Originally Posted by tennis_pro
Why would merlinpinpin mention Nalbandian and Murray in the same line as an "all time great"? He was asking if they were contenders for the FO as both reached the FO semis, you responded "no, because they don't have a major".
2 pages later you claim that they were actually contenders. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND.
Thanks for proving that you can't follow a discussion and lack critical comprehension!
The dialogue was as follows:
Originally Posted by DRII
Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.
Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...
And so, Murray is one, too
, isn't he? And Nalbandian?
Then my response:
No, because they have not won a slam...
and again your only focusing on one aspect and avoiding the others.
Clearly he was asking if Murray and Nalby were all time greats (assuming he was logically follwing the discussion). However, it is clearly possible he is dyslexic like you... Either way, i was answering if Nalby and Murray were all time greats.
Again you need to understand the context!
Merlin and others were trying to say that under my definition
of open era great; Sampras would not qualify because he was not ever a contender to win the French...
to which i answered Sampras was a contender to win the French the year in which he was a semi-finalist...
School is over, now go home!