Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

But the only ones that Fed has won out of all their matches on clay is a best of three!!!! You think thats a coincidence?

Fed can and does beat Nadal on every surface in a best of three....in fact I believe at least in one FO fed was leading 2 sets to 1.

If the FO was best of three he would have won .

No, this is wrong. Fed won the first set in 2006, and was 1 set all in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Also, Rafa leads the best of three h2h 8-7. Even in shorter matches, Rafa has the advantage.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by bigserver

I've said it before, I disagree with Fed. I think he consistently overstates his own current worth to the tour and every media person loves Fed, so they prop him up as a big Champ, even though he's clearly past his prime.

Except you not only disagree with Federer ( who has said te competition is getting tougher since 2008. )....

but you also disagree with Borg ,McEnroe , Agassi ,Sampras, Navratilova , Pat Cash, Wilander, Graf and just about the entire free world (TW is not a free world....a warped world maybe but not free).

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Except you not only disagree with Federer ( who has said te competition is getting tougher since 200....but you also disagree with Borg ,McEnroe , Agassi ,Sampras, Navratilova , Pat Cash, Wilander, Graf and just about the entire free world (TW is not a free world....a warped world maybe but not free).

Yes. I disagree with the entire free world.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

No, this is wrong. Fed won the first set in 2006, and was 1 set all in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Also, Rafa leads the best of three h2h 8-7. Even in shorter matches, Rafa has the advantage.

I'm not sure of the stats....but 8-7 is a virtual tie.....10-3 with 2 wins on grass is domination.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Yes. I disagree with the entire free world.

Ok ..... As long as we are clear on that.

I'm going to side with Federer and the rest of the Goats over you . No offense.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

I'm not sure of the stats....but 8-7 is a virtual tie.....10-3 with 2 wins on grass is domination.

LOL You're not sure of the stats...Then why post?

Rafa leads the h2h on clay, Fed leads on HC and Grass.

Getting more specific, Rafa leads the outdoor HC h2h, Fed is undefeated indoors.

Rafa leads Fed overall 18-10. He dominates that rivalry. What's there to even argue about?

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Ok ..... As long as we are clear on that.

I'm going to side with Federer and the rest of the Goats over you . No offense.

That's fine with me. I'd prefer to be on the opposite side of a debate from you, since your main strategy is reposting, rehashing, quoting the same interviews and articles and USING BIG SIZES TO COMPENSATE

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

And..? Has anyone said Federer is stronger than Nadal?

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No because he is not. Don't tell me you think Federer is stronger than Nadal as well?

Can't you read?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Why is today's era stronger, Dark Knight? Because no one is capable of penetrating the duopoly that sits at the top, whereas in 2003 it was far more competitive and players weren't afraid to win slams and push for the number one ranking? Is it because Djokovic and Nadal have no one their age pushing them whereas Federer had tons of great players his age that he had to contend with and overcome to dominate the way he did? I'm really missing something here, if you could please explain.

Because according to the Dark Knight and ***(all on my ignore list):

* 11 slams > 16 slams
* 3 goats > 1 goat
* old Fed is playing his best tennis, but Nadal 2004-07 doesn't count b/c he's still a baby
* level competition only includes the top 3 players, not the entire field
* GS final match is the be-all and end-all, the previous 6 matches is pointless

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

LOL You're not sure of the stats...Then why post?

Rafa leads the h2h on clay, Fed leads on HC and Grass.

Getting more specific, Rafa leads the outdoor HC h2h, Fed is undefeated indoors.

Rafa leads Fed overall 18-10. He dominates that rivalry. What's there to even argue about?

You don't need to know the exact year Lenin won to know that the communist part won the revolution.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers but Fed does much better in a best of three than a best of five against nadal. It's a fact.

You say it's 8-7 nadal leads in best of three. I don't know but ok .....isn't that a heck of a lot better than 10-3 in best of five ??

Feds problem therefore is clearly a best of five.

The difference is gigantic.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by TMF

Because according to the Dark Knight and ***(all on my ignore list):

* 11 slams > 16 slams
* 3 goats > 1 goat
* old Fed is playing his best tennis, but Nadal 2004-07 doesn't count b/c he's still a baby
* level competition only includes the top 3 players, not the entire field
* GS final match is the be-all and end-all, the previous 6 matches is pointless

Anyone named TMF ....the massive ******* is by definition biased.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Anyone names TMF ....the massive ******* is by definition biased.

Good thing you don't have that problem.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

That's fine with me. I'd prefer to be on the opposite side of a debate from you, since your main strategy is reposting, rehashing, quoting the same interviews and articles and USING BIG SIZES TO COMPENSATE

Because you simply try and explain everything away . You are able to argue that the sky is not really blue and go in forever.

But when Federer himself and every other Goat cannot convince you then it's time to admit that you simply refuse to see that which is true.

You plug up your ears like a child and stamp your feet . You dig in your heels and even at gunpoint you wouldn't admit it.

[Povl Carstensen]

If Federer wins its an argument against him, if Djok and Nadal loose its an argument for them. This is circular arguing at its simplest. Which is why, after 1653 posts, the OP still stands. I rest my case. Honourable mention for Night and Order for stamina. They are the beasts of TW.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Good thing you don't have that problem.

Is Federer and very other goat biased as well?

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Because you simply try and explain everything away . You are able to argue that the sky is not really blue and go in forever.

But when Federer himself and every other Goat cannot convince you then it's time to admit that you simply refuse to see that which is true.

You plug up your ears like a child and stamp your feet . You dig in your heels and even at gunpoint you wouldn't admit it.

I haven't explained anything away. I don't know if you've noticed, but I haven't been the one making excuses for Fed's losses. I'm not trying to "explain things away".

Your premise is that the top 3 are all that matters in tennis. I disagree. It's really as simple as that.

Additionally, the talking heads and past and present players are all representing tennis. Each one of them is attempting to gain support and interest in tennis, especially the people in the United States, where tennis sorely lacks popularity and viewership. Additionally, the media deals in hyperbole, so forgive me for not blindly buying in to everything said on TV and in interviews.

[Emet74]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Tsonga, Murray, Berdych, Del Potro? These guys are all around their age and capable of beating them. In fact, all 4 of them have beaten either Rafa or Novak in a major before.

With Fed he had Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez, out of those Safin was the only one who proved he could get the job done in a major...

So its quite obvious Fed's competition wasn't as strong it's just the Fed fan in you that cannot admit it.

Circular reasoning. Djoko and Nadal are better because they lost more??

Regarding Fed, you left out Nalby who did beat him more than once in majors before he got going. Before Fed took off at the end of 2003 he had losses in tournament play to Agassi, Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick and Nalby was his nemesis.

In fact after Fed won 2003 Wimby he lost later that year to Nalby twice, Ferrero, Roddick and Hewitt.

He came into 2003 TMC on the back of all those losses, not to mention that he'd never beaten Agassi in his career. He turned everything around at that event.

Nadal and Djokovic took much much longer to establish dominance (outside of Nadal on clay) while once Fed broke through he was off to the races.

That's why they have more pre-peak GS losses against other good players than him.

That doesn't make them better.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

But the only ones that Fed has won out of all their matches on clay is a best of three!!!! You think thats a coincidence?

Fed can and does beat Nadal on every surface in a best of three....in fact I believe at least in one FO fed was leading 2 sets to 1.

If the FO was best of three he would have won .

Nope. Sorry, doesn't make sense at all, much like the rest of your hateful posts. Just 2 matches on clay don't prove anything. Try harder.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Is Federer and very other goat biased as well?

We've been over the difference between domination, rivalry and golden era many a time. But you don' care for explanations so be it.

[Emet74]

The Dark Knight,

Best of five will always favor the superior player as it's a larger sample size of play. Fed's best of three clay record against Nadal is 2-5, pretty bad but better than 0-7 in best of five.

Just as Andy Roddick has 3 best-of-three wins against Fed but none in best of five.

By the way, outside of the TMC event where Fed has dominated, his best of three record against Nadal off clay is 1-3.