It's All About Consistency
Ali Asoag
been doing? Except for clay, where he had the longest streak of 81
matches, and where he could defend his title in Paris thrice
(2006-2008), he could never defend his title on grass and HC. Not only
he couldn't defend the Wimby title of 2008, but also he failed to defend
the AO title of 2009.
As to USO: After his win this year he could not move on and win the next
tournament on same surface.
So, to me, Nadal has yet much to prove to be considered great or at
least not to be considered "mayfly" or fluky on grass and HC.
Whisper
How many would Fed have defended if he played Rafa in more finals?
Ali Asoag
How many Slams would have Nadal won if I had begun playing tennis?
There you go again: woulda, coulda, shoulda. Whisper, you are the master
of illusion.
RzR
LOL
rafa wasnt good enough to make those finals...federer was
RzR
no kidding...i shouldnt have stopped playing tennis...i would have
trashed nadals boring ass game had i kept playing...etc...
Whisper
er, the fanciful illusion is expecting Fed to beat Rafa.
Whisper
I doubt that line of reasoning is satisfying even to you....?
reilloc
Line of reasoning? If England had not transported criminals to Australia
you'd be descended from a gene pool missing the possible chromosome that
causes confusing facts with sheer speculation. How's that for a "line of
reasoning," just like yours?
LNC
Whisper
Racist cunt.
Ali Asoag
Hey, come back to track. My post was about consistency that Nadal
doesn't have. Then you came up with woulda coulda. Just pathetic.
Or should we say, had Fed played in Sampras's era, Sampras would never
have won a single Slam?
reilloc
Stupidity transcends race, as you've demonstrated repeatedly.
LNC
RzR
> Or should we say, had Fed played in Sampras's era, Sampras would never
> have won a single Slam?
ah cmon, he would probably get one or two
Mark
> Nadal won 9 slams so far, on all surfaces. But how consistently has he
> been doing? Except for clay, where he had the longest streak of 81
> he couldn't defend the Wimby title of 2008, but also he failed to defend
> the AO title of 2009.
>
> As to USO: After his win this year he could not move on and win the next
> tournament on same surface.
>
> So, to me, Nadal has yet much to prove to be considered great or at
> least not to be considered "mayfly" or fluky on grass and HC.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
I'm sure he - nor anyone else - really cares that he has to prove
something to a devil-worshipping shit eater like you.
Mark
14-7. Illusion I suppose. Facts are funny things. They get in the way
of your bullshit.
I seem to recall that Fudgepacker didn't defend his only FO title
either so so much for your consistency theory. Also, he failed to
defend his Wimbledon title this year either. Both are titles he never
would have won if Nadal hadn't been injured.
Get real ass-sucking toad.
Mark
He plays in a different queens tournament; the same one you hide out
in.
Fed wouldn't have won a single slam if he played in Sampras' era. Heck
he wouldn't have beaten Mal Washington.
Sampras, in old age, still beat Fudgepacker recently.
ocean
Yeah, we know Federer is the most successful of all time. No need to
state the obvious. 16 slams won in 27 participations from W2003 to
AO2010.
ocean
> I'm sure he - nor anyone else - really cares that he has to prove
> something to a devil-worshipping shit eater like you.
LOL.
TT
Poor post. Nadal has made last 4 Wimbledon finals he played in. Also
defended his Wimbledon title the next time he played..
So far only slam titles he didn't defend were AO 2009 and FO 2008, He
was injured at Wimbledon and you're a complete moron if you think Nadal
didn't defend his slams which he won in 2010.
Nadal is the only player in Open Era to have defended a title 5 years in
a row, so show some respect.
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
Ali Asoag
> Ali Asoag wrote:
>> Nadal won 9 slams so far, on all surfaces. But how consistently has he
>> been doing? Except for clay, where he had the longest streak of 81
>> matches, and where he could defend his title in Paris thrice
>> (2006-2008), he could never defend his title on grass and HC. Not only
>> he couldn't defend the Wimby title of 2008, but also he failed to
>> defend the AO title of 2009.
>>
>> As to USO: After his win this year he could not move on and win the
>> next tournament on same surface.
>>
>> So, to me, Nadal has yet much to prove to be considered great or at
>> least not to be considered "mayfly" or fluky on grass and HC.
>
> Poor post. Nadal has made last 4 Wimbledon finals he played in. Also
> defended his Wimbledon title the next time he played..
LOL "next time he played" LOL.
> So far only slam titles he didn't defend were AO 2009 and FO 2008, He
You are dumber than one could think. Why do you even mention the
FO2008??? Nadal did defend his FO titles and that counts. Same cannot be
claimed for Wim and AO, which I stated.
> was injured at Wimbledon and you're a complete moron if you think Nadal
> didn't defend his slams which he won in 2010.
You mean he "defended" Fed's title from 2009? LOL
> Nadal is the only player in Open Era to have defended a title 5 years in
> a row, so show some respect.
Which one was that?? You must have been dreaming again ...
TT
>
> You are dumber than one could think. Why do you even mention the
> FO2008??? Nadal did defend his FO titles and that counts. Same cannot be
> claimed for Wim and AO, which I stated.
>
Classic example of missing the point...Nadal has had only one
opportunity so far to defend his hc/grass slam title the next year, that
is at AO 2010.
Also you're being rather simpleton with your logic: If Nadal's defending
of clay titles doesn't count then the same can be said of Federer and
and his hc/grass slams.
And notice this: Federer will never defend his RG title, while Nadal
will probably win consecutive titles outside of clay slam. So you can
only lose with your argument.
>
>> Nadal is the only player in Open Era to have defended a title 5 years in
>> a row, so show some respect.
>
> Which one was that?? You must have been dreaming again ...
>
Nadal has won Monte Carlo 6 years in a row, thus defending it 5 times.
You should remain quiet so that we don't catch your ignorance, and you
definitely should not call other posters names because you don't
understand/agree other opinions than yours. This board is for discussion
and there wouldn't be much to discuss if everyone had similar opinions.
You should leave if you're unable to live with that.
Rant over.
Ali Asoag
> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>> You are dumber than one could think. Why do you even mention the
>> FO2008??? Nadal did defend his FO titles and that counts. Same cannot
>> be claimed for Wim and AO, which I stated.
>>
>
> Classic example of missing the point...Nadal has had only one
> opportunity so far to defend his hc/grass slam title the next year, that
> is at AO 2010.
And he failed.
> Also you're being rather simpleton with your logic: If Nadal's defending
> of clay titles doesn't count then the same can be said of Federer and
> and his hc/grass slams.
I think I'd better give up explaining something so obvious to someone
like you: Of course Nadal did defend his titles in FO, nobody denies
that. But was I in my OP talking about clay or HC/grass? Learn reading
first.
> And notice this: Federer will never defend his RG title, while Nadal
> will probably win consecutive titles outside of clay slam. So you can
> only lose with your argument.
Here you go again ... All of your arguments are based on speculation and
assumptions for the future. That's nonsense. Let's wait until Nadal
reaches all what you dream of, then he will be considered great without
you having to brag all the time.
>>
>>> Nadal is the only player in Open Era to have defended a title 5 years in
>>> a row, so show some respect.
>>
>> Which one was that?? You must have been dreaming again ...
>
> Nadal has won Monte Carlo 6 years in a row, thus defending it 5 times.
Again you failed: Who is talking here about second class tournaments?
> You should remain quiet so that we don't catch your ignorance, and you
> definitely should not call other posters names because you don't
> understand/agree other opinions than yours. This board is for discussion
> and there wouldn't be much to discuss if everyone had similar opinions.
> You should leave if you're unable to live with that.
LOL. Weeping in your pillow?
Mark
Don't bother responding to Ali-bin-suckin.' It's clueless. An obsessed
fed-packer fan with a fixation is not a worthy debate opponent. They
don't see facts. They're obscured by the metal bars and hourly doses
of lithium.
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:nrSdnXq-PZTg0zrR...@westnet.com.au...
As many as how many Sampras would defend if he played Krajicek in more
finals.
So is it Federer's fault that Nadal could not get to the final.
>
>
john
I don't doubt his line of reasoning and how about you coming up with some
reasons
as to why nadal wasn't good enough to make those finals.
>
>
drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whisper is a latter-day Australian. He's an import who isn't even
proud of
his country's Australian Open tennis event.
Thomas R. Kettler
<3774fa7a-743b-4b99...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
drew <dr...@technologist.com> wrote:
Which one is Whisper then: the Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman or Naomi Watts
of rst?
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
drew
> > Whisper is a latter-day Australian. He's an import who isn't even
> > proud of
> > his country's Australian Open tennis event.
>
> Which one is Whisper then: the Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman or Naomi Watts
> of rst?
More like Skippy the bush kangaroo....with tits like Naomi Watts'.
Inglourious Basterd
> In article
> <3774fa7a-743b-4b99-b345-3f2557cb9...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
He's Dick (from Dick and Dom)
Ali Asoag
Kangaroo.
Whisper
You mustn't be very smart to compare Fed v Nadal to Sampras v Krajicek.
You have my sympathy.
Whisper
Of course I'm proud, but not moronic enough to think it's higher than
4th in the pecking order.
Ali Asoag
You didn't seem to understand what he was saying. He used your dumb
argument to say that it's BS what you say.
Whisper
He did not use my argument.
My argument says I don't count any tune-up results, only slam finals.
Sampras/Krajicek never met in a slam final so how is that same as my
argument....?
AliAsoag
> On 10/7/2010 2:15 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/6/2010 4:13 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2010 1:20 AM, john wrote:
You should not change your opinion so often. First it was "Slam", now
it must be Slam "final".
bob
slam, slam SF, slam F - increasing importance in that order. all
important though. but beating a guy in 1 slam, where revenge was taken
soon after, means little.
5-2 in slam Finals and 1-0 in slam SF - that's something serious.
bob
Inglourious Basterd
>
> 5-2 in slam Finals and 1-0 in slam SF - that's something serious.
>
> bob
It's shocking for a supposed GOAT in any sport. Should cause any
serious observers to question whether that individual deserves the
title of GOAT.
Whisper
>>
>>> You didn't seem to understand what he was saying. He used your dumb
>>> argument to say that it's BS what you say.
>>
>> He did not use my argument.
>>
>> My argument says I don't count any tune-up results, only slam finals.
>>
>> Sampras/Krajicek never met in a slam final so how is that same as my
>> argument....?
>
> You should not change your opinion so often. First it was "Slam", now
> it must be Slam "final".
Always been slam finals.
This seems to really hurt Fedfuckers on a personal level, which amazes me.
bob
i agree, and the dilemma we face is that while fed's GS numbers are
GOAT level, this flaw is unprecedented and makes me think that GOAT
isn't a feasible concept right now.
however -- fed has a good 2 yrs to turn it around.
bob
Patrick Kehoe
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Inglourious Basterd
>
> >On Oct 8, 10:59 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> 5-2 in slam Finals and 1-0 in slam SF - that's something serious.
>
> >> bob
>
> >It's shocking for a supposed GOAT in any sport. Should cause any
> >serious observers to question whether that individual deserves the
> >title of GOAT.
>
> i agree, and the dilemma we face is that while fed's GS numbers are
> GOAT level, this flaw is unprecedented and makes me think that GOAT
> isn't a feasible concept right now.
>
> however -- fed has a good 2 yrs to turn it around.
>
> bob
There is no GOAT anyway 'in reality'... so... Fed will have to settle
with king of major titles, for as long as he can hold onto it... very
much like once did Pete actually!
P
Ali Asoag
I have been experiencing for long that you are the guy who suffers most
here. It's understandable: Your boy Sampras was the only "unfinished"
GOAT candidate (consistently failed on clay), then he lost his Slam
record to Fed. No wonder Fed is your enemy.
The interesting thing is, even Nadal, who has been owned by everyone on
HC like Sampras was owned by every clown on clay, managed to win some HC
Slams. Nadal is >> Sampras.
bob
yes, for now sampras will have to stay "king of wimbledon." and king
of #1. :-)
bob
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly...
P
ocean
Nadal tried harder. Sampras gave up too soon on winning RG.
ocean
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Inglourious Basterd
>
> >On Oct 8, 10:59 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> 5-2 in slam Finals and 1-0 in slam SF - that's something serious.
>
> >> bob
>
> >It's shocking for a supposed GOAT in any sport. Should cause any
> >serious observers to question whether that individual deserves the
> >title of GOAT.
>
> i agree, and the dilemma we face is that while fed's GS numbers are
> GOAT level, this flaw is unprecedented and makes me think that GOAT
> isn't a feasible concept right now.
There will never be a GOAT. There will always be a flaw for every GOAT
candidate.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are only greats... there is no such person as greatest of all
time... contexts change... you can only 'rule' in your own time, in
various ways...
P
Inglourious Basterd
Rod Laver comes closest to having no flaws.
TT
Tilden, Pancho and Budge too perhaps, considering they were robbed a bit
by their times, for example Budge by WWII...
Ali Asoag
Why not say that for Fed? Wouldn't Fed have 5 FO titles now? ;-)