| |
Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 06:27:02
From: RahimAsif
Subject: What this match has done
|
Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender. Otherwise, there will be a
* and everyone worth listening to will say that Fed only can win
anything when he doesn't face Nadal - not acceptable for a GOAT
candidate. So for all intents and purposes, Fed shot at GOAThood is
over.
But Sampras better not start relaxing. Patrick McEnroe and Dick Enberg
were mentioning how Nadal now has a great shot at the CYGS, and I see
some here in RST have also echoed the same sentiment (not me, mind you
this time :). If that does happen, Nadal will have achieved a lot of
things in the resume that Sampras and Fed have failed at (notably
winning all four slams and the CYGS). Also, note that Nadal has
dominant head-to-head against all his rivals (Fed, Murray and Djoker)
and all his slams have been won beating Fed along the way. So no clown
era nonsense will apply. But he has a long way to go to reach 14 or 15
slams...
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:38:06
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: What this match has done
|
On Feb 1, 9:34=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:27=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
> > not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
> > Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender. Otherwise, there will be a
> > * and everyone worth listening to will say that Fed only can win
> > anything when he doesn't face Nadal - not acceptable for a GOAT
> > candidate. So for all intents and purposes, Fed shot at GOAThood is
> > over.
>
> > But Sampras better not start relaxing. Patrick McEnroe and Dick Enberg
> > were mentioning how Nadal now has a great shot at the CYGS, and I see
> > some here in RST have also echoed the same sentiment (not me, mind you
> > this time :). If that does happen, Nadal will have achieved a lot of
> > things in the resume that Sampras and Fed have failed at (notably
> > winning all four slams and the CYGS). Also, note that Nadal has
> > dominant head-to-head against all his rivals (Fed, Murray and Djoker)
> > and all his slams have been won beating Fed along the way. So no clown
> > era nonsense will apply.
>
> Why's that? Surely Nadal's 6 slams have all been won in a clown era?
No, he has been beating non-clowns like Fed for all his slams. And
btw, I don't subscribe to the clown era theory anyway...
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 20:52:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: What this match has done
|
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:34 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2:27 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
>>> not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
>>> Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender. Otherwise, there will be a
>>> * and everyone worth listening to will say that Fed only can win
>>> anything when he doesn't face Nadal - not acceptable for a GOAT
>>> candidate. So for all intents and purposes, Fed shot at GOAThood is
>>> over.
>>> But Sampras better not start relaxing. Patrick McEnroe and Dick Enberg
>>> were mentioning how Nadal now has a great shot at the CYGS, and I see
>>> some here in RST have also echoed the same sentiment (not me, mind you
>>> this time :). If that does happen, Nadal will have achieved a lot of
>>> things in the resume that Sampras and Fed have failed at (notably
>>> winning all four slams and the CYGS). Also, note that Nadal has
>>> dominant head-to-head against all his rivals (Fed, Murray and Djoker)
>>> and all his slams have been won beating Fed along the way. So no clown
>>> era nonsense will apply.
>> Why's that? Surely Nadal's 6 slams have all been won in a clown era?
>
> No, he has been beating non-clowns like Fed for all his slams. And
> btw, I don't subscribe to the clown era theory anyway...
Nobody thinks Fed is a clown, thus Rafa's 5 slam finals over him are
bona fide. The clowns were the Baghdatis/Gonzalez/Flipper types Fed
beat in slam finals.
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:34:22
From:
Subject: Re: What this match has done
|
On Feb 1, 2:27=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
> not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
> Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender. Otherwise, there will be a
> * and everyone worth listening to will say that Fed only can win
> anything when he doesn't face Nadal - not acceptable for a GOAT
> candidate. So for all intents and purposes, Fed shot at GOAThood is
> over.
>
> But Sampras better not start relaxing. Patrick McEnroe and Dick Enberg
> were mentioning how Nadal now has a great shot at the CYGS, and I see
> some here in RST have also echoed the same sentiment (not me, mind you
> this time :). If that does happen, Nadal will have achieved a lot of
> things in the resume that Sampras and Fed have failed at (notably
> winning all four slams and the CYGS). Also, note that Nadal has
> dominant head-to-head against all his rivals (Fed, Murray and Djoker)
> and all his slams have been won beating Fed along the way. So no clown
> era nonsense will apply.
Why's that? Surely Nadal's 6 slams have all been won in a clown era?
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:24:15
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: What this match has done
|
"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:8f6a7915-7bc4-4254-bac5-f3806ab6f578@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
> not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
> Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender.
If Borg had won CYGS in 1982 whitout ever meeting Connors or McEnrore he'd
be GOAT.
Likewise, Fed just needs to pile up enough numbers and surpass Sampras.
It would be good thouhg if he could win some slams against Nadal in the
process.
But it's not a neccesity, more like a bonus. The thing is, it's uncertain
whether he can even win slams at all against Nadal now. That's his problem
I believe he still can...but.
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 01:43:03
From: john
Subject: Re: What this match has done
|
"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:8f6a7915-7bc4-4254-bac5-f3806ab6f578@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
> not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
> Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender. Otherwise, there will be a
> * and everyone worth listening to will say that Fed only can win
> anything when he doesn't face Nadal - not acceptable for a GOAT
> candidate. So for all intents and purposes, Fed shot at GOAThood is
> over.
>
> But Sampras better not start relaxing. Patrick McEnroe and Dick Enberg
> were mentioning how Nadal now has a great shot at the CYGS, and I see
> some here in RST have also echoed the same sentiment (not me, mind you
> this time :). If that does happen, Nadal will have achieved a lot of
> things in the resume that Sampras and Fed have failed at (notably
> winning all four slams and the CYGS). Also, note that Nadal has
> dominant head-to-head against all his rivals (Fed, Murray and Djoker)
> and all his slams have been won beating Fed along the way. So no clown
> era nonsense will apply. But he has a long way to go to reach 14 or 15
> slams...
what you need to define in your own time is what credential that a player
must have to
qualify as GOAT ? If we listen to your credential on legitimacy for GOAT
contender,
we can also rule out Sampras because he did nto exactly dominate Krajicek or
Hewit
during his era, he also did not domiante Edberg in grand slam play lost to
him twice.
There is not a single player than can be Goat by your definition certainly
not Federer even
if he wins 20 grand slam and certainly not Sampras right now.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 19:12:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: What this match has done
|
john wrote:
> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f6a7915-7bc4-4254-bac5-f3806ab6f578@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> Is it now means that Fed's path to GOAThood must now go thru Nadal. He
>> not only has to win a couple more slams, he has to do them beating
>> Nadal for him to be a legit GOAT contender. Otherwise, there will be a
>> * and everyone worth listening to will say that Fed only can win
>> anything when he doesn't face Nadal - not acceptable for a GOAT
>> candidate. So for all intents and purposes, Fed shot at GOAThood is
>> over.
>>
>> But Sampras better not start relaxing. Patrick McEnroe and Dick Enberg
>> were mentioning how Nadal now has a great shot at the CYGS, and I see
>> some here in RST have also echoed the same sentiment (not me, mind you
>> this time :). If that does happen, Nadal will have achieved a lot of
>> things in the resume that Sampras and Fed have failed at (notably
>> winning all four slams and the CYGS). Also, note that Nadal has
>> dominant head-to-head against all his rivals (Fed, Murray and Djoker)
>> and all his slams have been won beating Fed along the way. So no clown
>> era nonsense will apply. But he has a long way to go to reach 14 or 15
>> slams...
>
> what you need to define in your own time is what credential that a player
> must have to
> qualify as GOAT ? If we listen to your credential on legitimacy for GOAT
> contender,
> we can also rule out Sampras because he did nto exactly dominate Krajicek or
> Hewit
> during his era,
Sampras v Hewitt in slams 1-1
Sampras v Krajicek in slams 1-1
Rafa v Federer in slams 6-2
There is no basis here to factor in meaningless tune-ups as that's what
they are - meaningless.
|
|
