If Rafa wins tomorrow, will tards finally stop assigning asterisks to RG09? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Rafa wins tomorrow, will tards finally stop assigning asterisks to RG09?

Pirata.
09-12-2010, 01:53 AM
Now that Rafa has reached the final and has a chance to win the USO tomorrow, will Nadaltards and Fedhaters finally stop putting an asterisk on Fed winning RG, similarity will the Fedtards and Nadalhaters stop trying to devalue Rafa's win?

If Rafa doesn't have to go through the 5-time champion/6-time finalist to win his first US Open, then tards should stop trying to use the "Roger didn't have to beat Rafa to win his first French Open!!!"> argument.

So basically, can the fans both sides just agree that you play whoever is on the other side of the net and it doesn't matter if you don't beat the multiple time champion as long as you win?

SheepleBuster
09-12-2010, 01:54 AM
Meh. Who cares. A win is a win is a win.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-12-2010, 01:55 AM
also nadal didnt play murray or del potro

or nalbandian/ davydenko/ blake/roddick

obvious draw fixing is obvious

cloudeleven
09-12-2010, 01:55 AM
tards gonna hate. :dance:

Topspindoctor
09-12-2010, 01:55 AM
Never! Fed's RG will always be tainted.

Pirata.
09-12-2010, 01:57 AM
Never! Fed's RG will always be tainted.

If you use this logic, then Nadal's USO is tainted and undeserved.

Chair Umpire
09-12-2010, 01:58 AM
Nice try but Nole is already a GS winner and seeded #3.

Soderling was a nobody and he still is.

moon language
09-12-2010, 02:03 AM
If you use this logic, then Nadal's USO is tainted and undeserved.

The situations aren't comparable. Nadal was always the one stopping Federer from winning the US Open. Federer has never stopped Nadal at the US Open.

Silvester
09-12-2010, 02:15 AM
The situations aren't comparable. Nadal was always the one stopping Federer from winning the US Open. Federer has never stopped Nadal at the US Open.

Because he was never good enough to make it that far!!! Your basically saying it would have been better for Fed to never make the RG finals before winning it.

Roddickominator
09-12-2010, 02:22 AM
There being no Del Potro here is a bigger asterisk than no Fed.

Johnny Groove
09-12-2010, 02:24 AM
There should never be asterisks to begin with.

You beat who you draw. If you win 7 in a row, you deserve the title.

Roamed
09-12-2010, 02:26 AM
I hope so, but haters often defy logic and reason, so I don't imagine it will be any different here...

Silvester
09-12-2010, 02:26 AM
There should never be asterisks to begin with.

You beat who you draw. If you win 7 in a row, you deserve the title.


Tell that to all the people astricking the RG09 title.

Fed had #5 and #3 seed to get to the finals. Nadal had a #8 and a #12

moon language
09-12-2010, 02:30 AM
Because he was never good enough to make it that far!!! Your basically saying it would have been better for Fed to never make the RG finals before winning it.

No I'm not saying that. I don't believe in asterisks, or at least in the sense that they carry negative connotations.

These are different situations. Before his streak of losing to Nadal at Roland Garros Federer lost to other people. Nadal is almost at the same age Federer was when he began going deep at Roland Garros and began his streak of losing to Nadal. It remains to be seen if Nadal will have a similar nemesis to overcome who keeps him from completing his career slam.

Chloe le Bopper
09-12-2010, 03:13 AM
Nobody intelligent has ever seriously put an asterisk after any slam champion. No, not even the ones that Agassi won against Clement and Schuettler. Or that one that JCF won. No, not even for Tojo's. In short, only idiots and trolls apply the asterisk. That, and those of us who are funny and know how to use one properly.

That being said, that you think Nadal facing Federer in a USO Final in 2010 is somehow equally as daunting as Fed facing Nadal in any RG final ever, is very, very cute.

jenanun
09-12-2010, 03:51 AM
The difference is nadal has beaten Roger in a hard court slam bit Roger never beat nadal in a clay court slam...

Lourdes
09-12-2010, 03:55 AM
The difference is nadal has beaten Roger in a hard court slam bit Roger never beat nadal in a clay court slam...

Simple logic. Thank you.

Infinity
09-12-2010, 04:28 AM
No I'm not saying that. I don't believe in asterisks, or at least in the sense that they carry negative connotations.

These are different situations. Before his streak of losing to Nadal at Roland Garros Federer lost to other people. Nadal is almost at the same age Federer was when he began going deep at Roland Garros and began his streak of losing to Nadal. It remains to be seen if Nadal will have a similar nemesis to overcome who keeps him from completing his career slam.

Well said.

Besides, Roger has an asterisk against former greats not against Nadal.

paseo
09-12-2010, 04:59 AM
Well if they do, then they stop being tards now, don't they?

Tards will always be tards.

River
09-12-2010, 05:23 AM
This is entirely different.

Rafa was undefeated in Roland Garros until his loss to Soderling. Federer was NOT undefeated in Flushing Meadows; in fact, he lost to Del Potro.

Federer's dominance in the US Open, in my eyes, did not compare at all to the dominance of Rafael Nadal at the French. For one thing, he denied the assumed-GOAT the FO title numberous times, especially the world-famous spanking Federer was delivered on one of those occassions.

Federer was /denied/ the title by Rafa on almost every occassion. I could only assume that, had Rafa made it to the final, Federer would probably not have won.

The US Open is clearly different. It's their first meeting at the US Open in a final, with Rafa resurged and Federer no longer the dominant player in the USO.

jcempire
09-12-2010, 05:29 AM
also nadal didnt play murray or del potro

or nalbandian/ davydenko/ blake/roddick

obvious draw fixing is obvious

LOL

those names all suck this time. Sorry about it.

jcempire
09-12-2010, 05:30 AM
The difference is nadal has beaten Roger in a hard court slam bit Roger never beat nadal in a clay court slam...

Your right, Nadal is still better than Fed if both plays their best

anticaria
09-12-2010, 06:11 AM
Now that Rafa has reached the final and has a chance to win the USO tomorrow, will Nadaltards and Fedhaters finally stop putting an asterisk on Fed winning RG, similarity will the Fedtards and Nadalhaters stop trying to devalue Rafa's win?

If Rafa doesn't have to go through the 5-time champion/6-time finalist to win his first US Open, then tards should stop trying to use the "Roger didn't have to beat Rafa to win his first French Open!!!"> argument.

So basically, can the fans both sides just agree that you play whoever is on the other side of the net and it doesn't matter if you don't beat the multiple time champion as long as you win?



apples and oranges..

rafa leads roger 14:7, 6:2 at the majors, 5:2 in slam finals, and has beaten roger in the finals on all slam surfaces (clay, grass and hc='09 aussie open).. in other words, rafa 'owns' roger at the slams on all surfaces and does not need to beat roger anywhere on any surface to prove anything to anyone at the majors.. hence, no asterisk needed tomorrow..

by comparison, roger trails rafa 2:10 on clay and has never beaten rafa at r garros despite 4 attempts ('05-08), most disastrously in the '08 final, the most lopsided loss ever by a number-one-ranked player in a slam final.. i.e., roger still has to prove himself against rafa at r garros, which is why the swiss' win at r garros in '09 without having to go through rafa (roger's worst nemesis, the defending champion, the best clay-court player of his generation or perhaps ever, and the man who's denied him on 4-consecutive occasions) leaves much to be desired.. hence the asterisk..

like i said: apples and oranges..

kindling
09-12-2010, 06:15 AM
If Fed gets an asterisk for RG, Nadal gets one here, actually he gets 6 asterisks, one for each round of the cakewalk draw. And then a double asterisk for the two spaniard rounds, essentially walkovers, bringing the grand total to 8!

Rafael Nadal: 2010 US Open Champion********

Topspindoctor
09-12-2010, 06:24 AM
If Fed gets an asterisk for RG, Nadal gets one here, actually he gets 6 asterisks, one for each round of the cakewalk draw. And then a double asterisk for the two spaniard rounds, essentially walkovers, bringing the grand total to 8!

Rafael Nadal: 2010 US Open Champion********

Don't even go there. Federer has won so many clown slams it's unbelievable :o Facing tennis juggernauts like Hewitt and Phillipousis in slam finals was sure difficult :rolleyes: Not to mention his pigeon Roddick. I won't even go into one slam finalists like Mugdatis and Gonzalez.

Skyward
09-12-2010, 06:29 AM
Irrelevant. History only remembers the winner. Draws and F***ed up scheduling will be forgotten.

BigJohn
09-12-2010, 06:44 AM
Rafatards will never let go of Federer's *, yet they won't ever acknowledge the many * that can be placed next to Nadal. It's called bad faith.

Mechlan
09-12-2010, 06:58 AM
You can only beat who's in front of you. Why is that so hard to understand?

Snowwy
09-12-2010, 06:59 AM
There should never be asterisks to begin with.

You beat who you draw. If you win 7 in a row, you deserve the title.

This

FormerRafaFan
09-12-2010, 07:44 AM
Federer won fair and square in 09. There's no doubt about that. Do I think he would've won if Rafa was there? Probably not. Still, he won and he deserved it. Same goes for this years USO and Nadal not facing Murray.

Chair Umpire
09-12-2010, 05:47 PM
The difference is nadal has beaten Roger in a hard court slam bit Roger never beat nadal in a clay court slam...

QFT.

BigJohn
09-12-2010, 06:27 PM
The difference is nadal has beaten Roger in a hard court slam bit Roger never beat nadal in a clay court slam...

Simple logic. Thank you.

QFT.

Too simple, actually simplistic. Nadal did not make the FO final the year Federer won it. If you are not good enough to make the final, it is a stretch to imagine you would beat the eventual champ. No?

juninhOH
09-12-2010, 06:44 PM
ask agassi what he thinks about defeating medvedev in the final

he doesnt care, he beat the runner-up and that says it all

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-12-2010, 06:49 PM
Too simple, actually simplistic. Nadal did not make the FO final the year Federer won it. If you are not good enough to make the final, it is a stretch to imagine you would beat the eventual champ. No?

Wow...the lack of logic is pathetic
Grow up Fedtard

Sapeod
09-12-2010, 06:49 PM
tards gonna hate. :dance:
Is that all you post?

Sapeod
09-12-2010, 06:51 PM
Nadaltards will never stop moaning about RG 09.

Soderling def. Nadal 6-2 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2).

Ouch, still stings, doesn't it?

Matt01
09-12-2010, 07:25 PM
Nadaltards will never stop moaning about RG 09.

Soderling def. Nadal 6-2 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2).

Ouch, still stings, doesn't it?


The real Nadal fans are much more interested in the US Open final right now. Where's Murray btw? :scratch:

Jaz
09-12-2010, 07:27 PM
Nadaltards will never stop moaning about RG 09.

Soderling def. Nadal 6-2 6-7(2) 6-4 7-6(2).

Ouch, still stings, doesn't it?

This might be the best thing you've said on the boards...

BigJohn
09-12-2010, 07:27 PM
The real Nadal fans are much more interested in the US Open final right now. Where's Murray btw? :scratch:

Fans are fans,

tards are tards. vvv

Start da Game
09-12-2010, 07:30 PM
Now that Rafa has reached the final and has a chance to win the USO tomorrow, will Nadaltards and Fedhaters finally stop putting an asterisk on Fed winning RG, similarity will the Fedtards and Nadalhaters stop trying to devalue Rafa's win?

If Rafa doesn't have to go through the 5-time champion/6-time finalist to win his first US Open, then tards should stop trying to use the "Roger didn't have to beat Rafa to win his first French Open!!!"> argument.

So basically, can the fans both sides just agree that you play whoever is on the other side of the net and it doesn't matter if you don't beat the multiple time champion as long as you win?

where you fail is, you don't realize that nadal already has a hardcourt slam and that came at the expense of fed.......

Jaz
09-12-2010, 07:33 PM
where you fail is, you don't realize that nadal already has a hardcourt slam and that came at the expense of fed.......

HALT!

But I thought the argument was that he had to beat NADAL for his career grand-slam on clay.

But of course, the same doesn't apply to Nadal that he doesn't even have to play the 6 times finalist, 5 time winner USO Roger Federer? Right?

Oh nooooo...

Filo V.
09-12-2010, 07:36 PM
You play the opponent on the other side of the net. Doesn't matter if the draw is "cakewalk", because guess what? No-one rigged the draw in anyone's favor. That's just the way things work.

All of you haters on both sides are immature brats who really need to grow the fuck up. Roger won the French, Rafa is likely to win the US Open. It is what it is, they are two of the best in history, celebrate their greatness instead of always looking for ways to tear them down.

Jaz
09-12-2010, 07:39 PM
You play the opponent on the other side of the net. Doesn't matter if the draw is "cakewalk", because guess what? No-one rigged the draw in anyone's favor. That's just the way things work.

All of you haters on both sides are immature brats who really need to grow the fuck up. Roger won the French, Rafa is likely to win the US Open. It is what it is, they are two of the best in history, celebrate their greatness instead of always looking for ways to tear them down.

I agree with you, my point is the case of double-standards, Nadal will totally deserve his title if he wins, equally Federer in FO09.

BigJohn
09-12-2010, 07:40 PM
All of you haters on both sides are immature brats who really need to grow the fuck up. Roger won the French, Rafa is likely to win the US Open. It is what it is, they are two of the best in history, celebrate their greatness instead of always looking for ways to tear them down.

http://petitefeebleue.canalblog.com/images/t-Schtroumpf_a_lunettes.gif

Start da Game
09-12-2010, 07:45 PM
HALT!

But I thought the argument was that he had to beat NADAL for his career grand-slam on clay.

But of course, the same doesn't apply to Nadal that he doesn't even have to play the 6 times finalist, 5 time winner USO Roger Federer? Right?

Oh nooooo...

he doesn't need to beat fed here as he already proved that he can beat him on any surface as reflected by his multiple french victories, wimbledon victory and australian open victories over the swiss.......

Jaz
09-12-2010, 07:49 PM
he doesn't need to beat fed here as he already proved that he can beat him on any surface as reflected by his multiple french victories, wimbledon victory and australian open victories over the swiss.......

Well the US Open surface is actually composed of a different hard-court material.

The AO used to use pexicushion, the US uses decoturf. Pre-08 AO had a different surface too. All three react differently, and AO is slightly slower (or atleast used to be).

Start da Game
09-12-2010, 07:59 PM
Well the US Open surface is actually composed of a different hard-court material.

The AO used to use pexicushion, the US uses decoturf. Pre-08 AO had a different surface too. All three react differently, and AO is slightly slower (or atleast used to be).

AO used to have rebound ace which used to play somewhat slow with higher bounce than plexicushion which was imported from u.s. and it plays faster with lesser bounce compared to rebound ace.......

in any case, fed was never going to stand much chance against nadal, as you might have read here even his fans did not believe that he was going to beat rafa.......

overall, the truth remains that nadal beat fed on all the 3 major surfaces in slam finals.......

DrJules
09-12-2010, 08:18 PM
There should never be asterisks to begin with.

You beat who you draw. If you win 7 in a row, you deserve the title.

Correct.

You beat 7 players on the other side of the net. If a player who matches up badly against you loses early that is part of the game.

RF at FO 2009 and FN at USO 2010 are both totally valid.

Expect RN to join RF and AA as winners of the 4 GS on different surfaces.

alfonsojose
09-12-2010, 09:22 PM
Now that Rafa has reached the final and has a chance to win the USO tomorrow, will Nadaltards and Fedhaters finally stop putting an asterisk on Fed winning RG, similarity will the Fedtards and Nadalhaters stop trying to devalue Rafa's win?

If Rafa doesn't have to go through the 5-time champion/6-time finalist to win his first US Open, then tards should stop trying to use the "Roger didn't have to beat Rafa to win his first French Open!!!"> argument.

So basically, can the fans both sides just agree that you play whoever is on the other side of the net and it doesn't matter if you don't beat the multiple time champion as long as you win?

:zzz: Trolls, haters, etc., etc. They feed offthreads like these. Rogr won 7 matches in RG 2009. He was the champion. Period.

ys
09-12-2010, 09:27 PM
Whatever this stupid asterisk may mean , if I remember correctly, Federer has never beaten Nadal in Grand Slams on surfaces other than grass. So, if you really want that asterisk somewhere other than in your ass, really, put it next to every Federer's non-grass Grand Slams, and that is like 10 of them.. :lol: Those are he probably would not be winning if had had to play Nadal..

Anyway, this discussion is as silly as it gets, but we are allowed to behave silly, aren't we? :lol: