Forza, My congratulations already now. I'm sure you will improve in many fields ;-).
Last edited:
GOAT with Muscles
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
Forza, My congratulations already now. I'm sure you will improve in many fields ;-).
abmk
Bionic Poster
of course he is. But comparison was prime to prime, was it not ? prime to prime, can you put a coherent argument for djokovic being better than federer vs the field except for maybe slow HC ?
federer has beaten djokovic on clay, HC and grass since 2011 in contrast to rafa who has only beaten him on clay. Even well past his prime, federer has held his own vs djokovic.
He was only a point away from going 2-1 in the major matches in djokovic's best year - 2011.
federer is 3-1 vs murray in majors and 3-1 in the year ending championships, huge edge in big matches
federer's problems were mainly vs nadal on clay . He was 5-2 vs nadal off clay from 2004-07.
change of angles can be done with heavy topspin/flatter shots as well, not necessarily touch shots. federer definitely is a better player of touch shots than borg.
you didn't mention mecir, okker, ramirez in your previous post.
yes, mecir had fine touch, so did Ramirez, but haven't seen that much of Okker. Coria and Arazi weren't bad either.
leconte had good touch, but was still more a hitter .
was talking about players having played and had majority of success in the open era.
Last edited:
Coherent abmk, How did Federer do against Djokovic in 2011?. How did he against Murray?
Murray improved his game significantly.
Murray beat Federer at the Olympics, an event badly wanted by Roger.
2004-2007 were years before Nadal reached his prime.
You never have seen Borg playing in person. Did you?
Federer added a drop shot rather recently. His lob is still not great.
Leconte might have been a hitter. But even a powerful player can have much touch (see P. Gonzalez).
Laver won very much in open era: Grand Slam, 76 tournaments and so on.
Rosewall won four majors and reached 13 big SFs (or 16 if you add WCT).
Djokovic has an overall better game than Federer: Backhand, return etc.
Federer improved his service in comparison to his peak years.
G. Mayer was once elected (by the players themselves) as having the best drop shot.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer was 1-2 in majors vs djokovic, nearly 2-1 ( had MPs at the USO ) , overall 1-5.
nadal in contrast was 0-2 in majors and 0-6 overall and this was prime nadal
Like I've said before, since 2011 , federer has beaten djokovic on grass, clay and hard courts including bagelling him at cincinnati. nadal has only beaten him on clay
as far as murray is concerned, federer murray didn't meet in 2011 at all. After that, they've met 6 times and are 3-3.
yet, murray beat nadal in USO 2008 SF ( lost to federer in the final ) and in the AO 2010 QF ( again lost to federer in the final ) . So imagine how murray of 2012 and after that would fare against nadal. ( they haven't met since then)
yes, Murray beat federer at the Olympics, but federer had already taken the prize scalp of the year by beating him at Wimbledon and regaining #1.
The lopsidedness of the Olympics was solely because of the del potro marathon semi. Not saying federer would definitely have won otherwise, but it would be a much closer contest.
nadal was already excellent on clay from 2005 onwards, going 48-2 on clay that year, winning Roland Garros, Rome and Monte Carlo
He was already pretty good on grass from 2006 onwards, reaching the final of wimbledon there, having a 80 game service streak in that tournament, broken finally by federer in the final. Certainly much much better than in 2012 and 2013 on grass.
2007 wimbledon final where federer beat him was nadal at his best on grass.
when did I say I was that old to watch borg play in person ?
I have however seen plenty of footage of borg, including many full matches, not just '10' matches or so.
not true. He had an excellent drop shot from well before. Just that he started using it a lot more from 2009 onwards
His lob is also excellent. Just that he preferred passing shots, which were second to only nadal in the past 15 years or so , well and truly above that of djokovic and murray.
agreed, but I'd still rate federer's touch above leconte's.
the key word here is majority.
Power/topspin started becoming more important since borg/connors and then with the introduction of modern racquets in 82-83 and then again with introduction of poly in the late 90s ( spin )
As a result, emphasis on and usefulness of touch shots has reduced quite a bit.
which is why I would keep the players who had their training/mindset/majority of their career from the pre-open era separate.
etc ? what is that etc ? there is only backhand, return, defense .
Federer has the better forehand, serve, volleys , overhead, passing shots, touch shots, offense.
again, I repeat on what surface ( except possibly slow HC ) is he better peak to peak and why don't you substantiate why you think so ?
It was better than in his peak years until about an year ago, but only in terms of free points won, its become less clutch than before. Its more unreliable and inconsistent than before now.
yeah, he had a fine drop shot .
Last edited:
Federer was 1-2 in majors vs djokovic, nearly 2-1 ( had MPs at the USO ) , overall 1-5.
nadal in contrast was 0-2 in majors and 0-6 overall and this was prime nadal
Like I've said before, since 2011 , federer has beaten djokovic on grass, clay and hard courts including bagelling him at cincinnati. nadal has only beaten him on clay
as far as murray is concerned, federer murray didn't meet in 2011 at all. After that, they've met 6 times and are 3-3.
yet, murray beat nadal in USO 2008 SF ( lost to federer in the final ) and in the AO 2010 QF ( again lost to federer in the final ) . So imagine how murray of 2012 and after that would fare against nadal. ( they haven't met since then)
yes, Murray beat federer at the Olympics, but federer had already taken the prize scalp of the year by beating him at Wimbledon and regaining #1.
The lopsidedness of the Olympics was solely because of the del potro marathon semi. Not saying federer would definitely have won otherwise, but it would be a much closer contest.
nadal was already excellent on clay from 2005 onwards, going 48-2 on clay that year, winning Roland Garros, Rome and Monte Carlo
He was already pretty good on grass from 2006 onwards, reaching the final of wimbledon there, having a 80 game service streak in that tournament, broken finally by federer in the final. Certainly much much better than in 2012 and 2013 on grass.
2007 wimbledon final where federer beat him was nadal at his best on grass.
when did I say I was that old to watch borg play in person ?
I have however seen plenty of footage of borg, including many full matches, not just '10' matches or so.
not true. He had an excellent drop shot from well before. Just that he started using it a lot more from 2009 onwards
His lob is also excellent. Just that he preferred passing shots, which were second to only nadal in the past 15 years or so , well and truly above that of djokovic and murray.
agreed, but I'd still rate federer's touch above leconte's.
the key word here is majority.
Power/topspin started becoming more important since borg/connors and then with the introduction of modern racquets in 82-83 and then again with introduction of poly in the late 90s ( spin )
As a result, emphasis on and usefulness of touch shots has reduced quite a bit.
which is why I would keep the players who had their training/mindset/majority of their career from the pre-open era separate.
etc ? what is that etc ? there is only backhand, return, defense .
Federer has the better forehand, serve, volleys , overhead, passing shots, touch shots, offense.
again, I repeat on what surface ( except possibly slow HC ) is he better peak to peak and why don't you substantiate why you think so ?
It was better than in his peak years until about an year ago, but only in terms of free points won, its become less clutch than before. Its more unreliable and inconsistent than before now.
yeah, he had a fine drop shot .
Professor abmk, It's a pity that Federer lost so early at Wimbledon. Thus Roger could not realize the "Grass Grand Slam" (Halle and W.) which he wanted to win, as he said after winning Halle. At least he can say that he did better than Nadal at the Championships...
How has Federer done recently (in the last few years)? Not too well.
Nadal when losing to Roger was not nearly as good as he is today (when healthy).
I guess you have not seen Leconte often (I too did not).
Laver and Rosewall played more than a decade in Open Era, longer than many players' career lasted.
Djokovic's forehand is rather close to Federer's, also his service.
According to you Federer seems to be better in every thing. So I wonder that he does not have a 100% winning percentage...
Better passing shot with THAT backhand?
Djokovic is arguably more effective at the net. F. i. he made 35 of 41 net points against Murray in the AO final.
Can Federer match Nadal of 2010 who won three majors and served over 130 mph at the US Open?
Nadal at the same level was beaten by Djokovic at the 2011 Wimbledon. Thus we can say that Djokovic faced a Nadal superior to anyone Federer ever faced at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
Epic fail!
Djokovic's forehand , net play and service cannot be compared to Federer, unless you don't watch Tennis. All three are far ahead of Federer. It's not for without any reason that many people say Federer has the best forehand of all time. Didn't Krosero give you the stats for Wimbledon final and all those matches against Nadal to give you a clue about Roger's net play?
Federer won three slams in three years. Nadal had a very weak draw at US open. He beat only two top ten player in that US win and that was Djokovic in final who played a gruelling five sets win against Federer in semi final and other was Verdasco in QF. I don't blame the players for weak draw and respect them for their wins but since you harp so much about weak era and all just thought I point this out to you. He beat a 12 ranked Youhny in SF. Nadal never had an year like Federer. Federer's 2005 and 2006 Tennis seasons were crazy years.
Nadal at 2011 was beaten by Djokovic but Djokovic couldn't beat Federer in Wimbledon still. Like abmk said Federer beat Djokovic on clay, grass and hards since 2011 but Nadal beat Djokovic only in claysince 2011.
Roger's best seasons
2004 - 74-6 93%
2005 - 81-4 95%
2006 - 92-5 95%
2007 - 68-9 88%
Rafa's best seasons
2005 79 -10 88%
2006 59-12 83%
2007 70-15 82%
2008 82-11 88%
2009 66-14 83%
2010 71-10 88%
Rafa never had a season where he had less than 10 wins. Well, he had only six losses in 2012 for that he had to skip six months. Even in 2010 he lost to many low ranked guys in masters on hards. That never happened to Roger. He was dominating in the literal sense of the world. You can't argue with the statistics
Well, I am sure you haven't seen 204 Wimbledon final. I don't think neither Nadal nor Djokvic would have beaten Roddick on that day. The ONLY reason Roddick is underestimated on grass is because he happened to be Federer's main opponent at Wimbledon. If not for Federer, Roddick would have had 3 or 4 Wimbledons.
Federer, pardon, Featherer, As much an epic failure as Roger's failure yesterday?
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Ah damn that was fun. For the first time I wonder if you are honest in your posts. These bold comments, even TDK or *** (a troll who is so famous for his ignominious bad faith that his moniker is censured!) never dared to say something like that.
I must admit my astonishment for the patience showed by AMBK and Feather.
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
You are just a hater, nothng more. I can understand a teen age guy being a hater but a man much older behaving like a kid, it's really depressing. I feel sad for you, really.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Atleast Federer has won Wimbledon...
Ah damn that was fun. For the first time I wonder if you are honest in your posts. These bold comments, even TDK or *** (a troll who is so famous for his ignominious bad faith that his moniker is censured!) never dared to say something like that.
I must admit my astonishment for the patience showed by AMBK and Feather.
What do you expect from someone who claimed to watch Roger only 10 times.
rosewallGOAT
Banned
Rosewall IMO is the mens GOAT. Laver and Gonzales had slightly higher peaks, but nobody can match the incredible longevity as one of the 2 or 3 best players in the World of Rosewall. Also had majors been Open Era and all 4 highly valued like today the slam count would be something like:
Rosewall 28 slams
Gonzales 25 slams
Laver 22 slams
Tilden 22 slams
Sampras 19 slams (would have played alot longer with more motivation)
Federer 17 slams
Borg 15 slams
Budge 15 slams
Vines 15 slams
Nadal 12 slams
Kramer 12 slams
Connors 11 slams
Perry 11 slams
Rosewall 28 slams
Gonzales 25 slams
Laver 22 slams
Tilden 22 slams
Sampras 19 slams (would have played alot longer with more motivation)
Federer 17 slams
Borg 15 slams
Budge 15 slams
Vines 15 slams
Nadal 12 slams
Kramer 12 slams
Connors 11 slams
Perry 11 slams
forzamilan90
Legend
^^^^^completely hypothetical...Sampras with 19?
I did not know at all!
rosewallGOAT, Thanks for that list. It's fine to read reasonable posts among all those aggressive posts from the Federer and anti-Rosewall Armada.
In my list Tilden would have won most majors (about 28)), Gonzalez maybe slightly more than Rosewall. Laver about 19 or 20.
Last edited:
Hey Armada (abmk, NatF,TMF, Forzamilan90, Feather, Flash): I will not answer you detailed today. I'm tired to read and answer your aggressive and nasty posts. Maybe I will answer later.
You have to learn how to discuss in an open forum without insults.
You have also to learn that Federer is not a God or a GOAT and that someone who criticizes Roger does NOT hate him.
Hope you can yet sleep in these nights after Federer's loss...
You have to learn how to discuss in an open forum without insults.
You have also to learn that Federer is not a God or a GOAT and that someone who criticizes Roger does NOT hate him.
Hope you can yet sleep in these nights after Federer's loss...
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Being delibrately dense and hypocritical or ?
NastyF, Dense are those who believe that Federer has no weaknesses and flaws!
NatF
Bionic Poster
No one has claimed that Federer is without flaws and weaknesses, that's a strawman. Being nasty is your unprovoked teasing, the dense part is you then complaining about aggressive posts.
To quote the good book,
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
According to you Rosewall is without weakness anyway, even his serve is a weapon in your eyes. The worst any of us has said is that Federer's backhand is a good shot (albeit not a great one) as opposed to being bad like you frequently state...
But alas you will never learn, stuck in your ways. I hope someone with more patience will reply to your wrong and nasty posts.
No one has claimed that Federer is without flaws and weaknesses, that's a strawman. Being nasty is your unprovoked teasing, the dense part is you then complaining about aggressive posts.
To quote the good book,
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
According to you Rosewall is without weakness anyway, even his serve is a weapon in your eyes. The worst any of us has said is that Federer's backhand is a good shot (albeit not a great one) as opposed to being bad like you frequently state...
But alas you will never learn, stuck in your ways. I hope someone with more patience will reply to your wrong and nasty posts.
NastyF, Thanks for the fine joke with the Bible quoting. Those words are fitting to your behaviour. Note: I never was as nasty as you and the Armada were.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Bobbyone is so classy, that he can give gentlemanly lessons to everyone. Let's have a look at how he masters the fine art of civilized discussion:
1) Answers a long and well written post counter-argumenting the opinion that Djokovic's serve, forehand and net play (why not overhead for that matter), with one sentence containing no argument but only a devious attack at Fed and his fans.
2) Patronizes once again. The poor man is tired of nasty post, and wish an open forum without insult. Concludes with a nasty sentence:
1) Answers a long and well written post counter-argumenting the opinion that Djokovic's serve, forehand and net play (why not overhead for that matter), with one sentence containing no argument but only a devious attack at Fed and his fans.
2) Patronizes once again. The poor man is tired of nasty post, and wish an open forum without insult. Concludes with a nasty sentence:
abmk
Bionic Poster
there is no grass grand slam . There are warmup tournaments and there is Wimbledon.
neither of them are. Djokovic does ok in CC FH exchanges but that's about it. As far as serve is concerned, federer gets far more free points and is more clutch with the serve.
Djokovic's best year 2011, service games won % = 86%
federer in the same year, service games won%= 90%
federer's service games won % since 2004 :
2004 : 92%
2005 : 89%
2006 : 90%
2007 : 89%
2008 : 89%
2009 : 90%
2010 : 89%
2011 : 90%
2012 : 91%
the highest djokovic has reached is 87% in 2008
all of federer's years are above that of djokovic's best serving year in 2008 and best overall year in 2011.
aces :
position wise since 2007 :
2007 : fed 4th, djokovic 6th ( djokovic 518 aces in 87 matches , federer 597 aces in 77 matches )
2008 : fed 3rd, djokovic 10th
2009 : fed 5th, djokovic 15th
2010 : fed 5th, djokovic 36th
2011 : fed 10th, djokovic 26th
2012 : fed 4th, djokovic 14th
I did say djokovic has better BH, return, defense. Or did that just jump over your head ?
yes, federer's BH passing shots at his peak clearly better than djokovic's passing shots of that wing. You'd know if you actually watched.
and again you display your ignorance by saying that BH.
federer's BH at its peak was a very good one, even if overall it is worse than djokovic's.
As me and krosero have repeatedly pointed out to you, federer's BH was just as much a weakness as rosewall's FH.
LOL, ha ha ha ha. You are good for a joke. Have you seen djokovic's touch at the net ? Have you seen him miss critical and I mean seriously critical overheads in crucial matches - vs nadal at this year's French Open semi, vs federer in last years wimbledon semi , vs nadal in Olympics semi in 2008 ?
federer was 53/68 in last year's wimbledon final vs murray, it was a far superior performance at the net than djokovic's at this year's AO final
djokovic comes in on easy putaways mostly. ( same case in this year's AO final )
This is just as bad, actually worse , when you claimed that federer and nadal are equivalent at the net.
not just match, he's exceeded that, he's won 3 slams in a year thrice + the Year ending championships, which nadal has never won
nadal of wimbledon 2007 and wimbledon 2008 finals was infinitely superior to the nadal of wimbledon 2011 final.
check the stats . And actually watch those matches
Here are the some of the stats :
nadal in wimbledon 2008 final : 60 W, 27 UEs
nadal in wimbledon 2007 final : 50 W, 24 UEs
nadal in wimbledon 2011 final : 21 W, 15 UEs
Last edited:
Flash, If you would have been attacked as I am attacked since months by always the same few posters, you would react as I do!
Professor, You achieved what we in German call "Eigentor" (own goal): Yes there is no Grass GS: Please tell this your God, pardon, idol. The Maestro himself has called Halle plus W. that way!!!. Since the GOAT never was able to achieve a GS, he now contents himself with a "Grass Court GS". But, alas, Roger only did the first part of it, not both parts...
53 of 68 is far superior to 35 of 41??
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Bobby, in this thread, you have posted 72 times. As much as the next four users who posted the most in this thread: NatF (27 times), Forza (20), ABMK (17), myself (8). 27+20+17+8 = 72.
So as you can see, this thread have seen as many post praising Rosewall and digging at Fed as post defending Fed and digging at Rosewall. And it's not even true as most of my post defender Rosewall accomplishment (and you praised me for them: "Flash thank you for this very interesting and clever point of view."
Others have written a lot of empty or insulting posts (I posted one insulting post, the one with Ray Liotta laughing like a madman). You have answered with either empty or mean posts.
Comparing Federer's and Djokovic's forehand, serve and net play is either mean or a show of a lack of knowledge that even the worst posters of the pro player section don't dare to exhibit (and that's saying something!).
Using Fed's loss to Stakovsky in this discussion is mean.
You asked how I would react if I read 72 mean post? I did read 72 mean posts, but I didn't answer with mean posts. I didn't not write that Rosewall's backhand and net skills compare with Roddick's (There is the same gap between Fed's shots you mentionned and Djokovic's). That's dumb as ****, and it's mean.
I didn't ramble about Rosewall's serve or forehand, his acknowledged weaker (which is very different than weak) shot. On the contrary, I wrote a piece explaining why this argument cannot be used to dig at his resume (and why it can't be used against Fed either). I did not change my mind about Rosewall's overall achievements because I can't stand his main advocate. That would be mean.
abmk
Bionic Poster
if you actually watched the volleying in those matches, yes, federer's volleying in the Wimbledon 2012 final was far superior to that of djokovic in AO 2013 final. federer actually made deft volleys, difficult volleys in the W final. Djokovic was mainly coming in to put away the easier ones.
The more you come to the net , the more susceptible you are to being passed and your % reduces. If you come in on easy putaways only, you'll have an easier time.
Are you saying that mac, who had only ~ 50% success at the net vs connors in the USO 84 semi was volleying badly in that match ? no reality is mac was volleying very well, but connors' returns and passing shots were too good vs mac who came in a lot.
@ the bold part : I have no idea what you are talking about . Do you ?
Oh and I edited my post showing the gap in service stats between federer and djokovic .
Last edited:
Flash, I concede that you have not insulted me as much as others have done. That honours you.
But I'm tired to read that I'm dense, I'm a child and similar insults. That's all.
I have my opinions about Federer and his being overrated. Why can the Armada cannot stand any criticism of its idol???
I have not written about Rosewall much in recent time.
Just one example of the errors of the Armada. The Federer fans have often told me that serve and volley is not possible as it was in Laver's time. Now a No.116 has defeated Federer with much serve and volley even on slower grass. I'm sure that Roger would have won less GS tournaments if his opponents would have used serve and volley as Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, McEnroe and Edberg would have done.
You have told me that there is no Grass GS and I have answered that this word is a creation of your idol, Sir Roger himself. This your error came because you always think that I'm wrong. So don't blame not me but Roger...
abmk
Bionic Poster
Here, let me help you out by making it simpler :
I haven't seen federer say that halle or queens and Wimbledon form a Grass Court Grand Slam.
Where did you get that idea from ? Do you have any link to support your claim ?
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, yeah, federer at nearly 32, after winning 7 wimbledons and making 8 finals, loses in an early round at wimbledon after a long time and sharks/ignorants like you are all over it.
federer's return and passing shots at his prime/peak were far better and would be a nightmare for any SnVer on any surface.
FYI, sampras lost to a far worse player in bastl and in a far worse performance at nearly 31. He was of course off the tour by the time the next Wimbledon came around.
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
Why don't you ignore the fact that Roger is two months short of 32? Why don't you understand that he is at an age many quit Tennis?
Rod Laver lost at the same age as Roger Federer in 4th Round of Wimbledon in 1970? Do you use that as a knock against the great man?
Do you know that Roger's game has declined A LOT compared to his prime? He made 36 Quarter Finals till Wimbledon 2013 and you are using one loss of him to say that he cannot win Wimbledon facing sere and volleyers?
Your argument is like this. Sampras lost in Wimbledon to Federer at a younger age. Sampras was almost 30 in 2001. Now if a young Federer fan tells you that this win of Federer shows that Sampras would not have won any Wimbledons if Federer was there, how would you react?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Stakhovsky has actually been ranked near the top 30 and has 4 titles to his name. His low ranking was due to him prioritizing ATP players council. He also played the best match of his career and even then a subpar Federer had alot of chances to take control of the match. Easy forehands were missed on break points etc...
Nasty Professor, It does not matter that you haven't seen Federer say that Halle or Queen's Club (by the way, "Queens" is your error) and Wimbledon form a Grass Court Grand Slam. What matters is that I have reported you Federer's claim. It's not an idea. You are not entitled to doubt my statement. It must be enough for you if I say that I have read Roger's statement in internet after he won Halle.
I never have asked you and your nasty colleagues where you have got from the numbers about Federer's and Nadal's service percentages or return errors and so on. I never doubt your stats. I only disagreed with your conclusion and opinions.
It's very mean to doubt my expertise.
The Armada has claimed that Roger has a great return. Yesterday Jürgen Melzer, conqueror of Stachowski, claimed that he, Jürgen, has a better return than Federer. I never heard that Melzer is an all-time great...
Last edited:
Curious Featherer, I did NOT say that Federer cannot win at W. facing serve-and volleyers. Read my post again!
abmk
Bionic Poster
that's because I don't think federer is not stupid to put that much of significance on the warmup tournaments and call that+Wimbledon as a grasscourt GS . so yes, I'm pretty much entitled to doubt your statement.
If you have indeed read it somewhere on the internet, provide the link
all those stats are very much there on atpworldtour.com.
btw it was federer and djokovic, not federer and nadal .
you know what is the most annoying thing about you ? When someone gives makes a detailed post with facts, reasoning, all you do is say that you disagree for most without giving any reasoning whatsoever.
It just shows your lack of ability to explain why you think what you do.
mean to doubt your 'expertise'? you mean expertise like saying federer lacks in touch shots, like nadal/djokovic are equivalent to federer at the net ? gotcha !
yeah, because one or two matches with federer well past his best prove those things. not when federer at his peak was returning the serves of the likes of sampras, roddick, karlovic, ljubicic , soderling etc easily.
federer at his peak had a very good return . Now it has declined by quite a bit
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
"One tennis historian scores the many Laver–Rosewall matches 80–67 Laver’s way, another 79–71, also Laver’s way, including 22–7 in the Open era. On his way to his two Grand Slams, Laver met and beat Roy Emerson in five of the eight tournaments, but Rosewall only once, in the French final in Paris in June 1969. They’d met in the final a year earlier, in the ’68 Paris Spring; Rosewall had prevailed. This time at Roland Garros, the Rocket put Muscles down in straight sets. The tennis jury is still out on what happened: some thought it was Laver’s day, Laver’s year; others that it was just Laver."
-- See more at: http://inside.org.au/fletch-muscles-and-the-rocket/#sthash.2xvrLHSW.dpuf
-- See more at: http://inside.org.au/fletch-muscles-and-the-rocket/#sthash.2xvrLHSW.dpuf
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Good way to put it.
urban, Old Man has stated that Laver leads 99:83 against Rosewall which concures with an old estimation of mine.
Nasty abmk, Your new post is the next impertinence.
It's your privilege now to indirectly say that Roger is stupid. Your idol is stupid? Really? I do know he has some weaknesses, but stupid???
What do you insinuate? That I cannot read exactly? That I am mean enough to insinuate that Roger made a strange statement even though he did NOT?
By the way, I find Federer's statement strange but not stupid.
When reading his claim I did not imagine that a few days later a strange poster would doubt my mentioning it. Otherwise I probably would have recorded Roger's Grass Grand Slam statement.
You are as suspiciously and mean as Limpinhitter and Phoenix were who did not believe me that I possess about 30 letters from Rosewall and that Bud Collins once called me the Vienna Visionary respectively.
You are wrong also that I did not answer claims from the Armada. I did it often but now I'm rather tired to do because I only get hate and aggression from you and your nasty colleagues.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
There is a difference b/w calling an idea stupid and calling someone stupid.
If anyone said warmup tournament+wimbledon were a grass court GS, that'd be a stupid idea from them. If they have a bunch of ideas like that and consistently so, that'd make them stupid.
And no, I don't see it on the net where federer has called it so. I didn't say he was stupid at all. You need to learn to comprehend. I said it'd be a downright stupid idea of him to suggest so.
Now quit making yourself out to be the victim . Yes, its very hard to trust you when it comes to federer because you have a track record of bullsh*t posts regarding federer. Post the link/links if you have.
At the bold statement. Its not just about your responses. Very rarely have you ever explained why you think what you say.
You know what a coherent set of arguments/reasoning is ? Well , try it for once.
See, for example, I posted a set of stats about the serves of federer/djokovic and said that's ample indication that federer's serve is clearly above that of djokovic and that they aren't that close. All you did was to say you disagree with my conclusion. You didn't say why , did you ?
Try this, I'll say roddick has a better backhand than rosewall. You'll post a bunch of quotes about greats praising rosewall's BH. All I'll do is say I disagree with them and still continue to say roddick has a better backhand than rosewall. That's how you post.
Oh and just see the previous few posts. I very clearly refuted you statements about net play of djokovic/federer and nadal of wimbledon 07/08 and nadal wimbledon 11 - the finals. You didn't respond to them . I'll assume that's because you haven't watched all of them , given your history and proclamation that 10 matches are enough to judge a player (even though a lot more are available in this case) :roll: - that's a safe prediction to make
Last edited:
Mean abmk, I concede I also cannot find the Federer words about a Grass GS. This does NOT mean Roger has not said it. I give you my WORD of HONOUR that I have read his word. It's just your fault to doubt my words. I never would have thought that someone could doubt my honest words!!!
I always thought that you are more serious than Limpinhitter and Phoenix83!
It's your privilege to doubt a word of an honourable man. Not I am the victim. You are an obnoxious man or woman...
Since Federer did make this Grass GS statement, it's actually YOU who calls your idol stupid. I conceded that I don't call it stupid. Rather strange.
You insult me in order to make Federer look better than he is...
I have not answered in detail the recent Armada posts because I need a break from your insults. I will answer later.
Learn to behave as a human being!
Last edited:
Flash, I concede that Federer has a better serve and forehand than Djokovic.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
you actually answered to some of the 'insulting' parts by saying they insulted you. Yet you didn't answer the parts where I politely posted with facts/stats/reality ! Don't you find it ironical ?
If federer said something strange or stupid like that, it would be all over the internet, including on this forum, don't you think ?
Once again , there is a lot of difference b/w calling an idea stupid and calling a person stupid. Even wise/clever people at times have stupid ideas or make stupid comments.
abmk, I don't think that all words that are spoken in the world are recorded in internet. Maybe you are the only one who calls Roger's words stupid. Federer's words were in German, by the way.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
not all words spoke are recorded in the internet, who is saying otherwise ? But you said you saw it on the internet, didn't you ?
The point is: Federer's word was probably not valued as a sensation, as stupid. Thus no avalanche of FURTHER articles on internet.
Yes, I have read it with my own eyes. Where is the problem?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep. Good point.
Laver lost in the fourth round of Wimbledon 1970 to Roger Taylor. Laver was seeded no. 1, Taylor seeded no. 16.
Taylor was little more than a pretty good player. His world ranking was never higher than no. 8. He is probably best-known for his victories at Wimbledon over Laver in 1970 and Borg in 1973 at Borg's Wimbledon debut (as a pro). (Borg won the junior singles title in 1972.)
It happens.
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
Please don't misunderstand me. I have the utmost respect for the great man Rod Laver and I have never said even once that Roger is greater than Rod. My comment was never a knock against Rod.
I only meant to merely point out that it's normal to have an off day once you are past 30s. Roger had a 36 quarter final streak and at one point it has to end and it ended. I do believe that the 36 QF streak is just awesome. There is nothing more to it than that. However some posters are using that as a proof that Roger will lose to s n v tennis. He almost lost to Julian Benneteau last year. Was it because Julian played s n v? It happens at this age. To draw conclusions from a match played by a guy who is about to be 32 is pure nonsense.
I think Roger has proved his credentials by winning 2003 Wimbledon serve and volleying. I do not claim that Roger is a s n v legend or anything remotely close to that but Roger s n v ed in 2003 W more than what Rafa or Djokovic has done in their entire career
Similar threads
