Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[urban]

So what?...

[zagor]

Originally Posted by abmk

ljubicic in madrid was in 2005 and that remains nadal's only title indoors .....and it required a mighty struggle from rafa and a dip in level from ljubicic after being two sets to love up in the finals ...

I don't know what exactly you are trying to prove by bringing in the exo matches ..... they are just for fun/charity ..... that's it ....

these aren't the exos of the 70s or 80s where there was quite a lot of money on the line and players played them competitively ....

Well you know, I think Nadal's H2H with Fed on clay and his 7 FO titles are misleading when comparing him to Fed on clay, I think Fed was only really motivated to win FO in 2009, other years he gave a half arsed effort in the final in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

And boy, You could see how great Fed is on clay when motivated, he beat Soderling in 2009 FO final much easier than Rafa beat Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid F.

Regarding Nadal numerous victories over Fed in CC masters, the only time when Fed seemed to give a sh!t was in their 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid finals and I didn't see no gulf between their CC abilities in those matches.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, If you count WTF, you also should count Rosewall's two WCT finals!

Thus Rosewall is still leading 25:23...

If you count WCT, then let's count Master Shields.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

But the thing is Feather I haven't really seen Nadal play Federer indoors except at the end of the year when he is worn. So that's why I put it that way. I assume Federer is better but I'm wondering if he's overwhelmingly better. This is just my thoughts on this and I really don't see why anyone should be annoyed. Can you deny Nadal's not at 100% often at the end of the year?

Nadal's record is 8-8 at the end of the year indoors. Is that really 100% Nadal? That's why I checked the stats. That's why I asked the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. Was that a legit question to ask? I think so because of the record at the end of the year for Nadal. He was 0-3 one year at the WTF. The question was just asking what the actual difference in level of play indoors if both are healthy.

I also pointed out that Federer's style is so smooth that it takes very little out of him and that was good for him.

You guys are making too much out of nothing. I can't get over that you're annoyed by minor thing. Do I have to walk on eggshells every time I write anything about Federer?

Tennis doesn't last only half a year but a FULL year. If Nadal can't keep up becuase if he's tired or not 100%, that's his fault. I can assumed Federer is better than Nadal on clay had the clay season started in November. Maybe some other players could have some success against him In fact, had the clay season and the indoor season schedule were swapped, you can argue that would improved Fed's h2h against Nadal.


Bolded part. Fed won over 10+ indoors, 6 WTFs. Compare to Fed, Nadal is almost non-existent, added he's 0-4 against Fed. Like another poster have mentioned...questioning if Fed is better player on indoor is like questioning if Fed is better than Nadal on clay. LOL

[forzamilan90]

^^^well said

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

see again, what I said ... no one is expected to have seen every match b/w them or remember their details or stats ...

but as a broad detail, if you've seen them play indoors several times , you should know their general level of play there ....

again this is what I said :

Several times and every time at the end of the year so I can't necessarily judge normal 100% in shape level of year.

Also when you judge several times that still a very small sample. Let's say I saw two Nadal/Federer red clay matches and one was the 2008 French final. If that's the case Federer wouldn't look too good. But I also in a larger sample size know Federer's more competitive on red clay than that.

You know what's amazing about all this. All of this "to do" is about the fact I just wondered what Nadal's general level of play indoors if he's totally healthy. After all he is Nadal and you would figure he would play at a high level indoor.

Amazing. I think some people are a little sensitive.

Let's give another example, we all know Federer won Wimbledon last year over Murray on grass. We also know one month later Murray beat Federer easily to win the Olympics also at Wimbledon. If someone just watched that latter match you would think Federer wasn't nearly at the level of Murray on grass. However I also know that Federer may have been worn out by his long match against del Potro previously so you give Federer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was off a bit.

I'll repeat myself, I was basically asking a question. It's really ridiculous to my mind that this causes such a reaction. I see reactions from TMF (of course), abmk and others when one of them could have just given me a link with some information posted by them. That would be end of story.

And TMF, did you read that I did write that Federer's smooth style allows him to play well at the end of the year? Read it again.

My thought was this, Nadal's a great player, one of the all time greats. With his great strokes you figure he should give anyone on any surface a tough battle even Federer. So I was wondering why he didn't give Federer much of a fight at the WTF. Everyone makes it sounds as though I'm attacking Federer. Read the post again. There were no attacks, simply wondering.

Overreaction here on a minor statement.

It's not worth writing about that nonsense anymore.

I've seen some of you ask some questions that I've answered in the past. Do I question why the person who asks the question doesn't know the answer? Of course not and yet someone assumes that by watching two matches indoors that I know the average level of play indoors between the two. Players are human and level of play varies.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You "don't care". Very ignorant.

Rosewall's four finals are not a blame. They underline how great this player is...

I put him at 6th all time, it's not that I discount his achievements in the amateur, pro or Open eras.

But come on, a man who never won Wimbledon, the game's biggest prize, in four final attempts, being GOAT?

That is a step too far, sir!

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

Several times and every time at the end of the year so I can't necessarily judge normal 100% in shape level of year.

Also when you judge several times that still a very small sample. Let's say I saw two Nadal/Federer red clay matches and one was the 2008 French final. If that's the case Federer wouldn't look too good. But I also in a larger sample size know Federer's more competitive on red clay than that.

You know what's amazing about all this. All of this "to do" is that I just wondered what Nadal's general level of play indoors if he's totally healthy. After all he is Nadal and you would figure he would play at a high level indoor.

Amazing. I think some people are a little sensitive.

Let's give another example, we all know Federer won Wimbledon last year over Murray on grass. We also know one month later Murray beat Federer easily to win the Olympics also at Wimbledon. If someone just watched that latter match you would think Federer wasn't nearly at the level of Murray on grass. However I also know that Federer may have been worn out by his long match against del Potro previously so you give Federer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was off a bit.

I'll repeat myself, I was basically asking a question. It's really ridiculous to my mind that this causes such a reaction. I see reactions from TMF (of course), abmk and others when one of them could have just given me a link with some information posted by them. That would be end of story.

And TMF, did you read that I did write that Federer's smooth style allows him to play well at the end of the year? Read it again.

My thought was this, Nadal's a great player, one of the all time greats. With his great strokes you figure he should give anyone on any surface a tough batte even Federer. So I was wondering why he didn't give Federer much of a fight at the WTF. Everyone makes it sounds as though I'm attacking Federer. Read the post again. There were no attacks, simply wondering.

Overreaction here on a minor statement.

It's not worth writing about that nonsense anymore.

I've seen some of you ask some questions that I've answered in the past. Do I question why the person who asks the question doesn't know the answer? Of course not and yet someone assumes that by watching two matches indoors that I know the average level of play indoors between the two. Players are human and level of play varies.

I have no beef with your post(s) on the issue, as I said indoor season isn't what it used to be, tennis season is structured differently these days and that might be one of the reasons Nadal's numbers aren't somewhat better indoors and/or that you weren't informed enough about his performance indoors in general and against Fed.

Urban's post on the other hand was one of the most biased posts I've ever read on TW, Rafa didn't try hard at WTF because of DC (even though Spain wasn't even in the final in 3 out of 4 losses against Fed), Novak only tried this year (even though he also won it in 2008 ), Fed won because all other top pros showed up solely to collect their paychecks, Nadal is Fed's equal indoors because he barely scraped past Ljubicic in Madrid and won some exos against Fed indoors (not even the kind of exos in which the winner is paid more but basically hit and giggle stuff) etc.

Seriously, I doubt even the most die hard Nadal fans would argue he's Fed's equal indoors (obviously considering they posses all the relevant data), I'm not talking about saying Nadal's better on slow outdoor HC (because he leads their H2H on that surface) or on grass (because he beat him in 2008 Wimbledon final and Fed won his Wimbledons in supposedly weak era), those are biased viewpoints but they atleast have something going for them (even if I disagree with logic behind those assertions) but once you have all the data comparing Nadal and Fed indoors is as straightforward as it can possibly be (short of Fed double bageling Nadal in their every indoor meeting or something and I doubt even that would have been enough).

You all look down upon TMF but seriously, I've yet to see him argue that Fed is Nadal's equal on clay or something.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by TMF

Tennis doesn't last only half a year but a FULL year. If Nadal can't keep up becuase if he's tired or not 100%, that's his fault. I can assumed Federer is better than Nadal on clay had the clay season started in November. Maybe some other players could have some success against him In fact, had the clay season and the indoor season schedule were swapped, you can argue that would improved Fed's h2h against Nadal.


Bolded part. Fed won over 10+ indoors, 6 WTFs. Compare to Fed, Nadal is almost non-existent, added he's 0-4 against Fed. Like another poster have mentioned...questioning if Fed is better player on indoor is like questioning if Fed is better than Nadal on clay. LOL

I agree with the post overall but "only" 4 of Fed's YEC were won indoors though, IIRC 2003 and 2004 (in Houston) when he beat Agassi and Hewitt in the final respectively were played on outdoor HC.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It's interesting: You make concessions for Gonzalez (and I agree) but NOT for Rosewall who succeeded much more at W. than Pancho...

You have inadvertently revealed why I have given Gonzales more concessions than Rosewall for not winning W: because he wa clearly far from his best when he played there (hence his sub-par performances by his great standards).

Rosewall on the other hand won FOUR major titles between 1953-1956 and FOUR again between 1968-1972, so he was undoubtedly one of the world's very best at the time. Yet in those same years he could not win the Wimbledon finals in four attempts. This doesn't mean he is not a great player but it does mean he is not GOAT. Please understand that.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

The age issue works for Pancho but not for Muscles? Interesting view.

May I remember you that Rosewall reached his peak not at 21 but at about 25, 26? And he was about 6 (six) years past his prime when he beat Roche and lost to Newcombe in five after gruelling singles and doubles matches!

Is this so difficult to understand?

There is a tiny difference between Borg and Rosewall: Borg played US Open in his prime while Rosewall not...

Rosewall actually maintained a consistently high level for many years as you know. The definition of when his 'prime' was is debatable for me. Certainly there were only a few years when he was the top pro. In all likelihood he would have been beaten by Gonzales, Hoad (as he was in 1956) and later Laver at Wimbledon (as he was in the 1967 pro tournament). The fact is that Rosewall could not psychologically cope with winning at Wimbledon, whether an amateur or pro, so he never did.

You should content yourself with Rosewall beig the best never to win Wimbledon, rather than the GOAT. It would be better for your health.

PS. Calling him Muscles displays your fanboyism.

[urban]

I have no interest to discuss things with tennis gurus and fanboys here, but i am interested to talk some tennis issues with people who care a bit about tennis history. Now if some misrepresent and distort my statements, they should go on. I hope that some intelligent people here can read.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

I have no beef with your post(s) on the issue, as I said indoor season isn't what it used to be, tennis season is structured differently these days and that might be one of the reasons Nadal's numbers aren't somewhat better indoors and/or that you weren't informed enough about his performance indoors in general and against Fed.

Seriously, I doubt even the most die hard Nadal fans would argue he's Fed's equal indoors (obviously considering they posses all the relevant data), I'm not talking about saying Nadal's better on slow outdoor HC (because he leads their H2H on that surface) or on grass (because he beat him in 2008 Wimbledon final and Fed won his Wimbledons in supposedly weak era), those are biased viewpoints but they atleast have something going for them (even if I disagree with logic behind those assertions) but once you have all the data comparing Nadal and Fed indoors is as straightforward as it can possibly be (short of Fed double bageling Nadal in their every indoor meeting or something and I doubt even that would have been enough).

You all look down upon TMF but seriously, I've yet to see him argue that Fed is Nadal's equal on clay or something.

But I never thought Nadal was equal to Federer indoors. I just express surprise he really hasn't been that competitive and I was wondering what the reason was if there was any reason.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

But I never thought Nadal was equal to Federer indoors. I just express surprise he really hasn't been that competitive and I was wondering what the reason was if there was any reason.

Never said you do/did, I have no issue with your posts on the subject.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by urban

I have no interest to discuss things with tennis gurus and fanboys here...

That's great to hear, revered historian and authority on all things concerning tennis but don't worry, I'll try my best to keep away from former pro inner sanctum from now on.

Originally Posted by urban

Now if some misrepresent and distort my statements, they should go on. I hope that some intelligent people here can read.

There's nothing to misrepresent or distort, nor is my reading comprehension lacking, your post was very clear and drawing conclusions from it requires little to no effort:

-Federer beat Nadal at WTF because Nadal's mind was already in DC final even though Spain wasn't even in the final in 2006, 2007 and 2010.

-Federer wins at YEC where due to top players merely showing up to collect their paychecks and not giving any effort.

-Shining example of Nadal's tennis ability indoors when he's motivated is him barely scraping past Ljubicic in Madrid.

-Nadal winning indoor hit and giggle exos against Fed show there's no gulf in their tennis abilities indoors because Nadal presumably takes exos more seriously than their encounters at WTF with ranking points and prize money at stake.

-Novak gave full effort at WTF this year because he wanted to show who's #1, him giving full effort and winning WTF back 2008 being due to mysterious reasons we've yet to discern.

I think that about covers the points you made in your splendid post.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

Well you know, I think Nadal's H2H with Fed on clay and his 7 FO titles are misleading when comparing him to Fed on clay, I think Fed was only really motivated to win FO in 2009, other years he gave a half arsed effort in the final in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

And boy, You could see how great Fed is on clay when motivated, he beat Soderling in 2009 FO final much easier than Rafa beat Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid F.

Regarding Nadal numerous victories over Fed in CC masters, the only time when Fed seemed to give a sh!t was in their 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid finals and I didn't see no gulf between their CC abilities in those matches.

zagor, I cannot accept the thesis that Federer gave a "half arsed effort" in French Open finals in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

Firstly Federer always tried to win the FO because he knew that a a win at Paris (especially against Nadal!) is important for his record and status as the possible GOAT.

Secondly you of course know that there is a gap of one month between Paris and London. So trying in ONE match does not waste energy for a tournament held one month later...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you count WCT, then let's count Master Shields.

WCT final had the status of a major. Master series tournaments not. That's the difference.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I put him at 6th all time, it's not that I discount his achievements in the amateur, pro or Open eras.

But come on, a man who never won Wimbledon, the game's biggest prize, in four final attempts, being GOAT?

That is a step too far, sir!

Phoenix1983,

I'm glad that you put Rosewall at 6th place.

Rosewall could have lost 50 W. finals and yet would not be out of the GOAT issue if he lost 13 (thirteen!) years, especially his prime years! Jack Kramer, never a Rosewall admirer, wrote that Rosewall would have won FOUR Wimbledons in an always open era.

You can't expect a Wimbledon win from a player who lost his best years and 13 altogether to the pros (and to WCT quarrels in 1972 and 1973).

If you take away the missing Rosewall prime (or about prime) years (from 23 to 33)from Federer, Roger would not have a single Wimbledon win in his record!! The same with Sampras and Laver...

I just ask you to be fair to Muscles.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

You have inadvertently revealed why I have given Gonzales more concessions than Rosewall for not winning W: because he wa clearly far from his best when he played there (hence his sub-par performances by his great standards).

Rosewall on the other hand won FOUR major titles between 1953-1956 and FOUR again between 1968-1972, so he was undoubtedly one of the world's very best at the time. Yet in those same years he could not win the Wimbledon finals in four attempts. This doesn't mean he is not a great player but it does mean he is not GOAT. Please understand that.



Rosewall actually maintained a consistently high level for many years as you know. The definition of when his 'prime' was is debatable for me. Certainly there were only a few years when he was the top pro. In all likelihood he would have been beaten by Gonzales, Hoad (as he was in 1956) and later Laver at Wimbledon (as he was in the 1967 pro tournament). The fact is that Rosewall could not psychologically cope with winning at Wimbledon, whether an amateur or pro, so he never did.

You should content yourself with Rosewall beig the best never to win Wimbledon, rather than the GOAT. It would be better for your health.

PS. Calling him Muscles displays your fanboyism.

Phoenix1983,

I hate it to call a colleague "ignorant" but you give me so many reasons to yet do it!

Calling Rosewall "Muscles" blames me? I must laugh...

People here use to call Federer Fed or Roger, they call Nadal Rafa or even Ralph.

Muscles is the well known nickname of Rosewall. Yes, I am a Rosewall admirer. No wonder looking at his fabulous record second to no other player's in my opinion. What's the problem in a forum where hundreds of posters are Federer fanatics (some of them in no reasonable way)?

You are wrong: Rosewall's four Wimbledon finals are among his greatest successes! No other player has reached W. finals 20 years apart.

Rosewall's prime is debatable? Are you Dan Lobb? All real tennis fans and experts do know that Rosewall was far away from his prime when he reached the W. finals! The fact that The Little Master (maybe more convenient for you than Muscles) also succeded in non-prime years makes him thus the more great but cannot abolish the fact that Rosewall's prime was about 1959 to 1965.

It's debatable if Rosewall is really the greatest not to win W. He is has tough opponent in Pancho, pardon, Gonzalez...

Better for my health would be if you could be more reasonable and less biased against Muscles...

If you call the actual Rosewall Wimbledon years as not far away from his best, why then do you exculp Gonzalez from not winning W. in 1949 when Pancho was NOT FAR away from his prime?

Rosewall would have been beaten in his prime by Gonzalez, Hoad (are you Dan's brother or lover??) and Laver?? In German language we would say:"I mean I dream" hearing such stuff...

Are you aware that Rosewall dominated Hoad from 1960 onwards? Are you aware that Rosewal dominated Gonzalez in the big ones in the 1960s? Are you aware that Rosewall crushed Laver in 1963 and 1965 on grass in the US Pro? I doubt that you are aware...

The psychological issue is your own invention. You cannot prove it!

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, I cannot accept the thesis that Federer gave a "half arsed effort" in French Open finals in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

Firstly Federer always tried to win the FO because he knew that a a win at Paris (especially against Nadal!) is important for his record and status as the possible GOAT.

Secondly you of course know that there is a gap of one month between Paris and London. So trying in ONE match does not waste energy for a tournament held one month later...

For goodness sake, he was being sarcastic and showing the ridiculousness of urban's post.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qindarka

For goodness sake, he was being sarcastic and showing the ridiculousness of urban's post.

qindarka, I'm sorry for misunderstanding the post. I had not read urban's post prior to it.

Even though I appreciate urban very much I must say that he was wrong with his arguments...