C
chandu612
Guest
Poeple mentioning Devydenko to prove h2h is irrelevant, then how about slam count?
Clearly Nadal >> Laver, Gaston Gaudio = Roddick and so on.
Similary we can prove every single metric is moot.
H2H is as important as slam count because the former players and experts say so. Not because you and I feel so.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=478312&highlight=goat+links
Edit:
Read post #43, to get the crux of all the discussion that followed.
Federer Fanatic says"Your previous post was comparing 17 to 15. Now you're comparing 1 to 1, that's not the same thing.
Plus Roddick > Gaudio isn't just about the slam, but overall career achievement Roddick is well ahead."
Me:You used 6-5 to dismiss 21-10. Not considering the quantity,quality and if they are in grandslams or not.
But you say while considering slam count you want to use quantity and other factors?
This my friends, I call the hypocracy born out of desperation in Fed's camp.
Clearly Nadal >> Laver, Gaston Gaudio = Roddick and so on.
Similary we can prove every single metric is moot.
H2H is as important as slam count because the former players and experts say so. Not because you and I feel so.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=478312&highlight=goat+links
Edit:
Read post #43, to get the crux of all the discussion that followed.
Federer Fanatic says"Your previous post was comparing 17 to 15. Now you're comparing 1 to 1, that's not the same thing.
Plus Roddick > Gaudio isn't just about the slam, but overall career achievement Roddick is well ahead."
Me:You used 6-5 to dismiss 21-10. Not considering the quantity,quality and if they are in grandslams or not.
But you say while considering slam count you want to use quantity and other factors?
This my friends, I call the hypocracy born out of desperation in Fed's camp.
Last edited by a moderator: