tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 20 Dec 2008 17:14:28
From: TT
Subject: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.

If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
Two would be a good year.
Three would be a great year.
Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.

Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.

Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.

In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
Federer.



http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp




 
Date: 28 Dec 2008 05:22:32
From: Quincy
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 4:14=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
>
> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly

Who is Nadal?


 
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:59:38
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 27, 10:29=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 6:33=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 23, 11:15 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-ha=
nded
> > > > > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed =
as
> > > > > > >> you guys seem
> > > > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's=
no
> > > > > > >> big deal
> > > > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but with=
out
> > > > > > using the
> > > > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The =
whole
> > > > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in =
this
> > > > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other =
way
> > > > > around.
>
> > > > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > > > > version of
> > > > > > "football")
>
> > > > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America stra=
ngely
> > > > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table foot=
ball
> > > > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Bri=
ts
> > > > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Ever=
ybody
> > > > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown w=
ith
> > > > > the hand.
>
> > > > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > > > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America=
,
> > > I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> > > football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> > > brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.
>
> > Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
> > sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
> > where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
> > Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
> > regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
> > ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
> > foreign term.
>
> > > It's not about
> > > America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerfu=
l
> > > country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> > > China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> > > Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> > > the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line g=
o
> > > through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> > > I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> > > justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> > > to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.
>
> > >What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
> > >Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
> > >"futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
> > >programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
> > >everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
> > >British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
> > >by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>
> > >You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
> > >internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.
>
> > the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a ga=
me
> > that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!
>
> Sorry, that is incorrect. Each half of an American football game
> begins with a kickoff (the ball is placed on a plastic tee and kicked
> from there). Almost all scoring involves a placekick (the ball rests
> on the ground and is balanced upright by the "holder" for the kicker
> to kick) -- either a field goal or a PAT (point after touchdown). Each
> score is also followed by a kickoff (or a free kick in the case of a
> safety). And when a team is unable to advance the ball far enough
> while playing offense, it must "punt" the ball (a defensive play in
> which the ball is tossed into the air and kicked before it hits the
> gorund).
>
> I estimate that the typical American football game -- say, one team
> scores four times and the other three times, and each must punt a
> couple times per half -- includes about 24 kicks. While that's nothing
> compared to soccer, it justifies the term "football" in American
> English, considering that our other major sports involve no kicking
> whatsoever.
>
> It might have been more convenient for everyone if, in the 19th
> century, American football had acquired a separate nickname (the way
> soccer did) while it was in the process of evolving away from soccer
> and rugby. If it had, today the sport would be known by that name and
> there would be no confusion with what the rest of the world calls
> football. But that didn't happen, and of course today it's impossible
> to change the name of a sport that has more than a century of
> tradition in this country and is represented by the most successful
> single professional sports league in the world.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Go Steelers!


 
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:20:25
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 25, 12:36=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
> >>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
> >>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> >>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> >>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
> >> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve th=
ese
> >> problems for you. =A0Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>
> > I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
> > see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
> > used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
> > gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>
> Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I view Wimbledon as one of the four most important tournaments in
tennis. Pray tell how that makes me a troll?


  
Date: 28 Dec 2008 09:14:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6deff63c-f370-4958-9df1-b5df594051e5@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 12:36 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
> >>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
> >>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> >>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> >>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
> >> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve
> >> these
> >> problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>
> > I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
> > see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
> > used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
> > gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>
> Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I view Wimbledon as one of the four most important tournaments in
tennis. Pray tell how that makes me a troll?


You don't accept the fact it's the most important tournament.




   
Date: 28 Dec 2008 12:29:35
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:14:17 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6deff63c-f370-4958-9df1-b5df594051e5@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 25, 12:36 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> > On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>> >>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>> >>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>> >>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>> >>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>> >> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve
>> >> these
>> >> problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>>
>> > I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
>> > see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
>> > used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
>> > gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>>
>> Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I view Wimbledon as one of the four most important tournaments in
>tennis. Pray tell how that makes me a troll?
>
>
>You don't accept the fact it's the most important tournament.
>

Why ?


    
Date: 28 Dec 2008 23:43:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:14:17 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6deff63c-f370-4958-9df1-b5df594051e5@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 25, 12:36 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>>>>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>>>>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>>>>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>>>>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>>>>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve
>>>>> these
>>>>> problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>>>> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
>>>> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
>>>> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
>>>> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>>> Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> I view Wimbledon as one of the four most important tournaments in
>> tennis. Pray tell how that makes me a troll?
>>
>>
>> You don't accept the fact it's the most important tournament.
>>
>
> Why ?



duh


 
Date: 27 Dec 2008 10:29:54
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 27, 6:33=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 11:15 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-hand=
ed
> > > > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as
> > > > > >> you guys seem
> > > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's n=
o
> > > > > >> big deal
> > > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but withou=
t
> > > > > using the
> > > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The wh=
ole
> > > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in th=
is
> > > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other wa=
y
> > > > around.
>
> > > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > > > version of
> > > > > "football")
>
> > > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strang=
ely
> > > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table footba=
ll
> > > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everyb=
ody
> > > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown wit=
h
> > > > the hand.
>
> > > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
> > I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> > football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> > brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.
>
> Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
> sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
> where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
> Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
> regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
> ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
> foreign term.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's not about
> > America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> > country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> > China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> > Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> > the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> > through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> > I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> > justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> > to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.
>
> >What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
> >Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
> >"futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
> >programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
> >everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
> >British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
> >by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>
> >You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
> >internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.
>
> the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a game
> that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!

Sorry, that is incorrect. Each half of an American football game
begins with a kickoff (the ball is placed on a plastic tee and kicked
from there). Almost all scoring involves a placekick (the ball rests
on the ground and is balanced upright by the "holder" for the kicker
to kick) -- either a field goal or a PAT (point after touchdown). Each
score is also followed by a kickoff (or a free kick in the case of a
safety). And when a team is unable to advance the ball far enough
while playing offense, it must "punt" the ball (a defensive play in
which the ball is tossed into the air and kicked before it hits the
gorund).

I estimate that the typical American football game -- say, one team
scores four times and the other three times, and each must punt a
couple times per half -- includes about 24 kicks. While that's nothing
compared to soccer, it justifies the term "football" in American
English, considering that our other major sports involve no kicking
whatsoever.

It might have been more convenient for everyone if, in the 19th
century, American football had acquired a separate nickname (the way
soccer did) while it was in the process of evolving away from soccer
and rugby. If it had, today the sport would be known by that name and
there would be no confusion with what the rest of the world calls
football. But that didn't happen, and of course today it's impossible
to change the name of a sport that has more than a century of
tradition in this country and is represented by the most successful
single professional sports league in the world.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 21:26:08
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 27, 6:33 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a
>> game that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!
>
> Sorry, that is incorrect. Each half of an American football game
> begins with a kickoff (the ball is placed on a plastic tee and kicked
> from there). Almost all scoring involves a placekick (the ball rests
> on the ground and is balanced upright by the "holder" for the kicker
> to kick) -- either a field goal or a PAT (point after touchdown). Each
> score is also followed by a kickoff (or a free kick in the case of a
> safety). And when a team is unable to advance the ball far enough
> while playing offense, it must "punt" the ball (a defensive play in
> which the ball is tossed into the air and kicked before it hits the
> gorund).
>
> I estimate that the typical American football game -- say, one team
> scores four times and the other three times, and each must punt a
> couple times per half -- includes about 24 kicks. While that's nothing
> compared to soccer, it justifies the term "football" in American
> English, considering that our other major sports involve no kicking
> whatsoever.

You're really stretching there. Kicking is a tiny part of the game. I know
because a few Australians have become punters for major U.S. teams. They have
one punt and then they watch the real game from the sidelines until quite some
ime later they are called upon to have one punt and sit down again. I remember
an occasion when, in very unusual circmstances, Darren Bennett actually had to
make a tackle. It was such a novelty for a punter to have to do that that it
got a lot of publicity. Are you really trying to tell us that the kicking
aspect of American football justifies its being called football?





  
Date: 28 Dec 2008 11:52:41
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:b5edde8d-db2c-41e1-aeb9-69fe10fa43a0@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 6:33 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 11:15 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play
> > > > > >> left-handed
> > > > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as
> > > > > >> you guys seem
> > > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no
> > > > > >> big deal
> > > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
> > > > > using the
> > > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The
> > > > whole
> > > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in
> > > > this
> > > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> > > > around.
>
> > > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > > > version of
> > > > > "football")
>
> > > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fußball (which in America strangely
> > > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table
> > > > football
> > > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football.
> > > > Everybody
> > > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> > > > the hand.
>
> > > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
> > I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> > football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> > brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.
>
> Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
> sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
> where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
> Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
> regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
> ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
> foreign term.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's not about
> > America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> > country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> > China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> > Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> > the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> > through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> > I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> > justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> > to use terms like Futbol, Fußball, Soccer, etc.
>
> >What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
> >Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
> >"futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
> >programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
> >everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
> >British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
> >by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>
> >You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
> >internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.
>
> the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a game
> that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!

Sorry, that is incorrect. Each half of an American football game
begins with a kickoff (the ball is placed on a plastic tee and kicked
from there). Almost all scoring involves a placekick (the ball rests
on the ground and is balanced upright by the "holder" for the kicker
to kick) -- either a field goal or a PAT (point after touchdown). Each
score is also followed by a kickoff (or a free kick in the case of a
safety). And when a team is unable to advance the ball far enough
while playing offense, it must "punt" the ball (a defensive play in
which the ball is tossed into the air and kicked before it hits the
gorund).

I estimate that the typical American football game -- say, one team
scores four times and the other three times, and each must punt a
couple times per half -- includes about 24 kicks. While that's nothing
compared to soccer, it justifies the term "football" in American
English, considering that our other major sports involve no kicking
whatsoever.
******

Yes, but face facts the majority of the time the ball is held/carried by the
hands. I, along with most of the rest of the world, certainly do not think
24 kicks in 1 hour justifies it to be called *football*! still like you said
it's doubtful the name will change since "American Carryball" doesn't have
that ring to it. Though I do encourage other net users to start using the
term.




   
Date: 28 Dec 2008 18:38:59
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
Iceberg wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:b5edde8d-db2c-41e1-aeb9-69fe10fa43a0@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 6:33 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 23, 11:15 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But since he's been training since childhood to play
>>>>>>>> left-handed
>>>>>>>> (which, BTW,
>>>>>>>> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as
>>>>>>>> you guys seem
>>>>>>>> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no
>>>>>>>> big deal
>>>>>>>> (basketball, futbol...
>>>>>>> OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>>>>>> Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
>>>>>> using the
>>>>>> word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>>>>> I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The
>>>>> whole
>>>>> world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in
>>>>> this
>>>>> matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
>>>>> around.
>>>>> Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>>>>>> (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
>>>>>> version of
>>>>>> "football")
>>>>> Yes, I know. The Germans call it fußball (which in America strangely
>>>>> means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table
>>>>> football
>>>>> "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
>>>>> and the French call it football. We Asians call it football.
>>>>> Everybody
>>>>> but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>>>>> It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
>>>>> strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
>>>>> the hand.
>>>>> So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
>>>>> Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
>>>>> increases their worldliness.
>>>> Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>> Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
>>> I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
>>> football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
>>> brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.
>> Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
>> sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
>> where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
>> Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
>> regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
>> ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
>> foreign term.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's not about
>>> America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
>>> country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
>>> China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
>>> Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
>>> the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
>>> through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>>> I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
>>> justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
>>> to use terms like Futbol, Fußball, Soccer, etc.
>>> What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
>>> Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
>>> "futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
>>> programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
>>> everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
>>> British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
>>> by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>>> You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
>>> internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.
>> the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a game
>> that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!
>
> Sorry, that is incorrect. Each half of an American football game
> begins with a kickoff (the ball is placed on a plastic tee and kicked
> from there). Almost all scoring involves a placekick (the ball rests
> on the ground and is balanced upright by the "holder" for the kicker
> to kick) -- either a field goal or a PAT (point after touchdown). Each
> score is also followed by a kickoff (or a free kick in the case of a
> safety). And when a team is unable to advance the ball far enough
> while playing offense, it must "punt" the ball (a defensive play in
> which the ball is tossed into the air and kicked before it hits the
> gorund).
>
> I estimate that the typical American football game -- say, one team
> scores four times and the other three times, and each must punt a
> couple times per half -- includes about 24 kicks. While that's nothing
> compared to soccer, it justifies the term "football" in American
> English, considering that our other major sports involve no kicking
> whatsoever.
> ******
>
> Yes, but face facts the majority of the time the ball is held/carried by the
> hands. I, along with most of the rest of the world, certainly do not think
> 24 kicks in 1 hour justifies it to be called *football*! still like you said
> it's doubtful the name will change since "American Carryball" doesn't have
> that ring to it. Though I do encourage other net users to start using the
> term.
>
>

Good one.

--
"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 Dec 2008 09:22:00
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 27, 3:33=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 11:15 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-hand=
ed
> > > > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as
> > > > > >> you guys seem
> > > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's n=
o
> > > > > >> big deal
> > > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but withou=
t
> > > > > using the
> > > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The wh=
ole
> > > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in th=
is
> > > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other wa=
y
> > > > around.
>
> > > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > > > version of
> > > > > "football")
>
> > > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strang=
ely
> > > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table footba=
ll
> > > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everyb=
ody
> > > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown wit=
h
> > > > the hand.
>
> > > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
> > I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> > football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> > brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.
>
> Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
> sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
> where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
> Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
> regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
> ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
> foreign term.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's not about
> > America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> > country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> > China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> > Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> > the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> > through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> > I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> > justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> > to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.
>
> >What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
> >Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
> >"futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
> >programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
> >everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
> >British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
> >by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>
> >You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
> >internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.
>
> the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a game
> that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Well football used to have the punt, the place kick AND THE DROP
KICK and touchdowns were worth 4 points, field goals 3 and drop kicks
were another way to score extra points... the use of kicking was also
defensive more like a combo of rugby and Aussie rules... modern
football became a ground carrying game and then evolved into an
throwing/air game and then a combination of both with the kicking an
important peripheral :))

But ya, football is footy... game of Pele, Maradona. Zidane, etc...

P


 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 13:37:49
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 26, 4:48=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:32:35 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe
>
>
>
>
>
> <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 1:09=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:36:04 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
> >> >>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or he=
lp.
> >> >>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> >> >>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I w=
ill
> >> >>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
> >> >>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solv=
e these
> >> >>> problems for you. =A0Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere=
.
>
> >> >> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don'=
t
> >> >> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
> >> >> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling ha=
s
> >> >> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore=
.
>
> >> >Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst=
.
>
> >> with you being the biggest by far- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >++ BACK TO THE ISSUE OF THE THREAD... lol...
>
> >8 or 9 slams for Rafael looks likely... UNLESS he can find a way to
> >win HC slams that's got to be about his number because of the laws of
> >probability kicking in soon at the French and the fact that Fed and
> >Murray will be tough to beat at Wimbledon for the next 3 or 4 years...
> >that would necessitate Nadal beginning to win at AO and USO if he
> >wants to crack the 10 slam barrier... will his game support slam
> >winning runs on HC... that's what 2009 is going to be all about for
> >Nadal...
>
> >P
>
> No chance. Nadal is fully cooked and ready to eat. He may never win
> another slam. Maybe one more FO if he is lucky and perhaps another or
> an AO is he is extremely lucky.
>
> That's it. Six, maybe seven, tops. He looks about ready to fall off a
> cliff so it depends on whether that happens this year or next.- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ To be fair Nadal's just come off a career year for him and was
bullet proof for much of this past season (2008), so, it's not like
he's dead in the water... can he defend all of those clay tournaments
(titles and points) this season... that's going to complicate things
for Nadal a bit, potientially...

P


  
Date: 28 Dec 2008 05:17:47
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 28, 2:56=A0am, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <05290281-827d-488d-9935-a66f09d9c...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pke...@telus.net (Patrick Kehoe) wrote:
>
> > ++ To be fair Nadal's just come off a career year for him and was
> > bullet proof for much of this past season (2008), so, it's not like
> > he's dead in the water... can he defend all of those clay
> > tournaments
> > (titles and points) this season... that's going to complicate things
> > for Nadal a bit, potientially...
>
> Changes in the ranking system and the surface distribution in the require=
d
> events will make life harder for Nadal this year - needs more hard court
> points.
>
> wg

Nadal should this see this as an opportunity to improve on HCs. But
given Nadal's style, I doubt how much he can improve though.


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 14:56:45
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
In article
<05290281-827d-488d-9935-a66f09d9cb6e@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com >,
pkehoe@telus.net (Patrick Kehoe) wrote:

>
> ++ To be fair Nadal's just come off a career year for him and was
> bullet proof for much of this past season (2008), so, it's not like
> he's dead in the water... can he defend all of those clay
> tournaments
> (titles and points) this season... that's going to complicate things
> for Nadal a bit, potientially...

Changes in the ranking system and the surface distribution in the required
events will make life harder for Nadal this year - needs more hard court
points.

wg


   
Date: 28 Dec 2008 08:00:24
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:56:45 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>In article
><05290281-827d-488d-9935-a66f09d9cb6e@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>pkehoe@telus.net (Patrick Kehoe) wrote:
>
>>
>> ++ To be fair Nadal's just come off a career year for him and was
>> bullet proof for much of this past season (2008), so, it's not like
>> he's dead in the water... can he defend all of those clay
>> tournaments
>> (titles and points) this season... that's going to complicate things
>> for Nadal a bit, potientially...
>
>Changes in the ranking system and the surface distribution in the required
>events will make life harder for Nadal this year - needs more hard court
>points.
>
>wg


hee hee i can't wait.


   
Date: 28 Dec 2008 00:05:16
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <05290281-827d-488d-9935-a66f09d9cb6e@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> pkehoe@telus.net (Patrick Kehoe) wrote:
>
>> ++ To be fair Nadal's just come off a career year for him and was
>> bullet proof for much of this past season (2008), so, it's not like
>> he's dead in the water... can he defend all of those clay
>> tournaments
>> (titles and points) this season... that's going to complicate things
>> for Nadal a bit, potientially...
>
> Changes in the ranking system and the surface distribution in the required
> events will make life harder for Nadal this year - needs more hard court
> points.
>
> wg

There are still three 1000 events on clay before RG: MC, Rome and
Madrid. So nothing has chanced when it comes to Masters Series clay events.
In fact Nadal could gain points even if he skipped Barcelona this
time(which he should) because he didn't win Rome this year.

--
"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: 25 Dec 2008 16:32:35
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 25, 1:09=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:36:04 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
> >>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
> >>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> >>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> >>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
> >>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve t=
hese
> >>> problems for you. =A0Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>
> >> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
> >> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
> >> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
> >> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>
> >Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.
>
> with you being the biggest by far- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ BACK TO THE ISSUE OF THE THREAD... lol...

8 or 9 slams for Rafael looks likely... UNLESS he can find a way to
win HC slams that's got to be about his number because of the laws of
probability kicking in soon at the French and the fact that Fed and
Murray will be tough to beat at Wimbledon for the next 3 or 4 years...
that would necessitate Nadal beginning to win at AO and USO if he
wants to crack the 10 slam barrier... will his game support slam
winning runs on HC... that's what 2009 is going to be all about for
Nadal...

P


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:48:14
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:32:35 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe
<pkehoe@telus.net > wrote:

>On Dec 25, 1:09 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:36:04 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> >> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>> >>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>> >>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>> >>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>> >>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>> >>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve these
>> >>> problems for you.  Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>>
>> >> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
>> >> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
>> >> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
>> >> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>>
>> >Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.
>>
>> with you being the biggest by far- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>++ BACK TO THE ISSUE OF THE THREAD... lol...
>
>8 or 9 slams for Rafael looks likely... UNLESS he can find a way to
>win HC slams that's got to be about his number because of the laws of
>probability kicking in soon at the French and the fact that Fed and
>Murray will be tough to beat at Wimbledon for the next 3 or 4 years...
>that would necessitate Nadal beginning to win at AO and USO if he
>wants to crack the 10 slam barrier... will his game support slam
>winning runs on HC... that's what 2009 is going to be all about for
>Nadal...
>
>P


No chance. Nadal is fully cooked and ready to eat. He may never win
another slam. Maybe one more FO if he is lucky and perhaps another or
an AO is he is extremely lucky.

That's it. Six, maybe seven, tops. He looks about ready to fall off a
cliff so it depends on whether that happens this year or next.


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 21:23:32
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 25, 1:02=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 2:26=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>
> > > Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>
> > Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> > affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> > keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>
> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve these
> problems for you. =A0Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.

I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.


  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 17:36:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve these
>> problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>
> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.


Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.



   
Date: 25 Dec 2008 17:09:42
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:36:04 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve these
>>> problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>>
>> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
>> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
>> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
>> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>
>
>Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.


with you being the biggest by far


   
Date: 25 Dec 2008 08:26:13
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:495329d7$0$15736$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 1:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>>> Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve
>>> these
>>> problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.
>>
>> I don't participate much, if at all, in other usenet groups. I don't
>> see the need to pay for a newsreader. Looking at the archives, rst
>> used to be nice place with civil posters. Since Whimpy, trolling has
>> gone off the roof. Most of the good posters don't post here anymore.
>
>
> Your views on Wimbledon stamp you as one of the biggest trolls in rst.
>

So true.




 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 21:20:17
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 25, 12:58=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 24-Dec-2008, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:24=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed
> > > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as y=
ou
> > > > >> guys seem
> > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no =
big
> > > > >> deal
> > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
> > > > using the
> > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whol=
e
> > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> > > around.
>
> > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > > version of
> > > > "football")
>
> > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangel=
y
> > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybod=
y
> > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> > > the hand.
>
> > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > who cares about you? what, couldn't get a job in the us and got kicked
> > out of the US untouchable??
>
> Um, does that make any sense? =A0Stop with the bigotry.

Well done. There are good Americans and there are bad ones. jdeluise
good, guyana bad. :)


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 10:41:21
From: guyana
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 10:24=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (wh=
ich, BTW,
> > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you g=
uys seem
> > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big =
deal
> > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without usin=
g the
> > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whole
> world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> around.
>
> Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic version=
of
> > "football")
>
> Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangely
> means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybody
> but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> the hand.
>
> So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> increases their worldliness.

who cares about you? what, couldn't get a job in the us and got kicked
out of the US untouchable??


  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 18:58:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?

On 24-Dec-2008, guyana <guyanpersad@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed
> > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you
> > > >> guys seem
> > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big
> > > >> deal
> > > >> (basketball, futbol...
> >
> > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
> >
> > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
> > > using the
> > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
> >
> > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whole
> > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> > around.
> >
> > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
> >
> > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > version of
> > > "football")
> >
> > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fußball (which in America strangely
> > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybody
> > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
> >
> > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> > the hand.
> >
> > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > increases their worldliness.
>
> who cares about you? what, couldn't get a job in the us and got kicked
> out of the US untouchable??

Um, does that make any sense? Stop with the bigotry.


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 07:17:28
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 24, 12:30=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7q2726-9vf.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>
>
>
> > Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:sh9526-hqd.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>
> >>>>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
> >>>>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
> >>>>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> >>>>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it th=
is
> >>>>> >>>year :
> >>>>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, me=
ant
> >>>>> >>>he was
> >>>>> >>>a
> >>>>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> >>>>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because oth=
er
> >>>>> >> players play well. Damn!
>
> >>>>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some
> >>>>> >people
> >>>>> >are
> >>>>> >trying to make out.
>
> >>>>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
> >>>>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray t=
his
> >>>>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
> >>>>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>
> >>>> I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
> >>>> cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
> >>>> vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and fo=
rm
> >>>> of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can mak=
e
> >>>> some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
> >>>> win.
>
> >>> I say it's more unlikely than likely given:
> >>> A) his playing style on HC.
> >>> B) his growing knee wear.
> >>> C) new generation will come.
>
> >> but he's gone from getting to just R16 and quarters in 2007 to the sem=
is
> >> in
> >> 2008. If his style is so important why has he improved?
>
> > Because he *has* made changes - or are you one of those that think that
> > there's
> > no difference at all between nadal 2005 and nadal 2008? He's taking the
> > initiative more often (with that FH it was high time he did) but he sti=
ll
> > tends to fall too far back when someone rattles him, and that give the
> > other
> > player even more opportunities to put him away (opportunities that don'=
t
> > show
> > up on clay due to speed/bounce/sliding). But it still isn't enough to b=
eat
> > some zoned good HC player like Tsonga or Youzhny.
>
> Not a good example of players who can challenge Nadal on HC. Nobody could
> beat Tsonga in that form, everything he hit went in and/or was a winner a=
nd
> Youzhny is a very poor example, he was hardly zoned, he won because of th=
e
> 4+ hour Moya match Nadal had played the night before.

He's not talking about the Chennai final - rather than USO 2006 QF
where Youzhny beat Nadal.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 21:07:09
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 24, 1:46=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed
> >>>>>> (which, BTW, was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as
> >>>>>> impressed as you guys seem to be. Guys on other sports train to
> >>>>>> use both sides and it's no big deal (basketball, futbol...
>
> >>>>> OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> >>>> Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
> >>>> using the word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> >>> I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The
> >>> whole world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think
> >>> in this matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the
> >>> other way around.
>
> >>> Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> >>>> (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> >>>> version of "football")
>
> >>> Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangel=
y
> >>> means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table
> >>> football "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange).
> >>> The Brits and the French call it football. We Asians call it
> >>> football. Everybody but the Americans call it football or some
> >>> variants of the word.
>
> >>> It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> >>> strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> >>> the hand.
>
> >>> So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> >>> Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> >>> increases their worldliness.
>
> >> Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > Did it come out as bigoted?
>
> > It could be because when I was in America,
> > I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> > football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> > brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus. It's not about
> > America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> > country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> > China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> > Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> > the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> > through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> > I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> > justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> > to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.
>
> > Australians have Aussie Rules football,
>
> Until a few years ago we called football soccer, but it's now officially =
known
> as football (association names, TV guides etc. now say 'football'). Aussi=
e
> Rules is too, but calling the global game by its proper name outweighs th=
e
> confusion it can cause.

Yeah, I agree.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:35:42
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 24, 10:27=A0am, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:01=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 2:26=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>
> > > Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>
> > Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> > affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> > keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>
> You first.

Er, no. That's not how it works. For every 10 jdluise reply to a troll
on my ggroups killfile, I reserve the right to advise him not to
engage with the troll. I have been showing remarkable constraint
here. :)


  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 17:10:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:27 am, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 8:01 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>>>> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>>> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
>>> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
>>> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.
>> You first.
>
> Er, no. That's not how it works. For every 10 jdluise reply to a troll
> on my ggroups killfile, I reserve the right to advise him not to
> engage with the troll. I have been showing remarkable constraint
> here. :)


Have you considered the possibility no one here rates you a worthwhile
contributor of this ng? It is possible if you stop posting no one will
notice. Try it for 6 months - you can still lurk but I bet no one notices.



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:27:39
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 8:01=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2:26=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>
> > Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>
> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.

You first.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:01:03
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 24, 2:26=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>
> Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.

Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.


  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 19:02:21
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Dec 24, 2:26 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
> >
> > Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.
>
> Of course, you will do what you want. But what you do indirectly
> affects my reading experience, i.e., TT's trolls shows up. So I will
> keep advising you. You will have to get used to it.

Just pay for your usenet access and get a newsreader, it will solve these
problems for you. Blaming your crude tools will get you nowhere.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 11:15:14
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 2:49=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can=
win
> >>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about =
not
> >>>> arsed argument.
> >>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player=
is
> >>>> more likely to win the longer match.
> >>>> Also I believe that many players
> >>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
> >>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
> >>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
> >>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rused=
ski,
> >>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
> >> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
> >> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
> >> slams.
>
> >>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterne=
r test of
> >>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. E=
specially
> >>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
> >> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
> >> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>
> >> --
> >> "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"
>
> > This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>
> "Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.
>
> --
> "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"

As I said, you missed the point.
Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline,
Rusedski all won TMS titles. None has won a slam.

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:00:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:49 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>>>>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>>>>>> arsed argument.
>>>>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>>>>>> more likely to win the longer match.
>>>>>> Also I believe that many players
>>>>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>>>>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
>>>>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
>>>> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
>>>> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
>>>> slams.
>>>>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
>>>>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
>>>>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>>>> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
>>>> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>>>> --
>>>> "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"
>>> This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>> "Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.
>>
>> --
>> "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"
>
> As I said, you missed the point.
> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline,
> Rusedski all won TMS titles. None has won a slam.
>
> Rodjk #613


Hence my comment "Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me".
Perhaps it was you missing the point after all...

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 17:07:12
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2:49 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>>>>>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>>>>>>> arsed argument.
>>>>>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>>>>>>> more likely to win the longer match.
>>>>>>> Also I believe that many players
>>>>>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>>>>>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>>>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
>>>>>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
>>>>> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
>>>>> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
>>>>> slams.
>>>>>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
>>>>>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
>>>>>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>>>>> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
>>>>> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>>>>> --
>>>>> "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"
>>>> This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>>> "Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "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"
>>
>> As I said, you missed the point.
>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline,
>> Rusedski all won TMS titles. None has won a slam.
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
>
> Hence my comment "Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me".
> Perhaps it was you missing the point after all...
>

But it also supports the notion that it's easier to win a MS than a slam - as
evidenced by the existence of non-slam-winning MS winners, and the almost
inexistence of non-ms-winning Slam winners (Gaudio and who else since the MS
started? Gomez?).


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:25:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 2:49 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>>>>>>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>>>>>>>> arsed argument.
>>>>>>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>>>>>>>> more likely to win the longer match.
>>>>>>>> Also I believe that many players
>>>>>>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>>>>>>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>>>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>>>>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
>>>>>>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
>>>>>> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
>>>>>> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
>>>>>> slams.
>>>>>>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
>>>>>>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
>>>>>>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>>>>>> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
>>>>>> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "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"
>>>>> This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>>>> "Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "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"
>>> As I said, you missed the point.
>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline,
>>> Rusedski all won TMS titles. None has won a slam.
>>>
>>> Rodjk #613
>>
>> Hence my comment "Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me".
>> Perhaps it was you missing the point after all...
>>
>
> But it also supports the notion that it's easier to win a MS than a slam - as
> evidenced by the existence of non-slam-winning MS winners, and the almost
> inexistence of non-ms-winning Slam winners (Gaudio and who else since the MS
> started? Gomez?).

You get over twice as many chances to win a tms. Moreover my argument
was that it's harder for the very best to win a tms compared to a
slam(example: Sampras, Federer). Very best are more vulnerable at tms
events than at slams.
For Nadal and Agassi ratio of slams vs tms seem to be rather balanced.

Also I introduced the theory of slam mental midgets which that list
seems to support quite handily.

I know it's hard to keep up with my theories but thanks for trying! ;)

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 17:43:33
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 22, 2:49 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>>>>>>>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>>>>>>>>> arsed argument.
>>>>>>>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>>>>>>>>> more likely to win the longer match.
>>>>>>>>> Also I believe that many players
>>>>>>>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>>>>>>>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>>>>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>>>>>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
>>>>>>>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
>>>>>>> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
>>>>>>> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
>>>>>>> slams.
>>>>>>>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
>>>>>>>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
>>>>>>>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>>>>>>> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
>>>>>>> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "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"
>>>>>> This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>>>>> "Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "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"
>>>> As I said, you missed the point.
>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline,
>>>> Rusedski all won TMS titles. None has won a slam.
>>>>
>>>> Rodjk #613
>>>
>>> Hence my comment "Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me".
>>> Perhaps it was you missing the point after all...
>>>
>>
>> But it also supports the notion that it's easier to win a MS than a slam - as
>> evidenced by the existence of non-slam-winning MS winners, and the almost
>> inexistence of non-ms-winning Slam winners (Gaudio and who else since the MS
>> started? Gomez?).
>
> You get over twice as many chances to win a tms.

But the ratio doesn't work out. One or two slam winners with no TMS
credentials vs a big bunch of TMS winners that haven't even gotten within
sniffing distance of a slam title.

> Moreover my argument
> was that it's harder for the very best to win a tms compared to a
> slam(example: Sampras, Federer). Very best are more vulnerable at tms
> events than at slams.

A very odd theory, but it's understandable in the light of your motive (paint
HC TMS titles as roughly equivalent to HC slam titles - mmm, I wonder who has
won HC TMS titles but no HC slams...).

> Also I introduced the theory of slam mental midgets which that list
> seems to support quite handily.

If you have that notion firmly in your mind. It also seems to support quite
nicely my theory that a good but not slam-caliber guy can string out a good
week and win a TMS tournament, but slams champs have to take it a notch higher.

> I know it's hard to keep up with my theories but thanks for trying! ;)

It passes the time :)


      
Date: 23 Dec 2008 23:02:36
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 22, 2:49 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>>>>>>>>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>>>>>>>>>> arsed argument.
>>>>>>>>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>>>>>>>>>> more likely to win the longer match.
>>>>>>>>>> Also I believe that many players
>>>>>>>>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>>>>>>>>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>>>>>>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>>>>>>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
>>>>>>>>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
>>>>>>>> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
>>>>>>>> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
>>>>>>>> slams.
>>>>>>>>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
>>>>>>>>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
>>>>>>>>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>>>>>>>> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
>>>>>>>> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> "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"
>>>>>>> This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>>>>>> "Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "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"
>>>>> As I said, you missed the point.
>>>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline,
>>>>> Rusedski all won TMS titles. None has won a slam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodjk #613
>>>> Hence my comment "Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me".
>>>> Perhaps it was you missing the point after all...
>>>>
>>> But it also supports the notion that it's easier to win a MS than a slam - as
>>> evidenced by the existence of non-slam-winning MS winners, and the almost
>>> inexistence of non-ms-winning Slam winners (Gaudio and who else since the MS
>>> started? Gomez?).
>> You get over twice as many chances to win a tms.
>
> But the ratio doesn't work out. One or two slam winners with no TMS
> credentials vs a big bunch of TMS winners that haven't even gotten within
> sniffing distance of a slam title.
>
>> Moreover my argument
>> was that it's harder for the very best to win a tms compared to a
>> slam(example: Sampras, Federer). Very best are more vulnerable at tms
>> events than at slams.
>
> A very odd theory, but it's understandable in the light of your motive (paint
> HC TMS titles as roughly equivalent to HC slam titles - mmm, I wonder who has
> won HC TMS titles but no HC slams...).
>
>> Also I introduced the theory of slam mental midgets which that list
>> seems to support quite handily.
>
> If you have that notion firmly in your mind. It also seems to support quite
> nicely my theory that a good but not slam-caliber guy can string out a good
> week and win a TMS tournament, but slams champs have to take it a notch higher.

Could be. But there have been some surprise slammists too, one time wonders.

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 10:25:12
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 10:08=A0am, "Ted S." <tedsten...@myrealbox.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:37:01 -0800 (PST), arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>
> Please don't copy the entire 100+ line post just to add one line.
>

Yeah, I miss that sometimes. I will be more careful.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:58:13
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 11:05=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 11:15=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:43=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 10:24=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-hand=
ed (which, BTW,
> > > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as=
you guys seem
> > > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's n=
o big deal
> > > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but withou=
t using the
> > > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The wh=
ole
> > > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in th=
is
> > > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other wa=
y
> > > > around.
>
> > > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic v=
ersion of
> > > > > "football")
>
> > > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strang=
ely
> > > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table footba=
ll
> > > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everyb=
ody
> > > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown wit=
h
> > > > the hand.
>
> > > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
> > I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> > football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> > brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.
>
> Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
> sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
> where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
> Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
> regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
> ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
> foreign term.
>

Of course. That's why I didn't make a big deal of it when I was in
America. When in Rome and all that. But there was a palpable sense
that the Americans I met didn't understand, or more correctly, didn't
bother to understand why someone might use the word "football" for
"soccer".

> > It's not about
> > America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> > country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> > China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> > Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> > the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> > through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> > I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> > justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> > to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.
>
> What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
> Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
> "futbol,"

Not really. It sounds awkward to me. Futbol is hardly used in
international English sports literature. It's Javier's personal way of
compensating for the American reader. He really wants to call it
football, but doesn't want to upset the American reader, so adopts
something in the middle. There's nothing wrong with that. But I am
saying he can and should be comfortable calling it football.

There are implicit norms in international English usage. Even though
there are multiple terms for association football, the most used term
is football, not soccer. Futbol and fu=DFball are used even less.

> so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
> programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
> everyone understands what it means?

Soccer sounds like a lifeless jargon to me. It's like calling American
football "Leaguer" or something like that. I have been calling the
sport football, I have been playing football, I have been reading and
analyzing football since I was four. So have billions of people all
around the world. I am not about to change that and start calling the
game with something as insipid and lifeless like "soccer". The word
football means something to me. It conjures up something very near and
dear. The word soccer means nothing to me. When I see or hear the word
"soccer", I have to translate it to football first.

> Ironically, "soccer" itself is
> British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
> by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>

True. But I have been following British football since the 1980s and
hardly any British commentator calls it "soccer". Everybody calls it
football.

> You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
> internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Americans can call it soccer or whatever they want. We the rest of the
world can understand their predicament. But I was initially curious
about Javier's particular usage of futbol. I think he can safely use
football in English instead, without upsetting anyone. Actually he can
write whatever he wants. But futbol is unusual to read in English. It
would be kind of like Max writing it Fu=DFball all the time. It's just
unusual.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:32:12
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 7:14 am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> GOAT wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 5:18?pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 21, 5:01?am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > > >> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > > >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
> > > > >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> > > > >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> > > > >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> > > > >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> > > > >>> feared would end his career back
> > > > >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> > > > >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
> > > > >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
> > > > >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
> > > > >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
> > > > >> posts about when that would happen.
>
> > > > >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
> > > > >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
> > > > >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
> > > > >> playing style.
> > > > >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
> > > > >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>
> > > > >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
> > > > >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> > > > > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> > > > > I guess..
>
> > > > > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> > > > > Nadal over the next five years,
>
> > > > > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> > > > > maybe four more times. I also think
> > > > > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> > > > > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> > > > > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> > > > > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> > > > > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> > > > > healthy, as my prediction.
>
> > > > > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
> > > > > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> > > > > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> > > > > goat and Whisper
> > > > > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> > > > > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>
> > > > Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> > > > would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. ?I defend Sampras
> > > > vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> > > > Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
> > > > (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> > > Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> > > GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
> > > He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> > reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> > immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> > record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> > not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> > Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.
>
> Ken Norton outboxed Ali a number of times. Ali is still
> considered The Greatest. Go figure.

Ali had a winning record against Norton. Fed is being crushed in the
h2h vs Nadal.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:05:23
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 11:15=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:43=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:24=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed=
(which, BTW,
> > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as y=
ou guys seem
> > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no =
big deal
> > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without =
using the
> > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whol=
e
> > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> > > around.
>
> > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic ver=
sion of
> > > > "football")
>
> > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangel=
y
> > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybod=
y
> > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> > > the hand.
>
> > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
> I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.

Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
foreign term.

> It's not about
> America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.

What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
"futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.

You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:33:44
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 11:15 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed
> > > > >> (which, BTW,
> > > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as
> > > > >> you guys seem
> > > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no
> > > > >> big deal
> > > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
> > > > using the
> > > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whole
> > > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> > > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> > > around.
>
> > > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
> > > > version of
> > > > "football")
>
> > > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fußball (which in America strangely
> > > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> > > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybody
> > > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> > > the hand.
>
> > > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > > increases their worldliness.
>
> > Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
> I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus.

Isn't accommodating oneself to the local dialect part of being a
sensible, courteous traveler? When I was in London I didn't ask people
where the entrance to the "subway" was. When I moved to Cambridge,
Mass., for school, I had to learn to say "soda" instead of "pop" (my
regionalism) for carbonated drinks. It's neither insulting nor
ignorant for residents to "correct" a stranger who uses a quasi-
foreign term.

> It's not about
> America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> to use terms like Futbol, Fußball, Soccer, etc.
>
>What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
>Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
>"futbol," so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
>programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
>everyone understands what it means? Ironically, "soccer" itself is
>British English, not American English, since the Brits needed a word
>by which to distinguish "Association football" from Rugby.
>
>You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
>internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.

the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a game
that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:30:31
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
Iceberg wrote:

> the whole problem is you yanks use the word "football" to describe a game
> that does not involve the ball being contacted by the foot!
>
>

I think you may have a point there.

--
"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: 24 Dec 2008 01:06:16
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?

>"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote in message
>news:1c09df5d-7e17-4774-b9d5-db69343adcad@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>What matters is mutual comprehension, not uniformity of vocabulary.
>Everyone -- including you -- understands Javier when he writes
>"futbol,"

Actually I must disagree. I might have guessed later, or speculate, but no
way it was understandable at first.



>even understand it so why should he change for the sake of someone else's
>programmatic ideal? And who is hurt by the word "soccer," as long as
>everyone understands what it means?

Well if some do understand what soccer means, and there are lot of people
who do, that still doesn't mean the same applies to futbol. :)


>You are correct that this is an international forum. But its
>internationalism justifies diversity of expression, not conformity.

Ordnung muß sein.




 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:15:42
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 9:43=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 10:24=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (=
which, BTW,
> > > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you=
guys seem
> > > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no bi=
g deal
> > > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without us=
ing the
> > > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> > I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whole
> > world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> > matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> > around.
>
> > Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic versi=
on of
> > > "football")
>
> > Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangely
> > means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> > "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> > and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybody
> > but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> > It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> > strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> > the hand.
>
> > So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> > Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> > increases their worldliness.
>
> Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Did it come out as bigoted? It could be because when I was in America,
I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus. It's not about
America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.

I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
to use terms like Futbol, Fu=DFball, Soccer, etc.

Australians have Aussie Rules football, England and other commonwealth
nations have rugby, Americans have American football, etc., which are
all more or less some version of rugby. But the word football alone by
itself means the biggest, most popular sport in the world.


  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 06:46:00
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:43 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 10:24 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed
>>>>>> (which, BTW, was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as
>>>>>> impressed as you guys seem to be. Guys on other sports train to
>>>>>> use both sides and it's no big deal (basketball, futbol...
>>
>>>>> OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>>
>>>> Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without
>>>> using the word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>>
>>> I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The
>>> whole world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think
>>> in this matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the
>>> other way around.
>>
>>> Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>>
>>>> (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic
>>>> version of "football")
>>
>>> Yes, I know. The Germans call it fußball (which in America strangely
>>> means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table
>>> football "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange).
>>> The Brits and the French call it football. We Asians call it
>>> football. Everybody but the Americans call it football or some
>>> variants of the word.
>>
>>> It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
>>> strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
>>> the hand.
>>
>>> So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
>>> Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
>>> increases their worldliness.
>>
>> Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.
>>
>
> Did it come out as bigoted?
>
> It could be because when I was in America,
> I was being constantly "corrected" for calling football, well,
> football. It's not football, it's soccer, they'd say. :) I always
> brushed it off as a case of Americanus Ignoramus. It's not about
> America, though. Every country (especially if it is a big and powerful
> country) in the world thinks the world should revolve around it.
> China's name in Chinese means "the middle kingdom", because the
> Chinese think their kingdom is in the middle of all known world. When
> the Brits ruled the world, they made the zero degree longitude line go
> through Britain; we still carry that British imperial legacy.
>
> I just think calling football by its proper English name is more than
> justified in an international forum such as this one. There's no need
> to use terms like Futbol, Fußball, Soccer, etc.
>
> Australians have Aussie Rules football,

Until a few years ago we called football soccer, but it's now officially known
as football (association names, TV guides etc. now say 'football'). Aussie
Rules is too, but calling the global game by its proper name outweighs the
confusion it can cause.





 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:43:04
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 10:24=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (wh=
ich, BTW,
> > >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you g=
uys seem
> > >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big =
deal
> > >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> > Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without usin=
g the
> > word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>
> I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whole
> world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
> matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
> around.
>
> Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.
>
> > (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic version=
of
> > "football")
>
> Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangely
> means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
> "Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
> and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybody
> but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.
>
> It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
> strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
> the hand.
>
> So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
> Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
> increases their worldliness.

Don't be a bigot, Arnab, especially not during the holidays.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 07:24:45
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 7:45=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (whic=
h, BTW,
> >> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guy=
s seem
> >> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big de=
al
> >> (basketball, futbol...
>
> > OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?
>
> Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without using =
the
> word "soccer", which I don't like :)
>

I can understand that. But why defer to Americans like that? The whole
world calls it football. Who cares about what Americans think in this
matter? IMO they need to follow the world on this, not the other way
around.

Agree about not calling it "soccer". Such an ugly name.

> (futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic version o=
f
> "football")

Yes, I know. The Germans call it fu=DFball (which in America strangely
means table football; Germans, on the other hand, call table football
"Kicker", an English loanword, which is equally strange). The Brits
and the French call it football. We Asians call it football. Everybody
but the Americans call it football or some variants of the word.

It makes sense, too. The game is all about a ball played almost
strictly with the foot. It's not a coconut shaped object thrown with
the hand.

So please, in English, call it football by all means. Let the
Americans figure it out. They can use some brain exercise that
increases their worldliness.


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:48:32
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 9:02=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > >news:494fed06$0$15754$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> > >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make=
a
> > >> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> > > that's a very very good point.
>
> > I think that's bollocks.
>
> > If you told me he's right handed, trained right-handed, injured his rig=
ht hand
> > in the early rounds of a tournament, just took up the racquet with the =
left
> > hand, and won that tournament playing left-handed, I'd be impressed.
>
> > But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which=
, BTW,
> > was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys=
seem
> > to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big dea=
l
> > (basketball, futbol...), because after a while it's just muscle memory =
and
> > training.
>
> > Nadal is extremely talented, but playing left-handed while being right-=
handed
> > after years of training doesn't register much more than a blip on the t=
alent
> > scale.
>
> Obviously - there are many examples of pro sports players who play
> with the opposite hand than they write with, for example.

Yes. Using the off-hand is not a matter of talent; it's a matter of
*practice*, as Javier points out. Lots of baseball players learn to
hit equally well righty or lefty. Some great switch-hitters, such as
Mickey Mantle, have hit home runs from both sides of the plate in the
same game.

Virtually all musicians learn to perform complex, difficult movements
with both hands. Most of the work in typing is done with the left hand
(on a QWERTY keyboard) even though most typists are right-handed.
Irish writer Christy Brown learned to write with his left *foot*.
Maybe he's the most talented athlete ever!

> Whisper is obviously very easily impressed

He is a fantastically consistent ideologue when it comes to reaching
conclusions on the basis of what's better for Sampras (and Mac, to an
extent) and worse for Federer.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:02:51
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 12:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:494fed06$0$15754$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.co=
m >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> >>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm some=
what
> >>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> >>>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely b=
e a
> >>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very =
soon
> >>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc s=
lam
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> >>>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >>>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> >>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and c=
lay
> >>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha =
ha-
> >>>>>> Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> >>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head =
to
> >>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali wo=
n
> >>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >>>> champion...
>
> >>>> P
>
> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>
> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is =
more
> >>> talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>
> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 yea=
r
> >>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>
> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> > that's a very very good point.
>
> I think that's bollocks.
>
> If you told me he's right handed, trained right-handed, injured his right=
hand
> in the early rounds of a tournament, just took up the racquet with the le=
ft
> hand, and won that tournament playing left-handed, I'd be impressed.
>
> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which, =
BTW,
> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys s=
eem
> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big deal
> (basketball, futbol...), because after a while it's just muscle memory an=
d
> training.
>
> Nadal is extremely talented, but playing left-handed while being right-ha=
nded
> after years of training doesn't register much more than a blip on the tal=
ent
> scale.

Obviously - there are many examples of pro sports players who play
with the opposite hand than they write with, for example.

Whisper is obviously very easily impressed


  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 13:54:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:494fed06$0$15754$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-
>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>>>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>>>>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>>>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>>>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>>>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>>>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>>>>> champion...
>>>>>> P
>>>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is more
>>>>> talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>>>>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>>>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>>> that's a very very good point.
>> I think that's bollocks.
>>
>> If you told me he's right handed, trained right-handed, injured his right hand
>> in the early rounds of a tournament, just took up the racquet with the left
>> hand, and won that tournament playing left-handed, I'd be impressed.
>>
>> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which, BTW,
>> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys seem
>> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big deal
>> (basketball, futbol...), because after a while it's just muscle memory and
>> training.
>>
>> Nadal is extremely talented, but playing left-handed while being right-handed
>> after years of training doesn't register much more than a blip on the talent
>> scale.
>
> Obviously - there are many examples of pro sports players who play
> with the opposite hand than they write with, for example.
>
> Whisper is obviously very easily impressed


How many were world champions?

Anyone can play (& lose) playing with their dick - trick is to become
world's best.



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 05:37:46
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 6:55=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which, =
BTW,
> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys s=
eem
> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big deal
> (basketball, futbol...

OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?


  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 10:45:53
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
arnab.z@gmail <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 23, 6:55 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which, BTW,
>> was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys seem
>> to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big deal
>> (basketball, futbol...
>
> OT: Why do you spell football as futbol?

Make it clear I mean proper and not american football, but without using the
word "soccer", which I don't like :)

(futbol is how we spell it in spanish, which is just a phonetic version of
"football")


 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 02:01:10
From: Carey
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst


Iceberg wrote:
> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MkX3l.3763$hr3.1996@newsfe01.iad...
> >
> > On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> TT wrote:
> >> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> >> >>>>>> that.
> >> >>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >> >>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >> >>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >> >>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >> >>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
> >> >>>>>> somewhat
> >> >>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> >> >>>>>> amusing
> >> >>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be
> >> >>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >> >>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
> >> >>>>>> soon
> >> >>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >> >>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> >> >>>>>> slam in
> >> >>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >> >>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> >> >>>>>> career
> >> >>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >> >>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >> >>>>>> Channel
> >> >>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> >> >>>>>> against
> >> >>>>>> Federer.
> >> >>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >> >>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
> >> >>>>> clay
> >> >>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >> >>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> >> >>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> >> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >> >>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> >>
> >> >> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >> >> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
> >> >> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >> >> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >> >> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >> >> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> >> >> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >> >> champion...
> >> >>
> >> >> P
> >> >
> >> > But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
> >> >
> >> > Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> >> > more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
> >> >
> >> > Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
> >> > old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
> >
> > What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
> > forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
> > talented? No, I didn't think so.
>
> have they achieved what Nadal has?

Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?


  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:49:51
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?


>> >
>> > What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>> > forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>> > talented? No, I didn't think so.
>>
>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>
>Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?


Ignore clay and Nadal has achieved no more than Lleyton Hewitt.

Not much at all.


   
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:57:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>
>>>> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>>>> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>>>> talented? No, I didn't think so.
>>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>> Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?
>
>
> Ignore clay and Nadal has achieved no more than Lleyton Hewitt.
>
> Not much at all.


Ignore Fed's record on clay & nothing changes.



    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:49:12
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:57:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>
>>>>> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>>>>> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>>>>> talented? No, I didn't think so.
>>>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>>> Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?
>>
>>
>> Ignore clay and Nadal has achieved no more than Lleyton Hewitt.
>>
>> Not much at all.
>
>
>Ignore Fed's record on clay & nothing changes.


ditto for Sampras !!!!!!


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


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:41:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Whisper wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>
>>>>> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>>>>> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>>>>> talented? No, I didn't think so.
>>>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>>> Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?
>>
>>
>> Ignore clay and Nadal has achieved no more than Lleyton Hewitt.
>>
>> Not much at all.
>
>
> Ignore Fed's record on clay & nothing changes.
>

Good one.

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 20:50:00
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:41:15 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Whisper wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>>>>>> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>>>>>> talented? No, I didn't think so.
>>>>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>>>> Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ignore clay and Nadal has achieved no more than Lleyton Hewitt.
>>>
>>> Not much at all.
>>
>>
>> Ignore Fed's record on clay & nothing changes.
>>
>
>Good one.


ditto for Sampras !!!

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

an even better one !


  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:39:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Carey wrote:
>
> Iceberg wrote:
>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>>>
>>>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>>>>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>>>>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>>>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>>> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>>> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>>> talented? No, I didn't think so.
>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>
> Has Nadal achieved what Nadal has?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_poisoning




 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 23:14:53
From: Carey
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst


GOAT wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:18?pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 5:01?am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
> > > >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> > > >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> > > >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> > > >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> > > >>> feared would end his career back
> > > >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> > > >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
> > > >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
> > > >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
> > > >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
> > > >> posts about when that would happen.
> >
> > > >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
> > > >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
> > > >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
> > > >> playing style.
> > > >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
> > > >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
> >
> > > >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
> > > >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
> >
> > > > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> > > > I guess..
> >
> > > > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> > > > Nadal over the next five years,
> >
> > > > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> > > > maybe four more times. I also think
> > > > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> > > > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> > > > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> > > > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> > > > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> > > > healthy, as my prediction.
> >
> > > > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
> > > > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> > > > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> > > > goat and Whisper
> > > > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
> >
> > > > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
> >
> > > Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> > > would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. ?I defend Sampras
> > > vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
> >
> > > Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
> > > (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >
> > Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> > GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
> > He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.

Ken Norton outboxed Ali a number of times. Ali is still
considered The Greatest. Go figure.


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:37:01
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 23, 8:10=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TT wrote:
> > > Whisper wrote:
> > >> TT wrote:
> > >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > >>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja
> > >>>>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 aft=
er
> > >>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > >>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > >>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> > >>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> > >>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
> > >>>>>>>> somewhat
> > >>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find thi=
s
> > >>>>>>>> amusing
> > >>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely=
be
> > >>>>>>>a
> > >>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his pea=
k.
> > >>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and ver=
y
> > >>>>>>>> soon
> > >>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > >>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> > >>>>>>>> slam in
> > >>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> > >>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison wit=
h
> > >>>>>>>> career
> > >>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> > >>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> > >>>>>>>> Channel
> > >>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning reco=
rd
> > >>>>>>>> against
> > >>>>>>>> Federer.
> > >>>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> > >>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
> > >>>>>>>clay
> > >>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> > >>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h=
a
> > >>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> > >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> > >>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> > >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> > >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> > >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> > >>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> > >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute th=
an
> > >>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose hea=
d
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as mo=
re
> > >>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> > >>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn'=
t
> > >>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali =
won
> > >>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> > >>>> champion...
>
> > >>>> P
>
> > >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>
> > >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal i=
s
> > >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for cl=
ay.
>
> > >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
> > >>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>
> > >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make=
a
> > >> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> > > It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger=
.
>
> > Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?
>
> You act like Rafa is the only pro who ever switched hands, which he is no=
t.
> Clearly this is a case of training from a young age to play with the
> opposite hand *and* it only helps his two-handed backhand to have a stron=
g
> right arm. =A0It's pretty obvious this is an anti-Federer troll post. =A0=
Are you
> really serious that you think Rafa is more talented than Fed?

TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.


  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:26:37
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 22-Dec-2008, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.

Actually I'll do what I want, and I don't need your advice or help.


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 23:08:05
From: Ted S.
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:37:01 -0800 (PST), arnab.z@gmail wrote:

> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.

Please don't copy the entire 100+ line post just to add one line.

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova


   
Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:45:43
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Ted S. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:37:01 -0800 (PST), arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
>> TT is a little troll of the Whimpy mould. Don't engage him.
>
> Please don't copy the entire 100+ line post just to add one line.
>

Arnab once again telling who you should ignore. Big brother complex?

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 15:45:47
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 2:38=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 12:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Dec 22, 10:17 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> >>>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and =
1 after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slig=
htly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I=
'm somewhat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now fin=
d this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would defin=
itely be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering hi=
s peak.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) an=
d very soon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win=
a hc slam
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save compariso=
n with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to comp=
lete
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning=
record
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win=
it this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> year
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis C=
up, meant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total w=
ill he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an O=
lympic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Swi=
tzerland"-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to r=
un the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND=
win
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> P
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) =3D 9
> >>>>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will w=
in hc
> >>>>>>>>>>> slam(s)
> >>>>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
> >>>>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've defini=
tely been
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
> >>>>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, pe=
rhaps?
> >>>>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out an=
ybody that
> >>>>>>>> day.
> >>>>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have kille=
d anybody
> >>>>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished,=
say,
> >>>>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
> >>>>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay le=
vel, and his
> >>>>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On gra=
ss, he's
> >>>>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any gu=
y having a
> >>>>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that=
Nadal's next
> >>>>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC sl=
am.
> >>>>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
> >>>>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optima=
l for
> >>>>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very=
good
> >>>>>> day for the opponent.
> >>>>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody b=
ut a
> >>>>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, wh=
ereas
> >>>>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a =
bad day.
> >>>> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of the=
se
> >>>> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
> >>>> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really di=
dn't
> >>>> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down=
as
> >>>> much as people here do.
> >>>> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be go=
at
> >>>> already.
> >>>> --
> >>>> "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"=
- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> ++ Federer has won on HC repeatedly and beaten all of the top guys,
> >>> run the table and FOR NOW (not saying will aways be the case) Nadal
> >>> hasn't... that's what he has to prove... much like Federer has to
> >>> PROVE he can win the French, being the second best to Nadal isn't goo=
d
> >>> enough at the historic level of tennis... he has to get it DONE... in
> >>> the grand scheme, who cares if he's the second best guy on clay year
> >>> after year if he cannot win a FO... same with Nadal... it all comes
> >>> down now to getting past the semis and into a final and playing bette=
r
> >>> than the other guy... tough to do... Nadal is finding out now how goo=
d
> >>> Federer's accomplishments really are, just as Fed is fully
> >>> appreciative of how great a clay court champion Nadal has been/is!
> >>> P
> >> Yes. But wouldn't you agree that if Federer had won clay Olympics whil=
e
> >> Nadal was in the draw that would've been HUGE feather in his cap...
>
> >> --
> >> "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"- =
Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ The Olympics or clay Olympics? Ya... I agree with you... that was a
> > big win for Rafa... and I think Rafa would have won even had Fed
> > beaten Blake because Rafa was just bullet proof at that time... or he
> > certainly looked like it... but, IMO, it's a MONSTER ask to have him
> > stay at that level mentally... Murray is the favourite for the AO, I
> > think and Fed is the #2 with Rafa 3 and Joker 4... Of course, maybe
> > Rafa, Murray and Djokovic push past Federer now... that could be...
> > but Fed could still be tough after a good break and having had time to
> > train unfettered by sickness... for fans of men's tennis the AO is
> > just off the charts important in a historic sense with all the
> > possible ramifications... Nadal could REALLY make a statement, a
> > titanic statement with a win, making a HC break through making the sky
> > the limit... Murray a defining break through; Novak a reassertion and
> > redefination of his status and Fed tying Sampras...
>
> > P
>
> Here are current best odds for AO:
>
> Roger Federer =A0 3.25
> Rafael Nadal =A0 =A05
> Andy Murray =A0 =A0 5
> Novak Djokovic =A06
> Tsonga =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A017
>
> Not particularly meaning that your opinion would be less
> accurate...Indeed Federer(for his previous achievements) and Nadal(for
> his ranking) might be too much valued over Murray and especially over
> defending champion.
>
> Btw, Nadal is bettors favourite for Wimbledon with 2.75...followed by
> Federer 3.0, Murray(6.5) and Djoker(7). Surprisingly Tsonga is at
> 15...Not that his style and serve wouldn't be optimal but still.
>
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ After the Doha tournament Jan 1 we will have a better idea of the
real placement of the "Four Tops" heading into the AO, given that
Nadal, Fed, Murray and Roddick are all playing...

P


P



 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 15:39:51
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 2:30=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 22, 7:38=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:36:18 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > >>> On Dec 21, 4:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.co=
m >
> > >>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after=
that.
> > >>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > >>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > >>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> > >>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> > >>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm some=
what
> > >>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this =
amusing
> > >>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely b=
e a
> > >>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> > >>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very =
soon
> > >>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > >>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc s=
lam in
> > >>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> > >>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with =
career
> > >>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> > >>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Ch=
annel
> > >>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record=
against
> > >>>>>> Federer.
> > >>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> > >>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and c=
lay
> > >>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> > >>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha =
ha- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>>> - Show quoted text -
> > >>> ++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix=
...
> > >>> right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
> > >>> defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras sti=
ll
> > >>> great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams an=
d
> > >>> counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined =
by
> > >>> assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
> > >>> defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's anothe=
r
> > >>> issue...
>
> > >>> P
>
> > >> It has never been the case. =A0You should only speak for yourself - =
there
> > >> is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
> > >> opposite. =A0They question why he can't even dominate all players in=
his
> > >> own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless a=
t
> > >> net where pure instinct is required etc.
>
> > > ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>
> > > whisper thinks 11 slams in 4 years is not dominance !!!
>
> > Fed's dominance has been supreme for 4 yrs, but due to dearth of
> > credible opposition he's never been fully tested except v Rafa.
>
> > Lendl was also dominant once Mac/Jimbo faded & before Becker/Edberg hit
> > their straps.
>
> McEnroe was dominant once Borg faded and before Lendl/Becker hit their
> straps?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Mac was busy beating an old Jimmy Connors...

P


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 14:30:51
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 7:38=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:36:18 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 4:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after t=
hat.
> >>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewh=
at
> >>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this am=
using
> >>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be =
a
> >>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very so=
on
> >>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc sla=
m in
> >>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with ca=
reer
> >>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Chan=
nel
> >>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record a=
gainst
> >>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and cla=
y
> >>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha=
- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> ++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix..=
.
> >>> right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
> >>> defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras still
> >>> great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams and
> >>> counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined by
> >>> assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
> >>> defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's another
> >>> issue...
>
> >>> P
>
> >> It has never been the case. =A0You should only speak for yourself - th=
ere
> >> is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
> >> opposite. =A0They question why he can't even dominate all players in h=
is
> >> own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless at
> >> net where pure instinct is required etc.
>
> > ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>
> > whisper thinks 11 slams in 4 years is not dominance !!!
>
> Fed's dominance has been supreme for 4 yrs, but due to dearth of
> credible opposition he's never been fully tested except v Rafa.
>
> Lendl was also dominant once Mac/Jimbo faded & before Becker/Edberg hit
> their straps.

McEnroe was dominant once Borg faded and before Lendl/Becker hit their
straps?



  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:20:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> P
>>>> It has never been the case. You should only speak for yourself - there
>>>> is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
>>>> opposite. They question why he can't even dominate all players in his
>>>> own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless at
>>>> net where pure instinct is required etc.
>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>> whisper thinks 11 slams in 4 years is not dominance !!!
>> Fed's dominance has been supreme for 4 yrs, but due to dearth of
>> credible opposition he's never been fully tested except v Rafa.
>>
>> Lendl was also dominant once Mac/Jimbo faded & before Becker/Edberg hit
>> their straps.
>
> McEnroe was dominant once Borg faded and before Lendl/Becker hit their
> straps?
>


Except that Borg was still No.1 & beating everyone else when he lost
last 3 slam finals to Mac.



 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 13:08:22
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 12:58=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 10:17 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> >>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 =
after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slight=
ly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm=
somewhat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find =
this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definit=
ely be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his =
peak.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and =
very soon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> past
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a=
hc slam
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison =
with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to comple=
te
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning r=
ecord
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win i=
t this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> year
> >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup=
, meant
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total wil=
l he
> >>>>>>>>>>> have?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Oly=
mpic
> >>>>>>>>>>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switz=
erland"-
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run=
the
> >>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND w=
in
> >>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
> >>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
> >>>>>>>>>> P
> >>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
> >>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) =3D 9
> >>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win=
hc
> >>>>>>>>> slam(s)
> >>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
> >>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definite=
ly been
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
> >>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perh=
aps?
> >>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anyb=
ody that
> >>>>>> day.
> >>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed =
anybody
> >>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, s=
ay,
> >>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
> >>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay leve=
l, and his
> >>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass=
, he's
> >>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy =
having a
> >>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that N=
adal's next
> >>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam=
.
> >>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
> >>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal =
for
> >>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very g=
ood
> >>>> day for the opponent.
> >>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but=
a
> >>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, wher=
eas
> >>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a ba=
d day.
> >> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
> >> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
> >> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn=
't
> >> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down a=
s
> >> much as people here do.
>
> >> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
> >> already.
>
> >> --
> >> "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"- =
Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ Federer has won on HC repeatedly and beaten all of the top guys,
> > run the table and FOR NOW (not saying will aways be the case) Nadal
> > hasn't... that's what he has to prove... much like Federer has to
> > PROVE he can win the French, being the second best to Nadal isn't good
> > enough at the historic level of tennis... he has to get it DONE... in
> > the grand scheme, who cares if he's the second best guy on clay year
> > after year if he cannot win a FO... same with Nadal... it all comes
> > down now to getting past the semis and into a final and playing better
> > than the other guy... tough to do... Nadal is finding out now how good
> > Federer's accomplishments really are, just as Fed is fully
> > appreciative of how great a clay court champion Nadal has been/is!
>
> > P
>
> Yes. But wouldn't you agree that if Federer had won clay Olympics while
> Nadal was in the draw that would've been HUGE feather in his cap...
>
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ The Olympics or clay Olympics? Ya... I agree with you... that was a
big win for Rafa... and I think Rafa would have won even had Fed
beaten Blake because Rafa was just bullet proof at that time... or he
certainly looked like it... but, IMO, it's a MONSTER ask to have him
stay at that level mentally... Murray is the favourite for the AO, I
think and Fed is the #2 with Rafa 3 and Joker 4... Of course, maybe
Rafa, Murray and Djokovic push past Federer now... that could be...
but Fed could still be tough after a good break and having had time to
train unfettered by sickness... for fans of men's tennis the AO is
just off the charts important in a historic sense with all the
possible ramifications... Nadal could REALLY make a statement, a
titanic statement with a win, making a HC break through making the sky
the limit... Murray a defining break through; Novak a reassertion and
redefination of his status and Fed tying Sampras...

P


  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 00:38:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 22, 12:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 10:17 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>>>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
>>>>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>>>>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
>>>>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
>>>>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
>>>>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
>>>>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
>>>>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
>>>>>> day for the opponent.
>>>>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>>>>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
>>>>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad day.
>>>> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
>>>> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
>>>> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
>>>> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
>>>> much as people here do.
>>>> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
>>>> already.
>>>> --
>>>> "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"- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> ++ Federer has won on HC repeatedly and beaten all of the top guys,
>>> run the table and FOR NOW (not saying will aways be the case) Nadal
>>> hasn't... that's what he has to prove... much like Federer has to
>>> PROVE he can win the French, being the second best to Nadal isn't good
>>> enough at the historic level of tennis... he has to get it DONE... in
>>> the grand scheme, who cares if he's the second best guy on clay year
>>> after year if he cannot win a FO... same with Nadal... it all comes
>>> down now to getting past the semis and into a final and playing better
>>> than the other guy... tough to do... Nadal is finding out now how good
>>> Federer's accomplishments really are, just as Fed is fully
>>> appreciative of how great a clay court champion Nadal has been/is!
>>> P
>> Yes. But wouldn't you agree that if Federer had won clay Olympics while
>> Nadal was in the draw that would've been HUGE feather in his cap...
>>
>> --
>> "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"- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ The Olympics or clay Olympics? Ya... I agree with you... that was a
> big win for Rafa... and I think Rafa would have won even had Fed
> beaten Blake because Rafa was just bullet proof at that time... or he
> certainly looked like it... but, IMO, it's a MONSTER ask to have him
> stay at that level mentally... Murray is the favourite for the AO, I
> think and Fed is the #2 with Rafa 3 and Joker 4... Of course, maybe
> Rafa, Murray and Djokovic push past Federer now... that could be...
> but Fed could still be tough after a good break and having had time to
> train unfettered by sickness... for fans of men's tennis the AO is
> just off the charts important in a historic sense with all the
> possible ramifications... Nadal could REALLY make a statement, a
> titanic statement with a win, making a HC break through making the sky
> the limit... Murray a defining break through; Novak a reassertion and
> redefination of his status and Fed tying Sampras...
>
> P

Here are current best odds for AO:

Roger Federer 3.25
Rafael Nadal 5
Andy Murray 5
Novak Djokovic 6
Tsonga 17


Not particularly meaning that your opinion would be less
accurate...Indeed Federer(for his previous achievements) and Nadal(for
his ranking) might be too much valued over Murray and especially over
defending champion.

Btw, Nadal is bettors favourite for Wimbledon with 2.75...followed by
Federer 3.0, Murray(6.5) and Djoker(7). Surprisingly Tsonga is at
15...Not that his style and serve wouldn't be optimal but still.


--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 12:54:37
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 10:17=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> >>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 af=
ter
> >>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm s=
omewhat
> >>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find th=
is
> >>>>>>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitel=
y be a
> >>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his pe=
ak.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and ve=
ry soon
> >>>>>>>>>>> past
> >>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a h=
c slam
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison wi=
th
> >>>>>>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >>>>>>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning rec=
ord
> >>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it =
this
> >>>>>>>>>> year
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, =
meant
> >>>>>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>> was a
> >>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
> >>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will =
he
> >>>>>>>>> have?
> >>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olymp=
ic
> >>>>>>>>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzer=
land"-
> >>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run t=
he
> >>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
> >>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>
> >>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>
> >>>>>>>> P
> >>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>
> >>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) =3D 9
>
> >>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win h=
c
> >>>>>>> slam(s)
> >>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
> >>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely=
been
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
> >>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhap=
s?
> >>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybod=
y that
> >>>> day.
> >>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed an=
ybody
> >>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say=
,
> >>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>
> >>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level,=
and his
> >>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, =
he's
> >>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy ha=
ving a
> >>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nad=
al's next
> >>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>
> >> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>
> >> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal fo=
r
> >> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very goo=
d
> >> day for the opponent.
>
> > Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
> > sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, wherea=
s
> > on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad =
day.
>
> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
> much as people here do.
>
> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
> already.
>
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Federer has won on HC repeatedly and beaten all of the top guys,
run the table and FOR NOW (not saying will aways be the case) Nadal
hasn't... that's what he has to prove... much like Federer has to
PROVE he can win the French, being the second best to Nadal isn't good
enough at the historic level of tennis... he has to get it DONE... in
the grand scheme, who cares if he's the second best guy on clay year
after year if he cannot win a FO... same with Nadal... it all comes
down now to getting past the semis and into a final and playing better
than the other guy... tough to do... Nadal is finding out now how good
Federer's accomplishments really are, just as Fed is fully
appreciative of how great a clay court champion Nadal has been/is!

P


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:58:55
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:17 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>>>>>> day.
>>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
>>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
>>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
>>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
>>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
>>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
>>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
>>>> day for the opponent.
>>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
>>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad day.
>> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
>> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
>> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
>> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
>> much as people here do.
>>
>> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
>> already.
>>
>> --
>> "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"- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Federer has won on HC repeatedly and beaten all of the top guys,
> run the table and FOR NOW (not saying will aways be the case) Nadal
> hasn't... that's what he has to prove... much like Federer has to
> PROVE he can win the French, being the second best to Nadal isn't good
> enough at the historic level of tennis... he has to get it DONE... in
> the grand scheme, who cares if he's the second best guy on clay year
> after year if he cannot win a FO... same with Nadal... it all comes
> down now to getting past the semis and into a final and playing better
> than the other guy... tough to do... Nadal is finding out now how good
> Federer's accomplishments really are, just as Fed is fully
> appreciative of how great a clay court champion Nadal has been/is!
>
> P

Yes. But wouldn't you agree that if Federer had won clay Olympics while
Nadal was in the draw that would've been HUGE feather in his cap...

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 12:34:36
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 9:12=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after th=
at.
> >>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewha=
t
> >>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amu=
sing
> >>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> >>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soo=
n
> >>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam=
in
> >>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with car=
eer
> >>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Chann=
el
> >>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record ag=
ainst
> >>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> >>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-=
Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> >> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> > Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
> > head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> > talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> > certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> > vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> > more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> > champion...
>
> > P
>
> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>
> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>
> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ That's a great point and very often true in sports... but to be
fair Nadal has a long way to go just to get to where Fed is right
now... 5 to 13, means winning 8 more slams... that's a lot, as you
well know... and Fed might earn a few more so... that's a big ask of
even a great player like Nadal... we shall see...

If his knees hold up he's likely to make a run into the 10plus slam
range... after 10 it's all historic territory...

P


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:31:49
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 1:33=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
> >> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can w=
in
> >> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about no=
t
> >> arsed argument.
> >> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player i=
s
> >> more likely to win the longer match.
> >> Also I believe that many players
> >> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
> >> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>
> > Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>
> > Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedsk=
i,
> > etc, ringing any bells yet?
>
> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
> slams.
>
>
>
> > It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner =
test of
> > fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Esp=
ecially
> > if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>
> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>
> --
> "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"

This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:49:54
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Dec 22, 1:33 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>>>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>>>> arsed argument.
>>>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>>>> more likely to win the longer match.
>>>> Also I believe that many players
>>>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>>>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>>> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
>>> etc, ringing any bells yet?
>> There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
>> exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
>> slams.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
>>> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
>>> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.
>> Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
>> though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.
>>
>> --
>> "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"
>
> This shows a whisperian ability to miss the point...
>

"Sterner test"? I think we already argued about that.

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 12:30:23
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 3:03=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Patrick Kehoe" <pke...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:127df662-e243-4146-b67d-12fd18bee2df@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> > > >> that.
>
> > > >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > > >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > > >> Two would be a good year.
> > > >> Three would be a great year.
> > > >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewh=
at
> > > >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> > > >> amusing
> > > >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be =
a
> > > >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> > > >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very so=
on
> > > >> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > > >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc sla=
m
> > > >> in
> > > >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> > > >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> > > >> career
> > > >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> > > >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Chan=
nel
> > > >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> > > >> against
> > > >> Federer.
>
> > > >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> > > >He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> > > >courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>
> > > ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-
> > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> > Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> > Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> > Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> > Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
> >head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> >more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >champion...
>
> who's world number 1 again?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Rafael Nadal

lol

P


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:27:15
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 7:43=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > TT wrote:
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com=
>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> >>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somew=
hat
> >>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> >>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be=
a
> >>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very s=
oon
> >>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> >>>>>>> slam in
> >>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> >>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> >>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and cl=
ay
> >>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> >>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> >>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head t=
o
> >>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> >>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >>> champion...
>
> >>> P
>
> >> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>
> >> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> >> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>
> >> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
> >> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>
> > Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> > case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
>

Federer is already handicapping himself by playing with a single-
handed backhand, instead of taking the easier option of playing with
two hands.

Single-handers should be given a few points per set to offset this
handicap ...






 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:24:42
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 7:53=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.co=
m >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> >>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
> >>>>>>>> somewhat
> >>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> >>>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely b=
e a
> >>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
> >>>>>>>> soon
> >>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> >>>>>>>> slam in
> >>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> >>>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >>>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> >>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and c=
lay
> >>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> >>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> >>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head =
to
> >>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali wo=
n
> >>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >>>> champion...
>
> >>>> P
>
> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>
> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay=
.
>
> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
> >>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>
> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> > It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
>
> Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?

Could Sampras, McEnroe ... ?



 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:18:30
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 5:53=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>
>
>
> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this yea=
r :
> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he=
was
> >>>a
> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
> >> players play well. Damn!
>
> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people =
are
> >trying to make out.
>
> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.

I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
win.






  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 23:33:45
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:18:30 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>
>>
>>
>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was
>> >>>a
>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>
>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>> >> players play well. Damn!
>>
>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people are
>> >trying to make out.
>>
>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>
>I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
>cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
>vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
>of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
>some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
>win.

Yes, I wouldn't like to pick either way, but if I had to pick now, I
would say no.



  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 17:22:52
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>
>>
>>
>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was
>> >>>a
>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>
>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>> >> players play well. Damn!
>>
>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people are
>> >trying to make out.
>>
>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>
> I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
> cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
> vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
> of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
> some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
> win.

I say it's more unlikely than likely given:
A) his playing style on HC.
B) his growing knee wear.
C) new generation will come.

Of course, I could be spectacularly wrong, but I wouldn't mind - he's grown on
me, that Rafa :D


   
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:31:20
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:sh9526-hqd.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>> >>>year :
>>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>> >>>he was
>>> >>>a
>>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>
>>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>>> >> players play well. Damn!
>>>
>>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people
>>> >are
>>> >trying to make out.
>>>
>>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
>>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
>>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
>>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>>
>> I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
>> cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
>> vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
>> of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
>> some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
>> win.
>
> I say it's more unlikely than likely given:
> A) his playing style on HC.
> B) his growing knee wear.
> C) new generation will come.

but he's gone from getting to just R16 and quarters in 2007 to the semis in
2008. If his style is so important why has he improved?




    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:40:07
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sh9526-hqd.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>>>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>> >>>year :
>>>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>> >>>he was
>>>> >>>a
>>>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>
>>>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>>>> >> players play well. Damn!
>>>>
>>>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people
>>>> >are
>>>> >trying to make out.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
>>>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
>>>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
>>>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>>>
>>> I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
>>> cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
>>> vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
>>> of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
>>> some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
>>> win.
>>
>> I say it's more unlikely than likely given:
>> A) his playing style on HC.
>> B) his growing knee wear.
>> C) new generation will come.
>
> but he's gone from getting to just R16 and quarters in 2007 to the semis in
> 2008. If his style is so important why has he improved?

Because he *has* made changes - or are you one of those that think that there's
no difference at all between nadal 2005 and nadal 2008? He's taking the
initiative more often (with that FH it was high time he did) but he still
tends to fall too far back when someone rattles him, and that give the other
player even more opportunities to put him away (opportunities that don't show
up on clay due to speed/bounce/sliding). But it still isn't enough to beat
some zoned good HC player like Tsonga or Youzhny.


     
Date: 24 Dec 2008 12:30:57
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:7q2726-9vf.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sh9526-hqd.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>>>>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>> >>>year :
>>>>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>> >>>he was
>>>>> >>>a
>>>>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>>>>> >> players play well. Damn!
>>>>>
>>>>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some
>>>>> >people
>>>>> >are
>>>>> >trying to make out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
>>>>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
>>>>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
>>>>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>>>>
>>>> I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
>>>> cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
>>>> vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
>>>> of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
>>>> some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
>>>> win.
>>>
>>> I say it's more unlikely than likely given:
>>> A) his playing style on HC.
>>> B) his growing knee wear.
>>> C) new generation will come.
>>
>> but he's gone from getting to just R16 and quarters in 2007 to the semis
>> in
>> 2008. If his style is so important why has he improved?
>
> Because he *has* made changes - or are you one of those that think that
> there's
> no difference at all between nadal 2005 and nadal 2008? He's taking the
> initiative more often (with that FH it was high time he did) but he still
> tends to fall too far back when someone rattles him, and that give the
> other
> player even more opportunities to put him away (opportunities that don't
> show
> up on clay due to speed/bounce/sliding). But it still isn't enough to beat
> some zoned good HC player like Tsonga or Youzhny.

Not a good example of players who can challenge Nadal on HC. Nobody could
beat Tsonga in that form, everything he hit went in and/or was a winner and
Youzhny is a very poor example, he was hardly zoned, he won because of the
4+ hour Moya match Nadal had played the night before. Are you honestly this
desperate? The fact is there are maybe 3 players in the world who are better
at him on HC and they're on a par on a given day, there's no reason why
Nadal can't win the USO really.




      
Date: 24 Dec 2008 09:41:29
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
>
> Not a good example of players who can challenge Nadal on HC. Nobody could
> beat Tsonga in that form, everything he hit went in and/or was a winner and
> Youzhny is a very poor example, he was hardly zoned, he won because of the
> 4+ hour Moya match Nadal had played the night before. Are you honestly this
> desperate? The fact is there are maybe 3 players in the world who are better
> at him on HC and they're on a par on a given day, there's no reason why
> Nadal can't win the USO really.

I don't say it's impossible - I say it's unlikely. What about Gonzalez?
Youzhny at USO, not Chennai? Freakin' David Ferrer? Besides, those 3 players
better than him on HC, seeded 2 3 and 4 give a high chance that he'll have to
beat 2 of those 3 better players than him at a HC slam, with all the wear and
tear of the previous five slam rounds.


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 17:53:06
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst ?greats?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:31:20 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sh9526-hqd.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>>>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>> >> <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>> >>>year :
>>>> >>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>> >>>he was
>>>> >>>a
>>>> >>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>> >>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>
>>>> >> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>>>> >> players play well. Damn!
>>>>
>>>> >my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people
>>>> >are
>>>> >trying to make out.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
>>>> slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
>>>> year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
>>>> slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't.
>>>
>>> I would say that is a brave prediction - there's no reason why Nadal
>>> cannot win a slam on HC (probably most likely the AO). He is more
>>> vulnerable on the sruface sure, but a lot depends on the draw and form
>>> of main rivals. I mean, there must be a reasonable chance he can make
>>> some finals in the next 4-5 years, and once there he could certainly
>>> win.
>>
>> I say it's more unlikely than likely given:
>> A) his playing style on HC.
>> B) his growing knee wear.
>> C) new generation will come.
>
>but he's gone from getting to just R16 and quarters in 2007 to the semis in
>2008. If his style is so important why has he improved?
>


That's so obvious !

Cheating.


 
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:06:09
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 7:52=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 9:42 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injurie=
s. And
> >>>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said h=
e
> >>>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
> >>>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >>>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless y=
ou want
> >>>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't=
get
> >>>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get inju=
red.
> >>>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to=
lame
> >>>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
> >>>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, s=
o it's
> >>>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years =
still,
> >>>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less deman=
ding
> >>>>>>>> playing style.
> >>>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career wit=
h even
> >>>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
> >>>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless tha=
t my aim
> >>>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
> >>>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my =
part
> >>>>>>> I guess..
> >>>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury =
free
> >>>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
> >>>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3=
,
> >>>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
> >>>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> >>>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> >>>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I t=
hink
> >>>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> >>>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he st=
ays
> >>>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
> >>>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rs=
t. If
> >>>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, =
does
> >>>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal =
as
> >>>>>>> goat and Whisper
> >>>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
> >>>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
> >>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but=
I
> >>>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampra=
s
> >>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat to=
o.
> >>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the c=
ourt
> >>>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >>>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> >>>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GO=
AT.
> >>>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text=
-
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> >>>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sportin=
g
> >>>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have =
a
> >>>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of cours=
e
> >>>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> >>>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide quo=
ted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> ++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
> >>> assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only calle=
d
> >>> the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
> >>> yet!
> >>> P
> >> He has some gifts, but in no way is he the best pure tennis talent eve=
r.
> >> =A0 McEnroe is at least twice as talented - I also put Hoad/Laver easi=
ly
> >> above him in talent dept.
>
> > You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
> > judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
> > him at the time)
>
> I have tapes & lots of literature. =A0When you consider how amazingly
> gifted Laver was,

Was Laver "amazingly gifted"? He was a great player, but his success
came largely from great determination, fitness and mental strength, if
you like. Hoad was the natural talent.

> yet he & everyone says Hoad was better has to tell you
> something.

But yet when Laver said that he would be delighted to be considered in
the same class as Federer you dismissed his opinion?

> Laver/Hoad hit with topspin with old wood rackets & importantly were
> just as fluid/devastating at the net as anywhere else.

Hardly surprising, since everyone played at the net then as nearly
everything was on grass

> I'm not saying Fed is a hack, but he's not as talented as those guys over=
all & > mentally he's not as strong.

Hoad was known as an underachiever, devastating if he was on form,
poor if the mood took him. Is that great mental strength?



  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:27:10
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:d03e59f1-000e-4209-b98f-13287c015126@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 7:52 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 9:42 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious
> >>>>>>>>>> injuries. And
> >>>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> >>>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
> >>>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >>>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless
> >>>>>>>> you want
> >>>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't
> >>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get
> >>>>>>>> injured.
> >>>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to
> >>>>>>>> lame
> >>>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
> >>>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so
> >>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years
> >>>>>>>> still,
> >>>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less
> >>>>>>>> demanding
> >>>>>>>> playing style.
> >>>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with
> >>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
> >>>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that
> >>>>>>>> my aim
> >>>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
> >>>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my
> >>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>> I guess..
> >>>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury
> >>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
> >>>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> >>>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
> >>>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> >>>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> >>>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I
> >>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> >>>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he
> >>>>>>> stays
> >>>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
> >>>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on
> >>>>>>> rst. If
> >>>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme,
> >>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>> goat and Whisper
> >>>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
> >>>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
> >>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
> >>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat
> >>>>>> too.
> >>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >>>>>> court
> >>>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >>>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> >>>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for
> >>>>> GOAT.
> >>>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted
> >>>>> text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> >>>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> >>>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> >>>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> >>>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> >>>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide
> >>>> quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> ++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
> >>> assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only called
> >>> the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
> >>> yet!
> >>> P
> >> He has some gifts, but in no way is he the best pure tennis talent
> >> ever.
> >> McEnroe is at least twice as talented - I also put Hoad/Laver easily
> >> above him in talent dept.
>
> > You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
> > judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
> > him at the time)
>
> I have tapes & lots of literature. When you consider how amazingly
> gifted Laver was,
>
>Was Laver "amazingly gifted"? He was a great player, but his success
>came largely from great determination, fitness and mental strength, if
>you like. Hoad was the natural talent.
>
> yet he & everyone says Hoad was better has to tell you
> something.
>
>But yet when Laver said that he would be delighted to be considered in
>the same class as Federer you dismissed his opinion?
>
> Laver/Hoad hit with topspin with old wood rackets & importantly were
> just as fluid/devastating at the net as anywhere else.
>
>Hardly surprising, since everyone played at the net then as nearly
>everything was on grass
>
> I'm not saying Fed is a hack, but he's not as talented as those guys
> overall & > mentally he's not as strong.
>
>Hoad was known as an underachiever, devastating if he was on form,
>poor if the mood took him. Is that great mental strength?

sounds like Safin, more talented than Fed as shown in those AO 2005
highlights, but somewhat of an underachiever.




  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:27:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> But yet when Laver said that he would be delighted to be considered in
> the same class as Federer you dismissed his opinion?

Laver believes in Federer’s chances at the French and his pursuit of
the Grand Slam. (snip)

The French final is June 10, and perhaps it will be a historic day for
tennis. If Federer wins, and goes on to complete the sweep at Wimbledon
and the U.S. Open, Laver has a wish.

“I’d like to be the first one in line to shake his hand,” he says.


--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 11:38:27
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 7:37=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 9:42 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries.=
And
> >>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> >>>>>>> feared would end his career back
> >>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you=
want
> >>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't g=
et
> >>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injure=
d.
> >>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to l=
ame
> >>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
> >>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so =
it's
> >>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years st=
ill,
> >>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demandi=
ng
> >>>>>> playing style.
> >>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with =
even
> >>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
> >>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that =
my aim
> >>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
> >>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my pa=
rt
> >>>>> I guess..
> >>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury fr=
ee
> >>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
> >>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> >>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
> >>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> >>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> >>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I thi=
nk
> >>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> >>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stay=
s
> >>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
> >>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst.=
If
> >>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, do=
es
> >>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> >>>>> goat and Whisper
> >>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
> >>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
> >>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> >>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> >>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
> >>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the cou=
rt
> >>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> >>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT=
.
> >>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> >> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> >> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> >> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> >> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> >> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
> > assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only called
> > the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
> > yet!
>
> > P
>
> He has some gifts, but in no way is he the best pure tennis talent ever.
> =A0 McEnroe is at least twice as talented - I also put Hoad/Laver easily
> above him in talent dept.

You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
him at the time)



  
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:52:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 22, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 9:42 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
>>>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>>>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>>>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>>>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>>>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>>>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
>>>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>>>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>>>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>>>>>>>> playing style.
>>>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>>>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>>>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
>>>>>>> I guess..
>>>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
>>>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
>>>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>>>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
>>>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>>>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>>>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
>>>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>>>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
>>>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
>>>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
>>>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
>>>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>>>>>>> goat and Whisper
>>>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>>>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
>>>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>>>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
>>>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
>>>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
>>>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
>>>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
>>>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
>>>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> ++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
>>> assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only called
>>> the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
>>> yet!
>>> P
>> He has some gifts, but in no way is he the best pure tennis talent ever.
>> McEnroe is at least twice as talented - I also put Hoad/Laver easily
>> above him in talent dept.
>
> You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
> judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
> him at the time)
>



I have tapes & lots of literature. When you consider how amazingly
gifted Laver was, yet he & everyone says Hoad was better has to tell you
something.

Laver/Hoad hit with topspin with old wood rackets & importantly were
just as fluid/devastating at the net as anywhere else. I'm not saying
Fed is a hack, but he's not as talented as those guys overall & mentally
he's not as strong.



   
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:01:29
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Whisper wrote:
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 9:42 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious
>>>>>>>>>>> injuries. And
>>>>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>>>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>>>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
>>>>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>>>>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless
>>>>>>>>> you want
>>>>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he
>>>>>>>>> doesn't get
>>>>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get
>>>>>>>>> injured.
>>>>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead
>>>>>>>>> to lame
>>>>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
>>>>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already,
>>>>>>>>> so it's
>>>>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years
>>>>>>>>> still,
>>>>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less
>>>>>>>>> demanding
>>>>>>>>> playing style.
>>>>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career
>>>>>>>>> with even
>>>>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>>>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless
>>>>>>>>> that my aim
>>>>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>>>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my
>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>> I guess..
>>>>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury
>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
>>>>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>>>>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
>>>>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>>>>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>>>>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>>>>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he
>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
>>>>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on
>>>>>>>> rst. If
>>>>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme,
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>>>>>>>> goat and Whisper
>>>>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>>>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>>>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>>>>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>>>>> court
>>>>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>>>>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for
>>>>>> GOAT.
>>>>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
>>>>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
>>>>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
>>>>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
>>>>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
>>>>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide
>>>>> quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> ++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
>>>> assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only called
>>>> the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
>>>> yet!
>>>> P
>>> He has some gifts, but in no way is he the best pure tennis talent ever.
>>> McEnroe is at least twice as talented - I also put Hoad/Laver easily
>>> above him in talent dept.
>>
>> You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
>> judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
>> him at the time)
>>
>
>
>
> I have tapes & lots of literature. When you consider how amazingly
> gifted Laver was, yet he & everyone says Hoad was better has to tell you
> something.
>
> Laver/Hoad hit with topspin with old wood rackets & importantly were
> just as fluid/devastating at the net as anywhere else. I'm not saying
> Fed is a hack, but he's not as talented as those guys overall & mentally
> he's not as strong.
>

So are you seriously claiming Sampras has better _achievements_ than
Laver? ...Or is it the ability that makes him the goat?

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 22:14:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
>>> judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
>>> him at the time)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have tapes & lots of literature. When you consider how amazingly
>> gifted Laver was, yet he & everyone says Hoad was better has to tell
>> you something.
>>
>> Laver/Hoad hit with topspin with old wood rackets & importantly were
>> just as fluid/devastating at the net as anywhere else. I'm not saying
>> Fed is a hack, but he's not as talented as those guys overall &
>> mentally he's not as strong.
>>
>
> So are you seriously claiming Sampras has better _achievements_ than
> Laver? ...Or is it the ability that makes him the goat?
>



Laver has won 5 open era slams & in his day 3 of the 4 were on grass. I
think Sampras woulda liked that ratio.



     
Date: 23 Dec 2008 14:42:05
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> You must have plenty of tapes of Hoad playing to be able to make a
>>>> judgement like that (assuming you are not old enough to have witnessed
>>>> him at the time)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have tapes & lots of literature. When you consider how amazingly
>>> gifted Laver was, yet he & everyone says Hoad was better has to tell
>>> you something.
>>>
>>> Laver/Hoad hit with topspin with old wood rackets & importantly were
>>> just as fluid/devastating at the net as anywhere else. I'm not
>>> saying Fed is a hack, but he's not as talented as those guys overall
>>> & mentally he's not as strong.
>>>
>>
>> So are you seriously claiming Sampras has better _achievements_ than
>> Laver? ...Or is it the ability that makes him the goat?
>>
>
>
>
> Laver has won 5 open era slams & in his day 3 of the 4 were on grass. I
> think Sampras woulda liked that ratio.
>

But of course one was still 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: 21 Dec 2008 19:07:45
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 1:54=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> GOAT wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. =
And
> >>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> >>>>>> feared would end his career back
> >>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you =
want
> >>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't ge=
t
> >>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured=
.
> >>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to la=
me
> >>>>> posts about when that would happen.
> >>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so i=
t's
> >>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years sti=
ll,
> >>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demandin=
g
> >>>>> playing style.
> >>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with e=
ven
> >>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
> >>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that m=
y aim
> >>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
> >>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my par=
t
> >>>> I guess..
> >>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury fre=
e
> >>>> Nadal over the next five years,
> >>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> >>>> maybe four more times. I also think
> >>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> >>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> >>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I thin=
k
> >>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> >>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> >>>> healthy, as my prediction.
> >>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. =
If
> >>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, doe=
s
> >>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> >>>> goat and Whisper
> >>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
> >>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
> >>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> >>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> >>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
> >>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the cour=
t
> >>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> >> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
> >> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> > reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> > immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> > record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> > not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> > Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.
>
> He can still become achievement goat of course, but not absolute goat
> correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Yes, Fed could be achievement GOAT, to go along with the fleeting
title of Talent GOAT... nice combo...

P


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:39:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 1:54 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> GOAT wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
>>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
>>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>>>>>>> playing style.
>>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
>>>>>> I guess..
>>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
>>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
>>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
>>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
>>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
>>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
>>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
>>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
>>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>>>>>> goat and Whisper
>>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
>>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
>>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
>>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
>>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
>>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
>>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
>>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.
>> He can still become achievement goat of course, but not absolute goat
>> correct.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Yes, Fed could be achievement GOAT, to go along with the fleeting
> title of Talent GOAT... nice combo...
>
> P




He hasn't yet come remotely close to 'talent goat' - eg I haven't seen
any literature that describes his skill in the way Mac was written
about, & your own eyes should tell you Mac > Fed.



   
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:40:48
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 21-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 1:54 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> GOAT wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries.
> >>>>>>>And
> >>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> >>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
> >>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you
> >>>>>>>want
> >>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't
> >>>>>>>get
> >>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get
> >>>>>>>injured.
> >>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to
> >>>>>>>lame
> >>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
> >>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so
> >>>>>>>it's
> >>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years
> >>>>>>>still,
> >>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less
> >>>>>>>demanding
> >>>>>>> playing style.
> >>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with
> >>>>>>>even
> >>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
> >>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that
> >>>>>>>my aim
> >>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
> >>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my
> >>>>>> part
> >>>>>> I guess..
> >>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury
> >>>>>> free
> >>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
> >>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> >>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
> >>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> >>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> >>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I
> >>>>>> think
> >>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> >>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he
> >>>>>> stays
> >>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
> >>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst.
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme,
> >>>>>> does
> >>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> >>>>>> goat and Whisper
> >>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
> >>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
> >>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> >>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
> >>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
> >>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >>>>> court
> >>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> >>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for
> >>>> GOAT.
> >>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> >>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> >>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> >>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> >>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> >>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.
> >> He can still become achievement goat of course, but not absolute goat
> >> correct.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > ++ Yes, Fed could be achievement GOAT, to go along with the fleeting
> > title of Talent GOAT... nice combo...
> >
> > P
>
>
>
>
> He hasn't yet come remotely close to 'talent goat' - eg I haven't seen
> any literature that describes his skill in the way Mac was written
> about, & your own eyes should tell you Mac > Fed.

Well, it is still early yet.....he hasn't even retired yet you know?


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:48:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
jdeluise wrote:
> On 21-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> ++ Yes, Fed could be achievement GOAT, to go along with the fleeting
>>> title of Talent GOAT... nice combo...
>>>
>>> P
>>
>>
>>
>> He hasn't yet come remotely close to 'talent goat' - eg I haven't seen
>> any literature that describes his skill in the way Mac was written
>> about, & your own eyes should tell you Mac > Fed.
>
> Well, it is still early yet.....he hasn't even retired yet you know?



Mac wasn't either. Fed has his talents to be sure, but to suggest he's
the most wondrous ever is bollocks - he's not even the most talented
I've seen let alone all time.


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:06:37
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 9:48=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:18=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after tha=
t.
>
> > >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > >> Two would be a good year.
> > >> Three would be a great year.
> > >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> > >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amus=
ing
> > >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> > >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> > >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
> > >> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam =
in
> > >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> > >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with care=
er
> > >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> > >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channe=
l
> > >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record aga=
inst
> > >> Federer.
>
> > >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> > >He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> > >courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>
> > ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
champion...

P


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:12:21
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>>> Federer.
>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>
>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> champion...
>
> P

But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.

Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.

Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 06:39:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
TT wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>> career
>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>
>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>> champion...
>>
>> P
>
> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>
> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>
> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>



Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
case for him being the most talented ever.


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:35:33
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:494fed06$0$15754$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> TT wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-
>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>
>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>> champion...
>>>
>>> P
>>
>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>
>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is more
>> talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>
>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>
> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> case for him being the most talented ever.

that's a very very good point.




     
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:55:02
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:494fed06$0$15754$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> TT wrote:
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-
>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>>> champion...
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>
>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>
>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is more
>>> talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>
>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>
>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> that's a very very good point.
>

I think that's bollocks.

If you told me he's right handed, trained right-handed, injured his right hand
in the early rounds of a tournament, just took up the racquet with the left
hand, and won that tournament playing left-handed, I'd be impressed.

But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which, BTW,
was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys seem
to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big deal
(basketball, futbol...), because after a while it's just muscle memory and
training.

Nadal is extremely talented, but playing left-handed while being right-handed
after years of training doesn't register much more than a blip on the talent
scale.


      
Date: 28 Dec 2008 17:49:59
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:55:02 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>I think that's bollocks.
>
>If you told me he's right handed, trained right-handed, injured his right hand
>in the early rounds of a tournament, just took up the racquet with the left
>hand, and won that tournament playing left-handed, I'd be impressed.
>
>But since he's been training since childhood to play left-handed (which, BTW,
>was a stroke of genius on Toni's part) I'm not as impressed as you guys seem
>to be. Guys on other sports train to use both sides and it's no big deal
>(basketball, futbol...), because after a while it's just muscle memory and
>training.
>
>Nadal is extremely talented, but playing left-handed while being right-handed
>after years of training doesn't register much more than a blip on the talent
>scale.

Yes, what I see in this thread is that some people are saying Nadal
would be better if he played right-handed, correct? Now the whole
point why Toni made him play left-handed from early on was that they
figured that would give better results. That was their strategy. They
figured that strategy would give better results. Everyone has to do
different choices as a kid.


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 01:40:57
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> TT wrote:
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> >>>>>> that.
> >>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
> >>>>>> somewhat
> >>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> >>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> >>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
> >>>>>> soon
> >>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> >>>>>> slam in
> >>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> >>>>>> career
> >>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> >>>>>> against
> >>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> >>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> >>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
> >>>
> >>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
> >> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> >> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >> champion...
> >>
> >> P
> >
> > But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
> >
> > Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> > more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
> >
> > Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
> > old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
> >
>
>
>
> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> case for him being the most talented ever.

What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
talented? No, I didn't think so.


     
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:29:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
jdeluise wrote:
>>>> P
>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>
>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>
>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
> talented? No, I didn't think so.


Did they win slams & No.1 ranking?





      
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:13:51
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>> P
> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
> >>>
> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
> >>>
> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
> >>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
> >
> > What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
> > forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
> > talented? No, I didn't think so.
>
>
> Did they win slams & No.1 ranking?

What does that have to do with talent though? It's clear your intentions
are dishonest here.


       
Date: 24 Dec 2008 12:14:39
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:8Eb4l.21552$X05.14878@newsfe03.iad...
>
> On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >>>> P
>> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>> >>>
>> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for
>> >>> clay.
>> >>>
>> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
>> >>> year
>> >>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
>> >
>> > What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>> > forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>> > talented? No, I didn't think so.
>>
>>
>> Did they win slams & No.1 ranking?
>
> What does that have to do with talent though? It's clear your intentions
> are dishonest here.

because you have to be staggeringly talented to be able to become the best
tennis player in the world, USING YOUR OTHER(NON-DOMINANT) HAND. Do you
understand, it's really not that difficult if you use your brain a tiny bit?




        
Date: 24 Dec 2008 18:57:17
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 24-Dec-2008, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8Eb4l.21552$X05.14878@newsfe03.iad...
> >
> > On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >>>> P
> >> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for
> >> >>> clay.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
> >> >>> year
> >> >>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make
> >> >> a
> >> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
> >> >
> >> > What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but
> >> > are
> >> > forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
> >> > talented? No, I didn't think so.
> >>
> >>
> >> Did they win slams & No.1 ranking?
> >
> > What does that have to do with talent though? It's clear your
> > intentions
> > are dishonest here.
>
> because you have to be staggeringly talented to be able to become the best
>
> tennis player in the world, USING YOUR OTHER(NON-DOMINANT) HAND. Do you
> understand, it's really not that difficult if you use your brain a tiny
> bit?

Except that he TRAINED to play with his non-dominant hand, meaning it's just
not as impressive. Do you play any sports, because you should know this
already...


      
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:45:27
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> P
>>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>>
>>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>>>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>>
>>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>>>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>>
>> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
>> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
>> talented? No, I didn't think so.
>
>
> Did they win slams & No.1 ranking?

Moya did - but somehow I don't see you touting his extraordinary talent.


     
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:35:32
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:MkX3l.3763$hr3.1996@newsfe01.iad...
>
> On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> TT wrote:
>> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> >> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>> >>>>>> that.
>> >>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>> >>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>> >>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>> >>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>> >>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
>> >>>>>> somewhat
>> >>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>> >>>>>> amusing
>> >>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>> >>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
>> >>>>>> soon
>> >>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>> >>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>> >>>>>> slam in
>> >>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>> >>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>> >>>>>> career
>> >>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>> >>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>> >>>>>> Channel
>> >>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>> >>>>>> against
>> >>>>>> Federer.
>> >>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>> >>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
>> >>>>> clay
>> >>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>> >>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>> >>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>> >>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>> >>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>> >> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>> >> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>> >> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>> >> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>> >> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>> >> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>> >> champion...
>> >>
>> >> P
>> >
>> > But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>> >
>> > Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>> > more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>> >
>> > Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>> > old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> What about the Japanese players that are naturally left-handed but are
> forced to play right-handed? Are those in the conversation of most
> talented? No, I didn't think so.

have they achieved what Nadal has?




      
Date: 23 Dec 2008 19:12:33
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
>
> have they achieved what Nadal has?

Talent is not equal to achievement though, and I personally believe that
Nadal has achieved what he has achieved through persistence, hard work and
mental strength. You're seriously arguing that switching hands at a young
age as part of his training regimen puts him in the conversation of most
talented *just because* he has had stunning accomplishments?


       
Date: 24 Dec 2008 00:19:33
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:FKa4l.21540$X05.17536@newsfe03.iad...
>
> On 23-Dec-2008, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> have they achieved what Nadal has?
>
> Talent is not equal to achievement though, and I personally believe that
> Nadal has achieved what he has achieved through persistence, hard work and
> mental strength. You're seriously arguing that switching hands at a young
> age as part of his training regimen puts him in the conversation of most
> talented *just because* he has had stunning accomplishments?

well yes, anyone with common sense would agree.




        
Date: 24 Dec 2008 00:25:05
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

> well yes, anyone with common sense would agree.

You mean "Whisper sense", right?


    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 16:49:39
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>
>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>> champion...
>>>
>>> P
>>
>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>
>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>
>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>
>
> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> case for him being the most talented ever.

Closely followed by Moya?


    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 21:43:44
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>
>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>> champion...
>>>
>>> P
>>
>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>
>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>
>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17 year
>> old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>
>
>
>
> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> case for him being the most talented ever.

It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 06:53:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>>> champion...
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>
>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>
>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>
>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
>>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>
> It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
>



Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?



      
Date: 23 Dec 2008 02:10:49
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja
> >>>>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> >>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
> >>>>>>>> somewhat
> >>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> >>>>>>>> amusing
> >>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be
> >>>>>>>a
> >>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
> >>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
> >>>>>>>> soon
> >>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> >>>>>>>> slam in
> >>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> >>>>>>>> career
> >>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >>>>>>>> Channel
> >>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> >>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>> Federer.
> >>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
> >>>>>>>clay
> >>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> >>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>
> >>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
> >>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head
> >>>> to
> >>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
> >>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
> >>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
> >>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >>>> champion...
> >>>>
> >>>> P
> >>>
> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
> >>>
> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
> >>>
> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
> >>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
> >
> > It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
> >
>
>
>
> Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?

You act like Rafa is the only pro who ever switched hands, which he is not.
Clearly this is a case of training from a young age to play with the
opposite hand *and* it only helps his two-handed backhand to have a strong
right arm. It's pretty obvious this is an anti-Federer troll post. Are you
really serious that you think Rafa is more talented than Fed?


       
Date: 24 Dec 2008 00:51:14
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:MMX3l.3766$hr3.2188@newsfe01.iad...
>
> On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> TT wrote:
>> > Whisper wrote:
>> >> TT wrote:
>> >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> >>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja
>> >>>>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>> >>>>>>>> that.
>> >>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>> >>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>> >>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>> >>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>> >>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
>> >>>>>>>> somewhat
>> >>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>> >>>>>>>> amusing
>> >>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely
>> >>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>a
>> >>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>> >>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
>> >>>>>>>> soon
>> >>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>> >>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>> >>>>>>>> slam in
>> >>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>> >>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>> >>>>>>>> career
>> >>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>> >>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>> >>>>>>>> Channel
>> >>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>> >>>>>>>> against
>> >>>>>>>> Federer.
>> >>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>> >>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
>> >>>>>>>clay
>> >>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>> >>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>> >>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted
>> >>>>> text -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>> >>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>> >>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>> >>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>> >>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali
>> >>>> won
>> >>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>> >>>> champion...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> P
>> >>>
>> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>> >>>
>> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for
>> >>> clay.
>> >>>
>> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
>> >>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
>> >
>> > It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?
>
> You act like Rafa is the only pro who ever switched hands, which he is
> not.
> Clearly this is a case of training from a young age to play with the
> opposite hand *and* it only helps his two-handed backhand to have a strong
> right arm. It's pretty obvious this is an anti-Federer troll post. Are
> you
> really serious that you think Rafa is more talented than Fed?

Is that something so preposterous ?
It's completly subjecive, and besides how could you measure one's talent?

Nadal has a great mental strength, he's fast, able to hit with incredible
spin...that's a lot of talent.
If someone thinks it's bigger than Fed's talent...so what?

Talent doesn't always go with the achievements, but take a look:
At the same age, both had 1 Wimbledon, Nadal had bunch of FO titles, and
both had 0 HC slams (with Fed winning bucnh of them later, and Nadal is less
likely to do it).


So if we had 2 clay slams instead of 1, and one HC instead of two, the
result could have easily been 9-9 in slams won, with Nadal being 5 years
younger and having a decent shot to win maybe not 5 but few more Wimbledons
and surpass Federer in slams won.




        
Date: 24 Dec 2008 00:12:20
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MMX3l.3766$hr3.2188@newsfe01.iad...
> >
> > On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> TT wrote:
> >> > Whisper wrote:
> >> >> TT wrote:
> >> >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >> >>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja
> >> >>>>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1
> >> >>>>after
> >> >>>>>>>> that.
> >> >>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >> >>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >> >>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
> >> >>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
> >> >>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
> >> >>>>>>>> somewhat
> >> >>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find
> >> >>>>this
> >> >>>>>>>> amusing
> >> >>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> be
> >> >>>>>>>a
> >> >>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his
> >> >>>>peak.
> >> >>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and
> >> >>>>very
> >> >>>>>>>> soon
> >> >>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >> >>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
> >> >>>>>>>> slam in
> >> >>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
> >> >>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison
> >> >>>>with
> >> >>>>>>>> career
> >> >>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
> >> >>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
> >> >>>>>>>> Channel
> >> >>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning
> >> >>>>record
> >> >>>>>>>> against
> >> >>>>>>>> Federer.
> >> >>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
> >> >>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
> >> >>>>>>>clay
> >> >>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
> >> >>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> >> >>>>ha
> >> >>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
> >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >> >>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> >> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> >> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> >> >>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted
> >> >>>>> text -
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute
> >> >>>>than
> >> >>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose
> >> >>>>head
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as
> >> >>>>more
> >> >>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
> >> >>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges
> >> >>>>couldn't
> >> >>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali
> >> >>>> won
> >> >>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
> >> >>>> champion...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> P
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for
> >> >>> clay.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
> >> >>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make
> >> >> a
> >> >> case for him being the most talented ever.
> >> >
> >> > It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as
> >> > Roger.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?
> >
> > You act like Rafa is the only pro who ever switched hands, which he is
> > not.
> > Clearly this is a case of training from a young age to play with the
> > opposite hand *and* it only helps his two-handed backhand to have a
> > strong
> > right arm. It's pretty obvious this is an anti-Federer troll post. Are
> >
> > you
> > really serious that you think Rafa is more talented than Fed?
>
> Is that something so preposterous ?
> It's completly subjecive, and besides how could you measure one's talent?

You're right, you can't measure talent objectively. But Whisper's idea is
that Nadal should be in the conversation of most talented players simply
because he switched hands as part of his training as a child *and* has won a
lot of slams. Does it really take a lot of talent to switch hands? I would
say no, not at the point in his life when he switched anyway....

> Nadal has a great mental strength, he's fast, able to hit with incredible
> spin...that's a lot of talent.
> If someone thinks it's bigger than Fed's talent...so what?

So ability to hit with a lot of topspin is a talent now? No! It's the
result of hard work. I don't think I would consider "mental strength" to be
a talent specific to tennis but it is certainly an important attribute of
his. Anyway, I'm not saying Nadal isn't talented, I am just saying that
compared to others (even some with much fewer achievements) he is not as
talented. His successes can be attributed to hard work and perseverance to
a much greater degree than to his talent as a player.

> Talent doesn't always go with the achievements, but take a look:
> At the same age, both had 1 Wimbledon, Nadal had bunch of FO titles, and
> both had 0 HC slams (with Fed winning bucnh of them later, and Nadal is
> less
> likely to do it).
>
>
> So if we had 2 clay slams instead of 1, and one HC instead of two, the
> result could have easily been 9-9 in slams won, with Nadal being 5 years
> younger and having a decent shot to win maybe not 5 but few more
> Wimbledons
> and surpass Federer in slams won.

But we don't so why make the comparison? I suppose by using the arguments
from your camp we could say "If there were more clay slams then Federer
would need to win more on clay in order to pass the record of 14 slams, so
he would have retooled his game and would have easily won on clay." At any
rate, as you say this has nothing to do with talent so why are we arguing
about coulda woulda?


         
Date: 24 Dec 2008 03:43:04
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
jdeluise wrote:

> So ability to hit with a lot of topspin is a talent now? No! It's the
> result of hard work. I don't think I would consider "mental strength" to be
> a talent specific to tennis but it is certainly an important attribute of
> his. Anyway, I'm not saying Nadal isn't talented, I am just saying that
> compared to others (even some with much fewer achievements) he is not as
> talented. His successes can be attributed to hard work and perseverance to
> a much greater degree than to his talent as a player.

I have come to conclusion that no, there's now way Federer would be more
talented than Nadal. No way. Nadal was a prodigy, Federer a late bloomer.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uf0q1l2Izfo

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=VzlulADuBZY


          
Date: 24 Dec 2008 01:58:08
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
>
> > So ability to hit with a lot of topspin is a talent now? No! It's the
> > result of hard work. I don't think I would consider "mental strength"
> > to be
> > a talent specific to tennis but it is certainly an important attribute
> > of
> > his. Anyway, I'm not saying Nadal isn't talented, I am just saying that
> > compared to others (even some with much fewer achievements) he is not as
> > talented. His successes can be attributed to hard work and perseverance
> > to
> > a much greater degree than to his talent as a player.
>
> I have come to conclusion that no, there's now way Federer would be more
> talented than Nadal. No way. Nadal was a prodigy, Federer a late bloomer.
>
> http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uf0q1l2Izfo
>
> http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=VzlulADuBZY

How does that play into the talent equation though? I think one could argue
that it took longer for Federer to reach peak for reasons that weren't
related to his form or repertoire, but maybe by other factors like mental
strength, staying calm under pressure, etc. I think in those areas clearly
Nadal does and always has had an advantage.

At any rate, since there can be no consensus on this subject as there are
few ways to objectively measure it I think we can agree to disagree on this.
But I would like to say that both Nadal and Federer are clearly very
talented players, and I think we can probably agree on that.


       
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:30:17
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
jdeluise wrote:
> On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja
>>>>>>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
>>>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
>>>>>>>>> clay
>>>>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>>>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>>>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>>>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>>>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>>>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>>>>> champion...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P
>>>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>>>
>>>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>>>>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
>>>>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>>>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>>> It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?
>
> You act like Rafa is the only pro who ever switched hands, which he is not.
> Clearly this is a case of training from a young age to play with the
> opposite hand *and* it only helps his two-handed backhand to have a strong
> right arm. It's pretty obvious this is an anti-Federer troll post. Are you
> really serious that you think Rafa is more talented than Fed?



How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
opposite natural hand?

Only 1 guy.



        
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:16:28
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
> opposite natural hand?
>
> Only 1 guy.

So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be even
better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in two
ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the strong
right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand and
has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying to do
other things with the left hand?


         
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:27:31
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
jdeluise wrote:
> On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
>> opposite natural hand?
>>
>> Only 1 guy.
>
> So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be even
> better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in two
> ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the strong
> right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand and
> has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying to do
> other things with the left hand?

It's very much possible that Nadal would possess a bigger serve if he
had played righthanded. Although I can't see much wrong with his
forehand strokes. Scary thought if they were even better, no?

--
"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: 24 Dec 2008 09:27:08
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:27:31 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>jdeluise wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
>>> opposite natural hand?
>>>
>>> Only 1 guy.
>>
>> So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be even
>> better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in two
>> ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the strong
>> right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand and
>> has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying to do
>> other things with the left hand?
>
>It's very much possible that Nadal would possess a bigger serve if he
>had played righthanded. Although I can't see much wrong with his
>forehand strokes. Scary thought if they were even better, no?


Perhaps he should serve righthanded and play lefthanded. Has any
player in history done that ?


          
Date: 23 Dec 2008 20:41:41
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

On 23-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
> >> opposite natural hand?
> >>
> >> Only 1 guy.
> >
> > So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be
> > even
> > better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in
> > two
> > ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the
> > strong
> > right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand
> > and
> > has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying to
> > do
> > other things with the left hand?
>
> It's very much possible that Nadal would possess a bigger serve if he
> had played righthanded. Although I can't see much wrong with his
> forehand strokes. Scary thought if they were even better, no?

My argument is that he wouldn't be the same Nadal if he played right-handed.
It's impossible to predict how this would have helped or hurt his career.
What we know now is that Nadal playing left-handed *does* give him some
advantages over the rest of the pros. That being said I didn't mean to
imply that Nadal is talentless because that is simply untrue. However, to
add him to the conversation of who has the most talent simply because he
plays with his left hand and has won multiple slams is dishonest. How can
we take the word of consummate Nadal and Sampras fans?


           
Date: 24 Dec 2008 12:23:05
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:e2c4l.21558$X05.13345@newsfe03.iad...
>
> On 23-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>> > On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
>> >> opposite natural hand?
>> >>
>> >> Only 1 guy.
>> >
>> > So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be
>> > even
>> > better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in
>> > two
>> > ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the
>> > strong
>> > right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand
>> > and
>> > has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying
>> > to
>> > do
>> > other things with the left hand?
>>
>> It's very much possible that Nadal would possess a bigger serve if he
>> had played righthanded. Although I can't see much wrong with his
>> forehand strokes. Scary thought if they were even better, no?
>
> My argument is that he wouldn't be the same Nadal if he played
> right-handed.
> It's impossible to predict how this would have helped or hurt his career.
> What we know now is that Nadal playing left-handed *does* give him some
> advantages over the rest of the pros. That being said I didn't mean to
> imply that Nadal is talentless because that is simply untrue. However, to
> add him to the conversation of who has the most talent simply because he
> plays with his left hand and has won multiple slams is dishonest. How can
> we take the word of consummate Nadal and Sampras fans?

you assume playing left-handed gives him advantages, but playing with his
natural dominant hand might've given him even more advantages - bigger
serve, even bigger fh etc. Like TT says it could've been scary - the
definite GOAT.




           
Date: 23 Dec 2008 22:59:23
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
jdeluise wrote:
> On 23-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
>>>> opposite natural hand?
>>>>
>>>> Only 1 guy.
>>> So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be
>>> even
>>> better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in
>>> two
>>> ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the
>>> strong
>>> right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand
>>> and
>>> has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying to
>>> do
>>> other things with the left hand?
>> It's very much possible that Nadal would possess a bigger serve if he
>> had played righthanded. Although I can't see much wrong with his
>> forehand strokes. Scary thought if they were even better, no?
>
> My argument is that he wouldn't be the same Nadal if he played right-handed.
> It's impossible to predict how this would have helped or hurt his career.
> What we know now is that Nadal playing left-handed *does* give him some
> advantages over the rest of the pros.

Yes, he was really in big trouble against lefties on first 4 rounds at RG...

Ok, it gives him slight advantage on breakpoints. But that doesn't show
much in the stats so not sure of the significance.
Argument that he can play against opponents backhand doesn't hold
water...There's no reason why it couldn't be be other way around too,
righthander going for his backhand.


> That being said I didn't mean to
> imply that Nadal is talentless because that is simply untrue. However, to
> add him to the conversation of who has the most talent simply because he
> plays with his left hand and has won multiple slams is dishonest.

Well I wasn't...ummm...at least not very seriously.

I did make the notion that Nadal did beat Pat Cash in the age of 14 and
world rank one, Federer, in the age of 17 on a hardcourt - Which he has
proven was no fluke.

I do think Nadal is extremely talented. His limitations are due to his
game being perfected for clay...hence his volley is not where his talent
would allow, not even close. He has excellent touch though.
And lack of powerful fluent serve would be because of clay game and his
leftiness or both. You have to admit that his serve is perfect for
clay though.

> How can
> we take the word of consummate Nadal and Sampras fans?

You can't. As you can't take word of Federer fans either. That leaves
only you and me to be trusted. :)

--
"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: 24 Dec 2008 12:25:45
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:Lic4l.108707$_03.36193@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> jdeluise wrote:
>> On 23-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 23-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
>>>>> opposite natural hand?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only 1 guy.
>>>> So are you saying that if he played with his natural hand he would be
>>>> even
>>>> better? I say no because playing left-handed gives him an advantage in
>>>> two
>>>> ways (naturally more difficult for righties to play lefties and the
>>>> strong
>>>> right arm). He was conditioned from a young age to use the left hand
>>>> and
>>>> has nothing to do with talent. Have you seen the clips of him trying
>>>> to
>>>> do
>>>> other things with the left hand?
>>> It's very much possible that Nadal would possess a bigger serve if he
>>> had played righthanded. Although I can't see much wrong with his
>>> forehand strokes. Scary thought if they were even better, no?
>>
>> My argument is that he wouldn't be the same Nadal if he played
>> right-handed.
>> It's impossible to predict how this would have helped or hurt his
>> career. What we know now is that Nadal playing left-handed *does* give
>> him some
>> advantages over the rest of the pros.
>
> Yes, he was really in big trouble against lefties on first 4 rounds at
> RG...
>
> Ok, it gives him slight advantage on breakpoints. But that doesn't show
> much in the stats so not sure of the significance.
> Argument that he can play against opponents backhand doesn't hold
> water...There's no reason why it couldn't be be other way around too,
> righthander going for his backhand.
>
>
>> That being said I didn't mean to
>> imply that Nadal is talentless because that is simply untrue. However,
>> to
>> add him to the conversation of who has the most talent simply because he
>> plays with his left hand and has won multiple slams is dishonest.
>
> Well I wasn't...ummm...at least not very seriously.
>
> I did make the notion that Nadal did beat Pat Cash in the age of 14 and
> world rank one, Federer, in the age of 17 on a hardcourt - Which he has
> proven was no fluke.
>
> I do think Nadal is extremely talented. His limitations are due to his
> game being perfected for clay...hence his volley is not where his talent
> would allow, not even close. He has excellent touch though.

I think you're wrong on this, his volley/touch are what shows me how
talented he is. His technique etc is a lot better than most other players.




        
Date: 23 Dec 2008 09:41:47
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>> On 22-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja
>>>>>>>>> <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and
>>>>>>>>>> clay
>>>>>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>>>>>>>> ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>>>>>>>> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> ++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>>>>>>> Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>>>>>>> talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>>>>>>> certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>>>>>>> vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>>>>>>> more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>>>>>>> champion...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P
>>>>>> But greater champion is the one who's mentally tougher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talent manifests in early age, Nadal beat Pat Cash when 14. Nadal is
>>>>>> more talented than Federer, his game just was molded to suit for clay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't come telling me that it was only mental superiority when 17
>>>>>> year old Nadal beat #1 Federer on hc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given Rafa is right-handed but plays tennis left-handed one can make a
>>>>> case for him being the most talented ever.
>>>> It's only fair he gives some handicap to lesser talents such as Roger.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could Fed achieve a top 100,000 ranking playing left-handed?
>>
>> You act like Rafa is the only pro who ever switched hands, which he is not.
>> Clearly this is a case of training from a young age to play with the
>> opposite hand *and* it only helps his two-handed backhand to have a strong
>> right arm. It's pretty obvious this is an anti-Federer troll post. Are you
>> really serious that you think Rafa is more talented than Fed?
>
>
>
> How many have been able to win 5 slams (& counting) + No.1 playing
> opposite natural hand?
>
> Only 1 guy.
>

So the current talent GOAT is Nadal, who took the throne from Moya?


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:03:07
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"Patrick Kehoe" <pkehoe@telus.net > wrote in message
news:127df662-e243-4146-b67d-12fd18bee2df@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 21, 9:48 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
> > >> that.
>
> > >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > >> Two would be a good year.
> > >> Three would be a great year.
> > >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> > >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
> > >> amusing
> > >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> > >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> > >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
> > >> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
> > >> in
> > >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> > >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
> > >> career
> > >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> > >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> > >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
> > >> against
> > >> Federer.
>
> > >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> > >He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> > >courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>
> > ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
> Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
> Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>++ Nadal is supreme competitor and he is mentally more resolute than
>Federer... that's his edge... not talent... many guys can lose head to
>head against top opposition without the other guy being seen as more
>talented... Ken Norton won against Ali in their first fight and
>certainly should have won their third fight but the judges couldn't
>vote against the legend of Ali... Norton head to head against Ali won
>more rounds but he wasn't the more talented nor the greater
>champion...

who's world number 1 again?




 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:03:49
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 9:42=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:18=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 5:01=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries.=
And
> > > >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> > > >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> > > >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> > > >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> > > >>> feared would end his career back
> > > >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> > > >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you=
want
> > > >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't g=
et
> > > >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injure=
d.
> > > >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to l=
ame
> > > >> posts about when that would happen.
>
> > > >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so =
it's
> > > >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years st=
ill,
> > > >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demandi=
ng
> > > >> playing style.
> > > >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with =
even
> > > >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>
> > > >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that =
my aim
> > > >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> > > > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my pa=
rt
> > > > I guess..
>
> > > > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury fr=
ee
> > > > Nadal over the next five years,
>
> > > > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> > > > maybe four more times. I also think
> > > > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> > > > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> > > > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I thi=
nk
> > > > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> > > > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stay=
s
> > > > healthy, as my prediction.
>
> > > > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst.=
If
> > > > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, do=
es
> > > > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> > > > goat and Whisper
> > > > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> > > > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>
> > > Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> > > would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> > > vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> > > Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the cour=
t
> > > (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> > Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> > GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
> > He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only called
the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
yet!

P


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:37:34
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:42 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>>>>>> feared would end his career back
>>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
>>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>>>>>> playing style.
>>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
>>>>> I guess..
>>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
>>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
>>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
>>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
>>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
>>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
>>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
>>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
>>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>>>>> goat and Whisper
>>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
>>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
>> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
>> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
>> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
>> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
>> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Federer is not GOAT he is Talent GOAT... the grand narrative
> assertion of his era as written about since 2003/4... he's only called
> the most gifted and most complete tennis player not the greatest, not
> yet!
>
> P



He has some gifts, but in no way is he the best pure tennis talent ever.
McEnroe is at least twice as talented - I also put Hoad/Laver easily
above him in talent dept.



 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:01:45
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 4:18=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >> Two would be a good year.
> >> Three would be a great year.
> >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusin=
g
> >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
> >> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record again=
st
> >> Federer.
>
> >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> >He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> >courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix...
right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras still
great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams and
counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined by
assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's another
issue...

P


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:36:18
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 4:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>> Federer.
>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix...
> right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
> defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras still
> great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams and
> counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined by
> assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
> defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's another
> issue...
>
> P



It has never been the case. You should only speak for yourself - there
is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
opposite. They question why he can't even dominate all players in his
own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless at
net where pure instinct is required etc.



   
Date: 22 Dec 2008 23:56:59
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:36:18 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 4:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>>> Federer.
>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> ++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix...
>> right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
>> defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras still
>> great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams and
>> counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined by
>> assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
>> defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's another
>> issue...
>>
>> P
>
>
>
>It has never been the case. You should only speak for yourself - there
>is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
>opposite. They question why he can't even dominate all players in his
>own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless at
>net where pure instinct is required etc.


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

whisper thinks 11 slams in 4 years is not dominance !!!

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

I wonder what the most slams Sampras ever won in 4 years ? Humm...

only 7 !!!! 4 less !!! 1 a year less in fact !!!

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha

whisper is a fucking riot.

oh yeah and if we start comparing tune-ups Pete is not even in Rogers
league.

I'm beginning to wonder how Sampras ever won 14 ??? Oh I forgot,
Pioline types n other clowns as well as "tailored" courts paid for by
Madison Avenue.


    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:38:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:36:18 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 4:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> ++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix...
>>> right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
>>> defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras still
>>> great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams and
>>> counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined by
>>> assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
>>> defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's another
>>> issue...
>>>
>>> P
>>
>>
>> It has never been the case. You should only speak for yourself - there
>> is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
>> opposite. They question why he can't even dominate all players in his
>> own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless at
>> net where pure instinct is required etc.
>
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>
> whisper thinks 11 slams in 4 years is not dominance !!!
>



Fed's dominance has been supreme for 4 yrs, but due to dearth of
credible opposition he's never been fully tested except v Rafa.

Lendl was also dominant once Mac/Jimbo faded & before Becker/Edberg hit
their straps.


     
Date: 23 Dec 2008 10:27:27
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:38:28 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:36:18 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 4:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>> He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>>>>>> courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> ++ By expert consensus as of now it's Federer... supreme talent mix...
>>>> right there with Sampras with serve and volley as he showed in
>>>> defeating Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon (Fed on the way up, Sampras still
>>>> great but past peak)... hard court GOAT of Open Era with 8 slams and
>>>> counting... the essential narrative of Federer's career is defined by
>>>> assertion of him being talent GOAT making it manifestly assumed/
>>>> defined... of course that will not be so for ever but that's another
>>>> issue...
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> It has never been the case. You should only speak for yourself - there
>>> is no 'expert consensus' suggesting Fed is talent goat, rather the
>>> opposite. They question why he can't even dominate all players in his
>>> own era if he's best of all time, why he looks so stiff & clueless at
>>> net where pure instinct is required etc.
>>
>>
>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>
>> whisper thinks 11 slams in 4 years is not dominance !!!
>>
>
>
>
>Fed's dominance has been supreme for 4 yrs, but due to dearth of
>credible opposition he's never been fully tested except v Rafa.
>
>Lendl was also dominant once Mac/Jimbo faded & before Becker/Edberg hit
>their straps.


AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

OUGH OH .... THE MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE COMPLETELY "OBJECTIVE" SUDDENLY
TURNS COMPLETELY "SUBJECTIVE". MILLIONS WONDER WHY !!!

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 09:48:08
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 7:18=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >> Two would be a good year.
> >> Three would be a great year.
> >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusin=
g
> >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
> >> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record again=
st
> >> Federer.
>
> >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> >He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
> >courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.

Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:40:11
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:48:08 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 21, 7:18 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>
>> >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>> >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>> >> Two would be a good year.
>> >> Three would be a great year.
>> >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>> >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>> >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>> >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>
>> >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>> >> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>> >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>> >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>
>> >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>> >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>
>> >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>> >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>> >> Federer.
>>
>> >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>
>> >He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>> >courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.
>>
>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>First it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning a Slam
>Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal winning another Slam
>Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal beating Fed off of clay
>Then it was ah ha ha about Nadal getting to number one.
>
>Just keep on laughing while Nadal keeps winning.


Nadal is now *lame*. It is only a matter of time until they shoot him.


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 09:46:16
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 7:17=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:59:39 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
>
>
>
>
> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >news:u19rk49gi5o48emtfinhv44a3emltp776g@4ax.com...
> >> Let's put it this way ....
>
> >> Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
> >> the greats.
>
> >> Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
> >> ever going to make the charts either.
>
> >> Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>
> >> Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
> >> got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>
> >> THAT is what he will be remembered for.
>
> >When it comes to Wimbledon he isn't particulary lucky or unlucky..
>
> >In 2006 Federer was better, more experienced etc.
>
> >When it comes to 2007-2008, he could have won both those finals, last ye=
ar's
> >final in 5 sets, and this year in straight sets. imagine that.
> >otoh, he could have lost both finals.
>
> >He won one. Nothing lucky about it really.
>
> >The only one who was lucky was Federer in 2007 with his draw, having to =
play
> >only 5 matches to reach the final, having enough time fo *fly back to
> >Switzerland during the Wimbledon*, =A0while most of the guys where playi=
ng
> >their matches over many days,grinding etc. Djokovic was fucked up by the
> >time he reached semis against Nadal, and in the final Nadal's fitness
> >suffered in the 5th set.
>
> >That's being lucky.
> >Winning or losing a close match isn't.
>
> Lucky was Nadal playing #137 types and old men in 2007 and Fed being
> forced to play in the dark in 2008 and losing by a single point. Nadal
> should be ashamed to even claim that as a win.-

Sour grapes. You wouldn't even be mentioning the darkness if Fed had
won.


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 09:42:51
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 5:18=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:01=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason Catlin wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. A=
nd
> > >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> > >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> > >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> > >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> > >>> feared would end his career back
> > >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> > >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you w=
ant
> > >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
> > >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
> > >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lam=
e
> > >> posts about when that would happen.
>
> > >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it=
's
> > >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years stil=
l,
> > >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
> > >> playing style.
> > >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with ev=
en
> > >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>
> > >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my=
aim
> > >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> > > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> > > I guess..
>
> > > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> > > Nadal over the next five years,
>
> > > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> > > maybe four more times. I also think
> > > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> > > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> > > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> > > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> > > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> > > healthy, as my prediction.
>
> > > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. I=
f
> > > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> > > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> > > goat and Whisper
> > > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> > > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>
> > Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> > would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> > vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> > Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
> > (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 08:54:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
GOAT wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:18 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 5:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>>>>> feared would end his career back
>>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>>>>> posts about when that would happen.
>>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>>>>> playing style.
>>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
>>>> I guess..
>>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
>>>> Nadal over the next five years,
>>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>>>> maybe four more times. I also think
>>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
>>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
>>>> healthy, as my prediction.
>>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
>>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
>>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>>>> goat and Whisper
>>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
>>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> As much as Fed fans like to deny it, this is the single most valid
> reason against Fed being GOAT. Think about it - do any other sporting
> immortals i.e. Pele, Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Lewis, Bradman etc. have a
> record of being consistently beaten by their nearest rival? Of course
> not - they wouldn't be considered GOAT if they had been. As long as
> Nadal dominates Fed, Fed can in no way be considered GOAT.


He can still become achievement goat of course, but not absolute goat
correct.



 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 09:19:12
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
About Rafa, I predict 10 or 11 slams in his career.



 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 09:18:20
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 5:01=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
> >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> >>> feared would end his career back
> >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you wan=
t
> >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
> >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
> >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
> >> posts about when that would happen.
>
> >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
> >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
> >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
> >> playing style.
> >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
> >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>
> >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my a=
im
> >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> > I guess..
>
> > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> > Nadal over the next five years,
>
> > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> > maybe four more times. I also think
> > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> > healthy, as my prediction.
>
> > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
> > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> > goat and Whisper
> > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>
> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.


Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.



  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 16:16:01
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
In article
<421ba655-aa8f-48a4-bcaa-e343d7c7968c@o40g2000yqb.googlegroups.com >,
Arancione@selin.com () wrote:

>
> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for
> GOAT.
> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.
>

Is it better to have been 4-6 vs Krajicek?

Sampras really didn't have a consistent biggest rival. At one time or
another, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Chang, etc. were #2. None of them had a
career of persistent excellence like Nadal's.

wg


   
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:18:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <421ba655-aa8f-48a4-bcaa-e343d7c7968c@o40g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Arancione@selin.com () wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for
>> GOAT.
>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.
>>
>
> Is it better to have been 4-6 vs Krajicek?
>


4-6 but 2 of those Krajicek wins were;

64 36 76
67 64 76

Reverse those & it's 6-4 to Sampras.

At any rate it's 1-1 in slams.

If Rafa had only won 1 slam & Fed 14 no one would care about tune-up h2h.


    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:52:25
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:494f3f56$0$15745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article
>> <421ba655-aa8f-48a4-bcaa-e343d7c7968c@o40g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Arancione@selin.com () wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly. Sampras was NOBODIES bitch like Federer is Nadals bitch! A
>>> GOAT cannot be somebodies bitch, it is embarrassing. Sampras for GOAT.
>>> He made Agassi his bitch like a true GOAt should.
>>>
>>
>> Is it better to have been 4-6 vs Krajicek?
>>
>
>
> 4-6 but 2 of those Krajicek wins were;
>
> 64 36 76
> 67 64 76
>
> Reverse those & it's 6-4 to Sampras.
>
> At any rate it's 1-1 in slams.
>
> If Rafa had only won 1 slam & Fed 14 no one would care about tune-up h2h.

also was Krajicek ever world number one?




 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 07:39:25
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 10:01=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Jason Catlin wrote:
> >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
> >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
> >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> >>> feared would end his career back
> >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
> >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you wan=
t
> >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
> >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
> >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
> >> posts about when that would happen.
>
> >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
> >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
> >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
> >> playing style.
> >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
> >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>
> >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my a=
im
> >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> > I guess..
>
> > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> > Nadal over the next five years,
>
> > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> > maybe four more times. I also think
> > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> > healthy, as my prediction.
>
> > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
> > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> > goat and Whisper
> > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>
> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>

I thought Mac was ability GOAT?



  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:38:48
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:39:25 -0800 (PST), GOAT
<thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>On Dec 21, 10:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> > On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>> >>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>> >>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>> >>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>> >>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>> >>> feared would end his career back
>> >>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>> >> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>> >> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>> >> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>> >> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>> >> posts about when that would happen.
>>
>> >> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>> >> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>> >> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>> >> playing style.
>> >> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>> >> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>
>> >> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>> >> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>
>> > Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
>> > I guess..
>>
>> > But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
>> > Nadal over the next five years,
>>
>> > I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>> > maybe four more times. I also think
>> > it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>> > trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>> > speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
>> > another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>> > possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
>> > healthy, as my prediction.
>>
>> > By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
>> > Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
>> > that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>> > goat and Whisper
>> > having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>
>> > Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>>
>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes.  I defend Sampras
>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>
>
>I thought Mac was ability GOAT?


ability goat ????? what's that ??????

3457 ?


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 08:51:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
GOAT wrote:
> On Dec 21, 10:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>>>> feared would end his career back
>>>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>>>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>>>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>>>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>>>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>>>> posts about when that would happen.
>>>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>>>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>>>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>>>> playing style.
>>>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>>>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>>>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>>> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
>>> I guess..
>>> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
>>> Nadal over the next five years,
>>> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
>>> maybe four more times. I also think
>>> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
>>> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
>>> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
>>> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
>>> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
>>> healthy, as my prediction.
>>> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
>>> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
>>> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
>>> goat and Whisper
>>> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>>> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.
>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
>> would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>
>
> I thought Mac was ability GOAT?
>


Talent goat.



 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17
From: Raja
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> Two would be a good year.
> Three would be a great year.
> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
> Federer.
>
> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp

He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.



  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:18:04
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:41:17 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com >
wrote:

>On 20 Dec, 15:14, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>
>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>> Two would be a good year.
>> Three would be a great year.
>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>
>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>
>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>
>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>> Federer.
>>
>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
>He has issues on hc. I think he will like Borg win on grass and clay
>courts only. He is most likely to end up with 11-12 slams.


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



 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 22:08:25
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 5:08=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:

> >2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
> players play well. Damn!

Ahemmm....
Not if you're Serena Williams, you don't!
You only lose because you didn't play well !!!!

Ain't that a fact?


 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 19:24:03
From: dbrowne
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 9:22=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > Let's put it this way ....
>
> > Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
> > the greats.
>
> > Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
> > ever going to make the charts either.
>
> > Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>
> > Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
> > got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>
> > THAT is what he will be remembered for.
>
> Thanks for your wisdom. I was hoping you had grown up a bit.

I hate to say it, but Hazelwood's predictions are closer to reality
than TT's or Jason's. Federer is mighty close to 15, while Nadal is
on track to be "woulda, coulda, shoulda".


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:11:33
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Let's put it this way ....

Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
the greats.

Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
ever going to make the charts either.

Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.

Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.

THAT is what he will be remembered for.


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:59:39
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:u19rk49gi5o48emtfinhv44a3emltp776g@4ax.com...
> Let's put it this way ....
>
> Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
> the greats.
>
> Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
> ever going to make the charts either.
>
> Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>
> Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
> got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>
> THAT is what he will be remembered for.


When it comes to Wimbledon he isn't particulary lucky or unlucky..

In 2006 Federer was better, more experienced etc.

When it comes to 2007-2008, he could have won both those finals, last year's
final in 5 sets, and this year in straight sets. imagine that.
otoh, he could have lost both finals.

He won one. Nothing lucky about it really.


The only one who was lucky was Federer in 2007 with his draw, having to play
only 5 matches to reach the final, having enough time fo *fly back to
Switzerland during the Wimbledon*, while most of the guys where playing
their matches over many days,grinding etc. Djokovic was fucked up by the
time he reached semis against Nadal, and in the final Nadal's fitness
suffered in the 5th set.

That's being lucky.
Winning or losing a close match isn't.




   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:17:35
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:59:39 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>news:u19rk49gi5o48emtfinhv44a3emltp776g@4ax.com...
>> Let's put it this way ....
>>
>> Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
>> the greats.
>>
>> Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
>> ever going to make the charts either.
>>
>> Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>>
>> Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
>> got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>>
>> THAT is what he will be remembered for.
>
>
>When it comes to Wimbledon he isn't particulary lucky or unlucky..
>
>In 2006 Federer was better, more experienced etc.
>
>When it comes to 2007-2008, he could have won both those finals, last year's
>final in 5 sets, and this year in straight sets. imagine that.
>otoh, he could have lost both finals.
>
>He won one. Nothing lucky about it really.
>
>
>The only one who was lucky was Federer in 2007 with his draw, having to play
>only 5 matches to reach the final, having enough time fo *fly back to
>Switzerland during the Wimbledon*, while most of the guys where playing
>their matches over many days,grinding etc. Djokovic was fucked up by the
>time he reached semis against Nadal, and in the final Nadal's fitness
>suffered in the 5th set.
>
>That's being lucky.
>Winning or losing a close match isn't.
>


Lucky was Nadal playing #137 types and old men in 2007 and Fed being
forced to play in the dark in 2008 and losing by a single point. Nadal
should be ashamed to even claim that as a win.


    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:18:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:oscsk455ghsfd6ve3jdklqjpcp60p2ak51@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:59:39 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>news:u19rk49gi5o48emtfinhv44a3emltp776g@4ax.com...
>>> Let's put it this way ....
>>>
>>> Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
>>> the greats.
>>>
>>> Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
>>> ever going to make the charts either.
>>>
>>> Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>>>
>>> Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
>>> got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>>>
>>> THAT is what he will be remembered for.
>>
>>
>>When it comes to Wimbledon he isn't particulary lucky or unlucky..
>>
>>In 2006 Federer was better, more experienced etc.
>>
>>When it comes to 2007-2008, he could have won both those finals, last
>>year's
>>final in 5 sets, and this year in straight sets. imagine that.
>>otoh, he could have lost both finals.
>>
>>He won one. Nothing lucky about it really.
>>
>>
>>The only one who was lucky was Federer in 2007 with his draw, having to
>>play
>>only 5 matches to reach the final, having enough time fo *fly back to
>>Switzerland during the Wimbledon*, while most of the guys where playing
>>their matches over many days,grinding etc. Djokovic was fucked up by the
>>time he reached semis against Nadal, and in the final Nadal's fitness
>>suffered in the 5th set.
>>
>>That's being lucky.
>>Winning or losing a close match isn't.
>>
>
>
> Lucky was Nadal playing #137 types and old men in 2007 and Fed being
> forced to play in the dark in 2008 and losing by a single point. Nadal
> should be ashamed to even claim that as a win.

In the end, you always lose by virtue of a single point.




  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 04:22:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> Let's put it this way ....
>
> Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
> the greats.
>
> Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
> ever going to make the charts either.
>
> Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>
> Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
> got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>
> THAT is what he will be remembered for.

Thanks for your wisdom. I was hoping you had grown up a bit.

--
"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: 21 Dec 2008 10:26:37
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:22:25 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> Let's put it this way ....
>>
>> Nadal is not even on the charts yet when it comes to being rated among
>> the greats.
>>
>> Considering that his knees are already worn out at age 23 he's not
>> ever going to make the charts either.
>>
>> Roger OTOH is about to sail off the top of the charts.
>>
>> Roger is a champion, Rafa just a clay court cockaroach who cheated and
>> got lucky to win his one and only non clay slam.
>>
>> THAT is what he will be remembered for.
>
>Thanks for your wisdom. I was hoping you had grown up a bit.


Sorry, I deal only in facts and reality.


 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 15:52:02
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 6:08=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
> > I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> At this point I'd put him for 7-11
>
> 7 if he never wins another non-clay slam and burns out early, I still thi=
nk
> he's a lock for at least two more FOs (hence, 7). That would make a caree=
r
> haul of 6FOs in a row and 1 W. King of clay, tied with Borg but with bett=
er
> quality.
>
> For 11 I'd say 3 FOs, 2 Ws, 1 AO. Undisputed king of clay, 3 Ws (eat your
> heart out Lendl ;), and 1 AO for a bit of HC cred in the big picture.

But TT says he's already won the most important hard court title of
them all, so he has nothing
left to prove on that surface.


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 02:35:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 6:08 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> TT <g...@olympics.org> wrote:
>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>> At this point I'd put him for 7-11
>>
>> 7 if he never wins another non-clay slam and burns out early, I still think
>> he's a lock for at least two more FOs (hence, 7). That would make a career
>> haul of 6FOs in a row and 1 W. King of clay, tied with Borg but with better
>> quality.
>>
>> For 11 I'd say 3 FOs, 2 Ws, 1 AO. Undisputed king of clay, 3 Ws (eat your
>> heart out Lendl ;), and 1 AO for a bit of HC cred in the big picture.
>
> But TT says he's already won the most important hard court title of
> them all, so he has nothing
> left to prove on that surface.

Oh shut up...
:)

--
"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: 20 Dec 2008 20:08:08
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>

At this point I'd put him for 7-11

7 if he never wins another non-clay slam and burns out early, I still think
he's a lock for at least two more FOs (hence, 7). That would make a career
haul of 6FOs in a row and 1 W. King of clay, tied with Borg but with better
quality.

For 11 I'd say 3 FOs, 2 Ws, 1 AO. Undisputed king of clay, 3 Ws (eat your
heart out Lendl ;), and 1 AO for a bit of HC cred in the big picture.


 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 14:25:25
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 7:53=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 10:45=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Iceberg wrote:
> > > "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> > >news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> > >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after tha=
t.
>
> > >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > >> Two would be a good year.
> > >> Three would be a great year.
> > >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> > >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amus=
ing
> > >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> > >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> > >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon=
past
> > >> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam =
in
> > >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> > >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with care=
er
> > >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> > >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channe=
l
> > >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record aga=
inst
> > >> Federer.
>
> > >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> > > About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this ye=
ar :
> > > 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant h=
e was a
> > > bit tired at the end of the season.
> > > 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> > So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
> > Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>
> I'd love to see it, but the big if is the injuries. He's got to
> maximize his Slams in the next couple of year, imo,
> because it's hard to see how he can remain healthy and a consistent
> force in the game for too much longer with his particular style. I
> just don't think he's built for longevity but I hope I'm wrong about
> that. I'd like to see him start
> picking and choosing his tournaments more carefully starting now. I
> would avoid pretty much all non MS hard court tournaments (except for
> one pre AO tune up) and probably cut Barcelona out of the schedule as
> well (although arguably he needs that to help retain No. ranking).- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ He's NEVER going to cut out Barcelona; they would KILL him in the
Spanish press were he to do that... and what about all of those clay
title defenses he makes... there is some fat trimming to be done there
surely... trying to stay #1 and chasing all of those point totals
might be a BIG mistake for him... he needs to balance out that
schedule and that means less clay court events... which means taming
his ego and looking at the larger picture... IF HE WANTS to make a run
at a big slam number... right now he still wants that #1 position and
he's looking at that Master Series record of Agassi's as well, whether
he admits it or not... that means loading up his schedule that TENDS
to leave him a bit burnt out by USO though...

P


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:44:47
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?


*ATTENTION GOOGLE USER*


I think he'll skip Barceolna this year, tournament is set between Monte
Carlo and Rome..he'll have to do it I suppose. He won't play 3 consecutive
tournaments again, maybe he could but it's been harder every year and he
most certainly won't play 4 tournaments before FO. He'll stick to 3 like
usually and it would be stupid (rankings) to skip one of the MS events, MC
or Rome.

This is the first season with clay friendly schedule, he can't complain this
year. He can play 3 tournaments like he usually plays, all of them being MS
events, and having a week off after each of them.
If he plays Barcelona he fucks his schedule. I don't think he'll do it
especially when there is Madrid MS on clay later on.

Also I believe the penalties for skipping MS events are more severe.


Clay scedule:

April
w1: Casablanca, Houston
w2: Monte Carlo
w3: Barcelona
w4: Rome *

May
w5: Estoril, Belgrade, Munich
w6: Madrid *
w7: Poertschach, World Team Cup
w8: FO *

June
w9: FO*


Monte Carlo is not mandatory so he could start his clay preparations in
Barcelona but he'd lose much of the points, unneccessary imo.




 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 14:20:15
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 7:45=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >> Two would be a good year.
> >> Three would be a great year.
> >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusin=
g
> >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon p=
ast
> >> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record again=
st
> >> Federer.
>
> >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> > About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year=
:
> > 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he =
was a
> > bit tired at the end of the season.
> > 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
hardcourt multiples... right?

How do you see him doing it?

P


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 00:43:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon past
>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>> Federer.
>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was a
>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>
>> --
>> "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"- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
> hardcourt multiples... right?
>
> How do you see him doing it?
>
> P

Well my guess was 14...

4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9

Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
slam(s) and his grass game is awesome nowadays.

--
"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: 21 Dec 2008 23:39:38
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>> amusing
>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>> past
>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>> against
>>>>> Federer.
>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year
>>>> :
>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he
>>>> was a
>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> "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"-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>
>> How do you see him doing it?
>>
>> P
>
> Well my guess was 14...
>
> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>
> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc slam(s)
> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.

there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been in
the final this year if not for super Tsonga.




    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 09:20:27
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>> past
>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year
>>>>> :
>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he
>>>>> was a
>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "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"-
>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>
>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>
>>> P
>>
>> Well my guess was 14...
>>
>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>
>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc slam(s)
>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>
> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been in
> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.

Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?


     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:56:31
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>> year
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> was a
>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>> have?
>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "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"-
>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>
>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>
>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>
>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>
>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>> slam(s)
>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>
>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>> in
>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>
> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?

LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
day.




      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:02:32
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>> have?
>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>
>>>>> P
>>>>
>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>
>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>
>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>> slam(s)
>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>
>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>> in
>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>
>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>
> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
> day.

Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
Djokovic, 2-3-2.

My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.



       
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:26:02
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P
>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>
>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>
>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>> in
>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>> day.
>
> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>
> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>

I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.

But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
day for the opponent.

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 14:36:30
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P
>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>>> in
>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>>> day.
>>
>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>
>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>
>
> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>
> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
> day for the opponent.

Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad day.

There's also the HC's effects on Nadal's knees - less effective recoveries
between matches. And it will get worse - worn joints don't grow back.

That's why I predicted mostly natural surface slams for the rest of Nadal's
career, with maybe one HC slam.


         
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:17:32
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>>>> day.
>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>
>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>
>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>
>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
>> day for the opponent.
>
> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad day.

But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
much as people here do.

If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
already.


--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 09:27:12
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:7RQ3l.108273$_03.94764@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1
>>>>>>>>>>>> after that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his
>>>>>>>>>>>> peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very
>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc
>>>>>>>>>>>> slam in
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning
>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it
>>>>>>>>>>> this year
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup,
>>>>>>>>>>> meant he
>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely
>>>>>>> been in
>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody
>>>>> that day.
>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed
>>>> anybody
>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level,
>>>> and his
>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass,
>>>> he's
>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy
>>>> having a
>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that
>>>> Nadal's next
>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>>
>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>
>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
>>> day for the opponent.
>>
>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad
>> day.
>
> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these can
> lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
> much as people here do.
>
> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
> already.

Agreed, I also find it odd that these Fedfans don't realise that Nadal is
actually improving on HC as he has done on grass. In 2007 he got to R16 of
AO and Quarters of USO, yet in 2008 he got to the semis of both and was
quite unlucky not to win at least one of them (AO more likely if not for
super-Tsonga).




          
Date: 22 Dec 2008 15:23:15
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>>>>> day.
>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>>
>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>
>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
>>> day for the opponent.
>>
>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad day.
>
> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
> much as people here do.

Except that Federer has lost exactly twice in HC slams in the past years: Once
to Safin in a 5-setter, once in 3 sets to Djokovic with a subpar performance.
In other HC tournaments, sure, but the slam focus is still there, and in the
last few tears nobody has played as good and as consistently as Federer, as evidenced
by the 8/10 HC slams in the previous 5 years.

Besides, I don't think I said "he sucks on HC". I said that any decent player
on a good day has a reasonable chance of beating him, and his game on HC isn't
doing him any favors. As you have said before, his game is optimized for clay,
and HC punishes the joints in ways that grass doesn't. Nadal is pretty good on
HC (as his multiple HC MS titles say), but I don't think he's likely to win a
HC slam, and we're talking slams here in this thread. I do know that Nadal has
won MS tournaments on HC. I believe he will do so again. But I think it isn't
likely that he'll win a HC slam, and if he does I think it will be the AO.

> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
> already.

Gee, ya think? :D


           
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:39:13
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> career
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record
>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he
>>>>>>>>>>> have?
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to run the
>>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will win hc
>>>>>>>>> slam(s)
>>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've definitely been
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern, perhaps?
>>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out anybody that
>>>>>> day.
>>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed anybody
>>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished, say,
>>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay level, and his
>>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On grass, he's
>>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy having a
>>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that Nadal's next
>>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>>>
>>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>>
>>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal for
>>>> opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a very good
>>>> day for the opponent.
>>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC, whereas
>>> on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch Nadal on a bad day.
>> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of these
>> can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
>> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really didn't
>> lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc game down as
>> much as people here do.
>
> Except that Federer has lost exactly twice in HC slams in the past years: Once
> to Safin in a 5-setter, once in 3 sets to Djokovic with a subpar performance.
> In other HC tournaments, sure, but the slam focus is still there, and in the
> last few tears nobody has played as good and as consistently as Federer, as evidenced
> by the 8/10 HC slams in the previous 5 years.
>
> Besides, I don't think I said "he sucks on HC". I said that any decent player
> on a good day has a reasonable chance of beating him, and his game on HC isn't
> doing him any favors. As you have said before, his game is optimized for clay,
> and HC punishes the joints in ways that grass doesn't. Nadal is pretty good on
> HC (as his multiple HC MS titles say), but I don't think he's likely to win a
> HC slam, and we're talking slams here in this thread. I do know that Nadal has
> won MS tournaments on HC. I believe he will do so again. But I think it isn't
> likely that he'll win a HC slam, and if he does I think it will be the AO.
>
>> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be goat
>> already.
>
> Gee, ya think? :D

I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
arsed argument.

Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
more likely to win the longer match. Also I believe that many players
are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 15:57:55
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
>
> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
> arsed argument.
> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
> more likely to win the longer match.
> Also I believe that many players
> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!

Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
etc, ringing any bells yet?

It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
if you have a high seed with bye rounds.


             
Date: 22 Dec 2008 21:33:32
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>> arsed argument.
>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>> more likely to win the longer match.
>> Also I believe that many players
>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on right there. WTF?!?!
>
> Rios, Corretja, Davydenko, Coria, Nalbandian, Berdych, Pioline, Rusedski,
> etc, ringing any bells yet?

There we go. Thanks for listing mental midgets at slams for me. It's
exactly these kind of guys make winning tms events harder than winning
slams.

>
> It's not a "could be arsed" thing. It's the whole "a slam is a sterner test of
> fitness, ability, and mental endurance than a MS tournament" thing. Especially
> if you have a high seed with bye rounds.

Indeed, that's what I was saying (perhaps wrote a bit awkward sentence
though). I definitely do not believe in "not being arsed"-argument.

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 20:43:31
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
TT wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hc slam in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with career
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it this year
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cup, meant he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total
>>>>>>>>>>>> will he have?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to
>>>>>>>>>>> run the
>>>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will
>>>>>>>>>> win hc slam(s)
>>>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've
>>>>>>>>> definitely been in
>>>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern,
>>>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out
>>>>>>> anybody that day.
>>>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed
>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished,
>>>>>> say,
>>>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay
>>>>>> level, and his
>>>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On
>>>>>> grass, he's
>>>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy
>>>>>> having a
>>>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that
>>>>>> Nadal's next
>>>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>>>
>>>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal
>>>>> for opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a
>>>>> very good day for the opponent.
>>>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>>>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC,
>>>> whereas on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch
>>>> Nadal on a bad day.
>>> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of
>>> these can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
>>> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really
>>> didn't lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc
>>> game down as much as people here do.
>>
>> Except that Federer has lost exactly twice in HC slams in the past
>> years: Once
>> to Safin in a 5-setter, once in 3 sets to Djokovic with a subpar
>> performance.
>> In other HC tournaments, sure, but the slam focus is still there, and
>> in the
>> last few tears nobody has played as good and as consistently as
>> Federer, as evidenced
>> by the 8/10 HC slams in the previous 5 years.
>>
>> Besides, I don't think I said "he sucks on HC". I said that any decent
>> player
>> on a good day has a reasonable chance of beating him, and his game on
>> HC isn't
>> doing him any favors. As you have said before, his game is optimized
>> for clay,
>> and HC punishes the joints in ways that grass doesn't. Nadal is pretty
>> good on
>> HC (as his multiple HC MS titles say), but I don't think he's likely
>> to win a
>> HC slam, and we're talking slams here in this thread. I do know that
>> Nadal has won MS tournaments on HC. I believe he will do so again. But
>> I think it isn't likely that he'll win a HC slam, and if he does I
>> think it will be the AO.
>>
>>> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be
>>> goat already.
>>
>> Gee, ya think? :D
>
> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
> arsed argument.
>
> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
> more likely to win the longer match. Also I believe that many players
> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>

Actually, as Federer has showed us, winning a tms is harder for a great
player than winning a slam, relatively speaking.
TMS is only best of 3 and that makes even greats very much vulnerable to
pressure and furthermore other players believe in their chances more in
a shorter match.

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 16:05:21
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:b9d426-5jc.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>>>>>>>>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:cye3l.107717$_03.12405@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 7:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hc slam in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with career
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete Channel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it this year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cup, meant he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will he have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "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"-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>> ++ How does Nadal get to 15, realistically... he'd have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> run the
>>>>>>>>>>>> table in Paris and become a multiple winner at Wimbledon AND win
>>>>>>>>>>>> hardcourt multiples... right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you see him doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>>>>> Well my guess was 14...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4(years)*2(slams) + 1(for the rest of his career) = 9
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Win the French and one other slam per year. I think he will
>>>>>>>>>>> win hc slam(s)
>>>>>>>>>>> and his grass game is awesome nowadays.
>>>>>>>>>> there's nothing to stop him winning the AO, he would've
>>>>>>>>>> definitely been in
>>>>>>>>>> the final this year if not for super Tsonga.
>>>>>>>>> Or Gonzalez the year before... Ferrer, Youzhny... a pattern,
>>>>>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>>>> LOL. You didn't see the match then, Tsonga would've taken out
>>>>>>>> anybody that day.
>>>>>>> Oh, I saw it. And even if I believed that Tsonga would have killed
>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>> that day (I don't), I certainly don't think he'd have demolished,
>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>> Djokovic, 2-3-2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point is that Nadal's level on HC is inferior than his clay
>>>>>>> level, and his
>>>>>>> grass level. On clay, he's been an unstoppable juggernaut. On
>>>>>>> grass, he's
>>>>>>> phenomenal, although not as unstoppable as on clay. On HC? Any guy
>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>> good day has a chance to take him out. Hence, my predictions that
>>>>>>> Nadal's next
>>>>>>> slams will be mostly FOs, maybe a few Ws, and less likely a HC slam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe this has something to do with Nadal's mentality on hc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But also there's a factor that on hc Nadal's shots are more optimal
>>>>>> for opponents to punish. But doing so through whole match needs a
>>>>>> very good day for the opponent.
>>>>> Indeed - but the key issue is that _anybody_ (well, not everybody but a
>>>>> sizable contingent of the tour) on a good day can do that on HC,
>>>>> whereas on clay you need to be damn good, be on fire, and catch
>>>>> Nadal on a bad day.
>>>> But Nadal on hc is similar to federer, murray or djoker...all of
>>>> these can lose to each other and players such as simon and blake.
>>>> Also Nadal did finish in top 2 or 3 on hc this season...he really
>>>> didn't lose many matches on hc. So I need no reason to put his hc
>>>> game down as much as people here do.
>>>
>>> Except that Federer has lost exactly twice in HC slams in the past
>>> years: Once
>>> to Safin in a 5-setter, once in 3 sets to Djokovic with a subpar
>>> performance.
>>> In other HC tournaments, sure, but the slam focus is still there, and
>>> in the
>>> last few tears nobody has played as good and as consistently as
>>> Federer, as evidenced
>>> by the 8/10 HC slams in the previous 5 years.
>>>
>>> Besides, I don't think I said "he sucks on HC". I said that any decent
>>> player
>>> on a good day has a reasonable chance of beating him, and his game on
>>> HC isn't
>>> doing him any favors. As you have said before, his game is optimized
>>> for clay,
>>> and HC punishes the joints in ways that grass doesn't. Nadal is pretty
>>> good on
>>> HC (as his multiple HC MS titles say), but I don't think he's likely
>>> to win a
>>> HC slam, and we're talking slams here in this thread. I do know that
>>> Nadal has won MS tournaments on HC. I believe he will do so again. But
>>> I think it isn't likely that he'll win a HC slam, and if he does I
>>> think it will be the AO.
>>>
>>>> If Nadal would be as effective on hc as he is on clay he would be
>>>> goat already.
>>>
>>> Gee, ya think? :D
>>
>> I don't see much difference between slams and tms events. If one can win
>> multiple tms he surely can win a slam. I don't believe at all about not
>> arsed argument.
>>
>> Only didfference between tms and slam is the format, a better player is
>> more likely to win the longer match. Also I believe that many players
>> are mental midgets in slams, instead of some not being arsed to play
>> seriously on smaller events and thus playing better at slams.
>>
>
> Actually, as Federer has showed us, winning a tms is harder for a great
> player than winning a slam, relatively speaking.
> TMS is only best of 3 and that makes even greats very much vulnerable to
> pressure and furthermore other players believe in their chances more in
> a shorter match.

Not buying at all. A slam has more matches, longer matches, needs you to keep
focus and health for two weeks. The best of 3 will have pros and cons that
will play on both sides of the net. A shorter match also means you can be
playing less than great but still win it with a couple of moments of
raising your level (break games/tiebreaks).

A clear example of this would be the YEC 05 final. Federer was low on energy
but did what he could to keep David off for two sets (won in tiebreaks) but a
third set was too much and his game dropped. The last three sets should have
been routine if not for Nalbandian's choking (to think Federer actually served
for that match with no legs is laughable). Fortunately for him, Nalbandian
recovered, and saw how bad Federer's recovery/movement was at the time, and killed him in the tiebreak serving slow and very wide.


 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 14:18:51
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 7:26=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>
> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> > If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> > disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> > Two would be a good year.
> > Three would be a great year.
> > Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> > doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
> > idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> > possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> > Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon pa=
st
> > Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> > Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> > order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> > Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> > slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> > In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> > Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record agains=
t
> > Federer.
>
> >http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he wa=
s a
> bit tired at the end of the season.
> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Murray LOVES the USO and he'll be even more difficult to beat next
year... so... Nadal had better see Murray on Federer's side of the
draw...

P


 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 14:17:50
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 7:14=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> Two would be a good year.
> Three would be a great year.
> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
> Federer.
>
> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp

++ It's actually a fascinating question... he's locked up those 4
French Opens and this year a Wimbledon win... being dominant on clay
has really given him a solid foundation, a bedrock of confidence which
has elevated his entire game on all surfaces...

And when one considers he's made 3 Wimbledon finals in a row, it looks
like there SHOULD be more Wimbledon wins for him... if he can nab a
few hardcourt slams then he's likely to get to 10 or 11 slams... say 2
more French, 2 more Wimbledon and one each at AO and USO, that's about
the limit for him, I'd say... because he's at his peak right now and
he's not won a hardcourt slam yet and with Murray and Djokovic and
Federer there for the next 4 years... will be very difficult for him
to break through except for maybe a couple of times... Murray and
Djokovic and Federer should be dividing out the next 8 hardcourt
slams, plus maybe one other guy from the 19-22 year-old pool...

If Nadal were better on the service side of the game, holder of a more
explosive serve, I'd think he could win 10 or 11 slams... but... short
of running the table at the FO over the next 4 years, it's going to be
tough to get to 11 (Laver and Borg)... I think age 26 or 27 will be
about it for Nadal, only because he matured so young as a slam winner
and he's such a grinder, is so mentally tough, it will take everything
he's got to last until 27... just a guess...

P


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 00:46:50
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 20, 7:14 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>
>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>> Two would be a good year.
>> Three would be a great year.
>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>
>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon
>> past Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>
>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>
>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>> Federer.
>>
>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> ++ It's actually a fascinating question... he's locked up those 4
> French Opens and this year a Wimbledon win... being dominant on clay
> has really given him a solid foundation, a bedrock of confidence which
> has elevated his entire game on all surfaces...
>
> And when one considers he's made 3 Wimbledon finals in a row, it looks
> like there SHOULD be more Wimbledon wins for him... if he can nab a
> few hardcourt slams then he's likely to get to 10 or 11 slams... say 2
> more French, 2 more Wimbledon and one each at AO and USO, that's about
> the limit for him, I'd say... because he's at his peak right now and
> he's not won a hardcourt slam yet and with Murray and Djokovic and
> Federer there for the next 4 years... will be very difficult for him
> to break through except for maybe a couple of times... Murray and
> Djokovic and Federer should be dividing out the next 8 hardcourt
> slams, plus maybe one other guy from the 19-22 year-old pool...
>
> If Nadal were better on the service side of the game, holder of a more
> explosive serve, I'd think he could win 10 or 11 slams... but... short
> of running the table at the FO over the next 4 years, it's going to be
> tough to get to 11 (Laver and Borg)... I think age 26 or 27 will be
> about it for Nadal, only because he matured so young as a slam winner
> and he's such a grinder, is so mentally tough, it will take everything
> he's got to last until 27... just a guess...
>
> P

Your answer is 10-11. Thank you sir.

--
"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: 20 Dec 2008 10:42:17
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 1:20=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
> >> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>
> > No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> > Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> > about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> > feared would end his career back
> > in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>
> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
> posts about when that would happen.
>
> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
> playing style.
> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>
> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.

Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
I guess..

But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
Nadal over the next five years,

I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
maybe four more times. I also think
it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
another Wimbledon or two is certainly
possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
healthy, as my prediction.

By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
goat and Whisper
having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?

Nah, too bizarre to imagine.


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 21:01:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>> feared would end his career back
>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>> posts about when that would happen.
>>
>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>> playing style.
>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>
>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> I guess..
>
> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> Nadal over the next five years,
>
> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> maybe four more times. I also think
> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> healthy, as my prediction.
>
> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> goat and Whisper
> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.


Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but I
would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.

Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
(including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.












   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 09:15:20
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 26, 3:37=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 10:13=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
> > as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
> > at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>
> > P-
>
> Here's are some definitions of historicism. I don't really see which
> use you have in mind here, but I'm pretty sure you just mean "history
> of tennis."
>
> n.
> 1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and
> inherent processes beyond the control of humans.
> 2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a
> criterion of value.
> 3. Art & Architecture. The deliberate use or revival of historical
> styles in contemporary works.
> 4. Philosophy. The view that historical periods should be studied
> without imposing anachronistic categories of evaluation.
>
> I don't know who you're trying to impress with your posts but I think
> people might take you more seriously if you would try to communicate
> in a more straight-forward, less pretentious fashion. I apologize if
> you're not a native speaker, but in that case you're best advised to
> stick to simpler constructions and vocabulary so it isn't so grating
> for the reader.

historicism as the collective agency of a given subject... the Talent
GOAT becomes a kind of micro embodiment of the collectivity of the
evolutionary process of the game, in a sense... the most evolved form/
expression of the sport to that point... thus, the incredible and
unmistakable WOW factor that Federer brought out in commentators, ex-
players and observers/chroniclers of the game for several years c.2003
till 2008... I admit I have only watched/followed tennis since 1970;
but, during that period no one (not even McEnroe at his peak) created
the kind of critical response to his game from across such as spectrum
as has Federer... that WOW, "he's amazing" sort of bedazzlement at his
sheer ability to play the game in a variety of ways and with such
elegance and of late grit now sprinkled in is a large part of
Federer's reputation, even as age and entropy begin to factor in :)

I write for a living... just my way... just scribbling here at RST...
sorry if it offends... some like Hemmingway (meat and potatoes) some
like Fitzgerald (souffle, the baroque)... personal taste :))

P


    
Date: 28 Dec 2008 11:00:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:37 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 10:13 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
>>> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
>>> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>>> P-
>> Here's are some definitions of historicism. I don't really see which
>> use you have in mind here, but I'm pretty sure you just mean "history
>> of tennis."
>>
>> n.
>> 1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and
>> inherent processes beyond the control of humans.
>> 2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a
>> criterion of value.
>> 3. Art & Architecture. The deliberate use or revival of historical
>> styles in contemporary works.
>> 4. Philosophy. The view that historical periods should be studied
>> without imposing anachronistic categories of evaluation.
>>
>> I don't know who you're trying to impress with your posts but I think
>> people might take you more seriously if you would try to communicate
>> in a more straight-forward, less pretentious fashion. I apologize if
>> you're not a native speaker, but in that case you're best advised to
>> stick to simpler constructions and vocabulary so it isn't so grating
>> for the reader.
>
> historicism as the collective agency of a given subject... the Talent
> GOAT becomes a kind of micro embodiment of the collectivity of the
> evolutionary process of the game, in a sense... the most evolved form/
> expression of the sport to that point... thus, the incredible and
> unmistakable WOW factor that Federer brought out in commentators, ex-
> players and observers/chroniclers of the game for several years c.2003
> till 2008... I admit I have only watched/followed tennis since 1970;
> but, during that period no one (not even McEnroe at his peak) created
> the kind of critical response to his game from across such as spectrum
> as has Federer... that WOW, "he's amazing" sort of bedazzlement at his
> sheer ability to play the game in a variety of ways and with such
> elegance and of late grit now sprinkled in is a large part of
> Federer's reputation, even as age and entropy begin to factor in :)
>
> I write for a living... just my way... just scribbling here at RST...
> sorry if it offends... some like Hemmingway (meat and potatoes) some
> like Fitzgerald (souffle, the baroque)... personal taste :))
>
> P



You must have been on crack in the 80's & 90's.


   
Date: 26 Dec 2008 15:37:13
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 10:13=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:

>
> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>
> P-

Here's are some definitions of historicism. I don't really see which
use you have in mind here, but I'm pretty sure you just mean "history
of tennis."

n.
1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and
inherent processes beyond the control of humans.
2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a
criterion of value.
3. Art & Architecture. The deliberate use or revival of historical
styles in contemporary works.
4. Philosophy. The view that historical periods should be studied
without imposing anachronistic categories of evaluation.

I don't know who you're trying to impress with your posts but I think
people might take you more seriously if you would try to communicate
in a more straight-forward, less pretentious fashion. I apologize if
you're not a native speaker, but in that case you're best advised to
stick to simpler constructions and vocabulary so it isn't so grating
for the reader.


   
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:44:30
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 9:28=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> john wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:494f414d$0$15745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Dec 21, 2:32 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote=
:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> >>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
> >>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> >>>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Samp=
ras
> >>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat to=
o.
> >>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >>>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
> >>>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
> >>>>> determined?
> >>>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> >>>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> >>>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
> >>>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
> >>>> subjective and meaningless.
>
> >>>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
> >>>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
> >>>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there als=
o
> >>>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
> >>>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>
> >>>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
> >>>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pret=
ty
> >>>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
> >>> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
> >>> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
> >>> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>
> >>> P
>
> >> Have you seen his instincts/reflex at the net? =A0Lendl-like.
>
> > Tennis is a game that can be won from any part of the court. =A0How was=
Mac's
> > ground stroke
> > compare to other serve and volleyers like Edberg, Becker and Sampras ?
> > Pretty ordinary
> > even compare to Edberg.....
>
> Mac's backhand was pitiful. Talent goat my ass.
>
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Mac was considered talent GOAT going into the 1990s and for the
first half of that decade given a variety of factors INCLUDING the
need of US media to assert the historical dominance of American men in
tennis, which was starting to come under fire from the rest of the
world as the global phase of tennis had become normative by that
time... it was important to have the talent GOAT as an American...
until Federer arrived fully formed...

P


   
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:50:56
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 5:41=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:29:21 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
>
>
> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >news:sagtk41pod0114m8ojtdljvc3a38i0beul@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.=
au >,
> >>>beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> >>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> >>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampra=
s
> >>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> >>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> >>>This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
> >>>determined?
>
> >> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> >> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> >> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
> >> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
> >> subjective and meaningless.
>
> >> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
> >> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
> >> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
> >> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
> >> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>
> >> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
> >> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
> >> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>
> >weak trolling.
>
> Please stop being dishonest. Everything I said was pure fact, except
> the last paragraph, which was based on assumptions of what might
> happen in the future, but I think that won't be far from the truth
> either.
>
> Of course people can call different players the most talented or
> whatever. The point is that we heard in literally thousands of Whisper
> posts over the years that all that is subjective, and in the end all
> that matters is slams won or 7543. But that is clearly changing now,
> i.e. "ability goat" and "talent goat" are becoming much more important
> in his posts.

Yes - most analysts would rate players subjectively based on various
factors (i.e. perform some actual "analysis") rather than simply
mindlessly counting slam wins. So "ability GOAT" is not unreasonable.

However all that went out the window and it was declared that the GOAT
was determined by a simple formula from applying "7543".

Now there is another change and "ability GOAT" is back on the table,
presumably because Sampras may lose out in the slam counting scheme.
Whisper can claim that Federer may be "achievement GOAT" (and also
presumably imply that this title is devalued due to poor competition),
but Sampras is "ability GOAT" (which is the "real" GOAT) , a claim
which of course cannot be challenged as it is purely subjective.




    
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:58:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 22, 5:41 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:29:21 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>
>>
>>
>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sagtk41pod0114m8ojtdljvc3a38i0beul@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>>>> determined?
>>>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>>>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>>>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>>>> subjective and meaningless.
>>>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>>>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>>>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>>>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>>>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>>>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>>>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>>> weak trolling.
>> Please stop being dishonest. Everything I said was pure fact, except
>> the last paragraph, which was based on assumptions of what might
>> happen in the future, but I think that won't be far from the truth
>> either.
>>
>> Of course people can call different players the most talented or
>> whatever. The point is that we heard in literally thousands of Whisper
>> posts over the years that all that is subjective, and in the end all
>> that matters is slams won or 7543. But that is clearly changing now,
>> i.e. "ability goat" and "talent goat" are becoming much more important
>> in his posts.
>
> Yes - most analysts would rate players subjectively based on various
> factors (i.e. perform some actual "analysis") rather than simply
> mindlessly counting slam wins. So "ability GOAT" is not unreasonable.
>
> However all that went out the window and it was declared that the GOAT
> was determined by a simple formula from applying "7543".
>
> Now there is another change and "ability GOAT" is back on the table,
> presumably because Sampras may lose out in the slam counting scheme.
> Whisper can claim that Federer may be "achievement GOAT" (and also
> presumably imply that this title is devalued due to poor competition),
> but Sampras is "ability GOAT" (which is the "real" GOAT) , a claim
> which of course cannot be challenged as it is purely subjective.
>
>



That's why I've always said achievement goat is the main game - rest of
it can be dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.

I've noted hardcore Fedfuckers like Vari/arnab are the poorest at
backing up their claims with any real evidence - not surprising as they
probably started watching tennis in last few yrs.





   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:03:22
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 9:49=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> In article
> >> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> >> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> >>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> >>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> >>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> >>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> >> ^ "ability goat". How exactly is this
> >> determined?
>
> > Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> > There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> > the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543
> > (remember
> > that?).
>
> You're not suggesting that 7543 has been discredited or is some anachroni=
sm that
> people have to dig their memory for, are you?

7543? Sounds like a random number.


   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:13:24
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 2:32=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au=
>,
> >beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> >> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> >> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> >> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> >> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> >This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
> >determined?
>
> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
> subjective and meaningless.
>
> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>
> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.

++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...

P



    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:27:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:32 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>> determined?
>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>
>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>> subjective and meaningless.
>>
>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>
>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>
> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>
> P
>


Have you seen his instincts/reflex at the net? Lendl-like.



     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:56:36
From: john
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:494f414d$0$15745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2:32 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>>> determined?
>>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>>
>>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>>> subjective and meaningless.
>>>
>>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>>
>>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>>
>> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
>> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
>> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>>
>> P
>>
>
>
> Have you seen his instincts/reflex at the net? Lendl-like.

Tennis is a game that can be won from any part of the court. How was Mac's
ground stroke
compare to other serve and volleyers like Edberg, Becker and Sampras ?
Pretty ordinary
even compare to Edberg.....
>




      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:28:07
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:494f414d$0$15745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 2:32 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>>>> determined?
>>>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>>>
>>>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>>>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>>>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>>>> subjective and meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>>>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>>>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>>>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>>>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>>>
>>>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>>>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>>>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>>> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
>>> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
>>> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>
>> Have you seen his instincts/reflex at the net? Lendl-like.
>
> Tennis is a game that can be won from any part of the court. How was Mac's
> ground stroke
> compare to other serve and volleyers like Edberg, Becker and Sampras ?
> Pretty ordinary
> even compare to Edberg.....
>
>

Mac's backhand was pitiful. Talent goat my ass.

--
"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: 23 Dec 2008 06:42:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
TT wrote:
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:494f414d$0$15745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 2:32 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>>>>> determined?
>>>>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>>>>
>>>>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>>>>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>>>>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>>>>> subjective and meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>>>>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>>>>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>>>>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>>>>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>>>>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>>>>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>>>> ++ NO... TALENT GOAT was my tag line and it has been clearly defined
>>>> as a temporary designation within the historicism of tennis... Fed is
>>>> at this moment considered the Talent GOAT...
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you seen his instincts/reflex at the net? Lendl-like.
>>
>> Tennis is a game that can be won from any part of the court. How was
>> Mac's ground stroke
>> compare to other serve and volleyers like Edberg, Becker and Sampras ?
>> Pretty ordinary
>> even compare to Edberg.....
>>
>>
>
> Mac's backhand was pitiful. Talent goat my ass.
>



I'll post a compilation of Mac's bh's over xmas that will make your head
spin - the angles are phenomenal.



   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:11:40
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 21, 2:16=A0pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>=
,
>
> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> > Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> > I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> > vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> > Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> > court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
> determined?
>
> wg

++ Consensus of media, experts, ex-players singling out an individual
as possessing the greatest package of all around tennis virtues,
skills and range of offensive and defensive weaponry woven into an
unparalled physical pacakage, a tennis singularity of a given time at
the endpoint of tennis history up until the present... and for now
that seems to be Federer, given how he has been thusly defined... but
IT IS A FLEETING RECOGNITION as talent GOAT is always seen to be a
trangressed position, a designation of temporary achievement, with the
game evolving beyond that player and the level of merit and skills set
attained/realized as technical facility...

P


    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:31:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:16 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>
>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>
>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>> determined?
>>
>> wg
>
> ++ Consensus of media, experts, ex-players singling out an individual
> as possessing the greatest package of all around tennis virtues,
> skills and range of offensive and defensive weaponry woven into an
> unparalled physical pacakage, a tennis singularity of a given time at
> the endpoint of tennis history up until the present... and for now
> that seems to be Federer, given how he has been thusly defined... but
> IT IS A FLEETING RECOGNITION as talent GOAT is always seen to be a
> trangressed position, a designation of temporary achievement, with the
> game evolving beyond that player and the level of merit and skills set
> attained/realized as technical facility...
>
> P

= ceibs

--
"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: 22 Dec 2008 18:26:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:16 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>
>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>
>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>> determined?
>>
>> wg
>
> ++ Consensus of media, experts, ex-players singling out an individual
> as possessing the greatest package of all around tennis virtues,
> skills and range of offensive and defensive weaponry woven into an
> unparalled physical pacakage, a tennis singularity of a given time at
> the endpoint of tennis history up until the present... and for now
> that seems to be Federer,


Lol!


   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:36:30
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 4:32=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au=
>,
> >beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> >> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> >> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. =A0I defend Sampras
> >> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> >> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> >> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> >This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
> >determined?
>
> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
> subjective and meaningless.
>
> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>
> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.

Yeah, it's kinda sad to see how a disingenuous prick can dominate the
discourse of an entire ng with such bullshit.


   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>
> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.

This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
determined?

wg


    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 00:32:25
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
>>
>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>
>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
>This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>determined?

Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:

There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
subjective and meaningless.

Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.

For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.



     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 14:49:48
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>
>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>
>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>> determined?
>
> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543

> (remember
> that?).

You're not suggesting that 7543 has been discredited or is some anachronism that
people have to dig their memory for, are you?




      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:45:30
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:49:48 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>
>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>> determined?
>>
>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>
>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543
>
>> (remember
>> that?).
>
>You're not suggesting that 7543 has been discredited or is some anachronism that
>people have to dig their memory for, are you?

I am not at all certain Wendy remembers that. You have to be very
active in certain silly threads in rst to know that. There is no
chance you will see it anywhere else.



      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 13:01:42
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
DavidW wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>> determined?
>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>
>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543
>
>> (remember
>> that?).
>
> You're not suggesting that 7543 has been discredited or is some anachronism that
> people have to dig their memory for, are you?
>
>

Since it had no credit to start with ...

--
Cheers,

vc


     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 10:24:15
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:32:25 +0200, Sakari Lund
<sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>
>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>
>>This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>determined?
>
>Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
>There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>subjective and meaningless.
>
>Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>
>For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.


Whisper is the hillbilly goat.


     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 00:29:21
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:sagtk41pod0114m8ojtdljvc3a38i0beul@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>
>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>
>>This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>determined?
>
> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>
> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
> subjective and meaningless.
>
> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>
> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.


weak trolling.

If most experts agree on talent levels of diferent players, ie, they rate
them, McEnroe is almost always somewhere in the top, Federer was mentioned
there as well..and Lendl often being called "overachiever", then I think
it's very unfair of you to suggest that Whisper was first expert that who
started it or that he invetned "talent goat" category. It's his personal
opinion that it's McEnrore. Some think it's someone else. So what.

Ability goat, as well, Whisper wasn't the first, or the only one, who said
something in that direction about different players. Eg, some where saying
that Federer's USO 04 was the best performance ever meaning no one could
beat him that day. Or whenever he plays his best. IMO, that's not true, as
Hewitt is not such a complete player that could test Federer, so using him
as a standard is pretty lame. He lack both power from the ground, power from
the serve, doesn't have a particulary great s/v game and is short for an
ideal tennis player.

So, both ability and talent goat categories are not something new, rather
very old, and well known.
Actually, the only things wort discussing as it's very subjective.

Discussing who is achievement goat as long as Sampras has 1 slam more than
Federer, 2 Wimbledons more, 2 YE#1 more, 1 YEC more, Davis Cup, makes no
sense. Numbers don't lie. Anyone who refuses to accept the numbers is a
moron.


Jack Kramer said about Laver that he belongs in the "second echelon",
evaluating his talent.
But Laver's achievements put him forever in tier 1.


In the end silverware is all what matters.




      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:41:37
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:29:21 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:sagtk41pod0114m8ojtdljvc3a38i0beul@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>
>>>This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>>determined?
>>
>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>
>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>> subjective and meaningless.
>>
>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>
>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>
>
>weak trolling.

Please stop being dishonest. Everything I said was pure fact, except
the last paragraph, which was based on assumptions of what might
happen in the future, but I think that won't be far from the truth
either.

Of course people can call different players the most talented or
whatever. The point is that we heard in literally thousands of Whisper
posts over the years that all that is subjective, and in the end all
that matters is slams won or 7543. But that is clearly changing now,
i.e. "ability goat" and "talent goat" are becoming much more important
in his posts.


      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 18:23:54
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
*skriptis wrote:
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:sagtk41pod0114m8ojtdljvc3a38i0beul@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In article <494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>> This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>> determined?
>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>
>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>> subjective and meaningless.
>>
>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>
>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>
>
> weak trolling.
>
> If most experts agree on talent levels of diferent players, ie, they rate
> them, McEnroe is almost always somewhere in the top, Federer was mentioned
> there as well..and Lendl often being called "overachiever", then I think
> it's very unfair of you to suggest that Whisper was first expert that who
> started it or that he invetned "talent goat" category. It's his personal
> opinion that it's McEnrore. Some think it's someone else. So what.
>
> Ability goat, as well, Whisper wasn't the first, or the only one, who said
> something in that direction about different players. Eg, some where saying
> that Federer's USO 04 was the best performance ever meaning no one could
> beat him that day. Or whenever he plays his best. IMO, that's not true, as
> Hewitt is not such a complete player that could test Federer, so using him
> as a standard is pretty lame. He lack both power from the ground, power from
> the serve, doesn't have a particulary great s/v game and is short for an
> ideal tennis player.
>
> So, both ability and talent goat categories are not something new, rather
> very old, and well known.
> Actually, the only things wort discussing as it's very subjective.
>
> Discussing who is achievement goat as long as Sampras has 1 slam more than
> Federer, 2 Wimbledons more, 2 YE#1 more, 1 YEC more, Davis Cup, makes no
> sense. Numbers don't lie. Anyone who refuses to accept the numbers is a
> moron.
>
>
> Jack Kramer said about Laver that he belongs in the "second echelon",
> evaluating his talent.
> But Laver's achievements put him forever in tier 1.
>
>
> In the end silverware is all what matters.
>
>



Good analysis.



      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 00:05:24
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:gimjgn$hdt$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:sagtk41pod0114m8ojtdljvc3a38i0beul@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0600, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><494e1408$0$15744$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly 'tooth & nail' as Federer is not ability goat imo, but
>>>> I would defend his 'achievement goat' status yes. I defend Sampras
>>>> vigorously as he is not only achievement goat, but ability goat too.
>>>>
>>>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the
>>>> court (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>>>
>>>This is the first I've heard of "ability goat". How exactly is this
>>>determined?
>>
>> Short summary of Whisper's recent theory, that you have missed:
>>
>> There used to be a concept of goat. That was the player who has won
>> the most slams, or specifically has most points on 7543 (remember
>> that?). That was the only objective measure. Everything else was
>> subjective and meaningless.
>>
>> Now there is a big chance that a wrong guy could become goat. That's
>> why it has been necessary to make different goat categories. The
>> former "goat" category is now "achievement goat", but then there also
>> other categories "ability goat" and "talent goat". They will forever
>> be Sampras and McEnroe, respectively, no matter whatever happens.
>>
>> For now, "achievement goat" is still maybe the most respected of the
>> goats. But maybe already a year from now, "achievement goat" is pretty
>> meaningless, and no Tier I analyst ever thought it was important.
>
>
> weak trolling.
>
> If most experts agree on talent levels of diferent players, ie, they rate
> them, McEnroe is almost always somewhere in the top, Federer was mentioned
> there as well..and Lendl often being called "overachiever", then I think
> it's very unfair of you to suggest that Whisper was first expert that who
> started it or that he invetned "talent goat" category. It's his personal
> opinion that it's McEnrore. Some think it's someone else. So what.
>
> Ability goat, as well, Whisper wasn't the first, or the only one, who said
> something in that direction about different players. Eg, some where saying
> that Federer's USO 04 was the best performance ever meaning no one could
> beat him that day. Or whenever he plays his best. IMO, that's not true, as
> Hewitt is not such a complete player that could test Federer, so using him
> as a standard is pretty lame. He lack both power from the ground, power
> from the serve, doesn't have a particulary great s/v game and is short for
> an ideal tennis player.
>
> So, both ability and talent goat categories are not something new, rather
> very old, and well known.
> Actually, the only things wort discussing as it's very subjective.
>
> Discussing who is achievement goat as long as Sampras has 1 slam more than
> Federer, 2 Wimbledons more, 2 YE#1 more, 1 YEC more, Davis Cup, makes no
> sense. Numbers don't lie. Anyone who refuses to accept the numbers is a
> moron.
>
>
> Jack Kramer said about Laver that he belongs in the "second echelon",
> evaluating his talent.
> But Laver's achievements put him forever in tier 1.
>
>
> In the end silverware is all what matters.

Good post!




   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 07:32:24
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.

H2H on grass 2-1 Federer, Nadal's win a 5 setter.


    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:15:15
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:32:24 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
>H2H on grass 2-1 Federer, Nadal's win a 5 setter.


5 Wimbledons in a row to 1 says it all.


    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 11:48:45
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:oii126-6j9.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Rafa has already proven Fed is not superior to him in h2h on the court
>> (including grass), so rules him out of 'ability goat' imo.
>
> H2H on grass 2-1 Federer, Nadal's win a 5 setter.

Flip the coin.




  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 20:55:38
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:20 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>>>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>>> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
>>> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
>>> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
>>> feared would end his career back
>>> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.
>> But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
>> there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
>> more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
>> Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
>> posts about when that would happen.
>>
>> Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
>> not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
>> especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
>> playing style.
>> There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
>> more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.
>>
>> Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
>> was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
>
> Ruined you plans for the thread, huh? Not very Christmassy on my part
> I guess..
>
> But to go with your hypothetical scenario of a relatively injury free
> Nadal over the next five years,
>
> I think it's entirely possible he could win the French at least 3,
> maybe four more times. I also think
> it's possible he can take a hard court Slam (by the way, a little
> trivia, he would be the first native Spanish
> speaker ever to do it). And he's so comfortable on grass that I think
> another Wimbledon or two is certainly
> possible. So I'd go with 7 or 8 more max, 5 more minimum if he stays
> healthy, as my prediction.


Okay. So it's 10-13 for you. 8 FO's, not bad...

>
> By the way, it occurred to me we could have a bizarre shift on rst. If
> Fed breaks Sampras' record and goes past 80 on Whisper's scheme, does
> that mean we'll spend the next five years with you touting Nadal as
> goat and Whisper
> having to defend Fed's record against Rafa's tooth and nail?
>
> Nah, too bizarre to imagine.

Well I wouldn't argue against imagined formulas much, too silly.

--
"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: 20 Dec 2008 08:44:12
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 11:15=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:

>
> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.

No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
Nadal's future success has to include discussion
about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
feared would end his career back
in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 20:20:41
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:15 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
>> it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.
>
> No, it's silly to ignore the injury question. Any discussion of
> Nadal's future success has to include discussion
> about injury problems because he already had one that he said he
> feared would end his career back
> in late 2005. And the knee problems are a recurring issue.

But that takes foundation away from these speculations. Unless you want
there to be two questions...how well will Nadal do if he doesn't get
more injured during his peak and the other when he does get injured.
Latter one would be a whole different question and would lead to lame
posts about when that would happen.

Nadal has been having his knee problems for few years already, so it's
not out of the question that he would be able to play few years still,
especially with less heavy schedule and his quest for less demanding
playing style.
There have been players that were able to have a long career with even
more demanding playing style than Nadal has nowadays.

Look what you did. You made this an injury thread regardless that my aim
was to know how people see Nadal's talent to other greats.
--
"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: 20 Dec 2008 07:53:19
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 20, 10:45=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> >news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> >> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> >> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> >> Two would be a good year.
> >> Three would be a great year.
> >> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> >> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusin=
g
> >> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> >> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> >> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon p=
ast
> >> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> >> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> >> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> >> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> >> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> >> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> >> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record again=
st
> >> Federer.
>
> >>http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> > About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year=
:
> > 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he =
was a
> > bit tired at the end of the season.
> > 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)

I'd love to see it, but the big if is the injuries. He's got to
maximize his Slams in the next couple of year, imo,
because it's hard to see how he can remain healthy and a consistent
force in the game for too much longer with his particular style. I
just don't think he's built for longevity but I hope I'm wrong about
that. I'd like to see him start
picking and choosing his tournaments more carefully starting now. I
would avoid pretty much all non MS hard court tournaments (except for
one pre AO tune up) and probably cut Barcelona out of the schedule as
well (although arguably he needs that to help retain No. ranking).


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 18:15:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 10:45 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "TT" <g...@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>>> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>>>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>>>> Two would be a good year.
>>>> Three would be a great year.
>>>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>>>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>>>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>>>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon past
>>>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>>>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>>>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>>>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>>>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>>>> Federer.
>>>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was a
>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>> So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
>> Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)
>
> I'd love to see it, but the big if is the injuries. He's got to
> maximize his Slams in the next couple of year, imo,
> because it's hard to see how he can remain healthy and a consistent
> force in the game for too much longer with his particular style. I
> just don't think he's built for longevity but I hope I'm wrong about
> that. I'd like to see him start
> picking and choosing his tournaments more carefully starting now. I
> would avoid pretty much all non MS hard court tournaments (except for
> one pre AO tune up) and probably cut Barcelona out of the schedule as
> well (although arguably he needs that to help retain No. ranking).

That's silly. Of course my question is without serious injuries. And
it's a possibility he can still play say 5 years full.

Don't be a party pooper...

--
"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: 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>
> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
> Two would be a good year.
> Three would be a great year.
> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>
> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon past
> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>
> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>
> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
> Federer.
>
> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp

About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was a
bit tired at the end of the season.
2) Andy Murray was playing very well.




  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:41:16
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 9:18=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:494f7697$1$15765$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> >>news:jrK3l.9923$Sp5.4658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>> "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>> <wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> >>>>>> big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it thi=
s
> >>>>>>> year :
> >>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, mea=
nt
> >>>>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> >>>>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
> >>>>> guess you missed the Olympics.
> >>>> Guess you have some memory lapse. =A0USO is played in best of 5 form=
at and
> >>>> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches a=
nd 1
> >>>> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17
> >>>> sets...
> >>> You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to t=
he
> >>> USO semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that=
was
> >>> a total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow
> >>> lucked, because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.
> >> You still don't it don't you ? =A0The ultimate test for hard court abi=
lity
> >> is not through
> >> MS tournaments or tournaments like Olympic which play best of 3 for 4
> >> matches and
> >> best of 5 for 1 match. Do you honstly think that Nadal's game was good=
on
> >> hard court
> >> by reaching 2 semis on hard court grand slam when he was No.2 for the =
last
> >> 3 years and
> >> No.1 this year ? =A0The best of five sets allow more momentum swings a=
nd it
> >> is often
> >> in those sort of matches that Nadal can go back to his ultra defensive
> >> shell by staying
> >> 5 metres behind the baseline when he clearly knew this was not the way=
he
> >> was going to
> >> win a hard court match. =A0This happened in AO against Tsonga and agai=
snt
> >> Murray.
>
> > OFTEN? He got to the SEMIS of both - sure seems to work in most 5 set
> > matches then! And the Tsonga and Murray matches aren't a valid comparis=
on.
> > Tsonga would've smashed anybody on that day(he was hyper-good) and Nada=
l was
> > justifiably tired yet still strung it out to 4 sets against the future =
of
> > tennis(Murray). We heard similar crap to what you're saying about Nadal=
on
> > grass, pre-Queens.
>
> In my opinion Nadal has some mental issues when playing on hc slams. He
> should have not lost to Murray but he played poorly first half of the mat=
ch.
> John's arguments are bs though. For someone like Nadal it should be even
> better to play best of 5.
> --
> "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"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Well... the AO SHOULD be the hardcourt slam that Nadal makes a
break through in, if he's going to because he's coming off a great
rest period and his tendonitus should be under control... I know no
one on this fourm likes to talk about it but, as I have written about
before, the issue of the stability of the knee joint does factor into
any speculative discussion of Nadal IF his patella area is/has become
an issue... he said to the court side trainer, at Wimbledon in 2007,
he had a "floating patella " issue and the trainer immediately tapped
the knee saying it should be stabilized from now on... and from then
on he's tapped his knee/now knees... well... your knee joint doesn't
tend to get better over time if you are close to hyper-extending
constantly...

P


  
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:22:33
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst
On Dec 22, 5:18=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:494f7697$1$15765$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> >>news:jrK3l.9923$Sp5.4658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>> "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>> <wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> >>>>>> big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it thi=
s
> >>>>>>> year :
> >>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, mea=
nt
> >>>>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
> >>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> >>>>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
> >>>>> guess you missed the Olympics.
> >>>> Guess you have some memory lapse. =A0USO is played in best of 5 form=
at and
> >>>> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches a=
nd 1
> >>>> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17
> >>>> sets...
> >>> You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to t=
he
> >>> USO semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that=
was
> >>> a total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow
> >>> lucked, because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.
> >> You still don't it don't you ? =A0The ultimate test for hard court abi=
lity
> >> is not through
> >> MS tournaments or tournaments like Olympic which play best of 3 for 4
> >> matches and
> >> best of 5 for 1 match. Do you honstly think that Nadal's game was good=
on
> >> hard court
> >> by reaching 2 semis on hard court grand slam when he was No.2 for the =
last
> >> 3 years and
> >> No.1 this year ? =A0The best of five sets allow more momentum swings a=
nd it
> >> is often
> >> in those sort of matches that Nadal can go back to his ultra defensive
> >> shell by staying
> >> 5 metres behind the baseline when he clearly knew this was not the way=
he
> >> was going to
> >> win a hard court match. =A0This happened in AO against Tsonga and agai=
snt
> >> Murray.
>
> > OFTEN? He got to the SEMIS of both - sure seems to work in most 5 set
> > matches then! And the Tsonga and Murray matches aren't a valid comparis=
on.
> > Tsonga would've smashed anybody on that day(he was hyper-good) and Nada=
l was
> > justifiably tired yet still strung it out to 4 sets against the future =
of
> > tennis(Murray). We heard similar crap to what you're saying about Nadal=
on
> > grass, pre-Queens.
>
> In my opinion Nadal has some mental issues when playing on hc slams. He
> should have not lost to Murray but he played poorly first half of the mat=
ch.
> John's arguments are bs though. For someone like Nadal it should be even
> better to play best of 5.

For once I agree - Nadal should have beaten Murray. He was a break up
in the 4th set and in the fifth set he would have been the favourite
with the momentum of coming back from 2 sets down. Instead, Nadal
inexplicably gave back the initiative with some poor play and let
Murray come back to finish him off.





  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 16:16:00
From:
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com >,
big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:

>
> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
> year :
> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
>

3) It's on fast hardcourts.

wg


   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 23:39:41
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
<wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk > wrote in message
news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>
>>
>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>> year :
>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>
>>
>
> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.

guess you missed the Olympics.




    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 21:23:27
From: john
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>> year :
>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
>
> guess you missed the Olympics.

Guess you have some memory lapse. USO is played in best of 5 format and
Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches and 1
best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17 sets...




     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:00:31
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>> year :
>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
>>
>> guess you missed the Olympics.
>
> Guess you have some memory lapse. USO is played in best of 5 format and
> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches and 1
> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17 sets...
You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to the USO
semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that was a
total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow lucked,
because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.




      
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:13:25
From: john
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:jrK3l.9923$Sp5.4658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>> news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>>> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>> year :
>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
>>>
>>> guess you missed the Olympics.
>>
>> Guess you have some memory lapse. USO is played in best of 5 format and
>> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches and 1
>> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17
>> sets...
> You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to the
> USO semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that was
> a total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow lucked,
> because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.

You still don't it don't you ? The ultimate test for hard court ability is
not through
MS tournaments or tournaments like Olympic which play best of 3 for 4
matches and
best of 5 for 1 match. Do you honstly think that Nadal's game was good on
hard court
by reaching 2 semis on hard court grand slam when he was No.2 for the last 3
years and
No.1 this year ? The best of five sets allow more momentum swings and it is
often
in those sort of matches that Nadal can go back to his ultra defensive shell
by staying
5 metres behind the baseline when he clearly knew this was not the way he
was going to
win a hard court match. This happened in AO against Tsonga and agaisnt
Murray.
>
>




       
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:37:14
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:494f7697$1$15765$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> news:jrK3l.9923$Sp5.4658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>>> news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>>>> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>> year :
>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
>>>>
>>>> guess you missed the Olympics.
>>>
>>> Guess you have some memory lapse. USO is played in best of 5 format and
>>> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches and 1
>>> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17
>>> sets...
>> You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to the
>> USO semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that was
>> a total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow
>> lucked, because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.
>
> You still don't it don't you ? The ultimate test for hard court ability
> is not through
> MS tournaments or tournaments like Olympic which play best of 3 for 4
> matches and
> best of 5 for 1 match. Do you honstly think that Nadal's game was good on
> hard court
> by reaching 2 semis on hard court grand slam when he was No.2 for the last
> 3 years and
> No.1 this year ? The best of five sets allow more momentum swings and it
> is often
> in those sort of matches that Nadal can go back to his ultra defensive
> shell by staying
> 5 metres behind the baseline when he clearly knew this was not the way he
> was going to
> win a hard court match. This happened in AO against Tsonga and agaisnt
> Murray.

OFTEN? He got to the SEMIS of both - sure seems to work in most 5 set
matches then! And the Tsonga and Murray matches aren't a valid comparison.
Tsonga would've smashed anybody on that day(he was hyper-good) and Nadal was
justifiably tired yet still strung it out to 4 sets against the future of
tennis(Murray). We heard similar crap to what you're saying about Nadal on
grass, pre-Queens.




        
Date: 23 Dec 2008 17:32:42
From: john
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:_RL3l.9941$Sp5.6880@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:494f7697$1$15765$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>> news:jrK3l.9923$Sp5.4658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>>>> news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>>>>> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>> year :
>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
>>>>>
>>>>> guess you missed the Olympics.
>>>>
>>>> Guess you have some memory lapse. USO is played in best of 5 format
>>>> and
>>>> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches and
>>>> 1
>>>> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17
>>>> sets...
>>> You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to the
>>> USO semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that
>>> was a total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow
>>> lucked, because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.
>>
>> You still don't it don't you ? The ultimate test for hard court ability
>> is not through
>> MS tournaments or tournaments like Olympic which play best of 3 for 4
>> matches and
>> best of 5 for 1 match. Do you honstly think that Nadal's game was good on
>> hard court
>> by reaching 2 semis on hard court grand slam when he was No.2 for the
>> last 3 years and
>> No.1 this year ? The best of five sets allow more momentum swings and it
>> is often
>> in those sort of matches that Nadal can go back to his ultra defensive
>> shell by staying
>> 5 metres behind the baseline when he clearly knew this was not the way he
>> was going to
>> win a hard court match. This happened in AO against Tsonga and agaisnt
>> Murray.
>
> OFTEN? He got to the SEMIS of both - sure seems to work in most 5 set
> matches then! And the Tsonga and Murray matches aren't a valid comparison.
> Tsonga would've smashed anybody on that day(he was hyper-good) and Nadal
> was justifiably tired yet still strung it out to 4 sets against the future
> of tennis(Murray). We heard similar crap to what you're saying about Nadal
> on grass, pre-Queens.

Yes, OFTEN enough on the hard court slams, he got to the semi twice in the
eight hard
court slams he contested as No.2 or No.1. What did I say about Nadal
pre -Queens, I said he was
No.2 on grass which reflect the reality at the time and it is obviously not
crap but fact you
are incapable to accept.
>
>




        
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:18:53
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Iceberg wrote:
> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:494f7697$1$15765$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>> news:jrK3l.9923$Sp5.4658@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:494f6ae1$1$15747$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>>>> news:1tA3l.9812$Sp5.5010@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h9mdnVJOL5S9XdPUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> In article <f883l.9115$Sp5.352@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>>>>>> big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay (Iceberg) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this
>>>>>>> year :
>>>>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant
>>>>>>> he was a bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) It's on fast hardcourts.
>>>>> guess you missed the Olympics.
>>>> Guess you have some memory lapse. USO is played in best of 5 format and
>>>> Olympic is not. You can win Olympic by winning 4 best of 3 matches and 1
>>>> best of 5 matches but you won't get to a GS final bying winning 17
>>>> sets...
>>> You still don't get it do you. Did you miss the fact that he got to the
>>> USO semis and then came up against Murray? do you honestly think that was
>>> a total miracle? a once in a career achievement that Nadal somehow
>>> lucked, because 'his game is limited on hard courts', oh dear.
>> You still don't it don't you ? The ultimate test for hard court ability
>> is not through
>> MS tournaments or tournaments like Olympic which play best of 3 for 4
>> matches and
>> best of 5 for 1 match. Do you honstly think that Nadal's game was good on
>> hard court
>> by reaching 2 semis on hard court grand slam when he was No.2 for the last
>> 3 years and
>> No.1 this year ? The best of five sets allow more momentum swings and it
>> is often
>> in those sort of matches that Nadal can go back to his ultra defensive
>> shell by staying
>> 5 metres behind the baseline when he clearly knew this was not the way he
>> was going to
>> win a hard court match. This happened in AO against Tsonga and agaisnt
>> Murray.
>
> OFTEN? He got to the SEMIS of both - sure seems to work in most 5 set
> matches then! And the Tsonga and Murray matches aren't a valid comparison.
> Tsonga would've smashed anybody on that day(he was hyper-good) and Nadal was
> justifiably tired yet still strung it out to 4 sets against the future of
> tennis(Murray). We heard similar crap to what you're saying about Nadal on
> grass, pre-Queens.
>
>

In my opinion Nadal has some mental issues when playing on hc slams. He
should have not lost to Murray but he played poorly first half of the match.
John's arguments are bs though. For someone like Nadal it should be even
better to play best of 5.
--
"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: 21 Dec 2008 00:08:08
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was a
>bit tired at the end of the season.
>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.

Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
players play well. Damn!



   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was
>>a
>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
> players play well. Damn!

my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people are
trying to make out.




    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:53:44
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:40 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was
>>>a
>>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>
>> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>> players play well. Damn!
>
>my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people are
>trying to make out.

The thing is there is a very good chance in the latter rounds of HC
slams, that someone will play really well, like Tsonga and Murray this
year. He can't count on nobody playing really well. He can win a HC
slam, but if I had to make a pick now, I would say he won't. But I
have stayed away from these long-term predictions, except for once
picking the total slam numbers for women. So many things can happen
even during the next months, that it is just lottery.



    
Date: 22 Dec 2008 22:15:04
From: john
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:0tA3l.9811$Sp5.9327@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>>>About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>>>1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he
>>>was a
>>>bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>
>> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>> players play well. Damn!
>
> my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people
> are trying to make out.

coulda does not count just like Hazel would argue that Federer could have
won Wimbledon.

>
>




     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 19:21:34
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
john wrote:
> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote in message
> news:0tA3l.9811$Sp5.9327@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:v4rqk4l7jbbj1hi12akaeqn20ae7bq0hci@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:26:03 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
>>>> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he
>>>> was a
>>>> bit tired at the end of the season.
>>>> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>>> Yes, that's too bad. Sometimes you don't win a slam, because other
>>> players play well. Damn!
>> my point was he could have won it, it's not impossible like some people
>> are trying to make out.
>
> coulda does not count just like Hazel would argue that Federer could have
> won Wimbledon.
>

Of course coulda counts when we're wondering what will the future be like.


--
"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: 20 Dec 2008 17:45:22
From: TT
Subject: Re: How many slams will Nadal win? How will he be rated amongst greats?
Iceberg wrote:
> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> news:uZ73l.107454$_03.66172@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> I would say 14 slams. Averaging 2 slams next 4 years and 1 after that.
>>
>> If Nadal next year wins only one slam, it would be a slightly
>> disappointing year, especially if it's not a FO.
>> Two would be a good year.
>> Three would be a great year.
>> Four...if anyone can do it, it will be Nadal...although I'm somewhat
>> doubtful with his chances of winning USO. You may now find this amusing
>> idea...but if Nadal would win AO...Grand Slam would definitely be a
>> possibility. Next year could be special Nadal entering his peak.
>>
>> Nadal is already past Kuerten(3), Courier(4), Vilas(4) and very soon past
>> Becker, Edberg(6) and Mac, Wilander(7).
>> Although a point can be made that Nadal would have to win a hc slam in
>> order to get past 3-surface slammer Wilander.
>>
>> Not far from Lendl(8), or Connors(8). I'll save comparison with career
>> slammer and Olympic gold winner Agassi(8) for later.
>>
>> In addition, Rafael Nadal has *already* been able to complete Channel
>> Slam, win Olympic gold, couple Davis Cups and has winning record against
>> Federer.
>>
>> http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/deuce/november2008/nadal.asp
>
> About the US Open, there were only 2 reasons he didn't win it this year :
> 1) the effort he put into winning the Olympics and Davis Cup, meant he was a
> bit tired at the end of the season.
> 2) Andy Murray was playing very well.
>
>

So you think he can win it. Good. How many slams in total will he have?
Anyone willing to raise with 15? :)

--
"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"