Nadal on who is the greatest, what he thinks about Federer's 23 losses to him, etc.

[Court_1]

"Follow the discussion as to who was the greatest tennis player? You, Federer or someone from the past? What is your view?

It is difficult to speculate as long as our careers are not yet completed. But my opinion is much evidence that Rod Laver is the best of the history. He won the calendar Grand Slam, joining the pros and won the Grand Slam after a long pause again. That's great. If he had not turned pro, he would certainly have won more majors than me and probably also as Roger. In any case Laver must also be considered in this discussion. Roger has the most Grand Slams won and broken many records, he is certainly one of them.

But he lost 23 times against you.

That's right. We have to also throw into the mix. But I do not think it is currently the decisive factor. But he has achieved in my opinion too much. Maybe this is crucial if I move him even closer after major victories. But 14 or 17 Grand Slam titles is a significant difference. At the present time there is no question that he must be the greater player than me."

Translated from this interview:

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/sport/tennis/Roger-und-ich-verstehen-uns-sind-aber-keine-Freunde/story/11831419

He has got it right about Federer that as long as the slam gap is a difference of three slams, Federer has to be considered the greater player at the present time. But, if he inches closer to Federer's slam count, the h2h will become more crucial and can be thrown into the mix as perhaps the decisive factor.

Thoughts?

[The Iceberg]

Fed is da bestestest, it's just he's lost 23 times to his biggest rival and hasn't got anywhere near 6 consecutive years at numero uno either. lol

[InsideOut]

> Thoughts?

My thoughts are that Nadal didn't even know who Laver was until a few years
ago! <g>

[Gracchus]

She asked for thoughts. That makes you exempt.

[TT]

20.10.2014 19:03, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> It is difficult to speculate as long as our careers are not yet completed. But my opinion is much evidence that Rod Laver is the best of the history. He won the calendar Grand Slam, joining the pros and won the Grand Slam after a long pause again. That's great. If he had not turned pro, he would certainly have won more majors than me and probably also as Roger. In any case Laver must also be considered in this discussion.

That was the relevant part. Rafa finally getting up to date on GOAT
measures. Laver = GOAT currently.

Was this interview made in Switzerland? Normal modesty from Rafa.

[TT]

... Would be a big surprise if he had saved his world premier of the
comment "I'm better than Roger, he's my bitch" for his Swiss trip. Damn,
that would have been funny.

[InsideOut]

> ... Would be a big surprise if he had saved his world premier of the
> comment "I'm better than Roger, he's my bitch" for his Swiss trip. Damn,
> that would have been funny.

Uncle Phony did say this week that Federer at his best was the GOAT. I don't
suppose that will please you much, brother? <w>

[Gracchus]

It would be far less nauseating than his fake "modesty."

[TT]

So your opinion is that Rafa can't possibly think Fed is greater than him...

Ha!

[TT]

Let me guess - that was in Switzerland?

[Court_1]

On Monday, October 20, 2014 4:10:14 PM UTC-4, InsideOut wrote:


>
> Uncle Phony did say this week that Federer at his best was the GOAT. I don't
>
> suppose that will please you much, brother? <w>

No he didn't. Toni apparently said at his best Federer is "PROBABLY" the GOAT:

"When he is playing well, at his best, Roger Federer is probably the greatest player of all time. Unfortunately for us, and for the other, he is still very much playing very well..."

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Toni-Nadal-Roger-Federer-Probably-the-Greatest-of-All-Time-Rafael-is-Feeling-Better-articolo20852.html.1

There is NO definitive GOAT. It is too hard to compare players of different generations.

[Fednatic]

somebody needs to educate him on "the mix" and clay court monkeyism.

[InsideOut]

>> Uncle Phony did say this week that Federer at his best was the GOAT. I
>> don't
>> suppose that will please you much, brother? <w>
>
> No he didn't. Toni apparently said at his best Federer is "PROBABLY" the
> GOAT:

Close enough - probably is as close as we'll ever officially get. Irrelevant
obviously, save for the surprise of hearing Toni say something positive
about the Swiss. He must be working a new angle. <g>

> There is NO definitive GOAT. It is too hard to compare players of
> different generations.

It certainly is, although I am sure the majority of people have someone in
mind as 'the greatest for them'. All part of the fun of following
professional sport, brother.

[TT]

21.10.2014 6:30, InsideOut kirjoitti:
> save for the surprise of hearing Toni say something positive about the
> Swiss. He must be working a new angle. <g>

Toni always says positive stuff about Fed. Fed is always greater than
Rafa etc... nothing new there.

In fact it often appears that Toni thinks everyone is greater than
Rafa... heck just a couple years ago he was telling how he thinks that
Borg was greater on clay...has stopped that recently though for some
reason...

[InsideOut]

> In fact it often appears that Toni thinks everyone is greater than
> Rafa... heck just a couple years ago he was telling how he thinks that
> Borg was greater on clay...has stopped that recently though for some
> reason...

He is quite unique among coaches in that he courts the chance to give
opinion on many things. Certainly if I was Rafa, I would be telling him to
keep it shut.

[Fednatic]

He does it to motivate Rafa. He does not want him thinking he is the
best because he wants to to PROVE it !

Don't you people know anything about psychology ?

Look at Tomic. He THINKS he is the best and look what has happened to
him oledi ?

[Whisper]

He's only saying that because Rafa completely dominated Federer, & also
he expects him to win 18 slams so that will make it conclusive.

Of course no one really buys it except ceibs fanboys.

Most people think Laver is goat, & Laver/Sampras/Hoad are boats.

[Whisper]

I hope everyone realizes Rafa has a lot to gain if people really
consider Federer goat/boat. Toni knows this better than anyone.

'Federer is goat, but my boy owned him'.

[Whisper]

On 21/10/2014 2:30 PM, InsideOut wrote:
>>> Uncle Phony did say this week that Federer at his best was the GOAT.
>>> I don't
>>> suppose that will please you much, brother? <w>
>>
>> No he didn't. Toni apparently said at his best Federer is "PROBABLY"
>> the GOAT:
>
> Close enough - probably is as close as we'll ever officially get.
> Irrelevant obviously, save for the surprise of hearing Toni say
> something positive about the Swiss. He must be working a new angle. <g>
>

Same angle he's been working for years - Roger has an amazing record,
but Rafa owned him.

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:43:44 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> Most people think Laver is goat, & Laver/Sampras/Hoad are boats.

Actually they don't. I think most people consider Federer the goat or closest to it.

[TennisGuy]

On 10/20/2014 12:03 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> At the present time there is no question that
> he must be the greater player than me."

That says it all.
Straight from the horse's mouth.

(As if we didn't know it already) :)




--
"I don't decide what's important, I merely reflect it." - Whisper

"Better polish that turd...errr mirror, because nothing important has
come our way yet." - TennisGuy

[InsideOut]

> 'Federer is goat

If you were offered the chance to be the best ever in the world at
something, save for a bad record against one player, would you take it? <g>

I can't help but wonder, brother, whether you were quite so willing to
criticise back when Sampras was touted as the greatest, despite a weakness
bigger than a single player on his resume?

[InsideOut]

> Most people think Laver is goat, & Laver/Sampras/Hoad are boats.
>

Heh.

[guypers]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:29:20 AM UTC-4, InsideOut wrote:
> > Most people think Laver is goat, & Laver/Sampras/Hoad are boats.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Heh.

If Hoad or Laver played 10 sets on clay Vs Rafa would they win more than 1 game a set? not likely!
played Fed on grass or Hard, may get a game or two per set win none!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL

[Gracchus]

But you're talking about the real world. On Planet Whisp, "most people" = his gallery of imaginary friends.

[soccerfan777]

I think it is deeply insulting to Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall to not even get a mention. Everyone the GOAT argument starts some asswipe will start comparing Federer/Sampras/Nadal automatically to Laver as if the greats before him never existed.

[soccerfan777]

I bet Nadal has not seen a single video clip of Laver yet.

[soccerfan777]

So you screwed over your other favorite - McEnroe? Betrayal. He is not the boat anymore???

If Laver is both boat and goat, end of discussion. All boat discussion are irrelevant and hence the term boat meaningless

[TT]

True. But talking about Laver is improvement on the right direction for
Rafa.

If he ever mentioned Tilden/Pancho I'd be shocked. If he told that 3rd
best claycourter ever was Tony Wilding I'd become a fan!

[TT]

21.10.2014 17:35, guypers kirjoitti:
> played Fed on grass or Hard, may get a game or two per set win none!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL

Mac just commented the other day that if he played against Fed on grass
- Mac would win 6-3, 6-2.

[TT]

21.10.2014 17:25, InsideOut kirjoitti:
> If you were offered the chance to be the best ever in the world at
> something, save for a bad record against one player, would you take it?

Flawed question... You can't be best ever in something if you get owned
by your greatest rival. You can be only 2nd best.

[Court_1]

Embellish much?

First of all he said he could beat Federer with WOOD RACKETS! Secondly, he was joking.

"McEnroe first said: "Of course it would be very challenging and fascinating to play against the likes of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic", then he added smiling: "But I think that with a wooden racket I would beat Federer 6-3, 6-3."

McEnroe was clearly joking and, although we will never know who would really prevail in such hypotethical match, it would be very interesting, even just for an exhibition match, to see how modern age players would cope and adjust their style to the old materials."

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/John-McEnroe-I-would-beat-Roger-Federer-6-3-6-3-articolo20867.html

[*skriptis]

yeah, Laver, Sampras but Nadal?
Borg on clay, and Pancho on fast surfaces too? Also if there is room for
Hoad as boat even though I haven't seen him play live, I would put Djokovic
too, because at his (short) best he crushed everyone.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Yeah, it's a paradox of sorts. How can Fed be the best if he's owned by his greatest rival? How can Nadal be the best if he doesn't have the slam record from injuries, incomplete seasons, and lots of QF and earlier losses at slams?

Fed has one huge chink in his armor, while Nadal has lots of little chinks. The huge chink is more obvious to everyone, but the cumulative little chinks have hindered Nadal just as much.

[*skriptis]

There is nothing interesting in seeing 60-year old McEnroe against world #2,
be it with modern racquets, wooden, or frying pans.


It would be interesting though to have a tournament with wooden racquets. I
think Newport with Hall of Fame championships is an ideal oportunity to have
such a special event on atp calendar, a 250 tournament that is played with
wooden racquets. It's an anticlimatic event anyway, being held
post-Wimbledon, so nothing to lose with such a change and a lot of to gain.
Players like Mahut, Mathieu, fomrer Santoro and others would make it very
intersting and competitive.

[*skriptis]

Kramer's career was hampered by ww2. It's a tough luck but there is really
no way to have him in the mix. Based on what anyway? Couple of slams?
For what is worth, he was luckier than another potential GOAT, Tony Wilding
who died fighting in ww1.
Now Tilden is respectable champion based on his achievements, but he's been
surpassed statisctially by many guys, (Laver, Sampras, Federer, even Pancho
on some level) and no way he can be boat, given the fact he was the first
among greats, and it's reasonable to assume all others who surpasssed him
achievement-wise have also devoleped far far superior game to his, based on
game's evolution. Rosewall never won Wimbledon, and Pancho is even more one
dimensional than Sampras.

So it's Laver vs Federer and I say Laver.


PS I am in wonder why are all Tilden's US Championships titles regarded as
slams, when US Chmapionships became major event per ILTF only in 1924.
His titles there in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 are not really "true slams".

Also he won Wimbledon (which was a slam per ILTF at the time) in 1920-1921,
but it was prior 1922, during challenge round era, meaning he won only one
match in 1921 to win wimbledon title. That's 5 asterisks in his resume.


I don't think he truly deserves "king of USO" title.
It is more appropriate for Sampras/Federer/Connors, ie Sampras who has most
finals there.

[InsideOut]

> Flawed question... You can't be best ever in something if you get owned by
> your greatest rival.

Like I said earlier, brother, sport exists for entertainment - and a good
deal of that is in having your own opinion on things like this. To me, your
logic is that which is flawed, but have at it - it's all part of the rich
tapestry. Perhaps Nadal's goal in tennis really was to get as many wins as
possible against Federer, albeit unlikely - you know him best. <g> I am
pretty sure the aim of Federer and most everyone else is simply to win as
many big trophies and accolades as possible - and to that end he is the
best.

[MBDunc]

tiistai, 21. lokakuuta 2014 11.52.51 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
> Roger has an amazing record, but Rafa owned him.

Three times I have asked you (2008, 2010, 2011) what would you give if you were Fed for removing Nadal h2h burden from his legacy...and you have said each time "not even single AO". Shows the real importance of this issue?

.mikko

[Whisper]

I really don't think so. All the media in Australia (mags, tv etc)
refers to him in non-goat terms - 'most successful', 'smartest' etc.

Personally I think it's only because of Nadal. It's not so much the
white elephant in the lounge room, but the fact Federer is a flea
sitting on the white elephant.

I know the Fednuts are coy - 'Rafa who?' - but there is only 1 guy in
history who has won more slams than Rafa at this point in time, & he
completely owned that guy. It's impossible to make the claim Fed is
better than Rafa in the sport of tennis.

Fed is no mug, but who can put their hand on their heart & seriously
claim Fed is the best ever? It's impossible to make that claim given
he's not the best in his own era.

It says a lot that Fed is my fave player of last 10 yrs, yet I expect
Rafa to beat him every time on every surface. That's not something I
wish for, but expect.

[Whisper]

On 22/10/2014 12:35 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 12:03 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> At the present time there is no question that
>> he must be the greater player than me."
>
> That says it all.
> Straight from the horse's mouth.
>
> (As if we didn't know it already) :)
>
>
>
>

All Rafa is saying is Fed has won more slams than him. Nobody thinks
Fed is fave to beat Rafa in a tennis match. That would be quite dumb.

[Whisper]

On 22/10/2014 1:25 AM, InsideOut wrote:
>> 'Federer is goat
>
> If you were offered the chance to be the best ever in the world at
> something, save for a bad record against one player, would you take it? <g>

Probably, but when that player is no.2 on all time slam list & has a
realistic chance of getting the top spot, you have to forfeit the right
to boat status.

It's not a quirky stat v a journeyman you lose to in a few tune-ups.
It's actually your biggest rival, & he owned you. Fed & Rafa have
played each other in more slam finals than any other 2 players, so it's
the greatest rivalry ever.

The best Fed can lay claim to is '2nd best ever', but the odds of having
the 2 best players ever in the same era are almost zero.

In my book Rafa has stronger claims to boat than Federer, so he goes
into that boat list while Fed has to drop out. Only the best of each
era qualify.

>
> I can't help but wonder, brother, whether you were quite so willing to
> criticise back when Sampras was touted as the greatest, despite a
> weakness bigger than a single player on his resume?

That's not a bigger weakness in my book. Today's players have the
luxury of playing the same style on all 3 surfaces as the speeds are
almost identical. It's apples/oranges v earlier eras. Sampras
forfeited his chances at FO by developing probably the best ever fast
court game. That game would beat every player ever on grass/HC imo.

Sampras finished his career with an intact reputation - he was the best
right throughout his career. You can't point to a main rival (multi
slam type) who was better than him. He realized the importance of
beating your main rivals. Fed does also, but he loses.

[Whisper]

On 22/10/2014 1:29 AM, InsideOut wrote:
>> Most people think Laver is goat, & Laver/Sampras/Hoad are boats.
>>
>
> Heh.

Sorry this is hard for you. You're free to think Fed is goat/boat/owned
Rafa/best volleyer etc. It's not a crime brother.

[Whisper]

If Rafa played with a little wood racket like Borg/Laver how would he go?

: )

[Whisper]

Sorry, Fed is my fave player this era but there's no way he's better
than Rafa. That should be obvious to everyone but crazed Fednuts by now.

[Whisper]

Agreed. I prefer to insult the clueless rst bogans instead.

: )

[Whisper]

With wood rackets definitely.

[Whisper]

Correct. And the odds of being 2nd best *ever* are pretty slim if
you're also 2nd best in your own era.

The guy who is best in his own era has claims for best ever.

[Whisper]

I don't think it would be that interesting. Mac would be a strong fave
v Fed/Rafa/Djoker with wood rackets. They couldn't hit the same shots
with wood. Mac was a true freak. Nobody could do as much with a wood
racket as he could.

[Whisper]

Fed's chink is huge. There's no player you could say is better than
Rafa in this era. He's better than Fed, Djoker & Murray without a
doubt. The fact he's no.2 on all time slam list & good chance to get to
No.1 just hammers more nails into Fed's boat claims.

[Whisper]

You can't be this dumb, so must be a Fedfucker.

All the greats realized the importance of beating your biggest rivals in
the biggest matches, including Fed.

Sure it's great winning any slams even beating Bagditis or Pioline in
the final, but true greatness doesn't sit best on these kind of
accolades. You really want to win these slams beating the cream of the
crop from your era. Losing all the time has a huge cost. How you
personally rationalize it is of no consequence.

[Whisper]

Perhaps that question needs revisiting.

Does the improved h2h v Rafa include a calendar slam or 2? He would
have won 2 calendar slams in a row 2006/2007 if he beat Rafa in FO finals.

Fed's big problem is it looks like on paper he only dominated v lesser
players in a transition period after Sampras/Agassi & before Rafa/Djoker
peaked.

That really puts the kabosh on his boat claims, & it's why the media no
longer refers to him as goat/boat, rather 'most successful' etc

If Fed won a calendar slam or 2 but only say 13 slams total, *and* he
owned Rafa then most, if not all non-Fedfuckers would consider him
goat/boat.

[Fednatic]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:12:03 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

Rubbish. Fed has ONE weakness and it is the shoulder high bounding
ball which is the only fucking ball Rafa can hit. In all other
categories Fed creams him but it jus so happens that Fed can't win
easily against that shoulder high ball and especially when his
opponent CHEATS. That does NOT means Rafa is better. Far from it, it
means the only shot he can hit is the only one Fed can't but otherwise
Fed is superior as is shown by all the other stats in the game.

[InsideOut]

> You can't be this dumb, so must be a Fedfucker.
>

Heh. Right on brother. It may be distasteful to you, but outside your panel
of imaginary friends, you will generally find this is the prevailing feeling
in the real world. No need to be an ass about it.

[InsideOut]

> Sorry this is hard for you. You're free to think Fed is goat/boat/owned
> Rafa/best volleyer etc. It's not a crime brother.
>
>

Never was there such a case of the verbal trots as exhibited in your case,
man. You argue every point as if a child in the playground - all fluff,
bluster and insults, no substance. Sad.

[Court_1]

But even with the horrible h2h vs Nadal, most people still consider Federer GREATER at this point because of Federer's greater achievements.

You can't really argue that Federer is better than Nadal because when they play each other in the most important matches, Nadal comes out on top. But there is more to greatness than the h2h. Nadal will need to equal or better Fed's slam count to obtain that "greater" label. He said it himself in his most recent interview.

[Gracchus]

Whisper Whisperian of Clan Kookaburra:

Look back at our respective comments and see if there's any mention of Rafa in the mix. This was your statement:

"Most people think Laver is goat, & Laver/Sampras/Hoad are boats."

Where is your evidence that "most people" believe this? I'm guessing you can't provide a single scrap, which means you are the Nutto di Tutti Nutjob on RST.

[TT]

22.10.2014 14:44, Fednatic kirjoitti:
> Rubbish. Fed has ONE weakness and it is the shoulder high bounding
> ball

So that's why he was troubled by Murray/Djoko. I see.

Rafa would have even better h2h against Fed if he attacked fed's fh more.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:39:12 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:

> Rafa would have even better h2h against Fed if he attacked fed's fh more.

That sounds like Whisp's logic about Rafa winning more matches if he took LESS time between points. Are you saying he's too stupid to take an easier approach or too humble to beat the Great Man by lopsided scores? :)

The key tactic in Rafa's strategy against Federer is quite obviously feeding Fed high-kicking backhands that keep him pinned on one side. Attacking Fed's strength with weaker shots definitely would not result in a higher winning percentage.

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko, 22. lokakuuta 2014 13.56.32 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > Three times I have asked you (2008, 2010, 2011) what would you give if you were Fed for removing Nadal h2h burden from his legacy...and you have said each time "not even single AO". Shows the real importance of this issue?
>
>

> Does the improved h2h v Rafa include a calendar slam or 2? He would
> have won 2 calendar slams in a row 2006/2007 if he beat Rafa in FO finals.

No, I was carefully and used all possible disclaimers each time. No extra stuff for Fed, just the scenario: what would he give for removing Nadal h2h burden from his legacy.

And three times, three different years.....each time your answer was "not a single AO".

.mikko

[TT]

22.10.2014 19:53, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> The key tactic in Rafa's strategy against Federer is quite obviously feeding Fed high-kicking backhands that keep him pinned on one side. Attacking Fed's strength with weaker shots definitely would not result in a higher winning percentage.

Well I think it definitely would.

The problem with Rafa's tactics against Fed has normally been that he
hits too much at Fed's backhand... which allows Fed to just camp there...
With more dtl shots to Fed's fh Rafa would actually open up the court
and put Fed's bh in much more severe trouble since Fed couldn't just
stand there waiting. Actually Rafa has lost a few matches by simply
sticking to his tactic of bh exploitation... when Fed was hitting his bh
well. So yes, stupidity.

Actually Rafa has recently hit more at fed's fh, because that is the
tactic he has to use against Djokovic. This has made Fed even more
helpless against Rafa... Rafa beating him at Cincy&WTF etc.

[TT]

Well how many AO's does he have? My answer is all but one.

[Pep...@angelic.com]

Djokovic beat Rafa in three straight major finals. And Djokovic isn't even mentioned yet as an all time great.

Rafa has lost too often to too many not-so-great players off of clay to be considered in the same class as Federer.

I don't think anybody can argue against Nadal being one of the all-time greats. But his record off of clay is in the Edberg, Becker, range. He's either injured or defeated too often when he's not playing clay. That's Nadal's big weakness.

[Whisper]

Fed could have expanded his repertoire & developed other weapons to
combat Rafa. He didn't do it, choosing instead to play him the same way
every time, with predictable results.

The golden rule in tennis is to change a losing game, but don't change a
winning game.

[Whisper]

It really isn't.

I'd freely accept it if that were the case. It's not like me denying it
can change anything.

[Whisper]

Not really. Fed is my fave player of last 10 yrs. I'm not an ass
though & call it like it is. I wish Fed owned Rafa, but the evidence to
the contrary is overwhelming.

[Whisper]

This isn't a routine h2h. It's 2 of the greatest players of all time in
the greatest rivalry (in terms of slam final matches v each other).

At the end of the day they may be tied at 17 slams each, or Rafa may win
1 or 2 more. It will be critical to consider Rafa beat Federer 9 times
in slams while Fed beat Rafa only 2 times. Rafa had to beat Federer
directly en route to winning most of his slams, while Fed won most of
his v the best players available pre Rafa/Djoker, like Hewitt, Roddick,
Bagditis etc

Rafa 'damaged' Fed's legacy far more than vice versa.

That's why Fed as goat doesn't sit well with most people, so they call
him 'most successful' etc.

And I say all this as a Fed fan, but we have to look at the picture in
entirety, warts & all.

[Whisper]

Great players should be able to change a losing game. If they can't
then the manly thing to do is doff your cap to the victor. Too good.

[MBDunc]

torstai, 23. lokakuuta 2014 11.25.09 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
> > The golden rule in tennis is to change a losing game, but don't change a
> winning game.

Well 17 slams? Choosing the right gameplay does not seem Fed's biggets problem.

Note it was argued by tennis experts (Newk an co) that Hewitt changed his game "too much" to fight better against Fed after 2004 - yet still resulting 15 straight losses 2004-2010 including *eight* times at slams...maybe without Fed in the mix Roddick/Hewitt would have both +4/+5 slams...?

This uphill strategy change (among with injuries - and that hip injury was career threatening) made Hewitt notch more vulnerable against "the field" -> he dropped out of top10 already during 2006.

Hewitt actually has had a nice revival 2014. Two minor titles.

.mikko

[Whisper]

Yeah I think generally that is the case. What makes Fed v Rafa
different is they will be the top 2 slam winners of all time, & as a
bonus were ranked in top 2 pretty much their whole careers, & played in
more slam finals than any other 2 players ever.

If Rafa was well down the slam list the h2h would not mean as much. If
Rafa had 6 or 7 slams rather than 14+ it would be different.

I think we all realize this is a unique situation in tennis history,
where we can directly compare 2 great players with no coulda/woulda
necessary.

[Whisper]

Rafa is doing as well as he can to manage & maximize his career. He
simply needs these lengthy breaks to keep his career going & avoid burnout.

Rafa has too many major milestones to dismiss as just a clay monkey.

I really have to give Rafa 10/10 for the way he's managed his career to
date. Most players would have just kept going 24/7 & burnt out 5 yrs
ago playing his style. Federer I'd also give 10/10, maybe knock a
little off for not changing a losing game v Rafa, but overall both guys
have done extremely well to be top players for 10 yrs & both are still a
chance to rank No.1 at any given time.

[Fednatic]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:36:47 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

it's a weird confluence of things and not rafa's doing nor Fed's
fault. If a #200 type hit shoulder bounding moonballs Fed would have a
problem beating him too. It certainly does not mean he is a better
player than Fed though. Fed was dominant #1 for many years and Rafa
could hardly ever make it past #2. Plus, Fed has more just bout
everything else as well.

[Whisper]

Imo Fed 'could' have had edge over Rafa if he did a few things
differently.

But he didn't. Rafa knew Fed's game intimately & sucked him into the
same patterns. Fed had the technical tools to unsettle Rafa, but I
guess he resisted it because his game was good enough to beat everyone else.

Still he should have added a couple new weapons to throw at Rafa - give
him something else to think about.

[InsideOut]

> It really isn't.
>

I promise you, it *really* is.

[TT]

What the hell did Hewitt ever change?

I think it's just a matter of Aussie propaganda. And he never had the
game to be a Major Champ to begin with, too little power.

[Whisper]

On 24/10/2014 12:14 AM, InsideOut wrote:
>> It really isn't.
>>
>
> I promise you, it *really* is.

You don't know how disappointed I am that it's not.

: (