Federer admits Nadal better now than when they first started

[The Dark Knight]

Tennis - ATP World Tour - Federer: Nadal From Boy To Man

Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

“I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

“It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

View TV Schedule

Follow ATP World Tour On Twitter | Like Us On Facebook

 

[rosewall4ever]

Tennis - ATP World Tour - Federer: Nadal From Boy To Man

“.. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now.”

".. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time. "

What an understatement!..And a slight hint at rogi wanting to take out GOAT ...so much class:roll:

 

[TheTruth]

Tennis - ATP World Tour - Federer: Nadal From Boy To Man

Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

“I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

“It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

View TV Schedule

Follow ATP World Tour On Twitter | Like Us On Facebook

fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.


That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.


That's why people need to quit arguing, putting up stats, etc., because you cannot know who the GOAT is. The best they can do is have a GOAT of each era, where the conditions and the equipment is the same, and the ages are very close to each other. That would stop the pre-prime and post-prime battles as well.

 

[TMF]

That's why people need to quit arguing, putting up stats, etc., because you cannot know who the GOAT is. The best they can do is have a GOAT of each era, where the conditions and the equipment is the same, and the ages are very close to each other. That would stop the pre-prime and post-prime battles as well.

But Jordan was wearing an advance Nike Air shoes which wasn't available for players in the past generations. Gretzky had a special made custom hockey stick just for him. However these two are the goat in their sport because of the stats/records and all of their achievements. Federer is no difference.

 

[The Dark Knight]

But Jordan was wearing an advance Nike Air shoes which wasn't available for players in the past generations. Gretzky had a special made custom hockey stick just for him. However these two are the goat in their sport because of the stats/records and all of their achievements. Federer is no difference.

At first glance, it would appear the question intuitively answers itself. The true answer, naturally, is both: The best player is the one who beat his rivals and won the championships. Michael Jordan is considered the greatest basketball player of all time and no one during his era compared with him, not Clyde Drexler, not Karl Malone, not Patrick Ewing, not Hakeem Olajuwon. Jordan had no rival, not on the court nor in the championship ring department. He controlled the stage.

Tiger Woods' claim on being the greatest ever is routed through one measure -- his quest to surpass Jack Nicklaus' 18 major titles -- but he is not burdened with Federer-like complications, for there isn't a single rival golfer during Woods' time who has ever eclipsed him, not in major titles, not head-to-head and not in the imagination.

Before the Age of Jordan, during the five-year period from 1983 to 1987, Larry Bird was at one point in the conversation of the greatest ever, but that claim dissipated when Magic Johnson surpassed him. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, when both played, Johnson's Lakers were 11-7 against Bird's Celtics. In the postseason, of course, the two were tied at a championship apiece -- that is, until Magic's famed junior skyhook in Game 4 of the 1987 Finals at the Garden and Bird's forlorn postgame presser where he conceded the throne to Johnson and ended the debate. Adding to Johnson's résumé was his win over Bird in the 1979 NCAA title game.

Yet there are numerous examples in which the equation isn't so clean. Bill Russell always said Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant player in the game, but Russell had more championship rings than fingers.

 

[smoledman]

The difference is Federer is the only goat candidate in any sport to have a losing record to his main rival.

The reason is that Fed had no competition prior to Nadal or when Nadal was still developing .

So where does that place Fed in the GOAT standings? 7th, 8th?

 

[TennisLovaLova]

The difference is Federer is the only goat candidate in any sport to have a losing record to his main rival.

The reason is that Fed had no competition prior to Nadal or when Nadal was still developing .

The no-competition argument is an insult to tennis.

 

[The Dark Knight]

The no-competition argument is an insult to tennis.

It is . Federer should have had competition but sadly he didn't .

 

[chandu612]

"The difference is Federer is the only goat candidate in any sport to have a losing record to his main rival.

The reason is that Fed had no competition prior to Nadal or when Nadal was still developing ."

Nailed it.

 

[The Dark Knight]

So where does that place Fed in the GOAT standings? 7th, 8th?

No where ,

In my book I'm just not all that impressed with stats against a field of philopusis and bagdatis '......why doesn't he just play 13 year old girls? His stats would be even better and you guys can say he has won 50 billion times.

As it doesn't seem to matter to you who he beat . All you care about is the numbers .

 

[zagor]

No where ,

In my book I'm just not all that impressed with stats against a field of philopusis and bagdatis '......why doesn't he just play 13 year old girls? His stats would be even better and you guys can say he has won 50 billion times.

As it doesn't seem to matter to you who he beat . All you care about is the numbers .

That means Nadal is nowhere on the GOAT list as well, claycourt or otherwise, afterall whom did he beat that is of any significance?

 

[The Dark Knight]

That means Nadal is nowhere on the GOAT list as well, claycourt or otherwise, afterall whom did he beat that is of any significance?

Federer.

I never said he was a nothing . He is just not the goat.

But it's a valid argument . Nadals competition on clay is not that great....

But he also beat everyone on everything else.

 

[chandu612]

When Federer enters a final and his opponent has more than couple titles already, what are his chances of winning? Historically? LAME
And if you remove the opponents who are in mid 30's or teenagers, the % drops to what a big ZERO?
Yeah he is the GOAT ...ROFL

 

[The Dark Knight]

Fed says Nadal improved in 2008.

So how many slams does Fed have since 2008? That's when Nadal was no longer a boy but a man....according to Roger Federer.

Fed has i think 3 slams .....and one of them was when Nadal skipped.

 

[zagor]

Federer.

Bzzzt, wrong.

Can't use him anymore, sorry.

I never said he was a nothing . He is just not the goat.

Nowhere on the list of tennis greats, mental weakling who completely crumbles when faced with any pressure, only able to beat clowns, journeymen and babies to win titles etc.

Gotta say, Nadal's competition is extremely weak, he's nowhere near someone like Borg on clay and given the fact that he lost 2 Wimbledon finals to a weakling like Fed (and needed 9-7 in the 5th set to finally beat him) it's logical to assume Pete would be handing bagels left and right to Rafa on grass.

 

[zagor]

But it's a valid argument . Nadals competition on clay is not that great....

Not that great? It utterly sucks, a clown like Fed reached 5 freakin FO finals.

But he also beat everyone on everything else.

And who's "everyone else"? Clowns and journeymen?

 

[chandu612]

Fed says Nadal improved in 2008.

So how many slams does Fed have since 2008? That's when Nadal was no longer a boy but a man....according to Roger Federer.

Fed has i think 3 slams .....and one of them was when Nadal skipped.

More importantly ask how many times Fed beat Nadal in a GS post 2007? ZERO

 

[zagor]

Fed says Nadal improved in 2008.

And Nadal says, Fed is the best player of all time.

So how many slams does Fed have since 2008? That's when Nadal was no longer a boy but a man....according to Roger Federer.

Fed has i think 3 slams .....and one of them was when Nadal skipped.

5 slams, Nadal has 8.

Given how much better Nadal is than Fed, one would expect the difference to be much bigger, no?

 

[TMF]

Thread like this is where the old-timers get the get the kick out of it. Both Nadal and Federer fans bashing the two players that aren't great plus have weak competition.

You don't see thread where Rosewall fans bashed Laver and vice versa.

 

[chandu612]

When Federer enters a final and his opponent has more than couple titles already, what are his chances of winning? Historically? LAME
And if you remove the opponents who are in mid 30's or teenagers, the % drops to what a big ZERO?
Yeah he is the GOAT ...ROFL

Hold on..I just looked into Fed's records..Looks like he slayed one champion Hewitt...Sure he is the GOAT..lol

 

[zagor]

Thread like this is where the old-timers get the get the kick out of it. Both Nadal and Federer fans bashing the two players that aren't great plus have weak competition.

You don't see thread where Rosewall fans bashed Laver and vice versa.

Hey, I'm just following the OP's logic, you ask me, both Fed and Nadal are legends of the game.

 

[TMF]

Hey, I'm just following the OP's logic, you ask me, both Fed and Nadal are legends of the game.

I know it's not you. It's the OP creating these type of threads only makes these players and the field looks bad. I don't reply to TDK because I have him on my ignore list.

 

[Day Tripper]

Federer.

I never said he was a nothing . He is just not the goat.

But it's a valid argument . Nadals competition on clay is not that great....

But he also beat everyone on everything else.

Interesting assertion - you would imagine if this was true that Nadal would have spent a few more than 100 odd weeks at number one and have more than only 11 slams.

I really dont understand how you can believe that a winning head to head over Federer raises Nadal claims of being one of the all time greats.

He is an amazing clay court player - no doubt - the best ever. But you have to admit that compared to the other GOAT candidates his record off clay is pretty average.

I mean the guy has only won two Wimbledons - the greatest prize in tennis.

At this stage I would rate him well below Sampras let alone Federer.

 

[smoledman]

This thread:

 

[TheTruth]

But Jordan was wearing an advance Nike Air shoes which wasn't available for players in the past generations. Gretzky had a special made custom hockey stick just for him. However these two are the goat in their sport because of the stats/records and all of their achievements. Federer is no difference.

What?

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not talking about shoes and hockey sticks. It would be more comparing Jordan to the players he played against in his era, not comparing him to people who came before or after him.

What's at question here with this ridiculous debate is, one group says Federer is the greatest. The other group says Nadal is the greatest.

You can't use Jordan and Gretzky because they played team sports where other players contributed to their results.

But, say you did use your analogy. A similar analogy would be if Jordan was considered the greatest of his time and Isiah Thomas stopped him 2/3 times that they played. Then, would you continue to say that Jordan was the GOAT?

That's what the argument consists of.

Personally, I don't believe or care about GOATs. I'm not a pet lover at all.

 

[TheTruth]

That means Nadal is nowhere on the GOAT list as well, claycourt or otherwise, afterall whom did he beat that is of any significance?

There is no GOAT. People can keep trying to ascribe one, but it's only going to keep changing.

Think about it, they are already adding Djokovic to the list as a possibility. Memories fade, the next generation won't think much about Nadal or Federer.

Less than 15 years ago the then current generation thought that Sampras and Agassi were the be-all, end-all.

See how quickly that changed? It will continue to do so, because technology will evolve, nutrition will get better, records will be broken. The GOAT theory is a red herring. Nothing else.

 

[jg153040]

There is no GOAT. People can keep trying to ascribe one, but it's only going to keep changing.

Think about it, they are already adding Djokovic to the list as a possibility. Memories fade, the next generation won't think much about Nadal or Federer.

Less than 15 years ago the then current generation thought that Sampras and Agassi were the be-all, end-all.

See how quickly that changed? It will continue to do so, because technology will evolve, nutrition will get better, records will be broken. The GOAT theory is a red herring. Nothing else.

Are you saying the American president doesn't exist just because most Americans voted for him being the president?

It's the same with goat. People crown goat based on facts. Of course goat means only until now. Future doesn't exist yet. So of all time is until now.

 

[Crisstti]

It's really not the same at all.

Interesting assertion - you would imagine if this was true that Nadal would have spent a few more than 100 odd weeks at number one and have more than only 11 slams.

I really dont understand how you can believe that a winning head to head over Federer raises Nadal claims of being one of the all time greats.

He is an amazing clay court player - no doubt - the best ever. But you have to admit that compared to the other GOAT candidates his record off clay is pretty average.

I mean the guy has only won two Wimbledons - the greatest prize in tennis.

At this stage I would rate him well below Sampras let alone Federer.

Uhm, what about the clay record of many of those other players?.

And your comment about Wimbledon is completely subjective...

 

[jg153040]

It's really not the same at all.



Uhm, what about the clay record of many of those other players?.

And your comment about Wimbledon is completely subjective...

But non clay is where 75% of tennis is played. Not the same thing.

 

[zagor]

There is no GOAT. People can keep trying to ascribe one, but it's only going to keep changing.

Think about it, they are already adding Djokovic to the list as a possibility. Memories fade, the next generation won't think much about Nadal or Federer.

Less than 15 years ago the then current generation thought that Sampras and Agassi were the be-all, end-all.

See how quickly that changed? It will continue to do so, because technology will evolve, nutrition will get better, records will be broken. The GOAT theory is a red herring. Nothing else.

Oh I very much agree, so many variables in tennis, different opponents, different conditions (surface, balls etc.), different technology, training methods etc.

Placing one single player on some pedestal, above all others is I'd go as far as to say even a somewhat arrogant attitude to take and is doing a disservice to past tennis greats.

Reality is that every era has some terrific players and media (commentators, analysts, experts) will do their very best to hype the current era at the expense of the past ones for the simple reason that the mass audience loves to hear that what they're watching right now is the best ever, the greatest player ever, the greatest rivalry ever, the greatest match ever etc. etc.

I can bet that just looking at the FO this year, if someone out of Nadal, Novak or Fed wins it guys like McEnroe and Wilander will kiss his behind and starting hyping his performance through the roof until of course said player loses a big match somewhere down the road which will prompt them to sing a completely different tune at that point, media is just very fickle.

 

[zagor]

But non clay is where 75% of tennis is played. Not the same thing.

And at one point, no slam was played on HC.

At one point 3 slams were played on grass.

At one point AO wasn't even the equivalent of a masters tourney today.

At one point carpet was a prominent surface, now it's banned in tennis.

See where I'm going with this? It's too difficult to compare across different eras, it's fun to debate but at the end it's all speculation and comes down to a personal opinion.

 

[jg153040]

And at one point, no slam was played on HC.

At one point 3 slams were played on grass.

At one point AO wasn't even the equivalent of a masters tourney today.

At one point carpet was a prominent surface, now it's banned in tennis.

See where I'm going with this? It's too difficult to compare across different eras, it's fun to debate but at the end it's all speculation and comes down to a personal opinion.

I was arguing that having poor record on clay and on non clay is not the same.Because of the distribution.

Nadal has 4 slams on non clay. But Sampras has 0 slams on clay.
Do you see the problem with this comparison?

 

[BobbyOne]

So where does that place Fed in the GOAT standings? 7th, 8th?

smoledman, In my list Federer is sixth, together with Sampras (played in a tougher era than Roger in his prime) and behind Laver and Rosewall, Gonzalez, Tilden and Borg.

 

[BobbyOne]

Thread like this is where the old-timers get the get the kick out of it. Both Nadal and Federer fans bashing the two players that aren't great plus have weak competition.

You don't see thread where Rosewall fans bashed Laver and vice versa.

Mighty Federer, as far as I know Rosewall fans never bashed Laver.

 

[The Dark Knight]

But non clay is where 75% of tennis is played. Not the same thing.

Non clay is not where 75% is played . In fact I would bet there are more clay court matches than anything else

 

[The Dark Knight]

Interesting assertion - you would imagine if this was true that Nadal would have spent a few more than 100 odd weeks at number one and have more than only 11 slams.

I really dont understand how you can believe that a winning head to head over Federer raises Nadal claims of being one of the all time greats.

He is an amazing clay court player - no doubt - the best ever. But you have to admit that compared to the other GOAT candidates his record off clay is pretty average.

I mean the guy has only won two Wimbledons - the greatest prize in tennis.

At this stage I would rate him well below Sampras let alone Federer.

Are you kidding ?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ????

And the only people who lost to were Federer ( whole still developing ) and joker .

The Wimbledon he missed he returned the very next year.

Lets not forget Nadal has missed 7 slams and still won 11.....who else can say they did that ?

 

[jg153040]

Mighty Federer, as far as I know Rosewall fans never bashed Laver.

Probably because most Rosewall fans are 60 years old mature people.
And most Nadal fans are very young, since he is also young.

And back then there wasn't internet. But probably the youth today are more arrogant think they know it all.

I don't think 40 years from now they will bash Fed.

I don't know about Laver. Do Laver fans bash Fed or do Fed fans bash Laver?

 

[jg153040]

Are you kidding ?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ????

And the only people who lost to were Federer ( whole still developing ) and joker .

The Wimbledon he missed he returned the very next year.

Lets not forget Nadal has missed 7 slams and still won 11.....who else can say they did that ?

So what? Sampras won 7 and never lost a final.

 

[rosewall4ever]

Mighty Federer, as far as I know Rosewall fans never bashed Laver.

Amen to that...otherwise it would have been a bloodbath, which is how this thread is likely to eventuate lol.

 

[The Dark Knight]

So what? Sampras won 7 and never lost a final.

Sampras was better than Federer ....I agree .

However I think he lost a final to Agassi ...AO ?

Also Edberg USO ?

 

[jg153040]

Sampras was better than Federer ....I agree .

However I think he lost a final to Agassi ...AO ?

Also Edberg USO ?

I thought we are talking about W only.

 

[TMF]

What?

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not talking about shoes and hockey sticks. It would be more comparing Jordan to the players he played against in his era, not comparing him to people who came before or after him.

What's at question here with this ridiculous debate is, one group says Federer is the greatest. The other group says Nadal is the greatest.

You can't use Jordan and Gretzky because they played team sports where other players contributed to their results.

But, say you did use your analogy. A similar analogy would be if Jordan was considered the greatest of his time and Isiah Thomas stopped him 2/3 times that they played. Then, would you continue to say that Jordan was the GOAT?

That's what the argument consists of.

Personally, I don't believe or care about GOATs. I'm not a pet lover at all.

You said tennis players can't be compare to another era because of different equipment . Well, that holds true for other sports too since they don't stay in a vacuum either. So whether it's a team sport are not, it applies the same.

Actually the Isiah and the Pistons won 3 out of 4 playoff series against Jordan and Bulls. But no one care about h2h, Jordan is the greatest because of his achievements and all the stats/records he held. You just prove to us that h2h means nothing, and career achievements is the be-all and end-all.

Jordan had Isiah, and Federer had Nadal. But we all know who's the greatest in their respective sport.

 

[TMF]

Mighty Federer, as far as I know Rosewall fans never bashed Laver.

Of course. You guys always argue the 60s was the strongest era. So if Laver and Rosewall fans were going at each other, you're defeating the purpose. The OP of this thread is young and naive.

 

[jg153040]

You said tennis players can't be compare to another era because of different equipment . Well, that holds true for other sports too since they don't stay in a vacuum either. So whether it's a team sport are not, it applies the same.

Actually the Isiah and the Pistons won 3 out of 4 playoff series against Jordan and Bulls. But no one care about h2h, Jordan is the greatest because of his achievements and all the stats/records he held. You just prove to us that h2h means nothing, and career achievements is the be-all and end-all.

Jordan had Isiah, and Federer had Nadal. But we all know who's the greatest in their respective sport.

I didn't know this lol. I don't know almost anything about basketball. But TDK said Jordan won against all. He also said Federer is not a champion because he choked a few times and saying Jordan never in his matches choked.

Is this true? That Jordan never choked?

So now that you said this about Jordan h2h, this removes all the doubts I had about the h2h. 100% Fed for the win.

 

[pringles]

Are you kidding ?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ????

And the only people who lost to were Federer ( whole still developing ) and joker .

The Wimbledon he missed he returned the very next year.

Lets not forget Nadal has missed 7 slams and still won 11.....who else can say they did that ?

2006 AO, 2009 Wimbledon, 2012 US, 2013 AO - that's 4, not 7.

It's not like he had a chance in any of them except 2009 Wimbledon, anyway.

 

[SLD76]

2006 AO, 2009 Wimbledon, 2012 US, 2013 AO - that's 4, not 7.

It's not like he had a chance in any of them except 2009 Wimbledon, anyway.

He loves counting the slams nadal missed before he was even a slam winner lol.

Because 7 slams sounds like an awful lot.

But nadal has missed 4 slams since 2005 fo. He missed 4 of the 26 slams played and being played since fo 2005.

Actuallh nadal is pretty good he won nearly half the slams played since fo 2005. Winning 10 out of the 22 played. Of course, 6 of them were the fo so...

 

[jg153040]

He loves counting the slams nadal missed before he was even a slam winner lol.

Because 7 slams sounds like an awful lot.

But nadal has missed 4 slams since 2005 fo. He missed 4 of the 26 slams played and being played since fo 2005.

Actuallh nadal is pretty good he won nearly half the slams played since fo 2005. Winning 10 out of the 22 played. Of course, 6 of them were the fo so...

Only Nadal fans can brag about missing slams. Like this is a good thing.
Federer being again penalized for his consistency.

 

[bullfan]

That's an accurate statement, and I would think any hater would have to acknowledge that fact. Nadal hasn't been a one trick pony.

 

[TMF]

I didn't know this lol. I don't know almost anything about basketball. But TDK said Jordan won against all. He also said Federer is not a champion because he choked a few times and saying Jordan never in his matches choked.

Is this true? That Jordan never choked?

So now that you said this about Jordan h2h, this removes all the doubts I had about the h2h. 100% Fed for the win.

I don't reply to TDK because he's on my ignore list. And of course, he's wrong if he said Jordan was perfect. He has some hiccups of his own, just like all the great one. Not only Jordan trailed h2h against Isiah in the 80s, Jordan was also 0-2 in the playoff series against Bird and Celtics. But no one care about their h2h either, they only know Jordan is the greatest because of his impressive numbers and championship rings.

The Bulls dynasty was greater than the Pistons and the Celtics between the 80s and 90s. But the superstar player...Isiah and Bird both has the edge over Jordan in h2h. Haha !

 

[jg153040]

I don't reply to TDK because he's on my ignore list. And of course, he's wrong if he said Jordan was perfect. He has some hiccups of his own, just like all the great one. Not only Jordan trailed h2h against Isiah in the 80s, Jordan was also 0-2 in the playoff series against Bird and Celtics. But no one care about their h2h either, they only know Jordan is the greatest because of his impressive numbers and championship rings.

The Bulls dynasty was greater than the Pistons and the Celtics between the 80s and 90s. But the superstar player...Isiah and Bird both has the edge over Jordan in h2h. Haha !

This is so funny. Because Fed haters always use Jordan against Fed. And in all years they forget to mention this. I feel so used haha.