Roger Federer

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:41 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:Breaking out your killer material, I see.

I guess I just couldn't keep up with 'you're jon lovitz.'

Dude you must be on fire!

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:45 pm

Moving Sale wrote:I guess I just couldn't keep up

You coulda stopped there. And it'll forever be true.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:47 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Obviously, Jim Brown wouldn't be nearly as special in today's NFL,
I highly doubt that. He was 6'2" 230 with both speed and power. There is no reason to believe that he would be anything other than completely dominant in any era.

2rd.

JB was an absolute freak. Perhaps he would not have been as dominant today, but, it's not all about speed and power. He was a fukking warrior. And I'm guessing he'd find a little more speed and power with modern tools at his disposal.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:53 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:6'2", 230 lbs makes him a dime-a-dozen in today's NFL.
No, it doesn't. That's a big running back even by today's standards and a back that big with his combination of size and speed is far from common.

It's also far from being unique. In his era, he was unique. In his era, defenses were much slower and smaller.

Today, 6'2", 230, with his 40 times, that makes him pretty big and reasonably fast. Those are hardly earth shattering combine numbers, however.

Brown playing in the '60s would almost be like sending LeBron James back to the '60s. Not quite, but almost. Look how LeBron's freakish physical tools stand out now. Stick him in the '60s NBA and he'd stick out like Jim Brown stuck out in the NFL, only moreso.

There simply were no Troy Palomalus and Shawn Merrimans in Jim Brown's era. The type of athlete Taylor Mays is, that guy never lined up against Jim Brown.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:58 pm

smackie, I already granted that Brown would've also benefitted from today's modern training methods. I said he'd need those advantages, if he were to try and carry that physical advantage over everyone else that he enjoyed in the '60s. Leaving him strictly as the player he was in the '60s, no, he wouldn't be a physical freak with a huge physical advantage, not in today's NFL.

I'm comparing him to an Oscar Robertson or Bob Gibson, i.e., players from the '60s who easily could still dominate today's game with their '60s era game.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:58 pm

Van wrote: Joe Louis or Marciano would've struggled, big time, against latter era foes.

the brown bomber would have beatdown today's sad heavyweight division as he did his. Rocky would have been the champ......in the light heavyweight div.

In these instances, it's difficult to cross eras. They would've needed to change with the era.

Two areas where I don't see this being nearly as true would be certain aspects of baseball and basketball. Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson would still be dominant today, even with their 60's era stuff. Bob Cousy and Oscar Robertson would still be dominant today, just as Chris Paul is, and Jason Kidd and John Stockton recently were.

Rack.

Only problem I would see is the ump's would have made bob tone down the chin music a bit. dude was the fukkin' stevie vai of chin playing. He was a straight up nasty motherfukker.

Also, Sugar Ray Robinson would've been Sugar Ray Robinson in any era. The dominant middleweights, and pretty much anything below the heavyweights, they would've fared well in any era.

double rack.

sugar ray pwns any the welterweight title in any era. A sugar ray/sugar ray fight would be a fun one to watch though.

Tennis? Nope. Can't cross eras. Old time players, their games would not have translated to today's game. They would've had to be different players to make it in today's much faster and more powerful game.

Bullshit. No way to know for sure. Some wouldn't, but borg and laver get it done against anybody, imo.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:09 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:There simply were no Troy Palomalus and Shawn Merrimans in Jim Brown's era.
I'll call bullshit on that

Call bullshit all you want. You're wrong. There weren't LBs and safeties of that size and speed in the NFL, not in the '60s, and there certainly weren't the number of physical freaks on D that you see today.

Even a Rey Maualuga, there was almost no such thing in the 60s. LBs were mostly 220 lbs, and slow. They weren't 265 lbs, and rapid. They wrapped up, they didn't detonate.

In fact, there really are no physical freaks at RB, in today's NFL. New York's Brandon Jacobs would be the main one, at 6'4" and 265 lbs, with decent speed. He's a freak, certainly, but he doesn't stick out like Jim Brown stuck out in the '60s.

and, in any event, JB could take care of business against Merriman and Polasmoka without too much trouble.

6'2", 230 lb Jim Brown takes punishment today, he doesn't just dish it out. He's no longer bigger and faster than most LBs. He doesn't just blow up safeties.

He gets worn down, now. He'd still be great, but he wouldn't be a man among boys. He'd routinely get clocked, by bigger, faster people. That hardly ever happened, in his day.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:24 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Van wrote: Joe Louis or Marciano would've struggled, big time, against latter era foes.
the brown bomber would have beatdown today's sad heavyweight division as he did his. Rocky would have been the champ......in the light heavyweight div.

"Latter era foes" doesn't only include today's fight game, not for guys like Joe Louis and Marciano. It also includes people like Ali, Frazier, Holmes and Lennox Lewis.

For as much as I loved the guy, Marciano would've been an undersized midget against a guy like George Foreman. Marciano wasn't even 6' and he barely pushed 200 lbs. He was fighting guys like Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. He wasn't facing 6'4", 250 lb skilled fighters.

Joe Louis was fighting oafish goons like Primo Carnera, Max Baer and Max Schmeling, or 175 lb smurfs like Billy Conn. He wasn't facing 6'4", physically imposing guys with speed and skill, like Cassius Clay.

Tennis? Nope. Can't cross eras. Old time players, their games would not have translated to today's game. They would've had to be different players to make it in today's much faster and more powerful game.
Bullshit. No way to know for sure. Some wouldn't, but borg and laver get it done against anybody, imo.

How? How is a stoic baseliner with no serve and no real offensive weaponry going to take down Roger Federer?

He couldn't. His game would've had to change, along with his equipment and his training. He would've had to become much more of an all court player, with a lot more explosiveness. His main tactic of sitting back and waiting for the other guy to blink first, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel for Federer.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:37 pm

mvscal, you just proved my point. Nietschke, Bednarik and Butkus completely stood out in the 60s. They were dominant players; HOF-ers.

Today, they'd be too slow to even stay on the field in passing situations. Their common calling card was their unusual size (Bednarik and Butkus, especially), and their ability to hit.

Combine size and speed and those guys couldn't touch Brian Urlacher, Ray Lewis or Shawn Merriman. They woul'd've needed to be a whole lot faster and stronger, to dominate in today's NFL.

Through the use of 'roids, HGH and other modern training advancements they would've been bigger, stronger and faster, sure, but the fact remains that they would've needed to be. That's who Jim Brown was dominating. He was dominating a league of undersized, slow people.

Today, his size and speed combination would only render him above average, not freakishly dominant.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Back to tennis. Federer did get the big monkey off his back earlier in May when he finally beat Nadal on red clay--in Madrid. This was a huge victory for the all-time greatest. Agassi is now number two all-time.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:14 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Combine size and speed and those guys couldn't touch Brian Urlacher, Ray Lewis or Shawn Merriman.
Don't those players stand out in this era or is every roster just jam packed with future first ballot hall of famers?

Every roster today is not jam packed with future HOF-ers but every roster today is jam packed with physical specimins that woud've been freakish in Jim Brown's era.

In today's NFL your third string OLB is still massively fast and powerful, by '60s standards. In today's NFL you're going up against guys every day in practice who would be men among boys in the '60s. The pounding an NFL player takes today completely dwarfs what Jim Brown endured in the '60s. The speed of the game, the size of the players, the violence of the collisions, there's simply no comparison.

Jim Brown played in a mostly white league. Today, a mostly white league means you're playing BYU.

I'd have to say Brown would be even more dominant in this era than he was back in the day due to the fact that those rosters were deeper and they were more fundamentally sound players.

In Jim Brown's era you still had guys who had to hold summer jobs, just to get by. Many of those guys were part time goofballs, compared to today's year-'round NFL monster athlete.

Nobody back then looked like that "'roid" pic of Brian Cushing that you so love to deride. Forget Ray Lewis, and his ability to roam and devastate, from sideline to sideline. Nobody back then had Cushing's speed; not at LB, and hardly even in the secondary, and Cushing is 245 lbs.

Today the talent is spread a lot more thinly.

Today also sees a much more organized NFL feeder system. The shit is nearly militarized these days, with kids from all over the country being programmed from birth to get themselves ready for the NFL.

The athletic talent level today is simply off the charts, compared to the talent in the '60s. Just about every single player in today's NFL would physically dominate in the '60s. The physical talent of today's player is light years ahead of the Alex Karras work ethic (or lack thereof) ethos of players from the '60s.

No comparison. A Reggie Bush would run people over in the '60s, and they'd never even get a sniff of him in the open field. It'd be like USC playing Loyola Marymount, the disparity in physical ability would be so enormous.

Go ahead, Thuggy McRapsheet....leave your feet and throw a shoulder at Jim Brown and see how that works out for ya.

As long as Thuggy McRapsheet has the ability to avoid his nightclub murder rap he'll still level a 230 lb RB, half a dozen times per game. He'll have an awful lot of equally violent and freakish help, too.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:16 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Back to tennis. Federer did get the big monkey off his back earlier in May when he finally beat Nadal on red clay--in Madrid. This was a huge victory for the all-time greatest. Agassi is now number two all-time.

Quit glass dickin' me....

the fact remains that it was only a couple weeks ago that Federer did beat Nadal on clay.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:20 pm

Well just say it clear and simple, instead of wedged in between piles of paragraphs of winding, wandering, wondering wording that you seem to enjoy for its own sake. Be clear, think carefully, talk about something important, and don't be a bore. These basic rules of writing I hereby bequeath. Carry on.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:22 pm

Lame cop out. S'alright. We'll just leave the original points you make to the ZioNazi genre.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:05 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Agassi is now number two all-time.

What?

This should get you more scorn than me saying Federers win was tainted. Agassi isn't in the top 5, maybe not even the top 10.

My ranking of all time greats, at least the ones I've seen in my lifetime:

Federer
Sampras
Borg
MacEnroe
Lendyl
Connors
Wilander

Never saw Laver or Budge play, but I reckon they rank higher than Agassi as well.

And I'm probably forgetting a few.

Agassi isn't even in the same conversation.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:08 pm

Pancho Gonzalez and Big Gay Bill Tilden are at least in the conversation.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:12 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well just say it clear and simple, instead of wedged in between piles of paragraphs of winding, wandering, wondering wording that you seem to enjoy for its own sake. Be clear, think carefully, talk about something important, and don't be a bore. These basic rules of writing I hereby bequeath. Carry on.

This, coming from the most droning, meandering, wastrel of words I've ever encountered.

I'll give you this bit of writing advice from Hemingway:

Words are precious, don't waste them.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Of all the players I've seen Lendl was probably the most overlooked/underrated all time great player.

He was just so boring, both on the court and in terms of his personality. Because of this he hardly ever gets a serious mention, but he should.

Another really great player was Boris Becker; at least for a little while.

Federer is the most dominant player I've seen, with Borg maybe being second. Borg did so much, so young. I definitely put Borg above Connors, McEnroe and Lendl.

I guess I have to put Sampras above Borg, but dammit, I just don't want to.

Nadal looks like he's going to end up pretty high on the list. He's only twenty three and he's already got six majors. He's definitely on his way.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:01 pm

Van wrote:Of all the players I've seen Lendl was probably the most overlooked/underrated all time great player.

Ivan The Terrible was a freaking baseline assasin. Mac was my favorite and Lendl fucked his world up so many times, I hated him.

But there's no doubt what a great player he was. I don't know how anybody who considers themselves more than a casual fan of tennis could overlook or underrate that motherfucker.

Another really great player was Boris Becker; at least for a little while.

Yep. I knew I was forgetting a few. Not sure if I'd rank him ahead of Agassi though.

Nadal looks like he's going to end up pretty high on the list. He's only twenty three and he's already got six majors. He's definitely on his way.

Not if he keeps losing to somebody like Soderling, he won't. I guess I'm disappointed that we didn't get to see another classic battle like the ones we've seen the past 3 years between those guys.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:33 pm

WW, regarding your earlier bit about Agassi, I don't know, he probably needs to be ranked higher than you're giving him credit for.

He has eight majors, and a career slam; this, despite running headlong into the Pete Sampras Era.

McEnroe only has seven majors, and no career slam.

Connors has eight majors, and no slam.

Lendl, same thing. Eight and zip.

Wilander, seven and zip.

Becker, six and zip.

With eight majors, a career slam and all his Davis Cup success (something a lot of other Americans couldn't even be bothered to do) Agassi is in some very select company. He's not quite up there with Federer, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales and Laver, but he's above some pretty big names.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:14 am

Van, no disrespect to Andre. I loved watching him play. Despite the number of slams, I just think those others, in their prime, were better tennis players than Agassi.

I suppose it's just a matter of opinion and very subjective. No way he ranks 2nd all time though, and that was my main contention.

Sheesh... I can't believe we're almost at the bottom of page 2 in a tennis thread... but I like it. I believe tennis players are some of the most superbly conditioned, talented athletes on the planet. The only way you can appreciate the game is if you've played it and realize how difficult it is.

Golf hack may now proceed to express how difficult that game is in 3... 2... 1...

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:26 am

I agree that there's no reasonable argument to be made for putting Agassi second, all time. The only truly compelling thing is his career slam, if you're trying to argue for his all time greatness. Otherwise, he usually wasn't even the greatest player of his own era.

He reminded me of Connors, except Connors was truly dominant and far more consistent. They were somewhat similar players, in that they were both counter-punchers, but there weren't a whole lot of peaks and valleys with Connors. Agassi was all over the map. He was awesome, then he'd completely disappear for long stretches, then he'd get motivated again and suddenly he'd be a threat to beat anybody.

Agassi was just very cool to watch, since he so often looked overmatched.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:There simply were no Troy Palomalus and Shawn Merrimans in Jim Brown's era.
I'll call bullshit on that and, in any event, JB could take care of business against Merriman and Polasmoka without too much trouble.

I'll bet JB would read that and laugh and think to himself, "this vannie fella obviously never met dick butkus".

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:45 am

smackie, I already answered, about Dick Butkus. Great player for his era, maybe the greatest defender of all, but he was too slow to be a dominant every down LB in today's NFL. He wouldn't have been able to cover anybody out of the backfield, and he he also wouldn't have been able to simply rag doll today's offensive linemen.

The Brian Urlacher comparison is obvious, but Urlacher is a lot faster and stronger than Butkus ever was, plus Butkus spent a good chunk of his career playing on bad wheels.

Keep in mind, this is in NO WAY a slight against players of the Butkus era. Give Butkus all the advantages enjoyed by the modern NFL player and maybe he is still a dominant player. I'm simply saying that the athlete he was as a player in the '60s would not have translated to total dominance in the NFL of 2009. Conversely, if you let loose a vintage Shawn Merriman on '60s era offenses it would've been positively frightening to those guys. He would've ripped right through pulling linemen, never mind RBs.

Ray Lewis would've simply chased down any back in the league, while also overpowering just about every blocking back or tight end.

On average, these guys today are a good fifty to eighty pounds heavier than players from the '60s, while also being markedly faster. It's just a fact.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:47 am

Some interesting conversation in this thread.

Van, I think you underestimate Borg's serve.
He developed a BIG serve after a few years on the circuit and it was an important factor in him winning 5 straight Wimbledons.
Borg's serve was bigger in his era than Federer's is now.
He certainly wasn't a "just spin it in" dirtballer that a lot of people imagine him to have been.
He DAMAGED people with his serve.

jmo

Wagon, I think you grade Agassi a little low by excluding him from your list there.

He's right in there with the Edbergs, Beckers and Wilanders.

I'd place him a notch below McEnroe, Connors and Lendl, however.
But he's very close.

Agassi is among the top 20 all-time and might get close to the top 10.

For greatest EVER, no, he's not in the discussion.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:08 am

pop, just curious, by what criteria do you place Agassi below McEnroe, Connors and Lendl?

Also, how would you rank Connors, McEnroe and Lendl, relative to each other? (I'm assuming you put Borg above all of them.)

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:24 am

P-tart, go read yer Joel 3:10 and get a clue. Agassi is number two of course because as Van noted he's got the modern career slam, Grand Slam titles and regular tournament titles, length at number one, and the list goes on. Here's the top all-time list

Federer
Agassi
Conners
Mac
Laver
Sampras
Borg
Nadal
Lendl
Edberg
Wilander
Becker

And from there the list spreads, including all sorts of colorful champs like Nastase, Ivanisovic, Ashe, etc. As for the older era champs like Newcombe and the other Aussies, Gonzalez, and even older, Tilden, they'd all get rolled even by lesser champs of the modern era like Pat Rafter or Andy Roddick.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:29 am

Van, I do put Borg above Mac, Connors and Lendl.
Borg is in the discussion for greatest ever, imo, and none of those three are.

I wouldn't object strongly if someone placed Agassi right in there with Mac, Connors and Lendl.
I think he's very close to that level.

1. McEnroe
One of the greatest talents ever.
He squandered some of his ability, though, imo, with laziness and general fuggin' around.
But I look at his DOUBLES excellence -- maybe the greatest doubles player ever, and his Davis Cup exploits and I think he elevates above Lendl and Connors.

2. Connors
The Pete Rose of tennis.
I might place Lendl above him, but the red, white and blue in me can't do that.
Hung around for a long time and played WELL at an advanced age.

3. Lendl
Machine.
Eight straight U.S. Open finals -- WOW

4. Agassi
The feather in his cap was the career slam.
Might have won more majors if he didn't have to go against the great Pete Sampras.
Genius talent, but like Mac, he squandered some of it by fuggin' around in mid-career.
Super Davis Cupper.

Just in singles --

Titles
Connors 147
Lendl 144
McEnroe 99
Agassi 68

Match win-loss pct
Connors 82%
Lendl 82%
McEnroe 82%
Agassi 76%

I think Agassi is below Mac, Connors and Lendl, despite his career slam.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:32 am

Van wrote: how would you rank Connors, McEnroe and Lendl, relative to each other?

Not that you asked me, but...

Connors - just based on his sheer grit and determination, not to mention longevity.

Lendl - he pwned Johnny Mac head to head. No, I don't know the carreer record against each other, but Ivan dealt McEnroe some of the most devastating losses ever. Lendl was the inspiration for the first Terminator movie. An emotionless cyborg, intent on crushing all hopes and dreams, and damned if he didn't do just that.

McEnroe - what can you say about this guy that hasn't already been said? I loved everything about him, from his temper tantrums' -"You CANNOT Be Serious"... that's a freaking cultural icon there - to his deft dropshot. I love the way that the fans at Wimbledon hated him at first and then grew to love him. Probably the greatest tennis match ever played was Borg vs. McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon Final.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:35 am

I heard on the radio earlier, after reading this thread, that Federer is 7-13 vs Nadal? Seems hard to believe. And that's not just losses on clay, but on all surfaces.

That's still not quite enough for me to dispute Federer as the best of all-time, but 7-13 vs his only real competition? Eeeek.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:52 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I heard on the radio earlier, after reading this thread, that Federer is 7-13 vs Nadal? Seems hard to believe. And that's not just losses on clay, but on all surfaces.

That's still not quite enough for me to dispute Federer as the best of all-time, but 7-13 vs his only real competition? Eeeek.

Thus perhaps you understand why I said Nadal is a monkey on Federers' back. Even Roger was relieved when Rafa got knocked off early, thus paving his way to immortality.

And I'll say it again: Until Federer beats Nadal at the French Open, his resume will always have an asterisk next to it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:56 am

War Wagon wrote:Thus perhaps you understand why I said Nadal is a monkey on Federers' back.

That's a legitimate point, but a different point entirely. When I responded to you earlier, it was in reference to your "tainted victory" take, which is an entirely different subject (as Smackie already so eloquently pointed out).

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:16 am

Here's the deal.

Dude just tied the all time record for career Grand Slam victories. If I'm not mistaken, Sampras 14th came against Agassi. No, I'm not googling this shit, I could be wrong, but regardless... it didn't come against some scrub nobody ever heard of.

So if I'm Roger Federer, I want the record to be accomplished against my nemesis and only real competition among my contemporaries... so that some middle-aged hacker wannabe on an obscure message board doesn't gloss my feat as tainted when comparing ME to other all-time greats.

See, I was looking at the big picture to begin with.

But maybe that's just me.

Say it with me everybody. TAINTED.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:18 am

Mgo, yep, that's a major issue, no two ways around it. The Federer Era is basically two guys winning everything, and he's not beating his only rival. He was also fortunate to begin his string of majors before Nadal entered the picture.

Nick, there's no doubt modern champions would smoke guys like Laver and Budge, but we can't do that. You have to judge them within their own eras.

I say '60s era players wouldn't dominate in the modern NFL, but that's a separate issue than picking all time greats, which has to be confined to weighing people by how they did in their own era.

Rod Laver won a career slam (and even a real calender year slam, IIRC) and he has eleven majors, so clearly he's above Agassi. Gonzales has to be above Agassi and clearly Sampras does, too, since Sampras not only won six more majors than Andre but he also beat Andre head to head, 20-14.

pop, I'd rank those three guys:

1-Connors
2-Lendl
3-McEnroe

Interesting facts: Connor only played in the Aussie Open twice, and he reached the final both times, winning it once. Also, while he never won the French, he did win one major on clay, when the U.S. Open was briefly held on clay.

Had Connors played in more Aussie Opens, who knows how many majors he'd have?

Check this out...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... nis/090608

It makes a pretty strong case for Connors.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:27 am

WW wrote:And I'll say it again: Until Federer beats Nadal at the French Open, his resume will always have an asterisk next to it

Nope. No way there's an asterisk. Asterisks denote something being set aside as debatable, or noteworthy due to a special set of circumstances.

Roger Maris hitting 61 home runs in a 162 game season is asterisk-worthy, compared to Babe hitting 60 in a 154 game season.

Reggie White being credited as an all time sack leader is asterisk worthy, since Deacon Jones had many more sacks during an era when sack stats weren't recorded.

Also, rules changes from one era to another can warrant an asterisk, such as widened lanes and the addition of the 3 point shot n the NBA.

Winning a major when your main rival doesn't make the final is not an asterisk situation. Not even a little bit.

The point you're really making is that Federer would've greatly preferred to beat Nadal for his first French win, and that's certainly the case, but that's as far as it goes. It's not a tainted title and there's no asterisk. It's just not the dream way he would've preferred to win it, is all.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:30 am

It's an interesting article, Van, and I'm going to look at it a bit closer when I have the time.

Hey I LOVED Connors.
BIG fan of his.

I'm with Wagon in that McEnroe was, for a variety of reasons, THE most entertaining player to watch, but Connors was very compelling in his own right.

Just the sheer effort and focus that he had -- gotta love it.

I notice that the article didn't take Davis Cup into account at all and was just directed toward what happened in the slams.

And of course it is not interested in looking at doubles play at all, either.

When you eliminate doubles and you eliminate Davis Cup ... well, you pretty much take the legs right out from under Johnny Mac.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:31 am

War Wagon wrote: Probably the greatest tennis match ever played was Borg vs. McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon Final.

Probably?

Neegah, puhleeze.

That was definitely the greatest tennis match ever played and quite possibly the greatest mano-a-mano sporting event ever. I was a 17 year old extremely casual tennis fan, but, watching that fuggen' match was like a religious experience. The fukking tie breaker point that lasted, ohhh, what, about a week and a half? There hasn't been anything even close to that in the tennis world since.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:44 am

Van wrote: The point you're really making is that Federer would've greatly preferred to beat Nadal for his first French win, and that's certainly the case, but that's as far as it goes. It's not a tainted title and there's no asterisk. It's just not the dream way he would've preferred to win it, is all.

Yes and no. The single title isn't in question. It's when you pile it on top of 13 others and then the entire world (including me) proclaims him the bestest ever. Not so fast.

And what's with this fag wearing a suit jacket after every match? I'm thinking Jimmy Connors would have punched him in the face, ripped off that jacket and strangled him with it.

As well, I think the fag was relieved he didn't have to play Nadal. He wanted the easy path, and he got it. It's all gravy now, right?

Upon further review... fuck that queer.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:51 am

Last year's Wimbledon finals match between Federer vs Nadal is right there with that Borg vs McEnroe match. It had all the same elements; maybe even more.

It's certainly debatable.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:04 am

Van wrote:Last year's Wimbledon finals match between Federer vs Nadal is right there with that Borg vs McEnroe match. It had all the same elements; maybe even more.

The same elements? Such as?

One element that wasn't the same is that Borg and McEnroe were both lefties. Not that that means anything, in and of itself. But that probably hasn't happened very often.