Fed - Nadal spoilers
Scott
Scott
> Rafa draws first blood. he's really on so far. 3-2 Rafa.
Roger is really aggressive so far. his UEs are going way up. 4-2,
Rafa.
Superdave
>Rafa draws first blood. he's really on so far. 3-2 Rafa.
Damn forks are flawed.
TT
> Rafa draws first blood. he's really on so far. 3-2 Rafa.
>
Roger is very lucky to even win a game...
uly...@mscomm.com
Superdave
>Fed can't play better than this and it's still not enough.
It's only a tune up so he can't be arsed.
oh. Where have I heard that before?
uly...@mscomm.com
he's 5 years younger. Not much more to say so far except it's not over
yet.
grif
"Scott" <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbb0c759-6871-4bf8...@k7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Rafa draws first blood. he's really on so far. 3-2 Rafa.
>
100% of 2nd serve points won from Nads in the entire 1st set.
SliceAndDice
> Fed can't play better than this and it's still not enough.
I am sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement.
Patrick Kehoe
> Fed can't play better than this and it's still not enough.
?????????
He can't find the court on the forehand...
He's GIVING this match away so far...
P
Yama
lots of forehands, and he was really sloppy at the net.
SliceAndDice
Yeah, that is how I see it too. Fed is in normal Nadal-induced-panic-
mode.
uly...@mscomm.com
noticed Lendl (even though he had a losing record against Becker),
having this against Boris.
uly...@mscomm.com
Sad to see the GOAT being raped like this, especially on a HC.
SliceAndDice
Pete matched up very well against Andre. He had nothing to fear about
(whenever Andre showed up, that is). Dunno about Lendl-Becker, but
doesn't Lendl have a reputation for being a bit of a choker?
TT
> Roger is very "lucky" to have 16 slams to Butt Pickers 9.
Roger is very lucky to EVER win a match against Rafa. Hell...
Yama
: Yeah, that is how I see it too. Fed is in normal Nadal-induced-panic-
: mode.
Actually, it's just Fed's normal form over last couple of years. He is
really sloppy with his forehand nowadays, no timing at all.
Joe Ramirez
playing "as good as he can"?
Jamtheman
Federer isnt the Greatest they dont have to look further than this.
Its all there, isnt it? Shanky, limp backhand, clueless panic against
equally matched opponent, mentally weak.
Joe Ramirez
> If any tennis historians want to watch a match that illustrates why
> Federer isnt the Greatest they dont have to look further than this.
Your first post in six months just to deliver this piece of illogic?
Patrick Kehoe
The guy's a feather brain Joe...
We all know Fed is iconic, all time great, king of majors... doesn't
need another win ever to be legend for he already is!
P
Jamtheman
15-8 loosing record against the only other Great of his era. I think I
prefer my logic. Ta.
RzR
> Nadal is in fine form, but Federer has been pretty crappy. He has been missing
> lots of forehands, and he was really sloppy at the net.
it was ridiculous how many gifts fed had for rafa tonight...but then
again...he is an accomplished and complete tennis player and a human
being, while rafa is not yet ;)
RzR
lol
16 in your eye
bob
yet 5 yrs ago we called rafa 'peak'.
shame on all your F*ing arses. SHAME.
bob
bob
what is a GOAT? i'm beginning to believe there isn't one.
bob
TT
> On 2.4.2011. 1:53, Yama wrote:
>> Nadal is in fine form, but Federer has been pretty crappy. He has been
>> missing
>> lots of forehands, and he was really sloppy at the net.
>
Fixed it for ya
TT
Looks like I was right...Connors is way better than little old Rogi... :(
RzR
yeah whatever
Joe Ramirez
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:49:01 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>
> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> >They're both playing as good as they can and Rafa is better because
> >he's 5 years younger. Not much more to say so far except it's not over
> >yet.
>
> yet 5 yrs ago we called rafa 'peak'.
> shame on all your F*ing arses. SHAME.
>
melodramatic condemnation. First you claim "we" made some dumb
pronouncement, but then you proclaim your malediction against only
"your" arses. At least have the guts to stand up and be counted as a
member of the mythic "we" you are convinced exists.
Rodjk #613
It is Ulysses you are replying to...were you expecting anything
rational?
Rodjk #613
Joe Ramirez
>
> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> >Fed 27 UE's against Rafa's 6.
>
> >Sad to see the GOAT being raped like this, especially on a HC.
>
> what is a GOAT? i'm beginning to believe there isn't one.
Just out of curiosity, did you also believe there was no GOAT when
Pete Sampras lost in straight sets to Andy Roddick (then ranked 119)
in the round of 32 at Miami exactly 10 years ago?
RzR
yes...it seems that a whole lot of players are better than fed, except,
of course, when it counts the most
TT
Is this the best you can contribute?
Pelle Svanslös
It's all in his head. What he shanks against Rafa he does to perfection
against Devin Britton. He's just not used to REAL competition, he says
so himself.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 9:53 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:49:01 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>>
>> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>> >They're both playing as good as they can and Rafa is better because
>> >he's 5 years younger. Not much more to say so far except it's not over
>> >yet.
>>
>> yet 5 yrs ago we called rafa 'peak'.
>> shame on all your F*ing arses. SHAME.
>>
>There is an obvious disconnect between the pronouns in your
>melodramatic condemnation. First you claim "we" made some dumb
>pronouncement,
"we" counts for a lot for a lot of RST posters - those claiming rafa
must be "peak" because he won his 1st slam. NONSENSE.
> but then you proclaim your malediction against only
>"your" arses. At least have the guts to stand up and be counted as a
>member of the mythic "we" you are convinced exists.
i'm not a member of that group - you and many others are. see, you
wanted to call rafa "peak" in 05-06, when he clear was not, but cut
fed slac in 2010, 2011. SHAMEful. and frankly, chicken.
bob
bob
sadly, it's probably the best i've seen from rodjk.
bob
bob
of course not. sampras didn't make a habit of losing to roddick in
slam SFs and Fs. in fact, older sampras destroyed roddick at USO SF i
believe.
pls, joe, as a reasonably smart guy, you get the difference, no???
bob
Joe Ramirez
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
> >On Apr 1, 9:53 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:07:56 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>
> >> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> >> >Fed 27 UE's against Rafa's 6.
>
> >> >Sad to see the GOAT being raped like this, especially on a HC.
>
> >> what is a GOAT? i'm beginning to believe there isn't one.
>
> >Just out of curiosity, did you also believe there was no GOAT when
> >Pete Sampras lost in straight sets to Andy Roddick (then ranked 119)
> >in the round of 32 at Miami exactly 10 years ago?
>
> of course not. sampras didn't make a habit of losing to roddick in
> slam SFs and Fs.
Yes, but he certainly made a habit of *losing*, usually before the SF
or F. Sampras lost 16 matches in 2001 against only 35 match wins. Did
you say, "My god, he may have 13 slam titles but no so-called GOAT
should lose so many matches! I'm beginning to believe there isn't a
GOAT if every two-bit clown can bump him off. Who cares if he's 'old &
past it' -- all these embarrassing defeats prove his past wins were
just flukes!" Was that your analysis at the time? It certainly should
have been, judging by the bob of 2011.
TT
It's interesting though that Sampras did keep on beating his main rival,
Agassi. Great players try and bring their best against their rivals,
regardless if they lack motivation against lesser opponents.
Joe Ramirez
Yes, it all boils down to "couldn't be arsed." LOL. All of GOAT
analysis is simply a matter of selecting the right excuse to ignore
the losses one wishes to ignore, while counting the losses one wishes
to count.
TT
That was not what I meant. But certainly you do understand players
raising their level against their rivals...aka just playing better than
normally, it's not necessarily about being "arsed", more like rising to
the occasion.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes... Rafa is the main rival of Federer, the guy putting the great
man in his place... the final check, without which Federer would have
become totally divine while here on earth...
True...
Indeed, Rafa is earth and industry and energy and humanism and Fed is
air and artistry and spirit and Zen...
We live in an age, in the west, post-spiritual... Rafa is the man of
his time...
P
bob
tier I post.
bob
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Apr 2, 1:05 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 1, 9:53 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:07:56 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>>
>> >> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>> >> >Fed 27 UE's against Rafa's 6.
>>
>> >> >Sad to see the GOAT being raped like this, especially on a HC.
>>
>> >> what is a GOAT? i'm beginning to believe there isn't one.
>>
>> >Just out of curiosity, did you also believe there was no GOAT when
>> >Pete Sampras lost in straight sets to Andy Roddick (then ranked 119)
>> >in the round of 32 at Miami exactly 10 years ago?
>>
>> of course not. sampras didn't make a habit of losing to roddick in
>> slam SFs and Fs.
>
>Yes, but he certainly made a habit of *losing*, usually before the SF
>or F.
after Wim 2000, he stopped prepping and focusing like normal and was
burnt out and lost to nearly everybody for 2 yrs, agree. how is this
related to roger? has nothing to do with roger still losing to rafa
and now djok. nobody else. and he's not "burnt out".
> Sampras lost 16 matches in 2001 against only 35 match wins. Did
>you say, "My god, he may have 13 slam titles but no so-called GOAT
>should lose so many matches! I'm beginning to believe there isn't a
>GOAT if every two-bit clown can bump him off. Who cares if he's 'old &
>past it' -- all these embarrassing defeats prove his past wins were
>just flukes!" Was that your analysis at the time? It certainly should
>have been, judging by the bob of 2011.
my gosh joe - i almost cannot belive this is coming from *you*!
if borg comes back next yr and never gets past qualifier does that
mean he's no longer tier I? of course not. this has nothing to do with
"motivated", "fit", 29 yr old federer who still only loses to same guy
he always lost to + 1 other who raised his game.
bob
bob
yes. laugh if you wish, but at the top level, got to be motivated.
> All of GOAT
>analysis is simply a matter of selecting the right excuse to ignore
>the losses one wishes to ignore, while counting the losses one wishes
>to count.
egads, very disappointing joe that you can't do a bit of analysis and
use a bit of logic here.
bob
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know if Federer is motivated or not. It seemed during his
match with Nadal he wasn't motivated or if that wasn't the case then
he conceded the match after the 1st set because his level of play
dropped a lot. Even the people in the stadium were cheering him on to
increase his level in the 2nd set but it didn't work for him.
Joe Ramirez
The difference between us is that while I look for ways to reduce the
impact of personal preferences and biases in these discussions, by
sticking as closely as possible to objective achievements and logical
analyses, you devise ways to indulge your formidable biases. One of
your favorite bias-boosting techniques is making virtually every win
or loss by a top player subject to some half-assed, amateur
psychological assessment. Sampras lost, sure, but he wasn't
"motivated," or didn't have the "revenge factor," therefore the loss
doesn't count, etc., etc. Well, in the long run no one cares about
such obvious BS except diehard partisans like you and your sensei,
Whisper, who are still trying to deny all of McEnroe's and Sampras'
losses with this kind of desperate rationalizing. But as careers
recede into the past, everyone else just looks at the numbers.
TT
> The difference between us is that while I look for ways to reduce the
> impact of personal preferences and biases in these discussions, by
> sticking as closely as possible to objective achievements and logical
> analyses,
Is that what you tell yourself?
The way I see it you try and reduce all discussion to one single number, 16.
While doing it you try to ignore:
-h2h
-Pre Open Era
-All other tournaments other than slams
-strength of opponents
Not really different from all other, less articulate fedfans. If your
main goal is not to be biased with your analysis...you see in this case
it has lead to a paradox that while being unbiased with your analysis
you have nothing left to analyse.
TT
...And the irony is that the criteria you claim to be unbiased, is of
course selected by biased motives.
bob
the ONLY sampras losses that i discount were the matches from Wim 2000
- spring 2002, because i know he had back trouble, wasn't prepping at
all, wasn't focused, and really had just achieved all he wanted and
didn't give much of a hoot anymore. making a couple slam finals in
there was just all on raw talent, nothing more. a shell of himself.
all else i count heavily, even the bad RG showings.
>Well, in the long run no one cares about
>such obvious BS except diehard partisans like you and your sensei,
>Whisper, who are still trying to deny all of McEnroe's and Sampras'
>losses with this kind of desperate rationalizing. But as careers
>recede into the past, everyone else just looks at the numbers.
today they showed 1 of mcenroe's numbers: longest win streak, no? :-)
bob