[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by nole_no1

It's not "Noletards logic". It's real logic. I'm talking here about the most prestigious tournaments not some 500 tournaments

Originally Posted by Honestly

This seems to be what the Noletards don't get General. 5 >>>> 2.

Why would titles not count to compare who's best in 2012?

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Why give Dull and his tards the satisfaction?

You know, players get money and ranking points for winning matches.

[nole_no1]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Why would titles not count to compare who's best in 2012?

OK count them if you want but a GS final is much more important than a 500 tournament title I also remember at the beggining of the last year when people counted Nole's titles they said that Dubai or Belgrade are not important. Now they do because Fed won them, don't them?

[Slice Winner]

Originally Posted by nole_no1

OK count them if you want but a GS final is much more important than a 500 tournament title I also remember at the beggining of the last year when people counted Nole's titles they said that Dubai or Belgrade are not important. Now they do because Fed won them, don't them?

To be fair, none of Fed's titles in the last year is as shitty as Belgrade.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by nole_no1

OK count them if you want but a GS final is much more important than a 500 tournament title I also remember at the beggining of the last year when people counted Nole's titles they said that Dubai or Belgrade are not important. Now they do because Fed won them, don't them?

You're the one who said they were somewhat equal when it comes to Slams and Masters, smaller titles appear to be the tie breaker, no?

And Fed won Belgrade?

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

You're the one who said they were somewhat equal when it comes to Slams and Masters, smaller titles appear to be the tie breaker, no?

Well, Djoker had better results in the Slams than Fed or are you even debating that???

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Matt01

Well, Djoker had better results in the Slams than Fed or are you even debating that???

Mattie... nole_no1 said they were equal when it came to Slams and Masters, so logically, smaller tournaments would be the next thing to look at.

Now you look like Donny in this clip:

You have no frame of reference here, Mattie. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

[nole_no1]

I should've said that Djokovic has the slight advantage because he had better results in slams. My mistake

[BigJohn]

[Alex999]

guys, let's be realistic here. Novak could've played any MM tournament in the world if he wanted to keep his #1 ranking. it doesn't matter if it's Serbian Open or Angola Open ... now, some of you Fed fans are making such a big deal out all of this (hey, 75 points ahead of Nole, number 1, please, Nole is still holding 2 slams if can remember correctly) ... Djokovic is still having better results at slams than Roger. not even sure why I even bother with this stuff ...

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by nole_no1

I should've said that Djokovic has the slight advantage because he had better results in slams. My mistake

No prob. You did your analysis well

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Matt01

No prob. You did your analysis well

[JediFed]

Well, Djoker had better results in the Slams than Fed or are you even debating that???

Fed's won one fewer GS match, losing to Nadal and Nole. Nole's lost to Nadal and Federer.

Triumvirate is 7/7 of the last 7 slams, and an insane 30-31, going back to AO 2005.

[Hola Mr. SK]

not yet over
If Nole takes Olympic gold, he's better than Federer.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Matt01

You know, players get money and ranking points for winning matches.

Settle down Maddie. I'm not your chat buddy on here. Roger has more money than any tennis player in history and as far as ranking points go the last time I checked he was #1 in the world. Now beat it.