PDA

View Full Version : McEnroe,"Wimbledon is all about Roger."


Pages : [1] 2

peRFection
06-14-2011, 10:56 PM
McEnroe,"It does not matter how well Rafa and Novak are playing.Wimbledon is all about Roger."

JAY1
06-14-2011, 11:05 PM
McEnroe,"It does not matter how well Rafa and Novak are playing.Wimbledon is all about Roger."
No one can argue with this statement from the most talented player and insightful expert of all time!
( and I don't like the Mcenroe )!!!

Backhanded Compliment
06-14-2011, 11:07 PM
Mac is great BUT if Murray is in the final it will all be about Murray. Even if he loses...

coyfish
06-14-2011, 11:11 PM
McEnroe is always "all about roger." He needs one of those Adidas shirts. I don't agree with him though. Favorites= Novak and Nadal imo ... with some Murray drama sprinkled on top. Despite rogers dominance at the french I think he will fly relatively under the radar in the wake of Nadal, Murray, and Djoker. Roger has made so many semifinals and his presence is expected. Hopefully that works for him like at the french.

I think this wimby has so much to offer to all of the top 4.

Sid_Vicious
06-14-2011, 11:12 PM
McEnroe,"It does not matter how well Rafa and Novak are playing.Wimbledon is all about Roger."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

roundiesee
06-14-2011, 11:19 PM
If the top 4 make it to the semis, this will be the third straight time in a Grand Slam tournament this has happened. Wonder whether this is unprecedented?

Bud
06-14-2011, 11:21 PM
If the top 4 make it to the semis, this will be the third straight time in a Grand Slam tournament this has happened. Wonder whether this is unprecedented?

Remind us all who was in the AO SF :)

TheNatural
06-14-2011, 11:28 PM
He's just kidding..

Wimbledon has been all about Nadal since he won the greatest match ever there.

Sentinel
06-15-2011, 01:23 AM
RG is all about Nadal. That's about it as far as Naphal goes ;)

Magnus
06-15-2011, 01:30 AM
Hmmm..isn't JMac a ******* as of late? Anyway, I hope he's right and Federer continues his high form of the FO. Even if Fed doesn't win I'm just happy to see him play good matches. He seriously needs to stop choking and start converting BPs more often. I think tennis fans worldwide are prepared for the next Federer GS win ;-)

Djokovic made his statement in the AO
Nadal made his in the FO (a bit lucky to not face his current owner)
Fed needs to make his at Wimbledon

Magnus
06-15-2011, 01:33 AM
He's just kidding..

Wimbledon has been all about Nadal since he won the greatest match ever there.

Really? Funny, I though Nadal nearly lost some five-setters last year, and one of them he was stealing in the most unsportsmanship-like behavior I've seen. But I guess I must have imagined things.

BreakPoint
06-15-2011, 01:33 AM
He's just kidding..

Wimbledon has been all about Nadal since he won the greatest match ever there.
Yes, because he's beaten Federer at Wimbledon since then.

zagor
06-15-2011, 01:36 AM
Well it wouldn't reflect good on the field if an ancient museum exponent like Roger wins the title that's for sure.

jamesblakefan#1
06-15-2011, 01:40 AM
People don't need to post links anymore? There's no story showing the quote in the OP. Bogus thread.

IvanisevicServe
06-15-2011, 02:02 AM
(I agree with Mac, even if Rafa wins this year's Wimbledon, I think the story will be whether Federer is on the verge of retirement or not. The longer he goes without a slam, the louder the talk is. US Open could be Federer's final slam, especially if he starts thinking he won't be able to win the Olympics on grass - so this year's Wimbledon may tell him that)

He's not retiring any time soon, unless hit by serious injury (ies) or he starts stringing together pre-QF slam losses. What kind of hit me recently is Federer would be lost without tennis; this is what he does. I don't think he really has any plans for what to do after he retires. He loves the attention and the competition, and I think he's well aware of that. He's about as married to tennis as he is to Mirka. I don't think he would even think about leaving it at the first sign of adversity. It's gonna take more than losing his "truly elite" status to get him to sign off.

That's the sense I get, anyway.

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 02:50 AM
He's not retiring any time soon, unless hit by serious injury (ies) or he starts stringing together pre-QF slam losses. What kind of hit me recently is Federer would be lost without tennis; this is what he does. I don't think he really has any plans for what to do after he retires. He loves the attention and the competition, and I think he's well aware of that. He's about as married to tennis as he is to Mirka. I don't think he would even think about leaving it at the first sign of adversity. It's gonna take more than losing his "truly elite" status to get him to sign off.

That's the sense I get, anyway.

he said he wants to play as long as he can and would like kids to watch him lose to Nadal a few times when they get a little older.

Magnus
06-15-2011, 02:52 AM
Well it wouldn't reflect good on the field if an ancient museum exponent like Roger wins the title that's for sure.

There's nobody quite like Fed huh? He can lose and lose and lose and people will keep cheering for him. That's how great he is. Greatest ever or not, I don't care, I just appreciate that the guy can still play some brilliant tennis on occasion. Yeah, Nadal will probably end up with more slams, and yes, Fed will likely lose more matches and go down even more in the rankings. But he's Fed, and and I cheer for Fed :)

tata
06-15-2011, 03:19 AM
The day Fed retires is the day tennis goes down. My friends dont know tennis, but they know roger federer and would turn on the tv just to watch him play, not anybody else.

Rhino
06-15-2011, 03:20 AM
Tennis in general is all about Roger, in the same way that golf is about Tiger Woods. Doesn't matter whether they're dominating or not.

tata
06-15-2011, 03:34 AM
And the only reason why nadal is big is because hes considered fed's kryptonite and rival. every villain is only as great as his hero

Satch
06-15-2011, 03:48 AM
it's really a shame that player who has the worst volleys and serve in history as a #1, does so great at W.

A tournament that was all about S&V, it really is a disaster for tennis.

CMM
06-15-2011, 03:49 AM
And the only reason why nadal is big is because hes considered fed's kryptonite and rival. every villain is only as great as his hero

Nice to see BULLZ1LLA has some serious competition.

mcenroefan
06-15-2011, 05:01 AM
Mac blows with the wind and this statement is just as crazy as his pronouncements on GOAT. While I like Fed's chances if he plays his best, he is a bit past his prime and Nole and Nadal are just as in the picture at this point in time.

OTMPut
06-15-2011, 05:13 AM
(Rafa is big because he's winning slams faster than any player since Borg, and already has a Career Grand Slam and the Masters Shield record, and he's won 4 of the last 5 slams. That tends to make you big)

it was h2h with fed
and then when he won a few, it became "age adjusted slam count"
now it is the rate of winning
and soon what? double derivative on winning? rate of rate of winning?

OTMPut
06-15-2011, 06:09 AM
(H2H? Means nothing. It makes no difference who Rafa has beat, he could have beat Roddick and Hewitt in every final and it wouldn't change a thing. Federer got away with beating those chumps, Federer is still credible despite the weak era he won in)

chumps, sure.
and nadal was whacking them to record consecutive USO/AO finals appearances (i don't want to be too harsh to ask for winning).

pmerk34
06-15-2011, 06:43 AM
(I agree with Mac, even if Rafa wins this year's Wimbledon, I think the story will be whether Federer is on the verge of retirement or not. The longer he goes without a slam, the louder the talk is. US Open could be Federer's final slam, especially if he starts thinking he won't be able to win the Olympics on grass - so this year's Wimbledon may tell him that)

Disagree. I don't think Federer has any intentions of retiring any time soon. Just my opinion

sarmpas
06-15-2011, 06:44 AM
(Far from the FIRST sign of adversity, the signs are continuous. How does he want to retire? After 2 years of no slam titles? 5 years?)

He's aiming to pick up some more FOs after Nadal retires.

pmerk34
06-15-2011, 06:50 AM
He's aiming to pick up some more FOs after Nadal retires.

With the massive improvements to the facilities and prize money offered the French Open and Australian Open are now universally recognized as very important grand slam events. This has been exacerbated with the demise of the year end championship in importance due to it now being 2-3 sets and being moved from NY. The masters used to be extremely important. Now the slam count is paramount and Roger knows this. If he plays 3 more seasons and adds a slam or two it will add to his legacy. No one will remember or care if he was ranked 8 in the world or didn't win much else.

sarmpas
06-15-2011, 07:10 AM
With the massive improvements to the facilities and prize money offered the French Open and Australian Open are now universally recognized as very important grand slam events. This has been exacerbated with the demise of the year end championship in importance due to it now being 2-3 sets and being moved from NY. The masters used to be extremely important. Now the slam count is paramount and Roger knows this. If he plays 3 more seasons and adds a slam or two it will add to his legacy. No one will remember or care if he was ranked 8 in the world or didn't win much else.

My post was part joke however Federer really had a realistic chance to win the FO had Murray beaten Nadal in the SF. At times it looks unlikely however Federer might actually be a top 5 longer than Nadal.

Due to the USO Super Saturday scheduling Wimbledon looks a more realistic title from an endurance/recovery point of view unless Federer plays the first SF against an easy opponent.

stringertom
06-15-2011, 07:14 AM
That way this faucet of tardism could be eliminated and the sportsmanship these two rivals exhibit would be on display constantly and maybe rub off on the more outspoken of the regular combatants.

BTW, Fed isn't retiring anytime soon. It's pretty evident he really enjoys what he does. "Find something you love to do and you'll never have to work a day in your life". Barring injury, he may envision Guga placing a medal around his neck in Brasil 2016.

pmerk34
06-15-2011, 09:02 AM
My post was part joke however Federer really had a realistic chance to win the FO had Murray beaten Nadal in the SF. At times it looks unlikely however Federer might actually be a top 5 longer than Nadal.

Due to the USO Super Saturday scheduling Wimbledon looks a more realistic title from an endurance/recovery point of view unless Federer plays the first SF against an easy opponent.

He would have beaten Murray. Federer is a bad match up for Murray. Unlike Djokovic and Nadal, Murray cannot pressure Federer.

pmerk34
06-15-2011, 09:04 AM
(Yeah, but most people find fatherhood fun, at least for a decade. Maybe Federer enjoys his slamless years on tour more than daily fatherhood. Either way, I'm sure this Wimbledon will tell Federer a lot about whether he can still play on grass sufficiently to challenge for the London Gold Medal. If he doesn't win the Gold next year, it would be the ultimate disappointment, and Rafa the likely victor again considering the Olympic Final is best-of-5 sets)

How many kids do you have?

stringertom
06-15-2011, 09:09 AM
(Yeah, but most people find fatherhood fun, at least for a decade. Maybe Federer enjoys his slamless years on tour more than daily fatherhood. Either way, I'm sure this Wimbledon will tell Federer a lot about whether he can still play on grass sufficiently to challenge for the London Gold Medal. If he doesn't win the Gold next year, it would be the ultimate disappointment, and Rafa the likely victor again considering the Olympic Final is best-of-5 sets)

You, my friend, are a prime example of what we could use less of on this forum! Why mention Fed's family at all? I've never seen a post bringing up Rafa's parents' messy divorce status. It's irrelevant! Let your Zilla boy play and if he wins, rejoice. If not, show some class for a change and salute whomever else is the victor.

As to "slamless" years, care to identify even one since '02 for Fed. Pretty impressive stuff, no?

stringertom
06-15-2011, 10:35 AM
(None, but I've spoken to fathers, and all that I've spoken to have enjoyed the first decade of their children. The teen years whereas, appear to be awful for fathers



Ummm.....we've just gone a whole year without Federer winning a slam, and it's likely to continue, based on the improvement of his rivals. As for Federer's family, I can't even tell you their names nor how many, I was talking broadly about fatherhood being something you'd think a tennis player would enjoy more than constant disappointment [assuming losing slam finals is disappointing for a former regular winner of slams])

"Constant Disappointment???" A wiser man than I (and certainly you) once told me "only mediocre people are always at their best." Fed set the bar pretty high, no? Rafa chases that height. Why can't you just let them settle it w/o your "cute", overused barbs? How many Red Bulls did you drink this morning? The reason I ask is the BS just keeps streaming out of your fingers.

Messarger
06-15-2011, 11:18 AM
(What bar is Rafa chasing exactly? Federer never won RG, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year. Federer never set the Masters shields record. Federer never set the single-surface record of 81. Federer didn't win the Career Grand slam as early as Rafa did. And Federer doesn't have the GS Final conversion rate of Rafa. Rafa looks more likely to join Sampras as a 7-time winner of a slam title. Apart from the 16 slams, does Rafa need anything that Federer has? No. It looks like Federer is the one doing the chasing, of Sampras' weeks ranked number one, and Rafa's Olympic Singles Gold)

23 straight semi finals? At least 5 time winner of the AO, USO, and Wimby? 237 straight weeks at number 1? The records that you mentioned are amazing, but so are these made by Federer which would be hard for Nadal to equal.

cc0509
06-15-2011, 11:34 AM
That way this faucet of tardism could be eliminated and the sportsmanship these two rivals exhibit would be on display constantly and maybe rub off on the more outspoken of the regular combatants.

BTW, Fed isn't retiring anytime soon. It's pretty evident he really enjoys what he does. "Find something you love to do and you'll never have to work a day in your life". Barring injury, he may envision Guga placing a medal around his neck in Brasil 2016.



You know this how exactly? Did Federer tell you this himself?

If Federer does not win any slams or a medal at the Olympic Games in 2012, he will retire. Mark my words. My feeling is he wants to try and go out with a bang--i.e. a slam win if he can achieve that now.

powerangle
06-15-2011, 11:52 AM
He's just kidding..

Wimbledon has been all about Nadal since he won the greatest match ever there.

Currently it's all about Nadal.

Historically, Wimbledon has been way more about Sampras, Federer, and Borg than it is about Nadal.

jamesblakefan#1
06-15-2011, 12:39 PM
Wow, I still don't see a link posted to the quote in the OP. I guess people can just post random quotes without proof and start flame wars now. This place really is going downhill lately.

Heracles
06-15-2011, 02:59 PM
And the only reason why nadal is big is because hes considered fed's kryptonite and rival. every villain is only as great as his hero

Or maybe because Nadal has already won 10 GS at age 25? Without Federer Nadal would still be one of the very very best.

On topic, I disagree with Mcnroe. Nadal has showed in 2007 and 2008 that he can rivalize with Federer at Wimbledon. He is a 2 time wimbledon winner and 2 times finalist. He is a factor of course.

If both play well they can do an epic match.

stringertom
06-15-2011, 08:01 PM
You know this how exactly? Did Federer tell you this himself?

If Federer does not win any slams or a medal at the Olympic Games in 2012, he will retire. Mark my words. My feeling is he wants to try and go out with a bang--i.e. a slam win if he can achieve that now.

I, as well as 99.99% of TT posters, do not have private conversations with various pro players on a regular basis. Of course he did not tell me his career plans. The "tell" is in his demeanor within the bounds of his public performances. He loves the game and you can clearly see it. He loves the spotlight and all the ancillary responsibilities of being one of the biggest stars ever. Why would he walk away when it isn't a grind to him?

Your scenario parallels the end of Sampras' career. I don't see the angst Sampras visibly expressed towards the end of his prime. Fed has been settled in with his personal life. Pete had just met Brigitte and moved from Orlando to LA to be near her while he was doggedly chasing the consecutive #1-year-ending record. He has admitted he was burnt out from the quest and torn between his personal and professional personnae.

I don't see Fed ripped up by any such turmoil. That's my opinion. You have yours. Don't flame on me because I didn't qualify my statement with the IMHO letters. Did Fed tell you he'll retire after a "big bang" send-off? I doubt it.

clayman2000
06-15-2011, 08:16 PM
Generally when you have won 14 consecutive matches and 26 out of your last 28 at a venue, you have to be considered a favourite

CocaCola
06-16-2011, 02:35 AM
And that's why he'll fail in wining it under the pressure.

cc0509
06-16-2011, 03:26 AM
I, as well as 99.99% of TT posters, do not have private conversations with various pro players on a regular basis. Of course he did not tell me his career plans. The "tell" is in his demeanor within the bounds of his public performances. He loves the game and you can clearly see it. He loves the spotlight and all the ancillary responsibilities of being one of the biggest stars ever. Why would he walk away when it isn't a grind to him?

Your scenario parallels the end of Sampras' career. I don't see the angst Sampras visibly expressed towards the end of his prime. Fed has been settled in with his personal life. Pete had just met Brigitte and moved from Orlando to LA to be near her while he was doggedly chasing the consecutive #1-year-ending record. He has admitted he was burnt out from the quest and torn between his personal and professional personnae.

I don't see Fed ripped up by any such turmoil. That's my opinion. You have yours. Don't flame on me because I didn't qualify my statement with the IMHO letters. Did Fed tell you he'll retire after a "big bang" send-off? I doubt it.

I am far from flaming you. My opinion is if he does not win any slams in the next year, and after he participates in the Olympic Games 2012 and tries to win a gold medal, he will likely retire shortly thereafter. The man is not going to stay on the tour as a geriatric player especially if he is not winniing any slams or his play starts to deteriorate further. Even if he wins a slam in the next year and a medal, he will still most likely retire some point not too long after the 2012 Olympic Games.

We don't necessarily have to see angst on his face for him to retire. If he is still doing well and his ranking stays fairly high then he may prolong his retirement, but to me, I see this stage of his career as the final push to try and win a slam or two. If he does not succeed in doing that, I can't see him hanging around nor do I think he should hang around at that point. To me it always seems better to go out on top, rather than slowly flicker out like a dying flame. That is what I see, but, you may think differently.

mcr619619
06-16-2011, 04:20 AM
i agree to mac, Fed is playingh well, FO semi against Djok was his best since 2008 IMO...

and i don't think so that he'll retire soon, 2013/4 i guess, he's so fit,.and if he'll retire soon, it'll be devastating to the TENNIS WORLD..i have girl college classmate, (Philippines, where tennis isn't known enough) friends that don't know how to play tennis, yet know Federer.. as much as the other one said in this thread

Tennis is all about Roger as Golf is all about Woods...why do i agree on that? because it's true, that's all that i need, the truth.

and i respect Nadal, djoko and murray..

@BULLZ1LLA - 16 GS titles, the only edge of Fed to Nadal?...OK! now go home and drink you're milk..LOL

ViscaB
06-16-2011, 06:19 AM
Yes, because he's beaten Federer at Wimbledon since then.

We all know he would have if Federer would have actually made it to the final;).

Pistol Pete
06-16-2011, 06:21 AM
just a side note that of the 25 matches rafa and roger have played 14 have been on clay.

if they played the majority of their matches on the other surfaces im sure the h2h would be different

NamRanger
06-16-2011, 08:27 AM
(What bar is Rafa chasing exactly? Federer never won RG, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year. Federer never set the Masters shields record. Federer never set the single-surface record of 81. Federer didn't win the Career Grand slam as early as Rafa did. And Federer doesn't have the GS Final conversion rate of Rafa. Rafa looks more likely to join Sampras as a 7-time winner of a slam title. Apart from the 16 slams, does Rafa need anything that Federer has? No. It looks like Federer is the one doing the chasing, of Sampras' weeks ranked number one, and Rafa's Olympic Singles Gold)



Federer won his career grand slam first.


Federer has had more domiant seasons than Nadal overall statistically.


Federer holds more major titles than Nadal.


Federer's World Tennis Final titles all severely outweigh the Olympic Gold; he already has an Olympic Gold from doubles.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 08:41 AM
So what ? Clay is a legal surface and counts as much as anything else.

Besides 14 of their matches were on clay but 11 of them were not. Nadal still leads 11-8 on non clay surfaces.

In non clay grand slams it's 2-2. But Nadals losses came when he was a clay court specialist
and wasn't supposed to get past the first round. Furthermore in grand slams Nadal has beaten Federer on ALL surfaces...grass, hardcourt an clay. Federer has merely beaten Nadal only on grass.

Nadal has beaten Fed in his "house" in the goat of matches but In 6 attempts Fed has not come close to beating Nadal at the FO. Nadal is a better grass court player than Federer is a clay court player.

Let's face it.....Federer may be the greatest of all time but Nadal is better.

Actually Fed leads 6-5.

But I believe it is more fair to break down the indoor and outdoor HC matches. Fed owns Rafa when playing on a HC in an indoor low bouncing environment. That's about it though. Outdoor HC matches Rafa leads 4-1 and it should've been 5-0 if it wasn't for a 19yr old Rafa getting nervous and blowing his lead. Rafa of today would never lose from 2 sets up and a break in the 3rd no matter how "prime" or "peak" Fed starts playing.

On grass it's hard to get a reading because they've played 3 times and all 3 encounters have been pretty close. It would be fair to say they are even in grass h2h.

So overall:

on Clay, Rafa owns Fed (obviously)
on Grass, they are fairly even (would love to get a Wim match between them this year)
on HC (Outdoors) Rafa again owns Fed
on HC (Indoors) Fed owns Rafa

So when there's only one surface where the "GOAT" can feel confident against Rafa what does that really tell you? It tells me that ****s should stop whining about Rafa not making it to USO and AO finals because if he did Fed would (most likely) have 13 slams right now and Rafa would also have 13. He is actually quite lucky that Rafa is 5 years younger than him and didn't have the game to make it to HC finals from 2004-2007. Considering how weak the field was back then, Safin would have to play his absolute best to be capable of knocking Rafa out. No way would Hewitt, old Agassi, Henman etc have a chance. Davydenko wasn't really even a threat in any HC slam. Maybe AO 06 and USO 07 & 06 but that's about it and all those times he was in Fed's side of the draw. Roddick might've been able to beat him in one. But I can assure you he would not lose to the likes of Youhzny, Blake, Muller, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Hewitt (AO04 and 05), etc like he did.

Emet74
06-16-2011, 08:43 AM
(Yeah, but most people find fatherhood fun, at least for a decade. Maybe Federer enjoys his slamless years on tour more than daily fatherhood.


Well at the moment he is experiencing daily fatherhood and life on tour at the same time, so no need to chose.

It will be "interesting" as Fed would say what'll happen in the coming years if they decide to send the kids to school.

Comet Buster
06-16-2011, 08:45 AM
(What bar is Rafa chasing exactly? Federer never won RG, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year.

Has Nadal won AO/Wimbledon and US Open in the same year? The hard court field is a lot more compatitive and so are the grass courts. Has Nadal won 3 slams in 3 years?


Federer never set the Masters shields record. Federer never set the single-surface record of 81. Federer didn't win the Career Grand slam as early as Rafa did. And Federer doesn't have the GS Final conversion rate of Rafa. Rafa looks more likely to join Sampras as a 7-time winner of a slam title. Apart from the 16 slams, does Rafa need anything that Federer has? No. It looks like Federer is the one doing the chasing, of Sampras' weeks ranked number one, and Rafa's Olympic Singles Gold)


Nadal doesn't have the conversion rate of Gaudio.

comparing Masters shields are lame when you've got a guy on 10 slams to 16.

Nadal hasn't won 7 slams on a specific suface yet.

Federer never had to play Berdych or Puerta in slam finals.

Why does Federer need to chase Nadal. 10 isn't a bigger number than 16

Federer has been #1 for longer than Nadal

Olympic gold. Rofl. Massu > Federer then??




Still haven't met a Nadal fan who hasn't acted like a sheep yet.

flyinghippos101
06-16-2011, 08:47 AM
McEnroe is always "all about roger."

More like "all about whoever is winning"

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 09:00 AM
Has Nadal won AO/Wimbledon and US Open in the same year? The hard court field is a lot more compatitive and so are the grass courts. Has Nadal won 3 slams in 3 years?


If the clay field is less competitive why doesn't Fed have more RG titles in his bag?


Nadal doesn't have the conversion rate of Gaudio.

LOL you're using a one slam wonder as a counter argument? How about going with somebody who played at least 10 slam finals with Rafa's conversion rate?


comparing Masters shields are lame when you've got a guy on 10 slams to 16.


Yep. Totally agree with that one.


Nadal hasn't won 7 slams on a specific suface yet.


Who will beat him at next year's RG? Not Federer that's for sure.


Federer never had to play Berdych or Puerta in slam finals.

No, but he played legends like Phillippousis, Baghdatis & Gonzalez :oops:


Why does Federer need to chase Nadal. 10 isn't a bigger number than 16


He clearly said Fed will have to chase Sampras' weeks at No.1 record as well as the SINGLES Olympic gold (which Fed himself has revealed to be a goal of his in 2012) which he has not won.


Federer has been #1 for longer than Nadal


Yep. He's also been around longer, but we'll just ignore that.


Olympic gold. Rofl. Massu > Federer then??


Greatness isn't solely measured by Olympic gold, but it's nice to have in your resume. Fed wants one himself so it must be important.


Still haven't met a Nadal fan who hasn't acted like a sheep yet.

Still haven't met a Fed fan who hasn't acted like a sheep yet.

NamRanger
06-16-2011, 09:08 AM
If the clay field is less competitive why doesn't Fed have more RG titles in his bag?







Once Nadal is out of the equation, who won RG? Oh yeah, that Federer guy. The clay field is non-existent right now, as there are really only three guys at the moment that are actually legitimate contenders. That's Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic.

Comet Buster
06-16-2011, 09:17 AM
If the clay field is less competitive why doesn't Fed have more RG titles in his bag?

Because clay is his weakest surface.


LOL you're using a one slam wonder as a counter argument? How about going with somebody who played at least 10 slam finals with Rafa's conversion rate?

So you're saying the logic the idiot was say about 'better coversion rate is right' Gaudio has less finals/wins than Nadal - Nadal has less finals/wins than Federer amirite?





Who will beat him at next year's RG? Not Federer that's for sure

So, where did you get your crystal ball from?? I want one.



No, but he played legends like Phillippousis, Baghdatis & Gonzalez :oops:

All three of those players are better than Puerta and Berdych. So thanks!


He clearly said Fed will have to chase Sampras' weeks at No.1 record as well as the SINGLES Olympic gold (which Fed himself has revealed to be a goal of his in 2012) which he has not won.


He clearly stated he needs to catch Nadal on his Olympic gold medal. So go learn to read please. He's got 16 slams. Having anything else is pretty pointless.


Yep. He's also been around longer, but we'll just ignore that.

Ok. Wanna bet money Nadal won't be winning slams in 2-3 years time? I have paypal. Do you?



Greatness isn't solely measured by Olympic gold, but it's nice to have in your resume. Fed wants one himself so it must be important.

What a pointless post. You've just cemented my opinion. thanks!



Still haven't met a Fed fan who hasn't acted like a sheep yet.




Some of the most intelligent posters who I know are Federer fans. They just don't post on the GPPD, they post on the other forums like the tennis tips/technical side of the game/things Nadal fans don't understand.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 09:26 AM
Once Nadal is out of the equation, who won RG? Oh yeah, that Federer guy. The clay field is non-existent right now, as there are really only three guys at the moment that are actually legitimate contenders. That's Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic.

Wow and the HC field has 2 more legitimate contenders than the clay field Delpo and Murray.

BTW it's actually only one more contender because Sod made 2 RG finals knocking out the defending champ on his path there on 2 ocassions and was widely tipped as a strong chance to beat Rafa again this year. So he has to be considered a contender as well. Also, to be really picky, I'd give Del po a sneaky chance at RG as well from next year onwards.

Comet Buster
06-16-2011, 09:30 AM
Wow and the HC field has 2 more legitimate contenders than the clay field Delpo and Murray.

BTW it's actually only one more contender because Sod made 2 RG finals knocking out the defending champ on his path there on 2 ocassions and was widely tipped as a strong chance to beat Rafa again this year. So he has to be considered a contender as well. Also, to be really picky, I'd give Del po a sneaky chance at RG as well from next year onwards.

Hard court field Federer has dealt with/came up against throughout his career

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Davydenko
Soderling
JMDP
Roddick
Hewitt
Safin
Blake
Nalbandian
Agassi





Sounds like more than 2 to me.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 09:46 AM
Because clay is his weakest surface.


Doesn't prove the HC field is more competitive.


So you're saying the logic the idiot was say about 'better coversion rate is right' Gaudio has less finals/wins than Nadal - Nadal has less finals/wins than Federer amirite?


No I'm saying to get a good indication of how a player perform in slam finals you need to compare with somebody who has actually made a similar amount of finals as Nadal. Nadal's made 12 lost only twice. When Fed made it to 12 finals he lost twice also. That's a fair comparison, not Gaudio who made only 1 that's rediculous to make that comparison.



So, where did you get your crystal ball from?? I want one.


Use your own crystal ball, you have so far saying Rafa hasn't won Ao, Wim and USO in one year, how do you know he won't?



All three of those players are better than Puerta and Berdych. So thanks!


How so? Gonzalez made it to one slam final and so did Baghdatis. That's the same as Puerta and Berdych. And anyway even if you were to prove they are better, they are still crap opponents that were a pushover with next to 0 chance of actually winning. Do you really think those 3 would stand a chance against Rafa of today? Come on you're not that stupid, he belt them off the court too.


He clearly stated he needs to catch Nadal on his Olympic gold medal. So go learn to read please. He's got 16 slams. Having anything else is pretty pointless.


Yes he did state that, in fact I wrote that so why are you telling me to learn to read? I couldn't have wrote that without reading what he said. The fact still remains Fed is chasing the Olympic gold in singles that Rafa already has. He even said that himself he want to win the Olympics in 2012 and that's a major goal for him.


Ok. Wanna bet money Nadal won't be winning slams in 2-3 years time? I have paypal. Do you?


LOL. Got your crystal ball again?

How much are you willing to bet that Nadal won't win a single slam in 2013-14?


What a pointless post. You've just cemented my opinion. thanks!


How is it pointless? He wasn't saying that greatness is measured by a single olympic gold medal and nothing else like you make out with your stupid Massu comment. I'm telling you that it looks better for Nadal's status to have won something that Fed has said is his goal to win but hasn't won yet.


Some of the most intelligent posters who I know are Federer fans. They just don't post on the GPPD, they post on the other forums like the tennis tips/technical side of the game/things Nadal fans don't understand.

Who the hell do you know? More importantly what was your previous username? (I'm assuming you had another account to know all these Fed fans because you've only been here since May) :oops:

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 09:51 AM
Hard court field Federer has dealt with/came up against throughout his career

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Davydenko
Soderling
JMDP
Roddick
Hewitt
Safin
Blake
Nalbandian
Agassi





Sounds like more than 2 to me.

Yeah we were talking about now buddy. Learn to read.

Also I didn't say only 2, I said 2 more when referring to the 3 players that NamRanger listed as clay field contenders. That brings the total to 5 contenders. Learn to read.

BTW listing Blake, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko & Soderling is embarrassing they were never legitimate contenders for any HC major from 2004-2007.

For example Puerta has accomplished more than Blake.

Oh and I like how you have Federer as competing against himself :oops: :oops: :oops:

mandy01
06-16-2011, 09:53 AM
BTW listing Blake, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko & Soderling is embarrassing they were never legitimate contenders for any HC major from 2004-2007.
Uhm..both Agassi and Hewitt made it to slam finals in that period.Using your logic of putting Sod as a contender, they should be contenders there.

jamesblakefan#1
06-16-2011, 10:04 AM
For example Puerta has accomplished more than Blake.

Ha! :shock:

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:04 AM
Uhm..both Agassi and Hewitt made it to slam finals in that period.Using your logic of putting Sod as a contender, they should be contenders there.

They made it because the field was very weak at the time. Just look at how old Agassi was, he was 35 and a half. Now he was a great player but come on at 35.5 years of age you shouldn't be making major finals unless the field is incredibly weak or you are a GOAT contender, in which Agassi is not.

Hewitt is also given a lot of credit by many people but seriously the guy won his Wimbledon title after copping a joke draw. His USO win was well deserved even though Pete was clearly not really motivated and playing anywhere near his best.

Sod OTOH took out Rafa and Roger at RG so he is definitely a contender there, when did Hewitt ever ever take Roger out of a major? He didn't, in fact he didn't even get close. That's not a contender to me, that's just somebody who stands out in a relatively weak field.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:06 AM
Ha! :shock:

LOL making a slam final is more than sir James ever accomplished.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:14 AM
They made it because the field was very weak at the time. Just look at how old Agassi was, he was 35 and a half. Now he was a great player but come on at 35.5 years of age you shouldn't be making major finals unless the field is incredibly weak or you are a GOAT contender, in which Agassi is not.Agassi wasn't your average pro.He wasted some of his early years and found second wind later on..So it's hardly surprising he was playing decent enough to reach the USO final and take a set off Federer there.

Sod OTOH took out Rafa and Roger at RG so he is definitely a contender there, when did Hewitt ever ever take Roger out of a major? He didn't, in fact he didn't even get close. That's not a contender to me, that's just somebody who stands out in a relatively weak field.Not sure how that is relevant.The point is Sod didn't go beyond a final.Sure,he played well against both Roger and Nadal and deserved to win but again has he won any major at all in his life? Compared to both Hewitt and Agassi,he's accomplished much less. Berdych beat Roger last year to reach Wimbledon final.Does he become he 'contender' on grass then?
Besides,according to you *******s,Sod won because Nadal was 'injured'.So you've essentially devalued his win.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:17 AM
T
Hewitt is also given a lot of credit by many people but seriously the guy won his Wimbledon title after copping a joke draw. His USO win was well deserved even though Pete was clearly not really motivated and playing anywhere near his best.
..that won't change the fact that Hewitt is many times more accomplished than Sod.

jamesblakefan#1
06-16-2011, 10:23 AM
LOL making a slam final is more than sir James ever accomplished.

It depends on what you value. A fluke slam final while doping over being top 10 for 3+ years. Blake's career accomplishments outweigh Puerta's fluke slam final pal.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:30 AM
Agassi wasn't your average pro.He wasted some of his early years and found second wind later on..So it's hardly surprising he was playing decent enough to reach the USO final and take a set off Federer there.


I don't care what second wind he had, 35.5 year old legs are 35.5 year old legs. Muscles do not recover as fast, pace is lost endurance is lost.

Could you imagine him around now? Let's say Agassi was 35.5 years old and on the tour now, would he still make a US Open final? No way he's getting through Rafa, Fed, Djoker, Murray, Del Potro in the quarters and semi's.


Not sure how that is relevant.The point is Sod didn't go beyond a final.Sure,he played well against both Roger and Nadal and deserved to win but again has he won any major at all in his life? Compared to both Hewitt and Agassi,he's accomplished much less. Berdych beat Roger last year to reach Wimbledon final.Does he become he 'contender' on grass then?

Yes Sod didn't go beyond a final but he proved how dangerous he was at RG 2 years in a row, it wasn't a one year hit.

Also you can't compare Sod of now with a 35.5 year old Agassi in terms of accomplishments. Of course Agassi accomplished more than Sod in his career but did he accomplish more than Sod when he was 34 and older? Did Agassi beat Federer in a major at that age? My point is Soderling proved how dangerous he was at RG and still is whereas Agassi was never going to be a threat to Fed at that age.

And yes Hewitt is more accomplished than Sod as well, but again Hewitt NEVER went through Federer in a major. Ever. He was clearly no threat whatsoever and Fed was hoping to play Hewitt because he knew the match was in the bag. Sod has many more weapons (bigger serve, bigger FH and BH) that could hurt Rafa and Fed at RG than what Hewitt had that could hurt Fed at the USO.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:33 AM
[QUOTE]I don't care what second wind he had, 35.5 year old legs are 35.5 year old legs. Muscles do not recover as fast, pace is lost endurance is lost.You don't care about anything that doesn't suit your narrative.Nor did you watch Agassi.At 35,he did better than Sod,in any of his slam finals.

Yes Sod didn't go beyond a final but he proved how dangerous he was at RG 2 years in a row, it wasn't a one year hit. How so? you *******s claim that Sod won because Nadal was 'injured'.So you've essentially devalued one of his wins.


And yes Hewitt is more accomplished than Sod as well, but again Hewitt NEVER went through Federer in a major. Ever. .
Yes,he only met him in the USO finals afterall :rolleyes:

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:39 AM
It depends on what you value. A fluke slam final while doping over being top 10 for 3+ years. Blake's career accomplishments outweigh Puerta's fluke slam final pal.

Look man, your obviously a Blake fan and I don't mean to insult him, but he never was a threat at majors and Puerta was at RG in 05.

I was talking exclusively about majors, as for singles titles, yeah Blake has him.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:44 AM
Look man, your obviously a Blake fan and I don't mean to insult him, but he never was a threat at majors and Puerta was at RG in 05.

.
How was he a threat? He didn't beat the 'defending champion' :rolleyes:

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:52 AM
You don't care about anything that doesn't suit your narrative.Nor did you watch Agassi.At 35,he did better than Sod,in any of his slam finals.


No, that's actually not true. My point was that it doesn't matter if you get a second wind early, mid or late in your career. The fact is a 35.5 year old is just that. His age affected his abilities as it does to every great player.

Heck he even barely made it to that final having played 3 5 set matches in a row.

Also, you dodged my question: would a 35.5 year old Agassi make it to the USO final if he was on tour in present time?


How so? you *******s claim that Sod won because Nadal was 'injured'.So you've essentially devalued one of his wins.


Injured or not, beating Rafa at RG is still a great accomplishment. Also don't categorise me with all the other Nadal fans. I share different views than they do, not for everything but some things. For example I don't really care for the Masters wins whereas they like to bring up how Rafa has more than Fed most of the time. Amongst other things like slam final winning conversion rate and other stuff.


Yes,he only met him in the USO finals afterall :rolleyes:

Yes he met him, he didn't go through him, beat him whatever you want to call it. Hewitt has NEVER beaten Fed in a major and in fact he never even come close. Sod has beaten both Fed and Rafa at RG which is why he is more threatening to Fed and Rafa at RG than Hewitt ever was against Fed at the USO.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:56 AM
How was he a threat? He didn't beat the 'defending champion' :rolleyes:

Because he was facing a barely 19 year old Rafa Nadal who wasn't the champion that he is today at the time and could've very easily won if Rafa let the occassion get to him (which could've easily happened to someone of that age).

jamesblakefan#1
06-16-2011, 10:56 AM
Look man, your obviously a Blake fan and I don't mean to insult him, but he never was a threat at majors and Puerta was at RG in 05.

I was talking exclusively about majors, as for singles titles, yeah Blake has him.

He was a threat at A major. One. One of the biggest fluke slam runs in history, seeing as how he didn't make it past the 2R of any other slam except for one. And the fact that he did it while on dope devalues it significantly.

Puerta's slam W-L - 14-16 , and take away that fluke RG final and it's 8-15.
Blake's slam W-L - 56-34

Also note there's a difference between playing GOAT Canas and professional slam choker Davydenko in the quarters and semis, and having to face Federer and Agassi in slam Quarters like Blake did.

Getting back to your original point, Puerta has one - one accomplishment over Blake, a fluke slam final which he had to dope to get to. Other than that, Blake is more accomplished than Puerta in every measurable category. Like I said, it depends on what you value more, but I'd take Blake's career over Puerta's career every day of the week, and I think most others would as well.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:03 AM
He was a threat at A major. One. One of the biggest fluke slam runs in history, seeing as how he didn't make it past the 2R of any other slam except for one. And the fact that he did it while on dope devalues it significantly.

Puerta's slam W-L - 14-16 , and take away that fluke RG final and it's 8-15.
Blake's slam W-L - 56-34

Also note there's a difference between playing GOAT Canas and professional slam choker Davydenko in the quarters and semis, and having to face Federer and Agassi in slam Quarters like Blake did.

That doping thing really wasn't the reason why he made the final. They even said that he had such small traces that it couldn't have affected his performance. 2003 was a different story when he got caught.

BTW Blake played better than him overall in majors, but he did not have that one breakthrough major performance, he wasn't able to accomplish that and Puerta did. I know it's only one and yes I agree it was a fluke but at the end of the day, even you have to admit 1 > 0.

If I had to pick out of Blake and Puerta to play a tennis match to save my life, I'd pick Blake and wouldn't think twice about it (unless it was on clay), but my overall point was that Puerta accomplshed more at a major than Blake ever did.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:09 AM
No, that's actually not true. My point was that it doesn't matter if you get a second wind early, mid or late in your career. The fact is a 35.5 year old is just that. His age affected his abilities as it does to every great player.
Of course it does.But that didn't prevent him from playing a better final than Sod ever has.Not to mention Sod himself didn't exactly breeze through to the finals in 09/'10.


Also, you dodged my question: would a 35.5 year old Agassi make it to the USO final if he was on tour in present time?
This is a hypothetical situation.And I never debate on these grounds.Nor do I see your point here.


Injured or not, beating Rafa at RG is still a great accomplishment. Also don't categorise me with all the other Nadal fans. I share different views than they do, not for everything but some things. For example I don't really care for the Masters wins whereas they like to bring up how Rafa has more than Fed most of the time. Amongst other things like slam final winning conversion rate and other stuff.I'm not categorizing you.You should go through your own posts and then come back.And by claiming Sod won because Nadal was injured you're essentially claiming that he wouldn't have won otherwise.So that pretty much throws your argument out of the window.

Hewitt has NEVER beaten Fed in a major and in fact he never even come close. Sod has beaten both Fed and Rafa at RG which is why he is more threatening to Fed and Rafa at RG than Hewitt ever was against Fed at the USO.But,if Sod has only ever beaten Nadal because he was 'injured' then he isn't much of a threat at all.Not to mention whether Sod beat Fed/Nadal or not he still has never won a major.Hewitt has and is therefore by far the more accomplished of the two.Case closed.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:20 AM
Of course it does.But that didn't prevent him from playing a better final than Sod ever has.Not to mention Sod himself didn't exactly breeze through to the finals in 09/'10.


So Agassi played a better final because he took one set and got close to taking another. That's obviously because Agassi had slam final experience and knew how to handle to occassion better, so you can count out the first final appearance. As for the second final appearance, I dare say it is much tougher to take a set off Rafa at RG than it is to take off Fed at the USO.


This is a hypothetical situation.And I never debate on these grounds.Nor do I see your point here.

My point is the field is tougher now than it was back then. I know I couldn't see a 35.5 year old Agassi taking on and beating the likes of Delpo, Rafa, Novak, Fed and Murray to reach a USO final this year.


I'm not categorizing you.You should go through your own posts and then come back.And by claiming Sod won because Nadal was injured you're essentially claiming that he wouldn't have won otherwise.So that pretty much puts your argument out of the window.


"You *******s" is called categorising.

Also, my argument isn't out of the window because beating an injured Rafa is still a very tough task at RG and it also plays with Nadal's mindset and gives Sod confidence.


But,if Sod has only ever beaten Nadal because he was 'injured' then he isn't much of a threat at all.

Again, the win against Nadal boosted Sod's confidence and belief. So therefore, a confident Soderling, with the fire power he has, of course he's a threat, much more than Hewitt who was very low on confidence, so low in fact that he got bagelled in 2 out of the 3 sets they played in that 04 USO final.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:40 AM
[QUOTE]So Agassi played a better final because he took one set and got close to taking another. That's obviously because Agassi had slam final experience and knew how to handle to occassion better, so you can count out the first final appearance. As for the second final appearance, I dare say it is much tougher to take a set off Rafa at RG than it is to take off Fed at the USO.That,is merely an opinion.
Agassi was infinitely better on HC than Sod ever was on clay.So of course he took a set from Roger playing really well.





My point is the field is tougher now than it was back then. I know I couldn't see a 35.5 year old Agassi taking on and beating the likes of Delpo, Rafa, Novak, Fed and Murray to reach a USO final this year. I don't see how your point is of any relevance.I mean of course,using your logic Sod,if the field was comparable on clay would probably not even make a final at RG even if he got through one of the top guys.
On another note-If Murray can lose to Wawrinka at the USO I can certainly see him losing to Agassi.



"You *******s" is called categorising.

Like I said-read your own posts

Also, my argument isn't out of the window because beating an injured Rafa is still a very tough task at RG and it also plays with Nadal's mindset and gives Sod confidence. But if Sod wouldn't have won had Nadal been healthy then that doesn't exactly establish him as a 'contender.'



Again, the win against Nadal boosted Sod's confidence and belief. So therefore, a confident Soderling, with the fire power he has, of course he's a threat,I don't think you even know what you're talking about.Where did this come from? What confidence and belief? Did he win the tournament?
This is just strawman gibberish.

Comet Buster
06-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Doesn't prove the HC field is more competitive.


Yeah true. Almagro, Melzer, Ferrer, Murray etc making deep runs in many clay events is clearly not evident that clay has the weakest field.


No I'm saying to get a good indication of how a player perform in slam finals you need to compare with somebody who has actually made a similar amount of finals as Nadal. Nadal's made 12 lost only twice. When Fed made it to 12 finals he lost twice also. That's a fair comparison, not Gaudio who made only 1 that's rediculous to make that comparison.


What does that mean?


Use your own crystal ball, you have so far saying Rafa hasn't won Ao, Wim and USO in one year, how do you know he won't?


I don't have a crystal ball. I'm making predictions. I didn't specify he wouldn't did I?


How so? Gonzalez made it to one slam final and so did Baghdatis. That's the same as Puerta and Berdych. And anyway even if you were to prove they are better, they are still crap opponents that were a pushover with next to 0 chance of actually winning. Do you really think those 3 would stand a chance against Rafa of today? Come on you're not that stupid, he belt them off the court too.

Gonzalez is clearly better than those guys. His run at the AO clearly proves this. Beat Nadal easily, very nearly took a set off Federer who beat A-rod 6-4 6-0 6-2 the round before. Phillipoussis' career took hits because of injury. I view anyone who disregards injury to be an idiot. Baghdatis is an underachiever.


Yes he did state that, in fact I wrote that so why are you telling me to learn to read? I couldn't have wrote that without reading what he said. The fact still remains Fed is chasing the Olympic gold in singles that Rafa already has. He even said that himself he want to win the Olympics in 2012 and that's a major goal for him.

You stated that the idiot Nadal fan didn't state Federer need an Olympic medal? He did. Federer doesn't need an olympic medal. Ok fine; Nadal needs an Olympic doubles medal? Happy? See what I did there?



LOL. Got your crystal ball again?

I didn't say 100% sure. That's why I asked to bet you and use Paypal when either of use lose the bet. I'm still looking for the crystal ball you've got.


How much are you willing to bet that Nadal won't win a single slam in 2013-14?

100,000. Can you bet that money?


How is it pointless? He wasn't saying that greatness is measured by a single olympic gold medal and nothing else like you make out with your stupid Massu comment. I'm telling you that it looks better for Nadal's status to have won something that Fed has said is his goal to win but hasn't won yet.

So Nadal is chasing Federer's doubles title? Thanks!


Who the hell do you know? More importantly what was your previous username? (I'm assuming you had another account to know all these Fed fans because you've only been here since May) :oops:

I've been here for a month check my profile. I post on that forum quite a bit. I just don't post every day here. Yesterday and today were my only stints on this area and I haven't seen one clued in Nadal fan who plays the game. Even The_Truth stated he/she doesn't play tennis. I doubt many Nadal fans do.

You clearly have no clue about how computers work over the internet else I would have been banned last month for having two accounts. Too dumb.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:52 AM
That,is merely an opinion.
Agassi was infinitely better on HC than Sod ever was on clay.So of course he took a set from Roger playing really well.


Really? How many sets has Roger lost at USO comapred to Rafa at RG? Rafa has only been taken to 5 sets at RG once and lost once. Therefore only 2 players have ever taken more than one set against Rafa at RG. Sod was one of them.


I don't see how your point is of any relevance.I mean of course,using your logic Sod,if the field was comparable on clay would probably not even make a final at RG even if he got through one of the top guys.
On another note-If Murray can lose to Wawrinka at the USO I can certainly see him losing to Agassi.


First of all, I listed them as examples of players he'd lose to, not saying he'd have to face them all. So Sod would get to the final beating one of the top guys because generally that's all you ahve to play against once you get to the semi's.

As for your other note, Murray wasn't a semi finalist last year. I'm talking about getting through the semi final opponents, if Murray was playing well enough to reach the semi's he would not lose to a 35.5 year old Agassi, his athletecism would be miles ahead of Agassi's.


Like I said-read your own posts

What does that have to do with my posts? You said "You *******s". Now that means I'm one of those, therefore I am categorised amongst them as having the same opinions as all Nadal fans.


But if Sod wouldn't have won had Nadal been healthy then that doesn't exactly establish him as a 'contender.'


Yes it does because he is one of the few who could still beat an injured Nadal at RG. Plus he beat a healthy Federer the following year so he should definitely be categorised as a RG contender.


I don't think you even know what you're talking about.Where did this come from? What confidence and belief? Did he win the tournament?
This is just strawman gibberish.

LOL Ok mandy, Sod was the same player after RG in 09 as he was before wasn't he? That win over Rafa changed his career, he got confident in his abilities and starting winning more often then he ever did. The confidence showed even more so once he played RG the following year in 2010, because he took out a healthy Federer and made the final again. Sod never really got close to beating Federer before that but the win against Nadal is what gave him the belief that he could knock off Fed.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 12:02 PM
[QUOTE]Really? How many sets has Roger lost at USO comapred to Rafa at RG? Rafa has only been taken to 5 sets at RG once and lost once. Therefore only 2 players have ever taken more than one set against Rafa at RG. Sod was one of them...but according to you Sod was injured or else he would've lost.



First of all, I listed them as examples of players he'd lose to, not saying he'd have to face them all. So Sod would get to the final beating one of the top guys because generally that's all you ahve to play against once you get to the semi's....Again,strawman garbage.If there were more contenders on clay,it is very likely that Sod would be running into them early on due to the seeding.Really,you're literally grasping at straws now.

As for your other note, Murray wasn't a semi finalist last year. I'm talking about getting through the semi final opponents, if Murray was playing well enough to reach the semi's he would not lose to a 35.5 year old Agassi, his athletecism would be miles ahead of Agassi'sLOL this is hilarious.You don't seem to have a point at all.If you do,you aren't making it.There is no guarantee Murray would've met Agassi in the SFs instead of meeting him early.And again,you're going off on useless hypothetical tangents.You really can't argue at all.You know you made a useless point when you touted Sod as a 'contender' for RG when he realistically is not and then proceeded to dismiss playersagainst your own logic.



What does that have to do with my posts? You said "You *******s". Now that means I'm one of those, therefore I am categorised amongst them as having the same opinions as all Nadal fans.Of course you are.And you are because you post like your fellow *******s do.You told me not to catogorize you.Unless your posts were different from theirs you wouldn't have told me that.It makes absolutely no sense.Goodness gracious I've seen some dumb Nadal fans but you take stupidity to a whole new level.There's no question of categorizing you when your posts are essentially in agreement with theirs.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 12:07 PM
Yeah true. Almagro, Melzer, Ferrer, Murray etc making deep runs in many clay events is clearly not evident that clay has the weakest field.


Ferrer and Murray are ranked in the top 6 in the world so yeah, clearly they make the clay field weak.


What does that mean?


LOL, you have no response so you pick out a typo. congratulations kid.


I don't have a crystal ball. I'm making predictions. I didn't specify he wouldn't did I?

So where did I specify that Nadal would win next year's RG? I merely said Federer wouldn't beat him. Rafa played the second worst RG tournament in his career and Fed played his best yet he still couldn't win. You don't need to be a genious to see the writing on the wall.



Gonzalez is clearly better than those guys. His run at the AO clearly proves this. Beat Nadal easily, very nearly took a set off Federer who beat A-rod 6-4 6-0 6-2 the round before. Phillipoussis' career took hits because of injury. I view anyone who disregards injury to be an idiot. Baghdatis is an underachiever.


Who's that? See what I did there?

BTW Baghdatis as an underachiever doesn't help your stupid argument.

Also, it doesn't matter if Gonzalez is better than Berdych and Puerta, he still be no chance against Rafa of today.



You stated that the idiot Nadal fan didn't state Federer need an Olympic medal? He did. Federer doesn't need an olympic medal. Ok fine; Nadal needs an Olympic doubles medal? Happy? See what I did there?


Nadal has never said he had a goal of winning a doubles gold medal. federe OTOH has clearly stated thathis goal is to win a gold medal at the Olympics.


I didn't say 100% sure. That's why I asked to bet you and use Paypal when either of use lose the bet. I'm still looking for the crystal ball you've got.


LOL what? You take a shot at me for spelling ridiculous wrong and then you type crap like that? :oops:



100,000. Can you bet that money?


I'll bet you 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Can you bet that money?


So Nadal is chasing Federer's doubles title? Thanks!


Once again, Rafa is not after doubles gold. Fed IS after singles gold.


I've been here for a month check my profile. I post on that forum quite a bit. I just don't post every day here. Yesterday and today were my only stints on this area and I haven't seen one clued in Nadal fan who plays the game. Even The_Truth stated he/she doesn't play tennis. I doubt many Nadal fans do.

You clearly have no clue about how computers work over the internet else I would have been banned last month for having two accounts. Too dumb.

I play tennis.

As for the two accounts thing, I meant you must have had a previous account before you became Comet Buster to have such in depth knowledge of this forum because you couldn't have got it in a month.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 12:07 PM
LOL Ok mandy, Sod was the same player after RG in 09 as he was before wasn't he? That win over Rafa changed his career, he got confident in his abilities and starting winning more often then he ever did. The confidence showed even more so once he played RG the following year in 2010, because he took out a healthy Federer and made the final again. Sod never really got close to beating Federer before that but the win against Nadal is what gave him the belief that he could knock off Fed.Ugh..WHY is this relevant? Did he WIN the title? No.Why are you making strawman arguments?

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 12:15 PM
but according to you Sod was injured or else he would've lost.

No, Rafa was injured.


...Again,strawman garbage.If there were more contenders on clay,it is very likely that Sod would be running into them early on due to the seeding.Really,you're literally grasping at straws now.

There are different contenders on clay. Fed Djoker and obviously Rafa. They are the same 3 that are contenders at every major. At RG, Murray isn't much of a contender but Soderling is.


LOL this is hilarious.You don't seem to have a point at all.If you do,you aren't making it.There is no guarantee Murray would've met Agassi in the SFs instead of meeting him early.And again,you're going off on useless hypothetical tangents.You really can't argue at all.You know you made a useless point when you touted Sod as a 'contender' for RG when he realistically is not and then proceeded to dismiss playersagainst your own logic.


Even if Agassi met Murray in the quarters or earlier he would lose to him at the age of 35.5. You say you don't go on hypotheticals yet here you are saying that IF Wawrinka can beat Murray then Agassi can even at age 35.5. :oops:

I like the way you don't talk about hypotheticals. So how do you know that Agassi would beat Murray if Wawrinka can?



Of course you are.And oyu are because you posts like your fellow Nadatrds do.You told me not to catogorize you.Unless your posts were different from theirs you wouldn't have told me that.It makes absolutely no sense.

LOL. First you say you didn't categorise me, now you say you did. I love how you try and backpedal your way out of the crap you get yourself in hahahaha.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 12:18 PM
Ugh..WHY is this relevant? Did he WIN the title? No.Why are you making strawman arguments?

Ok so your logic is in order to be a contender you must win the title. So Djokovic wasn't a contender in 08AO because he didn't win the title previously. ok nice logic :oops:

And Fed wasn't a contender in Wim 03 because he never won the title before and Rafa was never a contender in RG05. Wow that's great logic there.

BUT Hewitt was a contender at USO04 because he won the title in 01 against almost a completely different field. :oops:

mandy01
06-16-2011, 12:23 PM
Ok so your logic is in order to be a contender you must win the title.
No.That isn't 'my' logic at all.I couldn't care less about the 'contender' rubbish and weak era BS.I'm disputing your logic..What YOU used to justify Sod as a contender and then contradicting your own logic,dimiss Agassi and Hewitt .

Pistol Pete
06-16-2011, 02:11 PM
So what ? Clay is a legal surface and counts as much as anything else.

Besides 14 of their matches were on clay but 11 of them were not. Nadal still leads 11-8 on non clay surfaces.

In non clay grand slams it's 2-2. But Nadals losses came when he was a clay court specialist
and wasn't supposed to get past the first round. Furthermore in grand slams Nadal has beaten Federer on ALL surfaces...grass, hardcourt an clay. Federer has merely beaten Nadal only on grass.

Nadal has beaten Fed in his "house" in the goat of matches but In 6 attempts Fed has not come close to beating Nadal at the FO. Nadal is a better grass court player than Federer is a clay court player.

Let's face it.....Federer may be the greatest of all time but Nadal is better.

Actually you are wrong on non-clay Roger leads 6-4

ksbh
06-16-2011, 02:15 PM
Saying Wimbledon is all about Roger is like saying Cinema is all about Sunny Deol ... or in other words, it's just not true!

sureshs
06-16-2011, 02:36 PM
It is still all about Roger. This is the surface with the best chances for him. If he loses to Nadal, his claim to GOATdom is further diminished.

chrischris
06-16-2011, 02:41 PM
If Roger shows up at Wimby playing as good a game he did at RG ,he will win it.
The way he handled Nole and also Rafa ,who got away with the final due to it being clay ,will not survive the same at Wimby. Rog plays tennis. Rafa reacts to it.

Tammo
06-16-2011, 04:34 PM
Hmmmmmmm, I wonder what happened to vortex user 95?

Tammo
06-16-2011, 04:39 PM
There was a vortex user 95 ? Cool.

I thought I was the only one that used this stick.

Probably he used the prince Vortex.....I use the Vortex tour 95.....actualy switched to the es 100.

But if you are implying a relationship your wrong.

Oh, my bad:oops:

zachattack1996
06-16-2011, 04:52 PM
No one can argue with this statement from the most talented player and insightful expert of all time!
( and I don't like the Mcenroe )!!!

hahahah he doesnt know cr*p, mcenroe doesnt know much about the modern game. Nadal is looking MUCH better than fed and even nole is threat to roger. so uhhh yea haha. (hopefully you were being sarcastic)

mandy01
06-16-2011, 09:55 PM
I said Sod was a contender because he proved to be very dangerous at RG against the current top players. He knocked out the defending champion 2 years in a row and was widely tipped to beat Rafa again this year. To not have him as an RG contender is ludicrous.I'm not sure who tipped Sod to beat Nadal this year :?

According to you anyone who knocks out the defending champion is a 'contender' and yet,there you were putting Puerta as a 'threat' few pages back :rolleyes:.And this is again,a fallacious argument resorted to,in order to cover up for your lack of logic.You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound.

Agassi OTOH did not prove that at an old age (in tennis terms) that he could beat Fed in a major. ..that doesn't change the fact that he did better than Sod in any of his finals.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:02 PM
A contender has to be someone capable of winning the title. By beating BOTH Rafa and Fed at RG in the past 2 years and not losing a set on the way to the quarters in 2011, Sod defintely proved he is capable of winning the title. Agassi at 35 and a half years old was not capable of beating prime Fed and Hewitt, even worse.
You know what you're doing-You're setting new definitions of a 'contender' to make up for your fallacious argument.This is an incredibly subjective position to take.Sod didn't come even close to taking a set in either of his finals.And you've anyway devalued one of his wins so that leaves him with one & even against that,there could be a decent argument made.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:20 PM
Blake, Genepri, Malisse, those guys would get blown off the court by Agassi when he was 5 years younger, or probably even 1 year younger.Players struggle all the time.And Blake was pretty good back in the day.If Nadal at his peak could go to five sets against Haase why not Agassi? Point is,he made the finals and gave a better account of himself than Sod ever has.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:34 PM
No I did not. I simply listed them as people he would not beat. Learn to read.

Also never said Sod would have to play himself. i clearly stated that he is one of the contenders from RG. Where do you pull this crap from?
Talk about back-pedalling.You applied one set of arguemtn to one player and another one to another player.Go read your own posts.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:36 PM
Players struggle all the time.And Blake was pretty good back in the day.If Nadal at his peak could go to five sets against Haase why not Agassi? Point is,he made the finals and gave a better account of himself than Sod ever has.

Agass doesn't have the big serve of Haase which gave him a big advantage at Wim. Especially when he was as old as 35.5.

As for making a better account, what is that based on? Winning a set and getting up a break in another. WOW he played so much better he could've almost had the title. LOL. The point is a 35.5 year old Agassi was never going to beat prime Fed, there was no question about it, it wasn't a matter of IF Fed would win, but how many sets would Agassi last. Sod is different, if his game was on he'd have a pretty damn good chance of beating Fed in 09 because Fed didn't play particularly well in that one either.

Sod had far more nerves in him in 09 than Agassi would've at USO 05. In 2010, nobody was going to get close to beating Rafa, not Fed not Djoker, nobody. He was playing way too good for anybody to take a set off him let alone get close to winning. But nobody knew that before the slam started, Sod was definitely given a chance to beat Rafa in that 2010 final by the expert commentators.

And anyway your whole Agassi made a better account for himself in the final than Sod did is about to backfire on you big time because Sod certainly made a better account of himself than one Mr. Hewitt did in the 04 USO final. I like how you've carefully left Hewitt out of the discussion for now, when before you were so adamant that Hewitt was more of a contender than Sod ever was :rolleyes:

LOL I can't wait to see how you back pedal yourself out of that one.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:36 PM
There was even a thread on the possibility of Sod beating Rafa and people were suggesting that he could.

The only lacking logic is you.

Ugh.TW forum predictions? Seriously? Grasping at straws again,are we?

rafan
06-16-2011, 10:37 PM
Yeah yeah and they said Rafa would not win the FO.............

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:38 PM
As for making a better account, what is that based on? Winning a set and getting up a break in another. WOW he played so much better he could've almost had the title. LOL.
.Atleast he played better than Sod.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:39 PM
And anyway your whole Agassi made a better account for himself in the final than Sod did is about to backfire on you big time because Sod certainly made a better account of himself than one Mr. Hewitt did in the 04 USO final. I like how you've carefully left Hewitt out of the discussion for now, when before you were so adamant that Hewitt was more of a contender than Sod ever was :rolleyes:
.
Why would it backfire on me? I didn't argue Hewitt did better than Sod in the USO '04 final..I was talking about Agassi.Either way neither Hewitt nor Sod came remotely close to pushing their respective opponents.Case closed.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:41 PM
Actually, Sod was up a break against Nadal last year in one of the sets, can't remember exactly which one though, might've been the second set.
.Why is this relevant? He couldn't do anything with the break.Grasping at straws.Yet again.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:46 PM
Talk about back-pedalling.You applied one set of arguemtn to one player and another one to another player.Go read your own posts.

No I didn't. I said there are 5 HC contenders and listed them and then I proceeded to say Agassi would not beat one of them at 35.5 years of age.



Ugh.I'm not sure you can actually grasp the concept of seeding.


Ugh. Hypothetical to know what the seedings would be. Ugh ugh.


Ugh.What? Weren't you talking of the post-2007period where Agassi would struggle.I said,in that period itself Murray proved himself to be susceptible to early losse.Talk about conveniently misrepresenting peoples' argument.


I never said anything about post 2007, Agassi would struggle. But it's ok you can make things up if you want. I said he would struggle if he was on tour NOW.


You said post-2007.Not this year.

No I didn't. It's pathetic that you have to lie now. The only thing I ever mentioned about 2007 was the period from 04-07 where the likes of Blake, Davydenko, Hewitt, Agassi, Nalbandian and Soderling were never any real legitimate HC slam contenders. Instead of telling me to read my posts, you should try it.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:48 PM
Why is this relevant? He couldn't do anything with the break.Grasping at straws.Yet again.

Ok then, exclude the fact that Agassi was up a break in the 3rd set against Fed in 05. So you are basing Agassi making a better account for himself because he won 1 set. LOL it's embarrassing for you now.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:49 PM
N
As for Murray losing early, he has proven it in the past but it is hypothetical of you to suggest he will lose in the early rounds this year. I clearly said how would a 35.5 year old Agassi go at the USO if he was around NOW. And using Murray as a benchmark is crazy considering he would have to face one of the big 3 in the semi's anyway.
I didn't suggest he WILL lose.Learn to read.I said he's susceptible to such losses.
And I never used Murray as a 'benchmark'.I referred to him as an afterthought.Of course,youre pretty much incapable of basic comprehension so not surprising.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:51 PM
I never said anything about post 2007, Agassi would struggle. But it's ok you can make things up if you want. I said he would struggle if he was on tour NOW.Yep.I went back & read.Had a bit of a confusion.Either way your reply to me makes no sense.See above.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:52 PM
Ok then, exclude the fact that Agassi was up a break in the 3rd set against Fed in 05. So you are basing Agassi making a better account for himself because he won 1 set. LOL it's embarrassing for you now.
What is embarrassing? Did he do better than Sod ever has? Yes.Case closed.Nothing ambarrassing about it.You're merely clutching at straws.If I can recall,even Roger conceded a break of serve in the '04 USO final in the third set.So?

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:54 PM
Ugh.TW forum predictions? Seriously? Grasping at straws again,are we?

First. put everything into one post. No need to boost your post count by creating multiple posts quoting me.

Now, not only was there a thread made up with people saying that Sod could beat him, but past greats who are now expert commentators also gave him a huge chance, especially considering Nadal's form.


Atleast he played better than Sod.

To the point where its irrelevant, they were both not even close to winning their finals.


Why would it backfire on me? I didn't argue Hewitt did better than Sod in the USO '04 final..I was talking about Agassi.Either way neither Hewitt nor Sod came remotely close to pushing their respective opponents.Case closed.


Oh but before Hewitt was so much more of a contender and now he wasn't? LOLZ If you want to use the single argument of agassi being more of a contender because he played better, then you have to say Sod was more of a contender than Hewitt because he certainly played better than him. I'm not surprised you have double standards :oops:

Hewitt had no track record of ever beating Fed in a slam and Agassi's only victory over Fed was at the 01 USO, hardly relevent to the 05 final. Sod OTOH had beaten Rafa and Fed and those beating were relevent because they occurred in the previous years respectively.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:57 PM
Oh but before Hewitt was so much more of a contender and now he wasn't? LOLZ I
Of course he was.He was as much a contender as Sod ever was considering he made the fiinal.And this is your logic.Not mine.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 10:59 PM
.Yep.I went back & read.Had a bit of a confusion.Either way your reply to me makes no sense.See above.

LOL so you admit to making things up? I CLEARLY stated Agassi would not beat them if he was on tour NOW. Either way you make no sense.


What is embarrassing? Did he do better than Sod ever has? Yes.Case closed.Nothing ambarrassing about it.You're merely clutching at straws.If I can recall,even Roger conceded a break of serve in the '04 USO final in the third set.So?


No you don't recall, Hewitt lost 6-0 7-6 6-0 so he couldn't have been up a break in the third set.

And it is embarrassing to make a case about a guy winning a set and saying he did better than Sod ever did. LOL they both did not even get close to winning.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 10:59 PM
First. put everything into one post. No need to boost your post count by creating multiple posts quoting me.That is upto me.

Now, not only was there a thread made up with people saying that Sod could beat him, but past greats who are now expert commentators also gave him a huge chance, especially considering Nadal's form.Who gave him a chance? And again you bring Nadal's 'form' into this while conveniently leaving out Roger's 'form' in 2010.I find it hilarious that you even actually compared the Roger of 2005 to that of 2010.But never mind.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:00 PM
Of course he was.He was as much a contender as Sod ever was considering he made the fiinal.And this is your logic.Not mine.

Rubbish. I clearly stated that I believe a contender is someone who is capable of winning the title. Sod proved he is capable by beating the defending champions 2 years in a row. Hewitt did NOTHING to prove he could stand a chance against Fed.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:02 PM
[QUOTE]LOL so you admit to making things up? I CLEARLY stated Agassi would not beat them if he was on tour NOW. Either way you make no sense.Making what up? I clearly said there was a confusion.



No you don't recall, Hewitt lost 6-0 7-6 6-0 so he couldn't have been up a break in the third set.Yep.Second set I meant.I thought the third was a TB.Either way I think Roger did get broken there.

And it is embarrassing to make a case about a guy winning a set and saying he did better than Sod ever did. LOL they both did not even get close to winning.What's embarrassing.It's a fact he did better than Sod ever has in any of his finals.He was obviously closer than Sod ever was.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:03 PM
Rubbish. I clearly stated that I believe a contender is someone who is capable of winning the title. Sod proved he is capable by beating the defending champions 2 years in a row. Hewitt did NOTHING to prove he could stand a chance against Fed.Yes,he lost the final to Fed.Just like Sod eventually lost the final.LOL.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:04 PM
That is upto me.


Up to you but it's dumb and pointless. Maybe you should learn how to quote.


Who gave him a chance? And again you bring Nadal's 'form' into this while conveniently leaving out Roger's 'form' in 2010.I find it hilarious that you even actually compared the Roger of 2005 to that of 2010.But never mind.

I wasn't comparing 05 Rog with 10 Rog. Clearly 05 Rog is better. BUT Sod only had to face the competition he has at this time, he didn't have to be 05 form Fed. 2010 Fed was who he had to beat and he did, it's not like 05 Fed was gonna pop up in the next round.

As for giving Sod a chance to beat Nadal there were many expert commentators on my broadcasting network as well as some other former player saying that nadal was going to be scared of Soderling prior to the 2010 final can't remember who it was.

TheTruth
06-16-2011, 11:05 PM
McEnroe,"It does not matter how well Rafa and Novak are playing.Wimbledon is all about Roger."

Do you have a link? JMac is backing Murray to win it.

John McEnroe favours Andy Murray to lift Wimbledon 2011
http://www.livetennisguide.com/2011/06/15/john-mcenroe-favours-andy-murray-to-lift-wimbledon-2011/

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:08 PM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751523]Up to you but it's dumb and pointless. Maybe you should learn how to quote.It makes it easier for me.I get bored adding quotes all in one post.



I wasn't comparing 05 Rog with 10 Rog. Clearly 05 Rog is better.
Then we don't have an argument here.Agassi did well against a Fed that was miles better than a Fed who showed up in 2010 especially from the period after the AO up until Wimbledon.

As for giving Sod a chance to beat Nadal there were many expert commentators on my broadcasting network as well as some other former player saying that nadal was going to be scared of Soderling prior to the 2010 final can't remember who it was.Which 'expert' commentators? And commentators are known to speculate on a player's opportunities in the match but I doubt anyone actually predicted a Sod victory.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:14 PM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751512]Making what up? I clearly said there was a confusion.


Confusion? You were confused so you made crap up. LOL.


Yep.Second set I meant.I thought the third was a TB.Either way I think Roger did get broken there.

He got broken but Hewitt wasn't up a break like you claimed originally with your third set boo boo. In fact he was behind a break for most of the second set and only broke Fed when he was down 5-3.


What's embarrassing.It's a fact he did better than Sod ever has in any of his finals.He was obviously closer than Sod ever was.

Does not matter who was closer they both got thumped. One set doesn't change that.

NamRanger
06-16-2011, 11:16 PM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751518]

Confusion? You were confused so you made crap up. LOL.



He got broken but Hewitt wasn't up a break like you claimed originally with your third set boo boo. In fact he was behind a break for most of the second set and only broke Fed when he was down 5-3.



Does not matter who was closer they both got thumped. One set doesn't change that.



Federer could have won the first 2 sets easily but simply couldn't mentally hold it together; the match dynamics change dramatically if Federer wins the first two sets.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:17 PM
Then we don't have an argument here.Agassi did well against a Fed that was miles better than a Fed who showed up in 2010 especially from the period after the AO up until Wimbledon.

No we do have an argument. Agassi had no chance of winning the title and Sod did. That makes Sod a legitimate contender because as I said, he only had to face 09, 10 Fed not 05 Fed.


Which 'expert' commentators? And commentators are known to speculate on a player's opportunities in the match but I doubt anyone actually predicted a Sod victory.

Wally Masur, Fred Stolle, Mark Woodford, you know some Australian greats but what would they know, you're certainly more knowledgeable than them in regards to tennis :rolleyes:

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:18 PM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751518]

[QUOTE]Confusion? You were confused so you made crap up. LOL.
Not really.I didn't make it up.I went wrong factually speaking but I did go back and read and rectified my post immediately.


He got broken but Hewitt wasn't up a break like you claimed originally with your third set boo boo. In fact he was behind a break for most of the second set and only broke Fed when he was down 5-3.I didn't say Hewitt was up a break.I said Roger conceded a break.



Does not matter who was closer they both got thumped. One set doesn't change that.
Of course it does.Agassi's was essentially a better performance than Sod's.

NamRanger
06-16-2011, 11:19 PM
No we do have an argument. Agassi had no chance of winning the title and Sod did. That makes Sod a legitimate contender because as I said, he only had to face 09, 10 Fed not 05 Fed.



Wally Masur, Fred Stolle, Mark Woodford, you know some Australian greats but what would they know, you're certainly more knowledgeable than them in regards to tennis :rolleyes:




That has never stopped someone like Nadal_Freak from stating that he knows just as much about tennis surfaces and speed of said surfaces as the professional tennis players who play on it.


In fact, you had the same Nadal ***** in this damn thread actually AGREEING with Nadal_Freak. And if you want me to pull up the proof, I will gladly do it.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:20 PM
No we do have an argument. Agassi had no chance of winning the title and Sod did. That makes Sod a legitimate contender because as I said, he only had to face 09, 10 Fed not 05 Fed.Again the same nonsense.Sod had no better a chance to win than Agassi.As was proven in the finals.



Wally Masur, Fred Stolle, Mark Woodford, you know some Australian greats but what would they know, you're certainly more knowledgeable than them in regards to tennis :rolleyes:I get the same coverage then.And none of them predicted a Sod victory.Thanks for playing.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:23 PM
Not really.I didn't make it up.I went wrong factually speaking but I did go back and read and rectified my post immediately.

So you argued with incorrect information just to make a case for yourself. LOL.


I didn't say Hewitt was up a break.I said Roger conceded a break.


Yes but that was your counter-argument to me saying Sod was up a break in the second set against Rafa at RG 10.


Of course it does.Agassi's was essentially a better performance than Sod's.

It doesn't matter, he didn't even get close to winning.

Also, nobody even considered him a chance. Quite the opposite for Sod.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:25 PM
So you argued with incorrect information just to make a case for yourself. LOL.I didn't do anything to make a case for myself .It was a mistake.Plain and simple.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:27 PM
Yes but that was your counter-argument to me saying Sod was up a break in the second set against Rafa at RG 10.So?



It doesn't matter, he didn't even get close to winning.

Also, nobody even considered him a chance. Quite the opposite for Sod.Who predicted a Sod victory again? Proof please.
And of course winning a set matters.It is any day a better account.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:28 PM
Again the same nonsense.Sod had no better a chance to win than Agassi.As was proven in the finals.


Actually he did have a better chance if he didn't get nervous in 09 he would've won. Fed was playing pretty poor all touney by his standards.

As for Agassi, no matter how well he played he would not have beaten prime Fed.


I get the same coverage then.And none of them predicted a Sod victory.Thanks for playing.

Thanks for losing. I never said they predicted a Sod victory, I said they gave him a chance. Which is more than what can be said about agassi in 05.

Also I somewhat doubt you get the same coverage as me (I reckon you're making it up to make another pointless case) but even if you do, there is no way you remember what they all said over a year ago. I do because I have it recorded on Foxtel IQ2 and have watched it recently.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:30 PM
So?

So nothing. You threw that in for the sake of it but it didn't help your cause whatsoever, so I don't know why you did.


Who predicted a Sod victory again? Proof please.
And of course winning a set matters.It is any day a better account.

Already answered this, see my above post.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:34 PM
Actually he did have a better chance if he didn't get nervous in 09 he would've won. Fed was playing pretty poor all touney by his standards.LOLWUT? He didn't come remotely close to taking a set (of course Fed played really well in the finals but still)

As for Agassi, no matter how well he played he would not have beaten prime Fed.moot point.



Thanks for losing. I never said they predicted a Sod victory, I said they gave him a chance. Which is more than what can be said about agassi in 05. Then you don't have a point.

Also I somewhat doubt you get the same coverage as me Can't do anything about that.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:51 PM
LOLWUT? He didn't come remotely close to taking a set (of course Fed played really well in the finals but still)

Again it's because the occassion got to him, it was his first slam final ever. And in any case Sod was never tipped as a contender in 09, it was 2010 and 11 where he was recognised as a contender and had a genuine chance.


moot point.

You mean good point. There is no way Agassi at 35.5 years of age would've beaten prime Fed.


Then you don't have a point.


Actually I have a great point because Sod's victory didn't have to be predicted, the fact that they were talking up his chances of winning proves how dangerous he was whereas Agassi was never talked about as winning the 05 final. it was a formality that he would lose, not the case for Sod pal.


Can't do anything about that.

What channel do you watch tennis on, particularly RG?

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:51 PM
So nothing. You threw that in for the sake of it but it didn't help your cause whatsoever, so I don't know why you did.


ehh wot? I think you just completely missed my point.:lol:

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:53 PM
[QUOTE]Again it's because the occassion got to him, it was his first slam final ever.Dude,he never came remotely close in any of his slam finals.You don't have a point.



You mean good point. There is no way Agassi at 35.5 years of age would've beaten prime Fed. and he still did better than Sod.Keep trying :lol:



Actually I have a great point because Sod's victory didn't have to be predicted, the fact that they were talking up his chances of winning
You obviously don't know how tennis commentry works.

mandy01
06-16-2011, 11:54 PM
What channel do you watch tennis on, particularly RG?Star Sports.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:56 PM
ehh wot? I think you just completely missed my point.:lol:

Your point was to make some case for Hewitt by saying he broke Fed which was a counter-argument to me saying Sod performed better than Hewitt because at least he was in a winning position in one set whereas Hewitt was worthless. And that's been your whole point too hasn't it? Agassi did better than Sod because he got a set, well duh obviously but it is so irrelevent to the argument because they both got thumped. I'm merely just pitting your own stupid logic against you and even that you can't agree with. I think you're a bored old woman with nothing in life except these boards. Get a life, you don't have to argue for the sake of it. It is quite obvious to many that Sod was more of a contender at RG this year and last than what Agassi was at 05 USO and Hewitt was at 04 USO.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 11:59 PM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751590]Dude,he never came remotely close in any of his slam finals.You don't have a point.


He got to the final 2 years in a row and beat both Fed and Rafa. That makes him a contender for the title in anyone's language except yours :oops:


and he still did better than Sod.Keep trying :lol:


And it still doesn't matter. Keep trying.


You obviously don't know how tennis commentry works.

Nah, I don't have a clue do I? I watch tennis with the sound off. Seriously where do you get this crap from, you're trying to reverse-troll me or something lol.

Lotto
06-17-2011, 12:19 AM
Do we have a source for this quote?

zagor
06-17-2011, 12:49 AM
It is quite obvious to many that Sod was more of a contender at RG this year and last than what Agassi was at 05 USO and Hewitt was at 04 USO.

Depends on who you ask and where you bet,I betted on all those finals locally so I should know.The outright odds to win the final were the best for Hewitt in 2004 mainly because he was riding on a 16 win streak and reached the final without losing a set,Fed was 1,30 to win 2004 USO F while against Agassi(2005 USO final) and Soderling(2010 FO final)both Fed and Nadal were 1,15 to win,also in 2009 FO final Fed was 1,25 to win.I betted on all those finals on the favourite to win in straights(which happened except against Agassi).

Mind you these are odds I was getting at my bookie,they may differ by some margin for other countries,bookies etc.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 12:58 AM
Your point was to make some case for Hewitt by saying he broke Fed which was a counter-argument to me saying Sod performed better than Hewitt because at least he was in a winning position in one set whereas Hewitt was worthless. And that's been your whole point too hasn't it? Agassi did better than Sod because he got a set, well duh obviously but it is so irrelevent to the argument because they both got thumped. I'm merely just pitting your own stupid logic against you and even that you can't agree with. I think you're a bored old woman with nothing in life except these boards. Get a life, you don't have to argue for the sake of it. It is quite obvious to many that Sod was more of a contender at RG this year and last than what Agassi was at 05 USO and Hewitt was at 04 USO.Pot calling kettle black.
And yours is moot point nevertheless.Sod never took a set.The break either way doesn't prove anything if he was able to do nothing with it .He lost in straight sets just as Hewitt did.The only reason I brought up Hewitt was to showcase your stupidity.
BTW-You can't pit anyone's logic against them because you're quite simply incapable of doing so.Not mention you do not comprehend the difference between losing and getting thumped.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 01:01 AM
And it still doesn't matter. Keep trying.



Of course it does.It's a flat-out better performance against a Federer who was himself playing miles better..Try harder.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 01:04 AM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751593]

He got to the final 2 years in a row and beat both Fed and Rafa. That makes him a contender for the title in anyone's language except yours :oops:

..and he still got nothing except straight set beating in both cases.(not to mention you and your ilk have conveniently devalued his victory over Nadal.And now,you seek to lay some special emphasis on him beating a 2010 Fed [who interestingly also lost to a way past his prime Hewitt during the same period on his favourite surface])
I wonder who this 'anyone' is.LOL! Pretty sure just a figment of your imagination.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 01:43 AM
Pot calling kettle black.

My pot's silver.


And yours is moot point nevertheless.Sod never took a set.The break either way doesn't prove anything if he was able to do nothing with it .He lost in straight sets just as Hewitt did.The only reason I brought up Hewitt was to showcase your stupidity.BTW-You can't pit anyone's logic against them because you're quite simply incapable of doing so.Not mention you do not comprehend the difference between losing and getting thumped.

You can't compare someone with a reasonably good position to win a set with someone who was scrambling to stay in the set. If you can, then you can compare a straights sets loss with a 4 set loss.

As for me being incapable? Yeah that's why I just did. You seem to like your logic when it suits you but not when it doesn't suit you. I OTOH have stuck to the same argument the whole time.



It's a flat-out better performance against a Federer who was himself playing miles better..Try harder.


Try even harder becuase it doesn't matter if it was a better performance.


..and he still got nothing except straight set beating in both cases.(not to mention you and your ilk have conveniently devalued his victory over Nadal.And now,you seek to lay some special emphasis on him beating a 2010 Fed [who interestingly also lost to a way past his prime Hewitt during the same period on his favourite surface])
I wonder who this 'anyone' is.LOL! Pretty sure just a figment of your imagination.

You don't seem to have very good comprehension skills.

Let me outline it for you:

Fed in 05 was way better than in 2010. Which means if there is no Nadal post 2007, Djokovic 2011 or Del po in the form of late 09, then really there are no other contenders. Since those guys weren't around, there was Agassi making USO finals. Now he did well to win a set, but the match was far from his reach.

Agassi couldn't beat prime Fed even at his best, because then you are arguing that ultimately Agassi's best is better than Fed's which it isn't. And Fed was at his best in late 05.

However, in the present Sod only had to contend with Fed of 2009/10 and Rafa at RG. So therefore considering he beat them, he was a contender for the RG title, nobody could rule out that he was a chance of winning if he played his best because in 09 Fed's form was ***** compared to 05.

Sid_Vicious
06-17-2011, 01:56 AM
My pot's silver.


http://th161.photobucket.com/albums/t236/hubba64/th_lollerskates-small.gif

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:01 AM
My pot's silver.Doesn't stop you from being a hypocrite.



You can't compare someone with a reasonably good position to win a set with someone who was scrambling to stay in the set. If you can, then you can compare a straights sets loss with a 4 set loss.
Of course you cant.A straight set loss is a straight set loss.Period.

Yeah that's why I just did.
You didn't do anything.




Try even harder becuase it doesn't matter if it was a better performance.Of course it does.



You don't seem to have very good comprehension skills.That's right hypocrite.LOL

Let me outline it for you:

Fed in 05 was way better than in 2010. .[/QUOTE]Then we have no argument here.Beating a 2010 Fed doesn't make Sod any better a contender than anyone else who made the finals of a slam.Least of all the more accomplished guys.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:05 AM
However, in the present Sod only had to contend with Fed of 2009/10 and Rafa at RG. So therefore considering he beat them, he was a contender for the RG title, Absolutely not.Otherwise you wouldn't have devalued his win over Nadal.And like I said,beating a 2010 Fed (which even a Hewitt did) has nothing to do with Sod being a contender.He gave himself no realistic chance to win the finals either way both times.In short he's no better than those you seek to denigrate.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:10 AM
Agassi couldn't beat prime Fed even at his best, because then you are arguing that ultimately Agassi's best is better than Fed's which it isn't. And Fed was at his best in late 05.

Of course not .That's a lousy misrepresentation of my argument.I didn't even go there.Keep throwing strawman gibberish.That's the best you can do anyway.Where Agassi's best lies in comparison to Roger's is completely irrelevant here-there's no objective parameter to compare that(afterall these are two legends.Both capable of giving each other a run for their money.Not some random journeymen).

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:22 AM
edited.....

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:28 AM
nobody could rule out that he was a chance of winning if he played his best because in 09 Fed's form was ***** compared to 05.Fed's form was still better than 2010 and anyway,if Sod were a better contender he'd have proved himself in the finals.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:32 AM
Doesn't stop you from being a hypocrite.


No you're a hypocrite! You are!



Of course you cant.A straight set loss is a straight set loss.Period.


And a loss is a loss period. so what's you're point? Oh yeah you don't have one you just keep coming up with crap.


You didn't do anything.


Did too!


Of course it doesn't.


efa.


That's right hypocrite.LOL

Let me outline it for you:

Fed in 05 was way better than in 2010

Then we have no argument here.Beating a 2010 Fed doesn't make Sod any better a contender than anyone else who made the finals of a slam.Least of all the more accomplished guys.

LOL ok so Agassi had just as much chance of beating 05 fed as Sod did of beating 09 Fed at RG. Yep Sod's chances were so small, that he went and beat him there the next year. When did Agassi beat Fed at USO? Oh yeah 2001 that's really relevent :rolleyes:


Absolutely not.Otherwise you wouldn't have devalued his win over Nadal.And like I said,beating a 2010 Fed (which even a Hewitt did) has nothing to do with Sod being a contender.He gave himself no realistic chance to win the finals either way both times.In short he's no better than those you seek to denigrate.

Well actually Sod was given a good chance to win RG given his performances there both in 09 and 10. Many experts tipped him as a contender for the RG crown. Nobody tipped Hewitt or Agassi to beat Fed so therefore, nobody tipped them to win the title.

Sod is better (at RG) than 35.5 year old Agassi and pram pusher Hewitt.


Of course not .That's a lousy misrepresentation of my argument.I didn't even go there.Keep throwing strawman gibberish.That's the best you can do anyway.Where Agassi's best lies in comparison to Roger's is completely irrelevant here-there's no objective parameter to compare that(afterall these are two legends.Both capable of giving each other a run for their money.Not some random journeymen).

Well actually it has a lot to do with it. If you for once look at the period in which the 04 and 05 US Open took place, Hewitt and Agassi had to be able to beat Fed to be considered a contender. Both of these players could not do that even at their best, because Fed was at his best at the time.

So, in order for Agassi to win the title he would have to be at his absolute best and Fed would have to play crap. Fed was in hot form in 05 and Agassi was far from his best. For Hewitt, it's even worse. If they were playing 2010 Fed then yes they'd have a very good chance of beating him and would therefore be considered legitimate contenders for the title. However, that was not the case, so they had NO chance.

And it is what you have been arguing. You have been saying that Agassi was a threat to Fed when he clearly wasn't. Sod was definitely a threat since he beat both Rafa and Fed at RG. For the 1000th time :rolleyes: :mrgreen:

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:36 AM
Fed's form was still better than 2010 and anyway,if Sod were a better contender he'd have proved himself in the finals.

So he had to win to be considered a contender, the fact that he made the final 2 years running defeating the defending champ on his path doesn't matter. Ha What a laugh.

Hey I've got some pearler's for you:

Rafa wasn't a contender in Wim08 because he'd never won it before.

Fed wasn't a contender in RG09 because he never won it before.

Fed wasn't a contender in 06RG because he never won the title before.

I can go on, but I've embarrassed you enough :mrgreen:


Wow you're almost up to 8000 posts keep up the multiple posting that's 5
posts in a row all quoting me. Hahahahaha

Way to get your post count up, but I know that it's 8000 posts of rubbish.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:37 AM
And a loss is a loss period. so what's you're point? Oh yeah you don't have one you just keep coming up with crap.

My point is the four set loss is any better than a straight set loss.Obviously you missed it,like you always do.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:38 AM
So he had to win to be considered a contender, No.For one,Fed was the odds-on favourite and secondly Sod didn't even put up a great performance(partly of course due to the fact that Roger has the weapons to bother him)

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:41 AM
2 years running defeating the defending champ If that is your criterion then you contradicted yourself by putting Puerta as a 'threat'.

Hey I've got some pearler's for you:Thanks for yet another demonstration of your own stupidity.

Rafa wasn't a contender in Wim08 because he'd never won it before.Nadal,in addition to being flatout the better grass-court than Sod as a clay-courter won RG,then won Queens and had pushed Roger to five sets in addition to having proven himself several times in big matches.

Need I go on?I'm assuming your LOLworthy post is rather self-explanatory of your lack of logic.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:42 AM
My point is the four set loss is any better than a straight set loss.Obviously you missed it,like you always do.

Yep way better. Agassi got a chocolate medal for winning a set.


No.For one,Fed was the odds-on favourite and secondly Sod didn't even put up a great performance(partly of course due to the fact that Roger has the weapons to bother him)


Where were those weapons in 2010?

Sod showed he has the game to beat the top players when he's on he's very hard to stop. Agassi's game was so affected by his age that he didn't really have a chance at all even if he played as best as he possibly could at that age he still would've lost. If Sod played as best as he could then he could have very well beaten Fed in 09.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:43 AM
S
Wow you're almost up to 8000 posts keep up the multiple posting that's 5
posts in a row all quoting me. Hahahahaha

Why are you so concerned about MY post count? LOL more gibberish from you.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:44 AM
Y


Where were those weapons in 2010?.
Partly blunted by the weather and partly by his form which was crappy during the period

kOaMaster
06-17-2011, 02:45 AM
for the last year/four grand slams, at least three out of the four top players (murray, djokovic, federer, nadal) reached the semis.

still impressive.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:46 AM
If Sod played as best as he could then he could have very well beaten Fed in 09.
More BS.For one,Fed was playing better in 09 overall,he played better in the finals and he was helped by the fact that his touch shots-particularly slice and droppers stayed low enough to give Sod fits.Not to mention he served better.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:46 AM
If that is your criterion then you contradicted yourself by putting Puerta as a 'threat'.


LOL Puerta was playing a 19 year old kid, much different then facing the Rafa of today or Fed. LOL.


Thanks for yet another demonstration of your own stupidity.


What the hell is stupid about that? Oh that's right you don't like it.


Nadal,in addition to being flatout the better grass-court than Sod as a clay-courter won RG,then won Queens and had pushed Roger to five sets in addition to having proven himself several times in big matches.

Need I go on? I'm assuming your LOLworthy post is rather self-explanatory of your lack of logic.

So what if Rafa won RG? he won it in 05 did that make him a contender for 05 Wimby?

Queens don't mean ***** either.

Soderling didn't push Rafa or Fed to 5 sets, no, he just beat them in 4 :mrgreen:

You've resorted to even dumber logic (congratulations, I didn't think that was possible)

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:47 AM
Why are you so concerned about MY post count? LOL more gibberish from you.

Because it seems to me that's what you're aiming for the big 8000. Congrats.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:47 AM
Sod is better (at RG) than 35.5 year old Agassi and pram pusher Hewitt.

And yet he took a comfortable beating in both his finals.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:48 AM
More BS.For one,Fed was playing better in 09 overall,he played better in the finals and he was helped by the fact that his touch shots-particularly slice and droppers stayed low enough to give Sod fits.Not to mention he served better.

Yeah but Sod played ***** compared to the rest of the tourney. IF he played his best he would've beaten Fed in 09.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:50 AM
Soderling didn't push Rafa or Fed to 5 sets, no, he just beat them in 4 :mrgreen:

BUT you and your ilk have already devalued his victory .

Idiot.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:51 AM
And yet he took a comfortable beating in both his finals.

One from the occassion overwhelming him and lost number two becuase he just happened to be playing the best clay courter ever who was on a rampant mission to regain his RG title.

Like I told you before, a driven Rafa at RG is MUCH harder to beat than a prime Fed in USO05.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:52 AM
BUT you and your ilk have already devalued his victory .

Idiot.

But you and your ilk have re-valued it.

Idiot.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:52 AM
Yeah but Sod played ***** compared to the rest of the tourney. IF he played his best he would've beaten Fed in 09.IF my uncle had wheels he'd be a car.Fed was the odds-on favourite to win RG and he did comfortably.Sod neither proved himself in '09 nor did he do so in '10.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:53 AM
IF my uncle had wheels he'd be a car.Fed was the odds-on favourite to win RG and he didComfortably.Sod neither proved himself in '09 nor did he do so in '10.
P

I'm talking tennis terms not your uncle and his wheels.

If Sod kept true to his form throughout the whole tournament before set number 3 against Gonzo, he would've beaten 09Fed. Agassi could not have beaten Fed in 05USO no matter what unless something happened to Fed in which it didn't.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:54 AM
[QUOTE]One from the occassion overwhelming him and lost number two becuase he just happened to be playing the best clay courter ever who was on a rampant mission to regain his RG title.
Doesnt' change the fact that he hasn't proven himself when it matters most.

Like I told you before, a driven Rafa at RG is MUCH harder to beat than a prime Fed in USO05.Again subjective hotch-potch.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:55 AM
If Sod kept true to his form throughout the whole tournament before set number 3 against Gonzo, he would've beaten 09Fed.But he didn't.Ergo he didn't prove himself any more than those you demeaned did.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:56 AM
But you and your ilk have re-valued it.

Idiot.Of course not.Moron.I'm disputing your claim to hyping him as better contender.Not his victory by itself.You '***** should've really thought before dishing out so many excuses :mrgreen:

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:57 AM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751863]
Doesnt' change the fact that he hasn't proven himself when it matters most.


didn't need to, like I said Rafa didn't prove himself when it mattered most before WIM08 so he couldn't have possibly been a theat there. And Fed didn't prove himself before 09FO, he failed when it mattered most on multiple occassions.



Again subjective hotch-potch.

LOL Because you know it's true. 1 loss and 1 5 set match verses multiple losses and 5 set matches says so.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 02:59 AM
Sod was definitely a threat since he beat both Rafa and Fed at RG.Of course not.Not only have you conveniently misrepresented my argument,you've also,like a moron,not been able to explain Sod's complete failure to get as much as a set in the finals or establish him to be any better a contender.Thanks for playing.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 02:59 AM
Of course not.Moron.I'm disputing your claim to hyping him as better contender.Not his victory by itself.You '***** should've really thought before dishing out so many excuses :mrgreen:

Of course you have. Every time a Nadal fans explains that Sod only beat Rafa because he was injured you and your ilk have come out and called bs.


But he didn't.Ergo he didn't prove himself any more than those you demeaned did.

Again, Fed didn't prove himself before 09 RG by losing multiple finals. Read my previous post.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 03:00 AM
Of course not.Not only have you conveniently misrepresented my argument,you've also,like a moron,not been able to explain Sod's complete failure to get as much as a set in the finals.

Of course he was a threat. You're just being silly. silly billy mandy

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:01 AM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751872]

[QUOTE]didn't need to, like I said Rafa didn't prove himself when it mattered most before WIM08 so he couldn't have possibly been a theat there. And Fed didn't prove himself before 09FO, he failed when it mattered most on multiple occassions.I think your moronic logic of even comparing Sod to multiple slam winners is self-explanatory.So never mind.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:02 AM
Of course he was a threat. So from being a contender for the title,he's gone to being a 'threat'.Good.You concede then.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 03:03 AM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751881][QUOTE=mandy01;5751872]

I think your moronic logic of even comparing Sod to multiple slam winners is self-explanatory.So never mind.

Nadal wasn't a contender at 05 RG becuase he didn't prove himself. There's your moronic logic for you.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:04 AM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751872]

LOL Because you know it's true. 1 loss and 1 5 set match verses multiple losses and 5 set matches says so.It doesn't actually.If Sod was playing so well he should've given a better account of himself.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 03:04 AM
So from being a contender for the title,he's gone to being a 'threat'.Good.You concede then.

I concede nothing, just a bit of confusion there, he was a CONTENDER. There happy.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:05 AM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751891][QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751881]

Nadal wasn't a contender at 05 RG becuase he didn't prove himself. There's your moronic logic for you.Cool stroy bro.Ignore his clay season entirely that year.Ignore his victory over a Roger playing miles better than what he did in '10.I've never seen a bigger moron than you are.Now you're even going to he extent of demeaning your own demi-god.LOLz.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 03:06 AM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751881]It doesn't actually.If Sod was playing so well he should've given a better account of himself.

At some point you gotta draw the line at your stupidity. Rafa has been far more dominant at RG than Fed has been at the USO from the first time he played RG to the last he has lost ONCE. funny how that one guy who beat him isn't even a contender :shock:

Pretty hard to play better against a guy who has been practically invincible at that tounament.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 03:07 AM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751896][QUOTE=mandy01;5751891]Cool stroy bro.Ignore his clay season entirely that year.Ignore his victory over a Roger playing miles better than what he did in '10.I've never seen a bigger moron than you are.Now you're even going to he extent of demeaning your own demi-god.LOLz.

Yep Nadal's minor clay court tourney wins made him (as an 18 year old who never played RG before) a huge conteder and his victory over FED WOW something remarkable there. Why isn't it remarkable that Sod beat Fed and Rafa at RG?

Double standards.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:08 AM
[QUOTE=mandy01;5751898]

At some point you gotta draw the line at your stupidity. Rafa has been far more dominant at RG than Fed has been at the USO from the first time he played RG to the last he has lost ONCE. funny how that one guy who beat him isn't even a contender :shock:

Pretty hard to play better against a guy who has been practically invincible at that tounament.....again,nothing to prove Sod gave a better account of himself than any of the others you demeaned.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:10 AM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5751908 Why isn't it remarkable that Sod beat Fed and Rafa at RG?

Double standards.[/QUOTE]
For reasons stated several times above.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 03:13 AM
Of course you have. Every time a Nadal fans explains that Sod only beat Rafa because he was injured you and your ilk have come out and called bs.
That doesn't change the fact YOU have contradicted your own claims by now giving him brownie points so as to boost him as a contender when once,you straight-out dismissed him and without of course being able to prove anything to that effect.
.

Gorecki
06-17-2011, 03:27 AM
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/295/3/9/circular_cat_by_saskha-d31a2fz.jpg

oh hay... i iz circular cat. this is circular talk.

(mandy. just admit Nadal is greater than god, gods in your case and move forward)

ps: i did the last sentence in between parenthesis for obvious reasons. i want this one to be unvibrationaliszanismated

Boricua
06-17-2011, 06:59 AM
Wimbledon was all about Roger. But, playing his best he can always win. Nadal, Nole, both Andys and maybe Del Potro will be looking to win also.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 11:14 AM
....again,nothing to prove Sod gave a better account of himself than any of the others you demeaned.

I demeaned a 35.5 year old Agassi because he was not a contender for the US open in 05. There was no way he would beat Rog.

I demeaned Hewitt because he's rubbish against prime Fed.

I said Sod was a contender because he proved that he was capable of beating the top guys at RG.


For reasons stated several times above.


Those reasons are rubbish. Sod clearly was much more of a contender at RG then Hewitt and old Agasssi ever were at USO from 2004-2007.


That doesn't change the fact YOU have contradicted your own claims by now giving him brownie points so as to boost him as a contender when once,you straight-out dismissed him and without of course being able to prove anything to that effect.


Making the final 2 years in a row and reaching the quarters in dominating fashion only to be stopped by the best clay courter of all time makes him a clear RG contender. Only Rafa and Fed have beaten him at RG since 09, two of the greatest and they also have both lost to him in that period.

He is a RG contender whether you want to admit it or not.

Agassi was well past it in 05 and scraped through against no name players apart from Blake in 5 setters. He had no hope of beating Fed.

Hewitt as I said was rubbish against prime Fed, he had no hope too.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 11:29 AM
I demeaned a 35.5 year old Agassi because he was not a contender for the US open in 05. There was no way he would beat Rog...and yet he did better than Sod in the finals.



I said Sod was a contender because he proved that he was capable of beating the top guys at RG...and yet you devalued his victory.



Those reasons are rubbish. Sod clearly was much more of a contender at RG then Hewitt and old Agasssi ever were at USO from 2004-2007.
Yes.Anything you disagree with is rubbish to you.


Making the final 2 years in a row and reaching the quarters in dominating fashion only to be stopped by the best clay courter of all time makes him a clear RG contender.
He didn't reach the finals in a 'dominating' fashion.



He is a RG contender whether you want to admit it or not.
There is no question of me admitting anything.Yours is merely an opinion based on faulty logic.Not a fact requiring universal acceptance.

Agassi was well past it in 05 and scraped through against no name players apart from Blake in 5 setters. He had no hope of beating Fed...and yet he did better against Fed than Sod did in any of his finals.

Hewitt as I said was rubbish against prime Fed, he had no hope too...and yet Sod himself never demonstrated he had any hope in the finals at all.
The only reason you even put him as contender was to make Nadal's competition look better .Poor attempt though.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 12:16 PM
..and yet he did better than Sod in the finals.


No it's final there isn't more than one final.
Also I've said on numerous occassions already that one set doesn't matter because a loss is a loss.



..and yet you devalued his victory.


One victory against an injured Rafa, but what about beating Fed? that is more than you can say about Hewitt and Agassi combined.


Yes.Anything you disagree with is rubbish to you.


I already explained why they are rubbish. No one in their right mind would agree that a 35.5 year old Agassi would have a hope in hell of beating prime Fed and neither would Hewitt. BUT a case can be made for Sod beating the competition around today at RG, which is what I have done. You cannot make a case for Hewitt at all and your case for Agassi is that he got one set. LOLZ x 100000000000000000000000


He didn't reach the finals in a 'dominating' fashion.


I said he reached the Quarters this year in dominating fashion, but considering your poor reading skills I'm not surprised you didn't get that.


There is no question of me admitting anything.Yours is merely an opinion based on faulty logic.Not a fact requiring universal acceptance.


Faulty logic being he made the final 2 years running and beat the defending champions both times. LOL where do you get this stuff? Beating an injured Rafa at RG is still very impressive, just ask Hewitt (Who you've been ranting on about as a tougher player than Sod) how hard it is. So of course Sod's win over Rafa isn't as impressive as it would've been over a fit Rafa but it was still a remarkable accomplishment and he played pretty well to do it. Sod showed he has weapons to hurt Rafa, Fed couldn't hurt Rafa when Rafa was playing his second worst RG campaign. What weapons did Agassi and Hewitt have to hurt Fed? NONE absolutely nothing.


..and yet he did better against Fed than Sod did in any of his finals.


...and yet a loss is a loss.


..and yet Sod himself never demonstrated he had any hope in the finals himself


So? Fed never demonstrated he had any hope of winning Wimbledon when he was bundled out in round 1 of the 2002 tournament. How would anybody know if he could've broken through this year and won it? Once again, Sod was a legitimate contender.


The only reason you even put him as contender was to make Nadal's competition look better .Poor attempt though.

LOL and the ****s put in stars like Blake, Davydenko, Nalbandian and other crap as contenders LOLZ to the max!

Who was around to challenge Fed at the majors from 2004-07? Apart from Nadal at RG there rarely was anyone. Safin in god mode that's all. Then answer this beauty, how would you as a **** be able to cope if the Rafa of today was around back then and took at least 3 of Fred's HC slam titles? Because I can guarantee you he would not lose to Youhzny, Blake, Gonzo, Ferrer, Muller etc. The only guys capable of beating Rafa at HC majors these days are Del Potro, Murray, Fed and Djokovic and they weren't around from 04-07. Funnily enough if these guys (replace Fed with Rafa of today) were around from 2004-07 Fed would have even less titles.

Blake, Baghdatis, Youhzny, Haas, Nabandian, Davydenko, Hewitt, Gonzo, 35.5 year old Agassi, these dodo's couldn't hold a candle to the players I mentioned that are around now. The only one is Roddick (because god mode Safin showed up once in a blue moon), but as ****s like to use the "Rafa is a bad matchup for Fed" excuse, I'll take one from their book and say "Fed is a bad matchup for Roddick".

mandy01
06-17-2011, 12:25 PM
No it's final there isn't more than one final.
Also I've said on numerous occassions already that one set doesn't matter because a loss is a loss.What you said doesn't matter.You don't set the terms here.




One victory against an injured Rafa, but what about beating Fed? that is more than you can say about Hewitt and Agassi combined.
What about beating a 2010 Fed (who incidently lost to Hewitt just a week later)?



BUT a case can be made for Sod beating the competition around today at RG, which is what I have done.Nope you haven't.Thanks for playing.


I said he reached the Quarters this year in dominating fashion, but considering your poor reading skills I'm not surprised you didn't get that.That's right hypocrite.What's so big about reaching QFs in a 'dominating' fashion? Plenty of players go that far in a 'dominating' fashion.



Faulty logic being he made the final 2 years running and beat the defending champions both times.So?Does that change the fact that he didn't come remotely close to winning his final matches? No.

LOL where do you get this stuff? Beating an injured Rafa at RG is still very impressive,It's impressive because now you want to hype him in order to make Nadal's compeition look better.You had no problems giving him no credit initially.





So? Fed never demonstrated he had any hope of winning Wimbledon when he was bundled out in round 1 of the 2002 tournament.He didn't so?

The rest of course is just non-sequitor BS.

lassoforehand
06-17-2011, 01:59 PM
I think this year's Wimbledon is probably one of the more interesting Championships we have had in years. Last year Federer wasn't himself at all and right now I can't see past a Federer v Murray final. Murray has gotten to the semis the past two years and lost to Roddick and Nadal and I just feel it's going to be third times the charm for Andy. But, can't see him getting past Roger.
Federer to win in 4 sets.

mcr619619
06-17-2011, 07:40 PM
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;5750241]..but according to you Sod was injured or else he would've lost.



...Again,strawman garbage.If there were more contenders on clay,it is very likely that Sod would be running into them early on due to the seeding.Really,you're literally grasping at straws now.

LOL this is hilarious.You don't seem to have a point at all.If you do,you aren't making it.There is no guarantee Murray would've met Agassi in the SFs instead of meeting him early.And again,you're going off on useless hypothetical tangents.You really can't argue at all.You know you made a useless point when you touted Sod as a 'contender' for RG when he realistically is not and then proceeded to dismiss playersagainst your own logic.



Of course you are.And you are because you post like your fellow *******s do.You told me not to catogorize you.Unless your posts were different from theirs you wouldn't have told me that.It makes absolutely no sense.Goodness gracious I've seen some dumb Nadal fans but you take stupidity to a whole new level.There's no question of categorizing you when your posts are essentially in agreement with theirs.


ROFL...Sharpshooter always take stupidity in a new level, and he still not in his ceiling, so expect more, irrelevant, stupid, nonsense, gibberish posts to come...

Sharpshooter's Soderling RG 09/10 analysis = epic, contradicting yourself huh?..that's the best way to be stupid...you're really good at it huh..

Sharpshooter is playing tennis? you doesn't sound though

and if Sharpshooter gonna bring my "April 2011 Join Date" again, though im still new here and not as active, as this stupid sharpshooter is... when i read a thread and saw some *******s and *********s, when it comes *********s, always think of sharpshooter as one of the "Originals" though it's not, it's just that Sharpshooter's dumb, stupid, pointless posts just stand out among the rest...

im just glad that Im here to witness the making (or already made) of a legendary *********..




----

sorry, cant help to bash Sharpshooter, though he's funny..LOL

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 08:29 PM
What you said doesn't matter.You don't set the terms here.


A loss is a loss. That's not me setting terms that's just fact.



What about beating a 2010 Fed (who incidently lost to Hewitt just a week later)?


2010 Fed was his current competition idiot he didn't have to beat 05 Fed.


Nope you haven't.Thanks for playing.


Yes I have, you haven't made any case at all, you're just an old woman behind your comp all day and night. LOL.


That's right hypocrite.What's so big about reaching QFs in a 'dominating' fashion? Plenty of players go that far in a 'dominating' fashion.


Did Agassi make the quarters of 05 USO in such a manner? No he scraped through and was lucky to even be in the quarters let alone semi's and then the final. Sod stuck true to his RG form and only lost to Rafa.


.So?Does that change the fact that he didn't come remotely close to winning his final matches? No.

But he prpved he can rach the final there, it wasn't a fluke the first time and secondly he proved he could beat Fed and Rafa. LOL how many times does this need to be said?

v
It's impressive because now you want to hype him in order to make Nadal's compeition look better.You had no problems giving him no credit initially.


Oh yeah? prove that please. Find one of my posts where I 'discredited' him. I said he beat Rafa and Rafa's injury played a part in that but it was still very impressive. But as I said go and ask champion Hewitt how easy it is to beat injured Rafa at RG.




He didn't so?
So by your dumb logic since he never proved himself he couldn't have been a contender.


The rest of course is just non-sequitor BS.

Everything you say is bs. YOu're just a **** pumping trying to pump up Fed's tyres and deflate Rafa's when it's quite obvious Fed competition from 04-07 is a joke compared to the players around today.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 08:34 PM
ROFL...Sharpshooter always take stupidity in a new level, and he still not in his ceiling, so expect more, irrelevant, stupid, nonsense, gibberish posts to come...

Sharpshooter's Soderling RG 09/10 analysis = epic, contradicting yourself huh?..that's the best way to be stupid...you're really good at it huh..

Sharpshooter is playing tennis? you doesn't sound though

and if Sharpshooter gonna bring my "April 2011 Join Date" again, though im still new here and not as active, as this stupid sharpshooter is... when i read a thread and saw some *******s and *********s, when it comes *********s, always think of sharpshooter as one of the "Originals" though it's not, it's just that Sharpshooter's dumb, stupid, pointless posts just stand out among the rest...

im just glad that Im here to witness the making (or already made) of a legendary *********..




----

sorry, cant help to bash Sharpshooter, though he's funny..LOL

Listen pal, congratulations. You've made yet another post attacking me and added nothing to the discussion at all.

I can do that too, I can easily just call you an idiot, but you're already proving that you're one by yourself. You don't even know how to quote properly :oops:


**** off.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 09:16 PM
A loss is a loss. That's not me setting terms that's just fact.
So? Did I say a loss isn't a loss? But a better performance is just a better performance.



2010 Fed was his current competition idiot he didn't have to beat 05 Fed.....I didn't see you applying that logic to Naadal when you were busy giving Sod no credit for victory.



Yes I have, you haven't made any case at all, you're just an old woman behind your comp all day and night. LOL. No you haven't and I'm not the one who should be making the case anyway.And if you had such a life you wouldn't be responding to me at all.Moron.Instead you're engaged in typing out long-winded paras after paras.LOL.Idiot.



Did Agassi make the quarters of 05 USO in such a manner?
Why does that matter? He made the finals in the end.More strawmen.Now he's going to make a case for Sod based on his performances till the QF's .ROFL!Height of stupidity.



But he prpved he can rach the final there, it wasn't a fluke the first time and secondly he proved he could beat Fed and Rafa. LOL how many times does this need to be said?So? Did he come remotely close to winning the title ? Has he won anything of note at all on clay? No.Thanks for playing .



Oh yeah? prove that please. Find one of my posts where I 'discredited' him.Go through your own post history idiot.It's not my job to use that function for you.

I said he beat Rafa and Rafa's injury played a part in that but it was still very impressive. LOOOOOL! No.This you are saying now that you want to hype him up.



So by your dumb logic since he never proved himself he couldn't have been a contender.And your point is? He proved himself when he won his first Wimbledon .Thanks for playing.



Everything you say is bs.
Of course.Since you ca neither agree nor counter it,it is of course BS for you.

YOu're just a **** pumping trying to pump up Fed's tyres and deflate Rafa's when it's quite obvious Fed competition from 04-07 is a joke compared to the players around today.I never made a case for any of the 'eras'.That is what you are trying to do while failing at it miserably.Thanks for playing.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 09:57 PM
ROFL...Sharpshooter always take stupidity in a new level, and he still not in his ceiling, so expect more, irrelevant, stupid, nonsense, gibberish posts to come...
Pretty much.First,these same *******s talk about how a 'healthy Rafa' belts Sod and what not,call Roger's competition at the FO weak and then come back and call the same player,who's victory they devalued,a better 'contender' than multiple slam winners so they can inflate their boy's competition.:wink:

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:06 PM
Did Agassi make the quarters of 05 USO in such a manner? No he scraped through and was lucky to even be in the quarters let alone semi's and then the final. Sod stuck true to his RG form and only lost to Rafa.

oh really ? sod was pretty up and down in the semis vs berdych , he didn't play anywhere close to how he played in the QF ; in the finals, he was MUCH worse.


But as I said go and ask champion Hewitt how easy it is to beat injured Rafa at RG.

yes, hewitt could take only 5 games off an "injured" rafa, yet took 10 games off a perfectly healthy rafa next year on the same court !

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:14 PM
Pretty much.First,these same *******s talk about how a 'healthy Rafa' belts Sod and what not,call Roger's competition at the FO weak and then come back and call the same player,who's victory they devalued,a better 'contender' than multiple slam winners so they can inflate their boy's competition.:wink:

yeah, its just as per what is convenient for their arguments.

The height of it of course is their stupid arguments regarding 2009 FO .

murray is much better than fed's competition, yet roddick takes him out in 4 sets at SW 19 and murray can't take a set from his opponent in 3 finals

djokovic is much better than fed's competition, but roddick has a winning H2H , including a win at the AO, winning 7 sets in a row vs him. A well past his prime safin also takes him out in straights at SW19

of course roddick is also 3-3 vs rafa on HC , 2 of those wins coming after 2007

NadalAgassi
06-17-2011, 10:16 PM
More pointless trolling from Mandy01. What else is new.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 10:19 PM
So? Did I say a loss isn't a loss? But a better performance is just a better performance.


And it doesn't matter because at the end of the day a loss is still a loss.


....I didn't see you applying that logic to Naadal when you were busy giving Sod no credit for victory.


When is this time when I didn't give Sod any credit for victory? I guess you like making stuff up LOL.


No you haven't and I'm not the one who should be making the case anyway.And if you had such a life you wouldn't be responding to me at all.Moron.Instead you're engaged in typing out long-winded paras after paras.LOL.Idiot.


LOL what a hypocrite. I've got no life because I'm posting on an internet forum yet you have such a great fulfilling life responding to me. Hahahahah Oh the hypocrisy. To top it off you have over 8000 posts of gibberish crap compared to me having just over 600 brilliant posts, About 35 of them in this thread alone Hahaha. YOu've been here since 2008, that means roughly 7 or 8 posts a day its pathetic. Also why the HELL does abmk's profile pop up when I click on yours? Don't tell me you two are actually the same poster with some sort of alias account that would be really pathetic.




Why does that matter? He made the finals in the end.More strawmen.Now he's going to make a case for Sod based on his performances till the QF's .ROFL!Height of stupidity.


LOL Sod has been unbeatable at RG unless facing Fed or Rafa and he has beaten them as well.


So? Did he come remotely close to winning the title ? Has he won anything of note at all on clay? No.Thanks for playing .


The clay at RG and atmosphere at RG is different to all the other clay tournamnets you idiot. YOu cannot measure his success at other clay tournamnet and build that as a basis for how well he performs at RG.


Go through your own post history idiot.It's not my job to use that function for you.

No sorry, I won't be doing that. Provide proof or GTFO.



LOOOOOL! No.This you are saying now that you want to hype him up.


Again show me where I didn't give him any credit at all or GTFO.


And your point is? He proved himself when he won his first Wimbledon .Thanks for playing.

So he wasn't a contender in 2003 because he did SFA before that. According to your logic.



Of course.Since you ca neither agree nor counter it,it is of course BS for you.


LOL I've countered everything you said. It doesn't take away from the fact that everything you say is bs.


I never made a case for any of the 'eras'.That is what you are trying to do while failing at it miserably.Thanks for playing.

You stood up for the "great" contenders Fed had to deal with in his era of dominance. LOL I can't believe this crap coming from you.

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:22 PM
I'm talking tennis terms not your uncle and his wheels.

If Sod kept true to his form throughout the whole tournament before set number 3 against Gonzo, he would've beaten 09Fed. .

not true, fed was playing his best tennis in the finals in RG 2009 . sod played even better in 2010 FO QF than he did in the 4R match vs rafa . Fed played slightly worse in 2010 QF and yet Sod to save a SP in the 3rd set. That in no ways means sod playing as he did in the 4R vs rafa would've beaten fed in the finals. There's a chance, but no guarantee. But whatever helps you sleep at night :)

martini1
06-17-2011, 10:23 PM
Which means it doesn't matter how well XXX is playing, Wimbledon is all about NIKE and ROLEX, who are the (un)official owners of the tournament.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 10:23 PM
oh really ? sod was pretty up and down in the semis vs berdych , he didn't play anywhere close to how he played in the QF ; in the finals, he was MUCH worse.


I was talking about this year. Sod made the quarters easily this year.



yes, hewitt could take only 5 games off an "injured" rafa, yet took 10 games off a perfectly healthy rafa next year on the same court !

Every match is different with different dynamics.

Sharpshooter
06-17-2011, 10:26 PM
More pointless trolling from Mandy01. What else is new.

Exactly.

Apparently Nadal fans don't have a life but she does with on average about 7-8 posts per day! LOL

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:26 PM
Also why the HELL does abmk's profile pop up when I click on yours? Don't tell me you two are actually the same poster with some sort of alias account that would be really pathetic.

maybe you need to learn how and where to click before spewing this sort of BS ?

mandy01
06-17-2011, 10:29 PM
And it doesn't matter because at the end of the day a loss is still a loss. Of course it does.It was a flat-out better performance.


When is this time when I didn't give Sod any credit for victory? I guess you like making stuff up LOL.Go read your own posts.Liar.



LOL what a hypocrite.LMAO.Now I'm a hypocrite.Go read your reply to me.Liar.First you take digs at me while typing paras after paras n the hope of making a compelling argument (while my responses to you have mostly been short and quick) and then turn around to call me a hypocrite when I return favour.Again,what a liar.

I About 35 of them in this thread alone Hahaha. ..why don't you go count your own posts in this thread.Moron.

YOu've been here since 2008, that means roughly 7 or 8 posts a day its pathetic.The fact that you're so caught up in somebody else's post count is by itself pathetic.

Also why the HELL does abmk's profile pop up when I click on yours? Don't tell me you two are actually the same poster with some sort of alias account that would be really pathetic.
LOL,now the sockpuppet argument.This just keeps getting better and better.







You stood up for the "great" contenders Fed had to deal with in his era of dominance. LOL I can't believe this crap coming from you.I countered your logic behind demeaning them.I didn't stand behind anything.Talk about dishing out crap.

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:30 PM
I was talking about this year. Sod made the quarters easily this year.

ok, but he didn't face anyone till then who was a big threat on clay


Every match is different with different dynamics.

explain then what was so different that a healthy rafa had to take twice the no of games to defeat hewitt than what an "injured" rafa did

mandy01
06-17-2011, 10:33 PM
Exactly.

Apparently Nadal fans don't have a life but she does with on average about 7-8 posts per day! LOLLOL .Post count goes up and down depending on how you divide your posts.And that by itself is no measure of time spent here.For all the digs you take at posters here,you seem to be spending an incredible amount of time typing off useless posts.

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:34 PM
You stood up for the "great" contenders Fed had to deal with in his era of dominance. LOL I can't believe this crap coming from you.

Read this about the comparision of the "cr*ppy" players during fed's era and the "great" contenders of the nadal era !

yeah, its just as per what is convenient for their arguments.

The height of it of course is their stupid arguments regarding 2009 FO .

murray is much better than fed's competition, yet roddick takes him out in 4 sets at SW 19 and murray can't take a set from his opponent in 3 finals

djokovic is much better than fed's competition, but roddick has a winning H2H , including a win at the AO, winning 7 sets in a row vs him. A well past his prime safin also takes him out in straights at SW19

of course roddick is also 3-3 vs rafa on HC , 2 of those wins coming after 2007

mandy01
06-17-2011, 10:35 PM
No sorry, I won't be doing that. Provide proof or GTFO.
.I'm not here to do your job for you.If you can't go through your post history it ain't my problem.(and if you had an ounce of honesty you wouldn't be asking for proof to begin with)

mandy01
06-17-2011, 10:39 PM
So he wasn't a contender in 2003 because he did SFA before that. According to your logic.

Roger himself didn't think he could win Wimbledon that year.He came close to throwing in the towel in his third round due to his back problems.Thanks for playing.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 10:44 PM
More pointless trolling from Mandy01. What else is new.
A Nadal fan groupie backing up one of his fellow 'greatest poasters'.How predictable. LOL :lol:

NadalAgassi
06-17-2011, 10:48 PM
5 of the last 7 points by Mandy. I guess talking to herself is a favorite pastime.

mandy01
06-17-2011, 10:50 PM
5 of the last 7 points by Mandy. I guess talking to herself is a favorite pastime.you might as well look at your own post count before taking digs at me,groupie.

abmk
06-17-2011, 10:52 PM
5 of the last 7 points by Mandy. I guess talking to herself is a favorite pastime.

Coming from you, that's sooooooo hilarious, NadalAgassi aka Davey25 aka capriatifanatic aka federerfanatic aka grafsalesfan aka thalivest aka annointedone aka selesian aka graffanatic aka cuddles26 aka .......... :lol:

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:05 AM
maybe you need to learn how and where to click before spewing this sort of BS ?

Nah it's an error in the system. I had the general discussion page open for a while, and you know it has the last person who posted listed for each thread. So since mandy was the most recent poster in this thread at the time I opened the general discussion tab, because it was open for a while, in real time you were the most resent poster. It said mandy's name but when I clicked on it, it loaded your profile for some reason. Bug in the code.

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:11 AM
Of course it does.It was a flat-out better performance.


But it doesn't matter. Agassi didn't get anything for winning a set. Maybe Fed felt bad for last year's final and wanted to make it up to the fans the second time around so he let Agassi get a set.


Go read your own posts.Liar.


make me. I don't have to do a damn thing you say so tough.


LMAO.Now I'm a hypocrite.Go read your reply to me.Liar.First you take digs at me while typing paras after paras n the hope of making a compelling argument (while my responses to you have mostly been short and quick) and then turn around to call me a hypocrite when I return favour.Again,what a liar.


YOur responses are short and quick because you don't have a compelling argument, you post simple crap just for the sake of dragging it out.


..why don't you go count your own posts in this thread.Moron.


I didn't count them, but I did say I had about 35 in this thread. Again displaying your inability to read.


.The fact that you're so caught up in somebody else's post count is by itself pathetic.

The fact that you're caught up in my posting style is even more pathetic.


LOL,now the sockpuppet argument.This just keeps getting better and better.


I've already explained this. There was an error in the system.



I countered your logic behind demeaning them.I didn't stand behind anything.Talk about dishing out crap.
[/QUOTE]

You countered it with nonsense. Saying how a 35.5 year old Agassi was more of a contender because he won 1 more set. LOL talk about real crap.

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:12 AM
Nah it's an error in the system. I had the general discussion page open for a while, and you know it has the last person who posted listed for each thread. So since mandy was the most recent poster in this thread at the time I opened the general discussion tab, because it was open for a while, in real time you were the most resent poster. It said mandy's name but when I clicked on it, it loaded your profile for some reason. Bug in the code.

LOL, typical excuse. You didn't even bother to double check, did you ? Yeah, because you only see what you 'want' to see !

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:13 AM
But it doesn't matter. Agassi didn't get anything for winning a set. Maybe Fed felt bad for last year's final and wanted to make it up to the fans the second time around so he let Agassi get a set.




yeah, he had also 'let' agassi get two sets in their previous encounter at the USO, what next ? :)

Its pretty obvious you didn't even watch the 2005 USO final ..

an on-fire sod at RG is a bigger threat ( note I said threat, not necessarily contender ) than a 35 year old agassi at the USO, but agassi's final performance in 2005 was by some distance better than sod's performance in both finals and sod's performance this year in the QF

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:15 AM
ok, but he didn't face anyone till then who was a big threat on clay


You have to admit he destroyed Simon in very convincing fashion. He went off a little in the 3rd set but still it was quite a dominant win over a home town player with good skill.



explain then what was so different that a healthy rafa had to take twice the no of games to defeat hewitt than what an "injured" rafa did

I don't know what was so different, we can't speculate on Rafa's mindset and Hewitt's either. Maybe Rafa was feeling off we don't know so I'm not going to speculate that. But as I said different match different dimensions different everything except the result.

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:18 AM
I'm not here to do your job for you.If you can't go through your post history it ain't my problem.(and if you had an ounce of honesty you wouldn't be asking for proof to begin with)

It is not my job to do a damn thing I'll do what I want


Roger himself didn't think he could win Wimbledon that year.He came close to throwing in the towel in his third round due to his back problems.Thanks for playing.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Now I've heard it all Roger didn't think he could win that year oh geez that is the funniest thing you have ever posted hahahah. Oh that's so stupid it's embarrassing. He magically won without believing in himself.

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:21 AM
You have to admit he destroyed Simon in very convincing fashion. He went off a little in the 3rd set but still it was quite a dominant win over a home town player with good skill.

yeah, a good performance, but still simon is not really that big a threat on clay, is he ?

I don't know what was so different, we can't speculate on Rafa's mindset and Hewitt's either. Maybe Rafa was feeling off we don't know so I'm not going to speculate that. But as I said different match different dimensions different everything except the result.

I am not asking you to say what was different based on seeing the matches. How difficult is that ? You are saying it was different, that is pretty obvious, duh , but what was it that was different ?

Fugazi
06-18-2011, 12:22 AM
Hmmm..isn't JMac a ******* as of late? Anyway, I hope he's right and Federer continues his high form of the FO. Even if Fed doesn't win I'm just happy to see him play good matches. He seriously needs to stop choking and start converting BPs more often. I think tennis fans worldwide are prepared for the next Federer GS win ;-)

Djokovic made his statement in the AO
Nadal made his in the FO (a bit lucky to not face his current owner)
Fed needs to make his at Wimbledon
Well, saying that Fed is the favorite IS consistent with being a *******... Nadal himself always has this falsely humble attitude.

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:24 AM
Read this about the comparision of the "cr*ppy" players during fed's era and the "great" contenders of the nadal era !

I've already addressed Roddick, in fact if you bothered to read my posts properly, I never categorised him with the other dodo's like Blake, Davydenko, Hewitt, 35.5 year old Agassi, Gonzo, Baghdatis, Haas etc in fact I even said Roddick was the only one. Safin could hardly ever bring his best to the table on a consistent basis, but when he was at his best then yeah no doubt he was a tough opponent for Fed. He just couldn't bring it and that is a fact for his whole career Safin always had flashes of brilliance but was never consistent enough to be a huge worry for Fed.

BTW as for Roddick, I'll give you the same reason nearly every **** gives for Roger losing to Rafa, Fed is just a bad matchup for Roddick.

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:25 AM
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Now I've heard it all Roger didn't think he could win that year oh geez that is the funniest thing you have ever posted hahahah. Oh that's so stupid it's embarrassing. He magically won without believing in himself.

if you could only think a bit and put things into context, you'd know. I think Mandy was referring to at the start of the tournament. Fed was out 1st round last year at SW19, was out 1st round at FO in 2003 , had back problem and nearly quit vs lopez. Of course his confidence grew as the tournament went on and was on a high after that masterclass vs roddick in the semis and he carried that forward to the finals

Fugazi
06-18-2011, 12:26 AM
And the only reason why nadal is big is because hes considered fed's kryptonite and rival. every villain is only as great as his hero
Very true!

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:27 AM
I am not asking you to say what was different based on seeing the matches. How difficult is that ? You are saying it was different, that is pretty obvious, duh , but what was it that was different ?

Ok then, by this logic Fed in 2011 is better than Fed in 2006. He gave Rafa more trouble in this year's RG than any other including his best year. What was so different? Nadal is certainly a better player now than 2006. So what was so different?

See you can't say what was so different because different matches have different dynamics.

Sharpshooter
06-18-2011, 12:30 AM
if you could only think a bit and put things into context, you'd know. I think Mandy was referring to at the start of the tournament. Fed was out 1st round last year at SW19, was out 1st round at FO in 2003 , had back problem and nearly quit vs lopez. Of course his confidence grew as the tournament went on and was on a high after that masterclass vs roddick in the semis and he carried that forward to the finals

Doesn't matter if he didn't think he could win how could he actually win it? You have to believe from the start of the tournament that you can win it in order to win it its simple really. Ask Fed if he thought he couldn't win it I'll bet the answer will be yes of course.

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:40 AM
I've already addressed Roddick, in fact if you bothered to read my posts properly, I never categorised him with the other dodo's like Blake, Davydenko, Hewitt, 35.5 year old Agassi, Gonzo, Baghdatis, Haas etc in fact I even said Roddick was the only one. Safin could hardly ever bring his best to the table on a consistent basis, but when he was at his best then yeah no doubt he was a tough opponent for Fed. He just couldn't bring it and that is a fact for his whole career Safin always had flashes of brilliance but was never consistent enough to be a huge worry for Fed.

let's see:

agassi lost in 5 sets vs safin in the semis in AO 2004, lost in 5 vs rog in the USO QF, lost in straights in AO 2005 to fed, was up a break in the 3rd in the USO final in 2005. Some dodo he must've been !

hewitt - lost to eventual champs in all the slam events he played from 2004-2005 - fed in AO 2004 4R, wimbledon 2004 QF, gaudio in FO 2004 ( though hewitt really wasn't a big contender at the FO ) USO 2004 F, AO 2005 F, wimby 2005 SF ( was much more competitive than the final ) , USO 2005 SF.

He also demolished roddick in their TMC encounter and beat him/Nalbandian at the AO in 2005

Some dodo he must've been !

Haas beat djoker twice on grass in 2009 , including the win at SW19 of course

gonzo, baghdatis were threats during their big runs. baghdatis was serving for going up 2 sets vs fed in 2006 AO finals , playing much better than the crappy performances berdych/soderling ( except for some phases ) put up in their finals vs rafa ( of course rafa played better in those than what fed did in the AO 2006 , but still )

gonzo of course was stopped by a federer playing well.

davydenko isn't that good in slams as he is in the best of 3, but 3 or 4 times when playing VERY well in slams, he was stopped by fed, most recent being the AO 2010 QF. Lot of players would've wanted to avoid that davydenko !

2004, 2005, fed had pretty decent competition - nalbandian, safin, hewitt,roddick, agassi , {nadal,coria} ( clay ) , 2006 there was a decline, 2007 it again picked up with nadal bringing his best on grass and djoker's rise.

mandy01
06-18-2011, 12:42 AM
I
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Now I've heard it all Roger didn't think he could win that year oh geez that is the funniest thing you have ever posted hahahah. Oh that's so stupid it's embarrassing. He magically won without believing in himself.Again with the misrepresentation.Where did anyone say or imply anything about winning it magically?.I said he didn't think he could do it given his back problems.He was on the verge of retiring mid-tournament.But since you don't watch tennis ( Rafa's rear is what you actually watch) you obviously don't know.

mandy01
06-18-2011, 12:44 AM
You countered it with nonsense. Saying how a 35.5 year old Agassi was more of a contender because he won 1 more set. LOL talk about real crap.
No.Again misrepresentation.What I clearly implied was that Agassi,despite being a supposedly 'inferior contender' performed better in the finals than Sod ever did.


I didn't count them, but I did say I had about 35 in this thread. Again displaying your inability to read.


Why would you even bother to go there? It seems since you're basically on shaky grounds in terms of arguments you're throwing in this irrelevant stuff (whilst of course being a massive hypocrite).

mandy01
06-18-2011, 12:47 AM
Doesn't matter if he didn't think he could win how could he actually win it? You have to believe from the start of the tournament that you can win it in order to win it its simple really. Ask Fed if he thought he couldn't win it I'll bet the answer will be yes of course.
LOLWUT? I'm surprised Nadal has even won one slam given how he never seems to believe he can win the tournament before and never seems to think of himself as the favourite.

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:49 AM
Ok then, by this logic Fed in 2011 is better than Fed in 2006. He gave Rafa more trouble in this year's RG than any other including his best year. What was so different? Nadal is certainly a better player now than 2006. So what was so different?

See you can't say what was so different because different matches have different dynamics.

@ 2nd bolded line: on clay, not necessarily.

yes, I can say what was different this time around based on watching their matches. Fed tried to take it more on the rise this time, use more variety. Nadal was slightly more aggressive in 2011, but not by that much . Fed's BH was crappy in 2006, in 2011 it wasn't, it was more a case of not playing the big points well

Nadal started off slowly in both 2006 and 2011 , but just about managed to recover in time in 2011 in the first set, he didn't in 2006. Fed blew it this time in the first set itself, there he blew it after the first set ( in the second set ) .... Nadal wasn't shaky after the first set in 2006 from what I remember, but he was at some points in the 2011 match.

in 2006, the 4th set went to a breaker. 2007, IMO game-wise , was probably the closest ( but federer blew a lot of BPs ). How can you say with certainty that he pushed nadal the furthest this time around ?

@ 1st bolded line: I just asked what was the difference in the matches vs hewitt in the 2 RG matches.

I didn't say just because nadal beat hewitt more easily in 2009 RG, he was better in 2009 overall

abmk
06-18-2011, 12:52 AM
Doesn't matter if he didn't think he could win how could he actually win it? You have to believe from the start of the tournament that you can win it in order to win it its simple really. Ask Fed if he thought he couldn't win it I'll bet the answer will be yes of course.

no. The belief can come somewhere in between , in the tournament as well , it all depends on the circumstances

zagor
06-18-2011, 01:11 AM
13 pages and the link is yet to be posted? I thought Mcenroe's lips were firmly attached to Nadal's buttocks at the moment given that he's the biggest thing in tennis right now? I have my doubts whether he actually said what the OP posted.

Sid_Vicious
06-18-2011, 01:30 AM
13 pages and the link is yet to be posted? I thought Mcenroe's lips were firmly attached to Nadal's buttocks at the moment given that he's the biggest thing in tennis right now? I have my doubts whether he actually said what the OP posted.

Novak probably tanked against Fedpa because he was getting really uncomfortable with Mcenroe kissing his *** 24/7. Poor Novak looked so awkward when he was practicing with Mcenroe before the SF. Mcenroe just could not shut up about how Novak's streak was better than his. :lol:

zagor
06-18-2011, 01:35 AM
Novak probably tanked against Fedpa because he was getting really uncomfortable with Mcenroe kissing his *** 24/7. Poor Novak looked so awkward when he was practicing with Mcenroe before the SF. Mcenroe just could not shut up about how Novak's streak was better than his. :lol:

LOL Jmac is the biggest bandwagoner bar none.I'll never forget when he was forcing Laver,Sampras and Borg to say Fed is the GOAT in 2009 while all of them were in the same room,it was just embarrassing to watch.

I mean Laver was actually Pete's childhood idol after whom he modeled his game and on court behaviour yet here was Jmac forcing Pete to say Fed is better in front of Laver,what a ******.

Lotto
06-18-2011, 02:42 AM
Once again, any link to this quote or a source or anything? :P

Sentinel
06-18-2011, 02:54 AM
Once again, any link to this quote or a source or anything? :P
I have found a link but it's not the same.

It's Rod Laver saying "Tennis is all about Roger" and Borg, Pete and Uncle Toni agreeing.

msc886
06-18-2011, 05:11 AM
I've already addressed Roddick, in fact if you bothered to read my posts properly, I never categorised him with the other dodo's like Blake, Davydenko, Hewitt, 35.5 year old Agassi, Gonzo, Baghdatis, Haas etc in fact I even said Roddick was the only one. Safin could hardly ever bring his best to the table on a consistent basis, but when he was at his best then yeah no doubt he was a tough opponent for Fed. He just couldn't bring it and that is a fact for his whole career Safin always had flashes of brilliance but was never consistent enough to be a huge worry for Fed.

BTW as for Roddick, I'll give you the same reason nearly every **** gives for Roger losing to Rafa, Fed is just a bad matchup for Roddick.

If you're suggesting that Federer only won because of a "weak era", then Nadal only won non-French slams because of the new conditions. Speed the surface up again + ban the new generation racquet and string technology and players like those "chumps" will be back dominating.

TheNatural
06-18-2011, 08:16 PM
McEnroe,"It does not matter how well Rafa and Novak are playing.Wimbledon is all about Roger."

This article says that Mcenroe backs Nadal to Win Wimbledon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/19/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-wimbledon-2011). He agrees with what I said, that it's Nadal's tournament to lose.


Roger Federer talks up risk-taking in his rivalry with Rafael Nadal
19 June 2011


John McEnroe is convinced Roger Federer, 30 in August, will win another grand slam, but not this Wimbledon. He reckons the 125th edition of the tournament is Rafa Nadal's to lose.

That judgment sits alongside a thousand other opinions, most of which are split between these two pillars of the game, but McEnroe, the three-times former champion on this grass, whose perceptions are not dulled by the years, leans slightly towards the Spaniard.

As for Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, who complete the leading quartet, they are serious threats, with little to choose between them, he says.

Federer, of course, thinks he will be crowned gentlemen's singles champion for the seventh time on 3 July, equalling the record of Pete Sampras, whom he beat here in the quarter-finals 10 years ago the genesis of his own rise and the beginning of the American's retreat, although he would win a final major, the US Open, before he left.

Nadal? He never predicts. He just makes life hell for everyone else until they collapse on the end of the most withering, iron-fisted forehand in the sport, something he has done to the Swiss six times in eight slam finals, most recently in Paris last month.

So the maths, recent evidence and history would seem to be with Nadal and McEnroe. And, if anything is designed to inspire Federer to the mountainous peaks he has reached so many times, it is not only the burning desire to beat Nadal in a championship final but the creeping suspicion of others that he is approaching the closing stages of an illustrious career.

In many ways, with some obvious differences, his career mirrors that of Sampras. Both appear to share a sanguine temperament and fierce, quiet determination, but Federer's ambitions are stronger now than when he was young and, occasionally, lazy, whereas the American blazed from the beginning then headed for the exit in haste, his enthusiasm drained after so long at the top. The American also felt that he was never afforded the acclaim in his own country that his excellence deserved; Federer, whose international reach is more obvious, suffers no such pains of ego.

As McEnroe observes: "I don't see any signs [of decline] other than that his life has become more complete and complicated with kids. His enthusiasm is more than Pete's. Pete seemed like a reluctant champion to some degree. It seemed like he didn't like being out there as much as Roger."

And, if you take Federer at his word, that is true. He bridles at any suggestion about even a minor dip in his tennis or commitment, and said on Saturday: "I feel good about myself, about my body. The last week was vital for me to recover from my groin injury. I feel like I'm almost back at 100% again, which is a really good sign for Wimbledon."

And what of equalling Sampras's record? "There's always something on the line at this point when I play the grand slams just because I have the record already [of 16 majors]. So I could push it one forward or I could tie with Sampras here. It's obviously something very special and important at this point."

And that groin injury: that is a tiny mystery. Immediately after the final at Roland Garros, Federer said he had not felt so good physically for a while. He said, yes, he intended to play on the grass of Halle in Germany, in preparation for Wimbledon, although he would have to consult his team. The following day, he withdrew, citing the groin injury. The tournament director, Ralf Weber, was livid, although subsequently assured that their draw card would not let them down again.

There were a couple of other post-defeat statements in Paris that not only betrayed Federer's deep disappointment in finishing an otherwise good tournament a loser yet again to Nadal, but suggested he was struggling to rationalise the reasons for his defeat.

"It's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be," he said. "If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat him; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."

It was not the most gracious loser's speech, although you could see the way he was thinking. He figured then, and still does, that Nadal grinds him down with attritional power, whereas he takes all the risks.

"I'm the one that's playing with smaller margins," he said. "So, obviously I'm always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time."

This rivalry is unlike any other in sport. It is not just a series of contests between probably the two best players in the history of their sport; it is a subtle psychological war.

Nadal is transparent. That is partly because his English is not his first language. It also because he shares with Murray the gift, or curse, of being unable to give an answer not wrapped with an iron chain to the truth.

Federer is equally candid but clever with it. He would not be so brazen as to declare himself the best player of all time, although he probably believes it, certainly on grass, certainly at Wimbledon. This is his turf. To lose here as he did in that majestic final against Nadal in 2008 is a wounding blow.

So he crafts his verbal sparring with care. He knows how close he came to going out in the first round last year after five tough sets against the unseeded Colombian Alejandro Falla.

"I hope I get into the tournament a bit better than last year where I almost lost in the first round," he said. "That's the concern I have right now, not trying to break all these different records."

Djokovic provided a measured judgment to the never-ending debate about who is the better of the two. "Obviously, results wise, it's still Federer," he said on Saturday. "But Nadal has been incredible the last couple of years. So, from that side, I think Nadal has maybe more years to play at the top of men's tennis. But you never know what's going to happen. They have the biggest rivalry, maybe the biggest rivalry ever."

And there's not a lot more anyone can add until, maybe, 3 July.

powerangle
06-18-2011, 08:32 PM
This article says that Mcenroe backs Nadal to Win Wimbledon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/19/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-wimbledon-2011). He agrees with what I said, that it's Nadal's tournament to lose.


Roger Federer talks up risk-taking in his rivalry with Rafael Nadal
19 June 2011


John McEnroe is convinced Roger Federer, 30 in August, will win another grand slam, but not this Wimbledon. He reckons the 125th edition of the tournament is Rafa Nadal's to lose.

That judgment sits alongside a thousand other opinions, most of which are split between these two pillars of the game, but McEnroe, the three-times former champion on this grass, whose perceptions are not dulled by the years, leans slightly towards the Spaniard.

As for Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, who complete the leading quartet, they are serious threats, with little to choose between them, he says.

Federer, of course, thinks he will be crowned gentlemen's singles champion for the seventh time on 3 July, equalling the record of Pete Sampras, whom he beat here in the quarter-finals 10 years ago the genesis of his own rise and the beginning of the American's retreat, although he would win a final major, the US Open, before he left.

Nadal? He never predicts. He just makes life hell for everyone else until they collapse on the end of the most withering, iron-fisted forehand in the sport, something he has done to the Swiss six times in eight slam finals, most recently in Paris last month.

So the maths, recent evidence and history would seem to be with Nadal and McEnroe. And, if anything is designed to inspire Federer to the mountainous peaks he has reached so many times, it is not only the burning desire to beat Nadal in a championship final but the creeping suspicion of others that he is approaching the closing stages of an illustrious career.

In many ways, with some obvious differences, his career mirrors that of Sampras. Both appear to share a sanguine temperament and fierce, quiet determination, but Federer's ambitions are stronger now than when he was young and, occasionally, lazy, whereas the American blazed from the beginning then headed for the exit in haste, his enthusiasm drained after so long at the top. The American also felt that he was never afforded the acclaim in his own country that his excellence deserved; Federer, whose international reach is more obvious, suffers no such pains of ego.

As McEnroe observes: "I don't see any signs [of decline] other than that his life has become more complete and complicated with kids. His enthusiasm is more than Pete's. Pete seemed like a reluctant champion to some degree. It seemed like he didn't like being out there as much as Roger."

And, if you take Federer at his word, that is true. He bridles at any suggestion about even a minor dip in his tennis or commitment, and said on Saturday: "I feel good about myself, about my body. The last week was vital for me to recover from my groin injury. I feel like I'm almost back at 100% again, which is a really good sign for Wimbledon."

And what of equalling Sampras's record? "There's always something on the line at this point when I play the grand slams just because I have the record already [of 16 majors]. So I could push it one forward or I could tie with Sampras here. It's obviously something very special and important at this point."

And that groin injury: that is a tiny mystery. Immediately after the final at Roland Garros, Federer said he had not felt so good physically for a while. He said, yes, he intended to play on the grass of Halle in Germany, in preparation for Wimbledon, although he would have to consult his team. The following day, he withdrew, citing the groin injury. The tournament director, Ralf Weber, was livid, although subsequently assured that their draw card would not let them down again.

There were a couple of other post-defeat statements in Paris that not only betrayed Federer's deep disappointment in finishing an otherwise good tournament a loser yet again to Nadal, but suggested he was struggling to rationalise the reasons for his defeat.

"It's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be," he said. "If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat him; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."

It was not the most gracious loser's speech, although you could see the way he was thinking. He figured then, and still does, that Nadal grinds him down with attritional power, whereas he takes all the risks.

"I'm the one that's playing with smaller margins," he said. "So, obviously I'm always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time."

This rivalry is unlike any other in sport. It is not just a series of contests between probably the two best players in the history of their sport; it is a subtle psychological war.

Nadal is transparent. That is partly because his English is not his first language. It also because he shares with Murray the gift, or curse, of being unable to give an answer not wrapped with an iron chain to the truth.

Federer is equally candid but clever with it. He would not be so brazen as to declare himself the best player of all time, although he probably believes it, certainly on grass, certainly at Wimbledon. This is his turf. To lose here as he did in that majestic final against Nadal in 2008 is a wounding blow.

So he crafts his verbal sparring with care. He knows how close he came to going out in the first round last year after five tough sets against the unseeded Colombian Alejandro Falla.

"I hope I get into the tournament a bit better than last year where I almost lost in the first round," he said. "That's the concern I have right now, not trying to break all these different records."

Djokovic provided a measured judgment to the never-ending debate about who is the better of the two. "Obviously, results wise, it's still Federer," he said on Saturday. "But Nadal has been incredible the last couple of years. So, from that side, I think Nadal has maybe more years to play at the top of men's tennis. But you never know what's going to happen. They have the biggest rivalry, maybe the biggest rivalry ever."

And there's not a lot more anyone can add until, maybe, 3 July.

Especially agree with the bolded part.

TheTruth
06-19-2011, 12:23 AM
This article says that Mcenroe backs Nadal to Win Wimbledon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/19/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-wimbledon-2011). He agrees with what I said, that it's Nadal's tournament to lose.


Roger Federer talks up risk-taking in his rivalry with Rafael Nadal
19 June 2011


John McEnroe is convinced Roger Federer, 30 in August, will win another grand slam, but not this Wimbledon. He reckons the 125th edition of the tournament is Rafa Nadal's to lose.

That judgment sits alongside a thousand other opinions, most of which are split between these two pillars of the game, but McEnroe, the three-times former champion on this grass, whose perceptions are not dulled by the years, leans slightly towards the Spaniard.

As for Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, who complete the leading quartet, they are serious threats, with little to choose between them, he says.

Federer, of course, thinks he will be crowned gentlemen's singles champion for the seventh time on 3 July, equalling the record of Pete Sampras, whom he beat here in the quarter-finals 10 years ago the genesis of his own rise and the beginning of the American's retreat, although he would win a final major, the US Open, before he left.

Nadal? He never predicts. He just makes life hell for everyone else until they collapse on the end of the most withering, iron-fisted forehand in the sport, something he has done to the Swiss six times in eight slam finals, most recently in Paris last month.

So the maths, recent evidence and history would seem to be with Nadal and McEnroe. And, if anything is designed to inspire Federer to the mountainous peaks he has reached so many times, it is not only the burning desire to beat Nadal in a championship final but the creeping suspicion of others that he is approaching the closing stages of an illustrious career.

In many ways, with some obvious differences, his career mirrors that of Sampras. Both appear to share a sanguine temperament and fierce, quiet determination, but Federer's ambitions are stronger now than when he was young and, occasionally, lazy, whereas the American blazed from the beginning then headed for the exit in haste, his enthusiasm drained after so long at the top. The American also felt that he was never afforded the acclaim in his own country that his excellence deserved; Federer, whose international reach is more obvious, suffers no such pains of ego.

As McEnroe observes: "I don't see any signs [of decline] other than that his life has become more complete and complicated with kids. His enthusiasm is more than Pete's. Pete seemed like a reluctant champion to some degree. It seemed like he didn't like being out there as much as Roger."

And, if you take Federer at his word, that is true. He bridles at any suggestion about even a minor dip in his tennis or commitment, and said on Saturday: "I feel good about myself, about my body. The last week was vital for me to recover from my groin injury. I feel like I'm almost back at 100% again, which is a really good sign for Wimbledon."

And what of equalling Sampras's record? "There's always something on the line at this point when I play the grand slams just because I have the record already [of 16 majors]. So I could push it one forward or I could tie with Sampras here. It's obviously something very special and important at this point."

And that groin injury: that is a tiny mystery. Immediately after the final at Roland Garros, Federer said he had not felt so good physically for a while. He said, yes, he intended to play on the grass of Halle in Germany, in preparation for Wimbledon, although he would have to consult his team. The following day, he withdrew, citing the groin injury. The tournament director, Ralf Weber, was livid, although subsequently assured that their draw card would not let them down again.

There were a couple of other post-defeat statements in Paris that not only betrayed Federer's deep disappointment in finishing an otherwise good tournament a loser yet again to Nadal, but suggested he was struggling to rationalise the reasons for his defeat.

"It's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be," he said. "If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat him; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."

It was not the most gracious loser's speech, although you could see the way he was thinking. He figured then, and still does, that Nadal grinds him down with attritional power, whereas he takes all the risks.

"I'm the one that's playing with smaller margins," he said. "So, obviously I'm always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time."

This rivalry is unlike any other in sport. It is not just a series of contests between probably the two best players in the history of their sport; it is a subtle psychological war.

Nadal is transparent. That is partly because his English is not his first language. It also because he shares with Murray the gift, or curse, of being unable to give an answer not wrapped with an iron chain to the truth.

Federer is equally candid but clever with it. He would not be so brazen as to declare himself the best player of all time, although he probably believes it, certainly on grass, certainly at Wimbledon. This is his turf. To lose here as he did in that majestic final against Nadal in 2008 is a wounding blow.

So he crafts his verbal sparring with care. He knows how close he came to going out in the first round last year after five tough sets against the unseeded Colombian Alejandro Falla.

"I hope I get into the tournament a bit better than last year where I almost lost in the first round," he said. "That's the concern I have right now, not trying to break all these different records."

Djokovic provided a measured judgment to the never-ending debate about who is the better of the two. "Obviously, results wise, it's still Federer," he said on Saturday. "But Nadal has been incredible the last couple of years. So, from that side, I think Nadal has maybe more years to play at the top of men's tennis. But you never know what's going to happen. They have the biggest rivalry, maybe the biggest rivalry ever."

And there's not a lot more anyone can add until, maybe, 3 July.

Especially agree with the blue parts.

Great article.

zagor
06-19-2011, 02:04 AM
This article says that Mcenroe backs Nadal to Win Wimbledon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/19/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-wimbledon-2011). He agrees with what I said, that it's Nadal's tournament to lose.


Roger Federer talks up risk-taking in his rivalry with Rafael Nadal
19 June 2011


John McEnroe is convinced Roger Federer, 30 in August, will win another grand slam, but not this Wimbledon. He reckons the 125th edition of the tournament is Rafa Nadal's to lose.

That judgment sits alongside a thousand other opinions, most of which are split between these two pillars of the game, but McEnroe, the three-times former champion on this grass, whose perceptions are not dulled by the years, leans slightly towards the Spaniard.

As for Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, who complete the leading quartet, they are serious threats, with little to choose between them, he says.

Federer, of course, thinks he will be crowned gentlemen's singles champion for the seventh time on 3 July, equalling the record of Pete Sampras, whom he beat here in the quarter-finals 10 years ago the genesis of his own rise and the beginning of the American's retreat, although he would win a final major, the US Open, before he left.

Nadal? He never predicts. He just makes life hell for everyone else until they collapse on the end of the most withering, iron-fisted forehand in the sport, something he has done to the Swiss six times in eight slam finals, most recently in Paris last month.

So the maths, recent evidence and history would seem to be with Nadal and McEnroe. And, if anything is designed to inspire Federer to the mountainous peaks he has reached so many times, it is not only the burning desire to beat Nadal in a championship final but the creeping suspicion of others that he is approaching the closing stages of an illustrious career.

In many ways, with some obvious differences, his career mirrors that of Sampras. Both appear to share a sanguine temperament and fierce, quiet determination, but Federer's ambitions are stronger now than when he was young and, occasionally, lazy, whereas the American blazed from the beginning then headed for the exit in haste, his enthusiasm drained after so long at the top. The American also felt that he was never afforded the acclaim in his own country that his excellence deserved; Federer, whose international reach is more obvious, suffers no such pains of ego.

As McEnroe observes: "I don't see any signs [of decline] other than that his life has become more complete and complicated with kids. His enthusiasm is more than Pete's. Pete seemed like a reluctant champion to some degree. It seemed like he didn't like being out there as much as Roger."

And, if you take Federer at his word, that is true. He bridles at any suggestion about even a minor dip in his tennis or commitment, and said on Saturday: "I feel good about myself, about my body. The last week was vital for me to recover from my groin injury. I feel like I'm almost back at 100% again, which is a really good sign for Wimbledon."

And what of equalling Sampras's record? "There's always something on the line at this point when I play the grand slams just because I have the record already [of 16 majors]. So I could push it one forward or I could tie with Sampras here. It's obviously something very special and important at this point."

And that groin injury: that is a tiny mystery. Immediately after the final at Roland Garros, Federer said he had not felt so good physically for a while. He said, yes, he intended to play on the grass of Halle in Germany, in preparation for Wimbledon, although he would have to consult his team. The following day, he withdrew, citing the groin injury. The tournament director, Ralf Weber, was livid, although subsequently assured that their draw card would not let them down again.

There were a couple of other post-defeat statements in Paris that not only betrayed Federer's deep disappointment in finishing an otherwise good tournament a loser yet again to Nadal, but suggested he was struggling to rationalise the reasons for his defeat.

"It's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be," he said. "If I play well, I will most likely win in the score or beat him; if I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins."

It was not the most gracious loser's speech, although you could see the way he was thinking. He figured then, and still does, that Nadal grinds him down with attritional power, whereas he takes all the risks.

"I'm the one that's playing with smaller margins," he said. "So, obviously I'm always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time."

This rivalry is unlike any other in sport. It is not just a series of contests between probably the two best players in the history of their sport; it is a subtle psychological war.

Nadal is transparent. That is partly because his English is not his first language. It also because he shares with Murray the gift, or curse, of being unable to give an answer not wrapped with an iron chain to the truth.

Federer is equally candid but clever with it. He would not be so brazen as to declare himself the best player of all time, although he probably believes it, certainly on grass, certainly at Wimbledon. This is his turf. To lose here as he did in that majestic final against Nadal in 2008 is a wounding blow.

So he crafts his verbal sparring with care. He knows how close he came to going out in the first round last year after five tough sets against the unseeded Colombian Alejandro Falla.

"I hope I get into the tournament a bit better than last year where I almost lost in the first round," he said. "That's the concern I have right now, not trying to break all these different records."

Djokovic provided a measured judgment to the never-ending debate about who is the better of the two. "Obviously, results wise, it's still Federer," he said on Saturday. "But Nadal has been incredible the last couple of years. So, from that side, I think Nadal has maybe more years to play at the top of men's tennis. But you never know what's going to happen. They have the biggest rivalry, maybe the biggest rivalry ever."

And there's not a lot more anyone can add until, maybe, 3 July.

Nadal transparent? Federer's mysterious injury?

Clearly Nadal's PR team>>>>>>>>Fed's PR team.

taxon
06-19-2011, 02:17 AM
Why is their always a fight going on these forums who got the best backhand, forehand. Who is the goat, and all this nonsens. Iam a huge Federer fan, and i love his style of tennis. But i also enjoy watching Rafa. Why do al those fans want their man to be the best in history?? They are both great players en they are both one of the greatest players to have ever played the game. I'ts the same with the head tot head, Nadal leads that one, what does that tell you, just one thing and that is that Nadal most of the time played better then Federer, that's it.

Just enjoy these 2 play tennis for man more years the come ( i hope ).

zagor
06-19-2011, 02:20 AM
Why is their always a fight going on these forums who got the best backhand, forehand. Who is the goat, and all this nonsens. Iam a huge Federer fan, and i love his style of tennis. But i also enjoy watching Rafa. Why do al those fans want their man to be the best in history?? They are both great players en they are both one of the greatest players to have ever played the game. I'ts the same with the head tot head, Nadal leads that one, what does that tell you, just one thing and that is that Nadal most of the time played better then Federer, that's it.

Just enjoy these 2 play tennis for man more years the come ( i hope ).

You're one of them pacifists aren't you? We don't like your kind in here.











I'm just kidding,welcome to the forum.

msc886
06-19-2011, 04:25 AM
Or the simpler and more accurate answer is that on that day Nadal just played better.

Man up.

Yes. and when Federer won his slams, he simply played better. Conditions do change. Federer was the best for his conditions and Nadal is the best for the current conditions.

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:18 AM
yeah, its just as per what is convenient for their arguments.

The height of it of course is their stupid arguments regarding 2009 FO .

murray is much better than fed's competition, yet roddick takes him out in 4 sets at SW 19 and murray can't take a set from his opponent in 3 finals

djokovic is much better than fed's competition, but roddick has a winning H2H , including a win at the AO, winning 7 sets in a row vs him. A well past his prime safin also takes him out in straights at SW19

of course roddick is also 3-3 vs rafa on HC , 2 of those wins coming after 2007

exhibit A of what I was talking about:

NY Times: Federer admits his career grandslam is tinged with hollowness (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5757440)

with of course contribution in the thread from bluntshooter himself !

Sharpshooter
06-19-2011, 10:33 AM
exhibit A of what I was talking about:

NY Times: Federer admits his career grandslam is tinged with hollowness (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5757440)

with of course contribution in the thread from bluntshooter himself !

LOL at least my contribution is true yours is full of ***** as usual :rolleyes:

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:40 AM
LOL at least my contribution is true yours is full of ***** as usual :rolleyes:

true, what truth ? LOL ! Your contribution is just the plain old stupid cr*p that *********s like you pull up regularly . Did he face a cakewalk draw in the FO till the finals like rafa did in USO 2010 ?

delpo of FO 2009 SF >> djoker in USO 2010 F

haas, acusaso, soderling, PHM, monfils all played FAR FAR better in FO 2009 than what the likes of verdasco, youzhny did in USO 2010

Don't want to pull up stuff like this time and again, but *********s like you force me to !

Fact is a slam win is a slam win. Unless the field is depleted , it is NOT hollow , but of course I doubt you'll get that !

abmk
06-19-2011, 10:59 AM
Just so as to clarify, my stand on this is that players get easy draws at times and tougher draws at others.

Not Rafa's fault that no one played decent vs him till the finals. Rafa was playing very well and fully deserved his win in USO 2010. To say it was easy and that djoker was "tired" (mentally/physically) and he didn't face fed and all that is just insulting to his win

Fed on the other hand was up and down, but he fought his way through a tough draw and finally clinched the FO in 2009 with a great performance in the finals.

To call it hollow because he didn't face rafa is just plain dumb - did all the other previous FO champions have to face rafa to win their French Open's ? Bah !