> > >> whisper despise claycourters
> > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.
> > >>> --
> > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > >>> impostors
> > >>> just the same"
> > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > >> may be GOAT material
> > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.
> > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.
> > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.
> > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.
> > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)
> > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > similar category.
> > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.
> > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.
> > bob
> Nonsense, bob, as always.
> >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,
> clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> brush up on your subtraction and equality.
> full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I
> claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> for now.
> but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the
> fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.
> don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.
> > Remember,
> Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.
> i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think
> before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...
> i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.
(1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
(2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
(3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
(4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
(5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997
I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
Sampras), so no point arguing with you...