Appears that Federer has a "matchup problem" with Murray too
TT
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
Ali Asoag
Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
theory. ;-)
Neil Robinson
Until Murray beats Federer in a slam, it is meaningless. History will
almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
slam finals. All that will be remembered about Federer/Murray is that
Murray lost the AO and US open finals in straight sets. Lesser
tournaments just get forgotten. Just look at Borg/Mac. Their overall
head-to-head is 7-7. No sensible tennis fans consider those to to have
a balanced matchup though. Mac won 3 of the 4 important matches.
That's what is important.
Scott
Mac is 3 years younger than Borg. Andy is 6 years younger than
Roger. so Roger's h2h against a player six years younger outside of
slams shouldn't matter too much.
TT
You may be right that this h2h won't be remembered, especially if Mandy
never wins slams.
We have discussed about h2h before when you argued that only slams
matter for h2h, which is rubbish.
This h2h tells us that Murray is capable of beating Federer, but hasn't
done so at slams, yet, because the occasion has been too overwhelming
for him...bit like Lendl, who also had trouble winning his first slam
despite his skills being on same level with his rivals at the time.
Of course my point for the thread was that Murray beats Federer without
topspin to fed's backhand - which means that fed might have trouble with
skillful players such as Nadal and Murray - more than trouble with topspin.
Of course the problem facing Nadal or Murray is the same, their ability
to pressure his weakness, with ot without topspin.
Neil Robinson
The H2H tells us that Murray plays better in the lesser tournaments,
but Federer plays better in the slams. If the reason that Murray can't
beat Federer in slams is due to an in ability to handle the occasion,
then that is a weakness in Murray's game compared with Federer.
Handling pressure is just as much a skill as hitting forehands and
backhands. Murray's wins over Federer outside the slams demonstrate he
has the *potential* to beat Federer when it matters, but that is all.
Until he actually beats Federer in a slam, preferably in the final,
then the situation remains that Federer has won all the important
matches in straight sets. If Federer managed to level out his head-to-
head with Nadal by beating him in lesser tournaments, that would not
take away Nadal's advantage.
felangey
> almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
> slam finals<
You have an inflated impression of what history remembers. Or what is even
relevant.
TT
Basically you're missing the whole point of h2h comparisons there while
looking at few select results from slams.
Then again that's typical for low-brow slammists...
RzR
of course...if nadal doesnt get at least 16, he will only be that clay
specialist that gave some trouble to federer in reaching his goat status
Inglourious Basterd
Incorrect. Nadal has won the CYGS so he will hardly be just remembered
as a "clay specialist".
Indeed if his slam count approaches Fed's, the question of who is
greater (given Nadal's massive h2h advantage) will become ever more
uncertain.
RzR
> On Oct 17, 8:19 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17.10.2010 18:54, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> Until Murray beats Federer in a slam, it is meaningless. History will
>>>> almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
>>>> slam finals<
>>
>>> You have an inflated impression of what history remembers. Or what is
>>> even relevant.
>>
>> of course...if nadal doesnt get at least 16, he will only be that clay
>> specialist that gave some trouble to federer in reaching his goat status
>
> Incorrect. Nadal has won the CYGS so he will hardly be just remembered
> as a "clay specialist".
>
you are right...he is clay god :) or goat :)
> Indeed if his slam count approaches Fed's, the question of who is
> greater (given Nadal's massive h2h advantage) will become ever more
> uncertain.
its not uncertain right not...it might become uncertain once nads gets
to 14 :)
Ali Asoag
Why is Borg still considered greater? You just proved the H2H theory wrong.
Whisper
Fed is 2-0 v Murray in slam finals so no.
Rafa is all over Fed in slam finals on all 3 surfaces, so similarly Fed
can't be considered on same level as Rafa.
Whisper
Correct.
This proves my theory the typical fedfan is not trolling, but simply of
a lower intellect level & can't grasp moderately challenging concepts.
I must have stated 'tune-ups are irrelevant, & it's only slam finals
that mean anything' at least 5,000 times, yet fedfans still can't absorb
the salient point. They still genuinely confuse 'overall h2h' with
'slam final h2h'.
'john' is a classic example - he still to this day brings up Sampras v
Krajicek (0-0 slam final record) as an arguemnt for Fed v Rafa (2 v 5
slam final record). I kid you not. Look it up.
Whisper
Doesn't matter at all.
Whisper
> Neil Robinson wrote:
>> On 17 Oct, 16:43, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2010 9:05 AM, TT wrote:
>>>
>>> Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
>>> wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
>>> theory. ;-)
>>
>> Until Murray beats Federer in a slam, it is meaningless. History will
>> almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
>> slam finals. All that will be remembered about Federer/Murray is that
>> Murray lost the AO and US open finals in straight sets. Lesser
>> tournaments just get forgotten. Just look at Borg/Mac. Their overall
>> head-to-head is 7-7. No sensible tennis fans consider those to to have
>> a balanced matchup though. Mac won 3 of the 4 important matches.
>> That's what is important.
>
> You may be right that this h2h won't be remembered, especially if Mandy
> never wins slams.
>
> We have discussed about h2h before when you argued that only slams
> matter for h2h, which is rubbish.
> This h2h tells us that Murray is capable of beating Federer, but hasn't
> done so at slams, yet, because the occasion has been too overwhelming
> for him...bit like Lendl, who also had trouble winning his first slam
> despite his skills being on same level with his rivals at the time.
There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
& also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>
> Of course my point for the thread was that Murray beats Federer without
> topspin to fed's backhand - which means that fed might have trouble with
> skillful players such as Nadal and Murray - more than trouble with topspin.
> Of course the problem facing Nadal or Murray is the same, their ability
> to pressure his weakness, with ot without topspin.
>
Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
they played at lower intensity outside slams.
Whisper
Correct, but I suggest you don't waste too much time explaining this to
Fednuts - no comprehendo.
Whisper
lol - Rafa has well & truly proved to be Fed's superior.
Whisper
Uncertain?
Of course Fed is greater than Rafa at this point, but Rafa has already
proved to be a better player than Federer. That horse has bolted.
Whisper
Because he is greater, but Mac was significantly better tennis player.
RzR
>
>
> Uncertain?
>
> Of course Fed is greater than Rafa at this point, but Rafa has already
> proved to be a better player than Federer. That horse has bolted.
like i said...good luck catching up...1st to some lesser players that
have less slams than fed, then to roger at 16 slams
RzR
yeah...he really stopped fed from racking up 5 slams in a row on certain
tournaments...not.
RzR
where was rafa in the slams that fed got to number 16? ok he was too
young, but becker won at 17, so thats no excuse...so? where was he?
RzR
true...just look at the slam count
fed 16
rafa 9
see..double digit slams vs single digit slams
its not too hard...we can draw it for you, but i doubt your IQ is at the
same level as rafas slam count...maybe at feds, so you can at least
count to 20
RzR
>
>
> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>
>
>
>
> Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
> kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
> inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>
face it...nadal is behind sampras, and sampras is, AND WILL ALWAYS BE,
UNTIL THE END OF TIME BEHIND roger
now go on and cry some more HAHAHAHAHA
Whisper
Why didn't Fed win slams before age 21, like Sampras & most other
greats? No excuse here too.
Whisper
I agree with your post, but it has fuck all to do with what I said.
Seems you can't handle the truth?
Whisper
Sampras is better at the biggest tennis tournament in the game, & a
better No.1.
RzR
yes...biggest...thats why they are all called GRAND right?
there is no biggest grand slam, lesser grand slam etc...until they
change that, roger>sampras any day...learn it already...
RzR
who was he losing to back then in the slams?
RzR
cmon, we are not exclusively counting head2head and only in the
finals...if so, then 23 consecutive grand slams semifinals is the best
record ever
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
>kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
>inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
>100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
>legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
>glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
>they played at lower intensity outside slams.
That's silly. Sampras still has won more tune-ups than Federer. The
pattern is similar for both guys. When they were younger, they wanted
to win a lot of tune-ups. When they got older and they had won huge
number of slams, they were not too interested in tune-ups.
Nadal also sweeps all the clay events every year, obviously they are
very important to him.
Whisper
That was just before clown era kicked in, so no surprise he was losing
1st rd in all slams at same age Becker/Borg/Sampras were slam champs.
Nobody saw clown era coming - it's a phenomenon.
People kid themsleves morons like Soderling are elite players, but he
got crushed 61 61 by the same Fed that got creamed 63 62 by Murray.
Whisper
er, slam finals are the most pressure-packed, significant matches in the
game. That's all that history remembers. Fed had a great run playing
complete clowns until Rafa came along.
>if so, then 23 consecutive grand slams semifinals is the best
> record ever
Against clowns? Think again.
bob
wrote:
no question he has to date, but if fed/rafa should meet in say, 4 more
slams over next 2 yrs and fed sweeps em, i'd call it even.
bob
bob
the 23 consecutive SFs is probably the most hidden record in tennis.
bob
Neil Robinson
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:00:51 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
Depends on the mix. If Federer were to somehow beat Nadal at another 2
Wimbledon finals and 2 US open finals, I'd think he'd have the
definite advantage (assuming no more Nadal wins in slam finals).
Iceberg
6 consecutive years at number 1 says it all.
Iceberg
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:56:23 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
wow so Fed didn't go all out for that win against Djoker, he really
that good, LOL
Iceberg
Sampras invented the slam chase race, that what so funny when all you
got is that number.
Iceberg
> On 10/18/2010 3:11 AM, Neil Robinson wrote:
>
> >> On 10/17/2010 9:05 AM, TT wrote:
>
> >> Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
> >> wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
> >> theory. ;-)
>
> > almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
> > Murray lost the AO and US open finals in straight sets. Lesser
> > tournaments just get forgotten. Just look at Borg/Mac. Their overall
> > head-to-head is 7-7. No sensible tennis fans consider those to to have
> > a balanced matchup though. Mac won 3 of the 4 important matches.
> > That's what is important.
>
> Correct.
>
> a lower intellect level & can't grasp moderately challenging concepts.
>
> I must have stated 'tune-ups are irrelevant, & it's only slam finals
> that mean anything' at least 5,000 times, yet fedfans still can't absorb
> the salient point. They still genuinely confuse 'overall h2h' with
> 'slam final h2h'.
>
> 'john' is a classic example - he still to this day brings up Sampras v
> Krajicek (0-0 slam final record) as an arguemnt for Fed v Rafa (2 v 5
> slam final record). I kid you not. Look it up.
the problem is this Neil Robinson guy strikes me as a typical Fedfan,
but he's hiding his rage behind mildly sensible postings, I suppose
it's alright while it lasts.
Iceberg
whatever do you mean, that famous guy who got to 23 consecutive SFs
before was errm oh err who again?
Sakari Lund
OK, troll, read Whisper's post again. Whisper at least realized his
post was dumb, because he used his ignoring strategy with this.
Neil Robinson
I ceased to be a fan of Federer when he had a cry baby fit at the AO
2009. Regardless of that, unlike most of you morons that post here, I
have always been consistant in my criteria for assessing players. The
most important achievements are the slams, and the most important
matches are slam finals. I don't pick and choose based on any
particular favourite or hated player. If you have evidence to the
contrary, feel free to provide it...
Tennisveritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL and this without having any decent resume on clay: LOL enough say:
How poor the level was back there LOL
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
It might become a record important only for as long as Fed is
important... which could be a long time or not... we shall see...
P
Iceberg
wkhedr
> Must be those high-kicking topspins to his backhand...
>
> --
> "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
> life God will give you blood to drink"
> -Sarah Good, 1692
To my knowledge it's Nadal that was sent home packing many times in
slams by Murray while it was Federer that did beat Murray twice in
str8 sets in two slams finals.
So this topic is closed, please start another topic fast, I am
waiting.
Tennisveritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL LOL LOL..One Rome title against a "Clay moster" , i.e. Bum Bum B
(no clay title ever in all his career) LOL LOL..What a resume..LOL
RzR
> On Oct 18, 3:38 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 12:00 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18.10.2010 12:44, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/18/2010 9:15 PM, RzR wrote:
>>>>> On 18.10.2010 10:56, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
>>>>>> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
>>>>>> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>>
>>>>>> Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
>>>>>> kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
>>>>>> inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
>>>>>> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
>>>>>> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
>>>>>> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
>>>>>> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>>
>>>>> face it...nadal is behind sampras, and sampras is, AND WILL ALWAYS BE,
>>>>> UNTIL THE END OF TIME BEHIND roger
>>
>>>>> now go on and cry some more HAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>>> better No.1.
>>
>>> yes...biggest...thats why they are all called GRAND right?
>>
>>> there is no biggest grand slam, lesser grand slam etc...until they
>>> change that, roger>sampras any day...learn it already...
>>
>> 6 consecutive years at number 1 says it all.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL and this without having any decent resume on clay: LOL enough say:
> How poor the level was back there LOL
took the keyboard out of my screen, or something like that :)
RzR
> On Oct 18, 5:26 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 3:33 pm, Tennisveritas<tennisveri...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 3:38 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 12:00 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 18.10.2010 12:44, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 10/18/2010 9:15 PM, RzR wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18.10.2010 10:56, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
>>>>>>>> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
>>>>>>>> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>>
>>>>>>>> Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
>>>>>>>> kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
>>>>>>>> inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
>>>>>>>> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
>>>>>>>> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
>>>>>>>> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
>>>>>>>> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>>
>>>>>>> face it...nadal is behind sampras, and sampras is, AND WILL ALWAYS BE,
>>>>>>> UNTIL THE END OF TIME BEHIND roger
>>
>>>>>>> now go on and cry some more HAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>>>>> better No.1.
>>
>>>>> yes...biggest...thats why they are all called GRAND right?
>>
>>>>> there is no biggest grand slam, lesser grand slam etc...until they
>>>>> change that, roger>sampras any day...learn it already...
>>
>>>> 6 consecutive years at number 1 says it all.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> LOL and this without having any decent resume on clay: LOL enough say:
>>> How poor the level was back there LOL
>>
>> he won Rome, you maroon.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL LOL LOL..One Rome title against a "Clay moster" , i.e. Bum Bum B
> (no clay title ever in all his career) LOL LOL..What a resume..LOL
icebergs explanation is pretty thin...fed would dominate sampras back
then...good thing sampras quit lol
RzR
its over for sampras as the best ever, deal with it
RzR
yeah...same fed that blasted sod and nole, and ran out of gas a bit...on
the day that fed beat sod, fed would cruise past murray...hell ljubo
beat murray to pulp just recently lol
RzR
> I ceased to be a fan of Federer when he had a cry baby fit at the AO
> 2009.
lolz...another "fan" who has no clue about what it takes to succeed in
professional sports
Regardless of that, unlike most of you morons that post here, I
> have always been consistant in my criteria for assessing players. The
> most important achievements are the slams, and the most important
> matches are slam finals.
so you are saying that djoker and nadal had the same difficulty matches
up to meeting up in the finals
LOL
RzR
>>
>> cmon, we are not exclusively counting head2head and only in the
>> finals...
>
> er, slam finals are the most pressure-packed, significant matches in the
> game. That's all that history remembers. Fed had a great run playing
> complete clowns until Rafa came along.
>
judging by sampras' amazing record on clay LOL, and his and agassis H2H
vs federer, and feds superior slam count, it is easy to distinguish that
pete and andre would be just another clowns in fed era then
>> if so, then 23 consecutive grand slams semifinals is the best
>> record ever
>
>
> Against clowns? Think again.
>
wake me up when someone gets to 12 which is half of it lol
RzR
yeah, like some garbage player will show up and get 20 consecutive
slams, but will only win 1? guess again...that is legendary record that
only legends of the game can make
RzR
i wonder how many of these fed haters actually played tennis on any
level that required practicing at least 2-3 hours per day?
Neil Robinson
> On 18.10.2010 15:58, Neil Robinson wrote:
>
> > I ceased to be a fan of Federer when he had a cry baby fit at the AO
> > 2009.
>
> lolz...another "fan" who has no clue about what it takes to succeed in
> professional sports
I doubt anyone has personal experience of what it takes to succeed in
professional sport. However, one can observe that other successful
players do not behave in as undignified manner as Federer in defeat.
So, therefore, it cannot be an essential requirement.
>
> Regardless of that, unlike most of you morons that post here, I
>
> > have always been consistant in my criteria for assessing players. The
> > most important achievements are the slams, and the most important
> > matches are slam finals.
>
> so you are saying that djoker and nadal had the same difficulty matches
> up to meeting up in the finals
>
> LOL
No, I'm saying that slam finals are the most important matches - not
sure how I can make that any clearer...
RzR
> On 18 Oct, 17:36, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18.10.2010 15:58, Neil Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> I ceased to be a fan of Federer when he had a cry baby fit at the AO
>>> 2009.
>>
>> lolz...another "fan" who has no clue about what it takes to succeed in
>> professional sports
>
> I doubt anyone has personal experience of what it takes to succeed in
> professional sport. However, one can observe that other successful
> players do not behave in as undignified manner as Federer in defeat.
> So, therefore, it cannot be an essential requirement.
>
hmm...if you are suggesting that federer did that deliberately to spoil
nadals party, i say you are wrong...this was much better, than if he ran
off the court and left nadal standing there on his own...sometimes the
emotions get better of people...and on that stage!!?
>>
>> Regardless of that, unlike most of you morons that post here, I
>>
>>> have always been consistant in my criteria for assessing players. The
>>> most important achievements are the slams, and the most important
>>> matches are slam finals.
>>
>> so you are saying that djoker and nadal had the same difficulty matches
>> up to meeting up in the finals
>>
>> LOL
>
> No, I'm saying that slam finals are the most important matches - not
> sure how I can make that any clearer...
>
cool then...federer has won 16 of them, and that is making him the
current leader in the goat race
Neil Robinson
Federer's achievements are second-to-none, but his poor showing
against Nadal in slam finals hurts his claim to be the undisputed
greatest ever. It is a mark against him, just as Sampras's failure at
the French open was a mark against him. In my view, there is currently
a top tier consisting of Sampras, Federer and Laver - with none really
a clear greatest. Federer's head-to-head with Murray, in contrast,
means nothing to his legacy - though it has clearly cost Murray's
legacy significantly.
Ted S.
> 6 consecutive years at number 1 says it all.
Who spent 313 consecutive weeks at #1?
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
RzR
luckily, fed doesnt have only nadal to compete against, but a huge field
of players, and in every slam he had to win 7 matches to take it...so
nadal is just one of the players for fed, just as fed is only one of the
players for nadal...
> It is a mark against him, just as Sampras's failure at
> the French open was a mark against him. In my view, there is currently
> a top tier consisting of Sampras, Federer and Laver - with none really
> a clear greatest. Federer's head-to-head with Murray, in contrast,
> means nothing to his legacy - though it has clearly cost Murray's
> legacy significantly.
federer > sampras
it cannot be any clearer with these numbers
16 slams
10 consecutive grand slam finals
8 consecutive grand slam finals
23 consecutive grand slam semifinals
how many does sampras have?
case closed
Rodjk #613
> On 10/18/2010 12:43 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/17/2010 10:11 AM, Neil Robinson wrote:
> >> On 17 Oct, 16:43, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/2010 9:05 AM, TT wrote:
>
> >>> Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
> >>> wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
> >>> theory. ;-)
>
> >> almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
> >> slam finals. All that will be remembered about Federer/Murray is that
> >> Murray lost the AO and US open finals in straight sets. Lesser
> >> tournaments just get forgotten. Just look at Borg/Mac. Their overall
> >> head-to-head is 7-7. No sensible tennis fans consider those to to have
> >> a balanced matchup though. Mac won 3 of the 4 important matches.
> >> That's what is important.
>
>
> Because he is greater, but Mac was significantly better tennis player.
Which is just silly.
Rodjk #613
TT
> On Oct 17, 5:05 pm, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
>> Must be those high-kicking topspins to his backhand...
>>
>> --
>> "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
>> life God will give you blood to drink"
>> -Sarah Good, 1692
>
> To my knowledge it's Nadal that was sent home packing many times in
> slams by Murray while it was Federer that did beat Murray twice in
> str8 sets in two slams finals.
Can't see how that is related to what I said...
wkhedr
> wkhedr wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 5:05 pm, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
> >> Must be those high-kicking topspins to his backhand...
>
> >> --
> >> "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
> >> life God will give you blood to drink"
> >> -Sarah Good, 1692
>
> > To my knowledge it's Nadal that was sent home packing many times in
> > slams by Murray while it was Federer that did beat Murray twice in
> > str8 sets in two slams finals.
>
> Can't see how that is related to what I said...
>
Think, think harder!
TT
Both posts are about tennis?
bob
>On Oct 18, 12:00�pm, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18.10.2010 12:44, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 10/18/2010 9:15 PM, RzR wrote:
>> >> On 18.10.2010 10:56, Whisper wrote:
>>
>> >>> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
>> >>> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
>> >>> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>>
>> >>> Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
>> >>> kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
>> >>> inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
>> >>> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
>> >>> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
>> >>> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
>> >>> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>>
>> >> face it...nadal is behind sampras, and sampras is, AND WILL ALWAYS BE,
>> >> UNTIL THE END OF TIME BEHIND roger
>>
>> >> now go on and cry some more HAHAHAHAHA
>>
>> > Sampras is better at the biggest tennis tournament in the game, & a
>> > better No.1.
>>
>> yes...biggest...thats why they are all called GRAND right?
>>
>> there is no biggest grand slam, lesser grand slam etc...until they
>> change that, roger>sampras any day...learn it already...
>
>6 consecutive years at number 1 says it all.
the #1 is 1 thing, but down deep - really deep - the 7 Wimbledons
hurts fed badly. he seriously wants that #7.
bob
bob
mac forced him out of the game. nothing silly about that.
bob
RzR
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT), Iceberg
> <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18, 12:00 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18.10.2010 12:44, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 10/18/2010 9:15 PM, RzR wrote:
>>>>> On 18.10.2010 10:56, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
>>>>>> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
>>>>>> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>>>
>>>>>> Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players. He relishes
>>>>>> kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
>>>>>> inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
>>>>>> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
>>>>>> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
>>>>>> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
>>>>>> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>>>
>>>>> face it...nadal is behind sampras, and sampras is, AND WILL ALWAYS BE,
>>>>> UNTIL THE END OF TIME BEHIND roger
>>>
>>>>> now go on and cry some more HAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>>> better No.1.
>>>
>>> yes...biggest...thats why they are all called GRAND right?
>>>
>>> there is no biggest grand slam, lesser grand slam etc...until they
>>> change that, roger>sampras any day...learn it already...
>>
>> 6 consecutive years at number 1 says it all.
>
> the #1 is 1 thing, but down deep - really deep - the 7 Wimbledons
> hurts fed badly. he seriously wants that #7.
>
lol...im sure he is as concerned about that, as he is about dirt under
his nails
bob
that's one of the finest posts in recent memory.
bob
bob
yes, *very* lucky that he had a field of roddick/hewitt as main foes
while he racked up 10 quick slams. *very lucky* indeed.
>> It is a mark against him, just as Sampras's failure at
>> the French open was a mark against him. In my view, there is currently
>> a top tier consisting of Sampras, Federer and Laver - with none really
>> a clear greatest. Federer's head-to-head with Murray, in contrast,
>> means nothing to his legacy - though it has clearly cost Murray's
>> legacy significantly.
>
>federer > sampras
if fed/sampras played at Wimbledon/USO finals while both at peak, say
10 times each, i put my $ sampras wins 7 Wimbledons, 6-7 USOs. and
rafa will win 3/4 of those VS fed. rafa he has a far different matchup
issue with sampras though.
>it cannot be any clearer with these numbers
>
>16 slams
>10 consecutive grand slam finals
>8 consecutive grand slam finals
>23 consecutive grand slam semifinals
>how many does sampras have?
he has 7. Wimbleons that is. you've heard of Wimbledon, no?
bob
bob
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 1:56�pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:02:12 +0200, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 18.10.2010 12:43, Whisper wrote:
>> >> On 10/18/2010 9:13 PM, RzR wrote:
>> >>> On 18.10.2010 10:46, Whisper wrote:
>> >>>> On 10/18/2010 2:43 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> >>>>> On 10/17/2010 9:05 AM, TT wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
>> >>>>> wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
>> >>>>> theory. ;-)
>>
>> >>>> Fed is 2-0 v Murray in slam finals so no.
>>
>> >>>> Rafa is all over Fed in slam finals on all 3 surfaces, so similarly Fed
>> >>>> can't be considered on same level as Rafa.
>>
>> >>> true...just look at the slam count
>>
>> >>> fed 16
>> >>> rafa 9
>>
>> >>> see..double digit slams vs single digit slams
>>
>> >>> its not too hard...we can draw it for you, but i doubt your IQ is at the
>> >>> same level as rafas slam count...maybe at feds, so you can at least
>> >>> count to 20
>>
>> >> I agree with your post, but it has fuck all to do with what I said.
>> >> Seems you can't handle the truth?
>>
>> >cmon, we are not exclusively counting head2head and only in the
>> >finals...if so, then 23 consecutive grand slams semifinals is the best
>> >record ever
>>
>> the 23 consecutive SFs is probably the most hidden record in tennis.
>
>whatever do you mean, that famous guy who got to 23 consecutive SFs
>before was errm oh err who again?
fed would trade those 23 consecutive SF for Del Pot's USO in a
heartbeat. simple as that. fed really coulda won that 09 USO, he got
complacent. very bad move.
bob
RzR
lol...straw grasping from sampras fans are just priceless...he was crap
on clay...no way he could ever be considered the greatest...those
numbers i posted are the true measure of a great player...contending in
every single slam for almost 6 years...wake me up when someone else does
it...zzzzzzzzz
AliAsoag
> On 10/18/2010 3:26 AM, TT wrote:
>
>
>
> > Neil Robinson wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/2010 9:05 AM, TT wrote:
>
> >>> Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
> >>> wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
> >>> theory. ;-)
>
> >> almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
> >> slam finals. All that will be remembered about Federer/Murray is that
> >> Murray lost the AO and US open finals in straight sets. Lesser
> >> tournaments just get forgotten. Just look at Borg/Mac. Their overall
> >> head-to-head is 7-7. No sensible tennis fans consider those to to have
> >> a balanced matchup though. Mac won 3 of the 4 important matches.
> >> That's what is important.
>
> > never wins slams.
>
> > We have discussed about h2h before when you argued that only slams
> > matter for h2h, which is rubbish.
> > This h2h tells us that Murray is capable of beating Federer, but hasn't
> > done so at slams, yet, because the occasion has been too overwhelming
> > for him...bit like Lendl, who also had trouble winning his first slam
> > despite his skills being on same level with his rivals at the time.
>
> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>
>
>
> > topspin to fed's backhand - which means that fed might have trouble with
> > skillful players such as Nadal and Murray - more than trouble with topspin.
> > Of course the problem facing Nadal or Murray is the same, their ability
> > to pressure his weakness, with ot without topspin.
>
> Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players.
Sampras was low-skilled? Wow, that's brave from Whisper!
> inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
That's why Nadal consistently lost to everybody on HC until recently.
Thanks for the explanation, I was looking for that.
AliAsoag
> On 10/18/2010 9:15 PM, RzR wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18.10.2010 10:56, Whisper wrote:
>
> >> There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
> >> That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
> >> & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>
> >> kicking the little guys when they're down as he has a massive
> >> 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
> >> legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
> >> glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
> >> they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>
> > UNTIL THE END OF TIME BEHIND roger
>
> > now go on and cry some more HAHAHAHAHA
>
> better No.1.
Now you just "earned" my compassion ...
Shakes
Yeah, after he had already decided to cut down his schedule. Borg had
already won 9 slams before Mac became his rival. And it took a lot out
of him to live that monkish lifestyle. He had had enough by 1980
itself. Mac was just the last straw that broke the camel's back.
AliAsoag
I wouldn't have thought that you are that optimistic!
AliAsoag
> wkhedr wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 9:21 pm, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
> >> wkhedr wrote:
> >>> On Oct 17, 5:05 pm, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
> >>>> Must be those high-kicking topspins to his backhand...
> >>>> --
> >>>> "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
> >>>> life God will give you blood to drink"
> >>>> -Sarah Good, 1692
> >>> To my knowledge it's Nadal that was sent home packing many times in
> >>> slams by Murray while it was Federer that did beat Murray twice in
> >>> str8 sets in two slams finals.
> >> Can't see how that is related to what I said...
>
> > Think, think harder!
>
> Both posts are about tennis?
Obviously, to the contrary to all of yours.
AliAsoag
> >federer > sampras
>
> if fed/sampras played at Wimbledon/USO finals while both at peak, say
> 10 times each, i put my $ sampras wins 7 Wimbledons, 6-7 USOs. and
> rafa will win 3/4 of those VS fed. rafa he has a far different matchup
> issue with sampras though.
Why don't you try to have own argument? You copied this coulda woulda
crap from Whisper! Try to live really.
> >it cannot be any clearer with these numbers
>
> >16 slams
> >10 consecutive grand slam finals
> >8 consecutive grand slam finals
> >23 consecutive grand slam semifinals
> >how many does sampras have?
>
> he has 7. Wimbleons that is. you've heard of Wimbledon, no?
And Fed has 6, and Nadal has 2, and you still say Nadal was better.
Wake up.
RzR
hehe...poor fed haters...they just cant win...in the end, all they have
left is yelling h2h2h2h2h2h2h2h2h2h2h :)
TT
lol, nice contradicting statement there.
I didn't think this discussion would go over someone's head...
Whisper
So why did Mac beat him in the last 3 lam finals, each win getting
easier for Mac?
Whisper
Borg & Federer are the only 2 tier 1 greats to be dominated by their
main rival at their peak. That's why Borg & Federer will never go down
as the 'best' player of all time.
Whisper
This kind of post makes me want to downgrade the average IQ of a typical
Fed fan.
Fed has already said 11th Wimbledon means more to him than winning a 1st
FO, & you conclude this means he thinks it's 'dirt'....?
Whisper
That was a costly loss for Fed - 6th straight USO woulda been huge, & on
paper he coulda won in straights had he won that 2nd set t/b.
Whisper
>>
>>> it cannot be any clearer with these numbers
>>>
>>> 16 slams
>>> 10 consecutive grand slam finals
>>> 8 consecutive grand slam finals
>>> 23 consecutive grand slam semifinals
>>> how many does sampras have?
>>
>> he has 7. Wimbleons that is. you've heard of Wimbledon, no?
>>
>
> lol...straw grasping from sampras fans are just priceless...he was crap
> on clay...no way he could ever be considered the greatest...those
> numbers i posted are the true measure of a great player...contending in
> every single slam for almost 6 years...wake me up when someone else does
> it...zzzzzzzzz
Sampras is genuine 'best ever' candidate as he never lost more than 1
slam final to any rival. Fed lost many on all 3 surfaces to Rafa.
That's why Fed feels like a 'watered down' great, even more so than Borg
I think.
No one ever seriously talks about Borg as being the 'best' player ever,
& that's due to McEnroe beating him in last 3 slam finals at his peak.
Fed also has this huge weakness. A 'best ever' candidate has to
dominate his main rivals in slam finals. Fed lost 5 slam finals on all
3 surfaces to Rafa, while all the time being ranked No.1. There is no
excuse for that, & it's impossible to make the case for Fed being better
than Rafa.
Whisper
>> better No.1.
>
> Now you just "earned" my compassion ...
So in your mind Fed is better at Wimbledon & has better no.1 record than
Sampras?
Your sympathy seems misguided.
RzR
and will be still waaaaay ahead of you :)
do you really think this nonsense that bob is spewing has any truth to
it? "hurts him badly"?? lol
> Fed has already said 11th Wimbledon means more to him than winning a 1st
> FO, & you conclude this means he thinks it's 'dirt'....?
>
he has now two kids...im sure he can care less about a trophy or
two...hes already greatest of all time, and its up to the others to
catch him...sadly for your boy, he can only pray he stays second on all
time list...nadal train is coming :))))))
Whisper
Oh fucking bullshit. Borg was playing his very best tennis & smashing
Connors all over the place - even straight sets thrashing at USO. He
was ranked No.1 & only 25 yrs old - couldn't possibly get any peaker.
He would have won calendar slam in 1980 & 1981 if no McEnroe, just as
Fed would have won calendar slam if no Rafa.
Mac > Borg & Rafa > Federer no doubt about it. The record is what it is.
Whisper
Sampras did not lose Wimbledon finals.
RzR
LOL
final, no final...its a match every single time they step on the
court...no ifs, ands or buts...but then again, one would have to have
some kind of competition background to understand that, so i dont blame
most of you couch-potato, never-break-a-serious-sweat-in-your-life type
posters that play down anything but the finals, and thats only because
you got nothing else to cling on
the slams are the crown events, and federer is currently the best player
ever in mens tennis...
i ask again, where was rafa when fed was winning all the slams?
fed>sampras>rafa for now...stay tuned
RzR
and 99.9% of other tennis followers disagree...
you people remind me of that joke where a guy is driving on the highway,
turns on the radio, and the radio announcer says:
"be careful drivers, there is one lunatic driving the wrong direction"
then the guy says:"one lunatic???? there are hundreds of them"
that pretty much sums it up
Tennisveritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
But he never reach a RG final either: err..Clay is no more a tennis
surface? And a very old one..MC means something to you? Idiotic
Kanguro
MBDunc
> Sampras is genuine 'best ever' candidate as he never lost more than 1
> slam final to any rival.
Sampras was lacking proper rivals then who could not put down
challenge enough? Agassi was his lone rival who was in a position to
challenge that stat...
Above is your favourite stat from "most narrow stats ever" category.
And you accuse Fedfuckers for meaningless stats....
.mikko
RzR
yes, but only because there was too much pressure on goran...
bob
federer cherishes wimbledon. nearly every great champ cherishes
wimbledon. being #2 at wimbledon will hurt fed's massive ego. i
believe he'd be happier to be at 15 slams - if he could have that 7th
wimbledon.
i can see fed in 20 yrs sitting a row behind sampras with the other
greats while they show the recordholder. that's why fed needs that
7th, and IMO, he has a decent chance to get it.
bob
bob
most recognize that young mcenroe's beating of borg would get worse
had borg continued. borg most of all realized it. kinda like rafa/fed
of last couple yrs.
bob
bob
but he beat him SF slam too. and tuneups too. it never stops.
>but then again, one would have to have
>some kind of competition background to understand that, so i dont blame
>most of you couch-potato, never-break-a-serious-sweat-in-your-life type
>posters that play down anything but the finals, and thats only because
>you got nothing else to cling on
>the slams are the crown events, and federer is currently the best player
>ever in mens tennis...
he won the most slams, mainly VS very poor field.
rafa has dominated fed in slams past 3 yrs minus a yr with bad knees
where he lost to everybody else too.
>i ask again, where was rafa when fed was winning all the slams?
for fed's 1st 10, he was very young.
for 3 more of fed's, he was nursing knees.
fed did have 3 'legit' slams though, give him that.
ok, i exaggerate a bit, take that back. :-)
bob
bob
<ali.a...@arcor.de> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 2:22�pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >federer > sampras
>>
>> if fed/sampras played at Wimbledon/USO finals while both at peak, say
>> 10 times each, i put my $ sampras wins 7 Wimbledons, 6-7 USOs. and
>> rafa will win 3/4 of those VS fed. rafa he has a far different matchup
>> issue with sampras though.
>
>Why don't you try to have own argument? You copied this coulda woulda
>crap from Whisper! Try to live really.
lol.
>> >it cannot be any clearer with these numbers
>>
>> >16 slams
>> >10 consecutive grand slam finals
>> >8 consecutive grand slam finals
>> >23 consecutive grand slam semifinals
>> >how many does sampras have?
>>
>> he has 7. Wimbleons that is. you've heard of Wimbledon, no?
>
>And Fed has 6, and Nadal has 2, and you still say Nadal was better.
>Wake up.
i say that at peak, sampras would beat both federer and nadal (both
baseliners) at wimbledon majority of time. but we already know what
nadal does to peak federer when they meet, no matter where it is.
bob
Iceberg
> On Oct 18, 2:56 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/18/2010 3:26 AM, TT wrote:
>
> > > Neil Robinson wrote:
> > >> On 17 Oct, 16:43, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > >>> On 10/17/2010 9:05 AM, TT wrote:
>
> > >>> Murray could have an H2H like 10-5 or even 15-5 against Fed. I would
> > >>> wonder then if he is considered better than Fed according to the H2H
> > >>> theory. ;-)
>
> > >> Until Murray beats Federer in a slam, it is meaningless. History will
> > >> almost certainly penalise Federer for his poor record against Nadal in
> > >> slam finals. All that will be remembered about Federer/Murray is that
> > >> Murray lost the AO and US open finals in straight sets. Lesser
> > >> tournaments just get forgotten. Just look at Borg/Mac. Their overall
> > >> head-to-head is 7-7. No sensible tennis fans consider those to to have
> > >> a balanced matchup though. Mac won 3 of the 4 important matches.
> > >> That's what is important.
>
> > > never wins slams.
>
> > > We have discussed about h2h before when you argued that only slams
> > > matter for h2h, which is rubbish.
> > > This h2h tells us that Murray is capable of beating Federer, but hasn't
> > > done so at slams, yet, because the occasion has been too overwhelming
> > > for him...bit like Lendl, who also had trouble winning his first slam
> > > despite his skills being on same level with his rivals at the time.
>
> > There's also the fact the better plays raise their level for slams.
> > That's why Murray is a zero compared to Fed (0-2 slam finals, 0-6 sets),
> > & also why Rafa is far better than Federer.
>
> > > topspin to fed's backhand - which means that fed might have trouble with
> > > skillful players such as Nadal and Murray - more than trouble with topspin.
> > > Of course the problem facing Nadal or Murray is the same, their ability
> > > to pressure his weakness, with ot without topspin.
>
> > Roger matches well to low-skilled, journeymen type players.
>
>
> > inferiority complaex (ironic eh?). Sampras, Laver, Nadal etc never go
> > 100% v journeymen in tune-ups as they realize they add nothing to their
> > legacy, but mean a lot to the little guys as they have no hope of slam
> > glory. I'm not saying Sampras, Nadal etc lost on purpose, but clearly
> > they played at lower intensity outside slams.
>
> Thanks for the explanation, I was looking for that.
Nadal hardly lost to everybody on HC, he was just usually knackered.
He took prime Murray to 4 hard sets at US Open 2008 semi, something
you Fedfans refused to accept even happened.