Re: Federer splits up from Annacone

by luvsports! Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:59 pm

Nadal was born in 1986. When he won his first slam in 2005 he was 19, not 17.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:04 pm

Apologies LS, typo Winking

To say that Nadal was at his prime when he was a teenager having won his first grand slam is... ridiculous.
It's beyond nonsensical.

If you say he was 'around' during 13 of Federer's slams- we may as well say he was 'around' during all of them as he joined pro-tour around 2003. He was no where near his prime when he was a teenager.

by luvsports! Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:13 pm

I agree that he wasn't in his peak, but if you are good enough to win a slam, with the potential nadal had, I think its fair to say he faced the same competition but wasn't successful like feds was.
Yes he took time to improve but he still reached his next non clay final aged 20. Yet he didn't win away from the french until he was 22, 3 years after his 05 win.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:20 pm

luvsports! wrote:I agree that he wasn't in his peak, but if you are good enough to win a slam, with the potential nadal had, I think its fair to say he faced the same competition but wasn't successful like feds was.

Well as you said in your first sentence he wasn't at his peak and very young, how much can we expect from him when he's not at his peak?
Since 2008, he has won the most slams out of anyone.

luvsports! wrote:
Yes he took time to improve but he still reached his next non clay final aged 20. Yet he didn't win away from the french until he was 22, 3 years after his 05 win.

Fair enough, he improved a lot between 19-22.

by Tenez Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:37 pm

Completely agree with Truffin reg the time spent at number 1 issue.

But for me the killing factor is simply his results when not 100%.

Just look at Wimbledon this year or even last year. Despite not being 100% he was still moving faster and hitting harder than Darcis (and moving much faster than Rosol)....yet he lost!!!! Nadal's game becomes only a challenge when he can put this excessive energy into the ball and that the court is slow enough (or bounces high enough) to allow long rallies.

Nadal has never won a match with 3 or 4 rally shots only.....like all the greats could do....even Borg at Wimby.

And that is a big hole in the resume of a tennis player.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:43 pm

Tenez wrote:Completely agree with Truffin reg the time spent at number 1 issue.

Most of that time spent at number was between 2003-2007.
From 2008 Nadal has spent more time as number 1 compared to Federer (although this is somewhat unsurprising given Nadal reached his peak years after that point).

Tenez wrote:
But for me the killing factor is simply his results when not 100%.

He was injured and limping against Darcis, the commentators could see it, everyone could see it, I think Darcis himself mentioned post-match that Nadal was limping.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:47 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Tenez wrote:Completely agree with Truffin reg the time spent at number 1 issue.
Most of that time spent at number was between 2003-2007.
From 2008 Nadal has spent more time as number 1 compared to Federer (although this is somewhat unsurprising given Nadal reached his peak years after that point).

Tenez wrote:
But for me the killing factor is simply his results when not 100%.
He was injured and limping against Darcis, the commentators could see it, everyone could see it, I think Darcis himself mentioned post-match that Nadal was limping.

JS,
In that match the only REALLY injured player was actually Steve Darcis. He has just had a shoulder surgery, in fact.
Unlike Nadal, who kept going and won three hard court tournaments incl USO.
http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Tennis---Steve-Darcis-undergoes-shoulder-surgery-and-to-miss-atleast-four-months-articolo13573.html

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:48 pm

Tenez wrote:Completely agree with Truffin reg the time spent at number 1 issue.

But for me the killing factor is simply his results when not 100%.

Just look at Wimbledon this year or even last year. Despite not being 100% he was still moving faster and hitting harder than Darcis (and moving much faster than Rosol)....yet he lost!!!! Nadal's game becomes only a challenge when he can put this excessive energy into the ball and that the court is slow enough (or bounces high enough) to allow long rallies.

Nadal has never won a match with 3 or 4 rally shots only.....like all the greats could do....even Borg at Wimby.

And that is a big hole in the resume of a tennis player.

Really well-said T.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:50 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
Tenez wrote:Completely agree with Truffin reg the time spent at number 1 issue.
Most of that time spent at number was between 2003-2007.
From 2008 Nadal has spent more time as number 1 compared to Federer (although this is somewhat unsurprising given Nadal reached his peak years after that point).

Tenez wrote:
But for me the killing factor is simply his results when not 100%.
He was injured and limping against Darcis, the commentators could see it, everyone could see it, I think Darcis himself mentioned post-match that Nadal was limping.
JS,
In that match the only REALLY injured player was actually Steve Darcis. He has just had a shoulder surgery, in fact.
Unlike Nadal, who kept going and won three hard court tournaments incl USO.
http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Tennis---Steve-Darcis-undergoes-shoulder-surgery-and-to-miss-atleast-four-months-articolo13573.html

Yes they were both injured during that match.
(ps I remember mentioning at the time Darcis was injured too... and no one believed me for some reason)

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:51 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:Completely agree with Truffin reg the time spent at number 1 issue.

But for me the killing factor is simply his results when not 100%.

Just look at Wimbledon this year or even last year. Despite not being 100% he was still moving faster and hitting harder than Darcis (and moving much faster than Rosol)....yet he lost!!!! Nadal's game becomes only a challenge when he can put this excessive energy into the ball and that the court is slow enough (or bounces high enough) to allow long rallies.

Nadal has never won a match with 3 or 4 rally shots only.....like all the greats could do....even Borg at Wimby.

And that is a big hole in the resume of a tennis player.
Really well-said T.

Nadal plays to try and win every match... he couldn't care less how many shots it takes him.
He is pragmatic, he won't serve and volley etc. unless he thinks it can improve his chances of winning.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:55 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Nadal plays to try and win every match... he couldn't care less how many shots it takes him.
He is pragmatic, he won't serve and volley etc. unless he thinks it can improve his chances of winning.

This has got to be one of your finest posts Amri! Laugh

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:56 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
Nadal plays to try and win every match... he couldn't care less how many shots it takes him.
He is pragmatic, he won't serve and volley etc. unless he thinks it can improve his chances of winning.
This has got to be one of your finest posts Amri!

Not only that, it's true!

Nadal plays each match so as to give himself the best chance of winning. Since him reaching his prime in 2008 he has won more slams than anyone else- so why would he change his style dramatically?

by Tenez Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:58 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal plays to try and win every match... he couldn't care less how many shots it takes him.
He is pragmatic, he won't serve and volley etc. unless he thinks it can improve his chances of winning.

Well I am sure he cares as this seems related to his inaptitide to stay at number one long enough. He has to kill himself to beat lower ranked players and had to take the year off after the USO for years.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:01 pm

Tenez wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal plays to try and win every match... he couldn't care less how many shots it takes him.
He is pragmatic, he won't serve and volley etc. unless he thinks it can improve his chances of winning.
Well I am sure he cares as this seems related to his inaptitide to stay at number one long enough. He has to kill himself to beat lower ranked players and had to take the year off after the USO for years.

You are criticising him as if he has done appallingly... but remember since 2008 and him reaching his prime he has won the most slams.
As a Nadal fan who wants him to do well, I don't want him to change style even if he can do it well... to be honest I think his style is working well enough atm even if he does run into injury problems.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:02 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:]Not only that, it's true!

Nadal plays each match so as to give himself the best chance of winning. Since him reaching his prime in 2008 he has won more slams than anyone else- so why would he change his style dramatically?

So Nadal's "prime" is the latest tabboo...

As far as I can remember his left bicep looked in prime form a lot before 2008. And the size of that bicep is what won him all the tournaments.
And dope that fuelled it of course.
Had he had any talent, his arms would look like Roger's.

I believe this photo is from 2006. Picture of tennis talent, innit?

Federer - Federer splits up from Annacone - Page 2 Rafael-nadal

Federer - Federer splits up from Annacone - Page 2 Rafael-nadal

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:02 pm

This year though, and this is something YOU YOURSELF have said Tenez, Nadal has made some corrections and been more aggressive; and it's given him good success again.
It's a balancing act, you want to improve and adapt your game to keep ahead of competition... but you don't want to change your game to the extent it is not as well suited to win.
I think Nadal has got the balance just about right.

by Tenez Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:03 pm

he has done well cause all th econds have slowed down. he would have just been a clay court player in the 90s....and then nat gut woudl have made him a very average player cause his one trick poney which is excessive topspin would have been useless then.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:04 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
As far as I can remember his left bicep looked in prime form a lot before 2008.

I couldn't care less, I know someone who is 15 and has way bigger biceps than Nadal.
He did not reach his prime when he was a teenager, and I stick by that.

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:06 pm

Tenez wrote:he has done well cause all th econds have slowed down. he would have just been a clay court player in the 90s....and then nat gut woudl have made him a very average player cause his one trick poney which is excessive topspin would have been useless then.

how do you know this... he could have adapted well.

The fact of the matter is you're just assuming he couldn't have adapted, in reality what we can observe is that he took the best steps to ensure success, and has had a great tennis career.
Just because he is good in certain conditions, does not mean that if he took a few months of and reshaped his game he wouldn't be talented in other conditions... how can you possibly know that.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:17 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
As far as I can remember his left bicep looked in prime form a lot before 2008.

I couldn't care less, I know someone who is 15 and has way bigger biceps than Nadal.
He did not reach his prime when he was a teenager, and I stick by that.

Well, JS, you can't ignore "the proof" all of a sudden when it doesn't suit you, after all, that's what you've asking for all the time! Cool

by N2D2L Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:20 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
As far as I can remember his left bicep looked in prime form a lot before 2008.

I couldn't care less, I know someone who is 15 and has way bigger biceps than Nadal.
He did not reach his prime when he was a teenager, and I stick by that.
Well, JS, you can't ignore "the proof" all of a sudden when it doesn't suit you, after all, that's what you've asking for all the time!

No I mean to say that I don't really care about Nadal's biceps... I am not that sort of fan.
My interest is how he is playing, and in this department he was not at his best when he was a teenager but when he was around 22... I think this is fair and it's the point I was trying to make.

by noleisthebest Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:15 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
No I mean to say that I don't really care about Nadal's biceps... I am not that sort of fan.
My interest is how he is playing, and in this department he was not at his best when he was a teenager but when he was around 22... I think this is fair and it's the point I was trying to make.

The whole point is that Nadal can't play without his bicep. No bicep-no titles!
Now, why is that?

by truffin1 Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:47 am

Your lack of reading comprehension continues to baffle me, and your constant effort to lie about what someone says or the meaning of it to try and distract from your lack of factual arguement continues to annoy me..

Show me where I said Nadal was "in his prime" at his first major win.........   Below is my 1st quote from my post. Do you see where I said that during that period since Nadal won his 1st major that Federer was out of prime for longer than Nadal had a period of not being in prime? Do you understand that I am clearly saying that there was some time in there where NAdal was not in prime?

The quote"
.:"He's won 13 against the very same competition Nadal did... and has had longer time  being out of prime during that period than Nadal had not being in prime."

My next mention of prime is below. Do you not understand that I am saying that any player that is good enough to win a major is good enough to the point that you can't use "not being in prime" as an excuse for their other lack of succes.? Do you not understand that that in essence agrees that Nadal was not in his prime during that 1st ealry Major success, but the point being he was good enough that you can't use not being in prime as an excuse. . Hasn't Federe won Majors while out of prime and in the tail end of his prime? Certainly you can agree to that... So what?

The quote:
" Nadal was young when he won his 1st major but ANY player who is capable of winning a major is a fully formed player and there is no excuse that they weren't yet "in their prime"

You nuts have magically come up with 2008 as the year real tennis starts.. Of course you pick the year where Fed fought mono, but still won a MAjor and made it semis/finals of every Major...   I find it humorous that apparently the players Fed beat to win the 2007 US Open weren't any good and weak, but a few months later- all of a sudden they all magically flourished into a strong era..smh...

You keep talking about "peak" and sayin that when Nadal wasn't in "peak" then his lack of success can be ignored and once he did hit his "peak" of 2008 he has spent more weeks at #1 and won more Majors than Fed... Yet you ignore that durin that time Fed entered the tailend of his peak and a clear period of out of peak... So why does it matter if NAdal is #1 llonger in his peak years during the same time Fed is out of peak? Because according to you, Fed's time at #1 doesn't count much because Nadal wasn't in his peak yet. Neither one has been in peak for a long period while the other was, yet you use that as an excuse for Nadal ,but won't give the same courtesy to Federer

How long should Fed has stayed at #1 for goodness sakes.. At some point, all that defending, all those deep tournament runs, just wear an athtlete down.. That's why no one had as long a run as him. It has to end at some point.. So Fed's biggest run ended in 2008... so what... Then Nadals pathetically short runs started and Fed was still able to get back #1 a couple more times..

You know nothing Amerit. IF you say Federer is #2 ever... that's fine and dandy.. who cares.. I'd certainly be proud of that carreer, but you are completely delusional to then suggest or proclaim that the guy ahead of him and best all around player ever is Nadal. He is currently not the best player ever.. 100% not.

by mikeyM1000 Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:22 am

What you have to realise is that Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.
Psychologically, it is of great importance to keep this belief - it matters greatly for mental peace of mind. Amrit can't give up the belief or the steadfast preaching of it - it would be too troubling.

Leaving aside PEDs, aesthetics etc. and only taking results into account, even now most pundits are only suggesting Rafa is finally in the GOAT argument - not the definitive, absolute statement that Amrit has been making for years and needs to convert others to (why else spend so much time over the years devoted to it - it has to be a psychological fulfilment).

Amrit even seems to believe that the 'jinxing' posts have some sort of effect on the outcome of Rafa's matches smiley

- no point posting them otherwise. You can see how irrational that is.

When you understand all that about Amrit, when you realise the absolute (and necessary for mental well-being) commitment to this belief, then you realise than any argument is futile. And in the interests of being nice, just wish her well and let her get on with it. Any more than that is not worth the time.

by noleisthebest Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:26 am

Yes Mikey,
we are all fully aware of Amri's endless enthusiasm and passion.
Shame all that effort is wasted on the wrong player.... Cool

by mikeyM1000 Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:32 am

Hope you are keeping well NITB. I look forward to your security-busting outburst at the O2. Are you taking a home-made banner to unfurl, or just using a rolled-up program for a megaphone?

by noleisthebest Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:39 am

mikeyM1000 wrote:Hope you are keeping well NITB. I look forward to your security-busting outburst at the O2. Are you taking a home-made banner to unfurl, or just using a rolled-up program for a megaphone?

I am working on finer details atm.
In the interests of security and drama however, they have to be kept secret for now. My only worry is that Amri's "report" to Nadal's team may have already spoilt it all and even cause Nadal to cancel his trip to London.
It's no coincidence, you know, that ever since I announced my intentions, Nadal's form has dropped significantly, I hope his knees are ok...

by Tenez Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:35 am

mikeyM1000 wrote:What you have to realise is that Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.
Psychologically, it is of great importance to keep this belief - it matters greatly for mental peace of mind. Amrit can't give up the belief or the steadfast preaching of it - it would be too troubling.

Leaving aside PEDs, aesthetics etc. and only taking results into account, even now most pundits are only suggesting Rafa is finally in the GOAT argument - not the definitive, absolute statement that Amrit has been making for years and needs to convert others to (why else spend so much time over the years devoted to it - it has to be a psychological fulfilment).

Amrit even seems to believe that the 'jinxing' posts have some sort of effect on the outcome of Rafa's matches - no point posting them otherwise. You can see how irrational that is.

When you understand all that about Amrit, when you realise the absolute (and necessary for mental well-being) commitment to this belief, then you realise than any argument is futile. And in the interests of being nice, just wish her well and let her get on with it. Any more than that is not worth the time.

Amrit just helps us formulating our arguments better. He is a useful addition when he wants to. A bit like Dr Sincere in the good all days of the Beeb....remember Mikey? Well Amrit is just a less funny version.

by mikeyM1000 Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:50 am

I vaguely remember Dr Sincere - wasn't he more of a Fed-hater (Sampras fan?) than a Rafa fan - I can't recall, I think it was a bit before my time.
For outright funny - the amazing exploits of Sugar Harris!

by noleisthebest Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:14 am

Aaaaah good old Shuggie, what a legend he was, able to make even the greyest of October mornings cheerful!

His tragic and sudden disapearence only fuels my fear that not getting that ATP job may have been too much to take...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A74438779

by SayonaRa Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:19 am

mikeyM1000 wrote:What you have to realise is that Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.
Psychologically, it is of great importance to keep this belief - it matters greatly for mental peace of mind. Amrit can't give up the belief or the steadfast preaching of it - it would be too troubling.

Leaving aside PEDs, aesthetics etc. and only taking results into account, even now most pundits are only suggesting Rafa is finally in the GOAT argument - not the definitive, absolute statement that Amrit has been making for years and needs to convert others to (why else spend so much time over the years devoted to it - it has to be a psychological fulfilment).

Amrit even seems to believe that the 'jinxing' posts have some sort of effect on the outcome of Rafa's matches - no point posting them otherwise. You can see how irrational that is.

When you understand all that about Amrit, when you realise the absolute (and necessary for mental well-being) commitment to this belief, then you realise than any argument is futile. And in the interests of being nice, just wish her well and let her get on with it. Any more than that is not worth the time.

Oh, spare us your usual nadal-centric BS, amrit. Micky1000=amritia I know that because you’ve previously resorted to this same face-saving tactic, raising the white flag by hiding behind Micky1000 when you ran out of options. Yikes

You yourself started pushing your “nadal-is-Goat” fantasy down people’s throat and then continued to provoke with your equally groundless weak-era statement. You think you can really get away with denigrating Federer with the most laughable arguments you can't back up? How about taking responsibility for your own failed arguments vs TRuffin like a big girl? Micky’s random appearance won’t save your pro-nadal travesties unsupported by the relevant stats. It only reconfirms your lack of credibility.

by noleisthebest Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:21 am

Another one of Shuggie's memorable moments, shame so many of the beeb links have disappeared...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A67031156

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:22 am

Ouch Tenez.
Look enough of the personal attacks, let's debate tennis here instead.

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:33 am

Truffin- I am off now and will respond to your post a bit later.

by SayonaRa Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:26 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.

On further reflection, you need to see a shrink. Sorry, I didn’t know you’re that far gone. I never realized a fan can be so hopelessly attracted and committed to a player who doesn’t even know she exists.

So it's all about amrit and not who the GOAT is after all? And you said you wanted to debate tennis? Too confusing. I'm outta here. Adieu.

by luvsports! Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:54 pm

I don't think mikey is amrit.

by truffin1 Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:02 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Truffin- I am off now and will respond to your post a bit later.

That should be full of delusion and non comprehension of the written word :-)

In all seriousness, I'm bored of it already.. Say (lie and exaggerate in your case) what you want- I won't be reading it.

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:14 pm

truffin1 wrote: I won't be reading it.

OK don't

I'm going to be writing it anyway.

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:15 pm

SR wrote:
mikeyM1000 wrote:Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.
On further reflection, you need to see a shrink. Sorry, I didn’t know you’re that far gone. I never realized a fan can be so hopelessly attracted and committed to a player who doesn’t even know she exists.

So it's all about amrit and not who the GOAT is after all? And you said you wanted to debate tennis? Too confusing. I'm outta here. Adieu.

I'm even more confused than you.
What the hell are you on about? I'm not Mikey.

by luvsports! Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:25 pm

Something I agree with you on amrit!

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:36 pm

luvsports! wrote:Something I agree with you on amrit!

Second time we agreed actually in the last few days.

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:38 pm

truffin1 wrote:Your lack of reading comprehension continues to baffle me, and your constant effort to lie about what someone says or the meaning of it to try and distract from your lack of factual arguement continues to annoy me..

truffin1 wrote:You nuts have magically come up with 2008 as the year real tennis starts..

I never said that 2008 was the year real tennis starts?
When did I say that???
Your lack of reading comprehension continues to baffle me, and your constant effort to lie about what someone says or the meaning of it to try and distract from your lack of factual arguement continues to annoy me..

Do you not understand that I am saying that any player that is good enough to win a major is good enough to the point that you can't use "not being in prime" as an excuse for their other lack of success?

What? This is the most ludicrous line I've ever heard.
Not being in your prime is not an 'excuse' at all (nor have I said it's an excuse), it just happens that players during their prime will normally be more successful when they're not at their prime.
I simply don't think Nadal was at his prime in 2005, he was a teenager with potential who mainly really challenged on clay.

Because according to you, Fed's time at #1 doesn't count much because Nadal wasn't in his peak yet. Neither one has been in peak for a long period while the other was, yet you use that as an excuse for Nadal ,but won't give the same courtesy to Federer

When on earth did I say his time at #1 didn't count??? I simply did not say that.
For someone who complained to me that I misquoted you, you've misquoted me 4 times overall in your post, and I counted.
I have not said Federer's time at number 1 doesn't count, nor am I criticising him for not being number 1 for as long as Nadal after 2008 (as I said that was when Nadal moved into his peak years, unlike Federer who was getting older. So you make a fair point there, one which I will accept). But that is not the point I make.

This is what I'm saying though, hopefully to avoid any confusion:
-In terms of weeks at number 1, less than 25% was after 2008
-In terms of slams, less than 25% was after 2008
-In terms of finals, less than 25% was after 2008
This in itself is nor surprising, as players get older they decline so we can expect this.
But I think what we can agree a huge bulk of his amazing stats came between 2004-2007; his prime years. Now I am not saying certain years were 'pebbles' and suddenly it turned 'golden' but what I do say is this-
I don't believe during his prime years, when Federer accumulated these stats, that there was a world class all time great player his age who launched a sustained challenge against him.

This is part of my evidence:

Between the period 2004-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin did put together.
This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic. And many many more players.

by luvsports! Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:49 pm

Just saying davy, ljuby, haas and youzhny never made grand slam finals.

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:51 pm

luvsports! wrote:Just saying davy, ljuby, haas and youzhny never made grand slam finals.

Yes, that's why I said 'many more players' at the end of the quote Winking

by luvsports! Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:15 pm

Wow that is awful of me! Now i am guilty of reading comprehension shortfalls there!

by SayonaRa Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:40 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:What the hell are you on about? I'm not Mikey.

That’s quite a bluff for someone with so little credibility. Laugh

Didn’t you vehemently denied the undeniable that amritia=Julia Santamaria just recently? And before that you denied Reincarnation=IMBL=amritia when you first joined OTF? And now you expect me to somehow forget your notorious past and start believing when you again denied you’re not Mickey when I’ve caught you trying to pull off the exact same cover up?

You may want to play-act like a 3 year old but you’re forgetting that I’m not a 3 year-old. I fell into your trap once and that’s enough to convince me to standby my belief that amritia=Mickey. Tough. Angry

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:12 pm

SR wrote: I fell into your trap once and that’s enough to convince me to standby my belief that amritia=Mickey. Tough.

I really don't care what you think about me, so it's not 'tough' at all.
You can continue with this ridiculous personal attacks if it gives you some sort of glee, most of your recent posts on this forum have simply been personal attacks towards me.
Infact I can predict that within your next 3 posts on this forum, 1 of them will be aimed at me in some way (negatively not positively).

by Tenez Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:50 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:I really don't care what you think about me, so it's not 'tough' at all.
You can continue with this ridiculous personal attacks if it gives you some sort of glee, most of your recent posts on this forum have simply been personal attacks towards me.
Infact I can predict that within your next 3 posts on this forum, 1 of them will be aimed at me in some way (negatively not positively).

You never know! Winking

by N2D2L Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:14 pm

I think you are more optimistic than me on this one Winking

by SayonaRa Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:44 am

mikeyM1000 wrote:What you have to realise is that Amrit NEEDS to believe that Rafa is the greatest player ever. And to a certain extent needs to preach it as well, as part of her 'duty' to Rafa.
Psychologically, it is of great importance to keep this belief - it matters greatly for mental peace of mind. Amrit can't give up the belief or the steadfast preaching of it - it would be too troubling.

Leaving aside PEDs, aesthetics etc. and only taking results into account, even now most pundits are only suggesting Rafa is finally in the GOAT argument - not the definitive, absolute statement that Amrit has been making for years and needs to convert others to (why else spend so much time over the years devoted to it - it has to be a psychological fulfilment).

Amrit even seems to believe that the 'jinxing' posts have some sort of effect on the outcome of Rafa's matches - no point posting them otherwise. You can see how irrational that is.

When you understand all that about Amrit, when you realise the absolute (and necessary for mental well-being) commitment to this belief, then you realise than any argument is futile. And in the interests of being nice, just wish her well and let her get on with it. Any more than that is not worth the time.

So if Mikey1000= JuliusHMarx, according to his own confessions at the “Can’t wait” thread, the above is then written by Julius. In this case, I want to apologise to Amrit for having stated that Amrit=JS=Mikey. sorry

My mistaken belief was based on the fact that 1) Mikey himself DID NOT return to offer any clarification that he was NOT Amrit and 2) Amrit herself DID NOT disagree with any of Mikey's comments as quoted above, which made it look like she wrote a type of autobiographical posting to justify her Nadal support under the Mikey id.

Anyway, thanks to FedererKing’s new thread for enticing JHM’s re-emergence here to tell us he’s Mickey. I do hope we're looking at the real picture of who's who now. Cheers

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30