[Looner]

Originally Posted by uxyzapenje

No, not really. Fedal is slightly overrated and overhyped, but as such, it brought many fans to the sport and deserves much respect. For the quality of tennis itself Fedole is my favorite by far. Then Fedal, then Rafole. Noleray (or whatever) is better only than Murray-Nadal (every possible term for that rivalry sounds just plain stupid).

And as a Novak fan, I do get more excited when Novak plays Rafa, but much more enjoy matches vs Fed then vs Rafa.

Agree on almost all of this. As for the bolded, I have one - violation.

[heya]

The only way Failerer can succeed is if Djokovic and Nadal get injured, sick or go into a self-defeatist doom period. This was what happened since 2008.
Fedwitch was whining about his mono, yet he had 5 hour marathons. He obviously couldn't compete in long matches the last 4 years unless he faced a wimpy top 10 guy, an injured Del Potro, choking journeymen, an out of control Djoker or clowning fatass Roddick.

So many Chumps, Quitters, Chokers such as Safin, Ljubicic,
Baghdatis, Gonzalez & Davydenko.
Hewitt was so tiny and injured. He was gone by 2005.

Sycophant Roddick and Nalbandian were predictable losers who did nothing but beg for money and faded media attention since 2003.
Nadal and Djokovic were unpredictable for 5+ years.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by heya

The only way Failerer can succeed is if Djokovic and Nadal get injured, sick or go into a self-defeatist doom period. This was what happened since 2008.

You did not factor some facts: Federer is the reason Nadal got injured and Federer is the cause of many of No2e's "self"-defeatist doom periods since 2008...

[heya]

Originally Posted by GOATsol

The opposition in Roger's prime would have been seen as better if it weren't for Roger because they would have won multiple slams.

Yeah, Nalbandian would have numerous slams and Roddick would crush the competition with his ego.

What happened? 1st round Slam losses and breaking the tennis rule by hiding in the locker room during the 2005 Australian Open semi vs. Hewitt, etc.

[Looner]

heya is so... normal. I am confused and conflicted.

[MuzzahLovah]

Djurray is in.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Looner

heya is so... normal. I am confused and conflicted.

It is always disappointing to realize just how much a boring generic hater Heya truly is.

[Honestly]

Djokerer is the best, even though prime Fed owned Djokovic.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Djokerer is the best, even though prime Fed owned Djokovic.

That point has already been answered last year when No2e's streak stopped. He simply lost matchs because he did not really care. The losses don't count. Don't you remember?

[heya]

Fed didn't care when he got bagelled at the French Open by a boy he called a clay specialist.
He stopped caring everytime Djokovic beat him at the US Open. He won so much. Why not throw Djoker a few bones.

He also didn't play Tsonga in Qatar because he was very injured, and it was really
cold and no one cared either. Somehow, Fed was ok at the Australian Open semi.

[BigJohn]

[Sunset of Age]

The ´next big thing´, LOL!!!

Rather the tournaments directors NIGHTMARE.

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by Sunset of Age

The ´next big thing´, LOL!!!

Rather the tournaments directors NIGHTMARE.

I thought you liked Mugray?

[guga2120]

Together they turn the modern men’s game, and its traditional weapons, inside out. Rather than relying on their serves and forehands, they’re better known for their returns and backhands. They win not by so much by attacking, but by playing aggressive defense. This means they break each other’s serve often; there were five breaks in the first six games in Shanghai. Normally we think of multi-break sets as a sign of bad tennis, but that may have to be revised if the Murray-Djokovic Era comes to pass. (We also might also have to stop criticizing the women for doing the same.)

Djokovic and Murray matches typically have plenty of long, spectacular, exhausting all-court rallies that reach one peak period of brilliance (the fourth set at the Open; the latter part of the second set on Sunday). Their matches can also, in part because of the breaks of serve and the lack of easy points, have an up and down, herky-jerky, little-bit-of-everything quality, in which momentum trades hands from one game to the next and neither player gets on a roll for long. Their matches also tend to take a long time. My DVR ran out of space in the middle of their epic on Sunday; that’s impressive for a three-setter. Time between points will continue to be an issue with these two. At one stage, each of them was taking an average of more than 30 seconds before serving, 5 seconds over the limit.


This is very true, and as of now is why its the best and most intresting matchup in tennis. They also happen to be the two best players in the world, and looks like it will stay that way through 2013, barring injury.

Rafa and Novak have had some great matches, and its about the most physical matchup ever, but that match in Australia was too much. You literally felt bad for both of them at the end of the match. Nadal/Federer has never been that great tennis wise, other than a few matches years ago. The outcome of their matches is very predictable.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

That point has already been answered last year when No2e's streak stopped. He simply lost matchs because he did not really care. The losses don't count. Don't you remember?

True. Just like the losses of Dull to Soderling and Rosol didn't count