If Fed keeps his shoit together....
felangey
Nadal is playing well....but nobody is playing him right at all. Berdych is
hitting everything right back to him. The court is woefully slow, but Fed's
transition game here has been excellent and he is playing the low bounce
really well. Most important is that his ue's are still very low and backhand
solid, allowing him to stay in the rallys with Nadal (should that match come
off) long enough to construct his points.
Between Murray and Nads, it's going to be plenty of to-me-to-you. Murray
lacks the transition game that Nadal has, but has the variety and
counterpunching to hurt him. If whinger gets his gameface on, this could be
a great match.
Ali Asoag
> ...he is gonna win this without dropping a set. Mark it! :)
If, yes, if! :-)
I hope he can raise his game a bit. Otherwise he would hand the trophy
to Rafa (provided Murray will choke again against Rafa).
RzR
poor, poor fed
he doesnt even realize he is playing for all the tards like tt, fan, neha,
iceman, and likes to be gone for a while from this ng if he wins this :))))
Ali Asoag
Just tell me as non-native speaker: What does "shoit" mean?
felangey
It's Oirish for shite....usually said on mainland UK as a less offensive,
jokier version.
Ali Asoag
Hey, does it come from German "Scheisse"? ;-)
RahimAsif
I would like to see a Fed-Nadal final and a Nadal victory here will put
beyond any doubt (reasonable or otherwise) that he is the best player
regardless of the surface (beating Djoker, Murray and Fed on his worst
surface - r u kidding me?). Although whatever the result here, Nadal's
biggest prize comes at the AO...
wkhedr
Hey, Rahima is back to decide the GOAT outcome :)
RzR
except, there is nothing to decide at the moment...fed is not threatened one
bit...could be in 2-3 years
Pelle Svanslös
> On 11/26/2010 8:58 AM, felangey wrote:
>> ...he is gonna win this without dropping a set. Mark it! :)
>
> If, yes, if! :-)
lol, funny fuckers.
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
felangey
Inglourious Basterd
At this point Nadal can be considered the best anywhere, any time, any
surface.
RahimAsif
> except, there is nothing to decide at the moment...fed is not threatened
> one bit...could be in 2-3 years
Agreed - Nadal will have to get more than Fed's slam total to be
considered greater, though he has already given ample proof that he is
just better, and has chance to show it again this week...
felangey
Heehee....you are so right. All those years and years of losing to the same
opposition that peak Fed anayalated....and the losing off-clay record to
Fed....the current 7 slam deficiency...the 4 YEC deficiency....the no.1
domination deficiency. Just. Better.
SliceAndDice
What was Sampras doing at age 29? Getting ready to retire.. Kinda
unfair to use matches that peak Nadal plays against aging Federer to
determine who is "better", don't you think? Why don't we stick to
objective analysis and simply go by results?
felangey
unfair to use matches that peak Nadal plays against aging Federer to
determine who is "better", don't you think? Why don't we stick to
objective analysis and simply go by results?<
...because it doesn't facilitate the trolling aspect? :)
We end up here everytime Rahima sprints to the group when Nadal shows a spot
of form and looks a strong contender....er..I mean...when Rahima isn't too
busy with his hectic life to post. If he's better, he will get better
results...no brainer. Let's wait and see. Rahima is very
Whisperian....almost like he wants to push the 'best at best' nutjob agenda.
RahimAsif
Er, no - I show up whenever there is an important tournament going on
- the majors, and then the YEC (check last year's archive if you dare
when Nadal was losing all his matches at the YEC and I still showed
up). I will be back during the AO open too - don't blame my appearance
then if Nadal is on the verge of winning that too..
RahimAsif
> What was Sampras doing at age 29? Getting ready to retire.. Kinda
> unfair to use matches that peak Nadal plays against aging Federer to
> determine who is "better", don't you think? Why don't we stick to
> objective analysis and simply go by results?
It would have been unfair - if off-peak Nadal hadn't manhandled peak
Fed (utterly dominating the h2h on clay and holding his own on Fed's
best surfaces). Now one would expect off peak Fed to hold his own
against peak Nadal on arguably his best and Nadal's worst surface...
felangey
Fed (utterly dominating the h2h on clay and holding his own on Fed's
best surfaces). Now one would expect off peak Fed to hold his own
against peak Nadal on arguably his best and Nadal's worst surface...<
I used to think you were just a troll....but you are really just a bit of a
illogical twit. Maybe with a bit of troll thrown in for good measure.
felangey
Pelle Svanslös
> On Nov 26, 11:39 am, SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What was Sampras doing at age 29? Getting ready to retire.. Kinda
>> unfair to use matches that peak Nadal plays against aging Federer to
>> determine who is "better", don't you think? Why don't we stick to
>> objective analysis and simply go by results?
>
> It would have been unfair - if off-peak Nadal hadn't manhandled peak
> Fed (utterly dominating the h2h on clay and holding his own on Fed's
> best surfaces).
That is preposterous, sir. Fed's best surface is by far HC, Rafa leads
their H2H on HC by 4-1, indoor 'hard' excluded.
Rafa manhandles Feddy on Feddy's best and worst surface. Grass would
have been the same story after a couple of more tries.
felangey
> their H2H on HC by 4-1, indoor 'hard' excluded<
And the slam non-h2h because Nadal was too crap to get far enough in the
tournie and got beaten by the guys Fed routines? I'll nip and put the kettle
on while you go and tote that up.
Pelle Svanslös
Fed is a pussy v. Rafa on all surfaces.
RahimAsif
> myuh mych......yyyaaWWWnnnn. Are you still talking about yourself?
Stop making up rubbish like I show up only when Nadal hits a bit of form
- its not my fault that he has been hitting form in the most important
tournaments of the year...
RahimAsif
Well, I will count all the hard courts - indoor and hard...
felangey
Whereas Rafa has been a mega-pussy against every other chump until quite
recently. Yup.
RahimAsif
?? The guy has 3 more slams than Fed at the same age, beaten Fed on
his way to the title in 6 out of 9 slams. Do you ever think before you
post? Doubt it...
SliceAndDice
Nitpick, but 2 more...at age 24 and 6 months, Fed had 7 slams.
RahimAsif
Ok - I stand corrected, though the point is still valid...
SliceAndDice
Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever, but I am
not ready to crown him yet. As for "better" player, both Fed and Nadal
play the same field, therefore the one who wins the more number of
slams is the better player, according to me. This is tennis, not
boxing.
P.S. I am also not convinced Fed is done winning slams yet. He is
still good enough to make second week on a regular basis, and if he
gets hot, the other players better watch out.
RahimAsif
> Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever, but I am
> not ready to crown him yet. As for "better" player, both Fed and Nadal
> play the same field, therefore the one who wins the more number of
> slams is the better player, according to me. This is tennis, not
> boxing.
The thing about Nadal is when he is playing well, more often than not,
the title is his to lose. Like at this year's USO for example - come
SF time, many had him as the favorite even though Fed was still in the
tournament and had not lost a set and was a five-time winner, and
Nadal was playing on easily his worst surface. Nadal is a lot like
Sampras in that regard - when he is not playing well, he will bomb out
to far inferior players, but when he is playing well, no one can touch
him...
> P.S. I am also not convinced Fed is done winning slams yet. He is
> still good enough to make second week on a regular basis, and if he
> gets hot, the other players better watch out.
I agree - at his best Fed still will beat anyone not named Nadal...
Sakari Lund
<vish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever,
Undoubtedly?
>but I am
>not ready to crown him yet. As for "better" player, both Fed and Nadal
>play the same field, therefore the one who wins the more number of
>slams is the better player, according to me. This is tennis, not
>boxing.
H2H for players with 5 year age difference can be an interesting stat,
but for defining "better" player it is of course useless. The players
are always in different stages in their careers.
SliceAndDice
> On Nov 26, 4:11 pm, SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever, but I am
> > not ready to crown him yet. As for "better" player, both Fed and Nadal
> > play the same field, therefore the one who wins the more number of
> > slams is the better player, according to me. This is tennis, not
> > boxing.
>
> The thing about Nadal is when he is playing well, more often than not,
> the title is his to lose. Like at this year's USO for example - come
> SF time, many had him as the favorite even though Fed was still in the
> tournament and had not lost a set and was a five-time winner, and
> Nadal was playing on easily his worst surface.
Couple of questions here: a) how are these "many" people? b) Even if
a) was true, you do not think the fact that Nadal was coming off a
Channel Slam and Fed just hit 29 had nothing to do with this?
Nadal is a lot like
> Sampras in that regard - when he is not playing well, he will bomb out
> to far inferior players, but when he is playing well, no one can touch
> him...
How does this make him the "better" player?
Nadal is a very tough matchup for Fed, for reasons that have been
talked about many, many times before. But I refuse to believe a Fed at
his best cannot beat Nadal (off clay). At 2008, he is a bit of a slump
and still took Nadal to 9-7 in the fifth at Wimbledon. At the AO, he
served 50+% first serves and still almost pulled off a win. Hardly
conclusive evidence, to make blanket statements like that!
RahimAsif
> H2H for players with 5 year age difference can be an interesting stat,
> but for defining "better" player it is of course useless. The players
> are always in different stages in their careers.
I think its amazing that Nadal had always had a dominating h2h when
most matches they have played has been when Fed has been peak and he
has been off-peak. The number of matches they have played since Nadal
reached peak (2008 FO IMO) have not been that many...
SliceAndDice
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:11:10 -0800 (PST), SliceAndDice
>
> >Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever,
>
> Undoubtedly?
"on his way"..9 slams before 25 puts him on the fast track.
Sakari Lund
<vish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 5:21�pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:11:10 -0800 (PST), SliceAndDice
>>
>> <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever,
>>
>> Undoubtedly?
>
>"on his way"..9 slams before 25 puts him on the fast track.
Yes I saw the "on his way". Still think it is very brave thing to say.
I don't believe in one GOAT, but for anyone to call him that, he has
to win A LOT more. He has a chance, but "undoubtedly"?
SliceAndDice
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:26:07 -0800 (PST), SliceAndDice
>
> >On Nov 26, 5:21 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:11:10 -0800 (PST), SliceAndDice
>
> >> <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Nadal is undoubtedly on his way to become the greatest ever,
>
> >> Undoubtedly?
>
> >"on his way"..9 slams before 25 puts him on the fast track.
>
> Yes I saw the "on his way". Still think it is very brave thing to say.
> I don't believe in one GOAT, but for anyone to call him that, he has
> to win A LOT more. He has a chance, but "undoubtedly"?
The undoubtedly was for "on his way to become the greatest ever".
Whether he will get there or not, of course, depends on a number of
factors, including luck. Right now, I do not see any great challengers
for him on the horizon (Del Po and Cilic are potentials, but they both
seem injured/out of form a lot). Fed is not the player he was.
felangey
the title is his to lose. Like at this year's USO for example - come
SF time, many had him as the favorite even though Fed was still in the
tournament <
Nothing to do with the fact that Fed had to go through Nole, and at age 29 -
after a patchy season - would take the second semi with no recovery time
before the final? Nadal' early semi? Youzhny. Lol.
>I agree - at his best Fed still will beat anyone not named Nadal...<
Do you give Fed a chance should the meet in London?
RahimAsif
> Nadal is a very tough matchup for Fed, for reasons that have been
> talked about many, many times before. But I refuse to believe a Fed at
> his best cannot beat Nadal (off clay). At 2008, he is a bit of a slump
> and still took Nadal to 9-7 in the fifth at Wimbledon. At the AO, he
> served 50+% first serves and still almost pulled off a win. Hardly
> conclusive evidence, to make blanket statements like that!
Let's be honest - the 9-7 Wim scoreline flattered Fed. Remember Nadal
was up 4-3, 0-40 and missed a routine passing shot (Fed had already
given up as he came in on a second serve). Nadal makes that (as he does
99 times out of 100) he wins 6-4, 6-4, 6-3. AO final was a different
story, that was back and forth all along, but again remember that even
there apart from very early in the 1st set, Nadal was never behind in
the entire match. My opinion is that you can't keep losing to the same
player over and over and over again, on each and every surface and
somehow claim you are the better player. Of course, it would be much
easier if and when Nadal overtakes Fed in the slam count - as then Nadal
would be the greater player and the better player...
felangey
He has a shot.
SliceAndDice
> On 11/26/2010 4:24 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
> > Nadal is a very tough matchup for Fed, for reasons that have been
> > talked about many, many times before. But I refuse to believe a Fed at
> > his best cannot beat Nadal (off clay). At 2008, he is a bit of a slump
> > and still took Nadal to 9-7 in the fifth at Wimbledon. At the AO, he
> > served 50+% first serves and still almost pulled off a win. Hardly
> > conclusive evidence, to make blanket statements like that!
>
> Let's be honest - the 9-7 Wim scoreline flattered Fed. Remember Nadal
> was up 4-3, 0-40 and missed a routine passing shot (Fed had already
> given up as he came in on a second serve). Nadal makes that (as he does
> 99 times out of 100) he wins 6-4, 6-4, 6-3.
But he did not make it. And the match did go to 9-7.
AO final was a different
> story, that was back and forth all along, but again remember that even
> there apart from very early in the 1st set, Nadal was never behind in
> the entire match.
By your own argument above, since Nadal was 0-40 down on his serve in
the fourth. Fed was one point from winning it in 4.
My opinion is that you can't keep losing to the same
> player over and over and over again, on each and every surface and
> somehow claim you are the better player. Of course, it would be much
> easier if and when Nadal overtakes Fed in the slam count - as then Nadal
> would be the greater player and the better player...
Well, that is your opinion. A lot of us prefer to use the same
barometer to measure how good/great a player is, by his/her slam
count. Subjective biases do not come into the picture then.
felangey
Good plan. Whisp...I mean Rahima likes to push his best and 'best at best'
agenda though. They like to count the battles won rather than the wars.
Forgetting of course that the true test of greatness is long term
consistency over many 7 match wars against many differing opponents.
You did say that Sampras is the best you had ever seen, right Rahima? <G>
RahimAsif
> By your own argument above, since Nadal was 0-40 down on his serve in
> the fourth. Fed was one point from winning it in 4.
Didn't Fed win the 4th set anyway to tie it at 2-2? Not sure what you
are saying here...
> Well, that is your opinion. A lot of us prefer to use the same
> barometer to measure how good/great a player is, by his/her slam
> count. Subjective biases do not come into the picture then.
That's fair enough - but if Nadal stays healthy, he should have a decent
shot at the greatest ever tag as well. And if he does, we won't have
this uncomfortable situation of suspecting that the greatest ever player
might not even be the best of his own era...
SliceAndDice
> On 11/26/2010 4:51 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
> > By your own argument above, since Nadal was 0-40 down on his serve in
> > the fourth. Fed was one point from winning it in 4.
>
breaker.
>
> That's fair enough - but if Nadal stays healthy, he should have a decent
> shot at the greatest ever tag as well. And if he does, we won't have
> this uncomfortable situation of suspecting that the greatest ever player
> might not even be the best of his own era...
Works for me too. He still has 8 more to go...and counting.
RahimAsif
Technically, he needs only 7 - a tie should hand him the tiebreaker by a
landslide with the h-2-h...
Patrick Kehoe
You have to dethrone the king before you become the king and to do
that you have to 'pass' him... :regicide is a messy business! :i)
P
wkhedr
You are back and with vengeance
Ali Asoag
> Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 11/26/2010 8:58 AM, felangey wrote:
>>> ...he is gonna win this without dropping a set. Mark it! :)
>>
>> If, yes, if! :-)
>
> lol, funny fuckers.
Fuck off.
Ali Asoag
> felangey wrote:
>>> That is preposterous, sir. Fed's best surface is by far HC, Rafa
>>> leads their H2H on HC by 4-1, indoor 'hard' excluded<
>>
>> the tournie and got beaten by the guys Fed routines? I'll nip and put
>> the kettle on while you go and tote that up.
>
> Fed is a pussy v. Rafa on all surfaces.
One just wondering why NAdal could not get #1 and win more during Fed's
peak.
You are TT's another sockpuppet.
Ali Asoag
Every comparison regarding age is only a momentary comparison and just
bullshit. Because time goes by and the picture can turn around. Let's
see if Nadal also has 16 Slams at age 28 like Fed.
And, talking about age: Nadal is just a pussy then vs Becker or Chang, no?
Just wanted to show how dumb you Nadaltards are. TT's sock ...
Pelle Svanslös
>
> H2H for players with 5 year age difference can be an interesting stat,
The age difference worked in Feddy's favour. Up to 2006, when Rafa was a
inexperienced teenager and Feddy in his peakest of peak years, the ratio
was the same as it's now: 2/3 of the wins goes to Rafa. They played
almost half (9) of their total matches during that period.
> but for defining "better" player it is of course useless.
You go on court with a buddy. How do you define which of you is better?
> The players
> are always in different stages in their careers.
A cop out if there ever was one.
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Sakari Lund wrote:
>>
>> H2H for players with 5 year age difference can be an interesting stat,
>
>The age difference worked in Feddy's favour. Up to 2006, when Rafa was a
>inexperienced teenager and Feddy in his peakest of peak years, the ratio
>was the same as it's now: 2/3 of the wins goes to Rafa. They played
>almost half (9) of their total matches during that period.
But most of the matches were on clay. Nadal is better on clay, no
doubt about that.
>> but for defining "better" player it is of course useless.
>
>You go on court with a buddy. How do you define which of you is better?
I have played over the years with my father. The last time we played
few years ago when he was about 65, it was close. Which is maybe not
that good result for me :-) But I am pretty sure I can beat him when
he is 75. So you think we can then define I am better?
>> The players
>> are always in different stages in their careers.
>
>A cop out if there ever was one.
This is the most simple thing. You can't use H2H to define who is
better over a career unless the players are very close in age.
Pelle Svanslös
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:49:52 +0100, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> H2H for players with 5 year age difference can be an interesting stat,
>> The age difference worked in Feddy's favour. Up to 2006, when Rafa was a
>> inexperienced teenager and Feddy in his peakest of peak years, the ratio
>> was the same as it's now: 2/3 of the wins goes to Rafa. They played
>> almost half (9) of their total matches during that period.
>
> But most of the matches were on clay. Nadal is better on clay, no
> doubt about that.
Only 4 on clay. 3 on real HC; with the same 2:1 ratio for Rafa as
overall. The indoor 'hard' and grass were still Rogi's domain.
>>> but for defining "better" player it is of course useless.
>> You go on court with a buddy. How do you define which of you is better?
>
> I have played over the years with my father. The last time we played
> few years ago when he was about 65, it was close. Which is maybe not
> that good result for me :-) But I am pretty sure I can beat him when
> he is 75. So you think we can then define I am better?
I don't think Rafa and Rogi are 72 years apart.
>>> The players
>>> are always in different stages in their careers.
>> A cop out if there ever was one.
>
> This is the most simple thing. You can't use H2H to define who is
> better over a career unless the players are very close in age.
Like I said, the age difference worked in Rogi's favour. If it had went
0-100 and Rogi was a granny, I'd see your point. But Rogi of today can't
still be seen as handicapped by his age, let alone the Rogi who had the
early age advantage and still couldn't hack it.