Brad Gilbert: Federer can't be considered GOAT if.. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Brad Gilbert: Federer can't be considered GOAT if..

Pages : [1] 2

SheepleBuster
09-08-2010, 04:20 PM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree?

Action Jackson
09-08-2010, 04:21 PM
16-0

SheepleBuster
09-08-2010, 04:22 PM
16-0

well, it'd be 16-9, right? Rafa will win probably 3 more French. So, he could technically pass Sampras in a couple of years.

r2473
09-08-2010, 04:24 PM
Sweet!! Another GOAT debate....and during the US Open. This is so important it just couldn't wait for the off season.

GOAT
~noun

1. Eternal, immutable and carved in stone condition which happens to change every 1/2 weeks.

2. Favourite player of a MTF poster.

3. According to many, a player who has the biggest talent ever (no prove necessary) and who will eventually come back from the dead and blow away the whole competition by 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 (and 6-0) because when he’s on he just could sweep God from the court. That is: Marat Safin.

Snoo Foo
09-08-2010, 04:26 PM
16-0

what does this mean?

Action Jackson
09-08-2010, 04:27 PM
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/GoatBoy.jpg

http://www.signs-up.com/prod_images/Goat_xing_thumb_640.jpg

SheepleBuster
09-08-2010, 04:31 PM
To be fair to Gilbert, Rafa has dominated Roger in grand slams. I never thought he could beat Roger in AO and make him cry like he did. It was very traumatic for us Federer fans. I still can't believe how bad Roger played in those 2 first sets against Nadal at Wimbledon. Roger has not has his way with Rafa in so many matches, it's not funny. I am not sure Paul Annacone can do anything for Roger as Rafa is serving out of a tree it seems. I mean he is serving so hard and more aces than ever. Scary! If Delpo was here, we wouldn't have to hear about people's chances of winning this.

Mechlan
09-08-2010, 04:34 PM
If Roger loses in the final to Rafa, he is not GOAT.

If Roger loses in the QF to Robin, it means he is worse than if he loses in the final.

Therefore, if Roger loses in the QF today, he is not GOAT.

Shirogane
09-08-2010, 04:35 PM
what does this mean?

16-0 Federer or 16-0 Lendl, your pick.

Dyraise
09-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Nadal could not even reach the finals the past six years.
If Fed loses today and Rafa win the tournament, then Roger is still the best? :rolleyes:

Rafa could pass Roger but no after this tournament.

EDIT:
If Roger loses in the final to Rafa, he is not GOAT.

If Roger loses in the QF to Robin, it means he is worse than if he loses in the final.

Therefore, if Roger loses in the QF today, he is not GOAT.
:worship:

mark73
09-08-2010, 04:42 PM
If Roger loses in the final to Rafa, he is not GOAT.

If Roger loses in the QF to Robin, it means he is worse than if he loses in the final.

Therefore, if Roger loses in the QF today, he is not GOAT.

Well said. Demonstrating the stupidity of using H2H as an indicater of GOAT.

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 04:45 PM
Invaluable thread.

River
09-08-2010, 04:47 PM
Well said. Demonstrating the stupidity of using H2H as an indicater of GOAT.

GOAT to me is a guy who exudes and delivers dominance of the entire ATP circuit, not just dominance of the whole ATP circuit "minus that one guy who manages to kick my ass almost every time."

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 04:49 PM
GOAT to me is a guy who exudes and delivers dominance of the entire ATP circuit, not just dominance of the whole ATP circuit "minus that one guy who manages to kick my ass almost every time."

Unfortunately, no player in the history of the ATP has ever done that.

If you want real dominance, you have to go back to Bill Tilden (unbeaten for 5 years in the 1920s?) or perhaps Richard Gonzales on the pro tour in the 1950s.

Infinity
09-08-2010, 04:51 PM
If Roger loses in the final to Rafa, he is not GOAT.

If Roger loses in the QF to Robin, it means he is worse than if he loses in the final.

Therefore, if Roger loses in the QF today, he is not GOAT.

If he loses today he is 12-2 against Soderling. He can lose once in a while against any player, besides he has beaten Robin on all 3 surfaces including the tournaments where Robin has defeated him in it.

But if he loses the final against Rafa
He is 7-15 overall against him
2-7 in grand slams
2-6 in slam finals
losing on all 3 surfaces while winning on just one surface
losing in all 4 slams while while winning in one only

I guess this can not be said as having one or two bad days, especially with the slam h2h.

Edit: by this I don't mean Rafa is superior to Roger. I just say that h2h means something, not everything, nor the most important statistics, but it must be taken into consideration.

River
09-08-2010, 04:55 PM
Unfortunately, no player in the history of the ATP has ever done that.

If you want real dominance, you have to go back to Bill Tilden (unbeaten for 5 years in the 1920s?) or perhaps Richard Gonzales on the pro tour in the 1950s.

Then shouldn't Bill Tilden have the GOAT title?

You don't have to win Grand Slams. If you're unbeaten for 5 straight years, it's safe to assume that in this era, it would be 20 grand slams total.

viruzzz
09-08-2010, 04:59 PM
Brad Gilbert? Come oooooooon!
Whoever say that Fed isn't the GREATEST PLAYER OF HISTORY OF TENNIS, isn't beeing fair. Stop with that.

I'm starting to piss me off with these haters...

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 05:04 PM
Then shouldn't Bill Tilden have the GOAT title?

You don't have to win Grand Slams. If you're unbeaten for 5 straight years, it's safe to assume that in this era, it would be 20 grand slams total.

That's a reasonable argument. There are, of course, counters. Tilden played mostly in America and when Lacoste & Cochet emerged, they went over there and beat him. Plus it's debatable how competitive the sport was in the 1920s.

But there's no question Tilden is in the GOAT discussion. And that's the best you can definitively say for any player. Federer is clearly in the GOAT discussion too, or his haters wouldn't spout so much drivel trying to prove he's not the GOAT.

Kip
09-08-2010, 05:07 PM
Sorry BG, take it somewhere else!

SheepleBuster
09-08-2010, 05:07 PM
Brad Gilbert is hard on Nadal. US Davis Cup team will go to toilet with him as coach

Persimmon
09-08-2010, 05:07 PM
Irrelevant. Fed will end up winning the US Open anyway.

Doomach777
09-08-2010, 05:11 PM
That Brad Gilbert is stupid guy obviusly. He should learned in school that 16 is bigger 9. [ 16 > 9 ]

tribalfusion
09-08-2010, 05:14 PM
If he loses today he is 12-2 against Soderling. He can lose once in a while against any player, besides he has beaten Robin on all 3 surfaces including the tournaments where Robin has defeated him in it.

But if he loses the final against Rafa
He is 7-15 overall against him
2-7 in grand slams
2-6 in slam finals
losing on all 3 surfaces while winning on just one surface
losing in all 4 slams while while winning in one only

I guess this can not be said as having one or two bad days, especially with the slam h2h.

Edit: by this I don't mean Rafa is superior to Roger. I just say that h2h means something, not everything, nor the most important statistics, but it must be taken into consideration.

Well said...

Elena.
09-08-2010, 05:14 PM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree?


He is right of course .

latso
09-08-2010, 05:16 PM
Roger Federer is the goat for his 2004-2007 period.

noone has ever played that great and dominant tennis.

If Rafa at 29 beats roger in his backyard - still Federer 2004-2007 will be the best thing a tennis court had stepped on.

Punto e basta

Ackms421
09-08-2010, 05:19 PM
I think he makes a good point. It certainly isn't the most unique thought ever, but if you look at Sampras, Borg, and Laver, there was no one player who owned them the way Nadal does Federer. I am a big Sampras fan, and I would've called Federer GOAT if he had beaten Nadal at the French. I think, in everyone's mind, that would have been meaningful. But he never did that, and he lost to him at Wimbledon. That is supposed to be his turf. If he loses to him here as well, it's meaningful.

Priam
09-08-2010, 05:19 PM
Yes we'll just discount the 16 majors.

Silvester
09-08-2010, 05:23 PM
omg how many f*ing times do we need to discuss this.
WHAT WOULD THE HEAD TO HEAD BE IF NADAL WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE WIMBY AND USO FINALS IN FEDERERS PRIME???

During Federers Prime Nadal rarely made it to any finals other than on Clay, while Fed was still making Clay finals but losing to Nadal a lot of the times. What would the H2H be had Nadal made the USO finals the 5 years that Fed won and lost to him? What would the H2H be if Nadal made the wimby finals the 6 years that fed won.

Elena.
09-08-2010, 05:24 PM
This USO is getting interesting :aplot:

Foxy
09-08-2010, 05:25 PM
omg how many f*ing times do we need to discuss this.
WHAT WOULD THE HEAD TO HEAD BE IF NADAL WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE WIMBY AND USO FINALS IN FEDERERS PRIME???

During Federers Prime Nadal rarely made it to any finals other than on Clay, while Fed was still making Clay finals but losing to Nadal a lot of the times. What would the H2H be had Nadal made the USO finals the 5 years that Fed won and lost to him? What would the H2H be if Nadal made the wimby finals the 6 years that fed won.

What if you stop if-ing, mug!
And to answer your question 9:20

sco
09-08-2010, 05:26 PM
Soderling is so important then in the debate for GOAT.

At 09 French, he lost to Federer giving him the career grand slam + equalling Sampras's 14 GSs and a claim to GOAT.

By Gilbert's logic, if Soderling beats Federer tonight, he prevents a possible Federer loss to Nadal and thereby helps Federer keep his claim to GOAT. So it's better for Federer to lose tonight.

anticaria
09-08-2010, 05:27 PM
If he loses today he is 12-2 against Soderling. He can lose once in a while against any player, besides he has beaten Robin on all 3 surfaces including the tournaments where Robin has defeated him in it.

But if he loses the final against Rafa
He is 7-15 overall against him
2-7 in grand slams
2-6 in slam finals
losing on all 3 surfaces while winning on just one surface
losing in all 4 slams while while winning in one only

I guess this can not be said as having one or two bad days, especially with the slam h2h.

Edit: by this I don't mean Rafa is superior to Roger. I just say that h2h means something, not everything, nor the most important statistics, but it must be taken into consideration.

excellent point, infinity.. i personally think that what makes rafa's h2h record against roger so impressive and significant is the fact that roger's the presumptive goat.. hence, one cannot underestimate such a h2h domination..

rafa could lead someone like verdasco by a h2h record of 21:0 and it still would not mean anything compared to rafa leading the presumptive goat himself by 14:7..

i.e., it's the caliber/quality of the opponent you're dominating that actually makes the h2h domination so impressive..

Sapeod
09-08-2010, 05:34 PM
16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9

Nadal needs 5 more slams to even be considered in the GOAT discussion.

nobama
09-08-2010, 05:47 PM
:zzz:

70-68
09-08-2010, 05:48 PM
So, if Federer loses to Verdasco in the final, he is still the GOAT.

justine&coria
09-08-2010, 05:50 PM
16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9

Nadal needs 5 more slams to even be considered in the GOAT discussion.
The thing is that Roger not being the GOAT doesn't mean that someone else has to be ;).

So many things come into consideration for being THE GOAT. And to me, if everytime Roger plays Nadal, the odds of him winning are that low, then someone is "better" than him, and he's just not the GOAT...

MacTheKnife
09-08-2010, 05:52 PM
I'm not sure that's exactly what he said, but he's an idiot anyway. I loved when Storm had to tell him to sit down. Way to much overreaction here with what these clowns say. Their job is to stir shit up and they are obviously very successful at it..

Elena.
09-08-2010, 05:52 PM
So, if Federer loses to Verdasco in the final, he is still the GOAT.


You really don't get it ?? How can someone be considered the greatest of all time if there's one guy who can beat him on all surfaces in all Slam finals ? It's pretty simple.

Commander Data
09-08-2010, 05:55 PM
..so if Fed beats Nadal this time we can end the debate for good? okay, I'll take it.

Mechlan
09-08-2010, 05:57 PM
If he loses today he is 12-2 against Soderling. He can lose once in a while against any player, besides he has beaten Robin on all 3 surfaces including the tournaments where Robin has defeated him in it.

But if he loses the final against Rafa
He is 7-15 overall against him
2-7 in grand slams
2-6 in slam finals
losing on all 3 surfaces while winning on just one surface
losing in all 4 slams while while winning in one only

I guess this can not be said as having one or two bad days, especially with the slam h2h.

Edit: by this I don't mean Rafa is superior to Roger. I just say that h2h means something, not everything, nor the most important statistics, but it must be taken into consideration.

Um, my argument was firmly tongue in cheek. Obviously Federer losing to Soderling doesn't mean much. And doing worse in a slam shouldn't make him a greater tennis player. But according to BG, Federer performing worse in a slam (i.e. not losing to Nadal) will mean he keeps his GOAT status.

The H2H means that Nadal matches up well with Federer. It doesn't somehow diminish the rest of Roger's achievements. It just adds to Nadal's achievements. Greatness is measured by what you accomplish against the entire field, not what you accomplish against one player.

SheepleBuster
09-08-2010, 06:01 PM
You really don't get it ?? How can someone be considered the greatest of all time if there's one guy who can beat him on all surfaces in all Slam finals ? It's pretty simple.

Is it simple? If Sampras played now and lost to someone in 4 slams, would he be out of the discussion too? Roger is not 23 yrs old anymore. Roger is past his prime whereas Nadal is in his prime. So what if a prime Nadal beats a guy who is getting passed his prime? When Roger was at the top of his game, Rafa couldn't reach final and lost to players like Youzhney. People somehow forget about Roger's age. He is 29. 24-27 is prime years. He is 2 years passed it but still plays great. And who is the GOAT then if Roger is not it? Rafa? With 8 slams?

Orka_n
09-08-2010, 06:02 PM
The thing is that Roger not being the GOAT doesn't mean that someone else has to be ;).

So many things come into consideration for being THE GOAT. And to me, if anytime Roger plays Nadal, the odds of him winning are that low, then someone is "better" than him, and he's just not the GOAT...I have a not so new newsflash for all the Nadaltards here. In tennis, there is such a thing as a "bad match-up". And whaddaya know, Nadal is such a thing to Federer. That doesn't mean he's a better player overall. Should he truly be the better player, he would also have a better H2H than Federer against all other players. That's not the case, however. For example, Nadal has a negative H2H against Davydenko, who is Federer's turkey.

In the GOAT discussion, H2H means squat.

Li Ching Yuen
09-08-2010, 06:02 PM
Ahh...the old Goat discussion. What a better way to pass time while waiting for the tennis to start, right?

I've always said this: Who's the best tennis player we've had so far, throughout history?



1:Federer, right?

2:No, because of his H2H to Nadal.

1:So, Nadal?

2: Lol, no way, he's got fewer slams than most of the guys he's being compared with.

1: So, WHO IS IT?

2: It's not Federer, because of his H2H to Nadal.

1: I see.

The meaning: Person number 2 is a raging Fed hater or a future fanboy of Nadal lusting over a detail that doesn't prove his point.

Tell me a guy on the tour that has beaten Nadal, 7 times.

I know one, Roger Federer.

Take that, bitches. Federer = GOAT.

yee-haw, right?

MIMIC
09-08-2010, 06:04 PM
I very much doubt Gilbert said this.

straitup
09-08-2010, 06:07 PM
Are people here actually seriously trying to debate something that came out of Gilbert's mouth? :lol:

SheepleBuster
09-08-2010, 06:07 PM
I very much doubt Gilbert said this.

He did today. I didn't record it but he said it and then the lady said, "now to Nadal's 2nd set to Lopez". If you watched it, 11:10 amish EST, you probably heard this.

tennis2tennis
09-08-2010, 06:08 PM
I have a not so new newsflash for all the Nadaltards here. In tennis, there is such a thing as a "bad match-up". And whaddaya know, Nadal is such a thing to Federer. That doesn't mean he's a better player overall. Should he truly be the better player, he would also have a better H2H than Federer against all other players. That's not the case, however. For example, Nadal has a negative H2H against Davydenko, who is Federer's turkey.

In the GOAT discussion, H2H means squat.

exactly!

justine&coria
09-08-2010, 06:08 PM
I have a not so new newsflash for all the Nadaltards here. In tennis, there is such a thing as a "bad match-up".
Yeah and the GOAT shouldn't have that bad of a match-up ;).
Federer losing before the finals wouldn't make him change by a lot his stats in GS (and hiccups happen). Him losing to Nadal again would make him his pigeon, which is just not acceptable for the GOAT.
That's just what I'm/we're saying.

70-68
09-08-2010, 06:10 PM
You really don't get it ?? How can someone be considered the greatest of all time if there's one guy who can beat him on all surfaces in all Slam finals ? It's pretty simple.

If Federer loses to Verdasco/Soderling/Youzhny, that means Federer didn't lose to THAT ONE guy who always beats him, no? :confused: :shrug:

Elena.
09-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Is it simple? If Sampras played now and lost to someone in 4 slams, would he be out of the discussion too? Roger is not 23 yrs old anymore. Roger is past his prime whereas Nadal is in his prime. So what if a prime Nadal beats a guy who is getting passed his prime? When Roger was at the top of his game, Rafa couldn't reach final and lost to players like Youzhney. People somehow forget about Roger's age. He is 29. 24-27 is prime years. He is 2 years passed it but still plays great. And who is the GOAT then if Roger is not it? Rafa? With 8 slams?

in all honesty i think that an absolute Goat doesn't exist,it's all a bit relative !I've always thought so ,what we can assess are accomplishments,sure Roger is ahead of Sampras but if he loses to Rafa at the Uso final it would mean he lost to the same guy in all Slams finals,all surfaces !!That would be a bit too much for being considered the greatest of all time ! :shrug:

Young 8
09-08-2010, 06:23 PM
what does this mean?

Federer 16, Murray 0

Mechlan
09-08-2010, 06:30 PM
I very much doubt Gilbert said this.

Not only did he say this, he followed it up with this gem: If Nadal wins the US Open, it will be the single greatest year of tennis I've ever seen (barring Laver's).

TennisAddicted
09-08-2010, 06:32 PM
This Goat talk is bullshit.
Federer is lucky because no player was really a threat until a wonder boy with 17yo shown up.
Nadal is now reaching his prime and is 5years younger than Federer. Just imagine if they were both the same age...

Looking to the past, Federer's opponents... Roddick? Hewitt? LOL Please!

FormerRafaFan
09-08-2010, 06:36 PM
I think we should take this discussion later, if/when that happens. Federer has to get to the final first, and pass Söderling, which is not an easy task.

Besides, I don't really see how Nadal can surpass Federer's 16 slams, even if he should go on to win the USO.

freeandlonely
09-08-2010, 06:40 PM
We all know Alex Bogdanović is GOAT, thank you. Next.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-08-2010, 06:40 PM
right, man-up time

fuck these haters

fed takes out the spaniard, thats the only scenario ill take

like to see it in 3, but even 5 is still a win

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2010, 06:42 PM
All this talk based on Brad Gilbert's opinion? Blech.

Snoo Foo
09-08-2010, 06:43 PM
16-0 Federer or 16-0 Lendl, your pick.

:scratch: if lendl beat federer 16x, wasn't that just cuz federer was like, 8 years old at the time? :scratch:

Federer 16, Murray 0

gilbert said murray is the goat? :confused:

ShotmaKer
09-08-2010, 06:50 PM
16-0

:scratch: if lendl beat federer 16x, wasn't that just cuz federer was like, 8 years old at the time? :scratch:



gilbert said murray is the goat? :confused:

I think it's more like Federer 16 and Gilbert 0 GS titles ;)

solowyn
09-08-2010, 06:53 PM
Not only did he say this, he followed it up with this gem: If Nadal wins the US Open, it will be the single greatest year of tennis I've ever seen (barring Laver's).
:lol:
Always such sensationalists.

Snoo Foo
09-08-2010, 06:54 PM
:lol: but nobody who posted in this thread has any GS either :lol:

Henry Chinaski
09-08-2010, 06:59 PM
I have never once taken part in a GOAT discussion because it's something that bores the shit of out me.

But it would be awful for Fed if he lost in the final to Nadal. In Australia last year Federer simply choked. He left his first serve in the locker room and still took Rafa to 5 sets.

If he had served at his usual percentage he would have had a routine four set victory because he played a good match on return. We all know the match-up issues but Fed coped pretty well with them. He just fucked it all up bu having the worst serving performance of his career. 47% 1st serves iirc.

Conditions in NY in relation to Oz are definitely more benefricial to Fed so in theory it would take an incredible mental capitulation for him to lose to Nadal here.

Snoo Foo
09-08-2010, 07:09 PM
in theory it would take an incredible mental capitulation for him to lose to Nadal here.

in practice raffles will destroy him with extreme prejudice.

ShotmaKer
09-08-2010, 07:14 PM
I have never once taken part in a GOAT discussion because it's something that bores the shit of out me.

But it would be awful for Fed if he lost in the final to Nadal. In Australia last year Federer simply choked. He left his first serve in the locker room and still took Rafa to 5 sets.

If he had served at his usual percentage he would have had a routine four set victory because he played a good match on return. We all know the match-up issues but Fed coped pretty well with them. He just fucked it all up bu having the worst serving performance of his career. 47% 1st serves iirc.

Conditions in NY in relation to Oz are definitely more benefricial to Fed so in theory it would take an incredible mental capitulation for him to lose to Nadal here.

if it's not the serve, it'll be something else. would be quite a surprise if he actually manages to snatch the win this time round imo.

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 07:17 PM
Federer is 29 & past his prime. Nadal is 24 & in his prime. No doubt if Laver came back to the tour Nadal would beat him in every slam & morons such as Gilbert would proclaim Laver's GOAT credentials bogus.

Sapeod
09-08-2010, 07:17 PM
The thing is that Roger not being the GOAT doesn't mean that someone else has to be ;).

So many things come into consideration for being THE GOAT. And to me, if everytime Roger plays Nadal, the odds of him winning are that low, then someone is "better" than him, and he's just not the GOAT...
Roger has 16 bloody slams!!
And 63/64 career titles.

Nadal has a long way to go before he can be considered in the argument, regardless of the H2H.
The H2H doesn't mean anything when it comes to GOATness, unless the two players are tied on slams and career titles won.

Quadruple Tree
09-08-2010, 07:20 PM
It's going to be fun seeing how Nadal fanboys spin things in a couple years when Del Potro starts to dominate him head-to-head. "Head-to-head doesn't matter! All that matters are Slams!"

Nidhogg
09-08-2010, 07:35 PM
:spit: Poor Nadal is destroying his own legacy of having played next to an alleged GOAT. :awww:

You needn't worry, Brad. Federer has been out of contention for that status ever since he found his match in the juggernaught that is Gilles Simon not once, but twice, in 2008.

DrJules
09-08-2010, 07:44 PM
So Federer is a greater player losing before the final than in it to Nadal.

Greatness enhanced by losing earlier in event

emotion
09-08-2010, 07:45 PM
If Fed loses to Nadal in the finals, they are 5-5 outside clay

16>>>>>>>>>>9

justine&coria
09-08-2010, 07:46 PM
I haven't seen a single person here (seriously) stating that Nadal is the GOAT.
Yet to many people, saying that Nadal is not GOAT and supposing (hoping) that he'll never ever be, seem like THE arguments that Federer is. Am I the only one missing the logic?

This is not a Federer-Nadal debate.
The thing is that how can someone be considered as the greatest of all times, when he's clearly someone bitch?
If someone is to be the GOAT, it's Federer. Otherwise, it's no-one. And if he loses against Nadal in the finals, it'd be really difficult to state that he is the best ever.

LoveFifteen
09-08-2010, 07:46 PM
Federer is probably the GOAT, but Nadal's still going to make him cry in the US Open final this year. :hearts:

nastoff
09-08-2010, 07:48 PM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree?

no, Fed IS the GOAT...if you exclude the French Open and the last 2.5 seasons...

Arkulari
09-08-2010, 07:48 PM
oh another moronic GOAT thread... :o

justine&coria
09-08-2010, 07:48 PM
So Federer is a greater player losing before the final than in it to Nadal.

Greatness enhanced by losing earlier in event
Yeah because tennis is not that easy ;).
A can be B's pigeon, B can be C's pigeon and C can be A's pigeon: who's the best then ?

Roddickominator
09-08-2010, 07:59 PM
Gilbert only said that to make people forget that he picked Murray to win the tournament. So going from that outlandish claim, to another.

GOAT debates are ultimately pointless, because every candidate is flawed. Just to be on the short list means that you have an argument, and you aren't going to convince everyone to agree with you no matter what you do.

BigJohn
09-08-2010, 08:39 PM
omg how many f*ing times do we need to discuss this.
WHAT WOULD THE HEAD TO HEAD BE IF NADAL WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE WIMBY AND USO FINALS IN FEDERERS PRIME???

During Federers Prime Nadal rarely made it to any finals other than on Clay, while Fed was still making Clay finals but losing to Nadal a lot of the times. What would the H2H be had Nadal made the USO finals the 5 years that Fed won and lost to him? What would the H2H be if Nadal made the wimby finals the 6 years that fed won.

Voilŕ.

GSM.

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 08:42 PM
Nadal in his prime will be better than federer in his prime. Nadal will be in his prime in 2011-2012

Jaz
09-08-2010, 08:43 PM
Nadal in his prime will be better than federer in his prime. Nadal will be in his prime in 2011-2012

Can you tell me my lottery numbers for Saturday also?

Safin_Lover
09-08-2010, 08:46 PM
Brad who?

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 08:56 PM
Can you tell me my lottery numbers for Saturday also?

most top top players are in their prime aged around 24-26. He is on more majors than fed was in the same stage of their careers, there is no reason to believe why nadal can't win many many more majors. He is the favourite now even at this us open (his worst surface)

Sapeod
09-08-2010, 08:56 PM
:spit: Poor Nadal is destroying his own legacy of having played next to an alleged GOAT. :awww:

You needn't worry, Brad. Federer has been out of contention for that status ever since he found his match in the juggernaught that is Gilles Simon not once, but twice, in 2008.
I seriously hope you are being sarcastic.
Nadal in his prime will be better than federer in his prime. Nadal will be in his prime in 2011-2012
Nadal's prime was in 2008.

And no, Federer's prime is 3 times better than Nadal's prime.

Serenidad
09-08-2010, 09:04 PM
Well we all know the truth.

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 09:06 PM
I seriously hope you are being sarcastic.

Nadal's prime was in 2008.

And no, Federer's prime is 3 times better than Nadal's prime.

if he wins the us open this year, you can eat your words.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-08-2010, 09:09 PM
the great thing about tennis is the biggest trolls end up working on tv and wriiting articles

BigJohn
09-08-2010, 09:10 PM
most top top players are in their prime aged around 24-26. He is on more majors than fed was in the same stage of their careers, there is no reason to believe why nadal can't win many many more majors. He is the favourite now even at this us open (his worst surface)

Nadal obviously being a late bloomer, he should actually peak in his mid-30s.

bjurra
09-08-2010, 09:13 PM
GOAT to me is a guy who exudes and delivers dominance of the entire ATP circuit, not just dominance of the whole ATP circuit "minus that one guy who manages to kick my ass almost every time."

Let me spell it out to you since your English is not what it should be:

GOAT means Greatest Of All Times.

It doesnt mean you have to be unbeatable or God like, it just means you have to be better than the rest. Clearly, Roger is better than the rest, Rafa included.

Sapeod
09-08-2010, 09:14 PM
if he wins the us open this year, you can eat your words.
No, I won't.
They opponents he's facing, bar Murray, aren't even what they used to be back then.
2008 had Federer, who was still near his best, Djokovic who had just won a slam, Murray who was beginning to rise up and Davydenko.
2010 has a slumping Federer and Djokovic, and injured Davydenko, a very good Soderling, and inconsistent Berdych and Murray.

2008 was Nadal's peak.

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 09:19 PM
No, I won't.
They opponents he's facing, bar Murray, aren't even what they used to be back then.
2008 had Federer, who was still near his best, Djokovic who had just won a slam, Murray who was beginning to rise up and Davydenko.
2010 has a slumping Federer and Djokovic, and injured Davydenko, a very good Soderling, and inconsistent Berdych and Murray.

2008 was Nadal's peak.

so 2009 was murrays peak? :rolleyes:

nadal is still improving his game right now. thats why he is already on 2 slams this year and has a big chance at a third

Elena.
09-08-2010, 09:21 PM
Yeah and the GOAT shouldn't have that bad of a match-up ;).
Federer losing before the finals wouldn't make him change by a lot his stats in GS (and hiccups happen). Him losing to Nadal again would make him his pigeon, which is just not acceptable for the GOAT.
That's just what I'm/we're saying.

couldn't be clearer,being goat and being owned by someone are contradictory terms,one excludes the other :shrug:,if you are the greatest you should own the rest ,pretty much .If Rafito beat Rogie in the final at USO it could be total ownage :eek:

MalwareDie
09-08-2010, 09:21 PM
Nadal was playing better in 2008. It's a straw man to say that Nadal's peak is 2010 because he won more slams. Federer won 3 slams in 2004 and 2007, but he played better during 2005.

Rosa Luxembourg
09-08-2010, 09:24 PM
And people listen to this fucking moron? He of course has the right to have an opinion, but is it really respected? from when?

General Suburbia
09-08-2010, 09:41 PM
And people listen to this fucking moron? He of course has the right to have an opinion, but is it really respected? from when?
He says a lot of really dumb things, but I wouldn't say they're all worthless (I'm sure MTFers understand the game a lot more :angel:). The opinion of a #3 player who relied on just tactics and court smarts, and who coached 2 #1 players shouldn't be taken lightly. Although it seems he's approaching senility extremely quickly.

nsidhan
09-08-2010, 09:59 PM
If Rafa was a better player on surfaces other than clay between 2005-08, that H2H vs. Roger wouldn't look so bad. Roger would have beaten him at AO, Wimb and USO.

Rafa started peaking when Fed had already won 3 GS/yr thrice and didn't feel the need to improve (stupid!).

Fed has started to think differently now hiring PA and rededicating himself to the sport. So that was good move by him.

Lets leave the GOAT debate after both have retired.

KarlyM
09-08-2010, 10:05 PM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree? Gilbert's little predictions/opinions should be treated like toilet paper - flushed down the toilet! http://bestsmileys.com/toliot/10.gif Outside of technical tennis stuff, everything else that comes out of his mouth is crap.

Brad Gilbert is hard on Nadal. US Davis Cup team will go to toilet with him as coach Ugh, I hope he doesn't get the captain job. :scared:

I'm not sure that's exactly what he said, but he's an idiot anyway. I loved when Storm had to tell him to sit down. Way to much overreaction here with what these clowns say. Their job is to stir shit up and they are obviously very successful at it.. :haha: The last part about stirring crap up is very true.

Are people here actually seriously trying to debate something that came out of Gilbert's mouth? :lol: My thoughts exactly! :shrug: :lol:

Not only did he say this, he followed it up with this gem: If Nadal wins the US Open, it will be the single greatest year of tennis I've ever seen (barring Laver's). Yeah, that sounds like BG. :lol:

Federer is 29 & past his prime. Nadal is 24 & in his prime. No doubt if Laver came back to the tour Nadal would beat him in every slam & morons such as Gilbert would proclaim Laver's GOAT credentials bogus. :haha: :haha:

Gilbert only said that to make people forget that he picked Murray to win the tournament. So going from that outlandish claim, to another. Didn't he pick Azarenka to win the women's title? :unsure:

GOAT debates are ultimately pointless, because every candidate is flawed. Just to be on the short list means that you have an argument, and you aren't going to convince everyone to agree with you no matter what you do. I completely agree. :yeah: I hate GOAT debates - I'm fine with having a short list of players, but picking one player for all eras is ridiculous. Heck, I'm tired of the debate for this generation.

Well we all know the truth. Does this involve a certain player whose last name is Brands? ;)

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 10:08 PM
It makes sense.. How can a guy be the GOAT if his one and only rival has disposed of him in every slam final on every surface there is along with owning the h2h

BigJohn
09-08-2010, 10:31 PM
It makes sense.. How can a guy be the GOAT if his one and only rival has disposed of him in every slam final on every surface there is along with owning the h2h

That has to be the last nail in the coffin...

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2010, 10:39 PM
Because it's about career achievements, not H2H against one other player. And this isn't Federer of 2004-2007 losing to Nadal on grass or hard courts. He's older now. Let's see where Nadal is at Federer's age. Nadal may be the clay GOAT, but Federer still has TWICE as many slams. To call Nadal greater is utter nonsense.

Gilbert is as bad a tennis commentator as he was a player.

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 10:48 PM
Because it's about career achievements, not H2H against one other player. And this isn't Federer of 2004-2007 losing to Nadal on grass or hard courts. He's older now. Let's see where Nadal is at Federer's age. Nadal may be the clay GOAT, but Federer still has TWICE as many slams. To call Nadal greater is utter nonsense.

Gilbert is as bad a tennis commentator as he was a player.

potentially superior than federer is what most people mean. he is a better player now, then fed was when he was 24. Few can dispute that, but we will see if nadal can keep this up and surpass fed

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2010, 10:51 PM
I dispute it. I'd pick Federer 2005 against Nadal 2010 on anything except clay.

And Gilbert's idiotic statements alleges that Nadal is already a GOAT contender, not if he wins as many or nearly as many Slams. He's going to have to do a lot to catch up with Pete, let alone Roger.

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 10:52 PM
Because it's about career achievements, not H2H against one other player. And this isn't Federer of 2004-2007 losing to Nadal on grass or hard courts. He's older now. Let's see where Nadal is at Federer's age. Nadal may be the clay GOAT, but Federer still has TWICE as many slams. To call Nadal greater is utter nonsense.

Gilbert is as bad a tennis commentator as he was a player.


I agree in a way. But we have to remember, Fed may not be as solid NOW as he was in 04-07 overral, but at the same time Nadal of 04-07 was definitely not as good overall as he is now.. So it kind of goes both ways. And Nadal still has the chance to be right up there with Fed in achievements. Hes only improving all around.. he certainly isn't getting worse

DrJules
09-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Nadal was playing better in 2008. It's a straw man to say that Nadal's peak is 2010 because he won more slams. Federer won 3 slams in 2004 and 2007, but he played better during 2005.

Federer won 3 in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Yes, but there is so much that can happen in 5 years and before he can get least 8 Slam victories.

At the end of 2007, would you have thought that Roger would win one Slam the following year? Things can happen fast.

Arkulari
09-08-2010, 10:56 PM
GOAT = bullshit

and even if there was one, if said player couldn't get to the RG final and losing to any claycourter (not only the greatest ones of their era) then their claim would be void as well :o

Ibracadabra
09-08-2010, 10:56 PM
Nalbandian is the goat.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2010, 10:57 PM
Federer won 3 in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

And it's a damn shame he didn't win RG in 2004. The GS and stopped a farce final and clown victory.

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 10:58 PM
And to be honest.. Im not sure I would picky any incarnation of Fed to beat a Nadal at this level.. Fed just can't deal with the guy. He has never been able to really.. And sadly though.. We never got to see both at their respective bests playing each other. Nadal is at his peak now, Fed isn't.. When Fed was at his peak, Nadal wasn't

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 11:00 PM
I dispute it. I'd pick Federer 2005 against Nadal 2010 on anything except clay.

And Gilbert's idiotic statements alleges that Nadal is already a GOAT contender, not if he wins as many or nearly as many Slams. He's going to have to do a lot to catch up with Pete, let alone Roger.

well he is heavy heavy favourite at both french open and wimbledon...esp french open. he has a big chance at us open this year, if he takes it he's a got a great shot at the oz open. 2011 will tell us a lot in terms of who will be the GOAT. Federer 2005 will be more reliable on beating other players outside clay but if they face each other Nadal 2010 has bigger chances than Fed 2005

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:07 PM
It makes sense.. How can a guy be the GOAT if his one and only rival has disposed of him in every slam final on every surface there is along with owning the h2h

Maybe when a) he's by some distance the most successful player of the Open Era, and b) he's so good the only guy who threatened him enough to be considered a "rival" was 5 years his junior & started beating him consistently on all surfaces only once he was over the hill.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2010, 11:08 PM
Yes, it's certainly possible that Nadal will one day be the GOAT. However, the very idea that Roger isn't already is absolute nonsense and should prove that Gilbert joins nearly all commentators in being a complete idiot. They just need a basic questionnaire to find them.

And let's not forget that Slams are one thing, but Federer has been #1 for what? 225 weeks more than Nadal? Year-end #1: 5 times to 1. Sampras 226 weeks and 6 to 1. In 2015, we'll see. It's not like Nadal has never been injured or played badly. Also, Roger doesn't appear to be retiring anytime soon.

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 11:14 PM
Maybe when a) he's by some distance the most successful player of the Open Era, and b) he's so good the only guy who threatened him enough to be considered a "rival" was 5 years his junior & started beating him consistently on all surfaces only once he was over the hill.

Young Nadal not even consistently good on all surfaces as he is now was beating Fed when he was 17. And we can argue the only reason Fed was as dominant as he was, was due to the fact that Nadal had not yet come into his own. Well now he is. And Fed is hardly over the hill.. He isn't a dinosaur... hes the 2nd best player in the world for god sakes.. People make it sound like hes 35 and barely in the top 50. I dont get it

DrJules
09-08-2010, 11:16 PM
GOAT = bullshit

and even if there was one, if said player couldn't get to the RG final and losing to any claycourter (not only the greatest ones of their era) then their claim would be void as well :o

In the amateur era when players were ineligible to play GS events true, but in open era GS total is a reasonable criteria with all 4 of them an additional element.

You can use objective criteria, but they have to focus primarily on the 4 biggest events in tennis.

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 11:17 PM
And whats people definition of "over the hill". I dont consider a guy who has at least 1-2 slams every year, and is a top 2 player in the world and still a threat at every slam to win it, still "over the hill" Agassi in 2006? Over the hill.. Federer in 2010 hardly. There is no such a thing as a legimate "over the hill" threat at every slam.

NadalSharapova
09-08-2010, 11:19 PM
And whats people definition of "over the hill". I dont consider a guy who has at least 1-2 slams every year, and is a top 2 player in the world and still a threat at every slam to win it, still "over the hill" Agassi in 2006? Over the hill.. Federer in 2010 hardly

they only say he's over the hill cos he's getting owned by a better player.

its like when federer started beating hewitt, you can't say its because hewitt was over the hill (even tho he was better in 2001)....it was because the other had become a better player

thrust
09-08-2010, 11:19 PM
omg how many f*ing times do we need to discuss this.
WHAT WOULD THE HEAD TO HEAD BE IF NADAL WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE WIMBY AND USO FINALS IN FEDERERS PRIME???

During Federers Prime Nadal rarely made it to any finals other than on Clay, while Fed was still making Clay finals but losing to Nadal a lot of the times. What would the H2H be had Nadal made the USO finals the 5 years that Fed won and lost to him? What would the H2H be if Nadal made the wimby finals the 6 years that fed won.

BUT, Nadal being 4 or 5 years younger than Roger did not reach his near best till 08 Age does make an important difference here, which gave Roger a significant advantage over Rafa in the 04-08 time frame. Until Rafa reached his near best, Roger was beating inconsistent tier 1 and tier 2 players. Accomplishment wise, the GOAT IS LAVER closely followed by Rosewall, Gonzales, Sampras, Federer, not necessarily in that order. Nadal will be very close, especially if he wins this USO by beating Roger in the final.

DrJules
09-08-2010, 11:24 PM
And whats people definition of "over the hill". I dont consider a guy who has at least 1-2 slams every year, and is a top 2 player in the world and still a threat at every slam to win it, still "over the hill" Agassi in 2006? Over the hill.. Federer in 2010 hardly

Under any objective and rational criteria Federer has overtaken Sampras. If Nadal continues accumulating he may overtake the 14 GS of Sampras so Federer was regularly losing to a player better than Sampras. My feeling is that Federer and Nadal will both eclipse Sampras. If Nadal wins on Sunday plus 5 more GS he would be ahead of Sampras who failed to win all 4 in greatness.

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:25 PM
Young Nadal not even consistently good on all surfaces as he is now was beating Fed when he was 17. And we can argue the only reason Fed was as dominant as he was, was due to the fact that Nadal had not yet come into his own. Well now he is. And Fed is hardly over the hill.. He isn't a dinosaur... hes the 2nd best player in the world for god sakes.. People make it sound like hes 35 and barely in the top 50. I dont get it

You can take any long-time Number 1 player and put his successor's prime into his dominant period and he'd be less dominant. If Federer's prime had coincided with Sampras's, Sampras would have been less dominant. If Sampras's prime had coincided with Lendl's, Lendl would have been less dominant. Rinse & repeat with Lendl & McEnroe, McEnroe & Borg, Borg & Connors, Connors & Laver, Laver/Rosewall & Gonzales, Gonzales/Kramer & Budge, Budge/Vines & Musketeers, Musketeers & Tilden. In other words, one reason ANY dominant player is ever dominant is that his prime doesn't coincide with the next dominant player's.

Fed is still the 2nd best in the world only because he's so fucking good - or, if you like, because the rest of the field have been so disappointing. When Ivanisevic won Wimbledon at 29 it was considered a miracle. Okay, his age wasn't the only factor, but in the modern game everybody knows 29 is on the old side for a tennis player.

DrJules
09-08-2010, 11:26 PM
BUT, Nadal being 4 or 5 years younger than Roger did not reach his near best till 08 Age does make an important difference here, which gave Roger a significant advantage over Rafa in the 04-08 time frame. Until Rafa reached his near best, Roger was beating inconsistent tier 1 and tier 2 players. Accomplishment wise, the GOAT IS LAVER closely followed by Rosewall, Gonzales, Sampras, Federer, not necessarily in that order. Nadal will be very close, especially if he wins this USO by beating Roger in the final.

Only at the retirement stage will a true assessment be possible.

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:28 PM
they only say he's over the hill cos he's getting owned by a better player.

its like when federer started beating hewitt, you can't say its because hewitt was over the hill (even tho he was better in 2001)....it was because the other had become a better player

Hewitt was better before AND Federer is a better player. But we don't say Federer is a better player because he beat a past-it Hewitt. We say he's a better player because 16>2.

gbmkc
09-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Who is Brad Gilbert? GOAT is not going to be decided on his opinion. Rafa's got 8. If he beats Roger for number 9 and neither of them wins another slam, there is no way Rafa's 9 slams trump Roger's 16. That isn't going to happen.

nobama
09-08-2010, 11:30 PM
:zzz:

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:38 PM
And whats people definition of "over the hill". I dont consider a guy who has at least 1-2 slams every year, and is a top 2 player in the world and still a threat at every slam to win it, still "over the hill" Agassi in 2006? Over the hill.. Federer in 2010 hardly. There is no such a thing as a legimate "over the hill" threat at every slam.

Ever heard of Ken Rosewall?

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 11:46 PM
You can take any long-time Number 1 player and put his successor's prime into his dominant period and he'd be less dominant. If Federer's prime had coincided with Sampras's, Sampras would have been less dominant. If Sampras's prime had coincided with Lendl's, Lendl would have been less dominant. Rinse & repeat with Lendl & McEnroe, McEnroe & Borg, Borg & Connors, Connors & Laver, Laver/Rosewall & Gonzales, Gonzales/Kramer & Budge, Budge/Vines & Musketeers, Musketeers & Tilden. In other words, one reason ANY dominant player is ever dominant is that his prime doesn't coincide with the next dominant player's.

Fed is still the 2nd best in the world only because he's so fucking good - or, if you like, because the rest of the field have been so disappointing. When Ivanisevic won Wimbledon at 29 it was considered a miracle. Okay, his age wasn't the only factor, but in the modern game everybody knows 29 is on the old side for a tennis player.




So Nadal becoming a much more rounded better player has nothing to do with it? If nadal just stayed a typical garden variety clay court player Fed would still most likely be dominating 3 slams a year or at least 2 of the 4 since 2008.

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:52 PM
So Nadal becoming a much more rounded better player has nothing to do with it? If nadal just stayed a typical garden variety clay court player Fed would still most likely be dominating 3 slams a year or at least 2 of the 4 since 2008.

I honestly don't know how to answer your question except by asking you to read my posting again.

As for your statement, since 2008 Fed has lost twice in non-clay slams to Nadal and 3 times to other players. He's also been taken to 5 sets by Haas on clay, Andreev, & freaking Tipsarevic for fck's sake.

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 11:53 PM
And I dunno about using the ivanesivic analogy here. it WAS a miracle Goran won. Its not some miracle Fed is still the 2nd best player in the world. We are comparing a guy who was just lucky to win a slam in 2001 at his age to a guy who is still winning slams, winning tournaments, is #2 in the world and is still reaching at the very least QF and SF appearances consistently Again if Nadal didn't advance as a player, Fed would still be dominating slams and be far and away the world #1.. Not bad for an "over the hill" player.

SetSampras
09-08-2010, 11:55 PM
I honestly don't know how to answer your question except by asking you to read my posting again.

As for your statement, since 2008 Fed has lost twice in non-clay slams to Nadal and 3 times to other players. He's also been taken to 5 sets by Haas on clay, Andreev, & freaking Tipsarevic for fck's sake.

So what youre implying is.. its IMPOSSIBLE for a guy to show up on any given day and take Fed to the limit? Fed lost to guys in his so called "prime" and "peak" to at various times. Thats tennis. And its clay.. Fed isn't a clay marvel. Hes good but hes not unbeatable on clay..

Again.. Take Nadal out of the equation since 08 and leave him at his respective 04-07 level, Fed is grabbing 3 slams a year and is still far and away #1 right now.


But at least we agree on one thing.. The rest of the field has been disappointing

Kuhne
09-08-2010, 11:56 PM
http://www.squarehittennis.com/images/bradgilbert-allcourt-static.jpg

Credibility = 0

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:57 PM
And I dunno about using the ivanesivic analogy here. it WAS a miracle Goran won. Its not some miracle Fed is still the 2nd best player in the world. We are comparing a guy who was just lucky to win a slam in 2001 at his age to a guy who is still winning slams, winning tournaments, is #2 in the world and is still reaching at the very least QF and SF appearances consistently Again if Nadal didn't advance as a player, Fed would still be dominating slams and be far and away the world #1.. Not bad for an "over the hill" player.

Nadal had far better years & more ranking points in 2006 & 2007 than Fed has had this year. So no, even if Nadal had not improved in any way since then, he'd still be No. 1. But certainly, Federer's level of play at 29 is very impressive. It's just far below his level at 24/25, which is entirely to be expected.

Sophocles
09-08-2010, 11:58 PM
So what youre implying is.. its IMPOSSIBLE for a guy to show up on any given day and take Fed to the limit?

By no means. Just that it's been happening more often since he's been declining.

SetSampras
09-09-2010, 12:04 AM
Nadal had far better years & more ranking points in 2006 & 2007 than Fed has had this year. So no, even if Nadal had not improved in any way since then, he'd still be No. 1. But certainly, Federer's level of play at 29 is very impressive. It's just far below his level at 24/25, which is entirely to be expected.



Alot of that can have somehting to do with focus though. Obviously you are going to be more focused week in week out at 24-25 as opposed to 29 years of age. Im not denying Fed's level has dipped.. But it seems like alot of people are throwing dirt on a guy whos still the 2nd best player on the ENTIRE planet. If he was truly washed up and over the hill, he would be getting taken out at slams early and with relative ease. He wouldnt be #2 in the world or close to it. And he would have more then just Nadal who would have overtaken him. Fed can still bring the goods but again.. Why dominate week in week out or focus on that when its a "been there done that" attitude at this point. I think he CAN. Because he has shown he can bring the goods to slams since 08.. He has just CHOSEN not to do so at non slam events it seems to me.

~Maya~
09-09-2010, 12:07 AM
:haha: Gilbert. This is not the first time he said something stupid :silly:

oranges
09-09-2010, 12:10 AM
@SetSampras Stop being an idiot. Federer was taken out by others in RG and Wimbledon, not by Nadal, so quite obviously he wouldn´t be winning those regardless of Nadal being or not being there. Aside from that, you need to be blind not to see he has been slowly declining over the past 2 years.

Sophocles
09-09-2010, 12:28 AM
Alot of that can have somehting to do with focus though. Obviously you are going to be more focused week in week out at 24-25 as opposed to 29 years of age. Im not denying Fed's level has dipped.. But it seems like alot of people are throwing dirt on a guy whos still the 2nd best player on the ENTIRE planet. If he was truly washed up and over the hill, he would be getting taken out at slams early and with relative ease. He wouldnt be #2 in the world or close to it. And he would have more then just Nadal who would have overtaken him. Fed can still bring the goods but again.. Why dominate week in week out or focus on that when its a "been there done that" attitude at this point. I think he CAN. Because he has shown he can bring the goods to slams since 08.. He has just CHOSEN not to do so at non slam events it seems to me.

Of course there are mental & emotional factors in age-related decline. It's basically burn-out. Reflexes & explosiveness slowly deteriorate as well though. Endurance on the other hand can carry on getting better.

The bottom line is, nearly every major tennis player since the end of wooden racquets (& possibly some time before) has been better at 24/25 than at 29.

And obviously, decline is a relative thing. Federer is over the hill, but it's a very tall hill and he's nowhere near the bottom of it yet.

MalwareDie
09-09-2010, 12:53 AM
Federer won 3 in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

I know that he won 3 slams in 2006. I brought up 2004 and 2007 because I believe that he was a better player in 2005 than he was in both 2004 and 2007.

dombrfc
09-09-2010, 03:04 AM
God MTF has no clue

Toaderling
09-09-2010, 03:38 AM
Nadal isn't a goat. He is the solution to the world's oil crisis.

Haelfix
09-09-2010, 03:52 AM
This is such a genuinely stupid argument, that I can't believe a commentator would actually deem to say it.

Roger should just retire now, b/c wth even if he beats Nadal in the final this year, there's always next year (at age 30). No matter that he picks up another 2 or 3 slams and a few master shields, all that matters is a h2h against another legend who happens to be 6 years younger and in his prime.

ShotmaKer
09-09-2010, 04:04 AM
From Gilbert's twitter :

message boards lighting up claiming I'm a Fed-h8ter - Couldn't be further from the truth. Love how these things just escalate out of control

I wonder what his MTF username might be.

Sophocles
09-09-2010, 04:07 AM
From Gilbert's twitter :



I wonder what his MTF username might be.

Look for an American talking bullshit incessantly.

Hmm, we're a bit spoilt for choice.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-09-2010, 04:08 AM
Who said he was a Federer hater? I believe idiot was the word constantly being used.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about Gilbert.

sabina_RF_lee
09-09-2010, 04:12 AM
Brad Gilbert is just a loser, he FAILS with his trash

tennis elbow
09-09-2010, 04:16 AM
if not Federer, then who is the GOAT on his list? Sampras :rolleyes: ? He could make a case for Laver but I think Roger has retired Pete's name from GOAT discussion for good.....

ShotmaKer
09-09-2010, 04:18 AM
Look for an American talking bullshit incessantly.

Hmm, we're a bit spoilt for choice.

Sure enough.

Action Jackson
09-09-2010, 05:05 AM
Winning Ugly is still one of the best books around.

froghop
09-09-2010, 05:13 AM
I do not agree with Brad on this one. As there are many here who have already pointed out: Federer is no longer in him prime; whereas Nadal has never looked more dangerous at the USO. His serve is unbroken thus far. To say Federer losing to Nadal effectively nullifies Roger of the GOAT status is not appropriate at this stage of his career. It's not a fair comparison. It's like saying Federer >>> Sampras at Wimby because he beat him in 2001, when Sampras was not at his peak.

It's really about the matchup. Nadal is a bad, bad matchup for Federer. Federer cannot beat Nadal with regularity even in his prime. And surely Federer will NOT beat Nadal in USO 2010 should they meet. Consider this: Nadal beating Federer this Sunday would give Nadal the Career Slam, the ROGER SLAM and not just any ROGER SLAM, but a ROGER SLAM of the greatest magnitude - meaning that he would have beaten Federer in the FINALS, yes the FINAL, and I repeat, the FINALS and ALL FOUR MAJORS. How many players have ever done that to one person?

At this point, Nadal ultimately is not a BETTER player than FEDERER, nor is he the GREATER player. He just happens to beat Roger more often than not. This is a major indictment of Federer's claim to GOAT status. He is the greatest record compiler and the greatest grand slam titlelist ever.

BAMJ6
09-09-2010, 05:37 AM
As far as i'm concerned, Big Bad Fed is already better than Pete as soon as he won that FO

The only thing Pete has left on Big Bad Fed is 10-8. Years with a GS victory

1990
1993-2000
2002

Fed needs a slam victory in 2011 and 2012 to tie Pete, and add 2013 if he wants the undisputed GOAT

bokehlicious
09-09-2010, 06:13 AM
Shut up Gilbert you fuken yank!

Smoke944
09-09-2010, 06:15 AM
Brad is the man.

DUN I LOVE
09-09-2010, 06:37 AM
Tell me a guy on the tour that has beaten Nadal, 7 times.


Novak Djoković too.

sco
09-09-2010, 07:46 AM
Not only did he say this, he followed it up with this gem: If Nadal wins the US Open, it will be the single greatest year of tennis I've ever seen (barring Laver's).
Gilbert's got a really bad memory. Each of Federer's peak years > Nadal's '10 even if Nadal wins US Open.

All this H2H talk is rubbish. I guess it doesn't matter that Nadal's been a stooge for a lot of Federer's stooges.

Apophis
09-09-2010, 08:12 AM
But if Federer loses already in the semis he will still have a chance at being considered the GOAT? Gilbert probably didn't have the guts to make that additional claim explicitly, because it would make his silliness more evident.

Elena.
09-09-2010, 08:32 AM
losing in the semis won't help him either if Rafito wins this USO,if Rogie is the real Goat he'll win this USO :rolleyes: ....

kronus12
09-09-2010, 08:43 AM
Brad Gilbret is a headline seeker, until someone beat or equal Roger's slam achievement then he's the goat. To me the personal rivaly is just that, what you accomplished and achieve after the career is when the debate about who's really the goat will really heat up.

Allez
09-09-2010, 09:00 AM
He is speaking out of his ass as always. Fed is the GOAT until Nadal surpasses him in the number of slams won. That won't be for a couple of years still.

tennis2tennis
09-09-2010, 09:44 AM
Brad Tweets response (http://twitter.com/bgtennisnation)
# @bgtennisnation message boards lighting up claiming I'm a Fed-h8ter - Couldn't be further from the truth. Love how these things just escalate out of control

Jaz
09-09-2010, 09:48 AM
He's an idiot, so if federer doesn't make the final he is GOAT, but if he does and loses he's no longer the GOAT.

It's just a LOGICAL FAIL.

Beat
09-09-2010, 10:00 AM
it was brad gilbert. enough said.

cutesteve22
09-09-2010, 10:01 AM
disgusting

bokehlicious
09-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Federer has to get to the final first, and pass Söderling, which is not an easy task.

So nadull is a lock for the final?

thrust
09-09-2010, 02:05 PM
Maybe when a) he's by some distance the most successful player of the Open Era, and b) he's so good the only guy who threatened him enough to be considered a "rival" was 5 years his junior & started beating him consistently on all surfaces only once he was over the hill.

Fed has not been much more successful than Sampras. Nadal began beating Roger well before Roger went over the hill. IMO Roger is barely, if at all, physically over the hill now. Roger seems to have been blessed with basically excellent health. That and due to physical training, healthy lifestyle, and style of play will enable him to play at his near best for a few more years. The main problem for Roger is Rafa. Due to his style of play, Rafa is more prone to injury than Roger but that can be corrected. Also, Rafa is as mentally tough as Roger and has the physical ability to beat Roger more than he loses to him. For the past few years Roger-Rafa have been the: Pete-Andre, J Mac-Connors, Rosewall-Laver of this time. We are fortunate to have them both playing so well at the same time.

careergrandslam
09-09-2010, 02:24 PM
Fed has not been much more successful than Sampras. Nadal began beating Roger well before Roger went over the hill. IMO Roger is barely, if at all, physically over the hill now. Roger seems to have been blessed with basically excellent health. That and due to physical training, healthy lifestyle, and style of play will enable him to play at his near best for a few more years. The main problem for Roger is Rafa. Due to his style of play, Rafa is more prone to injury than Roger but that can be corrected. Also, Rafa is as mentally tough as Roger and has the physical ability to beat Roger more than he loses to him. For the past few years Roger-Rafa have been the: Pete-Andre, J Mac-Connors, Rosewall-Laver of this time. We are fortunate to have them both playing so well at the same time.

federer-nadal rivalry is the greatest rivalry in tennis history, they have surpassed any other rivalry from the past.

oranges
09-09-2010, 02:28 PM
federer-nadal rivalry is the greatest rivalry in tennis history, they have surpassed any other rivalry from the past.

:spit: Is it something in the water that makes tards grow like mushrooms in the rain lately?

Action Jackson
09-09-2010, 02:29 PM
:spit: Is it something in the water that makes tards grow like mushrooms in the rain lately?

Fedfan2007 or Kingfederer.

Everko
09-09-2010, 02:31 PM
:spit: Is it something in the water that makes tards grow like mushrooms in the rain lately?

I agree. Its not the gratest rivalry, its the greatest domination

Serenidad
09-09-2010, 02:50 PM
Federer was never the GOAT anyway. :zzz:

oranges
09-09-2010, 03:05 PM
I agree. Its not the gratest rivalry, its the greatest domination

That must be why Federer won most of his slams while Nadal was around. :spit:

Since you insist quoting me for some obscure reason, I must remind you you're a lying, cheating dick who promised of his own accord he'd stop posting on MTF is Soderling ever makes it past the 4th round. Not only has he done it, but the guy can't lose before quarters. Feeling stupid at least?

ElijasHsieh
09-09-2010, 03:08 PM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree?

Does that mean that if Federer loses in SF , he will not meet Nadal in fnal and then he could be GOAT??

Ridiculous

bokehlicious
09-09-2010, 03:21 PM
Federer was never the GOAT anyway. :zzz:

Brands (or Britney Spears) are :yeah: :inlove:

MalwareDie
09-09-2010, 03:27 PM
Fedfan2007 or Kingfederer.

Possibly both, because they could be the same person.

bjurra
09-09-2010, 04:14 PM
Federer was never the GOAT anyway. :zzz:

So who is?

Pancho Gonzales? Daniel Brands?

bjurra
09-09-2010, 04:15 PM
Is Gilbert saying that Nadal is the GOAT if he wins the 2010 USO? If not, who is the GOAT? Someone has to be the GOAT...

Crazy Girl
09-09-2010, 04:36 PM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree?Sorry, dudes.

But who is this Brad Gilbert?

And above all, what does he want from us?

And above-above all, why he doesn't keep these poppycocks for himself, instead of to break us the balls?

Why?:mad::mad:

Sophocles
09-09-2010, 05:07 PM
Fed has not been much more successful than Sampras. Nadal began beating Roger well before Roger went over the hill. IMO Roger is barely, if at all, physically over the hill now. Roger seems to have been blessed with basically excellent health. That and due to physical training, healthy lifestyle, and style of play will enable him to play at his near best for a few more years. The main problem for Roger is Rafa. Due to his style of play, Rafa is more prone to injury than Roger but that can be corrected. Also, Rafa is as mentally tough as Roger and has the physical ability to beat Roger more than he loses to him. For the past few years Roger-Rafa have been the: Pete-Andre, J Mac-Connors, Rosewall-Laver of this time. We are fortunate to have them both playing so well at the same time.

If you are going to be kind enough to reply to me, please read what I say. I know Nadal was able to beat Fed before 2008: I said he wasn't beating Fed consistently on all surfaces before 2008. Fed is in very good shape for his age - that's why he's still Number 2 - but he is not as good as he was before 2008. His problem is not only Rafa: since 2008, indeed since spring 2007, he has been losing to a wide range of players he never used to lose to, & he is noticeably slower & less consistent. Hwo often does he hit a jaw-dropping passing shot these days? They used to be routine for him.

I wiithdraw the "much". Fed has been more successful than Sampras.

thrust
09-09-2010, 05:33 PM
federer-nadal rivalry is the greatest rivalry in tennis history, they have surpassed any other rivalry from the past.

From 1963 till 1973, Laver played Rosewall more than 100 times. Most of the matches was when they were #1 and 2 on the Pro tour. They split their Open slam finals, with Rosewall the 71 and 72 WTC finals. Once Laver joined the pro tour in 63, either he or Rosewall was the best tennis player in the world. Noone else was even close between 63-68.

Sophocles
09-09-2010, 05:45 PM
From 1963 till 1973, Laver played Rosewall more than 100 times. Most of the matches was when they were #1 and 2 on the Pro tour. They split their Open slam finals, with Rosewall the 71 and 72 WTC finals. Once Laver joined the pro tour in 63, either he or Rosewall was the best tennis player in the world. Noone else was even close between 63-68.

Now this I can agree on 100%. Fedal doesn't come close to Lavewall. It just gets more media attention because Lavewall was mostly on the pro tour.

*Brahmin
09-09-2010, 06:30 PM
Federer, any avatar of him, won't be able to beat Nadal at his best..period! Nadal beat him him in wimby 08 and aus 09 and fed has gotten multiple grand slams after that... so i don't think fed's level of play went that much lower

This is kinda of a big deal because Nadal is his rival, they have dominated the grand slams for some time now...Sampras is great because got the better of Agassi and lendl because he got the better of someone else..having said that, there is no doubt that fed's a tennis genius and can dominate almost everybody else in the circuit (though it would have been great to see safin stay competitive, nalbandian stay healthy)

Now, if Fed loses the final to Nadal, i don't think it shades Fed's achievements...i mean we already know that Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer and Fed's close to his retirement and has a pretty ordinary year so Nadal's win over fed doesn't prove much more..it's an icing to the cake..really...and Nadal didn't meet Fed in the US open in his prime..so you can't make much conclusions..(but i doubt any fed can beat current rafa's best..and lol no one really noes what that is cuz he's such a dedicated athlete, he only keeps improving)

But a win for nadal, is going to put him as a serious contender for GOAT...being the youngest to complete the career slam, and mind you when the circuit is only getting deeper, that's a heck of an achievement...with couple of good summers (FO+W), he will surpass Sampras and have the no.1 ranking for a loong time (if he hopefully stays healthy), surpassing roger may a big more tough...but even if he's a couple of slams shy of Fed, down the road, Rafa will eventually really become the GOAT, having dominated Fed, and really everybody else.

Dougie
09-09-2010, 06:38 PM
Now this I can agree on 100%. Fedal doesn't come close to Lavewall. It just gets more media attention because Lavewall was mostly on the pro tour.

Laver and Rosewall were great players, no doubt about that. But a lot of those matches were rather meaningless, and in tournaments with only a few participants. Also if two guys play each other over a 100 times, the rivalry starts to suffer from inflation, in a way. A good rivalry needs to be over sufficiently long period of time, but it doesn´t have to consist of that many matches.

JolánGagó
09-09-2010, 06:47 PM
It makes sense.. How can a guy be the GOAT if his one and only rival has disposed of him in every slam final on every surface there is along with owning the h2h

This pretty much sums up the whole thing.

Next debate.

careergrandslam
09-09-2010, 06:52 PM
This pretty much sums up the whole thing.

Next debate.

:yeah:

anticaria
09-09-2010, 08:03 PM
[QUOTE=oranges;10339862]

That must be why Federer won most of his slams while Nadal was around.

[QUOTE]


psssst.. i'm guessing you haven't quite discovered the simple fact that rafa's 5 years roger's junior.. hence the fact that roger won most of his majors after rafa had joined the tour is entirely moot for rafa wasn't even in his all-surface prime for the greater part of their rivalry.. roger, however, was starting his prime when rafa joined the tour, and yet the swiss never once could even get past the pre-prime rafa at the french open for 4 consecutive years and, in fact, was only able to win the french cause rafa was not staring him across the net in the final last year.. not only that, but rafa was able to conquer roger at the french, wimbledon and the aussie open while the spaniard was still not even in his prime.. and, as if that were not enough, rafa could still win the uso this year on his 8th attempt.. i.e., in 3 fewer attempts than it took roger to win the french.. again, stop the absurd suggestion that rafa somehow came on the scene fully matured, in his all-surface prime and ready to step in as number one.. that would be absurd!

the reality is that roger had the advantage of having a 5-year professional and maturational headstart on rafa for the greater part of their rivalry and still the best he could do was 7:14 lifetime, 3:3 on hc and 2:1 on grass (lol) against the spaniard.. <-- that's roger's record against a pre-prime rafa.. even on hc, the best roger can do is draw even 3:3.. :eek:

which again is why the h2h domination rafa owns over roger is so superlative and significant: because it was put together before rafa even hit his prime but while roger was in his.. :wavey:

*Brahmin
09-09-2010, 08:11 PM
[QUOTE=oranges;10339862]

That must be why Federer won most of his slams while Nadal was around.

[QUOTE]


psssst.. i'm guessing you haven't quite discovered the simple fact that rafa's 5 years roger's junior.. hence the fact that roger won most of his majors after rafa had joined the tour is entirely moot for rafa wasn't even in his all-surface prime for the greater part of their rivalry.. roger, however, was starting his prime when rafa joined the tour, and yet the swiss never once could even get past the pre-prime rafa at the french open for 4 consecutive years and, in fact, was only able to win the french cause rafa was not staring him across the net in the final last year.. not only that, but rafa was able to conquer roger at the french, wimbledon and the aussie open while the spaniard was still not even in his prime.. and, as if that were not enough, rafa could still win the uso this year on his 8th attempt.. i.e., in 3 fewer attempts than it took roger to win the french.. again, stop the absurd suggestion that rafa somehow came on the scene fully matured, in his all-surface prime and ready to step in as number one.. that would be absurd!

the reality is that roger had the advantage of having a 5-year professional and maturational headstart on rafa for the greater part of their rivalry and still the best he could do was 7:14 lifetime, 3:3 on hc and 2:1 on grass (lol) against the spaniard.. <-- that's roger's record against a pre-prime rafa.. even on hc, the best roger can do is draw even 3:3.. :eek:

which again is why the h2h domination rafa owns over roger is so superlative and significant: because it was put together before rafa even hit his prime but while roger was in his.. :wavey:

can't agree more

anticaria
09-09-2010, 08:15 PM
Ahh...the old Goat discussion. What a better way to pass time while waiting for the tennis to start, right?

I've always said this: Who's the best tennis player we've had so far, throughout history?



1:Federer, right?

2:No, because of his H2H to Nadal.

1:So, Nadal?

2: Lol, no way, he's got fewer slams than most of the guys he's being compared with.

1: So, WHO IS IT?

2: It's not Federer, because of his H2H to Nadal.

1: I see.

The meaning: Person number 2 is a raging Fed hater or a future fanboy of Nadal lusting over a detail that doesn't prove his point.

Tell me a guy on the tour that has beaten Nadal, 7 times.

I know one, Roger Federer.

Take that, bitches. Federer = GOAT.

yee-haw, right?


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz the only thing more stupid/pointless than wishing to slap a 'goat' label on a player is wishing to suggest that a 14:7 h2h domination over a player in his prime by a player yet to reach his prime is not significant.. :banghead:

oranges
09-09-2010, 08:37 PM
psssst.. i'm guessing you haven't quite discovered the simple fact that rafa's 5 years roger's junior.. hence the fact that roger won most of his majors after rafa had joined the tour is entirely moot for rafa wasn't even in his all-surface prime for the greater part of their rivalry..

:secret: I was referring to the time when Nadal was already winning slams, 2005 or if you prefer 2006 and onwards. There's nothing moot about it when you're slam winner and No2 in the world. BTW, when you annoy people who are not Federer fans by any means with these Fed vs Nadal arguments, you can bet your knickers you're being an utter tool with your idiotic my dad is stronger than your dad stories. Get a grip, I doubt you're 7.

Shirogane
09-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Nadal beat him him in wimby 08 and aus 09 and fed has gotten multiple grand slams after that... so i don't think fed's level of play went that much lower
He is actually better than ever, and will even be betterer on the brink of retirement. :rocker2:

Geo
09-09-2010, 08:53 PM
if Nadal does beat Federer in the USO final, then I'll agree with Gilbert :shrug:

lazybear
09-09-2010, 09:02 PM
The most important things when it comes to tennis greatness: Slam number, year end nr.1 ranking, career slam, olympic gold, davis cup, titles. It's pretty simple, if you are better at most of these records than any other player, you're probably the GOAT. If player a, wins (a lot) more tournament than player b, he's probably the better player, and doesn't matter what their h2h is, end of story. It's not boxing. It's all about tournament titles.

Sophocles
09-09-2010, 09:05 PM
[QUOTE=oranges;10339862]

That must be why Federer won most of his slams while Nadal was around.

[QUOTE]


psssst.. i'm guessing you haven't quite discovered the simple fact that rafa's 5 years roger's junior.. hence the fact that roger won most of his majors after rafa had joined the tour is entirely moot for rafa wasn't even in his all-surface prime for the greater part of their rivalry.. roger, however, was starting his prime when rafa joined the tour, and yet the swiss never once could even get past the pre-prime rafa at the french open for 4 consecutive years and, in fact, was only able to win the french cause rafa was not staring him across the net in the final last year.. not only that, but rafa was able to conquer roger at the french, wimbledon and the aussie open while the spaniard was still not even in his prime.. and, as if that were not enough, rafa could still win the uso this year on his 8th attempt.. i.e., in 3 fewer attempts than it took roger to win the french.. again, stop the absurd suggestion that rafa somehow came on the scene fully matured, in his all-surface prime and ready to step in as number one.. that would be absurd!

the reality is that roger had the advantage of having a 5-year professional and maturational headstart on rafa for the greater part of their rivalry and still the best he could do was 7:14 lifetime, 3:3 on hc and 2:1 on grass (lol) against the spaniard.. <-- that's roger's record against a pre-prime rafa.. even on hc, the best roger can do is draw even 3:3.. :eek:

which again is why the h2h domination rafa owns over roger is so superlative and significant: because it was put together before rafa even hit his prime but while roger was in his.. :wavey:

I shouldn't be responding to mentally deficient double-account trollscum like you, but the whole premiss of your moronic excuse for an argument is slimy wank. Federer's prime was 2004-7. Nadal's record against him in that period was 6-1 on clay and 2-5 off clay, NOT 14-7. Nadal wasn't as good on hard courts as he's been from 2008 onwards, but on other surfaces he was very much the same; indeed, in 2005 he won more titles than he has in any year since. His "all-surface prime" has by any stretch of the imagination been 2008 until the present, during which period he has been playing an over-the-hill Federer and a rest of field who have for various reasons failed to live up to their potential, thus inflating his achievements. Geddit?

Manequin75
09-09-2010, 09:16 PM
no such thing as Goat. Imagine Sampras, Agassi, Fed, nadal, Borg, mcenroe all playing in one era - todays era. Sampras could just have been somebody like roddick and Agassi could have been just a more powerful Ferrer and fed could probably have won no more than 4 slams. I know those are some out of the ass assumptions but then again the whole Goat debate is from around the same zipcode :)

WHile most people have no problems dicounting a players's tournament win because of an easy draw, then why wouldnt you discount a person's whole career because he was in relatively weaker era?
SO much absurdity comparing peak nadal with over the hill fed an dpeak fed with young Rafa :)

The main question is what kind of a match will se see when fedal take position on Arthur Ash on Sunday. Man its been so long.

anticaria
09-09-2010, 09:34 PM
:secret: I was referring to the time when Nadal was already winning slams, 2005 or if you prefer 2006 and onwards. There's nothing moot about it when you're slam winner and No2 in the world. BTW, when you annoy people who are not Federer fans by any means with these Fed vs Nadal arguments, you can bet your knickers you're being an utter tool with your idiotic my dad is stronger than your dad stories. Get a grip, I doubt you're 7.


i see you're still missing the point.. i repeat: rafa put together his 14:7 h2h against roger while roger was already in his prime ('05 and beyond) but while rafa himself was not anywhere near his prime yet.. and fyi, just because rafa was winning the french open in '05, it does not mean he was anywhere near his prime even on clay back then.. it just means he was simply 100x better than everyone else on clay even at such an early stage of his pro career.. rafa can only be said to have started to reach his prime when he first conquered all 3 slam surfaces: clay, grass and hc, which would put it around the time of his '09 aussie open win..

secondly, if my arguments annoy anyone, that is certainly not my intent.. i use stats and facts to prove my points.. btw, before you call into question someone's maturity level, keep in mind that the only one hurling childish insults is you.. :wavey:

btw, i am already on record stating that the goat label argument is stupid.. what else do you want from me? the facts are what they are.. i can't help that..

oranges
09-09-2010, 09:49 PM
I see you're missing the point. Rafa was being spanked at AO and USO by Tsongas, Youzhnys and others, while Federer was collecting his slam titles. What are you exactly then being smug about? He wasn't able to make the finals on HC while Federer was in his prime, but look on the bright side, he enjoys an impressive clay-dominant H2H now.

SetSampras
09-09-2010, 10:07 PM
no such thing as Goat. Imagine Sampras, Agassi, Fed, nadal, Borg, mcenroe all playing in one era - todays era. Sampras could just have been somebody like roddick and Agassi could have been just a more powerful Ferrer and fed could probably have won no more than 4 slams. I know those are some out of the ass assumptions but then again the whole Goat debate is from around the same zipcode :)

WHile most people have no problems dicounting a players's tournament win because of an easy draw, then why wouldnt you discount a person's whole career because he was in relatively weaker era?
SO much absurdity comparing peak nadal with over the hill fed an dpeak fed with young Rafa :)

The main question is what kind of a match will se see when fedal take position on Arthur Ash on Sunday. Man its been so long.



Youre summing up the 1980s perfectly.. Some of the all time greats came in the 80s yet no one was dominant because there were just so many damn great players. There probably isnt a GOAT.. Just a greatest of their Era (GOTE. Times have changed too much.. Other eras produced more QUALITY players at the top and polarization of surfaces.. Making it more difficult to dominate

anticaria
09-09-2010, 10:28 PM
[QUOTE=anticaria;10340510][QUOTE=oranges;10339862]

That must be why Federer won most of his slams while Nadal was around.



I shouldn't be responding to mentally deficient double-account trollscum like you, but the whole premiss of your moronic excuse for an argument is slimy wank. Federer's prime was 2004-7. Nadal's record against him in that period was 6-1 on clay and 2-5 off clay, NOT 14-7. Nadal wasn't as good on hard courts as he's been from 2008 onwards, but on other surfaces he was very much the same; indeed, in 2005 he won more titles than he has in any year since. His "all-surface prime" has by any stretch of the imagination been 2008 until the present, during which period he has been playing an over-the-hill Federer and a rest of field who have for various reasons failed to live up to their potential, thus inflating his achievements. Geddit?


first of all, dude.. are you even capable of stating an opinion without hurling childish insults? sheesh.. hurling inmature insults just makes you look defeated and insecure..

secondly, rafa's all-surface prime must be dated no earlier than '09 (all slam surface mastery), but more accurately this year, as it is only now that his hc game is finally coming together and reaching its current stride of maturity, especially with regards to his serve.. rafa's prime might have started in '09 if only his tendinitis fiasco of last spring-summer had not sidelined him and delayed the process til this year..

also, by the time rafa showed up, roger was already at the start of his his prime, which means, as i have already stated, that rafa put together his h2h record against roger after the swiss was already in his prime and well before rafa had reached his.. and fyi, roger was still a force to be reckoned with as recently as '09 when he made all 4 slam finals, and won 2.. so the notion that he was already 'over the hill' in late '07 is downright absurd..

finally, regardding rafa's clay-court game, the fact is that even this year, rafa has displayed a degree of improvement and mastery on all surfaces, and especially on clay (his first clay masters triple crown this summer) that far surpasses anything he'd done before.. case in point: he's finally reached the uso quarters without dropping a set for the first time in his career..

anticaria
09-09-2010, 10:51 PM
I see you're missing the point. Rafa was being spanked at AO and USO by Tsongas, Youzhnys and others, while Federer was collecting his slam titles. What are you exactly then being smug about? He wasn't able to make the finals on HC while Federer was in his prime, but look on the bright side, he enjoys an impressive clay-dominant H2H now.

who said anything about being smug, dude? we're just discussing stats.. stats are what they are.. i didn't manufacture them.. roger was collecting slam titles at hc majors at a time when the spaniard's game had not fully matured or translated to the dominating all-surface game we see today.. that's exactly my point.. i.e., roger was dominating while a still pre-prime nadal was struggling to grow and mature his game.. a 5-year difference is quite significant.. and yet, rafa was still adcvancing to meet roger on all surfaces often enough to dominate that h2h to the tune of 14:7.. that's what's so remarkable about it: the fact that it was put together by a kid who had not even reached his prime yet over a player who had..

oranges
09-09-2010, 11:01 PM
:spit: You should really look up 'fact' in the dictionary. Definition of boring tard baloney post after post after post.

I hope there isn't a limit to number of people on ignore, my list is getting crowded

Sophocles
09-09-2010, 11:04 PM
[QUOTE=Sophocles;10340697][QUOTE=anticaria;10340510]


first of all, dude.. are you even capable of stating an opinion without hurling childish insults? sheesh.. hurling inmature insults just makes you look defeated and insecure..

secondly, rafa's all-surface prime must be dated no earlier than '09 (all slam surface mastery), but more accurately this year, as it is only now that his hc game is finally coming together and reaching its current stride of maturity, especially with regards to his serve.. rafa's prime might have started in '09 if only his tendinitis fiasco of last spring-summer had not sidelined him and delayed the process til this year..

also, by the time rafa showed up, roger was already at the start of his his prime, which means, as i have already stated, that rafa put together his h2h record against roger after the swiss was already in his prime and well before rafa had reached his.. and fyi, roger was still a force to be reckoned with as recently as '09 when he made all 4 slam finals, and won 2.. so the notion that he was already 'over the hill' in early '08 is downright absurd..

finally, regardding rafa's clay-court game, the fact is that even this year, rafa has displayed a degree of improvement and mastery on all surfaces, and especially on clay (his first clay masters triple crown this summer) that far surpasses anything he'd done before.. case in point: he's finally reached the uso quarters without dropping a set for the first time in his career..

First of all, "dude", you are an Internet troll, somebody who wastes considerable portions of his life spouting rubbish he doesn't believe for the sole purpose of getting a reaction from people he otherwise assumes would ignore him. How insecure & defeated is that?

Secondly, Rafa's best year on the tour so far was 2008, so it's a rather strange idea that his prime didn't start then. The marginal improvement in his serve in this one tournament and the entirely unremarkable fact he has yet to lose a set against out-of-form players & mediocrities are of zero importance compared to that. He has it is true had his best clay season to date, but that is because he finally decided to skip Barcelona, meaning he wasn't playing the 3rd clay Masters having already played for 2 weeks on the trot.

Thirdly, Federer may still be a threat in slams, but that is quite a comedown from his position in 2004-7, when he was the prohibitive favourite in 3 out of 4. And of course, as you yourself have pointed out in your various different guises, his Channel Slam in 2009 was partly facilitated by the removal of Nadal.

You know all this of course. But you just can't help trolling can you?

tennismaster1978
09-09-2010, 11:12 PM
Roger will still be the best in my opinion. At 28 years old, Roger is not as good as he use to be. Remember the Federer fun house? 28 years of age in tennis is getting up there. If Rafa played him 3 years ago and beat him at the US open then Brad Gilbert may have a point. The fedal final will be Rafa in his prime and Federer declining. Now if Rafa can win more slams than Federer does at the end of his career than he may be the goat. Or, if Rafa can dominate the tour as did Roger in 04 and 05.

anticaria
09-10-2010, 12:16 AM
:spit: You should really look up 'fact' in the dictionary. Definition of boring tard baloney post after post after post.




zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz more bs insults and yet not an ounce of common sense to be found anywhere.. :banghead:

oranges
09-10-2010, 12:21 AM
Truth hurts :shrug:

anticaria
09-10-2010, 12:29 AM
[QUOTE=anticaria;10340954][QUOTE=Sophocles;10340697]

First of all, "dude", you are an Internet troll, somebody who wastes considerable portions of his life spouting rubbish he doesn't believe for the sole purpose of getting a reaction from people he otherwise assumes would ignore him. How insecure & defeated is that?

Secondly, Rafa's best year on the tour so far was 2008, so it's a rather strange idea that his prime didn't start then. The marginal improvement in his serve in this one tournament and the entirely unremarkable fact he has yet to lose a set against out-of-form players & mediocrities are of zero importance compared to that. He has it is true had his best clay season to date, but that is because he finally decided to skip Barcelona, meaning he wasn't playing the 3rd clay Masters having already played for 2 weeks on the trot.

Thirdly, Federer may still be a threat in slams, but that is quite a comedown from his position in 2004-7, when he was the prohibitive favourite in 3 out of 4. And of course, as you yourself have pointed out in your various different guises, his Channel Slam in 2009 was partly facilitated by the removal of Nadal.

You know all this of course. But you just can't help trolling can you?


i see you still haven't run out of angry sophomoric insults.. :zzz:

btw, before your head explodes :explode:, i think we'd better be mature about this and agree to disagree, ok, dude? and, for the record, you were the one who decided to respond to me in the first place, so it appears you're the one trolling my posts.. so perhaps, in the future, if you're incapable of having an adult debate, then you ought to pick your battles a tad more carefully cause when it comes to the roger vs. rafa rivalry, that angry and insecure disposition of yours automatically strips your so-called argument of any credible objectivity.. now have a good day and try not to take things so personally!:wavey:

ZaZoo)
09-10-2010, 12:32 AM
Not that I care what Gilbert says but if those two meet more and Nadal continues to beat him, even on HC, I see Nadal as the best one if he continues to dominate to his 30's..

anticaria
09-10-2010, 12:32 AM
Truth hurts :shrug:

i didn't mean to hurt your feelings, oranges.. there, feel better? :wavey:

BigJohn
09-10-2010, 12:42 AM
It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson

oranges
09-10-2010, 12:52 AM
i didn't mean to hurt your feelings, oranges.. there, feel better? :wavey:

Don't worry, you can only hurt one's brain :hug:

anticaria
09-10-2010, 01:54 AM
Don't worry, you can only hurt one's brain :hug:

from the looks of that totally nonsensical sentence, i take it you're speaking from personal experience.. lol :wavey:

oranges
09-10-2010, 02:08 AM
from the looks of that totally nonsensical sentence, i take it you're speaking from personal experience.. lol :wavey:

I do, you can feel brain cells die from reading your crap.

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 02:23 AM
[QUOTE=Sophocles;10341063][QUOTE=anticaria;10340954]


i see you still haven't run out of angry sophomoric insults.. :zzz:

btw, before your head explodes :explode:, i think we'd better be mature about this and agree to disagree, ok, dude? and, for the record, you were the one who decided to respond to me in the first place, so it appears you're the one trolling my posts.. so perhaps, in the future, if you're incapable of having an adult debate, then you ought to pick your battles a tad more carefully cause when it comes to the roger vs. rafa rivalry, that angry and insecure disposition of yours automatically strips your so-called argument of any credible objectivity.. now have a good day and try not to take things so personally!:wavey:

"Sophomoric" insults? You've slipped up there mate, I've seen that adjective from one of your many other accounts.

Exposing a troll isn't trolling. In this post you have conceded you have no argument. Why don't you try to develop some real opinions? You'll find life more fulfilling.

Johnny Groove
09-10-2010, 02:25 AM
Don't waste your time, Sophocles.

As a 20 year old sage, I've learned much in my years on MTF and debating a troll is not worth the effort.

Action Jackson
09-10-2010, 02:31 AM
Don't waste your time, Sophocles.

As a 20 year old sage, I've learned much in my years on MTF and debating a troll is not worth the effort.

Well, good trolls are important on a message board. The quality of trolling has regressed.

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 02:34 AM
Don't waste your time, Sophocles.

As a 20 year old sage, I've learned much in my years on MTF and debating a troll is not worth the effort.

You're right of course. I just find it hard to understand how anybody can waste his time BEING a troll.

I guess you've got a nerdy loser at school nobody likes, who imagines he can compensate by being clever, but finds however hard he works, he can never do as well as the 3 or 4 guys who are just effortlessly cleverer than him. Realising he can't compete in real arguments with clever people, he uses fake arguments to annoy them instead.

Vaguely reminiscent of Robert Wringhim in The Private Memoirs & Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg.

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 02:35 AM
Well, good trolls are important on a message board. The quality of trolling has regressed.

Dreadfully.

I mean who is there? DorianGray ffs? Whatever happened to mistercrabs & GrosjeantheGreat?

Johnny Groove
09-10-2010, 02:36 AM
Well, good trolls are important on a message board. The quality of trolling has regressed.

Considerably.

You're right of course. I just find it hard to understand how anybody can waste his time BEING a troll.

I guess you've got a nerdy loser at school nobody likes, who imagines he can compensate by being clever, but finds however hard he works, he can never do as well as the 3 or 4 guys who are just effortlessly cleverer than him. Realising he can't compete in real arguments with clever people, he uses fake arguments to annoy them instead.

Vaguely reminiscent of Robert Wringhim in The Private Memoirs & Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg.

I was with you until the James Hogg reference.

I'm drawing a complete blank.

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 02:41 AM
I was with you until the James Hogg reference.

I'm drawing a complete blank.

It's a great novel. Early 19th Century. About a total arsehole who's a Calvinist fanatic - similar situation at school to your classic troll - who imagines he's one of the "Elect" & reckons he can do whatever he likes as a consequence. Turns out of course it's the Devil who's been manipulating him all along. Thoroughly recommend it.

Johnny Groove
09-10-2010, 02:44 AM
It's a great novel. Early 19th Century. About a total arsehole who's a Calvinist fanatic - similar situation at school to your classic troll - who imagines he's one of the "Elect" & reckons he can do whatever he likes as a consequence. Turns out of course it's the Devil who's been manipulating him all along. Thoroughly recommend it.

Sounds right up my alley. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :yeah:

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 02:57 AM
Sounds right up my alley. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :yeah:

You'll love it.

The Magician
09-10-2010, 03:23 AM
Makes me feel better to know all these crazy Nadaltards are actually the same dude making accounts. I was like, "no way there are this many crazy people in the world," but it turns out it's just one very crazy dude with multiple personalities (who all worship Nadal :lol:)

anticaria
09-10-2010, 03:24 AM
[QUOTE=anticaria;10341382][QUOTE=Sophocles;10341063]

"Sophomoric" insults? You've slipped up there mate, I've seen that adjective from one of your many other accounts.

Exposing a troll isn't trolling. In this post you have conceded you have no argument. Why don't you try to develop some real opinions? You'll find life more fulfilling.



dude, stop embarrassing yourself with this mindless paranoia.. what a ridiculous thing to even insinuate.. it's not like i own the trademark for sole use of the word 'sophomoric'.. :haha:

you're so busy lashing out at these imaginary 'trolls' you see in your own insecure mind that you don't realize you've become a raging stalking troll yourself.. as i said, you were the one who cluelessly responded to me with tired insults and ludicrously desperate declarations such as: rafa's been playing an over-the-hill roger since '07.. as if! lmao!!! and yet you have the audacity to pretend to lecture others on their so-called lack of argumentative skills??? lol bro please.. don't waste my time with your tired bs and learn to pick your battles a tad more astutely.. and while you're at it, stop trolling my posts.. let's agree to disagree and move on.. sheesh.. have a good day! :wavey:

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 03:28 AM
haha, sophomoric.......i like the word........

anticaria
09-10-2010, 03:30 AM
I do, you can feel brain cells die from reading your crap.


hey don't blame your poor grammar and lack of reading comprehension on me, pal.. :wavey:

and if you don't want to read my so-called 'crap,' there's an easy solution: stop stalking and trolling my posts.. but i guess that would make entirely too much sense.. :wavey:

jcreback
09-10-2010, 03:30 AM
haha, sophomoric.......i like the word........

You forgot to log into the other account to post that.

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 03:37 AM
Brad Gilbert on ESPN and he said how he loves seeing Fed vs. Nadal in the final. He then said, if Rafa beats Roger in US Open Final, the discussion is over and Fed has no chance of being considered the GOAT. Agree?

it doesn't even matter whether we agree or not, because people are slowly getting out of the media hype for that swiss ballet dancer and are already starting to realize that nadal owns federer.......a victory in the us final will be such a telling fact for that.......

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 03:38 AM
You forgot to log into the other account to post that.

what?

BigJohn
09-10-2010, 03:39 AM
it doesn't even matter whether we agree or not, because people are slowly getting out of the media hype for that swiss ballet dancer and are already starting to realize that nadal owns federer.......a victory in the us final will be such a telling fact for that.......

See, posts like this tell everybody you don't really like tennis.

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 03:41 AM
even if Rafa wins 25 GS and 63 MS he still won't be the GOAT because it doesn't exist, same as Roger isn't that

commentators like BG only like to stir shit and people let that get to their head

this USO is Rafa's to lose, so what? will that make Roger less of a player? h2h is not something to measure greatness, it's just an statistic measure of how two players match up, including surface, rounds, etc

you gotta be really stupid if you believe h2h is everything :shrug:

BigJohn
09-10-2010, 03:44 AM
even if Rafa wins 25 GS and 63 MS he still won't be the GOAT because it doesn't exist, same as Roger isn't that

commentators like BG only like to stir shit and people let that get to their head

this USO is Rafa's to lose, so what? will that make Roger less of a player? h2h is not something to measure greatness, it's just an statistic measure of how two players match up, including surface, rounds, etc

you gotta be really stupid if you believe h2h is everything :shrug:

He really and totally believes.

crude oil
09-10-2010, 03:47 AM
Fed has not been much more successful than Sampras. Nadal began beating Roger well before Roger went over the hill. IMO Roger is barely, if at all, physically over the hill now. Roger seems to have been blessed with basically excellent health. That and due to physical training, healthy lifestyle, and style of play will enable him to play at his near best for a few more years. The main problem for Roger is Rafa. Due to his style of play, Rafa is more prone to injury than Roger but that can be corrected. Also, Rafa is as mentally tough as Roger and has the physical ability to beat Roger more than he loses to him. For the past few years Roger-Rafa have been the: Pete-Andre, J Mac-Connors, Rosewall-Laver of this time. We are fortunate to have them both playing so well at the same time.

FAIL.

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 03:48 AM
I don't know why people are more thrilled at the fact that Rafa might be able to beat Roger in the USO final than the fact that Rafa will get his CGS

that shows you what they really are about :o

we're watching history in the making here guys if both of them make the final and people are just thinking about "my penis is bigger than yours"

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 03:58 AM
See, posts like this tell everybody you don't really like tennis.

wrong, it actually tells people about the changing trends.......of course MTF is filled with federphiles mostly.......so it's tough to expect any maturity obviously.......

the kind of bitchfests some of his clown fans are carrying out already should only suggest that they are terrified at the thought of nadal winning the us open and are getting very protective.......

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 03:59 AM
if Rafa wins the USO, he gets his CGS
if Roger wins the USO, he breaks the Open Era record for this GS

what's there to lose for a tennis fan? :shrug:

Johnny Groove
09-10-2010, 04:00 AM
Easy as a Fedal fan, Nat.

Mechlan
09-10-2010, 04:00 AM
if Rafa wins the USO, he gets his CGS
if Roger wins the USO, he breaks the Open Era record for this GS

what's there to lose for a tennis fan? :shrug:

It would be a historical match for sure. And this forum will explode regardless of who wins.

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 04:02 AM
I know Jon, but people are still going over that whole pointless discussion when there could be history in the making

heck I never liked Sampras but I rooted for him when he was going for his 12th Slam, I wanted to see history in the making and wasn't really that mad when he beat Patrick the year after :shrug:

BigJohn
09-10-2010, 04:06 AM
wrong, it actually tells people about the changing trends.......of course MTF is filled with federphiles mostly.......so it's tough to expect any maturity obviously.......

the kind of bitchfests some of his clown fans are carrying out already should only suggest that they are terrified at the thought of nadal winning the us open and are getting very protective.......

No. It tells Nadal makes your mangina tingle.

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 04:07 AM
http://www.memorylast.net/content/graphics/animated-gifs/popcorn.gif

HarryMan
09-10-2010, 04:09 AM
There will never be a GOAT. You can always argue looking at different parameters. For example, during Borg's era, AO was not very popular slam title and most people didn't care much about it. That is not the case now. Therefore perhaps we need to exclude AO championships to compare players from different era's.

Similarly, who is to say we cannot get a new slam in future and all of this past results pale in comparison to the new sensation 10 years down the line?

At the moment, Federer is the most successfule slam player the way it stands, and no one can deny that. It is difficult calling him or anyone else as the GOAT. It is just stupid. Because all era's are different and different parameters need to be considered while discussing it.

Enjoy these players while they are there. That's the way I look at out. Enjoy each era. And This era has been all about Federer and Nadal.

anticaria
09-10-2010, 04:09 AM
even if Rafa wins 25 GS and 63 MS he still won't be the GOAT because it doesn't exist, same as Roger isn't that

commentators like BG only like to stir shit and people let that get to their head

this USO is Rafa's to lose, so what? will that make Roger less of a player? h2h is not something to measure greatness, it's just an statistic measure of how two players match up, including surface, rounds, etc

you gotta be really stupid if you believe h2h is everything :shrug:


i don't think anyone actually believes h2hs 'are everything'.. h2hs are just another significant piece of the overall picture..

however, what is truly 'stupid' is folks twisting themselves into all sorts of pretzel configurations in order to peevishly deny the importance of a certain h2h just because a player they idolize just happens to be on the losing end of that equation.. it's silly and absurd..

rafa's h2h only transcends the merely mundane statistical realm by virtue of whom it is against (the presumptive goat, whatever that is) and of the fact that it was put together while the presumptive goat was in his prime by a player nowhere near his..

let's accept that stat for what it is and let's stop trying to belittle its significance for whatever peevish reason(s)..

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 04:10 AM
[QUOTE=Sophocles;10341947][QUOTE=anticaria;10341382]



dude, stop embarrassing yourself with this mindless paranoia.. what a ridiculous thing to even insinuate.. it's not like i own the trademark for sole use of the word 'sophomoric'.. :haha:

you're so busy lashing out at these imaginary 'trolls' you see in your own insecure mind that you don't realize you've become a raging stalking troll yourself.. as i said, you were the one who cluelessly responded to me with tired insults and ludicrously desperate declarations such as: rafa's been playing an over-the-hill roger since '07.. as if! lmao!!! and yet you have the audacity to pretend to lecture others on their so-called lack of argumentative skills??? lol bro please.. don't waste my time with your tired bs and learn to pick your battles a tad more astutely.. and while you're at it, stop trolling my posts.. let's agree to disagree and move on.. sheesh.. have a good day! :wavey:

At least try and be funny.

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 04:12 AM
it is as important as the h2h between Rafa and Denko, or do you really believe Denko is a better player? :shrug:

Roger matches up atrociously against Rafa and many matches have been pretty close, Rafa has won fair and square and knows how to play Roger, does that really say something more than the fact that they are the two true titans of their era and have faced each other in tons of finals?

I don't deny the h2h, it is 14-7, it is what it is, my point is that it isn't anything but a minor fraction of their accomplishments and I'd rather have Roger losing to a marvelous player like Rafa than to the mugs of the week :shrug:

HarryMan
09-10-2010, 04:14 AM
This head to head doesn't mean much today. But should Nadal get close to Federer in future, yes, people will give him the edge if the number of slam titles are the same.

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 04:16 AM
we're watching history in the making here guys if both of them make the final and people are just thinking about "my penis is bigger than yours"

An awful lot of Rafatrolls are basically nerdy saddoes who are insecure about their masculinity and in many cases uncertain of their sexuality. This is painfully evident when they try to get all macho about, for example, Federer's crying at the Australian Open. Apart from those who hail from India, a lot of these small-dicked repressed homosexuals seem to be American, which I suppose must just be a nasty side-effect of the depredations of the Feminazis there.

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 04:18 AM
rafa's h2h only transcends the merely mundane statistical realm by virtue of whom it is against (the presumptive goat, whatever that is) and of the fact that it was put together while the presumptive goat was in his prime by a player nowhere near his..

Classic trolling, mindlessly repeating an argument that's already been utterly refuted.

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 04:20 AM
I really don't know many RafaTARDS (fans are a LOT) who are Spanish, at least we would have the nationalistic excuse :p

bashing men crying or ballet is a perfect example of repressed personalities and people who have no idea what they are talking about (I would love to watch them TRYING to do ballet and crying in pain while doing so ;) )

same as the Rafahaters who always look for an excuse or a conspiracy when Rafa is doing well outside of clay (they have pretty much resigned themselves in that surface :lol: )

I honestly don't like some players but I don't go to their every thread to bash them :shrug:

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 04:23 AM
No. It tells Nadal makes your mangina tingle.

haha, why would you even have such a thought in your mind unless you yourself are like that with that fragile ballet dancer? effing clown, know that your mum will do perfect for me because i am straight.......

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 04:25 AM
haha, why would you even have such a thought in your mind unless you yourself are like that when you see that fragile ballet dancer? effing clown, know that your mum will do perfect for me because i am straight.......

Classy.

You're not fooling anyone with your big man act.

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 04:29 AM
An awful lot of Rafatrolls are basically nerdy saddoes who are insecure about their masculinity and in many cases uncertain of their sexuality. This is painfully evident when they try to get all macho about, for example, Federer's crying at the Australian Open. Apart from those who hail from India, a lot of these small-dicked repressed homosexuals seem to be American, which I suppose must just be a nasty side-effect of the depredations of the Feminazis there.

haha, this coming from someone who hardly spends any time in the real world.......what's more, it's aimed at those who just come here to chillax for an hour or so once in 2 days.......

keep it up, i have never seen such hilarity in recent times.......we are not even nearing the final and such protective stuff already........ :haha:

Sophocles
09-10-2010, 04:33 AM
haha, this coming from someone who hardly spends any time in the real world.......what's more, it's aimed at those who just come here to chillax for an hour or so once in 2 days.......

keep it up, i have never seen such hilarity in recent times.......we are not even nearing the final and such protective stuff already........ :haha:

Hate to break it to you, but heterosexuals with functioning sperm who've been able to pull women often have children, and as a result are sometimes at home.

allpro
09-10-2010, 04:36 AM
some people love taking the bait.

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 04:36 AM
I really don't know many RafaTARDS (fans are a LOT) who are Spanish, at least we would have the nationalistic excuse :p

bashing men crying or ballet is a perfect example of repressed personalities and people who have no idea what they are talking about (I would love to watch them TRYING to do ballet and crying in pain while doing so ;) )

same as the Rafahaters who always look for an excuse or a conspiracy when Rafa is doing well outside of clay (they have pretty much resigned themselves in that surface :lol: )

I honestly don't like some players but I don't go to their every thread to bash them :shrug:

yeah, keep supporting your fedtard pals, dearest fed-all fan arkulari.........they have started getting down to throwing sexual insults and it doesn't surprise me that you are taking their side as usual....... :haha:

Commander Data
09-10-2010, 04:38 AM
I'm looking foreward to talk to start da fail come next monday ;)

Arkulari
09-10-2010, 04:41 AM
ermm, you're not a saint either Shankar and you take their bait, so where do I fit in that?

I defend people who actually deserve to be defended, you just walk into everything yourself throwing insults and then expect not to be insulted back, don't think you can get away with things when you're simply not reasonable

Haters are equally stupid in my book, whether they hate Rafa, Roger or the Gooch :shrug:

Start da Game
09-10-2010, 04:42 AM
Hate to break it to you, but heterosexuals with functioning sperm who've been able to pull women often have children, and as a result are sometimes at home.

you have just contradicted yourself with this post and the post you made earlier about nadal fans....... :haha: goes to show who's really insecure.......

i am loving this clown show from fed's greatest tards, would love more after the final.......