tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 29 Jan 2009 12:08:09
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the past 4 years and only once ever !

Yes, 4 of his 5 slam wins have been against Roger with all but one
being on "clay".

His ONLY other slam win was at the 2005 FO against a convicted drug
taker Mariano Puerta who was *again* convicted of drug taking after
that match thus casting doubt on Rafa's victory.

The point is that Rafa's slam success is almost entirely based on
finals - finals with Federer alone.

This is more than "weird" since everybody knows that Roger (who has 13
slams himself) has a matchup issue with Rafa on clay.

It suggests that Rafa is *not* a true multi-slam champion because
he has beaten only ONE slam winner himself, albeit Roger Federer, and
we all know that ONE/ONCE can be an accident. Or in this case, due to
a matchup anomoly.

The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.

Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.

I hereby disqualify Raphael Nadal from any consideration as a
multi-slam champion until he does otherwise it is just so fucking
WEIRD !




 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 16:14:35
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for
So beating double digit slammer is not that good...Sounds like somewhat
desperate argument imo...

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


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 05:24:59
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the

>
> The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
> champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
> has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.
>
> Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.
>

So, you want Roger to lose before the final every time so that Rafa
can beat someone else? THAT is weird.



  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 16:25:00
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the
On Jan 29, 4:21=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:24:59 -0800 (PST), GOAT
>
> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
> >> champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
> >> has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.
>
> >> Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.
>
> >So, you want Roger to lose before the final every time so that Rafa
> >can beat someone else? THAT is weird.
>
> i am saying that without Fed Rafa would not have won 5 slams. Rafa
> depends on Fed to "clear the deck" for him and then beats Fed because
> he has match-up issues with him.
>
> until Rafa beats some other slam winner in a few finals his legacy is
> going to be "suspect".
>
> Imagine if Sampras only ever beat Agassi in slam finals ? Pete wins 14
> slams all by beating Agassi and nobody else ? See how WEIRD that is ?
> Well Rafa only beating Fed is getting to be just as WEIRD.

++ Though we both know that Rafa would LOVE to get to a slam final and
NOT have to beat Fed to win one... he must be thinking, "When will
this guy go away?"

P


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 16:23:56
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the
On Jan 29, 7:21=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:24:59 -0800 (PST), GOAT
>
> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
> >> champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
> >> has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.
>
> >> Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.
>
> >So, you want Roger to lose before the final every time so that Rafa
> >can beat someone else? THAT is weird.
>
> i am saying that without Fed Rafa would not have won 5 slams. Rafa
> depends on Fed to "clear the deck" for him and then beats Fed because
> he has match-up issues with him.
>
> until Rafa beats some other slam winner in a few finals his legacy is
> going to be "suspect".
>
> Imagine if Sampras only ever beat Agassi in slam finals ? Pete wins 14
> slams all by beating Agassi and nobody else ? See how WEIRD that is ?
> Well Rafa only beating Fed is getting to be just as WEIRD.

While Uncle Tony *clears the deck* on his side of the draw, right Dave?


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 23:13:52
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> Yes, 4 of his 5 slam wins have been against Roger with all but one
> being on "clay".


You expect something different in clown era? Which clown was likely to
step up?


>
> His ONLY other slam win was at the 2005 FO against a convicted drug
> taker Mariano Puerta who was *again* convicted of drug taking after
> that match thus casting doubt on Rafa's victory.


Rafa already demolished Federer in semis so bona fide win no?



>
> The point is that Rafa's slam success is almost entirely based on
> finals - finals with Federer alone.
>
> This is more than "weird" since everybody knows that Roger (who has 13
> slams himself) has a matchup issue with Rafa on clay.
>
> It suggests that Rafa is *not* a true multi-slam champion because
> he has beaten only ONE slam winner himself, albeit Roger Federer, and
> we all know that ONE/ONCE can be an accident. Or in this case, due to
> a matchup anomoly.
>
> The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
> champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
> has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.
>
> Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.


If Fed is goat then this is his most impressive stat - completely owning
the goat in slams.



>
> I hereby disqualify Raphael Nadal from any consideration as a
> multi-slam champion until he does otherwise it is just so fucking
> WEIRD !



I explained this to you years ago - clown era. How else to explain 2
guys winning 5 straight Wim, USO & FO?


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 05:36:18
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the
On Jan 29, 7:13=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > Yes, 4 of his 5 slam wins have been against Roger with all but one
> > being on "clay".
>
> You expect something different in clown era? =A0Which clown was likely to
> step up?
>
>
>
> > His ONLY other slam win was =A0at the 2005 FO against a convicted drug
> > taker Mariano Puerta who was *again* convicted of drug taking after
> > that match thus casting doubt on Rafa's victory.
>
> Rafa already demolished Federer in semis so bona fide win no?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The point is that Rafa's slam success is almost entirely based on
> > finals - =A0finals with Federer alone.
>
> > This is more than "weird" since everybody knows that Roger (who has 13
> > slams himself) has a matchup issue with Rafa on clay.
>
> > It suggests that Rafa is *not* a true multi-slam champion because
> > he has beaten only ONE slam winner himself, albeit Roger Federer, and
> > we all know that ONE/ONCE can be an accident. Or in this case, due to
> > a matchup anomoly.
>
> > The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
> > champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
> > has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.
>
> > Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.
>
> If Fed is goat then this is his most impressive stat - completely owning
> the goat in slams.
>
>
>
> > I hereby disqualify Raphael Nadal from any consideration as a
> > multi-slam champion until he does otherwise it is just so fucking
> > WEIRD !
>
> I explained this to you years ago - clown era. =A0How else to explain 2
> guys winning 5 straight Wim, USO & FO?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pete coulda been close to as dominant as Fed at peak with a little
more luck. He very
likely woulda won 94 and 99 USOs if he hadn't been injured.

That woulda meant 7 out of 8 Wimbys and 5 out of 7 USOs. And almost no
one calls that a clown era.


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 04:23:14
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the
On Jan 29, 7:13=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > Yes, 4 of his 5 slam wins have been against Roger with all but one
> > being on "clay".
>
> You expect something different in clown era? =A0Which clown was likely to
> step up?
>
>
>
> > His ONLY other slam win was =A0at the 2005 FO against a convicted drug
> > taker Mariano Puerta who was *again* convicted of drug taking after
> > that match thus casting doubt on Rafa's victory.
>
> Rafa already demolished Federer in semis so bona fide win no?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The point is that Rafa's slam success is almost entirely based on
> > finals - =A0finals with Federer alone.
>
> > This is more than "weird" since everybody knows that Roger (who has 13
> > slams himself) has a matchup issue with Rafa on clay.
>
> > It suggests that Rafa is *not* a true multi-slam champion because
> > he has beaten only ONE slam winner himself, albeit Roger Federer, and
> > we all know that ONE/ONCE can be an accident. Or in this case, due to
> > a matchup anomoly.
>
> > The conclusion must be that for Rafa to be considered a "legitimate"
> > champion he must beat several more prior slam champions just as Roger
> > has done (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi,Nadal,etc) in slam finals.
>
> > Beating Roger alone just is *not* good enough.
>
> If Fed is goat then this is his most impressive stat - completely owning
> the goat in slams.
>
>
>
> > I hereby disqualify Raphael Nadal from any consideration as a
> > multi-slam champion until he does otherwise it is just so fucking
> > WEIRD !
>
> I explained this to you years ago - clown era. =A0How else to explain 2
> guys winning 5 straight Wim, USO & FO?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The two guys must be very good.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 04:13:03
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Nadal has not won a slam final against anyone but Federer for the
What are you talking about? Relax man!