"Nadal is a modern day Borg" - Sampras [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

"Nadal is a modern day Borg" - Sampras

RagingLamb
10-03-2007, 05:46 PM
In an interview with Texas Monthly about his exhos with Roger (found this on Samprasfanz):

"So is there anyone else aside from Federer you'd like to go up against?

Rafael Nadal is right behind Roger. I love his attitude, and he's a great competitor. And he's the one guy who actually believes he can beat Roger. A lot of these guys go out there against Roger and are resigned to the fact of not beating him. But Nadal's got a great competitive drive—he works hard, he's fast, and he's a great athlete. He's a modern-day Borg—he really is that good. At Wimbledon this year he played seven days in a row—even on grass, which isn't his best surface—and didn't complain about it. And I admire that".


thoughts?

jayrhum
10-03-2007, 05:49 PM
Yes indeed he is...
Without the class but with the ASS

RagingLamb
10-03-2007, 05:54 PM
well he does pull his shorts and pump his fists on the court, but overall Rafa seems like a very classy guy.

MisterQ
10-03-2007, 05:55 PM
Nice to see Sampras respecting Nadal, despite the obvious stylistic differences.

Kitty de Sade
10-03-2007, 05:55 PM
As much as I love Sampras, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the two, at least right now. I agree about Nadal's competitive spirit and self-belief, but up until Nadal actually WINS Wimby, I'm not prepared to put those two in the same category just yet.

l_mac
10-03-2007, 05:56 PM
In an interview with Texas Monthly about his exhos with Roger (found this on Samprasfanz):

"So is there anyone else aside from Federer you'd like to go up against?

Rafael Nadal is right behind Roger. I love his attitude, and he's a great competitor. And he's the one guy who actually believes he can beat Roger. A lot of these guys go out there against Roger and are resigned to the fact of not beating him. But Nadal's got a great competitive drive—he works hard, he's fast, and he's a great athlete. He's a modern-day Borg—he really is that good. At Wimbledon this year he played seven days in a row—even on grass, which isn't his best surface—and didn't complain about it. And I admire that".


thoughts?

Hmm.

He didn't complain about having to play seven days in a row at Wimbledon? :haha: Um, he totally did.

I agree with the rest.

l_mac
10-03-2007, 05:57 PM
As much as I love Sampras, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the two, at least right now.

I think Sampras is probably referring to his athleticism and stamina, which is fair enough.

DDrago2
10-03-2007, 05:58 PM
Hmm.

He didn't complain about having to play seven days in a row at Wimbledon? :haha: Um, he totally did.


Right, and if I remember corectly, Federer is actualy the one who didn't complain - about the slow, high-bouncing court. He said that courts are "perfect"...

As for the Borg comparison it's a bit silly since Borg was so restrained on court

Kitty de Sade
10-03-2007, 06:00 PM
I think Sampras is probably referring to his athleticism and stamina, which is fair enough.

Maybe it doesn't translate over the net- I took it literally to mean "at present, as good as Borg." Putting it that way then, it makes sense.

Okay Pete, I agree. :hatoff:

nobama
10-03-2007, 06:39 PM
And he's the one guy who actually believes he can beat Roger. A lot of these guys go out there against Roger and are resigned to the fact of not beating him.
This is really why he likes Nadal. ;)

DrJules
10-03-2007, 06:43 PM
He is not the first.

McEnroe has also referred to Nadal as a modern day version of Borg; albeit a left handed version.

There are many similarities: speed about the court, movement and balance on court, match fitness, use of top spin, solid defense, best on clay courts and weakest on hard courts, neither enjoyed playing big servers.

Differences: Borg managed emotionally better on court, Borg suffered fewer injuries.

Each totally dominated clay, but Borg until McEnroe never faced a player of the Federer level on grass.

cmurray
10-03-2007, 06:51 PM
I think its a pretty fair comparison. Nadal certainly hasn't the accomplishments of Borg just yet (or probably ever for that matter), but stylistically, I don't think Pete's too far off the mark.

Kitty de Sade
10-03-2007, 06:54 PM
I think its a pretty fair comparison. Nadal certainly hasn't the accomplishments of Borg just yet (or probably ever for that matter), but stylistically, I don't think Pete's too far off the mark.

So good to see you, Muz. :hug:

None of this is taking into account that there is a faction of us who might be a wee bit biased when discussing The Borg...;)

Beforehand
10-03-2007, 06:57 PM
Keep it in your pants.

LeChuck
10-03-2007, 07:05 PM
For those of you old enough to have followed Borg, is it true that he had a resting heart rate of 36 beats per minute, and had olympic standard sprinting times?

cmurray
10-03-2007, 07:07 PM
So good to see you, Muz. :hug:

None of this is taking into account that there is a faction of us who might be a wee bit biased when discussing The Borg...;)

Just got back from Disney World.

Us? A wee bit biased when discussing Borg? I have NO IDEA what you mean. :angel:

tangerine_dream
10-03-2007, 08:07 PM
This is really why he likes Nadal. ;)
:rolleyes: I don't see anything wrong with someone admiring a player who can give Federer a competitive match. Not everybody enjoys watching lopsided matches where the outcome is never in doubt.

CyBorg
10-03-2007, 08:11 PM
I'm warming up to the comparison a little bit.

What's missing in the Nadal package is the serve. Borg had a big serve; Nadal doesn't. But he still has time to develop a better serve.

Borg was also significantly better on hard courts. But I think that Nadal will break through at one of the hc majors soon enough.

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2007, 08:14 PM
He meant to say he's BorINg.

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2007, 08:15 PM
:rolleyes: I don't see anything wrong with someone admiring a player who can give Federer a competitive match. Not everybody enjoys watching lopsided matches where the outcome is never in doubt.

Like when Roddick plays Federer? :D Or Blake? :D :D :D

R.Federer
10-03-2007, 08:19 PM
Nadal a Modern day Bore? Nah, he's not that boring..

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2007, 08:27 PM
Nadal a Modern day Bore? Nah, he's not that boring..

He's the most boring player ever.

l_mac
10-03-2007, 08:28 PM
He meant to say he's BorINg.


Nadal a Modern day Bore? Nah, he's not that boring..

Oh dear.

Skyward
10-03-2007, 08:41 PM
:rolleyes: I don't see anything wrong with someone admiring a player who can give Federer a competitive match. Not everybody enjoys watching lopsided matches where the outcome is never in doubt.

Well, the outcome is never in doubt on clay. This fact doesn't bother anyone. :shrug:

Kitty de Sade
10-03-2007, 08:44 PM
Keep it in your pants.

Excuse me Mr. Smarty Pirata Pants, don't go assuming stuff. I wasn't referring to anything related to the goings on at Studio 54. I have 100% respect for Borg and his tennis career/accomplishments, which is what I was referring to in the first place. :angel:

Just got back from Disney World.

Hope you had fun. :)

Us? A wee bit biased when discussing Borg? I have NO IDEA what you mean. :angel:

Sure. It's possible to remain completely neutral about Borg. Really. :p

Johnny Groove
10-03-2007, 08:48 PM
This is really why he likes Nadal. ;)

RFK=Sampras

Excuse me Mr. Smarty Pirata Pants, don't go assuming stuff. I wasn't referring to anything related to the goings on at Studio 54. I have 100% respect for Borg and his tennis career/accomplishments, which is what I was referring to in the first place. :angel:

Too close for comfort, i think you need a new name for him :angel:

tangerine_dream
10-03-2007, 08:50 PM
Like when Roddick plays Federer? :D Or Blake? :D :D :D
Pretty much everybody, Glenn. :p

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2007, 08:51 PM
Pretty much everybody, Glenn. :p

Even Isner can win sets off Federer. Roddick can't. Don't make excuses. :p

Burrow
10-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Well Borg was very quiet on court whereas Nadal is complete opposite.

RagingLamb
10-03-2007, 09:07 PM
RFK=Sampras

a little harsh don't you think?

Allure
10-03-2007, 10:42 PM
:rolleyes: I don't see anything wrong with someone admiring a player who can give Federer a competitive match. Not everybody enjoys watching lopsided matches where the outcome is never in doubt.

How about instead of complaining the match is lopsided just admire the great tennis being played albeit it's mostly executed by one (fantastic) player? :shrug: And just because somebody gives Federer a challenge doesn't mean it's a plausible reason to admire him. ;)

nobama
10-03-2007, 11:36 PM
:rolleyes: I don't see anything wrong with someone admiring a player who can give Federer a competitive match. Not everybody enjoys watching lopsided matches where the outcome is never in doubt.
Hmm...then I guess a lot of fans must really hate the clay court season. Tell me again which tournaments on clay where Nadal is participating are ever in doubt? Federer certainly has more of a chance of losing on hard court than Nadal does on clay.

World Beater
10-03-2007, 11:40 PM
sampras really saying some shocking stuff.

:lol:

the usual droll about federer's competition.

RagingLamb
10-03-2007, 11:43 PM
I think the point is that it's nice when the two play because the level of competition is good.

Federer does dominate easily, and of course he is that brilliant.
But sometimes, it would be nice to see him get challenged a little more. Because I don't think we get to see how good he really is unless he's being pushed a little. Recent matches are good examples of that.

Watching Federer dominate grass + hardcourts monotonously is not fun for me, neither is watching Rafa dominate clay.

One event doesn't justify the other.

RagingLamb
10-03-2007, 11:44 PM
sampras really saying some shocking stuff.

:lol:

the usual droll about federer's competition.

he hasn't been very subtle about it lately.

glomasterg
10-03-2007, 11:46 PM
I personally love the clay courts season. It gives an opportunity for another talent players to showcase their skills and compete against the top hard court players. I also appreciate the long rallies and the stamina required to win a FRENCH OPEN. That is why Nadal is so impressive. I don't see Nadal ever winning a Wimbeldon. He was very fortunate to make it to the FINALS this year. Almost lost to Soderling and Djokovic retired against Nadal.

glomasterg
10-03-2007, 11:50 PM
Although Roger Federer is making to the finals of all the Grand Slams, I believe he is losing a bit of his dominance. He starts his matches playing real conservatively allowing his opponents to gain confidence and get into their zone.

glomasterg
10-03-2007, 11:51 PM
Who you think will be the first to win a GRAND SLAM if you take out FEDERER and NADAL?

glomasterg
10-03-2007, 11:57 PM
I remember watching a very impressive lopsided match during the AUSTRALIAN OPEN. This was the FEDERER vs RODDICK match. Remember Roddick beat federer in Asia and Roddick felt that he was narrowing the gap between Roger and himself. So there was a lot of hype about this match. And what happens? Roger played as well as I ever seen him making ridiculously good shots and returned Roddick monster serves.

CyBorg
10-04-2007, 12:12 AM
I personally love the clay courts season. It gives an opportunity for another talent players to showcase their skills and compete against the top hard court players. I also appreciate the long rallies and the stamina required to win a FRENCH OPEN. That is why Nadal is so impressive. I don't see Nadal ever winning a Wimbeldon. He was very fortunate to make it to the FINALS this year. Almost lost to Soderling and Djokovic retired against Nadal.

Nadal made it to the final and took Federer to five sets despite playing the most wildly uneven and grueling schedule in recent memory. Why exactly can't he do better if the weather suits him next time?

RagingLamb
10-04-2007, 12:15 AM
Nadal made it to the final and took Federer to five sets despite playing the most wildly uneven and grueling schedule in recent memory. Why exactly can't he do better if the weather suits him next time?

apparently, because "he almost lost to solderling" and Djokovic retired against him.

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 12:19 AM
I think the point is that it's nice when the two play because the level of competition is good.

Federer does dominate easily, and of course he is that brilliant.
But sometimes, it would be nice to see him get challenged a little more. Because I don't think we get to see how good he really is unless he's being pushed a little. Recent matches are good examples of that.

Watching Federer dominate grass + hardcourts monotonously is not fun for me, neither is watching Rafa dominate clay.

One event doesn't justify the other.

No. When they play it's always a shitty match.

I personally love the clay courts season. It gives an opportunity for another talent players to showcase their skills and compete against the top hard court players. I also appreciate the long rallies and the stamina required to win a FRENCH OPEN. That is why Nadal is so impressive. I don't see Nadal ever winning a Wimbeldon. He was very fortunate to make it to the FINALS this year. Almost lost to Soderling and Djokovic retired against Nadal.

You don't need skill to moonball. The French Open sucks.

Are you retarded? Why posting 4 times to say something you could have done easily in one? Why the capital letters in some words without any sense? :retard:

CyBorg
10-04-2007, 12:26 AM
apparently, because "he almost lost to solderling" and Djokovic retired against him.

Borg almost lost to a lot of guys. He was much closer to losing against Vilay Armitraj at the 1979 Wimbledon championships than Nadal was in the Soderling match.

RagingLamb
10-04-2007, 12:27 AM
Borg almost lost to a lot of guys. He was much closer to losing against Vilay Armitraj at the 1979 Wimbledon championships than Nadal was in the Soderling match.

oh I agree with you. I was just stating glomasterg's reasons.

Allure
10-04-2007, 12:28 AM
No. When they play it's always a shitty match.



You don't need skill to moonball. The French Open sucks.

Are you retarded? Why posting 4 times to say something you could have done easily in one? Why the capital letters in some words without any sense? :retard:

I agree. The FO is my least favorite slam. And no I don't think clay exposes one true's talent. I guess Nadal and JCF are the best of the bunch. :rolleyes:

RagingLamb
10-04-2007, 12:29 AM
No. When they play it's always a shitty match.

I disagree.

But I guess, not being gifted with an intellect such as yours, I am easily amused by simple and mediocre things.

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 12:51 AM
I disagree.

But I guess, not being gifted with an intellect such as yours, I am easily amused by simple and mediocre things.

Nadal playing on grass is the complete opposite of quality.

RagingLamb
10-04-2007, 12:54 AM
Nadal playing on grass is the complete opposite of quality.

hmmm...grass tennis has changed a little.

do you find Nadal's grass court tennis ugly even by today's standards?

Allure
10-04-2007, 01:05 AM
hmmm...grass tennis has changed a little.

do you find Nadal's grass court tennis ugly even by today's standards?

Yes

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 01:14 AM
hmmm...grass tennis has changed a little.

do you find Nadal's grass court tennis ugly even by today's standards?

Nadal's game is ugly by any standards on any surface.

Johnny Groove
10-04-2007, 01:23 AM
Nadal's game is ugly by any standards on any surface.

Still more effective than all the players in your siggie combined :shrug:

guga2120
10-04-2007, 01:25 AM
Sampras is right, about Nadal anyway, and next year Nadal not having to play 7 days straight is taking Wimbledon.

dimahenman
10-04-2007, 01:27 AM
Nadal playing on grass is the complete opposite of quality.

he doesn't really play on grass! he just plays like clay on a grass court!

hes not borg! hes like vilas or something if vilas had played on slow courts at wimbly too!

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 01:28 AM
Still more effective than all the players in your siggie combined :shrug:

Who cares, fanboy? I bet if Nadal never won anything you'd never even know him. :rolleyes:

guga2120
10-04-2007, 01:31 AM
he doesn't really play on grass! he just plays like clay on a grass court!

hes not borg! hes like vilas or something if vilas had played on slow courts at wimbly too!

Hes not like Borg until he wins Wimbledon, but if Nadal had played Borg at anytime on clay he would have owned him.

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 01:33 AM
Sampras is right, about Nadal anyway, and next year Nadal not having to play 7 days straight is taking Wimbledon.

:retard:

dimahenman
10-04-2007, 01:34 AM
Hes not like Borg until he wins Wimbledon, but if Nadal had played Borg at anytime on clay he would have owned him.

i agree, nadal is very good on clay! to never lose at the french is impressive. nadal is very good on clay but he just plays like clay everywhere else too!

GonzoFed
10-04-2007, 01:35 AM
Sampras is right, about Nadal anyway, and next year Nadal not having to play 7 days straight is taking Wimbledon.

Ok, i don't want to bash Nadal by any means (Gu should do that easily) but one the reasons he played 7 days straight was that he wasn't good enough to finish Soderling quickly.

Allure
10-04-2007, 01:36 AM
he doesn't really play on grass! he just plays like clay on a grass court!

hes not borg! hes like vilas or something if vilas had played on slow courts at wimbly too!

Agree. Nadal uses his clay game on every surface but still manages to win.

Allure
10-04-2007, 01:37 AM
Who cares, fanboy? I bet if Nadal never won anything you'd never even know him. :rolleyes:

A lot of people just like Nadal because he beats Federer many times. But if he didn't, I doubt many would be fans of his game.

Allure
10-04-2007, 01:38 AM
Nadal's game is ugly by any standards on any surface.

Nadal's game uglier than Stepanek's face. (No offense Glenn)

dimahenman
10-04-2007, 01:38 AM
Agree. Nadal uses his clay game on every surface but still manages to win.

i guess thats what counts! but i think thats why federer is better moves his game much more consistently! nadal should try to change and then he will be even better

but nadal is still fun to watch sometimes, lots of running but some shots are exciting! wimbledon final was nice!

dimahenman
10-04-2007, 01:39 AM
Nadal's game uglier than Stepanek's face. (No offense Glenn)

at least stepanek has lips like angelina!! lol! saw him in cincy i was in his hotel where he was too sexy!

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 01:41 AM
Hes not like Borg until he wins Wimbledon, but if Nadal had played Borg at anytime on clay he would have owned him.

Way to go comparing a player of the 70s with Nadal. As if Nadal would ever make it to the top 200 with a wooden racket.

A lot of people just like Nadal because he beats Federer many times. But if he didn't, I doubt many would be fans of his game.

Definitely.

Nadal's game uglier than Stepanek's face. (No offense Glenn)

Stepanek isn't called sexy outta nowhere mate. More respect please.

dimahenman
10-04-2007, 01:42 AM
Way to go comparing a player of the 70s with Nadal. As if Nadal would ever make it to the top 200 with a wooden racket.




he hits so many shots it would break after two games!

tangerine_dream
10-04-2007, 01:42 AM
How about instead of complaining the match is lopsided just admire the great tennis being played albeit it's mostly executed by one (fantastic) player? :shrug:
For the same reason why you can't admire great tennis being played by anyone other than Federer. :shrug:

And just because somebody gives Federer a challenge doesn't mean it's a plausible reason to admire him. ;)
Why not? You admire any player who beats Nadal. So what's the difference? ;)

Hmm...then I guess a lot of fans must really hate the clay court season. Tell me again which tournaments on clay where Nadal is participating are ever in doubt? Federer certainly has more of a chance of losing on hard court than Nadal does on clay.
When Nadal becomes as dominant as Federer on most surfaces 9 months out of the year for four years is the day you can make this argument.

GonzoFed
10-04-2007, 01:43 AM
Only King Oscar is sexier than Thunder Lips.

GlennMirnyi
10-04-2007, 01:48 AM
he hits so many shots it would break after two games!

You can play with a western forehand with a wooden racket. You need touch, something Nadal has no idea of its existence.

Only King Oscar is sexier than Thunder Lips.

No no no. King Oscar may be a more complete player, but not sexier than Sexy Lips.

Allure
10-04-2007, 02:02 AM
[QUOTE=tangerine_dream;6090596]For the same reason why you can't admire great tennis being played by anyone other than Federer. :shrug:[quote]

I like other people besides Federer. ;)


[QUOTE=tangerine_dream;6090596]Why not? You admire any player who beats Nadal. So what's the difference? ;)[quote]

Not true. Djokovic beats Nadal and I have no respect for him. :shrug:

oz_boz
10-04-2007, 09:09 PM
Stylistically Nadal obviously is the new Borg, achievementwise, well...let's wait another five years at least, but I doubt Nadal will end his career with a double figure slam tally.

He's not like Borg until he wins Wimbledon at least 4 times and another 2 RGs

fixed

if Nadal had played Borg at anytime on clay he would have owned him.

:lol: You are either

1) stating the obvious by saying that a player with modern equipment and training regime would beat someone from the 70s; or
2) completely clueless.

Make your pick.

kobulingam
10-04-2007, 09:34 PM
Sampras is always dissing Roger's competition (but hiding it well) in all these interviews.

rwn
10-04-2007, 09:49 PM
Sampras is always dissing Roger's competition (but hiding it well) in all these interviews.

Yes. What about his own competition? Kafelnikov even thanked him after the AO 1999 for letting him win by not participating :lol:

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-04-2007, 09:50 PM
Sampras is always dissing Roger's competition (but hiding it well) in all these interviews.
Well its not as if he doesn't have a point is it.

oz_boz
10-04-2007, 09:58 PM
Well its not as if he doesn't have a point is it.

He doesn't have anything remotely close to a point.

All comparisons between the competition of Sampras contemps and Fed's are at least 10 years premature, for obvious reasons - before 2017 we know too little about the final slam tally of Fed's competitors.

Besides, Lendl is as much a contemporary of Sampras as Sampras is of Federer.

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-04-2007, 10:09 PM
Way to go comparing a player of the 70s with Nadal. As if Nadal would ever make it to the top 200 with a wooden racket.

As if Sampras would have ever won 14 grand slams with a wooden racket, don't see what your point is there.

thrust
10-04-2007, 11:09 PM
I saw Borg play at the USO and on TV. On any surface, except grass, I foud Borg^s game rather boring. He was a human backboard constantly at the baseline. At Wimbledon, he was a totally different player. Nadal is not at all boring! Thank goodness someone thinks he can beat Roger, before the match starts. Rafa still leads Roger 8-5 H-H, so he must be doing something right.

Allure
10-04-2007, 11:11 PM
I saw Borg play at the USO and on TV. On any surface, except grass, I foud Borg^s game rather boring. He was a human backboard constantly at the baseline. At Wimbledon, he was a totally different player. Nadal is not at all boring! Thank goodness someone thinks he can beat Roger, before the match starts. Rafa still leads Roger 8-5 H-H, so he must be doing something right.

If you think running around and screaming Vamos is exciting. :zzz:

Rafa is just lucky he is a bad matchup for Roger. How funny people associate bad matchup with great talent.

R.Federer
10-04-2007, 11:27 PM
Way to go comparing a player of the 70s with Nadal. As if Nadal would ever make it to the top 200 with a wooden racket.

As if Sampras would have ever won 14 grand slams with a wooden racket, don't see what your point is there.

His point is that Borg is being compared to Nadal. Borg played with a wooden racket. I don't see what your point is, bringing Sampras into the mix? :confused: Sampras is not being compared to Nadal here!

sawan66278
10-04-2007, 11:28 PM
Rafa is just lucky he is a bad matchup for Roger. How funny people associate bad matchup with great talent.

Um...right...let's see...your opinion, or the opinion of a man who may be the best player ever? It's obvious...your opinion is MUCH more valid...:rolleyes:

cmurray
10-04-2007, 11:29 PM
If you think running around and screaming Vamos is exciting. :zzz:

Rafa is just lucky he is a bad matchup for Roger. How funny people associate bad matchup with great talent.

Actually, do you know what I think is funny? People who forget that in order for Nadal to "get lucky" against Roger, he has to get to a final first. I suppose everyone he beats along the way is a bad matchup as well? That Rafael Nadal has to be the luckiest bastard in the world.

thrust
10-04-2007, 11:29 PM
Allure- That was one of the most immature and ignorant posts I have ever seen here, and there have been quite a few.

R.Federer
10-04-2007, 11:31 PM
Rafa is just lucky he is a bad matchup for Roger. How funny people associate bad matchup with great talent.

Pernfors v/s Sampras H2H: 0-2

Ergo, greater talent: Pernfors :)

RagingLamb
10-04-2007, 11:35 PM
If you think running around and screaming Vamos is exciting. :zzz:

Rafa is just lucky he is a bad matchup for Roger. How funny people associate bad matchup with great talent.

wow

Allure
10-04-2007, 11:53 PM
Actually, do you know what I think is funny? People who forget that in order for Nadal to "get lucky" against Roger, he has to get to a final first. I suppose everyone he beats along the way is a bad matchup as well? That Rafael Nadal has to be the luckiest bastard in the world.

He's ranked number 2 and lose to the likes of Berdych, Blake, Ferrer, and Djokovic. Seems to me him beating Federer is more of a bad matchup than great talent. Didn't say he doesn't have talent.

cmurray
10-05-2007, 12:08 AM
He's ranked number 2 and lose to the likes of Berdych, Blake, Ferrer, and Djokovic. Seems to me him beating Federer is more of a bad matchup than great talent. Didn't say he doesn't have talent.

:lol:

Volandri and Canas anyone?

brent-o
10-05-2007, 02:04 AM
I personally love the clay courts season. It gives an opportunity for another talent players to showcase their skills and compete against the top hard court players. I also appreciate the long rallies and the stamina required to win a FRENCH OPEN. That is why Nadal is so impressive. I don't see Nadal ever winning a Wimbeldon. He was very fortunate to make it to the FINALS this year. Almost lost to Soderling and Djokovic retired against Nadal.

Fortunate? Just fortunate? I think it was a testament to his mental strength and physical conditioning. He did after all play many matches clustered together because of the rain, coming through a draw that was supposed to be horrible (Soderling, Berdych, Djokovic), and taking Federer to 5 sets in the final. I definately see him winning Wimbledon one day. I agree what you said about the clay season though. It's really thinking tennis at its best.

Mimi
10-05-2007, 03:23 AM
:yeah:

how could a great talent as roger lost to Volandri and Canas, bad match up again ;)? if you are a great talent, you always will find a way to win ;)
:lol:

Volandri and Canas anyone?

dragons112
10-05-2007, 03:32 AM
The statement made by Sampras in itslef is stupid - enough said

dragons112
10-05-2007, 03:34 AM
how could a great talent as roger lost to Volandri and Canas, bad match up again ? if you are a great talent, you always will find a way to win


Whoever wrote that is an absolute idiot. lol everyone can loose

Mimi
10-05-2007, 03:39 AM
of course every one can lose, i was just being sacrastic to Allure's post, he said rafa lost to lower-ranked players, but i wanted to point out that roger also lost sometimes too, the fact that rafa beat roger is not only because of bad match-up

before saying someone as absolute idot, do look at yourself first, you even don't know how to properly quote a post :rolleyes:


how could a great talent as roger lost to Volandri and Canas, bad match up again ? if you are a great talent, you always will find a way to win


Whoever wrote that is an absolute idiot. lol everyone can loose

Mimi
10-05-2007, 03:42 AM
yes the one who won 14 grand slams has less tennis knowledge than you :rolleyes:
The statement made by Sampras in itslef is stupid - enough said

dragons112
10-05-2007, 03:45 AM
Oh my mission in life - Correct quote posting. Nadal does lose to low ranked players on a consistant basis on 90% of surfaces. He beats roger at the French open. That's really his only strength. And during those matches roger has adequate chances to take him out.


Roger plays terrible against Rafa look at wimbledon this year - Shocking from roger


I agree with Allure

dragons112
10-05-2007, 03:48 AM
yes the one who won 14 grand slams has less tennis knowledge than you :rolleyes:

:worship: :worship: :worship:

He is wrong - Obviously his intelliegence does not match up to his old fashioned style of tennis.

How is Nadal a modern borg? Because of his class. How pathetic.

I didn't know tennis players were emulated in relation to thier on court behaviour. I thought the actual game of tennis would have been a good precedent however it seems pistol pete is just an idiot:worship: :worship:

Mimi
10-05-2007, 03:54 AM
then you must be a real gentleman by consistently calling people an idot :worship: :worship: :worship:

:worship: :worship: :worship:

He is wrong - Obviously his intelliegence does not match up to his old fashioned style of tennis.

How is Nadal a modern borg? Because of his class. How pathetic.

I didn't know tennis players were emulated in relation to thier on court behaviour. I thought the actual game of tennis would have been a good precedent however it seems pistol pete is just an idiot:worship: :worship:

dragons112
10-05-2007, 03:56 AM
I am indeed :)

Only silly statement get the name calling

tennis2tennis
10-05-2007, 07:12 AM
For those of you old enough to have followed Borg, is it true that he had a resting heart rate of 36 beats per minute, and had olympic standard sprinting times?

I'm not old enough...but I read that too

dragons112
10-05-2007, 07:14 AM
Djokovic is better than Rafa & so is andy roddick

Action Jackson
10-05-2007, 07:45 AM
For those of you old enough to have followed Borg, is it true that he had a resting heart rate of 36 beats per minute, and had olympic standard sprinting times?

I am not going to comment on the rest of the stuff in this thread, as there isn't a real need except to say Sampras can think what he wants.

Yes, at one of the main Swedish fitness institutes, they wanted to do some tests and they asked Borg to come in. This was after he retired and they asked him to run on this treadmill and many hours later he said "so guys, do you want me to stop or what".

Kolya
10-05-2007, 08:18 AM
Borg is ice and Nadal is all fire...

stebs
10-05-2007, 09:31 AM
I suppose the comparison is inevitable when you have someone a few points away from doing the RG - Wimbledon double.

LeChuck
10-05-2007, 09:40 AM
I am not going to comment on the rest of the stuff in this thread, as there isn't a real need except to say Sampras can think what he wants.

Yes, at one of the main Swedish fitness institutes, they wanted to do some tests and they asked Borg to come in. This was after he retired and they asked him to run on this treadmill and many hours later he said "so guys, do you want me to stop or what".

Thanks for the info. Wow that is impressive, and the guy sounds like an absolute phenomenon. I mean the average resting heart rate for adult humans is 72 beats per minute, so Borg's total is simply staggering, and more comparable with those of Tour de France cyclists, rather than other professional tennis players.

Kolya
10-05-2007, 10:04 AM
Thanks for the info. Wow that is impressive, and the guy sounds like an absolute phenomenon. I mean the average resting heart rate for adult humans is 72 beats per minute, so Borg's total is simply staggering, and more comparable with those of Tour de France cyclists, rather than other professional tennis players.

Yes it is more comparable to cyclists. Lance Armstrong's is around 30-31 BPM and the lowest I know of is Miguel Indurain at 28 BPM.

thrust
10-05-2007, 10:37 AM
dragons112- Even IF Sampras were stupid, he is still a 14 time Slam winner. You ARE stupid and a tennis nobody.

nanoman
10-05-2007, 12:14 PM
So what if he had 14 Slams, the guy himself once admitted he doesn't watch more than a set or 2 during a GS(wouldn't surprise me if he didn't watch anything at all from AO or RG).
I would say most guys here are in their right to reject his comparison and call him a bitter, senile fool.

cmurray
10-05-2007, 12:25 PM
If I recall properly, Sampras also has given Federer loads of compliments and said he was sure Feds would surpass his slam record. And calling him senile is just ridiculous.

dragons112
10-05-2007, 02:51 PM
dragons112- Even IF Sampras were stupid, he is still a 14 time Slam winner. You ARE stupid and a tennis nobody.

What a stupid response:worship:

l_mac
10-05-2007, 03:42 PM
How is Nadal a modern borg? Because of his class. How pathetic.

I didn't know tennis players were emulated in relation to thier on court behaviour. I thought the actual game of tennis would have been a good precedent however it seems pistol pete is just an idiot:worship: :worship:

Who said that? Not Pete. Or any other poster on this thread.

Djokovic is better than Rafa & so is andy roddick

:haha: That's *almost* worth a good rep.

GlennMirnyi
10-05-2007, 03:57 PM
Yes. What about his own competition? Kafelnikov even thanked him after the AO 1999 for letting him win by not participating :lol:

Sampras competition > Federer competition. Not even close.

Well its not as if he doesn't have a point is it.

Your first decent post in this forum. Well done, I'm sure your husband told you to post this.

He doesn't have anything remotely close to a point.

All comparisons between the competition of Sampras contemps and Fed's are at least 10 years premature, for obvious reasons - before 2017 we know too little about the final slam tally of Fed's competitors.

Besides, Lendl is as much a contemporary of Sampras as Sampras is of Federer.

He does have. Blake, Boredo, Fakervic... all clowns.

As if Sampras would have ever won 14 grand slams with a wooden racket, don't see what your point is there.

Without a man you keep posting stupid things. Next time ask advice for your husband again. If you have one, I mean.

Um...right...let's see...your opinion, or the opinion of a man who may be the best player ever? It's obvious...your opinion is MUCH more valid...:rolleyes:

Opinions are always valid. Don't be a jerk.

If you think running around and screaming Vamos is exciting. :zzz:

Rafa is just lucky he is a bad matchup for Roger. How funny people associate bad matchup with great talent.

Very true.

The statement made by Sampras in itslef is stupid - enough said

True.

Djokovic is better than Rafa & so is andy roddick

One of the most stupid posts ever. Roddick was humiliated against Nadal this year.

I suppose the comparison is inevitable when you have someone a few points away from doing the RG - Wimbledon double.

Never gonna happen.

sawan66278
10-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Opinions are always valid. Don't be a jerk.


Actually, this is NOT true. Informed and educated opinions are always valid. Opinions based on a lack of knowledge are information are not.

Given my hypothesis, I'm afraid to ask you your opinion, Glenn. But, you have made valid points in the past...how to you view what Pete has said?

GlennMirnyi
10-05-2007, 04:38 PM
Pete actually said "Nadal is a modern day BorE". Stupid interviewer got it wrong.

Sampras is the GOAT, but he should keep it quiet. You can't compare players with a difference of 30 years between their playing time.

World Beater
10-05-2007, 04:42 PM
Thanks for the info. Wow that is impressive, and the guy sounds like an absolute phenomenon. I mean the average resting heart rate for adult humans is 72 beats per minute, so Borg's total is simply staggering, and more comparable with those of Tour de France cyclists, rather than other professional tennis players.

indurain was recorded to have 28 bpm

miguelon:worship:

Monteque
10-05-2007, 05:09 PM
In an interview with Texas Monthly about his exhos with Roger (found this on Samprasfanz):

"So is there anyone else aside from Federer you'd like to go up against?

Rafael Nadal is right behind Roger. I love his attitude, and he's a great competitor. And he's the one guy who actually believes he can beat Roger. A lot of these guys go out there against Roger and are resigned to the fact of not beating him. But Nadal's got a great competitive drive—he works hard, he's fast, and he's a great athlete. He's a modern-day Borg—he really is that good. At Wimbledon this year he played seven days in a row—even on grass, which isn't his best surface—and didn't complain about it. And I admire that".


thoughts?

My thought: Actually Sampras wanted to say "Someday Nadal will beat my record, not Roger, notice that, not Roger".


Everybody knows that Nadal won't break his record, Sampras just keeping deep his nerve about Roger will do it soon:rolleyes:

DDrago2
10-05-2007, 05:10 PM
I suppose the comparison is inevitable when you have someone a few points away from doing the RG - Wimbledon double.

That can't be the reason, than Federer would also be a good candidate
Nadal doesn't realy compare with Borg and I have no idea why Sampras made this comparison

R.Federer
10-05-2007, 05:15 PM
Thanks for the info. Wow that is impressive, and the guy sounds like an absolute phenomenon. I mean the average resting heart rate for adult humans is 72 beats per minute, so Borg's total is simply staggering, and more comparable with those of Tour de France cyclists, rather than other professional tennis players.
Lance Armstrong's resting heartrate is about 35 beats per minute. There is no discounting the role of genetics in becoming a great athlete, but its role is much more significant for cyclists than for Borg. Borg's talents were not purely due to speed and agility, it was pure tennis skill. It didn't hurt to have the heart stuff too, but it may not have made all the difference.

R.Federer
10-05-2007, 05:17 PM
That can't be the reason, than Federer would also be a good candidate
Nadal doesn't realy compare with Borg and I have no idea why Sampras made this comparison
Good point. People often forget that Federer is one Paris-choke away from the double himself

World Beater
10-05-2007, 05:30 PM
Good point. People often forget that Federer is one Paris-choke away from the double himself

provocative words.

but i understand your intentions.;)

nadal was not a few pts away from winning wimbledon, and federer is also not a "choke" away from RG.

R.Federer
10-05-2007, 05:36 PM
provocative words.

but i understand your intentions.;)

nadal was not a few pts away from winning wimbledon, and federer is also not a "choke" away from RG.

It's hard to say. If he had taken any one of those 15-40 or 30-40 bps in the fifth he is most likely to have won. So it could have been just a point or two away. Federer, well he had his 25 chances or whatever in Paris :lol:

World Beater
10-05-2007, 05:40 PM
It's hard to say. If he had taken any one of those 15-40 or 30-40 bps in the fifth he is most likely to have won. So it could have been just a point or two away. Federer, well he had his 25 chances or whatever in Paris :lol:

too many what ifs and we have no idea how nadal will handle the pressure of serving out a match. if nadal had broken, it would have been 2-1 or 3-2. only one break

l_mac
10-05-2007, 05:42 PM
It's hard to say. If he had taken any one of those 15-40 or 30-40 bps in the fifth he is most likely to have won. So it could have been just a point or two away. Federer, well he had his 25 chances or whatever in Paris :lol:

Federer never looked like he was going to win any of the FO matches he's played against Nadal - well, maybe in the 1st set of the 2006 Final, but that only lasted for those 21 minutes. :lol: He's never "choked" the French final because he's never been close to being in a winning position. Nadal wasn't a few points away from the Wimbledon win either, IMO.

R.Federer
10-05-2007, 05:44 PM
Federer never looked like he was going to win any of the FO matches he's played against Nadal - well, maybe in the 1st set of the 2006 Final, but that only lasted for those 21 minutes. :lol: He's never "choked" the French final because he's never been close to being in a winning position. Nadal wasn't a few points away from the Wimbledon win either.
Players don't only choke when about to win. They choke on break points, game points, set points, etc. :shrug:
Some choke just by being on that stage before the first ball is hit. Ferrero in his first French final may be one example of that. WTA, well that has several more examples of the first slam final fright.

RagingLamb
10-05-2007, 07:31 PM
He is wrong - Obviously his intelliegence does not match up to his old fashioned style of tennis.

How is Nadal a modern borg? Because of his class. How pathetic.

I didn't know tennis players were emulated in relation to thier on court behaviour. I thought the actual game of tennis would have been a good precedent however it seems pistol pete is just an idiot

thank you for gracing us with your wisdom.

question....when you see this guy, do you like to hurt him? Real bad?

http://www.thiscenturysucks.com/images/strawman.jpg

RagingLamb
10-05-2007, 07:33 PM
My thought: Actually Sampras wanted to say "Someday Nadal will beat my record, not Roger, notice that, not Roger".


Everybody knows that Nadal won't break his record, Sampras just keeping deep his nerve about Roger will do it soon:rolleyes:

Sorry, I don't see how you could get from what he said, to what you think he said.

l_mac
10-05-2007, 07:33 PM
Poor scarecrows :sad:

RagingLamb
10-05-2007, 07:34 PM
Poor scarecrows :sad:

they get beaten up quite a lot on MTF.

DrJules
10-05-2007, 08:06 PM
Have attached a couple of clips for purposes of comparison:

Borg McEnroe 1980 final 4th set tie-break:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdouWeyJerw

and Federer Nadal 2007 early 5th set:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc_cnGk60sI

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 12:14 AM
Federer never looked like he was going to win any of the FO matches he's played against Nadal - well, maybe in the 1st set of the 2006 Final, but that only lasted for those 21 minutes. :lol: He's never "choked" the French final because he's never been close to being in a winning position. Nadal wasn't a few points away from the Wimbledon win either, IMO.

Federer always chokes against Nadal. Always.

Allure
10-06-2007, 12:16 AM
Federer always chokes against Nadal. Always.

Well Nadal is a huge competitor :devil:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 12:25 AM
Well Nadal is a huge competitor :devil:

Blake? :p

Mimi
10-06-2007, 01:33 AM
a bitter, senile fool who praised your idol roger a lot, who said roger will break his records very soon, who said roger has a better backhand than him :rolleyes:

bitter? you must be referring to yourself :rolleyes:
So what if he had 14 Slams, the guy himself once admitted he doesn't watch more than a set or 2 during a GS(wouldn't surprise me if he didn't watch anything at all from AO or RG).
I would say most guys here are in their right to reject his comparison and call him a bitter, senile fool.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 01:36 AM
Federer fans can be such idiots. Especially when:
1- they think Federer is larger than tennis;
2- when they think everyone saying anything about Roger is wrong, doesn't matter who, just because they aren't "better" than him.

Mimi
10-06-2007, 01:39 AM
wise post :bowdown: sampras can give out his opinion as long as he is not insulting anyone, but to insult people just because they do not agree with their opinion by calling them idiots are just some immature people who has nothing better to do than to sit in front of computer and critisise people, i wonder whether any of them has actally played a formal tennis match? but to imply that they know more tennis than the legendary pete? ....

dragons112- Even IF Sampras were stupid, he is still a 14 time Slam winner. You ARE stupid and a tennis nobody.

Allure
10-06-2007, 01:45 AM
wise post :bowdown: sampras can give out his opinion as long as he is not insulting anyone, but to insult people just because they do not agree with their opinion by calling them idiots are just some immature people who has nothing better to do than to sit in front of computer .....

Like everyone on MTF. Special mention to Ezekiel, R=FK, Mediter, and Bad Religion. :D

RickDaStick
10-06-2007, 01:55 AM
Nadal is a modern day Ben Johnson

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 01:56 AM
Actually Ben Johnson with a racket.

Allure
10-06-2007, 01:56 AM
He is a male Marion Jones.

NYCtennisfan
10-06-2007, 01:58 AM
It's very rare thing for Pete to mete out praise for what may seem like a defensive player in Nadal. Pete has/had always believed in attacking tennis ruling over defensive tennis and the fact that an attacking player on his day would prevail over the defensive one thus controlling his own destiny. He definitely felt this way about his own matchups with non-attacking players. He would often say things similar to, "If I'm on my game, I pretty much like my chances no matter what the opposition does."

cmurray
10-06-2007, 03:44 AM
It's very rare thing for Pete to mete out praise for what may seem like a defensive player in Nadal. Pete has/had always believed in attacking tennis ruling over defensive tennis and the fact that an attacking player on his day would prevail over the defensive one thus controlling his own destiny. He definitely felt this way about his own matchups with non-attacking players. He would often say things similar to, "If I'm on my game, I pretty much like my chances no matter what the opposition does."

I'd even go so far as to say that its rare for Pete to mete out praise at all. He wasn't known for heaping compliments on other players. Nadal isn't a brick wall defensive player. He can create his own pace and he's a genius at hitting winners from a defensive position. I'd say Nadal is pretty far from typical.

Allure
10-06-2007, 03:45 AM
I'd even go so far as to say that its rare for Pete to mete out praise at all. He wasn't known for heaping compliments on other players. Nadal isn't a brick wall defensive player. He can create his own pace and he's a genius at hitting winners from a defensive position. I'd say Nadal is pretty far from typical.

Yes I can say not a lot of people play like him.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 03:48 AM
I'd even go so far as to say that its rare for Pete to mete out praise at all. He wasn't known for heaping compliments on other players. Nadal isn't a brick wall defensive player. He can create his own pace and he's a genius at hitting winners from a defensive position. I'd say Nadal is pretty far from typical.

Nadal is a moonballer, not a brick wall defensive player.

He can create his own moonballs. He'd need to know what the word "flat" means before creating pace.

Genius? Nadal isn't a genius in any point of view. Unless he's a genius like Ben Johnson.

Allure
10-06-2007, 03:54 AM
Nadal is a moonballer, not a brick wall defensive player.

He can create his own moonballs. He'd need to know what the word "flat" means before creating pace.

Genius? Nadal isn't a genius at any point of view. Unless he's a genius like Ben Johnson.

Nadal hits so many moonballs he can be an astronaut.

:worship: Nadal plays so ugly leaving his opponents flabbergasted in disgust and they decide to concede the match.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 04:00 AM
Nadal is a moonballer, not a brick wall defensive player.

He can create his own moonballs. He'd need to know what the word "flat" means before creating pace.

Genius? Nadal isn't a genius at any point of view. Unless he's a genius like Ben Johnson.

Aww. Gu, you missed me while I was on vacation didn't you? :hug:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 04:04 AM
Aww. Gu, you missed me while I was on vacation didn't you? :hug:

I miss your excuses when Nadal loses. :sad:

Allure
10-06-2007, 04:09 AM
Cmurray is actually a fair poster. At least she's not one of those people that calls Federer a clown and says Nadal is the real #1.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 04:11 AM
Cmurray is actually a fair poster. At least she's not one of those people that calls Federer a clown and says Nadal is the real #1.

You can't be fair calling Nadal a genius. On ANY level.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 04:14 AM
You can't be fair calling Nadal a genius. On ANY level.

I love you too, Gu. :hearts:

Allure
10-06-2007, 04:21 AM
You can't be fair calling Nadal a genius. On ANY level.

He's a genius at playing disgustingly ugly tennis. :hatoff:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 04:24 AM
No, even then.

Action Jackson
10-06-2007, 06:58 AM
Lance Armstrong's resting heartrate is about 35 beats per minute. There is no discounting the role of genetics in becoming a great athlete, but its role is much more significant for cyclists than for Borg. Borg's talents were not purely due to speed and agility, it was pure tennis skill. It didn't hurt to have the heart stuff too, but it may not have made all the difference.

Actually it was fitness and his endurance levels that marked him out. I mean when players played Borg on clay, they were beaten before they went on court, just a question of the score.

Yes, he had tennis skill but he was far from the most naturally gifted player to play the game. The reason he had a 2 hand backhand was cause he couldn't hit the backhand properly when he picked up the racquet and used the fact that he was a talented ice hockey player and incorporated that into his game and it stuck ever since. His adaptability is underrated.

nanoman
10-06-2007, 07:41 AM
a bitter, senile fool who praised your idol roger a lot, who said roger will break his records very soon, who said roger has a better backhand than him :rolleyes:

bitter? you must be referring to yourself :rolleyes:

:hug:
Yes, compliments like this:
"Roger will break all my records, but he plays in a joke era"
"Roger is doing great at Wimbledon, but it is much harder to win Wimbledon during my time"
"Roger hit his backhand better than me, but with todays technology it is much easier to hit the ball, heck I am hitting the ball better now than when I played"
"Roger is dominating the field, but no one is serve volleying against him. Serve volleying is the tactic to beat Roger" -> translation -> "Me, a serve volleyer, would've ripped Roger a new one."

All backhanded compliments that expose his bitterness towards Roger's recordbreaking march. And guess what, his latest comments are another jab at Roger's competition.

As for why I call him senile. Pete hardly ever watch tennis anymore(1 or 2 set a Slam), he admitted that himself once. Why should we take any comment from him about a current era player(Nadal) serious ? Had he followed this year's Wimbledon just a little bit closer, he would've known that Nadal has been whining like a dog the whole second week. :haha:

Allure
10-06-2007, 03:52 PM
:hug:
Yes, compliments like this:
"Roger will break all my records, but he plays in a joke era"
"Roger is doing great at Wimbledon, but it is much harder to win Wimbledon during my time"
"Roger hit his backhand better than me, but with todays technology it is much easier to hit the ball, heck I am hitting the ball better now than when I played"
"Roger is dominating the field, but no one is serve volleying against him. Serve volleying is the tactic to beat Roger" -> translation -> "Me, a serve volleyer, would've ripped Roger a new one."

All backhanded compliments that expose his bitterness towards Roger's recordbreaking march. And guess what, his latest comments are another jab at Roger's competition.

As for why I call him senile. Pete hardly ever watch tennis anymore(1 or 2 set a Slam), he admitted that himself once. Why should we take any comment from him about a current era player(Nadal) serious ? Had he followed this year's Wimbledon just a little bit closer, he would've known that Nadal has been whining like a dog the whole second week. :haha:

:haha:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 05:11 PM
Sampras > Federer.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 05:26 PM
Sampras > Federer.

How many times a week do you post that?

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 06:06 PM
How many times a week do you post that?
About the same amount of times he posts "Nadal is a moonballer". So most of the time we lose count.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 06:18 PM
How many times a week do you post that?

Too many. It's proportional to the number of idiots around here.

As much as it can be discussed, there's something there's no discussion about:

Sampras >>>>>>> Agassi the phony.

About the same amount of times he posts "Nadal is a moonballer". So most of the time we lose count.

Fix me some dinner, woman.

fmolinari2005
10-06-2007, 06:24 PM
How many times a week do you post that?

Until he convinces himself of that. :D :D :D :D :D

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 06:24 PM
Too many. It's proportional to the number of idiots around here.

As much as it can be discussed, there's something there's no discussion about:

Sampras >>>>>>> Agassi the phony.



Fix me some dinner, woman.
Go and fix your record player you foolish man.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 06:27 PM
Until he convinces himself of that. :D :D :D :D :D

:ras: :p

Go and fix your record player you foolish man.

Back to the kitcheeeeen!

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 06:37 PM
Until he convinces himself of that. :D :D :D :D :D
He's just in denial as all the players in his signature are clowns good for nothing. Thats why he's so bitter about this tennis era.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 06:39 PM
He's just in denial as all the players in his signature are clowns good for nothing. Thats why he's so bitter about this tennis era.

They're not phony clowns dopefeeds like Agassi nor useless clowns like Monfils.

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 06:43 PM
They're not phony clowns dopefeeds like Agassi nor useless clowns like Monfils.
Speaking of ugly games, Stepanek has one of the ugliest games out there, so I would quit having a go at Rafa for his game when u have since clowns and losers in your signature.

fmolinari2005
10-06-2007, 06:43 PM
Seriously now Glenn: if there is one thing Sampras is trying to catch up with Federer is the "who kisses Nadal's ass harder" category.

I wonder how long will it take for Pete to say that Pandy is a modern day Moron Ivanisevic ...

fmolinari2005
10-06-2007, 06:45 PM
Speaking of ugly games, Stepanek has one of the ugliest games out there, so I would quit having a go at Rafa for his game when u have since clowns and losers in your signature.

No way. Stepanek might be ugly as hell, his attitude sucks, but he has a very nice game to watch. A lot of diversity, good feel at the net, and not only bashes balls from the baseline to win matches.

Allure
10-06-2007, 06:45 PM
Seriously now Glenn: if there is one thing Sampras is trying to catch up with Federer is the "who kisses Nadal's ass harder" category.

I wonder how long will it take for Pete to say that Pandy is a modern day Moron Ivanisevic ...

Maybe Sampras is R=FK. :D

Allure
10-06-2007, 06:45 PM
No way. Stepanek might be ugly as hell, his attitude sucks, but he has a very nice game to watch. A lot of diversity, good feel at the net, and not only bashes balls from the baseline to win matches.

I saw a bit of Radek's game against Djokovic and his style is okay. It's way better than Nadal's game.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 06:51 PM
Speaking of ugly games, Stepanek has one of the ugliest games out there, so I would quit having a go at Rafa for his game when u have since clowns and losers in your signature.

Now you've had it.

Shut the f*** up, you idiotic fangirl. Go back to the kitchen, where you should never leave, as you have no idea about tennis whatsoever. Who do you think you are? Steps has talent, can pull dropshots+lob combinations and volleys your clown favorites couldn't even do in their dreams.

"Coria is the most talented player in the world"

"Serving isn't tennis"

Dolly, go wash some clothes, I'm sure that's the only thing you can do somewhat right.

Seriously now Glenn: if there is one thing Sampras is trying to catch up with Federer is the "who kisses Nadal's ass harder" category.

I wonder how long will it take for Pete to say that Pandy is a modern day Moron Ivanisevic ...

They're just faking it.

fmolinari2005
10-06-2007, 06:52 PM
Maybe Sampras is R=FK. :D

I always thought that Sampras was Mediter! :lol: :lol:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 06:53 PM
No way. Stepanek might be ugly as hell, his attitude sucks, but he has a very nice game to watch. A lot of diversity, good feel at the net, and not only bashes balls from the baseline to win matches.

Don't answer Andre'sno1hussy. She just posts here to satisfy her needs to communicate with someone other than her dishes.

Allure
10-06-2007, 06:54 PM
I always thought that Sampras was Mediter! :lol: :lol:

He likes to have multiple accounts. His main account is R=FK. Sometimes he logs in as Mediter and Bad Religion.

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 06:58 PM
Don't answer Andre'sno1hussy. She just posts here to satisfy her needs to communicate with someone other than her dishes.
I'd like to know why u spend your time communicating on here, as it seems like you have no friends or life. How could u with the crap you come out with :lol:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 07:07 PM
I'd like to know why u spend your time communicating on here, as it seems like you have no friends or life. How could u with the crap you come out with :lol:

Stop posting and go back to the oven. Your food is gonna burn.

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 07:12 PM
Stop posting and go back to the oven. Your food is gonna burn.
38 posts a day :eek: Do u spend your whole time in front of the computer :rolleyes:

stebs
10-06-2007, 07:14 PM
I'd like to know why u spend your time communicating on here, as it seems like you have no friends or life. How could u with the crap you come out with :lol:

When you said Federer only wins because of his natural talent that is when you lost any shred of credibility on these boards and at least GM is trolling most of the time whereas it seems you really believe the ridiculous things you say about tennis.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 07:15 PM
38 posts a day :eek: Do u spend your whole time in front of the computer :rolleyes:

While you spend your time cooking, washing the dishes and clothes and ironing, I have fun here.

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 07:19 PM
When you said Federer only wins because of his natural talent that is when you lost any shred of credibility on these boards and at least GM is trolling most of the time whereas it seems you really believe the ridiculous things you say about tennis.
:retard: I never said he only wins because of his natural talent, what I said was if you gave his talent to half the players on the ATP many of them would be as successful. Not all of them, of course, but many.

I do believe the things I say, why would I say them otherwise :confused: Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're wrong...

stebs
10-06-2007, 07:24 PM
:retard: I never said he only wins because of his natural talent, what I said was if you gave his talent to half the players on the ATP many of them would be as successful. Not all of them, of course, but many.

I do believe the things I say, why would I say them otherwise :confused: Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're wrong...

When 99% of the people who read this board think you are wrong, regardless of the fact that we get some strange types on here, I think you gotta accept that you are.

For the record, I think most people, including the rational Nadal and Djokovic fans, would agree that almost none of the tour would achieve what Federer has acheived with that talent.

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 07:29 PM
When 99% of the people who read this board think you are wrong, regardless of the fact that we get some strange types on here, I think you gotta accept that you are.

For the record, I think most people, including the rational Nadal and Djokovic fans, would agree that almost none of the tour would achieve what Federer has acheived with that talent.
so what else is it down to, apart from hard work obviously?

stebs
10-06-2007, 07:33 PM
so what else is it down to, apart from hard work obviously?

Mental strength to bounce back and there are legends who would've struggled with losing over and over and over to Nadal on clay. The will to go deep. The concentration which he keeps up is outrageous and far better than most fighters. Accepting he has to learn and how to do so. The way he uses his game against different players. Concentrating on improving when he was leading the rest of the tour by 3000 odd entry points.

Allure
10-06-2007, 07:33 PM
:retard: I never said he only wins because of his natural talent, what I said was if you gave his talent to half the players on the ATP many of them would be as successful. Not all of them, of course, but many.

I do believe the things I say, why would I say them otherwise :confused: Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're wrong...

That's not true. Someone could have Federer's talent but lack the mental strength and doesn't work hard (like Safin) and only win 2 GSs. Just because two people have the same resources doesn't mean they would yield similar results. For example, if my friend and I both have a million dollars to start up a company. That doesn't guarantee that we will both have exactly the same success. She could make a billion dollars while my company only makes five million or fail.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 07:36 PM
When 99% of the people who read this board think you are wrong, regardless of the fact that we get some strange types on here, I think you gotta accept that you are.

For the record, I think most people, including the rational Nadal and Djokovic fans, would agree that almost none of the tour would achieve what Federer has acheived with that talent.

I still can't believe Federer has achieved what he has with his talent. I *do* think that there are a few players on tour who could have similar accomplishments with Federer's talent. Nalby and Safin could be the most talented players in the history of the sport and they STILL wouldn't accomplish half of what Roger has.

I *do* believe that Nadal probably would be just as successful as Roger. His hunger for winning is practically unmatched.

Allure
10-06-2007, 07:38 PM
I still can't believe Federer has achieved what he has with his talent. I *do* think that there are a few players on tour who could have similar accomplishments with Federer's talent. Nalby and Safin could be the most talented players in the history of the sport and they STILL wouldn't accomplish half of what Roger has.

I *do* believe that Nadal probably would be just as successful as Roger. His hunger for winning is practically unmatched.

Nadal already achieved so much with the skills he has now. It's unbelievable what he could have achieved if he had Federer's talent. :eek:

fmolinari2005
10-06-2007, 07:40 PM
So: let me see if I get things straight! If you add talent, stamina, hard work and mental power to most players they will win as much as Roger does! Federer is one lucky bastard!

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 07:40 PM
Nadal has no talent.

Nalbandian most talented? :haha:

cmurray
10-06-2007, 07:50 PM
So: let me see if I get things straight! If you add talent, stamina, hard work and mental power to most players they will win as much as Roger does! Federer is one lucky bastard!

Pardon my confusion, but what other characteristics do you deem necessary to win besides talent, stamina, hard work and mental toughness? These ARE why Federer has been so dominant. He is easily the most talented player I've ever laid eyes on. The fact that he also has the other 3 characteristics are what make him the force that he is.

fmolinari2005
10-06-2007, 08:02 PM
Pardon my confusion, but what other characteristics do you deem necessary to win besides talent, stamina, hard work and mental toughness? These ARE why Federer has been so dominant. He is easily the most talented player I've ever laid eyes on. The fact that he also has the other 3 characteristics are what make him the force that he is.

I dont know ... master the dark art of voodoo perhaps?!

DrJules
10-06-2007, 08:05 PM
Pete actually said "Nadal is a modern day BorE". Stupid interviewer got it wrong.

Sampras is the GOAT, but he should keep it quiet. You can't compare players with a difference of 30 years between their playing time.

Actually Ben Johnson with a racket.

Nadal is a moonballer, not a brick wall defensive player.

He can create his own moonballs. He'd need to know what the word "flat" means before creating pace.

Genius? Nadal isn't a genius in any point of view. Unless he's a genius like Ben Johnson.

You can't be fair calling Nadal a genius. On ANY level.

Nadal has no talent.

Nalbandian most talented? :haha:

Did Nadal tread on your foot or fail to give you his signature because you seem to be massively hostile.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 08:05 PM
I dont know ... master the dark art of voodoo perhaps?!

I hear live animal sacrifices do wonders for your win/loss record.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 08:08 PM
Did Nadal tread on your foot or fail to give you his signature because you seem to be massively hostile.

:haha::haha:

Allure
10-06-2007, 08:10 PM
Did Nadal tread on your foot or fail to give you his signature because you seem to be massively hostile.

Not as hostile as R=FK is towards Federer.

DrJules
10-06-2007, 08:14 PM
Not as hostile as R=FK is towards Federer.

But I think GlennMiryni means what he says. R=FK is a spoof act.

Byrd
10-06-2007, 08:17 PM
Whats this, Mr potato head the new PR assistant of the pig, what a joke this man is, can this man lower his standards anymore without giving his opinon in an article, bet hes writing down his opinions at this very moment.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 08:54 PM
Did Nadal tread on your foot or fail to give you his signature because you seem to be massively hostile.

This clown is the total opposite of everything I love about tennis, my favorite sport.

But I think GlennMiryni means what he says. R=FK is a spoof act.

I do mean what I say. I hate Nadal the clown.

DrJules
10-06-2007, 09:14 PM
This clown is the total opposite of everything I love about tennis, my favorite sport.



I do mean what I say. I hate Nadal the clown.

Are you next going to say you enjoyed the Wimbledon final of 1994; Sampras vs. Ivansevic also known as Serve vs. Serve more than the 2007 final.

cmurray
10-06-2007, 09:19 PM
Are you next going to say you enjoyed the Wimbledon final of 1994; Sampras vs. Ivansevic also known as Serve vs. Serve more than the 2007 final.

Don't bother. You're trying to use reason with the unreasonable. Valiant, to be sure but in the end its an exercise in futility.

Allure
10-06-2007, 09:20 PM
Are you next going to say you enjoyed the Wimbledon final of 1994; Sampras vs. Ivansevic also known as Serve vs. Serve more than the 2007 final.

At least Sampras has more versatility than Nadal. He has a good fh and can volley. More than Rafa can do.

guga2120
10-06-2007, 09:21 PM
Did Nadal tread on your foot or fail to give you his signature because you seem to be massively hostile.

He's in love with him, if he hated him so much he wouldn't waste 2 seconds on him. You don't see R=FK in here all day obsessing.

DrJules
10-06-2007, 09:27 PM
At least Sampras has more versatility than Nadal. He has a good fh and can volley. More than Rafa can do.

I refer to a match which was an extreme example of the 90's decade at Wimbledon which saw numerous serve dominated matches with little else; today it would be like Karlovic vs. Isner.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 09:37 PM
Are you next going to say you enjoyed the Wimbledon final of 1994; Sampras vs. Ivansevic also known as Serve vs. Serve more than the 2007 final.

Wow. You just guessed it right. I can't believe it. Actually after watching that choke-fest/moonballing festival called 2007 Wimbledon final, I put dad's tape of that exact same match. :eek:

Are you a psych?

I refer to a match which was an extreme example of the 90's decade at Wimbledon which saw numerous serve dominated matches with little else; today it would be like Karlovic vs. Isner.

That's how Wimbledon should be. RG was a moonbaling festival way worse than today. What's the big deal? You need variety.

nolop
10-06-2007, 09:43 PM
sampras is senile tennis wise

Andre'sNo1Fan
10-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Nadal has no talent.

Nalbandian most talented? :haha:
I can't see why you can't take up tennis. I mean if Nadal has no talent yet can win 3 grand slams at the age of 21 imagine what u could do :eek:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 10:35 PM
I can't see why you can't take up tennis. I mean if Nadal has no talent yet can win 3 grand slams at the age of 21 imagine what u could do :eek:

He's willing to pull a Ben Johnson. I'm not.

elessar
10-06-2007, 11:03 PM
He's in love with him, if he hated him so much he wouldn't waste 2 seconds on him. You don't see R=FK in here all day obsessing.

:spit:
That's because his little spartans are trying to recover from the recent beatings they received :sad:

Johnny Groove
10-06-2007, 11:15 PM
Fix me some dinner, woman.

Back to the kitcheeeeen!

Shut the f*** up, you idiotic fangirl. Go back to the kitchen, where you should never leave, as you have no idea about tennis whatsoever.

Dolly, go wash some clothes, I'm sure that's the only thing you can do somewhat right.

Stop posting and go back to the oven. Your food is gonna burn.

While you spend your time cooking, washing the dishes and clothes and ironing, I have fun here.

:rolleyes:

Why do you make these sexist comments? To back up your posts?

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 11:17 PM
:rolleyes:

Why do you make these sexist comments? To back up your posts?

It's not sexism, mr. "the bitches love me".

Johnny Groove
10-06-2007, 11:20 PM
It's not sexism, mr. "the bitches love me".

Telling a female poster to stop posting and "go back to the oven because her food is gonna burn" or "go wash some clothes" ISNT sexism? What is it then? Flatter? :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 11:23 PM
Telling a female poster to stop posting and "go back to the oven because her food is gonna burn" or "go wash some clothes" ISNT sexism? What is it then? Flatter? :rolleyes:

Fangirl. Someone who says Coria is the most talented player in the world is deserving this treatment.

Johnny Groove
10-06-2007, 11:24 PM
Fangirl. Someone who says Coria is the most talented player in the world is deserving this treatment.

No one deserves the treatment you dish out.

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 11:26 PM
No one deserves the treatment you dish out.

Wanna try?

nolop
10-06-2007, 11:37 PM
im sure if any girl of this board argue with him the treatment would be the same

GlennMirnyi
10-06-2007, 11:50 PM
im sure if any girl of this board argue with him the treatment would be the same

Go back to the oven, dolly.

cmurray
10-07-2007, 12:14 AM
Go back to the oven, dolly.

That's the best you can come up with? Some vague, half-baked show of chauvinism? Those insults are so stupid and dated, nobody is even offended. Go back to the kitchen? :spit: BWAHAHAHAHAHA. And let's not forget the fact that you've said the same thing 10 different times IN THIS THREAD. My 5 year old son can do better than that. If you're going to insult people, at least have the courtesy to be good at it.

Jonathan, you're just a sweetheart. :hug: A wasted effort, but it was still nice. :kiss:

GlennMirnyi
10-07-2007, 12:19 AM
That's the best you can come up with? Some vague, half-baked show of chauvinism? Those insults are so stupid and dated, nobody is even offended. Go back to the kitchen? :spit: BWAHAHAHAHAHA. And let's not forget the fact that you've said the same thing 10 different times IN THIS THREAD. My 5 year old son can do better than that. If you're going to insult people, at least have the courtesy to be good at it.

Jonathan, you're just a sweetheart. :hug: A wasted effort, but it was still nice. :kiss:

Aw, you don't get my jokes. :sad:

Johnny Groove
10-07-2007, 12:20 AM
Jonathan, you're just a sweetheart. :hug: A wasted effort, but it was still nice. :kiss:

:kiss:

cmurray
10-07-2007, 12:23 AM
Aw, you don't get my jokes. :sad:

:lol:
Well....that's a little better.

And of course I've an obligation to say,

"THAT was a joke????" :confused:

Allure
10-07-2007, 12:34 AM
I'll give Glenn Miryni the benefit of the doubt and say he really isn't a misogynist jerk. ;)

stebs
10-07-2007, 01:28 PM
I still can't believe Federer has achieved what he has with his talent. I *do* think that there are a few players on tour who could have similar accomplishments with Federer's talent. Nalby and Safin could be the most talented players in the history of the sport and they STILL wouldn't accomplish half of what Roger has.

I *do* believe that Nadal probably would be just as successful as Roger. His hunger for winning is practically unmatched.

It's hard to say with Nadal because his attitude and mental strength are interlinked with his game style in such a way. Who knows what he'd be like if he tried to be aggressive all the time, when he does so on big points I've seen him miss a lot of shots and it's a lot easier to be mentally strong when defending with a big margin than it is when you are being aggressive.

Also, Nadal has not been as clever with his schedule but it's all what if's and certainly with Federer's talent he would be something else but it's too hard to imagine really and the point is not about Nadal it is that 90% of the top 1000 probably still wouldn't acheive more than a slam or two even with the talent of Federer.

World Beater
10-07-2007, 06:02 PM
what a joke.

nalbandian and safin are not in the same league in terms of talent as federer.

too many people see nadal's fist pumps and vamos screams and assume he has more hunger than federer. where were all those fist pumps the rest of the year. :sad: :confused:

cmurray
10-07-2007, 06:29 PM
what a joke.

nalbandian and safin are not in the same league in terms of talent as federer.

too many people see nadal's fist pumps and vamos screams and assume he has more hunger than federer. where were all those fist pumps the rest of the year. :sad: :confused:

For crying out loud. Doesn't anyone actually read anymore? I said even if Safin and Nalbandian were as talented as Federer, they still wouldn't achieve half of what he has. Sometimes it seems like you guys go out of your way to be offended on Federer's behalf.

cmurray
10-07-2007, 06:48 PM
It's hard to say with Nadal because his attitude and mental strength are interlinked with his game style in such a way. Who knows what he'd be like if he tried to be aggressive all the time, when he does so on big points I've seen him miss a lot of shots and it's a lot easier to be mentally strong when defending with a big margin than it is when you are being aggressive.

Also, Nadal has not been as clever with his schedule but it's all what if's and certainly with Federer's talent he would be something else but it's too hard to imagine really and the point is not about Nadal it is that 90% of the top 1000 probably still wouldn't acheive more than a slam or two even with the talent of Federer.


Well obviously its all pretty much pointless conjecture since Nadal is what he is - but I've got to think that considering what Nadal's made of the talent he HAS, more talent would have to equal more success.

I'm not sure I agree that the problem is Nadal's schedule. If Nadal played like Federer, his schedule wouldn't be a problem. Its his playing style that causes issues. Scheduling is only important for him because he puts such a beating on his body.

I agree with your last statement though. Talent alone does not automatically make one successful.

elessar
10-07-2007, 07:44 PM
Well obviously its all pretty much pointless conjecture since Nadal is what he is - but I've got to think that considering what Nadal's made of the talent he HAS, more talent would have to equal more success.


I'm gonna play devil's advocate here but I certainly don't think Nadal lacks talent, IMO the problem is his technic that was way too much oriented towards clay in the early years, who knows what he could have accomplished had he been born in another country. It's very possible that he would have been an average attacking player and not the force to be reckoned with that he is on clay but when you see some of the passing shots he can come up with :eek: it's hard to think of him just as a talentless hard working clay courter...

As for the question itself in terms of playing style, mentality etc I don't see how can one diagree with Sampras, on top of that there aren't that many players whose favourite surfaces are clay and grass... In terms of achievements it's too early to tell but I doubt he'll boast a resume that is near as good as Borg at 26.

cmurray
10-07-2007, 07:58 PM
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here but I certainly don't think Nadal lacks talent, IMO the problem is his technic that was way too much oriented towards clay in the early years, who knows what he could have accomplished had he been born in another country. It's very possible that he would have been an average attacking player and not the force to be reckoned with that he is on clay but when you see some of the passing shots he can come up with :eek: it's hard to think of him just as a talentless hard working clay courter...

As for the question itself in terms of playing style, mentality etc I don't see how can one diagree with Sampras, on top of that there aren't that many players whose favourite surfaces are clay and grass... In terms of achievements it's too early to tell but I doubt he'll boast a resume that is near as good as Borg at 26.

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. In no way am I trying to imply that Nadal lacks talent. In fact, I believe that he is fabulously talented. He HAS done well with the talent he has - you have to remember that he is QUITE accomplished for his age. My opinion is that Federer is more talented than Nadal. With even more talent, who knows what kind of results Rafa would have had by now.

I won't argue about his game being geared toward clay. This is true - but I think its also something he's slowly changing. And he DOES have a few decent titles on HC. He just hasn't had a breakthrough at the US Open yet.

elessar
10-07-2007, 08:05 PM
I think perhaps you misunderstand me. In no way am I trying to imply that Nadal lacks talent. In fact, I believe that he is fabulously talented. He HAS done well with the talent he has - you have to remember that he is QUITE accomplished for his age. My opinion is that Federer is more talented than Nadal. With even more talent, who knows what kind of results Rafa would have had by now.

I won't argue about his game being geared toward clay. This is true - but I think its also something he's slowly changing. And he DOES have a few decent titles on HC. He just hasn't had a breakthrough at the US Open yet.

Lol a Rafatard being worried that a Fedtard thinks Nadal's more talented than she does, times really have changed :p I fully agree with the first part of your statement, as for the second part I'm having trouble predicting Nadal's future on hard.
On one hand between 05 and 07 he changed from a grass court gimp who lost against Muller to a player who almost defeated Federer in a five sets classic so who knows how much he can still improve on hard.
On the other hand he seems so injury prone and generally not comfortable on hard that I find it hard to believe he'll ever be more than a good player on the surface. Maybe he'll prove me wrong though

cmurray
10-07-2007, 08:14 PM
Lol a Rafatard being worried that a Fedtard thinks Nadal's more talented than she does, times really have changed :p I fully agree with the first part of your statement, as for the second part I'm having trouble predicting Nadal's future on hard.
On one hand between 05 and 07 he changed from a grass court gimp who lost against Muller to a player who almost defeated Federer in a five sets classic so who knows how much he can still improve on hard.
On the other hand he seems so injury prone and generally not comfortable on hard that I find it hard to believe he'll ever be more than a good player on the surface. Maybe he'll prove me wrong though

I wasn't worried - just clarifying. :hug:

Nadal is never going to be as good on hards as he is on grass or clay. He doesn't win enough free points on his serve and he punishes the hell out of his body. But Wimbledon has taught me not to underestimate him.

LeChuck
10-08-2007, 11:11 AM
Lance Armstrong's resting heartrate is about 35 beats per minute. There is no discounting the role of genetics in becoming a great athlete, but its role is much more significant for cyclists than for Borg. Borg's talents were not purely due to speed and agility, it was pure tennis skill. It didn't hurt to have the heart stuff too, but it may not have made all the difference.

It was certainly a crucial part of Borg's success, as was his lightening fast court coverage. I've heard that there were many matches where Borg's opponents could match him for large portions of proceedings, but ultimately couldn't keep up with his superior fitness levels and endurance when the match reached it's latter stages (like after the 1980 Wimbledon final, when McEnroe was simply amazed that Borg showed no signs of fatigue in the 5th set).

World Beater
10-09-2007, 12:31 AM
:hug:
Yes, compliments like this:
"Roger will break all my records, but he plays in a joke era"
"Roger is doing great at Wimbledon, but it is much harder to win Wimbledon during my time"
"Roger hit his backhand better than me, but with todays technology it is much easier to hit the ball, heck I am hitting the ball better now than when I played"
"Roger is dominating the field, but no one is serve volleying against him. Serve volleying is the tactic to beat Roger" -> translation -> "Me, a serve volleyer, would've ripped Roger a new one."

All backhanded compliments that expose his bitterness towards Roger's recordbreaking march. And guess what, his latest comments are another jab at Roger's competition.

As for why I call him senile. Pete hardly ever watch tennis anymore(1 or 2 set a Slam), he admitted that himself once. Why should we take any comment from him about a current era player(Nadal) serious ? Had he followed this year's Wimbledon just a little bit closer, he would've known that Nadal has been whining like a dog the whole second week. :haha:

so true...:haha:

$$$$$ post

World Beater
10-09-2007, 12:49 AM
For crying out loud. Doesn't anyone actually read anymore? I said even if Safin and Nalbandian were as talented as Federer, they still wouldn't achieve half of what he has. Sometimes it seems like you guys go out of your way to be offended on Federer's behalf.

did i respond to your post? did i quote it anywhere? i made some blanket statements. But did they refer DIRECTLY to you?

kind of ironic, eh? thats right...im the one who cant read. Maybe you can teach me?

with regards to your post...you said "nalbandian/safin could be the most talented, and still not win". That statement by itself doesnt say "IF nalbandian was the most talented, he wouldnt win as much". Those two statements aren't the same thing. :shrug:

"could" doesn't mean "if".

doubly ironic considering you are there to defend poor rafito at every turn :sad:

cmurray
10-09-2007, 12:52 AM
did i respond to your post? did i quote it anywhere? i made some blanket statements. But did they refer DIRECTLY to you?

kind of ironic, eh? thats right...im the one who cant read. Maybe you can teach me?

doubly ironic considering you are there to defend poor rafito at every turn :sad:

:haha: You made some random blanket statements about the VERY two players I mentioned in my post. Sure :yeah:

World Beater
10-09-2007, 12:57 AM
:haha: You made some random blanket statements about the VERY two players I mentioned in my post. Sure :yeah:

read the rest of my post. :rolleyes:

anyways. what i said is true. Its not by itself disputable.

cmurray
10-09-2007, 01:02 AM
read the rest of my post. :rolleyes:

anyways. what i said is true. Its not by itself disputable.

What you said is absolutely true, actually. Talent-wise, they simply don't compare to Roger. It would take some pretty dedicated blindness to maintain otherwise.