N
Federer vs Nadal Paradox
- Thread starter jg153040
- Start date
NatF
Bionic Poster
I've been ok Kenshin, yourself? I've noticed you haven't been posting too much recently?
I'm glad I haven't alienated you with my harsh words to Bobby. Incidently I tried for a while to be polite to Bobby when I believed his joke that he was 99 years old
I did notice when you asked him to be more polite to me and appreciate it. If only all of us had your sensibility when posting. I do realize that I can get quite aggressive, normally it's not personal though in this case it has become that way. I shall endeavour to be less insulting to Bobby if we do end up conversing again.But only for you
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah a few supporters. As in the 0.5 a percent of people worldwide that frequent tennis forums. Sure there are other people that can be argued to be the greatest in history, but it is extremely hard given the fact that the tour has undergone radical changes. The open era and the pre open era need to be completely separated when people talk about who the greatest is. It is a fruitless discussion otherwise.
The truth is that some people (like Bobby) don't like Federer so they find it hard to come to grips with the fact that he really is the most accomplished player of the open era, and it is human nature to equate most accomplished to greatest to the majority of people which is what you see today. You cannot prove that what the majority thinks is wrong no more than I can prove the minority is wrong. The point is that the reason there is a majority or a minority in the first place is because Federer is widely regarded as the most accomplished player ever which is in no way a "wrong" view. He made the majority because of what he's done and now "everyone" else is the minority (for lack of a better phrase). And they will be until someone surpasses most of his achievements, the most important of which is clearly the slam count.
Or perhaps in the event of more radical changes to the tour, like a 5th slam being added or something Federer could be "left behind" like the past greats are now in future generations. That said, until at least one of those 2 things happens most people will regard Federer as the most accomplished/greatest.
As far as Bobby goes, his problem is that you could say "boo" to him and he would complain about it being "aggressive" or some form of attack/trolling. You can be as nice as you want, he will still find a way to say you "attacked" him or some other BS. He will probably say that to me now even though he knows he does exactly what I just said, and I haven't truly insulted him or anything. You cannot have rational discussions with Bobby where Federer is involved. Quite simply he hates the man even though he will deny it until the cows come home. As such, asking Federer fans to be nice or nicer to a guy who hates Federer's guts for no completely apparent reason is probably asking too much.
Last edited:
Kenshin, Thanks for the support. I always had the hope that also younger posters (like you, President and Djokovic 2011) can be convinced that there were a few giants of the past who can be considered on the same level with the current greats, to say the least. This does not take away the greatness of Federer & Co.
I just am annoyed that there is a big hype about Roger (and a smaller about Rafa) as though there was not a more than 100 years rich tennis history before them...
I also dislike the current hype about Wawrinka who is still an excellent player but until now not an all-time great.
Kernshin, It's good that you try to make both NatF and me less agressive and more polite.
Yes, I can be stubborn but I guess we all can be stubborn at times...
It's fine that NatF does not hate me but I dislike his attitude to insult me ("delusional idiot" and so on).
I'm sorry but I don't think Nat and me will ever find kind of "tennis peace"...
NatF blames me for not tolerating opposed views but he and the other members of the "Federer Armada" never tolerated my view about Roger, f.i. when I wrote that Federer is not a (genuine) touch player. They got aggressive immediately: "You have not seen Federer playing" and other friendly words...
Yes, I used some snide comments on Federer even if they are the truth: "Swiss No.2 player". Such words can annoy Roger's admirers. But I'm convinced even this term is not as insulting as the "Nicknames" I got from NatF and others ("idiot", "fool", "stupid old man" and similary nice words).
There is a certain difference between Swiss No.2 and Idiot: Roger Federer would probably not read my term on him but I must read my "nicknames" rather often on TT...
My last explanation: NatF, abmk and Phoenix plus a few newcomers did not only attack my thoughts about Federer and Nadal. They also attacked my opinions about Rosewall, Laver, Emerson and so on. I do know that I'm not as firm as they on the current tennis but I also am aware that I have some knowledge about the past. I just can't stand that some posters who have not studied or experienced Laver & Co. always want to teach me about the old-timers. abmk was so nice to claim that he does not know too much about Rosewall but he could make a better case for Muscles than I could (after my 40 years studies on Rosewall). I take such claims as insults.
Kenshin, You probably have not read my posts from the beginning (July, 2012) but I must tell you that from that time onwards there were two groups (mostly in the Former section): those who accepted my writing style and opinions, people who stayed polite even when disagreeing with my claims, among them borg number one, krosero, Mustard, the "old" pc1, kiki (sometimes at least), treblings, timnz, the "old" urban, partly hoodjem, Nathaniel Near (who seldom addressed me in the early days), and those who attacked me since that July, among them Limpinhitter (who was banned for his insults against me), abmk, NatF, Phoenix1983, Teacher, NadalDramaQueen and a few others on General Forum, some of them attacking EVERY word I wrote about Rosewall, Gimeno, Emerson, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and others.
Only the first group including some "newcomers" (sorry for that word) like President, you and Djokovic2011 keeps me reading and posting at all. A few weeks ago I was narrowly close to quit my posting in these interesting forums.
Hope there will always be a few posters who support me in order to make it easier for me to even bear the usual attacks. BUT: I must stress that even the severest attacks and insults are laughable in comparison to attacks and insults Millions of people must suffer in non-Democratic countries (torture and so on) or even sometimes in Democracies (condemned men who suffer 43 minutes of greatest pains)!
So I will take all good and bad posts towards me.
I think it's better to never answering NatF anymore as I have promised several times. Maybe in a few years' time I can communicate with him...
Last edited:
Kenshin, you are a beautiful individual.
Thank you for gracing us with your presence.
Nathaniel, I agree that Kenshin is a significant valuable addition to TT. He, a young person, is ready to learn about the past of tennis, as also Djokovic2011 seems to be. There are not too many posters with this readiness...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
@BobbyOne. You seem like a lovely person and it's obvious from your many posts that you enjoy debating on this forum so I think it would be a great shame if you stopped doing something that gives you so much pleasure. I myself have been a member of Talk Tennis for a much shorter period than you and already I have found myself getting very frustrated at times with certain people, especially when they say some not very pleasant things but I've learned that the best thing to do is just rise above it or even counter it with a little trolling if absolutely necessary.:wink: I for one very much enjoy reading your posts and I hope to be able to read many more of them in the future and to find out more from you about the legends of the sport we all love. :smile:
Steve, Your post is an insult: How can you say I hate Roger Federer? Which reasons should I have??? Am I a hater of Switzerland? Do I dislike Roger's nose? Am I envying that Federer has won 17 majors and I none? Is Roger a nasty man? (okay, he sometimes is a bit arrogant, but also other greats have been arrogant: Budge, Tilden, Kramer, Connors, McEnroe, even Laver a bit...
I do hate, yes: I HATE the hype upon Federer. I hate the hype of all current sportsmen and -women. I HATE the opinion that always the current top men and women are the GOATS. I HATE the stupid attitude to believe that a Hoad had smaller muscles than Federer, that Emerson could not jump as high as Sampras, that Borg could not run as fast as Federer can, and so on...
I HATE it that Federer's 17 majors are counted and Rosewall's 23 not. I HATE it when the dramatic split between pros and amateurs is neglected by some "experts". I HATE it when second class players like Emerson are praised and hailed and GOAT candidates like Rosewall are ranked below Emmo.
Roger is a great player, arguably the greatest of Open Era (with a few great opponents: Borg, Sampras and Nadal). But he has not achieved more than Laver and Rosewall, especially if we examine the strength of the fields these players had or have.
Last edited:
"Djoker", You make me ashamed a bit by your praise. I will do my best ("same procedure as every year" ;-)) and carry on, maybe with less agressive replies to attacking posts...
abmk
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
there we go ...
you are in plain denial. that's it
and I'm pretty sure anyone sane who's actually watched borg wouldn't say he couldn't run as fast as federer.
^^ just as anyone sane who knows how sports are wouldn't say 10 matches are enough to judge a player when there are lot more available. :twisted:
and the double standards continue. Rosewall's 23 so called majors do not, do not equate to federer's 17. Federer's majors were all open ones. Rosewall's were not. Just say it as it is. 15 pro majors, 4 amateur majors and 4 open era majors.
Maybe then you'll get some semblance of respect .
and how many people here have 'attacked' or contradicted' you for this. Quit making yourself out to be the victim needlessly.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
This is all good with me. I was just a bit oversensible to people who sound like the majority is always wrong. To me there is nothing wrong with belonging to either a majority or a minority.
Now why would you bring Sampras into this? Did I mention Sampras in the post that you have quoted? No. What's the name of this thread? Federer v Nadal Paradox? Happy to have it out with you in a dedicated thread about Sampras and Federer but I'm a little perplexed as to why you would mention Sampras in response to my post when neither the thread nor my post are about him. Weird, man.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Everyone knows your agenda man. Every anti Fed comment you make is laced with butt hurt. Most of us know Federer has flaws and is not undisputed GOAT, in fact there's no such thing as a single GOAT. I'd rather avoid taking more shots at Sampras so I'll pass for now. Sampras was arguably the greatest fast court player of all time and a fine champion.
Agenda? WTF are you talking about? I've been a member of this site since November 2012 and I've posted about 450 comments. I come on here about once a week just to see what's going on in the tennis world. According to the stats left of your username, you registered here about 6 months before I did and yet you have about 5,300 posts.
So what agenda? Am I a Sampras fan? Yes! Is Sampras my favourite all time player? No! Hewitt, being an Aussie, is my favourite player. So again, what agenda? How many threads have I started about Sampras? Do you see any in the past 10 pages of both this and the former pro section? No you don't.
Like I said, I come on here once a week, if that, hoping in vain to see interesting stories about the sport and yet routinely see the same ***** being said about the same two players over and over and over again.
I have no agenda, but I say it as it is.
Sampras won the most majors in his era, an era where court surfaces were like night and day and he also owned the important H2H rivalries. He also held number 1 for the longest period of time during his era. That's 3-0 to Sampras.
Federer to date has won the most majors in his era, an era where court surface similarities give any decent player worth his salt a free kick, however he has been owned in his most important H2H rivalry. Like Sampras, he too has held the number 1 ranking for the longest time in his era. That's 2-1 to Federer.
So who is greater?
Put another way, if you win your local tournament 3 times in your playing days and I win my local Melbourne tournament only twice, who is better, you or me?
How can one possibly decide who is better when they never really crossed paths? All you can do is win your era, and by that I mean win the most majors, account for your rivals and have a good grip of the number one ranking. If you do that, you deserve to be an all time great, but not a GOAT. But some fark heads on here seem to think that because Federer has won more majors in his era than Sampras won in his own, that makes him greater than Sampras. What absolute crap.
If you know anything about the 90s you would know that Sampras could not give a damn about 60% of the losses he had. Remember, his slam count target was 12, he accomplished that. Federer's slam count target was 14 plus 1, he too targeted that. But I'm equally sure that if Sampras then had a right of reply, and he started again tomorrow as a 15 year old, he would reach his target of 17 plus 1.
My point in this thread is, I find it hard to fathom that a player's shambolic H2H deficit against his biggest rival should not be taken into account. The people who are dismissing it as irrelevant or give it a low priority are
biased Fed *****. They dismiss it because they have no answer to it, the same way Federer has on the whole had no answer to Nadal.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
They did -- and Sampras lost. Deal with it. I am sure had he won you would have crowed about it till kingdom come..
How wonderful -- he loses to all kinds of clowns in his prime on his favorite surfaces, and the fanboy claims he didn't give a damn about 60%
Are you sure it wasn't 71% ?
BS on the bolded. After claiming that you cannot hypothetically compare champs of different era's (which I agree with) you go on and make an hypothetical assertion of your own. I could very well claim Fed would have targetted 20 in Sampras' era and got them as well.
And yes -- Fed's H2H against Nadal is absolutely a blemish on his career -- you can talk all you want about match-ups/surfaces/eras/ages whatever, the reality is what it is.
there we go ...
you are in plain denial. that's it
and I'm pretty sure anyone sane who's actually watched borg wouldn't say he couldn't run as fast as federer.
^^ just as anyone sane who knows how sports are wouldn't say 10 matches are enough to judge a player when there are lot more available. :twisted:
and the double standards continue. Rosewall's 23 so called majors do not, do not equate to federer's 17. Federer's majors were all open ones. Rosewall's were not. Just say it as it is. 15 pro majors, 4 amateur majors and 4 open era majors.
Maybe then you'll get some semblance of respect .
and how many people here have 'attacked' or contradicted' you for this. Quit making yourself out to be the victim needlessly.
abmk, Good news for you: I finally put you on my ignore list!
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Who would say Emerson is greater than Rosewall and Gonzalez? He's far from being in their league.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Chanway, Yes he is but unfortunately several experts like Harry Hopman and the "experts" from Tennis Channel have ranked him ahead of them...
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
very strange indeed
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
there we go ...
"Steve your post is an insult." Well I can't say that was unexpected :lol:
We have read your posts attacking Hopman's credibility in the former pro talk forum, and some old-timers defend Hopman assessment, because they said every experts have their own reasons, whether if you agree to disagree. Ever thought that Hopman could take your opinion with a grain of salt?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
It was not unexpected for you because you knew your words ("You hate Federer") are an insult...
1983, A person who ranks Emerson above Rosewall is not an expert for rankings, and a man who believes to such a man does not know anything about tennis history...
Similar threads
