Who said this after Wawrinka won AO 2014?

[PeteWasLucky]

I am happy Wawrinka beat Djokovic and Nadal to win a slam but I still see that slam final as a probable anomaly. If they have a rematch and Wawrinka wins again, you can call me foolish but not until then. We will soon have our answer as to whether or not Stan will change his losing pattern vs Nadal. Maybe he will and Nadal will never beat him again or maybe not and Nadal will never lose to Wawrinka again? ?????? Same goes with Wawrinka vs Djokovic. Will his win over Djokovic be the new norm in their match-up?
----------- end of post-------

- since then Wawrinka won the FO beating Federer & peak djokovic and winning the US open beating peak djokovic.

Will he beat nadal, no one knows, nadal is the favorite for sure, but it's fun reading that person comments on how this person never has a chance and that person will win everything.

[bob]

reads like a court1 post.

bob

[Court_1]

But in that post from the past I merely asked the question at the time, i.e. will the Wawrinka win over Nadal at the AO be the new normal? Wawrinka and Nadal haven't played in a slam since that 2014 AO so we don't know the answer. I was also merely questioning Wawrinka vs Djokovic at the time and whether Wawrinka could continue to beat Djokovic. I didn't say he wouldn't. We got the answer to the Wawrinka-Djokovic match-up in future slams but we won't know about Wawrinka-Nadal until Sunday.

[Court_1]

But all I did was question at the time whether Stan could continue to beat Nadal in slams. They haven't played at a slam since the AO 2014.

[Whisper]

I don't see anything wrong with that post? Stan was quite old to be
winning a 1st slam, & his h2h v Rafa was woeful before that match -
12-0, never even won a set.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[bob]

:-)

bob

[bob]

when you wrote "will the win over djokovic be the new norm" (and this
was at a time that djok was dominating the tour, incl nadal) what i'm
hearing is that you thought then stan was capable of being an
incredibly good player.

bob

[SliceAndDice]

I don't think he is saying there is anything wrong with that post. I think he is pointing out that she is back to saying Wawrinka has no chance even after he has proved her wrong.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:32:26 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 6:06:24 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> I don't think he is saying there is anything wrong with that post. I think he is pointing out that she is back to saying Wawrinka has no chance even after he has proved her wrong.

But Stan hasn't proved me wrong vs Nadal because they haven't played in a slam since I made that post!

And with respect to Stan vs Djokovic, I was only questioning whether Stan beating Djokovic would be the new norm. I didn't say whether it would be or not.

Anyways, I'm sticking with my guns that Nadal will win the FO and win it fairly easily. Three or four sets for Nadal.

[Whisper]

Well I'm more on Court1's side here. Not exactly 'no chance', but about
1 in 10. Expect Rafa to win in 3 or 4 sets - 5 would be a massive bonus.

Stan winning would be almost shocking to me. It's going to take some
all time boat-level tennis from Stan.

[PeteWasLucky]

> But in that post from the past I merely asked the question at the time, i.e. will the Wawrinka win over Nadal at the AO be the new normal? Wawrinka and Nadal haven't played in a slam since that 2014 AO so we don't know the answer. I was also merely questioning Wawrinka vs Djokovic at the time and whether Wawrinka could continue to beat Djokovic. I didn't say he wouldn't. We got the answer to the Wawrinka-Djokovic match-up in future slams but we won't know about Wawrinka-Nadal until Sunday.

Did you get your answer for "Same goes with Wawrinka vs Djokovic. Will his win over Djokovic be the new norm in their match-up? "?

[Federer Fanatic]

I see you've quelled your childlike enthusiasm for Stan and logic has kicked in.

FF

[Whisper]

Yup.

[Whisper]

I picked Rafa to beat Stan in the final pre-tournament - never wavered
from that analysis.

[Federer Fanatic]

As did I. Just saying you've backed off of the enthusiasm for Stan's game.
Be truthful. You will ecstatic if Stan wins?

FF

[Whisper]

I love Stan's game - best from a visual perspective this century I
reckon - so always happy when he wins a slam. However I also admire
Rafa greatly. He's the only clear cut surface goat/boat in tennis
history, so it's a massive privilege watching this guy's career in real
time. Trust me we won't see a guy dominate a surface to this extent
ever again.

I'd like to see Rafa make a real run at Fed's 18 slam record so this
match is crucial for him. If he loses this it could be career ending
for him, given he let a golden opportunity slip by in AO final. If he
wins then I think he can win another slam this yr to get to 16.

[Federer Fanatic]

Honest response and your true motivation is revealed ;-) More anti-Fed sentiments
as if that's a surprise to anyone...

FF

[Federer Fanatic]

I suppose if this scenario plays out it will further motivate Fed to win more slams...

FF

[Whisper]

It's not really 'anti Fed' though, more a search for the truth. From
what I've seen in the Fed v Rafa rivalry I have no doubt Rafa at his
best beats Fed at his best. At least if I was forced to bet my life on
who wins a match between these 2 guys, I'd always pick Rafa. That being
the case why shouldn't he hold the slam record, given imo he's the
better 'big match' player?

: )

[Federer Fanatic]

Yes. I would want Rafa to play for my life too, but I wouldn't mind Fed either.

FF

[Whisper]

If I had to pick a great player to win any random match pulled out of a
hat, to play for my life, then I would pick Federer.

[Federer Fanatic]

It sounds like your hedging your answer. Fed or Nadal for life? Let's agree
that either guy would be equally preferred?

FF

[Whisper]

Different questions require different analysis. If it's peak Fed v peak
Rafa I pick peak Rafa, if random match v anybody over 10 yrs I pick Federer.

[Federer Fanatic]

OK. If Fed and Rafa played each other for your life you would pick Rafa. I suppose
that's fair based on the head to head. Especially on clay. How about Peak Fed against Peak
Rafa on grass or hardcourt? Obviously if it was a round robin tournament where a series
of matches determined your life Fed would clearly be the choice as he beats everyone
thoroughly.

FF

ps. You find Fed unappealing as a person? Irrelevant from the tennis point of view....

FF

[Whisper]

Fed is too pc for my liking, & lost too much to his biggest rival. If
he were less pc & owned Rafa I'd like him more.

: )

[Federer Fanatic]

Yes. I would definitely be the Ultimate Federer Fanatic if Fed had dealt
with Rafa, say on a 50-50 basis on clay. And not losing to in 2008 Wimbledon
final. Very annoying Performance...could have put Rafa into a mental funk
on grass and possibly other faster surfaces with a win.

FF

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:28:18 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>

if rafa had played a little better in that AO 5th, this would be for
GOAT IMO. that AO final really put a dent in me, i mean rafa.

i don't think he ever catches 18 even with a win tomorrow. would be
nice though.

bob

[bob]

on clay, obviously peak rafa over anyone. on grass and hc, much
tougher choice. rafa wasn't consistent enough to play fed all that
often in HC/grass slam finals, but he did win 1 of 3 at wimbledon, and
the 2 he lost he was very young.

since 08, it's 4-1 rafa in slams OFF clay, fed's lone win this past
AO.

>ps. You find Fed unappealing as a person? Irrelevant from the tennis point of view....

federer seems like a great guy: dad, husband, charity work.
lebron james seems like a great guy: dad, husband, charithy work.

but 2 yrs ago lebron said, "sure we can beat the warriors, i'm the
best player in the world." to me fed's always said things that make me
think he's rather arrogant about his tennnis. he wins, sure, GOAT,
fine, but i don't care for arrogance regardless. from lebron, jordan
or fed.

bob

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:

> federer seems like a great guy: dad, husband, charity work.
> lebron james seems like a great guy: dad, husband, charithy work.
\
> but 2 yrs ago lebron said, "sure we can beat the warriors, i'm the
> best player in the world." to me fed's always said things that make me
> think he's rather arrogant about his tennnis. he wins, sure, GOAT,
> fine, but i don't care for arrogance regardless. from lebron, jordan
> or fed.

We've been over this territory before, but I don't think it's "arrogance" so much as poor discretion about making such public statements. IMO that mindset is almost necessary to be the best in the world or even in contention for best, especially in sports. Saying those things publicly though is bad form, I agree. Federer seems rather oblivious to how this comes across. Sometimes I get a good laugh out of it.

[Federer Fanatic]

I just listened to a podcast by Stephen A Smith and he noted that LeBron refused
to talk about the Warriors in this playoffs. I can see why Durant is the best
player in the world?

FF

[Federer Fanatic]

Yes. Fed is oblivious but not in a denegrating manner to others. I am sure if Mirka took him aside and
said something he'd have a bit of blank look on his face. True arrogance is when you promote yourself AND
denigrate your opponent. A lot like a NBA players do.

FF

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:10:09 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

fans of these guys will think it's ok, and really, it is. nobody's
murdering his ex wife and her lover for ex. by all counts, federer is
a great guy overall in life, never heard anyone speak differently.
also he's great at tennis and he knows it, pretty simple.

"humbalito" OTOH (who calls him that, btw, carey?) often says his wins
were "lucky" and he's "the underdog" even on clay, etc. false modesty?
or is he just really modest? has anyone actually done a study on caged
howler monkeys to get a feel for it? :-)

relative of mine said something yrs ago: we like who we like. i
reckon.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 15:19:04 -0500, Federer Fanatic

2 yrs ago lebron was fuming that curry was voted the unamimous MVP.
absolutely furious about it. IMO lebron's a very tough competitor and
a bit of a sore loser. he has an ego when it comes to basketball. but
he seems to be a great dad, great husband and does a lot of city
charity work, so overall, a great guy.

maybe these guys that reach the pinnacle, best in the world or best
ever - your lebrons, federers, jordans, serenas, etc - just have an
extra gene that makes them (1) that great (2) difficulty being humble
about it? and not just for athletes, in general.

(i like durant, hope to god they don't blow this btw...)

bob

[Carey]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.tennis/humbalito%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.tennis/IBN8MBMzbEc/WmYd1JSDm_kJ

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:55:23 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.tennis/humbalito%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.tennis/IBN8MBMzbEc/WmYd1JSDm_kJ

very good find. however, still ahonkan's opinion.

the fact nadal got a little irriatated with rosol doesn't really speak
to if he's a humble champ or not IMO. rosol purposely knocked over his
water bottles and intentionally jumped around during nadal's serves.
poor sportsmanship IMO. and yes, nadal lost a little of his cool.
remember, fed yelled "shut up" to djok's parents and everyone praised
it, so i don't see how it's much different.

bob

[Gracchus]

Everyone didn't praise it. Only the sensible people. :) I don't see the two events as the same at all. Rosol countered gamesmanship with gamesmanship. His was just more overt. Federer responded to disruptive spectators that happened to be his opponent's family.

[bob]

were djok's parents taunting fed, or just being too loud in support of
their son? either way, it appears they either intentionally - or
unintentionally - didn't know how to behave at a tennis match. fed's
complaint was fine by me, but note he didn't just let it slide.

flip side, rosol came in with an intentional gamesmanship approach to
the match, touching his opponent's gear on his own side of the net and
dancing during service motion. very bad sportsmanship. nadal's
response was a little shoulder bump. that was nadal's version of "shut
up."

just trying to be consistent: if nadal is to be chastized for becoming
angry at an opponent displaying poor sportsmanship at wimbledon, rule
should apply to fed too at monte carlo.

bob

[SliceAndDice]

But Fed never projected himself as Humbalito. He has always been a straight shooter. So why judge them on the same yardstick?

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 5:38:32 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 7:55:46 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:55:23 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.tennis/humbalito%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.tennis/IBN8MBMzbEc/WmYd1JSDm_kJ
> >
> > very good find. however, still ahonkan's opinion.

> > the fact nadal got a little irriatated with rosol doesn't really speak
> > to if he's a humble champ or not IMO. rosol purposely knocked over his
> > water bottles and intentionally jumped around during nadal's serves.
> > poor sportsmanship IMO. and yes, nadal lost a little of his cool.
> > remember, fed yelled "shut up" to djok's parents and everyone praised
> > it, so i don't see how it's much different.

> But Fed never projected himself as Humbalito. He has always been a straight shooter. So why judge them on the same yardstick?

Correct!

[Court_1]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:45:38 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > But in that post from the past I merely asked the question at the time, i.e. will the Wawrinka win over Nadal at the AO be the new normal? Wawrinka and Nadal haven't played in a slam since that 2014 AO so we don't know the answer. I was also merely questioning Wawrinka vs Djokovic at the time and whether Wawrinka could continue to beat Djokovic. I didn't say he wouldn't. We got the answer to the Wawrinka-Djokovic match-up in future slams but we won't know about Wawrinka-Nadal until Sunday.
>
> Did you get your answer for "Same goes with Wawrinka vs Djokovic. Will his win over Djokovic be the new norm in their match-up? "?

Yes, I got my answer to my question at the time about Stan vs Djokovic and tomorrow I'll get my answer about Stan vs Nadal. If Stan can take out Nadal in this form at the FO it will be the best win of his career.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 2:58:14 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> i don't think he ever catches 18 even with a win tomorrow. would be
> nice though.
>
> bob

Especially since Federer will win #19 at Wimbledon this year! ;)

[Carey]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:


> Especially since Federer will win #19 at Wimbledon this year! ;)

That would be wonderful, but not at all necessary. Eighteen.


"It's all gravy now."

[Court_1]

Nah, #19 and #8 at Wimbledon(becoming the stand alone W GOAT over Sampras) would be the final nail in the coffin for some of these Fed haters on RST.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Especially since Federer will win #19 at Wimbledon this year! ;)

Why? Why can't he won 14 FO? Who will stop him? Wawrinka?

[Carey]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:23:30 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Especially since Federer will win #19 at Wimbledon this year! ;)
>
> Why? Why can't he won 14 FO? Who will stop him? Wawrinka?

PWL, your posts are often difficult to understand lately. WTH does the above mean?

[Court_1]

Lately? LOL.

[PeteWasLucky]

> PWL, your posts are often difficult to understand lately. WTH does the above mean?

Difficult? Court1 posted 100 posts about how Nadal is unstoppable in the FO then she posted Nadal won't catch Federer's 18 slams even after he wins this FO.
So my question is why can't nadal win 14 FO if no one can stop him on clay and simply pass Federer?

[Whisper]

The stand-alone Wimbledon record is not necessary?

You have to do a bit better than that to diffuse the
pressure/significance of what's on the line should Fed make Wimbledon final.

It would be 'gravy' had he already won an 8th Wimbledon.

[Whisper]

Fed knows it - that's why he sacrificed the opportunity to win calendar
slam. Nice try from Carey though.

: )

[Whisper]

er, nobody is just given 5 more FO's. Only 2 guys in history have won
as many as 5, yet you want to just gift Rafa 5 more just like that?

[Court_1]

You have trouble understanding English. I never said Nadal will be unstoppable at the FO for eternity, I said I think he will be unstoppable this year!

Guga Kuerten on the other hand, just stated that he thinks Nadal could win 15 FOs so take it up with him:

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/a/35839473/gustavo-kuerten-predicts-rafael-nadal-wins-15-french-open-titles/

[Pelle Svanslös]

If the current Clay Clown Era what the future will hold, then why not?

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Whisper]

It would be a great privilege to see Rafa win something like that
number. Let's all wish him well.

[Court_1]

Funny, you weren't calling it a clay clown era when Djokovic was winning. What a sore loser you are.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Mudzilla was peaking on clay.

[bob]

he'll be either a favorite or at worst a top 3 choice, no doubt.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

trump not impeached yet is taking a toll.

> WTH does the above mean?

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:09:04 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/06/2017 2:52 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>> PWL, your posts are often difficult to understand lately. WTH does the above mean?
>>
>> Difficult? Court1 posted 100 posts about how Nadal is unstoppable in the FO then she posted Nadal won't catch Federer's 18 slams even after he wins this FO.
>> So my question is why can't nadal win 14 FO if no one can stop him on clay and simply pass Federer?
>>
>
>
>er, nobody is just given 5 more FO's. Only 2 guys in history have won
>as many as 5, yet you want to just gift Rafa 5 more just like that?

especially at nadal's age and fragile physical condition? PWL is drunk
tonight.

bob

[bob]

ok, that's fair enough.

but since it's my yardstick, i get to judge. :-)

bob

[Shakes]

I vaguely recall your saying a few yrs ago that you don't mind a gracious winner and sore loser, or an arrogant winner and a gracious loser, but not an arrogant winner and a sore loser. :)

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

yes, that's a direct quote, can't have it both ways. sure all great
athletes hate to lose and love to win. how you behave in both
circumstances goes to sportsmanship IMO. if you're arrogant when
winning, don't whine when losing.

all the people's problems here with nadal is quoting him as "false"
and just pretending to be a good sport, while employing gamesmanship
to the highest degree, angry when losing, etc. - i just don't see that
from rafa. he has some nervous tics, but i just don't see him as a
cheater or poor sport.

if you want to say it's "false modesty" to always claim the underdog,
perhaps that's true. but still, maybe he thinks being polite, even
overly so, is just the way to be.

bob

[Gracchus]

So when throws a tantrum for getting a time warning and demands to see the referee, I guess that's one of his nervous tics. :)

[bob]

in the 12yrs i've watched rafa his outbursts have been minimal though.
i think the time warning and outburst happened once, wimbledon? today
stan was taking 22sec/pt, while rafa 28sec/pt (rule is 20) so they let
it go normally like foot faults.

to say rafa is a temper problem is really untrue. now false modesty,
if you want to make a claim there i'm all ears.

bob