Re: Roger: "I like that [the challenge of being number one in the world]. I would rather be me than him [Nadal]."


"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif81@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5871067c-0f5d-4557-ba95-13f66738947c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 31, 9:53 pm, "bob" <r-st...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RahimAsif" <RahimAsi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:486f5524-56d7-4245-856e-e8e73cb91631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 31, 7:34 pm, "bob" <r-st...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



> <jason-cat...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>news:99737484-e7e3-48e4-9f3d-4985af4f8574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Jul 30, 10:37 pm, "bob" <r-st...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > anyone who doesn't want to look deeper than box score isn't really
> > getting
> > the jist of it. do you remember robert b. waltz???

> > bob-
> >I don't have a problem with that and certainly there's more to tennis

> analysis than looking at
> the final result. But the problem arises when analysis is used in a
> blatantly biased way.
> If someone tells me Fed had some easy Slam finals while AT THE SAME
> TIME saying "of course that's true to an extent of every past champ.
> Look at Mac beating Gerulaitis and Chris Lewis or Sampras beating
> Pioline twice or Lendl beating Pernfors and Mecir" then I'll listen
> because I know the person is trying to get at the truth.
> But when people combine an argument of Fed having easy competition
> with stuff like peak Fed woulda had a tough time with Pioline, then I
> know I'm not talking to a truth seeker but rather to a lobbyist for
> Sampras.
> And unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we're all biased to
> some degree. So that's why I agree with Whisper that at the end of the
> day the results are far and away the most important thing. How does he
> say it: "that's subjective, therefore meaningless"? There's definitely
> a lot of truth in that.

> for 4 years i watch fed beat roddick and hewitt (and worse) enroute to
> wimbledons and USOs and RST says he's GOAT, untouchable God, nobody with
> his
> game ever, could kill anyone on any surface of any era.

> and i said: "these are weak competitors, historically speaking, let's
> reserve judgement for when he plays a guy we all recognize as a true
> talent - whenever that happens". "whenever" happened this yr.

> i also said one more thing: "on fast surfaces, he'd haev trouble with an
> exceptionally good net player playing his best (like > sampra/mac/becker)".
> this is speculation and i stand by it.

> bob
>No, bob, during Wim, you said that if Fed beat Nadal in the final, you

would congratulating him for "beating a claycourter" - clearly
implying that even if he won his 6th straight he wouldn't have done
enough to impress you. Now you are changing your tune to saying Nadal
is a "true talent" Good spin...

nadal is a clay courter - but talented enough overall to have great success
off clay. like borg.
what i really wanted to see, and neer did, was fed (or nadal) VS a great
grass player at his peak on grass or fast HC. never happened, probably never
will.

if whisp's prediction of revival of s/v tennis to challenge rafa comes true,
it'll be at least 5+yrs down the road.

bob

Again, "whisp prediction"? Didn't I show you that I said that before
Whisper? What is it about Whisper that makes you want to praise him
all the time?

ok, i forgot, rahim's prediction.

i kinda started watching a few guys posts that seem to agree with mind routinely. ruped and whisp come to mind mostly. i comment on both the good - and bad- posters in RST.

bob

.

Relevant Pages