Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best

[Cup8489]

It would be boring to go shot by shot, untangible by untangible because, at the end, you wouldn´t understand anything.Suffice it to say, READ MY LIPS, THEY HAD FAR MORE TALENT IN THEIR PINKIES...
Oh, that's right. You don't actually know that. You're just assuming your opinion is fact.

No, actually I'm not. I'm assuming the fact that there is no way to prove it, so I'll leave my opinions based on what I've seen.

For the record, I actually agree with the idea that they're more talented than Ferrero and Roddick, but not leagues above.. IE, i'm more realistic about my favorite players than you are.

 

[Feather]

You subscribe to the strategy of the best defense is an offense....

You can't really engage in a meaningful discussion but you want your way...so like a little child stamping his feet and having a tantrum you have to resort to name calling.

This is a discussion and it should be fun.....you should enjoy the back and forth of it all.

Pat Cash is not a hater or anything ....he has a valid opinion ...you have every right to disagree with it and discuss it.

However just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you have to behave like a child. You can't force people to agree with you.

I respect the proposition that Federer is the goat.....it's logical to say so and a strong argument can be made for it ; however like Pat Cash I see another point of view....one that I personally agree with it.

But as I said before to have a meaningful and enjoyable discussion in the true sense of the word both parties have to agree to have the discussion.

You obviously do not want to engage in a discussion but rather only hear your own point of view. And if you can't get your way you stomp your feet and have a temper tantrum calling people names.

Lovely post !

I remember after losing to some journeyman in the early 200s, Pete Sampras said something like " I played as best as I could but still I lost " or words similar to that extent. I read it somewhere and don't remember the exact words.

 

[kiki]

No, actually I'm not. I'm assuming the fact that there is no way to prove it, so I'll leave my opinions based on what I've seen.

For the record, I actually agree with the idea that they're more talented than Ferrero and Roddick, but not leagues above.. IE, i'm more realistic about my favorite players than you are.

We agree about opinions.A pitty you ahd to miss the 70´s and 80´s ( and maybe some 90´s)...would certainly have other opinions.

Did you ever ask yourself, why posters that watched tennis in those eras, while may praise Fed´s,Safin´s,Djokovic´s or Nadal´s talent or qualities, have a very different opinion about eras and who is better than who than those unlucky guys , 90% of TT, that just staretd watching tennis, maybe over the last 10 years-15 years?

Think about.

Truth will make you free

 

[Feather]

Federer says his BH is even comparable to Connors,Agassi,Laver,Budge or Ken Rosewall´s? really?

Now, I can see way he is considered by many the sorest ever loser.

I don't think Roger Federer ever said that. If you can't give links for this I would say that you are lying

 

[Feather]

If Joker and Nadal were always playing at this level do you honestly think Fed would have won 16 slams?

If your honest the answer has to be no.

I personally believe Roger would be #3 at any age.

As a matter of fact, I honestly think that Roger would have more slams than he actually have if all three were of the same age. Once Rafa and Novak pass 28, they won't be able to do the grinding religiously and once they have lost their speed a bit they would be toast before Roger. Roger doesn't play a physically demanding game.

Look at age 30 he beat Novak at RG and gave Nadal a good fight in the final, I mean 2011. These guys are 5, 6 years younger than him. Imagine a 31 year old Rafa, Roger and Novak competing at the slams along with today's same field..

 

[sunny_cali]

The fact that me, and some other posters watched tennis from 1970 till now, shouldn´t be something you are mad at, rather a source of knowledge.At least, I would if I was in your position...otherwise, I may seem as much a sore loser as the Swiss idol...

For someone who should be 50/60+ you sound pretty immature. I am happy that you were able to see Pancho/Laver at their peaks. Why would I be mad ? It does **** me off that you resort to outright lies to somehow denigrate Fed in a poor attempt to prop up the players of your generation.

Every generation lives "in the moment". Fed's generation considers him to be the best. Now that the mantle has passed onto Rafa/Djoker he is almost being forgotten -- at least that's the impression I get talking to teens and players turning 20. Rafa and Djoker are their heroes. No amount of trying to convince them that Fed was better works, or his brand of attacking all-court tennis is better than the mindless baseline bashing of today works. No doubt this should make you happy.

Likewise, your zillion posts trying to project Fed as a "3 tier goat candidate" to prop up your candidate Laver as GOAT (mind you this may well be close to the truth) do not work. All they do is show you as a sore troll.

The concept of a GOAT is flawed. Too many changes from one generation to another to make an objective comparison. The best you can say is player X was the best of his generation.

I have seen tennis from the 80's. I can safely say no player was as good to watch as Fed, and he is easily in top 5 of all players from 1980 onwards. GOAT ? I don't know, and do not care for.

 

[TMF]

Well, Edberg or Becker had more talent in their pinkies than the addition of Hewitt,Ferrero and Roddick...any poster who saw them at their peak, can tell you why...

We don't know that. The only way we would know is if there's a time machine and put Edberg and Becker playing in this era. That's the only way we will know who's going to win more often. Capiche?

 

[NatF]

If Joker and Nadal were always playing at this level do you honestly think Fed would have won 16 slams?

If your honest the answer has to be no.

I personally believe Roger would be #3 at any age.

Roger still beats these guys and has tight matches against them, if he was playing any better than he is now he'd be easily above Nadal right now considering the points difference. So yeah #3 at any age is pretty baseless considering the small margins now and the fact that Federer is past his peak.

Federer may not have 16 slams but Nadal would have lost slams to Djokovic too. I'd still wager he'd have more than either of them. Just maybe not more than both of them combined like right now. Nadal has never defended a title off clay let alone two pairs of five consecutive slams on two surfaces, he doesn't deserve to be in the conversation with Federer.

 

[The Dark Knight]

As a matter of fact, I honestly think that Roger would have more slams than he actually have if all three were of the same age. Once Rafa and Novak pass 28, they won't be able to do the grinding religiously and once they have lost their speed a bit they would be toast before Roger. Roger doesn't play a physically demanding game.

Look at age 30 he beat Novak at RG and gave Nadal a good fight in the final, I mean 2011. These guys are 5, 6 years younger than him. Imagine a 31 year old Rafa, Roger and Novak competing at the slams along with today's same field..

I see what your saying and I'll top it....I think if Nadal and Joker were around from day one it would have forced Roger to be a better player.....I don't think he would have 16 but he would actually be a better player.

But the fact is Federer was # 1......Nadal was chasing him and Federer forced him to improve from just a clay court specialist.

The fact is that Nadal did knock Fed out from #1 and tool away at least 6 grand slams from him.

It is also a fact that Joker is much improved and therefore Fed would have had double the competition instead of just Nadal alone.

I personally don't believe that Fed would have 16 .....but he may have become a better player. Unfortunately his lack of competition and belief in his own grandeur made him complacent . He never changed hos game to deal with Rafa and he still has not changed his game to deal with Novak.

If he keeps doing the same things he is going to remain #3.....and I do not believe it is his age at all.

I don't see how he has slowed down a bit....he still looks just as good against the rest of the tour.....but he looks weaker against Rafa and he always ha and now the Joker has evened the playing field .

Just take a look at this FO as an example....in te past all Febwould have to do is get by Nadal.....that was no easy task. But now he ja to get by Joker and Nadal......it's now twice as hard for him.

 

[kiki]

We don't know that. The only way we would know is if there's a time machine and put Edberg and Becker playing in this era. That's the only way we will know who's going to win more often. Capiche?

Suffices with enough experience watchin g them in different conditions

 

[kiki]

For someone who should be 50/60+ you sound pretty immature. I am happy that you were able to see Pancho/Laver at their peaks. Why would I be mad ? It does **** me off that you resort to outright lies to somehow denigrate Fed in a poor attempt to prop up the players of your generation.

Every generation lives "in the moment". Fed's generation considers him to be the best. Now that the mantle has passed onto Rafa/Djoker he is almost being forgotten -- at least that's the impression I get talking to teens and players turning 20. Rafa and Djoker are their heroes. No amount of trying to convince them that Fed was better works, or his brand of attacking all-court tennis is better than the mindless baseline bashing of today works. No doubt this should make you happy.

Likewise, your zillion posts trying to project Fed as a "3 tier goat candidate" to prop up your candidate Laver as GOAT (mind you this may well be close to the truth) do not work. All they do is show you as a sore troll.

The concept of a GOAT is flawed. Too many changes from one generation to another to make an objective comparison. The best you can say is player X was the best of his generation.

I have seen tennis from the 80's. I can safely say no player was as good to watch as Fed, and he is easily in top 5 of all players from 1980 onwards. GOAT ? I don't know, and do not care for.

I just agree witht he idea that generations are not generally comparable.Specially with many things having completely reversed tennis.

As for Laver, the fact that 40 years after he retired keeps being the measure reference talks loudly about his greatness.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I just agree witht he idea that generations are not generally comparable.

Great. Just too bad you had to waste other peoples time knocking them on the head with your opinions on the subject. I suppose this also disqualifies the weak era stuff, and so on and so on. Phew.

 

[kiki]

Great. Just too bad you had to waste other peoples time knocking them on the head with your opinions on the subject. I suppose this also disqualifies the weak era stuff, and so on and so on. Phew.

Not at all.Weak and strong eras existed, exist and will exist, no matter that you don´t like hearing the truth and prefer living in a limbo-

 

[billnepill]

I see what your saying and I'll top it....I think if Nadal and Joker were around from day one it would have forced Roger to be a better player.....I don't think he would have 16 but he would actually be a better player.

But the fact is Federer was # 1......Nadal was chasing him and Federer forced him to improve from just a clay court specialist.

The fact is that Nadal did knock Fed out from #1 and tool away at least 6 grand slams from him.

It is also a fact that Joker is much improved and therefore Fed would have had double the competition instead of just Nadal alone.

I personally don't believe that Fed would have 16 .....but he may have become a better player. Unfortunately his lack of competition and belief in his own grandeur made him complacent . He never changed hos game to deal with Rafa and he still has not changed his game to deal with Novak.

If he keeps doing the same things he is going to remain #3.....and I do not believe it is his age at all.

I don't see how he has slowed down a bit....he still looks just as good against the rest of the tour.....but he looks weaker against Rafa and he always ha and now the Joker has evened the playing field .

Just take a look at this FO as an example....in te past all Febwould have to do is get by Nadal.....that was no easy task. But now he ja to get by Joker and Nadal......it's now twice as hard for him.

Yeah right. Mahut and Ungur would have taken sets off prime Federer. Going back - Falla? Losing against Berdych and Tsonga in the tournament he owned?
Don't allow facts to get in the way of your BS

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I just agree witht he idea that generations are not generally comparable.

Weak and strong eras existed, exist and will exist.

I think I choose to trust you on the first one. Besides, if you take your definition of a weak era and take out the dominating player(s), you have your definition of a strong era, so it doesn't really work.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I'd like to see what the ex pros are saying today about Federer given the raising of the bar by Nadal & Joker......I wonder if they still think Fed is the GOAT?

Considering his majors total is more than Djokovic and Nadal's careers combined at this stage I'd say Federer still has the obvious edge.

At the next tier down he's got 6 times more year ending championships to Djokovic and Nadal's combined 1 title.

You have to get a long way down the list of achievements that actually matter in the historic scheme of things before you get to desperate stuff like head to head comparisons.

You could look at it another way though - as many others have mentioned previously - all those times that Federer won slams or titles where Nadal lost earlier to people Federer went on to beat, add them all to Federer's side of the h2h. Then do likewise for Nadal. You'll discover that in tournaments they both player Federer is ahead about 2 to 1. If Nadal is (yet) a respectable contender for the accolades given to Federer, how come he was such a pigeon in so many tournaments Federer won, yet the same cannot be said the other way around?

I can save you the hassle of trying to work it out. He was unable to because overall he is not even close to being the tennis player Federer is (yet at least) based on results. Almost all of the metrics regarded as important back this up.

 

[abmk]

Really? If Roddick,Ferrero or Hewitt had played agaainst the best players of that decade, none of them would have made it to the top 10.No way.

yes, dumbo, hewitt was only thrashing 14 time champion sampras 6,1 and 1 at flushing. he was only ripping apart rafter at 18 years of age with rafter at his peak ..yes, he sure as wouldn't be top 10 when a lesser version in chang actually reached #2 in the 90s ...:roll:

ferrero was only winning on clay vs kuerten, you know that guy could play a bit on clay ...not to mention the likes of corretja, moya, norman etc ...

roddick was only beating sampras, agassi, nadal, djoker etc etc ....(leads sampras, djoker H2H and is pretty even with nadal off clay ), yeah, what a talentless hack ...

in short, as usual, this is another of your clueless posts ...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Considering his majors total is more than Djokovic and Nadal's careers combined at this stage I'd say Federer still has the obvious edge.

At the next tier down he's got 6 times more year ending championships to Djokovic and Nadal's combined 1 title.

You have to get a long way down the list of achievements that actually matter in the historic scheme of things before you get to desperate stuff like head to head comparisons.

You could look at it another way though - as many others have mentioned previously - all those times that Federer won slams or titles where Nadal lost earlier to people Federer went on to beat, add them all to Federer's side of the h2h. Then do likewise for Nadal. You'll discover that in tournaments they both player Federer is ahead about 2 to 1. If Nadal is (yet) a respectable contender for the accolades given to Federer, how come he was such a pigeon in so many tournaments Federer won, yet the same cannot be said the other way around?

I can save you the hassle of trying to work it out. He was unable to because overall he is not even close to being the tennis player Federer is (yet at least) based on results. Almost all of the metrics regarded as important back this up.

Three consecutive years with wining % in the 90's, unprecedented domination of the field, etc etc.

 

[Russeljones]

Considering his majors total is more than Djokovic and Nadal's careers combined at this stage I'd say Federer still has the obvious edge.

At the next tier down he's got 6 times more year ending championships to Djokovic and Nadal's combined 1 title.

You have to get a long way down the list of achievements that actually matter in the historic scheme of things before you get to desperate stuff like head to head comparisons.

You could look at it another way though - as many others have mentioned previously - all those times that Federer won slams or titles where Nadal lost earlier to people Federer went on to beat, add them all to Federer's side of the h2h. Then do likewise for Nadal. You'll discover that in tournaments they both player Federer is ahead about 2 to 1. If Nadal is (yet) a respectable contender for the accolades given to Federer, how come he was such a pigeon in so many tournaments Federer won, yet the same cannot be said the other way around?

I can save you the hassle of trying to work it out. He was unable to because overall he is not even close to being the tennis player Federer is (yet at least) based on results. Almost all of the metrics regarded as important back this up.

Great post.

 

[Cup8489]

Aaaaand the Dark Knight just got pwnt.


Not that he will recognize this, because according to him, Federer's achievements only count on the paper they're written on, not in real life. He didn't actually win 16 majors, beating 7 people per tournament along the way. That's all you can ask of him, it's not his fault Nadal wasn't good enough to meet him in major finals outside of clay and wimbledon, where he still holds a 2-1 advantage..

I mean, He does still hold more majors than the top two guys who supposedly forced him down to number 3...

But yet, neither of them has yet managed the dominance Federer has, and Federer continues to be a threat to them even at 30 years old.

 

[kiki]

yes, dumbo, hewitt was only thrashing 14 time champion sampras 6,1 and 1 at flushing. he was only ripping apart rafter at 18 years of age with rafter at his peak ..yes, he sure as wouldn't be top 10 when a lesser version in chang actually reached #2 in the 90s ...:roll:

ferrero was only winning on clay vs kuerten, you know that guy could play a bit on clay ...not to mention the likes of corretja, moya, norman etc ...

roddick was only beating sampras, agassi, nadal, djoker etc etc ....(leads sampras, djoker H2H and is pretty even with nadal off clay ), yeah, what a talentless hack ...

in short, as usual, this is another of your clueless posts ...

Everybody knows Sampras was tired in a huge way in the 2001 USO final.

Moya? Norman? Corretja¡¡¡ yes, all timers...just in your fantaland, called "Snowfed and the 7 dwarfs (Bagdhatis,Davidenkho,Hewitt,Gaudio,Roddick,Ferrero and Coria)"

 

[abmk]

Everybody knows Sampras was tired in a huge way in the 2001 USO final.

yes, a marathon 2 hr semi tired him out .... :roll:

fact is hewitt rolled over him because he was playing that well ... in the semis he had smashed kafelnikov, losing only 4 games

hewitt has also beaten sampras 4 other times, so it wasn't an exception ...

Moya? Norman? Corretja¡¡¡ yes, all timers...just in your fantaland, called "Snowfed and the 7 dwarfs (Bagdhatis,Davidenkho,Hewitt,Gaudio,Roddick,Ferrero and Coria)"

all 3 of moya, corretja and norman are excellent clay courters , wayyyyyyyyyy better than your over-hyped franulovic, who was kodes so called toughest opponent in 70 FO ...

 

[kiki]

yes, a marathon 2 hr semi tired him out .... :roll:

fact is hewitt rolled over him because he was playing that well ... in the semis he had smashed kafelnikov, losing only 4 games

hewitt has also beaten sampras 4 other times, so it wasn't an exception ...



all 3 of moya, corretja and norman are excellent clay courters , wayyyyyyyyyy better than your over-hyped franulovic, who was kodes so called toughest opponent in 70 FO ...

...and who won Montecarlo and also reached the semis at RG in 1971...once again felling to the Prague´s Lion.

 

[abmk]

...and who won Montecarlo and also reached the semis at RG in 1971...once again felling to the Prague´s Lion.

fraulovic's MC wasn't against a full field ..

moya won rg in 98, also won monte carlo and rome - all against full fields ...

corretja was in 2 RG finals - 98 and 2001 - all against full fields ...

norman was in RG final in 2000 and won rome that year - all against full fields, only injuries cut short his career ...

all 3 of them by some distance better than franulovic ...

 

[TMF]

Suffices with enough experience watchin g them in different conditions

Are you referring to yourself? Fine, but keep it to yourself because other members don't believe you. They will judge you based on the contents of your posts and it sure doesn't sound like you've been watching current tennis.

 

[BeHappy]

Kiki - are you Jan Kodes?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Considering his majors total is more than Djokovic and Nadal's careers combined at this stage I'd say Federer still has the obvious edge.

At the next tier down he's got 6 times more year ending championships to Djokovic and Nadal's combined 1 title.

You have to get a long way down the list of achievements that actually matter in the historic scheme of things before you get to desperate stuff like head to head comparisons.

You could look at it another way though - as many others have mentioned previously - all those times that Federer won slams or titles where Nadal lost earlier to people Federer went on to beat, add them all to Federer's side of the h2h. Then do likewise for Nadal. You'll discover that in tournaments they both player Federer is ahead about 2 to 1. If Nadal is (yet) a respectable contender for the accolades given to Federer, how come he was such a pigeon in so many tournaments Federer won, yet the same cannot be said the other way around?

I can save you the hassle of trying to work it out. He was unable to because overall he is not even close to being the tennis player Federer is (yet at least) based on results. Almost all of the metrics regarded as important back this up.

It's the argument of Quality vs Quantity.....

Feds competition in my book , Pat Cashs book, Wilanders book all see the same thing .

We are not "Haters" it's just our honest opinion . Federer was in the right place and the right time . No way would he have 16 majors of these guys were around.....that's why he has not won a GS since 2010.

 

[kiki]

Are you referring to yourself? Fine, but keep it to yourself because other members don't believe you. They will judge you based on the contents of your posts and it sure doesn't sound like you've been watching current tennis.

I´ve been watching current tennis with other glasses, those of truth

 

[kiki]

Kiki - are you Jan Kodes?

No, he is quite older than me.He was one of my favourite players when I really got onto tennis ( there were a few more, of course)

 

[tennis_pro]

It's the argument of Quality vs Quantity.....

Feds competition in my book , Pat Cashs book, Wilanders book all see the same thing .

We are not "Haters" it's just our honest opinion . Federer was in the right place and the right time . No way would he have 16 majors of these guys were around.....that's why he has not won a GS since 2010.

Do you honestly think that Federer at 31 is even close to his old 2004-2007 level?

You know, there are 2 kinds of haters.
1) haters who keep in touch with reality - I'm a good example, despite despising Nadal I still acknowledge his results and what he's done
2) delusional haters - a group which includes you which means living in your own world and claiming stuff which doesn't exist in reality

 

[tennis_pro]

No, he is quite older than me.He was one of my favourite players when I really got onto tennis ( there were a few more, of course)

You're either an old fart who doesn't have a family and is unemployed that's why you have all the time in the world to post here (which is quite sad) or you're

a 20-year old who read a book or 2 about tennis and pretends to have all the knowledge in the world

so which one is it

 

[kiki]

You're either an old fart who doesn't have a family and is unemployed that's why you have all the time in the world to post here (which is quite sad) or you're

a 20-year old who read a book or 2 about tennis and pretends to have all the knowledge in the world

so which one is it

I am certainly not a poster stainer like you are with an historically low IQ

 

[tennis_pro]

I am certainly not a poster stainer like you are with an historically low IQ

10 "an" historically low IQ's

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I am certainly not a poster stainer like you are with an historically low IQ

Now you can not even write a single sentence without contradicting yourself.

 

[Cup8489]

I am certainly not a poster stainer like you are with an historically low IQ

self-owned.

you would use an 'a' in that situation, as 'an' is only used when the following word begins with a vowel sound. Yeah.

 

[OriginalHockeytowner]

10 "an" historically low IQ's

http://grammartips.homestead.com/historical.html

 

[firepanda]

Hey, personal attacks, guys.

Fed is undeniably the greatest of all time. 16 slams can attest to that.

Skill, which is what I assume Pat is referring to, is a different matter entirely. Because its all relative, there's no way of finding out without playing the guys. However, Djokovic and Nadal are both beating Federer easily now by quite a considerable margin. Federer has said his shots are better now than in 2004-2007. That's why I'm more inclined to agree with Cash.

 

[kiki]

Now you can not even write a single sentence without contradicting yourself.

oh¡ old Carstensen is back; since he knows little of tennis ( to be kind with him), he has taken advanced grammar lessons and is here to help.Congratulations¡¡¡

 

[tennis_pro]

Hey, personal attacks, guys.

Fed is undeniably the greatest of all time. 16 slams can attest to that.

Skill, which is what I assume Pat is referring to, is a different matter entirely. Because its all relative, there's no way of finding out without playing the guys. However, Djokovic and Nadal are both beating Federer easily now by quite a considerable margin. Federer has said his shots are better now than in 2004-2007. That's why I'm more inclined to agree with Cash.

Well. Well that's just dumb. Go watch Federer and see for yourself if his groundies (or backhand) are better in 2012 than in 2004 or 2006. Fed says a lot of stuff that has no connection with reality.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Cash just switched from Acid to Crystal Meth after watching Breaking Bad. He should not be allowed to give his opinion when he's that high.

30 y old Federer beat Prime Djokovic at RG, and almost at USO this year. + Prime Fed would destroy Prime Djokovic and Prime "I'm in Heaven with angels and I enjoy my Dreams" Pat Cash any time any place any surface even with a ping pong racquet

Good point and then he got his ass kicked by Nadal in the final as usual in the FO. In that FO he had to face Joker then Nadal....and he has to do this again now. The competition is way tougher today !

Do you think Baghdatis is a good as Nadal or Djokovic is today?

Name just one of Federers finals where he faced any one as good as them just one?

 

[above bored]

Good point and then he got his ass kicked by Nadal in the final as usual in the FO. In that FO he had to face Joker then Nadal....and he has to do this again now. The competition is way tougher today !

Do you think Baghdatis is a good as Nadal or Djokovic is today?

Name just one of Federers finals where he faced any one as good as them just one?

All of them, because in each of those Slam finals he was competing against a player playing well enough to make a Slam final, some of whom had already beaten Djokovic or Nadal or a player who had beaten them, and all of whom had done better in the draw than either when they were in it.

 

[tennis_pro]

Good point and then he got his ass kicked by Nadal in the final as usual in the FO. In that FO he had to face Joker then Nadal....and he has to do this again now. The competition is way tougher today !

Do you think Baghdatis is a good as Nadal or Djokovic is today?

Name just one of Federers finals where he faced any one as good as them just one?

Lawl all of Fed's FO finals - Nadal. 3 consecutive Wimbledon finals 2006-2008, same Nadal. 2009 AO - Nadal. 2007 US - Djokovic. 3 Wimbledon finals against Roddick who is better on grass than Djokovic. 2 Australian Opens against Safin. These are only finals, he also took out Djokovic in the earlier rounds a couple of times, beat peak Hewitt 5 times in majors in 2004-2005.

And if THIS is what's hurting you - 2007 AO against Gonzalez who pwned Nadal in the quarters 2 4 and 3.

 

[Bobby Jr]

self-owned.

you would use an 'a' in that situation, as 'an' is only used when the following word begins with a vowel sound. Yeah.

Not exclusively actually.

"An honorary title" = vowel sounding use of 'h' as per convention.

"An historic event" = non-vowel sounding use of 'h' where using an is still correct.

"I have an MBA from Cornell..."

And the vice-versa occurs sometimes also.
E.g. "a utopian ideal" is correct where convention would normally suggest "an"
E.g. 2 "a one-track mind"

 

[Cup8489]

Not exclusively actually.

"An honorary title" = vowel sounding use of 'h' as per convention.

"An historic event" = non-vowel sounding use of 'h' where using an is still correct.

"I have an MBA from Cornell..."

And the vice-versa occurs sometimes also.
E.g. "a utopian ideal" is correct where convention would normally suggest "an"
E.g. 2 "a one-track mind"

It actually depends on the pronunciation of the h in historical. some english speaking countries pronounce it HISTORICAL, while others it's more of an ISTORICAL. So it actually depends on the way it's being said.

I was always taught that it was based on how the word is pronounced, for example, the 'an MBA' statement, MBA is pronounced 'em-bee-ey', and so 'an' is used before it.

Likewise, 'a utopian' is pronounced 'yew-toe-pee-uhn' and so it receives the 'a' article instead of 'an'

 

[The Dark Knight]

All of them, because in each of those Slam finals he was competing against a player playing well enough to make a Slam final, some of whom had already beaten Djokovic or Nadal or a player who had beaten them, and all of whom had done better in the draw than either when they were in it.

So then bagdatis is as good as Nadal ?

Gonzalez is as good as current Djokovic?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Lawl all of Fed's FO finals - Nadal. 3 consecutive Wimbledon finals 2006-2008, same Nadal. 2009 AO - Nadal. 2007 US - Djokovic. 3 Wimbledon finals against Roddick who is better on grass than Djokovic. 2 Australian Opens against Safin. These are only finals, he also took out Djokovic in the earlier rounds a couple of times, beat peak Hewitt 5 times in majors in 2004-2005.

And if THIS is what's hurting you - 2007 AO against Gonzalez who pwned Nadal in the quarters 2 4 and 3.

Nadal was still a developing kid..... He was a clay court specialist ..... I will however give you 2007......that was a legit win for Fed and well deserved......

But that was nadals breakthrough.....the same as Fed beating Sampras.....nadal became an all court great only in 2008...,,and fed could only win when nadal was not around .

Nadal skipped Wimbledon and we were left with a weak field yet again......take a wild guess who fed met ? Andy Roddick Feds boggiest rival.....ho hum.

In fact the only way fed won the FO was because nadal wasn't in the final....

But now you have the added pressure of a much improved Joker...he has also finally turned a corner. Fed has never faced this much competition.

 

[Cup8489]

So then bagdatis is as good as Nadal ?

Gonzalez is as good as current Djokovic?

Has Djokovic beaten guys like that in every final he's played? Nope. Neither has Nadal. I mean PUERTA? BERDYCH?

Yeah, you can only beat the 7 guys in front of you in a major. And Federer has had more success with that than these supposed better players COMBINED.

 

[Cup8489]

Nadal was still a developing kid..... He was a clay court specialist ..... I will however give you 2007......that was a legit win for Fed and well deserved......

But that was nadals breakthrough.....the same as Fed beating Sampras.....nadal became an all court great only in 2008...,,and fed could only win when nadal was not around .

Nadal skipped Wimbledon and we were left with a weak field yet again......take a wild guess who fed met ? Andy Roddick Feds boggiest rival.....ho hum.

In fact the only way fed won the FO was because nadal wasn't in the final....

But now you have the added pressure of a much improved Joker...he has also finally turned a corner. Fed has never faced this much competition.

You're ridiculous. everything has an asterisk by it except your OBVIOUS heroes Djokovic and Nadal.

They're lucky they didn't have to face prime Fed in major finals as opposed to post prime Fed. Especially Djokovic. No way does he win USO or Wimbledon against prime fed.

No way.

 

[above bored]

So then bagdatis is as good as Nadal ?

Gonzalez is as good as current Djokovic?

At the time they played in those particular finals they were.

 

[helloworld]

Djokovic is in a very bad form at the moment. He just got through Seppi in 5 sets. I don't think he will get past Fed this time, if he even makes it to play Fed...