Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
16 Jan 18 22:04
Date Joined: 08 May 10
| Topic/replies: 15,933 | Blogger: GRANTCKING's blog
Grin began with a 6-1 6-1 6-1 demolition, who the hell has the bollocks to stop the GOAT from picking up slam number  17 ConfusedCool

Pause Switch to Standard View Rafas relentless march to the aus...
Show More
Report bobweenit January 16, 2018 11:33 PM GMT
LMFAO 1. you just hexxed him 2    Nole will rip him  new 1    3 will his fragile drug riddled body hold up for a fortnight 4 A bald man has  never won the Auss open  5 It's not dirt when was his last non dirt slam win????? 6 he dresses like a mug 7 there is rumours he might me expelled from Auss 4 health and safety reason- to much ass picking and spreading things that happen when you play with your crack! 7  Dr fuentes not been spotted in Auss- Rafa can't win a slam without regular juice! [b]8 if Nole fails - Roger will rip him a new one 9 nobody can stand another I try my best interview! 10 Nobody wants to see Uncle Tony and his silly caps anymore!
Report GRANTCKING January 16, 2018 11:49 PM GMT
5. when was his last non dirt slam win

lol? did u miss the us open a few months ago???? GrinLaugh
Report bobweenit January 16, 2018 11:52 PM GMT
Must have erased the vile memory from my mindGrin
Report bb66 January 17, 2018 12:25 AM GMT
With such a baby draw he should reach the SF with no effort - every minute a match lasts more than 1 1/2 hours is a waste of time and energy.
Report mesmerised January 17, 2018 12:44 AM GMT
Anyone but Roger, I won a bucket load of cheap slams in the early days inflating my total count and skewing history in my favour due to the luck of being born 5/6 years before the two greatest players in history came to prominence and stopped me from winning another slam for 4 and half years before one of them lost motivation and after 6 months rest I got lucky against the other who was 3-1 up in the final whilst I regularly bottle the clay court season to avoid the another pummelling to my nearest rival even though he would never contemplate doing the same thing as he is a not coward like I am but my RF fanboys call it smart scheduling so I get away with it again, Federer.
Report GRANTCKING January 17, 2018 1:32 AM GMT
Cool mes thats ur best post ever Love
Report bobweenit January 17, 2018 12:40 PM GMT
Bet you a ton he don't win it!
Report bobweenit January 17, 2018 12:42 PM GMT
I wish you better luck with this tip than your snooker or suicide picks! Your in woeful form could do with a winnerWink
Report GRANTCKING January 17, 2018 7:38 PM GMT
Report GRANTCKING January 19, 2018 11:00 AM GMT
another mugger disposed of
Report asparagus January 19, 2018 11:12 AM GMT
Mugmerised, with another ante Fed rant ignoring all the facts. Makes me want Federer to win just to imagine the seethe. When Nadal overtakes Federer for Grand slam titles which is what really matters then he might have an argument. Until then he doesn't.
Report bb66 January 19, 2018 11:16 AM GMT
He also has to overtake him in the number of weeks leading the ranking and some other records Fed is holding
Report dlarssonf January 19, 2018 12:47 PM GMT
Like the Olympic Singles Gold the swiss clown hasLaugh  check the head to head mugs
Report mesmerised January 19, 2018 1:28 PM GMT
No idea who this asparagus chump but thanks for the in-depth, grandiloquent counter argument, slams = GOAT, wow, you've completely torpedoed this debate to smithereens Whoops

It's just a matter of fact that when you are born counts for quite a bit,  Margaret Court has 24 slams, it's a big asterisk next to her name because of the era, that 5 year period between 03-08 especially was kind to Federer, he played many finals against players who were light years below the standard of Nadal and Djokovic, such as Gonzalez, philippoussis and Soderling , I can't even give him much credit for beating a 19 year old Djokovic at the US Open RF was at his peak with years more experience, an Agassi on his last legs or even Murray who also would have beaten him at Wimbledon before they changed the conditions and closed the roof mid match.

Nadal has been the more accomplished player over time, winning 2 slams on each surface, a strong head to head v Federer when Federer is now trying to tart up by avoiding  him on clay, more masters even though he's 4 years younger and an Olympic Gold in singles. Most weeks at Number 1 is yet another red herring, he was number 1 for four and a half years when players like Davydenko, Blake and Ljubicic were floating around the top 5 and his main rivals for slams were Roddick and Hewitt.

A great player but not the greatest.

Kind Regards.
Report GRANTCKING January 19, 2018 1:37 PM GMT
Grin mes who knew we would join forces over a topic
Report mesmerised January 19, 2018 1:41 PM GMT
it is amazing.
Report bb66 January 19, 2018 4:18 PM GMT
Such a shame Nadull was 2nd behind Fed for more than 3 years from July 2005 to 2008!Tongue Out
Report mesmerised January 19, 2018 4:46 PM GMT
11-6 Nadal v Fed in 05-08.Wink

World Tour Finals also always been on indoor hard favouring Federer, how many would Nadal have won in comparison if it'd had of been on clay.
Report GRANTCKING January 22, 2018 1:05 PM GMT
Report The Bhoys January 23, 2018 7:38 AM GMT
should be a nadal v federer final but i see federer taking it in straight sets, his head to head v rafa last year wasnt close bar the aus final took nadal apart all other times
Report GRANTCKING January 23, 2018 9:44 AM GMT
CoolCool welcome to the march bhoys
Report asparagus January 23, 2018 11:49 AM GMT
Mugmerised, head to heads are completely irrelevant. It's about winning titles. If Liverpool beat manchester City but Manchester City win the league you don't call Liverpool the greater team. It's simply a ludicrous argument as are most of your others. You claim Nadal is greater but outside of the French he has only won 6 grand slams thus far. He clearly is the greatest ever on clay but undoubtedly not on either of the other surfaces. If you ask Nadal whether he cares about his head to head records or winning Slams which do you think he would choose. Using Margaret Court is another of your ridiculous red herrings. Back then players didn't play every big tournament like they have since the 80's. Federer won his slams beating everyone around. You can't pick and choose your opponents. You beat who is in front of you. We can make all sorts of arguments as to who has been favoured by certain years and certain conditions. Balls have been changed to reduce speed on some surfaces since 2001. Who do you think that favoured?
When Federer came back to win in the 5th set in last years Australian Open you suggest he was lucky. If it had been the other way round you'd have claimed he didn't have bottle and that he was outbattled. Basically you haven't got a sensible argument so you twist things around to suit your argument.
At the end of their respective careers you can make a judgement on who is the greatest. The marker will always have to be who has won the most Grand Slams. If they finish level on that then perhaps you can consider other factors such as most finals, most weeks at number 1, head to heads, Masters Tournaments etc. They are a tie breaker. As it stands Federer is quite obviously the GOAT. He's got 19. Nadal is 3 behind. Only a Mug can argue otherwise.
Report bb66 January 23, 2018 12:07 PM GMT
again had to pay for his exhaustive playing style, itz's purely not efficient, he should give up
Report GRANTCKING January 23, 2018 1:11 PM GMT
losing by default is painful :(
Report mesmerised January 23, 2018 4:33 PM GMT
The chump is back, with even more chumpiness on offer. The previous post as to why you don't just point to total numbers are slams and say "he's the greatest" couldn't have been clearer.

The level of cluelessness demonstrated is astoundingly high, concrete proof if ever you needed it that you just can't reason with a gooey eyed, Federer fanboy, h2h's are completely irrelevant? and football analogies ffsLaugh

Let me put it another way so maybe you'll understand, let's go further down the pecking order.

Wawrinka has won as many slams as Murray, are you saying they have been both as great as each other in their career and that their talent is level? think carefully before you answer, based on your flimsy logic, they are.

His record on other surfaces is also partly down to knee injuries in 2011, which is why there is a distinct difference between his record of grass prior and post 2012, prior to 2012 he had reached 5 of the previous 6 finals, post 2012 he was being knocked out by mugs in the first 3 rounds, dealng with low bouncing balls with that much zip when you have knee problems - and that's the result, 1st round loss to Darcis.

Ignoring the fact that Federer was afforded the luxury of excelling in between that Sampras/Agassi peak era and the Nadal/Djokvic peak era is just churlish.

Now go and sit and the corner facing the wall, legs crossed, and give your head a big wobbleLaugh
Report GRANTCKING January 23, 2018 5:25 PM GMT
LaughLaughLaughLaugh mes ur on fire
Report bb66 January 23, 2018 6:22 PM GMT
It's his fault when he is so often injured. I can't imagine, how much more Fed would have won without back problems, it's no excuse.
Report Fatslogger January 23, 2018 10:05 PM GMT
I'm generally suspicious of arguments constructed around ad hominems (Federer fanboys, chumps) and special pleading (Fed was lucky because, Nadal was unlucky because, Nadal's knee has stopped him playing well on grass, as if injuries aren't part of how good you are).  The argument about Federer being lucky with the standard of opponents in his early career is probably fair enough, although there were plenty of excellent players around when he was coming through as a teenager and it's easy to dismiss the standard of players he beat easily in a a bit of a circular argument (they must have been bad because he was stuffing them so very easily).  This would be a part of a far stronger case against Federer being better than Nadal were it not for the fact that despite the significant disadvantage of being well past what should be his peak last season, he won two more grand slams and beat Nadal repeatedly when they played one another.  Yes, he missed the French but the narrative that he did that to buff his head to head against Nadal is risible.  Has Nadal being throwing games at Wimbledon against also rans to avoid losing to Fed and making his head to head worse?  In fact, the very few games they've played against one another on grass versus the huge number on clay is probably why the head to head looks so loaded in favour of Nadal: Fed has mostly been good enough to get through to play Nadal on the surface Nadal's indisputably the GOAT on while Nadal hasn't been good enough to make the Wimbledon second week a lot of the time to get close to playing Federer on the surface he's the GOAT on.

I can buy that total grand slam wins isn't the only way to judge a player but the Stan v Murray comparison isn't terribly helpful, because we're not talking about the odd grand slam, where a small sample size issue alone makes it hard to say but about large numbers of wins.  If Nadal can finish his career with similar numbers of grand slams to Federer then you start looking closely at other things.  If he doesn't, his head to head based on being better on one surface and taking a dive on his worst surface (to be clear, I don't really think he has been taking dives) is no fig leaf to cover having clearly been inferior on the main measure.
Report mesmerised January 23, 2018 11:06 PM GMT
If you are suspicious of arguments constructed around those quips, which is clearly isn't any other than injected humour, then you must equally be suspicious of arguments 'constructed' around 'mugmerised', which was his very first word on this thread, however you haven't mentioned that.

The section on Nadal's history on grass, refer to my post on his knee problems, the record before and after 2012 which you've completely ignored, it's nothing to do with not being good enough, it's a physical thing based on past injuries as mentioned.

aspargus argument is very very simple, total slam wins = greatest player of all time, every other aspect of their tennis careers thrown out of the window, that kind of standpoint deserves to be laughed at, and laughed at hard.

Nadal also played Federer 4 times in hard court slams, winning 3 and losing one, it's not just a clay court dominance thing.

Federer may have won Wimbledon last year, but he did it playing an injured Cilic and without going through any high calibre player, the only reason he even managed to get the Aussie final was because of Novak and Murray's huge decline. Before that he had not won a slam in four and half years for a reason.
Report GRANTCKING January 23, 2018 11:26 PM GMT
mes uve really impressed me here with taking all the haters, I salute u sir
Report GRANTCKING January 23, 2018 11:26 PM GMT
*taking on
Report mesmerised January 23, 2018 11:36 PM GMT
All for balanced debate, but using Nadal's first week Wimbledon exits as a stick to beat off the counter argument in face of well documented knee problems that clearly have altered his game on grass, is ridiculous, the trajectory of a ball bounce  on grass puts much more pressure on the joints when trying to return  a point than other surfaces, that has to be factored in the dismal losses to journeymen like Dustin, Darcis and Rosol.
Report dlarssonf January 24, 2018 9:28 AM GMT
Spot on Mesmerised Grin and Rafa does it all with his bad handCool
Report The Bhoys January 24, 2018 10:47 AM GMT
Nadal body is always guna break down with his style, federer not but if the both at peak fitness i favour nadal which happened in the wimbeldon final all those years back
Report asparagus January 24, 2018 11:13 AM GMT
Mugmerised really doesn't get it. You cannot use injuries as an excuse when you are talking about who has the greatest career. Injuries are part and parcel of the game. Nadal is generally likely to get more injuries than Federer because his style of play leads to it. That doesn't make him unlucky. If he wants to play very long points and gradually wear his opponent down he will get more wear and tear.

In the majority of aspects of Federer's career he scores higher than Nadal. If anyone wants to include that go ahead. Grand slam titles however clearly has to be the number one stat. Mugmerised with his odd grudge against Federer just can't accept it.
Report The Bhoys January 24, 2018 12:23 PM GMT
I actually think federer is a better player now than he was 10 years ago, his backhand has improved dramatcally so even a peak nadal of years ago may struggle against him, but i think hed wear him down eventuallly
Report dlarssonf January 24, 2018 12:37 PM GMT
You can't be the GOAT when you weren't even the best of your era , hth
Report Fatslogger January 24, 2018 8:18 PM GMT
Several things to reply to here.  Yes, I'm generally unimpressed by posts focussing on abuse or showing poor analysis, not just ones that also draw wrong conclusions.

The point about Nadal having a knee injury is true and probably at least partly explains his recent struggles on grass but as asparagus points out, injuries are part of the game and you can't be excusing poor performances through injury when you're trying to assess a player's career.  It gives things context, sure but the assessment has to be about what a player actually did, not what you'd like him to have done if he'd not been injured years before.  As I pointed out before, it's special pleading.  Sure, had Nadal not had the knee injury or in some other way not been terrible (by his own extremely high standards) on grass for the last 8 years or so, he'd have a far better case.  Say he'd won one or two more Wimbledons and beaten Federer on the way, he'd be pretty much a tie for greatest player ever already, I think but equally, if he'd only been a fair amount better and therefore got to play Federer a few more times and been beaten, the head to head that's really the only compelling argument against Federer being a greater player than him would look a lot less clear cut.

It's pretty specious to say that the argument in favour of Federer is purely about grand slam wins, even if one or two posts have focussed on that.  He's also the holder of vast numbers of other records around grand slam achievements and rankings especially, but also plenty of others.  Yes, he has a weaker head to head against Nadal but it's pretty bizarre to value that higher than grand slam wins, especially when he's actually got a superior record on hard courts and grass.  If you want to make the case that it's about the overall career achievements though, try making it.  Both players have ridiculously good career records you can discourse about but for me, Nadal's lower total grand slam wins, much weaker overall grand slam performance in terms of progression (especially at Wimbledon, obviously) and huge reliance on clay for his really stand out achievements put him well below Federer for now.  At the end of their respective careers, who knows?  Certainly it's highly likely they'll be the best and second best players ever, which is particularly outrageous considering they've both had to compete against another all time great, in Djokovic.
Report mesmerised January 24, 2018 10:07 PM GMT
Lol you keep me busy schooling you aspargus but because you're clearly a prized idiot, there's only so much time time I will afford you, you've offered nothing new and just presented the same mumbo jumbo, rinse and repeat argument.

Last visit here and  post to you fatslogger for reasons below.

Once more you draw attention once more to my words but nothing to aspargus and post straight after him as well backing up his incoherent rambling points which has now convinced me you are just the same poster, and having just read this post on another thread

"Fatslogger • July 1, 2017 1:31 PM BST
Lol, I'm pretty glad I can't exactly read your miserable mind although my best guess is that if you were able and bothered to express your paranoid views in comprehensible English they would be some ramblings about how the rest of the world has it in for Blighty"

Very hypocritical and spiteful, and having read a few more of your posts, you're clearly a a passive aggressive troll, There were many other similar posts I could post here. There are many from me, however I do not present myself as holier than thou and use it as an stick to beat someone withLaugh

For the record, on grass the sample size of 3 is too small, only yesterday you said the Murray-Wawa 3-3 in slams was too, so surprised you mention this, but then not really surprised, shifting goalposts and all that. And even in those 3 matches it was 3:1, 3:2, 2:3, the tide was clearly turning before injury.

The greatest player of all time struggled for years against one man and has a 3:9 record in slams against him, even Novak has a 9:6 record in slams against him, it just doesn't stand up which ever way it's spun, and that period before the Novak/Nadal came to prominence easily inflates lots of held records, he was 3rd in the pecking order for years after. It's just patently obvious that 5 years older and playing through those post Sampras/Agassi peak years has helped him in this debate, numerous walls of texts can't change that that important fact in any GOAT debate.

dlarsson sums it all up in one posts

Kind Regards.
Report Fatslogger January 26, 2018 8:17 PM GMT
Hmm, don't even remember the context of that post you quoted but I expect that the comment was fair enough. I didn't say I never described posters as I found them, just implied that I didn't mostly construct my arguments around ad hominem (and I admit that I sometimes do). I'm flattered that you went to the trouble to find a few posts of mine, probably on the politics thread, which is pretty much a war zone of partiality and poor analysis but again you're playing the man, not the ball, just in a slightly more sophisticated way than you were earlier with the mug comments. Clearly I'm not the same poster as asparagus and that both of you were throwing (pretty mild, to be fair) abuse and largely ignoring one another's actual arguments doesn't do either of your points of view any favours. His isn't as choked by motivated reasoning as yours though.

As for your actual analysis, as before, you don't really want to engage with the key point that you can't ignore Rafa's actual performances on grass because of an injury you're postulating explains how bad he's been.  It's a convenient narrative to support your view and may well even be a true explanation but as before, it's special pleading and you want to engage on what you'd rather like to have happened (Nadal would have done amazingly on grass the last decade if he'd not been injured) rather than what actually did.  If you want to judge what might have happened that's fine but you can hardly be surprised the notion gets dismissed as somewhat irrelevant.

I like that you criticise me for referencing grass at all given the small sample size then try to draw conclusions from the even more fragile notion of the set scores in the individual matches.  It's not my fault that Rafa hasn't got near playing Federer at Wimbledon for years while Federer has extended his comfortably best ever record there.  Again, the point that even when he's not been winning slams he's been getting to finals and semis contrasts rather starkly with Nadal at Wimbledon and to a lesser extent Nadal on hard courts, where he's obviously been a very fine player indeed but can't hold a candle to Federer in terms of overall record.  Federer clearly is a far weaker player on clay than other surfaces but he's still made an awful lot of semis and finals at the French, albeit that he's only won it once.  But then, it isn't about winning grand slams to you, is it?

Your final paragraph (not the one about dlarsson, talking about letting bad analysis go past if you agree with it) is interesting.  I suppose it depends on how you judge greatness.  Yes Rafa has a winning record against Federer in slams and so does Novak, although it's interesting that you pick slams when winning them isn't the thing you want to judge on; you referenced sample size and Federer's head to heads against both look better if you take career as a whole, with his record against Novak basically a tie (Novak is one match ahead).  It's clearly a blot on Federer's claims to be the best ever but then he's been better at sweeping aside everyone else than either Rafa or Novak.  I know it's fanciful but if a player had won 5 grand slams but lost every one of his 10 matches against a rival who'd himself won 1 grand slam, you'd not be calling the guy with the 1 grand slam the better player.  Rafa being better against Federer than Federer is against him is far from the clinching argument you try to make it, even leaving aside that the context is Fed is slightly better off clay but has made the mistake of getting to Rafa on clay a very high proportion of the time they've both played a clay court tournament, when Rafa is the best clay court player ever, by a mile, whereas Rafa hasn't been so foolish on grass or hard courts.  I get that Federer's slam record is buffed a fair bit by playing all those years in what probably was a weaker field but then he's also been disadvantaged by being older than his main rivals when they've been in their peak years and he's nominally been past his for the last few seasons.  Funnily enough, that didn't stop him beating Nadal three times last season though, or getting to the final this Aus open, when Nadal hasn't.
Report mesmerised January 26, 2018 8:31 PM GMT
Fatslogger • January 26, 2018 8:17 PM GMT
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.    [Manage blocked users]

On grounds of trolling, have a nice day.
Report Fatslogger January 26, 2018 9:09 PM GMT
Lol, great riposte - I'm a troll because of a post where I called a paranoic out for his distorted world view? Well done for demolishing all my arguments on topic so effectively. Oh hold on, you ignored the actual arguments because, err, not clear but probably not because you'd run out of specious analysis. Course, you're not reading this because you snow flaked. I'd wish you a nice day too but err...
Report mesmerised January 26, 2018 9:16 PM GMT
I can't see what you're saying (try sending a pm it will say you're blocked), but tell your alter ego aspargus he's also in the special club, kind regards.
Report Fatslogger January 26, 2018 10:00 PM GMT
Asparagus, mesmerised thinks you can't read his posts for yourself. If in any way he were able to tell the difference, I'd suggest you go easy on him as he's clearly very touchy right now, probably because Rafa's overall comparison to Federer has taken another hit this tournament, all the more so if Federer goes on to win.

The odd thing is, I'm not all that into tennis but seem to have scored my first blocking through getting involved in a Roger Rafa debate. I don't even feel all that strongly about it, as clearly Rafa is an outstandingly wonderful player and there are some arguments in his favour but Federer is even more outstanding, by most measures.  More importantly, I'm not very good at going past poor analysis.
Report mesmerised January 26, 2018 11:24 PM GMT
nope, still no clue Laugh
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539