tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 29 Jan 2009 03:01:05
From:
Subject: 2 bits of trivia
If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
mark:

he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
have the same record in
Slam finals as Pete.




 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 13:30:14
From:
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 2:47=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:53=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 9:50=A0am, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 9:33=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Sla=
m
> > > > > mark:
>
> > > > > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won a=
nd
> > > > > have the same record in
> > > > > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> > > > If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all s=
urfaces.
>
> > > > Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
> > > > greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against h=
is
> > > > main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay any=
more.
> > > > The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ev=
er
> > > > had won any match on any surface against him...
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland=
"
>
> > > Yes of course, Federer only won his matches against Nadal because
> > > Nadal was young -- lol.
>
> > > Do you hear yourself?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why is that so controversial? When he beat Rafa at the 2006 Wimby
> > final, Rafa had just turned 20.
>
> > Usually players don't hit peak until at least 21 or 22. And Rafa
> > needed a lot more experience on grass,
> > considering he was brought up as a clay court player.
>
> Ahh.. but he is saying "if Nadal hadn't been a baby would Federer ever
> had won any match on any surface" - this is patently ridiculous since
> Federer has beaten Nadal quite convincingly in Shanghai - TWICE, and
> it's not as though Nadal is ripping through the hardcourt titles
> either.
>
> Besides, a similar argument can be made for Federer - by the time
> Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, one could say Federer is off his
> peak.
>
> Just ask Whisper where Sampras was when he won 12 slams - Whisper
> would say way off peak.
>
> As Vari said, you can twist any result and make it into an age issue.- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But, if I were a Fed fan, I wouldn't want to make excuses for him. I'd
be thinking, come on Rog
let's show Nadal once and for all who's boss in a Slam final.

Fed is 27, which is the same age Sampras was when he had one of his
greatest-ever performances in the 1999
final. So there's just no reason not to expect Fed to at least beat
Rafa at tournaments like AO, Wimby and/or
USO this year.

Once he's broken the record and done it by putting Nadal in his place,
then I'd say he really has nothing left to prove. But despite how
incredible his record is, I still think he has just a little something
to prove - just against Nadal - and maybe we'll see that manifested on
Sunday.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 11:47:03
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 9:53=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:50=A0am, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 9:33=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> > > > mark:
>
> > > > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> > > > have the same record in
> > > > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> > > If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all sur=
faces.
>
> > > Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
> > > greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
> > > main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymo=
re.
> > > The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
> > > had won any match on any surface against him...
>
> > > --
> > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> > Yes of course, Federer only won his matches against Nadal because
> > Nadal was young -- lol.
>
> > Do you hear yourself?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Why is that so controversial? When he beat Rafa at the 2006 Wimby
> final, Rafa had just turned 20.
>
> Usually players don't hit peak until at least 21 or 22. And Rafa
> needed a lot more experience on grass,
> considering he was brought up as a clay court player.

Ahh.. but he is saying "if Nadal hadn't been a baby would Federer ever
had won any match on any surface" - this is patently ridiculous since
Federer has beaten Nadal quite convincingly in Shanghai - TWICE, and
it's not as though Nadal is ripping through the hardcourt titles
either.

Besides, a similar argument can be made for Federer - by the time
Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon, one could say Federer is off his
peak.

Just ask Whisper where Sampras was when he won 12 slams - Whisper
would say way off peak.

As Vari said, you can twist any result and make it into an age issue.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 06:53:35
From:
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 9:50=A0am, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:33=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> > > mark:
>
> > > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> > > have the same record in
> > > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> > If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all surfa=
ces.
>
> > Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
> > greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
> > main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymore=
.
> > The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
> > had won any match on any surface against him...
>
> > --
> > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> Yes of course, Federer only won his matches against Nadal because
> Nadal was young -- lol.
>
> Do you hear yourself?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why is that so controversial? When he beat Rafa at the 2006 Wimby
final, Rafa had just turned 20.

Usually players don't hit peak until at least 21 or 22. And Rafa
needed a lot more experience on grass,
considering he was brought up as a clay court player.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 06:50:24
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 9:33=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> > mark:
>
> > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> > have the same record in
> > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all surface=
s.
>
> Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
> greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
> main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymore.
> The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
> had won any match on any surface against him...
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

Yes of course, Federer only won his matches against Nadal because
Nadal was young -- lol.

Do you hear yourself?


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 18:31:59
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:33 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
>>> mark:
>>> he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
>>> have the same record in
>>> Slam finals as Pete.
>> If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all surfaces.
>>
>> Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
>> greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
>> main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymore.
>> The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
>> had won any match on any surface against him...
>>
>> --
>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> Yes of course, Federer only won his matches against Nadal because
> Nadal was young -- lol.
>
> Do you hear yourself?

Guess their h2h is irrelevant because they are not the same age. Federer
picks on a youngster and Nadal picks on an old man.

Great news! ;-)

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 06:50:14
From:
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 9:45=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:33=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> > > mark:
>
> > > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> > > have the same record in
> > > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> > If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all surfa=
ces.
>
> > Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
> > greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
> > main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymore=
.
> > The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
> > had won any match on any surface against him...
>
> > --
> > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> That's taking it a bit too far, imo. But I still think your post is
> valid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The match would also be critical for Nadal. He can't let Fed stretch
the Slam gap to 9. That's just too much I
think.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 06:45:35
From:
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 9:33=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> > mark:
>
> > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> > have the same record in
> > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all surface=
s.
>
> Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
> greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
> main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymore.
> The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
> had won any match on any surface against him...
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

That's taking it a bit too far, imo. But I still think your post is
valid.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 16:33:02
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> mark:
>
> he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> have the same record in
> Slam finals as Pete.

If he loses to Nadal he has lost slam finals against Nadal on all surfaces.

Loss here would be devastating for his goat claims...and even for
greatest of open era claims, having a heavy losing record against his
main rival which couldn't be explained by playing a lot on clay anymore.
The question would be if Nadal had not been a baby would Federer ever
had won any match on any surface against him...



--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 05:19:38
From:
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 8:06=A0am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:01=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> > mark:
>
> > he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> > have the same record in
> > Slam finals as Pete.
>
> =A0 =A0 When did Tiger win any AO/FO/W or USO?
> =A0 =A0 Compare apples and apples.

I'm not the first to compare those two.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 05:06:46
From: ahonkan
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Jan 29, 4:01=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
> mark:
>
> he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
> have the same record in
> Slam finals as Pete.

When did Tiger win any AO/FO/W or USO?
Compare apples and apples.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 11:28:45
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2 bits of trivia
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:01:05 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com
wrote:

>If Fed wins Sunday's final, in addition to tying the all-time Slam
>mark:
>
>he'll tie Tiger for the first time in terms of Majors/Slams won and
>have the same record in
>Slam finals as Pete.


GO FED !!!