kiki
Banned
You can give it a rest, as I'm not going to be fooled by another whippersnapper claiming to have experience that he lacks.
It's Icarus all over again.
which experience did I lack?
You can give it a rest, as I'm not going to be fooled by another whippersnapper claiming to have experience that he lacks.
It's Icarus all over again.
which experience did I lack?
Good one Rog. It's really the "2 of us", Djokovic & Nadal have utterly dominated tennis since 2008.
No, if that is the case numbers favour Djokovic
Another issue is totally different is quality of oppostion:*)
it has nothing of subjectivism when your opponents are called Lendl,Wilander,Sampras,Agassi,Courier,Stich,Edberg,Mc Enroe,Connors...compared to half of time injuried Nadal and, yes, Federer.
hewitt prefers faster courts like the ones at flushing or wimbledon or queens or indoor courts ... he's had MUCH more success there than @ the AO or on clay ....the slowing down of courts actually hurt him ....
he absolutely pummeled sampras in their USO 2001 meeting, beat him twice @ queens and bagelled him indoors @ lisbon in 2000 .......owned both rafter & henman as well ....most of their meetings were on faster courts ....
to compare hewitt to higueras, dibbs, solomon, barazzuitti, muster is just downright clueless .... these guys preferred clay courts & clay is hewitt's worst surface ...
none of these guys come near a mile's distance of hewitt's passing/returning & ability to redirect pace .....
you ( & BobbyOne ) just continue to amaze with your increasing levels of cluelessness .......you don't even know what hewitt's strengths/weaknesses are, yet keep on continuing with weak era cr*p ...though its absolutely blatantly transparent you have very little clue .....
abmk, Can you something else or only insult posters?
becker's competition was tougher, but it isn't that big a difference IMO ...
you could've really mentioned becker's davis cup heroics as well as a factor, but didn't. that's the problem with you being blindly clueless about/biased against the modern era & just hating federer ....
The experience you gain from growing up and learning to deal with the highs and lows.
djokovic didn't make a single slam final from FO 2008 to wimbledon 2010, that's 10 slams ....
forget about winning one or "dominating" ....
I thought of but then you´d have come up with the argument that DC is not an individual competition..hahaha.Owned again.
for once in a lifetime, your post makes any sense...of coruse, it is used to enhance your crush fed but you´re totally right about Djokovic.
it has nothing to do with "enhancing" federer ... fact is federer was the #2 player in 2008,10 & the #1 player in 2009, djokovic was a distinct 3rd in 2009 , 2010 & close 3rd in 2008 ...
I post mainly based on facts/reality ... just that you don't know much .....
I was talking about his level of play in the singles matches - vs wilander, edberg etc, the epic matches vs mac, agassi etc .....not necessarily about the no of times the player participated in a davis cup winning team ....
hahaha.And you who are? you don´t know me and nothing of my life experience.And my highs and downs.
I'm glad you feel that way. Think about it before you tell people about their own lives.
I never posted about other´s lives, i was just debating with newtards about why I like a given era or a given player, related to tennis and, in a
few posts, also some music.I think I have the right to express my opinion just like you have yours.Thisis a forum at elast IMo aimed at entertaining and discussion.I apologize if anybody feels I refeer to their lives, I don´t know them and they don´t know me so it is senseless and pointless.
But this is about debating tastes, eras, in a word, spectacles.
Remember your generalizing of Fed fans' private sexual orientations as opposed to Laver's? Ring a bell?
Me??? That is trolling, sorry, looks like you all federer fans need to attack me personally.I never cared the less about sexual orientations.Why don´t you call the moderator?
Actually many of us disagree with you. Calling you biased is not an attack, and being biased is not against the forum policies. Unlike NadalAgassi who personal insults many posters with foul language, that's an attack and warrant a ban.
Actually many of us disagree with you. Calling you biased is not an attack, and being biased is not against the forum policies. Unlike NadalAgassi who personal insults many posters with foul language, that's an attack and warrant a ban.
TMF, Those who put Federer at No. 1 should learn tennis history!
TMF, Those who put Federer at No. 1 should learn tennis history!
And you should take off your rose tinted glasses. Federer is a legitimate contender for the No. 1 spot.
Well being the greatest player on the most competitive era of tennis (Open era), should at least count for something. Perhaps you should learn some statistics too. There is a very interesting post made by Timnz i believe. It shows that is miles ahead of anyone in the open era from a objective point of view. It only counts the major events :Slams, Slams finals, Masters-WCT finals and Masters 1000.
Surprisingly, Federer is the player with most slams, most masters and second in masters 1000 (only one behind Lendl and tied with Nadal). Go figure....
Yes you are spot on, i don`t know how anyone would think of him as the GOAT.
A GOAT contender with a backhand and volley weakness, a GOAT candidate with only 17 majors (Rosewall 23, Laver 19), in some years realized with rather weak competition (compare Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman and Segura with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis, F. Gonzalez)...
A GOAT contender with a backhand and volley weakness, a GOAT candidate with only 17 majors (Rosewall 23, Laver 19), in some years realized with rather weak competition (compare Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman and Segura with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis, F. Gonzalez)...
ARFED, It's a mistake to only count majors and masters. What about tournaments generally (Federer 78 I believe, Laver 200 at least), about percentages of tournaments won, of majors won and so on?
Yes you are right, he was lucky enough to not have to compete in a major with Jhon Alexander and Alex Metreveli as the number 3 and 4 seeds. The true GOAT is the one not having to compete during 4 of his major wins against 3 of the 5 best players in the world (Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura).
TMF, Those who put Federer at No. 1 should learn tennis history!
How many of those Laver wins were during the amateurs?? 50 or so. Unless you wanna count amateur results as equal in which case certain player (Emerson) would go way up in the GOAT rankings.
I don`t have any problem with you or other people not placing Federer as number 1. In fact i am not even sure he is number 1, he is too close with Laver imo. The problem comes when someone discredits the greatest player in the last 45 years (and that is a fact wheter you like it or not) and being those 45 years the most competitive tennis has ever seen (fact also), as someone who is a tier below other greats from previous eras and doesn`t deserve to be called in the same sentence as them.
That my fellow poster shoul be labelled as trolling and nothing else, because i know that you know better that that. As pc1 often says to TMF , you don`t have to put down Federer in order to make look good Rosewall or other past greats. They don`t need that. It just makes you look stupid.
This isn't science, Bobby. Only a fool would think that everyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong.
Wrong are only those who neglect the facts and tennis history.
Me??? That is trolling, sorry, looks like you all federer fans need to attack me personally.I never cared the less about sexual orientations.Why don´t you call the moderator?:)
BobbyOne, I recall we had a debate about this once, and you did not object to my argument that if Federer is disqualified for his volleys, then so are players like Borg or Tilden, for their volleys -- or Rosewall for his serve. Federer's backhand is a strong shot and is no more attackable -- and has broken down no more -- than Rosewall's forehand. And if Federer's backhand disqualifies him then so does Tilden's backhand, or Pancho Gonzalez's.A GOAT contender with a backhand and volley weakness, a GOAT candidate with only 17 majors (Rosewall 23, Laver 19), in some years realized with rather weak competition (compare Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman and Segura with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis, F. Gonzalez)...
TMF, Those who put Federer at No. 1 should learn tennis history!
Wrong are only those who neglect the facts and tennis history.
A GOAT contender with a backhand and volley weakness, a GOAT candidate with only 17 majors (Rosewall 23, Laver 19), in some years realized with rather weak competition (compare Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman and Segura with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis, F. Gonzalez)...
You neglect many facts, my friend. History includes more than the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Will do in the future.
BobbyOne, I recall we had a debate about this once, and you did not object to my argument that if Federer is disqualified for his volleys, then so are players like Borg or Tilden, for their volleys -- or Rosewall for his serve. Federer's backhand is a strong shot and is no more attackable -- and has broken down no more -- than Rosewall's forehand. And if Federer's backhand disqualifies him then so does Tilden's backhand, or Pancho Gonzalez's.
If completeness of one's game is a criteria for being GOAT then Laver is clearly ahead of Rosewall, Federer, Borg or Tilden. Actually Hoad would probably be put ahead of those men, too, if you're looking strictly for weaknesses among the basic strokes.
federer's backhand and volleys are by no means weaknesses , at times they can be inconsistent/sloppy, but when in-form, they're very good .... when in the zone, they're brilliant ...
they're as much a "weakness" as rosewall's forehand ..
rosewall's serve on the other hand is a true weakness ..
its hilarious how you don't realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot with the stroke weakness argument
mentioning gonzalez/baghdatis and neglecting nadal, djokovic, agassi, murray, nalbandian,delpo etc . as part of fed's competition just goes to show your bias ........
krosero,
I think that Rosewall had only one weakness, his service which was only decent but still pretty good. You can't win 23 majors (or 25) with a weak service. Federer has several weaknesses: still his backhand which mosty is defensive and vulnerable (or would be vulnerable by strong volleyers), his volley (I think that Borg had a better one), his lack of versatility (he only has one match plan) and the lack of touch shots.
I'm not sure that Tilden had a weak volley.
Federer had several years without strong Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Murray, del Potro...
krosero,
I think that Rosewall had only one weakness, his service which was only decent but still pretty good. You can't win 23 majors (or 25) with a weak service. Federer has several weaknesses: still his backhand which mosty is defensive and vulnerable (or would be vulnerable by strong volleyers), his volley (I think that Borg had a better one), his lack of versatility (he only has one match plan) and the lack of touch shots.
I'm not sure that Tilden had a weak volley.
krosero,
I think that Rosewall had only one weakness, his service which was only decent but still pretty good. You can't win 23 majors (or 25) with a weak service. Federer has several weaknesses: still his backhand which mosty is defensive and vulnerable (or would be vulnerable by strong volleyers), his volley (I think that Borg had a better one), his lack of versatility (he only has one match plan) and the lack of touch shots.
I'm not sure that Tilden had a weak volley.
Here are some excerpts of Laver and Federer conversation, the first time they met during an AO
RF:" Good morning Mr Laver.What an honour to meet the only man to have won three GS¡¡.I am afraid I won´t get any...can I ask you a suggestion?"
RL:" Oh, sure.How nice is to meet new fresh blood around .."
RF: " I know you enjoy swiss chocolate a lot.I came here loaded in case I met you...can you give me your worthless GS for a big tablet?"
RL:" Oh dude, certainly I love those tablets...let me check in my pocket...oh¡ here it is.If you that delicious looking red tablet, I´ll give you GS 1, that of 62"
RF:HE IS ALMOST BLISTERED.He just can´t believe the feeling of looking at, touching, smelling what a GS is..
RL: " geez, those chocolates from switzerland are great¡¡¡ will you give me naother tablet, that blue one, if I give you my GS nº 2, that of 67?"
RF: " ohhhh, I ne..ver... thou..ght..to see one sin...gle sl..am so close...I dónt kn..ow... if... I...can over..come 2¡¡¡"
RL: " Oh, no problem, you seem a nice fella...here it is"
RF: call a docotr please, I am fading¡¡¡
RL: " Not yet kid.You know, the biggest ever one is my third one, that of 69...But there is a special price for it.If I give it tou you, I may want in exchange that big 50 pieces black tablet"
RF: ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don´t be so cruel with my heart Mr Laver
RL: " Here it is, GS nº 3.Take good care of it, son.Sinc eyou got those wonderful banks in Switzerland, will you da me a favou? keep it closed in one of them..."
Yes, Now Roger has three GS while Laver has become a chocolate adict who has to control every day his level of sugar...
RF: " One last question, Mr Laver...if I bought you a house in the alps, would you give me ANOTHER GS?"
RL:" oh, I wish I could.But you know, ever since the end of 1969, I never cared a damn about GS.So, i don´t have any.Isn´t three enough for ya?"
krosero,
I think that Rosewall had only one weakness, his service which was only decent but still pretty good. You can't win 23 majors (or 25) with a weak service. Federer has several weaknesses: still his backhand which mosty is defensive and vulnerable (or would be vulnerable by strong volleyers), his volley (I think that Borg had a better one), his lack of versatility (he only has one match plan) and the lack of touch shots.
I'm not sure that Tilden had a weak volley.
pc1,
this is a guy you think has knowledge of tennis ?????? now, seriously ?
Yeah, you're wrong about all of that...
I'm disappointed that the Federer fanatics not only dominate the General PP Discussion but partly also the Former PP Talk where one could have expected the posters do know about tennis history.....
agassi was there from 2003-05, playing very well ..
nadal was brilliant on clay from 2005 onwards ... he was very good on grass from 2006 onwards
djokovic was there from 2007 onwards ..
2003-05 had agassi, hewitt, roddick, safin, ferrero, nalbandian, coria etc ....
only 2006 was relatively a bit weaker, but 2007 got stronger with nadal becoming better on grass & the rise of djokovic ...
rosewall also had several years without strong gonzalez or laver (61-63) ... gonzalez only played part-time in 61 and laver was still learning on the pro circuit in 63