Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by nadal_slam_king, Apr 24, 2012.
But you do admit that Nole 2011 is superior to Nadal of any year. Come on, surely you can see that ?
He will say Nadal 2010 is superior to nadal 2011, so obviously Novak won :wink:
Your argument is nonsense because Djokovic has ALREADY WON a Grand Slam and a hardcourt Masters title in 2012!!! :lol:
So how can Djokovic be a one year wonder in 2011 when he is leading the points race in 2012 also? Stupid *******! :lol:
Furthermore, Djokovic has just dropped out of the Serbia Open which shows that he doesn't care about tennis right now and has admitted he's not in the mood to play after his grandfather's death.
*******s will be disappointed once again in 2 weeks time when Djokovic is ready to roar! :twisted:
I think Madrid being allowed to change from HC to clay and Tiriac's plotting have to take some of the blame for that. The ATP most of all, of course.
Admitting your opinion is something only you can do. Be grateful that you have an opinion.
What happened in 2008? Djokovic won the AO, and then lost the year to Nadal.
What happened in 2010? Nadal lost the AO and won 3 straight slams.
What happened in 2009? Nadal won the AO but had his worst year ever.
See how the world works?
The fact Nadal took Djokovic to 5 sets and actually led 4-2 in the 5th set is an awful sign for Djokovic. It is clearly Djokovic's most successful slam, and Nadal's least successful.
You're just saying that because Nadal won MC 8 times. I saw MC and I don't feel like it's in the level with IW and Miami, which have bigger draws plus even had women competing. Despite MC is a 1000, but it's an equivalent to ATP500 since players can replace it.
Shanghai problem is no fan showed up to watch. The tournament looks dead when you see nothing but empty seats.
Why don't you mention the 5-hour semi ND had with Murray before Nadal? Also, remember who won the AO? Coming close is no the same as winning, you blind fool.
Nadal was on the court longer for Djokovic during the entire AO, so it evens out. Actually Nadal's semi-final vs Federer was extremely intense throughout, and a higher level of tennis than Murray-Djokovic. It was a lot closer than the 2011 Roland Garros final which people seem to think was a great match. Coming close is not the same as winning? Gee really? You think you made a discovery there? It's still coming close, rather than being thrashed, fool.
The masters should be about twice the slams, and if Nadal can handle 47 slams, then I think the masters count should be in the 90+ range. But Dimitrov and Nishikori might have a thing or two to say about that one...
Seriously, who cares? This category of tournaments will change names again and again and this "record" will likely disappear in a decade or two. Just ask Lendl...
(Plus, with MC as a glorified M500, the dice are kind of loaded now, anyway. Good thing Nadal is not relying on this one to add to his tally, no?)
I was looking for a thread about Rafa's Masters 1000 tournament, and came across this jewel. It's funny that there was a lot of talk here about NSK but can not remember much of him.
Haha, now I remember !! :twisted:
I think Bullzilla came before him..this however became the legendary annoying version of that account...Bullzilla I think was more prissy
Tennis has a really bad habit of viewing all of tennis history only through the present criteria of achievement. For instance, at one stage to win the WCT finals was a huge thing for your Resume in terms of achievement. Those titles are forgotten now largely (McEnroe's 5 wins at this defacto Major are forgotten). Similarly with regard to Masters 1000 - those have only existed since 1990. So people view all the tournaments that Lendl or McEnroe or Connors won at that level are irrelevant.
Golf doesn't treat its history like this. For instance, the Grand Slam won by Bobby Jones is still treated as a Grand Slam even though not all of the tournaments he won at the time are part of the present Grand Slam tournaments. Tennis doesn't do that.....it measures historical players on the 4 present slams. Don't believe me? Imagine a world where the French Open is no longer regarded as a major in 20 or 30 years time. That means that Nadal's major list will shrink to 4 majors. Don't believe it will happen? Remember Tilden and the World Hard Court Championships? Why don't tennis writers include Tilden's win at the World Hard Court Championships as a Major win? I have seen so many places which just list his slam tournament wins (of the current 4 tournaments). The World Hard Court Championships was a major in every sense in the 1910's and early 1920's. It had official recognition as such by the ILTF. It goes on and on. Another example, I had a large amount of debating on these forums whether the 1932 and 1933 World Pro Championship in Berlin should be regarded as Majors. At the time there was not a single question that they were. The newspapers reporting it, the players who played it, universally considered it a major. But at a later date someone arbitarily said - no the Pro Majors are the French Pro, Wembley and the US Pro....so the World Pro got demoted. This is crazy stuff. It devalues the achievement of past players...and doesn't honour tennis history.
(bullzilla posted like this didn't he?)
everything in brackets for no reason :lol:
A true bullzilla thread.
I like how each of his accounts has little subtleties yet all have one firm founding principle: troll hard!
How many does Nadal have now, 18 right?(Excluding his 4 non-mandatory MCs). That's not too bad for a 26 year old. I think he ends with 25.
So, is Monfed the counterpart of Bullzilla in the Federer Brigade ?
Wimbledon was non mandatory in 2009 because nadal skipped it. Still, I think Federer has a chance to reach 17 majors...
3 Talk Tennis posters have already been proven wrong. Thanks for bumping this thread, I'd never seen it before.
Holy nutballs a NSK prediction that actually came true!
Citing "injury". Federer doesn't need any excuses to skip Monte Carlo, however.
OMG you actually took that seriously. LOL.
Separate names with a comma.