View Single Post
Old 02-05-2013, 07:19 AM   #17
Hall Of Fame
NadalDramaQueen's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,563

Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic View Post
I won't bother reading your stuff. Because you cannot find a credible source.
Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic View Post
...Actually no, I have read it. You're amusing,

Its totally natural to not like hearing or reading something that kinda dents the perfect auro of your hero

You're using personal attacks and dismissals to distract the fact you can't find a decent source.

Roddick wins the US open 2003, makes number 1. Then the courts slow down. Federer takes it from then on. I'm not saying federer's no good, but a lot of guys got shaken up and took years to get their racquet setups and strokes adjusted. (Polarised racquet setups)

And you if actually look on the net, sampras has played fed about 3 or 4 times. He's using the new toys. He's starting to like them ..cos he's winning.

Wilson Titanium balls are a prime example. Then they just changed the whole line to that setup.

Read this link - its all there buddy. Be sure to play the videos.

And then follow the other links to realise Nadal's racquet is actually 110 square inches... and thats no conspiracy.
I'm a Nadal fan with a username of NadalDramaQueen?

You do realize that Federer was up 5-1 against Roddick from 2001-2003, correct? This was before they immediately slowed down all the courts, right? Do you need me to post a source for this, or can you find it for yourself?

Also, it's interesting to note that two of Roddick's three wins against Federer came on what some say are the slowest hard courts (by a large margin) on the tour, Miami. This is hardly a statistically significant number, but there isn't much else to go on given that Roddick picked up only three matches out of twenty four.

Please read what I wrote about the Federer-Sampras exhibitions. I wrote that Sampras only won one match, even though they did play some more times with Federer winning. The main point is that exhibition matches (especially ones against aging greats) have no meaning when it comes to tour level matches. Sampras wasn't about to beat Federer in a real match, nor would Federer beat Sampras if Sampras was still playing on the tour and Federer was well retired. Their peak levels are simply not that much different.
Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.

Last edited by NadalDramaQueen : 02-05-2013 at 09:04 AM.
NadalDramaQueen is offline   Reply With Quote