More Bodo on Feds
Patrick Kehoe
John Doe
greatness.
felangey
> greatness<
Come on John....Sampras is the one in Nadal's sights! The second Federer
fell 1 week short of Sampras for weeks at no.1 it was over for Fed...haven't
you heard!? :)
TT
>
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> P
Typical goat bullshit. Why should we care about federer...the real
comparison would be Nadal and Borg, which all the writers have forgotten
in their profound posting spree of "gee, maybe federer is not that good
after all" or "gee, I wonder what Nadal will do to Fed's legacy"
Pathetic fanboys.
--
"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
PeteWasLucky
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> P
The guy forgot he has won one slam and one master in 2010 and the year
is not over yet.
Also what is the big deal about not watching a tennis match?! It's
true he is 30 years old, married and has kids, and he needs to find
the right balance in his life, good for him doing so, something many
of us fail to do.
Rodjk #613
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> P
Bodo the dodo just keeps on going.
Rodjk #613
topspin
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> P
Wow, that guy has a real big problem. He thinks he is important, but
the two most important players on the planet presumably don't give a
rat's arse what he thinks, and he is writing for an audience which is
dwindling by the day so he has to find something, anything, that will
grab their attention.
On the basis that projecting feelings onto someone else is merely
broadcasting your own, it looks like the irrelenace into which he is
sinking is making him snappish, bitter, tired, fed up - and entering a
time when things are going to get difficult.
As for Federer, and Nadal. I assume they will go on hitting a ball as
well as they can, and trying to beat the hell out of each other and
anyone else on the other side of a tennis net.
And enjoying it because it surely beats a proper job!
topspin
Try "irrelevance" - it reads better than "irrelenance"!
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never liked Bodo. With all his mood swings it gives me whiplash. You
never know if he is gonna write rave reviews or thumbs down rotton
tomatoe reviews.
Whisper
> Typical BS about the so-called Raphael Nadal threat to Roger Federer's
> greatness.
The point Bodo makes is it's difficult to determine who is goat, but we
can say who is a better player in absolute terms within an era. Clearly
Nadal has had the wood on Federer from their very 1 st meeting (2004
Rafa smashed the uber-dominant No.1 63 63 on hard courts).
This is no longer an issue. Nadal is better than Federer & history has
now locked this in, & it's not going to turn around now.
No point John types chiming in with 'Why didn't rafa win the slams Fed
won then?'. This is completely irrelevant when analyzing who is better
h2h on court.
wkhedr
Your posts are funny. Thirty years from now, if Federer has more slams
than anybody else, who will check h2h's of any player. For example, I
never checked Sampras's h2h against any other player, because I never
cared, for me it was all about achievments. Why didn't any of the
other players achieve the same?!
So until then, and as I said before, Rafa still has a lot of slams to
win and drilling ass picking to do to get closer to Sampras then reach
and cross Federer's mark.
People forgot how even in Federer's career, after his 11th or 12th
slam, there was times that seemed he may never win another slam.
btw, I like your 7543.
felangey
True, as in false? ;)
wkhedr
> >It's true he is 30 years old<
>
> True, as in false? ;)
He is in the 30'th year of his life, should we start another thread
discussing this? :)
Inglourious Basterd
Yes Nadal-Borg is the most appropriate comparison.
They are very even at the same age - by this stage in 1980, Borg had
10 slams including 5 straight W's, whilst Nadal has 9 including the
CGS. Quite close but you would have to give Borg a marginal edge at
this point.
Whisper
You're kidding right? Bodo's point is Fed says it in a spiteful manner.
You'd have to be an extreme Fedfucker to cover that up with 'well
balanced' nonsense.
Whisper
> On Oct 1, 3:47 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2010 2:14 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> Typical BS about the so-called Raphael Nadal threat to Roger Federer's
>>> greatness.
>>
>> The point Bodo makes is it's difficult to determine who is goat, but we
>> can say who is a better player in absolute terms within an era. Clearly
>> Nadal has had the wood on Federer from their very 1 st meeting (2004
>> Rafa smashed the uber-dominant No.1 63 63 on hard courts).
>>
>> now locked this in,& it's not going to turn around now.
>>
>> No point John types chiming in with 'Why didn't rafa win the slams Fed
>> won then?'. This is completely irrelevant when analyzing who is better
>> h2h on court.
>
> Your posts are funny. Thirty years from now, if Federer has more slams
> than anybody else, who will check h2h's of any player. For example, I
> never checked Sampras's h2h against any other player, because I never
> cared, for me it was all about achievments. Why didn't any of the
> other players achieve the same?!
>
> So until then, and as I said before, Rafa still has a lot of slams to
> win and drilling ass picking to do to get closer to Sampras then reach
> and cross Federer's mark.
>
> People forgot how even in Federer's career, after his 11th or 12th
> slam, there was times that seemed he may never win another slam.
>
> btw, I like your 7543.
Fed's h2h record v Rafa bothers me. He was no.1 the whole time Rafa
established superiority over him, & that contradicts my innate sense of
what a goat should be. Fed has the achivements yes, but for your main
rival to be a better player means you can't be ability goat. We don't
even have to compare Fed v other era greats in epic, imaginary slam
finals because we have real evidence on the record that he's not the
best of his own time.
There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
issue with Fed's h2h v Rafa if it were tune-ups & early slam rds, but
they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
Not good.
Whisper
The difference is Rafa has strong case to be ability goat & better than
his big rivals, while Borg was clearly passed by McEnroe.
Shakes
Maybe, but the difference is the question was asked after Fed lost
while Nadal won. I wonder what the answers would've been if the roles
were reversed.
Let's face it. Bodo is a bozo. Like lot's of Sampras fans, he only
embraces Nadal because Nadal was an obstacle to Fed. Playing style
wise, Nadal is as far away from Sampras as the North pole is from the
South pole. I really wonder how Sampras fans can be Nadal fans. No
offence meant to true Nadal fans.
Shakes
That still doesn't answer Wkhedr's point. He says that 50 yrs from
now, nobody will look at h2h. Everybody will look at the numbers.
Hey, I thought that was your mantra. What gives ?
jdeluise
On 1-Oct-2010, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> You're kidding right? Bodo's point is Fed says it in a spiteful manner.
> You'd have to be an extreme Fedfucker to cover that up with 'well
> balanced' nonsense.
But it's OK when Nadal plays golf during the 09 French Open final when he's
supposedly too injured to bend his knees?
Rodjk #613
So what?
> He was no.1 the whole time Rafa
> established superiority over him, & that contradicts my innate sense of
> what a goat should be.
Losing in the first and second round of clay court tournaments instead
of losing in the finals?
> Fed has the achivements yes, but for your main
> rival to be a better player means you can't be ability goat.
Silly. Fed is 5-3 vs Rafa off clay.
> We don't
> even have to compare Fed v other era greats in epic, imaginary slam
> finals because we have real evidence on the record that he's not the
> best of his own time.
Again, silly.
> There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
> even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
> issue with Fed's h2h v Rafa if it were tune-ups & early slam rds, but
> they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
>
> Not good.
How about we let Rafa answer this?
"Q. I have a different question for you. Everyone in tennis loves
Roger, respects Roger. He is said to be the best of all time. Yet two
out of every three times you play him, you win. You’ve won six of the
last seven times. Who’s a better player?
RAFAEL NADAL: You like this. You are focused on the Roger thing, eh?
(laughter.)
Yesterday with the clay. Today with the if somebody says I am better
than Roger, I think this person don’t know nothing about tennis.
That’s my answer.
Q. How so?
RAFAEL NADAL: Why?
Q. Yeah.
RAFAEL NADAL: So you don’t know nothing about tennis.
You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It’s no
comparison. So that’s the answer. Is difficult to compare Roger with
me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams; I have 6. Masters 1000, yeah, I
have more than him. But for the rest of the things the records of
Roger is very, very almost impossible to improve.
Q. The question is: Still, for the fans, it is interesting when you
step on the court with him, you usually win.
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, I am No. 2 in the world for five years, so I think
I am a good player, too. Sure, I can beat him. No. 2 can beat No. 1.
That’s the thing. It’s not a lot of difference between No. 2 and No. 1
or between No. 1 and No. 10. That’s the tennis, and the tennis very
close, the level, all the time. But I can beat him, yes. The same
time, the thing is I beat him a lot of times on clay. I beat him on
other surfaces, too. But the most of the times I beat him on clay, so
I played with him more times on clay than on the rest of the
surfaces."
From http://www.gototennisblog.com/2010/05/29/quote-rafael-nadal-lays-down-the-fedophile-law/
Notice the part where he says "...you don’t know nothing about
tennis"?
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
I just spent more time than I wanted to answering his post, but the
short answer is Whisper is a no-nothing and you should not be
surprised that he does not understand.
People here have spent years trying to to explain basic tennis to
Whisper. He does not know anything and does not want to know
anything...
Rodjk #613
bob
wrote:
>On 10/1/2010 2:14 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> Typical BS about the so-called Raphael Nadal threat to Roger Federer's
>> greatness.
>
>
>The point Bodo makes is it's difficult to determine who is goat, but we
>can say who is a better player in absolute terms within an era. Clearly
>Nadal has had the wood on Federer from their very 1 st meeting (2004
>Rafa smashed the uber-dominant No.1 63 63 on hard courts).
>
>This is no longer an issue. Nadal is better than Federer & history has
>now locked this in, & it's not going to turn around now.
wait - fed still has 2 yrs to turn it around.
>No point John types chiming in with 'Why didn't rafa win the slams Fed
>won then?'. This is completely irrelevant when analyzing who is better
>h2h on court.
of course.
bob
bob
wrote:
exactly the pt i brought up about 1.5yrs ago. strange situation,
unprecedented to my knowledge and might call for different thought
process.
it's something of 'unchartered territory' to have a guy called GOAT to
be bested in his own time. fact that fed dominated while rafa was hurt
last yr, IMO, only proves the whole pt further.
bob
bob
<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
bodo quotes bob of 1.5 yrs ago:
"Continuing to play and lose to Nadal could damage Federer's legacy."
i said it pt blank and jaros was the loudest critic in denying this
possibility. the possibiliy is real.
bob
bob
his article is interesting. wonders if fed likes tennis, or just
winning at tennis. something i always supected.
bob
jdeluise
On 1-Oct-2010, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> his article is interesting. wonders if fed likes tennis, or just
> winning at tennis. something i always supected.
I think if you play competitively winning becomes addictive. Whether or not
Fed really likes tennis is beside the point really... when he is playing a
Grand Slam (or really any tournament) he wants to win it and it hurts when
he doesn't. I don't see what's so unusual or unnatural about that. As far
as I can tell, it's quite common for the best players to not watch the final
of a tournament they lost in, especially if they made it deep in the draw.
Even humble Rafa has admitted not watching some finals.
Rodjk #613
I disagree. Most everyone thinks you and Whisper are a joke.
Rodjk #613
ocean
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
>
Bozo is full of shit. Fed will retire with like 17 slams. And Nadal
won't win more than 13 slams. See, Nadal won't even tie Pete!
Federer 17
Sampras 14
Nadal 13
Emerson 12
Borg 11
Laver 11
Tilden 10
Nadal might overtake Tilden, Laver, Borg and Emerson in the slam tally
but Sampras and Federer will be ahead of him by the time he retires.
ocean
wrote:
Borg won his first slam at 18 while Nadal was 19.
wkhedr
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 05:44:15 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's you that is hurt. So Federer wins because others are hurt and
when he loses he is never hurt, sick or beyond his peak. Part of
Federer's genius is his ability to win matches and reaches SF and
finals using his effortless play and talent even when he is sick or
injured, something that other greats like Rafa can't match except they
are in super form.
All this talk won't affect his legacy, it's done already and more to
come.
Ali Asoag
Nadal won 6 of his slams against Fed who was past-peak. Win is win, yes,
but that relativizes the H2H in the sense of "who is better". Their H2H
only says Peak Nadal is better than past-peak Fed. That's ok, I can
agree to that.
> There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
> even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
> issue with Fed's h2h v Rafa if it were tune-ups & early slam rds, but
> they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
Here you go ... When it's about Fed vs Nadal comparison, it's H2H and
not the slam (wins). But when it's about Sampras, all of a sudden it
must be related to slams! LOL. Why is someone - according to your theory
- only better if he wins in slams? And further, the funny thing is, you
indirectly say that only Slams count. So, is 9 better than 16? LOL LOL.
Whisper, go to school, learn some logical thinking ...
bob
wrote:
did you not find it strange that a younger and improving nadal
dominated 2008, yet when he developed knee condition and lost to
others or didn't play, fed picked up 3 quick slams, then nadal came
back healthy and dominated again? coincidence?
bob
bob
wrote:
if anybody had beaten sampras like nadal beats fed, i'd have serious
2nd thoughts about sampras GOAT status at the time. the only guy who
beat him at Wimbledon during his peak was krajicek, a huge server,
once. sampras then returned the favor at a slam. nothing like what we
see with fed/nadal.
bob
bob
wrote:
>
>On 1-Oct-2010, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> his article is interesting. wonders if fed likes tennis, or just
>> winning at tennis. something i always supected.
>
>I think if you play competitively winning becomes addictive. Whether or not
>Fed really likes tennis is beside the point really... when he is playing a
>Grand Slam (or really any tournament) he wants to win it and it hurts when
>he doesn't. I don't see what's so unusual or unnatural about that.
for what you say, nothing unusual. but the pt is whether federer truly
loves *playing tennis* or whether he loves *dominating* the weak
opponents. i won't criticize anybody for having a temper and wanting
badly to win. just don't pretend you love "the game for the game's
sake" (as fed has said repeatedly.).
> As far
>as I can tell, it's quite common for the best players to not watch the final
>of a tournament they lost in, especially if they made it deep in the draw.
>Even humble Rafa has admitted not watching some finals.
no problem with that. the pt bodo makes is we'll see how muich federer
loves tennis should he start 2011 where 2010 left off.
bob
bob
that's ok, it's your right. but bodo seems to agree with me.
bob
Superdave
people are now waking up to Nadals CHEATING!
soon ALL his wins over Roger will be DiSCREDITED.
Ali Asoag
>>> what a goat should be. Fed has the achivements yes, but for your main
>>> rival to be a better player means you can't be ability goat. We don't
>>> even have to compare Fed v other era greats in epic, imaginary slam
>>> finals because we have real evidence on the record that he's not the
>>> best of his own time.
>>
>> Nadal won 6 of his slams against Fed who was past-peak. Win is win, yes,
>> but that relativizes the H2H in the sense of "who is better". Their H2H
>> only says Peak Nadal is better than past-peak Fed. That's ok, I can
>> agree to that.
>>
>>> There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
>>> even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
>>> they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
>>
>> Here you go ... When it's about Fed vs Nadal comparison, it's H2H and
>> not the slam (wins). But when it's about Sampras, all of a sudden it
>> must be related to slams! LOL. Why is someone - according to your theory
>> - only better if he wins in slams? And further, the funny thing is, you
>> indirectly say that only Slams count. So, is 9 better than 16? LOL LOL.
>>
>> Whisper, go to school, learn some logical thinking ...
>
> if anybody had beaten sampras like nadal beats fed, i'd have serious
> 2nd thoughts about sampras GOAT status at the time. the only guy who
> beat him at Wimbledon during his peak was krajicek, a huge server,
> once.
Exactly: Once. How many times did Nadal beat Fed at AO, Wimby?
> sampras then returned the favor at a slam. nothing like what we
> see with fed/nadal.
Get out of Whisper's ass and read his post again. He said something like
Krajieck didn't beat Sampras in a slam bla bla. But at the same time he
mentioned the Nadal-Fed-H2H is so crucial because most of the matches
were played in slams.
I personally don't give a shit about this H2H, neither say I that Fed or
Krajieck was better than Sampras just because they beat him in Wimby
once. But I like (yes, I enjoy) using the dumbo's arguments against
themselves.
TT
I'd give the edge to Nadal, because of (golden) career slam. Borg never
won AO or USO.
Borg leads with one slam and having more titles overall. Their career
winning percentage would be around equal.
Borg's last year, 1981, would be Rafa's 2011, age-wise...Borg won 1 slam
in 1981, his 6th FO.
Whisper
Fed is one of the best players of all time, yet Rafa is clearly better.
You have to admire that.
I like Rafa's fighting spirit & he does make some tremendous passing shots.
Whisper
>> what a goat should be. Fed has the achivements yes, but for your main
>> rival to be a better player means you can't be ability goat. We don't
>> even have to compare Fed v other era greats in epic, imaginary slam
>> finals because we have real evidence on the record that he's not the
>> best of his own time.
>>
>> There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
>> even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
>> they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
>>
>> Not good.
>
> That still doesn't answer Wkhedr's point. He says that 50 yrs from
> now, nobody will look at h2h. Everybody will look at the numbers.
>
> Hey, I thought that was your mantra. What gives ?
Rafa could have better numbers by career end & combined complete
domination over Fed.
While it's true only titles have mattered to this point, it's also true
Fed is the only tier 1 goat to be overwhelmed by his biggest rival while
he's ranked No.1. Again if it were tune-ups it wouldn't be an issue,
but we're talking grass, clay & HC slam finals all going to Rafa over
Fed, while Fed could only beat him on grass.
Whisper
> Q. The question is: Still, for the fans, it is interesting when you
> step on the court with him, you usually win.
>
> RAFAEL NADAL: Well, I am No. 2 in the world for five years, so I think
> I am a good player, too. Sure, I can beat him. No. 2 can beat No. 1.
> That’s the thing. It’s not a lot of difference between No. 2 and No. 1
> or between No. 1 and No. 10. That’s the tennis, and the tennis very
> close, the level, all the time. But I can beat him, yes. The same
> time, the thing is I beat him a lot of times on clay. I beat him on
> other surfaces, too. But the most of the times I beat him on clay, so
> I played with him more times on clay than on the rest of the
> surfaces."
>
> From http://www.gototennisblog.com/2010/05/29/quote-rafael-nadal-lays-down-the-fedophile-law/
>
> Notice the part where he says "...you don’t know nothing about
> tennis"?
>
> Rodjk #613
Rafa is right if we're talking achievements.
Whisper
>>> There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
>>> even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
>>> they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
>>
>>> Not good.
>>
>> That still doesn't answer Wkhedr's point. He says that 50 yrs from
>> now, nobody will look at h2h. Everybody will look at the numbers.
>>
>> Hey, I thought that was your mantra. What gives ?
>
> I just spent more time than I wanted to answering his post, but the
> short answer is Whisper is a no-nothing and you should not be
> surprised that he does not understand.
>
> People here have spent years trying to to explain basic tennis to
> Whisper. He does not know anything and does not want to know
> anything...
>
> Rodjk #613
What I'm saying is pretty clear cut. Fed has the better achivements to
this point, while Rafa is better than him in h2h slam contests. There
isn't a surface where Rafa can't beat Fed.
Whisper
>> what a goat should be. Fed has the achivements yes, but for your main
>> rival to be a better player means you can't be ability goat. We don't
>> even have to compare Fed v other era greats in epic, imaginary slam
>> finals because we have real evidence on the record that he's not the
>> best of his own time.
>>
>> There is no point bring in Sampras' 4-6 h2h v Krajicek as they never
>> even played in a slam semifinal, let alone a final. I would have no
>> they are big slam finals on all 3 surfaces when Fed was ranked No.1.
>>
>> Not good.
>
> exactly the pt i brought up about 1.5yrs ago. strange situation,
> unprecedented to my knowledge and might call for different thought
> process.
>
> it's something of 'unchartered territory' to have a guy called GOAT to
> be bested in his own time. fact that fed dominated while rafa was hurt
> last yr, IMO, only proves the whole pt further.
>
> bob
Yes, & Fed himself knows it, hence the tears.
wkhedr
You seem don't understand my post. Nadal has to find a different way
to play so that he can stay healthy. An athlete that gets injured as a
result of the way he plays at young age is probably having issues in
the way he plays or may be he is not the athlete everybody think. So
being injured and staying fit is part of the athlete package and
getting injured from bad style of play is not any different than
playing badly to lose a match.
So tell me Bob and Whisper, why didn't Federer and we know he is 29
years old develop knees issues after his long career and winning 16
slams while Nadal is 23 years and is having bad knees as every one say?
topspin
Since you and Bodo seem to be very interested in legacy, you may be
interested in this transcript of an interview with Sampras. For some
unknown reason it does not appear to be widely known in US tennis
circles.
"Pete, would you be embarassed if you were known for giving up on a
slam in order to pad out your results in the following slam? Do you
think it might affect your legacy?
Pete....? Pete....?
I'm sorry folks, Pete Sampras appears to have left the building."
Other sources tell me that in one of the brief periods that Sampras
and Agassi were on talking terms with each other, they were heard to
be discussiing the merits of 'Giving Up' as a career tactic.
PS The same question was also asked of Lendl, but he couldn't give an
answer. Apparently he did not grasp the concept of 'Giving Up'.
MBDunc
You had totally opposite opinion with Graf-Seles case 1990-1993 (when
you defended Graf). Links available via dejanews.
"all those h2h comparisions are just waste of time and totally
subjective and mean zero when legacies are on stake. Only thing that
matters is big slam numbers" -whisper 2004 about whether Seles was
better than Graf (that was a rough collection from one thread only).
.mikko
bob
and i recall graf turned the tables on a younger seles after seles
returned. i'm waiting to see if fed can turn the tables on rafa, he
has about 2 yrs to do it.
bob
bob
wrote:
i don't believe at all that his tendinitis was a restult of "how he
plays matches" so much as how he practices, how OFTEN he plays, and
how OFTEN he plays HC. IMO, he'll win more HC slams by playing
less....
>So tell me Bob and Whisper, why didn't Federer and we know he is 29
>years old develop knees issues after his long career and winning 16
>slams while Nadal is 23 years and is having bad knees as every one say?
because fed probably doesn't traing quite like nadal, and his lower
body is extremely light. that plus luck of the draw for fed.
bob
bob
wrote:
he beats him all over the place. AO, FO, Wim. and darned near beat him
before he was peak too (at Wim). and these were finals, even worse.
>> sampras then returned the favor at a slam. nothing like what we
>> see with fed/nadal.
>
>Get out of Whisper's ass and read his post again. He said something like
>Krajieck didn't beat Sampras in a slam bla bla. But at the same time he
>mentioned the Nadal-Fed-H2H is so crucial because most of the matches
>were played in slams.
slam finals is definitely a huge stage and more important than even
slam early rounds, and both are FAR more important than tuneups. but
no matter, rafa beats fed at all of em H2H.
>I personally don't give a shit about this H2H, neither say I that Fed or
>Krajieck was better than Sampras just because they beat him in Wimby
>once. But I like (yes, I enjoy) using the dumbo's arguments against
>themselves.
14-7, and very lopsided slam Finals and SF H2H. not good.
bob
bob
it's not so much 'giving up' as the process required in that timeframe
to succeed at FO - and what would be left behind. nobody in their
right mind woudl change their game to a clay tactic with wimbledon
looming 2 weeks later, knowing your odds at wimbledon were good.
bob
topspin
Seemed like 'giving up' and trophy-hunting to me, the opposite of what
Nadal and Federer have delivered.
wkhedr
I see now. now I understand you are trolling.
bob
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 4:52 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> that plus luck of the draw for fed.
>>
>
>I see now. now I understand you are trolling.
trolling because there is no mathematical formula for predicting that
some players will get injured more than others? federer has been the
most injury free top champ that i ever saw, it happens.
bob
bob
i never saw a 'trophy hunter' or a 'slam counter' (from day 1 mind
you) like fed. sampras wanted to win most Wims he could, followed by
USOs, sure. his game wasn't well suited VS the clay court specialists
of 90s - and probably neither would fed's. imagine playing 4-5 guys
with same style as nadal and devoting their time 100% to clay.
bob
MBDunc
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), topspin
>
>
>
Wouldn't that threaten more Nadal's clay campaign rather any Fed'
succee? May be instead if that scenario really is valid then Fed would
had never reached those clay final encounters vs Nadal?
I find it hard to believe that Corretja/Mantilla/Berasatequi even
Muster/Bruguera and co. would have had any succee against Nadal/Fed
and definitely their stocks would have been next to nil off clay.
The funniest thing was Berasatequi getting top10, FO final (without
losing a set before final) and about 15 titles mid 90:ies. No serve,
no backhand....just an extreme western forehand in a small figure (5th
8"). Berasatequi was a prototype of pre-Kuerten/pre-Moya clay
specialist. Very one-dimensional play and very rarely played outside
of clay. (Berasatequi played only one Wimbledon match during his whole
career).
His lone YEC was quite a disaster (1994)
RR Andre Agassi (USA) L 2-6, 0-6 Stats
RR Michael Chang (USA) L 1-6, 0-6 Stats
RR Sergi Bruguera (ESP) L 3-6, 2-6 Stats
In those matches he combined total 3 aces (0 against Chang)....and
that court was probably the fastest indoor court of 90:ies....
.mikko
Rodjk #613
> On 10/2/2010 6:56 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Q. The question is: Still, for the fans, it is interesting when you
> > step on the court with him, you usually win.
>
> > RAFAEL NADAL: Well, I am No. 2 in the world for five years, so I think
> > I am a good player, too. Sure, I can beat him. No. 2 can beat No. 1.
> > That’s the thing. It’s not a lot of difference between No. 2 and No. 1
> > or between No. 1 and No. 10. That’s the tennis, and the tennis very
> > close, the level, all the time. But I can beat him, yes. The same
> > time, the thing is I beat him a lot of times on clay. I beat him on
> > other surfaces, too. But the most of the times I beat him on clay, so
> > I played with him more times on clay than on the rest of the
> > surfaces."
>
>
> > Notice the part where he says "...you don’t know nothing about
> > tennis"?
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> Rafa is right if we're talking achievements.
"if somebody says I am better
than Roger, I think this person don’t know nothing about tennis.
That’s my answer. "
And for Whisper, we know it is true...he knows nothing about tennis.
Rodjk #613
wkhedr
It's enough to see you trolling (because it's difficult for me to see
any one that dumb to believe so) once you said "luck of the draw" kept
Federer healthy.
Rodjk #613
Yep. The guy known as 'bodo the dodo' and 'bozo' seems agrees with you
two trolls.
Rodjk #613
topspin
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:37:56 -0700 (PDT), topspin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, it seems kind of strange if Federer was the ultimate trophy
hunter that he should waste his energy going all the way to so many
finals. Does that mean the clay competition has been weaker recently?
In which case, doesn't that mean that Nadal is a rather weak champion?
In which case doesn't that mean that 'all' current players, including
Djokovic to Murray and Del Potro are weak?
In which case why isn't Bodo writing columns about the weakness of the
current era?
And about how weak Nadal is?
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poor Peter Bodo... there's no going back to Pete Sampras as the
greatest champion of the Open Era and Laver cannot be with so few Open
era wins in majors... Borg failed to win the USO (and the AO) and
that's a gaping hole in his CV... Lendl no Wimbledon's, Emerson won
ZERO in the Open Era - being born in 1936-ish that's no surprise,
Connors and McEnroe too limited in their final totals... and Rafa's at
9 and still building his accounts... But aside from the figure of
Pete, none of the 10+ slam winners are Americans and after all, Bodo
is quite the tennis nationalist, in the end...
So, Sampras remains his marker and with Fed having completed the
career slam and passing 14 to get to 16, thus far, he's stuck with
Federer and the legacy of Laver's mythic calender year grand slam,
Pete as king of Wimbledon and now the spectre of Rafa's Reign...
THERFORE THERE'S NOTHING SUBSTANCIAL to write and stir the pot about
EXCEPT in taking up the Roger vs. Rafa rivalry as derivative
speculation... without a young gun challenger to step up to face Rafa,
what else does men's tennis essentially have as a MAJOR narrative
line??? Fed's return to greatness? Rafa Injury scare? Can Rafa Repeat?
Rafa looks ahead to Golden Year in 2012? As we can all see, in lieu of
the failures of Djokovic and Murray and anyone else to breakthrough
with gusto, recycling Roger and Rafa must continue... with hyperbole
and prognostication becoming to dominate more and more of the
narrative...
Frankly that's what sports writers do... that's why I've taken 8
months off from writing about boxing... after 13 years of writing on
the edge critical pieces, I wanted to avoid repeating myself or
falling into that trap of the 'puff ball piece' that Bodo is becoming
a default-master of...
What tennis needs is some young gun to get in there and shake them
both (Rafa and Roger) up... to take hostage some of the big hardware
and make them have to notice someone else besides themselves... Rafa
being Roger's shadow and Roger being the face in the mirror for Rafa
for so long...
P
P
felangey
>Yep. The guy known as 'bodo the dodo' and 'bozo' seems agrees with you<
And it's your right to brag about that as you wish! :)
topspin
> Frankly that's what sports writers do... that's why I've taken 8
> months off from writing about boxing... after 13 years of writing on
> the edge critical pieces, I wanted to avoid repeating myself or
> falling into that trap of the 'puff ball piece' that Bodo is becoming
> a default-master of...
Which raises the question - 'why' is that what sports writers do? Is
it easy, or easier than writing something else, or is it what modern
audiences want? Is there no market for reflective or thoughtful or
insightful or investigative journalism in sports magazines? Is it the
tyranny of the daily blog - more=lower quality? Or do modern sports
audiences just want to put players on pedestals and compare them?
Personally I thought one of the best pieces I've seen this year was
one in SI.Com where the author spoke about Mahut and the marathon with
Isner. The essence of the piece was that Mahut never got a scent of
actually winning the match, he never had a break point on Isner's
serve, and yet he kept going for game after game, hour after hour, and
that says something about the competitive spirit.
I think there is (maybe was, now) something to be written about how
Nadal kept going when he was the #2 for longer than anyone else has
ever been. And yet he kept going, he kept the faith in his game, he
kept improving and changing (and yes, overdoing it), but he never lost
faith. So just as we should admire the way Federer just kept going to
all those semis and finals, and kept appearing at those French finals
despite being beaten over and over again, so we should admire the way
Nadal kept chasing and chasing Federer through all those weeks.
If some think tennis reduces itself to just what was won, without
reference to context, as so many appear to do, well then they are
welcome to their opinions. For me it is always about context and the
competitive spirit.
wkhedr
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39406604/ns/sports-tennis/
>
> P
Bozo knows about tennis more than any of us
http://tinyurl.com/29kn47x
bob
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 7:54 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:54:49 -0700 (PDT), wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 2, 4:52 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> that plus luck of the draw for fed.
>>
>> >I see now. now I understand you are trolling.
>>
>> trolling because there is no mathematical formula for predicting that
>> some players will get injured more than others? federer has been the
>> most injury free top champ that i ever saw, it happens.
>>
>> bob
>
>It's enough to see you trolling (because it's difficult for me to see
>any one that dumb to believe so) once you said "luck of the draw" kept
>Federer healthy.
it's part luck, and it's part his style of play, and part his body
type. all adds up to a guy playing injury free more than anyone else.
bob
bob
would push nadal harder, not beat him.
>May be instead if that scenario really is valid then Fed would
>had never reached those clay final encounters vs Nadal?
that's what i believe.
>I find it hard to believe that Corretja/Mantilla/Berasatequi even
>Muster/Bruguera and co. would have had any succee against Nadal/Fed
>and definitely their stocks would have been next to nil off clay.
they might have pushed nadal harder, but nadal should/would beat them.
don't lump "nadal/fed" together on clay - nadal is a far better clay
courter. just that fed has been 2nd best clay courter because we no
longer have the 90s type clay mentality rampant.
>The funniest thing was Berasatequi getting top10, FO final (without
>losing a set before final) and about 15 titles mid 90:ies. No serve,
>no backhand....just an extreme western forehand in a small figure (5th
>8"). Berasatequi was a prototype of pre-Kuerten/pre-Moya clay
>specialist. Very one-dimensional play and very rarely played outside
>of clay. (Berasatequi played only one Wimbledon match during his whole
>career).
i believe he was beaten badly in FO final though, wasn't he? can't
claim the 1 off as a 'trend'. IMO, there were always about 5+ guys who
were completely devoted to clay and a clay style in 90s, and if fed
were 10 yrs younger, he's reach less FO finals, but probably have won
1 still.
>
>His lone YEC was quite a disaster (1994)
>
>RR Andre Agassi (USA) L 2-6, 0-6 Stats
>RR Michael Chang (USA) L 1-6, 0-6 Stats
>RR Sergi Bruguera (ESP) L 3-6, 2-6 Stats
>
>In those matches he combined total 3 aces (0 against Chang)....and
>that court was probably the fastest indoor court of 90:ies....
i believe he wasn't playing top clay tennis for long though, he peaked
and faded quickly.
bob
bob
minus nadal, yes, IMO overall clay competition has reduced drastically
from 90s.
>In which case, doesn't that mean that Nadal is a rather weak champion?
yes, although he has dominated it to such a level that i doubt anybody
minus borg would match him at all.
>In which case doesn't that mean that 'all' current players, including
>Djokovic to Murray and Del Potro are weak?
we're talking surface specific here. IMO djok, murray and del pot are
not strong clay court players like the 90s "specialists". off clay,
they are much better than the "clay specialists" of the 90s though.
>In which case why isn't Bodo writing columns about the weakness of the
>current era? and about how weak Nadal is?
not at all - nadal has won 2 wimbledons + career slam for chrissakes.
and he's only what, 24? we're not talkin guga here.
bob
bob
<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
but it is unprecedented, isn't it, in sport, to have a guy considered
the GOAT to have been proven, at his best, to be lesser than top foe?
i have nodded fed as GOAT, and i'll keep that view until either (a)
nadal hits about 15 slams and i'll pronounce him GOAT or (b) nadal
comes short of that but continues to dominate fed 2 more yrs at which
pt i will have a hard time with the *concept* of a tennis GOAT.
it will be like 1/0 - ask joe ramirez about that.
>without a young gun challenger to step up to face Rafa,
>what else does men's tennis essentially have as a MAJOR narrative
>line??? Fed's return to greatness? Rafa Injury scare? Can Rafa Repeat?
>Rafa looks ahead to Golden Year in 2012? As we can all see, in lieu of
>the failures of Djokovic and Murray and anyone else to breakthrough
>with gusto, recycling Roger and Rafa must continue... with hyperbole
>and prognostication becoming to dominate more and more of the
>narrative...
and yet the fedfans were saying a yr ago that nadal sucked but for
clay. now we're worried that nobody can even challenge the ogre nadal
anywhere?? tisk tisk.
>Frankly that's what sports writers do... that's why I've taken 8
>months off from writing about boxing... after 13 years of writing on
>the edge critical pieces, I wanted to avoid repeating myself or
>falling into that trap of the 'puff ball piece' that Bodo is becoming
>a default-master of...
i agree that's what writers do - w/out interest they have no job.
>
>What tennis needs is some young gun to get in there and shake them
>both (Rafa and Roger) up... to take hostage some of the big hardware
>and make them have to notice someone else besides themselves... Rafa
>being Roger's shadow and Roger being the face in the mirror for Rafa
>for so long...
rafa was the young gun who shook roger up. what happened to "delpot",
you know, joe said any old "smasher" could beat any old "topspinner"
any day. lmao......
bob
bob
i disagree with bodo plenty, but obviously bodo the dodo has more
clout than rodjk.
bob
topspin
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 14:19:09 -0700 (PDT), topspin
>
>
>
Interesting perception. So we have the best clay player since Borg,
playing in the weakest clay era for several decades, but stronger
competition on all other surfaces because players are overall more
proficient.
Sounds like even more kudos to Federer and particularly to Nadal for
persevering in the face of such strong competition off clay (in
Nadal's case, his favoured srface). Not something that American
players in the 90s were particulalry good at, as I recall.
Maybe the arrival of Emilio Sanchez and McEnroe's noises about
establishing more clay court training in the States is all part of an
attempt by the US tennis establishment to re-establish the quality of
clay court tennis from the dreadful slump in has been allowed to get
into by the Spanish, French, Italian, and Latin American tennis
authorities. Not something I ever thought I would see.
Now 'that' is something for Bodo to write about!
bob
from 03-07, the competition level was not proficient on any surface.
from 07-10, i'd say it's improved quite a bit.
>Sounds like even more kudos to Federer and particularly to Nadal for
>persevering in the face of such strong competition off clay (in
>Nadal's case, his favoured srface). Not something that American
>players in the 90s were particulalry good at, as I recall.
fed gets plenty of kudos for winning 16 slams and dominating the
non-nadal competition.
>Maybe the arrival of Emilio Sanchez and McEnroe's noises about
>establishing more clay court training in the States is all part of an
>attempt by the US tennis establishment to re-establish the quality of
>clay court tennis from the dreadful slump in has been allowed to get
>into by the Spanish, French, Italian, and Latin American tennis
>authorities. Not something I ever thought I would see.
>Now 'that' is something for Bodo to write about!
the american public doesn't embrace clay tennis, even the clay
tourneys in u.s. are wayyyy down in priority level from hc.
bob