PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Skip Bayless states, Roger Federer WIN was a HOLLOW Win, won by Default. LOL


Fedace
06-08-2009, 10:16 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

autumn_leaf
06-08-2009, 10:18 AM
guess he's just a ****.... not fed's fault that nadal couldn't make it to the finals.

most people been wondering how long nadal's body would hold up with his style of play. hope he comes back though.

tahiti
06-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Lets just say Roger got lucky as the commentators said....the angels had been on his shoulders all week...coz it was not as if he hadn't struggled with matches against players other than djoko, nadal and murray

Fedace
06-08-2009, 10:21 AM
And Skip also stated that IF Rafa was in the finals, Roger would have NEVER have beaten him.

nikdom
06-08-2009, 10:21 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

You're not Skip Bayless are you?

Sleepstream
06-08-2009, 10:21 AM
Skip Bayless is a real life troll.

I'm quite sure ESPN pays him to troll the sports world.

Fedace
06-08-2009, 10:23 AM
You're not Skip Bayless are you?

Skip Bayless is one of the Most respected reporters in ESPN. and he is not SHY to express his opinions. I heard he makes ton of money from ESPN.

mandy01
06-08-2009, 10:23 AM
who cares?! :roll:
The tourney is over..Roger's the man who won seven matches.Now there's nothing his sour grapes can do.

Breaker
06-08-2009, 10:25 AM
Who the **** is Skip Bayless? And what connection does he have to tennis?

BigServer1
06-08-2009, 10:26 AM
Skip Bayless is a hater and he's paid to do so. Bayless has a persona that works for the show that he's on, and he expresses extreme opinions all the time.

The guy thinks that LeBron James is AWFUL, and he loves to take stances like this at all times. I've been ignoring him for years.

vtmike
06-08-2009, 10:27 AM
Q: Who will be a runner up at RG?

I got a surprise for you. It will be Fernando Verdasco. He will Creame Roger Federer in early rounds and show up as darkhorse finalist. and lose a Epic 5 setter and run out of the stadium Crying...

I garantee if Verdasco plays either of those guys, he will beat them in 4 sets. Actually, Roger in 4 sets and Djok in 3 sets.

Not surprised by how much you like this article... :lol:

yung goon
06-08-2009, 10:27 AM
hes right though. he cant beat nadal at rg.

Telepatic
06-08-2009, 10:28 AM
Who the **** is Skip Bayless?

+1 10 char

vtmike
06-08-2009, 10:29 AM
Who the **** is Skip Bayless? And what connection does he have to tennis?

LOL...The same question popped up in my mind first too...

malakas
06-08-2009, 10:30 AM
I don't know who this "journalist" is but he has just lost all credibillity to my eyes.ANY sports journalist who knows his job,realises that you can only defeat the one you get to play.
Espn sucks anyway.

python
06-08-2009, 10:32 AM
Bayless is a former Dallas Morning News sports columnist who got run out of town for making a (false) allegation about Troy Aikman's sexuality. He's not exactly known for being a serious journalist.

Fedace
06-08-2009, 10:33 AM
Here is the bio for Skip Bayless. One of the most smashing sport columnists in the market today. You can email him if you like or dislike his opinions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=Skip_Bayless

Chadwixx
06-08-2009, 10:38 AM
Espn + tennis. Nuff said

If their experts are clueless what do we actually expect from their non tennis ppl?

lawrence
06-08-2009, 10:40 AM
Why do you sound surprised?
Remember, ESPN like to show serena replays over live mens matches.

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 10:42 AM
And Skip also stated that IF Rafa was in the finals, Roger would have NEVER have beaten him.
Then how did Soderling beat Nadal? :oops:

And Federer is 10-0 versus Soderling. :-?

Enough said.

malakas
06-08-2009, 10:43 AM
Here is the bio for Skip Bayless. One of the most smashing sport columnists in the market today. You can email him if you like or dislike his opinions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=Skip_Bayless

the amount of admiration and respect Fedace shows for this journalist is the best proof of all :)

mental midget
06-08-2009, 10:51 AM
i think it's fair to say that anyone who considers themselves a champion at RG, who didn't do it by beating an in-form nadal in the final, is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

guga? kafelnikov? agassi? the great borg, even? certainly, none of these players triumphed over nadal to earn their name on the trophy.

honestly, i don't think it's going to far to call into question nadal's four successive wins; who, exactly, did he beat? he surely never came up against a player of the caliber of . . . himself.

angharad
06-08-2009, 10:52 AM
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a360/angharad07/Avatar.jpg

huskersak
06-08-2009, 10:54 AM
His win versus DelPotro was very solid.

drgnpride
06-08-2009, 10:56 AM
Skip Bayless is one of the Most respected reporters in ESPN. and he is not SHY to express his opinions. I heard he makes ton of money from ESPN.


according to whom? He was laughed out of the Dallas Sportsmedia scene and his style is to issue provocative contrarian statements and bask in the negative attention he gains by issuing them. Show me all the people that respect Skip Bayless, they don't exist, he is and has always been a first class ***** clown.

fantom
06-08-2009, 10:56 AM
Skip Bayless is a hater and he's paid to do so. Bayless has a persona that works for the show that he's on, and he expresses extreme opinions all the time.

The guy thinks that LeBron James is AWFUL, and he loves to take stances like this at all times. I've been ignoring him for years.

You are exactly correct.

His views are always extreme and bordering on ridiculous.

All-rounder
06-08-2009, 11:00 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)
Due to a knee injury?? :confused: it wasn't considered an injury after nadal had lost and when the tournament was over

Philsthrills
06-08-2009, 11:02 AM
I was watching when Skip said this. If you were paying attention he also emphatically stated that Roger cannot be Nadal on clay and has not done so this year. They even put a graphic up that said that Roger was 0-1 on clay vs. Nadal in '09. His credibility went out the window with that statement (Madrid?).

Skip is a sports journalist which makes him a "Jack of all trades, master of none." Nobody who is serious about tennis should put any stock in what he says.

woodrow1029
06-08-2009, 11:03 AM
Skip is always an idiot!

Giggs The Red Devil
06-08-2009, 11:42 AM
Bayless’ statement is anti-sports, kitsch-loving and ratings-driven. He wants the big drama. Fine ,but that’s not how it usually goes.

Isn’t there enough of bad TV already?

veroniquem
06-08-2009, 11:54 AM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.

samster
06-08-2009, 11:58 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

Skip Bayless is a commentator. He gets paid to make comments.

jamesblakefan#1
06-08-2009, 12:00 PM
Skip Bayless is the worst of the worst. Troll doesn't even describe this idiot. He knows NOTHING of tennis, he called Soderling "some 23rd ranked guy" while praising Nadal, guess he forgot who beat Nadal. This idiot deserves no credibility, his opinion is less than 0 in my book. Just google the guy and you'll see how hated he is.

NamRanger
06-08-2009, 12:33 PM
Bayless has extreme views, and because of that he is paid on ESPN to contrast the views of other "conservative" analysts. He occasionally makes good observations, however he has made very big dud observations also. Such as when he said the Detroit Lions under Kitna would make the playoffs, the Cardinals were the worst team ever to make the playoffs, LeBron James sucks, etc.

FuriousYellow
06-08-2009, 12:37 PM
Why stop there? Let's invalidate every championship won in every sport where the two best challengers were not involved in a final.

NamRanger
06-08-2009, 12:38 PM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.


I honestly think 20 years from now, no one will really care. I can't even remember HALF the opponents Laver played to win his slams. All I know is that he won 2 grand slams.

raiden031
06-08-2009, 12:40 PM
i think it's fair to say that anyone who considers themselves a champion at RG, who didn't do it by beating an in-form nadal in the final, is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

guga? kafelnikov? agassi? the great borg, even? certainly, none of these players triumphed over nadal to earn their name on the trophy.

honestly, i don't think it's going to far to call into question nadal's four successive wins; who, exactly, did he beat? he surely never came up against a player of the caliber of . . . himself.

Exactly. If Fed's RG title doesn't count, then NOBODY'S RG title should count because every single winner out there did not have to face Nadal in the final. Just as its not Agassi's fault that Nadal was not a pro when he won, its not Federer's fault that Nadal got eliminated early on, whether it be because he got blown off the court or was injured. Fact is, Federer showed up and won the title, Nadal did not. Nobody else showed up to win the title either.

I'd like to see Skip clueless stand out there with no racquet while Federer is serving bombs at him. Then lets see what he thinks of Federer.

malakas
06-08-2009, 12:41 PM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.


You don't make sense once again.

DarthFed
06-08-2009, 12:41 PM
I honestly think 20 years from now, no one will really care. I can't even remember HALF the opponents Laver played to win his slams. All I know is that he won 2 grand slams.

Well said

/topic

icedevil0289
06-08-2009, 12:41 PM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.

AO was considered epic? I think the FO 2009 is epic in a different kind of way. No, the match did not last into darkness and it did not go until 9-7 in the 5th. There were no rain delays, but to me it was like witnessing history. I think that's a pretty big deal. I'll actually remember the match for a long time because it was one of the first times on this board, that nadal fans and fed fans actually managed to get a long for a brief period in time. Now that is what I call epic!

coloskier
06-08-2009, 12:46 PM
Skip Bayless is one of the Most respected reporters in ESPN. and he is not SHY to express his opinions. I heard he makes ton of money from ESPN.

Then I guess he is overpaid. I wonder what he thought about Sampras winning the USO without facing his nemesis, or Borg winning Wimbledon without facing Connors or McEnroe? These examples are no different than Fed not meeting Nadal. It wasn't Fed's fault that Nadal got beat by someone else.

Ronaldo
06-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Skip Bayless is one of the Most respected reporters in ESPN. and he is not SHY to express his opinions. I heard he makes ton of money from ESPN.

Hear this from the horses' mouth or arse?

egn
06-08-2009, 12:53 PM
As it had been said by thalivst (sp?) A slam is about winning 7 matches in a row, Roger Federer at the end of the two weeks was the one to accomplish it. Besides Skip Bayless is an idiot does anyone even count him as a valuable source. He is right up there with that dumb women who ruined those Duke Lacrosse boys lives and now attempts to try to cover it up by jumping on the kill A-Rod bandwagon. ESPN and SI are full of so much trashy idiots that I think they pay just to anger people.

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 01:23 PM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.
"Worthless"?? I think not.

It's the title that matters and the only thing that matters. Does anyone remember who Rod Laver beat to win his two calendar Grand Slams or do they just know that he won two Grand Slams?

nikdom
06-08-2009, 02:07 PM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.

So why did Nadal lose to the "lesser" opponent?

flying24
06-08-2009, 02:18 PM
Who the **** is Skip Bayless? And what connection does he have to tennis?

I thought he covered football. I pretty much know nothing about him but a few of my football fans (I dont really follow it much, just casually a bit) talk about him and what he has been saying regarding alot of the NFL players. He sounds like a clown to me though.

wilsonplayer
06-08-2009, 02:40 PM
the discussion that feds title is insignificant or marginalized by not beating Nadal is absurd. long after skip bayless and everyone else is dead and forgotten, no one will look upon Feds achievement as "not good enough." His name is inscribed in the books as a 14 Grand Slam winner with a career slam. Period.

ninman
06-08-2009, 02:41 PM
And Skip also stated that IF Rafa was in the finals, Roger would have NEVER have beaten him.

Yeah, because the fact that Rafa is being forced to pull out of Queens and is in doubt for Wimbledon means that on Sunday he would have been a force to reckon with. What an idiot. Nadal would have been creamed by Federer.

ninman
06-08-2009, 02:44 PM
"Worthless"?? I think not.

It's the title that matters and the only thing that matters. Does anyone remember who Rod Laver beat to win his two calendar Grand Slams or do they just know that he won two Grand Slams?

It should also be worth noting that in Federer's 19 finals he has faced a total of about what 11 different opponents. Nadal has had 2, and even then he still had to play Federer in the semi's.

Playing a variety of different players only shows how good you are, and how versatile you are. Nadal playing the same guy every time means that he was only able to beat that one player who he "owns".

hammer
06-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Skip Bayless makes a living by taking the minority stance. A lot of times he will take the controversial point of view just because it's controversial. That was basically his deal when he was writing for the San Jose Mercury News and when he was on KNBR radio (in San Francisco) before moving to ESPN. I've always felt he was a phony, but at least an entertaining phony at that.

tacou
06-08-2009, 02:59 PM
skip is a fool.

it's a two-sided argument but only barely. Roger didn't face any of his "rivals" but that wasn't his fault. he faced 7 legit, world class opponents and beat them all, coming from the brink or close to that of defeat several times.

I think this victory really shows how pointless the GOAT discussion is. a week ago a lot of people would say Fed can't be THE greatest of all time because he hadn't won the french. Is he suddenly a different player this week? not really, only his wiki page has been changed.

all in all his French Open victory, to me, was the filling out of an already spectacular career. in no way was it a DEFAULT but I would also love to see another Rafa/Roger final in Paris, especially now that both will be playing with significantly less pressure.

rogerfederer26
06-08-2009, 03:06 PM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

I don't think it's a hollow win. Nadal was entered and playing in the same tournament and Roger beat the guy who beat Nadal. It's not Roger's fault that Nadal lost so early to face him in the finals.

It would have been an entirely different story had Nadal been violently removed from the tournament ( like what happened to Monica Seles in 1993) which prompted many people to call Graf's slam victories after that as hollow wins.

Fedace
06-08-2009, 03:12 PM
Yeah, because the fact that Rafa is being forced to pull out of Queens and is in doubt for Wimbledon means that on Sunday he would have been a force to reckon with. What an idiot. Nadal would have been creamed by Federer.

I agree that Roger has no control of who he plays in the finals. but If healthy Nadal was there, Roger would never be holding that french open cup. So in some ways, this win is tarnished somewhat, but As they say Win is a Win. but with this one, Roger is thanking his lucky stars that Rafa wasn't there.

and you know what, life is a funny thing. Last year after the Wimbledon finals, we would have never thought, Roger would win the French. But Roger kept plugging away and kept on plugging, and here he is.

I REALLY wonder if BORG kept on plugging away like Roger did, if he would have the US open ????????:confused:

ambro
06-08-2009, 03:13 PM
On the show he is the commentator on, he basically gets paid to make an idiot of himself. The other guy makes the logical, correct argument about 95% of the time, and Skip gets paid to be the guy to disagree with him, no matter how ridiculous the disagreement may be. See this morning's show regarding Federer for an example of this. I've never heard him say anything resembling logic.

Chadwixx
06-08-2009, 03:16 PM
The steelers super bowl doesnt count last year because brady was injured.

Someone should phrase it in a sports term he is familiar with so he can see how foolish such a comment is.

drummerdan
06-08-2009, 03:22 PM
Idiot.

What matters is that in 20 years, no one will remember all the people RF beat in finals of any tourny. They'll remember the 17 majors he'll have (yes, I said 17).

CCNM
06-08-2009, 03:24 PM
*sigh* Can't we just enjoy the fact that Roger will be making history soon?

Fedace
06-08-2009, 03:26 PM
Idiot.

What matters is that in 20 years, no one will remember all the people RF beat in finals of any tourny. They'll remember the 17 majors he'll have (yes, I said 17).

but I Assure you that even in 20 years, they will ask "WHO did Federer Play in that one french open Win ???" then people will ask Where Was Nadal ?? and He will have to Answer, "Nadal lost early cause his knee was injured".:shock:

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 03:53 PM
I REALLY wonder if BORG kept on plugging away like Roger did, if he would have the US open ????????:confused:
I'd bet he would have. But Borg wimped out and quit tennis at the age of only 25. If Federer did that, he never would have won the French Open. So kudos to Federer for not giving up.

Fedace
06-08-2009, 03:56 PM
I'd bet he would have. But Borg wimped out and quit tennis at the age of only 25. If Federer did that, he never would have won the French Open. So kudos to Federer for not giving up.

Don't be so sure about that. cause JP Mcenroe kept on dominating for next 4-5 years at the Open. Although Borg may had a chance against Jimmy Connors, that is possible...:confused:

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 03:57 PM
Idiot.

What matters is that in 20 years, no one will remember all the people RF beat in finals of any tourny. They'll remember the 17 majors he'll have (yes, I said 17).
The funny thing is if Federer never had the misfortune to contract mono, he would already have 17 Slams now. I'm 100% positive of that. Getting mono was a huge setback for him.

(He would have won the '08 and '09 Aus Opens, and the '08 Wimbledon making it 17 by now.)

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 03:59 PM
Don't be so sure about that. cause JP Mcenroe kept on dominating for next 4-5 years at the Open. Although Borg may had a chance against Jimmy Connors, that is possible...:confused:
No, he didn't. McEnroe only won ONE MORE US Open ('84) after Borg retired.

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 04:07 PM
but I Assure you that even in 20 years, they will ask "WHO did Federer Play in that one french open Win ???" then people will ask Where Was Nadal ?? and He will have to Answer, "Nadal lost early cause his knee was injured".:shock:
1. In 20 years, most people won't even remember Nadal. How many people talk about Wilander these days except for his outlandish comments about Federer, and he won 7 Slams. Now if Nadal had broken Borg's record that would be a different story but he failed to do so.

2. No one will ask who Federer beat in the FO final. Do people ask who Borg beat in the '79 FO final? How many people even know the answer without looking it up on the Internet?

3. Nadal didn't lose because he was injured. He lost because Soderling was on fire and couldn't do anything wrong. The way Soderling played that day he would have beaten anyone in the world, including Federer.

asafi2
06-08-2009, 04:11 PM
1. In 20 years, most people won't even remember Nadal. How many people talk about Wilander these days except for his outlandish comments about Federer, and he won 7 Slams. Now if Nadal had broken Borg's record that would be a different story but he failed to do so.

2. No one will ask who Federer beat in the FO final. Do people ask who Borg beat in the '79 FO final? How many people even know the answer without looking it up on the Internet?

3. Nadal didn't lose because he was injured. He lost because Soderling was on fire and couldn't do anything wrong. The way Soderling played that day he would have beaten anyone in the world, including Federer.

Excellent points, but I believe Nadal will be remembered for his rivalry with Fed.

Fedace
06-08-2009, 04:13 PM
^^^Sorry,,,,DISAGREE. Nadal will be remembered as the ONLY rival to Roger Federer and will be remembered as better player than Roger. So Actually Nadal will be much more well known in history. So for that reason, People will ask Why wasn't Nadal there in the finals in Roger's only French open win ?????

Rhino
06-08-2009, 04:14 PM
^^^Sorry,,,,DISAGREE. Nadal will be remembered as the ONLY rival to Roger Federer and will be remembered as better player than Roger. So Actually Nadal will be much more well known in history. So for that reason, People will ask Why wasn't Nadal there in the finals in Roger's only French open win ?????

http://i43.tinypic.com/e63jno.jpg

vtmike
06-08-2009, 04:18 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/e63jno.jpg

LOL Perfectly reply to one of the most unbelievable posts I have ever seen...

Kevin T
06-08-2009, 04:28 PM
^^^Sorry,,,,DISAGREE. Nadal will be remembered as the ONLY rival to Roger Federer and will be remembered as better player than Roger. So Actually Nadal will be much more well known in history. So for that reason, People will ask Why wasn't Nadal there in the finals in Roger's only French open win ?????

In many ways, I agree. Let me start off by saying that I think Fed probably is the best ever (though my heart says Pete, my brain says Fed). You can only play and beat the guy/team in front of you and Fed beat an obviously "just glad to get this far" Soderling. So, hats off to Fed. He's the man. But how can the best ever have a losing record against his greatest rival? Nadal is 6-2 over Fed in Slams (yes, 4 from RG but 1 from the Aussie) and 1-2 at Wimby. He's up 13-7 overall and 6-4 in Master's Series Events. Yes, 11 of 20 meetings have been on clay but Nadal won the Aussie match-up, beat Rog on his home court at Wimby and is 3-3 on hard courts. That said, Bayless is a moron. But deep, deep down...in places only Mirka knows :)...Fed knows his victory would have been much more meaningful and satisfying had it come against Nadal. All the greats have 1-2 or 2-3 records against random dudes that no one considers great players or came along when they were exiting their prime years. But Fed has a guy that has gotten the better of him.

raiden031
06-08-2009, 04:31 PM
:rolleyes:^^^Sorry,,,,DISAGREE. Nadal will be remembered as the ONLY rival to Roger Federer and will be remembered as better player than Roger. So Actually Nadal will be much more well known in history. So for that reason, People will ask Why wasn't Nadal there in the finals in Roger's only French open win ?????

I guess Murray is a better player than Federer because he has a better H2H as well, right? :rolleyes:

Jchurch
06-08-2009, 04:31 PM
I agree that Roger has no control of who he plays in the finals. but If healthy Nadal was there, Roger would never be holding that french open cup.

The same could be said about Rafa winning Wimbledon 08 and AO 09

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 05:14 PM
But how can the best ever have a losing record against his greatest rival? Nadal is 6-2 over Fed in Slams (yes, 4 from RG but 1 from the Aussie) and 1-2 at Wimby.
Well, Borg was only 1-3 versus McEnroe in Slams. I don't think that diminishes Borg's right to be called one of the greatest ever one bit.

lidoazndiabloboi
06-08-2009, 05:27 PM
Skip Ball-less is a stupid moron that knows nothing about tennis

JennyS
06-08-2009, 05:28 PM
It's not like Roger had a cakewalk draw. Juan Martin Del Potro and Gael Monfils are top notch players.

And btw, does this mean that Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova's Grand Slam wins are hollow too, since Justine retired?

jukka1970
06-08-2009, 05:31 PM
Ok, aside from the fact that american sport writers tend to be biased against those that aren't from the US, lets look at the big problem with his statement.

He essentially just insulted all the people that Federer had to beat to get to the finals and win it.

Jukka

JennyS
06-08-2009, 05:31 PM
i think it's fair to say that anyone who considers themselves a champion at RG, who didn't do it by beating an in-form nadal in the final, is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

guga? kafelnikov? agassi? the great borg, even? certainly, none of these players triumphed over nadal to earn their name on the trophy.

honestly, i don't think it's going to far to call into question nadal's four successive wins; who, exactly, did he beat? he surely never came up against a player of the caliber of . . . himself.

LOL, you're right! Who exactly did these guys beat?! Ferrero beat Martin Verkerk for Pete's sake! And Andre had to come back against Andre Medvedev! How many Slams did Medvedev win? :P

JennyS
06-08-2009, 05:40 PM
Why stop there? Let's invalidate every championship won in every sport where the two best challengers were not involved in a final.

Good idea!

Let's think of some recent ones...

Andy Roddick's 2003 US Open: didn't have to play Roger Federer who owns him.

Andre Agassi's 2003 Australian Open: perhaps the worst Grand Slam draw ever?

any woman who has won a Slam since Justine retired

any woman who won a Slam between 2000-2003 who didn't play a Williams sister. That means you, Jennifer Capriati!

Amelie Mauresmo, 2006 Australian Open. It's her fault that Justine didn't finish the match!

Goran Ivanisevic, 2001 Wimbledon. Didn't have to beat Pete Sampras to win the title.

Fedace
06-08-2009, 06:49 PM
Only way roger can shut up his critics is if he beats Nadal at the French open. and I can't see this happening..

DarthFed
06-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Only way roger can shut up his critics is if he beats Nadal at the French open. and I can't see this happening..

And while his critics talk

http://i43.tinypic.com/e63jno.jpg

TennisFan481
06-08-2009, 06:57 PM
Skip Bayless is one of the Most respected reporters in ESPN. and he is not SHY to express his opinions. I heard he makes ton of money from ESPN.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::

Skip Bayless gets no respect from any human in the world. He's a clown that even BSPN laughs at.

Serendipitous
06-08-2009, 07:00 PM
Why do you sound surprised?
Remember, ESPN like to show serena replays over live mens matches.

+1

10 chars :)

Jchurch
06-08-2009, 07:13 PM
Only way roger can shut up his critics is if he beats Nadal at the French open. and I can't see this happening..

That won't even shut up his critics. They will say well he beat a post prime Nadal etc. I can't figure out why Nadal's Wimbledon and AO win were supposedly over a prime Fed.

pmerk34
06-08-2009, 07:16 PM
Don't be so sure about that. cause JP Mcenroe kept on dominating for next 4-5 years at the Open. Although Borg may had a chance against Jimmy Connors, that is possible...:confused:

The funny thing is if Federer never had the misfortune to contract mono, he would already have 17 Slams now. I'm 100% positive of that. Getting mono was a huge setback for him.

(He would have won the '08 and '09 Aus Opens, and the '08 Wimbledon making it 17 by now.)

1. In 20 years, most people won't even remember Nadal. How many people talk about Wilander these days except for his outlandish comments about Federer, and he won 7 Slams. Now if Nadal had broken Borg's record that would be a different story but he failed to do so.

2. No one will ask who Federer beat in the FO final. Do people ask who Borg beat in the '79 FO final? How many people even know the answer without looking it up on the Internet?

3. Nadal didn't lose because he was injured. He lost because Soderling was on fire and couldn't do anything wrong. The way Soderling played that day he would have beaten anyone in the world, including Federer.

Soderling played like a man possessed and it was still a close four setter. If Nadal played as poorly or was as hurt as hurt as some of his defenders would lead you to believe he would have gotten destroyed.

Soderling may never play like that again.

heftylefty
06-08-2009, 07:18 PM
And while his critics talk

http://i43.tinypic.com/e63jno.jpg

Sweet!!

Winning never ever sucks! Let the haters hate.

raiden031
06-08-2009, 07:20 PM
Soderling played like a man possessed and it was still a close four setter. If Nadal played as poorly or was as hurt as hurt as some of his defenders would lead you to believe he would have gotten destroyed.

Soderling may never play like that again.

Nadal was Soderlized, Federer was not.

End of Thread.

DarthFed
06-08-2009, 07:26 PM
Nadal was Soderlized, Federer was not.

End of Thread.

Soderling was the Giant Killer, and Federer slayed the Ginat Killer

It wasn't just Nadal...he OWNED Davy and edged Gonzalez two good claycourters

namui
06-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Bayless just attempted to turn a tennis tournament into a boxing match...what a failed cheap shot, just to gain attention!!

Mathematically, the knock-out system used in a tennis tournament decides who is the eventual winner of all the players in the tournament. Nadal entered FO 2009, and didn't win. Fed won, and therefore his result at "this year" FO is superior to Nadal. That's the direct interpretation of a tournament result, which is the norm in pro-tennis. Pro-Tennis is not a round-robin system (league) or challenge-based ladder system (boxing). Attempting to distort the meaning of how the competition is set up for is simply a cheap trick in arguments.

drgnpride
06-08-2009, 08:30 PM
but I Assure you that even in 20 years, they will ask "WHO did Federer Play in that one french open Win ???" then people will ask Where Was Nadal ?? and He will have to Answer, "Nadal lost early cause his knee was injured".:shock:

he lost because he couldn't handle Soderling.

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 08:50 PM
Only way roger can shut up his critics is if he beats Nadal at the French open. and I can't see this happening..
There's no need because those critics are all idiots and nobody listens to idiots anyway.

Oh, and I guess none of Wilander's and Lendl's French Opens count because neither had to beat Borg? Yeah, right. :-?

Morrissey
06-08-2009, 09:25 PM
And Skip also stated that IF Rafa was in the finals, Roger would have NEVER have beaten him.

Gotta agree.

Morrissey
06-08-2009, 09:28 PM
I always like Skip Bayless on First Take. He always ripped Fed, TO (Team Obliterator), Prince James (not King James) and Brett (Overrated) Favre. He's a bit of an outlandish sports guy but I happen to like what he says about alot of things. He also hates the Yankees which only delights me even more. Hail Skip!

Morrissey
06-08-2009, 09:32 PM
That won't even shut up his critics. They will say well he beat a post prime Nadal etc. I can't figure out why Nadal's Wimbledon and AO win were supposedly over a prime Fed.

At least he beat Fed on his way to all 6 of his slams. Fed only won 2 of 14 playing Nadal. So you can praise Fed all you want, that's your right. But to rip Nadal because some person decided to give his opinion which is no less over the top than 99% of Breakpoints gibberish in here is wrong. From what I know Skip isn't even a Nadal fan.

Morrissey
06-08-2009, 09:33 PM
Skip Bayless is a real life troll.

I'm quite sure ESPN pays him to troll the sports world.

They pay him because he knows his sports and is pretty entertaining to watch on ESPN. He and Stephen A.Smith had some classic discussions on NBA topics.

Fedexeon
06-08-2009, 09:37 PM
Found this in Wikipedia.
In 2008, after much controversy surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympics, Bayless suggested ending U.S. participation in all Olympic games. Bayless proposed creating a U.S. only Olympics because he believed all professional sports talent was already concentrated in America.

Not sure whether you can listen to an idiot who made such ridiculous statement. So no great athletes outside of US huh? =) No offence to great Americans who love tennis in this board, but this guy sounds like a typical stereotype American whose sights only limit to things in his own country!

malakas
06-08-2009, 09:38 PM
Found this in Wikipedia.


Not sure whether you can listen to an idiot who made such ridiculous statement. So no great athletes outside of US huh? =) No offence to great Americans who love tennis in this board, but this guy sounds like a typical stereotype American whose sights only limit to things in his own country!

hahahaha a guy who has said such words,gets the same respect as a clown to me.:lol: roflmao

Morrissey
06-08-2009, 09:43 PM
Found this in Wikipedia.


Not sure whether you can listen to an idiot who made such ridiculous statement. So no great athletes outside of US huh? =) No offence to great Americans who love tennis in this board, but this guy sounds like a typical stereotype American whose sights only limit to things in his own country!

So how is he different from 95% of all Americans in general? He's only representing the status quo. :-)

jamesblakefan#1
06-08-2009, 09:46 PM
They pay him because he knows his sports and is pretty entertaining to watch on ESPN. He and Stephen A.Smith had some classic discussions on NBA topics.

You mean classic shouting matches? Skip Bayless, or as I call him, Skip Brainless, is a bonafide professional troll who only says things for shock value, to arouse emotion, and to make people watch a second rate show on ESPN2, First Take. He used to be a journalist, but that was at least a decade ago. Now he is more of something akin to a professional clown, has zero credibility. I'll let this article finish him off for you.

http://deadspin.com/sports/skip-bayless/why-your-hometown-columnist-sucks-skip-bayless-142809.php

Needless to say, his opinion on Federer is pointless, as he is to trolling what Federer is to tennis: one of the GOAT.

Morrissey
06-08-2009, 09:50 PM
You mean classic shouting matches? Skip Bayless, or as I call him, Skip Brainless, is a bonafide professional troll who only says things for shock value, to arouse emotion, and to make people watch a second rate show on ESPN2, First Take. He used to be a journalist, but that was at least a decade ago. Now he is more of something akin to a professional clown, has zero credibility. I'll let this article finish him off for you.

http://deadspin.com/sports/skip-bayless/why-your-hometown-columnist-sucks-skip-bayless-142809.php

Needless to say, his opinion on Federer is pointless, as he is to trolling what Federer is to tennis: one of the GOAT.

When he's not trying to rile people up he does know his stuff. But I think he gets a kick out of getting extreme reactions in people. Sort of like when Nadal Freak or Breakpoint get going in here too.

VivalaVida
06-08-2009, 09:51 PM
When he's not trying to rile people up he does know his stuff. But I think he gets a kick out of getting extreme reactions in people. Sort of like when Nadal Freak or Breakpoint get going in here too.
Dont forget gj011! lol, he evoked strong reactions from people in every thread he went into. :lol:

malakas
06-08-2009, 09:52 PM
So how is he different from 95% of all Americans in general? He's only representing the status quo. :-)

95% of americans think that? roflmao what joke!

jamesblakefan#1
06-08-2009, 09:55 PM
95% of Americans don't want to end the Olympics. 95% of Americans don't care enough about the Olympics to even think a/b ending them! :)

malakas
06-08-2009, 10:01 PM
95% of Americans don't want to end the Olympics. 95% of Americans don't care enough about the Olympics to even think a/b ending them! :)
hahaha ok then.

Because all this talk about the Redeem team and the threads I saw here,it seemed everybody was watching.:confused:

jamesblakefan#1
06-08-2009, 10:10 PM
Yeah, we care about basketball, gymnastics, and swimming, that's about it. Last yr was OK because most of the stuff was in prime time on US TV. But for the most part, we only care for 2 wks, then it's like they didn't even happen. They aren't as big as they used to be. Maybe 95% was exagerration. More like 50/50.

127mph
06-08-2009, 10:52 PM
skip bayless is your typical angry white american male who can never admire a sport that does not involve rough physical contact

OTMPut
06-08-2009, 11:09 PM
It didn't mean as much as it would have meant to beat Nadal in the final. One can't disagree with that. The Sod-Fed match will not be remembered as a classic for the ages, a choc of the titans or an epic the way the Wimbledon or AO final will be. That's the tradeoff: against a lesser opponent, it's easier to win but the victory will not be treated as an unforgettable feat, it will be worth less.

How will defeat at lesser opponent e.g. Rafa's in the hands of Soderling be treated? I guess one could argue that Rafa can never claim to be clay GOAT as he lost to a mere no.23. He could not even take the match to five sets.

Figjam
06-08-2009, 11:22 PM
Balless, has a HOLLOW head

bluegrasser
06-09-2009, 04:21 AM
Skip loves to hear himself talk - the way I see it is Roger smoked the guy that beat Nadal, so end of story.

rafan
06-09-2009, 04:56 AM
Skip loves to hear himself talk - the way I see it is Roger smoked the guy that beat Nadal, so end of story.

I love the way you put that - its so down to earth

zagor
06-09-2009, 05:05 AM
Skip loves to hear himself talk - the way I see it is Roger smoked the guy that beat Nadal, so end of story.

Well said,this post should probably end this discussion although this is TT so I reckon it won't.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 05:26 AM
There's no need because those critics are all idiots and nobody listens to idiots anyway.

Oh, and I guess none of Wilander's and Lendl's French Opens count because neither had to beat Borg? Yeah, right. :-?

It's funny because Wilander himself downgrades his first French Open victory stating that the only reason he won it is because Borg wasn't around in 1982.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 05:33 AM
skip bayless is your typical angry white american male who can never admire a sport that does not involve rough physical contact

What the heck does his being white have to do with it? Tennis is even less popular with American blacks. It's not a popular sport in the U.S period. Race has little to do with it.

Morrissey
06-09-2009, 06:10 AM
skip bayless is your typical angry white american male who can never admire a sport that does not involve rough physical contact

He likes Golf and that's even less of a contact sport, well at least less physical. But I don't see him as an angry white male, actually he's through the roof that Superman beat down on Prince James in the NBA playoffs. Angry white male, lol, if you said typical angry black man I can only imagine the mutiny in here.

chess9
06-09-2009, 06:27 AM
Then how did Soderling beat Nadal? :oops:

And Federer is 10-0 versus Soderling. :-?

Enough said.

Yup, and RF had just beaten Nadal on CLAY.

-Robert

ATXtennisaddict
06-09-2009, 06:29 AM
Skip is a ****. I hate the guy and he has the stupidest opinions.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 06:30 AM
He likes Golf and that's even less of a contact sport, well at least less physical. But I don't see him as an angry white male, actually he's through the roof that Superman beat down on Prince James in the NBA playoffs. Angry white male, lol, if you said typical angry black man I can only imagine the mutiny in here.

ICE CUBE always tried to portray himself as typical angry black male but he actually seems like a nice guy.

billnepill
06-09-2009, 07:06 AM
skipping Skip.. Next!

fantom
06-09-2009, 07:15 AM
Skip Bayless is one of the Most respected reporters in ESPN. and he is not SHY to express his opinions. I heard he makes ton of money from ESPN.

SKIPTARD!!!

sh@de
06-09-2009, 07:20 AM
SKIPTARD!!!

LOL skip must have had a brain transplant... except they obviously forgot to give him a new one... :-?

jamesblakefan#1
06-09-2009, 07:23 AM
Are we seriously debating this guy's opinion of Federer? Nadal fans have to dig that deep?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtbmBs3Q2U

First-rate professional clown.

Kevin T
06-09-2009, 08:16 AM
Well, Borg was only 1-3 versus McEnroe in Slams. I don't think that diminishes Borg's right to be called one of the greatest ever one bit.

Didn't say Borg or in particular, Fed aren't two of the best ever. I think McEnroe was a better player than Borg. If Borg wouldn't have bailed, I see no reason why McEnroe wouldn't be 5-1 or 6-2 against Borg in slams. Johnny Mac gave away his French title and no one cared about the Aussie back then. He had a better game for Wimbledon and home court advantage at the US Open. Along with being mentally exhausted, I think Borg saw the writing on the wall and decided to get out while the getting was good. IMHO, it's tough to call someone the greatest ever (not ONE OF the best ever) when their closest rival has doubled them up in wins. We aren't talking about a handful of match ups, as so often is the case...we're talking about 20 and counting, with Nadal having a clear lead and youth/time on his side. And let's not close the book on Nadal yet. He's much younger and if he stays healthy and motivated, there's no reason he can't collect 5-6 more slams.

zagor
06-09-2009, 08:23 AM
Didn't say Borg or in particular, Fed aren't two of the best ever. I think McEnroe was a better player than Borg. If Borg wouldn't have bailed, I see no reason why McEnroe wouldn't be 5-1 or 6-2 against Borg in slams. Johnny Mac gave away his French title and no one cared about the Aussie back then. He had a better game for Wimbledon and home court advantage at the US Open. Along with being mentally exhausted, I think Borg saw the writing on the wall and decided to get out while the getting was good. IMHO, it's tough to call someone the greatest ever (not ONE OF the best ever) when their closest rival has doubled them up in wins. And let's not close the book on Nadal yet. He's much younger and if he stays healthy and motivated, there's no reason he can't collect 5-6 more slams.

I understand your point and even as a big fan of Fed I don't consider him to be the GOAT( I don't care if he never gest there,I just love his tennis)but IMO no way was Mcenroe a better player than Borg.On the all time great list,Borg should be ranked way higher than Mcenroe,maybe even above Sampras and Fed.What Borg did-dominate 2 surfaces who were at time complete polar opposities(unlike today)-will most likely never be repeated ever.Grinding people down at the FO and then shortly after win Wimbledon playing all-court tennis(with a lot of S&V)is amazing and to do it so often as Borg did(5 Wimbledons and 6 FOs)is probably the most impressive thing in tennis for me(aside from Laver's Calendar Grand Slams).

hyogen
06-09-2009, 08:27 AM
His win versus DelPotro was very solid.

del potro could have won that in 3 straight sets. very unlucky he gave away the 2nd set tiebreaker...

then went on to hand the match to Federer. did you SEE the match?

Ronaldo
06-09-2009, 08:32 AM
Graf really receives this hollow winner label after 1993.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 08:33 AM
Graf really receives this hollow winner label after 1993.

No doubt. Joke w/out the real Seles.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 08:34 AM
del potro could have won that in 3 straight sets. very unlucky he gave away the 2nd set tiebreaker...

then went on to hand the match to Federer. did you SEE the match?

Del Potro got tired. When you tire physically you also tire mentally which is why Del Potro is not quite an elite player yet.

Kevin T
06-09-2009, 08:48 AM
I understand your point and even as a big fan of Fed I don't consider him to be the GOAT( I don't care if he never gest there,I just love his tennis)but IMO no way was Mcenroe a better player than Borg.On the all time great list,Borg should be ranked way higher than Mcenroe,maybe even above Sampras and Fed.What Borg did-dominate 2 surfaces who were at time complete polar opposities(unlike today)-will most likely never be repeated ever.Grinding people down at the FO and then shortly after win Wimbledon playing all-court tennis(with a lot of S&V)is amazing and to do it so often as Borg did(5 Wimbledons and 6 FOs)is probably the most impressive thing in tennis for me(aside from Laver's Calendar Grand Slams).


Great points and I pretty much agree. Borg's accomplishments are very, very impressive. But I honestly think Mac would have gotten the better of him. IMHO, Mac is one of the greatest natural talents ever. He just didn't have the work ethic of Borg, Lendl, etc. It shocks me that Borg never won a US Open. That's why I love tennis. We can argue these points all day and never come to a conclusion. :)

Grover Sparkman
06-09-2009, 08:51 AM
Skip Bayless is an idiot. One of the worst people on the network not named Stephen A. Smith (who is no longer on the network).

Ronaldo
06-09-2009, 08:57 AM
Skip Bayless is an idiot. One of the worst people on the network not named Stephen A. Smith (who is no longer on the network).

Wondered what happened to him. But only for a New York minute.

sramirez77
06-09-2009, 08:59 AM
Stupid comment by Bayless...but that's what he's known for.

Federer himself knew he most likely wasn't going to beat Nadal in the final at RG. He even said in his post-match interview that he knew that day Nadal wasn't going to make the final, he would be there and win.

But like someone said earlier, Nadal plays high risk tennis with his body and the inevitable injury did happen. Fed took advantage of the situation and fought harder than he ever has in his career to win the tournament. Calling it hollow just because he didn't beat Rafa is ridiculous.

sramirez77
06-09-2009, 09:13 AM
he lost because he couldn't handle Soderling.

AND because Rafa was hurt. He hasn't been the same since the Madrid semi vs. Djokovic when he aggravated his knee. Look at the doctor's report on his site.

Soderling definitely stepped his game up for this tournament, but he's not taking down a 100% healthy Nadal at RG on his BEST day.

Injuries are part of the game and I do NOT agree with Bayless that this cheapens Federer's win. But anyone who doesn't recognize that Nadal's injury played a part in his loss either hasn't been paying attention or just hates Nadal so much that they can't acknowledge the truth. Let's try to be fair to both players.

fednad
06-09-2009, 10:30 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

Skip Bayless....
Look at the name itself......Rhymes with Clueless.....

And I would never know what you dislike in Roger (or his game).
But tell you what....you are eternally ****ed off and have lost sleep over the fact that Roger is Roland Garros 2009 champion. And what a time it is for fans like me!!
So many trolls are ****ed off and cursing Roger....but history will remember Roger and his achievements....and not you or "Skip the Clueless"

fednad
06-09-2009, 10:43 AM
You don't make sense once again.

She never will.

fednad
06-09-2009, 10:46 AM
but I Assure you that even in 20 years, they will ask "WHO did Federer Play in that one french open Win ???" then people will ask Where Was Nadal ?? and He will have to Answer, "Nadal lost early cause his knee was injured".:shock:

And I assure you even after twenty years, your posts will have no credibility if you keep calling "Skip the Clueless" a respected writer

Rabbit
06-09-2009, 11:24 AM
This reminds me of another thread that involved some Italian journalist who, in the late 70s, questioned Bjorn Borg's moxy. He asked who Borg had played.

So Bayliss makes a lot of money? And that alone qualifies him? TV+Money=Expert?

Let's see where the jury falls on these other "experts" who make a lot of money:

Bill O'Reilly
Geraldo Rivera - (Al Capone's vault anyone?)
Dan Rather
Bill Maher
Howard Cosell
Sean Hanity
Ann Coulter
Arianna HuffingtonPlease.

As mentioned before, Federer beat the guy who beat Nadal.

jackson vile
06-09-2009, 11:28 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

consider that the only thing that ever stopped Roger from winning the French all those years was Nadal.

BreakPoint
06-09-2009, 11:41 AM
It's funny because Wilander himself downgrades his first French Open victory stating that the only reason he won it is because Borg wasn't around in 1982.
Well, then I guess in that case, Nadal should downgrade all four of his French Opens because he didn't have to play Borg in any of them either. :shock: :-?

AAAA
06-09-2009, 11:47 AM
It's funny because Wilander himself downgrades his first French Open victory stating that the only reason he won it is because Borg wasn't around in 1982.

The flipside of that reasoning is the best player of the surface then downgrades his win because the nearest challenger is 2nd best at best and not as good. They too 'won' by 'default'.

SteveI
06-09-2009, 12:10 PM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

Hey Fedace,

Nice find...but I turn off the TV when Skip Bayless says anything.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 12:15 PM
This reminds me of another thread that involved some Italian journalist who, in the late 70s, questioned Bjorn Borg's moxy. He asked who Borg had played.

So Bayliss makes a lot of money? And that alone qualifies him? TV+Money=Expert?

Let's see where the jury falls on these other "experts" who make a lot of money:

Bill O'Reilly
Geraldo Rivera - (Al Capone's vault anyone?)
Dan Rather
Bill Maher
Howard Cosell
Sean Hanity
Ann Coulter
Arianna HuffingtonPlease.

As mentioned before, Federer beat the guy who beat Nadal.

There a million places to argue politics. Not here please.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, then I guess in that case, Nadal should downgrade all four of his French Opens because he didn't have to play Borg in any of them either. :shock: :-?

Borg was the reigning King of clay and had just retired out of the blue in 1982. Weird logic by you to bring him up concerning Nadal.

pmerk34
06-09-2009, 12:19 PM
The flipside of that reasoning is the best player of the surface then downgrades his win because the nearest challenger is 2nd best at best and not as good. They too 'won' by 'default'.

Go argue with Mats about it.

Cyan
06-09-2009, 02:58 PM
Very hollow indeed.

icedevil0289
06-09-2009, 03:17 PM
Very hollow indeed.

kind of like your head

Rabbit
06-09-2009, 07:12 PM
There a million places to argue politics. Not here please.

It's got nothing to do with politics. It has to do with folks who make lots of $'s on TV being experts...............NOT


Brent Musberger once commented on the French Open final in which Vilas was playing Borg. He said "Wow, Vilas must be tired, do you hear how he grunts when he shoots?" And, not coincidentally, Brent Musberger made lots of money with this astute and pithy commentary.

Fedace
06-09-2009, 07:59 PM
Skip is tired of all you Federer fans emailing him with curses and derogatory remarks.......LOL

Ronaldo
06-09-2009, 08:00 PM
It's got nothing to do with politics. It has to do with folks who make lots of $'s on TV being experts...............NOT


Brent Musberger once commented on the French Open final in which Vilas was playing Borg. He said "Wow, Vilas must be tired, do you hear how he grunts when he shoots?" And, not coincidentally, Brent Musberger made lots of money with this astute and pithy commentary.

Never heard Sidney Patrick Crosby grunt.

tintin
06-10-2009, 07:29 AM
makes me wonder how he feels about any tournament Roddick wins after Wimbledon when the top 4 are still in Europe resting:roll:

rocket
06-10-2009, 07:44 AM
ESPN columnist Skip Bayless stated during the show on Monday that French Open win by Roger Federer is and was HOLLOW. because Nadal was out and lost to Soderling due to Knee injury, the win didn't mean as much. and He goes on to state, Federer won by "DEFAULT". LOL:shock::)

More like Skip Clueless...

sh@de
06-10-2009, 07:46 AM
More like Skip Clueless...

Might as well call the dude Skip Brainless...

latinking
06-10-2009, 07:51 AM
I watch that show allot!! Skip knows allot about NFL, NBA, MLB. Basiclly all the USA sports. That is it. He is clueless about others sports, like Tennis, Boxing, Football.

Who ever takes what he says about tennis seriously doesn't understand that Skip Bayless doesn't watch or follow Tennis!!! Don't believe or trust everything you hear a analyst say, sometimes those analyst are talking out thier *****. - Anal yst. LOL

rocket
06-10-2009, 07:51 AM
Might as well call the dude Skip Brainless...

Yep, that works. :)

pmerk34
06-10-2009, 08:14 AM
Yep, that works. :)

You don't need to be a Tennis Expert to allow that Roger did not beat the top guy this year - the guy that owns him at the French. I think most anyone would say Roger was a bit fortunate this time.

vtmike
06-10-2009, 08:16 AM
You don't need to be a Tennis Expert to allow that Roger did not beat the top guy this year - the guy that owns him at the French. I think most anyone would say Roger was a bit fortunate this time.

and why was the guy who owns him not in the finals this year? Oh yes, the stupid French crowd were mean to him... :rolleyes:

pmerk34
06-10-2009, 08:22 AM
and why was the guy who owns him not in the finals this year? Oh yes, the stupid French crowd were mean to him... :rolleyes:

Everyone knows it was Rogers to lose once Soderling took out Nadal.

Fedace
06-10-2009, 08:23 AM
How come Skip only has 19 votes so far ??? NO love in TW forum for Skip??

rocket
06-10-2009, 08:39 AM
You don't need to be a Tennis Expert to allow that Roger did not beat the top guy this year - the guy that owns him at the French. I think most anyone would say Roger was a bit fortunate this time.

Give Fed any guy who's beaten Nadal and he'll kick his *ss, in the same tournament. Fact is, Fed was in the FO final, Nadal tried but didn't/couldn't make it there. Default is when your opponent overslept, got stuck in traffic, or simply chickened out.

It's extremely hard to be in the finals day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out. Not many people appreciate that. That Skip guy is Clueless about what it takes to win a slam.

Fed did beat the top guy this year. But of course, the top guy was only at 50%, the altitude was too high, the ball flew too fast, it was on a hard red court, etc.

pmerk34
06-10-2009, 08:43 AM
Give Fed any guy who's beaten Nadal and he'll kick his *ss, in the same tournament. Fact is, Fed was in the FO final, Nadal tried but didn't/couldn't make it there. Default is when your opponent overslept, got stuck in traffic, or simply chickened out.

It's extremely hard to be in the finals day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out. Not many people appreciate that. That Skip guy is Clueless about what it takes to win a slam.

Fed did beat the top guy this year. But of course, the top guy was only at 50%, the altitude was too high, the ball flew too fast, it was on a hard red court, etc.

I love Fed. He was fortunate this year at the French that Nadal was not across the net in the Finals.

Rabbit
06-10-2009, 10:09 AM
How come Skip only has 19 votes so far ??? NO love in TW forum for Skip??

So reading comprehension can be added to the ever growing list? :)

samster
06-10-2009, 10:10 AM
Skip who? Clueless?