Rafa pulls out of Abu Dhabi touney!!!

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

See, I knew you would switch accounts after being embarrassed. I'd be so embarrassed I don't know if I'd come back to this thread, but maybe that's just me.

Yeah, it's just you. At least you can feel a sense of belonging on the most paranoid forum in existence, Talk Tennis, where people genuinely believe I have multiple accounts. Or maybe you're the one with the multiple accounts? See, I can be paranoid too.

[TheF1Bob]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

This is arguably the most exciting period in tennis since RolandGarros2012. What tournament will Nadal play? When will he be back? How high can he raise the Masters 1000 title count? Let's face it, Nadal is the face of tennis nowadays.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by joeri888

So Bastl and Krajicek could beat Sampras on fast grass, and he lost sets to guys like Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic, ALL THE TIME, he would not lose a set at today's wimbledon, because guys like Federer and Nadal are not as good as Rafter and Ivanisevic? Oh please.. Even today's Lleyton Hewitt could take a tiebreak from Pete if he played a great set.

Bastl didn't beat Sampras on fast grass. Sampras would win on fast grass against Bastl even if he had played in wheelchair..

[underground]

Originally Posted by TheF1Bob

And now TheF1Bob comes back to join us against the army of multiple accounts.

And that is one long gif

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Hey merlin, when did I use the word "ONLY"?

so you're saying if federer only won in 2003 and 2004 then he would have proved he would have won in the 80s/90s but winning in 06, 07 and 09 counteracted this? Lol. even if this makes sense then look at another post of yours.

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

The stats are useless. Why? The 21st Century is the weakest era of "grasscourt tennis" in history. Prime Sampras would never drop a set at Wimbledon in this era. And before you say "but the courts are slower and would not suit Sampras" just watch the 1999 Wimbledon final where Sampras rarely came to the net, and blew Agassi off the court like he was nothing. Look at how lethal Sampras' topspin backhand was, his weakest shot was dynamic on grass.

yeah but if sampras won it in any year from 2005-2010 that would prove he couldn't have won it in the 80s/90s. so he couldn't have won it most years federer did. YOU JUST OWNED YOURSELF AGAIN HAHAHAH!!

Look you specified 2005-2010 meaning the years outside that are exempt. meaning if you won it outside those years could have won in the 80s/90s. doesn't matter if they then won it again later on, just makes them even better.

But really dents your Nadal is the goat argument when you say he couldn't win on real grass.

[chatt_town]

Is that a good reason to pull out? Match play?

Originally Posted by tusharlovesrafa

I have a feeling that he might pull out of AO too citing lack of match play as a reason...

[TheF1Bob]

Originally Posted by underground

And now TheF1Bob comes back to join us against the army of multiple accounts.

And that is one long gif

With AO on the horizon, TheF1Bob is back and fully refreshed to take on the likes of *** & Co.

And yes... that gif is long.

Originally Posted by Towser83

so you're saying if federer only won in 2003 and 2004 then he would have proved he would have won in the 80s/90s but winning in 06, 07 and 09 counteracted this? Lol. even if this makes sense then look at another post of yours.



yeah but if sampras won it in any year from 2005-2010 that would prove he couldn't have won it in the 80s/90s. so he couldn't have won it most years federer did. YOU JUST OWNED YOURSELF AGAIN HAHAHAH!!

Look you specified 2005-2010 meaning the years outside that are exempt. meaning if you won it outside those years could have won in the 80s/90s. doesn't matter if they then won it again later on, just makes them even better.

But really dents your Nadal is the goat argument when you say he couldn't win on real grass.

Lets be honest guys, if Fed, Nadal, Novak played in the 90's, their games would be different. Hell, Djokovic in '07 is different from Djokovic '12 and that's not that long ago (same Era).

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by TheF1Bob

With AO on the horizon, TheF1Bob is back and fully refreshed to take on the likes of *** & Co.

And yes... that gif is long.



Lets be honest guys, if Fed, Nadal, Novak played in the 90's, their games would be different. Hell, Djokovic in '07 is different from Djokovic '12 and that's not that long ago (same Era).

Wow. I actually agree with this, but when *** owns himself it is so funny that nobody can help but point it out multiple times.

[RAFA2005RG]

2005-2010 Federer would have had no chance against Prime Sampras at Wimbledon. 2005-2010 Nadal would have fared better, because he's on the same level as Sampras mentally, but Sampras would have been the likely winner in that matchup too (at Wimbledon). Nadal would have owned Sampras at the Australian Open and French Open.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Where's Fed's AO07 and AO10 draws? He didn't play a top 4 player in those 2 either.

So Fed actually has the most with 6! Compared to Nadal's 1.

Sorry, I should have been more specific about the list. It is a list of players who won a slam by facing either 0 or 1 top 8 player AND 0 player in the top 4. In AO 2007, yes, Fed didn't face a top 4 player but he played 2 top 8 players: 6 and 7 (easy enough but not as easy as the draws on my list). In AO 2010, Fed faced # 6 and # 4. Playing 1 top 8 and 1 top 4 is the most common way of winning a slam, nothing special about it. (Once again, this is a matter of fact observation about draws ON PAPER, it is not a subjective evaluation on how those players fared on any given day. I am just trying to bring a smidge of objectivity to a highly subjective/biassed debate).

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Towser83

in terms of numbers yes. if someone think Pete is still the better grass court player that's their opinion and they have the right to it but a lot of these saptards are so blind about how both players rank on grass and act like federer is way below sampras when all the stats say otherwise..

You know me and how I have 0 personal interest in defending Fed's records but for the sake of fairness, not only does Fed have a non negligible higher winning % on grass than Sampras and more titles overall but he also has 1 more final at Wimbledon and he's still active, so the difference could even increase. I guess one could always argue that Halle never had a field as competitive as Queen's. Still, not enough to go against every # available.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

You know me and how I have 0 personal interest in defending Fed's records but for the sake of fairness, not only does Fed have a non negligible higher winning % on grass than Sampras and more titles overall but he also has 1 more final at Wimbledon and he's still active, so the difference could even increase. I guess one could always argue that Halle never had a field as competitive as Queen's. Still, not enough to go against every # available.

Quality post. Must be the holiday spirits

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

2005-2010 Federer would have had no chance against Prime Sampras at Wimbledon. 2005-2010 Nadal would have fared better, because he's on the same level as Sampras mentally, but Sampras would have been the likely winner in that matchup too (at Wimbledon). Nadal would have owned Sampras at the Australian Open and French Open.

How would 2005-2007 Nadal stand a better chance vs Sampras when he couldn't even beat Federer?

Anyway we have to say that 2003, 2004 and 2012 Federer would stand a chance vs Sampras and that Sampras would stand no chance in 2005-2010. Beacuse Federer won in 2003, 2004 and 2012 but his wins in the 2005-2010 period invalidate his 2003, 2004 and 2012 wins (according to your logic) hence Sampras winning in 2005-2010 would invalidate all his other wins too.

Remember you said nothing about FORM. You only said players that won in 2005-2010 would not have won in the 80s/90s.

Also funny that you say Nadal is the GOAT but now say he wouldn't have won on grass in the 80s/90s. Laver could win on every surface.

Originally Posted by veroniquem

You know me and how I have 0 personal interest in defending Fed's records but for the sake of fairness, not only does Fed have a non negligible higher winning % on grass than Sampras and more titles overall but he also has 1 more final at Wimbledon and he's still active, so the difference could even increase. I guess one could always argue that Halle never had a field as competitive as Queen's. Still, not enough to go against every # available.

Fair play Vero on behalf of Federer fans, a thumbs up!

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Fair play Vero on behalf of Federer fans, a thumbs up!

Tryig to buy crediility amogst the Federer fans with posts, that do not in any way, touch her beloved.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Nadal and Federer have had a few easy draws, but why do people automatically assume that they ONLY won because of the draw? Nadal would have probably made the US Open final whoever he played, the only question would be could either Djokovic or Federer beat him? They weren't playing great that year, but they would have had to play not just a very good standard, but at their very best, which doesn't happen all the time. Playing very good might not have been enough.

Fed’s easy draws just need to be pointed out when some people have the face to complain about Nadal having easy draws…

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Another thing is that draws are not about facing only top 4 players. They are about facing the player that is the best at the time. Saying so and so (in this case Federer's 06 AO) had an easy draw is extremely disrespectful to all the players he beat, and especially Baghdatis who played fantastic tennis to make the final.

It is the same with Fed's 07 AO. It is disrespectful to Gonzalez to basically discount how great he played to make the final which included a straight set thrashing of #2 Nadal, not to mention that Federer did not lose a set that whole GS. The players playing in the final are the #1 and #2 best players (regarding who actually wins) for that tournament regardless of seeding.

Sorry, but while players like Bagdhatis and González deserve credit for what they did, they just made for easier opponents and therefore easier draws than if a more experienced player was the one to make the final (not to mention when comparing playing that final against an all time great).

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Fed’s easy draws just need to be pointed out when some people have the face to complain about Nadal having easy draws…



Sorry, but while players like Bagdhatis and González deserve credit for what they did, they just made for easier opponents and therefore easier draws than if a more experienced player was the one to make the final (not to mention when comparing playing that final against an all time great).

I agree Federer has had them too, I'm just saying easy draws don't equal a title you wouldn't have won otherwise. That goes for everyone.

With your second point, i'm not sure. I mean if someone lower ranked had knocked out Federer at RG in 2008, they might have actually given Nadal a better match (the right player in form) not much better, but it couldn't have been much worse! Tsonga knocked out murray and Nadal in the 2008 AO, Nadal might have done better than winning a set in the final but Murray probably wouldn't have, in fact he probably would have been straight setted. Likewise Murray probably would have lost the 2009 US Open final in straight sets, yet a less fancied player like Delpo actually won.

Less experienced is not always easier.

[veroniquem]

All of Baghs, Gonzo and Sod were easy (inexperienced) slam finalists. Not Fed's fault of course but it's obvious anyone would pick them over the big names. Same could be said for Berd in the final of Wimbledon or Tsonga in the final of AO or Stich in the USO final for Agassi. Much better than Sampras, don't you think? It's not fair but given the way tennis works, it will happen again and yes some players get more luck than others throughout their careers and some eras are much weaker than others and what can we do about this? Nothing. Still, I have a right to admire (more) every time a player does it the (sometimes very) hard way. Like beating #1, 2 and 3 in a row. Same result but I'll be a bit more impressed. So I understand what Crisstti is saying here.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Towser83

I agree Federer has had them too, I'm just saying easy draws don't equal a title you wouldn't have won otherwise. That goes for everyone.

With your second point, i'm not sure. I mean if someone lower ranked had knocked out Federer at RG in 2008, they might have actually given Nadal a better match (the right player in form) not much better, but it couldn't have been much worse! Tsonga knocked out murray and Nadal in the 2008 AO, Nadal might have done better than winning a set in the final but Murray probably wouldn't have, in fact he probably would have been straight setted. Likewise Murray probably would have lost the 2009 US Open final in straight sets, yet a less fancied player like Delpo actually won.

Less experienced is not always easier.

I agree with you here. Del Potro who had never beaten Roger before their US Open 2009, also was playing his first slam, and this is a guy that has not even won a masters event. Federer should have won on paper, but the actual result was very different...

While Bhagdatis I might question, Gonzo was in supreme form at that event. He was blazing everyone everywhere, exactly the same way Federer was. He burned Nadal, and played what he described his most perfect match against Haas, and even had a set point against Roger. His only problem was that Roger himself played his greatest ever slam at the same time, but Gonzo was a formidable player that event, no one could touch him.

[TMF]

I think Nalbandian was more of a threat than Baghdatis against Roger in 06 AO final. But since it was Baghdatis, I was relief. However, it doesn't necessary mean it was easier for Roger. Had it was Nalbandian instead, I think Roger would be more focus because he knows Nalbandian is a dangerous player, and possibly beat him straight sets rather than having an unknown Baghdatis who took the 1st set off him.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

All of Baghs, Gonzo and Sod were easy (inexperienced) slam finalists. Not Fed's fault of course but it's obvious anyone would pick them over the big names. Same could be said for Berd in the final of Wimbledon or Tsonga in the final of AO or Stich in the USO final for Agassi. Much better than Sampras, don't you think? It's not fair but given the way tennis works, it will happen again and yes some players get more luck than others throughout their careers and some eras are much weaker than others and what can we do about this? Nothing. Still, I have a right to admire (more) every time a player does it the (sometimes very) hard way. Like beating #1, 2 and 3 in a row. Same result but I'll be a bit more impressed. So I understand what Crisstti is saying here.

I do too. I mean sure, beating the top guys is always a great bonus, but if you're beating the top guys it also means they're playing well enough to reach the latter stages. Sometimes they're not and might actually get destroyed if they reached the final. Like I said, there are players who could have probably won a few more games than Federer did in the 2008 RG final. If someone had knocked Federer out and gone down 6-2 6-3 6-1 people would have said Nadal was gifted the final and Federer would have made it harder. We know the truth...

I'm just saying it's not ALWAYS easier against a less experienced opponent, sometimes they are the best.

Originally Posted by Hitman

I agree with you here. Del Potro who had never beaten Roger before their US Open 2009, also was playing his first slam, and this is a guy that has not even won a masters event. Federer should have won on paper, but the actual result was very different...

While Bhagdatis I might question, Gonzo was in supreme form at that event. He was blazing everyone everywhere, exactly the same way Federer was. He burned Nadal, and played what he described his most perfect match against Haas, and even had a set point against Roger. His only problem was that Roger himself played his greatest ever slam at the same time, but Gonzo was a formidable player that event, no one could touch him.

Yeah I agree about Gonzo, he played some inspired tennis.