federer. That tells us Sampras'
> absolute
> level is nowhere near as good as his record.
>
Tells us nothing of the sort. Hewitt only did it once & v 2001 version
of Sampras who was very tired in the final. This is not a measure of
Sampras' absolute form. 2004 yr is a year Fed was at peak, winning 3
slams & nearly all tune-ups, yet still got spanked in straights at FO v
past-it clay player from 90's. This can be used to measure Fed's
absolute form, for obvious reasons.
Joe Ramirez
Why do you make ridiculous arguments that depend on cherry-picking
arguably embarrassing slam losses from Fed's record? Everyone knows
that Sampras had far more such losses than Fed (especially at the FO,
for god's sake). Are you begging for people to humiliate Pete by
pointing to any one of those bad losses and concluding that it
measures his "absolute form"? Why must you call down disgrace upon the
House of Sampras?
bob
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
we already discussed this silly john..
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 4/06/2011 6:47 PM, Superdave wrote:
the reality is that minus the fact 1 lone guy is a clay god, the clay
court specialization that was so prevalent in the 90s disappeared
around 2001 or so.we had a lot of very very good clay courters in 90s,
who were good solely on clay and happy that way. would be much tougher
to reach FO finals in 90s with 5 tough guys to beat instead of 1.
like u said, guga proved much of that.
bob
bob
nobody is claiming sampras to be 5 time FO champ minus 1 guy. what
whisper stands true - the fact is that in the 90s we had unbelievalbe
generation of clay specialists who were very tough on,and only tried
on, clay. had about 5 guys at very high level. nobody at rafa/borg
level, but then again, those 5 would've been #2-6 in rafa's reign
(along with fed).
i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
natural on clay, probably his best surface (2) minus nadal he wins
about 3-5 FOs (3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
but...if he played in 90s, he'd not be a given to win 3-5 FOS, maybe
1-3. tougher depth of clay field.
bob
John Liang
Nobody can claim Sampras to be 5 time FO champ because he lacks the
ability and more importantly result to back that up.
>what
> whisper stands true - the fact is that in the 90s we had unbelievalbe
> generation of clay specialists who were very tough on,and only tried
> on, clay. had about 5 guys at very high level.
90s had Bruguera, courier and kuerten as mulitple FO champs. Apart
from
Kuerten there were no clay court player that is really at the same
level as
Nadal and Federer.
>nobody at rafa/borg
> level, but then again, those 5 would've been #2-6 in rafa's reign
> (along with fed).
>
> i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
> natural on clay, probably his best surface
Federer is the most complete all surface player in the open era. Clay
was
certainly not his best surface but his ability to do well on this
surface is the
major difference between him and Sampras.
>(2) minus nadal he wins
> about 3-5 FOs (3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
>
> but...if he played in 90s, he'd not be a given to win 3-5 FOS, maybe
> 1-3. tougher depth of clay field.
No really. Unless you believe Sampras losing to Medvdev or other clay
court
journey men type is an indication of tougher depth of field.
John Liang
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 22:07:30 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 4/06/2011 6:47 PM, Superdave wrote:
>
> >> Roger Federer.
>
> >> That's right.
>
> >> Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
> >> own right.
>
> >Yes, but it's v the current field. Remember even an old busted Guga
> >thrashed peak Federer at FO. Fed was peak in 2004 because he won 3
> >slams that year & a shitload of tune-ups. That tells us Fed's absolute
> >level is nowhere near as good as his record.
>
> the reality is that minus the fact 1 lone guy is a clay god, the clay
> court specialization that was so prevalent in the 90s disappeared
> around 2001 or so.we had a lot of very very good clay courters in 90s,
> who were good solely on clay and happy that way. would be much tougher
> to reach FO finals in 90s with 5 tough guys to beat instead of 1.
clay court specialization disappear in 2001 ? How successful were the
Amalgro,
David Ferrer type on non clay court surfaces ?
>
> like u said, guga proved much of that.
Cherry picking. a 20 years old Federer beat Kafelnikov one of those
tough top 5
clay court players of 90s in 3 sets losing only 8 games in their davis
cup match in
Moscow proove otherwise.
>
> bob
John Liang
I can see silly boob has no answer.
Joe Ramirez
>
> i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
> natural on clay, probably his best surface
Already debunked. There are no results that indicate clay is Fed's
best surface. You and Whisper simply delight in echoing each other,
and the more delusional the claim, the better.
(2) minus nadal he wins about 3-5 FOs
Sure, maybe, but it's still coulda-woulda.
(3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
Fair enough, but on both grass and hard courts he's no worse than in
the top 3, even allowing for the difficulty of interera comparisons.
Javier González
If you award Federer every single final where he lost to Nadal, he
still has better results on HC and Grass. Even if you only give only
the clay ones and claim he still loses AO2009 and W2008 to someone
else, he still has better results on HC and Grass. Very good on clay?
You betcha. His best surface? No, neither actual or "reasonable"
couldawoulda support that.
bob
i agree, and that's what i'm saying. although there were a handful
just below that level and would be tougher to beat in earlier rounds
than those of today and would get the odd upset.
>>nobody at rafa/borg
>> level, but then again, those 5 would've been #2-6 in rafa's reign
>> (along with fed).
>>
>> i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
>> natural on clay, probably his best surface
>
>Federer is the most complete all surface player in the open era. Clay
>was certainly not his best surface but his ability to do well on this
>surface is the major difference between him and Sampras.
clay is probably his best surface, just that we have a clay god.
>>(2) minus nadal he wins
>> about 3-5 FOs (3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
>>
>> but...if he played in 90s, he'd not be a given to win 3-5 FOS, maybe
>> 1-3. tougher depth of clay field.
>
>No really. Unless you believe Sampras losing to Medvdev or other clay
>court journey men type is an indication of tougher depth of field.
this has nothing to do with sampras, everything to do with deeper clay
field.
bob
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 10:16 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
>> natural on clay, probably his best surface
>
>Already debunked. There are no results that indicate clay is Fed's
>best surface.
minus nadal, there are tons of results. fed can't help it nadal is a
clay freak of nature.
> You and Whisper simply delight in echoing each other,
>and the more delusional the claim, the better.
not at all, just happen to agree with most of his views, or he agrees
with mine.
> (2) minus nadal he wins about 3-5 FOs
>
>Sure, maybe, but it's still coulda-woulda.
not really, he easily made 4 finals, a SF, and now another, no? this
isn't really 'coulda woulda'.
>(3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
>
>Fair enough, but on both grass and hard courts he's no worse than in
>the top 3, even allowing for the difficulty of interera comparisons.
he's top 5 in clay, top 3 in HC, top 5 in grass. yet his best surface
is clay IMO. his results would back it up if not for freak rafa.
bob
bob
why wouldn't i?
> he still has better results on HC and Grass.
his grass results are because of an absolutey DISMAL grass field of
2000s. maybe his HC results are a nitch better because they play 2 HC
slams/yr. c'mon javier you're better than that.
> Even if you only give only
>the clay ones and claim he still loses AO2009 and W2008 to someone
>else, he still has better results on HC and Grass. Very good on clay?
>You betcha. His best surface? No, neither actual or "reasonable"
>couldawoulda support that.
his game is suited to clay. his style is suited to clay. his results
minus freak rafa show as good on clay as anywhere. there are 2 HC
slams/yr, no wonder he has more of them. sheesh.
bob
Javier González
6 slams and 1 final.
> maybe his HC results are a nitch better because they play 2 HC
> slams/yr. c'mon javier you're better than that.
> > Even if you only give only
> >the clay ones and claim he still loses AO2009 and W2008 to someone
> >else, he still has better results on HC and Grass. Very good on clay?
> >You betcha. His best surface? No, neither actual or "reasonable"
> >couldawoulda support that.
>
> his game is suited to clay. his style is suited to clay. his results
> minus freak rafa show as good on clay as anywhere. there are 2 HC
> slams/yr, no wonder he has more of them. sheesh.
It's not "more", it's "twice as much". Let's say there's no Nadal and
Federer wins whatever final he lost to Nadal against whoever reaches
it in Nadal's place.
7Ws, 5 USOs + 1 USO final, 5 AOs, 4 FOs. Still more HC Ms titles than
clay titles. FO the slam with lesser results.
Give him FO2005 too, even though it was in the semis. Still just tied
with the AO results and a tad behind USO results. And off the slams,
the edge still goes to the HC events. At most you can argue that he's
pretty much at ease on all surfaces as they happened in the 2000s
(which is pretty much why he's achieved GOATness - always in the
conversation for every major tournament, every year), but there's no
evidence for "clay his *best* surface" except for subjective say-so.
Joe Ramirez
> his results
> minus freak rafa show as good on clay as anywhere.
False. Why do you dislike facts so intensely? Had a bad experience
with them as a kid?
Fed has made fewer semifinals or better at the FO (even counting 2011)
than at any of the other three slams. These results have nothing to do
with Nadal because Fed does not play Nadal before the semifinals.
Through 2010, Fed's career winning percentage at the FO is lower than
at any of the other slams even when all matches against Nadal are
excluded from the calculation. His career winning percentage on clay
is lower than on grass and hard court even when all matches against
Nadal are excluded.
Please, stop with the "clay is his best surface" canard. Find another
stinky fish to fry. Be a multitroller!
*skriptis
"Superdave" <the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v8rju6pf8ul7f9iiv...@4ax.com...
>
> Roger Federer.
>
> That's right.
>
> Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
> own right.
>
> accomplishments.
>
> Without Rafa it would now be Fed playing to tie Borgs 6 FO titles
> with the bonus that he has already passed Borg 6>5 in W's.
>
> Imagine the stats?
>
> 22 slams, 6 FO, 6W, 5 USO, 5 AO, 5 CGS and all the rest.
>
> It is well almost unimaginable.
And people don't understand why you hate Nadal. :)
bob
no - i'd also give him that french where he lost SF to rafa. 5 FOs.
>Give him FO2005 too, even though it was in the semis. Still just tied
>with the AO results and a tad behind USO results. And off the slams,
>the edge still goes to the HC events. At most you can argue that he's
>pretty much at ease on all surfaces as they happened in the 2000s
>(which is pretty much why he's achieved GOATness - always in the
>conversation for every major tournament, every year), but there's no
>evidence for "clay his *best* surface" except for subjective say-so.
clay is as good as surface for him as any other. losing to nadal on
clay is understandable, he's unreal on clay; losing to nadal in
wimbledon finals is unforgiveable.
bob
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 1:54 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> his results
>> minus freak rafa show as good on clay as anywhere.
>
>False. Why do you dislike facts so intensely? Had a bad experience
>with them as a kid?
lol. i simply understand what they mean, you don't seem to.
>Fed has made fewer semifinals or better at the FO (even counting 2011)
>than at any of the other three slams. These results have nothing to do
>with Nadal because Fed does not play Nadal before the semifinals.
fewer by how many, 1? he made nearly ever FO final or SF or how many
yrs for chrissakes? the fact he won more wimbledons VS a zero of a
grass field says nothing of if fed is better on it, just that his
opposition is less on it.
>Through 2010, Fed's career winning percentage at the FO is lower than
>at any of the other slams even when all matches against Nadal are
>excluded from the calculation. His career winning percentage on clay
>is lower than on grass and hard court even when all matches against
>Nadal are excluded.
by what, 1/10's of a %? says nothing. i'd like to see fed's slam
results as of round lost and opponent since 04. i know rafa beat him
every FO but once since then, and fed won that one. winning wimbledons
VS pathetic grass field doesn't make u a 'grass courter', nor did it
make borg. nadal beats fed at wimbledon for chrissakes.
>Please, stop with the "clay is his best surface" canard. Find another
>stinky fish to fry. Be a multitroller!
fine. fed is pretty equal on all surfaces. his game is very well
suited to clay. his style is well suited to clay. nuff said. you can't
refute it.
bob
Javier González
> fine. fed is pretty equal on all surfaces. his game is very well
> suited to clay. his style is well suited to clay. nuff said. you can't
> refute it.
Refute it? Who, pray, is trying to refute that Federer is great on
clay?
Superdave
wrote:
>On Jun 4, 8:42 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
whisper
Patrick Kehoe
> On 4/06/2011 9:49 PM, TT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 4.6.2011 14:23, Superdave kirjoitti:
> >> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Calimero<calimero...@gmx.de>
>
> >>>> It is well almost unimaginable.
>
> >>> without Nadal?
>
> >>> Max
>
> >> er ... because he made 5 finals and only ever lost to Nadal?
>
>
> > Could have easily lost all finals to Djokovic. And why should you count
> > titles without one's rival...
>
> Haze wants to start giving credit for coulda/woulda, but only to Roger
> it seems....?
>
> Boy, talk about extreme fanfuckery.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I'd say this: who gives a shit what Federer WOULD have won...
He's won 16 majors... SD is hyperventilating again for nothing...
P
John Liang
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Javier González
>
>
>
>
>
Nadal is a two time Wimbledon champion and also r/p twice in that
events.
If losing to Nadal is unforgivable how about Sampras losing to
Krajicek or
Ivanisevic who were all one slam wonders.
>
> bob- Hide quoted text -
John Liang
Rubbish. unless you believe Galo Blanco type of yesterday are tougher
to
beat than today's Galo type.
>
> >>nobody at rafa/borg
> >> level, but then again, those 5 would've been #2-6 in rafa's reign
> >> (along with fed).
>
> >> i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
> >> natural on clay, probably his best surface
>
> >Federer is the most complete all surface player in the open era. Clay
> >was certainly not his best surface but his ability to do well on this
> >surface is the major difference between him and Sampras.
>
> clay is probably his best surface, just that we have a clay god.
Clay is not his best surface. Certainly not with his type of result on
HC and GC.
>
> >>(2) minus nadal he wins
> >> about 3-5 FOs (3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
>
> >> but...if he played in 90s, he'd not be a given to win 3-5 FOS, maybe
> >> 1-3. tougher depth of clay field.
>
> >No really. Unless you believe Sampras losing to Medvdev or other clay
> >court journey men type is an indication of tougher depth of field.
>
> this has nothing to do with sampras, everything to do with deeper clay
> field.
Nothing to do with the field been deeper but Sampras lack of ability
in adapting his
game to clay.
John Liang
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
Let us know who the top 3 on HC and for the record who are your top 5
on grass.
His result of winning almost times as many matches on HC and grass
confirm otherwise.
>
> bob
John Liang
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
> >On Jun 4, 1:54 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> his results
> >> minus freak rafa show as good on clay as anywhere.
>
> >False. Why do you dislike facts so intensely? Had a bad experience
> >with them as a kid?
>
> lol. i simply understand what they mean, you don't seem to.
>
> >Fed has made fewer semifinals or better at the FO (even counting 2011)
> >than at any of the other three slams. These results have nothing to do
> >with Nadal because Fed does not play Nadal before the semifinals.
>
> fewer by how many, 1? he made nearly ever FO final or SF or how many
> yrs for chrissakes? the fact he won more wimbledons VS a zero of a
> grass field says nothing of if fed is better on it, just that his
> opposition is less on it.
Excuse me, bob didn't you just contradict yourself here and you were
claiming
Federer was playing a weak clay court field thus making a lot of
finals. how did
that proove he was better on clay than grass court? Now he won more
wimbledon
vs a zero of grass field and next you will say the same that he won
USO and AO vs
a zero of hard court field. The conclusion you are simply drawing
here is Federer
is winning 16 grand slam with a zero of a field on grass, clay and hc.
>
> >Through 2010, Fed's career winning percentage at the FO is lower than
> >at any of the other slams even when all matches against Nadal are
> >excluded from the calculation. His career winning percentage on clay
> >is lower than on grass and hard court even when all matches against
> >Nadal are excluded.
>
> by what, 1/10's of a %? says nothing. i'd like to see fed's slam
> results as of round lost and opponent since 04. i know rafa beat him
> every FO but once since then, and fed won that one. winning wimbledons
> VS pathetic grass field doesn't make u a 'grass courter', nor did it
> make borg. nadal beats fed at wimbledon for chrissakes.
So Sampras winning against pathetic field 7 times at Wimbledon make
him a clay
courter. Well done, Silly bob.
>
> >Please, stop with the "clay is his best surface" canard. Find another
> >stinky fish to fry. Be a multitroller!
>
> fine. fed is pretty equal on all surfaces. his game is very well
> suited to clay. his style is well suited to clay. nuff said. you can't
> refute it.
Yes, he has no weakness on any surface thus he is superior player than
Sampras.
>
> bob
Whisper
> On Jun 4, 10:16 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 06:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>> whisper stands true - the fact is that in the 90s we had unbelievalbe
>> generation of clay specialists who were very tough on,and only tried
>> on, clay. had about 5 guys at very high level. nobody at rafa/borg
>> level, but then again, those 5 would've been #2-6 in rafa's reign
>> (along with fed).
>>
>> i stand by a few things: (1) fed's game and results tell me he's a
>> natural on clay, probably his best surface
>
> If you award Federer every single final where he lost to Nadal, he
> still has better results on HC and Grass. Even if you only give only
> the clay ones and claim he still loses AO2009 and W2008 to someone
> else, he still has better results on HC and Grass. Very good on clay?
> You betcha. His best surface? No, neither actual or "reasonable"
> couldawoulda support that.
I'd also give Fed the 2005 FO where Rafa beat him in semis. Who else
was going to beat Fed that yr? Guga was retired.
That would mean Fed wins 5 FOs in a row, same as Wim & USO, & now he's
in the final again going for no.6 to match Borg.
bob is right - clay is Fed's best surface. The only reason Fed won more
Wim, USO & AO titles is Rafa failed to advance to finals to play him.
Whisper
> On Jun 4, 1:54 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 09:10:43 -0700 (PDT), Javier Gonz lez
>
> Federer wins whatever final he lost to Nadal against whoever reaches
> it in Nadal's place.
>
> 7Ws, 5 USOs + 1 USO final, 5 AOs, 4 FOs. Still more HC Ms titles than
> clay titles. FO the slam with lesser results.
>
> Give him FO2005 too, even though it was in the semis. Still just tied
> with the AO results and a tad behind USO results.
Incorrect. If you give him 2005 FO as well (duh, why wouldn't you?),
he'd have won 5 FOs in a row - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009 - equals
his best effort at Wim & USO of 5 in a row. He's now in the final again
in 2011, be going for no.6. That's better than his 4 AO wins.
> And off the slams,
> the edge still goes to the HC events. At most you can argue that he's
> pretty much at ease on all surfaces as they happened in the 2000s
> (which is pretty much why he's achieved GOATness - always in the
> conversation for every major tournament, every year), but there's no
> evidence for "clay his *best* surface" except for subjective say-so.
He's a great baseliner & his game is best suited to clay. That's the
only surface he'd beat Sampras on in the 90's. At Wim/USO Sampras beats
him at least 4 out of 5.
We know why baseliners do well at Wimbledon in this era, so no need to
rehash.
Whisper
It's unforgiveable for 'best ever' to lose to Nadal in Wim & AO finals
at his peak (we'll let the 4 FO finals slide) - unless of course he
isn't the 'best ever'.
So I forgive him, because he's clearly not.
Whisper
Nonsense. I've always said Fed is best ever v clowns on all surfaces.
Whisper
>> clay is as good as surface for him as any other. losing to nadal on
>> clay is understandable, he's unreal on clay; losing to nadal in
>> wimbledon finals is unforgiveable.
>
> Nadal is a two time Wimbledon champion and also r/p twice in that
> events.
> If losing to Nadal is unforgivable how about Sampras losing to
> Krajicek or
> Ivanisevic who were all one slam wonders.
>
Krajicek & Goran were grasscourt specialists - true monsters on grass.
Wait - so is Rafa right?
Whisper
> On Jun 5, 3:49 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 08:47:07 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>
>>
>>>> about 3-5 FOs (3) he's one of top 5-7 clay courters of past 30 yrs.
>>
>>>> but...if he played in 90s, he'd not be a given to win 3-5 FOS, maybe
>>>> 1-3. tougher depth of clay field.
>>
>>> No really. Unless you believe Sampras losing to Medvdev or other clay
>>> court journey men type is an indication of tougher depth of field.
>>
>> this has nothing to do with sampras, everything to do with deeper clay
>> field.
>
> Nothing to do with the field been deeper but Sampras lack of ability
> in adapting his
> game to clay.
>
er, when has Fed ever 'adapted' his game for the different surfaces? Or
Rafa, Djoker or Murray?
Links?
Whisper
Sampras never lost more than 1 slam final to any rival. Fed is about to
lose his 6th to the same guy on all 3 surfaces. Nobody was considered a
better player than Sampras during his whole career.
How many out there think Rafa is better than Fed h2h in slams?
No point bringing Krajicek's 1-off win v Sampras in a slam q/f. If Rafa
only ever beat Fed in 1 slam q/f he'd be equal of Krajicek 'nemesis'.
Superdave
Yeah but Sampras played in a real clown era. He had no Rafa like competition.
Like I said take Rafa out and Fed has 22 slams, 5 of each !
No fucking way that does not top Pete.
Pete simply had NO competition who could make it to 6 finals against him.
Put Rafa in Petes era and Sampras becomes another Roddick !
John Liang
> On 5/06/2011 6:09 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:42 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> fine. fed is pretty equal on all surfaces. his game is very well
> >> suited to clay. his style is well suited to clay. nuff said. you can't
> >> refute it.
>
> > Yes, he has no weakness on any surface thus he is superior player than
> > Sampras.
>
> Sampras never lost more than 1 slam final to any rival. Fed is about to
> lose his 6th to the same guy on all 3 surfaces. Nobody was considered a
> better player than Sampras during his whole career.
That is because his rivals are like Moya, Kafelnikov, Bruguera,
Muster, Martin
who were good enough to reach any hard court or grass court finals
consistantly.
The only one who was consistant in reaching semi or final on HC was
Agassi who
was his bunny and Edberg who beat Sampras twice.
>
> How many out there think Rafa is better than Fed h2h in slams?
No need to think he is better than him on clay. On other surface 2/15
attempt on HC and
2 Wimbledon against 6 suggest Fed is better player on those surfaces.
>
> No point bringing Krajicek's 1-off win v Sampras in a slam q/f. If Rafa
> only ever beat Fed in 1 slam q/f he'd be equal of Krajicek 'nemesis'.
Nadal only beat Fed in Wimbledon that was enough for you to say he was
better than him on
grass. Same rule apply to Krajicek.
John Liang
So what does that mean for a player you said is better than Federer on
HC ? Your argument is
just getting more ridiculous. If Nafal fail to reach 13 out of 15 HC
events and Federer won 9 of
those it told us that Federer is superior player on HC and there is no
two way aobut it.
John Liang
All we know is Federer beat Sampras in Wimbledon. dream on the woulda
shoulda
analyst. At USO Sampras didn't even play him.
John Liang
> On 5/06/2011 10:37 AM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Javier González
>
> > no - i'd also give him that french where he lost SF to rafa. 5 FOs.
>
> >> Give him FO2005 too, even though it was in the semis. Still just tied
> >> with the AO results and a tad behind USO results. And off the slams,
> >> the edge still goes to the HC events. At most you can argue that he's
> >> pretty much at ease on all surfaces as they happened in the 2000s
> >> (which is pretty much why he's achieved GOATness - always in the
> >> conversation for every major tournament, every year), but there's no
> >> evidence for "clay his *best* surface" except for subjective say-so.
>
> > clay is as good as surface for him as any other. losing to nadal on
> > clay is understandable, he's unreal on clay; losing to nadal in
> > wimbledon finals is unforgiveable.
>
> > bob
>
> It's unforgiveable for 'best ever' to lose to Nadal in Wim & AO finals
> at his peak (we'll let the 4 FO finals slide) - unless of course he
> isn't the 'best ever'.
So it is also unforgivable that Sampras lost to one slam wonder like
Krajicek and
lost to Agassi twice in AO all at his peak. Even worse at his peak
losing to
Galo type 8 times in FO - Of course Samrpas isn't the 'best ever'.
>
> So I forgive him, because he's clearly not.- Hide quoted text -
bob
there are 3 things to consider.
(1) guy's results on surfaces
(2) guy's style of play and how it's suited to surfaces
(3) competition level/depth on different surfaces.
-until you consider those 3, you're 1 dimensional.
-fed's style is equally suited to clay/HC, and just a whisker less
suited to grass.
-fed's results are pretty close on all, if you take out nadal on clay
cause he's a freak.
-the competition level on grass is nonexistent for 2000s, clay it has
dipped from previous. HC it has increased.
now you add it up john..
bob
bob
wrote:
will you carry on with john for me, i just don't have the patience
anymore like i used to.
bob
bob
see my other post john, it sums it all up in simple correct terms. fed
has made 5 FO finals and the other SF losing to nadal, so call it 6.
fed's game is very very well suited to clay. combine that with clay
field not as deep as in 90s. if not for nadal, fed probably 5 time FO
champ.
bob
bob
John Liang
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 00:55:41 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>
>
>
>
>
Firstly you don't really understand the changes been made on grass and
how it affect
the style of tennis that is been played on grass. Players need to
adapt their game to
a surface to win not the other way round. If the grass is slow and
with regular bounce
then with today's racquet it is sucidal to play serve and volley on
every point. In his
match against Sampras in 2001 Federer was playing mostly a serve and
volley game.
But with Hewitt winning 2002 Wimbledon it was pretty clear that serve/
volley is not high
percentage winning tactic. Federer was smart to know he had to change
his game to
have a winning plan at Wimbledon. If that is not a clear indication
how many serve and
volleyer actually made beyond QF at Wimbledon in the past few
years ?
>
> -fed's results are pretty close on all, if you take out nadal on clay
> cause he's a freak.
>
> -the competition level on grass is nonexistent for 2000s,
So there is greater level of competition when Pioline, Washington,
Voitchov, Woodbrige type
were in Wimbledon semi or final. You are stupid and yet funny bob to
even come up with
that crap.
>clay it has
> dipped from previous.
Becuase Federer was in 5 finals and there is no Galos.
>HC it has increased.
>
> now you add it up john..
Your aguments just do not add up.
John Liang
True monster on grass ? They combine to win 2 slams compare to Nadal's
9.
John Liang
No, he did not adapt to lose to Galo type like Pete .
>
> Links?- Hide quoted text -
John Liang
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:56:08 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
You don't have patience because your arguments just don't hold up very
well.
John Liang
Is depth of field measure by players ranked in the hundreds blow away
No.1 like
Pete? Because Pete wasn't that good on clay. You also mentioned that
when Kuerten
beat Federer was an indication of Federer's true level on clay. That
is cherry picking
not reasonable arguments. I can also pick a few matches to say 90s
competition wasn't
as tough as it should be.
1. Edberg straight setted both Bruguera in Madrid in 93 when Brugera
was about to win his
FO and then in 96 straight setted Moya convincingly.
2. Hewitt beat Kuerten in straight sets on clay in Brazil.
3. Federer beat 96 FO champ Kafelnikov losing only 8 game in a 3 set
Davis Cup match.
We all know how to cherry pick a match. You are not the only one out
there.
Whisper
>>
>> He's a great baseliner& his game is best suited to clay. That's the
>> only surface he'd beat Sampras on in the 90's. At Wim/USO Sampras beats
>> him at least 4 out of 5.
>
> All we know is Federer beat Sampras in Wimbledon. dream on the woulda
> shoulda
> analyst. At USO Sampras didn't even play him.
>>
We also know Rafa beat Federer in Wimbledon, AO & FO finals.
bob
cause you can't add.
bob
Rodjk #613
> On Jun 5, 12:08 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 05:44:45 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>
> > <jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 4, 10:35 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:23:05 +0800, Superdave
>
> > >> <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > >> >>On 4 Jun., 10:47, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> Roger Federer.
>
> > >> >>> That's right.
>
> > >> >>> Sans Rafa, Fed's clay record would be absolutely incredible in it's
> > >> >>> own right.
>
> > >> >>> accomplishments.
>
> > >> >>> Without Rafa it would now be Fed playing to tie Borgs 6 FO titles
> > >> >>> with the bonus that he has already passed Borg 6>5 in W's.
>
> > >> >>> Imagine the stats?
>
> > >> >>> 22 slams, 6 FO, 6W, 5 USO, 5 AO, 5 CGS and all the rest.
>
> > >> >>> It is well almost unimaginable.
>
> > >> >>What makes you think Federer would have won all those FO titles
> > >> >>without Nadal?
>
> > >> >>Max
>
> > >> >er ... because he made 5 finals and only ever lost to Nadal?
>
> > >> tend to agree that fed would be 3-5 time FO champ minus nadal. tend to
> > >> agree that fed along with borg, nadal and maybe 2-3 others are 5 best
> > >> clay courters of past 30yrs.
>
> > >> of course, minus nadal, can you spell '7yr clown era' instead of only
> > >> 3-4 yr???? wow.
>
> > >> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >getting to 5
> > >slam finals in all 4 grand slam events. If Roddick was doing the same
> > >there would
> > >never be any claim of clown era.
>
> > we already discussed this silly john..
>
> > bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
John, you have been here long enough to know that...so why bother?
Let the whispabob troll on...there is no point in talking to them.
Rodjk #613
John Liang
Nadal is not Sampras.
The Road Runner vs Wile E. Coyote
Yes John, you and rodjk613 should just pick up your jacks and go play
with someone else. Someone that agrees with you and won't talk back.
> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
John Liang
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 06:01:26 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>
>
>
>
>
That is because the number you are putting in are incorrect to begin
with.
Yes you can add but your maths level is still behind some kindergarten
kid
because you additions are wrong.