Wikipedia needs to figure out a way to rectify this discrepancy.
I'm pretending nothing. GOAT is not just slams and anyone that thinks it is has a very limited ..... But whatever, work yourself into a lather. I'm thrilled he made the SF so convincingly. I'm pulling for him, I'm hoping he wins but other than uttering one cuss world if he loses (it'll be a good one) nothing else in my or anyone else's life will have changed.
Nadal will never be GOAT. He's the King of Clay but not of tennis.
Rafa needs to win something besides the FO over the next 5 years or he won't even be considered.
A few even consider Rosewall because of the era he played in.
Rafa will need to win more than one W and the WTF.
The person who defeated Nishikori won the last 4 slems.
Fedr just beat Nishikori, so...
BeatlesFan, I really think Roger is going to show how great he is.
Oh what the hell.... Roger is going to turn Nadal's Nads into Nada.
I will never forget this if I go all in, the FBPD is way worse when you think he will win and does not. The FO was easy to deal with.
It never came up until the Nadal/Djokovic generation. The insecure always cling to odd things.
Can you imagine how often the 2-2 on grass will be thrown around?
Why are we talking h2h again? So meaningless.You didn't say anything about the Majors race. You are trying to change your position by switching from the H2H on grass argument to Majors race argument.
Here
Also, blue bolded: here you are, talking about "we" again. For example, I don't think that you represent my thoughts on the matter very well, and I am sure that the same applies to other Federer fans. I have also asked you multiple times not to do it.
At this point I could say the sky is blue and you would disagree with it because I'm the one saying it.You didn't say anything about the Majors race. You are trying to change your position by switching from the H2H on grass argument to Majors race argument.
Here
Also, blue bolded: here you are, talking about "we" again. For example, I don't think that you represent my thoughts on the matter very well, and I am sure that the same applies to other Federer fans. I have also asked you multiple times not to do it.
So which part did I actually misrepresent this time with "we?"I can dissect your previous comment further to illustrate my point, but this is not the place for it.
Also, I am surprised that you didn't say " At this point we could say the sky is blue and you would disagree with it, because we, the Fed fans, are the ones saying it."
People remember your successes and not your failures... If you are Rafa. So arrogant of Fraud to incite such double standards.
You assume these are my actual positions. I'm not obsessed with the H2H like the VB is (although I do think it's more important than you make it sound). I want Fed to make more progress in it so that they have less of a leg to stand on in arguments.Full blown Fedfan TM vocabulary now.
Alright.
1) You changed your position as evidenced by what I quoted. You chose to address the less obvious problem with your last several posts, because, well, at least there you can argue
2) Even if we accept that such an argument has been made by the vast majority of the fans, the idea that Federer has to back up argument made many years ago when he he was somewhat in position to prove such an argument, is deliberately ignoring the obvious. You boast about taking well accepted (supposedly) views, but abandon reasonable approach immediately at such opportunities as this one. Why would you do that? Isn't a well accepted view that Federer is very far from his best years too? Why would you ignore that well accepted argument and go for a full blown 90s clay statements (except, he made them two and a half years ago. Try to wrap your head around that: you are making a worse point than 90s clay)?
3) the argument about "an even H2H on grass not looking good". Why wouldn't an even H2H on grass look good? What would that prove? That Nadal is equal to Federer on grass?
4) the fixation on the H2H: the favourite of the V amos Brigade schtick. The importance of the H2H has been discussed many times. I haven't seen a single knowledgeable person putting huge premium on the H2H compared to other metrics. Again, your purported support of reasonable views goes out of the window the moment there is an opening to stir the pot. Why would a non-subject be brought to the fore, if you too know what is the weight of such a factor in the grand scheme of things. Instead, you chose to focus on it. Ah, reasons!
In short: you like to pretend to be a beacon of reasonable opinions, yet in one post you:
1) ignored the reasonable view that Federer is well past it, for the result to have any meaningful impact or any meaningful conclusion to be derived from it
2) ignored the reasonable view that a single match won't skew the perception about what is what on the surface
3) ignored the reasonable view that H2H is insignificant in the grand scheme of things
4) ignored the reasonable view that one shouldn't be using the vocabulary used by some of the worst trolls on this site, and with the same context and lines of reasoning, down to discussing the opponent's opinions as "defensive playbook". From only your three posts I can make a pretty concise list of words used specifically by such in exactly the same context
For all these positions there is a pretty strong perception that they are true amongst the people that argue from somewhat neutral and reasonable position, so when you ask "which part I misrepresent with "we"" the answer is, you misrepresented the opinion on these matters of those people.
Of course, you also ignored the reasonable view that you are not speaking on behalf of the Federer fans, as I already told you probably ten times already. Even in that post here you continue to use "we" as though you are some sort of Vox populi?
The biggest giveaway of what you are doing is that you always choose to address the most stupid arguments and then go on to assign it to the Federer fans as a group. Anyone with half a brain would understand that there will always be stupid opinions in any group, but to assign those to most/entire group, is, to put it mildly, trying to aggravate the people by forcing on them opinions that they haven't won't and wouldn't like to share. The H2H plague has been around for at least a decade, so don't tell me that you don't know the nuances associated with every straw man thrown in.
You never bother to mention that Nadal result at 2005 AO was better than Feds in 2000 AO.....
OK, let's just assume that in the extreme example, if Fed somehow turned the head to head around, was 6-1 on grass or something stupid etc., do you think the H2H argument would be made by fans of Nadal?If the answer to the bolded is supposed to be "yes" you will be bitterly disappointed. There is a reason why some people repeat those arguments ad nauseam, and some of it has nothing to do with the facts. This has been proven again and again, so regardless of how accurate and factological the disproval is, it will not affect the said arguments.
However, the one thing that proves that that is not what he is trying to do is the fact that the guy insists on putting everyone else under his reasoning, and, as it appears, he doesn't even believe in the said arguments.
Quite a coincidence, but in the respective years in which they both won their first slam, they both lost in the 4th round of the AO in 5 sets.
I wouldn't think that much about it in a 'global' sense, but Nadal winning and Federer losing happening at the same time is just flat out unethical. That x 3 plus Fed getting denied at the late (presumably) stages three more times would suck. It would also suck that someone who returns from the moon and prioritizes topspin more than any other player can perform so strongly at a (the) grass slam... Again.You know probably better than me. The only way the H2H wouldn't exist is if Federer dominates every category, and that is nigh impossible. I don't think that anyone would argue in favour say of the H2H in a comparison between say Federer and Ferrer, but that is so far removed from any reality that one has to literally be posting from a mental institution for that to occur. Context matters, and ignoring it is the best indication that a person is talking porkies. There is a reason why younger ATGs have almost exclusively winning H2Hs with older ATGs. Anyone "overseeing" that is either ignorant, or deliberately doing it. I wouldn't have a problem with either, as long as he is not trying to cram it down my throat. I can still argue with him as much as I see fit, but from a different position.
Also, consider the following: let's assume that Nadal beats Federer in the next three Wimbledons and has a dominant H2H on grass. What would that mean to you?
Swat the wasp or have one less wasp to swat... Happy with the result either way. I get the bolded - By saying 'ah look it's the other way around now' has the potential to legitimize their initial contention. I don't think that's necessarily so though, as I'm simply looking at the shutting out of a particular frequency of noise in that instance, as opposed to actual refutation of an argument - Because, as you say, it has no merit.Whether it could be stated is irrelevant for the correct representation, and that is what matters. The important thing is that people arguing from a relatively neutral point of view wouldn't view either H2H as particularly meaningful without a proper context. I would like to believe that such people would go as far as to show that the proper context is not shown. What the trolls do is their own problem as long as it is shown where the problems with their reasoning lie There is only so much that can be done, and it is a mistake to stoop to their level, by trying to fight every imaginable scenario. That would mean to accept their way of thinking before fighting it.
Anyway, that is not the problem here. I don't mind the poster having delusions about H2Hs (although it looks like he says that he is just trolling). I mind him putting all/the majority of the Federer fanbase as one having those.
Roger destroying records and relationships since 2004!Pella and his girlfriend
