PDA

View Full Version : What are the implications of Federer's slam count advantage if he meets Rafa at AO?


Bad_Knee
10-16-2012, 11:09 AM
With Federer having 17, and Nadal just 11, and Nadal having had over 6 months off by then. Will Federer be able regain the mental edge in this battle? Federer is clearly currently the better player, and Nadal is clearly past his best, I think it's time for Roger to regain the mental edge in this rivalry. Roger is already the best player in world history, and Nadal will never get close to him, so it doesn't matter if they don't meet :)

Bad_Knee
10-16-2012, 11:10 AM
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01547/roger_federer2_1547475c.jpg

tennis_pro
10-16-2012, 11:12 AM
Federer is the GOAT. Just sayin.

underground
10-16-2012, 11:46 AM
All Federer needs to do is rewatch his IW match and he'll win, simple as that. I bet you he forget to watch the Hamburg match before playing Rafa in RG....

BrooklynNY
10-16-2012, 11:48 AM
Regain the mental edge?

When was he last time Fed had it?

Prisoner of Birth
10-16-2012, 12:35 PM
With Federer having 17, and Nadal just 11, and Nadal having had over 6 months off by then. Will Federer be able regain the mental edge in this battle? Federer is clearly currently the better player, and Nadal is clearly past his best, I think it's time for Roger to regain the mental edge in this rivalry. Roger is already the best player in world history, and Nadal will never get close to him, so it doesn't matter if they don't meet :)

I really doubt Federer can beat Nadal on any surface over 5 sets now. Unless Nadal comes back seriously below-par.

Clarky21
10-16-2012, 12:50 PM
Clearly a resurrected troll,but I do think if Nadal plays the AO and lands in Fed's half he will lose. He's not beating any of the top players without significant match-practice first,and even then he will be lucky to win sets off of them.

BigServer1
10-16-2012, 01:12 PM
Regain the mental edge?

When was he last time Fed had it?

Late 2007 was pretty good for Fed.

Going into Wimbledon 2006 it was 6-1 Rafa in the h2h. By the end of 2007 it was 8-6 Rafa, meaning Fed won 5 out of 7 against Rafa including huge wins in 2007 at Wimby and at the 2007 WTF. Not saying it was an advantage, but they were even I'd say.

Then 2008 happened...

dudeski
10-16-2012, 08:10 PM
With Federer having 17, and Nadal just 11, and Nadal having had over 6 months off by then. Will Federer be able regain the mental edge in this battle? Federer is clearly currently the better player, and Nadal is clearly past his best, I think it's time for Roger to regain the mental edge in this rivalry. Roger is already the best player in world history, and Nadal will never get close to him, so it doesn't matter if they don't meet :)

Nadal would have to play only Spanish players or maybe players outside of top 100 in order to reach semi finals. Or maybe have R16 and Q walk overs.

Sentinel
10-17-2012, 12:37 AM
With Federer having 17, and Nadal just 11, and Nadal having had over 6 months off by then. Will Federer be able regain the mental edge in this battle? Federer is clearly currently the better player, and Nadal is clearly past his best, I think it's time for Roger to regain the mental edge in this rivalry. Roger is already the best player in world history, and Nadal will never get close to him, so it doesn't matter if they don't meet :)

How's the knee, cowboy ? ;)

RAFA2005RG
10-17-2012, 01:30 AM
With Federer having 17, and Nadal just 11, and Nadal having had over 6 months off by then. Will Federer be able regain the mental edge in this battle? Federer is clearly currently the better player, and Nadal is clearly past his best, I think it's time for Roger to regain the mental edge in this rivalry. Roger is already the best player in world history, and Nadal will never get close to him, so it doesn't matter if they don't meet :)

Let's see......Federer had won 26 straight matches before he met Nadal at the 2012 Australian Open. Federer clearly the better player at that time, right? Wrong. Federer lost in 4 sets (and Nadal gave him a head start by losing the 1st set). Nadal stomps on Federer no matter how well Federer plays. Federer won't be able to stop Nadal from winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam.
http://www.chartherct.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/tearful-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-awarding-ceremonies-2009-australian-open-men-singles-finals.jpg

Hitman
10-17-2012, 01:34 AM
Well ultimately 17 trumps 11.

Federer is the first male player in world history to win 15, 16, 17 slams....what a trailerblazer!

Hood_Man
10-17-2012, 01:37 AM
At this point I'd be happy to just see Federer win 2 matches in a row against him.

Hitman
10-17-2012, 01:39 AM
At this point I'd be happy to just see Federer win 2 matches in a row against him.

Well, if Nadal has played Basel and the WTF, I think that would have happened. Or if Nadal was in Cincy this year, with the mode that Federer was in, on probably his fav masters events surface, and having schooled Nadal on a much slower higher bouncing court in IW, this could have happened this year.

RAFA2005RG
10-17-2012, 01:40 AM
Well ultimately 17 trumps 11.

Federer is the first male player in world history to win 15, 16, 17 slams....what a trailerblazer!

And Nadal owns the crap out of him. What a trailblazer!

Hitman
10-17-2012, 01:43 AM
And Nadal owns the crap out of him. What a trailblazer!

Touched a nerve? It certainly seems that way...

And when does Nadal own him on indoor courts?

Your alternate account says 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 (Interestingly that is the result of the last three sets that Federer and Nadal have played against each other indoors. I guess that is how you own the crap out of someone.)

17 will always trump 11.

pvaudio
10-17-2012, 05:38 AM
Fed will not even make it to the SF when facing Del Potro, Tsonga or Berdych in the QF.Berdych, yes. The other two are not really threatening to Fed.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 05:41 AM
Clearly a resurrected troll,but I do think if Nadal plays the AO and lands in Fed's half he will lose. He's not beating any of the top players without significant match-practice first,and even then he will be lucky to win sets off of them.
He will be sloppy if he truly hasn't picked up a racket since Wimbledon.

pvaudio
10-17-2012, 05:41 AM
And Nadal owns the crap out of him. What a trailblazer!If rock beats scissors, and scissors cuts every single other thing, then no one really gives a **** about rock. I think that's a fairly analogous summary of Nadal and Federer.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 05:45 AM
If rock beats scissors, and scissors cuts every single other thing, then no one really gives a **** about rock. I think that's a fairly analogous summary of Nadal and Federer.
You're right - proof of this is from the 2004-2005 season. Nadal beat Federer, but lost to players like Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick. He only had an advantage over Federer at that point, and if he didn't improve his hard court game and those players didn't decline, he would not have won either the Australian Open or the US Open. He won Wimbledon in 2010 by a fluke since he faced Berdych in the final, and narrowly won in 2008 in a five set block buster with a worn out Federer.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:03 AM
You're right - proof of this is from the 2004-2005 season. Nadal beat Federer, but lost to players like Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick. He only had an advantage over Federer at that point, and if he didn't improve his hard court game and those players didn't decline, he would not have won either the Australian Open or the US Open. He won Wimbledon in 2010 by a fluke since he faced Berdych in the final, and narrowly won in 2008 in a five set block buster with a worn out Federer.


Total butthurt filled bs.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 06:04 AM
Total butthurt filled bs.
Truth hurts.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:18 AM
Truth hurts.



It's far from the truth. Fed hadn't dropped a set up until the final of Wimby 2008,yet you want me to believe he was "worn out"? No way.


And the same Berdych you are crapping all over,did beat Fed and ******* consecutively to make that Wimby final in 2010. He was playing some of the best tennis of his career throughout that tournament.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 06:24 AM
It's far from the truth. Fed hadn't dropped a set up until the final of Wimby 2008,yet you want me to believe he was "worn out"? No way.


And the same Berdych you are crapping all over,did beat Fed and ******* consecutively to make that Wimby final in 2010. He was playing some of the best tennis of his career throughout that tournament.
The reason Federer didn't drop a set until the final is because he was facing unseeded players who were (mostly) out of their primes. Federer had an easy draw. He was battling mononucleosis since December 2007 and struggled in his French Open final against Nadal, losing it in straight sets. He was worn out.

Federer was out of his prime by 2010 and Djokovic was hardly his 2012 self in that semifinal clash. Reading articles from that time say Djokovic lacked "self belief" meaning he did not hold the same confidence he had when he won the Australian Open in 2008. Let's face it, Nadal didn't win those titles handily.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 06:29 AM
Implications of Federer's slam count? Federer likely won't make it past the quarter-final to face Nadal. And if they do meet, then it's then 2-9 for Federer in slams against Nadal, and another slam for Nadal, so his lead in the slam titles diminishes even more. Then when Nadal finally takes over both the masters shields record AND the slam titles record, it'll finally stop being fun and games.

Grass is green, the sky is blue, and Nadal beats Federer in slams.
Even after he has a career threatening injury.

CMM
10-17-2012, 06:34 AM
Even after he has a career threatening injury.

Who? ........

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 06:35 AM
Who? ........
Nadal, the same man who hasn't picked up a racket since his defeat at Wimbledon.

Hitman
10-17-2012, 06:35 AM
Even after he has a career threatening injury.

He would have won 2012 if not for that injury...as it was predicted by a former poster here.

CMM
10-17-2012, 06:37 AM
Nadal, the same man who hasn't picked up a racket since his defeat at Wimbledon.

His injury is not career threatening. So don't worry, he'll be back.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:41 AM
The reason Federer didn't drop a set until the final is because he was facing unseeded players who were (mostly) out of their primes. Federer had an easy draw. He was battling mononucleosis since December 2007 and struggled in his French Open final against Nadal, losing it in straight sets. He was worn out.

Federer was out of his prime by 2010 and Djokovic was hardly his 2012 self in that semifinal clash. Reading articles from that time say Djokovic lacked "self belief" meaning he did not hold the same confidence he had when he won the Australian Open in 2008. Let's face it, Nadal didn't win those titles handily.



I stand by my original post that you are severely butthurt,and will do anything to knock Nadal and any titles he wins. This entire post is one gigantic excuse,and nothing more. Fed himself said that he was NOT sick at Wimby in 2008,and that he felt fine. I guess you know better than he does. You also realize that Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets just the year before,and probably would have won that match if not for being shafted by the scheduling. What's your excuse for that match considering you can't bring up the old stand-by mono excuse becausse he wasn't anywhere near sick at that time.

And no matter what version of ******* shows up,he's not as good on grass as Nadal is. Going by your logic,would you say that Nadal is better on grass than Fed? He must be since he got a win over Fed at Wimby.

You also forget that Nadal beat ******* at the USO in 2010. I would love to hear your excuse for that one.

Hitman
10-17-2012, 06:51 AM
I stand by my original post that you are severely butthurt,and will do anything to knock Nadal and any titles he wins. This entire post is one gigantic excuse,and nothing more. Fed himself said that he was NOT sick at Wimby in 2008,and that he felt fine. I guess you know better than he does. You also realize that Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets just the year before,and probably would have won that match if not for being shafted by the scheduling. What's your excuse for that match considering you can't bring up the old stand-by mono excuse becausse he wasn't anywhere near sick at that time.

And no matter what version of ******* shows up,he's not as good on grass as Nadal is. Going by your logic,would you say that Nadal is better on grass than Fed? He must be since he got a win over Fed at Wimby.

You also forget that Nadal beat ******* at the USO in 2010. I would love to hear your excuse for that one.

And do you realize that he was extremely lucky that Youzhny got injured in their match when he was leading him 2 sets to love, and only then did Nadal get into the match? Or that Djokovic was even more screwed than Nadal with his matches, and despite taking an early lead, had to retire mid way in that match, allowing Nadal to have a much easier semi final?

I agree that Nadal is better than Djokovic on grass.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 07:16 AM
I stand by my original post that you are severely butthurt,and will do anything to knock Nadal and any titles he wins. This entire post is one gigantic excuse,and nothing more. Fed himself said that he was NOT sick at Wimby in 2008,and that he felt fine. I guess you know better than he does. You also realize that Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets just the year before,and probably would have won that match if not for being shafted by the scheduling. What's your excuse for that match considering you can't bring up the old stand-by mono excuse becausse he wasn't anywhere near sick at that time.

And no matter what version of ******* shows up,he's not as good on grass as Nadal is. Going by your logic,would you say that Nadal is better on grass than Fed? He must be since he got a win over Fed at Wimby.

You also forget that Nadal beat ******* at the USO in 2010. I would love to hear your excuse for that one.
An excuse is beating Mario Ancic in the quarterfinal round? After he's had an on and off season and was battling mono as well? That is a GREAT win there. :roll:

Djokovic was not himself in that semifinal match. He did not hold confidence, therefore he got beaten by a lesser player. Berdych did not belong in the final, that's why he was outclassed by Nadal. And yes, Nadal is a better grass court player than Djokovic, but I don't know why you're even bringing that up or what relevance that serves in this argument.

And yes, Nadal did beat a mentally wounded Djokovic who struggled past Federer to even make it to the final. Nadal had an easy draw that year, too.

Mike Sams
10-17-2012, 09:28 AM
The problem with Federer is that he gives up every single advantage he gains against Nadal in their Slam meetings. He breaks serve, gets some momentum and then loses his serve right after. :lol: It's all mind games for Federer.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 09:46 AM
The problem with Federer is that he gives up every single advantage he gains against Nadal in their Slam meetings. He breaks serve, gets some momentum and then loses his serve right after. :lol: It's all mind games for Federer.
After 2008, it was all downhill for Federer vs Nadal.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 10:42 AM
An excuse is beating Mario Ancic in the quarterfinal round? After he's had an on and off season and was battling mono as well? That is a GREAT win there. :roll:

Djokovic was not himself in that semifinal match. He did not hold confidence, therefore he got beaten by a lesser player. Berdych did not belong in the final, that's why he was outclassed by Nadal. And yes, Nadal is a better grass court player than Djokovic, but I don't know why you're even bringing that up or what relevance that serves in this argument.

And yes, Nadal did beat a mentally wounded Djokovic who struggled past Federer to even make it to the final. Nadal had an easy draw that year, too.



Every single last word of this post is nothing but one big excuse to denigrate Nadal's achievements.

And you can also thank Robin Soderling for beating an injured Nadal at RG in 2009,or else Fed never would have won that slam. See,it works both ways,doesn't it?

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 10:57 AM
Every single last word of this post is nothing but one big excuse to denigrate Nadal's achievements.

And you can also thank Robin Soderling for beating an injured Nadal at RG in 2009,or else Fed never would have won that slam. See,it works both ways,doesn't it?
Nadal has achieved what he has, he just needed like thirty lucky breaks in order to do it. And you're right, Federer probably wouldn't have won that year had Nadal made it to the final.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 11:10 AM
This argument is stupid. Sabratha is making excuses that I'm ashamed of as a Federer fan. Just stop it. Anyway, on topic, I would say that the slam count means nothing. Unless Nadal comes back less than what he was by a half decent margin Federer will have trouble with him as he always does.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 11:13 AM
This argument is stupid. Sabratha is making excuses that I'm ashamed of as a Federer fan. Just stop it. Anyway, on topic, I would say that the slam count means nothing. Unless Nadal comes back less than what he was by a half decent margin Federer will have trouble with him as he always does.
You're ashamed that Federer beat an ailing Mario Ancic in order to progress to the semifinal stage, which was against an unseeded Marat Safin who had hit rock bottom at #75 in the world?

Cup8489
10-17-2012, 11:32 AM
Let's see......Federer had won 26 straight matches before he met Nadal at the 2012 Australian Open. Federer clearly the better player at that time, right? Wrong. Federer lost in 4 sets (and Nadal gave him a head start by losing the 1st set). Nadal stomps on Federer no matter how well Federer plays. Federer won't be able to stop Nadal from winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam.
http://www.chartherct.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/tearful-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-awarding-ceremonies-2009-australian-open-men-singles-finals.jpg

Wasn't Nadal supposed to win the CYGS each of the last 3 years, NSK?

Why hasn't he done it yet?

beast of mallorca
10-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Wasn't Nadal supposed to win the CYGS each of the last 3 years, NSK?

Why hasn't he done it yet?

Don't worry my fellow fan, next year will be the year Rafa wins the CYGS....:twisted::twisted:

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 11:38 AM
You're right - proof of this is from the 2004-2005 season. Nadal beat Federer, but lost to players like Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick. He only had an advantage over Federer at that point, and if he didn't improve his hard court game and those players didn't decline, he would not have won either the Australian Open or the US Open. He won Wimbledon in 2010 by a fluke since he faced Berdych in the final, and narrowly won in 2008 in a five set block buster with a worn out Federer.

Talking about matches involving Nadal in 2004 as relevant, ROTFL!!! You really are beyond desperate. Hewitt and Roddick would not stop Nadal from winning any slam, if Nadal is in slam winning form he always will beat such players, and if he were in the form to lose to either they arent events he was in the form to win anyway.

Nadal has reached the finals of 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons he played but won it twice by fluke, whatever. He is if anything unlucky to not have 3 or 4 Wimbledons, probably would have won in 2009 had he been able to play, and was a bit unlucky to lose that 2007 final. If anyone has been lucky at Wimbledon, make that super lucky, it is Federer with the rain delay in 2004 quite possibly being what saved his *** vs Roddick, Nadal blowing so many chances in that 2007 match and somehow scraping through despite losing about 80% of the baseline rallies, Nadal not playing in 2009 and that final which Roddick should have won. The last thing a **** should be speaking of is other players being lucky at Wimbledon.

On another note you should also be reminded that a Hewitt fanboy is also the last one who should talk about anyone else being lucky. The same player who had he peaked in anything than the transition era before Federer entered his prime and after the whole Sampras generation had hit the rocks (other than an already 32 year old Agassi) would today likely have 0 slams, 0 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, zero anything that makes him anymore relevant than say Tommy Haas.

Lastly who was going to beat Nadal in the 2010 Wimbledon final, Federer who nearly went out to Falla and got powered off court by Berdych, Djokovic, go ahead and give an answer, whoever it is will be a funny one. Nadal played the 2nd best player of that Wimbledon which was Murray in the semis and won in straight sets, and the 3rd (or 2nd) best player of that Wimbledon which was Berdych in the final and again won in straight sets. I am sure he would have loved to feed Federer or Djokovic both in mediocre form (and Djokovic in anything other than his 2011 form mediocre on grass to begin with) some bakery products rather than facing the more in form opponents like Murray and Berdych, but that is how it went, but hey he dealt with the tougher opponents easily anyway. By your logic we could say Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke and it would be even more true, the guy hadnt been to a Wimbledon semi in 3 years, and faced Murray who was 0-9 in sets in slam finals, but I wouldnt do that since even that would sound stupid, but it is what one would say by your ridiculous logic.

Thanks for the great laughs your posts in this thread gave me though. Great comedy.

TMF
10-17-2012, 11:53 AM
I stand by my original post that you are severely butthurt,and will do anything to knock Nadal and any titles he wins. This entire post is one gigantic excuse,and nothing more. Fed himself said that he was NOT sick at Wimby in 2008,and that he felt fine. I guess you know better than he does. You also realize that Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets just the year before,and probably would have won that match if not for being shafted by the scheduling. What's your excuse for that match considering you can't bring up the old stand-by mono excuse becausse he wasn't anywhere near sick at that time.

And no matter what version of ******* shows up,he's not as good on grass as Nadal is. Going by your logic,would you say that Nadal is better on grass than Fed? He must be since he got a win over Fed at Wimby.

You also forget that Nadal beat ******* at the USO in 2010. I would love to hear your excuse for that one.

Oh the irony....
Every single last word of this post is nothing but one big excuse to denigrate Nadal's achievements.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 11:58 AM
Lets just say nobody was lucky to win anything. Federer was far from lucky to win in 2004 or 2007, and it is the same case for Nadal when he won. Enough with the excuses and claims that so and so got lucky. It's embarrassing from both sides.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 12:02 PM
I agree with TMF though. It is hugely ironic that a Nadal fan would complain about someone trying to denigrate Nadal's accomplishments with at best flimsy excuses. As if they haven't been trying to do it to Federer for years.

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 12:16 PM
Talking about matches involving Nadal in 2004 as relevant, ROTFL!!! You really are beyond desperate. Hewitt and Roddick would not stop Nadal from winning any slam, if Nadal is in slam winning form he always will beat such players, and if he were in the form to lose to either they arent events he was in the form to win anyway.

Nadal has reached the finals of 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons he played but won it twice by fluke, whatever. He is if anything unlucky to not have 3 or 4 Wimbledons, probably would have won in 2009 had he been able to play, and was a bit unlucky to lose that 2007 final. If anyone has been lucky at Wimbledon, make that super lucky, it is Federer with the rain delay in 2004 quite possibly being what saved his *** vs Roddick, Nadal blowing so many chances in that 2007 match and somehow scraping through despite losing about 80% of the baseline rallies, Nadal not playing in 2009 and that final which Roddick should have won. The last thing a **** should be speaking of is other players being lucky at Wimbledon.

On another note you should also be reminded that a Hewitt fanboy is also the last one who should talk about anyone else being lucky. The same player who had he peaked in anything than the transition era before Federer entered his prime and after the whole Sampras generation had hit the rocks (other than an already 32 year old Agassi) would today likely have 0 slams, 0 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, zero anything that makes him anymore relevant than say Tommy Haas.

Lastly who was going to beat Nadal in the 2010 Wimbledon final, Federer who nearly went out to Falla and got powered off court by Berdych, Djokovic, go ahead and give an answer, whoever it is will be a funny one. Nadal played the 2nd best player of that Wimbledon which was Murray in the semis and won in straight sets, and the 3rd (or 2nd) best player of that Wimbledon which was Berdych in the final and again won in straight sets. I am sure he would have loved to feed Federer or Djokovic both in mediocre form (and Djokovic in anything other than his 2011 form mediocre on grass to begin with) some bakery products rather than facing the more in form opponents like Murray and Berdych, but that is how it went, but hey he dealt with the tougher opponents easily anyway. By your logic we could say Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke and it would be even more true, the guy hadnt been to a Wimbledon semi in 3 years, and faced Murray who was 0-9 in sets in slam finals, but I wouldnt do that since even that would sound stupid, but it is what one would say by your ridiculous logic.

Thanks for the great laughs your posts in this thread gave me though. Great comedy.

Hey, aren't you the **** that said Federer would never win his 7th Wimbledon? :twisted:

Cup8489
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
Hey, aren't you the **** that said Federer would never win his 7th Wimbledon? :twisted:

NA says some good stuff lol.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 12:59 PM
Hey, aren't you the **** that said Federer would never win his 7th Wimbledon? :twisted:

I picked him to win Wimbledon this year after the draw came out and Nadal's loss. I also at the time mocked the idea of some posters thinking Djokovic was beating him in the semis seeing how both were playing at this years Wimbledon, and considering Djokovic is not a great grass courter and unless in his 2011 form can not win there. Arent you the Graf **** who says Graf still might have won every sinigle one of her 22 slams even if Seles wasnt stabbed. Even Gunther Parche himself who goes on youtube as Hoffenheim and went on TW under a variety of names admits she would have won only about 20, lol!

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 01:12 PM
I picked him to win Wimbledon this year after the draw came out and Nadal's loss. I also at the time mocked the idea of some posters thinking Djokovic was beating him in the semis seeing how both were playing at this years Wimbledon, and considering Djokovic is not a great grass courter and unless in his 2011 form can not win there. Arent you the Graf **** who says Graf still might have won every sinigle one of her 22 slams even if Seles wasnt stabbed. Even Gunther Parche himself who goes on youtube as Hoffenheim and went on TW under a variety of names admits she would have won only about 20, lol!

I said Graf might have. I don't think she would have but even if I had said Graf would have, I wouldn't have looked stupid because I wasn't going to be proven wrong. You, on the other hand, fell flat on your butt with your stupid declarative prediction :)

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 01:13 PM
Talking about matches involving Nadal in 2004 as relevant, ROTFL!!! You really are beyond desperate. Hewitt and Roddick would not stop Nadal from winning any slam, if Nadal is in slam winning form he always will beat such players, and if he were in the form to lose to either they arent events he was in the form to win anyway.

Nadal has reached the finals of 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons he played but won it twice by fluke, whatever. He is if anything unlucky to not have 3 or 4 Wimbledons, probably would have won in 2009 had he been able to play, and was a bit unlucky to lose that 2007 final. If anyone has been lucky at Wimbledon, make that super lucky, it is Federer with the rain delay in 2004 quite possibly being what saved his *** vs Roddick, Nadal blowing so many chances in that 2007 match and somehow scraping through despite losing about 80% of the baseline rallies, Nadal not playing in 2009 and that final which Roddick should have won. The last thing a **** should be speaking of is other players being lucky at Wimbledon.

On another note you should also be reminded that a Hewitt fanboy is also the last one who should talk about anyone else being lucky. The same player who had he peaked in anything than the transition era before Federer entered his prime and after the whole Sampras generation had hit the rocks (other than an already 32 year old Agassi) would today likely have 0 slams, 0 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, zero anything that makes him anymore relevant than say Tommy Haas.

Lastly who was going to beat Nadal in the 2010 Wimbledon final, Federer who nearly went out to Falla and got powered off court by Berdych, Djokovic, go ahead and give an answer, whoever it is will be a funny one. Nadal played the 2nd best player of that Wimbledon which was Murray in the semis and won in straight sets, and the 3rd (or 2nd) best player of that Wimbledon which was Berdych in the final and again won in straight sets. I am sure he would have loved to feed Federer or Djokovic both in mediocre form (and Djokovic in anything other than his 2011 form mediocre on grass to begin with) some bakery products rather than facing the more in form opponents like Murray and Berdych, but that is how it went, but hey he dealt with the tougher opponents easily anyway. By your logic we could say Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke and it would be even more true, the guy hadnt been to a Wimbledon semi in 3 years, and faced Murray who was 0-9 in sets in slam finals, but I wouldnt do that since even that would sound stupid, but it is what one would say by your ridiculous logic.

Thanks for the great laughs your posts in this thread gave me though. Great comedy.
Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke, and back in 2004 Nadal did lose to players like Roddick or Hewitt - it doesn't make me a fan of either of them. It's relevant because if Nadal stayed a clay courter, like say, Ferrero or Moya, he might not have had as much success as he has. It's a tribute to Nadal for improving himself over time to be consistent on all surfaces. He's a great all surface player, but I feel the time is near where he will lose to "no names" AKA the Roddick's and Hewitt's of this generation.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 01:15 PM
I said Graf might have. Even if I had said Graf would have, I wouldn't have looked stupid because I wasn't going to be proven wrong. You, on the other hand, fell flat on your butt with your stupid declarative prediction :)

Yes my prediction Federer would win Wimbledon this year 10 days before it happened (something most Federer fans werent doing even at that point, so as usual I was far more right than nearly everyone else like I always am). As for predicting he probably wouldnt win another Wimbledon before this year, that was the general consensus even amongst Federer fans who almost all agreed the U.S Open was his best shot at another slam with the Australian second based on his performances on the respective surfaces in recent years. Your attempts to mock me for that are on par with the desperation and stupidity of TMF's mocking my prediction that Djokovic probably wouldnt win Wimbledon, which is something 99.9% of people predicted before 2011. You of all people talking of anything stupid is rich, virtually every post you make it is the epitome of stupid. Lastly anyone saying a player who at 19 had won 8 of the last 9 slams she played was "maybe" not going to take a single of Graf's 11 post stabbing slams away had she not been stabbed already looks incredibly stupid to the highest degree. Even the all time Graf freak Hoffenheim/Gunther Parche didnt go that far.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke, and back in 2004 Nadal did lose to players like Roddick or Hewitt - it doesn't make me a fan of either of them. It's relevant because if Nadal stayed a clay courter, like say, Ferrero or Moya, he might not have had as much success as he has. It's a tribute to Nadal for improving himself over time to be consistent on all surfaces. He's a great all surface player, but I feel the time is near where he will lose to "no names" AKA the Roddick's and Hewitt's of this generation.

So 3 of the last 5 Wimbledon winners were flukes you were saying, LOL! The best players at Wimbledon all those years won. Nadal in 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon was playing better than anyone else and would have beaten anyone else in the draw those years. Federer in 2012 at Wimbledon was playing better than anyone else in the draw and fully deserved to win. How are those flukes. A fluke might be Pat Cash in 1987 for instance, as his win would have never happened had Becker not had that fluke loss to Doohan. A guy who has won 7 Wimbledons or been in 5 Wimbledon finals is never a fluke winner.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 01:20 PM
Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke, and back in 2004 Nadal did lose to players like Roddick or Hewitt - it doesn't make me a fan of either of them. It's relevant because if Nadal stayed a clay courter, like say, Ferrero or Moya, he might not have had as much success as he has. It's a tribute to Nadal for improving himself over time to be consistent on all surfaces. He's a great all surface player, but I feel the time is near where he will lose to "no names" AKA the Roddick's and Hewitt's of this generation.

Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.

Def
10-17-2012, 01:23 PM
Talking about matches involving Nadal in 2004 as relevant, ROTFL!!! You really are beyond desperate. Hewitt and Roddick would not stop Nadal from winning any slam, if Nadal is in slam winning form he always will beat such players, and if he were in the form to lose to either they arent events he was in the form to win anyway.

Nadal has reached the finals of 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons he played but won it twice by fluke, whatever. He is if anything unlucky to not have 3 or 4 Wimbledons, probably would have won in 2009 had he been able to play, and was a bit unlucky to lose that 2007 final. If anyone has been lucky at Wimbledon, make that super lucky, it is Federer with the rain delay in 2004 quite possibly being what saved his *** vs Roddick, Nadal blowing so many chances in that 2007 match and somehow scraping through despite losing about 80% of the baseline rallies, Nadal not playing in 2009 and that final which Roddick should have won. The last thing a **** should be speaking of is other players being lucky at Wimbledon.

On another note you should also be reminded that a Hewitt fanboy is also the last one who should talk about anyone else being lucky. The same player who had he peaked in anything than the transition era before Federer entered his prime and after the whole Sampras generation had hit the rocks (other than an already 32 year old Agassi) would today likely have 0 slams, 0 weeks at #1, 0 WTF, zero anything that makes him anymore relevant than say Tommy Haas.

Lastly who was going to beat Nadal in the 2010 Wimbledon final, Federer who nearly went out to Falla and got powered off court by Berdych, Djokovic, go ahead and give an answer, whoever it is will be a funny one. Nadal played the 2nd best player of that Wimbledon which was Murray in the semis and won in straight sets, and the 3rd (or 2nd) best player of that Wimbledon which was Berdych in the final and again won in straight sets. I am sure he would have loved to feed Federer or Djokovic both in mediocre form (and Djokovic in anything other than his 2011 form mediocre on grass to begin with) some bakery products rather than facing the more in form opponents like Murray and Berdych, but that is how it went, but hey he dealt with the tougher opponents easily anyway. By your logic we could say Federer winning Wimbledon this year was a fluke and it would be even more true, the guy hadnt been to a Wimbledon semi in 3 years, and faced Murray who was 0-9 in sets in slam finals, but I wouldnt do that since even that would sound stupid, but it is what one would say by your ridiculous logic.

Thanks for the great laughs your posts in this thread gave me though. Great comedy.

The same can be said about Fed at RG, if Nadal wasn't there Fed may have won it from 2005-2012 subtracting a couple years for loses to people like Sodeling

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 01:23 PM
Yes my prediction Federer would win Wimbledon this year 10 days before it happened (something most Federer fans werent doing even at that point, so as usual I was far more right than nearly everyone else like I always am). As for predicting he probably wouldnt win another Wimbledon before this year, that was the general consensus even amongst Federer fans who almost all agreed the U.S Open was his best shot at another slam with the Australian second based on his performances on the respective surfaces in recent years. Your attempts to mock me for that are on par with the desperation and stupidity of TMF's mocking my prediction that Djokovic probably wouldnt win Wimbledon, which is something 99.9% of people predicted before 2011. You of all people talking of anything stupid is rich, virtually every post you make it is the epitome of stupid. Lastly anyone saying a player who at 19 had won 8 of the last 9 slams she played was "maybe" not going to take a single of Graf's 11 post stabbing slams away had she not been stabbed already looks incredibly stupid to the highest degree. Even the all time Graf freak Hoffenheim/Gunther Parche didnt go that far.

Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :) Federer put your butt flat down, admit it. I'm saying there's a chance Graf would still have 22 Slams, not necessarily that she'd win all of the 22 she happened to win but perhaps, possibly, others in their place. There's a chance. Any mathematical mind would acknowledge that or they're simply stupid. No one can predict the future with certainty, no matter how clear or obvious it may look. You of all people, who made that stupid prediction about Federer never winning another Wimbledon, should have learnt that the hard way.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 01:32 PM
Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.
Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 01:34 PM
Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.

Have you been to kindergarten?

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 01:45 PM
Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.

Please tell me you're not serious because if you are then god help us all.

TMF
10-17-2012, 01:46 PM
I agree with TMF though. It is hugely ironic that a Nadal fan would complain about someone trying to denigrate Nadal's accomplishments with at best flimsy excuses. As if they haven't been trying to do it to Federer for years.

It's hypocrisy. They always have excuses for Roger's success on clay, grass hard court.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 01:47 PM
Have you been to kindergarten?
Have you learned how to project rational thoughts in your posts? I can't find anything thought provoking in that statement, just an attack on my intellectual capabilities which should not be in question, as Federer had not made it past the quarterfinals of the last two Wimbledon's beforehand, therefore, nobody could predict his win this year.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 01:49 PM
Ah, such vitriol, such butthurt :)

Stop talking to yourself in the mirror, then posting about it on a public forum. It is distrubing (even for your standards).

I'm saying there's a chance Graf would still have 22 Slams

Which in itself is one of the most stupidest things anyone can ever say. It would also make a great sig along with the classic one you already gave me.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 01:50 PM
Have you learned how to project rational thoughts in your posts? I can't find anything thought provoking in that statement, just an attack on my intellectual capabilities which should not be in question, as Federer had not made it past the quarterfinals of the last two Wimbledon's beforehand, therefore, nobody could predict his win this year.

Wrong. John McEnroe did.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 01:50 PM
It's hypocrisy. They always have excuses for Roger's success on clay, grass hard court.

Actually there are more excuses for Federer's lack of success on clay than anything. The constant Roger is really a 5 time Roland Garros, take away Nadal....BS.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 01:51 PM
Wrong. John McEnroe did.
Nobody, as in the general population. Not former players.

TMF
10-17-2012, 01:54 PM
Nobody flukes a major ok. Least of all Federer's win this year. It's a disgrace that you throw around these excuses and say people "fluke" into majors. You have no idea how hard it is a win a major, (I don't either) so I think you should stop saying so.

According to Sabratha, any player who's isn't a pick to win a slam is a fluke if he managed to win it. He doesn't realize in history of tennis, many times a heavy favourite player doesn't win a slam.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 01:55 PM
Nobody, as in the general population. Not former players.

It's still complete BS to say he fluked Wimbledon just because nobody could have predicted it. It's Federer, and it's grass. He had at the very least, the third best chance of winning it at the time.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 01:57 PM
Who cares if anyone could predict it? By your ******** logic, every win since the first Tennis match ever played is a fluke because "no one predicted" the others would win it. Federer's win over Sampras in 2001 was a fluke, Ivansivec's championship was a fluke, Murray's career is a fluke because his parents thought he was "talentless", Del Potro's 2009 US Open was a fluke, Ivan Lendl's win over McEnroe in that French Open was a fluke, Rosol's win over Nadal is a fluke, Soderling's wins over Nadal/Federer are flukes, most every first-time-championship win of all Tennis players is a fluke. I mean, that's just ******** logic. Are you for real? I'm surprised you even know how to switch ON a computer.
Uh, no. Every win isn't a "fluke" by that logic, every surprise win is. That's where predictions come into play, and if you weren't projecting so much with your "********" remarks in your post, perhaps you would see that?

TMF
10-17-2012, 02:00 PM
Actually there are more excuses for Federer's lack of success on clay than anything. The constant Roger is really a 5 time Roland Garros, take away Nadal....BS.

You mean he isn't that good of a cc because he only won 1 RG; he had weak competition; he can't beat Nadal(and who could have). While Nadal is praised as the greatest cc(he deserve it) but Fed is just another good cc who's ranked really low in the al-time greatest cc.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 02:00 PM
Uh, no. Every win isn't a "fluke" by that logic, every surprise win is. That's where predictions come into play, and if you weren't projecting so much with your "********" remarks in your post, perhaps you would see that?

Ah see. There's the problem. Every "surprise" win is not a fluke. You need to check your definitions my friend.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 02:00 PM
It's still complete BS to say he fluked Wimbledon just because nobody could have predicted it. It's Federer, and it's grass. He had at the very least, the third best chance of winning it at the time.
What about Berdych and Tsonga?

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 02:02 PM
You mean he isn't that good of a cc because he only won 1 RG; he had weak competition; he can't beat Nadal(and who could have). While Nadal is praised as the greatest cc(he deserve it) but Fed is just another good cc who's ranked really low in the al-time greatest cc.

A player doesnt get awarded fantasy slams because of who they lost to. Do you regard Nadal a 4 time Wimbledon Champion and argue he is a top 5 grass courter all time just because he lost to Federer in 2 finals. The best clay courter Federer ever beat at RG is Djokovic (once). If we make Federer a 5 time RG Champ in some fantasy World lets give everyone else a RG title for every year they lost to anyone better on clay than Djokovic and see how many end up with more than 5 (eg- alot).

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 02:03 PM
Ah see. There's the problem. Every "surprise" win is not a fluke. You need to check your definitions my friend.
The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 02:04 PM
What about Berdych and Tsonga?

Yeah, and your point? What about Berdych and Tsonga? They earned their victories because they played well to beat Federer at Wimbledon. I'm not going to go around making up excuses and saying those were "flukes" just because they weren't supposed to beat Federer.

TMF
10-17-2012, 02:08 PM
I said Graf might have. I don't think she would have but even if I had said Graf would have, I wouldn't have looked stupid because I wasn't going to be proven wrong. You, on the other hand, fell flat on your butt with your stupid declarative prediction :)

That's why I hate prediction. Especially coming forward by saying "he would never win, or he/she would this x number of slam blah blah blah". You'll likely to get burned.

Few years ago JBF made thread about Sharapova would never win another slam. A few people believe him, but Sharapova proved them wrong.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 02:12 PM
The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.

That's better. Rosol was on fire in that match, and he deserved that win, but, in general yes it was a fluke in a certain sense of the word, when you consider he'll probably never beat Nadal again, and he may very well never play that well again. Although I would be interested to see if Rosol could beat him again soon, and we may have to say it wasn't really a fluke, although as I said there is a very good chance the next time they play (if ever again) that Nadal clobbers him.

TMF
10-17-2012, 02:19 PM
The Rosol win was a fluke, Federer winning Wimbledon was a surprise win.

No you didn't say that. You said Fed's '12 Wimbledon was a fluke. Which is a joke.

Nobody really thought Federer had a hope this year, therefore his win was a fluke. Irrespective of my ability to play tennis or knowing how to win a major, that's a fact. Your statement isn't relevant.

Rosol's win is a very rare occasion, but it's part of the sport. Upset will happen, and nothing you can prevent it(that's why they play the game). Any underdog who comes in play lights out tennis and upset the champion, it's a great win, not a fluke.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 02:25 PM
In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.

TMF
10-17-2012, 02:37 PM
In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.

I see a fluke win is like when a player totally dominate his opponent and is about to finish him off. Then all of the sudden he injured himself(eg sprain his angle) and could finish the match.

When both players are healthy, it doesn't matter if one is a defending champion and the other is an unseeded player, an underdog can rise to an occasion and play great tennis, despite it's rare. We saw it to Soderling in '09, Fed in '01, Ashe in '75. I just don't see it as a fluke, because great champion are human too....they can't win them all.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 02:42 PM
In general Sabratha is more right than wrong with the last post though. Federer's win was a bit of a surprise, and Rosol's win, while totally deserved, could be termed a fluke even though upsets are a part of any sport. Rosol's win is as close to a fluke as you can get even though I hate calling it that because he played ridiculous tennis.


It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 02:44 PM
I see a fluke win is like when a player totally dominate his opponent and is about to finish him off. Then all of the sudden he injured himself(eg sprain his angle) and could finish the match.

When both players are healthy, it doesn't matter if one is a defending champion and the other is an unseeded player, an underdog can rise to an occasion and play great tennis, despite it's rare. We saw it to Soderling in '09, Fed in '01, Ashe in '75. I just don't see it as a fluke, because great champion are human too....they can't win them all.

Yes I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is Rosol's win wasn't a fluke in a sense because he played really well, but it was a fluke in the sense that there's a 99.9% chance he'll never play that well again, and there's a high chance he'll never beat Nadal again. However, I could also say that Nadal has to prove to everyone that it was a fluke by beating Rosol handily for the rest of their careers, but that of course depends on how many more times they play. That's another way to look at it.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 02:49 PM
I can see the stupidity in my posts today, I apologise. Let's move on. I believe Federer has a better shot at Nadal now that he has been out of the game for a while, and his return is an uncertainty. (Nobody knows if he will even regain the same form he had prior to his loss to Rosol).

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 02:53 PM
It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.

And that is exactly what I said it was. Just because I said I hated calling it that doesn't mean I don't think it was a fluke.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 02:54 PM
Yes I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is Rosol's win wasn't a fluke in a sense because he played really well, but it was a fluke in the sense that there's a 99.9% chance he'll never play that well again, and there's a high chance he'll never beat Nadal again. However, I could also say that Nadal has to prove to everyone that it was a fluke by beating Rosol handily for the rest of their careers, but that of course depends on how many more times they play. That's another way to look at it.



An 11 time slam winner has to prove that he can beat an arrogant mug like Rosol over the rest of their careers to prove it wasn't a fluke? :lol: Give me a break,will ya? Rosol needs to prove that HE can beat a healthy Nadal over 5 sets again,and considering that he can barely make it out of qualies,I doubt he will even get the chance. I also can't wait for the "Rosol has a winning record against Nadal" threads to pop up when it's all said and done. Lol.


And even if Nadal beats Rosol a hundred times(if he can even make it into the main draw,that is)people like you will STILL be insisting that Rosol will get him next time. They still do the same exact thing when it comes to Soderling on clay.

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 02:55 PM
It was a fluke. He has never before or after that win produced anything like he showed in that match again. That is the very definition of a fluke.

So if you play the best match of your life... it's a fluke? That's an insult to Rosol. He may never be a top player but to call the biggest (and well deserved) moment of his career a fluke is so insulting and cruel.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 02:57 PM
So if you play the best match of your life... it's a fluke? That's an insult to Rosol. He may never be a top player but to call the biggest (and well deserved) moment of his career a fluke is so insulting and cruel.



It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 03:08 PM
It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.

You win a point? That's a fluke. You hold your serve? Yes, still a fluke. You break a service game? Okay, sure, fluke. You win a set? All right, okay, let's say that's a fluke. You win 2 sets? Eh, surely that can't be a fluke, but okay, a fluke it is. You win 3 sets. Still a fluke? Really? Really? I'd like to see any of you win a game off Nadal by "fluke".

Crisstti
10-17-2012, 03:18 PM
It was a fluke. And the fact that he can't produce that type of tennis on the regular,or even make it out of qualies 99% of the time more than proves it. I don't give a crap how "cruel" you think it is to say so.

He needed to play the best match of his life, for Rafa to be injured, and the roof delay. And he still only won by like 3 points.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 03:26 PM
He needed to play the best match of his life, for Rafa to be injured, and the roof delay. And he still only won by like 3 points.



Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.

90's Clay
10-17-2012, 03:29 PM
The only way Fed could have a legitimate advantage over Nadal at the AO is if Nadal just does not have enough matches under his belt for his return. Other then that Roger has NO CHANCE. One or two warmup tournaments for Nadal and he should be ok though.. I think he only had 1-2 tournaments under his belt before the AO in 2009 and he managed to win it that year.

Nadal probably wont even make it to the SF in Australia this year however. He probably won't make any real waves until the clay season starts up again

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 03:30 PM
Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.

That wasn't a fluke either. Sampras played a terrible match by his standards.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 03:35 PM
That wasn't a fluke either. Sampras played a terrible match by his standards.



And Nadal didn't play well when he lost to Mugsol,either. He was barely moving out there,and had struggled with the great grass courter Granoller's in the round before. Here is the very definition of Mugsol's win over Nadal at Wimby this year:



fluke/flo͞ok/
Noun:

Unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck:.

MichaelNadal
10-17-2012, 03:35 PM
Well I dunno if you'd call the Rosol win a fluke exactly, but the stars were aligned and he has zero chance of beating Rafa again, much less in a slam.

Crisstti
10-17-2012, 03:51 PM
Yep. It was a fluke,and I also think if they hadn't stopped play to close the roof Rosol would have been history. Not sure what there is to argue about considering Rosol's career has not been anything to write home about. I guess the people who are insisting this wasn't a fluke also think that Bastl's win over Sampras at Wimby wasn't one either.

Most likely, but who knows what would have been of Rafa if he kept on playing injured like that.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 03:56 PM
Most likely, but who knows what would have been of Rafa if he kept on playing injured like that.



You're right. Mugsol fluking his win over Nadal may have actually been a blessing in disguise.

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 04:40 PM
And Nadal didn't play well when he lost to Mugsol,either. He was barely moving out there,and had struggled with the great grass courter Granoller's in the round before. Here is the very definition of Mugsol's win over Nadal at Wimby this year:



fluke/flo͞ok/
Noun:

Unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck:.

Except Rosol beat Nadal fair and square. They didn't flip a coin and choose who'd win. No "chance" or "luck" involved.

sonicare
10-17-2012, 05:34 PM
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 05:37 PM
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.



What a load of rubbish. Some of you people are beyond hope when it comes to anything related to Nadal.

sonicare
10-17-2012, 05:40 PM
What a load of rubbish. Some of you people are beyond hope when it comes to anything related to Nadal.

Resorting to name calling in the face of coherent arguments is a sign of surrender. I will give you another chance. Try again. No rush. I have plenty of time.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 05:50 PM
Resorting to name calling in the face of coherent arguments is a sign of surrender. I will give you another chance. Try again. No rush. I have plenty of time.



Just where did I namecall in my post? And your arguments are far from coherent,and reek of Nadalhateritis. I'll break it down for you:


Nadal - 11 slams
21 masters titles
More than a 100 weeks at #1
50 career titles
Future HOF,and megastar

Rosol - Zero slams
Zero weeks at #1
Zero masters titles
Zero titles anywhere
Zero fans(except gleeful Nadal haters)

Now,who do you think has to prove themselves more? The Mug who can barely make it out of qualies,or a legend of the sport with many slams/titles on his resume? I know what your answer will be,but I will just laugh at it because you're not the most rational poster around here,and cannot see the forest for your hatred for anything and everything Rafael Nadal.

sonicare
10-17-2012, 05:54 PM
Just where did I namecall in my post? And your arguments are far from coherent,and reek of Nadalhateritis. I'll break it down for you:


Nadal - 11 slams
21 masters titles
More than a 100 weeks at #1
50 career titles
Future HOF,and megastar

Rosol - Zero slams
Zero weeks at #1
Zero masters titles
Zero titles anywhere
Zero fans(accept gleeful Nadal haters)

Now,who do you think has to prove themselves more? The Mug who can barely make it out of qualies,or a legend of the sport with many slams/titles on his resume? I know what your answer will be,but I will just laugh at it because you're not the most rational poster around here,and cannot see the forest for your hatred for anything and everything Rafael Nadal.

The above is a red herring. Tennis is about matchups and Rosol matches up well against Nadal as he has proven since Nadal has never been able to beat him.

He is in Nadal's head to the point that the normally calm Nadal resorted to almost head butting Rosol to distract him but alas, it wasn't to be.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 05:56 PM
The above is a red herring. Tennis is about matchups and Rosol matches up well against Nadal as he has proven since Nadal has never been able to beat him.

He is in Nadal's head to the point that the normally calm Nadal resorted to almost head butting Rosol to distract him but alas, it wasn't to be.


Well,if Mugsol can ever make it out of qualies to play Nadal again that will change I assure you.


Lol! :lol:

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:02 PM
Well,if Mugsol can ever make it out of qualies to play Nadal again that will change I assure you.


Lol! :lol:

Please being forward your proof. Your assurances mean nothing to me as you are a confirmed schizophrenic.

cc0509
10-17-2012, 06:03 PM
This argument is stupid. Sabratha is making excuses that I'm ashamed of as a Federer fan. Just stop it. Anyway, on topic, I would say that the slam count means nothing. Unless Nadal comes back less than what he was by a half decent margin Federer will have trouble with him as he always does.

I agree, both the Nadal and Federer camps are making pathetic excuses. It does not matter what the circumstances were when a player wins a slam. A win is a win. There will be no excuses marked in the history books beside a win.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:05 PM
Please being forward your proof. Your assurances mean nothing to me as you are a confirmed schizophrenic.


Why resort to namecalling? :cry:


:lol:

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:06 PM
I agree, both the Nadal and Federer camps are making pathetic excuses. It does not matter what the circumstances were when a player wins a slam. A win is a win. There will be no excuses marked in the history books beside a win.

Exactly and when people look at the history books, it will tell them that Nadal could never beat Rosol. There will be a asterik mark next to it due to an attempted head butt by Nadal to derail Rosol.

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:06 PM
Why resort to namecalling? :cry:


:lol:

schizophrenic is a trait not name calling. But what would you know. your sense of reality is suspect.

cc0509
10-17-2012, 06:09 PM
Exactly and when people look at the history books, it will tell them that Nadal could never beat Rosol. There will be a asterik mark next to it due to an attempted head butt by Nadal to derail Rosol.

It is true that Nadal's loss to Rosol in the second round of Wimbledon is one of the worst losses ever by any tennis great in a slam but, at the same time, Nadal's 11 slam titles trump that one time only loss to Rosol.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:10 PM
schizophrenic is a trait not name calling. But what would you know. your sense of reality is suspect.


Nah,it's namecalling if you use it in the manner in which you did,Freud. And my sense of reality is just fine,thank you.

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:12 PM
It is true that Nadal's loss to Rosol in the second round of Wimbledon is one of the worst losses ever by any tennis great in a slam but, at the same time, Nadal's 11 slam titles trump that one time only loss to Rosol.

Ofcourse but those 2 are separate issues.

Nah,it's namecalling if you use it in the manner in which you did,Freud. And my sense of reality is just fine,thank you.

Why are you getting so defensive?

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:12 PM
It is true that Nadal's loss to Rosol in the second round of Wimbledon is one of the worst losses ever by any tennis great in a slam but, at the same time, Nadal's 11 slam titles trump that one time only loss to Rosol.


I know it was bad,but is it really this bad? When you factor in the circumstances,I don't really think it is.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:13 PM
Ofcourse but those 2 are separate issues.



Why are you getting so defensive?


I'm not. I'm actually pretty chill considering I am trying to converse with someone who is totally irrational when it comes to anything related to my favorite player. :)

tusharlovesrafa
10-17-2012, 06:14 PM
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.

LOL..For a good laugh in the morning!

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:14 PM
I'm not. I'm actually pretty chill considering I am trying to converse with someone who is totally irrational when it comes anything related to my favorite player. :)

Your emotional bias towards a player is making your delusions even worse

cc0509
10-17-2012, 06:17 PM
I know it was bad,but is it really this bad? When you factor in the circumstances,I don't really think it is.

What circumstances? That he was "injured?" Please! He did not look injured to me and besides if a player takes to the court one assumes he is ready to play.

Yes, I think it is one of the worst losses ever for a great in slam history, especially considering Nadal's age. I have seen many sports writers say this is one of the worst losses ever, so I am not alone here.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:17 PM
Your emotional bias towards a player is making your delusions even worse




This coming from a rabid ******* is :lol: worthy.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 06:18 PM
An 11 time slam winner has to prove that he can beat an arrogant mug like Rosol over the rest of their careers to prove it wasn't a fluke? :lol: Give me a break,will ya? Rosol needs to prove that HE can beat a healthy Nadal over 5 sets again,and considering that he can barely make it out of qualies,I doubt he will even get the chance. I also can't wait for the "Rosol has a winning record against Nadal" threads to pop up when it's all said and done. Lol.


And even if Nadal beats Rosol a hundred times(if he can even make it into the main draw,that is)people like you will STILL be insisting that Rosol will get him next time. They still do the same exact thing when it comes to Soderling on clay.

Relax man. I will insist no such things, and I will make no such threads. Nadal has proven himself. I was simply talking in the context of the thread. Fact is that if by some chance Nadal and Rosol play again, and if by some 0.00000001% chance Rosol wins then his first win cannot really be termed a fluke by definition, therefore by definition Nadal has to prove he can beat Rosol. And please don't break out the "healthy" excuse. That's a large part of the reason why I hate Nadal fans.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:20 PM
What circumstances? That he was "injured?" Please! He did not look injured to me and besides if a player takes to the court one assumes he is ready to play.

Yes, I think it is one of the worst losses ever for a great in slam history, especially considering Nadal's age. I have seen many sports writers say this is one of the worst losses ever, so I am not alone here.



Nah,I don't see it the same way. It was bad,but I do believe Nadal was hampered in that match. I'm not making excuses for him,but I think it played a roll in his loss.

I also don't take the opinion of 99% of these sports writer's seriously.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:22 PM
Relax man. I will insist no such things, and I will make no such threads. Nadal has proven himself. I was simply talking in the context of the thread. Fact is that if by some chance Nadal and Rosol play again, and if by some 0.00000001% chance Rosol wins then his first win cannot really be termed a fluke by definition, therefore by definition Nadal has to prove he can beat Rosol. And please don't break out the "healthy" excuse. That's a large part of the reason why I hate Nadal fans.


Woman. I'm a chick. Lol.


Mugsol has to actually make it out of qualies first,and if he ever does and they play,I am confident that Nadal will beat him. We will just have to wait and see but Mugsol does not worry me in the slightest.

cc0509
10-17-2012, 06:24 PM
Nah,I don't see it the same way. It was bad,but I do believe Nadal was hampered in that match. I'm not making excuses for him,but I think it played a roll in his loss.

I also don't take the opinion of 99% of these sports writer's seriously.

Things always play a role in a player's loss, but it does not matter, a loss is a loss, and that was a bad loss, one of the worst for any great in slam history. Fact. The other side of that however is that Nadal has 11 slams and those 11 slams will trump the one terrible 2nd round slam loss to the titan Rosol.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 06:29 PM
Woman. I'm a chick. Lol.

Sorry about that.

Mugsol has to actually make it out of qualies first,and if he ever does and they play,I am confident that Nadal will beat him. We will just have to wait and see but Mugsol does not worry me in the slightest.

I know, I'm also confident Nadal can beat him if they ever play again. Again, I was simply throwing out a different POV. I wasn't trying to discredit Nadal.

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:29 PM
Woman. I'm a chick. Lol.


are you on your period ? serious question

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 06:32 PM
The biggest ever upset at Wimbledon in the early rounds was Becker losing to Doohan in 1987. Becker was the overwhelming favorite to win that Wimbledon. Nadal was only arguably the slight favorite to win this years Wimbledon ahead of Djokovic and Federer, and Sampras was way past his prime and not the favorite to win Wimbledon 2002, and all 3 lost to an equally weak opponent. On the other hand in some ways Sampras's loss was the worst since Bastl just played his usual average tennis to beat him, while Doohan and Rosol both played out of their minds and unbelievably well, even if also aided by poor play from Becker and Nadal.

cc0509
10-17-2012, 06:38 PM
The biggest ever upset at Wimbledon in the early rounds was Becker losing to Doohan in 1987. Becker was the overwhelming favorite to win that Wimbledon. Nadal was only arguably the slight favorite to win this years Wimbledon ahead of Djokovic and Federer, and Sampras was way past his prime and not the favorite to win Wimbledon 2002, and all 3 lost to an equally weak opponent. On the other hand in some ways Sampras's loss was the worst since Bastl just played his usual average tennis to beat him, while Doohan and Rosol both played out of their minds and unbelievably well, even if also aided by poor play from Becker and Nadal.

I said Nadal's second round loss at W was "one of" the worst losses of a great in a slam ever. Stop making excuses for Nadal, it was a "bad" loss right on par with Becker's loss to Doohan no matter how you try and spin it.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:39 PM
are you on your period ? serious question



Are you? Serious question.

Tammo
10-17-2012, 06:41 PM
Are you? Serious question.

Are you eva gonna grow up? Seriously sad...

Paullaconte1
10-17-2012, 06:42 PM
I really doubt Federer can beat Nadal on any surface over 5 sets now. Unless Nadal comes back seriously below-par.

Agree! Federer can beat Nadal in a best of 5 only if Nadal has some problems like this year in Wimbledon

sonicare
10-17-2012, 06:44 PM
Are you? Serious question.

yes. your turn.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:44 PM
Are you eva gonna grow up? Seriously sad...



Yeah,because I asked the original question. How about learning to read and comprehend before you open your mouth.


Oh,and nice sig. Too bad for you they lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Tammo
10-17-2012, 06:47 PM
Yeah,because I asked the original question. How about learning to read and comprehend before you open your mouth.

Yes, but you forgot to point out that you did not reply to the original question, so I guess Stevie was right there wasn't he?

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:48 PM
Yes, but you forgot to point out that you did not reply to the original question, so I guess Stevie was right there wasn't he?



Nope,and what difference does it make? Man,this place is full of He-Man woman haters. It's quite scary how much woman hating there is on this forum.

Tammo
10-17-2012, 06:52 PM
Nope,and what difference does it make? Man,this place is full of He-Man woman haters. It's quite scary how much woman hating there is on this forum.

Man, it is! Lol.


Well since "chicks" like you act this way it sorta gives us a lot of chance to bash you ya know.

tusharlovesrafa
10-17-2012, 06:53 PM
are you on your period ? serious question

OMG! you are crazy!! this is terrible..:shock:

R.Federer
10-17-2012, 06:54 PM
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.

Its NADAL who HAS to prove that he can beat Rosol.

The only thing we know is that everytime Nadal plays Rosol, Rosol beats him

Rosol has a 100% winning percentage against Nadal.

Get over it. I will however add that it is a matchup issue. Nadal cannot handle the heat against Rosol.

And as the saying goes "if you cant handle the heat, dont come in the kitchen" and thats why Nadal hasn't since step foot in a tennis court again.

loooooool full troll mode god i love you well done sir well done and clarky is taking the bait so gullable are people on this forum lol

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 06:56 PM
Yes, but you forgot to point out that you did not reply to the original question, so I guess Stevie was right there wasn't he?

Just shut up FFS. I apologized. I didn't mean to start anything like this. She never asked the original question. soniccare is just being stupid.

Tammo
10-17-2012, 06:59 PM
Just shut up FFS. I apologized. I didn't mean to start anything like this. She never asked the original question. soniccare is just being stupid.

Oops, yeah I meant to say sonicare, not you name. Just forgot who said what here. Accidentally calling someone a man is nothing to get worried about...

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 06:59 PM
loooooool full troll mode god i love you well done sir well done and clarky is taking the bait so gullable are people on this forum lol


Nah,I didn't take the bait. I'm merely entertaining myself at Sonicare's expense. I know he is a troll. Always has been and always will be.

What's funny is how many He-Man woman hater's come out of the woodwork around here though. Seems like some of these dudes can't stand it when a woman speaks her mind.

R.Federer
10-17-2012, 07:04 PM
Nah,I didn't take the bait. I'm merely entertaining myself at Sonicare's expense. I know he is a troll. Always has been and always will be.

What's funny is how many He-Man woman hater's come out of the woodwork around here though. Seems like some of these dudes can't stand it when a woman speaks her mind.

oh ok glad u see sense and know what hes about but i dont think they are he men they just have different opnions than you i guess its only a forum though people like to think they are internet warriors but in reality would not dare have a confrontation face to face

sonicare
10-17-2012, 07:05 PM
Nah,I didn't take the bait. I'm merely entertaining myself at Sonicare's expense. I know he is a troll. Always has been and always will be.

What's funny is how many He-Man woman hater's come out of the woodwork around here though. Seems like some of these dudes can't stand it when a woman speaks her mind.

Stop being silly. I love women. Getting all my house work, washing, cooking,cleaning done for free. How can I not love women? They give me the free time I need to express my masculinity and be the stallion I am.

Tammo
10-17-2012, 07:06 PM
Nah,I didn't take the bait. I'm merely entertaining myself at Sonicare's expense. I know he is a troll. Always has been and always will be.

What's funny is how many He-Man woman hater's come out of the woodwork around here though. Seems like some of these dudes can't stand it when a woman speaks her mind.

Another perfect example of taking the bait by reassuring all of TTW that you are not lol.

R.Federer
10-17-2012, 07:06 PM
Stop being silly. I love women. Getting all my house work, washing, cooking,cleaning done for free. How can I not love women? They give me the free time I need to express my masculinity and be the stallion I am.

looool wow thats cold dawwg cooold

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 07:07 PM
OMG what have I started? To be honest though, sonicare is making me laugh.

Tammo
10-17-2012, 07:09 PM
Stop being silly. I love women. Getting all my house work, washing, cooking,cleaning done for free. How can I not love women? They give me the free time I need to express my masculinity and be the stallion I am.

You forgot wasing your back in the shower:)

sonicare
10-17-2012, 07:10 PM
OMG what have I started? To be honest though, sonicare is making me laugh.

LOL...its 4 am here and I cant sleep so any chance to hustle clarky, i will gladly take. seems like she logged off.

Apologies to anyone who might have been offended.

R.Federer
10-17-2012, 07:13 PM
LOL...its 4 am here and I cant sleep so any chance to hustle clarky, i will gladly take. seems like she logged off.

Apologies to anyone who might have been offended.

its fine you need to keep it up in the future the stallion part had me in stiches lool

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 07:13 PM
Another perfect example of taking the bait by reassuring all of TTW that you are not lol.



Nope. Keep believing that if you like,He-Man Woman Hater.

Clarky21
10-17-2012, 07:14 PM
OMG what have I started? To be honest though, sonicare is making me laugh.



Low brow woman hating posts are not funny in the slightest. And I also doubt that Sonicare is any kind of a "stallion" at all,if you catch my drift. :wink:

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 07:24 PM
Low brow woman hating posts are not funny in the slightest. And I also doubt that Sonicare is any kind of a "stallion" at all,if you catch my drift. :wink:

Well if I was being serious I would say you were right, but since I'm not....

And yeah I caught your drift.

Prisoner of Birth
10-17-2012, 08:48 PM
OMG! you are crazy!! this is terrible..:shock:

LOL, I think it's a perfectly valid question. Clarky's been really ****y the past couple of days. Even by "her" standards.

Cup8489
10-17-2012, 08:57 PM
True stallions need not brag. Our work speaks for itself.

Not that I'm saying I am one or anything..

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 09:34 PM
I said Nadal's second round loss at W was "one of" the worst losses of a great in a slam ever. Stop making excuses for Nadal, it was a "bad" loss right on par with Becker's loss to Doohan no matter how you try and spin it.

Wow you are an incredibly stupid human being. I was just making some general points, and nothing I said was in anyway excuse making or disputing Nadal's loss at Wimbledon this year was a bad loss. Everytime I read your posts I realize your intellect is only on par with someone like TMF, abmk, and 6-1, 6-3, 6-0, when originally I falsely gave you more credit than that. Even if you werent an over the top Federer addictive troll you would be impossible to have a reasonable discussion with.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 09:41 PM
LOL, I think it's a perfectly valid question. Clarky's been really ****y the past couple of days. Even by "her" standards.
Same could be said for you.

Prisoner of Birth
10-18-2012, 01:09 AM
Same could be said for you.

But I don't claim to be a female :)

RAFA2005RG
10-18-2012, 05:50 AM
Rosol has already proven that he can beat Nadal on the biggest stage in 5 sets.



And then Nadal didn't play for the rest of the year. Did Rosol really prove anything, other than that he can beat an injured opponent? And the fact he needed 5 sets is far from impressive.

RAFA2005RG
10-18-2012, 05:55 AM
If rock beats scissors, and scissors cuts every single other thing, then no one really gives a **** about rock. I think that's a fairly analogous summary of Nadal and Federer.

Actually every Roger Fedoper fan is obsessed with Nadal, so you couldn't be more incorrect.

Clarky21
10-18-2012, 06:19 AM
But I don't claim to be a female :)



I AM female,DFTW,and doubting me has definitely given your double account away.

RF20Lennon
10-18-2012, 06:41 AM
Actually every Roger Fedoper fan is obsessed with Nadal, so you couldn't be more incorrect.

And your obsessed with those fans and federer :twisted:

RAFA2005RG
10-18-2012, 08:24 AM
And your obsessed with those fans and federer :twisted:

Nah, as everyone knows and regularly points out, most of my posts are about Nadal.....

PCXL-Fan
10-18-2012, 08:49 AM
If Sampras was a little better in claycourt events he would have had a larger more negative h2h against guys like Bruguera and Kuerten.


Thus I am not concerned at all with Federer's 50% claycourt based h2h against the greatest claycourter of all time. Federer is certainly much more consistant than Sampras was in his peak years rarely unlike Sampras losing rarely to players ranked outside the top 5 during his 5 best years compared with Sampras's 5 best years. (Comparing 1993-1998 vs 2003-2009 in terms of consitency %)

Prisoner of Birth
10-18-2012, 08:55 AM
I AM female,DFTW,and doubting me has definitely given your double account away.

Okay, is DFTW is supposed to be some guy called DjokovicForTheWin who's been banned or something? Why would you say I'm that guy? Djokovic isn't even one of my 5 favorite players.

Mike Sams
10-18-2012, 09:04 AM
And then Nadal didn't play for the rest of the year. Did Rosol really prove anything, other than that he can beat an injured opponent? And the fact he needed 5 sets is far from impressive.

Rosol proved that Nadal mentally cannot handle losing to players outside of the top 4. Notice there's no injury news from Nadal's mouth when he's WINNING? :lol: He can't take his loss like a man unless it's against a top player like Djokovic because Nadal respects Djokovic. He won't give credit to lower tier players though.

veroniquem
10-18-2012, 09:06 AM
Rosol proved nothing. Rafa got defeated by his knees (same as 2009).

Mike Sams
10-18-2012, 09:08 AM
Just where did I namecall in my post? And your arguments are far from coherent,and reek of Nadalhateritis. I'll break it down for you:


Nadal - 11 slams
21 masters titles
More than a 100 weeks at #1
50 career titles
Future HOF,and megastar

Rosol - Zero slams
Zero weeks at #1
Zero masters titles
Zero titles anywhere
Zero fans(except gleeful Nadal haters)

Now,who do you think has to prove themselves more? The Mug who can barely make it out of qualies,or a legend of the sport with many slams/titles on his resume? I know what your answer will be,but I will just laugh at it because you're not the most rational poster around here,and cannot see the forest for your hatred for anything and everything Rafael Nadal.

Well...Rosol still is more popular than you, Clarky. :lol: Have you ever played on center court at Wimbledon in front of a packed house and beaten a legend and received a standing ovation?

Mike Sams
10-18-2012, 09:10 AM
Rosol proved nothing. Rafa got defeated by his knees (same as 2009).

The bitter *******s coming out more and more. :lol:
Rafa was a bitter loser from the beginning when he bodychecked Rosol once he realized Rosol wasn't going to roll over for him. The *******s can't handle the fact that their beloved Rafa got stomped in the 2nd round of Wimbledon.:)
Bitter *******s with their excuses.

Mike Sams
10-18-2012, 09:11 AM
And the silly *******s still don't realize that Nadal has always struggled at Wimbledon. Despite winning and making finals, he's struggled in 5 set matches against players like Soderling, Youzhny, Haase, Petschener and Kendrick. Why so shocked that Nadal lost to beast-mode Rosol?

Clarky21
10-18-2012, 10:46 AM
Okay, is DFTW is supposed to be some guy called DjokovicForTheWin who's been banned or something? Why would you say I'm that guy? Djokovic isn't even one of my 5 favorite players.


He isn't one of DFTW's favorites,either. He is a raging ******* in disguise.

Clarky21
10-18-2012, 10:47 AM
Okay, is DFTW is supposed to be some guy called DjokovicForTheWin who's been banned or something? Why would you say I'm that guy? Djokovic isn't even one of my 5 favorite players.



Double post.

Prisoner of Birth
10-18-2012, 10:55 AM
He isn't one of DFTW's favorites,either. He is a raging ******* in disguise.

I'm not him but, by all means, continue to believe so. Atleast until you "dry up" :)