Muster on Nadal
TT
of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
Nadal has that."
uly...@mscomm.com
uly...@mscomm.com
TT
Giovanna
> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book
really?? then why he just keeps moonballing & running
around? :rolleyes:
BORING CHEATER
Court_1
Why do you have to post all of these things on Nadal? We KNOW he is
the best on clay currently. Who can argue with that fact? But if you
are trying to argue that Nadal is better than Federer overall, that is
just silly. The records speak for themselves on that issue. He has a
chance to be better than Federer if he keeps going and winning slams
and various other records, but he is not there yet.
Fan
Maybe he is writing about Nadal because he is the best now. A
discussion list is not about records and accomplishments but about the
things that are happening now. Bringing in quarterfinalist Federer’s
slams every time something positive is posted about Nadal is silly.
Nadal has his weak points and that is trying to grab too much.
Barcelona is a HUGE mistake. He screwed himself up before by playing
Barcelona but he and his coach do not seem to learn. There is a
difference between 2009 and 2011 in that if Nadal destroys his knees
again, Federer will not be able to take advantage of it. Someone else
will, maybe Melzer or Ferrer the Djoker but not Federer. Federer will
not be a factor.
If insane freddy fans cannot live outside of Federer’s glory days,
they should read the numerous sources that list his 16 slams and other
accomplishments but those are the things of past. I even dug out a
bone for insane freddy fans that they can chew on if that makes them
happy. Wikipedia is too biased and unreliable for politics, history,
arts and social topics but a very good source for sports. This link is
for insane freddy fans to read it every time Federer gets his ass
kicked by another player. I hope this helps:
It is a safe link for insane freddy fans. No crybaby pictures :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer
GOYLE
Why do you say Nadal made a mistake? Do you not realize he has played
at least 4 tournaments every year leading up to the FO. He played
Barcelona every year except last year. As for the knee problems I
agree but when your trying to convince someone of Nadal's age the long-
term effects of playing a lot they wont listen to you. I suspect Nadal
doesn't listen to Toni about his schedule and pretty much made up his
mind to play Barcelona this year regardless of what Toni thinks. When
the time comes and Nadal has a knee blow-out, then he will change his
schedule.
Court_1
I don't see how Barcelona is a mistake for Nadal at all. People mutter
this all of the time and it is stupid to me. He is a professional
tennis player. He is "supposed" to play in tennis tournaments. Playing
Barcelona is not going to affect him one way or another too much and
it is silly that people continue to suggest this theory. It is just
another way for Nadtards to bring up an excuse in case Nadal does get
injured and therefore is not free to continue to chase Fed's records.
Normal Fed fans (not crazy ones) are not upset that Nadal is currently
the best player or that he is accomplishing great things now. They get
annoyed when Nadtards constantly try and suggest that Nadal is the
greater player than Federer overall. That is not the case yet, no
matter how somebody tries to rationalize it. Sure he is great, but he
is not the greatest at this point in time whether Federer retires now
and never wins another thing or not. Maybe he will continue to break
records and at some point in the future will surpass Fed. Who knows.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Huh? Toni is Nadal's puppet master. I don't think Nadal moves an inch
without asking Toni.
Iceberg
don't forget he takes tons of drugs too!
Iceberg
yes Nadal Fed h2h record says a lot.
Court_1
Nope it surely does not. It is just one statistic. The records and
stats have to be looked at as a whole.
RzR
>
>
> yes Nadal Fed h2h record says a lot.
also, feds grand slam total says a lot about nadal who didnt make those
finals to stop fed...pretty much goes along nicely with my theory that
all nadal is doing all the time is to be on top of his game once clay
season starts...so that mc streak is not so great all of the sudden
RzR
>
>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book
>
> really?? then why he just keeps moonballing& running
> around?
lol...busted
Vari L. Cinicke
I trust Nadal when he says he has no knee issues. I am not sure why
people are going on and on about it. He is young man in his prime. Leabe
him alone.
John Liang
I guess Edberg probably prooved that theory wrong at least 10 times
against Muster on all surfaces. Edberg never win
a major clay court tournament yet every time he played Muster he was
able to beat him even when Muster was at the
peak of his career and Edberg near the end of his. I think a lot of
clay courter have also proove the theory that you don't have to
have eveery shot to win on clay. How was Courier, Agassi, Bruguera,
Kuerten's volley skills ?
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you also trust Nadal when he said he was 100% fit two matches
before he played Murray in 2010 AO and also before his match against
Soderling in FO 09 ? There are other occassions he said he was fully
fit before the match then turn around with an injury after a loss. I
like to trust him but his past lies don't inspire much confidence of
his honesty.
Fan
On one-to-one Nadal is better than Federer, much better. However,
Federer's 16 slams trump it all but the h2h leaves you wondering as
Sampras pointed it out and correctly.
It is almost impossible for Nadal to break Federer's slam record. One
of the reasons is that he and his coach do not use their heads and
play too many tournaments. The year 2009 should have been a good
lesson. I saw Nadal crashing before others did and complained about
Barcelona in 2009. The human body can take only so much and Nadal's
game is very hard on his body. It should be obvious to his coach but
with all the hungry relatives, Nadal has to make more and more money.
Fan
> 18.4.2011 22:32, ulys...@msomm.com kirjoitti:
>
> > Response:
>
> >http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=4900220
>
> > 16>9
>
>
> 15>8
It is all true. The 16>9 is true and the 15>8 is true also. The thing
is that if Nadal and his coach do not screw up in 2009, it would be
14>11 and not 16>9. It was a big mistake they are about to repeat...
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
You see to forget or don't bother to fully consider Nadal was 22 in
2009... when you are 22 and winning you WANT TO PLAY EVERYTHING...
it's all go, go, go... it's a coarsing headiness that takes over logic
and sensibility... crush, kill, destroy! :)) win everything in sight,
make a conquest of the known world, collect every title you can...
money, fame, adulation, the world's riches and pleasures for your
beckoning... THAT'S what a 22 year old dominant tennis champion
does... you literally run yourself into the ground... nothing to do
with hungry relatives... Uncle Toni WANTED HIM TO SLOW DOWN and take
off tournaments... Rafa refused...
P
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, that's what I think, of course I don't know this first hand but
for a kid 23 years old they are pretty determined and head strung to
get their way.
Court_1
Hungry relatives? I thought his dad and family were well off and own a
glass business and a restaurant? Plus Rafa has made enough money now
that if he retired tomorrow he would never have to worry about a thing
again financially speaking.
Re the h2h thing just because Rafa has a better h2h than Federer does
not mean he is better imo. What the h2h says to me more than anything
else is that Rafa is better than Fed on clay. The h2h is skewed in
favor of Rafa because many of the matches were played on clay. Also,
just to look at the h2h is not enough to determine that a player is
better. You have to look at everything overall--i.e. all stats to
determine this and Federer has more achievements and records period.
Now Nadtards are starting with the excuse that Nadal will not surpass
Fed's 16 slam count because of Nadal's style of play and injuries etc.
Ha, ha, ha. Always something with Nadtards. In tennis you take all the
factors to determine who the better player is. If Nadal's body can't
stand up to injuries due to his style of play, then that is part of
the mix. In other words Fed is so great because he was able to
maintain a style of play that was both effective and kept his body
injury free pretty much. That in of itself makes him greater to a
certain extent. Bottom line is if Nadal can't match Fed's 16 slam
count he will never be considered equal or better than Fed no matter
what you Nadtards come up with. LOL.
John Liang
> On Apr 19, 1:56 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 11:54 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 3:16 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> > > > "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
> > > > of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
> > > > fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
> > > > always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
> > > > Nadal has that."
>
> > > Why do you have to post all of these things on Nadal? We KNOW he is
> > > the best on clay currently. Who can argue with that fact? But if you
> > > are trying to argue that Nadal is better than Federer overall, that is
> > > just silly. The records speak for themselves on that issue. He has a
> > > chance to be better than Federer if he keeps going and winning slams
> > > and various other records, but he is not there yet.
>
> > yes Nadal Fed h2h record says a lot.
>
> On one-to-one Nadal is better than Federer, much better. However,
> Federer's 16 slams trump it all but the h2h leaves you wondering as
> Sampras pointed it out and correctly.
A true h2h is to look at their performance in tournaments where they
both participated and how they
performce in those tournaments. Nadal benefit in h2h comparison
because for 6 years Federer was
good enough to reach finals at almost every single clay court
tournaments he played. Clay was his
weakest surface Nadal's strongest. Nadal avoided such a comparison
when he repeatedly failed at
USO and AO. At AO and USO Federer won 9 tournaments and was in the
final 10 times compare to
Nadal's 2. What Sampras also did not point out was if we take
Sampras record on all surfaces compare
that to Federer's record he will be much further behind Federer than
16:14 would suggest. H2H between
Federer and Nadal hides Nadal's deficiencies on hard court but his
record of 2 wins out of possible 15 hc
slams did not.
Whisper
Given this is Muster & he's talking about clay tennis it's safe to
disregard it. Of course he's going to say clay tennis is real & best
tennis as he has a vested interest.
Whisper
You're conflating different issues here.
Is Federer the greatest ever? Possibly
Is Federer the best player ever? No
Is Nadal the greatest ever? No
Is Nadal the best player ever? Possibly
So we have 2 definite answers (in the negative), & 2 arguable.
Whisper
Correct. On clay you need minimal tennis skills. A reliable bh/fh (not
great/spectacular), plenty of fitness & aversion to boredom.
Rafa of course doesn't fit this profile. He also has great variety in
his shotmaking, so no surprise he's dominating when you add all that
together.
Whisper
Coulda/woulda has no currency in tennis analysis. If it did McEnroe
would be credited with calendar slam.
Whisper
Wrong. Nadal is already considered a better player than Federer. If
you had to bet your life on a match between Fed & Rafa you's be nuts to
pick Fed.
Note I'm not talking about overall wins here, just 'best at best'
analysis. Fed obviously has done better v the field.
Whisper
Fed simply lost too many big matches to Rafa. That's something the
greats don't do. You don't let you biggest rival beat you most of the
time, as that leaves a lastimg impression in people's minds. Fed would
have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
Rafa in the big slam finals. Fact is he lost in Wimbledon, AO & FO
finals to Rafa (grass, HC & clay), while only beat him at Wimbledon (grass).
Iceberg
yeah this pretty much sums things up.
Superdave
A mooonballing bumrooter can NOT be the best player ever. You must be rolling over
in your own grave !
MBDunc
Isn't above analysis the testament that Fed/Nadal era has been most
probably the toughest ever? As possibly the greatest ever has had
possibly the best ever rival....and yet still has 16 slams....and 12
of those slams after Nadal won his first (05 FO).
Who is the greatest in your book if not Fed? What happened to 7543?
.mikko
MBDunc
On clay it would be totally foolish not to pick Nadal. This is as
obvious as it can get.
On outdoor hc you probably should pick Nadal. (h2h favours Nadal
eventhough Fed has greatly better achievements).
On grass you probably should pick Fed. (after all 2-1 at big grass
finals)
On indoors you should pick Fed. (3-0 to Fed at YEC).
Simple?
Or you can twist a bit and just look at the calendar.
Nadal - Fed h2h from January to June (1st half of their years) : 14-3
Fed - Nadal h2h from July to December (2nd half of their years) : 5-1
So if a match takes place during 2nd half of year Fed has 5/6 = 84%
chance of winning the match.
So if a match takes place during 1st half of year Nadal has 14/17 =
82% chance of winning the match.
.mikko
Whisper
>
>
> A mooonballing bumrooter can NOT be the best player ever. You must be rolling over
> in your own grave !
I don't think he is, but he is the best of his era so must be in the
conversation. All the 'best players of era' go into the best ever
conversation. However if you weren't the best of your era than you are
eliminated from 'best ever'. Pretty logical.
Whisper
> On 20 huhti, 11:12, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/04/2011 8:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 3:16 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
>>>> of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
>>>> fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
>>>> always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
>>>> Nadal has that."
>>
>>> Why do you have to post all of these things on Nadal? We KNOW he is
>>> the best on clay currently. Who can argue with that fact? But if you
>>> are trying to argue that Nadal is better than Federer overall, that is
>>> just silly. The records speak for themselves on that issue. He has a
>>> chance to be better than Federer if he keeps going and winning slams
>>> and various other records, but he is not there yet.
>>
>> You're conflating different issues here.
>>
>> Is Federer the greatest ever? Possibly
>>
>> Is Federer the best player ever? No
>>
>> Is Nadal the greatest ever? No
>>
>> Is Nadal the best player ever? Possibly
>>
>
> Isn't above analysis the testament that Fed/Nadal era has been most
> probably the toughest ever? As possibly the greatest ever has had
> possibly the best ever rival....and yet still has 16 slams....and 12
> of those slams after Nadal won his first (05 FO).
Of course you can see it also fits 'clown era' right?
>
> Who is the greatest in your book if not Fed? What happened to 7543?
>
> .mikko
I give Fed very thin edge over Sampras (3%). Laver is the other guy
forever in the goat discussion. Sampras has better Wimbledon record
than Fed ('the' tournament to win), & better No.1 stats.
7543 does give it to Fed by narrow margin (83 v 80) so I can go along
with that, but my gut says it's very fine line. How much value do you
put on being the all time Wimbledon king? Wimbledon after all 'is'
tennis for most people.
Whisper
It's not the time of year that's relevent, but what tournaments are on.
Somehow I think Rafa would have great FO record even in Novemebr.
I probably would pick Fed to beat Rafa indoors, but nowhere else.
Superdave
That's cause you are a cunt.
MBDunc
Sampras #1 stats are extremely narrowly better. (286 weeks vs 285
weeks) His 6 years year-end #1 is probably his best stat. This kind of
stuff needs also luck like Sampras actually had to battle for #1 at
YECs 93, 95, 98) compared to Fed who usually was already a lock
straight after USO). May be Agassi/Rios injuries gave two additional
year-end #1:s to Sampras but that it a part of game too.
However Fed's own records as #1 are nothing to sneeze at either. Some
give a great value for his record 237 concurrent weeks, his 5 year-end
#1 is also great and to boot (if it counts) Fed's top years (04,06,07
with 3 slams each year) top Sampras' best years easily.
> 7543 does give it to Fed by narrow margin (83 v 80) so I can go along
> with that, but my gut says it's very fine line. How much value do you
> put on being the all time Wimbledon king? Wimbledon after all 'is'
> tennis for most people.-
Well the difference between Sampras (7 titles) vs Fed (6 titles 1
final) in Wimb is nothing compared to say Sampras vs Lendl at Wimb.
But generally your 3% is about right. Sampras was top-notch great and
GOAT until Fed. Fed bettered at some areas (most importantly
additional 2 slams and career slam with no missing links, but Sampras
best records (7 wimbs, 6 #1) are also as huge as they get.
.mikko
Iceberg
since when did you EVER say Sampras was GOAT before Fed came along,
lol
Whisper
Just call it as I see it.
Whisper
>
> Sampras #1 stats are extremely narrowly better. (286 weeks vs 285
> weeks) His 6 years year-end #1 is probably his best stat. This kind of
> stuff needs also luck like Sampras actually had to battle for #1 at
> YECs 93, 95, 98) compared to Fed who usually was already a lock
> straight after USO). May be Agassi/Rios injuries gave two additional
> year-end #1:s to Sampras but that it a part of game too.
>
> However Fed's own records as #1 are nothing to sneeze at either. Some
> give a great value for his record 237 concurrent weeks, his 5 year-end
> #1 is also great and to boot (if it counts) Fed's top years (04,06,07
> with 3 slams each year) top Sampras' best years easily.
>
>> 7543 does give it to Fed by narrow margin (83 v 80) so I can go along
>> with that, but my gut says it's very fine line. How much value do you
>> put on being the all time Wimbledon king? Wimbledon after all 'is'
>> tennis for most people.-
>
> Well the difference between Sampras (7 titles) vs Fed (6 titles 1
> final) in Wimb is nothing compared to say Sampras vs Lendl at Wimb.
>
> But generally your 3% is about right. Sampras was top-notch great and
> GOAT until Fed. Fed bettered at some areas (most importantly
> additional 2 slams and career slam with no missing links, but Sampras
> best records (7 wimbs, 6 #1) are also as huge as they get.
>
> .mikko
>
Yeah that's the way I see it. A very thin advantage to Fed, largely due
to winning all of the slams. Also winning 5 in a row at Wim & USO is
top notch.
The big factor in Sampras' favor is still being king of the biggest
tournament. Also when we look at Wim/USO combined Sampras leads 12 v
11. If we take off AO from both guys (lowest prestige slam) they both
have 12 slams. Sampras missed some AOs he coulda won. Also it's clear
Sampras wouldn't have retired young if he didn't think his record would
be safe for a very long time. Fed has had the advantage of chasing a
bigger number.
Fed isn't dead yet. He should be a factor at next 2 Wimbledons,
notwithstanding the strange loss to Berdych last yr. He can probably
bounce back & get up for a better effort this year. And let's face it,
if something strange happens to Rafa/Djoker (lose early/injury) Fed will
be looking pretty good.
To completely shut me up I'd like to see Fed win 6th USO & 8th
Wimbledon. It's unlikely but not impossible. There would be no 'gut'
feelings then - conclusive goat by clear margin.
Rodjk #613
I see you have met Whisper. He is our resident troll...been at it
longer than anyone else.
A bit of a different character than some...he is less likely to delve
into sexual and personal issues, but if you follow along a bit you
will see the pattern he follows.
As with all trolls, its best to ignore him as much as possible. He is
great at poisoning threads, so the less involvement the better.
Rodjk #613
drew
Fed would
> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
> Rafa in the big slam finals.
Yes, better to lose to journeymen than to great players. :-)
Joe Ramirez
There's never been a clearer example of a general theory being
tailored to the needs of a specific individual. In the abstract, with
no names attached, most people would agree that losing in the final of
a tournament to a great player is a better result than losing in an
early round to a nonentity. But the Sampras pattern of losses to
"Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
TT
Given that you also have vested interest we can disregard your comment
as well.
The difference of course is that Muster knows what he's talking about.
TT
> On 19/04/2011 11:39 PM, John Liang wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 5:16 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
>>> of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
>>> fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
>>> always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
>>> Nadal has that."
>>
>> I guess Edberg probably prooved that theory wrong at least 10 times
>> against Muster on all surfaces. Edberg never win
>> a major clay court tournament yet every time he played Muster he was
>> able to beat him even when Muster was at the
>> peak of his career and Edberg near the end of his. I think a lot of
>> clay courter have also proove the theory that you don't have to
>> have eveery shot to win on clay. How was Courier, Agassi, Bruguera,
>> Kuerten's volley skills ?
>
>
>
> Correct. On clay you need minimal tennis skills. A reliable bh/fh (not
> great/spectacular), plenty of fitness & aversion to boredom.
So that's why we saw 2 biggest forehands on tour facing at RG final of
2010. I see.
Your opinion fits well in the 80's.
Ted S.
> But the Sampras pattern of losses to
> "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
> it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
> left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
> finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
The "simple" one that seems to get most play is the head-to-head, which
shows up even in the popular media. (But of course, I've always had the
theory that the US media have had it in for Federer because he prevented
Roddick from becoming the next Sampras. They're looking for *any*
reason to denigrate Federer.)
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
Joe Ramirez
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > But the Sampras pattern of losses to
> > "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
> > it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
> > left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
> > finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
>
> The "simple" one that seems to get most play is the head-to-head, which
> shows up even in the popular media. (But of course, I've always had the
> theory that the US media have had it in for Federer because he prevented
> Roddick from becoming the next Sampras. They're looking for *any*
> reason to denigrate Federer.)
But the media dimwits who comment on the head-to-head don't attempt to
extend their sloppy thinking to its furthest illogical conclusion.
They may worry, "Gee, it looks bad for Fed to have a losing record
against Nadal," but they don't opine, "And therefore, it would be
better for Federer to lose in the second round of a slam to a complete
nobody than to make the final and lose." Whisper takes the implicit
absurdity of the head-to-head perspective and proudly makes it
explicit.
TT
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>> But the Sampras pattern of losses to
>> "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
>> it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
>> left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
>> finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
>
> The "simple" one that seems to get most play is the head-to-head, which
> shows up even in the popular media.
Not only in popular media, everywhere...even Sampras and Agassi
commented on it.
The only people that do not admit it are fedtards.
> (But of course, I've always had the
> theory that the US media have had it in for Federer because he prevented
> Roddick from becoming the next Sampras. They're looking for *any*
> reason to denigrate Federer.)
>
That's rubbish. No one has gotten so much positive media hype as fed has.
Many journos are not much short of crying a river when fed loses.
TT
You Joe are only counting wins, not losses. Player's career consists of
both.
For Sampras you seem to count his losses though...it's not that he
didn't only win FO, it's also whom he lost to for you. Not so for Federer.
Also your failure is to see that Fed reaching the finals on clay would
not be a problem if he had given Nadal same medicine elsewhere and thus
even out the h2h...which he couldn't. THAT is his failure.
You're just a biased. You have talked a lot about h2h in the past...but
now when the concept doesn't look good regarding fed you dismiss the
concept.
Joe Ramirez
No.
> it's not that he
> didn't only win FO, it's also whom he lost to for you.
Incorrect. The only time I mention specific Sampras losses is to
*compare* them to allegedly disgraceful Federer losses -- usually to
the likes of Nadal or Djokovic in a final or semifinal -- identified
and trumpeted by the likes of Whisper, bob, Fan, you, etc. The
principle that reaching a later round in a tournament is a better
result than losing in an earlier round is fundamental to tennis. If
that principle is going to be illogically subverted by looking at the
identity of the opponent ("Fed may have made the final, but he lost to
*Nadal* of all people, so it's a disastrous result for him!"), then
you also have to look at the opponents in all of Sampras' supposedly
irrelevant losses. The comparison will make reasonable people laugh.
> Not so for Federer.
>
> Also your failure is to see that Fed reaching the finals on clay would
> not be a problem
It's never a "problem" to make a final. Period. It's always better to
make a final than to lose before the final. If you lose the final, too
bad, but at least you outdid everyone who didn't make the final.
> if he had given Nadal same medicine elsewhere and thus
> even out the h2h...which he couldn't. THAT is his failure.
That argument doesn't make any sense. The head-to-head is bad for Fed
because he failed to even it up? Welcome to the Department of
Redundancy Department.
>
> You're just a biased. You have talked a lot about h2h in the past...but
> now when the concept doesn't look good regarding fed you dismiss the
> concept.
Nonsense. I've always maintained that head-to-head is not -- cannot
logically be -- a measure of player achievement in a field of more
than two players. That goes for GOAT analyses and everything else.
That doesn't mean head-to-head can't be discussed and/or boasted about
ad nauseam for whatever other sorts of diversions it may provide. And
it is a helpful guide to anticipating the results of upcoming matches,
especially big finals, and that's always of interest.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>On 20/04/2011 6:53 PM, MBDunc wrote:
Just in the last post you said you would pick Rafa and only a fool
would pick Fed. Actually it would depend very much on the surface and
other conditions. Categorically picking Rafa would be bery foolish.
Sakari Lund
The theory is "Sampras lost at FO to Galo Blanco, Gilbert Schaller,
Thierry Champion etc. etc. etc., but he never lost to a great player
in the FO final. Federer lost to Nadal, the best clay player ever
repeatedly in the final. That is a positive for Sampras and a negative
for Federer when evaluating their careers".
Can anyone really think like that?????
TT
> On Apr 20, 12:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>> if he had given Nadal same medicine elsewhere and thus
>> even out the h2h...which he couldn't. THAT is his failure.
>
> That argument doesn't make any sense. The head-to-head is bad for Fed
> because he failed to even it up? Welcome to the Department of
> Redundancy Department.
>
And you're the head of the department...
The argument makes perfect sense.
While your argument does not, it's a result of not thinking all aspects:
IF Federer had not made finals on clay, Nadal vs. Federer h2h would be
quite even...but WE WOULD STILL KNOW that their h2h is unfair, since
they didn't play on clay. This is the case with Borg-Mac h2h...and
pretty much with Evert-Navratilova h2h.
TT
Well Sampras didn't win FO did he? If you think fed did then surely you
must count his matches against 5 years younger Nadal in clay finals.
Joe Ramirez
>
> IF Federer had not made finals on clay, Nadal vs. Federer h2h would be
> quite even...but WE WOULD STILL KNOW that their h2h is unfair, since
> they didn't play on clay. This is the case with Borg-Mac h2h...and
> pretty much with Evert-Navratilova h2h.
There is no such thing as an unfair head-to-head; there are only
unfair ways to argue on the basis of a head-to-head. Of course, every
head-to-head is heavily influenced by the circumstances of the
players' meetings, especially the court surfaces (because it's rare to
find a pair of players who are equally at home on all surfaces). Thus,
if the matches were tilted heavily in favor of one surface, then the
head-to-results likely will be slanted in favor of the player who
preferred that surface. This is quite uncontroversial (except to
someone like Whisper). So, perhaps it would make more sense to
consider a series of surface head-to-heads rather than a single
overall head-to-head, for better insight. In any event, a problem
arises only if someone erroneously attempts to use a head-to-head
record to rank players, either within an era or between eras. Avoid
that mistake and "unfair" head-to-heads take care of themselves. It is
not unfair that McEnroe never played (and lost to) Borg on clay; it is
only unfair to argue that McEnroe was a better player than Borg on the
basis of their head-to-head (7-7 overall but 3-1 to Mac in slams).
TT
Fed is lucky that he faced Nadal in WTF 3 times, a tournament especially
made for Federer and Rafa's absolutely worst surface.
Fed is also lucky that Nadal was 5 years younger and thus managed to
beat him ONCE (1) on outdoor hc and TWICE (2) on outdoor grass.
Not to mention Nadal's injuries.
So in fact their h2h is OVERWHELMINGLY favouring Federer, it's MUCH
BETTER FOR FEDERER than it should be.
At least Rafa can take back some of the unfairness as Fed gets past
peak. So far Fed has not held his part of the bargain well though,
avoiding Rafa with vengeance!
drew
> now when the concept doesn't look good regarding fed you dismiss the
> concept.
I think head-to-head is only going to be important if Nadal can get
close to Federer's
number of majors.
If he stalls out at 12 or 13 majors he'll be the guy who spoiled the
party for Federer on clay.
If he can get to 14 or 15 majors I think one would have to give him as
much credit as Roger.
Better still if he can make most of these at AO, USO and Wimbledon.
But credit to Federer that he still won the YEC against Nadal in the
finals in a year when Nadal had his best ever showing to date.
That was their only really important match of 2010.
Head-to-head matters but it is always better to reach the finals of an
event than to lose earlier. If Federer had lost those FO
encounters in the to somebody else earlier in the draw it wouldn't
make him look any better. His head-to-head on clay with
Nadal might be artificially better but if you want to look at it this
way, my head-to-head against Nadal is a perfect zero losses
and zero wins.
TT
> On Apr 20, 12:56 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>> IF Federer had not made finals on clay, Nadal vs. Federer h2h would be
>> quite even...but WE WOULD STILL KNOW that their h2h is unfair, since
>> they didn't play on clay. This is the case with Borg-Mac h2h...and
>> pretty much with Evert-Navratilova h2h.
>
> There is no such thing as an unfair head-to-head; there are only
> unfair ways to argue on the basis of a head-to-head. Of course, every
> head-to-head is heavily influenced by the circumstances of the
> players' meetings, especially the court surfaces (because it's rare to
> find a pair of players who are equally at home on all surfaces). Thus,
> if the matches were tilted heavily in favor of one surface, then the
> head-to-results likely will be slanted in favor of the player who
> preferred that surface. This is quite uncontroversial (except to
> someone like Whisper). So, perhaps it would make more sense to
> consider a series of surface head-to-heads rather than a single
> overall head-to-head, for better insight.
Maybe it would. Are you willing to consider Nadal's age in equation...
I doubt Fed would have won even once against Nadal on outdoors if they
were same age or Rafa wasn't injured when playing him. So far their
meetings would suggest just that!
> In any event, a problem
> arises only if someone erroneously attempts to use a head-to-head
> record to rank players, either within an era or between eras.
So you lost the surface argument on h2h and go back to h2h doesn't
matter at all-argument.
Are you willing to consider their age difference and the fact that 3
slams are played on fast surfaces and only 1 on clay?
I thought so.
TT
"Artificially better" - exactly. That's how it should be described with
Joe's coulda/shoulda and with Borg-Mac/Evert-Navra.
Well done.
Joe Ramirez
Lost what argument? You've been watching too much Stephen Colbert. "I
accept your apology. Now let's move on."
Joe Ramirez
?? You're in maximum straw man mode today. Caught "The Wizard of Oz"
on the Finntelly last night?
Shakes
> On 20/04/2011 10:40 AM, John Liang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2:32 am, Fan<Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 1:56 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 11:54 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
> >>>>> of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
> >>>>> fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
> >>>>> always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
> >>>>> Nadal has that."
>
> >>>> the best on clay currently. Who can argue with that fact? But if you
> >>>> are trying to argue that Nadal is better than Federer overall, that is
> >>>> just silly. The records speak for themselves on that issue. He has a
> >>>> chance to be better than Federer if he keeps going and winning slams
> >>>> and various other records, but he is not there yet.
>
> >>> yes Nadal Fed h2h record says a lot.
>
> >> On one-to-one Nadal is better than Federer, much better. However,
> >> Federer's 16 slams trump it all but the h2h leaves you wondering as
> >> Sampras pointed it out and correctly.
>
> > both participated and how they
> > performce in those tournaments. Nadal benefit in h2h comparison
> > because for 6 years Federer was
> > good enough to reach finals at almost every single clay court
> > tournaments he played. Clay was his
> > weakest surface Nadal's strongest. Nadal avoided such a comparison
> > when he repeatedly failed at
> > USO and AO. At AO and USO Federer won 9 tournaments and was in the
> > final 10 times compare to
> > Nadal's 2. What Sampras also did not point out was if we take
> > Sampras record on all surfaces compare
> > that to Federer's record he will be much further behind Federer than
> > 16:14 would suggest. H2H between
> > Federer and Nadal hides Nadal's deficiencies on hard court but his
> > record of 2 wins out of possible 15 hc
> > slams did not.
>
> Fed simply lost too many big matches to Rafa. That's something the
> greats don't do. You don't let you biggest rival beat you most of the
> time, as that leaves a lastimg impression in people's minds. Fed would
> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
> finals to Rafa (grass, HC & clay), while only beat him at Wimbledon (grass).
I agree with the first part of your statement. Fed could've/should've
held his own on at least one surface, at one major, against his
biggest rival. One of the greatest challenges in tennis is playing a
slam final against your most important rivals. That is when the
rubber really meets the road.
However I totally disagree with your claims about Nadal's best being
better than Fed's best. Fed's losses at both 2008 Wim and 2009 AO were
very close matches, both going 5 sets. It's nothing like Lendl's
losses to Edberg/Becker, or Agassi's losses to Sampras. To me, those
losses had a lot to do with Fed's strategy (or lack of) against Nadal.
That's something I've harped on about before.
HC and grass both play to Fed's natural strengths as a player, and
clay is the surface most naturally suited to Nadal. Fed plays Nadal
on them like he is playing on clay, that's his problem. He can lose
that game on any surface as we have seen.
IOW, Fed's losses to Nadal in those 2 Slam final's have a lot to do
with Fed not playing to his strengths, and not because Nadal is the
better player.
Joe Ramirez
"It's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck
depends upon him not understanding it."
-- Upton Sinclair (an American author)
Fanboyism can be a full-time job, so there's your answer.
jdeluise
On 20-Apr-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the first part of your statement. Fed could've/should've
> held his own on at least one surface, at one major, against his
> biggest rival. One of the greatest challenges in tennis is playing a
> slam final against your most important rivals. That is when the
> rubber really meets the road.
So the 2-1 at Wimbledon finals doesn't count as "holding his own"?
Sakari Lund
What???
Patrick Kehoe
> On Apr 20, 12:15 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're just a biased. You have talked a lot about h2h in the past...but
> > now when the concept doesn't look good regarding fed you dismiss the
> > concept.
>
> I think head-to-head is only going to be important if Nadal can get
> close to Federer's number of majors.
Agreed. That's going to push the h2h into the forefront, a reason to
find a differentiating 'number'... otherwise, it's a graphic on TV for
pre-match context... though it's also a great feather in Nadal's cap
to be sure! One he must love having!
> If he stalls out at 12 or 13 majors he'll be the guy who spoiled the party for Federer on clay.
Depends on how long Rafa stays at the top of tennis... it's easy to
forget he's 24 turning 25... he may OR may not have found functioning
stability with regards to his knee issues... if he HAS than, he might
well make serious run to Federer's mark, depending on whether of not
Federer can move the number of majors... 16 means 7 more wins... but,
Fed eeking out say 2 more means 9 just to match Fed... that's a hall
of fame career left of wins in majors... that would be daunting even
for Rafa... in that sense we can see not just the question of what Fed
might have left BUT also just how good can Djokovic and Murray be over
the next 4 years... those 4 seasons will, of course, tell the tale of
how Rafa and Roger stand, in comparison to one another...
> If he can get to 14 or 15 majors I think one would have to give him as much credit as Roger.
Yes. Because to do it, he'd likely have won more Wimbledons and
another hc slam or 2 in order to make up the numbers, one would
think...
> Better still if he can make most of these at AO, USO and Wimbledon.
Winning Wimbledons over the next 4 cycles keeps Federer from the magic
'7' number of Sampras as well, which would be key for legacy stakes to
some minds and the USO is also a significant prize... one would have
to think that Djokovic will take home a USO over the next 4 years;
that would also keep Fed from the magic '6' USO crowns moving past
Connors and Sampras... so there's a lot that could still be 'left out
on the table' despite the number of majors both Rafa and Fed have
ALREADY acquired; incredible really to think of it...
> But credit to Federer that he still won the YEC against Nadal in the finals in a year when Nadal had his best ever showing to date. That was their only really important match of 2010.
A loss in that match would have been a hammer blow to Fed, at least it
would have seemed that way... given their ages in 2010/2011 and given
Fed's run of finals in big events vs. Rafa... that's a lot of YEC's
for Fed now... something I suspect that will get typed onto Rafa's
tablet to "get after" very soon... as all great players love those BIG
markers over their careers...
> Head-to-head matters but it is always better to reach the finals of an event than to lose earlier. If Federer had lost those FO encounters in the to somebody else earlier in the draw it wouldn't make him look any better. His head-to-head on clay with Nadal might be artificially better but if you want to look at it this way, my head-to-head against Nadal is a perfect zero losses and zero wins.
A person cannot posit the h2h wins in big matches on a given surface,
on the one hand, and then overlook the fact that one player couldn't
get to big finals, on another surface for years, on the other hand...
making a final is ALWAYS better than losing in round 16 of a
tournament... does that really need to be discussed???
There's no question that Fed would LOVE to win another FO, another W -
at least, another USO and the men's singles Olympic final at Wimbledon
in 2012... We can't know his mind... but if I had to rank them, I'd
put them at:
1. Wimbleldon (1 at least to make 7)
2. Olympic GM - singles
3. FO (1 more)
4. USO (1 to make 6)
P
P
TT
>> finals to Rafa (grass, HC& clay), while only beat him at Wimbledon (grass).
>
> I agree with the first part of your statement. Fed could've/should've
> held his own on at least one surface, at one major, against his
> biggest rival. One of the greatest challenges in tennis is playing a
> slam final against your most important rivals. That is when the
> rubber really meets the road.
>
> However I totally disagree with your claims about Nadal's best being
> better than Fed's best. Fed's losses at both 2008 Wim and 2009 AO were
> very close matches, both going 5 sets. It's nothing like Lendl's
> losses to Edberg/Becker, or Agassi's losses to Sampras.
http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/federer-nadal-rg08score.jpg?w=450&h=290
Shakes
Dig deeper. We've seen Nadal's game adapt and improve to the point
where he went from falling all
over the place on grass in 2005, to come close to winning in 2007, to
winning the whole thing in 2008. It became increasingly clear that
Nadal was catching up to Fed even outside of clay, while clearly
holding his own on his favourite surface. If Nadal had lost to Fed at
Wim in 2009 or 2010, then the Wim 2008 loss would've been an outlier,
as Fed would've led 3-1 on grass. But, even in 2007, it became clear
that Nadal was getting the measure of Fed on grass. When seen in that
context, especially when followed by his loss to Nadal at the 2009 AO
a few months later, it did appear that Fed was losing his hold and the
2-1 record doesn't look as convincing.
I expected Nadal to beat Fed at FO, as much as I expected Fed to keep
Nadal at bay at Wimbledon for a few more years.
Whisper
> On Apr 20, 10:39 am, drew<d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 4:25 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fed would
>>
>>> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
>>> Rafa in the big slam finals.
>>
>
> There's never been a clearer example of a general theory being
> tailored to the needs of a specific individual. In the abstract, with
> no names attached, most people would agree that losing in the final of
> a tournament to a great player is a better result than losing in an
> early round to a nonentity. But the Sampras pattern of losses to
> "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
> it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
> left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
> finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
You miss the point. There's a clear conception Rafa is a better player
than Federer when they play off in big matches. This is due to the
actual record & not based on hypothetical matches they may have played.
Sampras did a good job of making sure none of his rivals were
considered better than him throughout his career. That's the 1st thing
any potential 'best ever' has to tick off - ie make sure everyone knows
you were the best of your era at least.
Fed's loss to Potro in USO final is meaningless as it was a 1-off, &
Potro is a 1-slam wonder. It can easily be written off as an off day
for Fed. Losing to Rafa in Wim, FO & AO finals on all 3 surfaces tells
us it's no fluke. Why are people pretending this is a complex concept?
These ideas are all over mainstream media & it's the biggest reason
most past greats are reluctant to annoint Fed goat. Whether it's better
to lose to Nadal in many slam finals v Blanco-types in early rds misses
the point.
Whisper
> 20.4.2011 11:07, Whisper kirjoitti:
>> On 19/04/2011 5:16 AM, TT wrote:
>>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
>>> of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
>>> fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
>>> always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
>>> Nadal has that."
>>
>>
>> disregard it. Of course he's going to say clay tennis is real & best
>> tennis as he has a vested interest.
>
> Given that you also have vested interest we can disregard your comment
> as well.
>
> The difference of course is that Muster knows what he's talking about.
It's the same as asking a Croat if Croatia is a great country.
drew
> Dig deeper. We've seen Nadal's game adapt and improve to the point
> where he went from falling all
> over the place on grass in 2005, to come close to winning in 2007, to
> winning the whole thing in 2008. It became increasingly clear that
> Nadal was catching up to Fed even outside of clay, while clearly
> holding his own on his favourite surface. If Nadal had lost to Fed at
> Wim in 2009 or 2010, then the Wim 2008 loss would've been an outlier,
> as Fed would've led 3-1 on grass. But, even in 2007, it became clear
> that Nadal was getting the measure of Fed on grass.
Nadal has done well on grass and particularly well when you consider
how dominant
Federer had been before Nadal came along.
But if we're going to be fair to both players I think it can be said
that 2008 was
not a healthy year for Federer....his only year where illness clearly
affected his play.
And even a sub-par Federer managed to make that 2008 an absolute cliff-
hanger of
a match that either player could have won with the swing of a couple
of points.
And IMO 2008 was Nadal's best tennis. I think he's managed to bravely
adapt his
game to compensate for his knee issues but if Nadal and Federer meet
again
at Wimbledon, it will be a question of which guy is playing better on
the day. I think
the two should still be closely matched on grass.
Even if 2010 was Nadal's most successful year in the majors, it was
also the year
where you could clearly see that the surface rust of his joint
problems had become
irreversible rust perforation...he's not driving a new car anymore.
And if he can race this rusty vehicle towards the finish line at
majors 8 more times
it will be through sheer force of character. This is where Federer
was at in 2007....
starting to show his mortality.
Whisper
The real point is both Fed & Rafa recognize each other as the 2 big
rivals of their era, just as past greats Borg/Mac, Sampras/Agassi etc
did. They know their matches really 'count' for legacy, above & beyond
a slam final v other players. That's why they always got up & did
whatever they could to win those matches. Winning most of those matches
tells us which guy was better at best.
Whisper
That's the key point - Fed's losses to Rafa in Wim & AO (grass & hc)
finals. Losses on clay are excusable as Rafa is probably clay goat.
TT
And asking you is like asking a Croat if Serbia is a great country...
TT
Yes.
Joe Ramirez
> On 21/04/2011 1:04 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 10:39 am, drew<d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 20, 4:25 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Fed would
>
> >>> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
> >>> Rafa in the big slam finals.
>
> >> Yes, better to lose to journeymen than to great players. :-)
>
> > There's never been a clearer example of a general theory being
> > tailored to the needs of a specific individual. In the abstract, with
> > no names attached, most people would agree that losing in the final of
> > a tournament to a great player is a better result than losing in an
> > early round to a nonentity. But the Sampras pattern of losses to
> > "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
> > it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
> > left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
> > finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
>
> You miss the point. There's a clear conception Rafa is a better player
> than Federer when they play off in big matches. This is due to the
> actual record & not based on hypothetical matches they may have played.
You are essentially saying that the head-to-head record between
Federer and Nadal clearly supports the idea that Rafa has the edge in
the head-to-head record between them. I'll go along with that. Do you
work in TT's department, by the way? Unfortunately, the question that
really matters is whether the head-to-head record between Federer and
Nadal supports the idea that Rafa is better than Fed *against everyone
else*.
> Sampras did a good job of making sure none of his rivals were
> considered better than him throughout his career. That's the 1st thing
> any potential 'best ever' has to tick off - ie make sure everyone knows
> you were the best of your era at least.
LOL. For years and years in RST, the absolute "first thing" any
"potential best ever" had to do was win Wimbledon, preferably many
times. Now all of a sudden there's a job application that must be
filled out, with Sampras-centric boxes to check. "Kicked the ass of a
wiggy guy who became paralyzed with anxiety for a couple of years
smack in the middle of my prime? Check. Hey, this is easy!"
> Fed's loss to Potro in USO final is meaningless as it was a 1-off, &
> Potro is a 1-slam wonder. It can easily be written off as an off day
> for Fed.
It's "meaningless" only if one is myopically focused on the head-to-
head between Federer and Del Potro, which is actually irrelevant. In
reality, the loss was very meaningful for Fed, in a bad way. It denied
him an open era-record sixth USO title, denied him a *fourth* three-
slam year, and denied him another shot at the CGS -- this time on HC
instead of clay. It was an extremely, probably painfully meaningful
loss for Federer.
> Losing to Rafa in Wim, FO & AO finals on all 3 surfaces tells
> us it's no fluke. Why are people pretending this is a complex concept?
> These ideas are all over mainstream media & it's the biggest reason
> most past greats are reluctant to annoint Fed goat. Whether it's better
> to lose to Nadal in many slam finals v Blanco-types in early rds misses
> the point.
Misses the point? You're the one who brought up Blanco and that silly
idea in this thread!
MBDunc
> On Apr 20, 10:38 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 huhti, 12:12, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 20/04/2011 6:44 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>
> > > > On 20 huhti, 11:12, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 19/04/2011 8:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Apr 18, 3:16 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
> > > >>>> of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
> > > >>>> fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
> > > >>>> always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
> > > >>>> Nadal has that."
>
> > > >>> the best on clay currently. Who can argue with that fact? But if you
> > > >>> are trying to argue that Nadal is better than Federer overall, that is
> > > >>> just silly. The records speak for themselves on that issue. He has a
> > > >>> chance to be better than Federer if he keeps going and winning slams
> > > >>> and various other records, but he is not there yet.
>
>
> > > >> Is Federer the greatest ever? Possibly
>
> > > >> Is Federer the best player ever? No
>
> > > >> Is Nadal the greatest ever? No
>
> > > >> Is Nadal the best player ever? Possibly
>
> > > >> So we have 2 definite answers (in the negative),& 2 arguable.
>
> > > > Isn't above analysis the testament that Fed/Nadal era has been most
> > > > probably the toughest ever? As possibly the greatest ever has had
> > > > possibly the best ever rival....and yet still has 16 slams....and 12
> > > > of those slams after Nadal won his first (05 FO).
>
> > > Of course you can see it also fits 'clown era' right?
>
> > > > Who is the greatest in your book if not Fed? What happened to 7543?
>
> > > > .mikko
>
> > > I give Fed very thin edge over Sampras (3%). Laver is the other guy
> > > forever in the goat discussion. Sampras has better Wimbledon record
> > > than Fed ('the' tournament to win), & better No.1 stats.
>
> > Sampras #1 stats are extremely narrowly better. (286 weeks vs 285
> > weeks) His 6 years year-end #1 is probably his best stat. This kind of
> > stuff needs also luck like Sampras actually had to battle for #1 at
> > YECs 93, 95, 98) compared to Fed who usually was already a lock
> > straight after USO). May be Agassi/Rios injuries gave two additional
> > year-end #1:s to Sampras but that it a part of game too.
>
> > However Fed's own records as #1 are nothing to sneeze at either. Some
> > give a great value for his record 237 concurrent weeks, his 5 year-end
> > #1 is also great and to boot (if it counts) Fed's top years (04,06,07
> > with 3 slams each year) top Sampras' best years easily.
>
> > > 7543 does give it to Fed by narrow margin (83 v 80) so I can go along
> > > with that, but my gut says it's very fine line. How much value do you
> > > put on being the all time Wimbledon king? Wimbledon after all 'is'
> > > tennis for most people.-
>
> > Well the difference between Sampras (7 titles) vs Fed (6 titles 1
> > final) in Wimb is nothing compared to say Sampras vs Lendl at Wimb.
>
> > But generally your 3% is about right. Sampras was top-notch great and
> > GOAT until Fed. Fed bettered at some areas (most importantly
> > additional 2 slams and career slam with no missing links, but Sampras
> > best records (7 wimbs, 6 #1) are also as huge as they get.
>
> since when did you EVER say Sampras was GOAT before Fed came along,
> lol
I have considered Sampras as GOAT since he won USO 2002 (surpassed
Borg in my book) until Fed surpassed him with Wimb 2009 title.
Tryi lolling with a link which proves otherwise?
.mikko
Shakes
> On Apr 20, 3:29 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dig deeper. We've seen Nadal's game adapt and improve to the point
> > where he went from falling all
> > over the place on grass in 2005, to come close to winning in 2007, to
> > winning the whole thing in 2008. It became increasingly clear that
> > Nadal was catching up to Fed even outside of clay, while clearly
> > holding his own on his favourite surface. If Nadal had lost to Fed at
> > Wim in 2009 or 2010, then the Wim 2008 loss would've been an outlier,
> > as Fed would've led 3-1 on grass. But, even in 2007, it became clear
> > that Nadal was getting the measure of Fed on grass.
>
> Nadal has done well on grass and particularly well when you consider
> how dominant
> Federer had been before Nadal came along.
>
> But if we're going to be fair to both players I think it can be said
> that 2008 was
> not a healthy year for Federer....his only year where illness clearly
> affected his play.
> And even a sub-par Federer managed to make that 2008 an absolute cliff-
> hanger of
> a match that either player could have won with the swing of a couple
> of points.
>
Even if Fed warrants the benefit of doubt in the 2008 F, he had faced
problems in the 2007 F too. The 2007 Wim F should've sent a warning to
Fed that Nadal was progressing very fast. So the 2008 F going Nadal's
way when Nadal was a year wiser, even closer to his prime peak
physically, was not out of the realm of the impossible, even if Fed
were healthy (as he was in 2007).
> And IMO 2008 was Nadal's best tennis. I think he's managed to bravely
> adapt his
> game to compensate for his knee issues but if Nadal and Federer meet
> again
> at Wimbledon, it will be a question of which guy is playing better on
> the day. I think
> the two should still be closely matched on grass.
>
That's why I said that if Fed had beat Nadal in the 2010 Wim, the 2008
loss would be like an anomaly. But, watching Nadal's progress from
2006 (losing in 4 sets) to 2007 (losing in 5) to 2008 (winning in 5),
the 2-1 record that Fed has is not as emphatic. Especially when
coupled with his 2009 AO F.
> Even if 2010 was Nadal's most successful year in the majors, it was
> also the year
> where you could clearly see that the surface rust of his joint
> problems had become
> irreversible rust perforation...he's not driving a new car anymore.
>
> And if he can race this rusty vehicle towards the finish line at
> majors 8 more times
> it will be through sheer force of character. This is where Federer
> was at in 2007....
> starting to show his mortality.
Yes, Nadal's slam tally going forward will depend a lot on how his
body holds up. That was the greatest thing about Fed, and Sampras too.
They didn't have to punish their body so much in playing through so
many years.
bob
wrote:
>On 20/04/2011 7:21 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 12:32 pm, Fan<Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 1:56 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 18, 11:54 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Apr 18, 3:16 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "Nadal has dominated because he has every shot in the book and because
>>>>>> of the way he plays the angles. To win on clay, you have to have
>>>>>> fantastic endurance, be powerful and flexible, a complete player. I
>>>>>> always thought you needed to be physically fit and have every shot.
>>>>>> Nadal has that."
>>>
>>>>> Why do you have to post all of these things on Nadal? We KNOW he is
>>>>> the best on clay currently. Who can argue with that fact? But if you
>>>>> are trying to argue that Nadal is better than Federer overall, that is
>>>>> just silly. The records speak for themselves on that issue. He has a
>>>>> chance to be better than Federer if he keeps going and winning slams
>>>>> and various other records, but he is not there yet.
>>>
>>>> yes Nadal Fed h2h record says a lot.
>>>
>>> On one-to-one Nadal is better than Federer, much better. However,
>>> Federer's 16 slams trump it all but the h2h leaves you wondering as
>>> Sampras pointed it out and correctly.
>>> It is almost impossible for Nadal to break Federer's slam record. One
>>> of the reasons is that he and his coach do not use their heads and
>>> play too many tournaments. The year 2009 should have been a good
>>> lesson. I saw Nadal crashing before others did and complained about
>>> Barcelona in 2009. The human body can take only so much and Nadal's
>>> game is very hard on his body. It should be obvious to his coach but
>>> with all the hungry relatives, Nadal has to make more and more money.
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Hungry relatives? I thought his dad and family were well off and own a
>> glass business and a restaurant? Plus Rafa has made enough money now
>> that if he retired tomorrow he would never have to worry about a thing
>> again financially speaking.
>>
>> Re the h2h thing just because Rafa has a better h2h than Federer does
>> not mean he is better imo. What the h2h says to me more than anything
>> else is that Rafa is better than Fed on clay. The h2h is skewed in
>> favor of Rafa because many of the matches were played on clay. Also,
>> just to look at the h2h is not enough to determine that a player is
>> better. You have to look at everything overall--i.e. all stats to
>> determine this and Federer has more achievements and records period.
>>
>> Now Nadtards are starting with the excuse that Nadal will not surpass
>> Fed's 16 slam count because of Nadal's style of play and injuries etc.
>> Ha, ha, ha. Always something with Nadtards. In tennis you take all the
>> factors to determine who the better player is. If Nadal's body can't
>> stand up to injuries due to his style of play, then that is part of
>> the mix. In other words Fed is so great because he was able to
>> maintain a style of play that was both effective and kept his body
>> injury free pretty much. That in of itself makes him greater to a
>> certain extent. Bottom line is if Nadal can't match Fed's 16 slam
>> count he will never be considered equal or better than Fed no matter
>> what you Nadtards come up with. LOL.
>
>
>Wrong. Nadal is already considered a better player than Federer. If
>you had to bet your life on a match between Fed & Rafa you's be nuts to
>pick Fed.
>
>Note I'm not talking about overall wins here, just 'best at best'
>analysis. Fed obviously has done better v the field.
true, as the field for most of fed's time as at peak wasn't the same
field as most of time for nadal's peak. fed snagged 10 slams before
nadal was peak.
bob
bob
>On Apr 20, 10:39 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 4:25 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fed would
>>
>> > have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
>> > Rafa in the big slam finals.
>>
>> Yes, better to lose to journeymen than to great players. :-)
>
>There's never been a clearer example of a general theory being
>tailored to the needs of a specific individual. In the abstract, with
>no names attached, most people would agree that losing in the final of
>a tournament to a great player is a better result than losing in an
>early round to a nonentity. But the Sampras pattern of losses to
>"Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
>it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
>left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
>finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
i can't believe katya didn't chime in with comment here..
bob
bob
wrote:
pretty obvious, yet some claim that losing a tuneup to a nobody is as
relevant. guess if you have a bias you have to try *some* explanation
for the unprecedented situation of a GOAT not being a BOAT or ever BOE
(best of era).
bob
bob
wrote:
outstanding post. i personally write off the delpot loss as lack of
concentration by fed.
bob
>
Shakes
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:21:35 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
Why do you have to disparage Fed to make Sampras look better ? Can't
you give it a rest ?
Shakes
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:03:07 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
The question is this: Yes, Fed's H2H against Nadal is a tarnish on his
otherwise stellar legacy. But, is it enough to make the claim that
Nadal is the best player of his era ?
No way. The gap of 7 slams is too huge to be bridged by H2H, just too
huge.
Shakes
sorry, meant to say * ... not in the realm of the impossible ...*.
Vari L. Cinicke
> The question is this: Yes, Fed's H2H against Nadal is a tarnish on his
> otherwise stellar legacy. But, is it enough to make the claim that
> Nadal is the best player of his era ?
>
> No way. The gap of 7 slams is too huge to be bridged by H2H, just too
> huge.
h2h is worth exactly 0 slams, exactly what it has been worth in the past
and what it will be worth in the future.
Shakes
While I wouldn't totally disregard H2H, it is not the decisive factor
until their other achievements are fairly close.
Vari L. Cinicke
Yes, as in same number of slams.
MBDunc
True.
Funniest thing about this h2h issue is that for some vocal posters
here h2h meant nothing for a decade (tons of links available) and
slams were the only factor with year-end #1 and YEC very far behind
(atleast at some simple scales they did not give any points).
Whenever someone like Waltz/Raja/co came up with their excessive h2h
and percentage analysis (+ other lists ranking players by more and
more far fetched method) they there laughed and always pointed out
with "only slams matter" or similar talk (usual 1st punch reasoning
was that "noone remembers who lost and how often only actual titles
are remembered").
Now a single h2h ("h2h:s are totally subjective opinion and does mean
nil when determining players' legacies" - quess who said this)
suddenly have a virtual value of x slams. And of course "virtual
value" = pure personal gut feeling and totally subjective open for all
biased analysis.
.mikko
Whisper
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:16:40 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 20/04/2011 6:53 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 20 huhti, 11:21, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2011 7:21 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>
>>> obvious as it can get.
>>> On outdoor hc you probably should pick Nadal. (h2h favours Nadal
>>> eventhough Fed has greatly better achievements).
>>> On grass you probably should pick Fed. (after all 2-1 at big grass
>>> finals)
>>> On indoors you should pick Fed. (3-0 to Fed at YEC).
>>>
>>> Simple?
>>>
>>> Or you can twist a bit and just look at the calendar.
>>>
>>> Nadal - Fed h2h from January to June (1st half of their years) : 14-3
>>> Fed - Nadal h2h from July to December (2nd half of their years) : 5-1
>>>
>>> So if a match takes place during 2nd half of year Fed has 5/6 = 84%
>>> chance of winning the match.
>>> So if a match takes place during 1st half of year Nadal has 14/17 =
>>> 82% chance of winning the match.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>
>>
>> It's not the time of year that's relevent, but what tournaments are on.
>> Somehow I think Rafa would have great FO record even in Novemebr.
>>
>> I probably would pick Fed to beat Rafa indoors, but nowhere else.
>
> Just in the last post you said you would pick Rafa and only a fool
> would pick Fed. Actually it would depend very much on the surface and
> other conditions. Categorically picking Rafa would be bery foolish.
>
I'd only pick Fed over Rafa indoors based on their h2h at YEC. It may
well be Rafa would still beat him there if the motivation was big enough
ie slam final.
Whisper
>>> even out the h2h...which he couldn't. THAT is his failure.
>>
>> because he failed to even it up? Welcome to the Department of
>> Redundancy Department.
>>
>
> And you're the head of the department...
>
> The argument makes perfect sense.
>
> While your argument does not, it's a result of not thinking all aspects:
>
> IF Federer had not made finals on clay, Nadal vs. Federer h2h would be
> quite even...but WE WOULD STILL KNOW that their h2h is unfair, since
> they didn't play on clay. This is the case with Borg-Mac h2h...and
> pretty much with Evert-Navratilova h2h.
MN thrashed Evert 63 61 in 1984 FO final.
Whisper
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>> On Apr 20, 10:39 am, drew<d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 4:25 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fed would
>>>
>>>> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
>>>> Rafa in the big slam finals.
>>>
>>> Yes, better to lose to journeymen than to great players. :-)
>>
>> There's never been a clearer example of a general theory being
>> tailored to the needs of a specific individual. In the abstract, with
>> no names attached, most people would agree that losing in the final of
>> a tournament to a great player is a better result than losing in an
>> "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
>> it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
>> left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
>> finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
>
> Thierry Champion etc. etc. etc., but he never lost to a great player
> in the FO final. Federer lost to Nadal, the best clay player ever
> repeatedly in the final. That is a positive for Sampras and a negative
> for Federer when evaluating their careers".
>
> Can anyone really think like that?????
>
>
You skipped the bit where Rafa beat Fed in clay, grass & HC slam finals.
How come? Trolling or simply unaware?
Whisper
> On Apr 20, 12:56 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>> IF Federer had not made finals on clay, Nadal vs. Federer h2h would be
>> quite even...but WE WOULD STILL KNOW that their h2h is unfair, since
>> they didn't play on clay. This is the case with Borg-Mac h2h...and
>> pretty much with Evert-Navratilova h2h.
>
> unfair ways to argue on the basis of a head-to-head. Of course, every
> head-to-head is heavily influenced by the circumstances of the
> players' meetings, especially the court surfaces (because it's rare to
> find a pair of players who are equally at home on all surfaces). Thus,
> if the matches were tilted heavily in favor of one surface, then the
> head-to-results likely will be slanted in favor of the player who
> preferred that surface. This is quite uncontroversial (except to
> someone like Whisper).
I have no problem with Fed losing every yr at FO to Rafa. This indeed
is a positive for him. It's the totality of the evidence that damns him
- ie also losing grass & HC slam finals to him even when he was ranked
No.1.
>So, perhaps it would make more sense to
> consider a series of surface head-to-heads rather than a single
> overall head-to-head, for better insight. In any event, a problem
> arises only if someone erroneously attempts to use a head-to-head
> record to rank players, either within an era or between eras. Avoid
> that mistake and "unfair" head-to-heads take care of themselves. It is
> not unfair that McEnroe never played (and lost to) Borg on clay; it is
> only unfair to argue that McEnroe was a better player than Borg on the
> basis of their head-to-head (7-7 overall but 3-1 to Mac in slams).
It seems harder to argue Borg was better based on the same evidence.
Whisper
>> now when the concept doesn't look good regarding fed you dismiss the
>> concept.
>
> close to Federer's
> number of majors.
>
> If he stalls out at 12 or 13 majors he'll be the guy who spoiled the
> party for Federer on clay.
More than that. He's the guy who stopped Fed being conclusive goat in
everyone's book. I have little doubt Fed would have won 2, if not 3
calendar slams without Rafa in the field. 2006 & 2007, & probably 2009
(wouldn't have lost to Potro in USO final with calendar slam on the line).
>
> If he can get to 14 or 15 majors I think one would have to give him as
> much credit as Roger.
Imo Fed will always have a better record than Rafa in 3 of the 4 slams.
No brainer really as he'd have to win 4 more Wimbledons, 4 more USOs &
3 more AOs to match Fed at those 3 slams.
Rafa's best chance to supplant Fed in goat stakes is to win calendar
slam. Rafa's 2010 is already the best yr by any male since Laver's 1969.
>
> Better still if he can make most of these at AO, USO and Wimbledon.
>
> But credit to Federer that he still won the YEC against Nadal in the
> finals in a year when Nadal had his best ever showing to date.
> That was their only really important match of 2010.
Yeah, but it's also true YEC adds nothing to legacy.
>
> Head-to-head matters but it is always better to reach the finals of an
> event than to lose earlier. If Federer had lost those FO
> encounters in the to somebody else earlier in the draw it wouldn't
> make him look any better. His head-to-head on clay with
> Nadal might be artificially better but if you want to look at it this
> way, my head-to-head against Nadal is a perfect zero losses
> and zero wins.
Again it's not the clay h2h that bothers me at all.
Whisper
> On Apr 20, 1:25 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 20/04/2011 10:40 AM, John Liang wrote:
>> Fed simply lost too many big matches to Rafa. That's something the
>> greats don't do. You don't let you biggest rival beat you most of the
>> time, as that leaves a lastimg impression in people's minds. Fed would
>> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
>> finals to Rafa (grass, HC& clay), while only beat him at Wimbledon (grass).
>
> I agree with the first part of your statement. Fed could've/should've
> held his own on at least one surface, at one major, against his
> biggest rival. One of the greatest challenges in tennis is playing a
> slam final against your most important rivals. That is when the
> rubber really meets the road.
>
> However I totally disagree with your claims about Nadal's best being
> better than Fed's best. Fed's losses at both 2008 Wim and 2009 AO were
> very close matches, both going 5 sets. It's nothing like Lendl's
> losses to Edberg/Becker, or Agassi's losses to Sampras. To me, those
> losses had a lot to do with Fed's strategy (or lack of) against Nadal.
> That's something I've harped on about before.
Sure. 'Strategy' is part of being a pro tennis player right? Tough to
be considered 'best ever' if you have poor strategy & lose big finals to
your main rival.
>
> HC and grass both play to Fed's natural strengths as a player, and
> clay is the surface most naturally suited to Nadal. Fed plays Nadal
> on them like he is playing on clay, that's his problem. He can lose
> that game on any surface as we have seen.
>
> IOW, Fed's losses to Nadal in those 2 Slam final's have a lot to do
> with Fed not playing to his strengths, and not because Nadal is the
> better player.
Maybe, but that's a subjective assessment. It seems to me Rafa's sheer
will is enough to circumvent anything Fed throws at him. Wouldn't have
believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.
Whisper
> On Apr 20, 12:57 pm, Sakari Lund<sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 10:39 am, drew<d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Fed would
>>
>>>>> have been far better off to lose a few matches to Blanco-types but beat
>>>>> Rafa in the big slam finals.
>>
>>
>>> There's never been a clearer example of a general theory being
>>> tailored to the needs of a specific individual. In the abstract, with
>>> no names attached, most people would agree that losing in the final of
>>> a tournament to a great player is a better result than losing in an
>>> early round to a nonentity. But the Sampras pattern of losses to
>>> "Blanco-types" demands an apologia; in particular, one that elevates
>>> it above the Federer pattern of losses to Nadal-types. So now we're
>>> left with a panoply of curious claims, such as that making 22 major
>>> finals is worse than making only 18 major finals.
>>
>> The theory is "Sampras lost at FO to Galo Blanco, Gilbert Schaller,
>> Thierry Champion etc. etc. etc., but he never lost to a great player
>> in the FO final. Federer lost to Nadal, the best clay player ever
>> repeatedly in the final. That is a positive for Sampras and a negative
>> for Federer when evaluating their careers".
>>
>> Can anyone really think like that?????
>
> depends upon him not understanding it."
> -- Upton Sinclair (an American author)
>
> Fanboyism can be a full-time job, so there's your answer.
>
Again I'm not worried about Fed's clay h2h at all.
Whisper
> On Apr 20, 10:27 am, drew<d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 12:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You're just a biased. You have talked a lot about h2h in the past...but
>>> now when the concept doesn't look good regarding fed you dismiss the
>>> concept.
>>
>> I think head-to-head is only going to be important if Nadal can get
>> close to Federer's number of majors.
>
> find a differentiating 'number'... otherwise, it's a graphic on TV for
> pre-match context... though it's also a great feather in Nadal's cap
> to be sure! One he must love having!
>
>
>> If he stalls out at 12 or 13 majors he'll be the guy who spoiled the party for Federer on clay.
>
> forget he's 24 turning 25... he may OR may not have found functioning
> stability with regards to his knee issues... if he HAS than, he might
> well make serious run to Federer's mark, depending on whether of not
> Federer can move the number of majors... 16 means 7 more wins... but,
> Fed eeking out say 2 more means 9 just to match Fed... that's a hall
> of fame career left of wins in majors... that would be daunting even
> for Rafa... in that sense we can see not just the question of what Fed
> might have left BUT also just how good can Djokovic and Murray be over
> the next 4 years... those 4 seasons will, of course, tell the tale of
> how Rafa and Roger stand, in comparison to one another...
>
>> If he can get to 14 or 15 majors I think one would have to give him as much credit as Roger.
>
> another hc slam or 2 in order to make up the numbers, one would
> think...
>
>> Better still if he can make most of these at AO, USO and Wimbledon.
>
> '7' number of Sampras as well, which would be key for legacy stakes to
> some minds and the USO is also a significant prize... one would have
> to think that Djokovic will take home a USO over the next 4 years;
> that would also keep Fed from the magic '6' USO crowns moving past
> Connors and Sampras... so there's a lot that could still be 'left out
> on the table' despite the number of majors both Rafa and Fed have
> ALREADY acquired; incredible really to think of it...
>
>> But credit to Federer that he still won the YEC against Nadal in the finals in a year when Nadal had his best ever showing to date. That was their only really important match of 2010.
>
> would have seemed that way... given their ages in 2010/2011 and given
> Fed's run of finals in big events vs. Rafa... that's a lot of YEC's
> for Fed now... something I suspect that will get typed onto Rafa's
> tablet to "get after" very soon... as all great players love those BIG
> markers over their careers...
>
>> Head-to-head matters but it is always better to reach the finals of an event than to lose earlier. If Federer had lost those FO encounters in the to somebody else earlier in the draw it wouldn't make him look any better. His head-to-head on clay with Nadal might be artificially better but if you want to look at it this way, my head-to-head against Nadal is a perfect zero losses and zero wins.
>
> on the one hand, and then overlook the fact that one player couldn't
> get to big finals, on another surface for years, on the other hand...
> making a final is ALWAYS better than losing in round 16 of a
> tournament... does that really need to be discussed???
>
> There's no question that Fed would LOVE to win another FO, another W -
> at least, another USO and the men's singles Olympic final at Wimbledon
> in 2012... We can't know his mind... but if I had to rank them, I'd
> put them at:
>
> 1. Wimbleldon (1 at least to make 7)
> 2. Olympic GM - singles
> 3. FO (1 more)
> 4. USO (1 to make 6)
>
> P
> P
1 Wimbledon
2 USO (6 would be a huge marker for Fed)
Rest is pretty much irrelevent.
In an ideal world (for Fedfuckers) Fed will win 2 more Wimbledons & 1
more USO. That would be the icing on his career.
Superdave
It may well be that you would collapse into your own asshole too if you lived
on planet earth like the rest of us.