tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 08 Feb 2009 09:52:49
From: ghell666
Subject: Feds consecutive FO finals
I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade ,
but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.

its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
ass to them - period

Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?

And for mentally strong , what about clay ?

Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
of weakness on surface that requires it ?

And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?

Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, or
for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career.

If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. having
to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?

The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
Rafa..





 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 10:50:38
From: arahim
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 10, 4:52=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arahimwrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2:50 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> arahimwrote:
> >>> On Feb 8, 11:22 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> ghell666 wrote:
> >>>>>>> Rafa..
> >>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having=
13
> >>>>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> >>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negativ=
e
> >>>>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
> >>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
> >>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
> >>>>> An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
> >>>>> A broken Courier
> >>>>> Who did he have ?
> >>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
> >>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> >>>>> whose game did not match well.
> >>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. =A0Sure he h=
ad
> >>>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
> >>>> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever los=
e a
> >>>> Wimbledon final to anybody. =A0He had too much pride/talent to let t=
hat
> >>>> happen.
> >>> Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
> >>> the said slam's final.
> >>> - Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>
> > If we leave out the FO the records in the finals stand at 14 of 18 and
> > 13 of 15.
>
> > But again why should only the finals record count? After all anyone
> > who never reached a final never lost it either. For extreme slamists
> > every lost match in a slam should be a lost final.
>
> > What does the slam final record mean anyway. Let's consider that
> > Sampras stuck around and reached another four finals and lost them
> > all? Would he be any less of a candidate for GOAT? All we are doing is
> > adding to the current record. Same thing with Rafa's recent surge and
> > its effects on Federer's GOAT status. Let us say Federer wins the next
> > Wimbledon and USO. He will have 15 of 17 (excluding FO, he would even
> > be ahead on 7543:)). From there on let us say he loses 7 straight
> > finals to Nadal. Why does it diminish what has been already
> > accomplished (especially for a 7543er).
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> It tells us he won big v weaker players & got his arse handed to him by
> the only other good player playing today. =A0I've always said achievement

This is a dual edged sword. One can argue that he lost one final to
the number one ranked player and the other to a number two ranked
player. What's wrong with that? On the other hand Sampras defeats came
against sometimes lower ranked players.

As I said since every loss at a grand slam is a loss of the grand slam
why not look at who the losses came to not just in the final but
anywhere in the grand slam.

> goat is the ultimate title, but nobody in their right mind would bet
> their life on Roger beating Rafa. =A0If my life was on the line I'd pick
> Rafa & Sampras to beat Fed without any hesitation at all.

The Sampras bet is no longer a possibility but you may yet get a few
chances to make the Rafa bet.

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:10:11
From: undecided
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 8, 11:30=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 8 Feb, 23:10, undecided <cost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 4:56=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Feb, 19:54, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 8, 5:52=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the sh=
ade ,
> > > > > but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is st=
ill
> > > > > strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably =
the
> > > > > greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>
> > > > > its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because=
hes
> > > > > up against a player that would of handed just about any other pla=
yer
> > > > > ass to them - period
>
> > > > > Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete=
?
>
> > > > > And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>
> > > > > Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be =
sign
> > > > > of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>
> > > > > And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so ba=
d he
> > > > > only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>
> > > > > Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo=
and
> > > > > Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras wa=
s, or
> > > > > for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his ca=
reer.
>
> > > > > If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. h=
aving
> > > > > to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
> > > > > daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for examp=
le ?
>
> > > > > The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and j=
ust
> > > > > failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed w=
ith
> > > > > Rafa..
>
> > > > Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having =
13
> > > > slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> > > > I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> > > > h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> > > Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>
> > > An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>
> > > An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
>
> > > A broken Courier
>
> > > Who did he have ?
>
> > > Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>
> > > You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> > > whose game did not match well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > That argument is retarded, Who's to say that some of those couldn't
> > have become greater had they not been beaten silly by Sampras? Even
> > Agassi while erratic, he became erratic due to his devastating losses
> > to Sampras. Peak AA in 1995 was very formidable and yet he lost to
> > Pete. Then AA went AWOL after that loss.
>
> IF that was the case you would of had them making more slam finals
> than they did.
>
> Courier before his meltdown was genuine and perhaps Petes most testing
> rival , very underrated as far mental strength goes .
>
> Goran - we all know was headcase but like Pete has serve , which
> served him well i.e. he didnt have to think ...
>
> Goran was never going to be great then on account of this much like
> Safin and big Dave today.
>
> Agassi was pretty much the Gasquet of his day but never had the serve
> to really trouble Pete.
>
> There was again I repeat no one there with the credentials to
> challange Pete , Courier was the only one I could think off until he
> imploded period , the rest were all very good at only doing one or two
> things and not atheletes or as good off the ground as most of todays
> players are.
>
> The big servers like Stich were usually erratic off the ground and
> weak mentally, and the =A0groundies like Muster , Brugera has weak
> serves and could never adapt to faster surfaces - it was an era of "
> specialists " as pete is testament too with his Wimbldedon / Clay
> record =A0.
>
> I can verify Couriers early potential as threat and candidate for Goat
> by his brief domination as no 1 , defended grand slams ( x2 ) and the
> fact he reached the finals of all the slam before Agassi- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Courier was very good but AA was better. I am shocked that you compare
Gasquet to AA. AA is an all time great, I hope you realize that.


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:09:15
From: undecided
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 9, 6:25=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:58:45 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Superdave wrote:
> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade=
,
> >>>> but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
> >>>> strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
> >>>> greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>
> >>>> its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because he=
s
> >>>> up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
> >>>> ass to them - period
>
> >>>> Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>
> >>>> And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>
> >>>> Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sig=
n
> >>>> of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>
> >>>> And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad h=
e
> >>>> only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>
> >>>> Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo an=
d
> >>>> Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, =
or
> >>>> for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his caree=
r.
>
> >>>> If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. havi=
ng
> >>>> to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
> >>>> daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example =
?
>
> >>>> The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
> >>>> failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
> >>>> Rafa..
> >>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> >>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> >>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> >>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> >> I don't think Fed ever lost in R1/R2 EIGHT times at the FO either and
> >> never made a final. I don't think he ever lost a final to Bastl/Yzaga
> >> types either or was murdered in early rounds by a Galo Blanco type.
>
> >You'll find no one cares about this. =A0What matters is big slams won, b=
ig
> >matches v big players etc. =A0The losses to hacks are meaningless & easi=
ly
> >attributed to the greater champ not being bothered with meaningless
> >tune-ups.
>
> >Sampras rightly identified Agassi as his biggest challenge so always got
> >up for him in slams. =A0Fed, sadly for him & you, lost 5 slam finals on
> >all 3 surfaces to same guy.
>
> Agassi was no Rafa Nadal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

At this point in time AA > Rafa. Deal with it. I predict that Rafa
will be > AA by the end of his career but don't count your chickens
yet.


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 10:34:45
From: arahim
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 9, 2:50=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arahimwrote:
> > On Feb 8, 11:22 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> ghell666 wrote:
> >>>>> Rafa..
> >>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 1=
3
> >>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> >>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> >>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
> >>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
> >>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
> >>> An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
> >>> A broken Courier
> >>> Who did he have ?
> >>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
> >>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> >>> whose game did not match well.
> >> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. =A0Sure he had
> >> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
> >> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose =
a
> >> Wimbledon final to anybody. =A0He had too much pride/talent to let tha=
t
> >> happen.
>
> > Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
> > the said slam's final.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.

If we leave out the FO the records in the finals stand at 14 of 18 and
13 of 15.

But again why should only the finals record count? After all anyone
who never reached a final never lost it either. For extreme slamists
every lost match in a slam should be a lost final.

What does the slam final record mean anyway. Let's consider that
Sampras stuck around and reached another four finals and lost them
all? Would he be any less of a candidate for GOAT? All we are doing is
adding to the current record. Same thing with Rafa's recent surge and
its effects on Federer's GOAT status. Let us say Federer wins the next
Wimbledon and USO. He will have 15 of 17 (excluding FO, he would even
be ahead on 7543:)). From there on let us say he loses 7 straight
finals to Nadal. Why does it diminish what has been already
accomplished (especially for a 7543er).

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 23:52:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
arahim wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:50 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arahimwrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 11:22 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>>>> Rafa..
>>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>>>>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>>>>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>>>> A broken Courier
>>>>> Who did he have ?
>>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
>>>>> whose game did not match well.
>>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>>>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
>>>> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
>>>> Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to let that
>>>> happen.
>>> Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
>>> the said slam's final.
>>> - Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>
> If we leave out the FO the records in the finals stand at 14 of 18 and
> 13 of 15.
>
> But again why should only the finals record count? After all anyone
> who never reached a final never lost it either. For extreme slamists
> every lost match in a slam should be a lost final.
>
> What does the slam final record mean anyway. Let's consider that
> Sampras stuck around and reached another four finals and lost them
> all? Would he be any less of a candidate for GOAT? All we are doing is
> adding to the current record. Same thing with Rafa's recent surge and
> its effects on Federer's GOAT status. Let us say Federer wins the next
> Wimbledon and USO. He will have 15 of 17 (excluding FO, he would even
> be ahead on 7543:)). From there on let us say he loses 7 straight
> finals to Nadal. Why does it diminish what has been already
> accomplished (especially for a 7543er).
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>


It tells us he won big v weaker players & got his arse handed to him by
the only other good player playing today. I've always said achievement
goat is the ultimate title, but nobody in their right mind would bet
their life on Roger beating Rafa. If my life was on the line I'd pick
Rafa & Sampras to beat Fed without any hesitation at all.





  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:56:53
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
arahim wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:50 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arahimwrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 11:22 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>>>> Rafa..
>>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of
>>>>>> having 13 slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6
>>>>>> negative h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one
>>>>>> player.
>>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>>>> A broken Courier
>>>>> Who did he have ?
>>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from
>>>>> Agassi whose game did not match well.
>>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>>>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose
>>>> 2 slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever
>>>> lose a Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to
>>>> let that happen.
>>
>>> Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
>>> the said slam's final.
>>
>>> - Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>
> If we leave out the FO the records in the finals stand at 14 of 18 and
> 13 of 15.
>
> But again why should only the finals record count? After all anyone
> who never reached a final never lost it either. For extreme slamists
> every lost match in a slam should be a lost final.
>
> What does the slam final record mean anyway. Let's consider that
> Sampras stuck around and reached another four finals and lost them
> all? Would he be any less of a candidate for GOAT? All we are doing is
> adding to the current record. Same thing with Rafa's recent surge and
> its effects on Federer's GOAT status. Let us say Federer wins the next
> Wimbledon and USO. He will have 15 of 17 (excluding FO, he would even
> be ahead on 7543:)). From there on let us say he loses 7 straight
> finals to Nadal. Why does it diminish what has been already
> accomplished (especially for a 7543er).


Good post. But I'll give you an example.

Clearly Ivanisevic was greater Wimbledon player than Krajicek.
1-1 in titles, Ivanisevic much more finals, sf etc.

Yet, somehow, in people's minds, Krajicek is considered "a stronger
champion".
And we all know why is that.




 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 03:31:23
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals


Whisper kirjoitti:
> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.

Where is the problem? After all Rafa has been predicted to do big
things. You have for years predicted that he will win Wimbledon and hc
slams. Now he does and does it with beating very respectable opponent
in the process. I bet you are just confused as you finally got one of
your gazillion preditictions correct.

Good for Nadal (or is he winning alarmingly lot for you? or does this
prove that Fed definitely is not enjoying any hypotetical "clown era"
leftovers as he has the most ruthless rival imagined?).

Fed lost to great player at AO 09 and Wimb 08 and it needed
magnificent game by Nadal.

.mikko


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 23:05:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>
> Where is the problem? After all Rafa has been predicted to do big
> things. You have for years predicted that he will win Wimbledon and hc
> slams. Now he does and does it with beating very respectable opponent
> in the process. I bet you are just confused as you finally got one of
> your gazillion preditictions correct.
>
> Good for Nadal (or is he winning alarmingly lot for you? or does this
> prove that Fed definitely is not enjoying any hypotetical "clown era"
> leftovers as he has the most ruthless rival imagined?).
>
> Fed lost to great player at AO 09 and Wimb 08 and it needed
> magnificent game by Nadal.
>
> .mikko


I don't make predictions - that's for clairvoyants & Hazel types. I
offer solid analysis suggesting most likely outcome & I have been 100%
correct. If something doesn't come to pass it doesn't invalidate the
'most likely' analysis as there are variables that can't be predicted.



   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 10:39:58
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>>
>> Where is the problem? After all Rafa has been predicted to do big
>> things. You have for years predicted that he will win Wimbledon and hc
>> slams. Now he does and does it with beating very respectable opponent
>> in the process. I bet you are just confused as you finally got one of
>> your gazillion preditictions correct.
>>
>> Good for Nadal (or is he winning alarmingly lot for you? or does this
>> prove that Fed definitely is not enjoying any hypotetical "clown era"
>> leftovers as he has the most ruthless rival imagined?).
>>
>> Fed lost to great player at AO 09 and Wimb 08 and it needed
>> magnificent game by Nadal.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
> I don't make predictions - that's for clairvoyants & Hazel types. I
> offer solid analysis suggesting most likely outcome & I have been 100%
> correct. If something doesn't come to pass it doesn't invalidate the
> 'most likely' analysis as there are variables that can't be predicted.

Really? Roddick "most likely" to win a CYGS in 2004?


    
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:52:48
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>
>>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>>>
>>> Where is the problem? After all Rafa has been predicted to do big
>>> things. You have for years predicted that he will win Wimbledon and
>>> hc slams. Now he does and does it with beating very respectable
>>> opponent in the process. I bet you are just confused as you finally
>>> got one of your gazillion preditictions correct.
>>>
>>> Good for Nadal (or is he winning alarmingly lot for you? or does
>>> this prove that Fed definitely is not enjoying any hypotetical
>>> "clown era" leftovers as he has the most ruthless rival imagined?).
>>>
>>> Fed lost to great player at AO 09 and Wimb 08 and it needed
>>> magnificent game by Nadal.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>
>>
>> I don't make predictions - that's for clairvoyants & Hazel types. I
>> offer solid analysis suggesting most likely outcome & I have been
>> 100% correct. If something doesn't come to pass it doesn't
>> invalidate the 'most likely' analysis as there are variables that
>> can't be predicted.
>
> Really? Roddick "most likely" to win a CYGS in 2004?


Wasn't he year-end #1 in 2003?
Who is most likely to win CYGS if not the world #1?





   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 12:39:01
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:05:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>> Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.
>>
>> Where is the problem? After all Rafa has been predicted to do big
>> things. You have for years predicted that he will win Wimbledon and hc
>> slams. Now he does and does it with beating very respectable opponent
>> in the process. I bet you are just confused as you finally got one of
>> your gazillion preditictions correct.
>>
>> Good for Nadal (or is he winning alarmingly lot for you? or does this
>> prove that Fed definitely is not enjoying any hypotetical "clown era"
>> leftovers as he has the most ruthless rival imagined?).
>>
>> Fed lost to great player at AO 09 and Wimb 08 and it needed
>> magnificent game by Nadal.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
>I don't make predictions - that's for clairvoyants & Hazel types. I
>offer solid analysis suggesting most likely outcome & I have been 100%
>correct. If something doesn't come to pass it doesn't invalidate the
>'most likely' analysis as there are variables that can't be predicted.


you "ride the fence" and then always claim to be right because you
know shit so are afraid to stake a claim.

we all know that.

no need to "explain".

some of us put our money where our mouth is.

you put your cunt where your cock used to be.

ok. so be a cunt. just don't claim afterward that cunnilingus is
better than a blow job.

it's not.


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 03:24:40
From:
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 9, 10:01=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 7:22 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> ghell666 wrote:
> >>>>> Rafa..
> >>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 1=
3
> >>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> >>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> >>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
> >>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
> >>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
> >>> An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
> >>> A broken Courier
> >>> Who did he have ?
> >>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
> >>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> >>> whose game did not match well.
> >> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. =A0Sure he had
> >> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
> >> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose =
a
> >> Wimbledon final to anybody. =A0He had too much pride/talent to let tha=
t
> >> happen.
>
> > So if Sampras had got to three FO finals in a row against the same
> > dominant claycourter he would definitely have won two of them?
>
> Pretty silly argument - think about it.
>
> Or do you want me to say 'Yeah look Pete made 3 FO finals & lost them
> all to Guga - proves he's a hack'.
>
> We have enough difficulty agreeing on what actually happened on the
> court without opening coulda/woulda can

You're avoiding the question - you said that Sampras would never lose
2
slam finals to the same guy. Three of Federer's five slam final losses
were on clay to Nadal. Had Sampras made 3 FO finals against the same
player then you are saying that he would have won at least two of them
- that's the simple logic of your statements.

Of course had Sampras lost 3 FO finals to Kuerten, it wouldn't have
made him a hackc at all - I don't know why you would imagine that it
would ...





  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:50:24
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 7:22 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>>>> Rafa..
>>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of
>>>>>> having 13 slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6
>>>>>> negative h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one
>>>>>> player.
>>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>>>> A broken Courier
>>>>> Who did he have ?
>>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from
>>>>> Agassi whose game did not match well.
>>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>>>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose
>>>> 2 slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever
>>>> lose a Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to
>>>> let that happen.
>>
>>> So if Sampras had got to three FO finals in a row against the same
>>> dominant claycourter he would definitely have won two of them?
>>
>> Pretty silly argument - think about it.
>>
>> Or do you want me to say 'Yeah look Pete made 3 FO finals & lost them
>> all to Guga - proves he's a hack'.
>>
>> We have enough difficulty agreeing on what actually happened on the
>> court without opening coulda/woulda can
>
> You're avoiding the question - you said that Sampras would never lose
> 2
> slam finals to the same guy. Three of Federer's five slam final losses
> were on clay to Nadal. Had Sampras made 3 FO finals against the same
> player then you are saying that he would have won at least two of them
> - that's the simple logic of your statements.
>
> Of course had Sampras lost 3 FO finals to Kuerten, it wouldn't have
> made him a hackc at all - I don't know why you would imagine that it
> would ...

No but it would be "different".




 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 02:11:40
From: arahim
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 8, 11:22=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> ghell666 wrote:
> >>> Rafa..
> >> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> >> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> >> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> >> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> > Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>
> > An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>
> > An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
>
> > A broken Courier
>
> > Who did he have ?
>
> > Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>
> > You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> > whose game did not match well.
>
> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. =A0Sure he had
> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
> Wimbledon final to anybody. =A0He had too much pride/talent to let that
> happen.

Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
the said slam's final.

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 21:50:40
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
arahim wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:22 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>> Rafa..
>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>> A broken Courier
>>> Who did he have ?
>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
>>> whose game did not match well.
>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
>> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
>> Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to let that
>> happen.
>
> Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
> the said slam's final.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>



Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.


   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:24:35
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:50:40 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arahim wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 11:22 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>>> Rafa..
>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>>>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>>>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>>> A broken Courier
>>>> Who did he have ?
>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
>>>> whose game did not match well.
>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
>>> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
>>> Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to let that
>>> happen.
>>
>> Maybe but the first part of winning a given slam's final is reaching
>> the said slam's final.
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
>
>
>Even if we ignore FO Fed still lost Wimbledon & AO finals to Rafa.


Pete would have lost all of them to Rafa. For sure (on todays
surfaces).


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 01:56:55
From:
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 9, 7:22=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> ghell666 wrote:
> >>> Rafa..
> >> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> >> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> >> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> >> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> > Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>
> > An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>
> > An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
>
> > A broken Courier
>
> > Who did he have ?
>
> > Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>
> > You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> > whose game did not match well.
>
> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. =A0Sure he had
> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
> Wimbledon final to anybody. =A0He had too much pride/talent to let that
> happen.

So if Sampras had got to three FO finals in a row against the same
dominant claycourter he would definitely have won two of them?



  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 21:01:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:22 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>> Rafa..
>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>> A broken Courier
>>> Who did he have ?
>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
>>> whose game did not match well.
>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
>> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
>> Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to let that
>> happen.
>
> So if Sampras had got to three FO finals in a row against the same
> dominant claycourter he would definitely have won two of them?
>


Pretty silly argument - think about it.

Or do you want me to say 'Yeah look Pete made 3 FO finals & lost them
all to Guga - proves he's a hack'.

We have enough difficulty agreeing on what actually happened on the
court without opening coulda/woulda can.



   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:23:20
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:01:15 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 7:22 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>>> Rafa..
>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>>>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>>>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>>> A broken Courier
>>>> Who did he have ?
>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
>>>> whose game did not match well.
>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
>>> some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
>>> slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
>>> Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to let that
>>> happen.
>>
>> So if Sampras had got to three FO finals in a row against the same
>> dominant claycourter he would definitely have won two of them?
>>
>
>
>Pretty silly argument - think about it.
>
>Or do you want me to say 'Yeah look Pete made 3 FO finals & lost them
>all to Guga - proves he's a hack'.
>
>We have enough difficulty agreeing on what actually happened on the
>court without opening coulda/woulda can.


What ACTUALLY happened was :

1. Sampras was ignominiously defeated by jerks in R1/R2 of the FO
EIGHT times.

2. He huffed and he puffed but he could never even make a single final
against the clowns.

Yeah, that's FACT !


    
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:46:25
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
Superdave wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:01:15 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 7:22 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> ghell666 wrote:
>>>>>>> Rafa..
>>>>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of
>>>>>> having 13 slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>>>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6
>>>>>> negative h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one
>>>>>> player.
>>>>> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>>>>> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>>>>> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>>>>> A broken Courier
>>>>> Who did he have ?
>>>>> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>>>>> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from
>>>>> Agassi whose game did not match well.
>>>> I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he
>>>> had some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever
>>>> lose 2 slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he
>>>> ever lose a Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much
>>>> pride/talent to let that happen.
>>>
>>> So if Sampras had got to three FO finals in a row against the same
>>> dominant claycourter he would definitely have won two of them?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Pretty silly argument - think about it.
>>
>> Or do you want me to say 'Yeah look Pete made 3 FO finals & lost them
>> all to Guga - proves he's a hack'.
>>
>> We have enough difficulty agreeing on what actually happened on the
>> court without opening coulda/woulda can.
>
>
> What ACTUALLY happened was :
>
> 1. Sampras was ignominiously defeated by jerks in R1/R2 of the FO
> EIGHT times.

Federer FIVE





 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 00:31:57
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals


Whisper kirjoitti:
> You'll find no one cares about this. What matters is big slams won, big
> matches v big players etc. The losses to hacks are meaningless & easily
> attributed to the greater champ not being bothered with meaningless
> tune-ups.

That's relative turncoat from your previous post here (2003-2005
circa) Multiple links available.

You are refined your criterias to suit your agenda. Earlier it was
simply "losses to not count"...now there is an addition in a form of
"Big matches against big players" which was non-existent before.

> Sampras rightly identified Agassi as his biggest challenge so always got
> up for him in slams. Fed, sadly for him & you, lost 5 slam finals on
> all 3 surfaces to same guy.

At least Fed has lost to very great player and in tight matches (save
2008 FO).

But yes. Fed's losses to Nadal has hurt his legacy among the
averagejoes. Of course it is relatively too bad as the most of the
"tennisfans" are averagejoes who do not understand the paradoxal fact
that it is always ultimately better result to reach the final than to
subcumb to journeyman/lose to lesser player.

.mikko


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 20:30:17
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On 8 Feb, 23:10, undecided <cost...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:56=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8 Feb, 19:54, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 5:52=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shad=
e ,
> > > > but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is stil=
l
> > > > strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably th=
e
> > > > greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>
> > > > its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because h=
es
> > > > up against a player that would of handed just about any other playe=
r
> > > > ass to them - period
>
> > > > Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>
> > > > And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>
> > > > Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be si=
gn
> > > > of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>
> > > > And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad =
he
> > > > only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>
> > > > Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo a=
nd
> > > > Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was,=
or
> > > > for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his care=
er.
>
> > > > If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. hav=
ing
> > > > to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
> > > > daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example=
?
>
> > > > The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and jus=
t
> > > > failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed wit=
h
> > > > Rafa..
>
> > > Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> > > slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> > > I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> > > h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> > Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>
> > An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>
> > An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
>
> > A broken Courier
>
> > Who did he have ?
>
> > Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>
> > You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> > whose game did not match well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That argument is retarded, Who's to say that some of those couldn't
> have become greater had they not been beaten silly by Sampras? Even
> Agassi while erratic, he became erratic due to his devastating losses
> to Sampras. Peak AA in 1995 was very formidable and yet he lost to
> Pete. Then AA went AWOL after that loss.

IF that was the case you would of had them making more slam finals
than they did.

Courier before his meltdown was genuine and perhaps Petes most testing
rival , very underrated as far mental strength goes .

Goran - we all know was headcase but like Pete has serve , which
served him well i.e. he didnt have to think ...

Goran was never going to be great then on account of this much like
Safin and big Dave today.

Agassi was pretty much the Gasquet of his day but never had the serve
to really trouble Pete.

There was again I repeat no one there with the credentials to
challange Pete , Courier was the only one I could think off until he
imploded period , the rest were all very good at only doing one or two
things and not atheletes or as good off the ground as most of todays
players are.

The big servers like Stich were usually erratic off the ground and
weak mentally, and the groundies like Muster , Brugera has weak
serves and could never adapt to faster surfaces - it was an era of "
specialists " as pete is testament too with his Wimbldedon / Clay
record .

I can verify Couriers early potential as threat and candidate for Goat
by his brief domination as no 1 , defended grand slams ( x2 ) and the
fact he reached the finals of all the slam before Agassi


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 15:10:17
From: undecided
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 8, 4:56=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 8 Feb, 19:54, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:52=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade =
,
> > > but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
> > > strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
> > > greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>
> > > its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
> > > up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
> > > ass to them - period
>
> > > Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>
> > > And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>
> > > Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
> > > of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>
> > > And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
> > > only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>
> > > Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
> > > Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, o=
r
> > > for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career=
.
>
> > > If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. havin=
g
> > > to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
> > > daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?
>
> > > The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
> > > failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
> > > Rafa..
>
> > Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> > slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> > I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> > h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>
> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>
> An eeratic =A0Becker / =A0past it Edberg
>
> A broken Courier
>
> Who did he have ?
>
> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>
> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> whose game did not match well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That argument is retarded, Who's to say that some of those couldn't
have become greater had they not been beaten silly by Sampras? Even
Agassi while erratic, he became erratic due to his devastating losses
to Sampras. Peak AA in 1995 was very formidable and yet he lost to
Pete. Then AA went AWOL after that loss.


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 14:33:07
From:
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 8, 2:54=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.


Exactly.


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 13:56:55
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On 8 Feb, 19:54, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:52=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade ,
> > but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
> > strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
> > greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>
> > its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
> > up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
> > ass to them - period
>
> > Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>
> > And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>
> > Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
> > of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>
> > And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
> > only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>
> > Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
> > Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, or
> > for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career.
>
> > If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. having
> > to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
> > daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?
>
> > The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
> > failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
> > Rafa..
>
> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.

Yes , but Pete had no competition really.

An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.

An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg

A broken Courier

Who did he have ?

Martin , Pioline , Goran ??

You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
whose game did not match well.





  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 18:22:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
ghell666 wrote:
>>> Rafa..
>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
> Yes , but Pete had no competition really.
>
> An erratic Agassi who was never going to challange him on grass.
>
> An eeratic Becker / past it Edberg
>
> A broken Courier
>
> Who did he have ?
>
> Martin , Pioline , Goran ??
>
> You cant put any of them in same bracket as Nadal apart from Agassi
> whose game did not match well.
>
>
>


I think you'll find nobody had a game to match Sampras. Sure he had
some losses when he wasn't zoned in, but no way would he ever lose 2
slam finals to the same guy (let alone 5) - no way would he ever lose a
Wimbledon final to anybody. He had too much pride/talent to let that
happen.


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 11:54:30
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Feb 8, 5:52=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade ,
> but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
> strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
> greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>
> its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
> up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
> ass to them - period
>
> Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>
> And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>
> Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
> of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>
> And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
> only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>
> Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
> Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, or
> for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career.
>
> If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. having
> to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
> daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?
>
> The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
> failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
> Rafa..

Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 00:55:50
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade ,
>> but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
>> strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
>> greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>>
>> its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
>> up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
>> ass to them - period
>>
>> Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>>
>> And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>>
>> Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
>> of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>>
>> And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
>> only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>>
>> Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
>> Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, or
>> for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career.
>>
>> If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. having
>> to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
>> daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?
>>
>> The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
>> failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
>> Rafa..
>
>Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.


I don't think Fed ever lost in R1/R2 EIGHT times at the FO either and
never made a final. I don't think he ever lost a final to Bastl/Yzaga
types either or was murdered in early rounds by a Galo Blanco type.


   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 18:58:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
Superdave wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade ,
>>> but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
>>> strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
>>> greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>>>
>>> its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
>>> up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
>>> ass to them - period
>>>
>>> Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>>>
>>> And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>>>
>>> Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
>>> of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>>>
>>> And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
>>> only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>>>
>>> Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
>>> Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, or
>>> for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career.
>>>
>>> If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. having
>>> to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
>>> daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?
>>>
>>> The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
>>> failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
>>> Rafa..
>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
>
> I don't think Fed ever lost in R1/R2 EIGHT times at the FO either and
> never made a final. I don't think he ever lost a final to Bastl/Yzaga
> types either or was murdered in early rounds by a Galo Blanco type.



You'll find no one cares about this. What matters is big slams won, big
matches v big players etc. The losses to hacks are meaningless & easily
attributed to the greater champ not being bothered with meaningless
tune-ups.

Sampras rightly identified Agassi as his biggest challenge so always got
up for him in slams. Fed, sadly for him & you, lost 5 slam finals on
all 3 surfaces to same guy.


    
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:25:14
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:58:45 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>> <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the shade ,
>>>> but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat is still
>>>> strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is probably the
>>>> greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>>>>
>>>> its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because hes
>>>> up against a player that would of handed just about any other player
>>>> ass to them - period
>>>>
>>>> Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>>>>
>>>> And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>>>>
>>>> Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be sign
>>>> of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>>>>
>>>> And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad he
>>>> only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>>>>
>>>> Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo and
>>>> Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras was, or
>>>> for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of his career.
>>>>
>>>> If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie. having
>>>> to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated attempts , I
>>>> daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and Pete for example ?
>>>>
>>>> The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
>>>> failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
>>>> Rafa..
>>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>>
>>
>> I don't think Fed ever lost in R1/R2 EIGHT times at the FO either and
>> never made a final. I don't think he ever lost a final to Bastl/Yzaga
>> types either or was murdered in early rounds by a Galo Blanco type.
>
>
>
>You'll find no one cares about this. What matters is big slams won, big
>matches v big players etc. The losses to hacks are meaningless & easily
>attributed to the greater champ not being bothered with meaningless
>tune-ups.
>
>Sampras rightly identified Agassi as his biggest challenge so always got
>up for him in slams. Fed, sadly for him & you, lost 5 slam finals on
>all 3 surfaces to same guy.


Agassi was no Rafa Nadal.


   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 02:06:28
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Feds consecutive FO finals
Superdave wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I know the breakdown as of late has put his goat status in the
>>> shade , but I look back and think that Feds argument for being goat
>>> is still strong - if losing out to the only other player whos is
>>> probably the greatest clay courter of all time is any excuse.
>>>
>>> its true , Fed has a terrible Rafa record ,but thats only because
>>> hes up against a player that would of handed just about any other
>>> player ass to them - period
>>>
>>> Whose to say what happened to Fed would not have happened to Pete ?
>>>
>>> And for mentally strong , what about clay ?
>>>
>>> Couldnt impatience, if thats what pro pete supporters think , be
>>> sign of weakness on surface that requires it ?
>>>
>>> And if not that then how can say someone whose backhand was so bad
>>> he only made the semi at Garros x1 be considered great ?
>>>
>>> Pete could barely get past 1st round against tier 3 players at Fo
>>> and Feds backhand ( IMO ) is nowhere near the liability as Sampras
>>> was, or for that matter his groundstrokes - esp towards the end of
>>> his career.
>>>
>>> If you put any other player in Feds sitatuion realistically ie.
>>> having to win against the greatest on clay , adter repeated
>>> attempts , I daresay they would be affected - look at Goran and
>>> Pete for example ?
>>>
>>> The difference between Goran being considered a slam winner and just
>>> failure was really up to Pete , and it will be the same for Fed with
>>> Rafa..
>>
>> Sure, fed will always be a Goat candidate simply because of having 13
>> slams. However, we can't work with 'if's' and 'but's'
>> I don't think that Sampras had any peers who he had a 13-6 negative
>> h2h against including defeats in 5 slam finals to one player.
>
>
> I don't think Fed ever lost in R1/R2 EIGHT times at the FO either and
> never made a final.

I fail to see your point, he lost FIVE times. So he only needs three more
loses like that.