tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:42:42
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Most undignified runner up ever...
Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
snap retirement from tennis be far behind?





 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 10:28:07
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 2, 10:25=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:08=A0pm, rsxkid2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of t=
he pram. Can a
> > > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse=
...
>
> > > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a ten=
nis
> > > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> > Aren't you the guy who predicted a 50-state sweep for McCain in the
> > election?
>
> > Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I ammended that prediction as events unfolded--even before the
> financial meltdown which sealed the deal. Dingbat offers up the AI jab
> and you come up with this. =A0SPS just thows in a a little comrade
> grin. =A0Personally, I would like to see higher quality stuff even if it
> is directed at me. =A0Please. =A0And which rst douchebag are you, if I ma=
y
> ask?

:D


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 10:25:44
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 2, 12:08=A0pm, rsxkid2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the=
pram. Can a
> > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse..=
.
>
> > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tenni=
s
> > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> Aren't you the guy who predicted a 50-state sweep for McCain in the
> election?
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I ammended that prediction as events unfolded--even before the
financial meltdown which sealed the deal. Dingbat offers up the AI jab
and you come up with this. SPS just thows in a a little comrade
grin. Personally, I would like to see higher quality stuff even if it
is directed at me. Please. And which rst douchebag are you, if I may
ask?


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 09:18:09
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 2, 9:08=A0am, rsxkid2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the=
pram. Can a
> > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse..=
.
>
> > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tenni=
s
> > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> Aren't you the guy who predicted a 50-state sweep for McCain in the
> election?
>
> Matt

:D


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 09:08:48
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the p=
ram. Can a
> > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?

Aren't you the guy who predicted a 50-state sweep for McCain in the
election?

Matt


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 07:29:52
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 2 Feb, 07:13, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
> >> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> >> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> >> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> >> surfaces...
>
> > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.
>
> er, beating him in last 3 slams finals on grass, HC & clay sounds very
> un-weird to me....?

Clearly, Nadal dominates Federer overall, but that does not mean that
he dominates him on all surfaces. Or are you dumb enough to think that
Nadal dominates Federer on grass? Frankly, you are probably too dumb
to even grasp the distinction.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 18:35:11
From: TennisGuy
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:08=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...

Personally, I think Roger should ignore your assessment and continue
to try to break Sampras' record.

If he does, then it will come down to an rst squirt named R. Asif vs.
the fans of tennis worldwide and historians, to determine his overall
greatness.

So there.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 18:23:52
From: famous21
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
Hello Robin:

What Nadal has that Roger does not currently have is youth. I may be
wrong, but I think Roger's run started when he was about the age of
22. I believe that it is too early to decide if Nadal will be able to
attain the accomplishments of Roger.

Peace,

Famous
__________________________________________________

On Feb 1, 7:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on=
to win
> > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him=
the
> > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat =
to
> > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court =
or
> > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owne=
d.
>
> > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved, Fe=
d
> > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
> that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
> the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
> over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
> overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. This
> is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:40:46
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 4:33=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:10=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 3:56=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 12:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0=
Jesus,
> > > > > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's ow=
ned
> > > > > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> > > > At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuou=
s,
> > > > but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> > > > Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in th=
e
> > > > fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> > > > owning Federer on grass.
>
> > > > It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> > > > because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> > > > solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, w=
hen
> > > > that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.
>
> > > Is "being owned" a statistical, objective factor or a subjective one?
> > > Since the term is metaphoric I'd say it's a subjective state.
>
> > The problem with the entire vituperative debate in this thread is that
> > "being owned" is basically meaningless. It's what teenagers say when
> > they want to say something that sound aggressive, and sort of comic,
> > but doesn't require thinking. Last time I went snowboarding with my
> > son, every time we saw someone wipe out on the slopes, he'd say,
> > "Owned!" Then I'd start saying it him to tease him. There really isn't
> > any specific content in it -- certainly not enough to warrant this
> > kind of back-and-forth. :)
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Well, if the merit of a debate determined the length of it, rst would
> be a very quiet place ;-)
>
> My only contention is something changed today, just for today and not
> for eternity, and that's the Nadal is now the perceived favorite
> everywhere, every surface, every tournament.

Sure. A guy wins three straight high-stakes matches, and is clearly
either at peak or still climbing, while his opponent is starting the
downward slope -- you bet that changes the perception of favorites.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:33:11
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 1:10=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:56=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Je=
sus,
> > > > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owne=
d
> > > > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> > > At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
> > > but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> > > Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
> > > fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> > > owning Federer on grass.
>
> > > It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> > > because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> > > solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, whe=
n
> > > that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.
>
> > Is "being owned" a statistical, objective factor or a subjective one?
> > Since the term is metaphoric I'd say it's a subjective state.
>
> The problem with the entire vituperative debate in this thread is that
> "being owned" is basically meaningless. It's what teenagers say when
> they want to say something that sound aggressive, and sort of comic,
> but doesn't require thinking. Last time I went snowboarding with my
> son, every time we saw someone wipe out on the slopes, he'd say,
> "Owned!" Then I'd start saying it him to tease him. There really isn't
> any specific content in it -- certainly not enough to warrant this
> kind of back-and-forth. :)
>
> Joe Ramirez

Well, if the merit of a debate determined the length of it, rst would
be a very quiet place ;-)

My only contention is something changed today, just for today and not
for eternity, and that's the Nadal is now the perceived favorite
everywhere, every surface, every tournament.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:31:50
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...

I don't agree - despite the one-sided rivalry with Rafa, Fed can and
will break the Sampras 14 slams by at least a margin of 1 and will
then be recorded by most people as GOAT.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:29:33
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 1:07=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 20:56, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Je=
sus,
> > > > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owne=
d
> > > > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> > > At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
> > > but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> > > Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
> > > fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> > > owning Federer on grass.
>
> > > It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> > > because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> > > solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, whe=
n
> > > that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.
>
> > Is "being owned" a statistical, objective factor or a subjective one?
> > Since the term is metaphoric I'd say it's a subjective state.
>
> It is a figure of speech, it's meaning is not precisely defined, but
> that does not mean that anything goes. As I have already stated, we
> are discussing the effect on Federer's legacy, so whether Federer
> feels owned is not relevant here. Consider, the converse. If Federer
> was delusional and believed that his record against Nadal overall was
> good - would that invalidate the claim that Nadal owned him in head-to-
> head, when judging his place in tennis history. I would argue that it
> does not. Nadal does own Federer because of the results - 13 wins out
> of 19 matches. Federer's views on the subject are irrelevant to this
> particular discussion.

As I said in another thread, it's a long time before Fed's legacy is
decided, if ever since these things are ever changing. So I agree with
you there. But if there's any validity to the concept of "being owned"
it is only in the head of the owned. And I still think Fed *felt*
owned today. It matters not a wit whether the rest of us think he is
or isn't, all that matters is what he thinks.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:10:37
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 3:56=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Jesu=
s,
> > > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owned
> > > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> > At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
> > but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> > Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
> > fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> > owning Federer on grass.
>
> > It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> > because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> > solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, when
> > that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.
>
> Is "being owned" a statistical, objective factor or a subjective one?
> Since the term is metaphoric I'd say it's a subjective state.

The problem with the entire vituperative debate in this thread is that
"being owned" is basically meaningless. It's what teenagers say when
they want to say something that sound aggressive, and sort of comic,
but doesn't require thinking. Last time I went snowboarding with my
son, every time we saw someone wipe out on the slopes, he'd say,
"Owned!" Then I'd start saying it him to tease him. There really isn't
any specific content in it -- certainly not enough to warrant this
kind of back-and-forth. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:07:41
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 20:56, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Jesu=
s,
> > > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owned
> > > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> > At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
> > but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> > Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
> > fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> > owning Federer on grass.
>
> > It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> > because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> > solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, when
> > that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.
>
> Is "being owned" a statistical, objective factor or a subjective one?
> Since the term is metaphoric I'd say it's a subjective state.

It is a figure of speech, it's meaning is not precisely defined, but
that does not mean that anything goes. As I have already stated, we
are discussing the effect on Federer's legacy, so whether Federer
feels owned is not relevant here. Consider, the converse. If Federer
was delusional and believed that his record against Nadal overall was
good - would that invalidate the claim that Nadal owned him in head-to-
head, when judging his place in tennis history. I would argue that it
does not. Nadal does own Federer because of the results - 13 wins out
of 19 matches. Federer's views on the subject are irrelevant to this
particular discussion.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:56:26
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Jesus,
> > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owned
> > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
> but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
> fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> owning Federer on grass.
>
> It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, when
> that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.

Is "being owned" a statistical, objective factor or a subjective one?
Since the term is metaphoric I'd say it's a subjective state.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:50:32
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 2:48=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Jesus,
> > you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owned
> > until further notice, so deal with it.
>
> At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
> but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
> Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
> fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
> owning Federer on grass.
>
> It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
> because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
> solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, when
> that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.

Now thats what I call major 'ownage' :) Well put...


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:50:15
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 3:25=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:06=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 1:19=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 12:53=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk=
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out =
of the pram. Can a
> > > > > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been w=
orse...
>
> > > > > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning i=
t.
>
> > > > > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a=
tennis
> > > > > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > > > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> > > > Get back under your rock. I don't watch American Idol, btw. Bet you=
're
> > > > addicted to soaps as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > oh, gawd...look what dingie has resorted to. =A0You are one of the fe=
w
> > > posters who I have actually felt embarrassed for.
>
> > Which explains why you're such a AI fan. Feeling embarassed for people
> > most likely makes you feel good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The fact that you are using raja's tired old slight is really quite
> pathetic, you do realize?

btw, Dean's list, Software Engineering. And I was working full time.

I switched to the Arts because code sometimes bores me, the way you do.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:48:30
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 20:26, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. =A0Jesus,
> you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. =A0He's owned
> until further notice, so deal with it.

At one point I thought that you were being deliberately disingenuous,
but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are just thick.
Federer has only one loss to Nadal on grass, and that was 9-7 in the
fifth. No reasonable person would view that as evidence of Nadal
owning Federer on grass.

It would be considered dubious to view that one player owns another
because of a solitary win. It would be considered absurd if that
solitary win was part of a losing record. It is downright insane, when
that solitary win was achieved by the slimmest of margins.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:29:42
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 2:55=A0pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> "RahimAsif" <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c28a28aa-eaa4-4288-bbb5-5399597b61b2@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 9:00 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Pure BS, Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his last =
USO
> > final
> > to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ? If Federer win another slam
> > against
> > any player even if they are not name Nadal he has a really good claim t=
o
> > be
> > GOAT.
> > Fed's quest to become GOAT is not over until he is no longer able to wi=
n
> > grand slam.
>
> Chris Fowler asked Bud Collins after the match whether Fed can be
> considered GOAT if he always loses to Nadal. Bud's simple answer: "I
> don't think so". So rest assured, I am not the only one thinking like
> that. But you can think whatever makes you feel better...
>
> Then Sampras in the same way should not be considered as GOAT because he
> has a losing record against Hewitt and Krajicek. =A0Bud can think whateve=
r he
> wants to think and to most people if Federer win more slam at the end of =
his
> career than Sampras that is good enough for him to be consider better tha=
n
> Sampras. =A0If Sampras is not considered as GOAT who is GOAT then ?

Neither Hewitt or Krajicek were his greatest rival. Never played
Krjicek in a slam final. Sampras did not lose his Wimbledon crown to
Agassi. Fed has lost his grass and HC advantages over Nadal the born
claycourter who has improved quite a bit since Fed last beat him
(barely) in a slam final


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:26:46
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 2:12=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 18:18, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:49=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 17:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on a=
ll
> > > > > > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total t=
ithead
> > > > > > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but hav=
e little
> > > > > > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling a=
bout just
> > > > > > losing an AO title...
>
> > > > > Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?
>
> > > > > PS.
>
> > > > He barely won that
>
> > > Right. As opposed to Nadal's dominating 2008 win. Clueless fuckwit.
>
> > Nadal does not need to have a dominating win on grass vs. Fed. =A0A win
> > is enough, just as Fed beating Nadal at FO would be. =A0You simply don'=
t
> > get it at all, do you, robin?
>
> You are either delibrately, or naively, confusing concepts. Any win is
> enough for Nadal against Federer at W in terms of an overall
> assessment of Federer vs Nadal. However, in terms of an assessment of
> Federer vs Nadal in the context of grass, which is exactly what we are
> refering to when we talk about Nadal owning Federer on grass, the
> scoreline does matter. Nadal's superior record on clay, or their
> matches on hard courts, are utterly irrelevant to this analysis. To
> say that Nadal owns Federer on grass he needs, at the very least, a
> convincing Wimbledon win. Same would be true for Federer beating Nadal
> at FO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fed is currently owned at the slams on all surfaces by Nadal. Jesus,
you are a thickheaded moron if you want to nitpick it. He's owned
until further notice, so deal with it.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:25:40
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 2:06=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:19=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:53=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> =
wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of=
the pram. Can a
> > > > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been wor=
se...
>
> > > > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a t=
ennis
> > > > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> > > Get back under your rock. I don't watch American Idol, btw. Bet you'r=
e
> > > addicted to soaps as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > oh, gawd...look what dingie has resorted to. =A0You are one of the few
> > posters who I have actually felt embarrassed for.
>
> Which explains why you're such a AI fan. Feeling embarassed for people
> most likely makes you feel good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The fact that you are using raja's tired old slight is really quite
pathetic, you do realize?


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:42:42
From: Trevor Smithson
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:42:42 GMT, "Dr. GroundAxe"
<groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
>snap retirement from tennis be far behind?

Go back to predicting Murray will never win another game.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 11:12:02
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 18:18, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:49=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 17:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> > > > > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tit=
head
> > > > > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have =
little
> > > > > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling abo=
ut just
> > > > > losing an AO title...
>
> > > > Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?
>
> > > > PS.
>
> > > He barely won that
>
> > Right. As opposed to Nadal's dominating 2008 win. Clueless fuckwit.
>
> Nadal does not need to have a dominating win on grass vs. Fed. =A0A win
> is enough, just as Fed beating Nadal at FO would be. =A0You simply don't
> get it at all, do you, robin?

You are either delibrately, or naively, confusing concepts. Any win is
enough for Nadal against Federer at W in terms of an overall
assessment of Federer vs Nadal. However, in terms of an assessment of
Federer vs Nadal in the context of grass, which is exactly what we are
refering to when we talk about Nadal owning Federer on grass, the
scoreline does matter. Nadal's superior record on clay, or their
matches on hard courts, are utterly irrelevant to this analysis. To
say that Nadal owns Federer on grass he needs, at the very least, a
convincing Wimbledon win. Same would be true for Federer beating Nadal
at FO.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 11:06:23
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 1:19=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:53=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of t=
he pram. Can a
> > > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse=
...
>
> > > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a ten=
nis
> > > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> > Get back under your rock. I don't watch American Idol, btw. Bet you're
> > addicted to soaps as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> oh, gawd...look what dingie has resorted to. =A0You are one of the few
> posters who I have actually felt embarrassed for.

Which explains why you're such a AI fan. Feeling embarassed for people
most likely makes you feel good.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 11:02:51
From: famous21
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
Good Sunday Ground:

No matter the size of a man or woman in stature, in ego, in money, and
most importantly, in love of sport, we are humans first. As such we
are not robots, and when we feel emotionally hurt, we will shed
tears. The context of the outcome of the AO Final, Roger's self-
imposed pressure to succeed, expecting to triumph and ultimately saw
the face of defeat, combined with the audience giving him the ovation
he deserved led to the tears which showed the vunerable side of a man
who is not ashamed to display his hurt to the world.

Peace,

Famous

______________________________________________________



Many of us on Usenet shed teaar

On Feb 1, 5:42=A0am, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 10:20:05
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:55=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 17:46, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 17:33, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> > > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tithead
> > > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have litt=
le
> > > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about j=
ust
> > > losing an AO title...
>
> > Rahim has already conceded he was incorrect in his usage of the term
> > 'owned', but you are obviously a mental incompetent - so I will try to
> > break the argument down for you.
>
> > We are discussing Federer's legacy, how the history books will judge
> > him. Thus overall results *are* of importance here. Do you grasp this
> > point? Take a while, if you are struggling. I realise you aren't the
> > sharpest tool in the toolbox.
>
> > Now, let us look at the grass court results..
>
> > 2006 W - Federer wins in 4 sets
> > 2007 W - Federer wins in 5 sets
> > 2008 W - Federer wins in 5 sets
>
> That should, of course, say ..... 2008 W - Nadal wins in 5 sets- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, I figured that. You still manage to miss the point though.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:32:37
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:

> Yes, I figured that. You still manage to miss the point though.

I don't think anyone gets your point.

PS.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 10:19:33
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:53=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the=
pram. Can a
> > > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse..=
.
>
> > > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tenni=
s
> > > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?
>
> Get back under your rock. I don't watch American Idol, btw. Bet you're
> addicted to soaps as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

oh, gawd...look what dingie has resorted to. You are one of the few
posters who I have actually felt embarrassed for.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 10:18:43
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:49=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 17:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> > > > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tithe=
ad
> > > > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have li=
ttle
> > > > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about=
just
> > > > losing an AO title...
>
> > > Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?
>
> > > PS.
>
> > He barely won that
>
> Right. As opposed to Nadal's dominating 2008 win. Clueless fuckwit.

Nadal does not need to have a dominating win on grass vs. Fed. A win
is enough, just as Fed beating Nadal at FO would be. You simply don't
get it at all, do you, robin?


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:30:43
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:

> Nadal does not need to have a dominating win on grass vs. Fed. A win
> is enough, just as Fed beating Nadal at FO would be. You simply don't
> get it at all, do you, robin?

So Fed owns Nadal if he wins in a five setter against Nadal at FO?

PS.


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 23:20:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
Petter Solbu wrote:
> blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Nadal does not need to have a dominating win on grass vs. Fed. A win
>> is enough, just as Fed beating Nadal at FO would be. You simply
>> don't get it at all, do you, robin?
>
> So Fed owns Nadal if he wins in a five setter against Nadal at FO?

He's owned if loses.
If he wins he dismatnles Rafa's domination. That's more than enough.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:55:00
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 17:46, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 17:33, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tithead
> > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have little
> > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about jus=
t
> > losing an AO title...
>
> Rahim has already conceded he was incorrect in his usage of the term
> 'owned', but you are obviously a mental incompetent - so I will try to
> break the argument down for you.
>
> We are discussing Federer's legacy, how the history books will judge
> him. Thus overall results *are* of importance here. Do you grasp this
> point? Take a while, if you are struggling. I realise you aren't the
> sharpest tool in the toolbox.
>
> Now, let us look at the grass court results..
>
> 2006 W - Federer wins in 4 sets
> 2007 W - Federer wins in 5 sets
> 2008 W - Federer wins in 5 sets

That should, of course, say ..... 2008 W - Nadal wins in 5 sets



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:53:34
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the p=
ram. Can a
> > > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> > > match is embarrassing.
>
> > No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?

Get back under your rock. I don't watch American Idol, btw. Bet you're
addicted to soaps as well.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:49:09
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 17:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> > > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tithead
> > > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have litt=
le
> > > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about j=
ust
> > > losing an AO title...
>
> > Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?
>
> > PS.
>
> He barely won that

Right. As opposed to Nadal's dominating 2008 win. Clueless fuckwit.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:46:59
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 17:33, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tithead
> not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have little
> to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about just
> losing an AO title...

Rahim has already conceded he was incorrect in his usage of the term
'owned', but you are obviously a mental incompetent - so I will try to
break the argument down for you.

We are discussing Federer's legacy, how the history books will judge
him. Thus overall results *are* of importance here. Do you grasp this
point? Take a while, if you are struggling. I realise you aren't the
sharpest tool in the toolbox.

Now, let us look at the grass court results..

2006 W - Federer wins in 4 sets
2007 W - Federer wins in 5 sets
2008 W - Federer wins in 5 sets

If Federer and Nadal never play each other again on grass, and that
stays the head-to-head, what is the more reasonable assessment for the
history books.

"Nadal and Federer played some close matches at Wimbledon, neither
asserting dominance over the other."

or

"Nadal owned Federer at Wimbledon"

...?


Hint, if you say the second, then you are wrong.









 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:37:54
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:34=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> > surfaces in grand slam competition. =A0You have to be a total tithead
> > not to grasp that. =A0Past results are not meaningless, but have little
> > to do with current ownership. =A0Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about jus=
t
> > losing an AO title...
>
> Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?
>
> PS.

He barely won that, but he certainly owned the Championship at the
time. Wimbledon 2007 was a warning that Fed failed to heed--and he has
now paid for it in spades.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:29:42
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:34 pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
>>> surfaces in grand slam competition. You have to be a total tithead
>>> not to grasp that. Past results are not meaningless, but have little
>>> to do with current ownership. Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about just
>>> losing an AO title...
>> Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?
>>
>> PS.
>
> He barely won that, but he certainly owned the Championship at the
> time. Wimbledon 2007 was a warning that Fed failed to heed--and he has
> now paid for it in spades.

My point is that you don't earn a guy on a surface because of a five set
victory. If Nadal can continue to beat Roger on any surface for a long
time I will get back to you.

PS.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:34:04
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 12:25=A0pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pra=
m. Can a
> > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> > match is embarrassing.
>
> No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, but you are a well known dingbat with room temp IQ?


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:33:17
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 10:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on=
to win
> > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him=
the
> > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat =
to
> > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court =
or
> > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owne=
d.
>
> > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved, Fe=
d
> > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
> that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
> the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
> over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
> overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. This
> is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
surfaces in grand slam competition. You have to be a total tithead
not to grasp that. Past results are not meaningless, but have little
to do with current ownership. Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about just
losing an AO title...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 18:34:53
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:

> Nadal has continued to improve and Fed is now owned by him on all
> surfaces in grand slam competition. You have to be a total tithead
> not to grasp that. Past results are not meaningless, but have little
> to do with current ownership. Trust me, Fed wasn't bawling about just
> losing an AO title...

Did Federer own Nadal after his Wimby 2007 title?

PS.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:25:47
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram.=
Can a
> > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> match is embarrassing.

No - I think it's perfectly acceptable.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:23:29
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 17:16, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:12=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 17:06, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 7:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may=
go on to win
> > > > > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consid=
er him the
> > > > > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on =
all
> > > > > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered=
goat to
> > > > > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces.=
He is
> > > > > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard =
court or
> > > > > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of bein=
g owned.
>
> > > > > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > > > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > > > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > > > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > > > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > > > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > > > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfa=
ces',
> > > > > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > > > > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improv=
ed, Fed
> > > > > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> > > > Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> > > > Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> > > > Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> > > > Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> > > > Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combin=
ed
> > > > that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> > > > fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alt=
er
> > > > the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wi=
ns
> > > > over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> > > > Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> > > > with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federe=
r
> > > > overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. T=
his
> > > > is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.
>
> > > Blanders is right. What do stats mean if Federer *feels* owned?
>
> > We are discussing the effect this has on Federer's legacy - how
> > Federer feels about it is irrelevant, until such time as those
> > feelings get translated into results. Which is not now, for the
> > reasons I have given.
>
> > > And you can't argue in one thread that Fed's chances at being GOAT ar=
e
> > > dashed if he loses the AO final against Nadal then argue that he isn'=
t
> > > owned by Nadal when he does lose.
>
> > That is not what I'm arguing. Please learn fucking to read....
>
> > "You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer overall, but that
> > does not mean that he owns him on each surface."
>
> I read just fine. You, OTOH, overreact really well.

Then you simply didn't bother to read my post before responding, since
your objection is clearly invalid. I requoted the relevant part of my
original post. Anyway...

Federer losing this AO match does effect future claims to him being
GOAT, in my opinion.
Federer is owned *overall* by Nadal, in my opinion
Federer is not owned *on each surface* by Nadal.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:16:18
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:12=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 17:06, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may g=
o on to win
> > > > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider=
him the
> > > > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on al=
l
> > > > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered g=
oat to
> > > > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. H=
e is
> > > > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard co=
urt or
> > > > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being =
owned.
>
> > > > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surface=
s',
> > > > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > > > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved=
, Fed
> > > > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> > > Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> > > Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> > > Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> > > Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> > > Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
> > > that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> > > fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
> > > the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
> > > over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> > > Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> > > with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
> > > overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. Thi=
s
> > > is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.
>
> > Blanders is right. What do stats mean if Federer *feels* owned?
>
> We are discussing the effect this has on Federer's legacy - how
> Federer feels about it is irrelevant, until such time as those
> feelings get translated into results. Which is not now, for the
> reasons I have given.
>
>
>
> > And you can't argue in one thread that Fed's chances at being GOAT are
> > dashed if he loses the AO final against Nadal then argue that he isn't
> > owned by Nadal when he does lose.
>
> That is not what I'm arguing. Please learn fucking to read....
>
> "You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer overall, but that
> does not mean that he owns him on each surface."

I read just fine. You, OTOH, overreact really well.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:12:19
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 17:06, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go =
on to win
> > > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider h=
im the
> > > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goa=
t to
> > > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He =
is
> > > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard cour=
t or
> > > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being ow=
ned.
>
> > > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces'=
,
> > > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved, =
Fed
> > > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> > Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> > Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> > Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> > Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> > Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
> > that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> > fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
> > the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
> > over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> > Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> > with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
> > overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. This
> > is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.
>
> Blanders is right. What do stats mean if Federer *feels* owned?

We are discussing the effect this has on Federer's legacy - how
Federer feels about it is irrelevant, until such time as those
feelings get translated into results. Which is not now, for the
reasons I have given.

>
> And you can't argue in one thread that Fed's chances at being GOAT are
> dashed if he loses the AO final against Nadal then argue that he isn't
> owned by Nadal when he does lose.

That is not what I'm arguing. Please learn fucking to read....

"You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer overall, but that
does not mean that he owns him on each surface."


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:09:42
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to =
win
> > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > surfaces...
>
> > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.
>
> > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> 4 set win at W 2006
> 5 set win at W 2007
> 5 set loss at W 2008
> 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.

He is dishonest.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:06:14
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 7:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on=
to win
> > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him=
the
> > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat =
to
> > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court =
or
> > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owne=
d.
>
> > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved, Fe=
d
> > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
> that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
> the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
> over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
> overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. This
> is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.

Blanders is right. What do stats mean if Federer *feels* owned?

And you can't argue in one thread that Fed's chances at being GOAT are
dashed if he loses the AO final against Nadal then argue that he isn't
owned by Nadal when he does lose.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:59:29
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:55=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on=
to win
> > > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him=
the
> > > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat =
to
> > > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court =
or
> > > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owne=
d.
>
> > > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > > 4 set win at W 2006
> > > 5 set win at W 2007
> > > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> > > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> > understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved, Fe=
d
> > has stagnated/regressed.
>
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.
>
> Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
> that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
> fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
> the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
> over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.
>
> Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
> with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
> overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. This
> is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.

You are right - don't know what you guys are arguing about since I
took back my words immediately...


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:55:39
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on t=
o win
> > > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him t=
he
> > > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > > surfaces...
>
> > > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> > > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> > > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.
>
> > > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> > Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> > 4 set win at W 2006
> > 5 set win at W 2007
> > 5 set loss at W 2008
> > 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> > If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> > then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. =A0If you don't
> understand that, you don't understand tennis. =A0Nadal has improved, Fed
> has stagnated/regressed.

Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.

Nadal has only one win versus Federer on hardcourt and grass combined
that did not go to a deciding set - and that was back in 2004. The
fact that Nadal has improved and Federer has stagnated does not alter
the requirement that Nadal actually has to achieve the necessary wins
over Federer to demonstrate that he owns him on a given surface.

Currently, Nadal owns Federer on clay and is fairly evenly matched
with him off clay. You can thus fairly argue that Nadal owns Federer
overall, but that does not mean that he owns him on each surface. This
is not a difficult concept to grasp. Now stop being such a tit.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 21:05:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
robin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 15:37, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 9:24 am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 9:13 am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>>>>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
>>>>>> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
>>>>>> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>>>>>> surfaces...
>>>>> Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
>>>>> one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
>>>>> owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
>>>>> grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.
>>>> Like losing slam finals to him?
>>> Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>>> 4 set win at W 2006
>>> 5 set win at W 2007
>>> 5 set loss at W 2008
>>> 5 set loss at AO 2009
>>> If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
>>> then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. If you don't
>> understand that, you don't understand tennis. Nadal has improved, Fed
>> has stagnated/regressed.
>
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on grass - no.
> Does Nadal have a winning record versus Federer on hardcourts - no.
> Does Nadal have consecutive wins over Federer on hardcourts - no.



If you had to put your life on 1 guy winning a match between them you'd
pick Fed right?


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:38:32
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 15:16, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>
> news:fpihl.28658$Sp5.1673@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>
> > "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:dc0cf389-69a6-49ad-93a0-1373a88bbde1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> >> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> >> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> >> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> >> > surfaces...
>
> >> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
> >> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
> >> Sampras' claim?
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
> >>negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
> >>gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.
>
> > Agassi up there too?
>
> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th FO?
> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7h Wimbledon?
> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th USO?
> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th YEC?
> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th YEN#1?
>
> in short, no.

Actually, Agassi did win a 2nd USO.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 23:15:53
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
robin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 15:16, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fpihl.28658$Sp5.1673@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dc0cf389-69a6-49ad-93a0-1373a88bbde1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>>>>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on
>>>>> to win more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever
>>>>> consider him the greatest of all time, since he was owned by his
>>>>> rival on all surfaces...
>>
>>>> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
>>>> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what
>>>> becomes of Sampras' claim?
>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>>> If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
>>>> negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
>>>> gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.
>>
>>> Agassi up there too?
>>
>> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th FO?
>> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7h Wimbledon?
>> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th USO?
>> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th YEC?
>> 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th YEN#1?
>>
>> in short, no.
>
> Actually, Agassi did win a 2nd USO.


My bad, I used copy-paste.
Sorry




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:38:12
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:41=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?

Unfortunately for him, that is exactly what needs to happen...


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:37:08
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to =
win
> > > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > > surfaces...
>
> > > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> > > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> > > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.
>
> > Like losing slam finals to him?
>
> Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.
>
> 4 set win at W 2006
> 5 set win at W 2007
> 5 set loss at W 2008
> 5 set loss at AO 2009
>
> If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
> then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> - Show quoted text -

For the sake of this discussion, Fed is owned. If you don't
understand that, you don't understand tennis. Nadal has improved, Fed
has stagnated/regressed.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:10:16
From: erdega79
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:41=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?

That is not likely, in fact it's more likely he doesn't win anymore
slams at all. He could have lost earlier this time anyway


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:09:34
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:00=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Pure BS, =A0 Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his las=
t USO
> final
> to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ? =A0 If Federer win another sla=
m
> against
> any player even if they are not name Nadal he has a really good claim to =
be
> GOAT.
> Fed's quest to become GOAT is not over until he is no longer able to win
> grand slam.

Chris Fowler asked Bud Collins after the match whether Fed can be
considered GOAT if he always loses to Nadal. Bud's simple answer: "I
don't think so". So rest assured, I am not the only one thinking like
that. But you can think whatever makes you feel better...


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 19:26:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:00 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Pure BS, Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his last USO
>> final
>> to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ? If Federer win another slam
>> against
>> any player even if they are not name Nadal he has a really good claim to be
>> GOAT.
>> Fed's quest to become GOAT is not over until he is no longer able to win
>> grand slam.
>
> Chris Fowler asked Bud Collins after the match whether Fed can be
> considered GOAT if he always loses to Nadal. Bud's simple answer: "I
> don't think so". So rest assured, I am not the only one thinking like
> that. But you can think whatever makes you feel better...


Ignore John - he's one of the many dumb Aussies we have here. He
actually thinks tune-up record is a factor in goat stakes lol.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 06:55:53
From: john
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...

"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c28a28aa-eaa4-4288-bbb5-5399597b61b2@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 9:00 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Pure BS, Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his last USO
> final
> to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ? If Federer win another slam
> against
> any player even if they are not name Nadal he has a really good claim to
> be
> GOAT.
> Fed's quest to become GOAT is not over until he is no longer able to win
> grand slam.

Chris Fowler asked Bud Collins after the match whether Fed can be
considered GOAT if he always loses to Nadal. Bud's simple answer: "I
don't think so". So rest assured, I am not the only one thinking like
that. But you can think whatever makes you feel better...

Then Sampras in the same way should not be considered as GOAT because he
has a losing record against Hewitt and Krajicek. Bud can think whatever he
wants to think and to most people if Federer win more slam at the end of his
career than Sampras that is good enough for him to be consider better than
Sampras. If Sampras is not considered as GOAT who is GOAT then ?




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:48:42
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:33, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 8:46 am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the
> >>>> pram. Can a snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> >>> It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> >>> Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> >>> Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> >> I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> > match is embarrassing.
>
> He didn't lose a tennis match, he lost a slam final, and a slam final worth
> much more in historic terms.
> It's perfectly ok for emotions to burst out.
>
> I don't know what's wrong with you people..when you're over excited
> sometimes you just cry..even because of the happiness.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think a grown man should cry like a
baby in public - unless he's just heard his mother has died, or
something equivalent.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:28:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
robin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:33, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>>> On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 8:46 am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the
>>>>>> pram. Can a snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>>
>>>>> It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>>
>>>>> Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
>>>>> Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>>
>>>> I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>>
>>> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
>>> match is embarrassing.
>>
>> He didn't lose a tennis match, he lost a slam final, and a slam
>> final worth much more in historic terms.
>> It's perfectly ok for emotions to burst out.
>>
>> I don't know what's wrong with you people..when you're over excited
>> sometimes you just cry..even because of the happiness.
>
> Call me old fashioned, but I don't think a grown man should cry like a
> baby in public - unless he's just heard his mother has died, or
> something equivalent.


Those are few minutes tears..it just comes out of you. It's not like he was
crying all the time.
I don't know it, but I can only think how difficult was it to play today,
for both of them.

You see..this is disrespectful for Federer now from your part. And all of so
called rst federer fans.

Nadal cried like a baby at Wimbledon too. Federer cried here as well when he
got that trophy from Laver in 06.
Sampras cried when he won his 13th.

Yes, uncle Toni told Nadal not to cry, that it was just a tennis match (07)
and I agree it's not something that should make you feel bad in your future
life.
But as it happens, all the pressure coming off, the tension..





 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:47:57
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:36=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> RahimAsif wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> All of this if forgotten if he wins FO...that's the beaty/curse of tennis=
.
>
> Next major..again..so much to lose for Nadal, so much to win for Federer.
>
> Nadal needs that 5th FO if he wants to claim he's the greatest claycourte=
r
> ever. If he fails, tough for him.
> Even worse, if Federer wins it, then Nadal's surface-set becomes less
> important. Basically nullifies his AO win in direct comparison with Feder=
er.

True - but lets be realistic. Fed won't win the French, and Nadal will
probably win it standing on one leg and one hand tied behind his
back...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:17:35
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:36 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> RahimAsif wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to
>>> win more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him
>>> the greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>>> surfaces...
>>
>> All of this if forgotten if he wins FO...that's the beaty/curse of
>> tennis.
>>
>> Next major..again..so much to lose for Nadal, so much to win for
>> Federer.
>>
>> Nadal needs that 5th FO if he wants to claim he's the greatest
>> claycourter ever. If he fails, tough for him.
>> Even worse, if Federer wins it, then Nadal's surface-set becomes less
>> important. Basically nullifies his AO win in direct comparison with
>> Federer.
>
> True - but lets be realistic. Fed won't win the French, and Nadal will
> probably win it standing on one leg and one hand tied behind his
> back...


You never know...as long as Fed makes the finals he has more than a decent
shot.
Agassi was nowhere yet he squeezed one. Fed is a permantnent threat. So...




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:46:27
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:40, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> >>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to
> >>> win more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him
> >>> the greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> >>> surfaces...
>
> >> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
> >> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes
> >> of Sampras' claim?
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
> > negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
> > gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.
>
> I wouldn't never categorically claim Sampras>Laver, but it's difficult to
> say Laver>Sampras.
> Sampras has much more tangible achievements.
>
> Pre 1970- Laver
> Post 1970 - Sampras

Laver won 2 CYGS. Can't get much more tangible than that.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:15:55
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...

"robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:5726c73b-f2a5-40c1-8582-0c31a96bf862@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Feb, 14:40, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>> > On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>> >>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to
>> >>> win more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him
>> >>> the greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>> >>> surfaces...
>>
>> >> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
>> >> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes
>> >> of Sampras' claim?
>>
>> >> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> > If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
>> > negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
>> > gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.
>>
>> I wouldn't never categorically claim Sampras>Laver, but it's difficult to
>> say Laver>Sampras.
>> Sampras has much more tangible achievements.
>>
>> Pre 1970- Laver
>> Post 1970 - Sampras
>
> Laver won 2 CYGS. Can't get much more tangible than that.


one was amatuer, only 5 pro slam titles.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:45:25
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:33, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dc0cf389-69a6-49ad-93a0-1373a88bbde1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > surfaces...
>
> > If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
> > slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
> > Sampras' claim?
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> >If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
> >negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
> >gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.
>
> Agassi up there too?

Agassi got dominated by his main rival and only won one Wimbledon.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:44:08
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:41=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?

I have mentioned that in another thread, that Fed's path to GOAThood
will now have to go thru Nadal. But realistically, its over...


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:00:06
From: john
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...

"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6bfc09d6-3b76-4668-8c4c-a8a1b0f4fe7e@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 8:41 am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?

I have mentioned that in another thread, that Fed's path to GOAThood
will now have to go thru Nadal. But realistically, its over...

Pure BS, Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his last USO
final
to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ? If Federer win another slam
against
any player even if they are not name Nadal he has a really good claim to be
GOAT.
Fed's quest to become GOAT is not over until he is no longer able to win
grand slam.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 19:24:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
john wrote:
> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6bfc09d6-3b76-4668-8c4c-a8a1b0f4fe7e@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 8:41 am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
>>> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
>>> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>>> surfaces...
>> True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?
>
> I have mentioned that in another thread, that Fed's path to GOAThood
> will now have to go thru Nadal. But realistically, its over...
>
> Pure BS, Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his last USO
> final
> to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ?


Why would he? They held no advantage over him in slams. Rafa has a big
6-2 lead v Fed in slams. No one says Fed can't be goat because he's 0-3
v Rafter. Pat is too far down the foodchain & has no GS h2h advantage,
same as Hewitt/Krajicek v Sampras.


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:36:01
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
john wrote:
> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6bfc09d6-3b76-4668-8c4c-a8a1b0f4fe7e@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 8:41 am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to
>>> win more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him
>>> the greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>>> surfaces...
>>
>> True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?
>
> I have mentioned that in another thread, that Fed's path to GOAThood
> will now have to go thru Nadal. But realistically, its over...
> Pure BS, Did Sampras have to go through Hewitt or Krajicek in his
> last USO final
> to win his 14th slam to be consider GOAT ?

It was not neccessary for him to beat them, but in reality he *had to beat
them* as they were the top guys.

Fed can become achievement GOAT he only needs to win FO and one-two more
slams. He doesn't *need* to beat Nadal.
But he'll most likely have to, as Nadal will be on the other side.

In that sense Rahim could be right.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:41:31
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 feb, 15:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...

True BS. What if he wins the next couple of slams by beating Nadal?


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:39:08
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 feb, 14:52, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram.=
Can a
> > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> match is embarrassing.

He cried even worse when he won the title in 2006. He would have
probably cried even if he won today. I think it's just the Laver and
his own ego getting the better of him ;)


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:37:01
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:mFhhl.28621$Sp5.8805@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?

that's not really fair, he should've saved it for the locker room though
really, must've seemed quite awkward to Nadal.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:31:09
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram.
> Can a snap retirement from tennis be far behind?

Rafa cried after Wimbledon 2007.

Nothing wrong with that.
These are huge stakes, the emotions, the pressure, the tensions.

It's all forgotten within a few days.

But I guess it must be hard now. during the process of unfocusing etc.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:24:17
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:19, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to wi=
n
> > > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > > surfaces...
>
> > Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> > one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> > owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> > grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.
>
> Like losing slam finals to him?

Federer's slam final record to Nadal off clay.

4 set win at W 2006
5 set win at W 2007
5 set loss at W 2008
5 set loss at AO 2009

If you are trying to pass that off as being 'owned on all surfaces',
then you are either being dishonest or you are insane.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:19:25
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.

Like losing slam finals to him?


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:19:08
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:08=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
> Sampras' claim?
>
> Joe Ramirez

If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:40:05
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
robin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to
>>> win more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him
>>> the greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>>> surfaces...
>>
>> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
>> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes
>> of Sampras' claim?
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
> negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
> gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.


I wouldn't never categorically claim Sampras >Laver, but it's difficult to
say Laver >Sampras.
Sampras has much more tangible achievements.

Pre 1970- Laver
Post 1970 - Sampras




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:33:47
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
"robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:dc0cf389-69a6-49ad-93a0-1373a88bbde1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
> Sampras' claim?
>
> Joe Ramirez
>
>If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
>negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
>gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.

Agassi up there too?




   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:16:48
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:fpihl.28658$Sp5.1673@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dc0cf389-69a6-49ad-93a0-1373a88bbde1@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Feb, 14:14, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
>> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
>> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>> > surfaces...
>>
>> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
>> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
>> Sampras' claim?
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>If we define the requirements for goat in terms of the absence of
>>negative factors, then surely the best contender is Laver. The only
>>gaps in his cv are related to factors beyond tennis.
>
> Agassi up there too?

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th FO?
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7h Wimbledon?
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th USO?
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th YEC?
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th YEN#1?


in short, no.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:14:56
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 9:08=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...

If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
Sampras' claim?

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 18:16:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
>> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
>> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>> surfaces...
>
> If that is true -- and it may be -- it means that winning the most
> slams is not a sufficient credential for GOAT. So then what becomes of
> Sampras' claim?
>
> Joe Ramirez


Nobody had Sampras' number in slams all through his career, + he has
most slams, Wimbledons, No.1 etc

Roger doesn't have most of anything & is thoroughly owned (5 slam final
losses across all surfaces) by another player.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:14:43
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:13=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> > He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> > more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> > greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> > surfaces...
>
> Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.

Wrong choice of words, sorry - Nadal is simply better on all
surfaces...


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:13:18
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...

Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 18:13:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
robin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 14:08, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
>> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
>> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>> surfaces...
>
> Putting the issue of whether Federer can ever be considered goat to
> one side, he clearly is not owned by Nadal on all surfaces. He is
> owned by Nadal on clay. Nadal does not own Federer on hard court or
> grass. Unless you have some very strange definition of being owned.


er, beating him in last 3 slams finals on grass, HC & clay sounds very
un-weird to me....?



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:08:25
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 7:56=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> True, but he did more than lose a match today..

He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
surfaces...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:36:38
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...

All of this if forgotten if he wins FO...that's the beaty/curse of tennis.

Next major..again..so much to lose for Nadal, so much to win for Federer.

Nadal needs that 5th FO if he wants to claim he's the greatest claycourter
ever. If he fails, tough for him.
Even worse, if Federer wins it, then Nadal's surface-set becomes less
important. Basically nullifies his AO win in direct comparison with Federer.




  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 01:26:11
From: john
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...

"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:d9c04acd-049f-42da-bdab-3cd8f6c0c96c@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> True, but he did more than lose a match today..

He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
surfaces...


Let's take a look at their head to head record

Nadal lead Federer 9:1 on clay
Federer lead Nadal 2:1 on grass
Federer tie Nadal 3:3 on hard court

Does trailing 1:2 on grass and tie at 3:3 on hard court lead to a ownership
on
those surfaces. Learn some mathematics Rahim even grade school kid know
that 1:2 and 3:3 does not mean ownership. What does greatest of all time
actually means ? To most people it means that the player with most of the
grand
slam victories. If Federer go on to win more slam than Sampras then there
is
an argument that Sampras also can never be considered as greatest of all
time
because of lesser number of slam victories and there is also the argument
that
Sampras never delivered the result on clay. Nadal can overtake Federer as
the greatest player ever if he can match Federer in grand slam victories and
if
he does then his dominance of their rivalry will tip the scaler to his
favour but
otherwise Federer will be still regard as the better player purely base on
number
of grand slam victories. Quit trolling Rahim your own stats does not stack
up
very well.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 18:26:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
john wrote:
> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d9c04acd-049f-42da-bdab-3cd8f6c0c96c@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>
> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
> surfaces...
>
>
> Let's take a look at their head to head record
>
> Nadal lead Federer 9:1 on clay
> Federer lead Nadal 2:1 on grass
> Federer tie Nadal 3:3 on hard court
>
> Does trailing 1:2 on grass and tie at 3:3 on hard court lead to a ownership
> on
> those surfaces. Learn some mathematics Rahim even grade school kid know
> that 1:2 and 3:3 does not mean ownership. What does greatest of all time
> actually means ? To most people it means that the player with most of the
> grand
> slam victories. If Federer go on to win more slam than Sampras then there
> is
> an argument that Sampras also can never be considered as greatest of all
> time
> because of lesser number of slam victories and there is also the argument
> that
> Sampras never delivered the result on clay. Nadal can overtake Federer as
> the greatest player ever if he can match Federer in grand slam victories and
> if
> he does then his dominance of their rivalry will tip the scaler to his
> favour but
> otherwise Federer will be still regard as the better player purely base on
> number
> of grand slam victories. Quit trolling Rahim your own stats does not stack
> up
> very well.
>
>


No, Fed will not be regarded as a better player than Rafa with his h2h
record as it currently stands. Fed is greater than Rafa at this point
in time, but nobody considers him better.



    
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:54:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
Whisper wrote:
> john wrote:
>> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d9c04acd-049f-42da-bdab-3cd8f6c0c96c@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 1, 7:56 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> True, but he did more than lose a match today..
>>
>> He lost his shot at GOAThood for good - Roger Federer may go on to win
>> more slams than Pete Sampras, but no one will ever consider him the
>> greatest of all time, since he was owned by his rival on all
>> surfaces...
>>
>>
>> Let's take a look at their head to head record
>>
>> Nadal lead Federer 9:1 on clay
>> Federer lead Nadal 2:1 on grass
>> Federer tie Nadal 3:3 on hard court
>>
>> Does trailing 1:2 on grass and tie at 3:3 on hard court lead to a
>> ownership on
>> those surfaces. Learn some mathematics Rahim even grade school kid know
>> that 1:2 and 3:3 does not mean ownership. What does greatest of all time
>> actually means ? To most people it means that the player with most of
>> the grand
>> slam victories. If Federer go on to win more slam than Sampras then
>> there is
>> an argument that Sampras also can never be considered as greatest of
>> all time
>> because of lesser number of slam victories and there is also the
>> argument that
>> Sampras never delivered the result on clay. Nadal can overtake
>> Federer as
>> the greatest player ever if he can match Federer in grand slam
>> victories and if
>> he does then his dominance of their rivalry will tip the scaler to his
>> favour but
>> otherwise Federer will be still regard as the better player purely
>> base on number
>> of grand slam victories. Quit trolling Rahim your own stats does not
>> stack up
>> very well.
>>
>
>
> No, Fed will not be regarded as a better player than Rafa with his h2h
> record as it currently stands. Fed is greater than Rafa at this point
> in time, but nobody considers him better.
>

Yes. Still greater, not better.

Nadal is and has been all the way better and more talented than Federer.
Even Federer's greatness is only because of his age and the fact that 2
slams are played on hc compared to 1 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: 01 Feb 2009 06:06:09
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:01=A0am, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pra=
m. Can a
> > > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> > He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> > match is embarrassing.
>
> Nothing wrong with crying, it was too much for him to handle and it
> was not just a tennis match.
> Another thing people did not see is how the crowds were standing
> saluting him for a long time, this got to him.

Yes, that's it. He was fine until the crowd wouldn't let him get his
speech out. Clearly this was a pretty shattering loss for Fed, though.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:01:10
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram.=
Can a
> > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> match is embarrassing.

Nothing wrong with crying, it was too much for him to handle and it
was not just a tennis match.
Another thing people did not see is how the crowds were standing
saluting him for a long time, this got to him.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:30:13
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
In article
<100723cd-47e5-4276-a701-4bb21c14d67e@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
wkhedr@my-deja.com (wkhedr) wrote:

>
> Nothing wrong with crying, it was too much for him to handle and it
> was not just a tennis match.
> Another thing people did not see is how the crowds were standing
> saluting him for a long time, this got to him.

Yes. I thought it was the crowd reaction and support, too.

wg


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:56:20
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram.=
Can a
> > > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> match is embarrassing.

True, but he did more than lose a match today..


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:54:06
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:48=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:47=A0am, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e6125ff0-b1c6-43c0-a32e-12c43ee3826a@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> > > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. =
Can a
> > >> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> > I was thinking in terms of the ATP.
>
> I agree. beyond pathetic. He should go for a sex change. He did a
> Novotna today.

Hey, you stole my line. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:52:01
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. C=
an a
> > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> I am not sure why it's embarrassing.

He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
match is embarrassing.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:43:51
From: Trevor Smithson
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 05:52:01 -0800 (PST), robin
<robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 8:46 am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
>> > > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>>
>> > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>>
>> > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
>> > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>>
>> I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
>He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
>match is embarrassing.

Wrong. Crying is acceptable for winners and losers of Grand Slams.
Male or female.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:30:12
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
In article
<a60d048f-2e54-459a-b586-96458ca9cc6c@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com >,
robinson.neil@gmail.com (robin) wrote:

>
> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> match is embarrassing.

He'd have cried as much or more if he'd won it; we've seen it before. He's
an emotional guy, and he controls it as long as he has to throughout
matches and tournaments. I don't have a problem with it.

Maybe you think it's more "manly" to handle the emotions by being a jerk
like McEnroe, Connors, and sometimes Roddick, or whatever, but lots of
people don't see it that way.

wg


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 23:24:06
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <a60d048f-2e54-459a-b586-96458ca9cc6c@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> robinson.neil@gmail.com (robin) wrote:
>
>>
>> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
>> match is embarrassing.
>
> He'd have cried as much or more if he'd won it; we've seen it before.
> He's an emotional guy, and he controls it as long as he has to
> throughout matches and tournaments. I don't have a problem with it.
>
> Maybe you think it's more "manly" to handle the emotions by being a
> jerk like McEnroe, Connors, and sometimes Roddick, or whatever, but
> lots of people don't see it that way.
>
> wg

Well said.




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:33:28
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
robin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 13:49, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 8:46 am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the
>>>> pram. Can a snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>>
>>> It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>>
>>> Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
>>> Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>>
>> I am not sure why it's embarrassing.
>
> He's a 27 year old man. Crying like a baby because you lost a tennis
> match is embarrassing.


He didn't lose a tennis match, he lost a slam final, and a slam final worth
much more in historic terms.
It's perfectly ok for emotions to burst out.

I don't know what's wrong with you people..when you're over excited
sometimes you just cry..even because of the happiness.





 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:49:14
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:46=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can=
a
> > snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.

I am not sure why it's embarrassing.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:48:19
From:
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 7:47=A0am, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6125ff0-b1c6-43c0-a32e-12c43ee3826a@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Ca=
n a
> >> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> > It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> > Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> > Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.
>
> I was thinking in terms of the ATP.

I agree. beyond pathetic. He should go for a sex change. He did a
Novotna today.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:46:01
From: robin
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?

It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...

Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:47:14
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
"robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:e6125ff0-b1c6-43c0-a32e-12c43ee3826a@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Feb, 13:42, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
>> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?
>
> It was pretty embarrassing, but there have clearly been worse...
>
> Henin quitting rather than letting Mauresmo take the win.
> Or Serena's - I lost the match, rather than her winning it.




I was thinking in terms of the ATP.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:45:43
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Most undignified runner up ever...
On Feb 1, 8:42=A0am, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> Blubbing like a child whose rattle has just fallen out of the pram. Can a
> snap retirement from tennis be far behind?

These two are champions that don't like lose but what do you know.