Bobby,
How many time do we have to tell you that the pro majors only consist of 8-14 players? It's an equivalent to the modern WTF, certainly much lower than the modern 4 slams.
Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.
- Thread starter tennissportsrog
- Start date
Bobby,
How many time do we have to tell you that the pro majors only consist of 8-14 players? It's an equivalent to the modern WTF, certainly much lower than the modern 4 slams.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
As much as I love Bruckner (saw Symphony no. 4 last year in Berlin), I would not place him in the top-10: the range of his output is too narrow.
kiki
Banned
Yes, but you can get tunned up while it was not possible if yhour first round opponent is andres Gimeno or Fred stolle, in example.Not the same as if you play, let´s say R1 Anderson, R2Seppi, r3Kohlschreibber or Acasuso before playing an upper class guy
kiki
Banned
I don´t want to be offensive.I use this term to englobe the cannon fodder of tennis which is much bigger than the elite or super elite.I´d use it even if we refeer to say Chris Kachel, Werner Zirngbild or Cassio Motta, who played in the 70´s or 80´s...
Many times in this former pro forum i have seen posters talk about past eras greats. Tilden, Kramer, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc.
Gonzalez serve, Budge`s and Rosewall`s backhand, Kramer`s pressure game, Hoad`s power, Laver`s all court game, Perry`s and Vines`s forehand, etcI etc.
I am a huge Steffan Edberg fan and i surely haven`t seen more than 50 matches of him (maybe a little more in recent times because of youtube). And he played less than 20 years ago. So it is really amusing to read some posts about former great players and their mitycal strenghts when in reality they couldn`t possiply watch more than 20 or 30 matches of them max. In most cases less than 5% of the matches played throughout a career. It would be like making a statement about Djokovic`s game having only watched 10 or 15 games.
I know that i for example can learn about past players reading from people who has seen them, but it will never be like actually watching them.
So when i read some nostalgic posts i always remind to myself that in reality this posters probably haven`t watched more than a handful of games of such player.
Gonzalez serve, Budge`s and Rosewall`s backhand, Kramer`s pressure game, Hoad`s power, Laver`s all court game, Perry`s and Vines`s forehand, etcI etc.
I am a huge Steffan Edberg fan and i surely haven`t seen more than 50 matches of him (maybe a little more in recent times because of youtube). And he played less than 20 years ago. So it is really amusing to read some posts about former great players and their mitycal strenghts when in reality they couldn`t possiply watch more than 20 or 30 matches of them max. In most cases less than 5% of the matches played throughout a career. It would be like making a statement about Djokovic`s game having only watched 10 or 15 games.
I know that i for example can learn about past players reading from people who has seen them, but it will never be like actually watching them.
So when i read some nostalgic posts i always remind to myself that in reality this posters probably haven`t watched more than a handful of games of such player.
kiki
Banned
I don´t think there´s anybody on this forum old enough to have witnessed Tilden,Budge or Kramer.
forzamilan90
Legend
Never thought of it that way, but yeah great post.
How many matches of Okker have you seen??? So forgive if i am wrong but i surely know a lot more about Berdych`s game than you know about Okker`s.
kiki
Banned
I have seen him live...and you with Berdych?
Flash, I agree, also with your remarks to the US Pros.
I correct myself: Buchholz has beaten Rosewall at least 12 times and Laver several times among them the glorious 6-1, 6-4 win at Wembley in 1963 when Rod was already a clear No.2...
Actually Tomas came to Buenos Aires last year, to play Davis Cup. Try harder...
Anyway, for example i have never seen Gasquet live, but i have watched dozens of his games, it is not the same as to watch him live, but you get a good idea about his game. Luckily for me i was born in an era in which i can enjoy watching my favourite players day in and day out, and not reading from them in a small article.
TMF, You are not only ignorant regarding Federer vs. oldtimers, you are also nasty to a high extent: Not I have chased Limpinhitter away: Limpinhitter himself has pushed him out of conversation (at least temporarly) with his brutal kind of communication!!! Defending his furor including the Günter Parche issue disqualifies also yourself!
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
I have seen live tennis for many more years than you, so be careful.It was you who questioned me, I didn´t question you have watched your favourite players.
I watched mines ( although, of course NOT ENOUGH TIMES) and that is all there is to it.
You are right regarding his output. But he was able to create passages of overwhelming music. Did you know thsat Mahler said about Bruckner: " Half god, half idiot"...
kiki
Banned
You underrate Liszt soo much in comparison with Schubert
kiki, You mean Werner Zirngibl...
kiki
Banned
yes, what a difficult name to spell¡¡¡
kiki, Again for you: Buchholz (please write his name correctly) was an excellent and strong player.
Tsonga is better than Blake...
kiki
Banned
WTF is a final playoff consisting of players who qualified through a points system running the whole year on, while the Pro slams were a slam tournament.It is true that they didn´t have (IMO quite surprisingly) a points system that led to a YEC, which was invented in 1970 by both ITF (Gran Prix) and WCT (Lamar Hunt´s tour)
Even though Alfred Brendel (arguably greatest pianist on earth) loves both composers, it's a sacrilege to mention Liszt in the same sentence as Schubert: While Liszt has mostly superficial music from a pianist, Schubert has produced the deepest and most moving music ever, even better than Mozart and Beethoven. I would suggest you and the other posters and readers here to hear Schuberts Unfinished Symphony, his Piano Trio opus 100, his String Quintett, but every work at least two times to get into the fascination...
Last edited:
Thing is that i have seen my favourite players a lot more than you have watched yours. So in a way i am more qualified to make a statement about modern players than you about past players. In no way i am saying that i am a better tennis analyst than you, it is probably the other way around, all i am saying is that modern times enables us to watch players a lot more than before (heck even watching Sampras games could be difficult in the 90`s).
I have no problem with you and other seasoned posters talking about past players, after all this is a tennis forum and i actually learn and enjoy reading from you all, but the problem comes when strong claims are made without much evidence (x player from 40 years ago had without a doubt a better ground game than x player from the current times).
ARFED, be proud of your much watching!
kiki
Banned
I will.
Like Laver and Rosewall, you can love both.
Liszt is clearly underrated and so is Schuman.Maybe Mahler and Hendel too ( I took Hendel for Haydin, sorry).Chopin was the best sicne XIX Century, moving although more superficial than Schubert.
kiki
Banned
You are ture about TV opportunities.But in GE, tennis was massively popular because of TV.And I have watched exos, which your generation can´t ( due to the dullness that attracts no sponsor)
Yes Bobby, i am. Now go back to your dreams, the only place where you can watch those 80 mph slice backhands
Actually Kiki, i recently watched an exo between Fed and Del potro (last december, Fed had the reception of a rock star by the way), and watched Roddick and Del Po in January as well. Try harder...
kiki, It's great you will try to listen to these and maybe other works f.i. the 8 marvellous and short "Impromptus" and those heavenly songs of the "Winterreise" (winter journey).
I only love Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody.
You are right: One can love both Laver and Rosewall. I do love them so much that I put them on the very top of my rankings...
I needed many years to learn to love Schumann (great Piano Concerto and so on).
Please write Händel or Handel, not Hendel because the latter is a chicken...
Please also write Haydn.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
I guess the only sponsors that would finance an exhibition nowadays would be someone like Pfizer or Novartis as part of a diet for hard sleepers...you look a nice guy Arfed, a pitty you were born in the wrong era.You´d have enjoyed Victor Pecci and those peak Argentina which brought two World Cups to your country.Now, you´ve got democracy...but no World Cup titles¡¡¡ ( and you´ve got the absolute best player of the world)
borg number one
Legend
ARFED, a lot of posters in the former pro player talk section have watched tennis closely for decades, so they have a lot of perspective. If you've watched all players closely from the 1970's forward for example, you can better compare modern players to players of the past, whether they are from the 70's, 80' 90's, or 00's. That perspective is quite different than someone who started watching tennis say only in the 1990's or sometime after that. They have simply watched more players and more eras. You learn a lot by doing that. A lot of posters on TT have only watched players from Sampras forward and then read about and watched a few YT clips of players before him. You cannot replicate actually living in those times and watching those players compete. Nowadays, you do have the Tennis Channel and cable which allows all of us to see and learn a lot about modern players, that is very true. So, for tennis fans in particular you have more "access" to the players of today than we had in the past, when you would often have to read about match results, while also watching some pro tourneys live and then also watching tennis on a major network during say the US Open or Wimbledon, or some other big tournament. That greater exposure, with highlight clips and HD, can also lead to some bias in modern tennis watchers, because basically you can better "see and hear" just how good pro players are. One thing is definitely true though, your own playing experience I think makes a big difference. If you have played a lot of tennis, especially at a high level, you can much better appreciate how good players are. That is true for young and old alike. On a related matter, if you've played in different conditions and in different eras, you know the differences first hand between wood racquets and modern racquets. You don't need to theorize or speculate. You have intimate knowledge of the vast differences and you also know just how different graphite frames have changed over time, from the late 1980's until now. So, I would say that the vast majority of posters in the former pro player talk section, whether it's Kiki, Hoodjem, PC1, timnz, Urban or many others have a lot of tennis knowledge both from watching and reading about tennis over time but also from having played a lot of tennis over time. Some posters that basically disparage posters in this section just do not appreciate all of this and instead, easily dismiss much of what is said by simply chalking it up to "bias" or lol even "senility". I call it life experience and flat out tennis knowledge. Gosh, even when I was only 15, I would listen intently and learn from tennis watchers who were 40-50 at that time when they talked about Laver or Rosewall. I had immense respect for players before Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, and Connors. Tennis history is a great thing and is one of the things that make tennis such a great sport to both watch and of course play. I do agree with you that one must be very careful before making "absolute" statements, because when you compare players from different eras, there is a lot of speculation and opinion involved, necessarily so. That's a very good point. We all have to be careful of making statements like that. I'm sure I do it from time to time as well, but we all tend to have strong opinions.
Last edited:
Good points, and i mostly agree with you.
First of all i respect their knowledge of past eras (i reckon that some of them know more about present players than i do, some don`t) and undoubtedly they can compare past equipments/conditions better than i do (i only started playing in the late 80`s). However, it is almost impossible for most of this seasoned posters to have watched Rosewall, Laver, Ashe, Newcombe, Gimeno, etc (i am talking about 50`s, 60`s and early 70`s players) more than 20? 30 times?...the recorded matches of this great players are a rare thing today. It is a pitty, because as a tennis fan it would be great to watch with my own eyes how great this players were.
Memory can be tricky, perhaps in 20 or 30 years i would overhype Federer and talk to the new generations about his flawless game (when i know that is far from being the truth), luckily for them many videos will be available and the hyping would be senseless.
Summarizing, all i am saying is that while i could show you around 3434354543 unforced errors from Fed`s backhand, i would be lucky to find 50 unforced errors from Rosewall`s backhand and that has nothing to do with the prowess of their stroke rather than the chance of gathering evidence.
So it is much, much easier to develop a myth about past players than the recent ones
borg number one
Legend
Thank you ARFED and Kiki. ARFED, if you started watching tennis in the 1980's, that's still quite a bit of tennis watching even if you weren't watching it in the wood era/early Open era (1970's, 1960's, or before that). I really started following tennis closely in about 1977 when I was just under 10. You have still seen a many shifts in equipment/conditions though, with better graphite frames, poly strings, and more homogenized surfaces. As far as the amount of evidence, I think that largely applies to how much tennis is available through T.V. (esp. with the Tennis Channel now). When I was a kid, I used to play a lot of tennis and watch the majors primarily on NBC (and also tourneys like WCT or Masters events that were on at times). Yet, one thing that PC1 has educated me on was that that PBS had many tennis telecasts back then when tennis was so big in the US (with no commercials). You also had and network television sometimes showing players like Vilas several times in one week. PC1 has also told me that players like Borg, Connors, Laver, and Rosewall were shown on different weekly telecasts (again I was not watching a lot of tennis on a nightly basis because I was too young, had a lot of homework and went to bed early lol. You also had great commentators like Bud Collins and Donald Dell. So, there was not exactly a dearth of tennis on TV, especially in the US when tennis was basically much bigger than it is now. I'm sure that's true in countries like England and Australia as well, though now tennis has spread to some countries where it was not popular before, largely because of the efforts of players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, and Rosewall to spread the "gospel". We all need to be very aware of the fact that the TC is a business and that they are in the business of promoting the modern game heavily, so there is a definite bias there. Often, you can hear commentators obviously try and hype what viewers are watching right now, in that they are trying to sell the modern players quite hard. Plus, in the past, if you were a serious player that would actually go and watch pro tourneys live from time to time, you could very quickly learn a lot about the players you were watching right in front of you. That kind of experience, of actually playing a lot and also attending pro tourneys live will bring you far more tennis knowledge than watching a million hours of the TC. I do agree that we can develop myths around players from the past and that we should always be careful of such "selective memory". Yet, we should also be very careful of "believing the marketing hype" which can also lead to many "myths" about the modern players we are watching. I am positive that many of the current Federer, Nadl, and Djokovic fans of today will be absolutely amazed and defiant when tennis fans say in 20-30 years time that the newest players are in fact the "greatest players ever" and far better than Federer, Borg, Laver, Sampras, and any players from even five years in the past. That is when many will see things go full circle, with the same debates we are having now simply repeated.
Last edited:
Bobbyone has not made that claim about Rosewall's backhand, that came from Limpinhitter.
That does make it more difficult to compare eras; the strengths and weaknesses of players today are fully documented whereas the best known historical greats have far less documentation. Often that means that the analysis of a past great's game is one-sided, because his strengths are talked about, but it's difficult to acknowledge that he had weaknesses, because the evidence simply can't be called up because it doesn't exist anymore (if it ever existed): very little video, almost no stats, etc.
Today a player can be marketed and glorified to the hilt, but that can be countered easily with a wealth of video and stats showing that the player is human. The video and stats make it very difficult for mythical claims to survive for very long, which is all to the good: but it's very difficult to get past greats out of the field of "myth," which I don't think is good for the image of tennis history. Modern fans won't buy myths about the past, and in fact tend to disrespect the old greats when they are presented in an entirely positive light.
That's one reason I've made an effort to recover and analyze the match statistics which we do have for past eras (and to some extent Moose and I have generated stats for old matches ourselves, using the available video). That helps to give perspective on the games of the past greats and helps to take them out of the realm of myth, so that they can come alive as real players that can be believed and respected.
Having more hard info on past greats does not reduce the respect for them. In baseball there is a wealth of hard data and stats about past players such as we fans of tennis history could only dream about, but that does not reduce the esteem in which the baseball players of the past are held. To the contrary, historical greats in baseball command a great deal of respect. Their reputation hardly seems to be damaged by the fact that we know what their weaknesses (as well as strengths) on the field were.
Last edited:
I know, i was just being sarcastic.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I agree, pre 2011 most people didn't even refer to them as a "top four" either, usually just the "top two". Looks like they're swapping roles at this point, handing the batton(s) over.
For past eras there is no requirement, for a student of tennis history, to watch videos at any great length, largely because so little footage is available. That's why whenever we talk about past players' strokes we typically rely on the opinions of experts who did see the players.
Today the situation is totally different. There is a huge amount of evidence in video form now (and in statistics), and studying it at length is definitely a requirement if you want to say anything of significance.
Judging Federer's backhand, for example, is not a matter of simply watching enough to pick out a few things you're looking for (like great winners; or ugly errors). No stroke, or aspect of a player's game, can be judged without understanding the full context of his era. This is a baseline era: in this era players largely win points with their groundstrokes. Errors are to be expected when rallies are so long.
That was not true in the SV eras. Even with players who had relatively weak backhands, you might wait a long time to see an ugly error from them because sooner, rather than later, they would be headed into the net -- or their opponent would come in and they'd made a glorious winner or get forced into an error (which is a different kind of error that nobody judges harshly).
I can recall some reports from the 1920s, in long baseline battles between Lacoste and Tilden, saying that entire sets would go by with only a few "earned points," meaning that most of the points ended with what we would call, nowadays, unforced errors.
If we had more video of those matches I'm sure you'd be less quick to judge Federer's backhand.
I saw, by the way, that you agreed above when NatF made the point about long rallies. I did see that: I'm just bringing it up again because it's a good example of the larger point I'm making: each player's game should be judged in the context of his own era (and therefore it's necessary to watch a lot of video from the entire era; watching only some matches by the top players is not enough to understand the whole era).
I agree, as I mentioned in an earlier post I think threads deteriorate very badly when we spend so much time talking about one another.
Limpin got banned because he got into a heated argument with Bobby. the problem was Limpin doesn't agree with Bobby's accessment about Rosewall and vice versa. I don't think even Bobby would deny that he wasn't involve with Limpin, who got tick off and getting aggressive(as everyone knows that Limpin is a sensitive person). The ban was lifted long ago and Limpin isn't posting anymore and I'm not surprise(he could be back anytime), because few years back Limpin also got into a heated argument with Drakulie for a lengthy time, which ended with Limpin getting banned. When the ban was lifted, Limpin doesn't post anymore but still visit this site. It took some time until Limpin finally started posting again.
I don't take any side between bobby and limpin, but that's how I see it. You may not agree with me, but that's fine.
Feather
Legend
Also when there are posters who are here with an agenda, with blind hatred or plain jealousy
Feather
Legend
I was looking for your post about pc1 but I couldn't see it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I remember a post of pc1. He said Federer may be better than Nadal on indoors. When I asked about that he gave some vague excuses. He sounded as if am hurt by that statement. Imagine any Roger fan saying, Nadal may be better than Federer on clay. Then he would be accused of being a ****.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I overall enjoyed reading this post but just want to respond to this part which is on topic that needs to be addressed more often IMO.
You can be a fan of some current best players (I'm a fan of Fed and Novak for example) and still be very annoyed (even insulted as in they insult my intelligence by presuming I'm a sheep) at some of the overblown hype from the media.
People need to realize those people have an agenda to sell/promote the modern game (even if some of them are past tennis greats like McEnroe) and take everything they say with a grain of salt. Even on this forum you can easily see the influence of media when you see posts claiming that Sampras (a guy who won a slam little more than a decade ago) wouldn't be top 10 today (or that he's a lesser version of Tsonga or equivalent of Tommy Haas) or that Laver would be the equivalent of David Ferrer and similar.
I'm not claiming that the game doesn't change over the years due to various things (technology, different conditions, coaching academies etc.) but whether it changes for the better is debatable, IMO it improves in some ways and degrades in others.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Misrepresentation
This is a perfect example of misrepresentation.
I've been trying not to post and I will limit my posts greatly in the future but I feel compelled to respond to this post.
Let me try to give you a little background of what I try to do in these forums. As all of you know I've been watching tennis (and regularly playing) for many years now. In these years I've seen many great and not so great players. During these years a ton of players have been called the GOAT. Pancho Gonzalez was called the GOAT. Ken Rosewall has been called the GOAT. As have Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Nadal. That's a lot of GOATs and I've learned to take it with a grain of salt. All of these players have some or a lot of credentials in being called the GOAT but I also learned to be cautious in blindly calling any player the GOAT. So with Federer, while he could be the GOAT I'd rather look at his career a number of years after he retires. I've done that with Laver and the others. I never praised Laver greatly when he was playing as the GOAT. I thought to myself, is he truly the GOAT with so many greats preceding him? In other words I tend not to overpraise players so if all of you think that is knocking Federer, well what can I do? No player who has lived is perfect in every stroke. There are no Superhumans in sport.
As far as what Feather was alluding to, he couldn't be more wrong. As a logical person I don't like to make assumptions about things. In general I try to be as objective as possible although many seem to get annoyed anyway. The assumption by many here is that Federer is much better than Nadal indoors. My thought process was this, Nadal is a great player with great strokes and talent, can it be so simple as the ball doesn't bounce as high indoors? I wanted to examine the facts and find a potential reason. Much of the reasoning was centered on the World Tour Finals. So I figured I'd look at Nadal's record at the World Tour Final and found out his record is an awful nine wins and ten losses. This is obviously below fifty percent! This is shocking for a player of Nadal's caliber even if he is playing the top players in the world. So I thought a possible reason was not that he was playing indoors at the World Tour Finals but that because he was playing the World Tour Finals at the end of the year. Yes of course Federer was playing better than Nadal at the World Tour Finals but the thing was that many players were also playing better than Nadal besides Federer. I wondered why was that? So my theory and it's nothing that but a theory was that Nadal could have been worn out by the end of the year due to physical strain on his body because of his playing style.
The reason I wrote Federer MAY be better than Nadal indoors was that I don't like writing like it's a 100% fact when it still is technically an opinion. It's simply in the usage of the words. If someone is offended, what can I say?
What I do find quite annoying is that someone would try to put themselves in my shoes and my mind and assumed I was annoyed by something when I really couldn't care less. Please don't do that again.
Here's the facts, Nadal has a 9-10 record in the World Tour Finals. Is it just Federer? I don't think so. I wanted to know why his record was so poor. What would all of you conclude since the World Tour Finals is played at the end of the year?
What is very bothersome is that I have to do this? The attacks are almost personal and I really find it uncalled for.
As far as some posters are concerned as I have stated in the past I don't mind if everyone disagrees with me but what bothers me is when I make a statement with some facts disproving some post and it is totally ignored. Now that's fine also but I'm not happy when the same poster repeats the same thing over and over again and I repeat the same information again.
One irony here. One poster has stated that he replies with facts. The irony I find here was that same poster once quoted me from another thread when I was responding to something else and made it seem like I was agreeing with this poster. That is also misrepresentation. He admitted he did that and apologized. I have agreed with this poster in the past (even though he doesn't mention it) but how much can I agree with this poster when he says the same stuff over and over again? What he posts is fine. That's his thing. That's my feeling on that now.
I've enjoyed posting on these forums very much over the years. I like to share what little knowledge on I have on tennis and my experiences in the game. I have tried to inform and perhaps help educate people on the history of the game. But recently it's just gotten a bit too much for me.
Guys I would appreciate it if you don't mention my name on these forums in any attacks. Just leave it be. I'll try to stay out of the forums.
This is a perfect example of misrepresentation.
I've been trying not to post and I will limit my posts greatly in the future but I feel compelled to respond to this post.
Let me try to give you a little background of what I try to do in these forums. As all of you know I've been watching tennis (and regularly playing) for many years now. In these years I've seen many great and not so great players. During these years a ton of players have been called the GOAT. Pancho Gonzalez was called the GOAT. Ken Rosewall has been called the GOAT. As have Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Nadal. That's a lot of GOATs and I've learned to take it with a grain of salt. All of these players have some or a lot of credentials in being called the GOAT but I also learned to be cautious in blindly calling any player the GOAT. So with Federer, while he could be the GOAT I'd rather look at his career a number of years after he retires. I've done that with Laver and the others. I never praised Laver greatly when he was playing as the GOAT. I thought to myself, is he truly the GOAT with so many greats preceding him? In other words I tend not to overpraise players so if all of you think that is knocking Federer, well what can I do? No player who has lived is perfect in every stroke. There are no Superhumans in sport.
As far as what Feather was alluding to, he couldn't be more wrong. As a logical person I don't like to make assumptions about things. In general I try to be as objective as possible although many seem to get annoyed anyway. The assumption by many here is that Federer is much better than Nadal indoors. My thought process was this, Nadal is a great player with great strokes and talent, can it be so simple as the ball doesn't bounce as high indoors? I wanted to examine the facts and find a potential reason. Much of the reasoning was centered on the World Tour Finals. So I figured I'd look at Nadal's record at the World Tour Final and found out his record is an awful nine wins and ten losses. This is obviously below fifty percent! This is shocking for a player of Nadal's caliber even if he is playing the top players in the world. So I thought a possible reason was not that he was playing indoors at the World Tour Finals but that because he was playing the World Tour Finals at the end of the year. Yes of course Federer was playing better than Nadal at the World Tour Finals but the thing was that many players were also playing better than Nadal besides Federer. I wondered why was that? So my theory and it's nothing that but a theory was that Nadal could have been worn out by the end of the year due to physical strain on his body because of his playing style.
The reason I wrote Federer MAY be better than Nadal indoors was that I don't like writing like it's a 100% fact when it still is technically an opinion. It's simply in the usage of the words. If someone is offended, what can I say?
What I do find quite annoying is that someone would try to put themselves in my shoes and my mind and assumed I was annoyed by something when I really couldn't care less. Please don't do that again.
Here's the facts, Nadal has a 9-10 record in the World Tour Finals. Is it just Federer? I don't think so. I wanted to know why his record was so poor. What would all of you conclude since the World Tour Finals is played at the end of the year?
What is very bothersome is that I have to do this? The attacks are almost personal and I really find it uncalled for.
As far as some posters are concerned as I have stated in the past I don't mind if everyone disagrees with me but what bothers me is when I make a statement with some facts disproving some post and it is totally ignored. Now that's fine also but I'm not happy when the same poster repeats the same thing over and over again and I repeat the same information again.
One irony here. One poster has stated that he replies with facts. The irony I find here was that same poster once quoted me from another thread when I was responding to something else and made it seem like I was agreeing with this poster. That is also misrepresentation. He admitted he did that and apologized. I have agreed with this poster in the past (even though he doesn't mention it) but how much can I agree with this poster when he says the same stuff over and over again? What he posts is fine. That's his thing. That's my feeling on that now.
I've enjoyed posting on these forums very much over the years. I like to share what little knowledge on I have on tennis and my experiences in the game. I have tried to inform and perhaps help educate people on the history of the game. But recently it's just gotten a bit too much for me.
Guys I would appreciate it if you don't mention my name on these forums in any attacks. Just leave it be. I'll try to stay out of the forums.
Last edited:
Excuse me pc1 bu to write something like Federer maybe better than Nadal indoors is just the same as writing Nadal maybe better than Federer on clay and i am pretty sure that you will never say something like that. By the way its not like just the WTF is indoors, there are also some other indoor tournaments and Federer has 20 indoor titles where Nadal just 2 and one of them was on clay.
Carsomyr
Legend
Don't agree with the general logic of your argument - it isn't just the WTF; there are other indoor tournaments. To date, Nadal's won just one indoor HC tournament, and is 1-3 in finals, the losses coming at the WTF, Paris, and Rotterdam.
But I am sad to see you leaving. I'll be the first to admit, you're arguing with a few reasonable Federer fans and a legion of children, so it must be difficult to motivate yourself for a losing battle. I find your most of your posts and analyses informative, if it means anything. Hope you change your mind.
Similar threads
