a slam is a slam is a slam

[RzR]

(is a slam)

it doesnt really matter what era or what slam it is...they all count the
same in the end...all the players who enter are ready and on their
highest level...you cant win one without being in supreme shape

the other tournaments are nice, but the grand slams is all people will
remember in the end...

[Iceberg]

unless you've had numerous fixed cakewalk clown draws or tons of other
players have retired purposely to help you get to the final, then in
the final(as with most other matches) the entire crowd is severely
biased towards you and act akin to threatening the other player.

[Whisper]

We also remember the h2h in slam finals between great players. Fed &
Rafa have played more times in slam finals than any other 2 men ever.

[felangey]

> We also remember the h2h in slam finals between great players. Fed & Rafa
> have played more times in slam finals than any other 2 men ever.
>
>

Presumably, playing a clay final way outshines not playing one though,
right? Losing only to the greatest player on a surface ever vs losing to the
chumps of the day?

Also, someone here once said that all that counted, all that mattered, were
slam totals....and everything else means, and I quote, "fuck all".
Apparently you sit on a throne of lies....as dishonest a person as has ever
disgraced this board. A poor loser. A boor. Ans now a self-flagellating
figure-of-fun.

Poor Whisp. :^)

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:37:12 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> We also remember the h2h in slam finals between great players. Fed & Rafa have played more times in slam finals than any other 2 men ever.

Fed & Rafa case is different...as it has been in a limelight for year here in r.s.t. Ultimately the most profilic h2h there ever has been and it is RECENT and everyone here knows all the results (and excuses) from millions of repeated posts (in addition to normal news limelight)..

But try to test objectively with some other great player pairings:

Court vs BJK, slam final h2h?
Navratilova vs Evert?
Gras vs ASV? (if ASV counts as a great).
Williams vs Williams?

Can you even get Graf-Seles slam final h2h correct without looking it up?

I am again sure that 90% of tennis journalists cannot memorize Borg-Connors slam final h2h correct.

.mikko

[Iceberg]

he said he never counted on the clown era happening. Also how come you
hate Nadal so much, if Fed's 17 are so clear cut??? lol

[RzR]

you sound like a loser...are you?

[RzR]

not another reth2hard...

[RzR]

nadal lost SEVEN (7) finals in a row to the same guy in his
PRIME...thats the biggest clown proof if i ever saw one...

[RzR]

yep...all that will be left of rafa in 20 years will be a FOOTNOTE* when
people talk about federer

*ah yes, that clay specialist used to give federer hard time on clay...

adn that will be all

[Court_1]

It is true those were not Nadal's best times to be thrashed so
relentlessly by Djokovic in all of those finals but at the end of the
day, just like for Federer, his slams are what matter most. If Nadal
can somehow win his second FO in a row beating Djokovic those 7 bad
losses in finals won't mean that much.

[Whisper]

On 21/05/2013 9:19 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:37:12 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> We also remember the h2h in slam finals between great players. Fed & Rafa have played more times in slam finals than any other 2 men ever.
>
> Fed & Rafa case is different...as it has been in a limelight for year here in r.s.t. Ultimately the most profilic h2h there ever has been and it is RECENT and everyone here knows all the results (and excuses) from millions of repeated posts (in addition to normal news limelight)..
>
> But try to test objectively with some other great player pairings:
>
> Court vs BJK, slam final h2h?
> Navratilova vs Evert?
> Gras vs ASV? (if ASV counts as a great).
> Williams vs Williams?
>
> Can you even get Graf-Seles slam final h2h correct without looking it up?

Graf Wimbledon '92, USO '95 & '96.

Seles FO '90 & '92, AO '93

so 3-3

>
> I am again sure that 90% of tennis journalists cannot memorize Borg-Connors slam final h2h correct.
>
> .mikko
>

Connors '76 & '78 USO

Borg '77 & '78 Wimbledon

2-2

[Whisper]

Somehow I think your 'views' would be different if Fed owned Rafa in
slam finals. Am I right?

: )

[Whisper]

Every player can have a bad year. What matters is proving it was just a
bad patch & turning it around. Fed could never do that v Rafa, while
Rafa has beaten Djoker several times in last yr.

[Whisper]

And of course he's the only guy to beat Federer in Wimbledon, AO & FO
finals. Nobody else could do it.

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:51:29 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> And of course he's the only guy to beat Federer in Wimbledon, AO & FO finals. Nobody else could do it.

And of course Djoker is the only guy to beat Nadal in Wimbledon, USOpen and AO finals. Nobody else could do it.

.mikko

[Whisper]

Nope. Fed also beat Rafa in Wimbledon finals.

What slam finals could Djoker beat Fed in? None.

[RzR]

and federer beat that same djokovic twice in slams that year...yeah,
yeah, im not counting that bullshit comeback because nole already gave
up on the match...he just lucked out his ball hit the line...

[RzR]

On 5/21/2013 1:50 PM, Whisper wrote:
> On 21/05/2013 9:35 PM, RzR wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 1:22 PM, Iceberg wrote:
>>> On May 14, 9:29 pm, "felangey" <her...@re.com> wrote:
>>>>> We also remember the h2h in slam finals between great players. Fed
>>>>> & Rafa
>>>>> have played more times in slam finals than any other 2 men ever.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, playing a clay final way outshines not playing one though,
>>>> right? Losing only to the greatest player on a surface ever vs losing
>>>> to the
>>>> chumps of the day?
>>>>
>>>> Also, someone here once said that all that counted, all that
>>>> mattered, were
>>>> slam totals....and everything else means, and I quote, "fuck all".
>>>> Apparently you sit on a throne of lies....as dishonest a person as
>>>> has ever
>>>> disgraced this board. A poor loser. A boor. Ans now a self-flagellating
>>>> figure-of-fun.
>>>>
>>>> Poor Whisp. :^)
>>>
>>> he said he never counted on the clown era happening. Also how come you
>>> hate Nadal so much, if Fed's 17 are so clear cut??? lol
>>>
>>
>> nadal lost SEVEN (7) finals in a row to the same guy in his
>> PRIME...thats the biggest clown proof if i ever saw one...
>
>
> Every player can have a bad year.

losing seven FINALS is not a bad year...its just his game exposed, and
his inability to make any adjustments whatsoever...

[RzR]

yup...just like nobody is getting to 18 grand slam titles...

[RzR]

im looking at each gs tournament as a whole...it doesnt matter who you
play, its just the end result...fed did it 17 times...even in his 30s he
proved that WITHOUT TAKING ANY TIME OFF, he can win a slam...take no.1
spot from mr. invincible...what more does there need to be proven for
every single normal person to acknowledge who is the greatest tennis
player of all time

[Whisper]

So Djoker was more versatile than Fed, given he could never turn it
around v Rafa?

[Court_1]

But he beat Djokovic in the FO in 2012! If Nadal can win the FO again
this year, he will have reversed the losing trend successfully at
least on clay. On non-clay surfaces, we still don't know what will
happen between Nadal/Djokovic moving forward.

[felangey]

> Am I right?

Rarely, and especially not in this instance. If you call yourself a 'tennis
analyst', then brazenly tout h2h as a failure of the most successful player
ever....disowning your own previous absolutes.....and at once not
recognising that said h2h is more representative of his amazing ability to
put himself in every final - regardless if he was on clay...off
clay...playing great...playing not-so-great....physically well or
struggling....pre-prime, prime, or past prime....

....then you are probably being dishonest to yourself as well. But we know
that isn't the case, eh? :) No, the hurt that leaks out of your every post
betrays you....you know the truth....it's just unpalatable to you.
Unpalatable enough to make a grown, mulleted man act like a petulant child
ad infinitum. Sad and just a teensy bit.....pathetic.

Poor Whisp. :(

[ali.a...@arcor.de]

How about Soederling, Tsonga, Berdych, Safin, Djoker ...? Fed lost to them all in one of those slams. Oh yes, don't come with your crap about "it has to be finals". Those losses happened before the finals because of the their draw. The only reason for Nadal beating Fed almost always in finals is that Fed was #1 and he was #2 for so long. But I see you are too dumb to know that.

[ali.a...@arcor.de]

Actually, Whisper is a bitter man.

[Dave Hazelwood]

I'lli believe ya, millions won't.

[Patrick Kehoe]

That's true enough... however... Rafa has dominated Roger Federer, over all... As a Federer fan that has to be said, surely, no point running from the facts...

20-10 certainly illustrates this... clay court tennis counts as much as any other surface... and YES... Roger's greatness puts him into the clay grinder for Rafa to chew him up more than Rafa did over the course of Federer's hardcourt peak... We know, we know... and that too is telling...

And yet...

Over all it must be said, Rafa's game does defuse Federer's game... that's just how it has all unfolded, year after year...

Yes, Federer has ripped Rafa up as indoors and in a few out door hardcourt finals... and certainly their Wimbledon finals have shown how Federer could swat Rafa as well on grass... STILL... the defensive coverages of Rafa and his power counter strike tennis has proven an antidote to Federer's all court power tennis A LOT... especially on clay, yes...

That to me is no shame... shows how great they both are...

Federer's game AND his records will be talked about for decades to come... whose going to come along and grace a tennis court like Federer has... that alone will be a large imprint... and getting to 18 will be a mighty ask, Rafa the only one currently within ear shot...

P

[Court_1]

Believe what? Did Nadal win the FO last year beating Djokovic or not?
And this was after the majority of people were expecting Djokovic to
give Nadal another beatdown there. Don't be so fucking sure about the
results this year. It can go either way, we need to see the draw.

[felangey]

> Over all it must be said, Rafa's game does defuse Federer's game... that's
> just how it has all unfolded, year after year...

Yes....fast HC season after season....WTF after WTF.....diffused....so
telling....

[Dave Hazelwood]

How did you ever graduate primary school ? I am saying those 7 bad
losses in finals will remain as ignominious as ever no matter whether
Rafa wins the FO or not !

NOTHING can erase such IGNOMINY !!! It was FUCKING HORRIBLE !!!

[Court_1]

On May 21, 10:52 am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How did you ever graduate primary school ?

My classmates were all brain dead like you, it was easy. ;)

> I am saying those 7 bad
> losses in finals will remain as ignominious as ever no matter whether
> Rafa wins the FO or not !
>
> NOTHING can erase such IGNOMINY !!! It was FUCKING HORRIBLE !!!

And I am saying you are incorrect. If Nadal can continue to win slams
against Djokovic (he has already won the FO last year), nobody will
remember those losses. Players have ups and downs. The important thing
will be that he turns around his losses against Djokovic and he starts
to win more slams against him. People only care about slam titles at
the end of the day.

[Ulysses]

On May 21, 7:52 am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>

If true, then immediately and effortlessly reel off the answers to
these questions:

1. What's Lendl's H2H record in slams against Connors?
2. Becker vs. Edberg in slams?
3. Wilander vs. Lendl?
4. Laver vs. Rosewall?

The only H2H anyone ever mentions even remotely is Borg and Mac and
that's because it's a nice, easily remembered stat: 7-7. A few
diehards with know Pete and Andre's H2H, 20-14.

No one outside an obsessed fan or tennis historian cares about the H2H
between great players or any players. It's the total record of a
player which counts. Davydenko has a 6-1 record against Nadal on HC.
Is he a greater player? Put it into context.

[Dave Hazelwood]

hundsfutze !

Nadal will NOT continue to win slams over Djockovic. The emphasis is
on the "s".

If he is fucking LUCKY and is allowed to CHEAT he may beat him at
another FO (one) but that is about fucking it !!!

And, I even doubt that.

Neither of them will never even comes close to Rogi (you're a fan
remember ha ha ha).

You just can't and never will be able to get Rafa's dick out of your
mouth right?

Do you honestly think Rafa will even be in the running for W and the
USO this year ?

Go ahead say it. Make all of RST a good laugh.

[drew]

On 14 May, 16:29, "felangey" <her...@re.com> wrote:

> Also, someone here once said that all that counted, all that mattered, were
> slam totals....and everything else means, and I quote, "fuck all".
> Apparently you sit on a throne of lies....as dishonest a person as has ever
> disgraced this board. A poor loser. A boor. Ans now a self-flagellating
> figure-of-fun.
>
> Poor Whisp. :^)

Whisp changes his mind like a politician or a woman...maybe he's both.

One thing's for sure. All these guys who think Federer hasn't lost a
step ought to watch
a few of his matches from this year. He's dropped two levels
now....he's either saving himself
for the big events or he's done.

[drew]

On 21 May, 07:50, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> Every player can have a bad year.  What matters is proving it was just a
> bad patch & turning it around.  Fed could never do that v Rafa, while
> Rafa has beaten Djoker several times in last yr

Rafa only won against Djoker at FO and clay warmups since 2010. He's
king of
clay and that's great but off of clay he's got 1 USO, 2Wimbleon, and 1
AO....not
great.

For Nadal to turn it around against Djokovic he has to beat him off of
clay again. Right
now he just has to hold on to clay superiority by winning FO.

[TT]

21.5.2013 10:13, RzR kirjoitti:
> the other tournaments are nice, but the grand slams is all people will
> remember in the end...

Nope. People remember all Nadal-Fed matches.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Exactly... a lot of both, actually... :))

P

[RzR]

yes, that same djoker fedex beat twice that year in slams :))))))

[RzR]

i remember fed-nadal the same way i remember fed-goffin..

[RzR]

fedex bageled djoker and footnote boy just recently :) some champions...

[Whisper]

On 22/05/2013 12:25 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:19:53 AM UTC-7, MBDunc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:37:12 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>> We also remember the h2h in slam finals between great players. Fed & Rafa have played more times in slam finals than any other 2 men ever.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fed & Rafa case is different...as it has been in a limelight for year here in r.s.t. Ultimately the most profilic h2h there ever has been and it is RECENT and everyone here knows all the results (and excuses) from millions of repeated posts (in addition to normal news limelight)..
>>
>>
>>
>> But try to test objectively with some other great player pairings:
>>
>>
>>
>> Court vs BJK, slam final h2h?
>>
>> Navratilova vs Evert?
>>
>> Gras vs ASV? (if ASV counts as a great).
>>
>> Williams vs Williams?
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you even get Graf-Seles slam final h2h correct without looking it up?
>>
>>
>>
>> I am again sure that 90% of tennis journalists cannot memorize Borg-Connors slam final h2h correct.
>>
>>
>>
>> .mikko
>
> That's true enough... however... Rafa has dominated Roger Federer, over all... As a Federer fan that has to be said, surely, no point running from the facts...
>
> 20-10 certainly illustrates this... clay court tennis counts as much as any other surface... and YES... Roger's greatness puts him into the clay grinder for Rafa to chew him up more than Rafa did over the course of Federer's hardcourt peak... We know, we know... and that too is telling...
>
> And yet...
>
> Over all it must be said, Rafa's game does defuse Federer's game... that's just how it has all unfolded, year after year...
>
> Yes, Federer has ripped Rafa up as indoors and in a few out door hardcourt finals... and certainly their Wimbledon finals have shown how Federer could swat Rafa as well on grass...

'swat'?

76 46 76 26 62 in 2007 Wimbledon final suggests Fed coulda lost in
straight sets if Rafa won the tie-breaks. Even the 2006 final contained
2 tie-breaks. Pretty remarkable when Fed was in his 4th straight
Wimbledon final while Rafa was very young & only playing his 3rd grass
tournament.

>STILL... the defensive coverages of Rafa and his power counter strike tennis has proven an antidote to Federer's all court power tennis A LOT... especially on clay, yes...
>
> That to me is no shame... shows how great they both are...

Shame has nothing to do with it. It's a sport & the results are what
they are.

[Whisper]

Fed's advantage is only at WTF. Everywhere else Rafa is the dominant
player & match is on his racket.

[MBDunc]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:02:58 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> Fed's advantage is only at WTF. Everywhere else Rafa is the dominant
> player & match is on his racket.

On grass Nadal is dominant? How?

.mikko

[guypers]

more whimpy shit?

[Dave Hazelwood]

consider the source !

[MBDunc]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:00:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> 76 46 76 26 62 in 2007 Wimbledon final suggests Fed coulda lost in
> straight sets if Rafa won the tie-breaks. Even the 2006 final contained
> 2 tie-breaks. Pretty remarkable when Fed was in his 4th straight
> Wimbledon final while Rafa was very young & only playing his 3rd grass
> tournament.

Note: you called Rafa a definite favourite pre-Wimb 06 final.

btw: Nadal vs Fed tie-break set stats:

Overall: 10-10 (in 30 matches)
grass: 1-5
hard: 3-2
clay: 6-3

.mikko

[Iceberg]

gluten free!

[felangey]

> Fed's advantage is only at WTF. Everywhere else Rafa is the dominant
> player & match is on his racket.

....I wish you could hear yourself....perched on the edge of every post that
mentions Fed like a little bitch....trying to "make it all ok". Remember
when you used to refer to Pete's record to defend his legacy? :^)

[Court_1]

It is true that Whisper likes to belittle Fed but in this case he is
correct imo. In Fed's current form especially, the only place Federer
may still have an advantage over Nadal is on indoor low bouncing hc or
fast low bouncing hc in general. Everywhere else Nadal has the
advantage. Wake up ffs. How many times do you have to see Nadal beat
Federer?

[Iceberg]

the Fedfans will deny Wimbledon 2008 to the hilt and 2007 - notice how
they don't mention it, as Nadal was still in 90% clay mode then.

[trr]

On May 22, 8:30 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 11:15 am, "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fed's advantage is only at WTF.  Everywhere else Rafa is the dominant
> > > player & match is on his racket.
>
> > ....I wish you could hear yourself....perched on the edge of every post that
> > mentions Fed like a little bitch....trying to "make it all ok". Remember
> > when you used to refer to Pete's record to defend his legacy? :^)
>

> How many times do you have to see Nadal beat
> Federer?

Lots and lots of times more :)

[Dave Hazelwood]

TRAITOR !

[Whisper]

tie-break stats in Wimbledon finals;

5-1 to Fed

Swap those around & Rafa beats Fed in all 3 Wimbledon finals.

That also would make it 10-0 to Rafa in slam h2h v Fed.

I'm actually understating Rafa's superiority over Fed. Dig just below
the surface & it goes from 'convincing' to 'absolute & complete
domination'. Pretty remarkable Rafa could own peak Fed like that.

[Whisper]

I don't understand your reply?

I much prefer watching Fed to Rafa - there is no contest here.

However you'd have to be brain damaged to think Fed is better than Rafa
when they play tennis against each other, and in hugely important
matches both guys are desperate to win (ie in slams). Rafa completely
owns Fed there is zero doubt.

[Whisper]

I like pointing out Fed's weaknesses because they are so obvious, & the
Fednuts refuse to accept them. To me it's just bizarre.

If Fed worked on developing an all court game (& he showed early signs
he could do it in theory), then he'd have a strong h2h v Rafa. As it is
it's not far from 0-10 in slams. He only won 2 because Rafa was so
young & inexperienced on grass in his 1st 2 Wimbledon finals while Fed
was 4 time Wimbledon champion.

[Whisper]

Stop being a fan boy. I actually would prefer Fed play an all court
game (especially on grass), take the net & punish Rafa's baseline game.
He won't do it so I have to ridicule him. He deserves it. Rafa sucks
him into playing matches on his terms, & the results are predictable.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:08:29 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> tie-break stats in Wimbledon finals; 5-1 to Fed Swap those around & Rafa beats Fed in all 3 Wimbledon finals.

How this is possible for 2006 final? (as they were 1-1 there in tie-breaks 2006 final which means it was far from automatic Rafa win - as Fed won in 4).

>That also would make it 10-0 to Rafa in slam h2h v Fed. I'm actually understating Rafa's superiority over Fed. Dig just below the surface & it goes from 'convincing' to 'absolute & complete domination'. Pretty remarkable Rafa could own peak Fed like that.

Well Rafa is no slough....

Swapping tie-breaks is woulda-coulda-shoulda. You can toy forever with this kind of hypotetical stuff. Maybe Fed would have 1 FO against Rafa with a tie-break swap?

Of course Wimb 2007/2008 matches could have gone either way as they were that close, practical toss-ups, where 2007 Fed somehow managed to up his game at 5th and 2008 where Fed was 2p from winning the match. These two matches could have gone either way easily.

.mikko

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:17:16 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> If Fed worked on developing an all court game (& he showed early signs he could do it in theory), then he'd have a strong h2h v Rafa.

I have always thought Fed maximized his slam count with his approach. Anything else would have provided lesser results. Maybe against Rafa something else would have worked but overally no.

And who can argue against 17 slams? Last thing we need that Fed had gone to win 20+ slams with a couple of full GSs. That would have ended all the speculations forever (noone wants that).

>As it is it's not far from 0-10 in slams. He only won 2 because Rafa was so young & inexperienced on grass in his 1st 2 Wimbledon finals while Fed was 4 time Wimbledon champion.

Wouldacouldashoulda. Rafa already was multiple slam winner and had been solid #2 for long time....and you personally listed Rafa as a definite favourite pre-2006 Wimb final.

.mikko

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:19:50 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

well i agree. i get so pissed off at Ded sometimes. But, unlike
Courtie, I am a true fan of his.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:08:29 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

cuda wuda nonsense.

[Whisper]

On 23/05/2013 8:13 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:08:29 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> tie-break stats in Wimbledon finals; 5-1 to Fed Swap those around & Rafa beats Fed in all 3 Wimbledon finals.
>
> How this is possible for 2006 final? (as they were 1-1 there in tie-breaks 2006 final which means it was far from automatic Rafa win - as Fed won in 4).

Well if Rafa won both tie-breaks he woulda led 2 sets to 1. Not 100%
sure Rafa wins, but very high odds imo. Fed is not good v Rafa in tight
matches.

>
>> That also would make it 10-0 to Rafa in slam h2h v Fed. I'm actually understating Rafa's superiority over Fed. Dig just below the surface & it goes from 'convincing' to 'absolute & complete domination'. Pretty remarkable Rafa could own peak Fed like that.
>
> Well Rafa is no slough....
>
> Swapping tie-breaks is woulda-coulda-shoulda. You can toy forever with this kind of hypotetical stuff. Maybe Fed would have 1 FO against Rafa with a tie-break swap?
>
> Of course Wimb 2007/2008 matches could have gone either way as they were that close, practical toss-ups, where 2007 Fed somehow managed to up his game at 5th and 2008 where Fed was 2p from winning the match. These two matches could have gone either way easily.
>
> .mikko
>

In 2007 final Rafa led 2-1 in 5th & had 15-40 to go up a break & serve
for 4-1. He just barely missed getting that break, thanks largely to
the mental strain of losing 2 tie-breaks earlier. Fed got a big break
in that match imo.

In 2008 Rafa was essentially 1 point from a 64 64 63 win, which was my
prediction before the match (google it). Rafa led 64 64 4-3 & had Fed
down 0-40 down. Gets 1 of those points & he serves for 64 64 63 win as
I predicted.

2008 was a good analytical yr for me, as I also predicted Rafa beats Fed
in FO final 60 63 60 (google it), & it was 61 63 60 in the end.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:36:18 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> 2008 was a good analytical yr for me, as I also predicted Rafa beats Fed in FO final 60 63 60 (google it), & it was 61 63 60 in the end.

Maybe you deserved it after all those years with misfired Fed foreseeing ("this 1st/2nd/3rd/....slam is probably the Fed's last slam title").

I bet you did get some extra kicks from of the 2008 situation as well.

.mikko

[Whisper]

My success rate is actually pretty high but people don't notice. eg I
even remember predicting Fed would beat Hewitt in 2003 Davis Cup 75 62
64 - this was the day before they played.

In the actual match Fed led 75 62 54 & 30-0, 2 pts from my prediction.
I actually played out in my mind how the match would go. I guessed
Hewitt would serve 1st & crack at 5-5 in 1st set etc. It's quite
surreal watching matches play out exactly how you thought they would.

In the end Fed lost the match in 5 sets, but remember I don't make
predictions, rather offer analysis on what is 'most likely' to happen.
People might say I got that match completely wrong, but I see that as a
top notch analysis of the highest order. Same as 2008 Wim & FO finals.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:49:53 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>
> My success rate is actually pretty high but people don't notice. eg I
> even remember predicting Fed would beat Hewitt in 2003 Davis Cup 75 62
> 64 - this was the day before they played.

High? You apparently have forgotten your 1000 bad analyses?

A single match score preds eventually have to score someday. Getting them about correct a couple of times during 12 years are just lucky quesses.

But to analyse general trends....if you fail in these...that tells a lot more about your score...(if once or twice after a day has finished you have quessed the share fluctuations of one company correct it does not give back fortunes you have spent for totally misanalysing the overall business trends).

.mikko

[drew]

On 23 May, 07:36, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail> wrote:

> 2008 was a good analytical yr for me, as I also predicted Rafa beats Fed
> in FO final 60 63 60 (google it), & it was 61 63 60 in the end.

LOL. You are so full of your own bullshit you can't even remember
it! At least be
man enough to admit how very wrong you are almost all of the time.

Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.

[TT]

22.5.2013 13:41, RzR kirjoitti:
> On 5/21/2013 8:21 PM, TT wrote:
>> 21.5.2013 10:13, RzR kirjoitti:
>>> the other tournaments are nice, but the grand slams is all people will
>>> remember in the end...
>>
>> Nope. People remember all Nadal-Fed matches.
>
> i remember fed-nadal the same way i remember fed-goffin..

No, you remember Fedal matches same way *I* remember Fed-Goffin...

[Court_1]

Nadal does not completely own Federer OFF CLAY in slams. Fed leads in
slams 2-1 on grass and is 0-2 at the AO, that is not ownage in non-
clay slams by Nadal BUT there is no question the W 2008 and AO
2009/2012 losses for Federer should NOT have happened regardless of
Federer's age/decline at the time. Anybody who is not a total nutcase
biased fanboy/girl and has even a slight bit of objectivity in him/her
should be able to see that. It is what it is. It is the one weakness
in Fed's resume.

[Whisper]

Really? Why then have I won the most Hop's tipping contests?

If I'm so bad everyone else must be worse.

[MBDunc]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:37:01 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> > Really? Why then have I won the most Hop's tipping contests? If I'm so bad everyone else must be worse.

For those who do not know:

http://www.tennis28.com/funstuff/rst_sp_stats.html

But you Fed hops-analyses were always off-scale bad....(2004-> you have "analysed" Fed as a slam winner only thrice (RG 2004, USO 2006, Wim 2009 - resulting only 2 hits)....when in reality Fed won 2004-2012 16 times (and of course pre-hops Wimb 03, Fed was not your pick either).

While you analyze pretty good at times, with Fed you never had proper grasp.

.mikko

[Whisper]

I've admitted I made some joke picks early on just to piss off
Fedfuckers. When I take it in seriously my instincts are pretty spot on.

The most important category;

Most Wins

6 Whisper
5 Jesper Lauridsen
4 Laurent, Luke Tang, Hops, Michal Jankowski, Scall5
3 Sakari Lund, yolanda, Javier González Nicolini, Pelle Svanslos

[drew]

On 24 May, 07:37, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail> wrote:
> > Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.
>
> Really?  Why then have I won the most Hop's tipping contests?

Probably because most of us don't enter. Your own so-called
'analysis'
is a joke...you never look at the fundamentals of the game or the
reasons one
player may give another player trouble. You speak in absolutes, like
an idiot.

Whisper's life...."a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signfiying nothing"

[Dave Hazelwood]

No. you lie.

[Whisper]

I always go on facts & let the record speak for itself. Your words are
unsubstantiated waffle.

[drew]

On 24 May, 09:53, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> > Whisper's life...."a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> > signfiying nothing"
>
> I always go on facts & let the record speak for itself.  Your words are
> unsubstantiated waffle.

You go on coulda woulda's half the time. The other half of the time
you look for
the low incident stat that fits your skewed opinion.

If there's a bell curve of facts and stats, you pick the ones on the
extreme ends of
the bell curve to support your extreme views.....you never use the
middle of the bell
to draw your facts....so your use of stats would never pass as
statistical proof.
For the most part you use the exceptions to make your case not the
larger body
of prevalent evidence.

This is a long way of saying that you are a liar.

[Whisper]

On 25/05/2013 12:10 AM, drew wrote:
> On 24 May, 09:53, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Whisper's life...."a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
>>> signfiying nothing"
>>
>> I always go on facts & let the record speak for itself. Your words are
>> unsubstantiated waffle.
>
> You go on coulda woulda's half the time. The other half of the time
> you look for
> the low incident stat that fits your skewed opinion.

Nope. You guys are saying if Rafa made more finals he'd lose to Fed -
that's extreme coulda/woulda based on nothing but faith. The evidence
supports the idea Rafa would continue to dominate Fed no matter what.

[Patrick Kehoe]

I agree... Rafa's game on slower surfaces has ALWAYS acted to deconstruct Federer's big strike tennis... and time and again Rafa's taken Federer out, the AO final win a kind of signature win for their rivalry... proving he had gained a mental edge as well, which Federer in his greatness does over come at times, but not enough to dispell Rafa's over all advantage...

Numbers - over time and within context - seldom lie, in sports...

Federer, as an all time great, came up against another all time great that had the style and physicality and defensive prowess to match and often better him...

As Djokovic has more and more eaten into Rafa's game and confidence... 7 finals in a row, several on clay, illustrates this... MAKING a potential Rafa vs. Nole semi this year fascinating...

All of which gives us a window into the developmental and progressive nature of professional sports at the very elite level... as greats establish their typologies and patterns for dominance the essense of adaptive attack takes over within the field... as Federer's all court non-linear game was born at the end of the summit of big serve s&v tennis mastered by Sampras, Federer's game deconstructed that typology for dominance... then Rafa perfected the total defensive counter hitting style to combat Federer's all court power game and then Nole's HYPER defensive power game blended Rafa's coverages with Federer's power strike tennis... it's all very illustrative...

That's what happens to ALL systems and styles of dominance in sports! They are deconstructed and counter measures are developed... at times they briefly reassert themselves but eventually the field absorbs parts/elements of what was an a-typical dominant weapon, such as returns or a particular serve motion, an aspect of conditioning or power application, etc... the field thus becomes genrally more proficient as an anti-agency against dominance of a particular kind/method...

UNTIL the next OUTLIER player can retool a set of skills to apply technical and tactical dominance again...

P

[drew]

On 24 May, 13:58, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> That's what happens to ALL systems and styles of dominance in sports! They are deconstructed and counter measures are developed...

More than ever we have the tools to deconstruct an opponent's
game...be it a team or individual sport. Of course it's one thing to
deconstruct
another's game and another thing entirely to find the athlete(s) to
use this knowledge and construct an effective winning strategy.

I stayed away from hockey except for the playoffs and I have to admit
that the skills of the players are improving from decade to
decade....you don't notice so
much when you're too involved...but step away for a while then come
back and you realize that these guys are figuratively standing on the
shoulders of the guys
who went before them....basic skills now were super-moves 20 years
ago.

In terms of athleticism I see the same thing happening in tennis. The
best guys are like rubbermen out there, reaching back behind
themselves to get balls that were winners 15 years ago. The bar is
always being raised. By the time a player like Federer or Nadal has
established his game, the rest of the field has had five years to try
to come up with an effective game to neutralize their strengths. The
true greats like Federer and Nadal still manage to win, even after
their games have been deconstructed.....but eventually the combination
of their own entropy and the adaptive response of the field will win
out...and the next generation builds upon the strengths of these great
players.

Federer's weakness was always his backhand even when he was at his
very best....when I tried to suggest this 7 or 8 years ago I was told
that I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about....but when you
look at Djokovic's backhand you see the superiority in terms of his
ability to hit consistently down the line or deep crosscourt. Against
most players this weakness couldn't be exploited but along came Nadal
with the perfect answer.....by chance, not design....a high bouncing
topspin lefty forehand into the backhand of Federer....strength into
weakness....deadly.

[MBDunc]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 9:25:50 PM UTC+3, drew wrote:
>
> Federer's weakness was always his backhand even when he was at his
> very best...

Well...Fed just had all the answers for others....but Nadal was *just too much*.

BH was not Fed's weakness nor his "single-minded strategy". The fact is that two great playbooks clashed...and Nadal's is better.

Another set of two great playbooks clashed 2011 (Djoker/Nadal) and Djoker turned the script.

But that is nothing new: Borg halted Connors' playbook, Mac halted Borg's playbook, Lendl eventually passed Mac...etc....happens at every sport...for every superman out there...there is also cryptonite emerging....

.mikko

[drew]

On 24 May, 14:41, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:

>
> BH was not Fed's weakness nor his "single-minded strategy".

It's a weakness if you've got a forehand like Nadal's...he breaks down
the Federer backhand and he's a better defender.

>
> Another set of two great playbooks clashed 2011 (Djoker/Nadal) and Djoker turned the script.

Most guys have a weaker side and it usually is the backhand. Nadal's
can also be broken down but only if the opponent exploit the
weakness. Federer is unable to consistently hit down the line to
force Nadal to the backhand. His play is to walk around the backhand
to the alley and hit forehand to forehand...that opens up the whole
court for Nadal to go down the line with the forehand. Djokovic has
the advantage that he does not have to hit a winner with his backhand
cross....he can hit it relatively safe crosscourt to keep the point
fairly neutral or he can go down the line with the backhand in an
attempt to force the rally to Nadal's backhand...his weaker side. Now
he's going to draw some errors off the backhand, fewer winners which
now pushes the percentage into his favour. It's just percentage
tennis at this point and Djokovic on a faster surface has the edge in
speed and consistency off the backhand. He's not going to be bullied
with the forehand as his backhand will generally not break down.

Slow the court down a bit and it's a little harder to take the time
away from Nadal on his backhand....so edge goes back to Nadal. If a
player can hit flat on a faster court he can take it to the Nadal
backhand, take prep time away from that side, draw errors and
generally make Nadal pay for the defensive positions he often takes.


In only this respect is Whisper correct about a net game strategy
against a guy like Nadal....but it's only going to be effective at the
USO.....now it's no coincidence that Nadal has only one USO title.
More unusual is that he's been limited to only one AO....and that he
has two Wimbledon titles...my take on that is that he's going to
struggle in the first week at Wimbledon and be essentially playing his
clay game when the courts get roughed up. If more guys were
proficient at serve and volley on grass and generally net play there,
Nadal wouldn't make it out of the first week at Wimbledon....but
there's woulda coulda for you. Nobody plays grass anymore so Nadal
gets to play baseline and survives week one at Wimbledon.....most of
the time.

>
> But that is nothing new: Borg halted Connors' playbook, Mac halted Borg's playbook, Lendl eventually passed Mac...etc....happens at every sport...for every superman out there...there is also cryptonite emerging....

It makes the sport interesting. Currently the matchup is Djokovic/
Nadal. There's one where the outcome is a little more in doubt. More
Fed/Nadal on grass would have been nice....and definitely USO Fed/
Nadal...where is just didn't happen. Fed-Nadal on clay has been all
too predictable (but also profitable so I should not
complain) . :-)

[Patrick Kehoe]

That's my post, right there... the summation of a 'counter-agency' IS the next big player in that someone comes along with EITHER the technical antidote to what tends to dominate in an era OR they are true outliers in some aspect... Like a Roy Jones Jr. in boxing 15 years ago... a man standing 5'10" weighting between 160-180 with the speed LITERALLY of a blazing fast lightweight... in singular punches or double bursts faster than Sugar Ray Leonard, and with much much more hitting power... he's a SPEED OUTLIER... WHO happened to be an AMAZING over all athlete... in his prime he was virtually untouchable...

Rafa became a tennis version of Rocky Marciano... dominant via his ability to apply a limited yet ultra dominating game; it's punishing simplicity and repeatability embodied within a physical specimen of an athletic force, who happened to be mentally able to doggedly repeat and repeat his game template endlessly... that just wore out Federer's adaptive power tennis, over ran it so to speak but defensively suffocating it... as you say, big spinning kicking forehand to Federer's one handed backhand, repeated ad infinitum...

Which NOLE AND HIS TEAM SAW... he had the counter measure in his 2 handed backhand... the missing element was physical endurance... which was thee last VITAL element to beating Rafa... once Nole converted his physiological issues into assets, his over all game proved an antidote to Rafa's defensively founded bashing power counter game... And he proved in the end he had the WILL to make it happen... the AO win being HIS signature win over Rafa... an all out epic endurance test he won...

>
> Federer's weakness was always his backhand even when he was at his
>
> very best....when I tried to suggest this 7 or 8 years ago I was told
>
> that I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about....but when you
>
> look at Djokovic's backhand you see the superiority in terms of his
>
> ability to hit consistently down the line or deep crosscourt. Against
>
> most players this weakness couldn't be exploited but along came Nadal
>
> with the perfect answer.....by chance, not design....a high bouncing
>
> topspin lefty forehand into the backhand of Federer....strength into
>
> weakness....deadly.

Yes... and Nole found within himself the total ambition and willingness to suffer into regions unseen on a tennis court (thee epic Nole-Rafa AO final) in order to PROVE his emerging dominance in that match-up... NOW we will see if Rafa can push back at Nole, as Rafa did after losing 2 Wimbledon Finals in 2008 against Federer, thee grass court champion of all time with Sampras...

In a sense, Rafa and Nole, their semi-final match up might be an all time great match up... or has the potential to be... so far in their respect careers, both men have had the insight to see and prepare for these kind of momentus encounters... usually successfully... that in itself makes that match (plus Rafa chasing #8 and Nole the career major slam and being #1, etc) just off the charts interesting... MUST SEE TENNIS!

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

That was my posts point...

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

Great summary post... NOW!

The key for Rafa vs. Nole will be.............. fitness... which makes us realize yet again just how KEY winning early in matches week one of a major has become (vs. the traditional YOU WANT TO BE TESTED pre-2000 thinking when tennis just wasn't the physical battle so often is now)... AND I say this because Rafa can ONLY beat Nole on clay IF one or both of the following happens: 1) Rafa's able to sustain a level of movement enabling him to run down Nole's power strikes and counter, MEANING run around his weaker backhand and thump the forehand (which is draining over a 5 set match and NOLE KNOWS IT WEAKENS Rafa) and/or 2) Nole misfies on the 2 handed backhand counter hit and it becomes a confidence issue leaking into his forehand...

Otherwise, Rafa's in deep water vs. Nole, especially deep into a major when Nole's been able to work out the kinks of his forehand, groove the backhand and generally do what prime great players tend to do: get better match after match at a major interms of ballstriking and thus confidence of shot production... IF NOLE'S backand shot production is on... well... Rafa has to hyper extend his physicality to a point that challenges his limits as an athlete... and the AO final was a classic example... at the very limit of his ability to play that defensive power counter strike tennis Rafa's mastered, he now knows that the body isn't the same as it was when he was 21 or 22 or 23... their Wimbledon final prefectly showed that just a few percentage points off his best tennis vs Nole in that mode and it's a possible beat down, with Nole hitting winners from everywhere, smothering Rafa's game, the irony of ironies considering Rafa's legendary defensive abilities...

SO... how much juice will Rafa have for a semi-final... actually, being one match earlier, might really help Rafa vs. Nole, if it comes down to a 5 set marathon... AND WILL RAFA try and get a 3 set win and go all out to blitz Nole, running around everything early to go for the knockout? That would be fascinating to see... IN OTHER WORDS, how ready and willing is Rafa to engage in YET ANOTHER all out war of attrition over 5 sets with Nole?

That might be the key to Rafa gettting to #8 right there... and give us a real look at what Rafa has left after such an encounter in terms of his season and frankly his elite career...

P

[Whisper]

On 1 level this is easy to read & would make sense to people who don't
think deeply, but it's very easily deconstructed & discarded due to
several logic failings.

Firsty & most obviously you're giving 'the field' way too much
respect/credit to simply 'evolve' the game to a level superior to what
it was before.

In essence you're saying if we take Borg, Jimbo & Mac out of their eras,
the remaining rabble would have 'evolved' players just as great as they
were to fill the gap/void. If we take Sampras/Agassi out, the remaining
field would have evolved someone else to match the top level
representative of the era. And if we take Fed, Rafa & Djoker out the
remaining guys would have somehow brought into existence other players
who were just as good & superior to past greats. You're either saying
this, or something even more audacious like Fed/Rafa/Djoker were
inevitable & simply had to be created. This borders on mysticism/voodoo
science & has no place in this ng.

Your post is a good example of what I call 'intellectual stupidity'.
Reads & writes well, but is so stupid it beggars belief.

Keep in mind I'm not attacking you personally, rather the posts as stand
alone arguments offered to rst for dissection/analysis. The assumptions
you make are audacious & take my breath away. I'm often amazed you keep
making the same mistakes over & over.

[Patrick Kehoe]

You don't read very well do you... not a lot of higher education there... No, the field is the totality of the players in a given era... fields contain players at various stages of progression and excellence... the elites are part of the field of competitors...

If we take Sampras/Agassi out, the remaining
>
> field would have evolved someone else to match the top level
>
> representative of the era. And if we take Fed, Rafa & Djoker out the
>
> remaining guys would have somehow brought into existence other players
>
> who were just as good & superior to past greats. You're either saying
>
> this, or something even more audacious like Fed/Rafa/Djoker were
>
> inevitable & simply had to be created.

No... again... not able to follow... too bad... greatness matriculates out of progressive and incremental adapatations which are carried out as specialization, readapting to given norms - and - in a competitive setting such as pro tennis, adapatations are manifest to overcome dominance as technical facility...

This borders on mysticism/voodoo
>
> science & has no place in this ng.
>

Let the adults discuss these things... you clearly don't have the intelligence for this sort of discussion... stick with flaming people and telling us how great tennis used to be 20 years ago... that's your strong point... :))

st is a good example of what I call 'intellectual stupidity'.
>
> Reads & writes well, but is so stupid it beggars belief.

Nice try... but keep trying to insult the rest of the inmates...

>
>
>
> Keep in mind I'm not attacking you personally, rather the posts as stand
>
> alone arguments offered to rst for dissection/analysis. The assumptions
>
> you make are audacious & take my breath away. I'm often amazed you keep
>
> making the same mistakes over & over.

Sure... riiiiiight... we know your game... just relax and talk about things you understand...

:))

P