TSR Tennis Society IV

Aye. From 04-12 at the French Open he only lost to eventual finalists, the current champion or former champions.

head to head over a samploe size of 35 matches means nothing?
where does davydenko rank amongst the best of all time? and since when does 6-5 mean anything lol? youre stating that number one and two of all time, who played in the exact same era, and one has a record of 23-10, lol, and that means nothing. ok then. before you tell me that andy roddick would destroy nadal, relax.

23-10 v the second best of all time, is not "nothing", its everything, its how people rate those from the same era, obviously.


just looked up the grand slam h2h. 9 freaking-2. of which only 5 are on clay, so 4-2 still to nadal lol! federer had some **** opposition before the other big 3 came on, he really did.

You forgot the man... YES THE STAN 2015!!

Don't ever ever rule the bull out.
You must've forgotten about the year 2013 and 2010 my friend.
At 100%:
Nadal>Fed>Djokovic
E.g wimby 2012- both fed and nole were close to 100.
Wimby 2008- no explanation needed
U.S. open 2013- Nadal destroyed nolé hands down with the forehand up the line. And even at the French 2013 I have never seen nole play a better match.

End off!

Lol dude calm down, im just saying you shouldn't read into head to heads as much as people do...and no I'm not going to tell you that Andy roddick could beat nadal...


Posted from TSR Mobile

and why dont we weight them equally? federer over the last decade is one of the best 3 clay court players in the world isnt he? h2d is the purest form of judging someone, across all types of courts.

Do you even watch tennis? The point of tennis is to win tournaments, not to preserve positive H2Hs against as many players as possible.

brb Federer should have tanked in the first round of the French Open every year, which would apparently make him a better player according to you.

As an aside, if you think Federer's competition was poor, does that not reflect rather badly on Nadal, given that he only had to beat weak-era champ Federer in so many slam finals? Must be an incredibly weak clay era in that case...

Do you even watch tennis? The point of tennis is to win tournaments, not to preserve positive H2Hs against as many players as possible.

brb Federer should have tanked in the first round of the French Open every year, which would apparently make him a better player according to you.

As an aside, if you think Federer's competition was poor, does that not reflect rather badly on Nadal, given that he only had to beat weak-era champ Federer in so many slam finals? Must be an incredibly weak clay era in that case...

and when excatly have nadal and federer faced each other? in the first round of each tourney they play? what a crap argument, you say the point is to win tournaments. when do nadal and federer play each other lol? thats correct, literally just semis and finals, of, you guessed it, tournaments.
federer was not weak, if you could read i said federer is the second best of all time, that just means he was better than those around him at the time. novak and nadal are here now.

and also as an aside, head to head will always be remembered between the two, its just so vast.

Are you saying nadal is better than federer?


Posted from TSR Mobile

nope. im saying pigs can fly.

I think Rafa is only hands down better than Federer and Djokovic on clay. On grass Federer is hands down better than Rafa and Djokovic when all are at 100% and Federer is probably again better than Rafa and Djokovic when 100% on hard courts, including Djokovic being better than Rafa when 100% on hard courts, at US Open '13 he choked away the 3rd set and with it the match, although Rafa did play a good match, that definitely wasn't Djokovic at 100%.

and why dont we weight them equally? federer over the last decade is one of the best 3 clay court players in the world isnt he? h2d is the purest form of judging someone, across all types of courts.

I Think you're getting tied up. I believe nolé was at 100%. Up until the end of the third set the match was anyone's guess. But nole mentally broke down like 13 Wimbledon. That doesn't mean he is not 100% playing level. You have to understand someone's mental game is part of their entire game. So a 100% nolé takes into account the outbursts and mental fatigue.
As they say mind over matter.
Yes to some extent nolé beat himself but again this was partly due to rafas presence.

Errr...what?



Posted from TSR Mobile

I think what hes trying to say is when theyve both retired and people debate who the GOAT is, assuming Rafa wins a few more GS, theyll point to his superior head to head.

It's difficult to even begin to label someone as the greatest of all time, because tennis has evolved so dramatically over the years, and there's no way of telling how well people would have competed in different eras. I think guys like Rod Laver were amazing, and he managed to win the Calendar Year Grand Slam (twice) - something which no man has done since. Steffi Graff was the last woman to do so in 1988 (and Serena at last has a chance to join that elite list). Back in the '60s, pros weren't allowed to compete in Amateur Slams, so for all we know Laver could have knocked up another 9 or 10 Slams and have the all-time record. Federer, Nadal and now Djokovic are all on the list of All-Time Greats (and I would definitely place them in that order given their accomplishments, consistency/longevity, etc.)

Maybe, maybe not. Only person who knows for sure is Djokovic. In my opinion he's played better matches against Rafa, hence why I said he wasn't 100% and his mental approach was certainly lacking too which seems to again show her was less than 100%. Either way I think Djokovic is the more natural hard court player and a 100% Djokovic would beat a 100% Rafa but that's just in my humble opinion