this result proves that if Fed had beaten Nole in the USO SF, Nadal would have no CGS

[BreakPoint]

your first premise got destroyed and you come up with a new one? So whose fault is it that Federer couldn't make the USO final this year?

I've always known MENSA collects ******** and socially handicapped people. You are an evidence of this.

At least I have a premise. You destroyed your own illogical one.

You state that "every time Nadal has beaten Federer in a MS on CLAY, he has gone on to beat Federer at RG". Yet, when Federer has beaten Nadal in a MS on CLAY, he has no chance of beating Nadal at RG? That's Logic Fail 101! What does Hamburg have to do with Madrid? Nadal wasn't there in the '09 RG final for Federer to spank him after he already spanked him two weeks before in Madrid!

 

[dmt]

breakpoint grow up. I dont believe that nadal would have destroyed federer in the uso final. But he'd still stand a shot at winning

Lets not forget that nadal won the us open at a younger age then federer when he first reached the french open final, his worst surface. And while its not federers fault for nadal not making it to the fo final, the same thing counts here.

 

[BreakPoint]

Lets not forget that nadal won the us open at a younger age then federer when he first reached the french open final, his worst surface.

That's incorrect. They were both 24.

 

[dmt]

its amazing the arguments used here to discredit nadals gs victories. Somehow federer and djokovic are greater threats to nadal on clay then soderling lol. Somehow the wimbledon draw was easy for him when he had to face two top 10 players and one top 15 player.

The haters need to grow up. He won his majors, he is by far the best player this year. End of story

 

[dmt]

That's incorrect. They were both 24.

if i am not wrong federer was about half a year older.

 

[niff]

The haters need to grow up. He won his majors, he is by far the best player this year. End of story

And yet you were the one who brought Federer's 2009 Wimbo draw into the conversation? Pot kettle black....

 

[BreakPoint]

if i am not wrong federer was about half a year older.

Yeah, I'm sure that made a big difference. :???:

Meanwhile, Nadal turned pro when he was 2 years younger than when Federer turned pro. Nadal turned pro when he was 15.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

this result proves that ****s have too much time in their hands and overanalize a lot...

 

[The-Champ]

You state that "every time Nadal has beaten Federer in a MS on CLAY, he has gone on to beat Federer at RG". !

which is a FACT! that's something you cannot dispute you ignoramus.

Yet, when Federer has beaten Nadal in a MS on CLAY, he has no chance of beating Nadal at RG? That's Logic Fail 101! What does Hamburg have to do with Madrid? Nadal wasn't there in the '09 RG final for Federer to spank him after he already spanked him two weeks before in Madrid!

you have no logic moron!
did I say he had no chance? You're the one who said, because Fed beat Nadal in a MS in Madrid, he would beat him at the FO as well. He beat Rafa in Hamburg too, but Nadal killed him at the FO (again a fact!). So what makes you think Federer would have beaten him at the FO just because he beat him at a MS in Madrid? Federer have met Nadal 4 times at the FO and got his *** kicked everytime. Federer beating Nadal at a clay MS is not indicative of the outcome at the FO, fact!

 

[The-Champ]

deleted deleted

 

[big bang]

which is a FACT! that's something you cannot dispute you ignoramus.





you have no logic moron!
did I say he had no chance? You're the one who said, because Fed beat Nadal in a MS in Madrid, he would beat him at the FO as well. He beat Rafa in Hamburg too, but Nadal killed him at the FO (again a fact!). So what makes you think Federer would have beaten him at the FO just because he beat him at a MS in Madrid? Federer have met Nadal 4 times at the FO and got his *** kicked everytime. Federer beating Nadal at a clay MS is not indicative of the outcome at the FO, fact!

BreakTroll the self proclaimed genius forgot to say that hes talking about the results of his wii grand slam tennis that hes playing in his parents basement. Thats the closest he has ever been to a tennis court. Its true he can beat Rafa on CLAY, you do know that wii is for real tennis players right?.

 

[ksbh]

ROFL! Too bad your other post about him got deleted. It was a masterpiece!

BreakTroll the self proclaimed genius forgot to say that hes talking about the results of his wii grand slam tennis that hes playing in his parents basement. Thats the closest he has ever been to a tennis court. Its true he can beat Rafa on CLAY, you do know that wii is for real tennis players right?.

 

[ksbh]

Well Herr Sentinel is from the North, so not sure if he likes them. Besides he hasn't responded yet so maybe he'd rather go the roti & chapati way!

ROTFLMAO

Sentinel likes them too.

 

[Sentinel]

Well Herr Sentinel is from the North, so not sure if he likes them. Besides he hasn't responded yet so maybe he'd rather go the roti & chapati way!

My apologies - i seem to have missed those posts in the flurry of trolling.

Haha. Pongal Wow !!! btw, I am the Idli Sambar kind of guy ! I thought you knew that by now. One's roots never die. Whatever, it's time here to get some sleep. Silly thread -- not to insult anyone, just saying.

 

[Talker]

I don't think Fed would have beaten Nadal at the USO, he wasn't playing as well as he is now but I guess there would be a chance.

 

[FTS]

I don't think Fed would have beaten Nadal at the USO, he wasn't playing as well as he is now but I guess there would be a chance.

yeah i'd say a 5 time USO champ 6 time finalist has an outside chance against a first time finalist

 

[boredone3456]

yeah i'd say a 5 time USO champ 6 time finalist has an outside chance against a first time finalist

Well everyone expected Fed to beat Berdych at Wimbledon and look what happened there. Nothing is guaranteed with Fed anymore, he is still a threat anywhere but he doesn't seem to have the same level as he used to and everyone else is slowly starting to pounce. Nadal played good Tennis at the US Open, it would have been a good match had Fed beaten Djokovic, but to simply hand victory to Fed is way to extreme.

 

[FTS]

he is still a threat anywhere

that's all I'm saying, and more of a threat than Joker (two time finalist)

but to simply hand victory to Fed is way to extreme.

of course.

IMO people are underplaying the match they just played though.. 21 matches and I'd never seen Fed employ such effective anti-Nadal tactics. things just may be different in the future.

 

[boredone3456]

Fed definitely played great against Nadal, one of the better matches he has played against him in a while. I admit I didn't expect Fed to win, but it was a really good match. Rafa was looking a little sluggish, but Fed was to and it was a really good match from Rodger. On any given Day Federer can do this, sad thing is it doesn't happen as frequently anymore. But, even declining Federer is still a huge threat and deep runner anywhere and still a major and title contender. He's just not the complete lock he used to be, at least in my opinion.

 

[big bang]

ROFL! Too bad your other post about him got deleted. It was a masterpiece!

oh no did it get deleted

 

[BreakPoint]

which is a FACT! that's something you cannot dispute you ignoramus.





you have no logic moron!
did I say he had no chance? You're the one who said, because Fed beat Nadal in a MS in Madrid, he would beat him at the FO as well. He beat Rafa in Hamburg too, but Nadal killed him at the FO (again a fact!). So what makes you think Federer would have beaten him at the FO just because he beat him at a MS in Madrid? Federer have met Nadal 4 times at the FO and got his *** kicked everytime. Federer beating Nadal at a clay MS is not indicative of the outcome at the FO, fact!

Um..you keep bringing up Hamburg 2007. OK, you claim that Nadal losing to Federer in Hamburg 2007 meant that he beats Federer in RG 2007. Using YOUR logic, Federer losing to Nadal in Madrid 2010 must then mean that Federer would have beaten Nadal in RG 2010. You can't have it both ways. Or else using Hamburg would be illogical.

Oh, and please keep calling me names all day because I won't miss you when you're banned.

 

[BreakPoint]

oh no did it get deleted

And I expect you'll be deleted too soon enough. :???:

 

[big bang]

And I expect you'll be deleted too soon enough. :???:

You are doing nothing but trolling and posting BS all day long, I really dont get why you are here.. You are only here to annoy ppl, sad life!.

 

[TMF]

oh no did it get deleted

If you are civilized then your post won’t get deleted.

 

[jackson vile]

ROFL! Too bad your other post about him got deleted. It was a masterpiece!

Guess who got it deleted???

 

[BreakPoint]

You are doing nothing but trolling and posting BS all day long, I really dont get why you are here.. You are only here to annoy ppl, sad life!.

Um..."BS"? Then why do so many people agree with me?

It's only "BS" to all the sad *********s, like you.

Oh, and why is ANYONE here?

 

[BreakPoint]

If you are civilized then your post won’t get deleted.

But big bang isn't, is he? Therefore, he'll be banned soon enough. Just a matter of time.

 

[big bang]

Um..."BS"? Then why do so many people agree with me?

It's only "BS" to all the sad *********s, like you.

Oh, and why is ANYONE here?

The army of Fedtrolls agrees with you, nothing new there.
And by the way Im neither Fed fan or Nadal fan, but I know BS when I see it!

But big bang isn't, is he? Therefore, he'll be banned soon enough. Just a matter of time.

You think of yourself as civilized? you are trolling all day long because you dont have better things to do, I really find that sad!.

 

[big bang]

Guess who got it deleted???

My guess would be BrainTroll, but I wouldnt be shocked if it was some other member of the FedTroll army..

 

[BreakPoint]

The army of Fedtrolls agrees with you, nothing new there.
And by the way Im neither Fed fan or Nadal fan, but I know BS when I see it!

Of course you do. Because you dish it out all day long. As the saying goes - "He who smelt it, dealt it.".

You think of yourself as civilized? you are trolling all day long because you dont have better things to do, I really find that sad!.

It's only "trolling" to those who don't agree with me.

And why do you keep reading and responding to my posts? Don't have anything else better to do?

 

[big bang]

Of course you do. Because you dish it out all day long. As the saying goes - "He who smelt it, dealt it.".

It's only "trolling" to those who don't agree with me.

And why do you keep reading and responding to my posts? Don't have anything else better to do?

Even some of the other Fed fans told you to cool down because you are out of touch with reality. P_Agony who I happen to respect for his knowledge and mostly good posting told you a few pages back.
Every thread you make is pure fantasy and only meant to start a flame war, that in my world is pure BS. You cant find one thread in my name with a BS troll title like everyone of yours!.

Sure I got lots of better things to do than feed the trolls on TT, I just find you more annoying than the rest. Im not the one with 12.06 post a day am I?. You actually spend the last 6 years posting an average of 12.06 post a day, what a waste of time considering the stuff you post around here.

I dont think Im the only person thats getting very tired of the increasing number of trolls at TT. But ok Some of them are a bit fun to have around, some are just plain dumb, but you are just annoying and full of BS but hey thats whats trolling is all about right?.

 

[The-Champ]

Um..you keep bringing up Hamburg 2007. OK, you claim that Nadal losing to Federer in Hamburg 2007 meant that he beats Federer in RG 2007. Using YOUR logic, Federer losing to Nadal in Madrid 2010 must then mean that Federer would have beaten Nadal in RG 2010. You can't have it both ways. Or else using Hamburg would be illogical.
Oh, and please keep calling me names all day because I won't miss you when you're banned.

You have in this thread displayed difficulties following a single line of thought. How inconsiderate of me to let you follow two. I will post it again, maybe if you read it twice, you mignt actually get it.

so here it is:

You state that "every time Nadal has beaten Federer in a MS on CLAY, he has gone on to beat Federer at RG". !

which is a FACT! that's something you cannot dispute you ignoramus.

Yet, when Federer has beaten Nadal in a MS on CLAY, he has no chance of beating Nadal at RG? That's Logic Fail 101! What does Hamburg have to do with Madrid? Nadal wasn't there in the '09 RG final for Federer to spank him after he already spanked him two weeks before in Madrid!

you have no logic moron!
did I say he had no chance? You're the one who said, because Fed beat Nadal in a MS in Madrid, he would beat him at the FO as well. He beat Rafa in Hamburg too, but Nadal killed him at the FO (again a fact!). So what makes you think Federer would have beaten him at the FO just because he beat him at a MS in Madrid? Federer have met Nadal 4 times at the FO and got his *** kicked everytime. Federer beating Nadal at a clay MS is not indicative of the outcome at the FO, fact!

very simple really. But if you still have difficulties understanding, I will try to explain it the way they do in kindergarten. You should wish for me to always be here, because I'm willing to help you.

 

[BreakPoint]

You have in this thread displayed difficulties following a single line of thought. How inconsiderate of me to let you follow two. I will post it again, maybe if you read it twice, you mignt actually get it.

so here it is:

very simple really. But if you still have difficulties understanding, I will try to explain it the way they do in kindergarten. You should wish for me to always be here, because I'm willing to help you.

That's my point! Nadal beating Federer at Madrid 2010 is not indicative that Nadal would beat Federer at RG 2010 since Federer beating Nadal at Hamburg 2007 was not indicative of Federer beating Nadal at RG 2007. Get it now? You can't have it both ways! :???:

 

[Polvorin]

This thread is just stupid. Turn the tables: "If Soderling didn't beat Nadal at RG '09, Fed would have no CGS." Of course we'll never know one way or the other. Sure he lucked out with the cakewalk draw but he still won the tournament no matter how you look at it.

 

[The-Champ]

That's my point!Nadal beating Federer at Madrid 2010 is not indicative that Nadal would beat Federer at RG 2010 since Federer beating Nadal at Hamburg 2007 was not indicative of Federer beating Nadal at RG 2007. Get it now? You can't have it both ways! :???:

:roll:

You mean your point here?:

No, you must mean the beating Nadal suffered at the hands of Federer in Madrid 2009 right before the '09 French Open means that even if Rafa made the RG finals last year, Federer would still have his CGS.

Let's try it again. Don't worry, I have patience.

1. Results in CLAY matches between Rafa and Fed prior to the FO are basically worthless in determining Federer's success against nadal at the FO. Why?

a. Fed beats Rafa prior to the FO. Rafa beats Fed at the FO
b. Rafa beats Fed prior to the FO. Rafa beats Fed at the FO

conclusion: Rafa always beat Fed at the FO. The result of their matches at the FO becomes a formal logic (victory for Nadal).

However, eventhough I know what formal logic implies, In post 59 of this thread, I did NOT deny Fed's chances against Nadal at the FO. If I did, I would be denying informal logic, which claims: "Just because Federer has never beaten Nadal at the FO, doesn't mean he would never beat him at the FO".Yes, there is a possibility that he might beat Rafa.


What you claim here on the other hand is neither formal logic (Federer has never beaten Rafa at the FO), nor informal logic (Rafa will still beat Fed, but there's a possibility that Fed might beat Rafa).

No, you must mean the beating Nadal suffered at the hands of Federer in Madrid 2009 right before the '09 French Open means that even if Rafa made the RG finals last year, Federer would still have his CGS.

You liken yourself to Albert Einstein in another thread BreakPoint. Well, in my recollection of the great Einstein, he failed his university entrance exam in (Mathematics). Because of that, he couldn't attend the university that year. He had to come back the following year to do it again and finally he passed. That failure only made Albert stronger but the greatest lesson he had learned was that, anyone can make mistakes and admitting your mistakes makes you a better person.

 

[Dilettante]

Total pwnage.

Unfortunately, Breakpoint, as usual, won't even notice his "arguments" haven't any logic because he can't understand the concept of logic at all. I don't even think he'll understand what you are trying to say.

Although it's true, in some post he wanted to make us believe he is intellectually highly gifted.

 

[Sentinel]

 

[BreakPoint]

You mean your point here?:



Let's try it again. Don't worry, I have patience.

1. Results in CLAY matches between Rafa and Fed prior to the FO are basically worthless in determining Federer's success against nadal at the FO. Why?

a. Fed beats Rafa prior to the FO. Rafa beats Fed at the FO
b. Rafa beats Fed prior to the FO. Rafa beats Fed at the FO

conclusion: Rafa always beat Fed at the FO. The result of their matches at the FO becomes a formal logic (victory for Nadal).

However, eventhough I know what formal logic implies, In post 59 of this thread, I did NOT deny Fed's chances against Nadal at the FO. If I did, I would be denying informal logic, which claims: "Just because Federer has never beaten Nadal at the FO, doesn't mean he would never beat him at the FO".Yes, there is a possibility that he might beat Rafa.


What you claim here on the other hand is neither formal logic (Federer has never beaten Rafa at the FO), nor informal logic (Rafa will still beat Fed, but there's a possibility that Fed might beat Rafa).



You liken yourself to Albert Einstein in another thread BreakPoint. Well, in my recollection of the great Einstein, he failed his university entrance exam in (Mathematics). Because of that, he couldn't attend the university that year. He had to come back the following year to do it again and finally he passed. That failure only made Albert stronger but the greatest lesson he had learned was that, anyone can make mistakes and admitting your mistakes makes you a better person.

You must have selective memory. Did you fail to see that my post was in response to ANOTHER POST??? How convenient of you to leave that out completely. Don't ever try to earn a PhD because you would never pass your dissertation.

In that post I was responding to, it was claimed that what happened in Madrid 2010 (THIS YEAR) somehow would have had any relevance to what would have happened at the RG 2009 (LAST YEAR) in the final. Forget the fact that Nadal didn't even make the RG final 2009. Just a minor detail, right? :roll:

Oh, and by your logic, since Nadal lost to Federer in the Wimbledon finals two years in a row, he would NEVER be able to beat Federer in a Wimbledon final regardless if he beats or loses to Federer before Wimbledon BASED ON PAST HISTORY. In reality, what happens before RG or Wimbledon is no indication nor guarantee of what will happen at RG or Wimbledon, especially using THIS YEAR'S results before RG to claim what would have happened at RG LAST YEAR, especially since Nadal didn't even get to the QF last year. That was the point I was trying to make to the poster I was responding to. But I wouldn't expect you to pick up on something as simple as that. Either that or any hint of sarcasm goes right over your head.

 

[BreakPoint]

Total pwnage.

Unfortunately, Breakpoint, as usual, won't even notice his "arguments" haven't any logic because he can't understand the concept of logic at all. I don't even think he'll understand what you are trying to say.

Although it's true, in some post he wanted to make us believe he is intellectually highly gifted.

I could be a complete idiot and STILL be "intellectually highly gifted" compared to YOU.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Total pwnage.

Unfortunately, Breakpoint, as usual, won't even notice his "arguments" haven't any logic because he can't understand the concept of logic at all. I don't even think he'll understand what you are trying to say.

Although it's true, in some post he wanted to make us believe he is intellectually highly gifted.

delirante still sour for the 4 potatoes your national team brought home are you? not enought to have a good x-mas?

 

[jackson vile]

Total pwnage.

Unfortunately, Breakpoint, as usual, won't even notice his "arguments" haven't any logic because he can't understand the concept of logic at all. I don't even think he'll understand what you are trying to say.

Although it's true, in some post he wanted to make us believe he is intellectually highly gifted.

You should know better, BreakWind believes that Roger was not out played at the 2009 USO LOL How did he lose? "It was the umpires fault, and Roger let him have it.."

Crazy no?

Vamos!

 

[The-Champ]

You must have selective memory. Did you fail to see that my post was in response to ANOTHER POST??? How convenient of you to leave that out completely. Don't ever try to earn a PhD because you would never pass your dissertation.

You mean the illogical post you responded with another illogical statement? Both of you were wrong, plain and simple. You are becoming dumber and dumber the longer this conversation goes, so I don't expect you to understand that. You should be the last person to give advice on PhD based on how deficient your analytical faculty is.

In that post I was responding to, it was claimed that what happened in Madrid 2010 (THIS YEAR) somehow would have had any relevance to what would have happened at the RG 2009 (LAST YEAR) in the final. Forget the fact that Nadal didn't even make the RG final 2009. Just a minor detail, right? :roll:

And your response to that is even dumber, which i have highlighted several times already. You can continue defending your illogical statements and I will enjoy ripping them apart.

Oh, and by your logic, since Nadal lost to Federer in the Wimbledon finals two years in a row, he would NEVER be able to beat Federer in a Wimbledon final regardless if he beats or loses to Federer before Wimbledon BASED ON PAST HISTORY. :

You are dumber than I thought. I have explained formal logic contra informal logic in my previous post in the easiest possible way. Shall I explain it with drawings next time? Having said that, I am more inclined to use facts instead of the hypothetical.

Fact 1: Nadal beats Fed at the FO, EVERYTIME!
Fact 2: Nadal has proven capable of beating Fed at Wimbledon!

In reality, what happens before RG or Wimbledon is no indication nor guarantee of what will happen at RG or Wimbledon, especially using THIS YEAR'S results before RG to claim what would have happened at RG LAST YEAR, especially since Nadal didn't even get to the QF last year. :

Fact 1: Nadal beats Fed at the FO, EVERYTIME!
Fact 2: Nadal has proven capable of beating Fed at Wimbledon!


---Nadal didn't get to the QF last year because he lost to Söderling, not Federer. Therefore our conclusion still stand: Nadal beats Fed at the FO, EVERYTIME.

 

[Turning Pro]

Isn't nadal 4-0 at the fo and 6-2 vs fed in gs finals across 3 different surfaces including hc? or are we in an alternate breakpoint universe? nadal beats fed when it matters and that's slams? mmmmk?

 

[Sentinel]

This thread is just stupid. Turn the tables:.

This thread was just a trolling attempt.

The WTF result proved only one thing -- that TW posters get trolled very easily, high or low IQ. Every time, over and over again. Without fail.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Isn't nadal 4-0 at the fo and 6-2 vs fed in gs finals across 3 different surfaces including hc? or are we in an alternate breakpoint universe? nadal beats fed when it matters and that's slams? mmmmk?

Lol WIN!

 

[Eternally_damned]

I don't see what's so hard to understand here. This thread is merely stating the corollary to the no career GS for Federer had Nadal not lost to Sod. Every ********* was saying this, that had Nadal been there to face Fed in the final he would not have won the FO and therefore not have a career GS. Therefore they assign Fed an asterisk (yes I know, not all of you, but many). Well this is the exact same parallel for Nadal. Fed lost in an earlier round to Djoker (just as Nadal did to Sod). Therefore Nadal did not have to face Federer and so his USO is also asterisked just like his career GS. It really just boils down to titt for tat. What's so hard to get here folks?

 

[Turning Pro]

Except nadal was 4-0 vs fed at the french and nadal is 1-0 vs fed at hc slams. Quite asinine logic from you there, ZERO parallels except subjective conjecture.

 

[The-Champ]

I don't see what's so hard to understand here. This thread is merely stating the corollary to the no career GS for Federer had Nadal not lost to Sod. ?

Fact is everytime Fed faced Nadal at the FO (4 times), he lost.

Every ********* was saying this, that had Nadal been there to face Fed in the final he would not have won the FO and therefore not have a career GS. Therefore they assign Fed an asterisk (yes I know, not all of you, but many). ?

Federer's FO title is well deserved. It's not his fault Nadal lost to Söderling.

Well this is the exact same parallel for Nadal. Fed lost in an earlier round to Djoker (just as Nadal did to Sod). ?

Not quite. Fed had never faced Nadal at the USO. Nobody knows how they would fare against each other.

-Multiple AO champ Fed, lost to Nadal the first and only time they met at the AO.

-Federer on the other hand could not beat Nadal at the FO, as proven 4 times before.

 

[Eternally_damned]

Yeah Fed had lost to Nadal at the FO the previous meeting. i.e. Fed was good enough to get to the final. Nadal was not good enough. I think that pretty much sums up how the previous USO meetings would have gone. Are you kidding me? You really think Fed from 2004-2007 would have lost to Nadal at the USO? What a joke.

 

[Eternally_damned]

Except nadal was 4-0 vs fed at the french and nadal is 1-0 vs fed at hc slams. Quite asinine logic from you there, ZERO parallels except subjective conjecture.

Wait a sec? Why is it that they had 4 meeting at the FO and only one on HC? Huh asss?