The biggest * [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The biggest *

BigJohn
08-16-2010, 04:35 PM
To celebrate the return of Fedal, who's * will be bigger, more significant once they retire?

For Federer, the * would be the H2H with Nadal

For Nadal, the * would be that clay was home to most of his success.

dombrfc
08-16-2010, 04:45 PM
Neither are important in my point of view.

noctilux
08-16-2010, 04:54 PM
It's not how big it is, it's what you do wi...
Oops, wrong thread.

peribsen
08-16-2010, 05:59 PM
I don't quite agree:

- Fed's H2H against Nadal is more a compliment for Nadal than a failure for Fed. While Nadal deserves to be remembered by the fact he was the only player capable of stopping Federer during Fed's best years, the Swiss player's overwhelming glory should not and will not be marred by the fact he had at least one rival good enough to beat him sometimes. All player's have a worse surface, that's clay for Federer, not really so much of a big deal, the guy has won 1 FO and played 3 finals (and won several MS1000 in Hamburg and Madrid), a pretty dignified result on your worse surface.

- People keep forgetting Nadal's record on grass. Out of 6 years since Nadal started playing at his top level (2005), and though he skipped 2009 due to injury, he has played 4 Wimbledon finals, winning 2 of them. There are very few tournaments on grass, so his total number of wins may not be half as high as those he has achieved on clay, but I think it is high time people stopped considering Rafa as only a claycourter. The guy is not only very good, but I would say dominant, in all surfaces but HC, where his results are not that far away from Fed's on clay (1 AO, 5 MS1000 + Olympics).

Funny thing about *, it only seems to be used to pinpoint the less brilliant results of the very best players. If they were used for other contendents among the top 10, most of them would have ******** behind their names.

Sapeod
08-16-2010, 06:03 PM
Fed's h2h vs. Nadal is nothing in comparison to the 16 GS he has, so doesn't mean anything when it comes to saying who is the GOAT.

Nadal's * will be bigger.

Start da Game
08-16-2010, 06:05 PM
To celebrate the return of Fedal, who's * will be bigger, more significant once they retire?

For Federer, the * would be the H2H with Nadal

For Nadal, the * would be that clay was home to most of his success.

your top rival owns you on world's biggest stages in tennis........what else is there to discuss?

Sapeod
08-16-2010, 06:06 PM
your top rival owns you on world's biggest stages in tennis........what else is there to discuss?
16>>8

Singularity
08-16-2010, 06:08 PM
your top rival owns you on world's biggest stages in tennis........what else is there to discuss?
Career achievements, maybe.

BigJohn
08-16-2010, 06:10 PM
16>>8

I'm....... not sure...... if that one......... understands......... numbers......

Sapeod
08-16-2010, 06:12 PM
I'm....... not sure...... if that one......... understands......... numbers......
I'm not if he understands anything that doen't make Nadal look amazing.

peribsen
08-16-2010, 06:25 PM
There you go again, comparing Federer to Nadal and thinking it is meaningful, when in fact both players are more interested in how they will end up in tennis history than in how they will end up in respect to one another (Fed will end up as goat, Nadal maybe as big as Tilden or Borg).

Why some people cannot enjoy both runs at the same time is something that is simply beyond me.

Everko
08-16-2010, 07:30 PM
Nadal is the best all time on clay. He has an Aussie and 2 wimbledons so he can play elite tennis on other than clay.

Federer can't beat Nadal no matter the weather,time or dream. That should not be the case for any GOAT wannabe, always owned by another player.

Ozone
08-16-2010, 07:41 PM
Slam total is what matters but whoever has the more successful career when this era is done will carry the bigger *. Wheather it's Fed or Rafa. Right now Rafa hasn't won all 4 majors so I'd give him the bigger * as of now.

Har-Tru
08-16-2010, 07:41 PM
If we're talking about how many times both * will be brought up, then Federer's will be bigger.

Har-Tru
08-16-2010, 07:42 PM
Slam total is what matters but whoever has the more successful career when this era is done will carry the bigger *. Wheather it's Fed or Rafa. Right now Rafa hasn't won all 4 majors so I'd give him the bigger * as of now.

Oh but Federer won the FO because he didn't face Nadal. Another *.

Just to point out the stupidity of the * games.

Ozone
08-16-2010, 07:44 PM
Nadal is the best all time on clay. He has an Aussie and 2 wimbledons so he can play elite tennis on other than clay.

Federer can't beat Nadal no matter the weather,time or dream. That should not be the case for any GOAT wannabe, always owned by another player.
The H2H is just misleading and not important. I will prove why in the next couple sentences. Federer has given Rafa the opportunity to beat him much more than Rafa has given Fed the same. Example, Roger got to the RG finals 4 straight times losing to Rafa each time, Rafa is a ZERO-time USO finalist when Roger won his 5 straight! Roger has put himself in all Wimby finals excluding this year. Rafa hasn't. H2H is a joke

r2473
08-16-2010, 07:58 PM
The biggest *

This is the best I can do:

*

Or this:

http://eternallycool.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/asterix.jpg

Ozone
08-16-2010, 08:09 PM
:worship:The H2H is just misleading and not important. I will prove why in the next couple sentences. Federer has given Rafa the opportunity to beat him much more than Rafa has given Fed the same. Example, Roger got to the RG finals 4 straight times losing to Rafa each time, Rafa is a ZERO-time USO finalist when Roger won his 5 straight! Roger has put himself in all Wimby finals excluding this year. Rafa hasn't. H2H is a joke

Priam
08-16-2010, 08:16 PM
Why is there a need for an asterisk for either player anyway?

Sapeod
08-16-2010, 08:20 PM
Nadal is the best all time on clay. He has an Aussie and 2 wimbledons so he can play elite tennis on other than clay.

Federer can't beat Nadal no matter the weather,time or dream. That should not be the case for any GOAT wannabe, always owned by another player.
Federer has 4 Aussie Opens, 1 French Open, 6 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens.
Nadal has 1 Aussie Open, 4 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons and 0 US opens.

Roger Federer 7 - 14 Nadal
Seems to me that Federer can beat him, or is that just me :scratch:

Oh and talking about being owned, Del Potro def. Nadal 6-2 6-2 6-2 :wavey:

Oh and just to wrap everything up:

16>>>>>>>>>>8

Ozone
08-16-2010, 08:31 PM
The H2H is just misleading and not important. I will prove why in the next couple sentences. Federer has given Rafa the opportunity to beat him much more than Rafa has given Fed the same. Example, Roger got to the RG finals 4 straight times losing to Rafa each time, Rafa is a ZERO-time USO finalist when Roger won his 5 straight! Roger has put himself in all Wimby finals excluding this year. Rafa hasn't. H2H is a joke
Didn't think anyone would respond to this

BigJohn
08-16-2010, 09:05 PM
Oh but Federer won the FO because he didn't face Nadal. Another *.




I was wondering who would be tard enough to bring this up. Supremely lame. You do remember that Nadal was in the draw and did not make it to the final right?

It happened also many other times at Wimbledon, USO and AO. Hum...

Doesn't that matter most if you want to compare these two properly? How many slams are won when both are in the draw?

In that department again, Federer is on top.

Har-Tru
08-16-2010, 09:10 PM
I was wondering who would be tard enough to bring this up. Supremely lame. You do remember that Nadal was in the draw and did not make it to the final right?

It happened also many other times at Wimbledon, USO and AO. Hum...

Doesn't that matter most if you want to compare these two properly? How many slams are won when both are in the draw?

In that department again, Federer is on top.

And I was wondering who would be tard enough to let themselves be misled by the poster's flag and not read the whole post.

BigJohn
08-16-2010, 09:12 PM
And I was wondering who would be tard enough to let themselves be misled by the poster's flag and not read the whole post.

?????

Do you agree or not with the post?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-16-2010, 09:25 PM
federer is better than nadal in every way

(matches won at slams)

fed

AO 54
FO 43
WIM 55
US 51

nadal

AO 25
FO 38
WIM 29
US 21

Federer has won more matches at every slam
twice as many on every slam except the FO
and its not just a case of playing longer

nadal has been playing at the slams since 2003
federer since 1998 but he disnt actually preform at the slams untill 2001, and didnt realy do well untill 2003

nadal was winning in 2005

matches at slams won really illustrates how much ahead federer was at every slam, how consistently ahead he has been since 2005

BigJohn
08-16-2010, 10:48 PM
federer is better than nadal in every way

(matches won at slams)

fed

AO 54
FO 43
WIM 55
US 51

nadal

AO 25
FO 38
WIM 29
US 21

Federer has won more matches at every slam
twice as many on every slam except the FO
and its not just a case of playing longer

nadal has been playing at the slams since 2003
federer since 1998 but he disnt actually preform at the slams untill 2001, and didnt realy do well untill 2003

nadal was winning in 2005

matches at slams won really illustrates how much ahead federer was at every slam, how consistently ahead he has been since 2005

Facts and common sense will get you to that logical conclusion.

Matt01
08-16-2010, 10:49 PM
It's not how big it is, it's what you do wi...
Oops, wrong thread.


I'm sure Nadal's * is bigger.

ApproachShot
08-16-2010, 10:55 PM
Neither are important in my point of view.

This.

If you are seeking a perfect player without a supposed * then I am afraid that you will never be satisfied. I believe that the two * menitoned in the OP will pale into significance in the context of their respective achievements by the end of the careers.

dombrfc
08-16-2010, 11:01 PM
Two fantastic tennis players and athletes. We can only consider ourselves lucky to be a part of their brilliance.

Yes there will be valid points that can be made in a negative light against them, but I'm sure that fact is true of every human that's ever lived.

Please, let's quit the petty arguing.

BigJohn
08-16-2010, 11:41 PM
Two fantastic tennis players and athletes. We can only consider ourselves lucky to be a part of their brilliance.

Voilā.


There really is no need to try to put down (using as much bad faith and selective logic as possible) Federer's achievements because he held Nadal at #2 for so many years.

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 12:10 AM
?????

Do you agree or not with the post?

With what post?

I said the whole asterisks thing is rather stupid, but it exists.

Learn to read and some moderation before jumping at people's throats.

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 12:21 AM
With what post?

I said the whole asterisks thing is rather stupid, but it exists.

Learn to read and some moderation before jumping at people's throats.

With what I said after I jumped at your throat but whatever.

tangerine_dream
08-17-2010, 12:24 AM
**************** > ********

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 12:33 AM
With what I said after I jumped at your throat but whatever.

Federer's FO title was as valid as any other title. But in 30 years time, when people look back at Federer's career and see the FO he won, they'll go "oh, but he was lucky not to face Nadal, cause if he had, he wouldn't have won it".

And they will be right.

Sophocles
08-17-2010, 12:42 AM
Federer's FO title was as valid as any other title. But in 30 years time, when people look back at Federer's career and see the FO he won, they'll go "oh, but he was lucky not to face Nadal, cause if he had, he wouldn't have won it".

And they will be right.

Um no, they won't.

Vilas never really won the French, right?

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 12:44 AM
Federer's FO title was as valid as any other title. But in 30 years time, when people look back at Federer's career and see the FO he won, they'll go "oh, but he was lucky not to face Nadal, cause if he had, he wouldn't have won it".

And they will be right.

I think people will just say he beat Soderling. Or they would all be like SetSampras.

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 01:29 AM
Um no, they won't.

Vilas never really won the French, right?

Of course he did. And he deserved it fully. Just like Federer did.

But people who show an interest in tennis history, people like you and me, know that he benefited from not having to play Borg. In that regard, he has an asterisk next to his title, just like Federer will have it next to his.

Asterisks are not that big a deal, if you take them for what they are: common throughout the history of tennis, for all players at some point or another.

I think people will just say he beat Soderling. Or they would all be like SetSampras.

We'll talk in 30 years.

Of course I'm not talking about the ordinary man, but the true tennis fan.

Serenidad
08-17-2010, 01:39 AM
This could be legitimate if one of them takes down Brands in a slam.

dombrfc
08-17-2010, 01:52 AM
Oh give it a rest with these asterisks.

Serenidad, we all know that neither Rafa or Roger have the qualities to see off Brands.

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 02:25 AM
We'll talk in 30 years.

Of course I'm not talking about the ordinary man, but the true tennis fan.

The true tennis fan will say:
- ... indeed Federer beat Soderling for the FO, who had beaten clay legend Nadal earlier.

- Did you know that Soderling won against Federer the year after and then lost to Nadal?

- What player that bloody Soderling. But nothing compared to Nadal.

- None of them as good as Federer.

- True, true. Very true indeed. Ah... the GOAT...

- Too bad none of them played in short-shorts.

- It's a bloody shame. That's the only good thing about today's players in this mug era.

- Bloody mug era indeed.

Joao
08-17-2010, 02:50 AM
Has anybody put an * on Wimbledon this year because Nadal didn't beat Federer? No, so the same should apply to Federer's FO!

I don't think the true tennis fans will remember in 30 years that Federer didn't beat Nadal at the FO. The tennis fans who are crazy about stats and numbers maybe ... but the true tennis fan NO! I consider myself a true tennis fan and I couldn't tell you who was the RU to Yannick Noah when he won the FO!

Sure H2H have their weight but it's not like Federer never beat Nadal. And given the dominance of Nadal on clay, we all know that H2H is heavily biased towards clay. Take out clay, and that H2H is totally respectable (tight H2H reminding of the Sampras-Agassi H2H).

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 02:25 PM
Has anybody put an * on Wimbledon this year because Nadal didn't beat Federer? No, so the same should apply to Federer's FO!

I don't think the true tennis fans will remember in 30 years that Federer didn't beat Nadal at the FO. The tennis fans who are crazy about stats and numbers maybe ... but the true tennis fan NO! I consider myself a true tennis fan and I couldn't tell you who was the RU to Yannick Noah when he won the FO!



That raises the question then: are some fans of Nadal (those of the extreme kind) actual true tennis fans?

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 03:16 PM
The true tennis fan will say:

Oh ok.

Has anybody put an * on Wimbledon this year because Nadal didn't beat Federer? No, so the same should apply to Federer's FO!

The difference being Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, while Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG, which invalidates your point.

I don't think the true tennis fans will remember in 30 years that Federer didn't beat Nadal at the FO. The tennis fans who are crazy about stats and numbers maybe ... but the true tennis fan NO! I consider myself a true tennis fan and I couldn't tell you who was the RU to Yannick Noah when he won the FO!

Tennis fans that show some interest in the history of the sport, I said. Like Sophocles and me, who both posted on this thread, and know Vilas's FO win in 1977 was possible due to Borg's absence. People like him and me, in 30 years, will say the same about the 09 FO.

Federer himself said it best: "One day Nadal won't be there in Paris to face me, and then I'll have a chance to win the French Open."

Sure H2H have their weight but it's not like Federer never beat Nadal. And given the dominance of Nadal on clay, we all know that H2H is heavily biased towards clay. Take out clay, and that H2H is totally respectable (tight H2H reminding of the Sampras-Agassi H2H).

This is true. The true asterisk re: Federer-Nadal should be the FO one, not the H2H.

paseo
08-17-2010, 03:18 PM
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8933/asterisk.jpg (http://img812.imageshack.us/i/asterisk.jpg/)

dombrfc
08-17-2010, 03:27 PM
^ Now thats a pretty damn big *.
I think you win! :bigclap::bigclap::clap2::clap2:

barbadosan
08-17-2010, 04:12 PM
In a few years - far less 30 - any imagined asterisks will be this size *

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 04:24 PM
Oh ok.


Tennis fans that show some interest in the history of the sport, I said. Like Sophocles and me, who both posted on this thread, and know Vilas's FO win in 1977 was possible due to Borg's absence. People like him and me, in 30 years, will say the same about the 09 FO.


And you would be partly wrong to some other "true" tennis fan that would say that Borg skipped the FO altogether in 1977 while Nadal was in the draw when Federer won it...

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 04:27 PM
In a few years - far less 30 - any imagined asterisks will be this size *

Pretty much.

CCBH
08-17-2010, 04:52 PM
This is the best I can do:

*

Or this:

http://eternallycool.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/asterix.jpg

This is quite clever, especially if you consider the circumstances under which Asterix won the palm. Good one! :yeah:

Sophocles
08-17-2010, 05:02 PM
And you would be partly wrong to some other "true" tennis fan that would say that Borg skipped the FO altogether in 1977 while Nadal was in the draw when Federer won it...

And that's quite an important point.

Of course people with an interest in tennis history will know that Nadal was Federer's nemesis at R.G. & the one year Federer won it was the one year Nadal lost early.

But they'll also be aware that no French Open winner in history ever beat (peak) Nadal along the way.

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 05:12 PM
And you would be partly wrong to some other "true" tennis fan that would say that Borg skipped the FO altogether in 1977 while Nadal was in the draw when Federer won it...

That is of course true.

But it doesn't change the fact that they both won the FO without having to face their nemesis, and that if they had done it, they would have most probably lost.

And that's quite an important point.

Of course people with an interest in tennis history will know that Nadal was Federer's nemesis at R.G. & the one year Federer won it was the one year Nadal lost early.

But they'll also be aware that no French Open winner in history ever beat (peak) Nadal along the way.

Yes.

It is pretty obvious that both Vilas and Federer are among the best clay court players ever, and were very unlucky to coincide with the two best players ever on that surface, who were simply better than them on that surface. That is why, while there is an asterisk next to their FO wins, one would find it difficult to argue they didn't deserve to win at least one FO in their careers.

Sophocles
08-17-2010, 05:14 PM
It is pretty obvious that both Vilas and Federer are among the best clay court players ever, and were very unlucky to coincide with the two best players ever on that surface, who were simply better than them on that surface. That is why, why there is an asterisk next to their FO wins, one would find it difficult to argue they didn't deserve to win at least one FO in their careers.

Yes, well put. That's what I was getting at.

barbadosan
08-17-2010, 05:15 PM
And that's quite an important point.

Of course people with an interest in tennis history will know that Nadal was Federer's nemesis at R.G. & the one year Federer won it was the one year Nadal lost early.

But they'll also be aware that no French Open winner in history ever beat (peak) Nadal along the way.

However, it is a little difficult to play, far less beat, someone on the other side of the draw who doesn't make it to the stage where you can actually play against him. Also implicit in your statement of course is the prevailing trend of thought that once Nadal is beaten it follows that he was ill/injured/comatose :p

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 05:21 PM
That is of course true.

But it doesn't change the fact that they both won the FO without having to face their nemesis, and that if they had done it, they would have most probably lost.


would could should... Nadal was not good enough to make it to the final that year, yet Federer would have most probably lost. That is a little bit tardish. No offense.

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 05:43 PM
would could should... Nadal was not good enough to make it to the final that year, yet Federer would have most probably lost. That is a little bit tardish. No offense.

If Nadal had somehow made it to the final with his knees in that condition, then Federer would have beaten him possibly. But then we have another asterisk, cause Nadal wouldn't have been 100%...

And stop calling me tardish, I'm not a Nadal fan and it's getting annoying.

Sophocles
08-17-2010, 05:44 PM
However, it is a little difficult to play, far less beat, someone on the other side of the draw who doesn't make it to the stage where you can actually play against him. Also implicit in your statement of course is the prevailing trend of thought that once Nadal is beaten it follows that he was ill/injured/comatose :p

Yes it is, and the history of sport is littered with great players capitalizing on the absence or downfall of their nemeses.

I would not of course entertain for a second the idiotic Rafatard delusion that Nadal is unbeatable when fit. All players, however good, are beatable, even on surfaces they dominate.

My point was more this. Imagine Federer had never won the F.O. In that case, you could put an asterisk on his FAILURE to do so, namely that he was unlucky to be playing at the same time as a guy who is unquestionably one of the 3 best clay-court players in history. If you were comparing him to, I dunno, Agassi, and somebody pointed out Agassi won the French, you could reasonably reply, "Yeah, but Agassi didn't have Nadal."

Joao
08-17-2010, 06:08 PM
Oh ok.



The difference being Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon, while Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG, which invalidates your point.



Tennis fans that show some interest in the history of the sport, I said. Like Sophocles and me, who both posted on this thread, and know Vilas's FO win in 1977 was possible due to Borg's absence. People like him and me, in 30 years, will say the same about the 09 FO.

Federer himself said it best: "One day Nadal won't be there in Paris to face me, and then I'll have a chance to win the French Open."



This is true. The true asterisk re: Federer-Nadal should be the FO one, not the H2H.

My point cannot be invalidated because Nadal had won Wimbledon 2 years before. If anything, Nadal got lucky to win that match (as Federer would have been). It could have gone either way, given the conditions. Really it was decided by 1 point here and there. And given that Federer was coming back from mono and very low in confidence, I really don't put too much weight on that 08 Wimbledon. One could realistically argue that had Federer been 100% fit, Nadal would have lost that final (or as some put it, that 08 Wimbledon has itself an * next to it too).
In any case, the point is that Federer had been already 3 times in the FO final prior to that 09 victory and eventually he was going to be in a position to win it (regardless of Nadal's presence or not). For all we know, Federer might have defeated Nadal if they had met (if Soderling defeated him, Federer could have too) but we'll never know.

My point is a victory is a victory and you can only defeat the person who's across the net.

Joao
08-17-2010, 06:13 PM
It is pretty obvious that both Vilas and Federer are among the best clay court players ever, and were very unlucky to coincide with the two best players ever on that surface, who were simply better than them on that surface. That is why, while there is an asterisk next to their FO wins, one would find it difficult to argue they didn't deserve to win at least one FO in their careers.

Well I agree with you there. We all know that they both had the tools to win at least 1 FO and would eventually. But I still won't put an asterisk next to it. That win was fair and well deserved and it wasn't Federer's fault that Nadal wasn't there to beat him ...

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 06:22 PM
My point cannot be invalidated because Nadal had won Wimbledon 2 years before. If anything, Nadal got lucky to win that match (as Federer would have been). It could have gone either way, given the conditions. Really it was decided by 1 point here and there. And given that Federer was coming back from mono and very low in confidence, I really don't put too much weight on that 08 Wimbledon. One could realistically argue that had Federer been 100% fit, Nadal would have lost that final (or as some put it, that 08 Wimbledon has itself an * next to it too).
In any case, the point is that Federer had been already 3 times in the FO final prior to that 09 victory and eventually he was going to be in a position to win it (regardless of Nadal's presence or not). For all we know, Federer might have defeated Nadal if they had met (if Soderling defeated him, Federer could have too) but we'll never know.

My point is a victory is a victory and you can only defeat the person who's across the net.

Pick up your bias, throw it in the garbage, then come back and then we can have an objective, reasonable discussion.

Joao
08-17-2010, 06:41 PM
Pick up your bias, throw it in the garbage, then come back and then we can have an objective, reasonable discussion.

I don't see where the bias is. There are as many reasons to put an * next to Federer's FO as there are to put one at Nadal's Wimbledon 08 (or 2010 for that matter). You can always twist the picture so that it fits your argument. I for one do not put any * in any victory of anyone. A win is a win no matter what (unless there's cheating involved or something of that caliber). Ifs and "shoulda coulda woulda" don't win you matches.

Is that reasonable enough for you?:rolleyes:

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 06:49 PM
You can always twist the picture so that it fits your argument.

There, you said it yourself. That's what you do.

There is another way though, trying to see the objective reality. Nadal's winning Wimbledon without beating Federer cannot be put on the same level as Federer winning FO without facing Nadal, because Nadal had actually beaten Federer at Wimbledon before. That is a FACT, not a woulda shoulda. You are the one complaining about shoulda woulda, and yet you make use of them to pathetically excuse Federer's loss at that Wimbledon final...

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 06:55 PM
If Nadal had somehow made it to the final with his knees in that condition, then Federer would have beaten him possibly. But then we have another asterisk, cause Nadal wouldn't have been 100%...

And stop calling me tardish, I'm not a Nadal fan and it's getting annoying.

All right then, what you said, and that bolded part up there, it sounds hilariously like something an unbiased fan ā la Clay Death would say. Better label?

Joao
08-17-2010, 07:31 PM
There, you said it yourself. That's what you do.

There is another way though, trying to see the objective reality. Nadal's winning Wimbledon without beating Federer cannot be put on the same level as Federer winning FO without facing Nadal, because Nadal had actually beaten Federer at Wimbledon before. That is a FACT, not a woulda shoulda. You are the one complaining about shoulda woulda, and yet you make use of them to pathetically excuse Federer's loss at that Wimbledon final...

You're completely missing my point. I was twisting it so that you could see how easy it is to do, not to give excuses to explain Federer's loss ... I was just giving you examples on how you could put an asterisk next to Nadal's victory. You may not see it but there's actually a difference..

So I'm gonna repeat it: my point is you cannot put an asterisk in any victory because if you do it for one particular win, then you can do it for any victory! Got it?

And you use as many shoulda couldas as anybody in this forum. So please spare me your condescending attitude there ...:wavey:

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 08:11 PM
All right then, what you said, and that bolded part up there, it sounds hilariously like something an unbiased fan ā la Clay Death would say. Better label?

What on earth are you talking about now? What is wrong about that bolded part?

Admit it, you made up your mind about me the moment you saw my first post, saw my flag and then you labelled me as a Nadaltard. And no matter what I say, how right or wrong it is, it's not gonna change your opinion about me.

I've lost patience with people like you.

You're completely missing my point. I was twisting it so that you could see how easy it is to do, not to give excuses to explain Federer's loss ... I was just giving you examples on how you could put an asterisk next to Nadal's victory. You may not see it but there's actually a difference..

So I'm gonna repeat it: my point is you cannot put an asterisk in any victory because if you do it for one particular win, then you can do it for any victory! Got it?

And you use as many shoulda couldas as anybody in this forum. So please spare me your condescending attitude there ...:wavey:

Yes, even I said myself asterisks are not that big a deal in the long run, because every player has a handful of them over a career and they tend to even out, like everything. But we have to analyse things concretely and specifically if we want to have a clear picture of things.

The H2H is a good example. Many people say that's an asterisk next to Federer's name, but I say it isn't, given how unbalanced surface-wise the H2H is and, above all, the difference in slams.

BigJohn
08-17-2010, 09:48 PM
What on earth are you talking about now? What is wrong about that bolded part?

Admit it, you made up your mind about me the moment you saw my first post, saw my flag and then you labelled me as a Nadaltard. And no matter what I say, how right or wrong it is, it's not gonna change your opinion about me.

I've lost patience with people like you.



What is wrong about the bolded part is that well, the wording makes it look like it would be improbable that Federer could possibly beat Nadal. Federer has beaten Nadal in clay finals before and in Slam finals. Frankly to state "well maybe Fed would have beaten Nadal IF Nadal was injured", well, to me, that is a little bit, well... it's something.

As as far as making my mind about you, it hasn't changed since you joined, I read your posts because they make sense.

About the patience, sorry, I really was not trying to push your buttons. You should probably consider a line of work that does not involve kids.

Everko
08-17-2010, 10:34 PM
The H2H is just misleading and not important. I will prove why in the next couple sentences. Federer has given Rafa the opportunity to beat him much more than Rafa has given Fed the same. Example, Roger got to the RG finals 4 straight times losing to Rafa each time, Rafa is a ZERO-time USO finalist when Roger won his 5 straight! Roger has put himself in all Wimby finals excluding this year. Rafa hasn't. H2H is a joke

Yes Rafa has not made US Open final yet but if he had done so the past few years and played Federer in the final. Nadal would win about 3 out of 4. Nadal has already provedn he can beat Federer in a non clay slam, Federer has not proven the other side

Har-Tru
08-17-2010, 11:47 PM
What is wrong about the bolded part is that well, the wording makes it look like it would be improbable that Federer could possibly beat Nadal. Federer has beaten Nadal in clay finals before and in Slam finals. Frankly to state "well maybe Fed would have beaten Nadal IF Nadal was injured", well, to me, that is a little bit, well... it's something.

I said Federer would have possibly beaten Nadal in the 09 FO final. What that means is that, had they faced each other in that final, Federer could have won. It doesn't make it look like it would have been improbable, or anything else. The word "possibly" means "perhaps". Nadal's knees were hurting, but it still took an inspired Söderling to take him out. It is not a given that Federer would have produced the kind of performance Söderling did that day had he faced Nadal. He didn't do it in the whole tournament. Hence my "possibly" as opposed to "certainly".

About the patience, sorry, I really was not trying to push your buttons. You should probably consider a line of work that does not involve kids.

That's funny, I'm a teacher. Patience is not my biggest problem when treating with kids, they don't call me tard every two seconds and don't twist my words.

Yes Rafa has not made US Open final yet but if he had done so the past few years and played Federer in the final. Nadal would win about 3 out of 4. Nadal has already provedn he can beat Federer in a non clay slam, Federer has not proven the other side

Here, THIS is what a biased tard looks like!

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 12:35 AM
I said Federer would have possibly beaten Nadal in the 09 FO final. What that means is that, had they faced each other in that final, Federer could have won. It doesn't make it look like it would have been improbable, or anything else. The word "possibly" means "perhaps". Nadal's knees were hurting, but it still took an inspired Söderling to take him out. It is not a given that Federer would have produced the kind of performance Söderling did that day had he faced Nadal. He didn't do it in the whole tournament. Hence my "possibly" as opposed to "certainly".

I guess I read too much in one word.


Here, THIS is what a biased tard looks like!

That I am aware of.

Soliloque
08-18-2010, 12:49 AM
federer is better than nadal in every way

(matches won at slams)

fed

AO 54
FO 43
WIM 55
US 51

nadal

AO 25
FO 38
WIM 29
US 21

Federer has won more matches at every slam
twice as many on every slam except the FO
and its not just a case of playing longer

nadal has been playing at the slams since 2003
federer since 1998 but he disnt actually preform at the slams untill 2001, and didnt realy do well untill 2003

nadal was winning in 2005

matches at slams won really illustrates how much ahead federer was at every slam, how consistently ahead he has been since 2005


Federer has played 20 more slams than Nadal. These stats can't be used to compare them.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 01:11 AM
Federer has played 20 more slams than Nadal. These stats can't be used to compare them.

How about Slams with both Federer and Nadal in the draw?

Nadal : 8
Federer: 13

coonster14
08-18-2010, 01:21 AM
i think they are both great champions with incredible achievements.
i dont like roger, but can not deny he will go down as one of the greatest players to have ever picked up a racquet, i still think he has 2 majors left in him to win.
i hope that rafa can continue his dominance on clay, as well as win some majors on grass and HC.
just my $0.02

Har-Tru
08-18-2010, 01:39 AM
Want to know what a huge asterisk is? Jan Kodes winning Wimbledon in 1973. That's what I call an asterisk.

calvinhobbes
08-18-2010, 05:39 AM
Do you know who invented asterisks?.....The answer is ZOILUS. Zoilus, the archetype of ENVY. This ancient greek citizen had a favorite sentence: "That achievement was good, but . . . .". I don´t know why, but I suspect he somehow discovered the spots on the sun´s surface . . . . . .

brent-o
08-18-2010, 05:41 AM
I hate asterisks. So neither, really.

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 11:37 AM
Want to know what a huge asterisk is? Jan Kodes winning Wimbledon in 1973. That's what I call an asterisk.

Definitely. Or any slam win between about 1950 & 1967.

MacTheKnife
08-18-2010, 11:40 AM
Where exactly do you find these asterisks ?? :lol:

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 11:45 AM
Australian Open wins between 1976 & 1982.

I still think there's a significant difference between a tournament a lot of top players don't attend, & one in which your main obstacle is removed early. I mean, does anybody put an asterisk by Agassi's U.S. Open wins?

Har-Tru
08-18-2010, 12:16 PM
Australian Open wins between 1976 & 1982.

I still think there's a significant difference between a tournament a lot of top players don't attend, & one in which your main obstacle is removed early. I mean, does anybody put an asterisk by Agassi's U.S. Open wins?

Of course not, there are asterisks and asterisks.

Vilas again is a good example. His 1977 FO is more "valid" than both of his AO wins, despite the Borg absence.

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 12:25 PM
Of course not, there are asterisks and asterisks.

Vilas again is a good example. His 1977 FO is more "valid" than both of his AO wins, despite the Borg absence.

Agree on Vilas.

But I'm not sure why Agassi's U.S.O. isn't just as asterisked as Federer's F.O. Agassi never beat Sampras at the U.S.O. And lost 3 finals to him.

barbadosan
08-18-2010, 12:47 PM
Agree on Vilas.

But I'm not sure why Agassi's U.S.O. isn't just as asterisked as Federer's F.O. Agassi never beat Sampras at the U.S.O. And lost 3 finals to him.

:worship:

Could the futility (and the transient nature) of the asterisk be better demonstrated? I think not.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 02:16 PM
:worship:

Could the futility (and the transient nature) of the asterisk be better demonstrated? I think not.

It convinced me.

Vida
08-18-2010, 02:42 PM
for fed, the * is clownmug era he played in, obviously.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 02:55 PM
for fed, the * is clownmug era he played in, obviously.

If that was the case, then the * would also, if not more so, apply to Nadal, no?

Sapeod
08-18-2010, 03:43 PM
for fed, the * is clownmug era he played in, obviously.
Nadal would have that too then :retard:

Har-Tru
08-18-2010, 03:50 PM
Agree on Vilas.

But I'm not sure why Agassi's U.S.O. isn't just as asterisked as Federer's F.O. Agassi never beat Sampras at the U.S.O. And lost 3 finals to him.

Hmm you have a point, of course. The difference is Federer's is more conspicuous, because of the circumstances. Sampras did not dominate USO like Nadal dominates clay, Agassi beat Sampras on hard in a slam (I know, I know), and above all, Agassi is not in GOAT contention. That's why I think Agassi's asterisk has already been largely forgotten, while people will be talking about Federer's for decades.

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 03:50 PM
If that was the case, then the * would also, if not more so, apply to Nadal, no?

Yes, but Nadal's not a GOAT contender so it doesn't matter.

Har-Tru
08-18-2010, 03:53 PM
That is the thing, asterisks are more noticeable the greater the player is. The spotlight is brighter, for good and for bad.

Everko
08-18-2010, 03:53 PM
:worship:

Could the futility (and the transient nature) of the asterisk be better demonstrated? I think not.

haven't seen you around in a while. I wish I hadn't ever again

barbadosan
08-18-2010, 04:08 PM
haven't seen you around in a while. I wish I hadn't ever again

Well now you'll get a chance to bad rep me again simply for saying I wished I could give a good rep to another poster. I'm sure enough time has passed, so have fun :) I didn't retaliate then, and you have my assurance I won't be picayune enough to retaliate this time either :)

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 04:32 PM
Hmm you have a point, of course. The difference is Federer's is more conspicuous, because of the circumstances. Sampras did not dominate USO like Nadal dominates clay, Agassi beat Sampras on hard in a slam (I know, I know), and above all, Agassi is not in GOAT contention. That's why I think Agassi's asterisk has already been largely forgotten, while people will be talking about Federer's for decades.

Well yes, but the fact that Nadal is more dominant at R.G. than Sampras at the U.S. just makes Federer's inability to beat Nadal more excusable than Agassi's inability to beat Sampras. Agassi's inadmissability as a GOAT candidate may explain why Federer's asterisk is more conspicuous, but doesn't explain why it's any more justified.

Har-Tru
08-18-2010, 04:52 PM
Well yes, but the fact that Nadal is more dominant at R.G. than Sampras at the U.S. just makes Federer's inability to beat Nadal more excusable than Agassi's inability to beat Sampras.

You can also twist it and say Agassi's inability to beat Sampras at the USO wasn't that big a deal since Sampras wasn't that good at the USO after all (sort of like Safin-Santoro, exaggerating of course).

If Agassi had never won Wimbledon, then he goes and beats Krajicek in the 1996 final, then we'd be talking about that asterisk a lot more.

But yeah I get you.

Agassi's inadmissability as a GOAT candidate may explain why Federer's asterisk is more conspicuous, but doesn't explain why it's any more justified.

That is more what I was getting at since my first post here: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=10255114&postcount=14

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 05:55 PM
You can also twist it and say Agassi's inability to beat Sampras at the USO wasn't that big a deal since Sampras wasn't that good at the USO after all (sort of like Safin-Santoro, exaggerating of course).

He did win it 5 times & make 3 other finals.

But yeah, there's no big disagreement here.

Start da Game
08-18-2010, 06:00 PM
7 pages of useless discussion.......i don't think the world is blind enough to ignore the 7 slam finals that took place between these two players.......

surface excuse my foot.......at one end the haters keep bringing up soderling's victory over rafa and the same haters keep puking excuses one after the other year after year for fedbaby who is regarded as goat by the same rafa haters.......if soderbug could prick an injured rafa, how come the "goat" failed like a wuss in 4 times in all those years?

now comes the match up excuse.......sh backhand players like blake and youzhny handed losses to a young and upcoming rafa when fedbaby was getting pounded even on hardcourts........excuses never end and the double standards hit new peaks every time.......

the world is not blind enough to ignore all the slam finals and are definitely not retarded enough to say fedbaby would have won 25 slams, 5 french opens if nadal let him win.......

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 06:03 PM
7 pages of useless discussion.......i don't think the world is blind enough to ignore the 7 slam finals that took place between these two players.......

surface excuse my foot.......at one end the haters keep bringing up soderling's victory over rafa and the same haters keep puking excuses one after the other year after year for fedbaby who is regarded as goat by the same rafa haters.......if soderbug could prick an injured rafa, how come the "goat" failed like a wuss in 4 times in all those years?

now comes the match up excuse.......sh backhand players like blake and youzhny handed losses to a young and upcoming rafa when fedbaby was getting pounded even on hardcourts........excuses never end and the double standards hit new peaks every time.......

the world is not blind enough to ignore all the slam finals and are definitely not retarded enough to say fedbaby would have won 25 slams, 5 french opens if nadal let him win.......

Let us know how the brain transplant goes.

Vida
08-18-2010, 06:09 PM
nadals * cant be as big as feds for three reasons:

a - nadals overall competition is more difficult.
b - nadal is not as good player as fed is.
c - nadal creams the goat over and over again.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 06:12 PM
7 pages of useless discussion.......i don't think the world is blind enough to ignore the 7 slam finals that took place between these two players.......

surface excuse my foot.......at one end the haters keep bringing up soderling's victory over rafa and the same haters keep puking excuses one after the other year after year for fedbaby who is regarded as goat by the same rafa haters.......if soderbug could prick an injured rafa, how come the "goat" failed like a wuss in 4 times in all those years?

now comes the match up excuse.......sh backhand players like blake and youzhny handed losses to a young and upcoming rafa when fedbaby was getting pounded even on hardcourts........excuses never end and the double standards hit new peaks every time.......

the world is not blind enough to ignore all the slam finals and are definitely not retarded enough to say fedbaby would have won 25 slams, 5 french opens if nadal let him win.......

Ah, Start the Douche... Don't bother with the brain transplant: your body would reject it.

dombrfc
08-18-2010, 06:14 PM
7 pages of useless discussion.......i don't think the world is blind enough to ignore the 7 slam finals that took place between these two players.......

surface excuse my foot.......at one end the haters keep bringing up soderling's victory over rafa and the same haters keep puking excuses one after the other year after year for fedbaby who is regarded as goat by the same rafa haters.......if soderbug could prick an injured rafa, how come the "goat" failed like a wuss in 4 times in all those years?

now comes the match up excuse.......sh backhand players like blake and youzhny handed losses to a young and upcoming rafa when fedbaby was getting pounded even on hardcourts........excuses never end and the double standards hit new peaks every time.......

the world is not blind enough to ignore all the slam finals and are definitely not retarded enough to say fedbaby would have won 25 slams, 5 french opens if nadal let him win.......

Its simple....... Federer is a greater player than Nadal.......The Spartan....... I'm not a hater........Nor a fedtard......... its just plain and simple........obvious.

:wavey:

Vida
08-18-2010, 06:17 PM
Its simple....... Federer is a greater player than Nadal.......The Spartan....... I'm not a hater........Nor a fedtard......... its just plain and simple........obvious.

:wavey:

but nadal is younger 5 years (eternity in tennis) and has achieved a lot more than fed at this age, so that doesnt mean anything yet.

Start da Game
08-18-2010, 06:17 PM
Let us know how the brain transplant goes.

Ah, Start the Douche... Don't bother with the brain transplant: your body would reject it.

typical fedtards moaning in pain after being hit by blatant truths.......nadal doesn't allow fed to play his game and that fact never penetrates your skull because you are blinded and bluffed by federica.......

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 06:18 PM
nadals * cant be as big as feds for three reasons:

a - nadals overall competition is more difficult.
b - nadal is not as good player as fed is.
c - nadal creams the goat over and over again.

a- :scratch:
b- obviously, unless you talk with extreme Rafa enthusiasts
c- selective memory I see.

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 06:18 PM
nadals * cant be as big as feds for three reasons:

a - nadals overall competition is more difficult.
b - nadal is not as good player as fed is.
c - nadal creams the goat over and over again.

What?

a - their competition is the same, except that Federer has played in the era before Nadal as well, so has so far had to face a wider range of competitors.
b - er, so?
c - ... mostly on clay. Refer back to the original post.

dombrfc
08-18-2010, 06:18 PM
but nadal is younger 5 years (eternity in tennis) and has achieved a lot more than fed at this age, so that doesnt mean anything yet.

Okay, fair enough.
For me though, If nadal won say 17 slams to Rogers 16.. I think id still regard Roger as the GOAT.. its just the brand of tennis.

Start da Game
08-18-2010, 06:19 PM
Its simple....... Federer is a greater player than Nadal.......The Spartan....... I'm not a hater........Nor a fedtard......... its just plain and simple........obvious.

:wavey:

let's wait till nadal retires.......he has had to face players in slam finals, unlike your fav who was fortunate to play aimless rats in many slam finals.......

dombrfc
08-18-2010, 06:20 PM
typical fedtards moaning in pain after being hit by blatant truths.......nadal doesn't allow fed to play his game and that fact never penetrates your skull because you are blinded and bluffed by federica.......

I think it says something though that a lot of Nadals success, esp. against Roger comes from targeting his opponents weaknesses. Whereas Roger achieves greatness by playing his own attacking game.

PandoraPandora
08-18-2010, 06:20 PM
It's not how big it is, it's what you do wi...
Oops, wrong thread.

That's what men with small what sits always say! But we girls know better!

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 06:21 PM
typical fedtards moaning in pain after being hit by blatant truths.......nadal doesn't allow fed to play his game and that fact never penetrates your skull because you are blinded and bluffed by federica.......

Try & contribute something relevant to the thread.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 06:21 PM
typical fedtards moaning in pain after being hit by blatant truths.......nadal doesn't allow fed to play his game and that fact never penetrates your skull because you are blinded and bluffed by federica.......

Well now that you have you have contributed 3 posts here, we can actually say at least 3 posts are useless.

Everko
08-18-2010, 06:22 PM
let's wait till nadal retires.......he has had to face players in slam finals, unlike your fav who was fortunate to play aimless rats in many slam finals.......

Phillipousis was real tough. haha

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 06:22 PM
That's what men with small what sits always say! But we girls know better!

Thank you so much for clearing that up.

Vida
08-18-2010, 06:22 PM
What?

a - their competition is the same, except that Federer has played in the era before Nadal as well, so has so far had to face a wider range of competitors.
b - er, so?
c - ... mostly on clay. Refer back to the original post.

a- :scratch:
b- obviously, unless you talk with extreme Rafa enthusiasts
c- selective memory I see.

a and b go together :) really, fed has had it easier than nadal.

c I say stands. what 'great' player has fed had to deal with, that corresponds to himself nadal has to deal with? none.

PandoraPandora
08-18-2010, 06:22 PM
Seriously it's too early to tell because Raffa has several years still to go and for Roger a lot depends on next year for him.

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 06:23 PM
Phillipousis was real tough. haha

He was tough for Tard da Fail's idol Pete Sampras.

PandoraPandora
08-18-2010, 06:25 PM
Thank you so much for clearing that up.

You're welcome! If there's anything else you want to know what girls REALLY think about things just let me know!

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 06:29 PM
You're welcome! If there's anything else you want to know what girls REALLY think about things just let me know!

I'll take you up on that. Do girls think Immanuel Kant successfully resolved the differences between rationalism & empiricism? Or not?

ORGASMATRON
08-18-2010, 06:34 PM
if nadal never wins the USO that would be a much bigger asterisk than feds h2h. it would be on par with Sampras' failure to win the FO.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 06:35 PM
a and b go together :) really, fed has had it easier than nadal.



How so?

rafa_maniac
08-18-2010, 06:43 PM
if nadal never wins the USO that would be a much bigger asterisk than feds h2h. it would be on par with Sampras' failure to win the FO.

I wouldn't say so as Sampras' failure at the French was indicative of his overall weakness of one surface - clay. Nadal has a Slam on HC already.

PandoraPandora
08-18-2010, 07:12 PM
I'll take you up on that. Do girls think Immanuel Kant successfully resolved the differences between rationalism & empiricism? Or not?

:)Sorry I haven't a clue! Now ask me something about Cheryl Cole, hair, or other trivia!:):angel:

Matt01
08-18-2010, 07:17 PM
Okay, fair enough.
For me though, If nadal won say 17 slams to Rogers 16.. I think id still regard Roger as the GOAT.. its just the brand of tennis.


Don't worry. Most deluded Fedtards would do the same...

legolandbridge
08-18-2010, 07:27 PM
The * for Federer is one-week short all time #1, and never won Davis Cup.
The * for Nadal is never played a US Open final.

ORGASMATRON
08-18-2010, 07:29 PM
I wouldn't say so as Sampras' failure at the French was indicative of his overall weakness of one surface - clay. Nadal has a Slam on HC already.

nadals failure at the USO is indicative of his overall failure on fast courts in general. the AO is slow as hell these days, and so is wimby.

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 08:20 PM
:)Sorry I haven't a clue! Now ask me something about Cheryl Cole, hair, or other trivia!:):angel:

Okay. Do girls think Cheryl Cole's hair is trivial? :)

Matt01
08-18-2010, 08:48 PM
nadals failure at the USO is indicative of his overall failure on fast courts in general. the AO is slow as hell these days, and so is wimby.


Of course. :lol:
Any court on which Rafa doesn't excel must be slow as hell. :retard:

ETA: I guess the Olympics 2008 were also played on a court that was "slow as hell".

finn98
08-18-2010, 08:55 PM
nadals failure at the USO is indicative of his overall failure on fast courts in general. the AO is slow as hell these days, and so is wimby.

Plexicushion is faster than Rebound Ace :rolleyes: :wavey:
So..it is indeed faster relatively these days :cool:

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 09:31 PM
Plexicushion is faster than Rebound Ace :rolleyes: :wavey:
So..it is indeed faster relatively these days :cool:

Your signature kind of lets everybody know that you might be, just might, a completely delusional fanboy. :)

Sophocles
08-18-2010, 09:46 PM
Your signature kind of lets everybody know that you might be, just might, a completely delusional fanboy. :)

He may well be, but on this occasion I think he's right. Plexicushion is faster than Rebound Ace. Certainly lower-bouncing. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Nadal was shite on Rebound Ace.

rafa_maniac
08-18-2010, 09:52 PM
He may well be, but on this occasion I think he's right. Plexicushion is faster than Rebound Ace. Certainly lower-bouncing. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Nadal was shite on Rebound Ace.

Correct. Rebound Ace was both slower and much higher bouncing than Plexicushion and should theoretically have been better for Nadal's game, though results speak otherwise. To be fair though, in 05 he had not yet broken through and yet played a really good tournament battling eventual finalist Hewitt to 5 in the 4th round. In 06 he didn't play, and in 07 he ran into an insane Gonzo after taking out Murray the previous round.

BigJohn
08-18-2010, 11:38 PM
He may well be, but on this occasion I think he's right. Plexicushion is faster than Rebound Ace. Certainly lower-bouncing. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Nadal was shite on Rebound Ace.

Correct. Rebound Ace was both slower and much higher bouncing than Plexicushion and should theoretically have been better for Nadal's game, though results speak otherwise. To be fair though, in 05 he had not yet broken through and yet played a really good tournament battling eventual finalist Hewitt to 5 in the 4th round. In 06 he didn't play, and in 07 he ran into an insane Gonzo after taking out Murray the previous round.

I think he is, but of course he's right about Rebound Ace. Rebound Ace has to be the worse surface possible for Nadal's movement.

BigJohn
08-19-2010, 10:14 PM
Thanks to those who answered.

I voted that slam count is all that really matters.

Any * would come into play should Nadal be able to equal Federer slam total. Should they tie, then those two * would probably be used as tie-breakers as they are the most evident blemish on each player resume. Federer does have a bad h2h vs Nadal, but Nadal's success clearly come mostly from clay. True tennis connaisseurs would favor the most versatile player.

Time will tell.

peribsen
08-19-2010, 11:10 PM
Any * would come into play should Nadal be able to equal Federer slam total. Should they tie, then those two * would probably be used as tie-breakers as they are the most evident blemish on each player resume. Federer does have a bad h2h vs Nadal, but Nadal's success clearly come mostly from clay. True tennis connaisseurs would favor the most versatile player.

You keep ignoring Nadal's accomplishment on grass, if there were more tournaments on grass, Nadal would have more than a few victories on it (and Fed even more, I grant you that).

True tennis connaisseurs would also notice Federer's relative weakness on clay. You seem to imply HC is a more important surface than clay, but that is only your prejudice. Being great on HC & grass but not so much on clay (though capable of some wins on it) is not too different from being great on clay & grass but not so much on HC (though capable of some wins on it).

The above has nothing to do with the rather obvious difference in total slams. Fed is the closest anybody is likely to get to being goat, but I'll insist yet again that the obsession with comparing Rafa against Fed has a lot to do with fans and very little to do with Rafa.

BigJohn
08-20-2010, 12:42 AM
You keep ignoring Nadal's accomplishment on grass, if there were more tournaments on grass, Nadal would have more than a few victories on it (and Fed even more, I grant you that).

You have pointed out yourself why more emphasis on grass would be mostly beneficial to Federer.



True tennis connaisseurs would also notice Federer's relative weakness on clay. You seem to imply HC is a more important surface than clay, but that is only your prejudice. Being great on HC & grass but not so much on clay (though capable of some wins on it) is not too different from being great on clay & grass but not so much on HC (though capable of some wins on it).

Federer's relative weakness on clay? Are you serious about this? Really serious? Because only 4 players (Federer, Nadal, Lendl, Borg) have made it 4 consecutive years to the FO final. All pretty weak. Federer is also the only player to have beaten Nadal in a final on clay. Somewhat capably weak player indeed. Let's put the emphasis on relative.


As far as clay vs hc, the ratio of important tournaments speaks for itself.


The above has nothing to do with the rather obvious difference in total slams. Fed is the closest anybody is likely to get to being goat, but I'll insist yet again that the obsession with comparing Rafa against Fed has a lot to do with fans and very little to do with Rafa.

I agree. Rafa is good for tennis. His extreme fans, on the other hand, are a disgrace.

peribsen
08-20-2010, 12:50 AM
As far as clay vs hc, the ratio of important tournaments speaks for itself.


I agree with most of your previous post, but not with the above. If we're talking about tenis connaisseurs, the ratio between different surfaces says nothing about their importance and a lot about trends, preferences of some countries, and money. For example, grass, even if it was only played in Wimbledon (sadly, that is almost true) will always be important for any true tennis fan.

Arkulari
08-20-2010, 12:51 AM
You keep ignoring Nadal's accomplishment on grass, if there were more tournaments on grass, Nadal would have more than a few victories on it (and Fed even more, I grant you that).

True tennis connaisseurs would also notice Federer's relative weakness on clay. You seem to imply HC is a more important surface than clay, but that is only your prejudice. Being great on HC & grass but not so much on clay (though capable of some wins on it) is not too different from being great on clay & grass but not so much on HC (though capable of some wins on it).

The above has nothing to do with the rather obvious difference in total slams. Fed is the closest anybody is likely to get to being goat, but I'll insist yet again that the obsession with comparing Rafa against Fed has a lot to do with fans and very little to do with Rafa.

in his prime, Roger was second in clay only to Rafa (who's IMO up there with Borg as best claycourters), he was practically losing only to him in that surface and is the only person who's been able to beat him in a clay final

I think HC courts can be pretty misleading: let's take a look at Pics for example, he does pretty well in Miami and Auckland which are the slowest HC on tour, but he also does pretty well in Cincy which is the faster

Same about Roger in Hamburg, that is slow as hell and yet he won the tournament 4 times :shrug:

It's more about how a particular surface (and there aren't two tournaments that play exactly the same) suits a player's game or not


DecoTurf and Indoor Hard don't suit Rafa's game but it doesn't mean he can't win in those, it means it's less likely he wins, it's not a 100% like you see on clay ;)

ORGASMATRON
08-20-2010, 01:03 AM
Plexicushion is faster than Rebound Ace :rolleyes: :wavey:
So..it is indeed faster relatively these days :cool:

plexicushion is slower. its possible to observe it with the naked eye. hence cushion and ace ;)

BigJohn
08-20-2010, 01:25 AM
plexicushion is slower. its possible to observe it with the naked eye. hence cushion and ace ;)

I'm not sure about this. Wasn't there more cushion on Rebound Ace?

ORGASMATRON
08-20-2010, 01:34 AM
I'm not sure about this. Wasn't there more cushion on Rebound Ace?

if there was more cushion then rafas knees would cope better with it. anyway im just going by what the names say, it may be totally wrong lol.

BigJohn
08-20-2010, 01:38 AM
I agree with most of your previous post, but not with the above. If we're talking about tenis connaisseurs, the ratio between different surfaces says nothing about their importance and a lot about trends, preferences of some countries, and money. For example, grass, even if it was only played in Wimbledon (sadly, that is almost true) will always be important for any true tennis fan.

I'll agree that Wimbledon is something special, well the whole clay and grass seasons, because now they are special moments in the season, a break between the 2 HC slams.

And before someone brings up a true connaisseur jab, I'm just a regular tennis fan that has been watching as much tennis as possible since he was very young. Make what you want of that.

BigJohn
08-20-2010, 01:40 AM
if there was more cushion then rafas knees would cope better with it. anyway im just going by what the names say, it may be totally wrong lol.

It did get sticky sticky when hot...

sabina_RF_lee
08-20-2010, 11:31 AM
I misunderstood the question. And voted incorrect, my right answer is that h2h is nothing and nadal`s will be bigger.

Matt01
08-20-2010, 01:17 PM
if there was more cushion then rafas knees would cope better with it. anyway im just going by what the names say, it may be totally wrong lol.


You are wrong.

MacTheKnife
08-20-2010, 01:27 PM
Way to much is made of these so called "*'s". Someone please provide a link to where they show up..

BigJohn
08-20-2010, 02:42 PM
Way to much is made of these so called "*'s". Someone please provide a link to where they show up..

http://www.menstennisforums.com/index.php

MacTheKnife
08-20-2010, 04:05 PM
:lol: You're right, that's about it..

BigJohn
08-20-2010, 05:09 PM
:lol: You're right, that's about it..

Where else can you find such a gathering of true tennis connaisseurs?

Chiseller
08-20-2010, 06:07 PM
I blame Facebook.

MacTheKnife
08-20-2010, 06:11 PM
:lol: This thread is getting funny.. Finally some stuff worth reading..

Pirata.
08-20-2010, 07:59 PM
I blame Facebook.

:spit:

BigJohn
06-05-2011, 11:13 PM
If I voted today, I would vote for Nadal. The mostly clay resume really stands out.