Djokovic - Verdasco spoiler
number_six
the final (and it's a nice result for him), and Djokovic will not have
to endure another long, punishing defeat to Nads.
felangey
wear!
number_six
> And great tournie for Rafa...victory under the belt, and hardly any knee
> wear!
Yes, assuming he wins tomorrow (and I am assuming!), it's a big
confidence-builder for him.
SliceAndDice
> And great tournie for Rafa...victory under the belt, and hardly any knee
> wear!
With the loss of 13 games so far. Wonder how many he will drop
tomorrow. 2? 3?
Vrai Cinico
By Rome he should be ready for his first wins over Top 9 players in
almost 1 year.
Nadal is wrapping up his matches fast and that is a very positive sign
for him.
--
Cheers,
vc
royce
Yes, let Verdasco hold the plate for a change.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
he's spanish ! all spanish men are whores for rafa.
Whisper
er, Fed isn't Spanish...? Why does he always bend over & take it from
Rafa...?
Superdave
i think you are seriously mixed up. it's 16 to 6.
Whisper
6 v 2 in slams on all 3 surfaces. Pretty conclusive.
Superdave
it doesn't work that way asshole.
Whisper
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:58:17 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Superdave wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:21:45 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2010 7:20 PM, Superdave wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:49:03 -0700 (PDT), royce<bivo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 17, 10:34?am, number_six<cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Upside for both guys -- Verdasco should have plenty in the tank for
>>>>>>> the final (and it's a nice result for him), and Djokovic will not have
>>>>>>> to endure another long, punishing defeat to Nads.
>>>>>> Yes, let Verdasco hold the plate for a change.
>>>>>
>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>>>
>>>>> he's spanish ! all spanish men are whores for rafa.
>>>>
>>>> Rafa...?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i think you are seriously mixed up. it's 16 to 6.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6 v 2 in slams on all 3 surfaces. Pretty conclusive.
>
>
> it doesn't work that way asshole.
Sure it does. Head to head, man to man, all 3 surfaces etc - we want to
see who's better in h2h match-up when one pits his skills v the other,
not who's better at beating young boys. One man's skills on all
surfaces v the other man - gladitorial contest. Only 1 can win. That's
what we want to see. Much like the heavyweight boxing bouts with
Ali/Tyson etc.
Rafa is king of his era in the heavyweight bouts.
Superdave
No he is not if he is simply not good enough to even get to fight the champ in
most finals.
Whisper
You should be thankful for that, otherwise Rafa would now have more
slams than Fed.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
he is simply not capable of it plus two of his slams were by "accident" just
like with Pete.
felangey
> than Fed.
Why waste time being thankful that Rafa isn't good enough? Im allocating all
my thanks to the fact that Fed is good enough....and is the greatest of all
time....the guy almost defies belief. Awesome! :OD
Poor Pete. Poor Whispy. :(
Whisper
>> You should be thankful for that, otherwise Rafa would now have more
>> slams than Fed.
>
> Why waste time being thankful that Rafa isn't good enough? Im allocating
> all my thanks to the fact that Fed is good enough....
The record shows Rafa is the big fave to beat Fed in slam matches, so as
a Fedfucker you must be happy Rafa didn't make more slam finals.
> and is the greatest
> of all time....the guy almost defies belief. Awesome! :OD
Amazing record, but clearly Rafa is better than fed when they both play
their best in big matches h2h. The record couldn't possibly be more
decisive.
>
> Poor Pete. Poor Whispy. :(
?
SliceAndDice
On clay.
Whisper
In all big matches. Last 3 slam finals on grass, HC & clay all went to
Rafa while Fed was ranked No.1. Like I said couldn't possibly be more
decisive.
SliceAndDice
Fed was not at his best in 2008. Rafa was.
felangey
Please don't try to make the fools and trolls see sense...it only encourages
them. ;)
Whisper
> On Apr 18, 8:54 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2010 10:27 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 8:23 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2010 9:51 PM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You should be thankful for that, otherwise Rafa would now have more
>>>>>> slams than Fed.
>>
>>>>> Why waste time being thankful that Rafa isn't good enough? Im allocating
>>>>> all my thanks to the fact that Fed is good enough....
>>
>>>> The record shows Rafa is the big fave to beat Fed in slam matches, so as
>>>> a Fedfucker you must be happy Rafa didn't make more slam finals.
>>
>>>>> and is the greatest
>>>>> of all time....the guy almost defies belief. Awesome! :OD
>>
>>>> Amazing record, but clearly Rafa is better than fed when they both play
>>>> their best in big matches h2h. The record couldn't possibly be more
>>>> decisive.
>>
>>> On clay.
>>
>> Rafa while Fed was ranked No.1. Like I said couldn't possibly be more
>> decisive.
>
> Fed was not at his best in 2008. Rafa was.
You take the court you relinquish the right to make any excuses. This
applies to every player who ever lived, including Roger. In fact
especially to Roger, given all the big titles he feasted against clowns.
Now you want to discount his losses v the only other good player
around today. Unbelievable Fedfuckery nonsense. Are you for real? Lol
what a moron.
Whisper
Rafa wasn't at his best in all his losses. Obviously if he can beat the
'goat' so many times on all surfaces it means he was sub par in his
losses.
felangey
> 'goat' so many times on all surfaces it means he was sub par in his
> losses.
It's hard to discuss anything with anyone who has such an agenda as yours.
I'm sure, at some level, you are aware that h2h is but a banter-point for
the trolls and sub trolls. Tennis is about everybody v everybody. Last man
standing with the most trophies won against the field is by definition the
best player. Fed is the best player. Ever.
SliceAndDice
Who is making excuses? I never said Rafa's wins aren't legit. I was
just taking exception to your statement that Rafa "decisively" owns
Fed off clay as well, when the truth is that their H2H there stands at
2-2 in slams, with both of Rafa's wins coming off tough 5 setters that
could have gone either way, at a time when Fed was not at his peak. It
is not decisive at all.
Whisper
But you would never bet your money on Fed beating Rafa in a slam final.
Shame. Be nice for the goat to be fave v his biggest rival.
Whisper
er, how about Fed's 76 46 76 26 62 win over Rafa in slam final? Those
tie-breaks prevented Fed losing in straights in yet another slam final.
Looks like the only good win Fed has over Rafa in a slam is their very
1st Wimbledon final when Rafa was quite young & inexperienced. Even
there Fed lost a set & won another in a t/b. Fed is not far from being
0-7 in slam finals v Rafa (0-8 in all slam matches). I'm actually glad
that's not the case. It would just magnify Rafa's superiortiy tenfold &
be incredibly embarrassing for a goat to have that kind of record v his
main rival.
felangey
I don't know what you are raving about now? Fed has always been favourite
against Nadal in slam finals off clay. If it happens again at Wimbledon he
will be favourite again.
SliceAndDice
How is this pertinent to the discussion? I never said Fed owns Rafa
off clay. Rafa is a very bad matchup for Fed.
> Looks like the only good win Fed has over Rafa in a slam is their very
> 1st Wimbledon final when Rafa was quite young & inexperienced. Even
> there Fed lost a set & won another in a t/b. Fed is not far from being
> 0-7 in slam finals v Rafa (0-8 in all slam matches). I'm actually glad
> that's not the case. It would just magnify Rafa's superiortiy tenfold &
> be incredibly embarrassing for a goat to have that kind of record v his
> main rival.
Liar.
Whisper
>> Shame. Be nice for the goat to be fave v his biggest rival.
>
> I don't know what you are raving about now?
You have to be fucking kidding.....?
Whisper
> On Apr 18, 9:30 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2010 11:16 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> You take the court you relinquish the right to make any excuses. This
>>>> applies to every player who ever lived, including Roger. In fact
>>>> especially to Roger, given all the big titles he feasted against clowns.
>>>> Now you want to discount his losses v the only other good player
>>>> around today. Unbelievable Fedfuckery nonsense. Are you for real? Lol
>>>> what a moron.
>>
>>> Who is making excuses? I never said Rafa's wins aren't legit. I was
>>> just taking exception to your statement that Rafa "decisively" owns
>>> Fed off clay as well, when the truth is that their H2H there stands at
>>> 2-2 in slams, with both of Rafa's wins coming off tough 5 setters that
>>> could have gone either way, at a time when Fed was not at his peak. It
>>> is not decisive at all.
>>
>> er, how about Fed's 76 46 76 26 62 win over Rafa in slam final? Those
>> tie-breaks prevented Fed losing in straights in yet another slam final.
>
> How is this pertinent to the discussion? I never said Fed owns Rafa
> off clay. Rafa is a very bad matchup for Fed.
It's extremely pertinent to the discussion as we are discussing the idea
Rafa is a starting fave v Fed on all surfaces. It's 6 v 2 in slam
matches between them, with the 2 Fed wins coming only on grass & very
early in the rivalry when Rafa was still maturing (he is nearly 5 yrs
younger). Rafa has beaten him on all surfaces. When you consider 1 of
Fed's wins was that narrow 5 setter it just hammers home the point.
You can call it 'bad matchup' or whatever, but it is what it is. Can I
also refer to Roddick v Fed as bad matchup for Roddick?
felangey
of historical and current tennis betting. By all means keep embarassing
yourself though....you seem to have a penchant for it.
Joe Ramirez
> You can call it 'bad matchup' or whatever, but it is what it is. Can I
> also refer to Roddick v Fed as bad matchup for Roddick?
You can explain their head-to-head however you please, but the fact
remains that the career distinction between Federer and Roddick is 16
vs. 1 in slams, CGS vs. lone USO, 276+ vs. 13 in weeks at No. 1, 6 vs.
0 Wimbledons, etc.
Whisper
Roddick hasn't put a dent in Fed's legacy - can't say the same about Rafa.
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:-P2dnQHnSMEka1bW...@westnet.com.au...
It is still 16 slam to 6, Federer still has more slam titles than anyone in
the history and
still has a 10 slam lead over Nadal.
>
>
john
Would you bet Rafa getting to a final to begin with ? When you routinely
failed
in earlier stage of a slam it is point less to talk about what you might
have done in
the final. That apply to Nadal as well as anyone else in the game.
>
> Shame. Be nice for the goat to be fave v his biggest rival.
Shame, goat's biggest rival routinely shoot down by clowns.
>
>
Whisper
Correct - but irrelevant to the discussion.
Whisper
> "Whisper"<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:XeGdnSBZv4X0lVbW...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 4/18/2010 11:10 PM, felangey wrote:
>>>> Rafa wasn't at his best in all his losses. Obviously if he can beat
>>>> the 'goat' so many times on all surfaces it means he was sub par in
>>>> his losses.
>>>
>>> It's hard to discuss anything with anyone who has such an agenda as
>>> yours. I'm sure, at some level, you are aware that h2h is but a
>>> banter-point for the trolls and sub trolls. Tennis is about everybody v
>>> everybody. Last man standing with the most trophies won against the
>>> field is by definition the best player. Fed is the best player. Ever.
>>
>>
>> But you would never bet your money on Fed beating Rafa in a slam final.
>
> Would you bet Rafa getting to a final to begin with ?
Depends on lead up form, but maybe not.
However once Fed & Rafa get to a final it looks slim odds of Fed winning
the match.
arnab.z@gmail
Er, outside clay, it's slim odds for Rafa as well. 2007 Wimby final,
2008 Wimby final, 2009 AO final were all five setters.
Superdave
No. You're irrelevant to the discussion. As the supreme Sampras fan fucker on
planet earth you have serious alternative and subjective motive in any
discussion involving Federer.
TT
Nadal should have won Wimby 2008 in 3 or 4. Fed got lucky at matchpoint.
TT
...And in AO 2009 Nadal was half-dead after the semi. But still beat Rogi.