federer won 9 slams before rafa made nonclay QF

[bob]

fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
nonclay QF.

fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.

WOW!

bob

[Booger]

You are way off. Rafa made the Miami finals in 2005 and Fed was only at 4 slams at that point.

[bob]

everything i'm talking about is slams including rafa's QF, SF, etc. i
thought that was understood.

bob

[THGTHG71]

So far ahead (superior) was Federer? Really WOW!

Thanks for the stats. ;-)

[guypers]

LOL!!

[ca1houn]

so you think rafa was a late bloomer? Anyways has given fed problem since the begin why couldn't he give the other players problem and get to the finals to meet federer

[John Liang]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>
> nonclay QF.
>

Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.

>
>
> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.

Once again get a Casio FX82 and they have been around since the mid 80s in the last century, that should solve your basic maths problem. Buy 2 of them one for yourself and one for your master whimp he needs one too. It make a cheapish but useful Easter present for your master.
>
>
>
> WOW!
>
>
>
> bob

[bob]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:45:19 -0800 (PST), ca1houn
<vaget...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:41:03 AM UTC-8, bob wrote:
>> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>>
>> nonclay QF.
>>
>>
>>
>> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.
>>
>>
>>
>> WOW!
>>
>>
>>
>> bob
>
>so you think rafa was a late bloomer?

no, he was just much younger.

> Anyways has given fed problem since the begin why couldn't he give the other players problem and get to the finals to meet federer

bob

[John Liang]

bob, everything you are talking about is rubbish, the numbers are wrong and next time before you post get your kids check those numbers for you.

[bob]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), John Liang
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>>
>> nonclay QF.
>>
>
>Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.

i looked at fed's stats online, rafa's by memory. so let's see, fed
won 12 slams while rafa had made it past 3 non clay QFs? and fed won 7
slams before rafa made it past a nonclay QF which was my original post
in another thread.

pt stands very strong: rafa wasn't anywhere near his peak while fed
amassed 1st 7 slams.

>> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.
>
>Once again get a Casio FX82 and they have been around since the mid 80s in the last century, that should solve your basic maths problem. Buy 2 of them one for yourself and one for your master whimp he needs one too. It make a cheapish but useful Easter present for your master.

since you caught me sleepwalking through a post, kudos to you, i'll
give you 2 more replies as a bonus this yr.

still, like i said for yrs, fed won 7 slams before rafa made it past a
nonclay QF. alludes to fed took 7 quickies with no competition.

bob

[John Liang]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC+11, bob wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), John Liang
>
> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>
> >> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>
> >>
>
> >> nonclay QF.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.
>
>
>
> i looked at fed's stats online, rafa's by memory. so let's see, fed
>
> won 12 slams while rafa had made it past 3 non clay QFs? and fed won 7
>
> slams before rafa made it past a nonclay QF which was my original post
>
> in another thread.
>
>
>
> pt stands very strong: rafa wasn't anywhere near his peak while fed
>
> amassed 1st 7 slams.
>

The point only stand when the numbers are correct and you still haven't answer the question I raised as to why players like Sampras won his 11 grand slams before he was 27 which is one less than Federer won so far ?

>
>
> >> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.
>
> >
>
> >Once again get a Casio FX82 and they have been around since the mid 80s in the last century, that should solve your basic maths problem. Buy 2 of them one for yourself and one for your master whimp he needs one too. It make a cheapish but useful Easter present for your master.
>
>
>
> since you caught me sleepwalking through a post, kudos to you, i'll
>
> give you 2 more replies as a bonus this yr.

Post more bob, you make a great stand up fool here and let everyone have a laugh.

[Fednatic]

booger is full of boogies.

[Fednatic]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:45:19 -0800 (PST), ca1houn
<vaget...@yahoo.com> wrote:

rafa not able to overcome Fed until he past his peak agewise at which
time rafa was at peak agewise. completely understandable.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:41:03 AM UTC-8, bob wrote:

Right...

We know Bob...

Federer's over rated...

Riiiiiiiight...

P

[John Liang]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC+11, bob wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), John Liang
>
> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>
> >> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>
> >>
>
> >> nonclay QF.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.
>
>
>
> i looked at fed's stats online, rafa's by memory. so let's see, fed
>
> won 12 slams while rafa had made it past 3 non clay QFs? and fed won 7
>
> slams before rafa made it past a nonclay QF which was my original post
>
> in another thread.

Wrong, refer to the correct stats, the 3rd QF Nadal reached on non clay grand slam is 2007 AO and at the end of that tournament Federer won 10 grand slams. So you current post as well as your original post were both wrong.

>
>
>
> pt stands very strong: rafa wasn't anywhere near his peak while fed
>
> amassed 1st 7 slams.

Ridiculous point really, so Federer needs to wait until he is 27 to win those slams to prove his greatness when he was close to 5 years older than Nadal. Did we measure Samrpas' greatness base on this sort of logic that Sampras is only great if he can win 10 grand slams after 27.

[Whisper]

This is rst, a place where people try to convince me Fed wasn't 21 &
Rafa 19 when they won their 1st slams.

If we can't even agree on facts then what hope of reaching middle ground
in the more subjective aspects?

[Whisper]

er, he beat Fed the very 1st time they played very easily 63 63. That
was on hard not clay, when Fed had won 3 slams in the year & Rafa was in
diapers. To me it's very clear the Fed v Rafa matches were never a rivalry.

[Fednatic]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:48:13 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

tune up don't count remember ? you have repeated it a suptillion times
!

[John Liang]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:51:34 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 2/22/2014 8:15 AM, bob wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:09:24 -0800 (PST), Booger
>
> > <porth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On Friday, February 21, 2014 11:41:03 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>
> >>> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>
> >>> nonclay QF.
>
> >
>
> >>> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.
>
> >>> WOW!
>
> >
>
> >>> bob
>
> >>
>
> >> You are way off. Rafa made the Miami finals in 2005 and Fed was only at 4 slams at that point.
>
> >
>
> > everything i'm talking about is slams including rafa's QF, SF, etc. i
>
> > thought that was understood.
>
> >
>
> > bob
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> This is rst, a place where people try to convince me Fed wasn't 21 &
>
> Rafa 19 when they won their 1st slams.
>

This is RST where people like you and bob make up number and facts and try to convince people to accept falsehood. Federer was closer to 22 than 21 when he won his first grand slam and Nadal won his when he was a few days from 19. You tried to convince people the gap between their age when they won their first grand slams is 2 when the actual gap is closer to 3, 2 years 11 months.

>
>
> If we can't even agree on facts then what hope of reaching middle ground
>
> in the more subjective aspects?

Forget about been more subjective when you and bob both fail to understand and exercise the basics of mathematics, apart from that remember repeating incorrect facts a thousand times doesn't make them facts.

[The Iceberg]

this is the place where I was told Wimbledon isn't the most prestigious tournament, rather some unknown Asian one.

[The Iceberg]

I've told you a thousand times, because the clowns were told and went all out vs Nadal/Murray/Djoker - vs Fed they fold. Look at Wawerinka.

[bob]

i recall that.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:20:20 -0800 (PST), John Liang

<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), John Liang
>>
>> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>>
>> >> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nonclay QF.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.
>>
>>
>>
>> i looked at fed's stats online, rafa's by memory. so let's see, fed
>>
>> won 12 slams while rafa had made it past 3 non clay QFs? and fed won 7
>>
>> slams before rafa made it past a nonclay QF which was my original post
>>
>> in another thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> pt stands very strong: rafa wasn't anywhere near his peak while fed
>>
>> amassed 1st 7 slams.
>>
>
>The point only stand when the numbers are correct and you still haven't answer the question I raised as to why players like Sampras won his 11 grand slams before he was 27 which is one less than Federer won so far ?

the numbers are now correct and the pt is still obvious.

fed won 7 slams before rafa made his 1st non clay slam QF. i've been
quoting that stat for some yrs and it clears up question of who was
fed's competition winning his 1st 7 slams.

>> >> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.
>>
>> >Once again get a Casio FX82 and they have been around since the mid 80s in the last century, that should solve your basic maths problem. Buy 2 of them one for yourself and one for your master whimp he needs one too. It make a cheapish but useful Easter present for your master.

no, these numbers care correct. get rid of your chinese calculator and
buy a TI.

>> since you caught me sleepwalking through a post, kudos to you, i'll
>> give you 2 more replies as a bonus this yr.
>
>Post more bob, you make a great stand up fool here and let everyone have a laugh.

nobody laughs that fed won 7 slams before rafa made a nonclay QF.
tells me rafa was nowhere near his overall peak while fed beat up on
roddick/hewitt.

til you can refute that with facts (or even one of your weak opinions)
my pt stands.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:12:24 -0800 (PST), John Liang

<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), John Liang
>>
>> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>>
>> >> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nonclay QF.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.
>>
>>
>>
>> i looked at fed's stats online, rafa's by memory. so let's see, fed
>>
>> won 12 slams while rafa had made it past 3 non clay QFs? and fed won 7
>>
>> slams before rafa made it past a nonclay QF which was my original post
>>
>> in another thread.
>
>Wrong, refer to the correct stats, the 3rd QF Nadal reached on non clay grand slam is 2007 AO and at the end of that tournament Federer won 10 grand slams. So you current post as well as your original post were both wrong.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> pt stands very strong: rafa wasn't anywhere near his peak while fed
>>
>> amassed 1st 7 slams.
>
>Ridiculous point really, so Federer needs to wait until he is 27 to win those slams to prove his greatness when he was close to 5 years older than Nadal. Did we measure Samrpas' greatness base on this sort of logic that Sampras is only great if he can win 10 grand slams after 27.

it proves beyond any doubt that rafa wasn't fed's competition off
clay. it means that (while all the fednuts here want to believe rafa
by 2005 had "lauched" or "peaked") rafa wasn't a slam threat off clay
til fed had already amassed 7 slams. tells us all we need to know.

bob

[bob]

not at all. but he won 1st 7 slams with roddick/hewitt as the
competition; not rafa. the only place rafa was competition in that
time, fed didn't win.

bob

[John Liang]

Of course it is Federer's fault that Nadal couldn't make the final. For some reason Nadal couldn't even get pass those guys to get to the final. Nadal has to wait for Federer to decline to win non clay court slams.
>
>
> bob

[John Liang]

And let me remind you then Federer won another 10 grand slam after that and was more successful than Nadal on non clay court surfaces and in fact he won 9 non clay court slam telss us what we all know and that is a declining Federer was still more successful than a peak Nadal. To you bob I don't like to put numbers in any of the argument when it is quite apparent you are mathmatically illiterate to understand the numbers.

>
>
>
> bob

[Patrick Kehoe]

So?

P

[bob]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:18:16 -0800 (PST), John Liang

<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:24:43 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:12:24 -0800 (PST), John Liang
>>
>> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:44:47 -0800 (PST), John Liang
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:41:03 AM UTC+11, bob wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> nonclay QF.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Wrong again bob, your basic maths skill is not what we expect from an engineer probably a first year apprentice can you a lot better than you in maths. The first non clay court grand slam final Nadal made was in 2006 Wimbledon and lets start counting the slam titles title that Federer won between Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2006, we knew for start Federer did no win FO so that is already 3 out of possible 13 grand slams, he did not win USO 2003 and AO 2005, he won W 03,04,05,06, USO 04,05, AO 04 and 06, that is 8 grand slam not 9. Seriously a lead engineer with this type of maths skill should be sacked on the spot.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> i looked at fed's stats online, rafa's by memory. so let's see, fed
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> won 12 slams while rafa had made it past 3 non clay QFs? and fed won 7
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> slams before rafa made it past a nonclay QF which was my original post
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> in another thread.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Wrong, refer to the correct stats, the 3rd QF Nadal reached on non clay grand slam is 2007 AO and at the end of that tournament Federer won 10 grand slams. So you current post as well as your original post were both wrong.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pt stands very strong: rafa wasn't anywhere near his peak while fed
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> amassed 1st 7 slams.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Ridiculous point really, so Federer needs to wait until he is 27 to win those slams to prove his greatness when he was close to 5 years older than Nadal. Did we measure Samrpas' greatness base on this sort of logic that Sampras is only great if he can win 10 grand slams after 27.
>>
>>
>>
>> it proves beyond any doubt that rafa wasn't fed's competition off
>>
>> clay. it means that (while all the fednuts here want to believe rafa
>>
>> by 2005 had "lauched" or "peaked") rafa wasn't a slam threat off clay
>>
>> til fed had already amassed 7 slams. tells us all we need to know.
>
>And let me remind you then Federer won another 10 grand slam after that

sure. 10. yep. got your chinese calculator out for that?

bob

[bob]

it's not federer's fault that he's 58 months older than rafa. but it's
a fact of life.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:02:06 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe

<pke...@telus.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 22, 2014 5:25:22 AM UTC-8, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:20:30 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe
>>
>> <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:41:03 AM UTC-8, bob wrote:
>>
>> >> fed won 9 slams by the end of the tournament where rafa made his 1st
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nonclay QF.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> fed won 12 slams before rafa made his 1st nonclay SF.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> WOW!
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> bob
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Right...
>>
>> >
>>
>> >We know Bob...
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Federer's over rated...
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Riiiiiiiight...
>>
>>
>>
>> not at all. but he won 1st 7 slams with roddick/hewitt as the
>>
>> competition; not rafa. the only place rafa was competition in that
>>
>> time, fed didn't win.
>>
>>
>>
>> bob
>
>So?

just want everyone to acknowledge that fed is 58 months older than
rafa and fed won 7 slams before rafa became a nonclay threat. don't
want to hear more rubbish like liang saying there were 2 yrs between
em, same era, rafa peaked near fed, etc...cause it's rubbish.

i see your pt about "why" when discussing who cares when anyone
peaked, 17 = 17. but if we want to say he went through rafa to get
there, um, we can't say that.

bob

[Patrick Kehoe]

Every great player has highs and lows and periods of almost unmatchable brilliance... that's how one manages to dominate both rivals and the entire field to forge greatness... there are patches when the road is easier than other times and there are periods when they seem to defy probability and fate itself... no one has an unobstructed run and no one fights all lions... the over all template for championship greatness changes in the detailing of specifics, and yet, remains unchanging in the macrocosm of trial, defiance, brilliance and executable singularity against those who oppose them... and the numbers of championship wins do, in the end, tell the tale because over the entirety of a legendary career the hurdles are great and varied...

P

[Scott]

> >
>
> >er, he beat Fed the very 1st time they played very easily 63 63. That
>
> >was on hard not clay, when Fed had won 3 slams in the year & Rafa was in
>
> >diapers. To me it's very clear the Fed v Rafa matches were never a rivalry.
>
>
>
>
>
> tune up don't count remember ? you have repeated it a suptillion times
>
> !

How come Fed doesn't get cred from Whisper for beating Sampras the first time they played, on grass not clay, at a slam? Whisper gives Nadal cred for beating sick Fed at a tune-up.

[John Liang]

Because he is whimp or bob, with Federer even half match score count.

[John Liang]

The fact of life is Federer won more grand slam than Nadal and out of those wins Nadal was in the tournaments in vast majority of time. It takes an idiot like you to believe Federer needs to win 10 slams against players 5 or 6 years younger than him after his inevitable decline starting in 2008. Of course idiots like you never understand the fact that no great players past or present win more grand slam during the last 1/3 of their career. One thing we know about you bob is your standard of maths is not up to scratch of a fully qualified engineer and your level of logical thinking is of preschool standard.
>
>
> bob

[ca1houn]

I agree pretty much that what all the top three did.

[ca1houn]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:22:43 PM UTC-8, bob wrote:

Works both ways but yet you like to give Nadal a pass in the area

[bob]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:31:00 -0800 (PST), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

fed gets credit for it, but how much credit do you want to give being
that sampras was in the middle of a stretch that he hadn't won a
tourney in 2yrs and was pushed by nobodies to 5 sets at that same
wimbledon? c'mon now.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:52:39 -0800 (PST), John Liang

it's also a fact of life that rafa has beaten fed like a dog
throughout their career, and lately he punished old fed even worse
than usual. but fed gets slack for being old eh? no slack for kid rafa
though eh? you're an imbecile john and unless you can up yuour game
this is your last reply til after wimbledon.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:19:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe

a lot of words, but in the end fed overcame a little less than others,
IMO, in getting to the 17 cause the 1st 7 were almost gimmes. but
that's just my opinion.

congrats to your men's/women's hockey teams. i thought we had ya in
the women's, but the men were dominant in all facets. shoulda beat usa
about 5-0 actually. congrats.

bob

[bob]

what pass would nadal need? he went through prime fed, prime djok,
prime murray for all his slams.

bob

[heyg...@gmail.com]

How do you rate the competition right now? Is Djokovic's form all that good? Murray's? Fed's? How strong can the competition be when Nadal has a winning H2H against the top 30?

[John Liang]

Was beating Roddick,Hewitt or Safin easier tasks than beating the likes of Voitchov, Piolines, Martin, Volkov in semis an finals of grand slam ? The four combined manage to win 0 sets in grand slam finals and compare that to the three that won 4 grand slams. If a player want a gimme in grand slam finals they have far better chance facing a Pioline/voitchov/woodbridge/volkov/martin leading up to a final of grand slam rather than Hewitt/Safin/Roddick who have proven themselves in grand slams with grand slam victories.

[bob]

generally speaking, i rate the competition since 2010 strong, although
extremely limited in terms of variety. they all play the same, but
they're all very good at it.

bob

[Patrick Kehoe]

++ Yes... just your opinion...

> bob

P

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:01:27 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:

> generally speaking, i rate the competition since 2010 strong,>

But what about RIGHT now and from 2011 until now? Aside from Djokovic's incredible 2011 where he was whooping Nadal's ass everywhere, who has been great competition for Nadal? Djokovic has not won a slam outside of the AO since 2011 and we have not seen Murray and Nadal meet in a slam since 2011. Federer is over the hill and can't beat Nadal in a slam any longer. Who is this GREAT competition for Nadal in the slams? Wawrinka? LOL.

[TT]

25.2.2014 4:18, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Djokovic has not won a slam outside of the AO since 2011

But he has lost to Rafa 2 times at RG and once in USO. Also beaten Rafa
at AO.

You can't claim that he's not great opponent just because Rafa has
beaten him at 3 slams. Hell, I'd go as far and say that compared to
Djokovic, Federer is no competition for Rafa, a clown.

[Fednatic]

hard to compete against a CHEATER no?

[heyg...@gmail.com]

None of whom are great clay champions, where Nadal has racked up most of his slams. Nadal's wins at AO/W/USO have been impressive, though.

[TT]

25.2.2014 19:38, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> None of whom are great clay champions, where Nadal has racked up most of his slams.

Nonsense.

Without Rafa, Federer & Djokovic both would have way more clay
slams&masters than Lendl.

Lendl has a total of 9 major clay titles. Djokovic has 4, Federer has 8
major clay titles.

Nadal has 27 major clay titles, most of which would have gone to
Federer&Djokovic had Rafa not been there.

Rafa has beaten Djokovic&Federer a total of 25 times on clay slams&masters.

[bob]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:18:40 -0800 (PST), Court_1
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

i'm saying that the fed/nadal/djoke/murray combo past 4 yrs represents
strong tennis players. not "varied" tennis players, but strong
nonetheless. i don't consider it a weak field. surely not
roddick/hewitt.

bob

[heyg...@gmail.com]

It's a completely weak field on clay, especially compared to the HC competition.

[bob]

it is a FAR more shallow field on clay, as in the 90s you always had
at least 5 excellent clay players at once. but i wouldn't call it weak
as you still have nadal and, least til 2012, fed, plus ferrer. minus
rafa it'd have been the weakest clay field in history.

bob

[TT]

26.2.2014 14:52, bob kirjoitti:
> it is a FAR more shallow field on clay, as in the 90s you always had
> at least 5 excellent clay players at once.

Nope, you didn't have 5 excellent clay court players at once... what you
had was zero great clay court players. Joe calls that "equilibrium" btw.

> but i wouldn't call it weak
> as you still have nadal and, least til 2012, fed, plus ferrer. minus
> rafa it'd have been the weakest clay field in history.

Without Nadal, Federer and Djokovic the clay field would be now same as
it was in 90's. Or perhaps even better since now everybody can play on
clay, not only half of the tour.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

>
> >It's a completely weak field on clay, especially compared to the HC competition.
>
>
>
> it is a FAR more shallow field on clay, as in the 90s you always had
>
> at least 5 excellent clay players at once. but i wouldn't call it weak
>
> as you still have nadal and, least til 2012, fed, plus ferrer. minus
>
> rafa it'd have been the weakest clay field in history.
>
>
>
> bob

Ferrer? He's better on HCs than clay courts.

Every main challenger Nadal has on clay is better on other surfaces. Other than Nadal, there is no other slam-winning caliber player in the past decade who has clay is his best surface. That's the definition of a weak field.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Nope, you'd have players who are best on other surfaces able to win on clay. That's completely different than having a set of slam-winning caliber players where clay is their best surface.

[TT]

26.2.2014 17:51, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Ferrer? He's better on HCs than clay courts.
>

Man, that's clueless.

Ferrer has won most titles on clay, best win% on clay and has done best
at RG.

> Every main challenger Nadal has on clay is better on other surfaces. Other than Nadal, there is no other slam-winning caliber player in the past decade who has clay is his best surface. That's the definition of a weak field.

Such bs. Congrats.

Since thirties this is the only era where RG champion has had to go
through world's top players. Rafa always has to beat Federer&Djokovic
for the title, often both.

[TT]

26.2.2014 17:53, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Nope, you'd have players who are best on other surfaces able to win on clay.

Who is winning on clay besides Rafa?

> That's completely different than having a set of slam-winning caliber players where clay is their best surface.

When was the last time that occurred? ...having all the top players clay
being their best surface. Or on any surface for that matter?

[heyg...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:21:44 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> 26.2.2014 17:51, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > Ferrer? He's better on HCs than clay courts.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Man, that's clueless.
>
>
>
> Ferrer has won most titles on clay, best win% on clay and has done best
>
> at RG.
>
>

Ferrer's biggest title is on HC (masters), made the YEC final on HC, and has 5 other masters finals (3 HC, 2 CC). Until that fluke FO final appearance he had made the semis at the HC slams more often than at the FO.

[TT]

26.2.2014 18:56, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:21:44 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>> 26.2.2014 17:51, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Ferrer? He's better on HCs than clay courts.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Man, that's clueless.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ferrer has won most titles on clay, best win% on clay and has done best
>>
>> at RG.
>>
>>
>
> Ferrer's biggest title is on HC (masters),

Which is no wonder since there are twice as many HC masters to clay
masters. Obviously he can't win a clay masters since he meets Rafa in
the final.

> made the YEC final on HC,

You mean he hasn't reached YEC final on clay? Now that's a surprise...

> Until that fluke FO final appearance he had made the semis at the HC slams more often than at the FO.
>

RG is without a doubt Ferrer's best slam with one final, one semi and
two quarters. Last year at RG he didn't lose a set before the final, so
hardly a fluke.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

He's only made two clay master finals. 4 HC master finals, plus the YEC final, and that's with deeper HC competition. Part of his clay success is because the clay field is weaker than the HC field.

[TT]

No it is not. Rafa alone makes the level higher than ever.

Ferrer has reached RG qf or better 4 times, 3 times he ran into Rafa.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

If Ferrer is an example of clay court depth, then the point is made...lol

[TT]

I thought you used him as an example of YEC depth...

--
"This is not about Federer, this is about how good Nadal is."
- Darren Cahill

[Court_1]

Come on TT, heyguys is right, there has been little depth on clay throughout Nadal's career. Forget Federer, Djokovic and Ferrer as great clay court players, they aren't, not in the classic sense.

[TT]

27.2.2014 1:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Come on TT, heyguys is right, there has been little depth on clay throughout Nadal's career. Forget Federer, Djokovic and Ferrer as great clay court players, they aren't, not in the classic sense.
>

What "classic sense"?

If you want a classic claycourter who runs everything down we have
Ferrer. If you want truly classic sense where top players reach clay
finals then we have Federer & Djokovic...this kind of high level was
never there apart from times of Tilden & musketeers and few years in
80's. So this is very much just about toughest era on clay ever.

I'd say Vilas & Muster compare to Ferrer pretty well. If you think about
it you notice that Nadal is better than Borg... yet Ferrer is able to
challenge him closer than Vilas did with Borg.

Now Federer & Djokovic are both all time greats, born on clay. The
normal challenge on clay would be someone like Ferrer, not Fed&Djok.
Never has a dominating clay champion having had to deal with very top
players this much. Imagine in the days of Sampras the guy couldn't offer
any resistance to clay courters.

If you want subjective judgement I'd say that yes, Federer is not the
typical claycourter... he's just good tennis player overall. Hard court
could be Djoke's best surface, yes. But his level on clay simply
unbelievable at times - the surface really doesn't matter for him.

Murray, well... one can argue for or against with him... Clearly level
on clay must be extremely high when a baseliner and great mover who btw
played on clay his youth can't do better than he has.
Or one can argue exactly the opposite and claim that Murray not doing
better on clay means there's less competition there...however that
argument makes past eras look piss poor with top players who used to
lose 1st round on clay...

The fact remains that Nadal on clay has had to deal with legendary
players of his time, while in the past the top players lost early not
because of better field but simply because they sucked on clay. That's
the truth.

If anywhere the level has been low for the past few years then that's
grass. And that's mainly because the best grass courter has had forked
up knees and no time to recover during every recent grass season.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:52:51 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> 27.2.2014 1:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>
> > Come on TT, heyguys is right, there has been little depth on clay throughout Nadal's career. Forget Federer, Djokovic and Ferrer as great clay court players, they aren't, not in the classic sense.
>
> >
>
>
>
> What "classic sense"?
>
>
>
> If you want a classic claycourter who runs everything down we have
>
> Ferrer.

LMAO! Ferrer is a classic sexist and his tennis style is a classic bore. Those are the only things Ferrer can be categorized as classic in. :) He is NOT a classic great clay court player. He is good but not GREAT.

> If you want truly classic sense where top players reach clay
>
> finals then we have Federer & Djokovic...this kind of high level was
>
> never there apart from times of Tilden & musketeers and few years in
>
> 80's. So this is very much just about toughest era on clay ever.

Not a chance. Federer and Djokovic are not classic clay court players, not even close.

> I'd say Vilas & Muster compare to Ferrer pretty well.

No they don't! Vilas and Muster were better than Ferrer on clay! Stop it!

> If you think about
>
> it you notice that Nadal is better than Borg...

I am not so sure about that. I think Borg and Nadal are comparable on clay. They are the two very best clay court players in history. Nobody else comes close to them.

> yet Ferrer is able to
>
> challenge him closer than Vilas did with Borg.

One match-up has nothing to do with the other. In fact you have to give it to Borg as he was able to transition so quickly between clay and grass in the days when there were real differences between the surfaces, unlike today.

> Now Federer & Djokovic are both all time greats, born on clay. The
>
> normal challenge on clay would be someone like Ferrer, not Fed&Djok.
>
> Never has a dominating clay champion having had to deal with very top
>
> players this much.

LMAO, in your dreams, not in reality.

> Hard court
>
> could be Djoke's best surface, yes. But his level on clay simply
>
> unbelievable at times - the surface really doesn't matter for him.

Djokovic is no Guga or Vilas on clay, not even close.

> The fact remains that Nadal on clay has had to deal with legendary
>
> players of his time

Ha, ha, ha. What year were you born, seriously? 1995? When did you start watching tennis?

> If anywhere the level has been low for the past few years then that's
>
> grass. And that's mainly because the best grass courter has had forked
>
> up knees and no time to recover during every recent grass season.

The field on grass has declined as well but not more than the field on clay. Stop making excuses for Nadal on grass. He never was the best on grass and never will be. Federer, Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc. were/are the best on grass.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:04:46 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
> Come on TT, heyguys is right, there has been little depth on clay throughout Nadal's career. Forget Federer, Djokovic and Ferrer as great clay court players, they aren't, not in the classic sense.

I like Nadal. He gets extreme credit from me for being able to occasionally beat the best grass court and hard court players to win slams at W/USO/AO, something those players haven't been able to do at the FO. But it doesn't change the fact that Nadal hasn't had to face another top flight player who best surface is also clay. It's too bad we didn't get the Nadal/Djok FO final in 2011...that would have been the closest...

[TT]

Well we all know what this "argument" is all about...

It's about the fact that Rafa had to beat Federer & Djokovic for most of
his slams while Federer had to deal with the likes of Roddick, Baghdatis
and Hewitt...

Talk all you want...

[TT]

Load of kaka, your post. But have to credit you for always being on the
pulse of latest rafahater fads... "Xisca is a bear", "Silent ban", "Rafa
had it easy on clay cause he had to face only Fed & Djok"...

All theories equally impressive...

[bob]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:47:21 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>26.2.2014 14:52, bob kirjoitti:
>> it is a FAR more shallow field on clay, as in the 90s you always had
>> at least 5 excellent clay players at once.
>
>Nope, you didn't have 5 excellent clay court players at once... what you
>had was zero great clay court players. Joe calls that "equilibrium" btw.

i'll call them 5 very very good players at once.

>> but i wouldn't call it weak
>> as you still have nadal and, least til 2012, fed, plus ferrer. minus
>> rafa it'd have been the weakest clay field in history.
>
>Without Nadal, Federer and Djokovic the clay field would be now same as
>it was in 90's. Or perhaps even better since now everybody can play on
>clay, not only half of the tour.

IMO the clay field isn't weak, nadal is the greatest ever and fed is
no slouch. it just isn't as deep. in the 90s there were lots of clay
specialists, whether they were top 5 overall players or not. don't
really have that anymore. it was deeper. rafa would've beaten em all
anyway.

bob

[bob]

djok and fed are not weak clay players. just that they couldn't
overcome nadal on clay. it wouldn't call it weak, but there are
definitely not the countless clay specialists who solely prepped/tried
on clay.

bob

[TT]

Clay specialists are overrated. They play at Estoril & Sao Paulo and
lose at clay masters first round to top all courters.

[TT]

lose first round to top all-court baseliners, rather.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

The strength of the clay field may be debatable, but that it's been weaker than the HC/GC field since the 90s isn't. However bad Roddick/Hewitt were on grass/hard courts by all-time great standards, they were non-factors on clay, with no quality clay specialists in their place at the FO.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

The proof is that in the last 10 years, only 3 players have made more than one FO final (Nadal, Fed, Soderling). And Soderling isn't even Roddick/Hewitt level. At the other three slams at least 5 players have made more than one final (a different mix at each, but ALL of them #1 players at some point).

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:23:43 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:

>"Xisca is a bear"

A beard you mean? That one I am not certain about.

> "Silent ban"

I do not think Nadal had the serious knee injury he wanted people to believe during that 7 month departure, I am sorry, it is what I think based on the facts(i.e. him swinging off boats and jet-skis with the type of injury he claimed to have had.)

> "Rafa
>
> had it easy on clay cause he had to face only Fed & Djok"...

He did have it easy on clay relatively speaking TT. There are no GREAT clay court players in this era, it is the truth. It does not invalidate Nadal's greatness and if Nadal had to contend with some real GREAT clay court players Nadal probably would have won but to say Nadal had GREAT competition from GREAT clay court players (like Borg, Guga, Vilas, Lendl, etc.) is BS and you know it. Djokovic is tough competition for Nadal on clay only because the match-up is a difficult one for Nadal on all surfaces, not because Djokovic is some great clay court player. Djokovic is a good clay court player but not a GREAT one. There is a difference.

> All theories equally impressive...

Thanks, any time! ;)

[TT]

Yes, Roddick & Hewitt left a gaping hole...

lol

The real gaping hole was on grass/hard because Rafa had not mastered
them yet.

[TT]

By that logic early 2000s was a strong era. I guess that's why it's
known as "clown era".

[John Liang]

I think Nadal is best clay court player ever. His overall consistency on that surface make it difficult for other good clay court player to win those big titles. While the 90s might have produced a lot of FO winners like Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Muster, Kafelnikov and Kuerten. If Naddal wasn't as good and consistent as he was on clay it is quite possible that Federer could have 3 or 4 FO under his name, the only reason I rated Kuerten/Bruguera/Courier high as clay court player over Federer was their extra wins at FO, I would rate Federer the best clay court player to win 1 FO over the likes of Moya, Muster, Costa, Gomez, Agassi and Gaudio. I think the past decade produced two most consistent clay court players and that did not happen in 90s and that is why it is easy to say there was a lack of depth on clay. Taking Nadal and Federer out of competition we could have a lot of different FO winners like in 90s.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

That's why I commented on finalists and not just winners. If there were clay depth now, we'd expect more players with multiple finals. And if you take Fed and Nadal off the tour (30 slams between them), you'd have a different sport the past 10 years everywhere, not just on clay.

But the point is that whatever depth of field Fed has faced since 2003 at W/USO/AO, it's been deeper than what Nadal faced at the FO.

[John Liang]

I agree with your last comment. but overall lack of depth on clay was largely due to the dominance of Nadal as the best clay court player and Federer as 2nd best clay court player, and then the rest.

[Court_1]

I agree with heyguys on this issue. There was a lack of depth on clay in this era. Sure Nadal is the very best ever on clay and he probably still would have been the very best on clay had there been some great clay court players to challenge him but the point is that there were really not great clay court players to challenge him, not great clay court players in the classic sense. To me Federer never was a great challenge to Nadal on clay and is not a great clay court player in the classic sense. Federer only would have won many clay titles by default if Nadal was not around.

[TT]

28.2.2014 5:01, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:36:41 PM UTC-5, John Liang wrote:
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 12:59:18 PM UTC+11, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> But the point is that whatever depth of field Fed has faced since 2003 at W/USO/AO, it's been deeper than what Nadal faced at the FO.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with your last comment. but overall lack of depth on clay was largely due to the dominance of Nadal as the best clay court player and Federer as 2nd best clay court player, and then the rest.
>
> I agree with heyguys on this issue.

John is right here and makes a sensible argument.

[John Liang]

I think in a different era Federer could have won a lot more FO than just 1, I reckon he is the best player to win only 1 FO and pits him against some of the 3 FO winner I doubt he would come up short against them. The only reason I see that Federer would not be considered as a great clay court player is that he is not a multiple FO winner. If I have to rank the best clay court player since Borg's era Federer would ranked just below Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander,Kuerten and I would place him higher than both Courier and Bruguera.

[MBDunc]

perjantai, 28. helmikuuta 2014 1.31.35 UTC+2 TT kirjoitti:
> > Clay specialists are overrated. They play at Estoril & Sao Paulo and lose at clay masters first round to top all courters.

That was exactly the case. There were relatively more those players (as there were more clay tours/clay events in annual calendar it naturally allowed them to have minor event succee and have a bit better spot at draws) - but against bigger guns - they only had same distant upset chance as any other journeyman on tour.

.mikko

[MBDunc]

perjantai, 28. helmikuuta 2014 3.03.48 UTC+2 heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> . The proof is that in the last 10 years, only 3 players have made more than one FO final (Nadal, Fed, Soderling). And Soderling isn't even Roddick/Hewitt level. At the other three slams at least 5 players have made more than one final (a different mix at each, but ALL of them #1 players at some point).

1993-2002 at Wimb. 10 years.

Only players who made more than one Wimb final during those 10 years, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter. Only three. What this tells then?

1993-2002 at USO. 10 years. Only three names too (Sampras, Agassi, Rafter)

1993-2002 at AO. 10 years. Ditto. (Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov).

1993-2002 at FO. 10 years...and again only three names...(Bruguera, Kuerten, Corretja)

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 2/28/2014 5:36 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> perjantai, 28. helmikuuta 2014 3.03.48 UTC+2 heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> . The proof is that in the last 10 years, only 3 players have made more than one FO final (Nadal, Fed, Soderling). And Soderling isn't even Roddick/Hewitt level. At the other three slams at least 5 players have made more than one final (a different mix at each, but ALL of them #1 players at some point).
>
> 1993-2002 at Wimb. 10 years.
>
> Only players who made more than one Wimb final during those 10 years, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter. Only three. What this tells then?

Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Agassi.

>
> 1993-2002 at USO. 10 years. Only three names too (Sampras, Agassi, Rafter)

Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Edberg.

>
> 1993-2002 at AO. 10 years. Ditto. (Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov).

Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Courier.

>
> 1993-2002 at FO. 10 years...and again only three names...(Bruguera, Kuerten, Corretja)

Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Courier, to 1991 & also add
Agassi.

>
> .mikko
>

[MBDunc]

perjantai, 28. helmikuuta 2014 9.18.42 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
> On 2/28/2014 5:36 PM, MBDunc wrote: > perjantai, 28. helmikuuta 2014 3.03.48 UTC+2 heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti: >> . The proof is that in the last 10 years, only 3 players have made more than one FO final (Nadal, Fed, Soderling). And Soderling isn't even Roddick/Hewitt level. At the other three slams at least 5 players have made more than one final (a different mix at each, but ALL of them #1 players at some point). > > 1993-2002 at Wimb. 10 years. > > Only players who made more than one Wimb final during those 10 years, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter. Only three. What this tells then? Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Agassi. > > 1993-2002 at USO. 10 years. Only three names too (Sampras, Agassi, Rafter) Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Edberg. > > 1993-2002 at AO. 10 years. Ditto. (Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov). Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Courier. > > 1993-2002 at FO. 10 years...and again only three names...(Bruguera, Kuerten, Corretja) Take it back a year to 1992 & you can add Courier, to 1991 & also add Agassi. > > .mikko >

That was the whole point. A sampled 10 year period does not exactly tell anything. And this "only three names" surely do not tell anything.

Like Wimbledon last 10 years: There are *five* names with multiple finals (Federer, Roddick, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic).

Can we now draw conclusion that this has been very strong Wimbledon era then? (that would be logical, right?)

.mikko

[TT]

28.2.2014 3:59, heyg...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> That's why I commented on finalists and not just winners. If there were clay depth now, we'd expect more players with multiple finals.

That's rather specialized request...

During Nadal's clay reign there are 3 multiple time RG finalists: Nadal,
Federer and Söderling.

Your special request disqualifies Djokovic as depth of clay field since
he hasn't reached 2 RG finals yet...

> But the point is that whatever depth of field Fed has faced since 2003 at W/USO/AO, it's been deeper than what Nadal faced at the FO.

But Federer didn't face Nadal on slam hc until 2009, while Nadal faced
Federer on clay slam since 2005.

[TT]

Good post. I thought I have to look it up. :)

[TT]

Thank you.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

The topic of the thread was strength of field since Fed/Nadal started winning slams, hence the past 10 years. If we were going to look at Sampras or Agassi, you'd pick different years (and not just 10).

But having 5 #1 players make multiple finals at a slam in 10 years clearly means that slam is more competitive/tougher to win than one with fewer.

[ca1houn]

reason why? I would say nadal was a bitch and couldn't make to the final. This is not fed generation there 6 year's younger

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:00:08 PM UTC-5, John Liang wrote:

> I think in a different era Federer could have won a lot more FO than just 1, I reckon he is the best player to win only 1 FO and pits him against some of the 3 FO winner I doubt he would come up short against them. The only reason I see that Federer would not be considered as a great clay court player is that he is not a multiple FO winner. If I have to rank the best clay court player since Borg's era Federer would ranked just below Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander,Kuerten and I would place him higher than both Courier and Bruguera.

How can you place Federer higher as a clay court player over Courier and Bruguera when Courier and Bruguera have two FO titles and Federer has one? That makes no sense imo. To me Federer does not seem like a natural clay court player at all. As I said earlier, Federer would only have more clay titles if Nadal were not around, that does not make him a great clay court player that makes him a good clay court player by default.

[Court_1]

Of course you think John is right in this case, what a shocker! ;) You ALWAYS go with the argument that puts Nadal in the best light. ALWAYS. There has never been one time where you have made an argument which has put Nadal in a less favorable light or even in a more neutral light. It is always about propping Nadal up for you regardless of what the conversation is about. That is not having a rational conversation, that is being an idol worshipping fan.

I like Nadal a lot but to say he has had tough competition on clay from GREAT clay court players on Borg, Lendl, Guga levels throughout his career is ludicrous.

[John Liang]

Of course, I can. you look at their overall result in FO, Federer has been into 5 FO final compare to Bruguera and Courier's 3 , in a stretch of 7 years he has been into semi or better in FO something that neither Courier or Bruguera were able to manage in their career. Yes if you look at number of titles won at FO then you would naturally go for Courier and Bruguera but look at overall result it is not doubt in my mind Federer's result demonstrate far superior overall consistency. No, Federer is not a natural clay courter when he comes up against Nadal but he held his own against any clay courters.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Fed grew up on a clay court... his club as a kid had clay courts... :))

P

[Voice of Reason]

It's not all about comparing the number of slams. There is only one reason why Federer doesn't have more French Opens than those players - Nadal. He would have at least 5 FOs if it weren't for Nadal.

Honestly, I would put him on par with Borg and Lendl on clay in terms of sheer ability. In terms of a clay CV, I would still put him above Courier and Brugera.

[Voice of Reason]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:04:46 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
> Come on TT, heyguys is right, there has been little depth on clay throughout Nadal's career. Forget Federer, Djokovic and Ferrer as great clay court players, they aren't, not in the classic sense.

It is bollocks to say that Nadal hasn't faced many great, classic clay court players. He has faced many of them and beat many more into submission. The reason he is the best ever clay court player in my book is that he would have made *EVERY* other clay court player in history look ordinary on clay if they played him.

Brugera and Courier would struggle to get games off Nadal on clay - forget sets.