tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:28:32
From: Giovanna
Subject: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929

www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951

Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
#1 spot




 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 06:04:02
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 9, 8:16=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wro=
te:
>
> >>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Giovanna" <giovana...@bol.com.br> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year =
end
> >>>>>>> #1 spot
> >>>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
> >>>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymo=
re
> >>>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
> >>>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including cla=
y.
> >>>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desper=
ate.
>
> >>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>
> >>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?
>
> >> Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
> >> fuck you.
>
> > And you have been saying that Fed won't win a slam, and won't win 2
> > slams, and won't win 3 slams, and won't win 4 slams, and won't win 5
> > slams, and won't win 6 slams, and won't win 7 slams, and won't win 8
> > slams, and won't win 9 slams, and won't win 10 slams, and won't win 11
> > slams, and won't win 12 slams, and won't win 13 slams. So, as they
> > would say in Newcastle, fuck you.
>
> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. =A0You must judge m=
e
> against that.-

Yes, we know your secret. Only your correct predictions *count*

Maybe that's the key to your *success* on court as well? Only the
points you win *count*

So after 7 hours on court you *win* 6-0, 6-0.


 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 05:01:46
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 8:39=A0pm, ca1houn <vageta95...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> gionanna their =A0just bang-wager i give's a fuck if fed break pete
> record i like federer style of tennis. if it happens then it happens

Wow, you should take some online English courses.....


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 18:53:29
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 9:37=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> "Giovanna" <giovana...@bol.com.br> wrote in message
> >>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> >>>> #1 spot
>
> >>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
> >>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
> >>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>
> >> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>
> >Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>
> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>
> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?-

You deserve exactly as much credit for any correct predictions about
Rafa losing as Whisper
does for any correct predictions about Fed losing.


  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 03:39:45
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:53:29 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 8, 9:37 pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Giovanna" <giovana...@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>> >>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>> >>>> #1 spot
>>
>> >>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>> >>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>> >>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>
>> >> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>
>> >Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>
>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>>
>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?-
>
>You deserve exactly as much credit for any correct predictions about
>Rafa losing as Whisper
>does for any correct predictions about Fed losing.


yeah but this is a *biggie*


 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 10:09:28
From: Ezran
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~

"Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br > wrote in message
news:9f0c8750-1f6f-42ee-9c66-c5ce323f20ee@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>
> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> #1 spot

Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the earlier
rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore (on any court),
though I'd like to see it.







  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 16:25:09
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
In article <4966b1d2$1_2@news.tm.net.my >, ezran6006@hotmail.com (Ezran)
wrote:

>
> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
> news:9f0c8750-1f6f-42ee-9c66-c5ce323f20ee@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.co
> m...
> > www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
> >
> > www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
> >
> > Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year
> > end
> > #1 spot
>
> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal
> anymore (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>
>

I'd think he should be more worried about Murray who is more likely than
Nadal to be in a lot of hard court finals and semis.

wg


  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 13:25:20
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Ezran wrote:
> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
> news:9f0c8750-1f6f-42ee-9c66-c5ce323f20ee@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>>
>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>>
>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>> #1 spot
>
> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.

He'd probably still be favourite on fast HC, and about evens on grass.




  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 02:11:14
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>
>"Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>news:9f0c8750-1f6f-42ee-9c66-c5ce323f20ee@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>>
>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>>
>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>> #1 spot
>
>Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the earlier
>rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore (on any court),
>though I'd like to see it.
>


I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.


   
Date: 09 Jan 2009 13:24:03
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>> #1 spot
>>
>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>
> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.

Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.




    
Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:25:02
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:Azy9l.4$1s6.1@newsfe01.iad...
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>> #1 spot
>>>
>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>
>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>
> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.

this is the guy who believes Nadal hasn't won Wimbledon yet.




     
Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:17:51
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:25:02 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>news:Azy9l.4$1s6.1@newsfe01.iad...
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>> #1 spot
>>>>
>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>>
>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>
>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>
>this is the guy who believes Nadal hasn't won Wimbledon yet.
>


only if cheating counts. he's a cheat. the whole world knows it. there
are only those that admit it and those that don't.


    
Date: 09 Jan 2009 02:37:16
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>> #1 spot
>>>
>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>
>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>
>Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>


Oh but I *do* believe it !

You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?


     
Date: 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>> #1 spot
>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>
>
>
> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>
> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?


Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
fuck you.



      
Date: 09 Jan 2009 15:13:44
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>>> #1 spot
>>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>>
>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?
>
>
>Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
>fuck you.

And you have been saying that Fed won't win a slam, and won't win 2
slams, and won't win 3 slams, and won't win 4 slams, and won't win 5
slams, and won't win 6 slams, and won't win 7 slams, and won't win 8
slams, and won't win 9 slams, and won't win 10 slams, and won't win 11
slams, and won't win 12 slams, and won't win 13 slams. So, as they
would say in Newcastle, fuck you.


       
Date: 10 Jan 2009 00:16:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>>>> #1 spot
>>>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>>>
>>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?
>>
>> Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
>> fuck you.
>
> And you have been saying that Fed won't win a slam, and won't win 2
> slams, and won't win 3 slams, and won't win 4 slams, and won't win 5
> slams, and won't win 6 slams, and won't win 7 slams, and won't win 8
> slams, and won't win 9 slams, and won't win 10 slams, and won't win 11
> slams, and won't win 12 slams, and won't win 13 slams. So, as they
> would say in Newcastle, fuck you.



My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must judge me
against that.



        
Date: 11 Jan 2009 05:15:00
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 11, 3:34=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On 10 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 10, 11:44 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 10 Jan., 18:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 10, 7:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com=
.au >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iine=
t.net.au >,
> >>>>>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. =A0You mu=
st
> >>>>>>>>> judge me against that.
> >>>>>>>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
> >>>>>>>> wg
> >>>>>>> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
> >>>>>> No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
> >>>>>> you LOSE.
> >>>>> No it wasn't. =A0It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of yo=
ur
> >>>> original prediction and three likely scenarios:
> >>>> a. Roddick would dominate
> >>>> b. Fed would dominate
> >>>> c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
> >>>> (meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)
> >>>> You chose a, as many did at the time.
> >>>> Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
> >>>> have a better career than
> >>>> Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a coup=
le
> >>>> of losses to Murray in Slam finals.
> >>>> You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a gre=
at
> >>>> champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
> >>>> aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
> >>>> the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGur=
l
> >>>> knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.
> >>> I think Whimpy is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is
> >>> wrong. So when he talks about "core prediction" and stuff like that,
> >>> you have to assume that he has raised the white flag. He speaks a
> >>> different language. Whimpy is very shy, very coy, very fragile. He
> >>> thinks admitting his wrongs will make him look weak and people will
> >>> jump on him and he won't be able to take it.
> >>> Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
> >>> his formative years.-
> >> I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
> >> fragile at the same time.
>
> > He is a troll and good at masking his weakness. But you know what his
> > weakest point is. Sampras. And then maybe McEnroe.
>
> >> He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
> >> nothing when others return the favor.
>
> > Oh no, he does. The more he screams and squirms, the more you know he
> > does. That's his way of letting it out of the system.
>
> Incorrect. =A0The other guy was right - I feel nothing reading the
> naysayers as they don't know how to make a coherent argument.-

I bet you feel nothing whether the argument is coherent or not. Hope
I'm wrong.


        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 17:46:35
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On 11 Jan., 07:45, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
> > > his formative years.-
>
> > I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
> > fragile at the same time.
>
> > He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
> > nothing when others return the favor.
>
> Correct - he may be many things but fragile is not one of them. It's
> all water off a duck's back to him.

That's what he wants you to think.


        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 17:45:29
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
> > Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
> > his formative years.-
>
> I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
> fragile at the same time.
>
> He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
> nothing when others return the favor.

Correct - he may be many things but fragile is not one of them. It's
all water off a duck's back to him.



         
Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:36:52
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
>>> his formative years.-
>> I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
>> fragile at the same time.
>>
>> He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
>> nothing when others return the favor.
>
> Correct - he may be many things but fragile is not one of them. It's
> all water off a duck's back to him.
>



It's like being flogged with wet lettuce - need substance to impress me
- most arguments read like Haze's 'ha ha ha' idiocy.





        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:56:42
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 10, 11:44=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 10 Jan., 18:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 7:42=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.=
au >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > > >>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet=
.net.au >,
> > > >>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> > > >>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. =A0You mus=
t
> > > >>>> judge me against that.
>
> > > >>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>
> > > >>> wg
>
> > > >> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>
> > > > No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>
> > > > you LOSE.
>
> > > No it wasn't. =A0It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of your
> > original prediction and three likely scenarios:
>
> > a. Roddick would dominate
> > b. Fed would dominate
> > c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
> > (meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)
>
> > You chose a, as many did at the time.
>
> > Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
> > have a better career than
> > Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a couple
> > of losses to Murray in Slam finals.
>
> > You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a great
> > champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
> > aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
> > the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGurl
> > knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.
>
> I think Whimpy is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is
> wrong. So when he talks about "core prediction" and stuff like that,
> you have to assume that he has raised the white flag. He speaks a
> different language. Whimpy is very shy, very coy, very fragile. He
> thinks admitting his wrongs will make him look weak and people will
> jump on him and he won't be able to take it.
>
> Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
> his formative years.-

I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
fragile at the same time.

He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
nothing when others return the favor.


        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 09:16:41
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On 10 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:44=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Jan., 18:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 10, 7:42=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.co=
m.au >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > > > >>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iin=
et.net.au >,
> > > > >>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. =A0You m=
ust
> > > > >>>> judge me against that.
>
> > > > >>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>
> > > > >>> wg
>
> > > > >> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>
> > > > > No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>
> > > > > you LOSE.
>
> > > > No it wasn't. =A0It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of you=
r
> > > original prediction and three likely scenarios:
>
> > > a. Roddick would dominate
> > > b. Fed would dominate
> > > c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
> > > (meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)
>
> > > You chose a, as many did at the time.
>
> > > Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
> > > have a better career than
> > > Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a coupl=
e
> > > of losses to Murray in Slam finals.
>
> > > You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a grea=
t
> > > champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
> > > aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
> > > the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGurl
> > > knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.
>
> > I think Whimpy is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is
> > wrong. So when he talks about "core prediction" and stuff like that,
> > you have to assume that he has raised the white flag. He speaks a
> > different language. Whimpy is very shy, very coy, very fragile. He
> > thinks admitting his wrongs will make him look weak and people will
> > jump on him and he won't be able to take it.
>
> > Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
> > his formative years.-
>
> I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
> fragile at the same time.
>

He is a troll and good at masking his weakness. But you know what his
weakest point is. Sampras. And then maybe McEnroe.

> He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
> nothing when others return the favor.

Oh no, he does. The more he screams and squirms, the more you know he
does. That's his way of letting it out of the system.


         
Date: 11 Jan 2009 19:34:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 10 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 11:44 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Jan., 18:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 10, 7:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>>>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must
>>>>>>>>> judge me against that.
>>>>>>>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>>>>>>>> wg
>>>>>>> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>>>>>> No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>>>>>> you LOSE.
>>>>> No it wasn't. It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of your
>>>> original prediction and three likely scenarios:
>>>> a. Roddick would dominate
>>>> b. Fed would dominate
>>>> c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
>>>> (meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)
>>>> You chose a, as many did at the time.
>>>> Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
>>>> have a better career than
>>>> Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a couple
>>>> of losses to Murray in Slam finals.
>>>> You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a great
>>>> champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
>>>> aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
>>>> the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGurl
>>>> knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.
>>> I think Whimpy is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is
>>> wrong. So when he talks about "core prediction" and stuff like that,
>>> you have to assume that he has raised the white flag. He speaks a
>>> different language. Whimpy is very shy, very coy, very fragile. He
>>> thinks admitting his wrongs will make him look weak and people will
>>> jump on him and he won't be able to take it.
>>> Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
>>> his formative years.-
>> I'd disagree with the fragile part. You can't be a troll and be
>> fragile at the same time.
>>
>
> He is a troll and good at masking his weakness. But you know what his
> weakest point is. Sampras. And then maybe McEnroe.
>
>> He knows his *digs* inflict their damage, while he probably feels
>> nothing when others return the favor.
>
> Oh no, he does. The more he screams and squirms, the more you know he
> does. That's his way of letting it out of the system.


Incorrect. The other guy was right - I feel nothing reading the
naysayers as they don't know how to make a coherent argument.



        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:44:48
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On 10 Jan., 18:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 7:42=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > >>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.n=
et.au >,
> > >>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> > >>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. =A0You must
> > >>>> judge me against that.
>
> > >>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>
> > >>> wg
>
> > >> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>
> > > No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>
> > > you LOSE.
>
> > No it wasn't. =A0It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of your
> original prediction and three likely scenarios:
>
> a. Roddick would dominate
> b. Fed would dominate
> c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
> (meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)
>
> You chose a, as many did at the time.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
> have a better career than
> Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a couple
> of losses to Murray in Slam finals.
>
> You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a great
> champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
> aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
> the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGurl
> knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.

I think Whimpy is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is
wrong. So when he talks about "core prediction" and stuff like that,
you have to assume that he has raised the white flag. He speaks a
different language. Whimpy is very shy, very coy, very fragile. He
thinks admitting his wrongs will make him look weak and people will
jump on him and he won't be able to take it.

Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
his formative years.


         
Date: 11 Jan 2009 19:31:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 10 Jan., 18:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 7:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>>>>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>>>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must
>>>>>>> judge me against that.
>>>>>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>>>>>> wg
>>>>> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>>>> No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>>>> you LOSE.
>>> No it wasn't. It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of your
>> original prediction and three likely scenarios:
>>
>> a. Roddick would dominate
>> b. Fed would dominate
>> c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
>> (meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)
>>
>> You chose a, as many did at the time.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
>> have a better career than
>> Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a couple
>> of losses to Murray in Slam finals.
>>
>> You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a great
>> champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
>> aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
>> the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGurl
>> knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.
>
> I think Whimpy is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is
> wrong. So when he talks about "core prediction" and stuff like that,
> you have to assume that he has raised the white flag. He speaks a
> different language. Whimpy is very shy, very coy, very fragile. He
> thinks admitting his wrongs will make him look weak and people will
> jump on him and he won't be able to take it.
>
> Probably got burned a lot by his mom or dad or someone close during
> his formative years.


Weak effort - you'd make a poor psychologist.

The most traumatic experience I had was shitting my pants in kindergarten.



        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:31:11
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 10, 11:19=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> We are not in 2006 anymore.

That has zero to do with my post.


        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:19:24
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
We are not in 2006 anymore.



        
Date: 10 Jan 2009 04:59:34
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 10, 7:42=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net=
.au >,
> >>> beaver...@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
> >>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. =A0You must
> >>>> judge me against that.
>
> >>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>
> >>> wg
>
> >> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>
> > No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>
> > you LOSE.
>
> No it wasn't. =A0It was always 5-12.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The point is there were 2 main guys to choose from at the time of your
original prediction and three likely scenarios:

a. Roddick would dominate
b. Fed would dominate
c. Both would get their handful of Slams but neither would dominate
(meaning others like Hewitt Safin would get 3-4 Slams)

You chose a, as many did at the time.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's like if someone now picks Djoke to
have a better career than
Murray and Murray ends up with 7 Slams and Djoke 1, including a couple
of losses to Murray in Slam finals.

You can't say after the fact "if not for Murray Djoke would be a great
champ" because we can be almost sure that just a handful of guys now
aged 20-23 are going to be racking up the lion's share of Slams over
the next few years. The point is to choose the right one. Even MZGurl
knows Simon isn't going to be the guy.


        
Date: 09 Jan 2009 16:25:10
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must
> judge me against that.
>

Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?

wg


         
Date: 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must
>> judge me against that.
>>
>
> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>
> wg


It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.



          
Date: 10 Jan 2009 19:34:20
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
In article <49687f6e$0$28479$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
>
> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>

I'll accept that it was 5-12.

I really don't think I believe the 7-8 claim. Other than the 2003 US Open
win, he's made two Wimbledon finals and one other US Open final. He has
four semis. GRanted, he lost all three finals and two of the semis, one AO
and one W, to Federer.

But he also lost two other AO semis to Schuettler and Hewitt. I just don't
see how you can assume he'd have won all the Slams where he lost to
Federer if there'd been no Federer.

wg


           
Date: 12 Jan 2009 00:13:05
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <49687f6e$0$28479$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>>
>
> I'll accept that it was 5-12.
>
> I really don't think I believe the 7-8 claim. Other than the 2003 US Open
> win, he's made two Wimbledon finals and one other US Open final. He has
> four semis. GRanted, he lost all three finals and two of the semis, one AO
> and one W, to Federer.
>
> But he also lost two other AO semis to Schuettler and Hewitt. I just don't
> see how you can assume he'd have won all the Slams where he lost to
> Federer if there'd been no Federer.

Exactly - also lost USO04 (defending champion) QF to Joachim Johansson, with
all the home crowd on his side. Or the USO 05 *first round* against Muller. Or
04 AO QF to Safin.

And there's also Whisper's assertion that Roddick would win a FO - where he
never went past the 2nd round after that prediction (he did have a 3R in his
first FO)


          
Date: 10 Jan 2009 11:20:16
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>
>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must
>>> judge me against that.
>>>
>>
>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>>
>> wg
>
>
>It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.


No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !

you LOSE.


           
Date: 10 Jan 2009 23:42:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:58:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article <49674e4a$0$28503$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>>>
>>>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must
>>>> judge me against that.
>>>>
>>> Was Roddick to win 10-12 Slams also a core prediction?
>>>
>>> wg
>>
>> It was 5-12 - no Fed & he'd be at 7 or 8 now.
>
>
> No whisper. It *was* 12. And Fed kicked his arse real good !
>
> you LOSE.


No it wasn't. It was always 5-12.



        
Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:15:38
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>>>>> #1 spot
>>>>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>>>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>>>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>>>>
>>>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?
>>>
>>> Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
>>> fuck you.
>>
>> And you have been saying that Fed won't win a slam, and won't win 2
>> slams, and won't win 3 slams, and won't win 4 slams, and won't win 5
>> slams, and won't win 6 slams, and won't win 7 slams, and won't win 8
>> slams, and won't win 9 slams, and won't win 10 slams, and won't win 11
>> slams, and won't win 12 slams, and won't win 13 slams. So, as they
>> would say in Newcastle, fuck you.
>
> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must judge me
> against that.

It's amazing that after all this time you still don't get that google archives
every post you make. We all *know*, and can verify, that you said Federer
wasn't special, wouldn't defend his first wimbledon, would have a "Changian"
career, would not win any more slams when he got to 3, would win no slams in
2005, etc.

This "core prediction" bullshit is just moving the goalposts. Of course that's
your core prediction - it's all you have left since Federer is knocking on
Sampras' door.


         
Date: 09 Jan 2009 15:51:50
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:15:38 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>>>>>> #1 spot
>>>>>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>>>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>>>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>>>>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>>>>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>>>>>
>>>>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?
>>>>
>>>> Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
>>>> fuck you.
>>>
>>> And you have been saying that Fed won't win a slam, and won't win 2
>>> slams, and won't win 3 slams, and won't win 4 slams, and won't win 5
>>> slams, and won't win 6 slams, and won't win 7 slams, and won't win 8
>>> slams, and won't win 9 slams, and won't win 10 slams, and won't win 11
>>> slams, and won't win 12 slams, and won't win 13 slams. So, as they
>>> would say in Newcastle, fuck you.
>>
>> My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must judge me
>> against that.
>
>It's amazing that after all this time you still don't get that google archives
>every post you make. We all *know*, and can verify, that you said Federer
>wasn't special, wouldn't defend his first wimbledon, would have a "Changian"
>career, would not win any more slams when he got to 3, would win no slams in
>2005, etc.
>
>This "core prediction" bullshit is just moving the goalposts. Of course that's
>your core prediction - it's all you have left since Federer is knocking on
>Sampras' door.


He is just really really pissed off that it is Federer 1 Sampras 0 at
the World Championships.

It sticks in his craw and he is choking on it.


        
Date: 09 Jan 2009 15:24:02
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:16:55 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:01:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:24:03 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:09:28 +0800, "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Giovanna" <giovanapel@bol.com.br> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>>>>>> #1 spot
>>>>>>> Needs a lot of help from other players to take Nadal out in the
>>>>>>> earlier rounds. I don't think he has it in him to beat Nadal anymore
>>>>>>> (on any court), though I'd like to see it.
>>>>>> I think he will demolish Rafa this year on all courts including clay.
>>>>> Stop saying things you don't believe. It only makes you sound desperate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh but I *do* believe it !
>>>>
>>>> You wait and see and then be sure to pay me homage ok ?
>>>
>>> Fuck off cunt you've been saying Rafa would lose at FO last 4 yrs so
>>> fuck you.
>>
>> And you have been saying that Fed won't win a slam, and won't win 2
>> slams, and won't win 3 slams, and won't win 4 slams, and won't win 5
>> slams, and won't win 6 slams, and won't win 7 slams, and won't win 8
>> slams, and won't win 9 slams, and won't win 10 slams, and won't win 11
>> slams, and won't win 12 slams, and won't win 13 slams. So, as they
>> would say in Newcastle, fuck you.
>
>
>
>My core prediction was he won't beat Sampras' record. You must judge me
>against that.

LOL



 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:39:25
From: ca1houn
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 2:28=A0pm, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br > wrote:
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D929
>
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D951
>
> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> #1 spot

gionanna their just bang-wager i give's a fuck if fed break pete
record i like federer style of tennis. if it happens then it happens


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:12:23
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 6:02=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:43:24 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >Giovanna wrote:
> >>www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D929
>
> >>www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D951
>
> >> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> >> #1 spot
>
> >That's aura in work. These predictions have a nice way to prove
> >themselves because same players will choke against Federer.
> >Roger should be very careful not to lose his aura early in the year.
>
> So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?
>
> >Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?
>
> Seems to me most of them said Federer or Nadal.
>
> Personally I would say Nadal or even Murray. I find it hard to believe
> Federer would get back to #1. I find it easier to believe he will win
> 1-2 slams.

Again, why is that so hard to believe? Would you have said you thought
Agassi would get back to No.1
in 1997? What about Lendl in 1988? or Sampras in early 1998? Or
Connors in 1980?


  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 01:29:38
From: TT
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 8, 6:02 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:43:24 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Giovanna wrote:
>>>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>>>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>>>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>>>> #1 spot
>>> That's aura in work. These predictions have a nice way to prove
>>> themselves because same players will choke against Federer.
>>> Roger should be very careful not to lose his aura early in the year.
>> So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?
>>
>>> Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?
>> Seems to me most of them said Federer or Nadal.
>>
>> Personally I would say Nadal or even Murray. I find it hard to believe
>> Federer would get back to #1. I find it easier to believe he will win
>> 1-2 slams.
>
> Again, why is that so hard to believe? Would you have said you thought
> Agassi would get back to No.1
> in 1997? What about Lendl in 1988? or Sampras in early 1998? Or
> Connors in 1980?

A stat: Lendl is the only player who has regained his year end #1 after
losing it.

--
"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: 09 Jan 2009 01:19:27
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:12:23 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 8, 6:02 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:43:24 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >Giovanna wrote:
>> >>www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>>
>> >>www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>>
>> >> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>> >> #1 spot
>>
>> >That's aura in work. These predictions have a nice way to prove
>> >themselves because same players will choke against Federer.
>> >Roger should be very careful not to lose his aura early in the year.
>>
>> So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?
>>
>> >Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?
>>
>> Seems to me most of them said Federer or Nadal.
>>
>> Personally I would say Nadal or even Murray. I find it hard to believe
>> Federer would get back to #1. I find it easier to believe he will win
>> 1-2 slams.
>
>Again, why is that so hard to believe? Would you have said you thought
>Agassi would get back to No.1
>in 1997? What about Lendl in 1988? or Sampras in early 1998? Or
>Connors in 1980?

Probably no in all the cases. Don't remember that closely the
situation with Lendl in 1988. Of course Fed can do it. But I don't
think it is very likely. He has three very good young hungry
contenders. And I think his main goal is to win slams, not to get #1.
Of course, if he does really well at slams, he will get that too.






 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:07:11
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 2:56=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 5:38 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> GET OVER IT
>
> >> fed will likely never be no.1 again. But he will break samp 14... you
> >> can look forward to that.
>
> > Why do you see that as *likely*?
>
> > Sampras regained the No. 1 ranking three different times at age 27 and
> > then again at age
> > 29.
>
> > Agassi regained the No. 1 ranking at age 29 and then again at age 33.
>
> > Lendl and Connors both regained No. at age 30.
>
> > I'd say considering Fed's stature in the game it would be mildly
> > surprising if he doesn't regain No. 1, unless of
> > course he doesn't care about his ranking and focuses exclusively on
> > the Slams.
>
> Recent comments suggest that losing no. 1 bugs him quite a bit.

That's great if it gives him something to play for, but he's crazy if
he lets that pursuit get in the way of more important ones.


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:56:24
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 5:28=A0pm, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br > wrote:
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D929
>
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D951
>
> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> #1 spot

Not easy to do although all he needed last year was some luck closing
some matches that would have earned him few titles.

On the other side, he has not done well in most of the tournaments
outside the slams last year, and any improvements there should get him
a lot of points.

But I don't think he cares about it or winning small tournaments any
more, his primary focus is on winning slams.



 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:50:38
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 5:38=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> GET OVER IT
>
> fed will likely never be no.1 again. But he will break samp 14... you
> can look forward to that.

Why do you see that as *likely*?

Sampras regained the No. 1 ranking three different times at age 27 and
then again at age
29.

Agassi regained the No. 1 ranking at age 29 and then again at age 33.

Lendl and Connors both regained No. at age 30.

I'd say considering Fed's stature in the game it would be mildly
surprising if he doesn't regain No. 1, unless of
course he doesn't care about his ranking and focuses exclusively on
the Slams.


  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 09:56:41
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:38 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> GET OVER IT
>>
>> fed will likely never be no.1 again. But he will break samp 14... you
>> can look forward to that.
>
> Why do you see that as *likely*?
>
> Sampras regained the No. 1 ranking three different times at age 27 and
> then again at age
> 29.
>
> Agassi regained the No. 1 ranking at age 29 and then again at age 33.
>
> Lendl and Connors both regained No. at age 30.
>
> I'd say considering Fed's stature in the game it would be mildly
> surprising if he doesn't regain No. 1, unless of
> course he doesn't care about his ranking and focuses exclusively on
> the Slams.

Recent comments suggest that losing no. 1 bugs him quite a bit.




   
Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:22:41
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:axv9l.365$oO2.2@newsfe04.iad...
> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 5:38 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> GET OVER IT
>>>
>>> fed will likely never be no.1 again. But he will break samp 14... you
>>> can look forward to that.
>>
>> Why do you see that as *likely*?
>>
>> Sampras regained the No. 1 ranking three different times at age 27 and
>> then again at age
>> 29.
>>
>> Agassi regained the No. 1 ranking at age 29 and then again at age 33.
>>
>> Lendl and Connors both regained No. at age 30.
>>
>> I'd say considering Fed's stature in the game it would be mildly
>> surprising if he doesn't regain No. 1, unless of
>> course he doesn't care about his ranking and focuses exclusively on
>> the Slams.
>
> Recent comments suggest that losing no. 1 bugs him quite a bit.

it meant that as of Jan 1st 2009, all talk of him being GOAT was finished.




 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 00:43:24
From: TT
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
Giovanna wrote:
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>
> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> #1 spot

That's aura in work. These predictions have a nice way to prove
themselves because same players will choke against Federer.
Roger should be very careful not to lose his aura early in the year.

Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?

--
"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: 09 Jan 2009 01:02:39
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:43:24 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Giovanna wrote:
>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=929
>>
>> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=951
>>
>> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
>> #1 spot
>
>That's aura in work. These predictions have a nice way to prove
>themselves because same players will choke against Federer.
>Roger should be very careful not to lose his aura early in the year.

So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?

>Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?

Seems to me most of them said Federer or Nadal.

Personally I would say Nadal or even Murray. I find it hard to believe
Federer would get back to #1. I find it easier to believe he will win
1-2 slams.


   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 19:01:31
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
In article <ob1dm49oa0gn0drvvabtvdccbektmsfkus@4ax.com >,
sakari.lund@welho.com (Sakari Lund) wrote:

>
> So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?

ON clay he does. But everyone knows his game isn't as effective on hard
courts, where he isn't even top five.

>
> >Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?
>
> Seems to me most of them said Federer or Nadal.
>
> Personally I would say Nadal or even Murray. I find it hard to
> believe
> Federer would get back to #1. I find it easier to believe he will
> win
> 1-2 slams.

I believe he'll get back to #1. *And* win more Slams. I certainly don't
think he'll be #1 *without* a Slam.

wg


    
Date: 09 Jan 2009 08:43:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <ob1dm49oa0gn0drvvabtvdccbektmsfkus@4ax.com>,
> sakari.lund@welho.com (Sakari Lund) wrote:
>
>> So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?
>
> ON clay he does. But everyone knows his game isn't as effective on hard
> courts, where he isn't even top five.

Sure Dave.


>
>>> Nice interviews...everyone said Federer...wtf?
>> Seems to me most of them said Federer or Nadal.
>>
>> Personally I would say Nadal or even Murray. I find it hard to
>> believe
>> Federer would get back to #1. I find it easier to believe he will
>> win
>> 1-2 slams.
>
> I believe he'll get back to #1. *And* win more Slams. I certainly don't
> think he'll be #1 *without* a Slam.
>
> wg

Sure Dave.

--
"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: 09 Jan 2009 16:25:09
From:
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
In article <lmC9l.116154$_03.91997@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
gold@Olympics.org (TT) wrote:

> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <ob1dm49oa0gn0drvvabtvdccbektmsfkus@4ax.com>,
> > sakari.lund@welho.com (Sakari Lund) wrote:
> >
> >> So why doesn't the #1 player have that aura?
> >
> > ON clay he does. But everyone knows his game isn't as effective
> > on hard courts, where he isn't even top five.
>
> Sure Dave.

In fact - I checked - I'm wrong about this. Nadal wasn't top five on hard
courts in 2007. He was in 2008.

wg


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:38:56
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Roger *always* the locker room #1~~
On Jan 8, 10:28=A0pm, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br > wrote:
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D929
>
> www.atpworldtour.com/en/multimedia/default_video.asp?videoid=3D951
>
> Nice to hear so many of the players back Roger for the 2009 year end
> #1 spot

who gives a shit about "locker room no.1" their is only one no.1 that
counts and that is Nadal.

GET OVER IT...

and the next no.1 is muzza... again

GET OVER IT

fed will likely never be no.1 again. But he will break samp 14... you
can look forward to that.