Will Fed catch-up to Nadal in Quality Slams?
Wile E.
do you think he can achieve this? I think he can. He beat Djokovic
at the FO, maybe he can achieve this in a slam also.
Rafael Nadal has 10 slams vs quality top tier players.
Novak Djokovic has 3 slams vs quality top tier players.
Roger Federer has 5 or 6 slams vs quality top tier players.
(16 total slams, 6 quality slams and 10 won against easy pickins
for a tier 1 player)
Booger
I know I'm feeding a troll but whatever...
Just trying to figure out who Fed played for his 5 or 6 wins (I assume
only the final is counted in this logic)?
- Soderling must count since he counts for Nadal so there is 1 win.
- Two more wins against Nadal, right?
- Murray also must count since he counts for Djokovic so there is 2
more.
- Finally Fed beat Djokovic once and he counts for Nadal so that is
the #6 you mention.
That explains it... I guess Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin, Hewitt,
Roddick, Baghdatis, González aren't quality players.
But wait, if Puerta, Soderling, Murray, Tsonga, and Berdych all count
as "quality top tier players" with no slam wins, then what kind of
players does that make Agassi, Safin, Roddick, and Hewitt, all slam
winners as far as I can remember?
This is confusing... please explain how you came to this conclusion...
Court_1
The best part of this whole irrational theory is that he claims
Nadal's slams were all quality wins, yet who did Nadal meet in the
majority of his slam final wins? Well none other than Roger Federer,
the untalented tier 4 player. If Nadal defeated this tier 4 chump
Federer in most of his slam finals how does that make Nadal's slam
wins when played against the "inferior" Federer valid? That is how
stupid this troll and his theory is. Clearly logic is not his stong
suit!
Wile E.
one of the duo dingbats has spoken and has shown why you are dubbed a
dingbat.
pltr...@xhost.org
>Federer only needs 4 more quality slams to catch up to Nadal....
I love it when they make it this easy... {plonk}
-- Larry
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Coming from you I take that as a compliment! ;)
All you can do is insult a person who makes a valid point. The fact is
your theory about Nadal's slams being more valid than Fed's completely
comes unglued by the fact that Nadal played against "inferior"
Federer. You can't claim that Federer is a tier 4 inferior player all
of the time, yet build up Nadal's slam wins when he has defeated that
inferior player in most of his slam finals. You are the dingbat my
friend, no mistake there.
Now go fondle your Nadal blow up doll. ;)
TT
Clearly not yours either...
TT
That's ridiculous. Every best player of his time never plays better
player than him. Wile's argument is about meeting the best possible
opposition on way to slam titles. Federer would be considered that for
Nadal and vice versa.
> Now go fondle your Nadal blow up doll. ;)
I see a catfight coming up.
Booger
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will admit obvious trolls can be amusing. At least he puts out an
argument with so many holes in it that there is no way he could
realistically defend it in a discussion. The h2h argument is much
more interesting as it can be discussed from both sides.
Court_1
Weakest argument I have ever heard but alas Wile is too dense to see
it. God love him. :)
jdeluise
On 16-Aug-2011, Booger <porth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I will admit obvious trolls can be amusing. At least he puts out an
> argument with so many holes in it that there is no way he could
> realistically defend it in a discussion.
Trolls of his ilk do more to support the cause of "fed fans" than "fed fans"
themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if Iceberg was secretly a Federer fan,
in fact it seems quite likely.
uly...@mscomm.com
Three Stooges calling Einstein a "moron."
Court_1
> Wile calling Courty a "Dingbat" is sort've live Larry Fine of The
> Three Stooges calling Einstein a "moron."
Many thanks! :)
uly...@mscomm.com
attacks one of the most balanced, articulate and mentally sound
posters on RST.
Court_1
Thanks, but according to Wile and TT you are part of the dingbat club
too so I can say the same thing about you and your articulate and
balanced posts compared to Wile's constant drivel. He knows how to say
two thoughts:
1) 17>8
2) Fed won slams in a weak era.
I think if we are being called dingbats by Wile, we are doing
something right! :)
Ali Asoag
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem is Nadal won 2 HC slams out 15 he attempted
Federer won 9 and was in the semi or final on every other
occassion. So the quality of the slam won by NO.1 or
No.2 player is reduced because their nearest rival could
not make the final. That is the most ridiculous comments
ever posted in RST and of course no surprise there since
it is coming from a troll.
Wile E.
> On Aug 16, 10:04 pm, "ulys...@msomm.com" <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> > But it's so true! It's hilarious that a lowly cretin such as Wile
> > attacks one of the most balanced, articulate and mentally sound
> > posters on RST.
>
> Thanks, but according to Wile and TT you are part of the dingbat club
> too
You and uly - the two dingbats., you wear the name well.
> so I can say the same thing about you and your articulate and
> balanced posts compared to Wile's constant drivel. He knows how to say
> two thoughts:
>
> 1) 17>8
> 2) Fed won slams in a weak era.
>
> I think if we are being called dingbats by Wile, we are doing
> something right! :)
Yup, whata club you belong to, keep up the good work dingbat 2, or is
it dingbat 1?
TT
I hope that's not supposed to be a description of infamous Dingbat Duo.
TT
> The problem is Nadal won 2 HC slams out 15 he attempted
Also Nadal won 2 out of 2 HC slam finals. 1 out of 1 Olympic finals on HC.
> Federer won 9
He also won 1 out of 13 clay slams he attempted, winning his only one
when Nadal didn't reach the final.
> and was in the semi or final on every other
> occassion.
Semi means he "didn't hold his end of the bargain"
> So the quality of the slam won by NO.1 or
> No.2 player is reduced because their nearest rival could
> not make the final.
Think positive: It was AWESOME for Federer that Nadal didn't always
reach the final.
Court_1
so moronic? Hard to believe. Wile, Coyote, tennis, perhaps TT and a
million other identities are the "Sybil" of RST. Ha, ha. ;)
TT
Yeah you got it. Rafa is homo, whole atp dopes and I'm Wily. Oh yeah and
Whisper hails from Florida, 911 didn't happen and Moon landings are fake.
Court_1
Whatever you say Sybil! ;)
bob
you'll note that court1 is quick to talk about nadal on PEDs, then
djok on PEDs, then whole tour on PEDS - but fed is exempt.
(i never thought i'd see the day but john liang has been lifted from
the cellar by court1).
bob
bob
you are irrational, i suggest you take a day off. nobody said fed is
tier IV, fed is tier I. just that nadal beat that tier I personally en
route to most of his slams (with at/near peak fed in draw for all of
them) while fed won 10 quickies before nadal was nearing his own peak.
bob
TT
> you'll note that court1 is quick to talk about nadal on PEDs, then
> djok on PEDs, then whole tour on PEDS - but fed is exempt.
Yes. I've been waiting for this next stage of her argument where she
straight blurts out that everyone else is using except Fed...
John Liang
> 17.8.2011 18:21, John Liang kirjoitti:
>
> > The problem is Nadal won 2 HC slams out 15 he attempted
>
> Also Nadal won 2 out of 2 HC slam finals. 1 out of 1 Olympic finals on HC.
But could not make final in the other 13 times losing to tier 5
players like Ferrer, Youzhny etc.
>
> > Federer won 9
>
> He also won 1 out of 13 clay slams he attempted, winning his only one
> when Nadal didn't reach the final.
There are 2 hc slam every year and 1 clay court slam every year.
Federer was also in 4 finals at FO
far better than 2 finals out of 15 attempts.
>
> > and was in the semi or final on every other
> > occassion.
>
> Semi means he "didn't hold his end of the bargain"
>
> > So the quality of the slam won by NO.1 or
> > No.2 player is reduced because their nearest rival could
> > not make the final.
>
> Think positive: It was AWESOME for Federer that Nadal didn't always
> reach the final.
You need some brain to think positvie. Nadal wasn't good enough to
get to
HC finals and that is why he was repeatedly thrashed by 4th tier
players on
HC.
TT
> There are 2 hc slam every year and 1 clay court slam every year.
Guess that's why Fed has won more slams. Unfair, isn't it.
> Federer was also in 4 finals at FO
> far better than 2 finals out of 15 attempts.
But you weren't referring to reaching finals, you were talking about
titles. Don't change the subject when you're losing.
Now certainly 2/15 (3/16) HC titles
is better than 1/13 clay titles?
John Liang
> 18.8.2011 0:57, John Liang kirjoitti:
>
> > There are 2 hc slam every year and 1 clay court slam every year.
>
> Guess that's why Fed has won more slams. Unfair, isn't it.
No, it is not unfair because those two tournament decide to play on HC
and players need to play on that surface.
>
> > Federer was also in 4 finals at FO
> > far better than 2 finals out of 15 attempts.
>
> But you weren't referring to reaching finals, you were talking about
> titles. Don't change the subject when you're losing.
You got to be in the final to win finals. Don't change the subject
reaching 2 finals out of 15 attempts and won 2 is lucky and it means
more than 80% of the time Nadal wasn't good enough to even get to a
title match. He had twice as many opportunity as Federer in getting
to HC finals while Federer missed only 1 FO final since 2005 on his
worst surface.
>
> Now certainly 2/15 (3/16) HC titles
> is better than 1/13 clay titles?
Not 2 finals out of 15 compare to 6 finals out of last 7 years.
Wile E.
Aw, dingy-bat still won't understand...way over her head.
TT
> On Aug 18, 8:20 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 18.8.2011 0:57, John Liang kirjoitti:
>>
>>> There are 2 hc slam every year and 1 clay court slam every year.
>>
>> Guess that's why Fed has won more slams. Unfair, isn't it.
>
> No, it is not unfair because those two tournament decide to play on HC
> and players need to play on that surface.
>>
>>> Federer was also in 4 finals at FO
>>> far better than 2 finals out of 15 attempts.
>>
>> But you weren't referring to reaching finals, you were talking about
>> titles. Don't change the subject when you're losing.
>
> You got to be in the final to win finals.
And you got to win the 1st round to reach finals etc etc. You might as
well compare surface win%... but it won't end well, either.
> Don't change the subject
THAT is one super lame comeback. It's you who is changing YOUR talk
about titles to finals now...
You need to pick up your game to be taken as a serious debate partner.
Court_1
I never said I thought Fed was exempt. If you had any reading comp
skills you would see that I answered your question about Fed. Hard for
you to follow I know but try and concentrate. Go back and re-read my
posts and you will see I answered you.
In the meantime you get an "F" grade for your poor reading comp
skills. ;)
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am far from irrational. What I said makes perfect sense. Now stop
trying to dictate what others say. Why are you answering a post saying
I am irrational when the post had nothing to do with you? Wile keeps
saying Fed is tier 4(by implication) yet Nadal faced Fed in the finals
of most of his slams. So if Nadal beat a tier 4 according to Wile, how
good does that make Nadal? Again, follow what people are saying and
use your reading comp skills as poor as they are. Now piss off and
stop being a bully. Not going to work with me, that is for sure.
Court_1
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You wish imbecile. Not enough for you to do in your Nadal shrine?
There is always work to be done in the Nadal shrine. Get to it. Surely
you don't have a real job.
bob
so in your opinion, is fed on PEDs or is he not?
bob
bob
wtf? Wile keeps saying fed beat tier IV guys for most of his slams. it
is your irrational interjection to say he's claiming fed himself is
tier IV. like i said, you are irrational, perhaps overly emotional -
please - take a day off and regroup. get some meds (or peds) of your
own.
> So if Nadal beat a tier 4 according to Wile, how
>good does that make Nadal?
that is YOUR irrational interjection once again. Wile never said any
such thing. in fact, Wile keeps pointing out the obvious, which i
guess bothers you.
> Again, follow what people are saying and
>use your reading comp skills as poor as they are. Now piss off and
>stop being a bully. Not going to work with me, that is for sure.
i'm not beign a bully i am asking you to quit interjecting what you
think others are implying and stick to what they say. well, at least
until you learn to understand what you read. you silly dumbo.
bob
Wile E.
Ding ding, any one home in the dingbat court district? Apparently
not, you keep proving why you are dingbat #2, should be dingbat #1
after this though.
jdeluise
On 17-Aug-2011, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You wish imbecile. Not enough for you to do in your Nadal shrine?
> There is always work to be done in the Nadal shrine. Get to it. Surely
> you don't have a real job.
It's better to not let Wile and co. get to you. It's just what he wants...
Court_1
Bob, truly you are as ignorant as they come. Of course Wile is
implying that Fed is tier 4 and even if he is not, it does not matter.
He is saying Federer is sub-par because he only beat tier 4 and 5
players to win most of his slams. So if Nadal faced Federer in most of
his slam finals that he won and he defeated Federer who is sub-par
according to Wile, how does that make Nadal so great? It is basic
logic. Guess you flunked that in school. Did you even go to school? If
so until what grade?
Now I know this is hard for you to follow, but any rational person
will be able to see my point. In the meantime, stop being a bully and
calling posters irrational or emotional. Is that your way of dealing
with smart women? Feel threatened huh? I see how you post to Uly a lot
of times with that same type of bullying condescending behavior and I
just laugh. She is smarter than you are no doubt. You have to resort
to calling women emotional to get your point across? A true bully.
If you don't like my posts don't answer them but refrain from telling
me what I should post or should not post and trying to direct me in
what to do, etc. Now if you are going to be condescending please don't
answer my posts. Thanks.
Court_1
LOL. Yes I know this. They don't really get to me. I hate bullies and
Bob's posts are nothing but bullying drivel. It is fun though. Thanks
for the advice. Appreicate it from a sane poster!!! :)))
Re Wile you are definitely correct that he is nothing but a troll and
the best thing is not to answer him or "it." Just what he wants. Most
of the time I ignore it. Other times I feel like starting up! :)
jdeluise
On 17-Aug-2011, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Re Wile you are definitely correct that he is nothing but a troll and
> the best thing is not to answer him or "it."
Actually, I don't mind feeding the trolls, just don't let them get to you :)
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure hon.
bob
you constantly misinterpret what others post, then wrongly repeat what
you believe was written, then attribute the wrong statement to the
original poster.
if you feel the need to talk about what someone else said, simply use
copy/paste. (either left click mouse, look for copy button, or even
CTRL-C, CTRL-V still works). but don't opine on what you believe they
implied -cause you're always wrong.
bob
bob
he's not, and it does matter - to you clearly.
>He is saying Federer is sub-par because he only beat tier 4 and 5
>players to win most of his slams.
"sub par"? is that another one of your interpretations? he never said
any such thing.
> So if Nadal faced Federer in most of
>his slam finals that he won and he defeated Federer who is sub-par
>according to Wile, how does that make Nadal so great?
nobody said fed is "sub par". what was said is fed, a great player,
won many of his slams - the vast majority - against clowns. his count
is inflated. his game is same as always, tier I. along with about 4
other guys.
> It is basic logic. Guess you flunked that in school. Did you even go to school? If
>so until what grade?
>Now I know this is hard for you to follow, but any rational person
>will be able to see my point. In the meantime, stop being a bully and
>calling posters irrational or emotional. Is that your way of dealing
>with smart women? Feel threatened huh?
> I see how you post to Uly a lot
>of times with that same type of bullying condescending behavior and I
>just laugh. She is smarter than you are no doubt.
uly is far smarter than you. beside the repeated 2" flaccid penis
themes, for whatever reason is on her mind, she has posted some very,
shall i say, "normal" posts in recent weeks. using some logic and
seeing 2 sides of the coin. once she sees that 3rd side, look out.
> You have to resort to calling women emotional to get your point across? A true bully.
>If you don't like my posts don't answer them but refrain from telling
>me what I should post or should not post and trying to direct me in
>what to do, etc. Now if you are going to be condescending please don't
>answer my posts. Thanks.
do not quote other people unless you use copy/paste. because you are
attributing themes to Wile and others that quite simply are wrong.
whether you can't comprehend, i'm not sure, but whatever reason it
happens.
bob
Wile E.
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
The patience of Job.
You are hereby awarded the Medal of Patience, your endurance in
dealing with the dingbat is to be commended.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dude, you think Federer was in his prime in 2009. No offense but I am
not listening to a word you say after that harebrained comment. You
are wasting your time.
Court_1
> On 17-Aug-2011, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Re Wile you are definitely correct that he is nothing but a troll and
> > the best thing is not to answer him or "it."
>
> Actually, I don't mind feeding the trolls, just don't let them get to you :)
:)
bob
tell me why he wasn't prime in 2009. if you can.
bob
bob
wrote:
i had to take a break from John Liang. i'm debating taking a break
from court1 in same fashion. i gave her the best advice that i thought
she might be able to comprehend, all i can do. :-)
bob
Court_1
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
Are you actually asking me that question seriously and not trolling?
I can give you a million reasons but I don't have time right now but
how about the most obvious thing--i.e. since 2004 Federer was pretty
much winning 3 slams per year. In 2008 which I believe was the start
of his decline he only won one (i know he was ill so that is part of
it.) In 2009 he only won 2 slams and in 2010 only one. In additiion he
started to win less of the other big tournaments after 2007. I don't
know what defines a person's decline more than the fact that his/her
results start to dwindle. Now surely you can't be that stupid can you?
Oh wait.......!
Court_1
> - Show quoted text -
Oh please, music to my ears! Don't make promises you know you can't
keep! ;)
John Liang
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
He wasn't at his peak in 2009 and it reflected in his overall result.
John Liang
bob, court 1 is the most logical poster in RST and your advice is
illogical and
it is pretty difficult for a person who think logically to understand
your illogic
drivel.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL! Thanks John! But I warn you that ignorance is bliss, so no
matter what we tell these dimwits about how silly their posts are,
they just won't get it. :-0
John Liang
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
He wasn't. And as for why he wasn't the reason is the same as Sampras
declined after 1998.
TT
> You are hereby awarded the Medal of Patience, your endurance in
> dealing with the dingbat is to be commended.
He called ct1 "silly dumbo", that's 9 on Bobchter scale. But yeah, bob
deserves praise for his mature behaviour even when the opposite side is not.
TT
> wtf? Wile keeps saying fed beat tier IV guys for most of his slams. it
> is your irrational interjection to say he's claiming fed himself is
> tier IV. like i said, you are irrational, perhaps overly emotional -
> please - take a day off and regroup.
Yes, that's a good advice. Court1 you're taking these things little bit
too seriously...
TT
> bob, court 1 is the most logical poster in RST
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
TT
> your illogic
> drivel.
How ironic. :)
TT
> Dude, you think Federer was in his prime in 2009. No offense but I am
> not listening to a word you say after that harebrained comment. You
> are wasting your time.
Of course he was.
TT
Old topic. Fed's results went down because Nadal's went up.
bob
05 - 2 slams.
08 - 1 slam.
summer 09 - jan 2010 - 3 slams and match pts in a 4th.
looks pretty simiilar to me. not to mention competition got tougher
after 07.
> In 2008 which I believe was the start of his decline he only won one
he won 1 but lost in 2 other finals to nadal. who was now not a little
kid anymore and getting better.
> (i know he was ill so that is part of
>it.) In 2009 he only won 2 slams and in 2010 only one.
?? from summer 2009 - jan 2010 he won 3/4 of the slams losing the 4th
after having match pts. that is as good a 4 consecutive showing as he
EVER had. - and he did it against TOUGHER competition than his 1st 10
slams.
> In additiion he
>started to win less of the other big tournaments after 2007. I don't
>know what defines a person's decline more than the fact that his/her
>results start to dwindle.
simple: his competition gets better. you can only play as well as your
competition allows you. as an irrational person, you are only seeing
fed's point of view - not the whole picture. open your eyes dear.
> Now surely you can't be that stupid can you?Oh wait.......!
you little dumbo you.
bob
bob
in fed's whole career, did he ever (even against the clowns) have a
stretch where he won 3 slams and had match pts in the only 1 he lost?
only in 09-10.
yep, he was peak alright.
bob
bob
think you're gonna get laid, do ya john.
bob
bob
i know. of all the people to say such a thing.
bob
bob
something just hit me: is it possible John Liang is Court1?
bob
John Liang
We now know bob stuck in TT's pants, did you get the permission from
your master before
getting laid with your new master?
John Liang
In Nadal's career did he ever win USO, Wimbledon and FO in the same
year ? He was peaked in 2010 rather
than 2008 and early part of 2009 as most people believe he was.
John Liang
I don't think he is taking your guys seriously. He just have too much
time
and patient to respond to obvious tools like you and bob.
Court_1
Don't agree with one comment you have written above. What a shocker!
Total and utter garbage of the first degree. I don't even have the
strength to respond to it point by point. Too tired.
I can't reason with a dumbbell like you. We have totally opposite
opinions on tennis players and probably everything else. C'est la vie.
Each to his/her own.
bob
i repeat:
>> in fed's whole career, did he ever (even against the clowns) have a
>> stretch where he won 3 of 4 slams and had match pts in the only 1 he lost?
>> only in 09-10. yep he was peak alright.
bob
Court_1
Nope, you have got it all wrong. I am a very impatient type A person.
Patience is definitely not one of my virtues. I was trying to be
patient but I am all out of patience now. Can't talk to a wall. I will
leave it for you! I need to recharge my batteries now so I can obtain
some more patience before I can resume any battles! :)
bob
you don't agree that nadal improved from 05 through 08? kidding?
>Total and utter garbage of the first degree. I don't even have the
>strength to respond to it point by point. Too tired.
>I can't reason with a dumbbell like you. We have totally opposite
>opinions on tennis players and probably everything else. C'est la vie.
>Each to his/her own.
fed stayed the same (or maybe improved even), while nadal (and the
whole field eventually) got better. hence fed's non-nadal results
stayed similar.
again, fed's best 4 slam stretch of his life came mid 09 - early 2010.
he was peak. all he needed to prove it was nadal's bad knees.
bob
bob
if you thought about what you wrote, and applied some logic to it,
life would get a whole lot easier for you.
bob
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who said my life was difficult? I have a good life. You have it
backwards by the way as it is you who needs to apply some logic but I
realize that ain't gonna happen. A leopard does not change its spots.
Psych 101.
I am a type A professional and perfectionist so of course I am going
to be impatient with stupidity. It is hard to believe you don't see
your arguments as crazy, but I assure you you are in the minority with
many of your thoughts. You, Whisper and Iceberg have some of the most
illogical thoughts I have ever seen but I guess that is what makes the
world go around.
jdeluise
On 18-Aug-2011, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nope, you have got it all wrong. I am a very impatient type A person.
> Patience is definitely not one of my virtues. I was trying to be
> patient but I am all out of patience now. Can't talk to a wall. I will
> leave it for you! I need to recharge my batteries now so I can obtain
> some more patience before I can resume any battles! :)
Don't waste your time on bob though, you'll never get through to him.
bob
federer is very popular and well liked. not cause he's charismatic
though.
> You, Whisper and Iceberg have some of the most
>illogical thoughts I have ever seen but I guess that is what makes the
>world go around.
again, do you not agree nadal improved from 05-08?
bob
bob
wrote:
do you think i believe what i post, or just trying to tick you off?
bob
Court_1
Yes I realized that a long while ago. I guess it depends on my mood
and whether I am in the mood for a battle. :)
I am done for today! :))))
Court_1
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:16:23 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
Improved? I mean he won his first grass slam in 2008 but did not win
his HC slam until 2009. By 2008/09 Federer had started to decline. If
Nadal improved so much between 2005-2008 why was he not making HC slam
finals? Why did it take him 3 years to win Wimbledon and why is it he
has not defended one grass or HC title?
Yes I think Nadal obviously did improve in those years but to me he
was still mostly an incredible clay court player. Even now that he has
won 2 grass and 2 HC slams which is an incredible thing, I still don't
consider him that all court player so much.
Federer grew and matured on mutliple surfaces much quicker than Nadal
did. Fed was punished for making those clay slam finals but Nadal was
not making the off clay finals at the same rate. When over 70% of his
wins have come on clay it is hard to look at Nadal as a complete all
surface player.
bob
he was getting older, getting better, and when he was consistent
enough to make his way through 6 matches off clay, he got fed in the
finals. and nearly always won.
>Yes I think Nadal obviously did improve in those years but to me he
>was still mostly an incredible clay court player. Even now that he has
>won 2 grass and 2 HC slams which is an incredible thing, I still don't
>consider him that all court player so much.
>Federer grew and matured on mutliple surfaces much quicker than Nadal
>did. Fed was punished for making those clay slam finals but Nadal was
>not making the off clay finals at the same rate. When over 70% of his
>wins have come on clay it is hard to look at Nadal as a complete all
>surface player.
are you aware that there's about a 4-5 yr age difference in these 2
guys? do you not see that during fed's best 6 yrs (04-09 inclusive)
nadal started out as a kid way before his peak and was improving, and
once he improved enough to make finals, he beat fed repeatedly? but at
the same time fed was still beating everybody else....
bob
jdeluise
On 18-Aug-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> do you think i believe what i post, or just trying to tick you off?
I think where Federer and Sampras are concerned, you are biased to the point
of irrationality.
John Liang
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
Nadal did started out as a kid but he peak at a much younger age than
Federer. Nadal was No.2 by the time he was 19. At the same age
Federer was
2nd year on the tour and still try to fine tune his game. We never
use age
as a factor in judging result of their performances. As for him
beating Fed
repeatedly that mostly occurred only on clay slams, we all know Fed
had 15 Grand slam wins on non clay court surfaces from 2003-2010 and
Nadal made 5 finals in those tournaments in the same time about 1/3
of Federer's number.
bob
mostly cause it was such a weak field.
> At the same age Federer was 2nd year on the tour and still try to fine tune his game. We never
>use age as a factor in judging result of their performances. As for him
>beating Fed repeatedly that mostly occurred only on clay slams, we all know Fed
>had 15 Grand slam wins on non clay court surfaces from 2003-2010 and
>Nadal made 5 finals in those tournaments in the same time about 1/3
>of Federer's number.
nadal's peak (agewise and level wise) was 08-10, minus the fact he had
a knee issue that cost him about 6-9 months. nadal took nearly every
slam in that period while healthy, and fed took all the rest minus
losing match pts to delpot. enough said john.
bob
bob
wrote:
i don't compare federer and sampras much as you may have noticed. i
compare federer and nadal a lot. what i do say (not considering
sampras) is that for a guy to be considered a GOAT, he should be a
BOOE - and fed, IMO (and mac/carillo's opinion) is not BOOE. so it's
troublesome.
as far as sampras is concerned, i do believe - hypothetically - at his
peak he's the best fast court player i ever saw, his game was tailor
made for it. i also think peak mcenroe/becker would be very
troublesome for fed/djok/nadal styles.
if you think that's all irrational, sorry.
bob
TT
> Yes I think Nadal obviously did improve in those years but to me he
> was still mostly an incredible clay court player. Even now that he has
> won 2 grass and 2 HC slams which is an incredible thing, I still don't
> consider him that all court player so much.
If Nadal is not all-court player then who is?
You're letting his clay superiority to cloud your judgement, if he were
lesser on clay you would see him different...2 W, 3 big HC etc.
If Nadal was on clay as good (read poor) as Roger is on HC, you would
think he is an all-courter.
John Liang
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:02:31 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 18-Aug-2011, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> do you think i believe what i post, or just trying to tick you off?
>
> >I think where Federer and Sampras are concerned, you are biased to the point
> >of irrationality.
>
> i don't compare federer and sampras much as you may have noticed. i
> compare federer and nadal a lot. what i do say (not considering
> sampras) is that for a guy to be considered a GOAT, he should be a
> BOOE - and fed, IMO (and mac/carillo's opinion) is not BOOE. so it's
> troublesome.
I consider Federer the best of his generation. My criteria for that
selection is simple. Grand slam record.
No player should be considered the best of their era if his result is
vastly inferior to another player of the
same era.
John Liang
Yet you can't answer why Nadal could only win 1 AO and 1 USO while in
his prime since 2005 onward when
Federer pile up 9 in those events. Enough said at the end of the day
it is how many they won not their age
differences.
Superdave
>On Aug 19, 9:04 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:02:31 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 18-Aug-2011, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> do you think i believe what i post, or just trying to tick you off?
>>
>> >I think where Federer and Sampras are concerned, you are biased to the point
>> >of irrationality.
>>
>> i don't compare federer and sampras much as you may have noticed. i
>> compare federer and nadal a lot. what i do say (not considering
>> sampras) is that for a guy to be considered a GOAT, he should be a
>> BOOE - and fed, IMO (and mac/carillo's opinion) is not BOOE. so it's
>> troublesome.
>
>I consider Federer the best of his generation. My criteria for that
>selection is simple. Grand slam record.
>No player should be considered the best of their era if his result is
>vastly inferior to another player of the
>same era.
especially if he picks his ass and is a clay court bumrooting monkey even if he
would have beaten Pete Sampras at Wimbledon.
Whisper
Bob, me & Iceberg don't find Fed 'sexy' - suspect that's a big reason
for difference of opinion?
Whisper
> On Aug 18, 9:20 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:16:23 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
> his HC slam until 2009. By 2008/09 Federer had started to decline. If
> Nadal improved so much between 2005-2008 why was he not making HC slam
> finals? Why did it take him 3 years to win Wimbledon and why is it he
> has not defended one grass or HC title?
>
> Yes I think Nadal obviously did improve in those years but to me he
> was still mostly an incredible clay court player. Even now that he has
> won 2 grass and 2 HC slams which is an incredible thing, I still don't
> consider him that all court player so much.
> Federer grew and matured on mutliple surfaces much quicker than Nadal
> did. Fed was punished for making those clay slam finals but Nadal was
> not making the off clay finals at the same rate. When over 70% of his
> wins have come on clay it is hard to look at Nadal as a complete all
> surface player.
er, Rafa has won career slam 5 yrs younger than Fed did it, & he's
beaten Fed in grass, HC & clay slam finals. What does he have to do to
be considered 'all court' by you?
Whisper
You only say that because he doesn't have Fed as 'best ever' or
charismatic.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Easy, all he has to do is to win then successfully defend non clay
court grand slam titles.
felangey
Again with this stuff. Is this all you have? First of all, Mac last went on
record at Wimbledon as saying Fed was the man above all others. Secondly,
Carillo...who? What are her credentials for judging anyone. Thirdly, as we
all know, the list of people declaring Fed the GOAT is extensive and
includes higher authorities than a couple of sport comm. hacks trying to big
up their ratings....and included several former GOATS of the game.
Shakes
What is a "type A" person ? I am asking because I saw you say that a
couple of times now.
jdeluise
On 19-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is a "type A" person ? I am asking because I saw you say that a
> couple of times now.
google
bob
well he's only played in basically 3 each while peak, and has won 2/6
total and it's his worst surface. OLY gold counts as 1 more big HC
considering the effort everyone (especially fed) gave for it.
> Enough said at the end of the day it is how many they won not their age
>differences.
bob
bob
he has 2 HC slams + OLY gold on HC, where everybody (incl fed) were
going all out.
bob
bob
wrote:
and i'm still perplexed how a woman could actually find fed sexy.
money can only go so far.
bob
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
He won 2 HC slam but so far has failed to defend AO and Wimbledon he
won as a defending champion.
Nadal was going all out in 15 Fed won too.