The balls in your court.
Banned
Nadals loss proves one thing:
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
Nadals loss proves one thing:
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
All players are equal
Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then
a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.
At least you see that i was using a logical formula. Good response....but my logic is not flawed.
Roger has been trying to win for 10 years now....and for 10 years a grinder has won RG every single time.
Nadals loss proves one thing:
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
Nadals loss proves one thing:
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
Nadals loss proves one thing:
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.
Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!
Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:
Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!
In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!
Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:
Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!
In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!
All players are equal
Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then
a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.
Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.
Thanks for taking time out from your busy day to share this nugget of wisdom... what are tomorrow's Mega lotto numbers going to be?Nadals loss proves one thing:
To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.
Let's hope so - or hope he's not a breeder...Your logic is as flawed as it gets, but I'm pretty sure you're joking.
Exactly. Take the first short ball and end the point. Getting in protracted rallies is for masochists...i dont get how nadal's loss proves you have to be a grinder to win roland garros. if anything, it suggests the opposite.
Hey,
actually
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
doesn`t imply
a - t/2 = b - t/2
so, till the next new formula tennis isn`t pointless, yesssssssss.
All players are equal
Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then
a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.
All players are equal
Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then
a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.
Theorem 1: r2473 fails algebra; i.e. he doesn't understand properties of the square root function as well as the absolute value function.
As much definitely not but he has the best chance after Nadal to win it. People who keep claiming Fed has no chance to win RG are either crazy or dishonest.Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.
It is an old math "joke". I'm sure you have seen it before.
That's because any player that won the French was labeled a grinder after it. Not the other way around.Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:
Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!
In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!
Advice: stop trying to be pretentious with your mathematical mumbo-jumbo when your audience do not give a damn about math.
I don't see the connection."And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife."
Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.
The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.
"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.
"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.
"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.
Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.
"No," his friend replied.
"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"
a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.
The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.
"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.
"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.
"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.
Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.
"No," his friend replied.
"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"
Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.
The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.
"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.
"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.
"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.
Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.
"No," his friend replied.
"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"
its only a blister on his foot, blisters dont take all too long to heal. when does hamburg start? if its in a week, he should be fine IMO
Borg was definitely NOT a grinder.
All right I'll play the game. So let me ask you, who were this other 5% who won Roland Garros without grinding? By any chance were they the most talented tennis players that ever walked the earth......like Federer?
So, now that the balls in your court is on my ignore list, I, thank God, can't see his posts.
But I still can see the threads he starts.
How can I get his threads to become invisible too ?
I second this. This is probably the dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. I think you should have accumulated a certain number of posts or a certain amount of time on the board before you start making threads. Let me know if you figure out how to get his threads to be invisible too.
Now this is a much better improvement over your math "joke". Your first attempt at sarcasm over the OP statement was too obscure for most the members of this board.
***finally why all the hate? I am just saying the facts. Federers game historically has proven to be a loser at Roland Garros. The dude has been trying for ten years and only made 2 finals. Things just do not look good.
Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.
Hey Caesar66 I was wondering if you were gonna get a chance to comment on this idiotic thread. Well done.
Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.