tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 27 Jan 2009 23:23:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc

I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
blue-chip clown era of all times.





 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:46:11
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 6:17=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Pedro Dias wrote:
>
> > Oh, and for the record, I don't believe Courier and Woodbridge said
> > what you claim they did. Some of the words may have been as reported,
> > but I'll bet dollars to cowpatties you completely distorted the sense.
>
> It was live on air idiot - so not possible to misinterpret from print or
> get it 'out of context'. =A0

Oh, you're exceptionally talented in that regard. You'd misidentify
your mother at her own funeral, if it furthered your obsessions.

The fact that it was broadcast, rather than printed, would just make
it more likely you'd lie your pointy little head off about it, since
you'd know it would be harder to prove you're up to your usual
shenanigans.

> You just have to accept not everyone is gay
> for Fed like you are.

Of course. Everyone is gay for Federer in their own special way.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:57:18
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 13:45, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > this era*?
>
> Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. =A0May be
> too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> several important matches as well.
>
> .mikko


Very sensible post.
For what my opinion is worth, I liked Edberg much more at that time.
Boris gained more and more attention form me later, since he was in
Noah's clubbers gang!

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:50:35
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 13:36, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments lik=
e
> >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the
> >> ultimate blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> > Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to
> > the argument.
>
> Courier made the vaild point Rafa beats him all the time so how can he
> be the best of all time when he's not better than a guy in his own era?

Err, well...
How can Pete be GOAT, since he got humiliated by few players on clay,
on regular basis?

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:48:42
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 13:23, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

You keep track of any piece of shit Pete has steped in, and "lost
count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate blue-
chip clown era of all times" ?
Do you expect us to believe this?

Come on whiskey, every time Federer shines a bit more than routine on
court, you can't help but posting crappy stuff.
You didn't took your pills, did you?


Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:12:49
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 tammi, 15:52, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:45 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > this era*?
>
> > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. May be
> > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > several important matches as well.
>
> > .mikko
>
> I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> annoyed with people whose opinions
> differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.

You should, my bad. I think you are better.

> As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> close in the Slam count.

I noticed the scenario you provided.

.mikko



 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 09:14:45
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 8:48=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:49=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:30:18 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
>
> > <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jan 27, 7:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best '=
of
> > >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments l=
ike
> > >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> > >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultim=
ate
> > >> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> > >Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > >to head and is five years younger.
>
> > >That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > >more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > >What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > >18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > >this era*?
>
> > No.
>
> > Fed is the best of all time.
>
> > Period.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You're changing your previous statements because you're annoyed with
> me.
>
> Two days ago it was a toss-up between Fed, Laver and Borg.
>
> Unlike you, I'm not emotionally attached to any of these players so I
> can be objective and
> not make emotion-tinged analysis. If Fed spanks Rafa on Sunday, I'll
> freely admit Fed's co-goat and that
> there are no question marks about his record.
>
> If Rafa beats Fed, you'll say he cheated, distracted Fed by picking
> his ass or some other choice bit of Tier 1 analysis.

++ Tournaments 40 years ago varied from exhibitions masked as prize
giving events to general (local) fields playing ("the top pros") to
real events with strong fields... so tournaments as measure is
impossible even for hypotheticals... the slams are constant (represent
consistency even with changing surfaces as sub-plot for analytical
debate) or at least a measure across time... Pete has 14; Roger has 13
and that's where it stands and the top place remains Mr. Sampras'...
AND YOUR POINT about Rafa is TOTALLY valid... at 22-23 (in his 23
year, lol) with 5 slams he's motoring toward Mount Sampras himself...
he's just on a different timeline, one which intersects with Roger's
but has the potentiality to run beyond it... so YES... Rafa has his
own set of possibilities to realize as destiny... Fed still Talent
GOAT for now though LOL... and looked it last night... wondrous
display... Rafa remains ever at the ready, his shadow lengthening...

P


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 08:48:58
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 7:49=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:30:18 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 27, 7:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments lik=
e
> >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimat=
e
> >> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> >Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> >to head and is five years younger.
>
> >That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> >more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> >What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> >18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> >this era*?
>
> No.
>
> Fed is the best of all time.
>
> Period.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're changing your previous statements because you're annoyed with
me.

Two days ago it was a toss-up between Fed, Laver and Borg.

Unlike you, I'm not emotionally attached to any of these players so I
can be objective and
not make emotion-tinged analysis. If Fed spanks Rafa on Sunday, I'll
freely admit Fed's co-goat and that
there are no question marks about his record.

If Rafa beats Fed, you'll say he cheated, distracted Fed by picking
his ass or some other choice bit of Tier 1 analysis.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 08:41:36
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 10:18=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> > That's debatable. The thing is that, imo, Rafa also made 2 Wimbledon
> > finals before he reached peak
> > so that meant he was out there on an unfamiliar surface against one of
> > the greatest grass court players of
> > all time at peak. It's a tough one. Let's say it were 6-6 right now,
> > but that over the next two years Rafa wins
> > 4 matches to 1, including at fast court Slams finals. Then I think
> > there's a question to be asked about
> > who is the best of this era. And if Rafa gets very close to Fed in
> > overall Slams, then there's a serious question to be asked about who
> > is the best of this era.
>
> No it's not debatable. For Federer to be better by losing more is not
> debatable, sorry.

OK, fair point. The thing is I don't think Fed losing to Rafa on clay
is an issue legacy-wise. As I've
said, I consider Fed far and away he best of his era at this juncture.
But with Rafa only 22 and already
with 5 Slams I just think the OP's statement implying Fed is best of
his era is premature.

> > > This would obviously be a better H2H compared to Sampras record vs
> > > Krajicek for a number of reasons; since Richard was best suited on th=
e
> > > same surfaces as Pete, not 5 years younger, not even close to being
> > > the at the level of Nadal (as player or a champion), beat Sampras in
> > > straights at Wimbledon instead of 9-7 in the fifth, never lost to
> > > Sampras at Wimbledon and actually led the H2H 6-2 until Sampras won
> > > the last two matches.
>
> > But I think the crucial difference is that Krajicek wasn't Pete's main
> > rival so therefore less attention from
> > the media. No one ever said: "how can Pete be the goat if he can't
> > beat Krajicek?" Whereas at least some
> > commentators have said something similar to that about Fed/Nadal
>
> I think at least some commentators made the argument about Sampras and
> Krajicek during the time Pete regularly lost his meetings with
> Richard. Especially after losing W' 96 the argument must have been
> made by some commentators at least. Although I don't think Pete was
> being talked about as goat nearly as much as Federer's been.

That's not how I remember it. Remember that commercial with Pete
playing against history and
history *wondering what to do* The general feeling was no one could
get in Pete's way. It's similar with
Roger but, like I said, there is that Nadal ? to deal with. Hopefully
he'll deal with Nadal emphatically this weekend and then I promise not
to make any other similar posts :)

> > As it stands now, 13 Slams to 5. It's not even close. Fed has to be
> > considered the best of this era no matter
> > head 2 heads or MS titles or any other less important things. But
> > let's see what happens in the future. Time is on Rafa's side.
>
> Sure. If Rafa starts beating Roger everywhere, including at all slams,
> there can be little doubt who the best of the era is. However, just
> consider Sampras rivalry with Agassi. If Pete met Andre only 8 times
> and 6 of those at the AO where Andre beat him every time for a H2H of
> 2-6, would it detach from Sampras' status if all his other results
> would be the same?
>
> No, in fact it would make Pete a better player, since he would have
> almost exclusively lost to just one player instead of numerous players
> at that surface.-

You're making good points. I just don't understand how Pete got into
all of this. Did I bring him up?



 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 08:35:07
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 9:58=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> Rafa needs to win another 8 slams before been consider better than Federe=
r
> and
> there is no certainty that Federer won't add more to his slam total. =A0S=
o
> until Rafa
> get to double digit count in slam victories there is no point in asking t=
he
> question
> you asked above.

Have you consistently scolded Fed fans who touted him as goat
prematurely?


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 08:11:52
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 tammi, 16:44, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:31 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am still wondering why the most definite proof's of Sampras' "tough"
> > era is exampled as (back then very fluctuating) Agassi as Agassi just
> > only took 2 AO's from Pete, what a great opposition he was.....
> > Compared to Nadal who has already taken 3-4 FO's and 1 Wimb from Fed.
>
> > .mikko-
>
> Yes, but Agassi is indisputably one of the greats of the Open Era and
> hit peak at just about the same
> time Sampras did.
>
> History could've gone the other way. In fact, I recall Jaros said one
> time he thought back in the day that
> Agassi had too much raw ball-striking talent for Sampras and that,
> despite's Pete's serve and athleticism, he
> didn't think Pete would be able to overcome that.

Sampras just never happened to play sloppy match against Agassi at
slam finals (not even AO 95), like he did several times against other
players...sometimes even winning those finals like AO 94 which was
poor quality or Wimb 98 when Goran's legs gave up. Wimb 93 was not his
greatest showings either. It is borderline statistical obscurity at he
always run with all cylinders against Agassi at GS events..

Sampras just creeped into Agassi's mind just like Fed slowly did it
with Roddick.

.mikko


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:18:23
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 15:30, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:12=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What you said didn=B4t sound much like a hypothetical but more as a
> > given:
>
> > "That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > more Slams here on out than Fed does."
>
> The hypothetical part was 18-6 head to head and the Slam count. I
> think that's probably unlikely. Maybe Fed will make it 12-7 this week.
> I definitely think Fed will get to 15, and because I still have a lot
> of faith in Murray I think Rafa will fall short of double-digit Slams.
> But I don't think there's anything controversial whatsoever in the
> part you quoted.

Not controversial but presumptuous. No guarantees for Rafa getting
more slam than Roger from now on, nor of expanding his lead in the
H2H.

> > It's a little presumptuous so I do consider Mikko's response quite
> > appropriate.
>
> > So would you consider Federer a better player and the best of his era
> > if he'd only played (and lost to) Rafa let's say twice on clay and the
> > H2H would be even at 6 all?
>
> That's debatable. The thing is that, imo, Rafa also made 2 Wimbledon
> finals before he reached peak
> so that meant he was out there on an unfamiliar surface against one of
> the greatest grass court players of
> all time at peak. It's a tough one. Let's say it were 6-6 right now,
> but that over the next two years Rafa wins
> 4 matches to 1, including at fast court Slams finals. Then I think
> there's a question to be asked about
> who is the best of this era. And if Rafa gets very close to Fed in
> overall Slams, then there's a serious question to be asked about who
> is the best of this era.

No it's not debatable. For Federer to be better by losing more is not
debatable, sorry.

> > This would obviously be a better H2H compared to Sampras record vs
> > Krajicek for a number of reasons; since Richard was best suited on the
> > same surfaces as Pete, not 5 years younger, not even close to being
> > the at the level of Nadal (as player or a champion), beat Sampras in
> > straights at Wimbledon instead of 9-7 in the fifth, never lost to
> > Sampras at Wimbledon and actually led the H2H 6-2 until Sampras won
> > the last two matches.
>
> But I think the crucial difference is that Krajicek wasn't Pete's main
> rival so therefore less attention from
> the media. No one ever said: "how can Pete be the goat if he can't
> beat Krajicek?" Whereas at least some
> commentators have said something similar to that about Fed/Nadal

I think at least some commentators made the argument about Sampras and
Krajicek during the time Pete regularly lost his meetings with
Richard. Especially after losing W' 96 the argument must have been
made by some commentators at least. Although I don't think Pete was
being talked about as goat nearly as much as Federer's been.

> As it stands now, 13 Slams to 5. It's not even close. Fed has to be
> considered the best of this era no matter
> head 2 heads or MS titles or any other less important things. But
> let's see what happens in the future. Time is on Rafa's side.

Sure. If Rafa starts beating Roger everywhere, including at all slams,
there can be little doubt who the best of the era is. However, just
consider Sampras rivalry with Agassi. If Pete met Andre only 8 times
and 6 of those at the AO where Andre beat him every time for a H2H of
2-6, would it detach from Sampras' status if all his other results
would be the same?

No, in fact it would make Pete a better player, since he would have
almost exclusively lost to just one player instead of numerous players
at that surface.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:11:25
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 9:51=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> "Jason Catlin" <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:868ad1ba-b43f-4476-98df-a95ef36e1699@r22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 9:02 am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 7:45 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > > > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6
> > > > > head
> > > > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should w=
in
> > > > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with =
an
> > > > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > > > this era*?
>
> > > > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed be=
en
> > > > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. May b=
e
> > > > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Ma=
c
> > > > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet st=
ill
> > > > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > > > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > > > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > > > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, mor=
e
> > > > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter =
of
> > > > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > > > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > > > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to w=
in
> > > > several important matches as well.
>
> > > > .mikko
>
> > > I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> > > annoyed with people whose opinions
> > > differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> > > As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think ther=
e
> > > could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> > > IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> > > close in the Slam count.
>
> > > You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> > > wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> > > would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware o=
f
> > > the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> > > would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> > > Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> > > break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> > > I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> > > that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> > > that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> > > denigrate Fed.
>
> > Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
> > say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
> Fed-tinted glasses.
>
> Fed is one of the greatest players ever and may end up being the best,
> but there is a ? when it comes
> to Nadal. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
>
> Also, as far as the point about Becker and Edberg's head 2 head that
> was made above, I think that's something
> nobody talks about because neither of those players are in the goat
> conversation. But does anyone seriously think that if we're comparing
> two goat candidates who end their careers with double-digit Slams that
> a really lopsided head 2 head would just be totally ignored?
>
> Jason, =A0you have to asked yourself this question 'is a lopsided h2h mor=
e
> serious than a
> total failure at one of four major championship ?' =A0When we size up the=
two
> candidates
> for GOAT discussion we will look at the more important measurement of the=
ir
> record
> that is their grand slam performance then their H2H performance with thei=
r
> peers. =A0Grand
> slam record is without doubt the most important yardstick and more so the=
n
> h2h. =A0When
> we compare Sampras and Federer's record at GS level we can clearly see th=
at
> both have won
> multiple titles at W, USO and AO, =A0next is their performance at FO whic=
h
> both failed to win
> Federer got to the final 3 times and Sampras never did and in his 13
> attempts he failed 8 times
> before the 3rd round.-

In terms of Fed v. Sampras, I think sheer number of Slams will be the
yardstick, since there's no head 2 head to speak of, at least for
anyone besides Haze.

That may be the case when Fed and Nadal are compared as well. Going
back to my hypothetical:

Fed with 14, Rafa with 12. Lopsided Head 2 Head

I'm not sure who would then be considered the *best of this era*. I
think there would still be a decent argument for Fed but I don't think
it would be that clear-cut.

Maybe Fed will terminate this whole discussion with an emphatic
beating of Rafa in Sunday's final. I did pick Fed to win the
tournament after all.

I just think the final chapter on this era hasn't been written yet.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:44:08
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 9:31=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>
> I am still wondering why the most definite proof's of Sampras' "tough"
> era is exampled as (back then very fluctuating) Agassi as Agassi just
> only took 2 AO's from Pete, what a great opposition he was.....
> Compared to Nadal who has already taken 3-4 FO's and 1 Wimb from Fed.
>
> .mikko-

Yes, but Agassi is indisputably one of the greats of the Open Era and
hit peak at just about the same
time Sampras did.

History could've gone the other way. In fact, I recall Jaros said one
time he thought back in the day that
Agassi had too much raw ball-striking talent for Sampras and that,
despite's Pete's serve and athleticism, he
didn't think Pete would be able to overcome that.

As for Nadal/Fed, Nadal got Roger on clay as would be expected, Roger
did his part by winning those 2 Wimby finals. Now the fun begins so to
speak. What happens from here on out? I just think it's still a little
early to say Fed's the best of his era when Nadal's only 22 and has 5
Slams. In the Open Era, no one beside Borg has won so many so quickly.





 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:36:12
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 9:27=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
> > > say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
> > Fed-tinted glasses.
>
> =A0ignored?
>
> Sure. =A0Positing an 18-6 Nadal / Federer record isn't
> bomb-throwing at all.
>
> Same with not mentioning that
> Nadal's (hypothetical) w/l record would be largely
> the result of Fed being 2nd best on clay over several
> years... =A0You lack intellectual honesty. Not to a Lisperian
> degree- you hide it better than him. :)

I've also posted several times on this ng that the generation after
Pete's (the Henman, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov crowd) is probably the
worst on fast courts ever. And I admit that that could have helped
Pete to rack up some more Slams as he got older.

If you have more intellectual honesty than someone like Vari then
you'll give me credit for being objective.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:31:37
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 tammi, 16:10, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:02 am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 7:45 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > > > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > > > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > > > this era*?
>
> > > > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > > > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. May be
> > > > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > > > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> > > > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > > > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > > > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > > > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > > > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > > > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > > > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > > > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > > > several important matches as well.
>
> > > > .mikko
>
> > > I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> > > annoyed with people whose opinions
> > > differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> > > As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> > > could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> > > IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> > > close in the Slam count.
>
> > > You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> > > wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> > > would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
> > > the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> > > would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> > > Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> > > break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> > > I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> > > that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> > > that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> > > denigrate Fed.
>
> > Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
> > say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
> Fed-tinted glasses.
>
> Fed is one of the greatest players ever and may end up being the best,
> but there is a ? when it comes
> to Nadal. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
>
> Also, as far as the point about Becker and Edberg's head 2 head that
> was made above, I think that's something
> nobody talks about because neither of those players are in the goat
> conversation. But does anyone seriously think that if we're comparing
> two goat candidates who end their careers with double-digit Slams that
> a really lopsided head 2 head would just be totally ignored?

The sample size of GOAT candinates is too small to make such rules.
Especially when all of the GOAT candinates (expect may be Laver) have
their own holes in their records. Fed's problem is totally opposite
now what it was 2-3 years ago when the major obstacle for Fed's
greatness (among the clown era theorists) was missing worthy rival
(when it was revealed that Hewitt/Roddick won't do it). Now he has
probably the most toughest of them all...and again that is wrong.

I am still wondering why the most definite proof's of Sampras' "tough"
era is exampled as (back then very fluctuating) Agassi as Agassi just
only took 2 AO's from Pete, what a great opposition he was.....
Compared to Nadal who has already taken 3-4 FO's and 1 Wimb from Fed.

.mikko





 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:30:20
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 9:12=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> What you said didn=B4t sound much like a hypothetical but more as a
> given:
>
> "That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> more Slams here on out than Fed does."

The hypothetical part was 18-6 head to head and the Slam count. I
think that's probably unlikely. Maybe Fed will make it 12-7 this week.
I definitely think Fed will get to 15, and because I still have a lot
of faith in Murray I think Rafa will fall short of double-digit Slams.
But I don't think there's anything controversial whatsoever in the
part you quoted.

> It's a little presumptuous so I do consider Mikko's response quite
> appropriate.
>
> So would you consider Federer a better player and the best of his era
> if he'd only played (and lost to) Rafa let's say twice on clay and the
> H2H would be even at 6 all?

That's debatable. The thing is that, imo, Rafa also made 2 Wimbledon
finals before he reached peak
so that meant he was out there on an unfamiliar surface against one of
the greatest grass court players of
all time at peak. It's a tough one. Let's say it were 6-6 right now,
but that over the next two years Rafa wins
4 matches to 1, including at fast court Slams finals. Then I think
there's a question to be asked about
who is the best of this era. And if Rafa gets very close to Fed in
overall Slams, then there's a serious question to be asked about who
is the best of this era.

> This would obviously be a better H2H compared to Sampras record vs
> Krajicek for a number of reasons; since Richard was best suited on the
> same surfaces as Pete, not 5 years younger, not even close to being
> the at the level of Nadal (as player or a champion), beat Sampras in
> straights at Wimbledon instead of 9-7 in the fifth, never lost to
> Sampras at Wimbledon and actually led the H2H 6-2 until Sampras won
> the last two matches.

But I think the crucial difference is that Krajicek wasn't Pete's main
rival so therefore less attention from
the media. No one ever said: "how can Pete be the goat if he can't
beat Krajicek?" Whereas at least some
commentators have said something similar to that about Fed/Nadal

As it stands now, 13 Slams to 5. It's not even close. Fed has to be
considered the best of this era no matter
head 2 heads or MS titles or any other less important things. But
let's see what happens in the future. Time is on Rafa's side.


  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 01:58:10
From: john
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat

"Jason Catlin" <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:77dacf72-e371-424d-94a9-a9006b12cc1a@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 9:12 am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> What you said didn´t sound much like a hypothetical but more as a
> given:
>
> "That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> more Slams here on out than Fed does."

The hypothetical part was 18-6 head to head and the Slam count. I
think that's probably unlikely. Maybe Fed will make it 12-7 this week.
I definitely think Fed will get to 15, and because I still have a lot
of faith in Murray I think Rafa will fall short of double-digit Slams.
But I don't think there's anything controversial whatsoever in the
part you quoted.

> It's a little presumptuous so I do consider Mikko's response quite
> appropriate.
>
> So would you consider Federer a better player and the best of his era
> if he'd only played (and lost to) Rafa let's say twice on clay and the
> H2H would be even at 6 all?

That's debatable. The thing is that, imo, Rafa also made 2 Wimbledon
finals before he reached peak
so that meant he was out there on an unfamiliar surface against one of
the greatest grass court players of
all time at peak. It's a tough one. Let's say it were 6-6 right now,
but that over the next two years Rafa wins
4 matches to 1, including at fast court Slams finals. Then I think
there's a question to be asked about
who is the best of this era. And if Rafa gets very close to Fed in
overall Slams, then there's a serious question to be asked about who
is the best of this era.


Rafa needs to win another 8 slams before been consider better than Federer
and
there is no certainty that Federer won't add more to his slam total. So
until Rafa
get to double digit count in slam victories there is no point in asking the
question
you asked above.


> This would obviously be a better H2H compared to Sampras record vs
> Krajicek for a number of reasons; since Richard was best suited on the
> same surfaces as Pete, not 5 years younger, not even close to being
> the at the level of Nadal (as player or a champion), beat Sampras in
> straights at Wimbledon instead of 9-7 in the fifth, never lost to
> Sampras at Wimbledon and actually led the H2H 6-2 until Sampras won
> the last two matches.

But I think the crucial difference is that Krajicek wasn't Pete's main
rival so therefore less attention from
the media. No one ever said: "how can Pete be the goat if he can't
beat Krajicek?" Whereas at least some
commentators have said something similar to that about Fed/Nadal

As it stands now, 13 Slams to 5. It's not even close. Fed has to be
considered the best of this era no matter
head 2 heads or MS titles or any other less important things. But
let's see what happens in the future. Time is on Rafa's side.

Time is not necessarily on Rafa's side, his physical game will soon catch
up with his
body.




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:27:44
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


> >
> > Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
> > say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
> Fed-tinted glasses.
>
ignored?


Sure. Positing an 18-6 Nadal / Federer record isn't
bomb-throwing at all.

Same with not mentioning that
Nadal's (hypothetical) w/l record would be largely
the result of Fed being 2nd best on clay over several
years... You lack intellectual honesty. Not to a Lisperian
degree- you hide it better than him. :)


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 21:14:26
From: TT
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Carey wrote:
>
>>> Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
>>> say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
>> Fed-tinted glasses.
>>
> ignored?
>
>
> Sure. Positing an 18-6 Nadal / Federer record isn't
> bomb-throwing at all.
>
> Same with not mentioning that
> Nadal's (hypothetical) w/l record would be largely
> the result of Fed being 2nd best on clay over several
> years... You lack intellectual honesty. Not to a Lisperian
> degree- you hide it better than him. :)

But you have to notice that Federer played Nadal when Nadal was a lot
younger and not reached his peak. That would imo make up the fact that
most of their matches were on clay.

--
"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: 27 Jan 2009 22:30:44
From: Jesper Lauridsen
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 2009-01-27, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:
>
> But you have to notice that Federer played Nadal when Nadal was a lot
> younger and not reached his peak. That would imo make up the fact that
> most of their matches were on clay.

Uhm, they played exactly 2 matches against each other before Nadal's first
slam winning tournament. How does that make up for the fact that 10 out of
18 matches were on clay?



    
Date: 28 Jan 2009 00:55:31
From: TT
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:
> On 2009-01-27, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> But you have to notice that Federer played Nadal when Nadal was a lot
>> younger and not reached his peak. That would imo make up the fact that
>> most of their matches were on clay.

>
> Uhm, they played exactly 2 matches against each other before Nadal's first
> slam winning tournament.

And Nadal won the other. I don't see how winning a slam reduced the age
difference.

> How does that make up for the fact that 10 out of
> 18 matches were on clay?
>

Federer was in his peak and Nadal not even close. I could easily imagine
Nadal winning nearly all matches on every surface against Federer if he
had been same age as Federer.
...Or actually if he had been same age the figure would be even more
lopsided since Roger was such a late bloomer.

Federer won 2 grass matches against Nadal because Nadal was not matured
as a grass player yet. Same could be said about hc matches.

There's no such thing as selective h2h...counting only results on
surfaces that suit you.



--
"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: 27 Jan 2009 06:16:33
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 15:12, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 27 jan, 14:52, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 7:45=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 h=
ead
> > > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > > this era*?
>
> > > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. =A0May =
be
> > > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet stil=
l
> > > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > > several important matches as well.
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> > annoyed with people whose opinions
> > differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> > As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> > could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> > IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> > close in the Slam count.
>
> > You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> > wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> > would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
> > the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> > would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> > Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> > break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> > I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> > that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> > that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> > denigrate Fed.
>
> What you said didn=B4t sound much like a hypothetical but more as a
> given:
>
> "That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> more Slams here on out than Fed does."
>
> It's a little presumptuous so I do consider Mikko's response quite
> appropriate.
>
> So would you consider Federer a better player and the best of his era
> if he'd only played (and lost to) Rafa let's say twice on clay and the
> H2H would be even at 6 all?
>
> This would obviously be a better H2H compared to Sampras record vs
> Krajicek for a number of reasons; since Richard was best suited on the
> same surfaces as Pete, not 5 years younger, not even close to being
> the at the level of Nadal (as player or a champion), beat Sampras in
> straights at Wimbledon instead of 9-7 in the fifth, never lost to
> Sampras at Wimbledon and actually led the H2H 6-2 until Sampras won
> the last two matches.
>
> Please tell us if you would have considered Federer the best of his
> era in that hypothetical situation.

If you do then imho you are completely delusional since that would
mean Federer would actually have to be worse to be better. Get my
point?


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:12:36
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 14:52, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:45=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 hea=
d
> > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > this era*?
>
> > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. =A0May be
> > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > several important matches as well.
>
> > .mikko
>
> I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> annoyed with people whose opinions
> differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> close in the Slam count.
>
> You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
> the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> denigrate Fed.

What you said didn=B4t sound much like a hypothetical but more as a
given:

"That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
more Slams here on out than Fed does."

It's a little presumptuous so I do consider Mikko's response quite
appropriate.

So would you consider Federer a better player and the best of his era
if he'd only played (and lost to) Rafa let's say twice on clay and the
H2H would be even at 6 all?

This would obviously be a better H2H compared to Sampras record vs
Krajicek for a number of reasons; since Richard was best suited on the
same surfaces as Pete, not 5 years younger, not even close to being
the at the level of Nadal (as player or a champion), beat Sampras in
straights at Wimbledon instead of 9-7 in the fifth, never lost to
Sampras at Wimbledon and actually led the H2H 6-2 until Sampras won
the last two matches.

Please tell us if you would have considered Federer the best of his
era in that hypothetical situation.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:10:04
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 9:02=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:45=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 h=
ead
> > > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > > this era*?
>
> > > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. =A0May =
be
> > > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet stil=
l
> > > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > > several important matches as well.
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> > annoyed with people whose opinions
> > differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> > As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> > could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> > IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> > close in the Slam count.
>
> > You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> > wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> > would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
> > the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> > would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> > Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> > break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> > I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> > that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> > that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> > denigrate Fed.
>
> Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
> say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
Fed-tinted glasses.

Fed is one of the greatest players ever and may end up being the best,
but there is a ? when it comes
to Nadal. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

Also, as far as the point about Becker and Edberg's head 2 head that
was made above, I think that's something
nobody talks about because neither of those players are in the goat
conversation. But does anyone seriously think that if we're comparing
two goat candidates who end their careers with double-digit Slams that
a really lopsided head 2 head would just be totally ignored?


  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 01:51:46
From: john
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat

"Jason Catlin" <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:868ad1ba-b43f-4476-98df-a95ef36e1699@r22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 9:02 am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:45 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6
> > > > head
> > > > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > > this era*?
>
> > > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. May be
> > > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> > > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> > > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> > > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > > several important matches as well.
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> > annoyed with people whose opinions
> > differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> > As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> > could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> > IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> > close in the Slam count.
>
> > You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> > wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> > would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
> > the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> > would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> > Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> > break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> > I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> > that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> > that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> > denigrate Fed.
>
> Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
> say, "who, me?", pal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There was no *bomb* in what I said, unless you're looking at it with
Fed-tinted glasses.

Fed is one of the greatest players ever and may end up being the best,
but there is a ? when it comes
to Nadal. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

Also, as far as the point about Becker and Edberg's head 2 head that
was made above, I think that's something
nobody talks about because neither of those players are in the goat
conversation. But does anyone seriously think that if we're comparing
two goat candidates who end their careers with double-digit Slams that
a really lopsided head 2 head would just be totally ignored?

Jason, you have to asked yourself this question 'is a lopsided h2h more
serious than a
total failure at one of four major championship ?' When we size up the two
candidates
for GOAT discussion we will look at the more important measurement of their
record
that is their grand slam performance then their H2H performance with their
peers. Grand
slam record is without doubt the most important yardstick and more so then
h2h. When
we compare Sampras and Federer's record at GS level we can clearly see that
both have won
multiple titles at W, USO and AO, next is their performance at FO which
both failed to win
Federer got to the final 3 times and Sampras never did and in his 13
attempts he failed 8 times
before the 3rd round.




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:03:28
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 7:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

Extraordinary. When I told you last year that you'd be trotting this
nonsense out again very soon, I didn't think it would be *this* soon.
You should let Federer win the title before you panic and bring out
the *really* dumb arguments.

Oh, and for the record, I don't believe Courier and Woodbridge said
what you claim they did. Some of the words may have been as reported,
but I'll bet dollars to cowpatties you completely distorted the sense.


  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 10:17:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Pedro Dias wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> Extraordinary. When I told you last year that you'd be trotting this
> nonsense out again very soon, I didn't think it would be *this* soon.
> You should let Federer win the title before you panic and bring out
> the *really* dumb arguments.
>
> Oh, and for the record, I don't believe Courier and Woodbridge said
> what you claim they did. Some of the words may have been as reported,
> but I'll bet dollars to cowpatties you completely distorted the sense.


It was live on air idiot - so not possible to misinterpret from print or
get it 'out of context'. You just have to accept not everyone is gay
for Fed like you are.



 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:02:56
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:45=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
> >
> > > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 hea=
d
> > > to head and is five years younger.
> >
> > > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
> >
> > > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > > this era*?
> >
> > Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> > "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. =A0May be
> > too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> > h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> > general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
> >
> > And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> > record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> > measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> > even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> > taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
> >
> > However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> > and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> > several important matches as well.
> >
> > .mikko
>
> I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
> annoyed with people whose opinions
> differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.
>
> As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
> could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
> IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
> close in the Slam count.
>
> You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
> wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
> would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
> the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
> would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.
>
> Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
> break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.
>
> I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
> that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
> that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
> denigrate Fed.

Mildly interesting rhetoric. Don't throw bombs and then
say, "who, me?", pal.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:52:43
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 7:45=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Jason Catlin kirjoitti:
>
> > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > this era*?
>
> Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
> "worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. =A0May be
> too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
> h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
> general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).
>
> And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
> record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
> measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
> even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
> taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.
>
> However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
> and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
> several important matches as well.
>
> .mikko

I notice you like to use that insult - averagejoe - when you get
annoyed with people whose opinions
differ from yours. But I'll ignore it.

As far as my post, you'll notice that all I said is that I think there
could be a doubt over who is the best of this era
IF Rafa expands his sizable head to head over Fed and they end up
close in the Slam count.

You'll notice in my hypothetical I said 18-6. That would mean 6 more
wins for Rafa for zero for Fed. I also said 14 to 12 in Slams, which
would mean Fed fell short of breaking Pete's record. I'm well aware of
the clay factor in the head to head, but if did get to 18-6, that
would almost certainly win more wins for Rafa off of clay as well.

Honestly, I think that's very unlikely to happen. I think Fed will
break Pete's record and will get a couple more wins over Rafa.

I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
denigrate Fed.


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:37:34
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat

"Jason Catlin" <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote in
I find it amusing though that just throwing out a hypothetical like
that gets people up in arms and also leads them to *assume* that
that's what I think is going to happen and therefore am trying to
denigrate Fed.

***


Those are fedfuckers, what did you expect.




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:41:19
From: Adam Thirnis
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 12:23 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

it's not surprising you lose count so easily


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:38:49
From:
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 7:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

This is a clown era, so fed is the GOAT amongst the clowns! lol.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:37:07
From: Adam Thirnis
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 1:26 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
>
> >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
> >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the
> >> ultimate blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> > That's interesting, usually they're all drooling when feds is spanking
> > an opponent playing badly.
>
> Yes, surprised me too as Courier is usually very gay for Fed. Looks
> like he's backing away from that stance, & Woodbridge in particular made
> it clear you can 'only play as well as your opponent allows', suggesting
> his era is full of clowns who are pampered & not obsessed with winning.

except of course they said nothing of the sort - but don't let that
put you off


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:25:39
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 7:38=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments lik=
e
> >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimat=
e
> >> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > this era*?
>
> That is a good point. =A0I forgot to put in Courier's other main point -
> if Roger is best of all times then how do we explain Rafa being better
> than him?
>
> The logical conclusion is Fed is not the goat, & further is playing in a
> ridiculously uncompetitive era.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought it's about slams, what happened?


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:17:53
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


Whisper wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
> >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
> >>
> >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> >> blue-chip clown era of all times.
> >
> > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > to head and is five years younger.
> >
> > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
> >
> > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > this era*?
>
>
> That is a good point. I forgot to put in Courier's other main point -
> if Roger is best of all times then how do we explain Rafa being better
> than him?
>
> The logical conclusion is Fed is not the goat, & further is playing in a
> ridiculously uncompetitive era.

Wow, *Courier and Woodbridge*? Those two paragons?

Funny- John MacEnroe, Jack Kramer, Boris Becker,
and virtually all other multi-slam winners say Fed is
the best they've seen. But do keep trying...

You must mean Nadal being better than Federer *on clay*, since that's
the only surface (which you consider a non-surface) that Nadal has a
winning record on v
Federer. As Casey Stengel said, you can look it up. :)

Poor Lisper. Time is running short, isn't it?


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:11:16
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On 27 jan, 13:50, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > That is a good point. =A0I forgot to put in Courier's other main point =
-
> > if Roger is best of all times then how do we explain Rafa being better
> > than him?

Most people don't consider Rafa better than him. Just better on clay.
As there were half a dozen guys better on clay than Sampras in his own
era alone. So following that logic Sampras definitely can not be GOAT
or even GOAT candidate.

> Their h2h record is mainly generated by their clay meetings.
> Averagejoes love to point out statistical odditions but most often can
> not see beyond the news headlines...

It=B4s the talk of the town these days and it will certainly motivate
Federer, as we saw today.

> > The logical conclusion is Fed is not the goat, & further is playing in =
a
> > ridiculously uncompetitive era.
>
> Or that Fed has the toughest rival (Nadal) anyone ever has had?

This could be true though.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:51:30
From: TT
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Whisper wrote:
>
>
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>

That's interesting, usually they're all drooling when feds is spanking
an opponent playing badly.


Finnish ES commentator said before the match that federer's possible
goatness has been denied recently with a fair argument: He has a heavy
losing record against a player during his own era, Nadal.

--
"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: 27 Jan 2009 17:25:00
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:51:30 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Finnish ES commentator said before the match that federer's possible
>goatness has been denied recently with a fair argument: He has a heavy
>losing record against a player during his own era, Nadal.

He also said that #1 will be decided in the final if Federer and Nadal
meet there. But if Federer is in the final and Nadal is not, Federer
will strengthen his position as #1. Quite an expert, huh ? :-)


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 19:40:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:51:30 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Finnish ES commentator said before the match that federer's possible
>> goatness has been denied recently with a fair argument: He has a heavy
>> losing record against a player during his own era, Nadal.
>
> He also said that #1 will be decided in the final if Federer and Nadal
> meet there. But if Federer is in the final and Nadal is not, Federer
> will strengthen his position as #1. Quite an expert, huh ? :-)

I missed that. So we conclude that 50% of his commentary makes sense...

--
"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: 28 Jan 2009 00:26:52
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the
>> ultimate blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>
>
> That's interesting, usually they're all drooling when feds is spanking
> an opponent playing badly.
>


Yes, surprised me too as Courier is usually very gay for Fed. Looks
like he's backing away from that stance, & Woodbridge in particular made
it clear you can 'only play as well as your opponent allows', suggesting
his era is full of clowns who are pampered & not obsessed with winning.
Look at Djoker - retiring for no particular reason, just that Roddick
was playing tough & he thought he'd lose.




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:50:19
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


Whisper kirjoitti:
> That is a good point. I forgot to put in Courier's other main point -
> if Roger is best of all times then how do we explain Rafa being better
> than him?

Their h2h record is mainly generated by their clay meetings.
Averagejoes love to point out statistical odditions but most often can
not see beyond the news headlines...

> The logical conclusion is Fed is not the goat, & further is playing in a
> ridiculously uncompetitive era.

Or that Fed has the toughest rival (Nadal) anyone ever has had?

.mikko





 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:48:42
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 6:38=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> >> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments lik=
e
> >> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> >> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimat=
e
> >> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> > Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> > to head and is five years younger.
>
> > That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> > more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> > What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> > 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> > this era*?
>
> That is a good point. =A0I forgot to put in Courier's other main point -
> if Roger is best of all times then how do we explain Rafa being better
> than him?
>
> The logical conclusion is Fed is not the goat, & further is playing in a
> ridiculously uncompetitive era.

This is a better angle than your usual trolling.
Still not very good, but at least a step upward from your usual
nonsense.
Good job.

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:45:19
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


Jason Catlin kirjoitti:

> Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> to head and is five years younger.
>
> That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> this era*?

Rafa has that big edge generated by their clay meetings. Had Fed been
"worse" claycourter then their record would be way more even. May be
too complicated scenario for averagejoes though...(just see Borg/Mac
h2h...they are tied 7-7....and they never even met on clay...yet still
general consensus is that Mac surpassed Borg at their h2h...).

And Becker/Edberg example should tell smt. Both have quite similar
record (6 slams etc) with each other excelling the other with other
measures (Becker - YEC, DC, other titles, Edberg 2xyear-end #1, more
even portfolio with FO final etc). However it is completely matter of
taste and bias who you put ahead in all-time list.

However Becker has 25-10 h2h over Edberg. It is mentioned every now
and then but referred as "not that big deal" as Edberg managed to win
several important matches as well.

.mikko


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:45:14
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


Whisper wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

Links? Somehow, the Lisper never provides them-
too busy trying to keep track of his wife's whereabouts..

Fed wins w/ difficulty= Fed's no good; Fed wins easily= competition's
no good. Perfecto...

Souuthern Hemisphere not conducive to thought. :)


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:31:02
From:
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
> > They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> > this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments like=
'You
> > can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> > I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> > blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to t=
he
> argument.

Yes - back in the days when Sampras was winning AO titles, he had to
go to five sets to beat giants like Hrbaty and Costa ...




  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:38:43
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:31:02 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>> > They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> > this era', but can't say he's the best ever.  They made comments like 'You
>> > can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> > I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>> > blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>
>> Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to the
>> argument.
>
>Yes - back in the days when Sampras was winning AO titles, he had to
>go to five sets to beat giants like Hrbaty and Costa ...
>


ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:30:39
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat


Whisper kirjoitti:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

You cannot count beyond your fingers and you have been a bit
unfortunate when working at sawmill?

.mikko


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:30:18
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 7:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
to head and is five years younger.

That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
more Slams here on out than Fed does.

What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
this era*?


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:49:14
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:30:18 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever.  They made comments like
>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
>Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
>to head and is five years younger.
>
>That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
>more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
>What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
>18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
>this era*?


No.

Fed is the best of all time.

Period.


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 23:38:34
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>
> Why is it so clear he's the best of this era? Rafa leads him 12-6 head
> to head and is five years younger.
>
> That head to head should get even more lopsided and Rafa should win
> more Slams here on out than Fed does.
>
> What if Rafa has 12 Slams to Fed's 14 at the end of it all, with an
> 18-6 head to head? Is Fed still *best of
> this era*?


That is a good point. I forgot to put in Courier's other main point -
if Roger is best of all times then how do we explain Rafa being better
than him?

The logical conclusion is Fed is not the goat, & further is playing in a
ridiculously uncompetitive era.





 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:29:07
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like 'You
> can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>



Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to the
argument.



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 17:23:13
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:29:07 GMT, "Dr. GroundAxe"
<groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like 'You
>> can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>
>
>
>
>Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to the
>argument.

So it is a new tough era always as long as Murray and Djokovic are in
the tourmanent, but as soon as they lose, it is again a clown era? Or
how the hell it goes?


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 23:36:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the
>> ultimate blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>
>
>
>
> Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to
> the argument.


Courier made the vaild point Rafa beats him all the time so how can he
be the best of all time when he's not better than a guy in his own era?



   
Date: 28 Jan 2009 00:04:57
From: john
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:497effd8$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
>>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>>
>>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>>> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to
>> the argument.
>
>
> Courier made the vaild point Rafa beats him all the time so how can he be
> the best of all time when he's not better than a guy in his own era?
>

The problem is this Rafa beat Federer mostly on his favourite surface, if
you believe
US and Wimbledon are the blue chip slams then Nadal was only able to stop
Federer
winning once and Federer was able to pile up 10 USO and Wimbledon titles.
If Rafa
beat Federer all the time on clay was a valid point then same point can be
made on
Sampras as not GOAT because for a guy to claim as GOAT he has not reached a
single
FO final in 13 attempt and lost 8 times in first and second round in one of
the major,
Federer in his losses to Nadal were to a player who is undoubtly the best
clay courter of
his generation and now 2nd only to Borg in clay court achievement. Blancos,
Medeve,
Norman, Delgados of this world were never close to that calibre as far as
their clay game
was and yet Pete repeately lost to them year after year. If Federer
actually equal Sampras'
slam number then it is obvious that his performance at FO will tilt the bar
towards Federer
in any GOAT discussion. You can't fool anyone Whisper.




   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:04:03
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:36:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like
>>> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>>
>>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the
>>> ultimate blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to
>> the argument.
>
>
>Courier made the vaild point Rafa beats him all the time so how can he
>be the best of all time when he's not better than a guy in his own era?


You figure it out "smart" guy.


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 12:38:05
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:29:07 GMT, "Dr. GroundAxe"
<groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:497efcd6$0$14870$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>
>> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
>> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. They made comments like 'You
>> can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
>> blue-chip clown era of all times.
>>
>
>
>
>Clown era is mainstream now, and matches like this really add weight to the
>argument.


ough oh ... Murray out ... Djockovic gives up .... Fed on a roll ....

time to bring out the clown act again eh doc ?


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:27:59
From:
Subject: Re: Courier/Woodbridge agree Federer is not goat
On Jan 27, 12:23=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> They are just watching Fed kill Deporta-loo & agree he is the best 'of
> this era', but can't say he's the best ever. =A0They made comments like
> 'You can only play as well as your opposition allows' etc
>
> I've lost count of the number of experts who agree this is the ultimate
> blue-chip clown era of all times.

But I thought that the clown era ended last year with the emergence of
new players such as Djokovic and Murray?

By the way, are they still in the tournament?