I told you guys ...
Ali Asoag
USO and Wimby, and AO.
These surfaces are too fast for Fed. Clay is still a chance ...
(I hope I am wrong, soon, though)
TT
> ... the FO was the best chance for Fed to win another Slam
They also perfected the balls to suit Federer at RG. Helps his serving
big time, while being able to get more balls back himself and point
construct since it's still clay.
felangey
Yeah, the French really wanted to stick it to Nad's so they tried to thwart
him by getting the balls changed to Federer's exact specification....and to
try and stick the knife in even further, they used Babolat. :)
Anyhoo, I don't think you'll hear many people complaining about the ball
change in Paris....certainly makes the French a bit less boring. And for you
to complain is a bit much, after a systematic slowing of conditions all
around the world....which have greatly benefited Nadal. Also, be grateful
the balls weren't the old ones....Djoke might have edged past Fed...then we
know what would have happened! :)
TT
> Also, be grateful
> the balls weren't the old ones....Djoke might have edged past Fed...then we
> know what would have happened!:)
So you do agree with me that those balls are optimal for Federer.
felangey
Optimal...dunno. He did seem to like them though.
TT
>> So you do agree with me that those balls are optimal for Federer<
>
> Optimal...dunno. He did seem to like them though.
>
>
That wasn't a question.
felangey
That wasn't a reply to a question.
TT
> >That wasn't a question<
>
> That wasn't a reply to a question.
>
>
So shut the fuck up then.
felangey
Exsqueeze me?
RzR
>> So shut the fuck up then<
>
> Exsqueeze me?
just leave that moron be...how mad he must be realizing that rafa isnt
coming even close to smell federers shoes, let alone pass him in the slam
race, or should i say, goat race :)))
TT
Not everything is about goats you dumb fuck. Also your default font blows.
Court_1
You only say that because your hero will not be in the GOAT convo if
he keeps his current form up.
TT
He already is GOAT, on clay. All other GOAT talk is ceib bs.
felangey
And why is clay GOAT the only valid conversation in your eyes?
TT
>> He already is GOAT, on clay. All other GOAT talk is ceib bs<
>
> And why is clay GOAT the only valid conversation in your eyes?
>
>
Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
about current player.
RzR
> 20.8.2011 21:42, RzR kirjoitti:
>> felangey wrote:
>>>> So shut the fuck up then<
>>>
>>> Exsqueeze me?
>>
>> just leave that moron be...how mad he must be realizing that rafa
>> isnt coming even close to smell federers shoes, let alone pass him
>> in the slam race, or should i say, goat race :)))
>
> Not everything is about goats
yes you have to keep telling yourself that :))))
RzR
16 grand slams beats everything else...period
all the rest is bullshit, nonsense, hater talk
TT
That's 7 less majors than Rosewall has. Around 130 titles less than Laver.
You're just a biased fanboy if you don't see that.
Ali Asoag
> 20.8.2011 23:22, felangey kirjoitti:
>>> He already is GOAT, on clay. All other GOAT talk is ceib bs<
>>
>> And why is clay GOAT the only valid conversation in your eyes?
>>
>>
>
> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
> clueless to begin with...
A loss is a loss is a loss which denies you a tournament win. It doesn't
matter to whom you lose (tennis-wise). It only matters for your ego.
That's why everybody enjoys a win against Fed so much. Who does't want
to win against the GOAT?
> since fed doesn't have better career in titles
> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
> about current player.
As far as I know Fed won the most Slams so far, counting ...
Ali Asoag
So Fed is GOAT on grass because he won 5 (or 6?) times in Halle which
nobody has done so far?
Ali Asoag
The only thing that is true is, that Fed has more time on clay to
compensate his age. That's why clay is now his best chance to win
tournament.
On the other hand - however - is Fed not as motivated on clay as on the
other surfaces, so it's difficult to win now.
I beg I am wrong, in 3 weeks. ;-)
drew
\
> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
> clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
> about current player.
You are referencing Federer all of the time. Clearly you must rate
Federer very highly
or you wouldn't use Nadal's head to head with Federer as proof of
Nadal's place in
tennis history.
It's a big bonus for Nadal that he had Federer's number at the FO, but
there's more than one
player to beat on the tour and he also has to show what he has after
the age of 25. He's looking
like he might be on the road that Borg travelled. Mid-twenties with
nowhere to go but down.
TT
What the fuck? lol.
John Liang
He has better career in titles than for example Nadal to
begin with. It is just brainless fanboying about Nadal.
TT
What is? Nobody is claiming Nadal as goat.
Or are you saying Federer has "better career titles" on clay... or just
having trouble with reading comprehension?
TT
> On Aug 20, 4:43 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> \
>> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
>> clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
>> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
>> about current player.
>
> You are referencing Federer all of the time. Clearly you must rate
> Federer very highly
> or you wouldn't use Nadal's head to head with Federer as proof of
> Nadal's place in
> tennis history.
>
Of course it is, because he beat Federer in many big finals. But looks
like you completely missed what I said and are answering to something
else all together.
Sakari Lund
You said "All other GOAT talk is ceib bs" (except that Nadal is clay
goat). All other goat talk includes Sampras, Laver, Borg etc. But your
next post refers to Federer only.
I agree that all the goat talk is bs, but isn't it a bit illogical to
say that surface goats can be named (I have been guilty of that
myself)?
Ali Asoag
> On Aug 20, 4:43 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> \
>> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
>> clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
>> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
>> about current player.
>
> You are referencing Federer all of the time. Clearly you must rate
> Federer very highly
> or you wouldn't use Nadal's head to head with Federer as proof of
> Nadal's place in
> tennis history.
>
> It's a big bonus for Nadal that he had Federer's number at the FO, but
> there's more than one
> player to beat on the tour
Wow, said someone who considers H2H the most valuable thing in tennis.
Mind changing?
> and he also has to show what he has after
> the age of 25. He's looking
> like he might be on the road that Borg travelled. Mid-twenties with
> nowhere to go but down.
Your concern seems to be justified.
Ali Asoag
> On 8/20/2011 7:29 PM, drew wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 4:43 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> \
>>> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
>>> clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
>>> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
>>> about current player.
>>
>> You are referencing Federer all of the time. Clearly you must rate
>> Federer very highly
>> or you wouldn't use Nadal's head to head with Federer as proof of
>> Nadal's place in
>> tennis history.
>>
>> It's a big bonus for Nadal that he had Federer's number at the FO, but
>> there's more than one
>> player to beat on the tour
>
> Wow, said someone who considers H2H the most valuable thing in tennis.
> Mind changing?
Oops, sorry, I thought TT said that. Hindsight, I must say, how can I
believe TT could have said something such wise?
TT
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:43:52 +0300, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>> 20.8.2011 23:22, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>> He already is GOAT, on clay. All other GOAT talk is ceib bs<
>>>
>>> And why is clay GOAT the only valid conversation in your eyes?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
>> clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
>> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
>> about current player.
>
> You said "All other GOAT talk is ceib bs" (except that Nadal is clay
> goat). All other goat talk includes Sampras, Laver, Borg etc. But your
> next post refers to Federer only.
>
Yes, because that is the bs part. In practice the discussion is whether
or not Federer is goat...while actually Federer should not be even
included in the conversation... discussion should be between
Laver,Rosewall,Budge, Gonzales and Tilden...perhaps including
occasionally likes of Federer/Sampras as modern day curiosities.
> I agree that all the goat talk is bs, but isn't it a bit illogical to
> say that surface goats can be named (I have been guilty of that
> myself)?
It's much easier to compare surface goats, especially for clay. The talk
about grass goat has been rather scarce here, guess Whisper has
brainwashed people to believe that Sampras is one...but consider on what
surface Tilden & Laver blossomed...
Sakari Lund
>21.8.2011 22:32, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:43:52 +0300, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 20.8.2011 23:22, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>> He already is GOAT, on clay. All other GOAT talk is ceib bs<
>>>>
>>>> And why is clay GOAT the only valid conversation in your eyes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Discussion whether a player who lost to his main rival can be goat is
>>> clueless to begin with...since fed doesn't have better career in titles
>>> than for example Laver to begin with. It's just brainless fanboying
>>> about current player.
>>
>> You said "All other GOAT talk is ceib bs" (except that Nadal is clay
>> goat). All other goat talk includes Sampras, Laver, Borg etc. But your
>> next post refers to Federer only.
>>
>
>Yes, because that is the bs part. In practice the discussion is whether
>or not Federer is goat...while actually Federer should not be even
>included in the conversation... discussion should be between
>Laver,Rosewall,Budge, Gonzales and Tilden...perhaps including
>occasionally likes of Federer/Sampras as modern day curiosities.
That is kind of anti-ceibs that is not correct either. It says
everything was better in the old days, while in reality the game has
moved on tremendously.
TT
But achievements of players have not. Well, except on clay.
Iceberg
has it? when a 45 year old Bjorkman and 50 year old Agassi can do well
at Wimbledon and get to USO finals, when Fed plays with an 80's
racket, meanwhile Kimiko is beating up on the WTA number 1, Sharapova
and Klijsters/Serena storm the slams when they turn up uninjured.
TT
Safin can win slams while smoking, boozing, partying and fucking all
night etc.
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/01/22/1225992/943143-safin.jpg