tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:23:10
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: The Final And What It Means

What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
better player than I thought.

For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
set he should have won with all those breakpoints.

What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
won.

The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
to win more if you make the finals all the time.




 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:05:27
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:vrvbo41pm5m4f51fiqvfia3vnok5fdoem6@4ax.com...
>
> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> better player than I thought.
>
> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> won.
>
> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> to win more if you make the finals all the time.

One thing though, Sampras was 29-31 at the time.




 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 01:54:49
From: Aimless
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
Good analysis. Anyway the meaning of a career is discussed at the end of it,
not now. Sothree years from now, we can really talk about it.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:09:16
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 2:23=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> better player than I thought.
>
> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> won.
>
> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> to win more if you make the finals all the time.

Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:51:51
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 6:42=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:38=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 6:27=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 11:53=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 5:44=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > > > > > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a p=
ara or
> > > > > > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it o=
n rst.
> > > > > > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > > > > > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fa=
n-type
> > > > > > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > > > > > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly =
started
> > > > > > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English=
from
> > > > > > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> > > > > I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share h=
is
> > > > > thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> > > > > PS.
>
> > > > Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What =
It
> > > > Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupl=
a
> > > > paras of obvious stuff.
>
> > > Please post your own analysis of the final - we are all waiting for a
> > > scintillating insight
>
> > I don't have anything scintillatingly insightful to say. But I am not
> > going to repeat the obvious either. It was a boring final, to be
> > honest. The best match of the tournament was Nadal-Verdasco. I didn't
> > like Federer's attitude from the very first game in the final. He was
> > going through the same motions and patterns as in the matches he lost
> > against Nadal. It was ominous. He needed to bring his peak, and he
> > regressed instead. It's not the sign of a truly great champion.
>
> What motions and patterns should he have been using instead then?

We have already discussed to death in rst what patterns he shouldn't
be using. I guess any pattern that lets Rafa dictate a rally should be
avoided like the plague. The chip returns in midcourt, letting Rafa
take control of the rally and make those loopy forehands to his bh
side, etc. But Roger showed poor form even in the mental aspect, and
from the very beginning. He seemed listless, frozen, brooding,
philosophical, not enterprising, not aggressive. It's as if Rafa is a
Rottweiler on loose and he was afraid to wake it up, tiptoeing around
it.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:42:11
From:
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 12:38=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:27=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 11:53=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 5:44=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > > > > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a par=
a or
> > > > > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on =
rst.
> > > > > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > > > > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-=
type
> > > > > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > > > > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly st=
arted
> > > > > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English f=
rom
> > > > > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> > > > I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
> > > > thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> > > > PS.
>
> > > Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> > > Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> > > paras of obvious stuff.
>
> > Please post your own analysis of the final - we are all waiting for a
> > scintillating insight
>
> I don't have anything scintillatingly insightful to say. But I am not
> going to repeat the obvious either. It was a boring final, to be
> honest. The best match of the tournament was Nadal-Verdasco. I didn't
> like Federer's attitude from the very first game in the final. He was
> going through the same motions and patterns as in the matches he lost
> against Nadal. It was ominous. He needed to bring his peak, and he
> regressed instead. It's not the sign of a truly great champion.

What motions and patterns should he have been using instead then?



  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:38:55
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 6:27=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:53=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:44=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > > > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para =
or
> > > > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rs=
t.
> > > > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > > > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-ty=
pe
> > > > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > > > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly star=
ted
> > > > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English fro=
m
> > > > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> > > I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
> > > thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> > > PS.
>
> > Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> > Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> > paras of obvious stuff.
>
> Please post your own analysis of the final - we are all waiting for a
> scintillating insight

I don't have anything scintillatingly insightful to say. But I am not
going to repeat the obvious either. It was a boring final, to be
honest. The best match of the tournament was Nadal-Verdasco. I didn't
like Federer's attitude from the very first game in the final. He was
going through the same motions and patterns as in the matches he lost
against Nadal. It was ominous. He needed to bring his peak, and he
regressed instead. It's not the sign of a truly great champion.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:27:25
From:
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 11:53=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:44=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
> > > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
> > > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
> > > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly starte=
d
> > > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
> > > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> > I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
> > thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> > PS.
>
> Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> paras of obvious stuff.

Please post your own analysis of the final - we are all waiting for a
scintillating insight



  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:26:23
From:
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 12:17=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:59=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 11:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 5:20=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> > > > <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Feb 2, 2:23=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > > > >> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title=
. It
> > > > >> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never wi=
n HC
> > > > >> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he i=
s a
> > > > >> better player than I thought.
>
> > > > >> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> > > > >> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He pl=
ayed
> > > > >> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> > > > >> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thin=
g was
> > > > >> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the=
3rd
> > > > >> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> > > > >> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now.=
He is
> > > > >> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say =
the
> > > > >> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 we=
eks.
> > > > >> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, b=
ut
> > > > >> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger=
has
> > > > >> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has bet=
ter MS
> > > > >> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that R=
afa
> > > > >> won.
>
> > > > >> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Fede=
rer's
> > > > >> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> > > > >> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating peri=
od is
> > > > >> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #=
1.
> > > > >> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> > > > >> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the sl=
ams.
> > > > >> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good ch=
ance
> > > > >> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
> > > > >Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?
>
> > > > Not sure what you are saying. If you have a problem, be clearer. I
> > > > don't want to be guessing what you mean.
>
> > > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
> > > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
> > > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
> > > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly starte=
d
> > > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
> > > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> > Don't be such a patronising dick - anyone's entitled to post whatever
> > they want. God knows, you do enough of it.
>
> I don't like your endless, circular interactions with the troll TJT
> either. I think it's boring and adds no value.

Fine. Don't read them. Just like your hundreds of posts about
"prestige" of Wimbledon which I gave up on after a while.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:17:15
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 5:59=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:20=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> > > <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 2, 2:23=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > > >> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. =
It
> > > >> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win =
HC
> > > >> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is =
a
> > > >> better player than I thought.
>
> > > >> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> > > >> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He play=
ed
> > > >> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> > > >> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing =
was
> > > >> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3=
rd
> > > >> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> > > >> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. H=
e is
> > > >> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say th=
e
> > > >> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 week=
s.
> > > >> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> > > >> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger h=
as
> > > >> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has bette=
r MS
> > > >> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Raf=
a
> > > >> won.
>
> > > >> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federe=
r's
> > > >> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> > > >> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period=
is
> > > >> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> > > >> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> > > >> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slam=
s.
> > > >> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chan=
ce
> > > >> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
> > > >Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?
>
> > > Not sure what you are saying. If you have a problem, be clearer. I
> > > don't want to be guessing what you mean.
>
> > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
> > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
> > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
> > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly started
> > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
> > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> Don't be such a patronising dick - anyone's entitled to post whatever
> they want. God knows, you do enough of it.

I don't like your endless, circular interactions with the troll TJT
either. I think it's boring and adds no value.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:12:46
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 6:01=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 5:44 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> >>> banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para
> >>> or two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on
> >>> rst. It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> >>> It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with
> >>> Fan-type "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> >>> But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly
> >>> started doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to
> >>> English from Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> >> I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
> >> thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> > Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> > Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> > paras of obvious stuff.
>
> You must have got out on the wrong side this morning.

Haven't had my coffee yet. That might snap me out of the boredom.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:10:10
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 5:57=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> > Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> > paras of obvious stuff.
>
> So we are all supposed to give feedback if we think the posts are boring?
>
> PS.

If it gets repetitious and if you feel compelled, why not?


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:40:18
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:b7f07b69-f324-43c1-86e9-c30f564409fb@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 5:57 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> > Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> > paras of obvious stuff.
>
> So we are all supposed to give feedback if we think the posts are boring?
>
> PS.

>If it gets repetitious and if you feel compelled, why not?


In that case fuck off arnab, you're boring as hell. GioHazey is more
spirited than you are.




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:59:47
From:
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 11:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:20=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> > <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 2, 2:23=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > >> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> > >> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> > >> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> > >> better player than I thought.
>
> > >> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> > >> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> > >> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> > >> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing wa=
s
> > >> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> > >> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> > >> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He =
is
> > >> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> > >> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> > >> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> > >> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> > >> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better =
MS
> > >> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> > >> won.
>
> > >> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer'=
s
> > >> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> > >> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period i=
s
> > >> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> > >> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> > >> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> > >> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> > >> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
> > >Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?
>
> > Not sure what you are saying. If you have a problem, be clearer. I
> > don't want to be guessing what you mean.
>
> It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
> two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
> It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
> "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly started
> doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
> Finnish memos or something like that.

Don't be such a patronising dick - anyone's entitled to post whatever
they want. God knows, you do enough of it.



  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:53:32
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 5:44=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> > banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
> > two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
> > It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> > It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
> > "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> > But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly started
> > doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
> > Finnish memos or something like that.
>
> I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
> thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> PS.

Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
paras of obvious stuff.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 11:01:33
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:44 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
>>> banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para
>>> or two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on
>>> rst. It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>>
>>> It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with
>>> Fan-type "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>>
>>> But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly
>>> started doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to
>>> English from Finnish memos or something like that.
>>
>> I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
>> thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...
>
> Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> paras of obvious stuff.

You must have got out on the wrong side this morning.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 00:57:00
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
arnab.z@gmail wrote:

> Please. I saw a grandiose thread headline like "The Final and What It
> Means" and I thought it was going to be good. Instead I get a coupla
> paras of obvious stuff.

So we are all supposed to give feedback if we think the posts are boring?

PS.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:37:46
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 2, 5:20=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
>
>
> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 2, 2:23=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> >> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> >> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> >> better player than I thought.
>
> >> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> >> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> >> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> >> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> >> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> >> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> >> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
> >> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> >> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> >> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> >> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> >> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
> >> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> >> won.
>
> >> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> >> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> >> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> >> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> >> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> >> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> >> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> >> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
> >Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?
>
> Not sure what you are saying. If you have a problem, be clearer. I
> don't want to be guessing what you mean.

It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
It's long, states the obvious, and boring.

It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
"what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.

But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly started
doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
Finnish memos or something like that.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:05:15
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:37:46 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 2, 5:20 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>
>>
>>
>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 2, 2:23 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
>> >> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
>> >> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
>> >> better player than I thought.
>>
>> >> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
>> >> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
>> >> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
>> >> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
>> >> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
>> >> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>>
>> >> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
>> >> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
>> >> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
>> >> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
>> >> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
>> >> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
>> >> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
>> >> won.
>>
>> >> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
>> >> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
>> >> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
>> >> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
>> >> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
>> >> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
>> >> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
>> >> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>>
>> >Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?
>>
>> Not sure what you are saying. If you have a problem, be clearer. I
>> don't want to be guessing what you mean.
>
>It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
>banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
>two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
>It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
>It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
>"what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
>But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly started
>doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
>Finnish memos or something like that.

OK, that became clear.

Why I started my own thread about both Nadal - Verdasco and the final
is because I thought both matches were very good and I didn't have
time to post until after many hours after the match, so I thought I
don't want to go through 1000 posts and look for a suitable thread to
post, but rather start my own.

One point I wanted to make is that I don't agree with the opinion of
many posters that these final losses to Nadal hurt Federer's legacy.

Just my thoughts of a tennis match, I am sorry that I didn't come up
with any breakthtrough revolutionary ideas about tennis or society at
large. This just leaves open the question why didn't you react the
same way to all the other posts after the match.



    
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:54:58
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means

On 2-Feb-2009, Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

> Just my thoughts of a tennis match, I am sorry that I didn't come up
> with any breakthtrough revolutionary ideas about tennis or society at
> large. This just leaves open the question why didn't you react the
> same way to all the other posts after the match.

I thought you wrote a good post. Remember, it is a new year and arnab's
"rage at Sakari" counter probably just got reset:)


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 00:44:10
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
arnab.z@gmail wrote:

> It reads like a personal memo, starting with "Congrats!"-type
> banality, followed by coupla paras on the match followed by a para or
> two about what you think about other people's reactions of it on rst.
> It's long, states the obvious, and boring.
>
> It's like Jaros-type "congrats! hurray!" posts combined with Fan-type
> "what this means to me and how rst should react" posts.
>
> But keep doing it, by all means. Just curious why you suddenly started
> doing this. I thought you are practicing translating to English from
> Finnish memos or something like that.

I think your response is a lot more curious. Man, let him share his
thoughts about this great match of tennis. Jeezez...

PS.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 01:20:22
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 2, 2:23 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
>> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
>> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
>> better player than I thought.
>>
>> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
>> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
>> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
>> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
>> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
>> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>>
>> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
>> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
>> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
>> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
>> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
>> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
>> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
>> won.
>>
>> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
>> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
>> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
>> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
>> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
>> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
>> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
>> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
>Are you practicing translating your Finnish reports or memos here?

Not sure what you are saying. If you have a problem, be clearer. I
don't want to be guessing what you mean.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:46:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
Sakari Lund wrote:
> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> better player than I thought.

We told you you're wrong...Apology accepted.


>
> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>

Nadal played those breakpoints well. Also Rafa could have won the fourth
set since he converted only 1/6 bp while Federer converted 2/2.

Match bp conversion:
Nadal 7 of 16 = 44 %
Federer 6 of 19 = 32 %


> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> won.
>

Thinking about it, if one values Olympic gold close to a major...Rafa's
last 12 months is next best since Rod Laver in -69!
And there's a DC title too.


> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> to win more if you make the finals all the time.

Good for "career".
I don't like using the word "legacy" for active players.
Bad for "GOAT"-claims, because of the h2h in slams against his main rival.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 00:17:26
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:46:14 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
>> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
>> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
>> better player than I thought.
>
>We told you you're wrong...Apology accepted.

I have no problem saying I have been wrong about Nadal. Would be nice
to hear from you sometimes that Federer is better than average club
player.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:32:17
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 2:23=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> better player than I thought.
>
> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> won.
>
> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> to win more if you make the finals all the time.

Disagree - Fed's only shot at GOAThood now is to win 15 slams AND beat
Rafa in both #14 and #15. Otherwise, Rafa would have be considered a
better tennis player (look at their head to head in all sorts of
categories) and obviously thats not compatible with GOAThood...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:42:34
From: topspin
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On 1 Feb, 21:50, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> > Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
> > for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>
> > Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
> > whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
> > everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
> > but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
> > watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>
> I never participate in these GOAT discussions because I think they are
> ridiculous. You can only measure greatness of a sportsman by looking at
> results against other sportsmen at the same point in time. Federer is
> definitely a great tennis player and has dominated almost any other
> player on tour the last 4-5 years. He has, more than maybe any player
> before him, been extremely consistent. To compare his kind of greatness
> to players who performed 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years ago against very
> different players on different surfaces and with different equipment
> etc. disrespects the history of tennis IMO. Comparing Federer's
> greatness to Nadal is of course a different matter, but indeed it is
> only one single match-up. And after all it will, in 20 years from now,
> not be spoken much about if for example Nadal retires from tennis next
> year. So we have to remember that Federer and Nadal are players
> performing in the present. Nadal is beginning to write history of his
> own and is the current world number 1 in tennis. It is really no shame
> for Federer to lose against such a great player. But I think we have to
> realize that the importance of this match-up cannot be evaluated yet. We
> need to see, as you point out, whether Nadal himself is capable of
> maintaining his number one position for more years to come, winning more
> grand slams and dominating match-ups against his competitors. It will be
> exciting to see if he can do that.
>
> PS.

I agree with much of this, and the original post. The thing everyone
needs to bear in mind is that Nadal is 22 and in the early years of
his peak tennis playing, while Federer is 27 1/2 and starting the
exit. So from now on direct comparisons are irrelevant unless that age
difference is borne in mind. Other things being equal, the younger
player should dominate (see Laver and Rosewall for example). More
relevant is their achievements at similar ages, and how they end up at
the end of their respective careers.

I am very much looking forward to seeing if Nadal can get the career
GS (I think the odds are in his favour), or even the CYGS. Also to see
how many slams Federer can squeeze in the autumn of his career, and
see if the French can somehow fall in his lap. Lots still to look
forward to.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 00:16:23
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:32:17 -0800 (PST), RahimAsif
<RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 1, 2:23 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
>> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
>> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
>> better player than I thought.
>>
>> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
>> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
>> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
>> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
>> that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
>> set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>>
>> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
>> holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
>> difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
>> On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
>> obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
>> better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
>> results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
>> won.
>>
>> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
>> career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
>> thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
>> over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
>> That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
>> Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
>> It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
>> to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
>Disagree - Fed's only shot at GOAThood now is to win 15 slams AND beat
>Rafa in both #14 and #15. Otherwise, Rafa would have be considered a
>better tennis player (look at their head to head in all sorts of
>categories) and obviously thats not compatible with GOAThood...

That's like saying that Borg's losses after his dominating period to
McEnroe hurt his legacy. Only Whisper says that. Federer beat everyone
including Nadal during 4,5 years, and that's it. He doesn't have to
beat everyone for the rest of his life to prove anything.




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:56:28
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 2:45=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> Rahim likes to have everything cemented into place as early as
> possible. If a player has a shot at the CYGS, then he *will win* the
> CYGS. If a legacy is hurt by a loss, then the legacy is irreparably
> damaged. If an exhibition result will be remembered for a week, it
> will be remembered for a lifetime. :)
>
> Joe Ramirez

I was wrong about the exos, I will grant you that. I am not saying
Rafa will do the CYGS this year - others are; I said it last year...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:49:51
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 12:45=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:40=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
> > for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>
> > Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
> > whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
> > everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
> > but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
> > watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>
> I don't know why anyone gets the impression that Nadal is going to
> crumble under pressure - that would be so typical of him right? He was
> favorite to win the French the last few years, and seems to me he has
> done just fine. He was co-favorite to win Wimbledon, he held up fine
> there also. So I wouldn't hang on the hope that Nadal will not be able
> to respond to the pressure. Chances are, he will thrive. Notice
> already today how he subtly changed the conversion - he used to say
> that Fed is the "best in history", today he said "one of the best in
> history". He knows the significance of this victory and what it does
> to Fed's legacy...

Did I say a thing about Nadal crumbling? I think Nadal will handle it
just fine and unlike some of his coach potato-headed fans, he has a
perspective on all of it. I have complete confidence Nadal will take
the added pressure in stride. Some of his fans not so much.


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:52:49
From: TT
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:45 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2:40 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
>>> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>>> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
>>> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
>>> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
>>> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
>>> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>> I don't know why anyone gets the impression that Nadal is going to
>> crumble under pressure - that would be so typical of him right? He was
>> favorite to win the French the last few years, and seems to me he has
>> done just fine. He was co-favorite to win Wimbledon, he held up fine
>> there also. So I wouldn't hang on the hope that Nadal will not be able
>> to respond to the pressure. Chances are, he will thrive. Notice
>> already today how he subtly changed the conversion - he used to say
>> that Fed is the "best in history", today he said "one of the best in
>> history". He knows the significance of this victory and what it does
>> to Fed's legacy...
>
> Did I say a thing about Nadal crumbling? I think Nadal will handle it
> just fine and unlike some of his coach potato-headed fans, he has a
> perspective on all of it. I have complete confidence Nadal will take
> the added pressure in stride. Some of his fans not so much.

As a Federer fan you shouldn't be very vocal about handling pressure.

--
"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 12:45:04
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 2:40=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>
> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.

I don't know why anyone gets the impression that Nadal is going to
crumble under pressure - that would be so typical of him right? He was
favorite to win the French the last few years, and seems to me he has
done just fine. He was co-favorite to win Wimbledon, he held up fine
there also. So I wouldn't hang on the hope that Nadal will not be able
to respond to the pressure. Chances are, he will thrive. Notice
already today how he subtly changed the conversion - he used to say
that Fed is the "best in history", today he said "one of the best in
history". He knows the significance of this victory and what it does
to Fed's legacy...


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:19:59
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:40 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
>> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>>
>> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
>> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
>> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
>> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
>> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>
> I don't know why anyone gets the impression that Nadal is going to
> crumble under pressure - that would be so typical of him right? He was
> favorite to win the French the last few years, and seems to me he has
> done just fine. He was co-favorite to win Wimbledon, he held up fine
> there also. So I wouldn't hang on the hope that Nadal will not be able
> to respond to the pressure. Chances are, he will thrive.

Nadal like everybody else, feels the pressure of being the favourite.
It's been clear in that Verdasco match, last year vs Tsonga perhaps, surely
against Ljubicic in FO semis 2006.
He was nervous as hell.

But when he plays Federer he is doing the right thing. He doesn't think of
himself as a favorite.
Nor he should be doing it, Federer is, like he says, like we all know, one
of the greatest ever.
It's tough to compete with such a guy, why make things even tougher for you
to put yourself into position to feel the pressure to win.

And because of what? Sume tune-ups points who have one of them ahead the
other one?

Rafa knows it means shit, Federer otoh is somewhat delusional about it it
seems to me.





   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:19:53
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:40 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
>> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>>
>> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
>> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
>> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
>> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
>> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>
> I don't know why anyone gets the impression that Nadal is going to
> crumble under pressure - that would be so typical of him right? He was
> favorite to win the French the last few years, and seems to me he has
> done just fine. He was co-favorite to win Wimbledon, he held up fine
> there also. So I wouldn't hang on the hope that Nadal will not be able
> to respond to the pressure. Chances are, he will thrive.

Nadal like everybody else, feels the pressure of being the favourite.
It's been clear in that Verdasco match, last year vs Tsonga perhaps, surely
against Ljubicic in FO semis 2006.
He was nervous as hell.

But when he plays Federer he is doing the right thing. He doesn't think of
himself as a favorite.
Nor he should be doing it, Federer is, like he says, like we all know, one
of the greatest ever.
It's tough to compete with such a guy, why make things even tougher for you
to put yourself into position to feel the pressure to win.

And because of what? Sume tune-ups points who have one of them ahead the
other one?

Rafa knows it means shit, Federer otoh is somewhat delusional about it it
seems to me.





   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:14:16
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:40 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
>> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>>
>> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
>> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
>> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
>> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
>> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>
> I don't know why anyone gets the impression that Nadal is going to
> crumble under pressure - that would be so typical of him right? He was
> favorite to win the French the last few years, and seems to me he has
> done just fine. He was co-favorite to win Wimbledon, he held up fine
> there also. So I wouldn't hang on the hope that Nadal will not be able
> to respond to the pressure. Chances are, he will thrive.

Nadal like everybody else, feels the pressure of being the favourite.
It's been clear in that Verdasco match, last year vs Tsonga perhaps, surely
against Ljubicic in FO semis 2006.
He was nervous as hell.

But when he plays Federer he is doing the right thing. He doesn't think of
himself as a favorite.
Nor he should be doing it, Federer is, like he says, like we all know, one
of the greatest ever.
It's tough to compete with such a guy, why make things even tougher for you
to put yourself into position to feel the pressure to win.

And because of what? Sume tune-ups points who have one of them ahead the
other one?

Rafa knows it means shit, Federer otoh is somewhat delusional about it it
seems to me.




   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:51:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
RahimAsif wrote:

> Notice
> already today how he subtly changed the conversion - he used to say
> that Fed is the "best in history", today he said "one of the best in
> history". He knows the significance of this victory and what it does
> to Fed's legacy...

As much as I liked to think that his attitude against who is goat has
changed with this victory...I see it very likely that he may be careful
with his words when getting a trophy from Rod Laver. :)

--
"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 12:45:02
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 3:40=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:32=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2:23=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> > > is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> > > slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> > > better player than I thought.
>
> > > For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> > > anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> > > well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> > > because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> > > that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> > > set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> > > What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He i=
s
> > > holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> > > difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> > > On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> > > obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> > > better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better M=
S
> > > results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> > > won.
>
> > > The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> > > career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> > > thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> > > over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> > > That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> > > Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> > > It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> > > to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
> > Disagree - Fed's only shot at GOAThood now is to win 15 slams AND beat
> > Rafa in both #14 and #15. Otherwise, Rafa would have be considered a
> > better tennis player (look at their head to head in all sorts of
> > categories) and obviously thats not compatible with GOAThood...
>
> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.

Rahim likes to have everything cemented into place as early as
possible. If a player has a shot at the CYGS, then he *will win* the
CYGS. If a legacy is hurt by a loss, then the legacy is irreparably
damaged. If an exhibition result will be remembered for a week, it
will be remembered for a lifetime. :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:40:16
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
On Feb 1, 12:32=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:23=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
> > is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
> > slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
> > better player than I thought.
>
> > For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
> > anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
> > well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
> > because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing was
> > that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially the 3rd
> > set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>
> > What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He is
> > holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say the
> > difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52 weeks.
> > On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very marginal, but
> > obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much even. Roger has
> > better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but Rafa has better MS
> > results. Generally, it comes down to the two 5-set finals that Rafa
> > won.
>
> > The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for Federer's
> > career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very twisted
> > thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating period is
> > over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to current #1.
> > That's a very positive thing for his career. After winning #13,
> > Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early in the slams.
> > It is much better to keep making finals. There is also a good chance
> > to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>
> Disagree - Fed's only shot at GOAThood now is to win 15 slams AND beat
> Rafa in both #14 and #15. Otherwise, Rafa would have be considered a
> better tennis player (look at their head to head in all sorts of
> categories) and obviously thats not compatible with GOAThood...

Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.

Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 02:08:21
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:32 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2:23 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
>>> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
>>> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
>>> better player than I thought.
>>
>>> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
>>> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
>>> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
>>> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing
>>> was that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially
>>> the 3rd set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>>
>>> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He
>>> is holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say
>>> the difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52
>>> weeks. On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very
>>> marginal, but obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much
>>> even. Roger has better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but
>>> Rafa has better MS results. Generally, it comes down to the two
>>> 5-set finals that Rafa won.
>>
>>> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for
>>> Federer's career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very
>>> twisted thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating
>>> period is over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to
>>> current #1. That's a very positive thing for his career. After
>>> winning #13, Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early
>>> in the slams. It is much better to keep making finals. There is
>>> also a good chance to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>>
>> Disagree - Fed's only shot at GOAThood now is to win 15 slams AND
>> beat Rafa in both #14 and #15. Otherwise, Rafa would have be
>> considered a better tennis player (look at their head to head in all
>> sorts of categories) and obviously thats not compatible with
>> GOAThood...
>
> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>
> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>
>

You think Nadal's fan will be depressed when he loses some irelevant Dubai,
IW, Miami matches? lol





    
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:20:32
From: TT
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
*skriptis wrote:
> Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 12:32 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2:23 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What great matches these two give us! Congrats Rafa for AO title. It
>>>> is not long ago that I said it is more likely Rafa will never win HC
>>>> slam than that he will. He just keeps improving and showing he is a
>>>> better player than I thought.
>>>> For me, the deciding thing in the match was that Fed didn't get
>>>> anywhere near as many free points with serve as I thought. He played
>>>> well in baseline rallies, but he had to play them all the time,
>>>> because he got very little points with serve. And the other thing
>>>> was that he couldn't win the breakpoints, once again. Especially
>>>> the 3rd set he should have won with all those breakpoints.
>>>> What this result means is that Rafa is a very dominating #1 now. He
>>>> is holding 3 slams and the Olympics, wow. In practice, I would say
>>>> the difference between Rafa and Roger isn't so big in the last 52
>>>> weeks. On clay, Rafa is hugely better. On grass, it is very
>>>> marginal, but obviously Rafa has the edge. On HC it is pretty much
>>>> even. Roger has better slam results (Win+Final against Win+SF), but
>>>> Rafa has better MS results. Generally, it comes down to the two
>>>> 5-set finals that Rafa won.
>>>> The claims that these final losses are somehow very bad for
>>>> Federer's career and legacy and GOAT things and whatever, are very
>>>> twisted thinking, IMO. What is going on is that when his dominating
>>>> period is over, he still makes finals all the time, and loses to
>>>> current #1. That's a very positive thing for his career. After
>>>> winning #13, Sampras for example spent couple of years losing early
>>>> in the slams. It is much better to keep making finals. There is
>>>> also a good chance to win more if you make the finals all the time.
>>> Disagree - Fed's only shot at GOAThood now is to win 15 slams AND
>>> beat Rafa in both #14 and #15. Otherwise, Rafa would have be
>>> considered a better tennis player (look at their head to head in all
>>> sorts of categories) and obviously thats not compatible with
>>> GOAThood...
>> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
>> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>>
>> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
>> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
>> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
>> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
>> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.
>>
>>
>
> You think Nadal's fan will be depressed when he loses some irelevant Dubai,
> IW, Miami matches? lol
>
>

Of course they won't, they're not emotionally unstable fedfuckers.


--
"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 22:50:42
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The Final And What It Means
Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:

> Gawd, such nonsense. Fed's place in tennis history won't be decided
> for years, and even then it will change, so get over it.
>
> Something did change today in *current* tennis. Federer has now lost
> whatever edge he had left over Nadal and Nadal is now expected to win
> everything regardless of surface. Of course he won't win everything,
> but he'll be expected to, just as Fed was before him. It'll be fun to
> watch Nadal, but even more fun to watch his fans.

I never participate in these GOAT discussions because I think they are
ridiculous. You can only measure greatness of a sportsman by looking at
results against other sportsmen at the same point in time. Federer is
definitely a great tennis player and has dominated almost any other
player on tour the last 4-5 years. He has, more than maybe any player
before him, been extremely consistent. To compare his kind of greatness
to players who performed 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years ago against very
different players on different surfaces and with different equipment
etc. disrespects the history of tennis IMO. Comparing Federer's
greatness to Nadal is of course a different matter, but indeed it is
only one single match-up. And after all it will, in 20 years from now,
not be spoken much about if for example Nadal retires from tennis next
year. So we have to remember that Federer and Nadal are players
performing in the present. Nadal is beginning to write history of his
own and is the current world number 1 in tennis. It is really no shame
for Federer to lose against such a great player. But I think we have to
realize that the importance of this match-up cannot be evaluated yet. We
need to see, as you point out, whether Nadal himself is capable of
maintaining his number one position for more years to come, winning more
grand slams and dominating match-ups against his competitors. It will be
exciting to see if he can do that.

PS.