Re: Does Roger have the weakest h2h of the open era against rivals ?

On 6 Mai, 20:52, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 6, 1:29 pm, MBDunc <micha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 6 touko, 19:23, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 12:01 pm, MBDunc <micha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 touko, 18:04, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 10:48 am, MBDunc <micha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 touko, 17:26, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 10:22 am, MBDunc <micha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6 touko, 15:07, missy <helenah...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Its interesting question when you think about it because how do you
define mental toughness in spite of surfaces and the quality of the
opposition you face ?

Sampras dominated Agassi on just about every surface ( I dont how many
times he beat him on clay though ) given his crap record there , so I
willing to let that pass i.e. on account of how he lost to just about
any one.

Roger was not in the same boat because he clearly could win and play
on clay , and he clearly was good on it i.e. reaching 3 O finals but ,
was not so good when it came to those finals - well 2 of them at
least.

My point is that Rogers game while still  not beating Nadal on clay ,
was competitive enough to warrant a case ( up until 08 ) that he was
still goat ,  that was until Nadal himself raised his game 08 , and
Roger couldnt.

This is why imo theres big question over his goat credentials , not
because of his record up to 07, or anything he did before,  but really
how quickly he fell after Nadal raised his own game in 08 - and
consquently lost to him , until, of course,  physical aliments allowed
him  to win once again .

The lack of serious rivals Roger had until Nadal elevated his game to
reach Wimbledon final in 07 is also another big ? folk have , and
why Nadal has frankly  become measuring the stick for Rogers
accomplishments.

Given how good Nadal was , and still is on clay , its arguable that
any one could of have done any better than Roger did , though its also
hard to imagine the likes of a Lendl , Sampras or even a peak Courier
would of crumbled as badly as Roger did 08.

Sure, most of them had competition so they werent losing to the same
guy all the time, but they also stayed competitive and didnt blow
oppourtunties in the same way Roger did at the AO 09 or even Wim 08 by
choking.

Its these common rookie ./ teething problems , that made Rogers
descent so worryinh because some of the matches , like the AO 09 and
even Wim 08 were or could of been winnable .

Thanks to Nadals injuries ( which have clearly affected his play )
Roger now has  his best chance of beating him in  a slam or the first
time in 3 years  , , it will be interesting then to see then  to see ,
after his recent success.

Whether the form hes shown in winning  FO, WIM and the AO continues
when he meets Nadal.

That was one well written

No.

...compared to usual r.s.t posts from same pov that clearly had way
more effort.

It's a lot *longer* than most posts from that point of view, which
tend to be mere throwaway provocations. I suppose greater effort could
thus be inferred. But the post can't be called "well written" by any
stretch of the imagination. In fact, I would say that a stronger claim
could be made on behalf of the validity of the substantive arguments
-- which, needless to say, I believe are specious -- than on behalf of
the quality of the writing.

Well to start chapters were well organized. Short enough and the
chapters supported each other.

If by "chapters" you mean paragraphs, the reason they are short is
that each consists of a single run-on sentence that mashes several
thoughts together. But we seem to have different standards in this
area, and this is clearly a side issue. I find it funny when bad
writing is described as good, but it's not worth it to dissect the
post line by line.

You always write excellent English, may be you expect others to reach
that standard? (which is a damn hard task).

Of course OP's text is not going to win any pulitzers but I think
critizism have been quite harsh and mostly because the actual
content.

It was a collection of Fed hate one-liners, yes. And I certainly not
agree with it. But this text somehow reminded me about say mid-90:ies
when these kind of posts opened a lot of good discussions with good
reasonings (again just compare it to the general language of crap and
rudeness you constantly see here).

I agree that an elegantly written, closely argued brief for a novel
but ultimately preposterous contention can make for stimulating
reading and discussion. (My experience as a 12-year-old with the work
of von Däniken indicates as much. :)) That's why books like "The End
of History" can attract a broad audience, while more nuanced, careful
interpretations of foreign relations disappear into the void -- the
latter seem dull precisely because they are self-evidently reasonable.
For a priest (or priestess) of RST anti-Federerism to achieve such an
effect, however, would require two things that are almost always
absent: (1) actual good writing, and (2) a thesis that is *not*
reducible to the Federer-Nadal head-to-head. Let's have some new
invalid critiques instead of the same old invalid critique, shall
we? :)

Forgive my inferior writing skills, but if your so much better , and
VALID , why is no one reading any of your posts instead of the likes
of Whispers , or do you just prefer to play the same 'ol crtique
yourself ?

And on that note, Im still waiting to hear about yout lefty / Spin
theory when it comes to other heavy former spinngers like Muster.

tick -tock
tick - tock

.

Relevant Pages