29 Feb 2008 00:27:52
Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
discussion on here.

The last few weeks have been appalling here ...


29 Feb 2008 16:15:47
Sakari Lund
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>discussion on here.
>
>The last few weeks have been appalling here ...

What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.


29 Feb 2008 14:32:33
Vari L. Cinicke
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>> discussion on here.
>>
>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>
> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.

If he wins, it will get worse. If he loses, it will get much worse.

Now that Federer has dominated for an unprecedented 4 years in a row,
the best thing that could happen for the ATP Tour is for the race for #1
to get closer and closer.

It will be refreshing since it will be a new story. But I can't see the
kind of poetic excess that we saw in articles about Federer showing up
about Djokovic or Nadal.

--
Cheers,

vc


29 Feb 2008 06:36:28
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >discussion on here.
>
> >The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>
> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.

Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc

At least we can talk about matches actually happening rather wading
through the same old threads


29 Feb 2008 16:58:59
Sakari Lund
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> >... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>> >discussion on here.
>>
>> >The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>
>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>
>Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc

Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.




29 Feb 2008 15:08:13
Vari L. Cinicke
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>> discussion on here.
>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>
> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>
>

The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
back to the IW result from a year ago.

This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
or denigrate.

--
Cheers,

vc


01 Mar 2008 02:09:38
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>
>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>
>>
>
> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>
> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> or denigrate.
>


If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?



29 Feb 2008 07:34:02
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Feb 29, 2:58 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> >... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >> >discussion on here.
>
> >> >The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>
> >> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> >> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>
> >Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>
> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.

Well, I really meant all of them in the same tournament.

Plus Since AO Djokovic has only played one match outside DC, and Nadal
two.




29 Feb 2008 12:22:02
Giovanna
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


> if he loses, it will get much worse.

yes.... :-(



29 Feb 2008 15:11:39
TheFleece
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Mar 1, 1:09=A0am, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote=
:
> >>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >>>>> discussion on here.
> >>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
> >>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> >>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
> >>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>
> >> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> >> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> >> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>
> > The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> > whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think=

> > back to the IW result from a year ago.
>
> > This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that=

> > comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> > or denigrate.
>
> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
successful.


01 Mar 2008 14:01:25
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>
>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>
>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
>> or denigrate.
>>
>
>
> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?

Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of time
Sampras won 8.
Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11 GS he
contested.
It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some maths
then at least you will
be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would have.




01 Mar 2008 14:16:55
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

TheFleece wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
>>> or denigrate.
>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
> successful.


'Simple as that'?

True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in last
4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great as
guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.





01 Mar 2008 14:29:36
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

john wrote:
> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>
>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
>>> or denigrate.
>>>
>>
>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
>
> Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of time
> Sampras won 8.
> Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11 GS he
> contested.
> It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some maths
> then at least you will
> be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would have.
>
>


Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?

If not, why wasn't he great enough to keep beating all comers for slam
titles all the way through like others could?



29 Feb 2008 19:34:36
[email protected]
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> TheFleece wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >>>>>>> discussion on here.
> >>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
> >>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> >>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
> >>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
> >>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> >>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> >>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
> >>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> >>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
> >>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
> >>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
> >>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> >>> or denigrate.
> >> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
> > 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
> > that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
> > the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
> > successful.
>
> 'Simple as that'?
>
> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in last
> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great as
> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.

So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.


29 Feb 2008 19:37:14
[email protected]
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Mar 1, 9:29 am, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> john wrote:
> > "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >>>>>>> discussion on here.
> >>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
> >>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> >>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
> >>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
> >>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> >>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> >>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>
> >>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> >>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
> >>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>
> >>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
> >>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> >>> or denigrate.
>
> >> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
>
> > Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of time
> > Sampras won 8.
> > Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11 GS he
> > contested.
> > It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some maths
> > then at least you will
> > be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would have.
>
> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
>

No. That's wrong logic.


29 Feb 2008 20:01:24
ahonkan
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Mar 1, 8:34 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TheFleece wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > >>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> > >>>>>>> discussion on here.
> > >>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
> > >>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> > >>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
> > >>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
> > >>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> > >>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> > >>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
> > >>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> > >>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
> > >>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
> > >>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
> > >>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> > >>> or denigrate.
> > >> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
> > > 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
> > > that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
> > > the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
> > > successful.
>
> > 'Simple as that'?
>
> > True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
> > there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
> > short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
> > young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in last
> > 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
> > long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great as
> > guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>
> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.

Not just that! Pete is GOAT for these achievements:
* playing in 52 slams over 15 years, losing in 38 of them,
* winning 2 slams a year for 4, 1 for 6 and 0 for 5 years
* avoiding top-20 players in several of them,
* beating up on chumps like Pioline and Martin in slam finals,
* losing in R1/ R2 of FO 8 times in the weakest clay era,
* never getting past SF stage at FO,
* playing 7 tournaments after USO to secure YE#1
* being #1 for the most weeks after playing for 15 years

How dare you compare with the upstart Fed who:
* despite a 0-16 start to his slam career, is 12-19 since,
* has been #1 for the longest consecutive period in history,
* won 3 slams a year for 3, 2 for 1, 1 for 1 and 0 for 5 years

Don't even bother telling him that you don't declare someone
as the winner until everyone has finished the race. Until that
time, the splits are the best indicator how the race will go.
From the splits so far, it's a no-contest: Fed in a rout over Pete.


29 Feb 2008 20:57:22
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Feb 29, 10:09=A0am, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote=
:
> >>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >>>>> discussion on here.
> >>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
> >>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> >>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
> >>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>
> >> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> >> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> >> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>
> > The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> > whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think=

> > back to the IW result from a year ago.
>
> > This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that=

> > comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> > or denigrate.
>
> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

like how everybody is chasing you in this rst for your stupid
comments.

stupid....no logic what so ever in your comments.
Are you the one that came up with stupid 7543 to promote sampras?



01 Mar 2008 05:22:17
Dave Hazelwood
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:57:22 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>On Feb 29, 10:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> > Sakari Lund wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>> >>>>> discussion on here.
>> >>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>> >>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>> >>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>> >>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>
>> >> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>> >> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>> >> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>
>> > The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>> > whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
>> > back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>
>> > This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
>> > comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
>> > or denigrate.
>>
>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>like how everybody is chasing you in this rst for your stupid
>comments.
>
>stupid....no logic what so ever in your comments.
>Are you the one that came up with stupid 7543 to promote sampras?


who else ? he's a fan fucker extraordinaire !


01 Mar 2008 17:07:35
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> TheFleece wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
>>> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
>>> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
>>> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
>>> successful.
>> 'Simple as that'?
>>
>> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
>> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
>> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
>> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in last
>> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
>> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great as
>> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>
> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.



No, but the 1st guy has more slams, more Wim & USO, more No.1, YEC etc.
Only way Fed coulda overtaken that in terms of quality in a condensed
period is a calendar slam or 2.



01 Mar 2008 17:09:19
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:29 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
>>> Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of time
>>> Sampras won 8.
>>> Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11 GS he
>>> contested.
>>> It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some maths
>>> then at least you will
>>> be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would have.
>> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
>> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
>>
>
> No. That's wrong logic.


Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other greats
- only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til age 30.




01 Mar 2008 00:58:03
Carey
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...



Whisper wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 9:29 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]
> >>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
> >>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
> >>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
> >>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
> >>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
> >>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
> >>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
> >>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
> >>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
> >>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
> >>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system. Think
> >>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
> >>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until that
> >>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to laud
> >>>>> or denigrate.
> >>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
> >>> Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of time
> >>> Sampras won 8.
> >>> Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11 GS he
> >>> contested.
> >>> It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some maths
> >>> then at least you will
> >>> be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would have.
> >> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
> >> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
> >>
> >
> > No. That's wrong logic.
>
>
> Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other greats
> - only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til age 30.

Nope- remember, according to you, it's all about the (Major)
numbers-
no moving the goalposts, poor schlub-


01 Mar 2008 22:27:40
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:47c[email protected]
>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a story
>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system.
>>>> Think back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>
>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>>>> that comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to
>>>> laud or denigrate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
>>
>> Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of
>> time Sampras won 8.
>> Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11 GS
>> he contested.
>> It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some
>> maths then at least you will
>> be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would have.
>
>
> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?

Stupid argument. It is not how many slam you win at early age. If we draw
that sort of conclusion from an early age then Michael Chang would have been
regard as GOAT. It is how many you actually win at the end of the career.
So
what if Federer is going to win any slam at 30s if he wins 15 or more slams
he
will be consider as a greater player than Samrpas. By the same set of
logic you
can also say Sampras took advantage of a weaker era when there is no great
champions apart from himself and Agassi and he was also benefit when many
great players were in 80s.
>
> If not, why wasn't he great enough to keep beating all comers for slam
> titles all the way through like others could?

Still that does not explain why you lack the basic understanding of maths,
Federer's peak
year performance surpass Sampras' peak year performance. Obviously it is
pointless
to put statistics of Federer's performance over the last four years in front
of you and compare
that with Sampras' performance of 93,94,95 and 96 because you don't even
understand
pre-school maths let alone making meaningful conclusion base on a set of
number you shrinking
brain just can't comprehend.
>




01 Mar 2008 22:36:44
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 9:29 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> john wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer
>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>>>>>> story
>>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system.
>>>>>> Think
>>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to
>>>>>> laud
>>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
>>>> Federer won 12 slams during his peak 4.5 years and the same period of
>>>> time
>>>> Sampras won 8.
>>>> Federer had 3 years he won 3 slams and reached 10 GS finals in last 11
>>>> GS he
>>>> contested.
>>>> It is time for you to go to school with your grand kids to learn some
>>>> maths
>>>> then at least you will
>>>> be able to retain some basic logic that even pre-school kids would
>>>> have.
>>> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
>>> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
>>>
>>
>> No. That's wrong logic.
>
>
> Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other greats -
> only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til age 30.

Sure his opposition are weak but how do they compare to the likes of
Pioline, Moya ( on a hard court), Martin,
Washington, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Rios and Korda. Of the players I listed
before only Kafelnikov was a two time
slam winner but peak kafelnikov was totally embarassed by a young Hewitt at
USO in straight sets. Pionline and
rest certainly can not compare to the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick and
Safin.
>
>




01 Mar 2008 22:41:21
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> TheFleece wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer
>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>>>>>> story
>>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system.
>>>>>> Think
>>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to
>>>>>> laud
>>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?-
>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
>>>> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
>>>> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
>>>> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
>>>> successful.
>>> 'Simple as that'?
>>>
>>> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
>>> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
>>> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
>>> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in last
>>> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
>>> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great as
>>> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>>
>> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
>> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
>> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.
>
>
>
> No, but the 1st guy has more slams, more Wim & USO, more No.1, YEC etc.

The problem is the 1st guy can no longer improve his record but the other
guy is
still a work in progress and still building on his success.




02 Mar 2008 09:28:09
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

john wrote:
>>>> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win late
>>>> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
>>>>
>>> No. That's wrong logic.
>>
>> Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other greats -
>> only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til age 30.
>
> Sure his opposition are weak but how do they compare to the likes of
> Pioline, Moya ( on a hard court), Martin,
> Washington, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Rios and Korda. Of the players I listed
> before only Kafelnikov was a two time
> slam winner but peak kafelnikov was totally embarassed by a young Hewitt at
> USO in straight sets. Pionline and
> rest certainly can not compare to the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick and
> Safin.
>>
>
>



Can they compare to Bagdhitis?



02 Mar 2008 09:29:29
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

john wrote:
> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> TheFleece wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer
>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system.
>>>>>>> Think
>>>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to
>>>>>>> laud
>>>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?-
>>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
>>>>> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
>>>>> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
>>>>> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
>>>>> successful.
>>>> 'Simple as that'?
>>>>
>>>> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
>>>> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
>>>> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
>>>> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in last
>>>> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
>>>> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great as
>>>> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>>> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
>>> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
>>> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.
>>
>>
>> No, but the 1st guy has more slams, more Wim & USO, more No.1, YEC etc.
>
> The problem is the 1st guy can no longer improve his record but the other
> guy is
> still a work in progress and still building on his success.
>
>


Correct. That's not a problem - fun to watch.

But let's not pretend Fed has actually compiled the goat record already
- he's at about 80% but looks to be waning so interesting period.



02 Mar 2008 01:20:47
TJT
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

Whisper wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer finally
>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>
>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top women.
>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>> story whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the
>> system. Think back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>
>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>> that comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story*
>> to laud or denigrate.
>>
>
>
> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing Sampras?
>

Also note that Tilden was way more dominant during several years. I
guess that was on an even more clownish era.


02 Mar 2008 17:31:13
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> john wrote:
>>>>> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win
>>>>> late
>>>>> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
>>>>>
>>>> No. That's wrong logic.
>>>
>>> Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other
>>> greats - only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til age
>>> 30.
>>
>> Sure his opposition are weak but how do they compare to the likes of
>> Pioline, Moya ( on a hard court), Martin,
>> Washington, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Rios and Korda. Of the players I
>> listed before only Kafelnikov was a two time
>> slam winner but peak kafelnikov was totally embarassed by a young Hewitt
>> at USO in straight sets. Pionline and
>> rest certainly can not compare to the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick
>> and Safin.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Can they compare to Bagdhitis?

Bagdatis beat your potential 12 slam winners Sampras on Steroid on his way
inreaching final, what did Washington do
in getting into Wimbledon final beat a choking Martin who had a 5:1 lead in
the final set ? You still have not answer
the question or you are incapable of answer the question. How did Pioline,
Martin, Washington, Kafelnikov compare
to Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt ?




02 Mar 2008 17:35:10
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> TheFleece wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer
>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top
>>>>>>>>> women.
>>>>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system.
>>>>>>>> Think
>>>>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to
>>>>>>>> laud
>>>>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing
>>>>>>> Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
>>>>>> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
>>>>>> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
>>>>>> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
>>>>>> successful.
>>>>> 'Simple as that'?
>>>>>
>>>>> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
>>>>> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
>>>>> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
>>>>> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in
>>>>> last
>>>>> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
>>>>> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great
>>>>> as
>>>>> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>>>> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
>>>> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
>>>> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but the 1st guy has more slams, more Wim & USO, more No.1, YEC etc.
>>
>> The problem is the 1st guy can no longer improve his record but the other
>> guy is
>> still a work in progress and still building on his success.
>
>
> Correct. That's not a problem - fun to watch.
>
> But let's not pretend Fed has actually compiled the goat record already -
> he's at about 80% but looks to be waning so interesting period.

Let's also not pretend that his peak record surpass Sampras' peak record.
His record
is certainly more than 80% of that of Sampras and I would say close to 90+%
and
interesting thing is you have been predicting him winning his last slam
since 2003 but
problem for you is that he continue to pile on grand slam titles.




02 Mar 2008 17:58:49
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

john wrote:
> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> john wrote:
>>>>>> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win
>>>>>> late
>>>>>> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period no?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. That's wrong logic.
>>>> Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other
>>>> greats - only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til age
>>>> 30.
>>> Sure his opposition are weak but how do they compare to the likes of
>>> Pioline, Moya ( on a hard court), Martin,
>>> Washington, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Rios and Korda. Of the players I
>>> listed before only Kafelnikov was a two time
>>> slam winner but peak kafelnikov was totally embarassed by a young Hewitt
>>> at USO in straight sets. Pionline and
>>> rest certainly can not compare to the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick
>>> and Safin.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can they compare to Bagdhitis?
>
> Bagdatis beat your potential 12 slam winners Sampras on Steroid on his way
> inreaching final, what did Washington do
> in getting into Wimbledon final beat a choking Martin who had a 5:1 lead in
> the final set ? You still have not answer
> the question or you are incapable of answer the question. How did Pioline,
> Martin, Washington, Kafelnikov compare
> to Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt ?
>
>


1st you answer how those guys compare to Agassi, Becker, Edberg,
Courier, Ivanisevic, Chang, Lendl, Wilander, Muster etc. Sampras had
to beat those guys in slams.





02 Mar 2008 17:59:52
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

john wrote:
> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> john wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> TheFleece wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer
>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top
>>>>>>>>>> women.
>>>>>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the system.
>>>>>>>>> Think
>>>>>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable. Until
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story* to
>>>>>>>>> laud
>>>>>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>>>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing
>>>>>>>> Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
>>>>>>> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
>>>>>>> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still remain
>>>>>>> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
>>>>>>> successful.
>>>>>> 'Simple as that'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
>>>>>> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when a
>>>>>> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at a
>>>>>> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with a
>>>>>> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as great
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>>>>> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
>>>>> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
>>>>> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.
>>>>
>>>> No, but the 1st guy has more slams, more Wim & USO, more No.1, YEC etc.
>>> The problem is the 1st guy can no longer improve his record but the other
>>> guy is
>>> still a work in progress and still building on his success.
>>
>> Correct. That's not a problem - fun to watch.
>>
>> But let's not pretend Fed has actually compiled the goat record already -
>> he's at about 80% but looks to be waning so interesting period.
>
> Let's also not pretend that his peak record surpass Sampras' peak record.
> His record
> is certainly more than 80% of that of Sampras and I would say close to 90+%
> and
> interesting thing is you have been predicting him winning his last slam
> since 2003 but
> problem for you is that he continue to pile on grand slam titles.
>
>



Incorrect. My prediction for him 3 yrs ago was 12 slams.



02 Mar 2008 20:48:31
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> john wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 9:16 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> TheFleece wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 1:09 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:36:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2:15 pm, Sakari Lund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... finally some tennis on, which might mean some reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last few weeks have been appalling here ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think Dubai will make things better? Federer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plays? I think that will probably make things worse here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic etc
>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal and Djokovic have played recently. So have all the top
>>>>>>>>>>> women.
>>>>>>>>>>> Only Federer has been out. It is interesting if we need to have
>>>>>>>>>>> Federer playing until we can talk about current matches.
>>>>>>>>>> The trouble is that their early losses don't seem to be much of a
>>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>>> whereas an early Federer loss is considered a shock to the
>>>>>>>>>> system. Think
>>>>>>>>>> back to the IW result from a year ago.
>>>>>>>>>> This ought to fade as Federer ages and becomes more beatable.
>>>>>>>>>> Until that
>>>>>>>>>> comes to pass, his unmatched domination will remain *the story*
>>>>>>>>>> to laud
>>>>>>>>>> or denigrate.
>>>>>>>>> If his dominance is indeed 'unmatched' how come he's chasing
>>>>>>>>> Sampras?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>> Federer is far more dominant than Sampras ever was. Federer is
>>>>>>>> 'chasing' Sampras because he hasn't been around as long, simple as
>>>>>>>> that. If Federer retires tomorrow with 12 Slams he will still
>>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>>> the most dominant player of recent times if not the most ultimately
>>>>>>>> successful.
>>>>>>> 'Simple as that'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True greatness is winning the biggest slams over many yrs, that way
>>>>>>> there is no doubt about your pedigree. Lots of guys can do it when
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> short transition era (soft) presents itself. Fed couldn't do it at
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> young age like Sampras/Borg etc, but is doing phenomenally well in
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> 4 yrs. Let's see if he can make up for no show early in career with
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> long finish. If he stops winning slams then he won't appear as
>>>>>>> great as
>>>>>>> guys who won slams all the way through - deservedly so.
>>>>>> So a guy who wins one slam at 19, one at 25 and one at 3 and finishes
>>>>>> his career with three slams is greater than the guy who wins fifteen
>>>>>> slams from 23 to 28? Please say yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but the 1st guy has more slams, more Wim & USO, more No.1, YEC
>>>>> etc.
>>>> The problem is the 1st guy can no longer improve his record but the
>>>> other guy is
>>>> still a work in progress and still building on his success.
>>>
>>> Correct. That's not a problem - fun to watch.
>>>
>>> But let's not pretend Fed has actually compiled the goat record
>>> already - he's at about 80% but looks to be waning so interesting
>>> period.
>>
>> Let's also not pretend that his peak record surpass Sampras' peak record.
>> His record
>> is certainly more than 80% of that of Sampras and I would say close to
>> 90+% and
>> interesting thing is you have been predicting him winning his last slam
>> since 2003 but
>> problem for you is that he continue to pile on grand slam titles.
>
>
>
> Incorrect. My prediction for him 3 yrs ago was 12 slams.

I don't think so. That was your prediction for Roddick. You are into
serious denial or your
brain retardation is worsen than previously predicted better book an
appointment with your
doctor.




02 Mar 2008 21:05:07
Whisper
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...

john wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But let's not pretend Fed has actually compiled the goat record
>>>> already - he's at about 80% but looks to be waning so interesting
>>>> period.
>>> Let's also not pretend that his peak record surpass Sampras' peak record.
>>> His record
>>> is certainly more than 80% of that of Sampras and I would say close to
>>> 90+% and
>>> interesting thing is you have been predicting him winning his last slam
>>> since 2003 but
>>> problem for you is that he continue to pile on grand slam titles.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect. My prediction for him 3 yrs ago was 12 slams.
>
> I don't think so. That was your prediction for Roddick. You are into
> serious denial or your
> brain retardation is worsen than previously predicted better book an
> appointment with your
> doctor.
>
>



Just checked - I predicted 11 slams for Fed 3 yrs ago.



02 Mar 2008 21:13:16
john
Re: Thank goodness Dubai starts next week ...


"Whisper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>> Fed couldn't win slams early like other greats & if he fails to win
>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>> then it can be argued he took advantage of weak transition period
>>>>>>> no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. That's wrong logic.
>>>>> Fed's weak opposition is his biggest criticism according to other
>>>>> greats - only way Fed can overcome this is to keep winning slams til
>>>>> age 30.
>>>> Sure his opposition are weak but how do they compare to the likes of
>>>> Pioline, Moya ( on a hard court), Martin,
>>>> Washington, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Rios and Korda. Of the players I
>>>> listed before only Kafelnikov was a two time
>>>> slam winner but peak kafelnikov was totally embarassed by a young
>>>> Hewitt at USO in straight sets. Pionline and
>>>> rest certainly can not compare to the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick
>>>> and Safin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can they compare to Bagdhitis?
>>
>> Bagdatis beat your potential 12 slam winners Sampras on Steroid on his
>> way inreaching final, what did Washington do
>> in getting into Wimbledon final beat a choking Martin who had a 5:1 lead
>> in the final set ? You still have not answer
>> the question or you are incapable of answer the question. How did
>> Pioline, Martin, Washington, Kafelnikov compare
>> to Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt ?
>
>
> 1st you answer how those guys compare to Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier,
> Ivanisevic, Chang, Lendl, Wilander, Muster etc. Sampras had to beat
> those guys in slams.

Edberg, Becker, Lendl and Wilander were not at their peak in Sampras era so
there is
no point disucssing them and they won a combine grand slam total of 1 in
Sampras'
era. Sampras beat Lendl once that was when the guys was 30 and Wilander
once in
slam in a year that Wilander was no longer a grand slam winning force in 89.
He lost to
Edberg twice in grand slam. He beat Becker when most of RST knew Becker was
no
longer the Becker of late and mid 80s. That leaves you with Agassi,
Courier Ivanisevic,
Chang and Muster as Sampras' main rivals. With exception of Agassi I will
say none
of the other 4 are actually superior than Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Safin
and Hewitt.
Courier was a champion during the transition period from the Lendl, Becker,
Edberg
and Wilander era to Sampras era, he won 4 slams with a bit of luck.
Ivanisevice is
probably Roddick of the previous era just like Roddick who was denied by
Federer for
more grand slam victories he was denied by Samrpas. Chang and Muster are
definitely
inferior player compare to all Federe's main rival in this era. Sampras
benefit greatly when
players such as Edberg, Becker and Lendl were way past their peak and they
were not
grand slam finalist during Sampras' peak but the Washington, Martin, Pioline
were.
It is funny you bring out the notion that Federer was playing an weak era
but when I started
listing the main competition from this era and Sampras era amd your argument
just fall apart
like a pack of cards. Now answer my question.