Whisper on h2h, thanks to mikko:
felangey
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).
Roffle.
Ali Asoag
You can't take Whisper and TT serious. But I admit I enjoy them being
stupid and retarded. :-)
PeteWasLucky
Ha ha ha ha ha Aha ha ha!
CloudsRest
very bob-ish.
TT
I don't see what this has to do with me. Obsess much?
Ali Asoag
Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both being
stupid, lacking logical thinking. Most interesting thing is, your
arguments (for discrediting Fed and embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict
each other. :-)
wkhedr
Take it easy man, enjoy watching your favorite player the few years
left in his career and trust me there is nothing being said here that
can affect any of Federer or Nadal's legacy. Their legacy will be
remembered by their achievement, this is what people will know and
talk about thirty years after their retirement.
For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
his era.
Ali Asoag
> On Oct 3, 4:58 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 10/3/2010 2:36 AM, TT wrote:
>>
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2010 4:50 PM, felangey wrote:
>>>>> "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).
>>
>>>> You can't take Whisper and TT serious. But I admit I enjoy them being
>>>> stupid and retarded. :-)
>>
>>> I don't see what this has to do with me. Obsess much?
>>
>> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
>> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both being
>> stupid, lacking logical thinking. Most interesting thing is, your
>> arguments (for discrediting Fed and embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict
>> each other. :-)
>
> Take it easy man, enjoy watching your favorite player the few years
> left in his career and trust me there is nothing being said here that
> can affect any of Federer or Nadal's legacy. Their legacy will be
> remembered by their achievement, this is what people will know and
> talk about thirty years after their retirement.
Yeah, but I also enjoy people like TT and Whisper struggling in their
reasoning for something that they don't believe themselves. :-)
> For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
> him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
> his era.
You are so right. All I know about Laver is that he won twice the CYGS. :-)
TT
> On 10/3/2010 2:36 AM, TT wrote:
>> I don't see what this has to do with me. Obsess much?
>
> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both being
> stupid, lacking logical thinking.
That's a compliment, coming from you - it means that I have written
something which went over your head.
>Most interesting thing is, your
> arguments (for discrediting Fed and embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict
> each other. :-)
I see no reason why my arguments should match with Whisper's.
--
"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:
>> On 10/3/2010 2:36 AM, TT wrote:
>>> I don't see what this has to do with me. Obsess much?
>>
>> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
>> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both
>> being stupid, lacking logical thinking.
>
> something which went over your head.
Definitely. You are entertaining me with your lack of facts and
struggling with your arguments ...
>> Most interesting thing is, your arguments (for discrediting Fed and
>> embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict each other. :-)
>
> I see no reason why my arguments should match with Whisper's.
That's exactly the point. Arguments to discredit Fed come from both of
you, but they contradict themselves. Understood?
TT
Not much of a revelation, your ignorance has been well noted. There
would be better things to brag about than not knowing something that is
very relevant to daily discussion here.
TT
Illogical. If your claim is true, that doesn't prove any of my arguments
being wrong.
Obviously at a message board like this there will be contradicting
arguments between posters. If you fail to grasp that - you should leave.
Ali Asoag
> Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 10/3/2010 9:36 AM, TT wrote:
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2010 2:36 AM, TT wrote:
>>>>> I don't see what this has to do with me. Obsess much?
>>>>
>>>> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
>>>> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both
>>>> being stupid, lacking logical thinking.
>>>
>>> it means that I have written
>>> something which went over your head.
>>
>> Definitely. You are entertaining me with your lack of facts and
>> struggling with your arguments ...
>>
>>>> Most interesting thing is, your arguments (for discrediting Fed and
>>>> embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict each other. :-)
>>>
>>> I see no reason why my arguments should match with Whisper's.
>>
>> That's exactly the point. Arguments to discredit Fed come from both of
>> you, but they contradict themselves. Understood?
>>
>>
>
> Illogical. If your claim is true, that doesn't prove any of my arguments
> being wrong.
>
> Obviously at a message board like this there will be contradicting
> arguments between posters. If you fail to grasp that - you should leave.
You are really too dumb. I didn't say explicitly your arguments are
wrong (though they are). I just said yours and Whispers are
contradicting although they aim at the same purpose (i.e. discrediting
Fed). So they cannot be right.
Ali Asoag
LOL.
TT
> You are really too dumb. I didn't say explicitly your arguments are
> wrong (though they are).
lol
> I just said yours and Whispers are
> contradicting although they aim at the same purpose (i.e. discrediting
> Fed). So they cannot be right.
It's true that 2 contradicting opinions can't be both correct at the
same time, however this doesn't prove either of them being wrong.
If I claim that Obama is the president of USA, but 3 persons disagree
with me - that doesn't make my chances of being correct as 25%. What
proves or rejects my claim is whether he is the president, not other
people's opinions.
Comprende?
Ali Asoag
> Ali Asoag wrote:
>
>> You are really too dumb. I didn't say explicitly your arguments are
>> wrong (though they are).
>
> lol
>
>> I just said yours and Whispers are contradicting although they aim at
>> the same purpose (i.e. discrediting Fed). So they cannot be right.
>
> It's true that 2 contradicting opinions can't be both correct at the
> same time, however this doesn't prove either of them being wrong.
It proves that discrediting Fed is wrong. Whether you are wrong or
Whisper is or either of you, it seems to distribute well. :-)
> If I claim that Obama is the president of USA, but 3 persons disagree
> with me - that doesn't make my chances of being correct as 25%. What
> proves or rejects my claim is whether he is the president, not other
> people's opinions.
This is a wrong example to back your argument.
TT
Went over your head obviously.
If you can't prove that I'm wrong since I allegedly contradict Whisper's
whatever claim - then you can't logically prove that Whisper is wrong
either. Thus you can not prove neither of us being wrong and are making
false accusations on something that you haven't even bothered to specify.
I'm done with pawning you.
Ali Asoag
> Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 10/3/2010 10:30 AM, TT wrote:
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are really too dumb. I didn't say explicitly your arguments are
>>>> wrong (though they are).
>>>
>>> lol
>>>
>>>> I just said yours and Whispers are contradicting although they aim at
>>>> the same purpose (i.e. discrediting Fed). So they cannot be right.
>>>
>>> It's true that 2 contradicting opinions can't be both correct at the
>>> same time, however this doesn't prove either of them being wrong.
>>
>> It proves that discrediting Fed is wrong. Whether you are wrong or
>> Whisper is or either of you, it seems to distribute well. :-)
>>
>>> If I claim that Obama is the president of USA, but 3 persons disagree
>>> with me - that doesn't make my chances of being correct as 25%. What
>>> proves or rejects my claim is whether he is the president, not other
>>> people's opinions.
>>
>> This is a wrong example to back your argument.
>
> Went over your head obviously.
>
> If you can't prove that I'm wrong since I allegedly contradict Whisper's
> whatever claim - then you can't logically prove that Whisper is wrong
> either. Thus you can not prove neither of us being wrong and are making
> false accusations on something that you haven't even bothered to specify.
>
> I'm done with pawning you.
I have already given up making you a logically thinking one ...
Whisper
er, Seles never beat Graf at Wim/USO, let alone in those finals. They
are 3-3 at FO, so Seles only has advantage at AO.
In slam finals they are 3-3.
Rafa v Fed is 5-2 in slam finals & 6-2 in slams overall. Rafa has
beaten Fed in Wim, FO & AO finals while only losing at Wimbledon.
Back in 2004 it never occurred to me a tier 1 great can be so
comprehensively overshadowed by his nearest rival in all the big slams
at his peak (never happened before), so I have learnt something since
then.
Whisper
But you would know if Rosewall had a 5-2 slam final h2h against him.
All I'm saying is this situation is unprecedented. On the one hand you
have Federer establishing a phenomenal achivement record on court, while
at the same time losing most of the biggest matches v his rival. It's a
perverse situation & has quite frankly shocked me.
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing is wrong there, losing three FO finals to a guy that won it
five times.
Again, for people that follow your logic, Federer should have been a
better player if he failed to reach the FO final, right?
Whisper
>
> Yeah, but I also enjoy people like TT and Whisper struggling in their
> reasoning for something that they don't believe themselves. :-)
>
>> For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
>> him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
>> his era.
>
> You are so right. All I know about Laver is that he won twice the CYGS. :-)
Yes, but you'd also know if he was well beaten by his biggest rival in 5
slams. Never happened to any other tier 1 great - Fed's the 1st.
Ali Asoag
> On Oct 3, 11:51 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2010 2:10 AM, wkhedr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 4:58 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
>>>> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both being
>>>> stupid, lacking logical thinking. Most interesting thing is, your
>>>> arguments (for discrediting Fed and embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict
>>>> each other. :-)
>>
>>> Take it easy man, enjoy watching your favorite player the few years
>>> left in his career and trust me there is nothing being said here that
>>> can affect any of Federer or Nadal's legacy. Their legacy will be
>>> remembered by their achievement, this is what people will know and
>>> talk about thirty years after their retirement.
>>
>>> For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
>>> him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
>>> his era.
>>
>> But you would know if Rosewall had a 5-2 slam final h2h against him.
>>
>> All I'm saying is this situation is unprecedented. On the one hand you
>> have Federer establishing a phenomenal achivement record on court, while
>> at the same time losing most of the biggest matches v his rival. It's a
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Nothing is wrong there, losing three FO finals to a guy that won it
> five times.
Compared to ZERO from great Sampras. :-)
> Again, for people that follow your logic, Federer should have been a
> better player if he failed to reach the FO final, right?
This contradiction is the biggest in Fedhater's argumentation. You need
to reach less to be great! :-)
Ali Asoag
> On 10/4/2010 2:28 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but I also enjoy people like TT and Whisper struggling in their
>> reasoning for something that they don't believe themselves. :-)
>>
>>> For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
>>> him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
>>> his era.
>>
>> You are so right. All I know about Laver is that he won twice the
>> CYGS. :-)
>
>
>
> Yes, but you'd also know if he was well beaten by his biggest rival in 5
> slams.
I don't think so.
> Never happened to any other tier 1 great - Fed's the 1st.
I find it worse in Pete's case: Number 1, many titles, most Slams at
that time, but failed again and again in one of the 4 Slams. That's like
Becker or Edberg, or like Lendl in Wimby or or or. Really embarrasing.
But you know what, Sampras was only considered because of his 14 Slams.
Like Nadal said: You don't know anything about tennis.
Ali Asoag
> On 10/3/2010 9:50 AM, felangey wrote:
>> "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).
>>
>> Roffle.
>
>
> er, Seles never beat Graf at Wim/USO, let alone in those finals. They
> are 3-3 at FO, so Seles only has advantage at AO.
>
> In slam finals they are 3-3.
>
> Rafa v Fed is 5-2 in slam finals & 6-2 in slams overall. Rafa has beaten
> Fed in Wim, FO & AO finals while only losing at Wimbledon.
The point is Nadal could only reach the final once in AO and failed to
defend that title - against Fed - the year after. On grass, they met
multiple times and see, Fed has an edge (2-1). Except for clay, where
Nadal is really the best, whereever they met multiple times, Fed rules.
Only that counts, not one-time events that very much depends on day form
etc. (and especially the AO2009 was won actually against a past-peak
Fed, so it counts even less regarding "dominating"!)
> Back in 2004 it never occurred to me a tier 1 great can be so
> comprehensively overshadowed by his nearest rival in all the big slams
> at his peak (never happened before), so I have learnt something since then.
I also never thought how a great champion like Sampras can fail
consistently in FO. But was Sampras not GOAT at that time because of
that?? I am sure you answer "Yes, Sampras was GOAT".
BTW, according to your speculation addiction Nadal would own Sampras not
only on clay, but also on grass and HC considering he could beat a
past-peak Fed on grass and HC with Fed being much better than Sampras.
Whisper
> On Oct 3, 11:51 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2010 2:10 AM, wkhedr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 4:58 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
>>>> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both being
>>>> stupid, lacking logical thinking. Most interesting thing is, your
>>>> arguments (for discrediting Fed and embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict
>>>> each other. :-)
>>
>>> Take it easy man, enjoy watching your favorite player the few years
>>> left in his career and trust me there is nothing being said here that
>>> can affect any of Federer or Nadal's legacy. Their legacy will be
>>> remembered by their achievement, this is what people will know and
>>> talk about thirty years after their retirement.
>>
>>> For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
>>> him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
>>> his era.
>>
>> But you would know if Rosewall had a 5-2 slam final h2h against him.
>>
>> All I'm saying is this situation is unprecedented. On the one hand you
>> have Federer establishing a phenomenal achivement record on court, while
>> at the same time losing most of the biggest matches v his rival. It's a
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Nothing is wrong there, losing three FO finals to a guy that won it
> five times.
> Again, for people that follow your logic, Federer should have been a
> better player if he failed to reach the FO final, right?
If it were just FO there would be no issue - then it would be as you are
falsely trying to paint it (in vain). It's the totality of losing in
Wimbledon, AO & FO finals - indeed on all 3 surfaces grass, HC & clay -
while only being able to beat him on grass that is at issue here. You
can't possibly be dumb enough to not see it, so have to put it down to
man-love. Get a grip.
Whisper
I don't think you'll find many, if any experts who seriously consider
Federer better than Sampras.
In pure ability it's;
1 Sampras
2 Nadal
3 Federer
As far as achievement goes it's;
1 Federer
2 Sampras
3 Nadal
.....with Sampras king of the biggest tennis tournament, & best No.1 player.
Superdave
I don't think you will find many, if any people who seriously consider you anything other than an asshole.
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:xKGdnbRy_YvN_zTR...@westnet.com.au...
Get grip. Was Krajicek a big rival to Sampras ? clearly by his record
Krajicek
was not a big rival to Sampras. Yet Sampras lost to him in straight sets.
Sampras
also lost to Agassi twice in AO. In FO Sampras lost to greats like Mark
Phillipousis,
Gudenzi, Delgado and a few virtual unknowns. How did those lost to lesser
players
compare to Federer's losses to the only other great player in his era ? Of
course we
can forgive you for been dumb enough in believe losing in the early round of
tournaments
such as FO is a great way to protect legacy of great player like Sampras.
>
Iceberg
6 consecutive years at number one, enough said.
> Like Nadal said: You don't know anything about tennis.
he said this personally to you, I assume.
Iceberg
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
you compare Nadal to Kraijcek, LOL
john
> On 10/4/2010 12:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 10/3/2010 3:47 PM, Whisper wrote:
>> I also never thought how a great champion like Sampras can fail
>> consistently in FO. But was Sampras not GOAT at that time because of
>> that?? I am sure you answer "Yes, Sampras was GOAT".
>>
>> BTW, according to your speculation addiction Nadal would own Sampras not
>> only on clay, but also on grass and HC considering he could beat a
>> past-peak Fed on grass and HC with Fed being much better than Sampras.
>
>
> I don't think you'll find many, if any experts who seriously consider
> Federer better than Sampras.
>
> In pure ability it's;
>
> 1 Sampras
> 2 Nadal
> 3 Federer
>
On the quesiton of ability, If Sampras has the best ability of the three
why wasn't he able to reach at least
on FO final and instead he lost 8 times in the first or second round of FO
on a surface where his serve become
a lesser factor ? If Nadal's ability was better than Federer why he only
won 2 HC slams out of possible 14 attempts
when he faced the exact same competition as Federer. If Nadal's one off
five sets win on grass was an indication of his superior ability on grass
over Federer then I think we can also conclude Krajicek should be consider
the ability god on grass over Sampras as he convincingly destroyed Sampras
in straight set on grass.
john
"Iceberg" <iceber...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:bb0bd834-7999-41f6...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I will ignore fools like Icy who think Murray didn't win grand slam because
his opponents buying off the lines people.
john
He said that to someone name iceberg
Whisper
>> I don't think you'll find many, if any experts who seriously consider
>> Federer better than Sampras.
>>
>> In pure ability it's;
>>
>> 1 Sampras
>> 2 Nadal
>> 3 Federer
>>
>
> On the quesiton of ability, If Sampras has the best ability of the three
> why wasn't he able to reach at least
> on FO final and instead he lost 8 times in the first or second round of FO
> on a surface where his serve become
> a lesser factor ? If Nadal's ability was better than Federer why he only
> won 2 HC slams out of possible 14 attempts
> when he faced the exact same competition as Federer. If Nadal's one off
> five sets win on grass was an indication of his superior ability on grass
> over Federer then I think we can also conclude Krajicek should be consider
> the ability god on grass over Sampras as he convincingly destroyed Sampras
> in straight set on grass.
>
>
End of the day K only beat Sampras in a slam just 1 time in his whole
career. Nobody draws conclusions from 1-off matches. Could be due to
bad chicken?
john
So 1 time is not exactly good enough to draw conclusion base on 1 off
matches.
umm. So Nadal's 1 victory on grass was good enough for you to say he owns
Federer on grass and same apply for HC. So how many bad chicken did Nadal
and Sampras when Nadal only made 2 finals out of 15 attempts and Sampras
lost 8 times in 1st and 2nd round of FO ?
>
>
Superdave
with whisper it a2a or "ass to ass" and not head to head.
when you think of whisper, think with your ass not your head.
he is like Rafa. An ASS man through and through.
Iceberg
> "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
you ignore a lot of things don't you, that's how you caught all those
diseases.
TT
Don't let John's poor formatting of text fool you - his posts are just
as poor as they look.
Patrick Kehoe
Pure ability:
1. Fed (clearly)
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
Titles:
1. Fed (marginally)
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
H2H effectiveness against biggest rivals:
1. Sampras (clearly)
2. Nadal
3. Federer
P
drew
> On 10/4/2010 2:10 AM, wkhedr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 4:58 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >> Not this, but it's similar to you. You and Whisper are both Fed-haters
> >> but for different reason (Sampras and Nadal). And I enjoy you both being
> >> stupid, lacking logical thinking. Most interesting thing is, your
> >> arguments (for discrediting Fed and embracing Nadal/Sampras) contradict
> >> each other. :-)
>
> > Take it easy man, enjoy watching your favorite player the few years
> > left in his career and trust me there is nothing being said here that
> > can affect any of Federer or Nadal's legacy. Their legacy will be
> > remembered by their achievement, this is what people will know and
> > talk about thirty years after their retirement.
>
> > For example, I have not watched Laver playing, and all I know about
> > him is his CYGS done twice, don't know anything about his opponents in
> > his era.
>
> But you would know if Rosewall had a 5-2 slam final h2h against him.
No you would only know that if you were a history buff.
>
> All I'm saying is this situation is unprecedented.
Every situation is unprecedented. The most unusual aspect of the last
8 years has
been how thoroughly the majors have been dominated by two men.
On the one hand you
> have Federer establishing a phenomenal achivement record on court, while
> at the same time losing most of the biggest matches v his rival.
The more that Nadal achieves, the more this will make sense to you.
You can't figure it out because you are lacking a little bit
upstairs. During
the 80s there were a number of players sharing the hardware. That was
unprecedented too.
The fact that somebody like Sampras could win so many majors yet
sucked
so totally at the French Open was unprecedented.
You are looking for patterns and trends and there is no good reason
that they
should exist in the first place.
When you have two all-time greats facing off it is not so unusual that
one guy is
going to have a big edge on one surface....and that's all we're
talking about here.
Difficult match-ups aren't uncommon in tennis even when one player is
not so
great. Others have pointed that you to you with examples many times
but
somehow you can't grasp it. ie: Ferreira vs. Sampras, Krajicek vs
Sampras,
Korda vs. Sampras.....these are matchups where you would expect the
greater
player to have a big margin. Didn't happen that way.
It's a
> perverse situation & has quite frankly shocked me.
You are easily impressed.
TT
Wrong. But don't give up!
Iceberg
> On Oct 3, 10:23 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/4/2010 12:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>
> > > On 10/3/2010 3:47 PM, Whisper wrote:
> > > I also never thought how a great champion like Sampras can fail
> > > consistently in FO. But was Sampras not GOAT at that time because of
> > > that?? I am sure you answer "Yes, Sampras was GOAT".
>
> > > BTW, according to your speculation addiction Nadal would own Sampras not
> > > only on clay, but also on grass and HC considering he could beat a
> > > past-peak Fed on grass and HC with Fed being much better than Sampras.
>
> > I don't think you'll find many, if any experts who seriously consider
> > Federer better than Sampras.
>
> > In pure ability it's;
>
> > 1 Sampras
> > 2 Nadal
> > 3 Federer
>
> > As far as achievement goes it's;
>
> > 1 Federer
> > 2 Sampras
> > 3 Nadal
>
> > .....with Sampras king of the biggest tennis tournament, & best No.1 player.
>
> Pure ability:
>
> 2. Sampras
> 3. Nadal
I'm seriously confused by this, Nadal at the very least matches his
ability, I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
TT
Because Nadal completed career slam few years younger? Patrick obviously
thinks that later you do it more talented you must be...
Whisper
> On Oct 3, 10:23 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2010 12:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2010 3:47 PM, Whisper wrote:
>>> I also never thought how a great champion like Sampras can fail
>>> consistently in FO. But was Sampras not GOAT at that time because of
>>> that?? I am sure you answer "Yes, Sampras was GOAT".
>>
>>> BTW, according to your speculation addiction Nadal would own Sampras not
>>> only on clay, but also on grass and HC considering he could beat a
>>> past-peak Fed on grass and HC with Fed being much better than Sampras.
>>
>> I don't think you'll find many, if any experts who seriously consider
>> Federer better than Sampras.
>>
>> In pure ability it's;
>>
>> 1 Sampras
>> 2 Nadal
>> 3 Federer
>>
>> As far as achievement goes it's;
>>
>> 1 Federer
>> 2 Sampras
>> 3 Nadal
>>
>
>
>
> Pure ability:
>
> 1. Fed (clearly)
> 2. Sampras
> 3. Nadal
>
> Titles:
>
> 1. Fed (marginally)
> 2. Sampras
> 3. Nadal
>
> H2H effectiveness against biggest rivals:
>
> 1. Sampras (clearly)
> 2. Nadal
> 3. Federer
>
>
> P
By 'ability' I meant who would win the big matches h2h, thus hard to
justify Fed > Rafa given the facts.
john
"TT" <do...@email.me> wrote in message
news:3Wlqo.2585$7N7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
Another tool I also ignore.
john
Correct. Time to clean the toilet, toilet trainee.
john
Easy to justify when one guy wins 9 out 15 hard court slam compare to 2 out
15
facing the same competition. Otherwise it is difficult to justify Sampras
been
greater than Krajicek when they faced one another during the peak when
Samrpas
trailed 2:6 in h2h.
>
>
Ali Asoag
16 Slams and 237 consecutive weeks as number one. Enough said.
>> Like Nadal said: You don't know anything about tennis.
>
> he said this personally to you, I assume.
Your assumption is - like your postings here - wrong. Nadal said those
like you don't know anything about tennis saying Nadal was better than Fed.
Ali Asoag
>>> while only being able to beat him on grass that is at issue here. You
>>> can't possibly be dumb enough to not see it, so have to put it down to
>>> man-love. Get a grip.
>>
>> Get grip. Was Krajicek a big rival to Sampras ? clearly by his record
>> Krajicek
>> was not a big rival to Sampras. Yet Sampras lost to him in straight sets.
>> Sampras
>> also lost to Agassi twice in AO. In FO Sampras lost to greats like Mark
>> Phillipousis,
>> Gudenzi, Delgado and a few virtual unknowns. How did those lost to lesser
>> players
>> compare to Federer's losses to the only other great player in his era ? Of
>> course we
>> can forgive you for been dumb enough in believe losing in the early round of
>> tournaments
>> such as FO is a great way to protect legacy of great player like Sampras.
>>
>>
>
> you compare Nadal to Kraijcek, LOL
You mean because K was better beating Sampras in Wimby?
Ali Asoag
Didn't you say one cannot draw conclusion from 1-off matches? How many
times did Nadal win against Fed on HC? Once! How many times did he do
that on grass? Once. How many times did Fed win against NAdal on grass?
Twice!
So, how dumb must you be contradicting yourself again and again? Go to
the Kindergarden again.
Ali Asoag
But NAdal "owns" Fed beating him once on HC and grass whereas Fed beat
him twice on grass? LOL LOL Whisper is really the dumbest poster here in
RST. Only TT could maybe compete.
Ali Asoag
> On 10/4/2010 12:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 10/3/2010 3:47 PM, Whisper wrote:
>> I also never thought how a great champion like Sampras can fail
>> consistently in FO. But was Sampras not GOAT at that time because of
>> that?? I am sure you answer "Yes, Sampras was GOAT".
>>
>> BTW, according to your speculation addiction Nadal would own Sampras not
>> only on clay, but also on grass and HC considering he could beat a
>> past-peak Fed on grass and HC with Fed being much better than Sampras.
>
>
> Federer better than Sampras.
>
> In pure ability it's;
>
> 1 Sampras
> 2 Nadal
> 3 Federer
LOL. Fed is top. Sampras is even behind Nadal.
> As far as achievement goes it's;
>
> 1 Federer
> 2 Sampras
> 3 Nadal
That's fact! With SAmpras lacking FO getting a big asterisk.
> .....with Sampras king of the biggest tennis tournament, & best No.1
> player.
Consistently failing in one of the biggest tennis tournaments!
Ali Asoag
> On Oct 3, 10:23 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2010 12:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2010 3:47 PM, Whisper wrote:
>>> I also never thought how a great champion like Sampras can fail
>>> consistently in FO. But was Sampras not GOAT at that time because of
>>> that?? I am sure you answer "Yes, Sampras was GOAT".
>>
>>> BTW, according to your speculation addiction Nadal would own Sampras not
>>> only on clay, but also on grass and HC considering he could beat a
>>> past-peak Fed on grass and HC with Fed being much better than Sampras.
>>
>> I don't think you'll find many, if any experts who seriously consider
>> Federer better than Sampras.
>>
>> In pure ability it's;
>>
>> 1 Sampras
>> 2 Nadal
>> 3 Federer
>>
>> As far as achievement goes it's;
>>
>> 1 Federer
>> 2 Sampras
>> 3 Nadal
>>
>
>
>
> Pure ability:
>
> 1. Fed (clearly)
> 2. Sampras
> 3. Nadal
Agreed.
> Titles:
>
> 1. Fed (marginally)
> 2. Sampras
> 3. Nadal
Not deniable.
> H2H effectiveness against biggest rivals:
>
> 1. Sampras (clearly)
> 2. Nadal
> 3. Federer
False (althoug I don't give a shit about H2H). Fed has much more
impressive H2H against his rivals (think of Hewitt, Roddick, Davidenko
...). Those H2H from Sampras and Nadal are nothing compared to Fed's.
Ali Asoag
Exactly, the last must be: Federer - Sampras - Nadal(?)
Whisper
No, as Rafa is 5 yrs younger a essentially a junior player when Fed was
mopping up v clowns 2003-2006.
> Otherwise it is difficult to justify Sampras
> been
> greater than Krajicek when they faced one another during the peak when
> Samrpas
> trailed 2:6 in h2h.
Sampras/Krajicek is 4-6 h2h, with many matches won by K in 3rd set
t/b's. However the obvious difference is they only played in slams
twice, both won 1 each & both in Q/F's. This h2h has zero historical
significance - except to Fedfuckers ; )
Whisper
What part of 'totality' didn't you understand? 2-5 in slam finals is
exact opposite of 1-off - indeed they have the most prolific rivalry in
slam finals ever.
Whisper
Fed & Rafa have played more slam finals against each other than any 2
players in history. It shows how delusional Fedfuckers are to describe
all their matches as '1-off'.
; )
john
2:6 during their peak between 93-98. Krajicek was never in the top 10 after
98
and Sampras never won more than 1 slam in any years after 97. The
difference
is Samrpas played Krajeck once in Wimbledon and base on logic of Nadal owns
Federer on that one win at Wimbledon Sampras was lucky that Krajicek was not
on the other side of the court and Sampras was owned by Krajicek on grass.
>
>
Whisper
>> No, as Rafa is 5 yrs younger a essentially a junior player when Fed was
>> mopping up v clowns 2003-2006.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Otherwise it is difficult to justify Sampras
>>> been
>>> greater than Krajicek when they faced one another during the peak when
>>> Samrpas
>>> trailed 2:6 in h2h.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sampras/Krajicek is 4-6 h2h, with many matches won by K in 3rd set t/b's.
>> However the obvious difference is they only played in slams twice, both
>> except to Fedfuckers ; )
>
> 2:6 during their peak between 93-98. Krajicek was never in the top 10 after
> 98
> and Sampras never won more than 1 slam in any years after 97. The
> difference
> is Samrpas played Krajeck once in Wimbledon and base on logic of Nadal owns
> Federer on that one win at Wimbledon Sampras was lucky that Krajicek was not
> on the other side of the court and Sampras was owned by Krajicek on grass.
>>
If Rafa only beat Fed 1 time at a slam in q/f I'd never mention it.
You're clutching.
john
How many of those slams were on clay Federer least favourit surface Nadal's
favourit surface ?
If it was not 1-off match on grass how many time did Nadal beat Federer on
grass and hard court ?
Learn to count or I almost forgot your IQ is only 59, how was you last IQ
test ? It must be below
50 now.
>
> ; )
>
>
john
We know well who is clutching the straw. When Federer had less slam titles
than Sampras
it was the the slam count then there is 7543 then there is h2h and now
ability goat. Any
more Whisper. When we knew the fact that you are basing your claim of
Nadal's superiority
over Federer on those 1 single wins in slam on GC and HC and it is been
showed up as flaw
logic when the same claim can be made on Krajicek's superiority over Sampras
on that single
win in Wimbledon. Of course you never mention it because most Krajicke's
wins against
Sampras came during Sampras' peak and base on your logic Krajicek is
superior because of his
1 win over sampras came in the biggest tournament just like Nadal's single
win in HC and GC
were enough to ensure his ownership of Federer on those surfaces.
>
john
What part of 'totality ' that you don't understand ? They played 1 HC final
during a period
when Federer was in 9 HC finals compare to Nadal's 1. Federer won 6
Wimbledon finals
compare to Nadal's 1. The five wins nadal had 3 came on Nadal's favourite
surface and even
on clay Federer contested 4 finals compare to Nadal's 2 finals on HC over
twice as many attempts.
>
>
>
>
Rodjk #613
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
You should have realized by now three things:
1. Whisper knows very little about tennis; he is just trolling.
2. Due to his trolling, no facts or logic will educate him. He does
not intend to be educated, he just likes getting people into these
long, useless threads.
3. He has more time than you to waste here.
In short, why bother?
Rodjk #613
AliAsoag
What would be the totality of Kraijeck winning against Sampras in
Wimbledon? 1:0! So Kraijeck owned Sampras on grass? Is this what's you
are saying? And how about everyone owned Sampras on clay, the so-
called GOAT in your mind? How could a GOAT candidate so fail (by
"fail" I mean "not even able to reach a single final") on a surface
where even a 17-year-old baby chicken named Chang could win?
I see your sadness because Sampras never won in FO and got surpassed
by Fed in GOAT. So I see you try to falsify or misinterpret every
statistic to discredit Fed's achievement and make up Fed's rival's
(Nadal's) wins, because "the enemy's enemy is my friend".
The difference between a smart (tennis) analyst and a dumb one is the
first can distinguish how a statistic is comprised. 5-2 is 5-2, yes,
but you cannot use it to say Nadal "owns" Fed totally. The simple
reason is: Tennis is played mainly on clay, HC and grass. And of these
3 surfaces Nadal dominates Fed in Slams *only on one*. To the
contrary, Fed dominates him on grass, and on HC they just played once
against each other and even you dumbo said that this doesn't mean
anything. Since Fed achieved much more on grass and HC than Nadal *in
the same period of time* *against the same competition* you must admid
that Fed is superior on grass and HC whereas Nadal has an edge on
clay. This is the conclusion we can draw in regard to Fed and Nadal.
Had Nadal ever been better than FEd on HC and grass, why did he not
win more? If you are better, you must win more, no?
Understood?
AliAsoag
No, your comments show how delusional you must be about Sampras
getting surpassed by Fed. How sad must you be to ignore one match on
HC as "1-off" and to ignore 2-1 edge of Fed, and to misuse the 3-0
clay edge of Nadal for everything. Nadal himself said it, and
according to him, you are really stupid and don't know anything about
tennis.
AliAsoag
Wow, Whisper is capable to interpret an H2H! Here he does not just
insist on the 6-4 edge of Kraijeck over Sampras, he breaks it down to
Slams, non-slams etc. He just needs to apply this to the NAdal-Fed
H2H, then he would be a better tennis looker.
Inglourious Basterd
> On 10/5/2010 8:38 AM, john wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
The Sampras-Krajicek h2h does have historical significance, because if
it weren't for Krajicek, Pete would have won 8 straight W's. That
would have given him 15 slams including 8 in a row at one slam. Then
it would be easier to argue for him against Fed as GOAT - although Fed
would still have one more slam and the CGS so maybe he would still
have a slight edge...
felangey
1. Whisper knows very little about tennis; he is just trolling.
2. Due to his trolling, no facts or logic will educate him. He does
not intend to be educated, he just likes getting people into these
long, useless threads.
3. He has more time than you to waste here.
In short, why bother?
Rodjk #613<
Correct. Of course sometimes you see things written that are such an offence
to the truth and to logic that one dashes off a reply before realising that
one is perpetuating ones own misery with numpties and ne'er-do-well's such
as Twister and TinyTears.
Superdave
whisper knows nothing about tennis in fact. only sampras nonsense.
drew
Simple.
Although Whisper clearly has much more time to waste than most, the
act of posting
here is a waste of time and Whisper generally acts as a business
agent for those who
wish to waste a little time.
He willingly and selflessly offers his balls for the kicking on a
regular basis and he
quite readily accepts minority points of view as if he is somehow
responsible for them.
Without Whisper and little bob there would be too much agreement in
this group and
I suspect that Whisper has picked up the challenge.
Whisper
Laver won calendar slam in 1962 beating Roy Emerson in 3 of the 4
finals. By your logic there isn't enough evidence to suggest Laver was
better given they were 1-off wins in those slams?
Whisper
> On Oct 5, 3:53 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Didn't you say one cannot draw conclusion from 1-off matches? How many
>>> times did Nadal win against Fed on HC? Once! How many times did he do
>>> that on grass? Once. How many times did Fed win against NAdal on grass?
>>> Twice!
>>
>> What part of 'totality' didn't you understand? 2-5 in slam finals is
>> exact opposite of 1-off - indeed they have the most prolific rivalry in
>> slam finals ever.
>
> What would be the totality of Kraijeck winning against Sampras in
> Wimbledon? 1:0! So Kraijeck owned Sampras on grass? Is this what's you
> are saying? And how about everyone owned Sampras on clay, the so-
> called GOAT in your mind? How could a GOAT candidate so fail (by
> "fail" I mean "not even able to reach a single final") on a surface
> where even a 17-year-old baby chicken named Chang could win?
>
> I see your sadness because Sampras never won in FO and got surpassed
> by Fed in GOAT. So I see you try to falsify or misinterpret every
> statistic to discredit Fed's achievement and make up Fed's rival's
> (Nadal's) wins, because "the enemy's enemy is my friend".
Nonsense. I always hope to see great tennis records broken.
What I don't like about Fed is his 1-dimensional game (all baseline),
his poor sportsmanship in defeat & his apalling record v his big rival.
Besides those issues I do like his 1 handed bh style, & his refusal to
give the clowns an inch.
>
> The difference between a smart (tennis) analyst and a dumb one is the
> first can distinguish how a statistic is comprised. 5-2 is 5-2, yes,
> but you cannot use it to say Nadal "owns" Fed totally. The simple
> reason is: Tennis is played mainly on clay, HC and grass. And of these
> 3 surfaces Nadal dominates Fed in Slams *only on one*. To the
> contrary, Fed dominates him on grass, and on HC they just played once
> against each other and even you dumbo said that this doesn't mean
> anything. Since Fed achieved much more on grass and HC than Nadal *in
> the same period of time* *against the same competition* you must admid
> that Fed is superior on grass and HC whereas Nadal has an edge on
> clay. This is the conclusion we can draw in regard to Fed and Nadal.
> Had Nadal ever been better than FEd on HC and grass, why did he not
> win more? If you are better, you must win more, no?
>
> Understood?
But Rafa is 5 yrs younger & surely not at peak when Fed was racking up
most of his slams 2003-2006 v complete morons?
If Roger beats Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 yr we can't conclude
anything as they were all 1-off wins?
john
Did Roy Emerson actually won any grand slam when Laver was in the tournament
?
Federer and Nadal both played about 14 HC slams and 7 grass court slams and
6
clay court slams, we know Federer won 15 compare to Nadal 9. Logic is
something
you little brain just can't grasp you should stop mentioned the word logic,
too complex
for you.
>
Whisper
> On Oct 5, 3:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2010 12:48 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> End of the day K only beat Sampras in a slam just 1 time in his whole
>>>> career. Nobody draws conclusions from 1-off matches. Could be due to bad
>>>> chicken?
>>
>>> But NAdal "owns" Fed beating him once on HC and grass whereas Fed beat
>>> him twice on grass? LOL LOL Whisper is really the dumbest poster here in
>>> RST. Only TT could maybe compete.
>>
>> players in history. It shows how delusional Fedfuckers are to describe
>> all their matches as '1-off'.
>>
>> ; )
>
> No, your comments show how delusional you must be about Sampras
> getting surpassed by Fed. How sad must you be to ignore one match on
> HC as "1-off" and to ignore 2-1 edge of Fed, and to misuse the 3-0
> clay edge of Nadal for everything. Nadal himself said it, and
> according to him, you are really stupid and don't know anything about
> tennis.
You must realize Rafa is talking about Roger's achievements & not his
ability to beat him regularly....? You can't be that dumb?
Whether Roger plays a 'prettier' game or has more shots than Rafa is not
the issue. I've seen Rafa & Roger at their best & to me it's clear Rafa
is better on all surfaces. The main reason for that is Roger plays the
matches on Rafa's terms - ie from the baseline. The surface makes no
difference in today's game - Rafa is the best baseline player so starts
fave v Roger every time imo.
The 2-1 Wimbledon record is misleading as Rafa was very green, but even
so would have won 2007 final if he did better in the t/b's (Roger won
them all & that saved his arse in 5 sets).
The denial of Fedfuckers in rst is truly breathtaking. '1-off' losses
my arse.
Whisper
> On Oct 5, 3:51 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2010 8:38 AM, john wrote:
>> No, as Rafa is 5 yrs younger a essentially a junior player when Fed was
>> mopping up v clowns 2003-2006.
>>
>>> Otherwise it is difficult to justify Sampras
>>> been
>>> greater than Krajicek when they faced one another during the peak when
>>> Samrpas
>>> trailed 2:6 in h2h.
>>
>> Sampras/Krajicek is 4-6 h2h, with many matches won by K in 3rd set
>> t/b's. However the obvious difference is they only played in slams
>> significance - except to Fedfuckers ; )
>
> Wow, Whisper is capable to interpret an H2H! Here he does not just
> insist on the 6-4 edge of Kraijeck over Sampras, he breaks it down to
> Slams, non-slams etc. He just needs to apply this to the NAdal-Fed
> H2H, then he would be a better tennis looker.
I've always said Fed v Rafa tune-up h2h is irrelevant. You're thinking
of TT.
Whisper
Yes, like 'Wimbledon is no.1? Huh no one told me!' type posts.
TT
Alibaba rarely knows what he's talking about.
After Nadal's USO title john/alibaba types are the best fedfans have to
offer...hilarious.
--
"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
john
Been the better player needs to translate to better result in slams against
all comers.
I can say the same thing about Krajicek's best been better than Sampras.
Sampras
played the match on Krajicek's own term from the front court on grass and
fast indoor
court and hard court and Krajicek own Sampras at their peak between 93 to
99.
>
> The 2-1 Wimbledon record is misleading as Rafa was very green, but even so
> would have won 2007 final if he did better in the t/b's (Roger won them
> all & that saved his arse in 5 sets).
Rubbish, Nadal was near or at his peak since he was 19.
>
> The denial of Fedfuckers in rst is truly breathtaking. '1-off' losses my
> arse.
Your stupidity is more breathtaking than that ...
>
>
>
>
john
That's because Samrpas was own by Krajicek on grass and everywhere else.
>
>
Iceberg
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
you reckon the Nadal of 2008 was close to when he was 19, LOL, you
stupider than the Waterboy.
john
Been 5 yrs younger did not means he was not near or at his peak. Some
players peak
at younger age than the others.
>
> If Roger beats Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 yr we can't conclude anything
> as they were all 1-off wins?
If Roger beat Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 year and Roddick won 7 more
grand slams
than Federer can we conclude Roger been the superior player despite winning
a lot
less number of Wimbledon, USO and AO and failed to defend any of his grand
slam
titles.
>
>
>
>
TT
Rodjk #613
True. Occasionally, with a feeling akin to nausea, I feel obligated to
respond to some of the more obvious trolls here. All I suggest is to
try to keep it to a minimum...
Rodjk #613
Whisper
> "Whisper"<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:_rGdnanbb7CzzTHR...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 10/6/2010 2:50 AM, AliAsoag wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 3:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/2010 12:48 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>>> End of the day K only beat Sampras in a slam just 1 time in his whole
>>>>>> career. Nobody draws conclusions from 1-off matches. Could be due to
>>>>>> bad
>>>>>> chicken?
>>>>
>>>>> But NAdal "owns" Fed beating him once on HC and grass whereas Fed beat
>>>>> him twice on grass? LOL LOL Whisper is really the dumbest poster here
>>>>> in
>>>>> RST. Only TT could maybe compete.
>>>>
>>>> Fed& Rafa have played more slam finals against each other than any 2
>>>> players in history. It shows how delusional Fedfuckers are to describe
>>>> all their matches as '1-off'.
>>>>
>>>> ; )
>>>
>>> No, your comments show how delusional you must be about Sampras
>>> getting surpassed by Fed. How sad must you be to ignore one match on
>>> HC as "1-off" and to ignore 2-1 edge of Fed, and to misuse the 3-0
>>> clay edge of Nadal for everything. Nadal himself said it, and
>>> according to him, you are really stupid and don't know anything about
>>> tennis.
>>
>>
>> ability to beat him regularly....? You can't be that dumb?
>>
>> Whether Roger plays a 'prettier' game or has more shots than Rafa is not
>> is better on all surfaces. The main reason for that is Roger plays the
>> matches on Rafa's terms - ie from the baseline. The surface makes no
>> difference in today's game - Rafa is the best baseline player so starts
>> fave v Roger every time imo.
>
> Been the better player needs to translate to better result in slams against
> all comers.
> I can say the same thing about Krajicek's best been better than Sampras.
> Sampras
> played the match on Krajicek's own term from the front court on grass and
> fast indoor
> court and hard court and Krajicek own Sampras at their peak between 93 to
> 99.
>
No you can't because they never played in a slam final, thus there is
no evidence. You can't extrapolate q/f & tune-up results to slam
finals. Fed v Rafa have 7 slam finals across all surfaces - plenty of
evidence.
bob
wrote:
>On 10/6/2010 2:45 AM, AliAsoag wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 3:53 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Didn't you say one cannot draw conclusion from 1-off matches? How many
>>>> times did Nadal win against Fed on HC? Once! How many times did he do
>>>> that on grass? Once. How many times did Fed win against NAdal on grass?
>>>> Twice!
>>>
>>> What part of 'totality' didn't you understand? 2-5 in slam finals is
>>> exact opposite of 1-off - indeed they have the most prolific rivalry in
>>> slam finals ever.
>>
>> What would be the totality of Kraijeck winning against Sampras in
>> Wimbledon? 1:0! So Kraijeck owned Sampras on grass? Is this what's you
>> are saying? And how about everyone owned Sampras on clay, the so-
>> called GOAT in your mind? How could a GOAT candidate so fail (by
>> "fail" I mean "not even able to reach a single final") on a surface
>> where even a 17-year-old baby chicken named Chang could win?
>>
>> I see your sadness because Sampras never won in FO and got surpassed
>> by Fed in GOAT. So I see you try to falsify or misinterpret every
>> statistic to discredit Fed's achievement and make up Fed's rival's
>> (Nadal's) wins, because "the enemy's enemy is my friend".
>
>
>Nonsense. I always hope to see great tennis records broken.
>
>What I don't like about Fed is his 1-dimensional game (all baseline),
>his poor sportsmanship in defeat & his apalling record v his big rival.
>
>Besides those issues I do like his 1 handed bh style, & his refusal to
>give the clowns an inch.
lmao.
i also give fed credit for the fact that other than 08 FO, i never saw
him give anything less than 110% in any slam match.
>> The difference between a smart (tennis) analyst and a dumb one is the
>> first can distinguish how a statistic is comprised. 5-2 is 5-2, yes,
>> but you cannot use it to say Nadal "owns" Fed totally. The simple
>> reason is: Tennis is played mainly on clay, HC and grass. And of these
>> 3 surfaces Nadal dominates Fed in Slams *only on one*. To the
>> contrary, Fed dominates him on grass, and on HC they just played once
>> against each other and even you dumbo said that this doesn't mean
>> anything. Since Fed achieved much more on grass and HC than Nadal *in
>> the same period of time* *against the same competition* you must admid
>> that Fed is superior on grass and HC whereas Nadal has an edge on
>> clay. This is the conclusion we can draw in regard to Fed and Nadal.
>> Had Nadal ever been better than FEd on HC and grass, why did he not
>> win more? If you are better, you must win more, no?
>>
>> Understood?
>
>
>But Rafa is 5 yrs younger & surely not at peak when Fed was racking up
>most of his slams 2003-2006 v complete morons?
>If Roger beats Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 yr we can't conclude
>anything as they were all 1-off wins?
fed won fully 10 slams before rafa really matured into the adult
player he is.
and btw, fed must still be peak in 2010 - he was defending champ at
Wim, FO and will be defender at AO in 3 months. same logic i heard
many times before in RST.
bob
bob
wrote:
please, rafa was much better overall in 08 than 06. and about as good
in 2010 as 2008, perhaps better being that he is smarter. would've
been just as good in 09 if not for huge fear factor.
you watch any tennis from 03-08 btw?
bob
bob
wrote:
i'm gathering. by your definition, winning anything is a 1-off because
the final was played once? :-)
bob
Ali Asoag
Why do you always need these "but's"? If you say Rafa is 5 years younger
thus not at peak during Fed's peak, why not say Fed has been past-peak
when Nadal is peak and that's why Nadal could beat Fed some times?
And, LOL "Fed racking up most of his Slams 2003-2006":
1) I guess, you mean Nadal has been peak since 2007 and Fed's peak was
2003-2006?
2) Then: How many did Nadal won since then, and how many did Fed? I'll
tell you: Both won 7 Slams since 2007. Not bad for a past-peak Fed and
too bad for a peak Nadal, no?
3) So: conclusion must be: Fed >> Nadal.
> If Roger beats Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 yr we can't conclude
> anything as they were all 1-off wins?
If that only happens once, yes. But Fed has xxx-1 record against
Roddick, not only on one surface. So we can say Fed owns Roddick. If Fed
had won against Roddick multiple times only in Wimby like he did and had
won only once on HC, I would say he only owns Roddick on grass but is
still better on HC because he won much more. And, if you like: If Fed
had won 3 times against Roddick on grass but has less titles than
Roddick on same surface, I would - of course - say, Roddick was better,
because he just won more titles.
Ali Asoag
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:26:20 +1100, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2010 2:45 AM, AliAsoag wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 3:53 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Didn't you say one cannot draw conclusion from 1-off matches? How many
>>>>> times did Nadal win against Fed on HC? Once! How many times did he do
>>>>> that on grass? Once. How many times did Fed win against NAdal on grass?
>>>>> Twice!
>>>>
>>>> What part of 'totality' didn't you understand? 2-5 in slam finals is
>>>> exact opposite of 1-off - indeed they have the most prolific rivalry in
>>>> slam finals ever.
>>>
>>> What would be the totality of Kraijeck winning against Sampras in
>>> Wimbledon? 1:0! So Kraijeck owned Sampras on grass? Is this what's you
>>> are saying? And how about everyone owned Sampras on clay, the so-
>>> called GOAT in your mind? How could a GOAT candidate so fail (by
>>> "fail" I mean "not even able to reach a single final") on a surface
>>> where even a 17-year-old baby chicken named Chang could win?
>>>
>>> I see your sadness because Sampras never won in FO and got surpassed
>>> by Fed in GOAT. So I see you try to falsify or misinterpret every
>>> statistic to discredit Fed's achievement and make up Fed's rival's
>>> (Nadal's) wins, because "the enemy's enemy is my friend".
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. I always hope to see great tennis records broken.
>>
>> What I don't like about Fed is his 1-dimensional game (all baseline),
>>
>> Besides those issues I do like his 1 handed bh style,& his refusal to
>> give the clowns an inch.
>
> lmao.
> i also give fed credit for the fact that other than 08 FO, i never saw
> him give anything less than 110% in any slam match.
>
>>> The difference between a smart (tennis) analyst and a dumb one is the
>>> first can distinguish how a statistic is comprised. 5-2 is 5-2, yes,
>>> but you cannot use it to say Nadal "owns" Fed totally. The simple
>>> reason is: Tennis is played mainly on clay, HC and grass. And of these
>>> 3 surfaces Nadal dominates Fed in Slams *only on one*. To the
>>> contrary, Fed dominates him on grass, and on HC they just played once
>>> against each other and even you dumbo said that this doesn't mean
>>> anything. Since Fed achieved much more on grass and HC than Nadal *in
>>> the same period of time* *against the same competition* you must admid
>>> that Fed is superior on grass and HC whereas Nadal has an edge on
>>> clay. This is the conclusion we can draw in regard to Fed and Nadal.
>>> Had Nadal ever been better than FEd on HC and grass, why did he not
>>> win more? If you are better, you must win more, no?
>>>
>>> Understood?
>>
>>
>> most of his slams 2003-2006 v complete morons?
>> If Roger beats Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 yr we can't conclude
>> anything as they were all 1-off wins?
>
> fed won fully 10 slams before rafa really matured into the adult
> player he is.
Interesting: Nadal's peak happened to begin just when Fed started
declining at the beginning of 2008.
> and btw, fed must still be peak in 2010 - he was defending champ at
> Wim, FO and will be defender at AO in 3 months. same logic i heard
> many times before in RST.
You contradict yourself: If Fed - according to you - was still peak in
2010 because was defending champ in Wim/FO, then Nadal must have been
peak as well in 2006, 2007 2008, 2009 because he was defending champ in
each year in FO.
Fed-hater's logic is really simple: Nadal is allowed to be pre-peak but
Fed is not allowed to be past-peak. Actually, Fed's fans should take
that as a compliment, because Fed is able to stay peak forever. :-)
Ali Asoag
>>> ability to beat him regularly....? You can't be that dumb?
>>>
>>> Whether Roger plays a 'prettier' game or has more shots than Rafa is not
>>> is better on all surfaces. The main reason for that is Roger plays the
>>> matches on Rafa's terms - ie from the baseline. The surface makes no
>>> difference in today's game - Rafa is the best baseline player so starts
>>> fave v Roger every time imo.
>>
>> Been the better player needs to translate to better result in slams against
>> all comers.
>> I can say the same thing about Krajicek's best been better than Sampras.
>> Sampras
>> played the match on Krajicek's own term from the front court on grass and
>> fast indoor
>> court and hard court and Krajicek own Sampras at their peak between 93 to
>> 99.
>>
>>>
>>> The 2-1 Wimbledon record is misleading as Rafa was very green, but even so
>>> would have won 2007 final if he did better in the t/b's (Roger won them
>>
>> Rubbish, Nadal was near or at his peak since he was 19.
>
> please, rafa was much better overall in 08 than 06.
And what do you think, was Fed 2008 better or Fed 2006? ;-)
(I am just wondering whether I will get an honest answer ...)
Ali Asoag
I never heard something like Laver was better than Emerson because he
won 3 of 4 Slams against Emerson. What I read so far is, Laver was
better because he won 2xCYGS. H2H is not an indication for someone being
better someone else. It may be used when the records are equal ...
Ali Asoag
Just to remember: This term "1-off" was invented by Whisper to defend
his boy Sampras, saying Kraijeck won only once against Pete so it's not
enough to say he was better than Pete. That's okay to me. But at the
same time Whisper (and of course you as well) insist on Nadal was better
than Fed even on grass and HC with Nadal having won just once. Beautiful
logic, no?
Ali Asoag
> On 10/6/2010 2:50 AM, AliAsoag wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 3:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2010 12:48 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>> End of the day K only beat Sampras in a slam just 1 time in his whole
>>>>> career. Nobody draws conclusions from 1-off matches. Could be due
>>>>> to bad
>>>>> chicken?
>>>
>>>> But NAdal "owns" Fed beating him once on HC and grass whereas Fed beat
>>>> him twice on grass? LOL LOL Whisper is really the dumbest poster
>>>> here in
>>>> RST. Only TT could maybe compete.
>>>
>>> Fed& Rafa have played more slam finals against each other than any 2
>>> players in history. It shows how delusional Fedfuckers are to describe
>>> all their matches as '1-off'.
>>>
>>> ; )
>>
>> No, your comments show how delusional you must be about Sampras
>> getting surpassed by Fed. How sad must you be to ignore one match on
>> HC as "1-off" and to ignore 2-1 edge of Fed, and to misuse the 3-0
>> clay edge of Nadal for everything. Nadal himself said it, and
>> according to him, you are really stupid and don't know anything about
>> tennis.
>
>
> You must realize Rafa is talking about Roger's achievements & not his
> ability to beat him regularly....? You can't be that dumb?
He said someone is stupid saying he was better than Roger.
> Whether Roger plays a 'prettier' game or has more shots than Rafa is not
> the issue. I've seen Rafa & Roger at their best
When was it (that both were peak at same time)?
> & to me it's clear Rafa
> is better on all surfaces.
You don't believe this yourself, do you?
> The main reason for that is Roger plays the
> matches on Rafa's terms - ie from the baseline. The surface makes no
> difference in today's game - Rafa is the best baseline player so starts
> fave v Roger every time imo.
Even in this case: That would only say Nadas was a better baseliner than
Fed. But overall, Fed is superior.
> The 2-1 Wimbledon record is misleading as Rafa was very green,
Whenever Nadal lost, he was green. Great argument!
> but even
> so would have won 2007 final if he did better in the t/b's (Roger won
> them all & that saved his arse in 5 sets).
Woulda, shoulda, coulda ... Boring!
And please don't forget to mention Nadal won AO2009 against declining
Fed in 5 sets. Same happend in Wimby 2008. Why not say "that saved
Rafa's arse in 5 sets)? How come that Rafa won against Fed "easily" on
clay but struggled against past-peak Fed on HC and grass?
> The denial of Fedfuckers in rst is truly breathtaking. '1-off' losses my
> arse.
The 1-off theory was your argument to defend your boy Sampras! Just to
remember ... But your boy needs that, he failed so consistently on a
surface like no other #1 in the whole tennis history. Embarrassing.
Ali Asoag
Desperate?
Ali Asoag
> Whisper wrote:
>> On 10/6/2010 2:53 AM, AliAsoag wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 3:51 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/2010 8:38 AM, john wrote:
>>>> No, as Rafa is 5 yrs younger a essentially a junior player when Fed was
>>>> mopping up v clowns 2003-2006.
>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise it is difficult to justify Sampras
>>>>> been
>>>>> greater than Krajicek when they faced one another during the peak when
>>>>> Samrpas
>>>>> trailed 2:6 in h2h.
>>>>
>>>> Sampras/Krajicek is 4-6 h2h, with many matches won by K in 3rd set
>>>> t/b's. However the obvious difference is they only played in slams
>>>> twice, both won 1 each& both in Q/F's. This h2h has zero historical
>>>> significance - except to Fedfuckers ; )
>>>
>>> Wow, Whisper is capable to interpret an H2H! Here he does not just
>>> insist on the 6-4 edge of Kraijeck over Sampras, he breaks it down to
>>> Slams, non-slams etc. He just needs to apply this to the NAdal-Fed
>>> H2H, then he would be a better tennis looker.
>>
>>
>> I've always said Fed v Rafa tune-up h2h is irrelevant. You're thinking
>> of TT.
>>
>>
>
> Alibaba rarely knows what he's talking about.
You made a typo: "really" should have been written ...
> After Nadal's USO title john/alibaba types are the best fedfans have to
> offer...hilarious.
Nadal's USO win was okay, nothing to lament. But it's laughable how
Nadal's bitch TT has been trying to make up this to GOAT stuff. LOL
Whisper
I can't recall any interesting piece of tennis insight from you over the
yrs.....?
Seems all you do is call others trolls.
Whisper
> On 10/6/2010 7:54 PM, bob wrote:
>> fed won fully 10 slams before rafa really matured into the adult
>> player he is.
>
> Interesting: Nadal's peak happened to begin just when Fed started
> declining at the beginning of 2008.
BS. If no Rafa Fed would have won FO/WIM/USO that yr.
Whisper
> On 10/6/2010 4:26 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>
>> But Rafa is 5 yrs younger & surely not at peak when Fed was racking up
>> most of his slams 2003-2006 v complete morons?
>
> Why do you always need these "but's"? If you say Rafa is 5 years younger
> thus not at peak during Fed's peak, why not say Fed has been past-peak
> when Nadal is peak and that's why Nadal could beat Fed some times?
Because Rafa has always had the wood on Roger from day 1 - 1st match in
2004 when Roger was No.1 & young Rafa thrashed him 63 63 on HC, not clay.
>
> And, LOL "Fed racking up most of his Slams 2003-2006":
> 1) I guess, you mean Nadal has been peak since 2007 and Fed's peak was
> 2003-2006?
> 2) Then: How many did Nadal won since then, and how many did Fed? I'll
> tell you: Both won 7 Slams since 2007. Not bad for a past-peak Fed and
> too bad for a peak Nadal, no?
> 3) So: conclusion must be: Fed >> Nadal.
Fed cannot be 'post peak' if he's ranked No.1, reaching every slam final
& only losing to Rafa. He's always lost to Rafa.
>
>> If Roger beats Roddick in 4 slam finals in 1 yr we can't conclude
>> anything as they were all 1-off wins?
>
> If that only happens once, yes.
Really?
wow
Whisper
>>> Been the better player needs to translate to better result in slams
>>> against
>>> all comers.
>>> I can say the same thing about Krajicek's best been better than Sampras.
>>> Sampras
>>> played the match on Krajicek's own term from the front court on grass
>>> and
>>> fast indoor
>>> court and hard court and Krajicek own Sampras at their peak between
>>> 93 to
>>> 99.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't because they never played in a slam final, thus there is no
>> evidence. You can't extrapolate q/f & tune-up results to slam finals.
>> Fed v Rafa have 7 slam finals across all surfaces - plenty of evidence.
>
> Desperate?
Just simple facts;
Fed v Rafa in slam finals : 7
Sampras v Krajicek in slam finals : 0