Why couldn't Djoko dethrone Nadal at RG?

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Well it was quite funny at the time that he finally managed to beat Nadal at RG (thanks to Rafa's poor form) only to get his teeth kicked in by Stan.
Novak has and never will dethrone Rafa in RG. Even if he wins RG and beat Rafa in the final. Novak has to win like 10 RG first. Just like Rafa will never dethrone Novak in AO even if he wins. We all know who are the kings of those two slams.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
For me the point is that there really is little noteworthy about beating the juggernaut that is Rafa at RG if he was in poor form. I mean if we want to say that context doesn't matter, I'd have to ask why.

To make an analogy, would I ever claim that Istomin dethroned Novak at the AO? No, because I find the implication there to be quite silly. It is giving a false impression that this was some particularly noteworthy accomplishment when it fact it was far from it.
Chung the dethroner! Hail to the King! :p
 

aditya123

Professional
Novak has and never will dethrone Rafa in RG. Even if he wins RG and beat Rafa in the final. Novak has to win like 10 RG first. Just like Rafa will never dethrone Novak in AO even if he wins. We all know who are the kings of those two slams.
Impressed by the way you put forward your argument. Quite convincing but then Hit mans argument is also appealing
 

DSH

Legend
Djokovic has been fortunate in the last 3 years not to face Nadal in RG.
The Spaniard would have swept with the Serbian in the 3 matches, if they had happened.
:D
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I'm sure it was for you. Bottom line is he kept coming and Nadal couldn't hold him off. As for getting his teeth kicked in in the final, that is OK, it only made holding all four slams 12 months later than much more sweeter. :love:
Okay sorry but I think we are coming from different places here. You are being extremely disingenuous and I'm curious as to why. Novak was in the right place at the right time, it's not really worth celebrating. Most true competitors want to beat their opponents at their best, not far from it.

Prime Roger would have easily dispatched Rafa in that form at RG too but again, far cry from doing it when it mattered.

Novak did keep coming and his limit in terms of progress was 2013 RG against Rafa but he still ended up getting spanked in the end. As for his 2016 win, it's honestly even less impressive than Rogers 2009 but hey a title is a title.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Impressed by the way you put forward your argument. Quite convincing but then Hit mans argument is also appealing
We are talking history and to have the throne of a slam you are the King of that slam. When you have 12 in one slam it takes ALOT more than a couple of wins no matter form or shape to dethrone in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

Hall of Fame
Okay sorry but I think we are coming from different places here. You are being extremely disingenuous and I'm curious as to why. Novak was in the right place at the right time, it's not really worth celebrating. Most true competitors want to beat their opponents at their best, not far from it.

Prime Roger would have easily dispatched Rafa in that form at RG too but again, far cry from doing it when it mattered.

Novak did keep coming and his limit in terms of progress was 2013 RG against Rafa but he still ended up getting spanked in the end. As for his 2016 win, it's honestly even less impressive than Rogers 2009 but hey, a title is a title.
The question of the thread states why couldn't Novak dethrone Rafa? I stated he did. Now, whether you agree or not is up to you, but I have made it very clear why I stated that, it is all there in text. At no point did I say Novak beat an inform Rafa, and dethroning is known as beating the defending champion irrespective of their form. As seen in the past not just in this sport but any others, again I gave examples, the dethroned champion is not at his best. What I am seeing is an overly defensive response for feeling the need to protect Rafa at all costs at RG. Hey, no one is saying he beat the best version of Nadal, but he still had to step out there and do it, credit for that. Now, you may disagree, but your question about being curious is very strange when it is all here in written text and others get it.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Okay sorry but I think we are coming from different places here. You are being extremely disingenuous and I'm curious as to why. Novak was in the right place at the right time, it's not really worth celebrating. Most true competitors want to beat their opponents at their best, not far from it.

Prime Roger would have easily dispatched Rafa in that form at RG too but again, far cry from doing it when it mattered.

Novak did keep coming and his limit in terms of progress was 2013 RG against Rafa but he still ended up getting spanked in the end. As for his 2016 win, it's honestly even less impressive than Rogers 2009 but hey a title is a title.
Scraping through 9-7 in the 5th is spanking now and Djokovic's 2016 win is even less impressive than Federer's? Yet you are saying someone else is being disingenuous? LOL.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
The question of the thread states why couldn't Novak dethrone Rafa? I stated he did. Now, whether you agree or not is up to you, but I have made it very clear why I stated that, it is all there is text. At no point did I say Novak beat an inform Rafa, and dethroning is knowing as beating the defending champion irrespective of their form. As seen in the past not just in this sport but any others, again I gave examples, the dethroned champion is not at his best. What I am seeing is an overly defensive response for feeling the need to protect Rafa at all costs at RG. Hey, no one is saying he beat the best version of Nadal, but he still had to step out there and do it, credit for that. Now, you may disagree, but your question about being curious is very strange when it is all here in written text and others get it.
There is zero good reason to ignore context nor the connotation here when we are talking about "dethroning". This isn't about him not beating the "best version of Nadal", it's about him not even beating a GOOD version of Nadal at RG(You don't even want to acknowledge this it appears). My point isn't about Novak v. Nadal, this is the exact same standard I would have for anyone.

The funny thing is I give Novak plenty of credit for beating Rafa in BO3 on clay and even how much progress he made against him at RG but to credit or acknowledge him for dethroning Rafa in 15? Pfft, that's just pure comedy.

Anyway, since there is clearly no progress being made here i'll leave it at that.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
There is zero good reason to ignore context and nor the connotation here when we are talking about "dethroning". This isn't about him not beating the "best version of Nadal", it's about him not even beating a GOOD version of Nadal at RG(You don't even want to acknowledge this, so again I ask why?) My point isn't about Novak v. Nadal, this is the exact same standard I would have for anyone.

The funny thing is I give Novak plenty of credit for beating Rafa in BO3 on clay and even how he made a lot of progress against him at RG but credit or acknowledgement for dethroning him in 15? Pfft, that's just pure comedy.

Anyway, since there is clearly no progress being made here though i'll leave it at that.
How about you actually read everything that I write before making accusations. This was in this very thread. Like I said, seems some are getting overly defensive of Rafa at RG and it shows.

Trolls will say these things to get a rise out of you and the more level headed fans, that is the primary reason why they say these again. Nadal's 2015 form was bad, we all know this, his confidence was not where it should be, he was hitting short, he was a shadow of his former self. We know this.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
How about you actually read everything that I write before making accusations. This was in this very thread. Like I said, seems some are getting overly defensive of Rafa at RG and it shows.

Fair enough but I'm not going to necessarily search a thread to see everything someone has written, my impression was based on our discussion.

Also, I had edited it (perhaps a little to late) to acknowledge that this was my assumption
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
Fair enough but I'm not going to necessarily search a thread to see everything someone has written, my impression was based on our discussion.
That is a dangerous assumption to make. If you read the thread before making such statements in the future you might get your answer before you reach a conclusion.
 

Shaj

Rookie
Nadal wasn't bad in 2015, he was terrible. It's amazing how Djokovic fans are so proud of this win over a version of Nadal who could barely walk, yet they are defending Djokovic's losses in USO 2010/2013, matches where Djokovic was at least decent. Just yesterday you wrote Nadal's USO 2010 win is overrated, but now you write Djokovic somehow "dethroned" Nadal on clay in 2015-2016, when the truth is Nadal disappeared himself.
Yeah yeah "barely walk",and yet he was in 4 th round of a Grand Slam.Novak was on fire that season,the season being the 2nd best ever season in Tennis history,If Nadal was not in form,then hard deal to him,its not Novaks fault..

Besides,we do not say that 2012,Novak was in bad form first,second and 4th sets,he lost plain and simple.

We do not say that,he was in bad form in 2,3 and 5th set in 2013.He lost to a better player,plain and simple..Nothing to do with not being in form or not..

Add to it,we also do not say that in 2011 and 2016,he would have beaten Nadal..That is another if,that never happened so better not to talk about it..

You just need to accept Nadal lost to novak in straight sets in RG,no ifs and bits,plain and simple..
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
The question of the thread states why couldn't Novak dethrone Rafa? I stated he did. Now, whether you agree or not is up to you, but I have made it very clear why I stated that, it is all there in text. At no point did I say Novak beat an inform Rafa, and dethroning is known as beating the defending champion irrespective of their form. As seen in the past not just in this sport but any others, again I gave examples, the dethroned champion is not at his best. What I am seeing is an overly defensive response for feeling the need to protect Rafa at all costs at RG. Hey, no one is saying he beat the best version of Nadal, but he still had to step out there and do it, credit for that. Now, you may disagree, but your question about being curious is very strange when it is all here in written text and others get it.
The funny things is, Nadal's winning percentage in 2015 was 75%, which is not a far cry from Djokovic's 2010 at 77%. We have to endure this non-stop bickering over what version 2015 Nadal was in. We already know this. Nadal wasn't great, by any means, but was good enough to win 3 titles, end the year #5 and never dropped out of the top 10. He even won one more title than Djokovic did in 2010. Nadal was 7-11 against the top 10 in 2015 and by comparison Djokovic was 4-8 against the top 10 in 2010. So he wasn't as bad they are claiming because he never reached the lows Djokovic reached. This line of debating really boils down to them not wanting to give credit for Djokovic's win over him in 2015 RG. The win happened and it can't/won't be reversed.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
That is a dangerous assumption to make. If you read the thread before making such statements in the future you might get your answer before you reach a conclusion.
If you read every post in a thread congrats but I don't given how much trash is usually in them. I made an assumption based on having read several posts from you. Is that dangerous? Hardly but again, I had already amended my post to make it clear that I could not say you were with complete confidence.

Ultimately the disagreement was more about how relevant context is anyway. There are plenty of things that are technically true that require context to properly assess.
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
, and dethroning is known as beating the defending champion irrespective of their form.
that really depends on how you look at it.. 'dethrone' means:
1)to remove a king or queen from their position of power
2)to beat someone who is the best at something
P.S. hence both camps could be right
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Because Djokovic is a HC player and not a natural clay courter and it shows in pressure situations.

Totally disagree. Novak is obviously a "natural clay courter," he never played on any other surface until he was 9 years old. His clay game at its best is outstanding and his movement on clay is superb. He's beaten Rafa 7 times on clay and beat him at RG.

This proves he's a "natural clay courter," as if that needs to proven. Stats from the 2010's decade:

 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Yeah yeah "barely walk",and yet he was in 4 th round of a Grand Slam.Novak was on fire that season,the season being the 2nd best ever season in Tennis history,If Nadal was not in form,then hard deal to him,its not Novaks fault..

Besides,we do not say that 2012,Novak was in bad form first,second and 4th sets,he lost plain and simple.

We do not say that,he was in bad form in 2,3 and 5th set in 2013.He lost to a better player,plain and simple..Nothing to do with not being in form or not..

Add to it,we also do not say that in 2011 and 2016,he would have beaten Nadal..That is another if,that never happened so better not to talk about it..

You just need to accept Nadal lost to novak in straight sets in RG,no ifs and bits,plain and simple..
If Nadal was not in form? Hahaha.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Totally disagree. Novak is obviously a "natural clay courter," he never played on any other surface until he was 9 years old. His clay game at its best is outstanding and his movement on clay is superb. He's beaten Rafa 7 times on clay and beat him at RG.

This proves he's a "natural clay courter," as if that needs to proven. Stats from the 2010's decade:

He was playing on hardcourts in Serbia way before he was 9 years old though. Probably around 4-6 age. He did play on clay very early though.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Scraping through 9-7 in the 5th is spanking now and Djokovic's 2016 win is even less impressive than Federer's? Yet you are saying someone else is being disingenuous? LOL.
Given how Rafa turned his game up in the 5th set, yes he did end up giving Novak his requisite spanking. As to Novak in 16, he did not beat a single relevant clay court player so yeah, i'll take Roger's 09 over it.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
The funny things is, Nadal's winning percentage in 2015 was 75%, which is not a far cry from Djokovic's 2010 at 77%. We have to endure this non-stop bickering over what version 2015 Nadal was in. We already know this. Nadal wasn't great, by any means, but was good enough to win 3 titles, end the year #5 and never dropped out of the top 10. He even won one more title than Djokovic did in 2010. Nadal was 7-11 against the top 10 in 2015 and by comparison Djokovic was 4-8 against the top 10 in 2010. So he wasn't as bad they are claiming because he never reached the lows Djokovic reached. This line of debating really boils down to them not wanting to give credit for Djokovic's win over him in 2015 RG. The win happened and it can't/won't be reversed.
That is pretty much it.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Scraping through 9-7 in the 5th is spanking now and Djokovic's 2016 win is even less impressive than Federer's? Yet you are saying someone else is being disingenuous? LOL.
And he omits that when Fed won the FO in 2009 he completed his CGS, and Novak completed his CGS at the FO in 2016. I don't care who either defeated in the final, they achieved something few in tennis have achieved. It's a big deal no matter who does it and this guy claims neither victory is impressive. :unsure:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Given how Rafa turned his game up in the 5th set, yes he did end up giving Novak his requisite spanking. As to Novak in 16, he did not beat a single relevant clay court player so yeah, i'll take Roger's 09 over it.
Winning a set 9-7 is in no way a spanking. It is basically as close as a set can get. Except that he beat the player who had the best clay results in 2016 leading up to the final. No one really cares man about which title you weigh more. They weigh the same in the record books.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
If you read every post in a thread congrats but I don't given how much trash is usually in them. I made an assumption based on having read several posts from you. Is that dangerous? Hardly but again, I had already amended my post to make it clear that I could not say you were with complete confidence.

Ultimately the disagreement was more about how relevant context is anyway. There are plenty of things that are technically true that require context to properly assess.
You are coming at me with hard accusations, the LEAST you could have done is read what I had written in this thread, it wasn't like there is a hundred pages here on this thread, since your discussion is with me, and before throwing your weight accusing me of something I might not have acknowledge, it would have saved both you and me time to go over it. You had your answer already.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
And he omits that when Fed won the FO in 2009 he completed his CGS, and Novak completed his CGS at the FO in 2016. I don't care who either defeated in the final, they achieved something few in tennis have achieved. It's a big deal no matter who does it and this guy claims neither victory is impressive. :unsure:
I see both of those victories as equals really and was happy for both guys. I was actually really happy for Roger and watched the entire match and his ceremony. You're right in that it was an amazing achievement for both considering what those victories meant.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
The funny things is, Nadal's winning percentage in 2015 was 75%, which is not a far cry from Djokovic's 2010 at 77%. We have to endure this non-stop bickering over what version 2015 Nadal was in. We already know this. Nadal wasn't great, by any means, but was good enough to win 3 titles, end the year #5 and never dropped out of the top 10. He even won one more title than Djokovic did in 2010. Nadal was 7-11 against the top 10 in 2015 and by comparison Djokovic was 4-8 against the top 10 in 2010. So he wasn't as bad they are claiming because he never reached the lows Djokovic reached. This line of debating really boils down to them not wanting to give credit for Djokovic's win over him in 2015 RG. The win happened and it can't/won't be reversed.
Honestly, what does 2010 even have to do with this??

If someone thinks 2010 was some great win by Rafa over Novak, they are mistaken. Novak was starting to round into top form by that point and displayed some good form in the USO but he was not at his best.

And no, Novak doesn't deserve much credit for beating Rafa in 15. Why is this so freaking troubling anyway? Rafa is the best clay court player ever (arguably at least) so why is it such a big slight to Novak that he wasn't able to be a remotely in form Rafa at RG?

Does that mean Novak isn't still one of the best to do it? I mean seriously, what's the big deal here?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Honestly, what does 2010 even have to do with this??

If someone thinks 2010 was some great win by Rafa over Novak, they are mistaken. Novak was starting to round into top form by that point and displayed some good form in the USO but he was not at his best.

And no, Novak doesn't deserve much credit for beating Rafa in 15. Why is this so freaking troubling anyway? Rafa is the best clay court player ever (arguably at least) so why is it such a big slight to Novak that he wasn't able to be a remotely in form Rafa at RG?

Does that mean Novak isn't still one of the best to do it? I mean seriously, what's the big deal here?
Because it was a full year that Djokovic played, ended the year in the top 5, yet was not a good year for him like 2015 is for Nadal. I didn't even bring up USO.

Well there is a W by his name in that match in 2015. You can choose to accept it or not, but that won't change the actual result. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge they played a close match in 2013, Rafa's closest match that he won at RG, so I don't expect it.

The big deal is you can't bring yourself to give credit for whatever reason and are lashing out because of that reason.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Winning a set 9-7 is in no way a spanking. It is basically as close as a set can get.
Exactly... this is the same poster who claimed Novak "spanked" Fed at Wimbledon this year. I guess someone needs to inform them that "spanking" is a 6-2, 6-2 scoreline, or similar. A 9-7 set is a spanking? :-D
 

beard

Hall of Fame
For me the point is that there really is little noteworthy about beating the juggernaut that is Rafa at RG if he was in poor form. I mean if we want to say that context doesn't matter I'd have to ask why. What's the point in dumbing things down, what's to be gained by ignoring the obvious?

To make an analogy, would I ever claim that Istomin dethroned Novak at the AO? No, because I find the implication there to be quite silly. It is giving a false impression that this was some particularly noteworthy accomplishment when it fact it was far from it.
Basically this became word game... Who dethroned Novak at AO that year if not Istomin?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Exactly... this is the same poster who claimed Novak "spanked" Fed at Wimbledon this year. I guess someone needs to inform them that "spanking" is a 6-2, 6-2 scoreline, or similar. A 9-7 set is a spanking? :-D
Djokovic escaped at Wimbledon. He didn't spank anyone.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
You are coming at me at hard accusations, the LEAST you could have done is read what I had written in this thread, it wasn't like there is a hundred pages here on this thread, since your discussion is with me, and before throwing your weight accusing me of something I might not have acknowledge, it would have saved both you and me time to go over it. You had your answer already.
I will not mention this again, I had already amended my post (to say that this was my impression, not necessarily the case) before you even brought that post up where you earlier acknowledged that he was not in good form. I have acknowledged my overstatement more than once and at this point it's quite apparent the horse has been decaying for quite some time.

I will say this much, if there is ever a day in which you find that you've managed to stop making assumptions for good, I won't mind continuing this conversation further. I will thus at that point be more willing to hear about the potential perils of making assumptions (even the ones where we allow for caveats).
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Basically this became word game... Who dethroned Novak at AO that year if not Istomin?
Well, technically he was the champion for 2015 so you do the math.

Again, I'm suggesting that connotation matters. If you don't agree, congrats, I have a cookie for you but I hope you are at least consistent with such inane thinking.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
I will not mention this again, I had already amended my post (to say that this was my impression, not necessarily the case) before you even brought that post up where you earlier acknowledged that he was not in good form. I have acknowledged my overstatement more than once and at this point it's quite apparent the horse has been decaying for quite some time.

I will say this much, if there is ever a day in which you find that you've managed to stop making assumptions for good, I won't mind continuing this conversation further. I will thus at that point be more willing to hear about the potential perils of making assumptions (even the ones where we allow for caveats).
It is not about making assumptions for good, it is about at least having the decency to read what that poster has historically said in that thread on that subject before I go into a debate with him or her. He or she might have already answered my question, and can easily refrain me from saying anymore, other than agreeing or giving a like. What I stated, is that if you wish to have these discussions with me, then at least read my stuff going forward. I don't like being falsely accused, as I am sure you wouldn't either.

Anyways, you and I don't have anything further to discuss on this topic, so I am happy to leave our personal discussion here. Until the next time.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
As to Novak in 16, he did not beat a single relevant clay court player
Who thinks like this? It's utter insanity.

I don't care if Novak Djokovic beat 60 year old Chris Evert in the 2016 French Open final, he won it and he has no control over who is on the other side of the net. This also reflects an embarrassing lack of tennis knowledge. Using this asinine "logic," let's toss out McEnroe's 1983 Wimbledon run since he faced not a single relevant grass court player and played hapless Chris Lewis in the final. While we're at it, let's toss out Agassi's 2001 AO run since he faced Clement in the final and "did not beat a single relevant HC player."

Get over it-- Djokovic won the FO, as did Federer. Both would have won 4 or more titles each had it not been for Rafa, but their lone title is still an awesome achievement.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Exactly... this is the same poster who claimed Novak "spanked" Fed at Wimbledon this year. I guess someone needs to inform them that "spanking" is a 6-2, 6-2 scoreline, or similar. A 9-7 set is a spanking? :-D
If you are talking about me you're an idiot. I think that Roger was the better player in Wimbledon 19 and have never claimed that Novak spanked him or anything of the sort. Novak was certainly the mentally tougher of the two but as a whole Roger was playing at a higher level over the course of the match IMO.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
It is not about making assumptions for good, it is about at least having the decency to read what that poster has historically said in that thread on that subject before I go into a debate with him or her. He or she might have already answered my question, and can easily refrain me from saying anymore, other than agreeing or giving a like. What I stated, is that if you wish to have these discussions with me, then at least read my stuff going forward. I don't like being falsely accused, as I am sure you wouldn't either.

Anyways, you and I don't have anything further to discuss on this topic, so I am happy to leave our personal discussion here. Until the next time.
Literally just repeating the same thing over and over. I get your point and I agree it would be wrong if I didn't make it clear that this is my impression and not necessarily true.
Had you for example ever mentioned that in OUR discussion (especially since my point was that while technically true, context matters), we'd have been done in about a post or two of back and forth. You aren't obligated to mind you but hey, it would have made for a more streamlined and less time wasting discussion.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
Literally just repeating the same thing over and over. I get your point and I agree it would be wrong if I didn't make it clear that this is my impression and not necessarily true.
Had you for example ever mentioned that in OUR discussion (especially since my point was that while technically true, context matters), we'd have been done in about a post or two of back and forth. You aren't obligated to mind you but hey, it would have made for a more streamlined and less time wasting discussion.
So I have to take into consideration that not only have you not read the thread fully, but I have also to consider that you are jumping into a discussion mid way, headstrong, already making assumptions on partial information, and I have to keep a link of all the things I have said that can help streamline it for you? So I do the work for you? ;) OK, next time you and I have a discussion, I will be sure to keep that in mind. I don't think we have anything further to say here, do you agree?
 

DSH

Legend
Honestly, what does 2010 even have to do with this??

If someone thinks 2010 was some great win by Rafa over Novak, they are mistaken. Novak was starting to round into top form by that point and displayed some good form in the USO but he was not at his best.

And no, Novak doesn't deserve much credit for beating Rafa in 15. Why is this so freaking troubling anyway? Rafa is the best clay court player ever (arguably at least) so why is it such a big slight to Novak that he wasn't able to be a remotely in form Rafa at RG?

Does that mean Novak isn't still one of the best to do it? I mean seriously, what's the big deal here?
That the identification of a fan with his idol is such that any discrepancy or disagreement by a third party to his object of desire is seen as an irreparable offense and difficult to assimilate.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Because it was a full year that Djokovic played, ended the year in the top 5, yet was not a good year for him like 2015 is for Nadal. I didn't even bring up USO.

Well there is a W by his name in that match in 2015. You can choose to accept it or not, but that won't change the actual result. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge they played a close match in 2013, Rafa's closest match that he won at RG, so I don't expect it.

The big deal is you can't bring yourself to give credit for whatever reason and are lashing out because of that reason.
First of all, really? Perhaps you are misunderstanding then.

Who is disputing the W ? Who is not accepting it? Where are you getting this from?

I don't think the W was impressive because Rafa was in poor (relatively speaking) form. This isn't some special case because I prefer Rafa to Novak, I'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed or for anyone else.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
So I have to take into consideration that not only have you not read the thread fully, but I have also to consider that you are jumping into a discussion mid way, headstrong, already making assumptions on partial information, and I have to keep a link of all the things I have said that can help streamline it for you? So I do the work for you? ;) OK, next time you and I have a discussion, I will be sure to keep that in mind. I don't think we have anything further to say here, do you agree?
It does not even warrant me explaining why you are wrong. You don't have to DO anything. I do allow for the possibility that someone may have not read all my posts in a thread and I may end up reiterating something if there is a misunderstanding, I don't begrudge it.

You on the other hand find this potentiality to be unfathomable or unfair, so be it.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
So I have to take into consideration that not only have you not read the thread fully, but I have also to consider that you are jumping into a discussion mid way, headstrong, already making assumptions on partial information, and I have to keep a link of all the things I have said that can help streamline it for you? So I do the work for you? ;) OK, next time you and I have a discussion, I will be sure to keep that in mind. I don't think we have anything further to say here, do you agree?
My apologies Hitman. In in your absence, Beltsman left the order of the VB and has taken up refuge with the Sheetsters. Tis nothing but a troll thread designed to get Ultronians and RAFANS to fight amongst each other. Also, AndyM wants to know your location.
 

Hitman

Hall of Fame
It does not even warrant me explaining why you are wrong. You don't have to DO anything. I do allow for the possibility that someone may have not read all my posts in a thread and I may end up reiterating something if there is a misunderstanding.

You on the other hand find this potentiality to be unfathomable or unfair, so be it.
Oh, you don't need to warrant anything, I GET your position very well. As I said, it is one thing having a discussion, and bits of information being repeated as a result of it, it is another to accuse someone. But, as you said, we are going around in circle here. So my question is do you want us to keep going round and round, or you ready to move on?
 
Top