Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.

Nadal/Agassi, Thanks for the support.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

forzamilan90, Roche was not far away from Laver in the latter's great year, 1969.F.i. he beat Rod 5:4 matches that year. He is hugely underrated.

Nadal and Djokovic cannot touch Federer?? Then, why has Rafa a positive balance against Roger? And why has Federer won only 1 (=one, =ONE) out of the last 11 majors and lost the Olympics? His dominance lasted only till the time when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (plus Del Potro) reached their peak...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Yes. I know it's crazy. This is a "The Laver Forum", and that's what you would expected. For having Roger not in the top 10 but yet they criticize the experts from The Tennis Channel.

Only an idiot belives what Tennis Channel has ranked...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

counterracting by having Roche, Nadal and Djoker there?

and btw regarding my sentence, absolutely nothing false written there
...
most dominating in open era? yeah can't argue with that

most documented open era player? well yeah along with other current players no hypothetical here, titles, tour events, highlights everything documented available to see.

most analyzed open era player? do I even have to go here? Fed's name is constantly thrown around in tennis circles, forums, etc. and has been for a while. Add his chase for the record books, and analysis goes only deeper.

most victorious open era player? undisputed here. shitload of big titles all legit, not counting exos or anything (lots and lots of slams, masters, wtfs)

most revered open era player? yeah you know it's true. He's the definitive tennis figure. Fed's the tennis Michael Jordan basically.



where's my melodrama when the above is f**** facts.

my sentence aside, you cannot possibly think Bobby's list was that a sane, "historian" would write

Just to calm down you a bit: Rosewall and Laver have still won more majors than your God...

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

forzamilan90, Roche was not far away from Laver in the latter's great year, 1969.F.i. he beat Rod 5:4 matches that year. He is hugely underrated.

Nadal and Djokovic cannot touch Federer?? Then, why has Rafa a positive balance against Roger? And why has Federer won only 1 (=one, =ONE) out of the last 11 majors and lost the Olympics? His dominance lasted only till the time when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (plus Del Potro) reached their peak...

I'm aware of Roche, great player but come on given the absense of the obvious suspect from that post, while having the other two notable current players and having Roche on that list made go after you. Indirectly, it's like saying Roche's level of peak play>Fed's which I cannot accept at all. It's like saying Safin, who's a talented player who's got a notable win over Fed, Safin's peak level of play>say Laver or a Rosewall. Roche, Safin great player with good peak level of play, but no way do they touche the all time greats of the higher tiers.

The Nadal thing is due to match up advantage he has over Fed and the fact the majority of their meetings are on clay (fed has won 2 clay matches against Nadal only). On the other surfaces (hard and grass) Fed actually leads the head to head. So combine the three surfaces, and Fed leads 2-1, but majority of those meetings were on clay, hence why Nadal has so many wins over Fed (11 I believe on clay out of 13 matches). He's the clay GOAT so no shame there, especially when Nadal's game is so perfectly tailored for his Fed's legend killer performances.

Fed ain't a spring chicken anymore, he's not in his prime, hence why he ain't racking up majors. Besides I think he is still hanging on strong (you do know he was number 1 for a while this year?). It's just compared to his prime he appears weaker not (and he has lost a step, it's only natural). You got to give them man more credit than that.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Just to calm down you a bit: Rosewall and Laver have still won more majors than your God...

well pro majors if you want to count them. I don't think a pro major has the same value as a modern major. Fed's 17 is the benchmark as far as I am concerned

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?

not necessarily, but follow some of their posting patterns and you'll see what I mean. It's undeniable.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Only an idiot belives what Tennis Channel has ranked...

I would agree that that list was badly made, but it also shouldn't have included both genders in the same list, you can't rank men and women on the same ranking list.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

this .......... BobbyOne is another one of those with an anti-federer bias ......

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

f
I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

ha ha ha ha ..............

good joke !!!!!!!!!!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?

BauerAlmeida,

Yes, fanatics like TMF (Federer) and Dan Lobb (Hoad) cannot understand that this who does not praise their darling as much as they do has an agenda to belittle their God and they cannot accept that serious people consider along facts and logic...

Thanks for defending me.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I'm aware of Roche, great player but come on given the absense of the obvious suspect from that post, while having the other two notable current players and having Roche on that list made go after you. Indirectly, it's like saying Roche's level of peak play>Fed's which I cannot accept at all. It's like saying Safin, who's a talented player who's got a notable win over Fed, Safin's peak level of play>say Laver or a Rosewall. Roche, Safin great player with good peak level of play, but no way do they touche the all time greats of the higher tiers.

The Nadal thing is due to match up advantage he has over Fed and the fact the majority of their meetings are on clay (fed has won 2 clay matches against Nadal only). On the other surfaces (hard and grass) Fed actually leads the head to head. So combine the three surfaces, and Fed leads 2-1, but majority of those meetings were on clay, hence why Nadal has so many wins over Fed (11 I believe on clay out of 13 matches). He's the clay GOAT so no shame there, especially when Nadal's game is so perfectly tailored for his Fed's legend killer performances.

Fed ain't a spring chicken anymore, he's not in his prime, hence why he ain't racking up majors. Besides I think he is still hanging on strong (you do know he was number 1 for a while this year?). It's just compared to his prime he appears weaker not (and he has lost a step, it's only natural). You got to give them man more credit than that.

forzamilan90, I'm grateful that you discuss with me seriously instead of insulting me.

I still say that Federer dominated a rather weak field in several years. He is a great player but yet overrated.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

well pro majors if you want to count them. I don't think a pro major has the same value as a modern major. Fed's 17 is the benchmark as far as I am concerned

I agree that the modern GS tournaments rank above the pro majors but the latter are still to consider very high as they had many all-time greats as participants.

A player (Laver) who is able to beat Rosewall, Gonzalez and, say, Anderson in an eight man major is also likely to win a modern GS tournament with 128 participants.

Laver and Rosewall have proved in open era that they are able to win open majors as they won 9 GS tournaments out of the first 13 open era majors where they participated, even when being oldies!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I would agree that that list was badly made, but it also shouldn't have included both genders in the same list, you can't rank men and women on the same ranking list.

I agree totally.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

this .......... BobbyOne is another one of those with an anti-federer bias ......

abmk, Your little picture does show the greatest player of all time (or, to be exact, one of the two GOATS...).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

ha ha ha ha ..............

good joke !!!!!!!!!!

Of course assumed all players using the same equipment!!!

[Feather]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.

You are NOT objective, not even one bit. Don't even pretend to be so. You cleverly pursue your anti Federer agenda in every thread.

You would join some threads, then would pick on some silly comment made by some Fed blind worshipper and then use terms like "****s" or "*******s" in derisive manner and stereotype all Federer fans. Even in that hypothetical thread about Roger Federer being gay, you just seconded a post by another Fed hater who said he thought Fed is a gay. The point is your anti Federer agenda is as obvious as Bobbyone or kiki. Anyone can notice that how Bobbyone is biased when he can include Nadal and Djokovic while he excludes Federer

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Feather

You are NOT objective, not even one bit. Don't even pretend to be so. You cleverly pursue your anti Federer agenda in every thread.

You would join some threads, then would pick on some silly comment made by some Fed blind worshipper and then use terms like "****s" or "*******s" in derisive manner and stereotype all Federer fans. Even in that hypothetical thread about Roger Federer being gay, you just seconded a post by another Fed hater who said he thought Fed is a gay. The point is your anti Federer agenda is as obvious as Bobbyone or kiki. Anyone can notice that how Bobbyone is biased when he can include Nadal and Djokovic while he excludes Federer

Feather, you overlook that even this who is a Federer fan can yet rank Roger behind a few (only a FEW) greats. I admire Federer as much as he deserves it (but not more just as most younger fans do).

I give you an example from classic music: Most people (especially those who never listen to classic music) claim that Mozart is the greatest classic composer. They overlook that at least two other men (Schubert and Beethoven) are arguably even greater than "Amadeus". It's easier to value as the majority does than to value as only a minority does even if the latter has more logic and facts.

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Feather, you overlook that even this who is a Federer fan can yet rank Roger behind a few (only a FEW) greats. I admire Federer as much as he deserves it (but not more just as most younger fans do).

10 seems more than a few to me, especially when they include the likes of Djokovic, Becker and Roche.

And very clever of you to try and pass Federer fans off as being young, sneaky attempt to discredit them.