Nadal greater than Sampras for sure

[soccerfan777]

I missed the final. But hats off to Nadal. Now he has to win it 2 more times and surpass Court at AO

[Jason White]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> I missed the final. But hats off to Nadal. Now he has to win it 2 more times and surpass Court at AO

For sure? Sampras is superior than Nadal at 3 of the 4 slams. All the #1 stats, too.

[TT]

And the one slam which Rafa leads is 10 vs 0...
:-P

What if Rafa had won 2 AO and 1 USO instead vice versa: would that make
him a better player?
...If your answer is 'no' - then your 'superior at 3/4 slams' comparison
has a serious logical flaw.

[Jason White]

Sampras being better at 3 of 4 isn't up for debate. That's simply true. Whether that makes him the better tennis player than Nadal is for each person to decide. I think it's worth discussing, so I brought it up. I would consider Nadal's case to be stronger with 3-7-2-3 vs. 1-10-2-2.

[bob]

it's the low wimbledon count that's a flaw, not HC. not to worry,
everybody has some sort of flaw, even fed. were rafa to win another
wimbledon, or god forbid 2, it's go a long way to GOATness.

bob

[Jason White]

Tennis is mostly played on the hard surface. Can be mostly attributed to USTA control and influence. But 7 slams to 3 isn't insignificant. 5 year-end titles to 0 should be looked at also. We already knew Nadal is better on clay, ages ago. But how much can Nadal close the gap in other areas? Even Djokovic has advantages in these categories.

[soccerfan777]

And Laver is superior to whom at which of the 4 slams? Yet he is a solid GOAT candidate for many of you.

[TT]

Jason White kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 3:22:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 4:50:53 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> Jason White kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 2:27:
>>> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>>> I missed the final. But hats off to Nadal. Now he has to win it 2 more times and surpass Court at AO
>>>
>>> For sure? Sampras is superior than Nadal at 3 of the 4 slams.
>>
>> And the one slam which Rafa leads is 10 vs 0...
>> :-P
>>
>> What if Rafa had won 2 AO and 1 USO instead vice versa: would that make
>> him a better player?
>> ...If your answer is 'no' - then your 'superior at 3/4 slams' comparison
>> has a serious logical flaw.
>
> Sampras being better at 3 of 4 isn't up for debate. That's simply true. Whether that makes him the better tennis player than Nadal is for each person to decide.

Obviously that debate is nonsensical since Nadal would be better in this
comparison with 2 AOs and 1 USO which makes no sense.

I think it's worth discussing, so I brought it up.

Rafa has career golden slam while Pete doesn't. End of debate.

I would consider Nadal's case to be stronger with 3-7-2-3 vs. 1-10-2-2.
>

No. Better be extraordinary at something than mediocre at everything. At
least when it comes to sports records.

[soccerfan777]

1-10-2-2 is better than 2-0-7-5 for sure.

[Jason White]

It makes great sense. He maintains his clear advantage on clay, while being narrowing the deficit in other areas. In fact, it would be 6 vs 7 on hard courts. Basically equal to Sampras on hard, clearly better on clay, not as good on grass.

Career golden slam, so Baldy is now in the mix? That's interesting. So you do value balance more than you think. Or are you playing both sides? 1-1-1-1 or 4-0-0-0? One is balance, while the other is being extraordinary at one thing.

[bob]

in my book, much as i like nadal, i would have a hard time putting him
GOAT without another wimbledon, while fed has 7.

bob

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
> In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
> as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.

Fixed

[Carey]

A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.

[Gracchus]

Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.

[Guypers]

Absolutely, Lendl was desperate for a W win, no one cares for FO, except Guga and Ferrero?

[Carey]

I haven't actually been to "most of the world" , so far anyway, so I'll defer judgment.

[*skriptis]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Well if Federer was solid at FO (2-3 titles) or even had won CYGS,
Nadal would have no chance against him without huge, Laver, Borg
Wim numbers and similar achievements.

However, considering Federer's weak FO count, and the fact he's
not a single king at any of the slam, I think for Nadal, another
AO to complete double cgs and at least another Wim to make it 3,
and rest composed of e.g. 11 FO titles, would at min make them
co-gosts, even some giving it to Nadal.

For non 7543 believers that is.





--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Gracchus]

Then what's the basis for your statement that most of the world probably disagrees with your dislike of dirt? Lots of clay courts in S. America? Oh, but that's just hearsay. I haven't been there myself. We both know what we're really talking about, so no need to get cute about it.

[Carey]

Sounds like you didn't like my attempt at fair-mindedness. I wasn't that into it anyway. ;)

[Gracchus]

Sorry, I even get irked at myself when I catch myself being unnecessarily fair-minded. :)

[Court_1]

But what if Nadal can get to 19 winning a couple of more slams off clay? What if his end tally is 12 FOs, 3 Ws, 3 USO, 1 AO. It's not like he wouldn't have non-clay slams on his resume even though Federer has a better balance.

Carey is right, if Nadal somehow does get to 19, most of the world/tennis analysts will consider Nadal greater. Sad but true. I doubt Nadal will be able to get to 19 but the thing which is a bit worrying is that he's full of confidence, Djokovic is in the toilet at the moment and the younger players are useless as tits on a bull. So who knows really?

[Gracchus]

If he gets more slams off-clay, sure, that's a whole other story. Especially if he added a Wimbledon or two. Dustin, Darcis, Rosol...come on guys, get motivated. You are sorely needed.

[Carey]

Well, apparently the queen is skipping Queens, so that's a nice start.

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:22:31 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> If he gets more slams off-clay, sure, that's a whole other story. Especially if he added a Wimbledon or two. Dustin, Darcis, Rosol...come on guys, get motivated. You are sorely needed.

Nadal isn't playing Queens now. He withdrew. Who knows if he'll play Wimbledon. He's groaning about his knees on a grass surface already.

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:22:31 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> If he gets more slams off-clay, sure, that's a whole other story. Especially if he added a Wimbledon or two. Dustin, Darcis, Rosol...come on guys, get motivated. You are sorely needed.

Also, even though Federer is the favorite to win Wimbledon, what if he has a draw with Kyrgios and Cilic on his side for example? If those players are zoning they could knock him out.

[Gracchus]

Yes, I'm more worried about players of that sort than Stan or Murray the uber-capon. Djoke is such a headcase these days that he could easily lose early too.

[Carey]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:35:42 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:

Kyrgios is the one I'm worried about.

[SliceAndDice]

Or Zverev. He could be pretty good on this stuff too. Or even Raonic. He does not seem to be in great form. Grass is a surface ideal for upsets if one runs into a player who is hot and serving out of his skin. That is why Sampras and Fed's 7 Wimbys are so impressive.

[Court_1]

Yes, Zverev and Raonic too. It's not a given at all that Federer will win it.

[stephenJ]

IMO, the consensus is pretty clear: Whichever guy ends up with the most
slams is the GOAT.

Fed has three more, but Rafa has 5 years to erase that. Interesting
situation. And Joker is lurking.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[John Liang]

Yes, Federer does share the slam counts in USO and Wimbledon with other players but they are still records in Open era. Sampras and Federer are still regards as open era kings at USO and Wimbledon. That is two slams and two of the biggest slam of four. Actually if Nadal's number on the 3 other slams is more respectable than just 5 out of other 3 slam he would have a far better case. Federer has the best open era record at Wimbledon and USO, 2nd best at AO, that is better than Nadal's one trick pony type domination on clay.

[ahonkan]

Yes, a lot will depend on the draw. I think, for a change, Fed would be
more worried about Raonic, Kyrgios & Zverev than about the 'Big 3'. More
than likely, they may self-destruct before the QF-SF stage.

However good Rafa has been playing all year, it's important to remember
that every single of his title this year has been won on clay. And he has
been terrible the last 4 times he played at Wimbledon.

[Whisper]

I'd just like to reaffirm 7543 measures the value of individual slams,
so it's not the 'complete' picture of greatness.

I've always maintained things like calendar slam, non-calendar slam,
career slam, most wins at a single slam etc warrant 'bonus points'. I
just haven't turned my mind to it as it's very complex to work that into
the system fairly & encompasses 150 yrs of tennis. Obviously Djoker
deserves some bonus for holding all 4 slams at the same time, Rafa's 10
FO's warrants huge bonus as next best is 7 at a slam etc.

7543 is imo the perfect system to evaluate slams won on a stand-alone
basis.

In last few eras everyone plays AO for eg, but in Mac/Borg days nobody
did. To compare past era greats to today's stars it would be helpful to
eg remove AO from everyone's resume. It still wouldn't compensate for
the uniformity of surface today etc, but at least it would be a bit more
realistic.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

If we want to compensate and measure guys using 3 slams per era,
we should remove USO from this era, as it's a slam where two
greatest players ever haven't even met and that's been won by
likes of del Potro and Cilic in recent years. ;)
So.

13 Federer, Nadal
12 Sampras
11 Borg
10 Djokovic

[Whisper]

Exactly. if Rafa does somehow win Wimbledon he'll be almost unstoppable
at USO. In just a few weeks Rafa could well be sitting on 17 slams -
yikes! Be a huge turn around from a few weeks ago when very few thought
Rafa could catch Fed (aside from Jaros?).

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 1:38:23 AM UTC-4, ahonkan wrote:

> Yes, a lot will depend on the draw. I think, for a change, Fed would be
> more worried about Raonic, Kyrgios & Zverev than about the 'Big 3'. More
> than likely, they may self-destruct before the QF-SF stage.

True unless Nadal makes the later stages of the tournament and Federer has to play him. In that case it would be tough to pick between the two. Slight edge to Federer.

> However good Rafa has been playing all year, it's important to remember
> that every single of his title this year has been won on clay. And he has
> been terrible the last 4 times he played at Wimbledon.

Also true but remember Nadal almost won the AO which was quicker this year.
Nadal may not even play Wimbledon. It sounds like the bad knees excuse machine is starting to make the rounds.

[Whisper]

Yes, the slams so far this yr have been very interesting. Wimbledon may
top them all. Hope so.

Maybe Fed v Rafa will be tight 5 setter Rafa wins with lucky letcord in
the dark?

: )

[Whisper]

> ---


Yes, he's primed & would love to face Fed at Wimbledon I reckon.

[Court_1]

He may skip Wimbledon. He's already talking about his "bad knees" playing on grass.

We all hype up players when they win a slam and think they are going to win the next 10 slams but it rarely occurs that way especially for players 30+.

[Whisper]

You've been more bullish re Rafa catching Fed straight after AO than
anyone else (most had written him off), so credit for that insight.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Court_1]

I'm rooting for Fed on this one. I want to see that #8 Wimbledon. ;)

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:42:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:


> You've been more bullish re Rafa catching Fed straight after AO than
> anyone else (most had written him off), so credit for that insight.

He's three slams away still. Do slams grow on trees for 30+ year old players? Don't overhype. Wait until he wins a couple more first. What if the unthinkable (for you) happens and Federer wins #19 at Wimbledon? Then what happens to Nadal's slam chase?

After all this hype by their fan groups, Federer and Nadal will probably both lose early at Wimbledon.

[Whisper]

If that happens I have a feeling Fed may retire on the spot.

[Whisper]

Maybe. Wouldn't be a huge surprise. I would love to see Fed v Rafa at
least once at USO, so hoping that comes about.

[stephenJ]

On 6/14/2017 6:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:42:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>
>> You've been more bullish re Rafa catching Fed straight after AO than
>> anyone else (most had written him off), so credit for that insight.
>
> He's three slams away still. Do slams grow on trees for 30+ year old players? Don't overhype. Wait until he wins a couple more first. What if the unthinkable (for you) happens and Federer wins #19 at Wimbledon? Then what happens to > Nadal's slam chase?

Yes, not even a single slam is every guaranteed, and a player can stop
winning them at any time. Heck, who woulda guessed that after he became
the first guy to hold all four slams since Laver that a year later Joker
would hold none of them? Or that when Nadal won the 2014 FO that he
wouldn't win another for three years?

That's I've never predicted that Nadal will catch and surpass Federer,
I've just said he has a good chance to do so.

Then again, it can work the other way too, slams can come in bunches. In
August 2014, Serena was 33, had 17 slams, had lost before the QFs in the
previous three including at W, and the notion that she'd surpass Graf
seemed like a pipe-dream. Then she won the next four slams in a row.

Nadal and Joker both have literally years on Fed age-wise. That gives
both of them a real chance to catch him. And Fed keeps setting the
precedent. He recently confirmed for those guys that it does make sense
to stick around until 35 because you can win a slam at that age. If he
wins this USO, he'll prove you can do it at 36.

Very interesting situation. Again, nobody can counts slams before they
hatch, and so long as he has the most, Fed is the Man, the Open Era
GOAT, but if I were him I'd ... keep playing. :)



---

[Carey]

A reminder: Federer is *Thirty-Five*.

[bob]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:43:57 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:

>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>> > bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
>>> > > In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
>>> > > as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.
>>> >
>>> > Fixed
>>>
>>>
>>> A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
>>> I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.
>>
>> Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.
>

>Well if Federer was solid at FO (2-3 titles) or even had won CYGS,
> Nadal would have no chance against him without huge, Laver, Borg
> Wim numbers and similar achievements.
>
>However, considering Federer's weak FO count, and the fact he's
> not a single king at any of the slam, I think for Nadal, another
> AO to complete double cgs and at least another Wim to make it 3,
> and rest composed of e.g. 11 FO titles, would at min make them
> co-gosts, even some giving it to Nadal.
>
>For non 7543 believers that is.

nadal's big H2H over fed and his OG are nice tie breakers, and IMO
would put nadal ahead of fed with a tie in slams provided he can win
another wimbledon. but only 2 wimbledons is a flaw when fed, sampras,
laver, borg all have far more.

if nadal were to tie fed with 18 but no moare wimbledons, i'd likely
call it a draw at best. but if nadal were to get another wimbledon, i
could see him as GOAT with even 17 slams. this might be his best
chance to ever get that 3rd.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:05:06 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 3:51:47 PM UTC-7, Guypers wrote:

>> > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:32:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>> > > > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> > > > > > bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
>> > > > > > > In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
>> > > > > > > as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Fixed
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
>> > > > > I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.
>> > > >
>> > > > Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.
>> > >

>> > > Absolutely, Lendl was desperate for a W win, no one cares for FO, except Guga and Ferrero?
>> >
>> >
>> > I haven't actually been to "most of the world" , so far anyway, so I'll defer judgment.
>>
>> Then what's the basis for your statement that most of the world probably disagrees with your dislike of dirt? Lots of clay courts in S. America? Oh, but that's just hearsay. I haven't been there myself. We both know what we're really talking about, so no need to get cute about it.
>
>
>Sounds like you didn't like my attempt at fair-mindedness. I wasn't that into it anyway. ;)

nothing wrong with being fair, but in being fair, you should try to be
correct.

for ex, nice to say rosie o'donnell looks as good as ivanka trump, to
be fair" but...and nice to say cleveland was as good as golden state,
to be fair, but... :-)

let's be honest, wimbledon is the most important slam to win, and we
have pretty much most of the kings of tennis who said so. borg, fed,
mcenroe, lendl, becker, sampas - even rafa in his book.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:32:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> > > bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
>> > > > In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
>> > > > as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.
>> > >
>> > > Fixed
>> >
>> >
>> > A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
>> > I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.
>>
>> Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.
>

>But what if Nadal can get to 19 winning a couple of more slams off clay? What if his end tally is 12 FOs, 3 Ws, 3 USO, 1 AO. It's not like he wouldn't have non-clay slams on his resume even though Federer has a better balance.

that 3rd wimbledon is, IMO, crucial to a claim for nadal to be GOAT.
even if his mix isn't as good as fed's, with another wimbledon and the
H2H and OG he could overtake him with even 17 slams, and certainly 18.
but no wimbleodn? i don't see it easily.

but personally, i think he's the BOAT.

>Carey is right, if Nadal somehow does get to 19, most of the world/tennis analysts will consider Nadal greater. Sad but true. I doubt Nadal will be able to get to 19 but the thing which is a bit worrying is that he's full of confidence, Djokovic is in the toilet at the moment and the younger players are useless as tits on a bull. So who knows really?

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:37:51 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

i can only hope. :-)

bob

[John Liang]

Boat without a record of ever defending a non clay court slam and even a non clay court tournament.

[Carey]

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 8:36:02 PM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:

>
> Boat without a record of ever defending a non clay court slam and even a non clay court tournament.

Heh.


RST's little gaslighter will keep doin what he does best

[Jason White]

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:32:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >> > > bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
> >> > > > In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
> >> > > > as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.
> >> > >
> >> > > Fixed
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
> >> > I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.
> >>
> >> Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.
> >
> >But what if Nadal can get to 19 winning a couple of more slams off clay? What if his end tally is 12 FOs, 3 Ws, 3 USO, 1 AO. It's not like he wouldn't have non-clay slams on his resume even though Federer has a better balance.
>
> that 3rd wimbledon is, IMO, crucial to a claim for nadal to be GOAT.
> even if his mix isn't as good as fed's, with another wimbledon and the
> H2H and OG he could overtake him with even 17 slams, and certainly 18.
> but no wimbleodn? i don't see it easily.
>
> but personally, i think he's the BOAT.
>
>

> bob

Novak kicked boat and goat ass.

[Whisper]

On 17/06/2017 12:39 PM, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:32:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>>> bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
>>>>>> In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
>>>>>> as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
>>>> I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.
>>>
>>> Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.
>>
>> But what if Nadal can get to 19 winning a couple of more slams off clay? What if his end tally is 12 FOs, 3 Ws, 3 USO, 1 AO. It's not like he wouldn't have non-clay slams on his resume even though Federer has a better balance.
>
> that 3rd wimbledon is, IMO, crucial to a claim for nadal to be GOAT.
> even if his mix isn't as good as fed's, with another wimbledon and the
> H2H and OG he could overtake him with even 17 slams, and certainly 18.
> but no wimbleodn? i don't see it easily.
>
> but personally, i think he's the BOAT.
>

For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era. His best
game is superior to Fed's 'versatility' & Djoker's machine precision.
His physicality & mental superiority give him the clear edge.

Is he the all time boat? Well, any boat of an era can lay some claims
to that title.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Pelle Svanslös]

You can't make this equation work. On H2H basis, Rafa > Fed, Djok >
Rafa. But not Rafa > Djok.

On "career" basis, Rafa > Djok but not Rafa > Rogi.

> His physicality & mental superiority give him the clear edge.

Not when playing Dustin Brown.

> Is he the all time boat?

He's the least of all BOAT candidates. Sorry.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Whisper]

Why not? Their slam h2h is 9-4 in Rafa's favor - huge difference. More
than double. The only slam h2h Djoker leads is at AO, & that's only
1-0. Rafa could easily have won that 2012 final as he led 4-2 in 5th &
had an easy bh winner he missed that would have given him 5-2 lead.

AT USO Rafa beat Djoker in 2 finals in 4 sets.

Their overall h2h counting tune-ups is 26-24, reverse 1 results & it's
25-25. That's the basis for your claim Rafa 'can't make it work'? You
need to rethink this idea imo.

: )

>
> On "career" basis, Rafa > Djok but not Rafa > Rogi.
>
>> His physicality & mental superiority give him the clear edge.
>
> Not when playing Dustin Brown.

Fed's lost to a lot of clowns in slams too - Stakhovsky (ranked 116 at
the time) at Wimbledon 2013 when he was defending champion, Seppi at AO etc.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Its the wrong difference. If you want to compare BOAT staus, you don't
compare one player's best against one player's apprenticeship. You
compare peak v. peak.

So, post 2011 Rafa v. Djok at slams 4-4. Rafa is again pet surface
dependent, 3/4 of his wins are on clay.

The overall H2H 18-8 post 2011. Devastating.

If you actually saw any of their play during this period, this is the
one stat that characterises it all.

>
> Their overall h2h counting tune-ups is 26-24, reverse 1 results & it's
> 25-25. That's the basis for your claim Rafa 'can't make it work'? You
> need to rethink this idea imo.

I don't.

>>
>> On "career" basis, Rafa > Djok but not Rafa > Rogi.
>>
>>> His physicality & mental superiority give him the clear edge.
>>
>> Not when playing Dustin Brown.
>
> Fed's lost to a lot of clowns in slams too -

OTOH, he won a couple of more.

[John Liang]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:07:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 17/06/2017 12:39 PM, bob wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> > <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:32:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >>>>> bob kirjoitti 13.6.2017 klo 3:00:
> >>>>>> In my book, much as I like Federer, I would have a hard time putting him
> >>>>>> as GOAT without another French Open, while Rafa has 10.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A case could certainly be made that way, once Nadal has more Majors overall than Federer.
> >>>> I don't like the dirt, but most of the world probably disagrees with that.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it would be a very poor case. "Most of the world" knows Wimbledon is the king of slams whether they watch any matches on the dirt or not. It's just a fact.
> >>
> >> But what if Nadal can get to 19 winning a couple of more slams off clay? What if his end tally is 12 FOs, 3 Ws, 3 USO, 1 AO. It's not like he wouldn't have non-clay slams on his resume even though Federer has a better balance.
> >
> > that 3rd wimbledon is, IMO, crucial to a claim for nadal to be GOAT.
> > even if his mix isn't as good as fed's, with another wimbledon and the
> > H2H and OG he could overtake him with even 17 slams, and certainly 18.
> > but no wimbleodn? i don't see it easily.
> >
> > but personally, i think he's the BOAT.
> >
>
>
> For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era.

If he is boat then can you please explan non-boat like Federer and Djoker had superior slam record in 3 out of 4 slams, they both able to defend at least in two grand slam events AO, W, Federer also did it in USO. While the boat in this era Nadal could not come up with a single defense of a non clay court slam, let's drop a level not even a non clay court regular tournament. Clear boat of this era also won less matches than both Federer and Djoker in AO, W and USO, produced far weaker performance in the bluest of blue chip events of all three players.

>His best
> game is superior to Fed's 'versatility' & Djoker's machine precision.
> His physicality & mental superiority give him the clear edge.

So his best game is superior to both fed and djoker and give him a clear edge, that edge only appears to show up with result in FO but not in the other 3 slams, Nadal won 5 non clay court slams and other 11 and 17. So much for having an edge over the others when there is a differential of 6 non clay court slams and 12 non clay court slam compare to his main rivals.

>
> Is he the all time boat? Well, any boat of an era can lay some claims
> to that title.

Anyone with that sort of 'advantage' in 3 out of 4 slams can't be claim as boat.

[Whisper]

You're not very good at this debating thing.



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[John Liang]

One liner does not count as good reply.

[Carey]

John L, thanks for your fact-based posts. You know you're doing something right when the ad hominem
attacks start. :)

[Pelle Svanslös]

You're doing fine with the capitulating thing.

If there's something we can now take home from this, it's that in the
BOAT stakes, Rafa is tier 2.

"You can't be BOAT if you're not the best of your era".

[stephenJ]

>On 6/17/2017 8:49 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:07:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

>> For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era.
>
> If he is boat then can you please explan non-boat like Federer and Djoker had superior slam record in 3 out of 4 >slams, they both able to defend at least in two grand slam events AO, W, Federer also did it in USO. While the >boat in this era Nadal could not come up with a single defense of a non clay court slam, let's drop a level not even >a non clay court regular tournament. Clear boat of this era also won less matches than both Federer and Djoker in AO, >W and USO, produced far weaker performance in the bluest of blue chip events of all three players.

Yes, Rafa's W/USO record is just way too weak to justify boat.

Must be anti-fed animus? Never thought I'd see the day when whisper
touted a player with 3 combined W/USO titles over one with 12 combined
W/USO titles for boat.




---

[Federer Fanatic]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:26:36 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
| >On 6/17/2017 8:49 AM, John Liang wrote:
|> On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:07:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
|
|>> For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era.
|>
|> If he is boat then can you please explan non-boat like Federer and Djoker had superior slam record in 3 out of 4 >slams, they both able to defend at least in two grand slam events AO, W, Federer also did it in USO. While the >boat in this era Nadal could not come up with a single defense of a non clay court slam, let's drop a level not even >a non clay court regular tournament. Clear boat of this era also won less matches than both Federer and Djoker in AO, >W and USO, produced far weaker performance in the bluest of blue chip events of all three players.
|
| Yes, Rafa's W/USO record is just way too weak to justify boat.
|
| Must be anti-fed animus? Never thought I'd see the day when whisper
| touted a player with 3 combined W/USO titles over one with 12 combined
| W/USO titles for boat.
|

Really you're surprised???

FF


--
The measure of a man is what he does with power.
- Plato

[Whisper]

On 18/06/2017 2:26 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> >On 6/17/2017 8:49 AM, John Liang wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:07:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>
>>> For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era.
>>
>> If he is boat then can you please explan non-boat like Federer and
>> Djoker had superior slam record in 3 out of 4 >slams, they both able
>> to defend at least in two grand slam events AO, W, Federer also did
>> it in USO. While the >boat in this era Nadal could not come up with a
>> single defense of a non clay court slam, let's drop a level not even
>> >a non clay court regular tournament. Clear boat of this era also won
>> less matches than both Federer and Djoker in AO, >W and USO, produced
>> far weaker performance in the bluest of blue chip events of all three
>> players.
>
> Yes, Rafa's W/USO record is just way too weak to justify boat.
>
> Must be anti-fed animus? Never thought I'd see the day when whisper
> touted a player with 3 combined W/USO titles over one with 12 combined
> W/USO titles for boat.
>

More than 3 - multiple Wimbledon & multiple USO titles.

Federer's efforts against Nadal are hugely disappointing to me. They
are so weak I hate even thinking about them. I'm amazed Fed fans can
somehow trick their minds & pretend this never happened. I also feel a
lot of sympathy for them. It's probably best for everyone (except
staunch Rafa lovers like TT) to just never talk about their matches &
pretend they played in different eras. There's nothing to be gained by
confronting this horrible reality. Makes me nauseous just thinking
about it again.









---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Guypers]

Agree Rafa is tier 2!

[Gracchus]

Can always tell you've just been outpointed when you start making posts like this. :)

[Whisper]

You've just proved my point.

[TT]

Typical Djokotard cherry picking...

[Gracchus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFHnKwY_ae8

[bob]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

if by that you mean maknig my pts, i'll take it as a compliment.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:06:52 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

i also believe he's the BOAT of his era. but he doesn't hold GOAT
hardware - yet. and i really don't believe he will get there.

bob

[stephenJ]

On 6/17/2017 11:49 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/06/2017 2:26 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> >On 6/17/2017 8:49 AM, John Liang wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:07:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>> For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era.
>>>
>>> If he is boat then can you please explan non-boat like Federer and
>>> Djoker had superior slam record in 3 out of 4 >slams, they both able
>>> to defend at least in two grand slam events AO, W, Federer also did
>>> it in USO. While the >boat in this era Nadal could not come up with
>>> a single defense of a non clay court slam, let's drop a level not
>>> even >a non clay court regular tournament. Clear boat of this era
>>> also won less matches than both Federer and Djoker in AO, >W and
>>> USO, produced far weaker performance in the bluest of blue chip
>>> events of all three players.
>>
>> Yes, Rafa's W/USO record is just way too weak to justify boat.
>>
>> Must be anti-fed animus? Never thought I'd see the day when whisper
>> touted a player with 3 combined W/USO titles over one with 12 combined
>> W/USO titles for boat.
>>
>
>
> More than 3 - multiple Wimbledon & multiple USO titles.

By multiple you mean 4? Compared to 12?

I'm not a Nadal or Fed "fan", but touting a guy with 2 W and 2 USO
titles as boat makes no sense.

Rafa is what we all know he is - ugodly skilled on clay, and extremely
skilled everywhere else. But by all-time standards, his skills on HC and
grass aren't top 10 of open era.


---

[bob]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 17:04:02 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/17/2017 11:49 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 18/06/2017 2:26 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>> >On 6/17/2017 8:49 AM, John Liang wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 10:07:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For me there is no doubt Rafa is the clear boat of his era.
>>>>
>>>> If he is boat then can you please explan non-boat like Federer and
>>>> Djoker had superior slam record in 3 out of 4 >slams, they both able
>>>> to defend at least in two grand slam events AO, W, Federer also did
>>>> it in USO. While the >boat in this era Nadal could not come up with
>>>> a single defense of a non clay court slam, let's drop a level not
>>>> even >a non clay court regular tournament. Clear boat of this era
>>>> also won less matches than both Federer and Djoker in AO, >W and
>>>> USO, produced far weaker performance in the bluest of blue chip
>>>> events of all three players.
>>>
>>> Yes, Rafa's W/USO record is just way too weak to justify boat.
>>>
>>> Must be anti-fed animus? Never thought I'd see the day when whisper
>>> touted a player with 3 combined W/USO titles over one with 12 combined
>>> W/USO titles for boat.
>>>
>>
>>
>> More than 3 - multiple Wimbledon & multiple USO titles.
>
>By multiple you mean 4? Compared to 12?
>
>I'm not a Nadal or Fed "fan", but touting a guy with 2 W and 2 USO
>titles as boat makes no sense.

when we're talkig about BOAT (at least me) we're referring to the
absolute highest level a player achieved for an extended period of
time (about a yr or more). a player may play lights out, win CYGS
easily, and be deemed BOAT yet retire with 4 slams nowhere near GOAT.

rafa had 2 yrs IMO that put his name in that hat.

>Rafa is what we all know he is - ugodly skilled on clay, and extremely
>skilled everywhere else. But by all-time standards, his skills on HC and
>grass aren't top 10 of open era.

bob

[Court_1]

Who the hell cares about this made-up on RST term BOAT? The only thing that matters is that Federer has 18 slams, Nadal has 15 and Djokovic has 12 and the order of greatness of these players is Federer>Nadal>Djokovic unless Nadal can surpass Federer's slam count and Djokovic can surpass Nadal's. That's the hierarchy the tennis world goes by.

The rest is bullshit. Shut up with these moving goalpost theories already.

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

I might have the same gut feeling.

However, gut feeling is all he have in comparing Sampras Federer
at USO or Wimbledon, as their numbers are similar if not even.


With Djokovic and Nadal we have numbers as well?

If Nadal was so boat how come Djokovic achieved:

1. Longer tour winning streak
2. Won 4 straight slams
3. Beat him in 3 straight slam finals and in all slams plus yec.
4. Accumulated most points in history?


The good thing about their matches is that you know in advance
that a guy in better form would win.

There was only one upset in all of their big stake matches.
Wimbledon 2011 final.





--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[John Liang]

So you are talking about someone who could have one off performance to qualify as BOAT. In that case Krajicek is definitely qualified as grass court BOAT with that one Wimbledon and his thrashing of Sampras in straight sets at Wimbledon during Sampras' peak. Krajicek also had 6:2 winning record during Sampras' peak on fast court like carpet,grass and hard court that in more than a year. And a player winning CYGS easily ? Name one please.

>
> rafa had 2 yrs IMO that put his name in that hat.

At his peak he was beaten by a peak Djoker in 2011 at Wimbledon, USO and AO. He could not defend a single non clay court tournament. He is in the hat of not been able to repeat as a champion when he had to defend a non clay court slam or even a non clay court tournament. BOAT should not have this sort of problem in reproducing the result even in just 1 non clay court tournament.

[Whisper]

What surprised me is coming to the realization Rafa would beat Fed on
any surface at his peak, not just clay.

The fact Fed has 12 Wim/USO didn't seem to help him much in his matches
v Rafa?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[John Liang]

What surprise me is about him not able to transform your claimed superiority to the score board or in trophy cabinet. USO and W are your bluest of blue chip he won 1/3 of what Federer won in USO and W.

>
> The fact Fed has 12 Wim/USO didn't seem to help him much in his matches
> v Rafa?

He won 12 W/USO and how many has Nadal won ? And why that superiority you tried to claim did not even get him to half of the number in titles won at USO and W. Even worse getting schooled by Dacis, Dustin Brown etc that was some sinking 'BOAT' like performance.

[MBDunc]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:20:56 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> What surprised me is coming to the realization Rafa would beat Fed on
> any surface at his peak, not just clay.
>
> The fact Fed has 12 Wim/USO didn't seem to help him much in his matches
> v Rafa?

The key problem or challenge of this boat/not boat in Fed case: Fed is judged based on his 2003-2017 rather than having a "Hoad-type" of a luxury treatment which is about 10 weeks around 1958.

Rafa did always beat Fed on clay and at his peak was better than Fed elsewhere too (2008-2013). But in reality Fed vs Nadal in *important* matches on HC/Grass were all Fed until 2008. (2 x Wimbledon final, 2xYEC, even Miami final 2005)

Even Rafa himself get all the exceptions and excuses in the world for his ebbs (like pointing out 2008, 2010, 2013 with a catalog of injuries as an appendix). Now Djoker is being excused for his post FO 2016...

Similarly it is totally wrong to nail Sampras' absolute level using Hewitt USO final as an evidence. Or question Nadal's grass abilities based on darcis-type losses. Or define Mac based on his post-1985.

About "boat or not to boat":
Mac should be judged by his 1981, 1984 - not his bad years vs Lendl.
Connors should be judged by his 1974, 1982 - not his bad years vs Borg
Borg should be judged by his 1978-1980.
Sampras should be judged by his 1993, 1994, 1997 (rather than 1998 or even 1995)
Nadal should be judged by his 2008, 2010, 2013 - not his bad years vs Djokovic
Djokovic should be judged by his 2011, 2015 - not his pre-2011 or post FO 2016.
Fed should be judged by his two / three slam years - not his lesser years...

Then when you start comparing those "peakest of peaks" -> too subjective and practically impossible. If you dig deep and identify key "one match" gone other way the story could have been even more historic (like Lendl - Mac FO 84 - what if other way around ... or if Connors had entered FO 1974?....or if Sampras had eaten that pizza...) -> this is beyond any actual play abilities but conditions, environment and luck.

Anyway with leaving this "luck of conditions" out, at the very top It is not about play or absolute abilities on court but mental and confidence. Just see those "turn-arounds" in the history.
- Lendl vs Mac 81-83
- Mac vs Lendl 83-USO 85
- Lendl vs Mac USO 85->
or
- Nadal vs Djokovic -> 2011
- Djokovic vs Nadal 2011->
or
- Connors 74-78 vs 79-81 vs 82-83

You can speculate but eventually you just cannot prove your "It is 100% sure... or "It is very clear.... "...

.mikko

[Whisper]

There is some truth in what you say, but it's not the complete picture.

When a top player slumps, it's important to look at who he is losing to
& what his ranking is during this slump. If he's only losing to 1 guy &
is ranked no.2, then no it's not a slump. If he's ranked 10, 17 etc &
is losing to his former foe, but also to many other players then that's
a slump or 'career over' situation. That's why I never count Mac's
losses past 1985 because he was off the radar, playing part time, taking
sabbaticals etc. Sure lendl was beating him a lot post '85, but Mac was
finished as a top player & never a threat to win any slam. Those losses
to Lendl at the time don't count in my book, as it's the same as Fed
beating no.25 today - who cares? That no.25 is not only losing to Fed,
he's losing to just about anybody.

[MBDunc]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> There is some truth in what you say, but it's not the complete picture.
>
> When a top player slumps, it's important to look at who he is losing to
> & what his ranking is during this slump.

Ranking should not be relevant all all cases - like Mac was one match shy of year-end #1 1985 (his 5th in-a-row) but lost his 1985 AO QF match in five after being up 2-1 in sets. ... and you have tons of times claimed that Mac was way off hill 1985. Even Sampras slumped 1998 badly but managed #1 narrowly with far cry results and h2h stats compared to his better years.

Fed's 2004-2009 match stats and losses.
--------------------------------------------------------
2004 74-6 (five non-Nadal losses)
2005 81-4 (three non-Nadal losses)
2006 92-5 (*one* non-Nadal losess)
-----
2007 68-9 (seven non-Nadal losses)
2008 66-15 (*eleven* non Nadal losses)
2009 61-12 (*eleven* non Nadal losses)

2004-06 = total of 9 non-Nadal losses
2007-09 = total of 29 non-Nadal losses.

Which three year period is peaker stuff?

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 18/06/2017 8:42 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> There is some truth in what you say, but it's not the complete picture.
>>
>> When a top player slumps, it's important to look at who he is losing to
>> & what his ranking is during this slump.
>
> Ranking should not be relevant all all cases - like Mac was one match shy of year-end #1 1985 (his 5th in-a-row) but lost his 1985 AO QF match in five after being up 2-1 in sets. ... and you have tons of times claimed that Mac was way off hill 1985.

Yes, I'm referring more to those matches late 80's when Mac was off the
radar & never threatened to get back into top 5 elite rankings. Sampras
after Wim 2000 when he dropped to no.17 for eg doesn't count.

If Fed drops to 2 or 3, then gets back to no.1, that's not slumping. If
you slump you really slump against the field, not just 1 or 2 great
players. That's dumb.

[MBDunc]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:48:19 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> > Ranking should not be relevant all all cases - like Mac was one match shy of year-end #1 1985 (his 5th in-a-row) but lost his 1985 AO QF match in five after being up 2-1 in sets. ... and you have tons of times claimed that Mac was way off hill 1985.
>
> Yes, I'm referring more to those matches late 80's when Mac was off the
> radar & never threatened to get back into top 5 elite rankings.

Though of course Mac was year-end #4 1989, but who's counting.

> If Fed drops to 2 or 3, then gets back to no.1, that's not slumping.

.
Seles vs Graf 91-93? ... so Graf did not have any slump there-> thus Seles has BOAT claims?

.mikko

[bob]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 03:00:31 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:20:56 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> What surprised me is coming to the realization Rafa would beat Fed on
>> any surface at his peak, not just clay.
>>
>> The fact Fed has 12 Wim/USO didn't seem to help him much in his matches
>> v Rafa?
>
>The key problem or challenge of this boat/not boat in Fed case: Fed is judged based on his 2003-2017 rather than having a "Hoad-type" of a luxury treatment which is about 10 weeks around 1958.

i've defined BOAT to mean at least a year long. if you can't perform
at that level for a year, you were just in a nice temporary zone. rafa
has done it twice at least.

>Rafa did always beat Fed on clay and at his peak was better than Fed elsewhere too (2008-2013). But in reality Fed vs Nadal in *important* matches on HC/Grass were all Fed until 2008. (2 x Wimbledon final, 2xYEC, even Miami final 2005)

that's why 2008 was such an important year. because rafa finally hit
legal drinking age and he beat fed at Wimbledon. in fact since 2008,
rafa won 2 USO, fed 0.

>Even Rafa himself get all the exceptions and excuses in the world for his ebbs (like pointing out 2008, 2010, 2013 with a catalog of injuries as an appendix). Now Djoker is being excused for his post FO 2016...

when referring to BOAT, it's not about the valleys, it's about the
peaks. a year is a good timeframe to judge.

>Similarly it is totally wrong to nail Sampras' absolute level using Hewitt USO final as an evidence. Or question Nadal's grass abilities based on darcis-type losses. Or define Mac based on his post-1985.

again, peaks not valleys for BOAT.

>About "boat or not to boat":

again, peaks not valleys for BOAT.

>Mac should be judged by his 1981, 1984 - not his bad years vs Lendl.
>Connors should be judged by his 1974, 1982 - not his bad years vs Borg
>Borg should be judged by his 1978-1980.
>Sampras should be judged by his 1993, 1994, 1997 (rather than 1998 or even 1995)
>Nadal should be judged by his 2008, 2010, 2013 - not his bad years vs Djokovic
>Djokovic should be judged by his 2011, 2015 - not his pre-2011 or post FO 2016.
>Fed should be judged by his two / three slam years - not his lesser years...
>Then when you start comparing those "peakest of peaks" -> too subjective and practically impossible. If you dig deep and identify key "one match" gone other way the story could have been even more historic (like Lendl - Mac FO 84 - what if other way around ... or if Connors had entered FO 1974?....or if Sampras had eaten that pizza...) -> this is beyond any actual play abilities but conditions, environment and luck.
>Anyway with leaving this "luck of conditions" out, at the very top It is not about play or absolute abilities on court but mental and confidence. Just see those "turn-arounds" in the history.
>- Lendl vs Mac 81-83
>- Mac vs Lendl 83-USO 85
>- Lendl vs Mac USO 85->

>- Nadal vs Djokovic -> 2011
>- Djokovic vs Nadal 2011->
>or
>- Connors 74-78 vs 79-81 vs 82-83
>You can speculate but eventually you just cannot prove your "It is 100% sure... or "It is very clear.... "...

i'll assume this post is just a hiccup for you, because you know very
well when talking about BOAT type years we're talking about how high
you were able to lift your game, not how low it might've fallen later.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 03:42:41 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> There is some truth in what you say, but it's not the complete picture.
>>
>> When a top player slumps, it's important to look at who he is losing to
>> & what his ranking is during this slump.
>
>Ranking should not be relevant all all cases - like Mac was one match shy of year-end #1 1985 (his 5th in-a-row) but lost his 1985 AO QF match in five after being up 2-1 in sets. ... and you have tons of times claimed that Mac was way off hill 1985. Even Sampras slumped 1998 badly but managed #1 narrowly with far cry results and h2h stats compared to his better years.

being a number lover is great sometimes, but a hindrance in others.
mac fell off a very fast cliff due to his personal lifestyle
situations and a lagging ranking system takes a while to catch up.

>Fed's 2004-2009 match stats and losses.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>2004 74-6 (five non-Nadal losses)
>2005 81-4 (three non-Nadal losses)
>2006 92-5 (*one* non-Nadal losess)
>-----
>2007 68-9 (seven non-Nadal losses)
>2008 66-15 (*eleven* non Nadal losses)
>2009 61-12 (*eleven* non Nadal losses)
>2004-06 = total of 9 non-Nadal losses
>2007-09 = total of 29 non-Nadal losses.
>Which three year period is peaker stuff?

we discussed this yrs ago.

after 3 yrs of winning most slams, federer surely was no longer an
eager kid on tour. he focused on slams far more and surely cared a lot
less about the tuneups even though 11 losses in a year isn't a
dramatic drop when you're still winning 70 matches.

i posted stats yrs ago showing fed's non-nadal slams results and
statistics never varied from 2003-2010.

bob

[Whisper]

On 18/06/2017 10:11 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:48:19 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>>> Ranking should not be relevant all all cases - like Mac was one match shy of year-end #1 1985 (his 5th in-a-row) but lost his 1985 AO QF match in five after being up 2-1 in sets. ... and you have tons of times claimed that Mac was way off hill 1985.
>>
>> Yes, I'm referring more to those matches late 80's when Mac was off the
>> radar & never threatened to get back into top 5 elite rankings.
>
> Though of course Mac was year-end #4 1989, but who's counting.

Don't remember that - was that because he made Wimbledon semi & USO q/f
& lost both in straights? At any rate only Mac haters consider Mac was
still at his usual form after 1985.

>
>> If Fed drops to 2 or 3, then gets back to no.1, that's not slumping.
> .
> Seles vs Graf 91-93? ... so Graf did not have any slump there-> thus Seles has BOAT claims?
>
> .mikko
>

I believe Graf still had winning h2h v Seles in that period, so tough to
be boat by definition no?

[John Liang]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:21:44 PM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 03:00:31 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
> <mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:20:56 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> >> What surprised me is coming to the realization Rafa would beat Fed on
> >> any surface at his peak, not just clay.
> >>
> >> The fact Fed has 12 Wim/USO didn't seem to help him much in his matches
> >> v Rafa?
> >
> >The key problem or challenge of this boat/not boat in Fed case: Fed is judged based on his 2003-2017 rather than having a "Hoad-type" of a luxury treatment which is about 10 weeks around 1958.
>
> i've defined BOAT to mean at least a year long. if you can't perform
> at that level for a year, you were just in a nice temporary zone. rafa
> has done it twice at least.
>
> >Rafa did always beat Fed on clay and at his peak was better than Fed elsewhere too (2008-2013). But in reality Fed vs Nadal in *important* matches on HC/Grass were all Fed until 2008. (2 x Wimbledon final, 2xYEC, even Miami final 2005)
>
> that's why 2008 was such an important year. because rafa finally hit
> legal drinking age and he beat fed at Wimbledon. in fact since 2008,
> rafa won 2 USO, fed 0.

Legal age for drinking in this country is 18 so he was well passed the drinking age here at his first FO. In fact since 2008 Federer won as many Wimbledon as Nadal ...

>
> >Even Rafa himself get all the exceptions and excuses in the world for his ebbs (like pointing out 2008, 2010, 2013 with a catalog of injuries as an appendix). Now Djoker is being excused for his post FO 2016...
>
> when referring to BOAT, it's not about the valleys, it's about the
> peaks. a year is a good timeframe to judge.

So it is safe to say over 7 years Krajieck's peak was higher than Sampras because he was able to take 6:2 lead in their h2h when they are about the same age, there is no age gap between them. Referring to BOAT if we believe winning slam is like travelling by boat to four different destinations, it would be like Nadal would fail in most of journeys much earlier than Djoker and Fed and the only trip he had more successful trip was to RG.

>
> >Similarly it is totally wrong to nail Sampras' absolute level using Hewitt USO final as an evidence. Or question Nadal's grass abilities based on darcis-type losses. Or define Mac based on his post-1985.
>
> again, peaks not valleys for BOAT.
>
> >About "boat or not to boat":
>
> again, peaks not valleys for BOAT.
>
> >Mac should be judged by his 1981, 1984 - not his bad years vs Lendl.
> >Connors should be judged by his 1974, 1982 - not his bad years vs Borg
> >Borg should be judged by his 1978-1980.
> >Sampras should be judged by his 1993, 1994, 1997 (rather than 1998 or even 1995)
> >Nadal should be judged by his 2008, 2010, 2013 - not his bad years vs Djokovic
> >Djokovic should be judged by his 2011, 2015 - not his pre-2011 or post FO 2016.
> >Fed should be judged by his two / three slam years - not his lesser years...
> >Then when you start comparing those "peakest of peaks" -> too subjective and practically impossible. If you dig deep and identify key "one match" gone other way the story could have been even more historic (like Lendl - Mac FO 84 - what if other way around ... or if Connors had entered FO 1974?....or if Sampras had eaten that pizza...) -> this is beyond any actual play abilities but conditions, environment and luck.
> >Anyway with leaving this "luck of conditions" out, at the very top It is not about play or absolute abilities on court but mental and confidence. Just see those "turn-arounds" in the history.
> >- Lendl vs Mac 81-83
> >- Mac vs Lendl 83-USO 85
> >- Lendl vs Mac USO 85->
> >- Nadal vs Djokovic -> 2011
> >- Djokovic vs Nadal 2011->
> >or
> >- Connors 74-78 vs 79-81 vs 82-83
> >You can speculate but eventually you just cannot prove your "It is 100% sure... or "It is very clear.... "...
>
> i'll assume this post is just a hiccup for you, because you know very
> well when talking about BOAT type years we're talking about how high
> you were able to lift your game, not how low it might've fallen later.

Except your boat hit a rock in the form of Djokovic in 2011 when he was the defending his slams, of course he never brought his boat form when it came to defend his non clay court titles. Did they really drill a hole in this boat of Nadal every time he came to defend a non clay court titles or he simply shitting his own pants to defend non clay court titles. Nadal is definitely not BOAT on any type of courts except clay. The only people who seemed to accept this idea of Nadal been BOAT in RST seemed to be coming from whisperbob combo and Strip.
>
> bob

[MBDunc]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 5:04:17 PM UTC+3, John Liang wrote:
The only people who seemed to accept this idea of Nadal been BOAT in RST seemed to be coming from whisperbob combo and Strip.
> >
> > bob

This ever-going boat issue is r.s.t version of "my dad would beat your dad" - it is just impossible to measure objectively.

.mikko

[Carey]

Agreed. Maybe the most resoundingly stupid on-tennis topic at RST, and that's saying someting.

[MBDunc]

The problem is not the concept/arguing itself but totally doubtless single-minded opinions which do not accept that <another name out of their comfort zone> might also have a valid case.

.mikko

[Carey]

... which is why I came up with FOAT, favorites of all time. Little interest shown, alas. ;)

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:32:40 -0700, MBDunc wrote:

> This ever-going boat issue is r.s.t version of "my dad would beat your
> dad" - it is just impossible to measure objectively.

I suppose that's why it's so popular.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

If you want to use only slam results as the real measure, though, then Nadal is out of the BOAT race. His peak slam run was 5 straight finals but he only won 2 of those. There's no one-year period (calendar or not) where Nadal outperformed Fed's best results in slams.

[John Liang]

If Nadal was considered as BOAT then someone has to explain why he had 2 wins out of 5 Wimbledon finals in his career, 3 wins from 7 slam finals on hard court against Federer，Djokovic and Wawrinka. So 5 wins out of 12 slam finals on non clay court surface qualified him as BOAT on non clay court surface, that is les than 50% success rate, not to mention lacking of success in defending any of the non clay court titles, a BOAT should have done a lot better than that.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:27:01 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:

Your analysis is likely skewed by bo3 vs bo5. Fed's level could have slightly declined, making him more vulerable in bo3. But since bo5 favors the better player a slight decline wouldn't show up as soon. That's pretty much what we've seen with Fed. A dip in bo3 results followed by a dip in bo5 a few years later.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Even in Rafa's 2 best years, 2010 and 2013, he had some embarrassing
losses. In 2010 a slew of HC losses in the Asian swing + the loss to the
arch rival at WTF. The losses at Cincy to ... Baghditis and another to
... Feli aren't helping his case either. NQ.

2013 is Rafa's best bet for BOATing. A 91 win% is up there but falls
short against Fed's and Djoks' best. There's another loss to Djok at WTF
and of course the Darcis loss. That's a strict violation of

BOAT Rule #1: A BOAT must not suck.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Carey]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:10:28 PM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> BOAT Rule #1: A BOAT must not suck. <

:)

[John Liang]

Nadal would not be whisperbob's FOAT, they purely invented the term BOAT against one player Federer. Deep in their mind they tried to boost up Nadal as BOAT in this era to suit their argument that Federer can't be GOAT if he is not BOAT in his era, this is what it is all about. But what draw these three player close in competition is Nadal's dominance on clay otherwise his 5 wins in 12 finals on grass/HC does not hold up well against Federer's 17 out 23 and Djoker's 11 out of 16. It is a long stretch to consider Nadal as BOAT on non clay court surface even in this era.

[bob]

try looking at fed's non-nadal slam results, and set counts, etc from
2003-2010.

the 2/3 is fine, but anyone who thinks fed was as motivated to win
cincy in 2010 as he was in 2004 isn't being realistic. that said, fed
was certainly more consistent and motivated than anyone else i recall
seeing, but he knew what was most important as time went on.

bob