Roger Federer Fans LOL

The other guy had the same grass too.

quote:

---

So Nadal won because Roger fricked up his toss and the trajectory of the ball changed?

---

Well it had to be something. If it wasn't that then surely it was the one-armed man.

quote:

---

Because there's just no possible way that Rafael Nadal is just better than Roger Federer at the game of tennis. Inconceivable!

---

Bobby, your sarcasm is actually truth. Fed>Nadal

Oh, and Bobby, that is who you really are, your posting style and posts give you away instantly.

quote:

---

Bobby, your sarcasm is actually truth. Fed>Nadal

Oh, and Bobby, that is who you really are, your posting style and posts give you away instantly.

---

October, November, December, January, and most of February is not exactly instant recognition.

Not that I'm Bobby or anything. In fact, I can't possibly be Bobby as that would make me an alter, and alters are quite clearly prohibited here at tigerdroppings.com. So that settles that.

GOOD ONE

quote:

---

Give this guy an upvote.

Would love to see prime Pete and prime Rafa at current Wimby. Pete would rape him on the 2000 grass, though.

---

Pete lost to Fed on the old grass, but that was a past-his-prime Pete. An in-his-prime Pete beats Fed, and every other player in history, on the old grass courts. And, yes, Rafa does have a tougher time on the 70/30 version of the courts. But I still think it unlikely that Fed would have had his number. I'm pretty sure they could play on a just-zambonied sheet of ice and it'd be the same old story between those two.

Oh, and Rafa gets the better of Pete on both clay and hard courts. You just don't come at Nadal with a serve and volley game plan and walk away with a W more often than not. Dude has the probably the best passing shots in the history of the sport. And unlike Agassi, Sampras can't out-athlete him.

quote:

---

My opinion is that you can be the goat even if there's a contemporary who owns you. Nadal just has Fed's number.

---

Not unreasonable. It's how the argument goes.

quote:

---

Wimby

---

frick any and everybody who uses this.

I should also note that in the absence of some explanatory context, that graphic establishes absolutely nothing. There are a litany of valid reasons why those two serves could have bounced differently off the ground that have nothing to do with the surface.

1. The contact point difference has already been noted
2. The 2003 example could have been after they changed to a fresh set of balls.
3. The wind could have been blowing/swirling/gusting in opposite directions in the two examples.
4. Why in the world are we to assume that Roger Federer hits all his first serves flat? We wouldn't. Of course he doesn't. Players pseudo-slice or kick their first serves all the time. Duh.
5. Even the humidity level has a not-insubstantial effect on the ballistics of a tennis ball (LINK /).
5a. And a not-insubstantial effect on the amount of friction between ball and court, which dictates the coefficient of restitution.

I think that about covers it.