Jump to content





Random sports thread, golf/tennis, etc..


1493 replies to this topic

#1441 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 10 September 2013 - 03:28 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 09 September 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

I disagree, the level of their match in Australia last year was incredibly high as well. When these guys play, the standard of tennis has been that high in the past 3 years. I also think the best Federer would've gone very close. I like the fact you are clear and convincing with what you say, but I must disagree with you on this.

Their matches are always high level. When Rafa is playing his best, Roger can't beat him. That isn't really something to disagree with, he owned him when he was a kid.

#1442 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 06:47 PM

I think this discussion will be pointlessly long, so let's stop at that. Anyway, Congrats to Nadal for the year end no. 1. I don't see Novak taking it away from him. Next year will be very interesting because Nole will come back strong and Murray will have his own chances at no. 1. I know a lot of people are writing him off, but I believe he will be no.1 at some point in the next 2-3 years, even if that will be short lived.

#1443 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:23 PM

It doesn't have to be long, come to your senses. Nadal > Federer, it can be as quick as that.

#1444 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:38 PM

That's called your opinion and different people have different opinions. I respect your opinion. End of story.

#1445 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:00 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 11 September 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

That's called your opinion and different people have different opinions. I respect your opinion. End of story.

Yup, it's my opinion. That's why I typed it. Roger has faired great indoors and is pretty much even on grass. Rafa demolishes him on Clay & Hard courts. Not difficult to work through.

#1446 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:40 AM

View PostYellowLorrySlow, on 12 September 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Yup, it's my opinion. That's why I typed it. Roger has faired great indoors and is pretty much even on grass. Rafa demolishes him on Clay & Hard courts. Not difficult to work through.

That's quite different from just saying Nadal is better than Federer, as you originally mentioned.

As we see in boxing, H2H is a good measuring stick when comparing the greatness of two boxers, but that doesn't necessarily mean the one who's ahead in H2H is always greater.

I don't have any problem with the opinions that say any one of Nadal, Federer, Sampras or Laver is the greatest player ever. I can see their logic and it is just impossible to prove someone wrong because it is not like maths or science. At the end of the day, one has to use his own logic and reason to make up his own mind on subject like this and I expect people to come up with different opinions. There is absolutely no way to conclusive say you are wrong because your opinion is different to mine. I know people have already made up their mind on this so, I'm fine with whatever other people tell me. It's very reasonable to argue Nadal is the GOAT, it's not like to argue that Murray is, in which case I would call that stupidity.

I think Nadal of today beats Federer of today regardless of court types, including indoors. Nadal owned Federer in H2H when he was still a teenager because they met mostly on clay. I think Federer's prime was 2004-2007 and after contracting viral infection in 2008, he never looked quite the same, although in terms of his age he should've been at his peak until 2010 at least. Until 2007, they played 14 times and of those, 7 were on clay, 2 were on grass, and 5 were on hard courts(2 indoors). Federer won both grass matches, led 3-2 on hard courts(2-0 indoor, 1-2 outdoor), and Nadal dominated clay matches 6-1. Usually, when a newcomer comes along and meets the player in his prime, that's when the young player loses more matches and gets losing record, and as he develops he catches up and gets the older one at his tale end of career. Between Nadal and Federer, because they played so many times on Nadal's favorite surface, that chance for the old guy just didn't exist and it's getting worse and worse now as the result.

Their total H2H record is 21-10 in favor of Nadal and Nadal gains that advantage mainly due to clay records(12-2). Without clay, Nadal has now taken 9-8 lead as he's won most of the recent encounters, which is to be expected. It's going to get even more embarrassing for Fed from now. Anyway, there is no doubt that the clay courts have given Nadal such a big lead in H2H, even though you can't really blame anyone for that.

If you think about it, Nadal and Djokovic are really a generation after Federer. Federer still took them on and took no. 1 spot away from Djokovic in his prime at the age of 31. That shows the man's pedigree. I wonder how Nadal or Djokovic would fair when they are 31 against the next generation(which is still almost non-existent, sadly). I find it really childish to say Federer was lucky to have no competition, etc. I think Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero and Roddick were all great when they were young.

Also, if we put Nadal in another era, for example, in 90s, maybe he wouldn't have been so successful, especially on grass. The game has changed and Nadal ad Djokovic are the leaders of this current new era but if they were put in the 90s, I think Sampras would've beat them on grass and fast Deco-Turf of Arthur Ashe, because that was the era when great serve and volley could dominate the game, especially on those surfaces. How about we bring prime Sampras in this era? Would he have been able to dominate men's tennis with his serve and volley style? How are we, then, to decide the greatest player of all time? If you think about it, you can argue and make your cases, but you can never call other people wrong or impose your opinion on others. Anyway, Nadal still has a few more years and it remains to be seen what he can achieve in those years. He certainly has the chance to claim the greatest of all time title, but as of now, it looks a bit too early yet.

#1447 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:54 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 12 September 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

That's quite different from just saying Nadal is better than Federer, as you originally mentioned.

As we see in boxing, H2H is a good measuring stick when comparing the greatness of two boxers, but that doesn't necessarily mean the one who's ahead in H2H is always greater.

I don't have any problem with the opinions that say any one of Nadal, Federer, Sampras or Laver is the greatest player ever. I can see their logic and it is just impossible to prove someone wrong because it is not like maths or science. At the end of the day, one has to use his own logic and reason to make up his own mind on subject like this and I expect people to come up with different opinions. There is absolutely no way to conclusive say you are wrong because your opinion is different to mine. I know people have already made up their mind on this so, I'm fine with whatever other people tell me. It's very reasonable to argue Nadal is the GOAT, it's not like to argue that Murray is, in which case I would call that stupidity.

I think Nadal of today beats Federer of today regardless of court types, including indoors. Nadal owned Federer in H2H when he was still a teenager because they met mostly on clay. I think Federer's prime was 2004-2007 and after contracting viral infection in 2008, he never looked quite the same, although in terms of his age he should've been at his peak until 2010 at least. Until 2007, they played 14 times and of those, 7 were on clay, 2 were on grass, and 5 were on hard courts(2 indoors). Federer won both grass matches, led 3-2 on hard courts(2-0 indoor, 1-2 outdoor), and Nadal dominated clay matches 6-1. Usually, when a newcomer comes along and meets the player in his prime, that's when the young player loses more matches and gets losing record, and as he develops he catches up and gets the older one at his tale end of career. Between Nadal and Federer, because they played so many times on Nadal's favorite surface, that chance for the old guy just didn't exist and it's getting worse and worse now as the result.

Their total H2H record is 21-10 in favor of Nadal and Nadal gains that advantage mainly due to clay records(12-2). Without clay, Nadal has now taken 9-8 lead as he's won most of the recent encounters, which is to be expected. It's going to get even more embarrassing for Fed from now. Anyway, there is no doubt that the clay courts have given Nadal such a big lead in H2H, even though you can't really blame anyone for that.

If you think about it, Nadal and Djokovic are really a generation after Federer. Federer still took them on and took no. 1 spot away from Djokovic in his prime at the age of 31. That shows the man's pedigree. I wonder how Nadal or Djokovic would fair when they are 31 against the next generation(which is still almost non-existent, sadly). I find it really childish to say Federer was lucky to have no competition, etc. I think Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero and Roddick were all great when they were young.

Also, if we put Nadal in another era, for example, in 90s, maybe he wouldn't have been so successful, especially on grass. The game has changed and Nadal ad Djokovic are the leaders of this current new era but if they were put in the 90s, I think Sampras would've beat them on grass and fast Deco-Turf of Arthur Ashe, because that was the era when great serve and volley could dominate the game, especially on those surfaces. How about we bring prime Sampras in this era? Would he have been able to dominate men's tennis with his serve and volley style? How are we, then, to decide the greatest player of all time? If you think about it, you can argue and make your cases, but you can never call other people wrong or impose your opinion on others. Anyway, Nadal still has a few more years and it remains to be seen what he can achieve in those years. He certainly has the chance to claim the greatest of all time title, but as of now, it looks a bit too early yet.

Nadal is greater than Federer.

Comparing Boxers to Tennis players is pretty silly. They don't compete in Tournaments year round.

Nadal beat federer on a hard court the first time they ever played when he was 17. It's also cute how you want to take away Clay. That's what makes him greater than Roger. If they're even everywhere but Clay, that doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

I find it really childish to make up shit that wasn't said. Point me to the statement that federer had no competition. As for saying Nadal might not have been as successful in another era. That fits right in with this years proclamation that Rafa would hide on the Clay courts and steer clear of Hard court Tennis. Era's and equipment are different it's much easier to expect the old to compete with newer stuff than send someone back in time. There is no era that Rafa wouldn't rack up one French after another in.

If you think Pete is the GOAT, good for you. He was a great player. I have him behind Rafa & Roger because of his Clay issues but he was definitely the best of his era. That's the thing here, Federer isn't.  

The fact that Rafael is better H2H, and that definitely isn't an opinion, makes it common sense that Federer would win less in any era that has Rafael Nadal in it. I'm not imposing anything on you. I'm telling you that you're wrong. The post that upset you was a joke anyway.

#1448 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:53 AM

View PostYellowLorrySlow, on 12 September 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

I find it really childish to make up shit that wasn't said. Point me to the statement that federer had no competition.

That bit was directed to spont, BTW, not you. No way anyone can say I'm wrong. There are valid arguments for both Rafa and Roger. Also, what I tried to say by putting Nadal in Sampras' era was that deciding who was the greatest will eventually be subjective because on certain issues, nobody can definitely say with certainty. Therefore, when talking about who is the greatest ever, you can always say you are right but you can't say other people are wrong. That was the whole point of my post.

#1449 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:59 AM

Also, I think at the peak of their career, Federer would have had upper hand in indoor and on grass, and also on fast outdoor hard courts like Deco-Turf of US Open. Rafa would have had advantage on slower and bouncy outdoor hard courts like Plexicushion of Australian open, and absolutely would have dominated on clay. That's if they played in their absolute best form, not in 2013.

#1450 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:06 AM

View PostYellowLorrySlow, on 12 September 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

Comparing Boxers to Tennis players is pretty silly. They don't compete in Tournaments year round.

Regarding this, think of Roy Jones and Tarver. Tarver just has the style to bother Roy, I think, but that doesn't mean he is greater than Roy. Rafa just is a bad style matchup for Rog due to one handed backhand. Also, as I've mentioned, they played nearly half their matches on clay. Ideally, if you want to compare their greatness with their H2H record, the types of surface they played on should be evenly spread over different types of courts. That is a very important point to address. Back in the 90s when they had indoor carpet tournaments, that could've also helped Fed, who knows.

Edited by RayTheBest, 12 September 2013 - 06:29 AM.


#1451 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:36 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 12 September 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

That bit was directed to spont, BTW, not you. No way anyone can say I'm wrong. There are valid arguments for both Rafa and Roger. Also, what I tried to say by putting Nadal in Sampras' era was that deciding who was the greatest will eventually be subjective because on certain issues, nobody can definitely say with certainty. Therefore, when talking about who is the greatest ever, you can always say you are right but you can't say other people are wrong. That was the whole point of my post.

Spont never said that either. You made it up.

I can say you're wrong. Look, I just did it again. That's the thing there is no valid argument for Federer. He's not the best of his time, that rules him out for all time. One last time, you're wrong.

#1452 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:39 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 12 September 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Also, I think at the peak of their career, Federer would have had upper hand in indoor and on grass, and also on fast outdoor hard courts like Deco-Turf of US Open. Rafa would have had advantage on slower and bouncy outdoor hard courts like Plexicushion of Australian open, and absolutely would have dominated on clay. That's if they played in their absolute best form, not in 2013.

Nadal has owned him on outdoor hard courts since he was a teenager. And LOL, this isn't about 2013. You trying to act like your boy hasn't been getting his ass kicked by this dude since he was in his prime? Sorry Ray, he was. If you want to get prime with it, Rafa would beat him more often than not on grass too. Going prime vs prime would cost Roger wins, not add to them.

I know you don't like to be told you're wrong. The funny thing is, there are plenty of people that will call Roger the GOAT. Not ONE of them past you would try and contest he's better H2H with Nadal under any scenarios, because it's simply not true and never would be.

#1453 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:41 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 12 September 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Regarding this, think of Roy Jones and Tarver. Tarver just has the style to bother Roy, I think, but that doesn't mean he is greater than Roy. Rafa just is a bad style matchup for Rog due to one handed backhand. Also, as I've mentioned, they played nearly half their matches on clay. Ideally, if you want to compare their greatness with their H2H record, the types of surface they played on should be evenly spread over different types of courts. That is a very important point to address. Back in the 90s when they had indoor carpet tournaments, that could've also helped Fed, who knows.

So now you want to change the entire Tennis schedule so that Federer may have a better chance of matching up? That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Rafa is 8-2 against him in Grand Slams and 7-2 in Tennis Masters events. They're the big ones, they always will be.

That's still a retarded analogy with Boxing. Beyond dumb, I won't read another word regarding that nonsense. Yes, there can be situations where lower tier players match up well with guys clearly better than them. Not when they are at the top of the sport. Feel free to respond in one post. I'm quite adept at following along.

#1454 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:40 PM

View PostSpontaneousFury, on 09 September 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

Fed is a little lucky that he didn't play during the prime years of Rafa and Novak.

This is the usual arguments when people try to say Fed had no competition.

Where did I say I want to change the schedule of the entire ATP tour? I'm just saying they got to play on clay more and that's why their H2H is heavily in favor of Nadal. Also, Fed has been past his prime for the last couple of years so it will get worse from here. Just recognize the fact. The greatest clay player will be expected to dominate anyone on clay and that's one single factor why their H2H record is so one-sided. That is a fact and if you can't realize that, well, there's nothing much I can do.

View PostYellowLorrySlow, on 12 September 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Rafa is 8-2 against him in Grand Slams and 7-2 in Tennis Masters events. They're the big ones, they always will be.

Rafa is leading 8-2 H2H in Grand Slams but 5 of those are on clay, all won by Rafa, which vindicates my argument that clay gives Nadal clear advantage in H2H. They didn't get to play on hard court Grand Slam events until 2009, and two times they did was in Australian Open which is played on slower and bouncy surface where Nadal's heavy topspin can be successful. Why didn't they get to meet on hard court Grand Slam events earlier than 2009? Because Nadal couldn't get to the finals.

Also, 8 of their Masters 1000 events were on clay and Nadal has 6-2 advantage. On hard courts, They met 6 times on hard court Masters series, and Nadal is leading 4-2 but 2 of those wins come from this year against clearly spent Federer. it was 2-2 until last year.

Federer's prime and Nadal's prime came at different stage, so it's not like the rivalry between Djokovic and Nadal. The fact is, Nadal leads 21-10 and 12-2 on clay. If they played more on other surfaces, their H2H would've been much closer. Last couple of years were the chance where Nadal pulled ahead even more with the decline of Federer. Because of those reasons, just looking at H2H is not a reasonable method to measure who's greater. If you insist it is, then you are wrong.

Edited by RayTheBest, 12 September 2013 - 04:40 PM.


#1455 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostRayTheBest, on 12 September 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

This is the usual arguments when people try to say Fed had no competition.

Where did I say I want to change the schedule of the entire ATP tour? I'm just saying they got to play on clay more and that's why their H2H is heavily in favor of Nadal. Also, Fed has been past his prime for the last couple of years so it will get worse from here. Just recognize the fact. The greatest clay player will be expected to dominate anyone on clay and that's one single factor why their H2H record is so one-sided. That is a fact and if you can't realize that, well, there's nothing much I can do.



Rafa is leading 8-2 H2H in Grand Slams but 5 of those are on clay, all won by Rafa, which vindicates my argument that clay gives Nadal clear advantage in H2H. They didn't get to play on hard court Grand Slam events until 2009, and two times they did was in Australian Open which is played on slower and bouncy surface where Nadal's heavy topspin can be successful. Why didn't they get to meet on hard court Grand Slam events earlier than 2009? Because Nadal couldn't get to the finals.

Also, 8 of their Masters 1000 events were on clay and Nadal has 6-2 advantage. On hard courts, They met 6 times on hard court Masters series, and Nadal is leading 4-2 but 2 of those wins come from this year against clearly spent Federer. it was 2-2 until last year.

Federer's prime and Nadal's prime came at different stage, so it's not like the rivalry between Djokovic and Nadal. The fact is, Nadal leads 21-10 and 12-2 on clay. If they played more on other surfaces, their H2H would've been much closer. Last couple of years were the chance where Nadal pulled ahead even more with the decline of Federer. Because of those reasons, just looking at H2H is not a reasonable method to measure who's greater. If you insist it is, then you are wrong.

That isn't remotely saying that he had no competition, not in the same area code.

I'm not saying that Clay isn;t a big part of why he is so dominant. You keep pointing to it as a negative. If he thrashes him on Clay and they're close elsewhere than he is better. It's a fact we both know, you just can't bare to deal with it. Nadal is better than Federer head to head, you can twist and turn and pretend your way around anything you want. That's the biggest FACT in the discussion yet it's the only one you're harping on. So as a debate, you're offering nothing. If, but, maybe, I wish, ummm, Clay..too bad, blah, blah, blah.

Nadal also has the edge on Hard Courts, dominantly when they're outdoors.

As for the prime shit. Federer had plenty of matches with Rafa when he was in his prime and Nadal was nowhere near his. Guess what, Nadal still beat him, just like he would at any point in their lives. Fed has more grand slams. That's your only point and you're not even using it.

#1456 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

I'm not using the number of Gran Slam titles because their career, especially Nadal's, is not done yet. Nadal may win as many or more titles than Fed, who knows?

Anyway, I keep telling you that prime version of Federer and Nadal would dominate each other on their most suited courts - for Nadal it is clay and for Fed, it is indoor. As for outdoor hard courts, it depends on the types of hard courts. For Federer, fast and low bouncing hard courts will give him the advantage while slower and bouncy courts will favor Nadal.

#1457 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:59 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 12 September 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

I'm not using the number of Gran Slam titles because their career, especially Nadal's, is not done yet. Nadal may win as many or more titles than Fed, who knows?

Anyway, I keep telling you that prime version of Federer and Nadal would dominate each other on their most suited courts - for Nadal it is clay and for Fed, it is indoor. As for outdoor hard courts, it depends on the types of hard courts. For Federer, fast and low bouncing hard courts will give him the advantage while slower and bouncy courts will favor Nadal.

Guess what? Indoors means nothing. Advantage Nadal. I think Roger has beaten him 2 out of 10 on outdoor Hard Courts. I'll leave it to you to determine how the ball was bouncing. I'll just leave it that he got his ass whipped.

#1458 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:36 AM

Let's continue this discussion when both Nadal and Federer is not active any more.

#1459 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:12 AM

View PostRayTheBest, on 13 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Let's continue this discussion when both Nadal and Federer is not active any more.

It won't even be one. Everyone will agree with me. I'm ahead of the curve.

#1460 dread

dread

    I want the angel

  • The VIPs
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts
  • Location:River City

Posted 14 September 2013 - 05:13 AM

I think there have been cases where some mediocre guys match up well with super talents.  Taylor-Hopkins jumps to mind.   I still don't understand why Hopkins didn't beat his face in.  Perhaps we was in denial about his advantage with the refs?  

I think it's more common in team sports, tho, where some style of play throws a monkey wrench into a group of superior talent. Clearly not the case here, where Nadal has been dominant.

#1461 DJA

DJA

    Building a working margin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 14 September 2013 - 03:46 PM

Manziel can play ball.  Great win for Bama

#1462 SpontaneousFury

SpontaneousFury

    That guy.

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 02:48 AM

If Rafa is supposedly better on the AO surface, why has he had more success at the US open? Something just doesn't add up. I'd take Rog indoors, Rafa anywhere else in their primes. Rog would no doubt win some Masters tournaments on hard against Rafa but I can't really see him doing much in any GS against Rafa. Not just because of styles but he just never had the nerve that Rafa does, or much ability to adapt his game.

Nobody said head to head makes Rafa greater but it can't be dismissed either. It is noteworthy that Fed has been dominated by another exceptionally great player. Removing clay is laughable but sadly you aren't  the only one to try.

#1463 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 15 September 2013 - 04:38 AM

View PostSpontaneousFury, on 15 September 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

If Rafa is supposedly better on the AO surface, why has he had more success at the US open? Something just doesn't add up. I'd take Rog indoors, Rafa anywhere else in their primes. Rog would no doubt win some Masters tournaments on hard against Rafa but I can't really see him doing much in any GS against Rafa. Not just because of styles but he just never had the nerve that Rafa does, or much ability to adapt his game.

Nobody said head to head makes Rafa greater but it can't be dismissed either. It is noteworthy that Fed has been dominated by another exceptionally great player. Removing clay is laughable but sadly you aren't  the only one to try.

I find the whole poor Fed playing out of his prime thing equally ridiculous. Rafa was a kid playing prime Federer. Post-prime Roger rarely makes it to his inevitable thrashing at the hands of the GOAT.

#1464 SpontaneousFury

SpontaneousFury

    That guy.

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 05:35 AM

http://i.telegraph.c...er_1251829c.jpg

This was the moment that Fed realized he wasn't going to be the GOAT. The question is, when will Ray admit it?

#1465 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 15 September 2013 - 06:36 AM

Ok, you two are having a lot of fun it seems. Good for you. I will admit it when there are clear evidences that Nadal is the greatest of all time. I am good at admitting what is true, but I just don't see that now.

#1466 SpontaneousFury

SpontaneousFury

    That guy.

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 01:18 PM

View PostRayTheBest, on 15 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Ok, you two are having a lot of fun it seems. Good for you. I will admit it when there are clear evidences that Nadal is the greatest of all time. I am good at admitting what is true, but I just don't see that now.

Fed still has a lot to be proud about, its not all bad.

#1467 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 15 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

View PostRayTheBest, on 15 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Ok, you two are having a lot of fun it seems. Good for you. I will admit it when there are clear evidences that Nadal is the greatest of all time. I am good at admitting what is true, but I just don't see that now.

You're contradicting yourself again. It doesn't get any clearer than 21-10, that's not even a close Football game. Much less a lifelong competition.

No shame in battling Pete for #2. Though if we're going to be honest, Nadal would mash him too. In all honesty, Novak is the toughest competition Nadal would find of any of these guys.

#1468 SpontaneousFury

SpontaneousFury

    That guy.

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 04:43 PM

Novak is Rafa's greatest rival, Fed is Rafa's greatess whipping boy.

#1469 RayTheBest

RayTheBest

    Contender

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,405 posts

Posted 15 September 2013 - 04:48 PM

I'm not contradicting myself at all and I don't understand your logic. Sampras in his time would smash Nadal on grass and would beat Rafa on hard court more often than not, but don't you find that kind of conversation a bit stupid? In Pete's time, the courts were faster and the racquet and string technology was different. Nadal wouldn't be able to do a lot of things he is doing now back then. On the other hand, if we bring Sampras to the current era, who knows what would happen?

Novak is a very good player, but he looks even greater because of Rafa, how he dominated Rafa in his absolute best days back 2 years ago. However, I think the best of other eras were slightly better than Novak. Seriously, the current racquet and string technology, with all the modern trainings, make these two to keep producing amazing rallies and I think top baseliners of the past are well capable of doing those if they were given same equipments and training.

Edited by RayTheBest, 15 September 2013 - 04:49 PM.


#1470 YellowLorrySlow

YellowLorrySlow

    All Time Great

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere Kobe Bryant isn't
  • Interests:Making a fool of YOU!

Posted 15 September 2013 - 05:19 PM

View PostRayTheBest, on 15 September 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

I'm not contradicting myself at all and I don't understand your logic. Sampras in his time would smash Nadal on grass and would beat Rafa on hard court more often than not, but don't you find that kind of conversation a bit stupid? In Pete's time, the courts were faster and the racquet and string technology was different. Nadal wouldn't be able to do a lot of things he is doing now back then. On the other hand, if we bring Sampras to the current era, who knows what would happen?

Novak is a very good player, but he looks even greater because of Rafa, how he dominated Rafa in his absolute best days back 2 years ago. However, I think the best of other eras were slightly better than Novak. Seriously, the current racquet and string technology, with all the modern trainings, make these two to keep producing amazing rallies and I think top baseliners of the past are well capable of doing those if they were given same equipments and training.

You said you wanted some clear evidence and you're very good at admitting truth. meanwhile you're trying to come up with ways that 21-10 is deceptive. That's very contradictory.

I find all of our conversations on Tennis to be a bit stupid Ray. You're always all over the place. As for Pete, like I said you're certainly not out of line if you think he's greater than Nadal. Unlike Federer, I haven't watched Rafael prove that to be false.

As for the past, I don't know. The game is so much deeper now and they are so much more athletically gifted. Bjorn Borg could never hit the ball like Novak Djokovic can. I don't care what equipment you give him. As for Pete dominating Rafa on hard courts, I guess you're still clinging to that buffoonish shit about Nadal on hard courts. He's hell on anyone who has ever played on any surface there is. The only guarantees there is that Pete could never win a set against him on Clay. Nobody could dominate Nadal anywhere.



Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users