David Ferrer: the greatest man not to win a Grand Slam?

hawkeye63

Banned
Your implication maybe. Certainly not mine.

It is not the only reason he prospered. The main reason he prospered is that he is one of the two best players in history. Gave him a few extra slams is all. Putting words in my mouth again and again. Nice try though. You won't see me doing that!

#FalseLogic
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Your implication maybe. Certainly not mine.

It is not the only reason he prospered. The main reason he prospered is that he is one of the two best players in history. Gave him a few extra slams is all. Putting words in my mouth again and again. Nice try though. You won't see me doing that!

#FalseLogic

I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm following your words to their logical conclusion, which you fail to do on a regular basis.

let me guess...the few extra slams came in 2004? :D

I'm still trying to understand the logic of Federer dominated a weak era that Rafa competed in. Yet Rafa is the superior player even thiugh he spent the majority of the weak Fedal era world number 2.

Not to mention his current grass game is a shambles , has barely done anything at the WTF in 4 years, meanwhile Fed is number 2 in the world.
 
Last edited:

hawkeye63

Banned
I've answered every one of those questions. Concerned for your reading comprehension. The main one being Rafa was No. 2 nowhere near his peak at a very young age.

Again, I'm quite happy about your opinion on Federer as GOAT and quite happy with my opinion along with Agassi, JMac, Muzz and Nole who agree with me and Sampras (who says there is no GOAT).
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
I've answered every one of those questions. Concerned for your reading comprehension. The main one being Rafa was No. 2 nowhere near his peak at a very young age.

Again, I'm quite happy about your opinion on Federer as GOAT and quite happy with my opinion along with Agassi, JMac, Muzz and Nole who agree with me and Sampras (who says there is no GOAT).

Rafa has spent more time at number 2 than number 1 from 2005 thru 2011. . So his age has nothing to do with it. I read your answers..I still question them because they are nonsense
 
Last edited:

hawkeye63

Banned
Regardless of age, prior to 2008, Rafa was nowhere near the player he became. But that's an interesting opinion you have.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Regardless of age, prior to 2008, Rafa was nowhere near the player he became. But that's an interesting opinion you have.

It's not an opinion it's a fact. And he lost the number one ranking back to Fed by 2009. So even coming off one his better years he couldn't dominate. So my fact based point still stands. Age is irrelevant.

We had one transitional year and since then it's been mostly djokovic aside from 2013 and couple months in 2012.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
If age is irrelevant then why isn't Roger winning as many slams (read nil) anymore?

Curious.

Weak effort. Age is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Rafa failed to dominate the Fedal era not because he was too young/baby. He wasnt good enough. He wasn't and never has been consistent enough off clay to dominate contiuously. He'll dominate in spurts(in years where he has consistent good results in hard and grass) and then revert back to 2 or 3(namely because he can't defend a title won off clay) So yes, in this topic, age is irrelevant. But thanks for playing.

And lmaoooo at you acting like you had made a good point.
 
Last edited:

hawkeye63

Banned
Nice trolling at the end of your post. Pot and kettle much?

You're arguing that age doesn't matter. Check any player career statistics in any era, this golden era or the weak era and you will see age always matters.

I don't need insults the easy you seem to so let's just say your argument is unique.

Too funny.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Nice trolling at the end of your post. Pot and kettle much?

You're arguing that age doesn't matter. Check any player career statistics in any era, this golden era or the weak era and you will see age always matters.

I don't need insults the easy you seem to so let's just say your argument is unique.

Too funny.

You tried it lol. I realize you felt you had to respond after I called you out. Good on you for not addressing anything I raised in my previous post and pretending I said age is irrelevant without qualification...you should have left well enough alone lmaoo.

And still bringing up eras..lmaoooooooooooooo
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Nice trolling at the end of your post. Pot and kettle much?

You're arguing that age doesn't matter. Check any player career statistics in any era, this golden era or the weak era and you will see age always matters.

I don't need insults the easy you seem to so let's just say your argument is unique.

Too funny.

Who do you think is the WTA GOAT?
 

lukowicz

Banned
Weak effort. Age is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Rafa failed to dominate the Fedal era not because he was too young/baby. He wasnt good enough. He wasn't and never has been consistent enough off clay to dominate contiuously. He'll dominate in spurts(in years where he has consistent good results in hard and grass) and then revert back to 2 or 3(namely because he can't defend a title won off clay) So yes, in this topic, age is irrelevant. But thanks for playing.

And lmaoooo at you acting like you had made a good point.

This is true. Regardless the era Nadal will pretty much have a #1 type year once every 2 or 3 years, then be #2 (or lower) in between that. This is evident by that is not only what happened in the Federer era, but the Nadal/
in between era, and now the Djokovic. Dominating on clay every year, but only having the wins/consistency on other surfaces with it to be #1 once every 3 years or so. Should Nadal ever have a year like that again, it will thus probably be 2016 following his career pattern until now.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This isn't actually true, it's not the old age that kills us; What die due to radiation and damage of the body.

That is semantics really :).

Although, what would happen if we remove bad radiation and damage?

Wouldn't particles in our body decay anyway?

Plus there are several unproven theories as what exactly causes aging, so the jury is still out.
 
Top