Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ramshorns]

Defending champion ( Nadal) out of this year's tournament
http://sports.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/20/champion-nadal-pulls-out-of-wimbledon.htm

Anyone else who can even come close to stopping the real champion and the greatest!

Looks like Nadal is going to keep his GS edge over Federer...by not showing up.. simple and effective strategy, eh

This proves  the BSness of that whole argument "Nadal owns Federer". He needs to show up to the "party" first. He is clearly a single-surface player and now is not even consistently fit... and he "owns" Fedex! Yeah right.

Chala Murari Hero Ban-ne  

Anyway, Fedex should cruise through Wimbledon and IMO, will win US Open too...and create a clear daylight between himself and others. Of course, the naysayers will still keep harping "he did not have strong competition" even when the competition doesnt show up ..

Tell you what, at this point this guy is competing against himself - he doesnt need others. 

This and your use of sissy as a moniker for nadal is about just as pathetic as it gets.

Hope you do a gut check and realize how pathetic you sound when you have to defend an all time great like Federer by resorting to such juvenile denigration of a worthy opponent.

I am 100% sure that Federer deserves a better fan base and attitude.

As far as Nadal is concerned, all I shall say is that if were to read your unkind sobriquet for him, he should remind himself that virulent criticism usually emanates from those who can't do it themselves.

agreed..Nadal deserves respect...but your statement would have got more weight if you had admonished other posters who keep on calling Fed as Nadal's puppet which is as untrue as Nadal being sissy or as true!

You seriously need to make sense here.

Two things calling  Rafa a "Sissy" with no reason whatsoever is not the same thing as me taunting Federer as Nadal's "personal puppet" for his poor record against him and it is earned IMO .  So  why would anyone admonish me.  Because you said so.  Let Federer beat Nadal first consistently and then my name calling will have no weight in it and will have to stop subsequently or I will be making a fool of myself like the "Sissy" remark which has no basis to call Nadal one.

because both are for the same reason. Let Nadal start entering all the tournmennts and start facing Federer in finals then we can talk about their overall record and we can call him stopping 'sissy'. One can also argue that if Federer was not there in this tournament then Nadal might have entered even one knee and had a chance to win.

No not a chance.  Nadal lost to Hewitt on Thursday and a lesser player on Friday and if he entered the Wimbeldon I will not be shocked if he lost in the first round itself.  And it has nothing to do with Federer whom by the way he beat in Wimbeldon last year.   I agree with Nadal's assessement here when being 5% off is all it takes or means beating the No.1 player or losing to a 100th ranked in pro-sports.

And by the way it does not bother me someone calling Nadal "sissy" or when one can one stop calling him such.

I think after watching all their GS finals Federer is always at the recieving end of what Nadal tries and dictates for most part and to be funny and not caring much for Federer I call him "Nadal's personal puppet" and will do so.

And some of you just for the heck of it want to call Nadal "sissy" or his mother a "hoar" who am I stop it.  You are not hurting my feelings.  So stop making this a tit for tat business.

[keep-it-cool]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

[ramshorns]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

Now do not ask such obvious and uncomfortable questions of WN 7-13 record notwithstanding.

[gouravk]

wn
we do not need to reduce ourselves to the level of rams by calling nadal names. we acknowledge what a great athlete and what a great competitor nadal is ... at least i do. ... this name calling is best left to the likes of ramshorns and to some extent dex.

[gouravk]

btw
this ridiculous idea of bringing up nadals record against federer every time to hold it against his claims to all time greatness ... is akin to indians browbeating about pakistan never having beaten them in a world cup ... even in those cases where pak went ahead to reach the finals and the world cup ... ridiculous to say the least.

[ramshorns]

wn
we do not need to reduce ourselves to the level of rams by calling nadal names. we acknowledge what a great athlete and what a great competitor nadal is ... at least i do. ... this name calling is best left to the likes of ramshorns and to some extent dex.

Hahaha.   I do not think I have anything to do with WN calling Nadal names. 

Nice try to use others as a reason for your follies.

Also instead of debating on who's level is what why not post what you have to and let others be the judge. 

I am fine with the level I am at.

Afterall don't we all know how you flip flop on this DG as an example be it Gambhir or Nehra or calling Gul a role player or saying DC won the cup pretty much because as a fluke.

Anyway like I said let others or the readers make a decision for themselves.  Let us not debate individual members here.

[gouravk]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

[ramshorns]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams.  Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

[ganavk]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

[gouravk]

im not making excuses. i do not feel inclined to engage into an intellectual disussion with someone who calls federer names. or nadal for that matter. because both are great champions whom i respect and adore.

[ganavk]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams.  Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

[ramshorns]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Now you want to find exceptions.  Except this and except that.  That way we can pretty much expand that and say if only the hundredth ranked player had the talent of a Nadal or a Lendl or a Federer even they would be good and could have beaten all these guys and won Grandslam titles.  It just does not cut it.  7-13 record and 65% success rate for Nadal is a serious accomplishment and let us acknowledge that instead of trying finding excuses for Federer.

[ramshorns]

im not making excuses. i do not feel inclined to engage into an intellectual disussion with someone who calls federer names. or nadal for that matter. because both are great champions whom i respect and adore.

I do not think you will ever engage in anything excepting put down other players insult them with oneliners and disappear and appear again on another thread and do the same over and over again.  Cue: Nehra, GG, Gul all are few examples for others to just take a look at.  So this coming from you on engaging someone intellectually is rather rich indeed.

[ganavk]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Now you want to find exceptions.  Except this and except that.  That way we can pretty much expand that and say if only the hundredth ranked player had the talent of a Nadal or a Lendl or a Federer even they would be good and could have beaten all these guys and won Grandslam titles.  It just does not cut it.  7-13 record and 65% success rate for Nadal is a serious accomplishment and let us acknowledge that instead of trying finding excuses for Federer.

u use the same exception to discredit Federer's overall record..can u think logically before posting please ?

[ganavk]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams. Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

wow...this is from a poster who does not need an invitation to judge other posters/players based on one or two past incidents 
Keep on it..
just to clarify..if you have noticed I never intend to involve in a discussion with you. I responded to Kban1 because I respect his opinions ( who don't have to resort to name calling to prove his arguments by the way!) whether I agree with those opinions or not. so...you can keep on calling Fed some names and someone else can keep on calling Nadal as a sissy ( in retrospect both of them seems to be valid from your POV and so be it )

[keep-it-cool]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

[LosingNow]

But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

..and that makes Federer not the greatest.. 14 GS's, 20 consecutive GS semis, career GS ..all wiped out for a this "debatable" point. wah bhai wah

[keep-it-cool]

But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

..and that makes Federer not the greatest.. 14 GS's, 20 consecutive GS semis, career GS ..all wiped out for a this "debatable" point. wah bhai wah

Not just that. I think Kban's points about not having enough evidence of Federer against really great players also leaves that "GREATEST" tag still debateable.

Come on. One other really good player he comes up against - his record is poor. Even if one removes clay, he is what 5-5?

How he can be termed the unarguably greatest player of all time is beyond me.

[LosingNow]

well even "one other player" is now debatable.. IMO, Nadal is finished.

wont play USO or even if he plays will not go anywhere there...

then he will go back to mommy to get some milk.. that will not help his knees.. on an on. Fed will keep winning till he says "i am done competing with myself"

[ganavk]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

KIC..i don't agree because Fed has faced Nadal on Nadal's fav surface clay more often than Nadal has faced Fed on hardcourt or grass or indoor. That also means Nadal has lost to other players more often in earlier rounds because Fed often has reached Semifinals and Finals regularly. In fact Fed has better record on all other surfaces .. check that post by CLR on the Ivan Lendl thread.

[ramshorns]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Now you want to find exceptions.  Except this and except that.  That way we can pretty much expand that and say if only the hundredth ranked player had the talent of a Nadal or a Lendl or a Federer even they would be good and could have beaten all these guys and won Grandslam titles.  It just does not cut it.  7-13 record and 65% success rate for Nadal is a serious accomplishment and let us acknowledge that instead of trying finding excuses for Federer.

u use the same exception to discredit Federer's overall record..can u think logically before posting please ?

So that is the best response you can some up with. 

The word logic does not look too good coming from you.  If I remember there was a thread when you made some haughty proclamations about "SRT and RD are the only bastman that can play in hostile conditons".  And when challenged and shown the fallacy in that statement you disappeared.  So it is easy to find fault with others logic when we ourselves have none.

[ramshorns]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams. Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

wow...this is from a poster who does not need an invitation to judge other posters/players based on one or two past incidents 
Keep on it..

Does not bother me one bit what you say or think but nevertheless keep continuing.

just to clarify..if you have noticed I never intend to involve in a discussion with you. I responded to Kban1 because I respect his opinions ( who don't have to resort to name calling to prove his arguments by the way!) whether I agree with those opinions or not. so...you can keep on calling Fed some names and someone else can keep on calling Nadal as a sissy ( in retrospect both of them seems to be valid from your POV and so be it )

Really I know you do not but when you make silly statements on a DG you will taken to task.  I could care less who you like to suck upto in your spare time be it Kban's posts oR CLR's posts or someone else's.  When I see you make generic statements like "greatest player of all time" or "only best player of pace bowling" etc etc without having the depth or knowledge to explain them I will challenge you and call you out.

[RicePlateReddy]

btw
this ridiculous idea of bringing up nadals record against federer every time to hold it against his claims to all time greatness ... is akin to indians browbeating about pakistan never having beaten them in a world cup ... even in those cases where pak went ahead to reach the finals and the world cup ... ridiculous to say the least.

A very poor analogy on multiple dimensions.

-- Using Nadal's GS finals record against Federer is a non-bitter, logical, valid argument to use against Federer's GOAT claim. Note that this is affecting the GOAT claim only -- which has the highest bar by definition. No one, absolutely no one, is claiming that Federer is anything but an all-time great.

-- Indians browbeating about Pak not defeating them in WCs is an example of jingoism to impose a mental funk angle over traditional rivals. No one will seriously use that line to claim India is a better team than Pakistan.  If you claim that is the heart of the analogy -- no one is claiming that Nadal is a greater champion than Federer.

[ramshorns]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

KIC..i don't agree because Fed has faced Nadal on Nadal's fav surface clay more often than Nadal has faced Fed on hardcourt or grass or indoor. That also means Nadal has lost to other players more often in earlier rounds because Fed often has reached Semifinals and Finals regularly. In fact Fed has better record on all other surfaces .. check that post by CLR on the Ivan Lendl thread.

Again more exceptions than facts.  When we keep clay surfaces out for a second he had faced Nadal 10 other times.  If he was that much better than Nadal then why is his record 5-5 on non clay surfaces against that player. 

[atticus]

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

No you said Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal. How did he beat Nadal without having a clue? If you actually watched Fed-Nadal on clay (and not just French Open), you would know that Federer has more than a clue against Nadal. Their matches have always been competitive - be it on clay or any other surface. Even when Nadal was a nobody on grass, he gave the match of his life against Federer and the same is true vice versa. Yes, Federer ends up losing most of the matches on clay, but it is not for a lack of "clue".

Here are the results between them on clay. Does it look like someone not having a clue? Like ganav said above, 2008 French Open was indeed such a match. Federer simply did not have any clue. But otherwise, they've always played tough (especially that Rome match. A great match). Federer has taken multiple sets off of Nadal on clay. In fact only 4 out of 11 matches were straight sets - one was won by Federer. Of the remaining 3, again, last year's French was a beating. Another one was 7-5 7-5 - certainly a competitive match

2009	Madrid	Federer	6-4, 6-4
2008	French Open	Nadal	6-1, 6-3, 6-0
2008	Hamburg	Nadal	7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3
2008	Monte Carlo	Nadal	7-5, 7-5
2007	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
2007	Hamburg	Federer	2-6, 6-2, 6-0
2007	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-4, 6-4
2006	French Open	Nadal	1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)
2006	Rome	Nadal	6-7, 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)
2006	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)
2005	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

[ramshorns]

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

No you said Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal. How did he beat Nadal without having a clue? If you actually watched Fed-Nadal on clay (and not just French Open), you would know that Federer has more than a clue against Nadal. Their matches have always been competitive - be it on clay or any other surface. Even when Nadal was a nobody on grass, he gave the match of his life against Federer and the same is true vice versa. Yes, Federer ends up losing most of the matches on clay, but it is not for a lack of "clue".

Here are the results between them on clay. Does it look like someone not having a clue? Like ganav said above, 2008 French Open was indeed such a match. Federer simply did not have any clue. But otherwise, they've always played tough (especially that Rome match. A great match). Federer has taken multiple sets off of Nadal on clay. In fact only 4 out of 11 matches were straight sets - one was won by Federer. Of the remaining 3, again, last year's French was a beating. Another one was 7-5 7-5 - certainly a competitive match

2009	Madrid	Federer	6-4, 6-4
2008	French Open	Nadal	6-1, 6-3, 6-0
2008	Hamburg	Nadal	7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3
2008	Monte Carlo	Nadal	7-5, 7-5
2007	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
2007	Hamburg	Federer	2-6, 6-2, 6-0
2007	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-4, 6-4
2006	French Open	Nadal	1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)
2006	Rome	Nadal	6-7, 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)
2006	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)
2005	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

I would let KIC respond to the part addressed to him.

Here is what I want to clarify.   Clay more than any other surfaces has the truer bounce into it and hence all players have a chance to to showcase their game than on anyother surface.  So it is hardly surpirsing a player of the calibre of Federer made most of these games competitive against Nadal. 

And on a sidenote I was at the French open courts when they preparing for the 2001 open.  I witnessed how the courts are prepared and how the clay is spreadout etc on the courts.  It is so interesting.  The rolling that goes into it to make it and the number of iterations is really really was fascinating for me to watch 3-4 hours I was there.  The watering down of the surface to let it set before  spreading the court with clay is something practiced as a science over there at the Roland Garros.

[ramshorns]

But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

..and that makes Federer not the greatest.. 14 GS's, 20 consecutive GS semis, career GS ..all wiped out for a this "debatable" point. wah bhai wah

Not just that. I think Kban's points about not having enough evidence of Federer against really great players also leaves that "GREATEST" tag still debateable.

Come on. One other really good player he comes up against - his record is poor. Even if one removes clay, he is what 5-5?

How he can be termed the unarguably greatest player of all time is beyond me.

Expect WN not to show up here and debate that but use more name calling Nadal.

BTW:-Just GS's alone cannot be the basis for annointing someone as the greatest.  There are players like Lendl, Laver and Connors that won more than 100 overall tennis titles that also include Grandslam's.

Having said that personally I have said after that French open win Federer has my vote for now over Lendl and Borg the two I always thought to be the best outside of Laver.

[WicketView]

...

Here is what I want to clarify.   Clay more than any other surfaces has the truer bounce into it and hence all players have a chance to to showcase their game than on anyother surface.  So it is hardly surpirsing a player of the calibre of Federer made most of these games competitive against Nadal. 

Could you explain what you mean to say in a bit more detail. I missed it.

[atticus]

Here is what I want to clarify.   Clay more than any other surfaces has the truer bounce into it and hence all players have a chance to to showcase their game than on anyother surface.  So it is hardly surpirsing a player of the calibre of Federer made most of these games competitive against Nadal. 

I only objected to the "does not have a clue" part. Is Federer someone who has that calibre you've pointed out or is he clueless? I do know that a lot of other top players do not have such record on clay over Nadal. If clay is such an "equalizer", I would've expected Nadal to have had much tougher tests against other players - especially the ones born and brought up on clay like the spanish and argentines. You would be hard-pressed to find someone else who has taken so many sets off of Nadal on Clay.

[ramshorns]

...

Here is what I want to clarify.   Clay more than any other surfaces has the truer bounce into it and hence all players have a chance to to showcase their game than on anyother surface.  So it is hardly surpirsing a player of the calibre of Federer made most of these games competitive against Nadal. 

Could you explain what you mean to say in a bit more detail. I missed it.

WV:Sorry for being not very clear.  I will try again.

On Grass courts sometimes balls die down in the middle of a rally especially as the tournament progresses giving no chance for players to return the ball even if they reach it during rallies.

On hard courts and similar surfaces which are a combination of rubber and acrylics on which US Open and Australian Open(now it is very similar to US open surface) are played too the bounce sometimes can be low but surely better than grass.  The main problem is the ball skids off the surface.  For those of you who attended US open in person and I did quite a few times you hear the noise of the racket hitting the court when the player would have reached the ball but unable to put it back in play because it skidded out.

On clay or French the chances of fair play are better i.e when the player through his speed and skill if he reaches the balls the chance of putting the ball in play is higher thus increasing the rally count.  This surface more than any tests a player's strength, stamina and endurance.

So given that a player always has a chance to get back in a rally at the French where it is a truer bounce in comparision to other surfaces and hence has a chance to showcase their talents better.  It takes a lot more to beat players on such surfaces.  That was what I was getting at.

Given Federer's groundstrokes it is hardly surprising most of his the matches he lost to Nadal on clay were competitive.  That was my point.

Hope it is a little more clear now.

[ramshorns]

Here is what I want to clarify.   Clay more than any other surfaces has the truer bounce into it and hence all players have a chance to to showcase their game than on anyother surface.  So it is hardly surpirsing a player of the calibre of Federer made most of these games competitive against Nadal. 

I only objected to the "does not have a clue" part. Is Federer someone who has that calibre you've pointed out or is he clueless? I do know that a lot of other top players do not have such record on clay over Nadal. If clay is such an "equalizer", I would've expected Nadal to have had much tougher tests against other players - especially the ones born and brought up on clay like the spanish and argentines. You would be hard-pressed to find someone else who has taken so many sets off of Nadal on Clay.

That only shows Federer's greatness as a Tennis player irrespective of the surface he has it in him to advance deep into GS's events even if it is French.  Getting to your point on other players getting swept aside by Nadal even on clay he sure would given the speed and power in his game the lesser players would have no clue or have the groundstrokes to match him usually succumbing by committing unforced errors.  That is the single most important statistic in tennis than anything else - unforced errors which translates to lack of game or consistency in it.  But given Federer's game it is hardly surprising that he made it to so close with Nadal even on clay courts.

This Federer's run at French remind's me of Lendl's at Wimbeldon when year after year he would reach atleast reach the Semi Finals on his supposed weak surface.  That is why he obviously is rated so highly as an all time great.

Please read my meaning on what I meant about clay being an equaliser in the above post.

[ganavk]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Now you want to find exceptions.  Except this and except that.  That way we can pretty much expand that and say if only the hundredth ranked player had the talent of a Nadal or a Lendl or a Federer even they would be good and could have beaten all these guys and won Grandslam titles.  It just does not cut it.  7-13 record and 65% success rate for Nadal is a serious accomplishment and let us acknowledge that instead of trying finding excuses for Federer.

u use the same exception to discredit Federer's overall record..can u think logically before posting please ?

So that is the best response you can some up with. 

The word logic does not look too good coming from you.  If I remember there was a thread when you made some haughty proclamations about "SRT and RD are the only bastman that can play in hostile conditons".  And when challenged and shown the fallacy in that statement you disappeared.  So it is easy to find fault with others logic when we ourselves have none.

Ramshorns....may be you can keep that discussion to that thread and keep on updating it every day trying to proclaim VVS as good as others. May be you can go back and check again..statistical evidence were shown and they you come back with quality of batting etc which basically are useless from arguments point of view.

[ganavk]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams. Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

wow...this is from a poster who does not need an invitation to judge other posters/players based on one or two past incidents 
Keep on it..

Does not bother me one bit what you say or think but nevertheless keep continuing.

just to clarify..if you have noticed I never intend to involve in a discussion with you. I responded to Kban1 because I respect his opinions ( who don't have to resort to name calling to prove his arguments by the way!) whether I agree with those opinions or not. so...you can keep on calling Fed some names and someone else can keep on calling Nadal as a sissy ( in retrospect both of them seems to be valid from your POV and so be it )

Really I know you do not but when you make silly statements on a DG you will taken to task.  I could care less who you like to suck upto in your spare time be it Kban's posts oR CLR's posts or someone else's.  When I see you make generic statements like "greatest player of all time" or "only best player of pace bowling" etc etc without having the depth or knowledge to explain them I will challenge you and call you out.

another attempt to bring the history of the messenger to every discussion.  This is a lame attempt to trying to argue against the messenger rather than arguing against the message. 
Let us go back to that thread and please show me the point that shows VVS is a better player of pace bowling compared to SRT or RD.  if you want logic try avoiding airing your opinions as facts and then may be someone can discuss with you.

[ramshorns]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams. Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

wow...this is from a poster who does not need an invitation to judge other posters/players based on one or two past incidents 
Keep on it..

Does not bother me one bit what you say or think but nevertheless keep continuing.

just to clarify..if you have noticed I never intend to involve in a discussion with you. I responded to Kban1 because I respect his opinions ( who don't have to resort to name calling to prove his arguments by the way!) whether I agree with those opinions or not. so...you can keep on calling Fed some names and someone else can keep on calling Nadal as a sissy ( in retrospect both of them seems to be valid from your POV and so be it )

Really I know you do not but when you make silly statements on a DG you will taken to task.  I could care less who you like to suck upto in your spare time be it Kban's posts oR CLR's posts or someone else's.  When I see you make generic statements like "greatest player of all time" or "only best player of pace bowling" etc etc without having the depth or knowledge to explain them I will challenge you and call you out.

another attempt to bring the history of the messenger to every discussion.  This is a lame attempt to trying to argue against the messenger rather than arguing against the message. 
Let us go back to that thread and please show me the point that shows VVS is a better player of pace bowling compared to SRT or RD.  if you want logic try avoiding airing your opinions as facts and then may be someone can discuss with you.

Do not try to twist Mr..  In those threads you said that only RD and SRT are the only capable players of pace to which I showed you and proved with facts as in innings played on how VVS easily matches these two at a minimum to which you never had any proper defense and gave up eventually much like in these tennis threads when you said Federer is greatest because some of his peers and some of the past greats said so or players of this generation are much better than from the past.  Very generic in nature and when others take the time to explain things in more details you never pretty much have no rebuttals excepting say Federer as the greatest and that's it.

Anyway if one goes to those threads they will know who presented what.  Enough said.

[gouravk]

What does Federer need to prove to himself now -- the only thing may be defeating a rampaging and fit Nadal!

If the sissy shows up .. Fedex cant beat no-shows

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Now you want to find exceptions.  Except this and except that.  That way we can pretty much expand that and say if only the hundredth ranked player had the talent of a Nadal or a Lendl or a Federer even they would be good and could have beaten all these guys and won Grandslam titles.  It just does not cut it.  7-13 record and 65% success rate for Nadal is a serious accomplishment and let us acknowledge that instead of trying finding excuses for Federer.

u use the same exception to discredit Federer's overall record..can u think logically before posting please ?

So that is the best response you can some up with. 

The word logic does not look too good coming from you.  If I remember there was a thread when you made some haughty proclamations about "SRT and RD are the only bastman that can play in hostile conditons".  And when challenged and shown the fallacy in that statement you disappeared.  So it is easy to find fault with others logic when we ourselves have none.

hahaha .. rams you are pretty much caught out on this one 

[keep-it-cool]

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

No you said Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal. How did he beat Nadal without having a clue? If you actually watched Fed-Nadal on clay (and not just French Open), you would know that Federer has more than a clue against Nadal. Their matches have always been competitive - be it on clay or any other surface. Even when Nadal was a nobody on grass, he gave the match of his life against Federer and the same is true vice versa. Yes, Federer ends up losing most of the matches on clay, but it is not for a lack of "clue".

Here are the results between them on clay. Does it look like someone not having a clue? Like ganav said above, 2008 French Open was indeed such a match. Federer simply did not have any clue. But otherwise, they've always played tough (especially that Rome match. A great match). Federer has taken multiple sets off of Nadal on clay. In fact only 4 out of 11 matches were straight sets - one was won by Federer. Of the remaining 3, again, last year's French was a beating. Another one was 7-5 7-5 - certainly a competitive match

2009	Madrid	Federer	6-4, 6-4
2008	French Open	Nadal	6-1, 6-3, 6-0
2008	Hamburg	Nadal	7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3
2008	Monte Carlo	Nadal	7-5, 7-5
2007	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
2007	Hamburg	Federer	2-6, 6-2, 6-0
2007	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-4, 6-4
2006	French Open	Nadal	1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)
2006	Rome	Nadal	6-7, 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)
2006	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)
2005	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

Ok, "hardly a clue" was an overstatement - probably brought upon by that straight sets thrashing that Nadal handed out to Federer in the 2008 FO final (that put me into a few days of depression).

Having said that, I still believe Nadal is much more competitive on other surfaces v/s Federer than Federer is on clay v/s Nadal.

And for any player to be considered the absolute greatest of all time (as against an all time great), such issues do need to taken into consideration.

[dextrous]

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

No you said Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal. How did he beat Nadal without having a clue? If you actually watched Fed-Nadal on clay (and not just French Open), you would know that Federer has more than a clue against Nadal. Their matches have always been competitive - be it on clay or any other surface. Even when Nadal was a nobody on grass, he gave the match of his life against Federer and the same is true vice versa. Yes, Federer ends up losing most of the matches on clay, but it is not for a lack of "clue".

Here are the results between them on clay. Does it look like someone not having a clue? Like ganav said above, 2008 French Open was indeed such a match. Federer simply did not have any clue. But otherwise, they've always played tough (especially that Rome match. A great match). Federer has taken multiple sets off of Nadal on clay. In fact only 4 out of 11 matches were straight sets - one was won by Federer. Of the remaining 3, again, last year's French was a beating. Another one was 7-5 7-5 - certainly a competitive match

2009	Madrid	Federer	6-4, 6-4
2008	French Open	Nadal	6-1, 6-3, 6-0
2008	Hamburg	Nadal	7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3
2008	Monte Carlo	Nadal	7-5, 7-5
2007	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
2007	Hamburg	Federer	2-6, 6-2, 6-0
2007	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-4, 6-4
2006	French Open	Nadal	1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)
2006	Rome	Nadal	6-7, 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)
2006	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)
2005	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

Ok, "hardly a clue" was an overstatement - probably brought upon by that straight sets thrashing that Nadal handed out to Federer in the 2008 FO final (that put me into a few days of depression).

Maybe you should do your research before posting.

[keep-it-cool]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams. Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

wow...this is from a poster who does not need an invitation to judge other posters/players based on one or two past incidents 
Keep on it..

Does not bother me one bit what you say or think but nevertheless keep continuing.

just to clarify..if you have noticed I never intend to involve in a discussion with you. I responded to Kban1 because I respect his opinions ( who don't have to resort to name calling to prove his arguments by the way!) whether I agree with those opinions or not. so...you can keep on calling Fed some names and someone else can keep on calling Nadal as a sissy ( in retrospect both of them seems to be valid from your POV and so be it )

Really I know you do not but when you make silly statements on a DG you will taken to task.  I could care less who you like to suck upto in your spare time be it Kban's posts oR CLR's posts or someone else's.  When I see you make generic statements like "greatest player of all time" or "only best player of pace bowling" etc etc without having the depth or knowledge to explain them I will challenge you and call you out.

another attempt to bring the history of the messenger to every discussion.  This is a lame attempt to trying to argue against the messenger rather than arguing against the message. 
Let us go back to that thread and please show me the point that shows VVS is a better player of pace bowling compared to SRT or RD.  if you want logic try avoiding airing your opinions as facts and then may be someone can discuss with you.

I dont remember Rams making that claim. Wasn't it you who claimed that only SRT and RD are capable of playing pace in difficult conditions or something like that?

Anyway, you are right, it is hardly relevant to this discussion.

[keep-it-cool]

well he did show up in last year's Wimbledon final ..so also at this year's US open.

Face it ..even if you take out Nadal's favourite surface, the two are neck and neck. Plus Nadal is extremely competitive on all those surfaces v/s Federer whereas Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal on clay. How many sets has Nadal taken off Federer on grass? And what is the corresponding number for Federer on clay?

While I definitely consider Federer as one of the best players (not the absolute greatest) of all time any suggestion that Nadal is scared of Federer etc is downright silly. The head to head matches between the two do not show that at all.

KIC..seriously ? except last year's French open , Fed has taken plenty of sets of Nadal even on clay. In fact Fed did beat possibly the greatest player on clay just  before the french open in a final.

Did I say that Federer has not beaten Nadal on clay or not taken sets off him? But Nadal has been more competitive against Fed on other surfaces than Fed against Nadal on clay.

No you said Federer hardly has a clue against Nadal. How did he beat Nadal without having a clue? If you actually watched Fed-Nadal on clay (and not just French Open), you would know that Federer has more than a clue against Nadal. Their matches have always been competitive - be it on clay or any other surface. Even when Nadal was a nobody on grass, he gave the match of his life against Federer and the same is true vice versa. Yes, Federer ends up losing most of the matches on clay, but it is not for a lack of "clue".

Here are the results between them on clay. Does it look like someone not having a clue? Like ganav said above, 2008 French Open was indeed such a match. Federer simply did not have any clue. But otherwise, they've always played tough (especially that Rome match. A great match). Federer has taken multiple sets off of Nadal on clay. In fact only 4 out of 11 matches were straight sets - one was won by Federer. Of the remaining 3, again, last year's French was a beating. Another one was 7-5 7-5 - certainly a competitive match

2009	Madrid	Federer	6-4, 6-4
2008	French Open	Nadal	6-1, 6-3, 6-0
2008	Hamburg	Nadal	7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3
2008	Monte Carlo	Nadal	7-5, 7-5
2007	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
2007	Hamburg	Federer	2-6, 6-2, 6-0
2007	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-4, 6-4
2006	French Open	Nadal	1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)
2006	Rome	Nadal	6-7, 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)
2006	Monte Carlo	Nadal	6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)
2005	French Open	Nadal	6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

Ok, "hardly a clue" was an overstatement - probably brought upon by that straight sets thrashing that Nadal handed out to Federer in the 2008 FO final (that put me into a few days of depression).

Maybe you should do your research before posting.

Yes, I should have.

[ramshorns]

i do think your original name calling of federer could have triggered name calling in the other direction.

That is just a lame excuse.  Besides I do not own Nadal.  So feel free.  All I am saying is let us not get into juding others here.   That will not take the discussion anywhere.  I am all for calling names on players and teams. Afterall we spend so much time following them and admring them and appreciating them.  I do that all the sametime but on the flip side I am also not averse to calling names where warranted.  7-13 record for Federer against Nadal for all he has accomplished is a chink and I just funnily refer to that as being a personal puppet.  What is so wrong in it.  Or are we all post in and post out just be in awe of his tennis expliots.  I simply do not get it and quire frankly advise people to get over being oversensitive.

wow...this is from a poster who does not need an invitation to judge other posters/players based on one or two past incidents 
Keep on it..

Does not bother me one bit what you say or think but nevertheless keep continuing.

just to clarify..if you have noticed I never intend to involve in a discussion with you. I responded to Kban1 because I respect his opinions ( who don't have to resort to name calling to prove his arguments by the way!) whether I agree with those opinions or not. so...you can keep on calling Fed some names and someone else can keep on calling Nadal as a sissy ( in retrospect both of them seems to be valid from your POV and so be it )

Really I know you do not but when you make silly statements on a DG you will taken to task.  I could care less who you like to suck upto in your spare time be it Kban's posts oR CLR's posts or someone else's.  When I see you make generic statements like "greatest player of all time" or "only best player of pace bowling" etc etc without having the depth or knowledge to explain them I will challenge you and call you out.

another attempt to bring the history of the messenger to every discussion.  This is a lame attempt to trying to argue against the messenger rather than arguing against the message. 
Let us go back to that thread and please show me the point that shows VVS is a better player of pace bowling compared to SRT or RD.  if you want logic try avoiding airing your opinions as facts and then may be someone can discuss with you.

I dont remember Rams making that claim. Wasn't it you who claimed that only SRT and RD are capable of playing pace in difficult conditions or something like that?

Anyway, you are right, it is hardly relevant to this discussion.

That is exactly what it was and as you said not relevent here but had to bring it in when my logic was questioned.  I am all for some of these posts not relevent to this thread be removed this way the Tennis discussion can go on.  I did some research on this to help put the mods and Ganavk's reply or post # 33 started some irrelevent posts to Tennis discussion.