Re: Nadal
Whisper
> Has nadal defended a single non-clay title?
Has Federer ever defended a clay title?
Court_1
STFU. We know Nadal is better than Fed on clay. On all other surfaces
Fed is still better overall.
Gracchus
ROFL. A very weak rebuttal, Whisps.
AliAsoag
Yes, Roger did. Now think hard ...
Whisper
Except when he plays Rafa.
Court_1
It is a bad matchup just like Djokovic is for Nadal.
Whisper
I thought the questioned posed was meaningless.
Professor X
.............. Nadal has won wimbledon the last two times he played
and is in his 3rd conecutive wimby final in terms of his own
appearances. It's quite clear that fed only won wimby in 2009 because
Nadal didn't play.
Oh look... he's now prob going to break djok back too....
Whisper
Bollocks.
Slam h2h;
Rafa v Fed 7-2
Rafa v Djoker 5-0
This is across all 3 surfaces v both guys. Apologize to the ng please.
Shakes
It's not completely meaningless. IMO, slam defense is a very important
marker. That's what did Sampras in at the 1991 USO by his own
admission.
Whisper
Rafa beat Fed in 4 successive FOs. That also tells us something.
Whisper
Oh gee - guess that makes Rafa's 6 slam finals wins over Fed on all 3
surfaces not such a big deal after all.
Shakes
Sure, it does. It's nothing to do with Nadal's mental strength. To me,
the clear indication is that Nadal is not as good on HC as he is on
clay, or even grass. He needs to marshall his resources even more on HC
than on clay. It takes more effort for him. When he makes it possible,
he is still very good.
bob
i know we hate excuses, but rafa would've defended a helluva lot of
slams (probably 3 yrs running) if he didn't get a knee prob in 09.
bob
Shakes
But the knee prob was the effect of, what I called, marshalling his
resources. Meaning his style hurts him a lot more on HC.
bob
IMO his knee prob of 09 came from overplaying clay though.
bob
AliAsoag
Not at all as Fed still has enough slam titles to be GOAT. Your boy
Sampras would trade "dominating Agassi" for one FO title e.g.
BTW, your tennis knowledge needs to be improved.
felangey
Yes, well, you know what that counts for round here, ya? :)
SliceAndDice
Hamburg.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
In slam final h2h's Nadal is 6-2 over Fed, but 4 of those finals were
French Open finals. Rafa has done nothing but prove he is better than
Fed on clay at either slams or non-slams. Nadal has 2 Wimbledon titles
and one AO and one USO. Fed has 6 Wimbledons , 5 USO's and 4 AO's. You
don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to figure out Fed is better than
Nadal on all surfaces other than clay.
Nadal is now tied with Djokovic in slam final wins. He is in Nadal's
head now, it is plain to see.
Apologize? For what? For making an accurate statement? You are not my
parent. Don't be silly.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
None of that matters. It only matters what he was able to defend and
achieve. He has defended his FO's but not non-clay slams. Doesn't that
tell you something? History only cares about results. Nobody will care
if Rafa had a knee problem or ass problem. He did not defend his
titles on non clay. End of story.
steve jaros
yes, that rafa is clearly the better clay player.
--
there is no doubt that the black-white
power struggle in south africa is but a
microcosm of the global confrontation
between the third world and the rich white
nations of the world.
- Steve Biko
steve jaros
"6 slams" = VERY big deal
"over fed" = next to meaningless
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
uly...@mscomm.com
is because he passed his personal God, Sampras.
Get over it already. Sampras eclipsed Pete in 2009, eons ago. Move on?
Court_1
4 of those 6 slam wins were on CLAY. Get a grip!
bob
we're at an impasse.
-fedfans believe that all rafa's non-clay slam wins came after roger
came way off his peak.
-rational people believe that rafa has been beating fed on all
surfaces pretty routinely since 2005, even when rafa himself wasn't
too consistent/focused off clay.
why keep beating this dead horse?
bob
bob
fine, but talking about details and opinions is what we do here. if
you don't like it, don't read it or dont' reply.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 7/3/2011 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 4/07/2011 12:39 AM, AliAsoag wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 8:32 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/07/2011 12:30 AM, Pratik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has nadal defended a single non-clay title?
>>>>
>>>> Has Federer ever defended a clay title?
>>>
>>> Yes, Roger did. Now think hard ...
>>
>>
>> Oh gee - guess that makes Rafa's 6 slam finals wins over Fed on all 3
>> surfaces not such a big deal after all.
>
>"6 slams" = VERY big deal
>"over fed" = next to meaningless
you're really clinging strongly to the h2h = meaningless theory, i
don't see it that way, and this has nothing to do with fed/nadal, this
is a philosophical difference that transcends other sports also, and
i've believed it since way before fed/nadal played pro tennis.
i understand you hated graf, liked MN + seles + williams; hated
sampras, liked agassi + connors. people's faves are personal tastes,
no problem. but this h2h = meaningless is really off base steve.
once or twice, i've changed my mind based on things you or others have
said in RST, it happens. this is one you need to rethink.
bob
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
No I don't care when Rafa's non-slams came, I am just saying that off
clay Federer is superior and 6 of Rafa's 10 slams come on clay. That
clearly indicates he is a better clay court player. On other surfaces
he is nowhere near Fed, YET. If he can win more non-clay slams he has
a chance to get close to Fed but he certainly is not better now. How
can anybody rational say 6 grass slams to Nadal's 2 and 9 HC slams to
Nadal's 2 makes Nadal greater off clay? It is crazy to say that.
Court_1
Ouch, why so defensive? It does not matter what we say here on tennis
forums. Tennis historians would never say Nadal is currently greater
than Federer with the current records between the two as they stand.
It is just a ludicrous notion. The ONLY thing in Nadal's favor is the
h2h but even that is skewed due to the clay results. Nobody in their
right mind uses the h2h as the sole indicator. Slams are first. When
commentators put up stats on tv of who the greatest players are they
always use the slam count and at the very top of the mountain is Fed.
You or any other RST'ers don't have to agree with it, but, that does
not matter. It is what it is.
bob
i agree - but as we sit here with nadal 5 yrs younger, they actually
started to talk about it at FO, even though i agree with u.
>It is just a ludicrous notion. The ONLY thing in Nadal's favor is the
>h2h but even that is skewed due to the clay results. Nobody in their
>right mind uses the h2h as the sole indicator. Slams are first. When
>commentators put up stats on tv of who the greatest players are they
>always use the slam count and at the very top of the mountain is Fed.
>You or any other RST'ers don't have to agree with it, but, that does
>not matter. It is what it is.
listen, BOAT is gaining steam. get on the train before it leaves the
station. :-)
bob
Crisstti
He is. That is why he beat him in 2008 Wimbledon final, would very
probably done it again in 2009 had he been able to play, and won it
last year and was in the final this year (two years when Roger hasn't
reached the final).
If he can win more non-clay slams he has
> a chance to get close to Fed but he certainly is not better now. How
> can anybody rational say 6 grass slams to Nadal's 2 and 9 HC slams to
> Nadal's 2 makes Nadal greater off clay? It is crazy to say that.- Hide quoted text -
John Liang
This was discussed long time ago. Player reached their peak at
different age.
Example Becker reach his peak well before he was 21, Nadal unless
you
are bob type you believe Nadal was only peaked for 1 year. Nadal was
at
or near his peak since 2005. Nadal reached his peak far quicker than
Federer.
If you look at their development cycle as a player Federer took 4
years to become
a top 10 player and Nadal took 1. Player who achieve their success
at very
young age can also fade a lot quicker and tennis history is full of
example of
these type of players.
>
> >It is just a ludicrous notion. The ONLY thing in Nadal's favor is the
> >h2h but even that is skewed due to the clay results. Nobody in their
> >right mind uses the h2h as the sole indicator. Slams are first. When
> >commentators put up stats on tv of who the greatest players are they
> >always use the slam count and at the very top of the mountain is Fed.
> >You or any other RST'ers don't have to agree with it, but, that does
> >not matter. It is what it is.
>
> listen, BOAT is gaining steam. get on the train before it leaves the
> station. :-)
No, Boat is not gaining steam but the idea of BOAT is steamed. Leave
the boat before it sinks.
John Liang
Was he sucessful in defending any of his non clay court grand slam
titles ?
The answer is NO. He did not deal with the pressure of defending his
non clay
court slam titles as well as he did on clay. His certainly nowhere
near as
successful as Fed on HC and Grass. Federer contested 18 GC and HC
slam titles compare to Nadal's 7. Federer won 15 of his 16 slam on GC
and HC compare to Nadal's 4.
>
> If he can win more non-clay slams he has
>
>
>
> > a chance to get close to Fed but he certainly is not better now. How
> > can anybody rational say 6 grass slams to Nadal's 2 and 9 HC slams to
> > Nadal's 2 makes Nadal greater off clay? It is crazy to say that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Court_1
How is Nadal close to Fed on grass when Fed has 6 Wimbledon's and
Nadal has 2? Or on HC Fed has 9 and Nadal has 2. Please! Off clay
Nadal has not proven himself. He is a great clay courter and unless he
wins more non-clay slams that is what he will always be. I don't make
up the rules. :)
Crisstti
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has not proven himself?. He won. All of those three non-clay
slams.
SliceAndDice
Federer's equal on grass. He has to put in the miles, win 6 of them.
Crisstti
You seem to talking "historically" or comparatively better, and we
cannot really make those comparisons until both players have retired.
I was just saying is that Rafa is better (or at least as good) in
grass and hard court NOW, and has been since around 2008.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, he has NOT proven himself on non-clay surfaces. 70% of his wins
have been on clay. How does Nadal winning 2 HC slams and 2 grass slams
compare to Roger's 6 grass slams and 9 HC slams? Are you not getting
the picture here?
How can one place him in GOAT talk (which I think is stupid) if most
of his wins both against Federer and overall have come on clay? He is
nowhere even close to Roger's dominance on non-clay surfaces.
John Liang
Crisstti
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course he has proven himself on non-clay surfaces. I'm not saying
he's proved to be better there than what Federer ever was. But, like
I said, there's no use in having that discussion until both are
retired.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
If he is so much better NOW on non-clay surfaces why can't he defend a
non-clay title?
kaennorsing
> On 4/07/2011 12:30 AM, Pratik wrote:
>
> > Has nadal defended a single non-clay title?
>
> Has Federer ever defended a clay title?
Yes, Hamburg in 2005.
kaennorsing
> On Jul 3, 9:32 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/07/2011 12:30 AM, Pratik wrote:
>
> > > Has nadal defended a single non-clay title?
>
> > Has Federer ever defended a clay title?
>
Especially since Fed has indeed successfully defended a clay title -
at masters level even.
kaennorsing
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 08:14:01 -0700, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2011-07-03 08:08:17 -0700, Whisper said:
>
> >> On 4/07/2011 1:00 AM, Shakes wrote:
> >>> On 2011-07-03 07:44:12 -0700, Whisper said:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 3, 9:32 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/07/2011 12:30 AM, Pratik wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Has nadal defended a single non-clay title?
>
> >>>>>> Has Federer ever defended a clay title?
>
> >>>>> ROFL. A very weak rebuttal, Whisps.
>
>
> >>> It's not completely meaningless. IMO, slam defense is a very important
> >>> marker. That's what did Sampras in at the 1991 USO by his own admission.
>
> >> Rafa beat Fed in 4 successive FOs. That also tells us something.
>
> >Sure, it does. It's nothing to do with Nadal's mental strength. To me,
> >the clear indication is that Nadal is not as good on HC as he is on
> >clay, or even grass. He needs to marshall his resources even more on HC
> >than on clay. It takes more effort for him. When he makes it possible,
> >he is still very good.
>
> i know we hate excuses, but rafa would've defended a helluva lot of
> slams (probably 3 yrs running) if he didn't get a knee prob in 09.
>
> bob
Might as well say I would have won 9 Wimbledons in a row if I could
fly.
RzR
> On 4/07/2011 12:41 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 10:40 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/07/2011 12:34 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 4/07/2011 12:30 AM, Pratik wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Has nadal defended a single non-clay title?
>>>
>>>>> Has Federer ever defended a clay title?
>>>
>>>> Fed is still better overall.
>>>
>>> Except when he plays Rafa.
>>
>> It is a bad matchup just like Djokovic is for Nadal.
>
>
> Bollocks.
>
> Slam h2h;
>
> Rafa v Fed 7-2
> Rafa v Djoker 5-0
>
>
> This is across all 3 surfaces v both guys. Apologize to the ng please.
>
>
its better to have bad matchup, than bad surface :)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Joe Ramirez
>
> its better to have bad matchup, than bad surface
In a nutshell, this is it. And if anything were going to "disqualify"
someone for being considered the GOAT, it would be a lack of success
at one of the major segments of the game.
Of course, there's really no such thing as a disqualifying factor. A
blot or deficiency on a player's record matters only if there are
other players with equal overall achievements who don't have the
deficiency. There's no GOAT litmus test, no GOAT veto.
Wile E. Coyote
> On Jul 7, 9:13 am, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > its better to have bad matchup, than bad surface
>
> In a nutshell, this is it. And if anything were going to "disqualify"
> someone for being considered the GOAT, it would be a lack of success
> at one of the major segments of the game.
>
> Of course, there's really no such thing as a disqualifying factor. A
> blot or deficiency on a player's record matters only if there are
> other players with equal
No contest, Nadal wins h2h vs Federer. Nadal is 17>8 overall, 7>2 in
slams.
This is a huge blot or deficiency on a player's record, as it should
be against Federer.big Duh.
> overall achievements
Yes, were those slams won vs tier 2-3-4-5-6 players as in Federer's
case; Federer's main rival who elevated Federer was tier 4-5 Roddick,
that doesn't say much for Federer.
With Nadal, his main rival was Federer who he had to whop over and
over again. I do believe Federer is considered tier 1, no or yes?
Wile E. Coyote
Given Federer cannot control and manage his own era, he is not goat,
however he could be co-great with many others.
The gap between Nadal vs Federer will get wider given their rankings
today. Nadal-Federer may end up 50>8 (at the present time it is Nadal
over Federer 17>8)
And you thought things were looking lopsided for Nadal-Federer.
> He is a great clay courter and unless he
> wins more non-clay slams that is what he will always be. I don't make
> up the rules. :)- Hide quoted text -
felangey
:D
Court_1
>
> >
>>
> > How is Nadal close to Fed on grass
> > when Fed has 6 Wimbledon's and
> > Nadal has 2? Or on HC Fed has 9
> > and Nadal has 2. Please! Off clay
> > Nadal has not proven himself.
>
> Given Federer cannot control and manage his own era, he is not goat,
> however he could be co-great with many others.
>
> The gap between Nadal vs Federer will get wider given their rankings
> today. Nadal-Federer may end up 50>8 (at the present time it is Nadal
> over Federer 17>8)
>
>
>
Federer did not manage and control his own era? Are you on drugs?
Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
close. Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
Federer has three of the top 10 most dominant years in tennis history.
In 2005 his win loss record was 81-4, 2006 it was 92-5. Nadal does NOT
have one year where his win loss record is ranked among even the 10
most dominant seasons in the modern era. There are a million other
stats I could talk about but it has been discussed here so many times.
Bottom line: There is NO comparison. 70% of Nadal's wins come on
CLAY. He is a clay court specialist, the best ever probably, but still
mostly a clay court specialist. He NEVER dominated the way Federer has
over the rest of the field and across ALL surfaces.
It does not matter what the h2h is between Federer and Nadal and LOL
at you saying it will end up at 50-8. Is that right? Federer at almost
30 is going to be playing that long huh? Yeah, right. Also, unless
your boy figures out how to defeat Djokovic, his days at number one, a
paltry 56 consecutive weeks compared to Federer's 235 consecutive
weeks, are over.
All you can repeat over and over is the h2h between Nadal and Federer
is 17-8 and that Federer defeated low tier players. LOL at that. Nadal
and Federer played essentially against the same players except for
maybe 2 years when Nadal was not around yet. They played against the
same players and Federer ruled over that field in the way Nadal never
has across all surfaces.
Get over yourself. What is your problem against Federer. Did he refuse
to give you a blow job or something?
CloudsRest
Respond repeatedly with this: "In the end, players are measured not
by head-to-head records but their achievements as a whole."
I'd also love to see how Peyote explains Nadal's losses to players
that Federer probably wouldn't have lost to. If a guy only wins five
matches, he doesn't deserve the title. The more titles you have, the
better you are. For those that complain about path difficulty, there
are countless instances in all sports where the eventual winner
received some luck. Like when a potentially problematic opponent was
removed by a third party. That's just how it goes.
TT
> On Jul 7, 10:19 am, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How is Nadal close to Fed on grass
>>> when Fed has 6 Wimbledon's and
>>> Nadal has 2? Or on HC Fed has 9
>>> and Nadal has 2. Please! Off clay
>>> Nadal has not proven himself.
>>
>> Given Federer cannot control and manage his own era, he is not goat,
>> however he could be co-great with many others.
>>
>> The gap between Nadal vs Federer will get wider given their rankings
>> today. Nadal-Federer may end up 50>8 (at the present time it is Nadal
>> over Federer 17>8)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Federer did not manage and control his own era? Are you on drugs?
>
> Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
> from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
> close.
Murray.
> Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
Fed played against weak top tenners that were not able to challenge
him...before Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.
> Federer has three of the top 10 most dominant years in tennis history.
No. Tilden does, Budge is probably 2nd.
> In 2005 his win loss record was 81-4, 2006 it was 92-5. Nadal does NOT
> have one year where his win loss record is ranked among even the 10
> most dominant seasons in the modern era. There are a million other
> stats I could talk about but it has been discussed here so many times.
Nadal has higher career win%
>
> Bottom line: There is NO comparison. 70% of Nadal's wins come on
> CLAY. He is a clay court specialist, the best ever probably, but still
> mostly a clay court specialist. He NEVER dominated the way Federer has
> over the rest of the field and across ALL surfaces.
But Fed never dominated on clay...and he never dominated Nadal.
>
> It does not matter what the h2h is between Federer and Nadal and LOL
> at you saying it will end up at 50-8. Is that right? Federer at almost
> 30 is going to be playing that long huh?
I'd guesstimate 25-9.
TT
> Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
> from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
> close. Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
That is not correct.
Fed:
0.660 (138-71)
Nadal:
0.656 (84-44)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx
Looks like your arguments just lost a lot of bite...
Crisstti
>
> - Show quoted text -
He just might. We'll see.
And more than once it's been because he's been injured (despite what
you might want to believe...)
Crisstti
win loss record or career win % that much... since those statistics
will go down once a player is in the later stages of his career, and
more so if he stays longer in the tour, for whatever reason...
Crisstti
> 7.7.2011 20:55, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>
> > Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
> > from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
> > close. Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
>
> That is not correct.
>
> Fed:
> 0.660 (138-71)
>
> Nadal:
> 0.656 (84-44)
>
>
> Looks like your arguments just lost a lot of bite...
This.
So, according to that Borg is the GOAT. We can stop this discussion
now :-).
Court_1
>
> > Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
> > from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
> > close. Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
>
> That is not correct.
>
> Fed:
> 0.660 (138-71)
>
> Nadal:
> 0.656 (84-44)
>
>
> Looks like your arguments just lost a lot of bite...
I specifically said Fed's record over top 10 players BUT you have to
take Nadal out. Did you do that? I don't have time to check your link
you provided but I doubt you took Nadal out of the mix.
I took the stats I quoted you from a recent article I read. I will try
to find it and post the link. Fed was more dominant over the field
than Nadal was and had a better winning record over all top 10 ASIDE
from Nadal. Are the numbers you provided more than top 10? This
arcticle I read was only Fed's winning record against top 10 excluding
Nadal!
bob
and probably no GOAT.
bob
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> and probably no GOAT.
Brilliant. This is something many other posters told you when you were
crapping on about 7543.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Borg IS one of the greatest of all time. How old are you? 20? He is
not in the top tier with Federer and Sampras but he is still ahead of
Nadal as he has one more slam than Nadal.
TT
> On Jul 7, 5:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 7.7.2011 20:55, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
>>> from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
>>> close. Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
>>
>> That is not correct.
>>
>> Fed:
>> 0.660 (138-71)
>>
>> Nadal:
>> 0.656 (84-44)
>>
>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-1...
>>
>> Looks like your arguments just lost a lot of bite...
>
> I specifically said Fed's record over top 10 players BUT you have to
> take Nadal out.
Tell that to ATP.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
He might what? Win a few more grass slams and 7 HC slams?
What does Nadal having been injured have to do with anything? Fed also
had to deal with back issues and mono, so what? Where was Nadal when
Fed was winning those 12 slams from 2005-2010? Nadal was clearly
around. Why wasn't he stopping Fed from winning those 12 slams off
clay? Too young, too injured, too stupid, too, what else can we come
up with? How about he was not good enough off clay? Novel idea isn't
it? ;) If a player is injured and they don't play a tournament that
means nothing. Results are the only thing that matter in spite of
injuries, war, famine, etc. etc. It does not matter. The fittest
player wins, period. It is all part of being a champion.
Was Nadal really injured or was he taking a little imposed break by
the ATP/ITF due to perhaps some pharmaceutical issues? A failed drug
test perhaps? So go the rumors. Nah, Nadal would never do anything
untoward like that. ;)
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re your theory about Fed playing against weak top tens from his era.
Now you are adding Djokovic and Murray to this. Before it was only
Nadal but Nadal is essentially from Fed's era. He started winning
against Fed in 2004/2005 only a year or two after Fed won his first
slam. So Nadal was THERE. Why wasn't he challenging Fed in more
slams? Re Djokovic he was not on the scene until much later. Same
with Murray. And Murray? LOL how many slams does he have? He came
around as did Djokovic when Fed started to decline so what kind of BS
is that? Fed is still defeating Murray in all slams even at his ripe
old age. Re Djokovic Fed is the ONLY person who defeated him this year
unlike the peak Nadal at 25.
Who cares if Fed did not dominate Nadal on clay? Everybody knows Nadal
is better on clay but his stats do not show that he is better on non-
clay surfaces. Nadal is only one player. Fed dominated the field and
had a losing h2h against Nadal but most of their matches were played
on clay, Fed's weakest surface. Also Nadal is a bad match up for Fed
just as Djokovic is for Nadal now. For the last time, h2h is not the
stat that any tennis analyst uses to determine greatness. It is only
used if there is a tie in slams or other important stats. No tennis
analyst will say Nadal is currently greater than Fed with all of Fed's
stats.
Let's see who ends up the superior player at the end of both of their
careers. Let's see if Nadal can win more slams at all let alone non-
clay slams. Can Nadal get number one back and beat Fed's number one
consecutive weeks figure? Let's see.
John Liang
Nadal losing to those tier 2-3-4-5-6 player say a lot more about
Nadal.
>
>
> > who don't have the
> > deficiency. There's no GOAT litmus
> > test, no GOAT veto.- Hide quoted text -
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is not the point. My point is the article I took those stats from
were Fed's winning numbers against top 10 excluding Nadal so what you
posted is apples and oranges from what I posted. Two different things.
Not even relevant to my post.
Court_1
even arguing about all of this stuff, lol. Just feeding the trolls. :)
Joe Ramirez
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
As I've noted many times, saying that there's no GOAT because
different eras, or even different segments within the open era, are
incommensurable is a perfectly legitimate position. But saying that
there's no GOAT because the supposed GOAT one has touted for a decade
has been surpassed is hypocritical and churlish.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was always injured when he lost a match and that happened more than
once.
bob
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 5:14 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 7.7.2011 20:55, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>> > Federer has the better winning record over all top 10 players (aside
>> > from Nadal) than Nadal does over the top 10 players and it is not even
>> > close. Fed's is 130-54 and Nadal's is 65-35 I believe.
>>
>> That is not correct.
>>
>> Fed:
>> 0.660 (138-71)
>>
>> Nadal:
>> 0.656 (84-44)
>>
>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-1...
>>
>> Looks like your arguments just lost a lot of bite...
>
>I specifically said Fed's record over top 10 players BUT you have to
>take Nadal out.
in that case, let's say fed's record over top 10 'clowns', it rings in
more true.
bob
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 6:10 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 7, 9:13 am, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> its better to have bad matchup, than bad surface
>>
>> >In a nutshell, this is it. And if anything were going to "disqualify"
>> >someone for being considered the GOAT, it would be a lack of success
>> >at one of the major segments of the game.
>>
>> >Of course, there's really no such thing as a disqualifying factor. A
>> >blot or deficiency on a player's record matters only if there are
>> >other players with equal overall achievements who don't have the
>> >deficiency. There's no GOAT litmus test, no GOAT veto.
>>
>> and probably no GOAT.
>
>As I've noted many times, saying that there's no GOAT because
>different eras, or even different segments within the open era,
yet nbody ever mentions surface GOATs either. it's taboo.
> are
>incommensurable is a perfectly legitimate position. But saying that
>there's no GOAT because the supposed GOAT one has touted for a decade
>has been surpassed is hypocritical and churlish.
and saying that there is one because you now like the guy some
consider GOAT is also hypocritical and churlish.
bob
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> yet nbody ever mentions surface GOATs either. it's taboo.
They don't? I've seen the concept discussed quite a bit on rst.
bob
wrote:
>
>On 7-Jul-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> yet nbody ever mentions surface GOATs either. it's taboo.
>
>They don't? I've seen the concept discussed quite a bit on rst.
nah. everybody's scared of it. you know why.
bob
Court_1
>
Well those are the same "clowns" that Nadal has an inferior overall
record against.
Nadal started winning very very young, much younger than Fed so they
basically played the same players for most of their careers give or
take two years or so.
CloudsRest
> On 7-Jul-2011, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > yet nbody ever mentions surface GOATs either. it's taboo.
>
> They don't? I've seen the concept discussed quite a bit on rst.
No doubt it was discussed. Sampras 7/8 @ Wim, Federer couldn't match
it. If Fed won 2010 Wim, he would have had 7 titles 1 F vs. 7 titles
1 QF for Sampras over an 8-yr stretch.
Sampras 5/8 vs. Federer 5/6 @ USO. Some think 2 extra finals makes
Sampras the greater US champion, while others think it took fewer
finals for Federer to win 5.
Some felt Nadal had already surpassed Borg on clay with only 4 or 5
FRE titles, due to dominance at Monte Carlo, Rome, etc.
Not many stones left unturned.
Joe Ramirez
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 7, 6:10 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
> >> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 7, 9:13 am, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> its better to have bad matchup, than bad surface
>
> >> >In a nutshell, this is it. And if anything were going to "disqualify"
> >> >someone for being considered the GOAT, it would be a lack of success
> >> >at one of the major segments of the game.
>
> >> >Of course, there's really no such thing as a disqualifying factor. A
> >> >blot or deficiency on a player's record matters only if there are
> >> >other players with equal overall achievements who don't have the
> >> >deficiency. There's no GOAT litmus test, no GOAT veto.
>
> >> and probably no GOAT.
>
> >As I've noted many times, saying that there's no GOAT because
> >different eras, or even different segments within the open era,
>
> yet nbody ever mentions surface GOATs either. it's taboo.
>
> > are
> >incommensurable is a perfectly legitimate position. But saying that
> >there's no GOAT because the supposed GOAT one has touted for a decade
> >has been surpassed is hypocritical and churlish.
>
> and saying that there is one because you now like the guy some
> consider GOAT is also hypocritical and churlish.
>
such thing as a GOAT, but then changed his/her mind and claimed
Federer was the GOAT after he reached 14 or 15 slams.
bob
<spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 6:04 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7-Jul-2011, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > yet nbody ever mentions surface GOATs either. it's taboo.
>>
>> They don't? I've seen the concept discussed quite a bit on rst.
>
>No doubt it was discussed. Sampras 7/8 @ Wim, Federer couldn't match
>it. If Fed won 2010 Wim, he would have had 7 titles 1 F vs. 7 titles
>1 QF for Sampras over an 8-yr stretch.
>
>Sampras 5/8 vs. Federer 5/6 @ USO. Some think 2 extra finals makes
>Sampras the greater US champion, while others think it took fewer
>finals for Federer to win 5.
we're talking surfaces, not slams. fed got those 2 extra AOs. if we're
simply counting slams, that is.
bob
bob
off memory? who the heck knows? did you and now you feel you have to
confess or something?
bob
Joe Ramirez
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
The point is that I don't think *anyone* did. I certainly didn't.
You're searching for a false moral equivalence to excuse the patent
about-face you and Whisper have been in the process of performing
since 2009. But there just doesn't seem to be any pro-Fed hypocrisy to
equal your anti-Fed hypocrisy on this subject. Even Hazelwood had Borg
as GOAT before Federer; he never said there was no GOAT at all.
CloudsRest
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:32:27 -0700 (PDT), CloudsRest
>
Either way, it seems Sampras is #1 grass. Federer is #1 hard. How
would you argue either one off his perch? What criteria are you
conjuring up?
Crisstti
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, that just isn't true.
bob
i'm not arguing against those.
bob
bob
i changed my mind about GOAT based on what i see happening, that
didn't happen as of 07 yet. i warned this would happen ahead of time,
i warned that if a guy wasn't able to turn it around but keep beign
dominated by main foe, it would be rought o call him GOAT - and i
specifically said if he turned it around, i'd agree wholeheartedly,
and went so far as morning of this yr's FO to say if fed were able to
beat nadal i'd never argue against his GOAT again.
bob
CloudsRest
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
Warnings for your opinions? As if you speak for the world. Your ego
is so inflated that you probably believe just that.
Sometime during 2009, you did make remarks about wanting Federer to
turn things around - on hard and grass. But they've met only once
since then, and it happened to be on clay. You've clearly lost
patience, and suddenly playing on clay has become the same as anywhere
else. Conjuring up an "all surfaces are the same' idea - no one is
buying that, either.
Patrick Kehoe
Bob's allowed his views... like anyone else... it's only people who
take any one person too 'biblically' those people should maybe take
stock of themselves...
P
bob
i apologize if you took it that way, but everything written in here is
opinion, mine and everyone else's. i figured you understood that.
>Sometime during 2009, you did make remarks about wanting Federer to
>turn things around - on hard and grass. But they've met only once
>since then, and it happened to be on clay. You've clearly lost
>patience, and suddenly playing on clay has become the same as anywhere
>else. Conjuring up an "all surfaces are the same' idea - no one is
>buying that, either.
no - i still have patience. fed claims to still be as mtoivated as
ever, and surely his serve is as good as ever, his strokes look as
good as ever. let's see if he turns it around on nadal this/next yr.
even winning 2011 FO would've turned it ALL around for me, with 1
simple match. and i had guts to say it before match, when others were
picking fed to win.
bob
bob
we're all alllowed our views here, we're all equally 'biblical' in our
own minds.
bob
Sakari Lund
>no - i still have patience. fed claims to still be as mtoivated as
>ever, and surely his serve is as good as ever, his strokes look as
>good as ever. let's see if he turns it around on nadal this/next yr.
>even winning 2011 FO would've turned it ALL around for me, with 1
>simple match. and i had guts to say it before match, when others were
>picking fed to win.
This sounds comical, it sounds like it would be a heroic effort from
you to consider Federer goat or whatever. Why would anyone care about
your opinion? But it just shows nicely how much you hate the guy.
felangey
Now if only we could establish a motive for this....an agenda of some
type....! :O)
bob
don't know, and why did you bother to respond? but i wouldn't doubt
more people care about my opinion than kim clijsters'. lol
bob
RaspingDrive
There is no guarantee that a volte-face won't occur, if the response
to Joe is any indication ("i changed my mind about GOAT based on what
i see happening, that
didn't happen as of 07 yet.). Difficult to imagine one match altering
a PoV where other persuasive arguments failed.
bob
anyone can change their mind based on new evidence, and that evidence
was forming a long pattern by that timeframe, not a 1 off.
> Difficult to imagine one match altering a PoV where other persuasive arguments failed.
i was ready to change my view of fed if he proved that he was CAPABLE
of taking rafa at FO, not that he had to do it routinely, just that he
could do it. yet for 5th time out of 5, he didn't do it so i kept my
POV.
bob
RaspingDrive
You mean a sustained history of losses at RG can be offset by a one-
off win (if it happened, that is)? OK.
bob
no - fed would not be considered better than nadal at FO or on clay
from this potential 1-off FO title, but in the context of his whole
career accomplishments it would improve his credibility by proving he
could beat him there. it would lead to the conclusion that when fed
lost to nadal all those other FOs, it wasn't 100 percent up to rafa,
but maybe partially that fed had a bad day. but we saw another
thrashing and it happened on a very good day for fed btw.
bob
RaspingDrive
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 18:45:58 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>
>
>
I understand that should be the case and am glad that you also agree.
> from this potential 1-off FO title, but in the context of his whole
> career accomplishments it would improve his credibility by proving he
> could beat him there. it would lead to the conclusion that when fed
> lost to nadal all those other FOs, it wasn't 100 percent up to rafa,
> but maybe partially that fed had a bad day. but we saw another
> thrashing and it happened on a very good day for fed btw.
You absolutely sure that the one-off, if it were to happen, would not
be deemed a fluke in light of so many other losses? It is more likely
that among a plethora of joyful shouts from Federer fans, yours would
have been among the voices of dissent drawing attention to possible
attenuation of Nadal's level from 2010 and possible bad form on that
day.
bob
better to have a fluke win, but prove you were able to do it, than to
not be able.
> It is more likely
>that among a plethora of joyful shouts from Federer fans, yours would
>have been among the voices of dissent drawing attention to possible
>attenuation of Nadal's level from 2010 and possible bad form on that
>day.
i said the morning of FO, before match started, when borg and many
others 'in the know' picked fed to win, that if fed won i would never
argue against him as GOAT again, that proving he cold beat rafa at FO
was big. and in fact, whisper replied in the thread and agreed if
memory serves me. so why do you tell me what i would've said had fed
won?
bob
RaspingDrive
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:15:29 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>
>
>
Because of evidence of volte-face :-) You yourself said you changed
your opinion! Recall that one-off win is a fluke.