here we go, Federer is going for a fifth set.
PeteWasLucky
SliceAndDice
> Damn!
I thought so right at the beginning of the fourth. Fed is playing very
very poorly. He needs to recover his composure.
Whisper
Don't worry. Fedfuckers have assured us Fed is playing the best tennis
in the world right now.
SliceAndDice
Er.. people who play tennis know that levels can fluctuate even within
a tennis match and also depending on your opponent.
Whisper
Do you really think Sampras or Rafa would have much problem with Simon?
PeteWasLucky
Sure Sampras and Nadal never lost matches.
SliceAndDice
How many tournaments did Sampras win in 2001?
Superdave
Simon has wiped Rafa's arse good in the past!
felangey
Playing like this? Duh...of course they would.
Rodjk #613
This is so ridiculous that it is face-palm bad...
Ever heard of Jaime Yzaga?
You are not helping Pete or hurting Fed's reputations by this
nonsense.
Fed won a tough match vs a good opponent. Pete has done the same.
Rodjk #613
SliceAndDice
Whisper seems to have forgotten that Hasse and Petzchener took Nadal
to 5 at Wimbledon last year.
Vari L. Cinicke
Expecting rationality from Whisper! Good one!
Whisper has hated Federer for a long time now. Initially, after the 2001
Wimbledon, it was as the spoiler of Sampras matching Borg's 5 in a row
at W. Once the kudos started flowing Federer's way and the slam count
mounted, the hate intensified. After Federer surpassed the slam count
and went ahead of Sampras in Whisper's asinine 7543 bullshit, it has
been full-on hate.
What else can explain his inexplicable love for Nadal, the un-Sampras
who seemed the last hope to stop Federer in his tracks when he wrested
away Federer' crowns at the 2008 Wimbledon and the 2009 Australian Open?
Whisper will die a bitter old man, spewing his bile to the bitter end.
The funniest part of all this is that he is hoping that Nadal will
surpass Federer, thus turning Sampras into an all-time #3. :D
--
Cheers,
vc
SliceAndDice
It is not just Whisper. Federer is somehow expected to win all his
matches in straights, even when he inches towards 30. Is this because
of the "monster he has created" for himself?
Vari L. Cinicke
> matches in straights, even when he inches towards 30. Is this because
> of the "monster he has created" for himself?
Making tennis look easy has its pitfalls.
And, apparently, many a commentator carries bitter memories of Federer
(rejecting their overtures or beating up on their ward or ...)
Snide remarks and Nadal worship are here to stay unless Federer wins a
couple of slams this year.
--
Cheers,
vc
Iceberg
according to the Fedfans, Sampras/Graf wouldn't last longer than a
couple of games these days, or Agassi for that matter, oh oooops,
sorry. lol
Iceberg
why did he need to win any? he'd already won more than anyone else on
tour.
ahande
Do you really think Federer would have much problems with
Yzaga, Bastl etc.?
Pedro Dias
That's only puzzling if you believe it's about Sampras, now or then.
It wasn't, and it isn't. It's all about the Whispless One, his tender
little ego, and the fact that Federer has made him look like a
blithering idiot. That's where the anger and vitriol comes from.
Vari L. Cinicke
If Federer was still in territory where he could be classified as
"barely even half way to Sampras" there wouldn't be any of this
vitriolic bitching from Whisper.
He didn't need any help from Federer in establishing his blithering
idiot creds either.
--
Cheers,
vc
Sakari Lund
Well exactly...
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>On 19/01/2011 11:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
This is as dumb comment as it gets. Congratulations.
Pedro Dias
He did, though. He may have been irritating, but he wasn't wrong about
Federer being a dud and Roddick being "Sampras on steroids" until
Federer *made* him wrong. I don't think that's forgivable, for someone
who had come to think of RST as the sandbox where he could come and
collect his tithe of lunch monies. So yes, Federer winning is the
issue, but it's only a problem because it made Whispy look dumb, not
because it pushed Sampras off his perch. Which is why he loves Nadal,
a fact not explicable under your formulation.
Manco
for Federer. What was Sampras' problem?
Manco
>
> Do you really think Federer would have much problems with
>
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Whisper
>> Do you really think Sampras or Rafa would have much problem with Simon?<
>
> Playing like this? Duh...of course they would.
No, Fed is a poor match up for Simon. We saw Rafa kill Simon at 2 AOs,
& Sampras woulda belted him off the court with huge serving & net play.
Whisper
> On Jan 19, 6:35 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/01/2011 11:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 7:30 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/01/2011 11:22 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 7:20 am, PeteWasLucky<waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Damn!
>>
>>>>> I thought so right at the beginning of the fourth. Fed is playing very
>>>>> very poorly. He needs to recover his composure.
>>
>>>> Don't worry. Fedfuckers have assured us Fed is playing the best tennis
>>>> in the world right now.
>>
>>> Er.. people who play tennis know that levels can fluctuate even within
>>> a tennis match and also depending on your opponent.
>>
>> Do you really think Sampras or Rafa would have much problem with Simon?
>
> This is so ridiculous that it is face-palm bad...
> Ever heard of Jaime Yzaga?
Yzaga is a poor example to make your point. The 1st loss was when
Sampras was 17 & it went tough 5 sets, so good result for Sampras at
that age. The 2nd was also epic 5 setter (5-7 in 5th) when Sampras left
on crutches. Don't forget Sampras also beat Yzaga twice at USO in very
easy matches.
Whisper
You keep saying that but I never even considered 5 in a row as a blow
for Pete. I actually predicted he wouldn't win Wimbledon that yr - 1st
time in 10 yrs.
> Once the kudos started flowing Federer's way and the slam count
> mounted, the hate intensified. After Federer surpassed the slam count
> and went ahead of Sampras in Whisper's asinine 7543 bullshit, it has
> been full-on hate.
Nonsense. My views are mainstream - Courier says he doesn't consider
Fed goat, & you saw the recent Oz tennis article.
>
> What else can explain his inexplicable love for Nadal, the un-Sampras
> who seemed the last hope to stop Federer in his tracks when he wrested
> away Federer' crowns at the 2008 Wimbledon and the 2009 Australian Open?
>
> Whisper will die a bitter old man, spewing his bile to the bitter end.
>
> The funniest part of all this is that he is hoping that Nadal will
> surpass Federer, thus turning Sampras into an all-time #3. :D
>
If he surpasses Fed it will prove Fed was never the best ever (most
don't consider him that anyway), & for some reason it seems very easy to
win many slams, career slams, 5 times at each slam etc in this era.
Why is that?
Whisper
But you guys said he was playing the best in the world given YEC win?
SliceAndDice
At the risk of repeating myself: "Er.. people who play tennis know
that levels can fluctuate even within
a tennis match and also depending on your opponent. " This happens
more and more as one gets older. If you do not believe me, just ask
Sampras.
SliceAndDice
No, it will only prove that Federer is the second-best ever and Nadal
the best ever. Federer has already surpassed Sampras.
jdeluise
On 19-Jan-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> If he surpasses Fed it will prove Fed was never the best ever (most
> don't consider him that anyway), & for some reason it seems very easy to
> win many slams, career slams, 5 times at each slam etc in this era.
Actually it takes epic play and a little luck for anyone but Nadal and
Federer to win *one* slam in this era... and that's obviously because they
are both very, very good.
Sakari Lund
No, no, no. Rule #1: With Whisper everything is always about Sampras.
Whisper doesn't care about looking dumb. He was very wrong about
Federer early on, but that is not important. He first hated Federer,
because people started talking that he can break Sampras records. Now
he really hates Federer, because he actually did break Sampras
records.
As for Nadal, in reality there is nothing Whisper hates more than
playing tennis like Nadal does. He just supports Nadal against
Federer, because his new strategy is to put all the focus to Nad/Fed
H2H and claim that it proves Fed can't be goat. 7543 is long
forgotten. Then he hopes Nadal doesn't win enough slams to be a goat
contender. Then he presents a compromise candidate - Sampras...
Shakes
We all know your views on Sampras and Fed. You try to boost Sampras
and bring down Fed. Neither is going to work.
Let's talk about the lack of variety on the tennis landscape, and how
it's precariously placed due to the lack of young upcoming talents
after Fed/Nadal. I am with you on that. :-)
Vari L. Cinicke
Nailed it! :)
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
I agree. In which case, it doesn't make sense to rap Fed because there
are players who Sampras matched up badly against, and whom Fed can
beat. No player is immune to match-up issues.
Vari L. Cinicke
> On Jan 19, 2:02 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 20/01/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you really think Sampras or Rafa would have much problem with Simon?<
>>
>>> Playing like this? Duh...of course they would.
>>
>> No, Fed is a poor match up for Simon. We saw Rafa kill Simon at 2 AOs,
>
> I agree. In which case, it doesn't make sense to rap Fed because there
> are players who Sampras matched up badly against, and whom Fed can
> beat. No player is immune to match-up issues.
The bottom line is the big prizes that a player is able to amass.
Federer has 16 slams and 5 YEC. Nothing to sneeze at.
When someone surpasses Federer's numbers, we will all sit up and take
notice. Just as we did when Federer surpassed Sampras's numbers.
--
Cheers,
vc
Whisper
35 yr old Agassi with a busted back did very well v peak young Fed at
2004/2005 USOs. Maybe they mean peak Agassi wouldn't cut it in this era?
Whisper
At 17? Fed was losing 1st rd slams at that age & older.
Whisper
No anger vitriol from my side. In a nutshell I think Fed is a great
talent, but not the best I've seen. Also his achievements are overblown
thanks to a lull in competition post-Sampras era.
The people who have a problem with me are the extreme Fedfuckers who
think Fed is better than Rafa on clay.
Pedro Dias
Heh. No, no vitriol whatsoever, I'm sure.
There are no fans of any tennis player who think Federer is better
than Nadal on clay. But there are a number of us who have always
thought that Federer has the tools to be *able* to beat Nadal on clay.
The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two is very,
very funny.
Pedro Dias
[For values of "very well" equal to, or less than, "match loss"]
Peak Agassi would actually do very well in this era: his particular
skills would transfer pretty well. It's most other players from that
long-ago time that might have some trouble. The ones more reliant on
serve, the forehand, the one- and two-weapon players. You'll note
those are mostly gone today.
Whisper
> Geez, last I recall Sampras only won 2 Australian Opens compared to 4
> for Federer. What was Sampras' problem?
Peak Agassi nipped him twice. Old & broken-back Agassi went toe-to-toe
with peak young Fed at 2004/2005 USOs, so no surprise he'd wax Fed at
his peak.
Whisper
Sampras waxed Yzaga easily 2 times at USO.
Whisper
> On 19-Jan-2011, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> If he surpasses Fed it will prove Fed was never the best ever (most
>> win many slams, career slams, 5 times at each slam etc in this era.
>
> Actually it takes epic play and a little luck for anyone but Nadal and
> Federer to win *one* slam in this era... and that's obviously because they
> are both very, very good.
Yeah, but what does it say about the competition that they can't stop
these 2 from ranking 1 & 2 for 6 yrs, winning all the slams etc...?
jdeluise
On 19-Jan-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but what does it say about the competition that they can't stop
> these 2 from ranking 1 & 2 for 6 yrs, winning all the slams etc...?
It says they're pretty darn good!
jdeluise
Federer and Nadal, that is.
SliceAndDice
> On 19-Jan-2011, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but what does it say about the competition that they can't stop
> > these 2 from ranking 1 & 2 for 6 yrs, winning all the slams etc...?
>
> It says they're pretty darn good!
There is no pleasing Whisper. If Federer dominates, he is playing
clowns. If Federer gets stretched or beaten (like against Simon
today), Sampras or Rafa would have easily beaten <insert name>
player. :)
Whisper
>> No anger vitriol from my side. In a nutshell I think Fed is a great
>> talent, but not the best I've seen. Also his achievements are overblown
>> thanks to a lull in competition post-Sampras era.
>>
>> The people who have a problem with me are the extreme Fedfuckers who
>> think Fed is better than Rafa on clay.
>
> Heh. No, no vitriol whatsoever, I'm sure.
>
> There are no fans of any tennis player who think Federer is better
> than Nadal on clay. But there are a number of us who have always
> thought that Federer has the tools to be *able* to beat Nadal on clay.
>
> The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two is very,
> very funny.
I have the tools to beat Fed/Rafa & Tiger Woods - they're called rackets
& clubs.
Rafa has the tools to smash Fed's records no?
Whisper
BS.
Rafter beat Agassi twice at Wimbledon, once at USO & pushed him to 5 at
AO. He also beat Sampras at USO.
Rafter was a smart player who approached net on off-pace shots, which
would completely confuse guys like Simon as they can't just feed off pace.
You simply don't understand tennis. I don't blame you. Your judgment
is clouded by what we see on display day after day - but ffs think
outside the box for a change.
Whisper
> On 19-Jan-2011, "jdeluise"<jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19-Jan-2011, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, but what does it say about the competition that they can't stop
>>
>> It says they're pretty darn good!
>
> Federer and Nadal, that is.
Yes, I figured you didn't mean the competition.
felangey
> with peak young Fed at 2004/2005 USOs, so no surprise he'd wax Fed at his
> peak<
Go back to talking about how pre-peak Fed beat up on a Sampras with 'plenty
left in the tank'. I liked that stuff.
Pedro Dias
Surfaces and strings, mate. Also a little thought, but suggesting that
may drive you right to an aneurysm.
I'd love to see Rafter "approach the net on an off-pace shot" against,
say, Soderling or Djokovic. He'd spend weeks wondering like such a
lovely idea could have gone so tragically, hideously wrong.
Then he'd pick the ball out of his teeth and go find a new career.
ahonkan
> On Jan 19, 2:35 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19/01/2011 11:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:30 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 19/01/2011 11:22 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jan 19, 7:20 am, PeteWasLucky<waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Damn!
>
> > >>> I thought so right at the beginning of the fourth. Fed is playing very
> > >>> very poorly. He needs to recover his composure.
>
> > >> Don't worry. Fedfuckers have assured us Fed is playing the best tennis
> > >> in the world right now.
>
> > > Er.. people who play tennis know that levels can fluctuate even within
> > > a tennis match and also depending on your opponent.
>
> > Do you really think Sampras or Rafa would have much problem with Simon?
>
Yes, all the 102 matches Nadal has lost so far
have been when he was injured, fatigued, sick
or affected by his parents' divorce.
ahonkan
> Yzaga is a poor example to make your point. The 1st loss was when
> Sampras was 17 & it went tough 5 sets, so good result for Sampras at
> that age. The 2nd was also epic 5 setter (5-7 in 5th) when Sampras left
> on crutches. Don't forget Sampras also beat Yzaga twice at USO in very
> easy matches.
So, lemme see. 17-yr old Sampras losing to no-name Yzaga in
5 is good result for Sampras at that age.
But 19-yr old Baby Fed defeating 4-time defending champ, 13-slam
winner, #1 in the world Sampras at Wimby is nothing to talk about.
Yes, you have proved that you don't hate Fed, that you are his big
fan, that there is no anger or vitriol etc etc.
We believe you.
CloudsRest
Within a few years, Sampras will be no higher than 4th place. And
that's only when people apply a broad view of the qualifications.
Those with a stricter view - the passing of all courses - Sampras
isn't even on the radar.
Superdave
or fallen out with Feli
Superdave
he doesn't deserve to be either. rafa would kill him on clay and Fed would
kill him on any surface especially grass where he already has shown Pete
who's boss.
MBDunc
2003-2004 you wrote many occasions than Hewitt is better both
achievements and absolute terms than Rafter and one of your "evidence"
back then was their h2h. remember you golden r.s.t lines like "I saw
already 1998 than Hewitt already was a better player than Rafter even
though Rafter has USO".
.mikko
Javier González
> You keep saying that but I never even considered 5 in a row as a blow
> for Pete. I actually predicted he wouldn't win Wimbledon that yr - 1st
> time in 10 yrs.
Short answer: No, you didn't.
Some day you will finally understand what Deja News, and after that
Google, actually do when they perform Usenet archiving.
Whisper circa Wimbledon 2001:
Some Tier-I comments on the discussion "W is up for grabs":
"My gut feeling is the winner will be either Sampras or Roddick"
If they meet in semis, I think Sampras will squeak through in 5 due to
his
experience, & Andy may choke. But Roddick's game is the 'biggest' I've
ever
seen - not sure how long he can sustain it though.... "
Tier-I answers the question "How do you think Sampras will do at
W2001?":
"I think Sampras will win."
Tier-I on Sampras not being the bookies' 1st fave at W:
"Yeah, you need to do more than win 7 of the last 8 to be
'favourite'.....
I wonder if Wimbledon will have the balls not to seed him No.1?"
Tier-I comments on the round before the Fed-Sampras match:
"I think it was a good break for Sampras to go 5 sets - he should be
grooved &
I now think he'll beat Federer in 3, maybe 4 sets.
Some Tier-I predicted this before the Fed-Sampras match:
"I think he'll come out sharp against Federer, cause he knows he has
to start lifting in the 2nd week. "
He'll then move on to the semis, & may come up against Roddick. His
experience
will see him win : 7-5 3-6 6-7 6-4 9-7, & he'll then meet Hewitt in
the
final...."
Same Tier-I after the match:
"Yeah, Sampras probably should have won that match."
"I'm not sorry Sampras lost - I just expected him to win"
In the interest of full disclosure, same Tier-I tells us how he feels
about
Sampras:
"I'm a big Sampras fan"
Bonus points - same Tier-I regarding the USO 2000 final, on the same
thread:
"He can also win the US Open. Only played 1 flat match last year in
the
final... " [what? I thought he was losing for 2 years, not a chance to
win?]
Iceberg
but Soderling/Potro/Birdman's shots are so flat, Rafter would have a
field day, he'd be able to volley the shot pretty much anywhere he
liked. It would be almost unfair.
Iceberg
Bastl = same level as Fed apparently, 5 sets etc nice one Fedfans.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
proves he is the lying son of a bitch i always said he was.
he makes it up as he goes along.
one day we may yet hear from him that it was he who said Fed would win everything
and Sampras is not the goat as Hazelwood keeps saying!
Vari L. Cinicke
> On Jan 19, 7:09 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> You keep saying that but I never even considered 5 in a row as a blow
>> for Pete. I actually predicted he wouldn't win Wimbledon that yr - 1st
>> time in 10 yrs.
>
> Short answer: No, you didn't.
>
> Some day you will finally understand what Deja News, and after that
> Google, actually do when they perform Usenet archiving.
>
> Whisper circa Wimbledon 2001:
>
> Some Tier-I comments on the discussion "W is up for grabs":
> "My gut feeling is the winner will be either Sampras or Roddick"
> If they meet in semis, I think Sampras will squeak through in 5 due to
> his
> ever
> seen - not sure how long he can sustain it though.... "
>
> Tier-I answers the question "How do you think Sampras will do at
> W2001?":
> "I think Sampras will win."
>
> Tier-I on Sampras not being the bookies' 1st fave at W:
> "Yeah, you need to do more than win 7 of the last 8 to be
> 'favourite'.....
> I wonder if Wimbledon will have the balls not to seed him No.1?"
>
> Tier-I comments on the round before the Fed-Sampras match:
> "I think it was a good break for Sampras to go 5 sets - he should be
> grooved&
> I now think he'll beat Federer in 3, maybe 4 sets.
>
> Some Tier-I predicted this before the Fed-Sampras match:
> "I think he'll come out sharp against Federer, cause he knows he has
> to start lifting in the 2nd week. "
> experience
> will see him win : 7-5 3-6 6-7 6-4 9-7,& he'll then meet Hewitt in
> the
> final...."
>
> Same Tier-I after the match:
> "Yeah, Sampras probably should have won that match."
>
> "I'm not sorry Sampras lost - I just expected him to win"
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, same Tier-I tells us how he feels
> about
> Sampras:
> "I'm a big Sampras fan"
>
> Bonus points - same Tier-I regarding the USO 2000 final, on the same
> thread:
> "He can also win the US Open. Only played 1 flat match last year in
> the
> final... " [what? I thought he was losing for 2 years, not a chance to
> win?]
Nice PSA! :)
--
Cheers,
vc
Whisper
> On Jan 19, 7:09 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> You keep saying that but I never even considered 5 in a row as a blow
>> for Pete. I actually predicted he wouldn't win Wimbledon that yr - 1st
>> time in 10 yrs.
>
> Short answer: No, you didn't.
>
> Some day you will finally understand what Deja News, and after that
> Google, actually do when they perform Usenet archiving.
>
Ok to be technically correct I predicted Goran would win 2001 Wimbledon
after he beat Roddick in 3rd rd. This was before Sampras lost.
Can you dig that one up? I remember Yury being very impressed with my
early tip.
So the short answer is yes, I predicted Sampras would not win & Goran
would as early as the 3rd rd.
Any credit for that?
Pedro Dias
No.
Do you realize that some of the quotes above actually flatly
contradict that?
Dood, you don't even *try* anymore.
Javier González
Boy, my head is reeling with deja vu. <keanu>Whoa</keanu>. My quotes
above are a copy paste of a post I did way back, and your answer is
pretty much the same you gave back then. So I'll recycle and quote
myself:
"Funny, why then did you state Sampras would go all the way when he
was going
up against Federer in R16, *after* Goran def Roddick. "
And, just for fun, I got your quote:
"I think that 'destiny' thing is happening with Goran, & he *just
might* go all the way.... "
(emphasis mine on your assertive prediction, never mind you said
Sampras after this match).
Whisper
> On Jan 20, 11:59 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2011 12:15 AM, Javier Gonz lez wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 7:09 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> You keep saying that but I never even considered 5 in a row as a blow
>>>> for Pete. I actually predicted he wouldn't win Wimbledon that yr - 1st
>>>> time in 10 yrs.
>>
>>> Short answer: No, you didn't.
>>
>>> Some day you will finally understand what Deja News, and after that
>>> Google, actually do when they perform Usenet archiving.
>>
>> Ok to be technically correct I predicted Goran would win 2001 Wimbledon
>> after he beat Roddick in 3rd rd. This was before Sampras lost.
>>
>> Can you dig that one up? I remember Yury being very impressed with my
>> early tip.
>>
>> would as early as the 3rd rd.
>>
>> Any credit for that?
>
> Boy, my head is reeling with deja vu.<keanu>Whoa</keanu>. My quotes
> above are a copy paste of a post I did way back, and your answer is
> pretty much the same you gave back then. So I'll recycle and quote
> myself:
>
> "Funny, why then did you state Sampras would go all the way when he
> was going
> up against Federer in R16, *after* Goran def Roddick. "
>
> And, just for fun, I got your quote:
>
> might* go all the way.... "
>
> (emphasis mine on your assertive prediction, never mind you said
> Sampras after this match).
Keep looking. You'll find a post where I categorically say Sampras will
not win Wimbledon *before* he's eliminated.
That's significant because that's the 1st time I tipped against him in
10 yrs.
Javier González
Really?
Because your comments before the Federer match are:
- "I now think he'll beat Federer in 3, maybe 4 sets."
- a few days before: "The point is his [Sampras'] current game, +
factor in experience & mental toughness, will likely still be too good
for the field."
- Here's your categorical non-Sampras tip for W: "My gut feeling is
the winner will be either Sampras or Roddick"
So far, I've found no examples of a categorical statement that Sampras
will not win Wimbledon before the Federer match. Only "gut feelings"
about "Sampras or Roddick", or Ivanisevic "just might" go all the way.
Hardly categorical.
> That's significant because that's the 1st time I tipped against him in
> 10 yrs.
You know what? I've found enough evidence that you did tip Sampras to
A) beat Federer and B) win the whole tournament at wimbledon 2001. Use
the nice search box and find your own categorical statement of Sampras
not winning. You find me such post, and I'll apologize, shut up about
the subject, AND bring it up in your defense if someone else gives you
grief about it. Until then, I'll go with the evidence I've been able
to find, and laugh it off every time you try to tell us that you had
this categorical (i.e. unqualified, absolute) prediction that Sampras
would not win Wimbledon.
Vari L. Cinicke
> for the field."
> - Here's your categorical non-Sampras tip for W: "My gut feeling is
> the winner will be either Sampras or Roddick"
>
> So far, I've found no examples of a categorical statement that Sampras
> will not win Wimbledon before the Federer match. Only "gut feelings"
> about "Sampras or Roddick", or Ivanisevic "just might" go all the way.
> Hardly categorical.
>
>> That's significant because that's the 1st time I tipped against him in
>> 10 yrs.
>
> You know what? I've found enough evidence that you did tip Sampras to
> A) beat Federer and B) win the whole tournament at wimbledon 2001. Use
> the nice search box and find your own categorical statement of Sampras
> not winning. You find me such post, and I'll apologize, shut up about
> the subject, AND bring it up in your defense if someone else gives you
> grief about it. Until then, I'll go with the evidence I've been able
> to find, and laugh it off every time you try to tell us that you had
> this categorical (i.e. unqualified, absolute) prediction that Sampras
> would not win Wimbledon.
You have presented evidence that Whisper tipped Sampras multiple times
to beat Federer and be one of 2 contenders for winning Wimbledon in
2001. Since Roddick was his other choice and Roddick lost in the 3R, we
are good to go on Whisper's position on Sampras and W 2001.
Even if he also had some semblance of misgiving in his 4 quadrillion
posts from the preceding month, it doesn't get him out of jail for free.
Sorry! No can do!
We will quote your findings relentlessly. :D
--
Cheers,
vc
Whisper
>> not win Wimbledon *before* he's eliminated.
>
> Really?
>
> Because your comments before the Federer match are:
> - "I now think he'll beat Federer in 3, maybe 4 sets."
> - a few days before: "The point is his [Sampras'] current game, +
> for the field."
> - Here's your categorical non-Sampras tip for W: "My gut feeling is
> the winner will be either Sampras or Roddick"
>
> So far, I've found no examples of a categorical statement that Sampras
> will not win Wimbledon before the Federer match. Only "gut feelings"
> about "Sampras or Roddick", or Ivanisevic "just might" go all the way.
> Hardly categorical.
>
>> That's significant because that's the 1st time I tipped against him in
>> 10 yrs.
>
> You know what? I've found enough evidence that you did tip Sampras to
> A) beat Federer and B) win the whole tournament at wimbledon 2001. Use
> the nice search box and find your own categorical statement of Sampras
> not winning. You find me such post, and I'll apologize, shut up about
> the subject, AND bring it up in your defense if someone else gives you
> grief about it. Until then, I'll go with the evidence I've been able
> to find, and laugh it off every time you try to tell us that you had
> this categorical (i.e. unqualified, absolute) prediction that Sampras
> would not win Wimbledon.
I'll find it. The archives drops some posts, but it took a lot for Yury
to apologize & give me credit.
A bit pointless because you guys will just drop it & look for other
minor things to nitpick. I've always stood by what I said & not likely
to bs about things that never happened - always back it up.
Superdave
yeah. right after the match!
Whisper
What if I find the missing posts? Will you imediately drop the
'relentless' quoting as it just makes me look good?
I suspect so.
How about if I find them you continue to relentlessly quote me in rst in
good faith, without sarcasm ? Fair is fair.
SliceAndDice
Vari L. Cinicke
>>
>> A bit pointless because you guys will just drop it& look for other
>> minor things to nitpick. I've always stood by what I said& not likely
>> to bs about things that never happened - always back it up.
>
> lol.
Got to love the casual "The archives drops some posts" line! ROFL!
--
Cheers,
vc
Javier González
I don't speak for anyone but myself, but my offer is made in good
faith. You find the unqualified prediction that Sampras isn't winning
Wimbledon before the Federer match (i.e. no wishy-washy "Goran just
might" or "gut feeling between Sampras and Roddick" stuff) and I'll
not only apologize and back off but actually correct other people if
they bring this up.
Superdave
>On Jan 20, 9:16嚙緘m, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2011 9:08 AM, Javier Gonz嚙締ez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> not win Wimbledon *before* he's eliminated.
>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> > Because your comments before the Federer match are:
>> > - "I now think he'll beat Federer in 3, maybe 4 sets."
>> > - a few days before: "The point is his [Sampras'] current game, +
>> > factor in experience& 嚙練ental toughness, will likely still be too good
>> > for the field."
>> > - Here's your categorical non-Sampras tip for W: "My gut feeling is
>> > the winner will be either Sampras or Roddick"
>>
>> > So far, I've found no examples of a categorical statement that Sampras
>> > will not win Wimbledon before the Federer match. Only "gut feelings"
>> > about "Sampras or Roddick", or Ivanisevic "just might" go all the way.
>> > Hardly categorical.
>>
>> >> That's significant because that's the 1st time I tipped against him in
>> >> 10 yrs.
>>
>> > You know what? I've found enough evidence that you did tip Sampras to
>> > A) beat Federer and B) win the whole tournament at wimbledon 2001. Use
>> > the nice search box and find your own categorical statement of Sampras
>> > not winning. You find me such post, and I'll apologize, shut up about
>> > the subject, AND bring it up in your defense if someone else gives you
>> > grief about it. Until then, I'll go with the evidence I've been able
>> > to find, and laugh it off every time you try to tell us that you had
>> > this categorical (i.e. unqualified, absolute) prediction that Sampras
>> > would not win Wimbledon.
>>
>> I'll find it. 嚙確he archives drops some posts, but it took a lot for Yury
>> to apologize & give me credit.
>>
>> A bit pointless because you guys will just drop it & look for other
>> minor things to nitpick. 嚙瘢've always stood by what I said & not likely
>> to bs about things that never happened - always back it up.
>
>I don't speak for anyone but myself, but my offer is made in good
>faith. You find the unqualified prediction that Sampras isn't winning
>Wimbledon before the Federer match (i.e. no wishy-washy "Goran just
>might" or "gut feeling between Sampras and Roddick" stuff) and I'll
>not only apologize and back off but actually correct other people if
>they bring this up.
me too. he can't. he's a liar.
Javier González
Actually, I would almost buy it - Groups is pretty low on Google's
priorities, so you can never be really sure the index being 100% up to
date or accurate. I'm pretty sure I've been unable to find some posts
on other newsgroups I was positive I had made.
Superdave
uncle toni?
Pedro Dias
Oh, there's no question the archive is crap, and scads of stuff is
missing. But in this case the particular "missing" post contradicts
other, non-missing posts; and, of course, this is Whispy, for whom the
truth is a deadly allergen.
Superdave
so much so that if whispy accidently told the truth he would lie about it.
Patrick Kehoe
> > Peak Agassi nipped him twice. Old & broken-back Agassi went toe-to-toe
> > with peak young Fed at 2004/2005 USOs, so no surprise he'd wax Fed at his
> > peak<
>
> Go back to talking about how pre-peak Fed beat up on a Sampras with 'plenty
> left in the tank'. I liked that stuff.
STOP IT... you are killing me here...
Damn, that's a good one... :))))))))))
Honestly, I have never ever read a guy contradict himself so much in
one newsgroup... astounding!
P
Javier González
Of course. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd have to
stay with the current evidence, no?
Vari L. Cinicke
What has been found can't be counteracted even if an errant post were to
have Whisper dumping on Sampras.
The count would then be
For Sampras - dozens.
Against Sampras - 1.
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
In that case you guys shouldn't be bying fed's mono excuse either.
Javier González
> 21.1.2011 15:47, Javier Gonz lez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 3:16 am, Pedro Dias<pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
I looked at the evidence (during the set% win discussion I looked at
all Fed slams since 2003) and my conclusions where:
2008 AO Mono: Plausible
2008 FO Mono: No. Just no. Stop it.
2008 W Mono: ROFLELOL x ELEVENTY
TT
Good.
We can ask though if results themselves are valid "evidence" for excuses
about poor results...
MBDunc
Agree. During early months of 2008 there was something wrong, whether
it was mono or extended flu or whatever. But reaching FO final tells
that everything was fine again (of course Fed then played his most
lackluster slam final at FO 08, happens to every great).
.mikko
Javier González
It should be obvious. You can pretty much bet the house that whenever
someone uses "Wim2008 Mono" excuse, it's Hazelwood levels of reality
disconnect or beyond.
> We can ask though if results themselves are valid "evidence" for excuses
> about poor results...
Never heard of "didn't win a title for two years", have you? ;)
Pedro Dias
>
> You can pretty much bet the house that whenever
> someone uses "Wim2008 Mono" excuse, it's Hazelwood levels of reality
> disconnect or beyond.
And yet I find it hard to view myself in that light...
TT
> On Jan 21, 12:19 pm, Javier Gonz�lez<jagon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can pretty much bet the house that whenever
>> someone uses "Wim2008 Mono" excuse, it's Hazelwood levels of reality
>> disconnect or beyond.
> And yet I find it hard to view myself in that light...
Maybe you should.
Javier González
You buy into the Wim2008 Mono? Et tu, brute?
Pedro Dias
Brutus and the conspirators save Rome from Caesar's tyranny, from one
perspective. The fact that Marcus Antonius and History derail the
process doesn't mean the assassination was the wrong thing to do.
I've made the case for mono at some length. Not so much that Federer
was at Death's door every second of that season, but that it's a very
peculiar illness in terms of convalescence, like many of the systemic
viral infections. To my eye, he had a peculiar pattern of
exceptionally flat matches for months, in a way that I don't believe
can be entirely accounted for by hindered preparation, which I would
have expected to affect him more consistently.
Anyway, long argument that's already been hashed and re-hashed.
Manco
btw, proves NOTHING about what Agassi would have done to Federer at
his alleged peak. Agassi was very up & down in the middle 90s.
Manco
2008 FO - Nadal just too dominant and Federer reeling from consecutive
clay losses to Nadal @Monte Carlo & Hamburg where he blew leads in 3
different sets.
2008 W - Federer confidence pretty much shot after that humiliating FO
beatdown. Even then he comes within a few points of victory.
I don't see how that isn't the truth.
Pedro Dias
I will absolutely agree that all of that is true. But I don't think
it's all of the truth, no. Those are the facts, plain enough. The
argument, to the extent that it exists, has to do with causes,
proximate and ultimate.
TT
> On Jan 21, 6:53 pm, Manco<musefan2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008 AO Mono - yes
>>
>> 2008 FO - Nadal just too dominant and Federer reeling from consecutive
>> different sets.
>>
>> 2008 W - Federer confidence pretty much shot after that humiliating FO
>> beatdown. Even then he comes within a few points of victory.
>>
>> I don't see how that isn't the truth.
> I will absolutely agree that all of that is true. But I don't think
> it's all of the truth, no. Those are the facts, plain enough. The
> argument, to the extent that it exists, has to do with causes,
> proximate and ultimate.
I read your hogwash meaning that you don't have any evidence whatsoever
to your claims.
Manco
thought he lost in Monte Carlo due to insufficient training because of
the mono recovery. But being Federer, he's so good even not at 100%
level that he gets to those big claycourt finals that help build up
Nadal's confidence. So Nadal is now riding unbelievable wave of
confidence into FO, Federer is shaky. Look at all his matches before
the final, he was pretty bad. Going 4 sets with Gonzalez and Monfils?
That told me right then he was in NO form to even challenge Nadal in
the final, much less beat him. For the Wimbledon final, on paper it
would seem Federer had compeltely recovered. He had won Halle in
straight sets w/o being broken once. Then he got to the Wimbledon
final in straight sets playing his usual brilliant stuff. I suspect
that the 2nd set wobble where he surrended the break was due to lack
of confidence from having lost the first set and just the whole year
up to that point. After losing the 2nd set, I feel Federer just went
into crazy-mode and almost pulled it out. But it's a one time deal.
Javier González
> No one denies he was physically impaired at the 2008 AO.
The names TT, Whisper and bob ring any bells?
TT
> On Jan 21, 9:45 pm, Manco<musefan2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No one denies he was physically impaired at the 2008 AO.
> The names TT, Whisper and bob ring any bells?
>
>
You got me ringing hells bells...
Pedro Dias
No, and see no need for any. I have no interest in "proving" any of
it. As far as I'm concerned, it fits the facts as I saw them, and
alternative explanations, don't, quite. All I'm in a position to argue
for is plausibility. Which is really all the alternative explanations
can do, though you're not quite capable of seeing that.