Remove this Banner Ad

Borg : Backs Federer for Wimbledon Title

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Ricketts said:
... and 14 > 6.
Click to expand...

and 27 > 22


Only thing that will stop Rafa from smashing whatever record Federer sets is injuries. Federer simply cannot beat Nadal on any surface when he's 100%
 
gaelictiogar said:
Someone should tell Borg and Navratilova that we are in a transitional period and Fed is only good not great. McEnroe and Sampras need reminding as well.

Fed's only defeat on grass in the past 6 years happened when he was recovering from illness and unable to last 5 sets but he has had no opposition of course !!!!
Click to expand...
They all play like robots these days and federer is basically the best player of this generation playing this style of play, doesnt mean he is the greatest player ever. If there were more good serve volleyers coming through then we would have the variety we need to judge whether or not federer is indeed the best of all time.
 
CanonNo1 said:
What would Borg, Navratilova, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras and even Nadal know anyway? They've won almost 100 grand slams between them (singles and doubles). But if TP reckons he's not a great then surely that counts for more than them right?

The transitional period that has lasted for 6 years. According to this theory, Nadal has also dominated on Clay in a transitional period so really he's 4 french opens are bit tainted right and how could he possibly be considered the best clay courter ever? Kuerten, Courier, Brugera, Muster they'll all rank above him right? For that matter, his Wimbledon and Aus opens are tainted as well right, they were won in a transitional period.

I'll be writing to the ATP and ITF requesting that all tournaments played between 2003 and 2009 or 2010? (TP - When is the transitional period ending???) should have big bold asterix with a disclaimer that these were won in a "transitional phase" in the game where there were only duds playing.
Click to expand...
There are more players that can play on clay then there are that can play on grass so therefore the task of winning on clay is much more difficult. Some of the greatest players of all time never won the french open Sampras and Becker spring to mind don't think mcenroe did either. Federer's game is perfect for grass and their is not enough players that can play on grass at a high level to really threaten federer hence why he has dominated since 2003. I dont believe in this so called transitional period, the simple facts are the depth in mens tennis is not that great and federer has taken advantage of that.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Total Power said:
so now 5 set wins dont count?? and rafa is finished? lol geez you love to have the egg on your face dont you?

if you dont count clay, i dont count grass too...which means rafa is 1-0 in slams :D

Whenever he meets rafa face to face his elegance goes away.He turns into a very ordinary player.Face it, its a FACT! 5 > 2, 13 > 7 and clay DOES count. Why shouldnt it count? cause you say so???
Click to expand...

The game is called Lawn Tennis and is supposed to be played on grass.

Clay does to tennis what waterlogged and mucky pitches does to soccer...it reduces the gifted to the level of the thumper and grunter.

McEnroe struggled on it. Even Federer struggles on it to an extent. The tow greatest talents of the age.

Metronomic Spanish/Latin two fisted thumpers like Nadal do well on it since sheer physical endurance plays such a part in it but as for real gifted tennis players? it's beneath them.
 
gaelictiogar said:
The game is called Lawn Tennis and is supposed to be played on grass.

Clay does to tennis what waterlogged and mucky pitches does to soccer...it reduces the gifted to the level of the thumper and grunter.

McEnroe struggled on it. Even Federer struggles on it to an extent. The tow greatest talents of the age.

Metronomic Spanish/Latin two fisted thumpers like Nadal do well on it since sheer physical endurance plays such a part in it but as for real gifted tennis players? it's beneath them.
Click to expand...

so hardcourt and claycourt tennis is not tennis? only statistic that counts is the 3 weeks of tennis we have in june? even more comedy from Mr GT. But take ur pick rafa has beaten him there too :)
 
Total Power said:
so hardcourt and claycourt tennis is not tennis? only statistic that counts is the 3 weeks of tennis we have in june? even more comedy from Mr GT. But take ur pick rafa has beaten him there too :)
Click to expand...

Grass is the real deal. The real sport from its birth.

Rafa's one win on grass no more makes him a better grass courter than Soderlings one win on clay V Nadal makes him a better claycourter.
 
gaelictiogar said:
Grass is the real deal. The real sport from its birth.

Rafa's one win on grass no more makes him a better grass courter than Soderlings one win on clay V Nadal makes him a better claycourter.
Click to expand...

lol winning a wimbledon is the same as winning a 4th round??? i never knew that. The fact is he ALMOST beat roger the year before, before he got injured.FACT. The fact that federer cant even beat rafa comfortably on grass shows that rafa has surpassed him on all surfaces now.

Secondly so if grass is the real deal you reckon wooden racquets are real deal. All this titanium shit is making the sport artificial and a sport should never evolve. Cricket should be played without a helmet and bodyline should be allowed, cause thats the real sport.You sir, are a clueless person.The game has evolved, grass season is the shortest of all seasons by a long long way....get on with the times please.While wimbledon is still the most prestigious slam in the world, making statements like winning on grass counts on the most makes you look like a *****
 
Total Power said:
lol winning a wimbledon is the same as winning a 4th round??? i never knew that. The fact is he ALMOST beat roger the year before, before he got injured.FACT. The fact that federer cant even beat rafa comfortably on grass shows that rafa has surpassed him on all surfaces now.

Secondly so if grass is the real deal you reckon wooden racquets are real deal. All this titanium shit is making the sport artificial and a sport should never evolve. Cricket should be played without a helmet and bodyline should be allowed, cause thats the real sport.You sir, are a clueless person.The game has evolved, grass season is the shortest of all seasons by a long long way....get on with the times please.While wimbledon is still the most prestigious slam in the world, making statements like winning on grass counts on the most makes you look like a *****
Click to expand...

Rafa took Roger to 5 sets before losing so that is a kind of moral victory is it? So let me get this right when Roger took Rafa to 5 sets at RG that presumably was in reality a kind of win for Roger and doesn't really count on Rafa's slam numbers since what goes of one should go for the other? Am I right?

What does Roger's stroll against Rafa in their most recent clay court game mean if one isolated victory means a player has surpassed another on a surface? Or was poor baby tired?

We're going to see a lot more tired Rafa as his need to charge like a lunatic around the court to make up for his lack of talent takes a heavier and heavier toll so get used to using the patented copyrighted Nadalista excise for his consistent failures to final at slams cos you'll need it.
 
gaelictiogar said:
Rafa took Roger to 5 sets before losing so that is a kind of moral victory is it? So let me get this right when Roger took Rafa to 5 sets at RG that presumably was in reality a kind of win for Roger and doesn't really count on Rafa's slam numbers since what goes of one should go for the other? Am I right?

What does Roger's stroll against Rafa in their most recent clay court game mean if one isolated victory means a player has surpassed another on a surface? Or was poor baby tired?

We're going to see a lot more tired Rafa as his need to charge like a lunatic around the court to make up for his lack of talent takes a heavier and heavier toll so get used to using the patented copyrighted Nadalista excise for his consistent failures to final at slams cos you'll need it.
Click to expand...

when did roger take rafa to 5 sets at RG?? are you dreaming or just making up your own stuff??? what i mean is this...for a spanish guy with a grip like rafas, grass is a nightmare.It has been for ever, since a spaniard won a wimbledon. The reason is the surface , the bounce the speed etc.So rafa to come there and give him a hard time was a super effort.Are you forgetting your calls you made previously? that he wont win a set against roger out of clay? go back a couple of years ago and check your own quotes...you have the egg on your face.

Secondly rafas knee is not cause of roger.He had knee problems ever since he was a kid.Do research the facts atleast before shooting your mouth and rafa will be back.Roddick is playing with tendonitis in his right knee, its not career ending.But your call gives me another opportunity to prove what a ******* you are give some of the calls you made before, here is a small sample:

1. rafa will never beat nole again
2. rafa will never beat roger out of clay in a non clay slam
3. rafa will never win a non clay slam

considering all the things you have said before, your comments should be taken with a grain of salt.Swallow your own facts, he beat roger on his favourite surface and his least favourite surface...while roger is unable to beat him on rafas favourite surface. 13 > 7 , 5 > 2. Thats not bad for a talentless person is it? :D
 

Remove this Banner Ad

OK it was Rome rather than Paris in which the clay match went to 5 sets but same point applies. If 3-2 to Roger on grass is a Rafa moral "win" then Roger morally "won" that Rome final. In fact Rafa win in Rome and Roger did in London.

As to Roger being "unable to beat him on Rafa's favourite surface". what surface did the recent Madrid Masters final take place on? Roger has beaten Rafa on clay twice. Of course Rafa is a clay beast who is phenomenal on clay but it is simply untrue to say Roger can't beat him. He has and can.

Please don't tell meRafa was tired. His whole game is build on running and if he is tired it is merely indicative of the energy he needs to expend. As Agassi has said a routine victory costs Rafa more than it does Roger. Indeed if Rafa being tired is excuse then Roger being sick is as well and much of 2008 is irrelevant incluging the RG whitewash when Roger was unable to compete and the 5th set at Wimbledon when his lack of fitnes due toglandular fever suffered that year told.

If we are going to have sicknote excuses then lets open the doors on them.
 
gaelictiogar said:
OK it was Rome rather than Paris in which the clay match went to 5 sets but same point applies. If 3-2 to Roger on grass is a Rafa moral "win" then Roger morally "won" that Rome final. In fact Rafa win in Rome and Roger did in London.

As to Roger being "unable to beat him on Rafa's favourite surface". what surface did the recent Madrid Masters final take place on? Roger has beaten Rafa on clay twice. Of course Rafa is a clay beast who is phenomenal on clay but it is simply untrue to say Roger can't beat him. He has and can.

Please don't tell meRafa was tired. His whole game is build on running and if he is tired it is merely indicative of the energy he needs to expend. As Agassi has said a routine victory costs Rafa more than it does Roger. Indeed if Rafa being tired is excuse then Roger being sick is as well and much of 2008 is irrelevant incluging the RG whitewash when Roger was unable to compete and the 5th set at Wimbledon when his lack of fitnes due toglandular fever suffered that year told.

If we are going to have sicknote excuses then lets open the doors on them.
Click to expand...

So you are saying beating someone in a masters series event is the same as beating someone in a slam? federer beat rafa in hamburg too that roger before he got pantsed in the finals.Completely different ball game. Slams >>>>>>> masters series event. So there goes your point.Come back when he does something on clay.Lets compare their clay court record vs non clay record and lets see who has a competitive edge? you will see (and i am sure you know) rafa is 4-5 in non clay (including 2 slam finals) surfaces compared to what? 9-2 on clay. So either way you lose.

lol@your glandular fever excuse.Funny how he was able to win so many 5 set matches, including berdych at aussie open, yet when it came to rafa, its cause of glandular fever lol :rolleyes:

Thank god rafa didnt make it to the finals of the US open, otherwise his glandular fever (headache? sars? birdflu?) would have kicked in again... lol since he won, i would assume he was completely fit lol
 
Power King said:
It's like any sport.

look at the head-to-head matchup.
Click to expand...

2004:

1. Port Adelaide
2. Brisbane
3. St Kilda
4. Geelong
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. West Coast
8. Essendon

9. Fremantle
10. North Melbourne
11. Carlton
12. Adelaide
13. Collingwood
14. Western Bulldogs
15. Hawthorn
16. Richmond

H2H in 2004:

North Melbourne 1
Port Adelaide 0

North Melbourne > Port Adelaide in '04? Interesting theory you have there, but I'm not sure that I'd agree :thumbsu:
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

gaelictiogar said:
Indeed if Rafa being tired is excuse then Roger being sick is as well and much of 2008 is irrelevant incluging the RG whitewash when Roger was unable to compete and the 5th set at Wimbledon when his lack of fitnes due toglandular fever suffered that year told.
Click to expand...

Quoted for stupidity. Seriously, to blame Federer's losses in 2008 at the French Open and Wimbledon on an illness that he had at the beginning of that year (6 months before these tournaments) is just ridiculous. Nadal was simply the better player and I'm sure Federer himself would admit that.

Considering Nadal took him to 5 sets the year before in the Wimbledon final, it's not hard to realise that maybe Nadal improved enough on grass over the next year to take an extra set off him in the final and win the tournament.
 
matty p said:
Quoted for stupidity. Seriously, to blame Federer's losses in 2008 at the French Open and Wimbledon on an illness that he had at the beginning of that year (6 months before these tournaments) is just ridiculous. Nadal was simply the better player and I'm sure Federer himself would admit that.

Considering Nadal took him to 5 sets the year before in the Wimbledon final, it's not hard to realise that maybe Nadal improved enough on grass over the next year to take an extra set off him in the final and win the tournament.
Click to expand...

dont you know feds glandular fever lasted well over a year till this years australian open :rolleyes: but apparently he said he was 100 percent fit at the US open last year :rolleyes:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Borg : Backs Federer for Wimbledon Title

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top