King Rafa

[Great_Ocean_Road]

Federer is easily the better player.

 

[Power King]

I'd say Nadal is the better player.

The only reason Federer can be said to be a better player than Nadal is if you are going by overall career achievements (as opposed to career achievements at 22 yo), or if you like Fed's gamestyle more.

 

[Great_Ocean_Road]

What is to stop nadal having a massive injury or drop in form and only winning grand slam every so often.

 

[Total Power]

Unless I missed a hell of a lot tennis in the 90's I don't believe Sampras ever made it to French Open final, let alone 3, yet he is 'great'??? (and according to many the best or 2nd best player ever). Yes, Federer has not won a French Open but has finished runner up 3 times to arguably the 'greatness' clay courter, but apparently that counts for little and makes him a dud clay courter.

I read somewhere that you suggess that Federer has won his slams in a 'transition' period between sampras/agassi etc and murray/nadal/djoko. Not sure about you, but 5 years (length of federer's dominance) is a pretty bloody long transition period.

And this 'transition' period is slightly flawed given Murray is yet ot win a slam (yes he may but hasnt) and is djoko anygood??? (anyone who retires in 25% of grand slam matches must be questioned). So I ask what exactly are we transitioning too?

Sampras played Agassi and who else? Did he win in a transition period between Edgber/Becker/Courier and Federer/Nadal? Did Borg win in a transition period before dominant players of the 60's and McEnroe/Connors? A nonsense statement ...

You want facts ... here are the facts. Federer has :
- Won 13 grand slams (on all surface bar clay)
- Made 18 grand slam finals (on all surfaces)
- Made 17/18 grans slam semi finals in a row (thats more than the total grand slams djoko and murray have played)
- Being ranked number 1 for 4? 5? years
- Won about 60 tournaments worldwide

But apparently he is not 'great' only 'good' .... give me a break.

yes and i also pointed out the quality of opposition he faced, including the top players, which included the likes of davydenko, hewitt, roddick, gonzalez, safin then.That was a tranisition period in tennis, now that we have competition federer is being exposes.If he is great how come he is mentally so vulnerable against apparently a claycourter? if he is the greatest of all, he is unable to beat a claycourter on his favourite surface while destroyed on rafas favourite surface?

 

[Total Power]

Greatest player ever? I don't have a definitive answer about Federer at this stage in terms of overall place in history. But he is clearly a great player, and will go down as one of the greats. I am not a fanboy. You are a fanboy.

I am a rafa fan, thats a fact and i am proud of admit it.Federer is great in terms of quantity but only good in terms of quality.Time will tell if he is able to break the shackle in the near future or continue his slide against the likes of rafa.

I answered your question by using your own words. Federer is only good. Rafa has only beaten 'good' players in slams. Therefore Rafa is only 'good'. Simple?

you havent said federer is only good...you have said he is a great player..above.If federer is only good and you accept it, then why are we having this debate? its settled, but you think federer is great..hence rafas achievements counts a hell lot in terms of quality. thank you for proving my point.

That's funny and sad at the same time.

Mental strength can only get you so far too. You think soon enough that players aren't going to work out how to get past the Nadal wall? Especially once his body is unable to cope with his demanding style of play?

funny and sad huh? recently mcenrore said rafa is the best sportsman he has ever seen in his life in terms of mental strength and ability.What exactly is wrong if you draw motivation from his work ethic? instead of looking at paris hilton or having tattos like 2pac and gangsta rappers, dont you think this is worth it? or you would say that the former is better?

Who knows what will happen in the future.He has won 6 and he is sure to win the french for the next 2-3 years atleast and he is now the favourite to win wimbledon and other slams too.You never know, unless you are a fortune teller.

I don't care about what other people say, it's what you have to say that I think is stupid. And I am sure they aren't back because they fear the wrath of Total Power. The scary fanboy! Once again don't group me with other fanboy's, I am not one. Ever thought they might just be sick of your obsession?!

hahahaha dont you think all of a sudden they got sick of my obsession as soon as federer lost in the finals...coincidence? maybe in your book call me whatever you want, all of bigfooty called me names when i said nadal is capable of winning on all surfaces, who is laughing now? yes yes, your so called "fanboy:

Once again, you can't call somebody a 'good' player after 13 grand slams. Don't be such a deluded moron. You especially can't say Rafa is great after only beating 'good' players in slams. See how easy that is?

contradiction again.Federer is great according to you, hence according to you, rafas quality should be better isnt it? come on accept it

Sampras couldn't win on clay either, so what's your point? You just used him as an example of someone great? So Sampras wasn't a great player either? Oops.

sampras had to deal with quality, the likes of agassi, courier, chang, becker, muster, ivanesevic etc..and federers quality...hewitt, safin, roddick, davydenko, gonzalez, henman.I told you, anyone who understands tennis would accept, after sampras retired that period was one of the weakest period in open era.If you disagree, can you actually explain why? till nadal came up, no one even was capable of taking a set away from federer.Was he invincible? no he is not, says rafa, nole and muzza.So what was it? the answer is simple.

See, I am using the same bullshit logic towards Rafa as you are towards Federer. See how easy it is to spin together 'facts' when using other people's words? And again, never said he was the greatest, just pointing out your stupid fanboy reasoning.

what am i spinning exactly? wilander made an observation many years ago, which was heavily ciriticised and he had to apologise even to federer for that. But tell me, isnt it true? how come his balls shrink everytime he seens nadal standing on the other side of the court?If he is great, shouldnt be find a way out? they have met 19 times now, and if he is the greatest of all times, he should have.But he is not, he is a good player, when faced with tough challenges is often found out.Thats why his career 5 set record is 13-12.Not impressive for a great player isnt it? how is that "spinning".Everyone thinks he is great and prolly the greatest of all times, i said i dont think so.He could have been a great player in my book as well only if he could beat Rafa, but he is not getting any younger.

Still, don't know what overall affect this has on one's 'greatness'. When weighing up the good vs the bad of Federer's career, he clearly is in the 'great' column. Don't be such a deluded fanboy. It's sickening.

and you have just proved my point.Rafa won 90 percent of his slams beating a great player.How many slams did federer win by beating quality?he is lucky to be in the era of roddick and hewitt..meh!as i said, i will accept i am wrong if he can dominate in the present era too.But unfortunately he cant, cause i am right.The proof is in the results, enough said.

 

[Total Power]

I'd say Nadal is the better player.

The only reason Federer can be said to be a better player than Nadal is if you are going by overall career achievements (as opposed to career achievements at 22 yo), or if you like Fed's gamestyle more.

exactly.Thats the only argument they have at the moment.Nadal is only 22, its unfair to compare 13 vs 6.How many did federer win when he was 22??

 

[Hot Spenny]

I am a rafa fan, thats a fact and i am proud of admit it.Federer is great in terms of quantity but only good in terms of quality.Time will tell if he is able to break the shackle in the near future or continue his slide against the likes of rafa.

That's the point. You are a Nadal fan that has a deluded opinion because of this reason.

you havent said federer is only good...you have said he is a great player..above.If federer is only good and you accept it, then why are we having this debate? its settled, but you think federer is great..hence rafas achievements counts a hell lot in terms of quality. thank you for proving my point.

You moron, I was using your stupid logic as an example of proving a point. Are you kidding me? The fact is you only think he is GOOD. Ha ha, that was a shit attempt, fanboy.

funny and sad huh? recently mcenrore said rafa is the best sportsman he has ever seen in his life in terms of mental strength and ability.What exactly is wrong if you draw motivation from his work ethic? instead of looking at paris hilton or having tattos like 2pac and gangsta rappers, dont you think this is worth it? or you would say that the former is better?

Well I guess that depends how old you are. I am assuming you are pretty young, which probably justifies all this bullshit...and I like the Paris analogy there, didn't rip that off from someone who posted the same thing the other day did you? And you wouldn't even have one clue what Tu Pac did. Anyway, for another day.

hahahaha dont you think all of a sudden they got sick of my obsession as soon as federer lost in the finals...coincidence? maybe in your book call me whatever you want, all of bigfooty called me names when i said nadal is capable of winning on all surfaces, who is laughing now? yes yes, your so called "fanboy:

I am personally laughing at your obsession that is affecting your opinion. I don't care about anybody else.

contradiction again.Federer is great according to you, hence according to you, rafas quality should be better isnt it? come on accept it

Wow. I don't know what to say, other than it's unfortunate, and quite 'fanboyish' that you have totally missed the point. Again. I was using YOUR logic. I am NOT A FANBOY. I think Raf is FANTASTIC. Using YOUR logic, somebody could argue the same think about RAF as YOU do about FEDERER. Dunce.

sampras had to deal with quality, the likes of agassi, courier, chang, becker, muster, ivanesevic etc..and federers quality...hewitt, safin, roddick, davydenko, gonzalez, henman.I told you, anyone who understands tennis would accept, after sampras retired that period was one of the weakest period in open era.If you disagree, can you actually explain why? till nadal came up, no one even was capable of taking a set away from federer.Was he invincible? no he is not, says rafa, nole and muzza.So what was it? the answer is simple.

And Sampras never beat any of those to even make a final. Still question his greatness? And who is Nadal competing against now that makes this era any greater than when Fed was the same age?

what am i spinning exactly? wilander made an observation many years ago, which was heavily ciriticised and he had to apologise even to federer for that. But tell me, isnt it true? how come his balls shrink everytime he seens nadal standing on the other side of the court?If he is great, shouldnt be find a way out? they have met 19 times now, and if he is the greatest of all times, he should have.But he is not, he is a good player, when faced with tough challenges is often found out.Thats why his career 5 set record is 13-12.Not impressive for a great player isnt it? how is that "spinning".Everyone thinks he is great and prolly the greatest of all times, i said i dont think so.He could have been a great player in my book as well only if he could beat Rafa, but he is not getting any younger.

It's pointless even doing this. If you can't recognise that Federer is a great (not the greatest, just great remember) player, you are a deluded fanboy mental case. That's it. Done. Your opinion is influenced by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesn't allow you to recognise the greatness of Federer, only the 'goodness', which is sad. You aren't a tennis fan, you are a Nadal fan. Let's make a Nadal board for you so you can ejaculate over there.

and you have just proved my point.Rafa won 90 percent of his slams beating a great player.How many slams did federer win by beating quality?he is lucky to be in the era of roddick and hewitt..meh!as i said, i will accept i am wrong if he can dominate in the present era too.But unfortunately he cant, cause i am right.The proof is in the results, enough said.

But, He's NOT GREAT ACCORDING TO YOU! WERE YOU AWAKE WHILE YOU TYPED THAT???!!!! Or are you just incredibly naive??? That is the whole ****ing point here. You are saying Federer is great when it suits you, to back up Nadal. That's pathetic.

 

[Hot Spenny]

exactly.Thats the only argument they have at the moment.Nadal is only 22, its unfair to compare 13 vs 6.How many did federer win when he was 22??

Who is even arguing this?

 

[CanonNo1]

But, He's NOT GREAT ACCORDING TO YOU! WERE YOU AWAKE WHILE YOU TYPED THAT???!!!! Or are you just incredibly naive??? That is the whole ****ing point here. You are saying Federer is great when it suits you, to back up Nadal. That's pathetic.

The silence is deafening. Where are you total power?

If Federer is merely 'Good'.... why is Rafa 'Great'? If Federer has a weak era, what era does Nadal have? If Federer has beaten 'no one' in his slams then who has Nadal beaten?

Vulture has it spot on... you are deluded and blinded by some chemical reaction.

The bottom line is
- Federer is clearly a great
- Nadal is very good and should become a great if he progresses at current rate.

 

[Total Power]

That's the point. You are a Nadal fan that has a deluded opinion because of this reason.

people said the same thing when i said he can win on all surfaces! who is laughing now? have you read the recent andy murray article.I cant be bothered to post that article but he said exactly the same thing, he clearly said :

The 22-year-old Spaniard already has six Grand Slam trophies and Murray believes he could yet surpass the achievements of both Federer and Sampras.

Murray said: "It's possible. At the same age I think Federer had two and Nadal's got six and he's won on every surface.

"I can't see many people beating him on clay so I'm guessing he is going to have at least two or three more French Opens.

See this is just his opinion, which you think you can have but no one else can have.I think Nadal is better than Federer and will win more than what federer will win in his career.

You moron, I was using your stupid logic as an example of proving a point. Are you kidding me? The fact is you only think he is GOOD. Ha ha, that was a shit attempt, fanboy.

so many posts on bigfooty and you dont know moron is a bannable offense here? Anyway, according to my logic, rafa > fed.So looks like you are ready to accept my logic then why are you debating this?? if you however disagree with this logic and you think federer is great, then still rafa > fed, since he won 90 percent of slams beating fed Win/Win for me

Well I guess that depends how old you are. I am assuming you are pretty young, which probably justifies all this bullshit...and I like the Paris analogy there, didn't rip that off from someone who posted the same thing the other day did you? And you wouldn't even have one clue what Tu Pac did. Anyway, for another day.

LOL yeah i am very young, wow you would know isnt it? coming from a tennis ***** from an aussie rules website, wow.Your ID justifies your character .People have tiger woods as their idol, michael jordon as their idol, recently tiger woods said federer inspires me.So i think woods is young and just speaking crap cause he is young and has no clue.Funny how people can have actors and singers as their idols but not a sportsman? but thats vulture logic anyway for you, things you get on a footy site

I am personally laughing at your obsession that is affecting your opinion. I don't care about anybody else.

I figured you shouldnt, cause you are proven wrong, just like i won when i said rafa can win on all surfaces .Laugh vulture laugh

Wow. I don't know what to say, other than it's unfortunate, and quite 'fanboyish' that you have totally missed the point. Again. I was using YOUR logic. I am NOT A FANBOY. I think Raf is FANTASTIC. Using YOUR logic, somebody could argue the same think about RAF as YOU do about FEDERER. Dunce.

You are worse than a fanboy, if not why are you defending federer anyway? why cant you stay on topic? i said, if i use my logic rafa is the best in the present times, i win! if i dont use my logic and i use yours, i still win! The more insults you make, the more it leads me to believe that you are a sore loser.

And Sampras never beat any of those to even make a final. Still question his greatness? And who is Nadal competing against now that makes this era any greater than when Fed was the same age?

Sampras never beat who? were you in a coma or are you simply stupid??
1990 US Open (1) Flag of the United States Andre Agassi 6–4, 6–3, 6–2
1993 Wimbledon (1) Flag of the United States Jim Courier 7–6, 7–6, 3–6, 6–3
1993 US Open (2) Flag of France Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6–4, 6–3
1994 Australian Open (1) Flag of the United States Todd Martin 7–6, 6–4, 6–4
1994 Wimbledon (2) Flag of Croatia Goran Ivanišević 7–6, 7–6, 6–0
1995 Wimbledon (3) Flag of Germany Boris Becker 6–7, 6–2, 6–4, 6–2
1995 US Open (3) Flag of the United States Andre Agassi 6–4, 6–3, 4–6, 7–5
1996 US Open (4) Flag of the United States Michael Chang 6–1, 6–4, 7–6
1997 Australian Open (2) Flag of Spain Carlos Moyá 6–2, 6–3, 6–3
1997 Wimbledon (4) Flag of France Cédric Pioline 6–4, 6–2, 6–4
1998 Wimbledon (5) Flag of Croatia Goran Ivanišević 6–7, 7–6, 6–4, 3–6, 6–2
1999 Wimbledon (6) Flag of the United States Andre Agassi 6–3, 6–4, 7–5
2000 Wimbledon (7) Flag of Australia Patrick Rafter 6–7, 7–6, 6–4, 6–2
2002 US Open (5) Flag of the United States Andre Agassi 6–3, 6–4, 5–7, 6–4

compare those names with gonzalez, roddick, hewitt, davydenko.I am sure you understand tennis a little bit to see the difference in quality.Try your best, you can see it If required check the atp websites or videos to understand the game properly

It's pointless even doing this. If you can't recognise that Federer is a great (not the greatest, just great remember) player, you are a deluded fanboy mental case. That's it. Done. Your opinion is influenced by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesn't allow you to recognise the greatness of Federer, only the 'goodness', which is sad. You aren't a tennis fan, you are a Nadal fan. Let's make a Nadal board for you so you can ejaculate over there.

so? i can have an opinion and i can defend it.All you can do is just insult which leads me to believe you are a frustrated teeny.He is not great, he is good and nadal is also good, not great (yet), but he is better than federer.I have defended my point why cant you defend yours? explain why federer is not able to beat the new generation of tennis and only able to beat the old roddicks and hewitts of tennis? i doubt how many times can he beat nole, rafa, muzza in slams in the future.In small tournaments yeah maybe, but i dont see him beating them anymore in slams.

But, He's NOT GREAT ACCORDING TO YOU! WERE YOU AWAKE WHILE YOU TYPED THAT???!!!! Or are you just incredibly naive??? That is the whole ****ing point here. You are saying Federer is great when it suits you, to back up Nadal. That's pathetic.

I never said federer is great, i said he is good and nadal is better than him. All i said if federer is great (according to your logic) nadal is better.Geez, can you understand now??

 

[Total Power]

The silence is deafening. Where are you total power?

If Federer is merely 'Good'.... why is Rafa 'Great'? If Federer has a weak era, what era does Nadal have? If Federer has beaten 'no one' in his slams then who has Nadal beaten?

Vulture has it spot on... you are deluded and blinded by some chemical reaction.

The bottom line is
- Federer is clearly a great
- Nadal is very good and should become a great if he progresses at current rate.

I never said rafa is great, i said rafa is great in the present era..not of all times. Rafa is competing with the new generation, murray and nole who is capable of making your so called "great player" cry.If federer isgreat, howcome he cant beat rafa? thats my question, why cant you answer this question without insults?

Secondly, i live in a different timezone so hold onto your panties

 

[Hot Spenny]

I will try and spare the personal insults, but it's hard because you are such a...

people said the same thing when i said he can win on all surfaces! who is laughing now? have you read the recent andy murray article.I cant be bothered to post that article but he said exactly the same thing, he clearly said :

It has nothing to do with the fact that federer is better than 'good'. Stay on topic.

See this is just his opinion, which you think you can have but no one else can have.I think Nadal is better than Federer and will win more than what federer will win in his career.

It has nothing to do with the fact that federer is better than 'good'. Stay on topic.

so many posts on bigfooty and you dont know moron is a bannable offense here? Anyway, according to my logic, rafa > fed.So looks like you are ready to accept my logic then why are you debating this?? if you however disagree with this logic and you think federer is great, then still rafa > fed, since he won 90 percent of slams beating fed Win/Win for me

I have never even received an infraction on bigfooty. I rarely care to comment on fanboy's, but you are an exception due to your many downfalls.

LOL yeah i am very young, wow you would know isnt it? coming from a tennis ***** from an aussie rules website, wow.Your ID justifies your character .People have tiger woods as their idol, michael jordon as their idol, recently tiger woods said federer inspires me.So i think woods is young and just speaking crap cause he is young and has no clue.Funny how people can have actors and singers as their idols but not a sportsman? but thats vulture logic anyway for you, things you get on a footy site

What else can I go by? The way in which you type your posts and your attitude on the tennis board only leads me to deduct that you are just a youngin'.

I figured you shouldnt, cause you are proven wrong, just like i won when i said rafa can win on all surfaces .Laugh vulture laugh

Proven wrong with what?? Answer that please.

You are worse than a fanboy, if not why are you defending federer anyway? why cant you stay on topic? i said, if i use my logic rafa is the best in the present times, i win! if i dont use my logic and i use yours, i still win! The more insults you make, the more it leads me to believe that you are a sore loser.

I am not defending Federer. I am defending logic. Are you a catholic by the way? How am I off topic? You put words in my mouth from the start saying that I was saying that Fed is the greatest ever. Never said that. I said Federer was better than a good player.

Sore loser? I am intolerant towards fanboy's. I will continue to try and avoid the expletives.

Sampras never beat who? were you in a coma or are you simply stupid??

...Useless shit

Referring to the FRENCH OPEN you.... It's getting harder. Wow, the stupidity is amazing. Just poor attempts at trying to spin it towards your favour. Not happening.

so? i can have an opinion and i can defend it.All you can do is just insult which leads me to believe you are a frustrated teeny.He is not great, he is good and nadal is also good, not great (yet), but he is better than federer.I have defended my point why cant you defend yours? explain why federer is not able to beat the new generation of tennis and only able to beat the old roddicks and hewitts of tennis? i doubt how many times can he beat nole, rafa, muzza in slams in the future.In small tournaments yeah maybe, but i dont see him beating them anymore in slams.

I have constantly defended my point of Federer being better than good, all by using your twisted logic.

I never said federer is great, i said he is good and nadal is better than him. All i said if federer is great (according to your logic) nadal is better.Geez, can you understand now??

Wow. Just...Wow. Only a couple of posts ago:

Rafa won 90 percent of his slams beating a great player

Goodbye.

 

[Total Power]

I will try and spare the personal insults, but it's hard because you are such a...

the feeling is mutual, dont worry

It has nothing to do with the fact that federer is better than 'good'. Stay on topic.

i am on topic, i have given my reasons why i think federer is not great, you are unable to prove otherwise than your little petty insults.

It has nothing to do with the fact that federer is better than 'good'. Stay on topic.

So you accept my opinion? okie dokie.

I have never even received an infraction on bigfooty. I rarely care to comment on fanboy's, but you are an exception due to your many downfalls.

you are unable to prove anything, other than sticking to my logic.Funny how you are unable to defend yours?

What else can I go by? The way in which you type your posts and your attitude on the tennis board only leads me to deduct that you are just a youngin'.

hahaha! funny.When i said nadal can win on all surfaces, i was told the same thing.Now you people say nadal is an all surface player and how that issue is dead and buried.Well you are entitled to your opinion, i am least bothered by what people on an aussie rules forum has to say about me.

Proven wrong with what?? Answer that please.

You are unable to say why you think federers quantity should be better than quality.Seriously speaking if you go by quantity, yes federer is great.If you go by the quality of opposition he had he is not great.I am trying to drive home this point for the last 3 days.I havent seen a single argument you posted where you actually defended this, other than " iam going by your logic" shit.

I am not defending Federer. I am defending logic. Are you a catholic by the way? How am I off topic? You put words in my mouth from the start saying that I was saying that Fed is the greatest ever. Never said that. I said Federer was better than a good player.

i am an atheist , so you wanna insult me now? go ahead.What logic are you actually talking about? you are quantity>quality.I say quality> quantiy.Thats the whole issue here.

Sore loser? I am intolerant towards fanboy's. I will continue to try and avoid the expletives.

answer me this: and make it a final one.If you go by my logic and you think federer is good, do you think rafa is better? 5-2 in slams and won on all surfaces! simple really.The only 2 victories came on feds favourite surface on rafas inexperience on grass courts and that even BARELY!If you think federer is great, why dont you think rafa is greater.Simple question really which you have never answered or even dared to touch, other than your stupid "fanboy fanboy" rant.

Referring to the FRENCH OPEN you.... It's getting harder. Wow, the stupidity is amazing. Just poor attempts at trying to spin it towards your favour. Not happening.

where did you mention french open in the last post? am i supposed to read your mind?? but still, answer my question, see the quality of opposition sampras faced and compare that to federer..please answer who do you think had better and tougher oppositions.

I have constantly defended my point of Federer being better than good, all by using your twisted logic.

ok then, you are entitled to your opinion, i am entitled to mine.

Wow. Just...Wow. Only a couple of posts ago:

couple of posts ago what? you are getting confused unfortunately.

Goodbye.

so soon? damn!

 

[Hot Spenny]

Let's end this, it's boring.

You are unable to say why you think federers quantity should be better than quality.Seriously speaking if you go by quantity, yes federer is great.If you go by the quality of opposition he had he is not great.I am trying to drive home this point for the last 3 days.I havent seen a single argument you posted where you actually defended this, other than " iam going by your logic" shit.

Re-read the first post I made replying to you in this thread. I was simply pointing out YOUR flawed logic. No personal opinion from my point of view.

i am an atheist , so you wanna insult me now? go ahead.What logic are you actually talking about? you are quantity>quality.I say quality> quantiy.Thats the whole issue here.

Still, something you are having serious trouble with...confirming your own logic...If you believe Federer is only good, then how does Nadal's victories over Federer make it of more quality than Federer's victories??

answer me this: and make it a final one.If you go by my logic and you think federer is good, do you think rafa is better? 5-2 in slams and won on all surfaces! simple really.The only 2 victories came on feds favourite surface on rafas inexperience on grass courts and that even BARELY!If you think federer is great, why dont you think rafa is greater.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth to twist things your way. But I will in fact answer, and say that Nadal is the best player in the world at the moment.

Simple question really which you have never answered or even dared to touch, other than your stupid "fanboy fanboy" rant.

Calling someone good when they are clearly better than that provoked the 'rant'.

where did you mention french open in the last post? am i supposed to read your mind?? but still, answer my question, see the quality of opposition sampras faced and compare that to federer..please answer who do you think had better and tougher oppositions.

You should have deduced that from past posts, don't be ridiciulous and assumed that I meant through his whole career! Please!

Evidently Sampras had the 'tougher' opposition. Still, don't know why you are making me answer these questions, I never had this stance. My stance was, your logic is stupid. Federer is obviously better than good for many reasons, reasons that you cannot see for yourself, that 99.99% of tennis fans can recognise.

couple of posts ago what? you are getting confused unfortunately.

Umm, I quoted you, did you not see?? May I again? Don't avoid it please.

"Rafa won 90 percent of his slams beating a great player" - Total Power. Helloooo? Oops. According no you, nuh-uh, he did not!

Now for my summary. Using your line of thinking; Federer is only a good player because of the quality of his opposition. Nadal is worse, because he has never beaten a great player in a slam.

If you fail to see how that's how your logic can be used against Nadal, then something is wrong.

Finally, why I think Federer is 'better than good'

13 Grand Slams
18 Grand Slam Finals
57 Tournament Victories
234 weeks at number 1
Best backhand possibly the game has seen
All court player
Making lesser players look like fools on the tennis court
Consistency
Utilising his incredible talent to the maximum
Translated his unbelievable gift into unbelievable results

 

[Total Power]

Finally, why I think Federer is 'better than good'

13 Grand Slams (mostly against weak opponents, got found out against quality opposition)
18 Grand Slam Finals (agreed, however see above)
57 Tournament Victories (small touraments who cares? remember michael chang? he was a master of that, does anyone remember those)
234 weeks at number 1 (most of them in a transition period, dominated by roddick and hewitt)
Best backhand possibly the game has seen (that backhand that rafa exploits to win? he had 49 unforced errors from that wing in the finals)
All court player (agreed)
Making lesser players look like fools on the tennis court (agreed, however has his limitations)
Consistency (agreed)
Utilising his incredible talent to the maximum (however he has his limitations)
Translated his unbelievable gift into unbelievable results

I will not call roger federer great, unless or until he can beat the new generation consistently.I dont see a reason why he is great to be honest when he cant even beat a claycourter on his favourite site and people on this site is vouching roger as the best of all times (not you, but others)

 

[Total Power]

Re-read the first post I made replying to you in this thread. I was simply pointing out YOUR flawed logic. No personal opinion from my point of view.

you say quantity above quality i say otherwise, no flawed logic..your inability to understand this simple concept is the problem.

Still, something you are having serious trouble with...confirming your own logic...If you believe Federer is only good, then how does Nadal's victories over Federer make it of more quality than Federer's victories??

for the last ****ing time , federer is the best since sampras (i have not denied that), rafa is good too but not great.Beating the best player since sampras is an achievement.Maybe rafa will be the best of all times, but he is not yet.Get it finally? or do i need to break it down in simple words?

Again, please don't put words in my mouth to twist things your way. But I will in fact answer, and say that Nadal is the best player in the world at the moment.

this is what federer the ego man doesnt accept.I saw a program last night on euro sports where rocket rod and mats wilander were discussing tennis.Rocket pointed out that the pressure that federer puts himself in, by making statements like "i am still the favourite" is unbelievable.Not once federer says he is the underdog, that will relieve a lot of pressure off him. Rocket also said that federer doesnt work on his weakness and has no plan B. How is it possible that a guy exploits the same weakness for over 4 years now? these are question marks on so called "great players" game, which people dont get.

Calling someone good when they are clearly better than that provoked the 'rant'.

I disagree, i dont think he is better than good.He makes decent players look like dud, when faced with a serious challenge, he is often found out.His 5 set record says it.As rocket said, he has no plan B.

Evidently Sampras had the 'tougher' opposition. Still, don't know why you are making me answer these questions, I never had this stance. My stance was, your logic is stupid. Federer is obviously better than good for many reasons, reasons that you cannot see for yourself, that 99.99% of tennis fans can recognise.

Where did you get that figure from? do you read MTF? a lot of people actually agree with me there.The fact still remains, beating agassi in a slam final, doesnt not equal beating roddick in a slam final.Statswise yeah, i agree, you have that on your side, however any tennis fan will agree that sampras's slams were quality, compared to federers.

Umm, I quoted you, did you not see?? May I again? Don't avoid it please.

"Rafa won 90 percent of his slams beating a great player" - Total Power. Helloooo? Oops. According no you, nuh-uh, he did not!

Now for my summary. Using your line of thinking; Federer is only a good player because of the quality of his opposition. Nadal is worse, because he has never beaten a great player in a slam.

If you fail to see how that's how your logic can be used against Nadal, then something is wrong.

either you are playing dumb or you are simply stupid.I was quoting the majority federer fans on bigfooty who reckons my logic is flawed and federer is a great player If i assume he is a great player, rafa is greater. FFS try and understand instead of having premature ejaculation So you decide which one is it? is federer good and rafa has beaten a good player consistetly and is now better than federer? or rafa has beaten a great player consistently and is now one of the greats too? i choose the former, which one do you choose>?

 

[Thrawn]

Total Power, please do everyone a favour and just quit. Your attempts to debate the matter are so painful to read, that I almost feel sorry for you that you're getting such an arse reaming.

Almost.

 

[Total Power]

Total Power, please do everyone a favour and just quit. Your attempts to debate the matter are so painful to read, that I almost feel sorry for you that you're getting such an arse reaming.

Almost.

hahahaha everyone knows the issues you have against me.Shall i dig up that post where i said fed will go downhill after 26 and you disagreed? or that post where you laughed at me for calling rafa an all court player? you are the last person to talk about arse reaming

I can dig up a lot of predictions i made regarding rafa winning on all surfaces, wonder why no one talks about them now.

I see no one can argue against the quality of opponent federer had to win majority of his slams.Roddick, hewitt, gonzalez lmao vs sampras's , agassi, invanesevic, rafter, courier and co.. lmao

 

[Thrawn]

hahahaha everyone knows the issues you have against me.

Hehe, issues.

That's really funny. Most people wouldn't know because they wouldn't give a damn, assuming there are any "issues" at all.

Shall i dig up that post where i said fed will go downhill after 26 and you disagreed? or that post where you laughed at me for calling rafa an all court player? you are the last person to talk about arse reaming

Do it. Go on... I want to see what you've got. I can see if someone is getting demolished simply by reading what has been said. I'm not referring to past instances, I'm referring to now.

I can dig up a lot of predictions i made regarding rafa winning on all surfaces, wonder why no one talks about them now.

And I can dig up lots of other predictions about pretty much anything on this site. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Too bad it doesn't prove anything what Vulture is arguing with you here.

I see no one can argue against the quality of opponent federer had to win majority of his slams.Roddick, hewitt, gonzalez lmao vs sampras's , agassi, invanesevic, rafter, courier and co.. lmao

That's because there's nothing to argue. I won't disagree with you on that point.

 

[Total Power]

The point is, i made an obsevation and i simply posted my prediction based on my observation, which i am doing now.I went out on one leg trying to prove my point and got ridiculued by everyone.Just because majority says its a fact, it doesnt have to be so. People have different opinions and different views, thats what makes the forum so great. I am not shoving my opinion on someones **** like the catholics, i am just posting an opinion which is different than others, just like that atheist thread in the society forum, the vultures are at it

 

[Hot Spenny]

Total Power, please do everyone a favour and just quit. Your attempts to debate the matter are so painful to read, that I almost feel sorry for you that you're getting such an arse reaming.

Almost.

I avoided it all day yesterday, I just couldn't justify debating somebody that just doesn't even understand the extent of this situation, and with such poor abilities to debate. But, having a look through the other threads, there's just no point. Going by his last two posts in this thread, he STILL doesn't even understand the point that was raised. See the irrelevant rubbish he is conjuring up to prove an imaginary point??

 

[TorresIsGod]

Nadal > Federer.

Pretty obvious and simple.

 

[Total Power]

Nadal > Federer.

Pretty obvious and simple.

finally some sense! totally agree

 

[Total Power]

I avoided it all day yesterday, I just couldn't justify debating somebody that just doesn't even understand the extent of this situation, and with such poor abilities to debate. But, having a look through the other threads, there's just no point. Going by his last two posts in this thread, he STILL doesn't even understand the point that was raised. See the irrelevant rubbish he is conjuring up to prove an imaginary point??

same imaginary point as rafa can win on all surfaces? carry on, you are unable to answer the points raised by me in this thread though.I said federer is good you said he is better than good, i gave you my reasons why i think he is not a great player but a good player, you are unable to prove otherwise.You call that imaginary point huh? prove it that federer beat quality opponents to win his slam.You cant, instead you will rant about silly i am carry on.Nadal > federer, fact!

 

[Hot Spenny]

same imaginary point as rafa can win on all surfaces? carry on, you are unable to answer the points raised by me in this thread though.I said federer is good you said he is better than good, i gave you my reasons why i think he is not a great player but a good player, you are unable to prove otherwise.You call that imaginary point huh? prove it that federer beat quality opponents to win his slam.You cant, instead you will rant about silly i am carry on.Nadal > federer, fact!

You are a mental case, and I have summed up the situation perfectly in the other thread.