How many slams will Rafa win if he were playing in the 90s?

Presuming that only Fed and Nadal are transported back in the 90s and being roughly the same age as Sampras/Agassi with late 90s-early 2000s competition being relatively lackluster (so not changing anything there) I'd say:

Fed:

AO-4 (1994, 1997, 1999 and 2002)

FO-1 (1999)

Wimbledon-3 (1996, 1998, 2002)

USO-4 (1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001)

Overall 12 slams.

Nadal:

AO-1 (1996)

FO-7 *

Wimbledon-0

USO-0

8 slams overall.

Sampras:

AO-0

FO-0

Wimbledon-6 (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2000)

USO-4 (1990, 1993, 1995 and 2002)

10 slams overall

Agassi:

AO-4 (1995, 2000, 2001 and 2003)

FO-0

Wimbledon-1 (1992)

USO-2 (1994, 1999)

7 slams overall.


* Not going by years but due to there being far more CC specialists in the 90s I think Nadal would have had more injury issues as a consequence of being forced to grind out a lot more matches.



Of course all of this is complete guesswork, heck we've yet to see how well will Nadal play in his late 20s for example.

This seems to be a fair and reasonable breakdown without bias. It's actually close to mine, although I gave Nadal a few lesser FO's. The competition was definitely weaker overall in the 90s, but on clay it was probably bit better with the likes of Courier, Muster and Kuerten.

Assuming 35/40 slams go to Fed, Nadal, Sampras or Agassi in 90s this would be the distribution:

Federer 15
Sampras 10
Nadal 5
Agassi 5
 
Last edited:

President

Legend
Nadal is being underrated on hard court here, I think he wins at least 2 or 3 slams on HC. The slowing of the USO and AO is hugely exaggerated on this forum, yeah they've slowed down but not by nearly as much as many people here think. In the past 3 or 4 years he's become quite consistent on the surface in majors and it has taken great HC players like Djokovic and Murray to stop him. Both of those players match up better with him IMO than Sampras and especially Agassi would (Agassi's lack of movement and serve would really hurt him IMO vs Nadal, he would not be nearly as big a favorite on HC as most here believe). In fact, if he, Sampras, Federer, and Agassi all played in the same era I could see Nadal winning the most slams (though I think Federer would probably still win the most), just because his dominance at RG is so absolute and he can still challenge on other surfaces, whereas Federer, Sampras, and Agassi would hurt each other a lot on their mutual favorite surfaces.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Nadal is being underrated on hard court here, I think he wins at least 2 or 3 slams on HC. The slowing of the USO and AO is hugely exaggerated on this forum, yeah they've slowed down but not by nearly as much as many people here think. In the past 3 or 4 years he's become quite consistent on the surface in majors and it has taken great HC players like Djokovic and Murray to stop him. Both of those players match up better with him IMO than Sampras and especially Agassi would (Agassi's lack of movement and serve would really hurt him IMO vs Nadal, he would not be nearly as big a favorite on HC as most here believe). In fact, if he, Sampras, Federer, and Agassi all played in the same era I could see Nadal winning the most slams (though I think Federer would probably still win the most), just because his dominance at RG is so absolute and he can still challenge on other surfaces, whereas Federer, Sampras, and Agassi would hurt each other a lot on their mutual favorite surfaces.
You are confusing yourself. :confused:
 

coloskier

Legend
If the question read "How many slams would RAFA win in the 90's with 90's equipment?", it would change everything. No heavy topspin, etc. He'd be lucky to win 1 slam anywhere.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Nadal:

AO: 2
RG: 9
W: 1
USO: 0

Federer:

AO: 3
Wimbledon: 4
RG: 1
USO: 4

Federer's slam count would decrease because he would be facing Sampras and Agassi on Wimbledon the HC slams (Agassi wouldn't be a threat at Wimbledon probably). I still think he would win more than them, but not as much as he won this decade.

Nadal wouldn't win the career slam and would win less non-clay slams as he won and will continue wining this decade, but he would still dominate clay easily. It doesn't really matter if there was a stronger clay era because nobody can touch him there if he's at least at his 60%, except for Borg which didn't play in that era and Kuerten that was injured most of the time unfortunately.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
I said I could see Nadal having the most. I still think Roger is the most likely candidate, but Nadal would have a chance. What is so confusing about that?

First, you stated that you can see Nadal winning most slams. Then you defy your own statement and say Federer will win most slams. So what is it buddy, Federer or Nadal? :-?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Most likely:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Agassi


2nd most likey:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Agassi

Agassi hurts the most because he's not the favorite at any of the 4 slams. Fed would win the most slams because he's the most versatile player of the 4, and most likely to win a career slam.
 
M

monfed

Guest
Ralph would win 0 non-clay slams. Ok fine, I'll give him one AO. No more.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Most likely:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Agassi


2nd most likey:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Agassi

Agassi hurts the most because he's not the favorite at any of the 4 slams. Fed would win the most slams because he's the most versatile player of the 4, and most likely to win a career slam.

Agassi would be the clear favorite at the AO. He won 4 times there despite he started playing it when he was 25.

Nadal would be the favorite at RG.

Federer/Sampras would be the favorites at Wimbledon and the USO.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
RAFA
ao 1
rg 4
w 0
us 0

FED
ao 6
rg 5
w 8
us 6

How the hell dos Fed win MORE wimbledons with Sampras around? There's no shame is saying he would win less because Sampras also would. They would have to share.

and Federer wins more RG titles than Nadal how exactly? Hiring Tonya Harding. Nadal alone being there is already enough to guarantee Federer only 0-1 RG titles, and add the deeper clay field of the 90s, meaning he has to be lucky to hit his peak form that rare time Rafa loses (since we all know and seen proven emphatically over and over no way in hell Federer is beating Nadal at RG ever, at any age, anytime, anyhow, anyway) most likely he wins 0.

People go overboard with this. No it hasn't been proven. Stranger things have happened and Federer had a decent chance to beat Nadal in 2006 (Rome final over 5 sets indicated that Federer was capable of beating Nadal over 5 sets on clay) and 2011. Now assuming we have this greater 90s clay court depth, possible Nadal has a couple of tough matches and gets tired out for a match with Federer. Plus 2011 Nadal vs 2006 Federer (Same age) can definitely result in a win for Federer. Nadal could have lost the first 3 sets against a poorer Federer than his 2006 self.

If these two played in the 90s, both will see a drop in their slam count.

Federer will be hurt at Wimbledon and USO.
Nadal will be hurt at RG.

I think 5 slams for Nadal max. 9-10 slams for Federer max.

Difficult to know how they distribute them, but I think Federer would be shut out in Paris, and Nadal won't be winning anything at W and USO.

I would think Nadal would suffer with his RG titles less than Fed's Wimbledon and US Open titles. Fed in the 90s has genuine competition from Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, Nadal doesn't have anyone dominating at RG. If it were the 70s/80s then Borg would take Nadal's count down quite a bit, but I don't think Federer would be troubled as much at Wimbledon, the US Open would be tricky still with Connors and Mac around.

If Nadal and Federer are transported to the 90s then I think Nadal will win about 6-8 RG titles, 1-2 AO titles, out of Wimbledon and the US Open I think adding Federer in there means between Federer and Sampras plus Agassi etc at the US Open, Nadal wins 1 title at either the US or Wimbledon, but none at the other one. Maybe one wimbledon where Fed takes out Sampras in the semis and loses to Nadal in the final (though hard to see Federer being good enough to beat Pete one day and then lose to Nadal on fast grass the next)

With Federer, he could pick up 3-5 AO titles (probabaly easier then than now with Korda and Kafelnikov winning titles as well as old Becker) at RG it could be 0 it could be 2 if he's lucky. At Wimbledon 3-4 and same for us Open, but more convinced about the US Open given that Sampras was patchier there (though overall he would have more threats)

Sampras would win 1-2 AO titles, 0 RG titles 4-5 Wimbledons, 2-4 US Open titles
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
This seems to be a fair and reasonable breakdown without bias.

There's no such thing DFTW.


It's actually close to mine, although I gave Nadal a few lesser FO's.

It's a +3 slam difference for Fed and -3 difference for Nadal, not sure if I'd say it's such a small difference.


The competition was definitely weaker overall in the 90s, but on clay it was probably bit better with the likes of Courier, Muster and Kuerten.

Eearly to mid 90s competition was stronger but late 90s was weaker (IMO), I do think 90s CC field was definitely deeper, how much that would (or wouldn't) affect Nadal's FO count I don't know for certain, it's just a guess basically especially as we don't have enough data :).
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
People go overboard with this. No it hasn't been proven.

LOL 5 matches at RG, 5 wins for Rafa, 0 gone to a 5th set, 3 of them in Federer's prime and before Nadal's prime, yeah it has been proven. Next.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Agassi would be the clear favorite at the AO. He won 4 times there despite he started playing it when he was 25.

True, while Federer is currently probably the Open Era Australian Open GOAT, and Djokovic will probably overtake Federer as the Open Era Australian Open GOAT come January, Agassi at his best probably had a higher playing level than either there. Had he played the Australian every year, rather than just starting at age 25, he would no doubt have won atleast 6 titles there.


Nadal is being underrated on hard court here, I think he wins at least 2 or 3 slams on HC. The slowing of the USO and AO is hugely exaggerated on this forum, yeah they've slowed down but not by nearly as much as many people here think. In the past 3 or 4 years he's become quite consistent on the surface in majors and it has taken great HC players like Djokovic and Murray to stop him. Both of those players match up better with him IMO than Sampras and especially Agassi would (Agassi's lack of movement and serve would really hurt him IMO vs Nadal, he would not be nearly as big a favorite on HC as most here believe). In fact, if he, Sampras, Federer, and Agassi all played in the same era I could see Nadal winning the most slams (though I think Federer would probably still win the most), just because his dominance at RG is so absolute and he can still challenge on other surfaces, whereas Federer, Sampras, and Agassi would hurt each other a lot on their mutual favorite surfaces.

Good assessment. I agree with this.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
True, while Federer is currently probably the Open Era Australian Open GOAT, and Djokovic will probably overtake Federer as the Open Era Australian Open GOAT come January, Agassi at his best probably had a higher playing level than either there. Had he played the Australian every year, rather than just starting at age 25, he would no doubt have won atleast 6 titles there.

Yes but given that the thread title is about the 90s it has to be said that Agassi won only one AO in the 90s despite that if I had to pick the surface tailer made for Agassi it would be rebound ace (and yet he didn't even attend AO until 1995).

Overall Agassi's career trajectory was pretty unusual for a tennis great and while it's true he could have achieved more if he was more focused on tennis in his younger days as a consequence he might have not played that well at the age of 29+ as he would have been more spent (even though his late career dedication to fitness and incredible ballstriking also contributed to him playing great at an advanced tennis age).
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Yes but given that the thread title is about the 90s it has to be said that Agassi won only one AO in the 90s despite that if I had to pick the surface tailer made for Agassi it would be rebound ace (and yet he didn't even attend AO until 1995).

Overall Agassi's career trajectory was pretty unusual for a tennis great and while it's true he could have achieved more if he was more focused on tennis in his younger days as a consequence he might have not played that well at the age of 29+ as he would have been more spent (even though his late career dedication to fitness and incredible ballstriking also contributed to him playing great at an advanced tennis age).

Valid point on the Australian Open in the 90s.

As for your second point that would depend on alot of things. Lets say he still had the same reaction to losing a match like the 95 U.S Open final to Sampras, and still bagged 96/97 completely, while working his butt off to try and get back starting in 98. That break would still give him the extra energy for a late career surge IMO, even had he not been an underachiever from 1989-1993 for instance.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
LOL 5 matches at RG, 5 wins for Rafa, 0 gone to a 5th set, 3 of them in Federer's prime and before Nadal's prime, yeah it has been proven. Next.

It's been proven that he hasn't beaten him, it hasn't been proven that he can't beat him anywhere, anytime anyhow in any circumstances etc. Stranger things have happened. Who would think Soderling would beat Nadal? Or Rosol at Wimbledon? Or Goran would win Wimbledon in 2001? Or Krajicek beating Sampras. I wouldn't say Federer has proved that Nadal can't beat him at the WTF anytime, anywhere anyplace etc

Transporting Nadal and Federer back to the 90s changes a lot, and especially if Nadal and Federer were the same age, Federer at 26 could take the poor version of Nadal from last year's RG. And like I said, in a tougher era Nadal could get tired out by a tough match or two prior to meeting Federer.

But you're the sort of guy who posts things as facts, makes wild predictions and contradicts yourself repeatedly. You didn't think Murray had a hope in hell of winning the US Open most recently.

Lol, when was Nadal's prime? On clay you're saying 2007 wasn't Nadal's clay prime? What was, 2008, 2009 and 2010 (one of which was a year he lost at RG)? Rome went 5 sets, if Federer had won that who knows what could have happened in RG (nadal started off nervous in that) Realistically the only matches where Nadal didn't have the advantage of being more prime as well as being a better clay court player were 2005, 2006 and 2007. And in 2005 Federer had never even made a semi at RG himself and Nadal was obviously the form clay court player. In 2008 and 2011 it was massively in Nadal's favour, so I don't think it even makes sense to look at those matches, he could beat him anther 3 times for all it matters, at this stage his chances are just getting worse and it makes it look even worse when in his prime he did have a chance to beat Nadal on clay over 5 sets, at least once. It never happened but it doesn't mean it couldn't have on the right day, like he wasn't actually capable of it.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I wouldn't say Federer has proved that Nadal can't beat him at the WTF anytime, anywhere anyplace etc

Well then you would be wrong. Nadal cant beat Federer at the WTF, and I will freely admit that, and if there is a small chance he can it is only since he is so much younger than Federer he has a chance to take advantage of ******* in the future, something Federer will never have with Nadal.

But you're the sort of guy who posts things as facts, makes wild predictions and contradicts yourself repeatedly........blah blah blah.

Another idiot to add to my ignore list. This is getting fun, banishing a bunch of you clowns I should have done a long time ago.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Well then you would be wrong. Nadal cant beat Federer at the WTF, and I will freely admit that, and if there is a small chance he can it is only since he is so much younger than Federer he has a chance to take advantage of ******* in the future, something Federer will never have with Nadal.



Another idiot to add to my ignore list. This is getting fun, banishing a bunch of you clowns I should have done a long time ago.

You're such an idiot you've put me on a trolls list for telling the truth. You don't even understand the meaning of the word troll apparently, you think it's anyone who calls out your crap. You're the one who said Djokovic wouldn't win more than 8 or 9 slams then decided a few weeks later that he would definitely win 12 plus slams or whatever and laughing at anyone who agreed with YOUR original prediction. You keep changing the criterion for being GOAT of a slam for obvious reasons (so Federer isn't the winner **cogh**) You said in the same thread I believe that Djokovic was one of your favourite players AND you didn't even like Djokovic (that's some prime example of being a moron there)

Too many other examples of you being a fool.
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
You're such an idiot you've put me on a trolls list for telling the truth. You don't even understand the meaning of the word troll apparently, you think it's anyone who calls out your crap. You're the one who said Djokovic wouldn't win more than 8 or 9 slams then decided a few weeks later that he would definitely win 12 plus slams or whatever and laughing at anyone who agreed with YOUR original prediction. You keep changing the criterion for being GOAT of a slam for obvious reasons (so Federer isn't the winner **cogh**) You said in the same thread I believe that Djokovic was one of your favourite players AND you didn't even like Djokovic (that's some prime example of being a moron there)

Too many other examples of you bing a fool.

Wow Towser I've never seen you being so aggressive in posting:)
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Wow Towser I've never seen you being so aggressive in posting:)

Some people deserve it. NadalAgassi is always calling people fools and idiots (called me one several times before in a really rude post) while acting like an idiot himself. Seriously how can you claim that a player is one of your favourite players but soon after claim you don't even like them? How can you do that and call OTHER people idiots? :lol:
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Some people deserve it. NadalAgassi is always calling people fools and idiots (called me one several times before in a really rude post) while acting like an idiot himself. Seriously how can you claim that a player is one of your favourite players but soon after claim you don't even like them? How can you do that and call OTHER people idiots? :lol:

Relax dude, its not worth it. This was the same guy that was saying Djokovic would never win Wimbledon only a few months before he blasted Nadal in the final taking his title and his number one ranking.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I would think Nadal would suffer with his RG titles less than Fed's Wimbledon and US Open titles.

You are probably right, but the early 90s saw some tough competition from courier, brugera, and muster. Guys like corretja and costa, and kuerten were floating around from mid to late 90s. Even Moya was on form back on the clay at that point. Agassi was no slouch at RG back in 90s either. So there were some decent players with games moulded for clay. And you forget that the 90s won't benefit Nadal as far as racquet technology goes, he certainly won't be generating anywhere near as much spin as he has during his actual run. Not to say he won't win and be dominant, I am sure he would win a couple, but I think the added depth and lack of spin would meaning more gruelling matches that could wear him out, and cost him titles.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Relax dude, its not worth it. This was the same guy that was saying Djokovic would never win Wimbledon only a few months before he blasted Nadal in the final taking his title and his number one ranking.

I last predicted Djokovic would probably (not for sure) never win Wimbledon back in fall 2010, almost a whole year he won Wimbledon. 95% of people, including most Djokovic fans concured at that point he would never win Wimbledon, so it is only the most desperate of trolls and losers who have nothing on me who even try to go there, ROTFL! Would you like some summary of your predictions this year, Djokovic was going to win the French beating Nadal, Djokovic was going to beat Federer at win Wimbledon on route to winning it again, Djokovic was going to win the U.S Open. :oops: The only reason I dont add you to my ignore list with the other mega trolls, is in your case you are an entertaining troll who atleast provides comedic relief of sorts.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
lol NadalAgassi really doesn't know what a troll is. Whatever, idots often throw around a popular buzzword rather than apply it to the correct situation/person.

Also calling out Hitman on pedictions when he too predicted Djokovic would win RG (he backtracks and changes his mind so much it's funny) Serena would win RG (LMAO) Federer didn't have a chance in hell at Wimbledon (said many times it was the 2nd least likely slam for him to win now) and I think laughed at me saying Murray could still win the US Open final after Djokovic won the 3rd set.
 

qindarka

Rookie
I last predicted Djokovic would probably (not for sure) never win Wimbledon back in fall 2010, almost a whole year he won Wimbledon. 95% of people, including most Djokovic fans concured at that point he would never win Wimbledon, so it is only the most desperate of trolls and losers who have nothing on me who even try to go there, ROTFL! Would you like some summary of your predictions this year, Djokovic was going to win the French beating Nadal, Djokovic was going to beat Federer at win Wimbledon on route to winning it again, Djokovic was going to win the U.S Open. :oops: The only reason I dont add you to my ignore list with the other mega trolls, is in your case you are an entertaining troll who atleast provides comedic relief of sorts.

For goodness sake, stop trying to take the moral high ground and passing yourself off as intellectually superior to them. You are just as hypocritical and fanboyish. And no, not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

And your trademark ROTFL is intended to mock other posters but only reflects badly on your maturity.

And if you want to put people on your ignore list, go ahead. But it's certainly no symbol of pride, don't know why you are boasting about it.
 
Last edited:

coloskier

Legend
True, while Federer is currently probably the Open Era Australian Open GOAT, and Djokovic will probably overtake Federer as the Open Era Australian Open GOAT come January, Agassi at his best probably had a higher playing level than either there. Had he played the Australian every year, rather than just starting at age 25, he would no doubt have won atleast 6 titles there.




Good assessment. I agree with this.

If he was playing in the 90's, no Babolat racket and no RPM strings, which means 1/2 the topspin, which means his game would be ordinary. And that serve would get killed on the faster courts.
 

Clarky21

Banned
If he was playing in the 90's, no Babolat racket and no RPM strings, which means 1/2 the topspin, which means his game would be ordinary. And that serve would get killed on the faster courts.


You do know Nadal did not start using RPM Blast until 2010, right? Before that he used Duralast deader than a 100 year old corpse string which was hardly new technology for the time he was using it in.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I last predicted Djokovic would probably (not for sure) never win Wimbledon back in fall 2010, almost a whole year he won Wimbledon. 95% of people, including most Djokovic fans concured at that point he would never win Wimbledon, so it is only the most desperate of trolls and losers who have nothing on me who even try to go there, ROTFL! Would you like some summary of your predictions this year, Djokovic was going to win the French beating Nadal, Djokovic was going to beat Federer at win Wimbledon on route to winning it again, Djokovic was going to win the U.S Open. :oops: The only reason I dont add you to my ignore list with the other mega trolls, is in your case you are an entertaining troll who atleast provides comedic relief of sorts.

You were the one that showed your Nardism when you tried to say that I continually say that Federer is GOAT, when if you actually did your research, I never ever said that Federer is GOAT, only greatest of his era. Remember that? When I called out a troll in his thread, instead of you being unbiased, like you state, seeing that your opinion is the word of God, you blasted me for giving a troll a bit of his own medicine.

And I am humbled I provide you comic relief.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
lol NadalAgassi really doesn't know what a troll is. Whatever, idots often throw around a popular buzzword rather than apply it to the correct situation/person.

Also calling out Hitman on pedictions when he too predicted Djokovic would win RG (he backtracks and changes his mind so much it's funny) Serena would win RG (LMAO) Federer didn't have a chance in hell at Wimbledon (said many times it was the 2nd least likely slam for him to win now) and I think laughed at me saying Murray could still win the US Open final after Djokovic won the 3rd set.

Yes, I did say Djokovic would win. I wanted to see four slams won by one player, so why not cheer for such an event. Did I say that about Serena? I honestly don't remember that one. So I won't say yes to that, unless you can prove it otherwise. Regarding Federer, Wimbledon was his worst slam for the past two years until he won it, and many were saying that grass is where he has declined the most, and where he was least likely to win. Nothing wrong with that, I am glad he proved me wrong, but what would have happened if that roof did not close against Djokovic and Murray? We will never know.

Regarding Murray and the USO...I wasn't on these boards watching the match, so you are certainly wrong on that one.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
lol NadalAgassi really doesn't know what a troll is. Whatever, idots often throw around a popular buzzword rather than apply it to the correct situation/person.

Also calling out Hitman on pedictions when he too predicted Djokovic would win RG (he backtracks and changes his mind so much it's funny) Serena would win RG (LMAO) Federer didn't have a chance in hell at Wimbledon (said many times it was the 2nd least likely slam for him to win now) and I think laughed at me saying Murray could still win the US Open final after Djokovic won the 3rd set.


So true. But this guy can never admit when he is wrong and if another poster calls him out on HIS poor prediction or calls him out for being contradictory he reacts like an immature 5 year old child and calls a person an idiot, troll or threatens to put the person on his ignore list. Big whoop, lol.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Yes, I did say Djokovic would win. I wanted to see four slams won by one player, so why not cheer for such an event. Did I say that about Serena? I honestly don't remember that one. So I won't say yes to that, unless you can prove it otherwise. Regarding Federer, Wimbledon was his worst slam for the past two years until he won it, and many were saying that grass is where he has declined the most, and where he was least likely to win. Nothing wrong with that, I am glad he proved me wrong, but what would have happened if that roof did not close against Djokovic and Murray? We will never know.

Regarding Murray and the USO...I wasn't on these boards watching the match, so you are certainly wrong on that one.

No I was saying NadalAgassi said those things! Sorry to be unclear. He was calling you out on saying Djokovic would win RG when he said that too and the other things I mentioned in the posts. No shame in being wrong on a prediction, but he acts like he is an expert and is always right and anyone that disagrees with him is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
So true. But this guy can never admit when he is wrong and if another poster calls him out on HIS poor prediction or calls him out for being contradictory he reacts like an immature 5 year old child and calls a person an idiot, troll or threatens to put the person on his ignore list. Big whoop, lol.

Got to agree with you. If you want to put someone on your ignore list, just do it. No need to make a song and dance about it, and also list it in your sig, as if you are some highly superior person. If you don't like someone' posts, just ignore them. Telling them that you are going to put them on ignore is just immature, that is hardly ignoring someone. I don't think anyone here would lose sleep, if someone else decided not to read their posts.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
So true. But this guy can never admit when he is wrong and if another poster calls him out on HIS poor prediction or calls him out for being contradictory he reacts like an immature 5 year old child and calls a person an idiot, troll or threatens to put the person on his ignore list. Big whoop, lol.

he is a big kid for sure, he posts things as if he is THE expert and anyone who disagrees is a fool, then he turns out to be wrong a lot of the time and if called out on it he gets tetchy.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Got to agree with you. If you want to put someone on your ignore list, just do it. No need to make a song and dance about it, and also list it in your sig, as if you are some highly superior person. If you don't like someone' posts, just ignore them. Telling them that you are going to put them on ignore is just immature, that is hardly ignoring someone. I don't think anyone here would lose sleep, if someone else decided not to read their posts.

Agreed. All of those things you listed above really show his insecurities rather than show he is highly superior intellectually which is what he desperately wants people to believe for some reason.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
No I was saying NadalAgassi said those things! Sorry to be unclear. He was calling you out on saying Djokovic would win RG when he said that too and the other things I said

Oh, sorry dude! It came across that you were talking to me. :)

I have never hidden the fact that I am Djokovic fan. You know this. NadalAgassi was saying all kinds of stuff about Novak when Novak won AO 11. Like, Novak did not beat Nadal, he can't do it against him in a slam. He still won't win Wimbledon, yep, he was still saying it after Novak won AO 11. Then all the stuff about Nadal having a massive decline on clay in 2011, to justify his losses to Djokovic, but now all of sudden that Nadal won those events in 2012 on clay, Nadal is back to being the man. But we can't say that Djokovic did not play as well as 2011, since that would take away from Nadal win's, but the other way is okay with him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
he is a big kid for sure, he posts things as if he is THE expert and anyone who disagrees is a fool, then he turns out to be wrong a lot of the time and if called out on it he gets tetchy.

Yep.............. :)

But I have learned you can't try and argue with these type of people, they just try and turn things around.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
he is a big kid for sure, he posts things as if he is THE expert and anyone who disagrees is a fool, then he turns out to be wrong a lot of the time and if called out on it he gets tetchy.

Agreed. All of those things you listed above really show his insecurities rather than show he is highly superior intellectually which is what he desperately wants people to believe for some reason.

Again, both of you are spot on. He states things as if they are fact, and we must all accept it as such, and if we don't we're ****s. I will give him credit on some things he says, he can say some good things which enrich a discussion, so credit where credit is due. But then he throws in his extreme Nardist views as if they are fact, and its at that point, you get that sour taste in your mouth, and you ask yourself "Is this guy serious?".

I see both of you are on the list... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Again, both of you are spot on. He states things as if they are fact, and we must all accept it as such, and if we don't we're ****s. I will give him credit on some things he says, he can say some good things which enrich a discussion, so credit where credit is due. But then he throws in his extreme Nardist views as if they are fact, and its at that point, you get that sour taste in your mouth, and you ask yourself "Is this guy serious?".

I see both of you are on the list... :)

Yes, you should be so thankful you did not make that list. Are you envious? :)
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Again, both of you are spot on. He states things as if they are fact, and we must all accept it as such, and if we don't we're ****s. I will give him credit on some things he says, he can say some good things which enrich a discussion, so credit where credit is due. But then he throws in his extreme Nardist views as if they are fact, and its at that point, you get that sour taste in your mouth, and you ask yourself "Is this guy serious?".

I see both of you are on the list... :)

Yeah I know, it's funny cos sometimes I have agreed with him and had a good discussion. I would even say 40% of the time I mostly agree with him and he often agrees with what I say and quotes me, but then he'll just turn into a massive **** and cos I dissagree he will come out with all this troll crap. Quite funny cos he doesn't seem to know what a troll is.

I called him out on him always thinking he's right so I earned a place on his ignore list. Which is pretty funny, I consider it a victory :lol:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
NadalAgassi can't continue to add more people to his ignore list. Eventually he'll run out of space because the signature is limited to certain amount of characters.

Prediction is fine. What irks me is when someone criticize your opinion just because you have a different point of view. And later find out that his/her prediction was totally wrong and yours was correct.
 
Last edited:

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
NadalAgassi can't continue to add more people to his ignore list. Eventually he'll run out of space because the signature is limited to certain amount of characters.

Prediction is fine. What irks me is when someone criticize your opinion just because you have a different point of view. And later find out that his/her prediction was totally wrong and yours was correct.


Not to mention he will be talking to about 10 people in total :lol:

And totally agree with your second paragraph
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Yes, you should be so thankful you did not make that list. Are you envious? :)

Do you guys get like special privileges, like steak every evening? :)

Yeah I know, it's funny cos sometimes I have agreed with him and had a good discussion. I would even say 40% of the time I mostly agree with him and he often agrees with what I say and quotes me, but then he'll just turn into a massive **** and cos I dissagree he will come out with all this troll crap. Quite funny cos he doesn't seem to know what a troll is.

I called him out on him always thinking he's right so I earned a place on his ignore list. Which is pretty funny, I consider it a victory :lol:


Or what is the difference between an opinion and a fact.

But agreed, sometimes he actually has had some good things to say, and I have even told him that. But it's just those "I'm better than you, so my word is fact and if you don't agree you're a ****" moments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top