View Single Post
Old 04-10-2014, 12:56 AM   #760
NatF's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: On the road from would of to would have
Posts: 12,544

Originally Posted by BobbyOne View Post
NatF, You are too nasty and aggressive to me. Reason is that you have a prejudice towards me, and , like abmk, you are fighting EVERY word I write to you. The last time for a good while I will answer you. Remember you were on my ignore list already earlier. pc1 would say:" it's not worth to answer" (you).
I have a prejudice to your ********. Like you going into that thread on Aesthetic shots and writing this...

Originally Posted by BobbyOne View Post
Arrogance: Federer
Ugliest Shots: Federer
Weakest era: Federer
HTH against Nadal: Federer

You're the most pathetic and un-objective historian I have ever met.

Now I'm being aggressive. Before I wasn't. Study the difference.

I hated that you use words like "rubbish" and "foolish" towards me.
Don't post like a fool then. Your constant belittling of my favorite player grates on me.

I have not studied tennis (history) for more than 40 years to be treated as a schoolboy by a 23 years old and by other Federer fanatics!
Try to have some semblance of objectivity then.

It's significant you did not know Anderson's biggest achievement where he beat Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in a row!
Impressive. Nalbandian won the YEC beating Federer and won 2 masters going through Djokovic, Nadal and Federer in a row and then again Nadal and Federer in the same tournament. So maybe Anderson is worth including next to Nalbandian

Anderson semi-retired after 1966, thus his "poor" record from 1967 to 1971.
Perhaps that era isn't so strong that a man can 'semi-retire' and still come back at do very well at age 38+. Even much better players than Anderson wouldn't be able to do that in this era.

Cooper won the European Grand Prix over Gimeno, Anderson and Segura. You had claimed Cooper did little.
One big title is little really...

He made 3 semi's at the pro majors in draws where you only have to win a couple of matches max to get there.

Anderson, Cooper and Olmedo, while strong players , were just the second echelon at the pros. The first echelon were Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura and Gimeno. Buchholz between them.
Yes but their records aren't really better than many players who were around in Federer's era this is the second echelon. Hoad was somewhat hindered by injuries and Gonzales was semi-retired. Hoad actually improved again in 1963 because he wanted to play Laver.

You can't await that a 39 years old Anderson wins a tournament where peak Connors is involved.
Sometimes these peak champions lose early because they're not really invested in going all the way.

"semi-retired" is not "virtually retired". Be correct!
Semantics. The point is he wasn't a constant force anymore.

You had "asked" me if Laver was in best form when he was crushed by Rosewall in the US Pro. Now you write you are not going about how strong Laver was...Stay logical and honest!!
Yes I asked you if he was in his best form, the answer is no. In 1963 he was as many years from his best form/year as Nadal was from his in 05/06 really.

1967 for Rod and 2010 for Rafa's, though some think 2008 was his best year.

In 1964 Laver did NOT clearly dominate Rosewall! Rosewall was the official No.1. Furthermore Laver won at Wembley in tough five sets when a few net-cords decided the match. At the US Pro Muscles was handicapped by a food-poisoning.
Circumstances aside Laver still won those matches, he won 2 majors to 1, dominated the h2h and won 11 titles to 10 IIRC. Under most systems he would probably be considered #1 for the year. By the same token Rosewall won 2 majors in 1965, so perhaps the official rankings should switch I don't know.

You try to misunderstand my words: I wrote that Hoad was always hampered by his back injury (already in his amateur years) and not even more in the early 1960s...
I don't try to misunderstand anything. Write more clearly or don't complain when someone misunderstands you.

Trabert at 30/31 was still very tough on clay.

Segura won several strong claycourt tournaments when being 40/41.
Yet you don't think Agassi could be very strong on hard courts still at an age between those players?

NatF is offline   Reply With Quote