PokerLawyer

quote:

---

Oban

---

+1

1954 Bowman, Mickey Mantle. At least that mofo looks the sweetest to me every time I walk down memory lane in my collection.

The debate is over. Fed is the man and Rafa knows it.

"During Roland Garros 2010, Nadal answered strikingly when a journalist mentioned the statistic in a question to Nadal. Nadal said "I think this person don't know nothing about tennis." The journalist asked why, and Nadal told the journalist, "so you don't know nothing about tennis." After this Nadal explained his answer further. "You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It's no comparison. So that's the answer. Is difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams; I have 6 (he has since increased that number to 9 after winning at Roland Garros Wimbledon and the US Open in 2010). Masters 1000, yeah, I have more than him (Nadal is Masters Series titles leader by 18, Federer is placed second all-time with 17 titles). But for the rest of the things the records of Roger is very, very almost impossible to improve."

Taken from: LINK

Looking through this, I hadn't taken notice of the fact that Fed was #1 in the world for almost 5 straight years. Got that? 5 straight years. In sum total, today (and I stress that), Rafa is in the rear view mirror and he knows that the GS count is what drives the bus.

quote:

---

broseph, you are missing the point

1. rafa dominates clay and is better on clay than fed. nobody discounts this

2. rafa was not nearly good enough to face fed on hard courts/grass during this era. this hurts rafa's argument

in amazing hypothetical world, they could play an even number of matches on all surfaces, to have a total record. this does not exist, b/c rafa wasn't good enough to face fed at the end of hard/grass tournies, so the sample is skewed. why? fed was good enough to meet rafa late in clay tourneys with regularity.

---

+1

quote:

---

Nadal wasn't a shot in the dark. He was arguably the best teenage tennis player ever and a prodigy that everyone knew about. There's no one like that right now.

---

Way too literal, my friend. What I'm saying is that it doesn't take too long for the next best thing to come along. It isn't inconceivable that a current tour player, floating outside the top 100 in his first or second year, doesn't come into his own. There are a whole lot of variables that could very much deprive Rafa of anymore GS titles or limit them dramatically that nobody sees just yet.

quote:

---

One of the most obnoxious homer statements I've read in a while.

---

But true. Fed's game is as much designed for grass as Rafa's is for clay. Period. That translates into Fed being odds on favorite. Oh, and the fact that when he wins his next one, I'll have to start using the other hand to count them all.

quote:

---

No bc Laver would have more if he'd been allowed to play during his prime, Borg would have more had he played longer, and Sampras has almost as many and against better competitino. Not saying you can't make an argument for Fed but you can make just as good of one for either of them.

---

Yeah, what if, what if, what if. Apples and oranges. I'm talking about GS completed, as the format requires today. No doubt that Borg, Laver, Sampras and a few others on a very short list have a strong case. But, again, and pay attention this time, those hypthetical GS that they could have had or the bunch that Sampras had are all behind Fed in reality.

quote:

---

Right because he didn't just have one of the dominant US Open tournaments on his worse surface.

---

I can't even make sense of this. Because Rafa walked through a tournament on his worst surface, for the first time, he's immortal now? Maybe that's why Fed has been immortal. Go have a look at how many finals in Paris, before ultimately winning the title, Fed appeared in on his worst surface. That's crazy good. Moreover, we all know that on clay, there's rarely a thin field because clay is the great equalizer. Paris can be won be any number of players who have the clay style - Berastegui, Kuerten, Courier, Chang, etc... A player can win in France when he can't win anywhere else. FACT.

My point is that unless and until Rafa shows prolonged dominance on courts other than clay (and, although impressive, a run since 2008 'til now just ain't even close), he is simply a footnote to Fed.

quote:

---

Nadal is a better player now than Federer was then.

---

%1,000 not this.

Nadal is, without question, in the conversation as one of the best ever. That said, GOAT is not defined by a short span of years and an abbreviated period of brilliance. In other words, while Rafa has undeniably plaid superb tennis, he hasn't done it with the longevity that GOAT demands. I.e., unless he starts knocking on the door of the all time grand slam numbers (IMHO he has to get to at least 13 or 14 before this argument has serious merit), his career has just been really good. Not GOAT.

Feds numbers have eclipsed every tennis player to have ever lived. Rafa is a far cry from those numbers....at the moment. When he gets close, and certainly if he passes the GS total of Fed, the conversation takes a much different turn. The GS total represents many years of consistent dominance. At under 10, Rafa's tenure on the tennis throne is just too short to even be mentioned as GOAT.

I do think he is currently the best player on earth, but that can change like the wind. Ranking defines your play and results for the calendar year - not a career. For a couple of seasons, in years past, several players have dominated the tour (on both the women's and men's side). But, to gauge a career, it will be the entire career that gets judged.

The major difference between the two: Rafa has to have the rest of his career play out and win several more majors to be seriously in the conversation as GOAT. Fed could retire tomorrow and he IS the GOAT, without more. Fed has done enough, right now, to be the GOAT if he decided to make choclate in Switzerland and give up tennis. Rafa has to fight for a long time to come to take that away.

quote:

---

Worst Ever:

LINK

---

+1. That's disgusting.

I hear a few names get kicked around, but if you're talking about a revival of the Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Chang era....don't see that happening anytime soon.

quote:

---

I'd like to see another Nadal/Verdasco match

---

A-la Aussie a couple years ago? +1

+1 on the CONGRATS!

quote:

---

It probably sucked for the time being having all the water and ice in his face, but was it REALLY that bad?

Obviously I'd take carrying pads over that, but it's not like it's the end of the world.

---

I hear ya - it wasn't like any sort of corporal punishment or anything. It was all for shits and giggles. I get that.

Having said that, this may be the only profession in the world where any conduct like that is tolerated. Can you conceive of any position that you'd be paid in the $M's and have this sort of stuff happen? Well, at least one that didn't end your employer up in a courthouse, anyway?

I don't know that I ever really thought about it, but these guys are professionals. This is their job. They feed their families with football. Why is this rookie hazing business tolerated and even glorified?

This aint highschool or a fraternity, know what I mean? These guys have all been "hazed" before, whether that was in highschool or college. At what point should we agree that 32 year old D-linemen shouldn't be given carte blanche to behave like petulant children?

O.k. - go.

quote:

---

How does this rule prevent collusion? TIA

---

Simple. It's soft-playing and it's almost universally considered cheating, in a tournament. Here's why -

You (Player A), I (Player B), and another player (Player C) go to the flop of Ac Kd 2s. A bets, B calls, C gets out of the way. Turn 8h. Check, check. River, 10d. Check, check. Player A has 2h2c and Player B has QhJh. I have clearly checked the nuts on the river.

This is collusion because, unbeknownst to the rest of the table, I'm banging your sister, so I act cordial with you and don't want to knock you out of the tourney, in the event you have a hand like 2/2, which you almost certainly call with and might even raise with on the river. I however, soft play you, by not playing my hand (because I'm concerned for you). I've cheated everyone else in the tourney, not the least of which is Player C, because everyone else benefits from any single elimination (moving closer to the money or higher up in the money). My soft-play could possibly have let a player remain in the tourney, to every other player's detriment. When you have the nuts, and, by definition can't lose, your not betting the river only works to benefit your opponent - ergo, the collusion.

This is, I believe, the common thinking on why it's considered collusion - it works to screw everybody else in the tourney because it diminishes the opportunity to knock someone out.

Although I didn't read the thread too closely, so forgive any redundancy, but is everyone convinced by Darvin's B.S.?

I'm not certain he knew he had the nuts. After all, he backdoored the flush and I honestly don't believe he knew he had the nuts - having watched the thing 3 times now.

He wasn't colluding or "trying to get information." He simply didn't know what he had.

The funnier part is that if I'm the villian, I wait to see Darvin's hand - when I'm beat, I muck. (Which sometimes can get you popped for slow rolling if you actually do have the best hand). Fix his little red wagon - he checks the nuts and still doesn't get to see my hand.

Well, TTF, looks like we were both on to something. Fed definitely still finds a way to win, but Djokivic gave him all he wanted. Obviously, I forgot to add Murray to the list of the "possibles" that could give Fed heartburn.

Guess we'll have a little of this debate resolved at 2:00 pm today! The smart money, as I see it, is on Fed this afternoon. If I was paying attention to the commentary, Fed is back to #2, win or lose the final, right?

As I think about it, I guess I said Verdasco to begin with because I'm remembering the 09 Aussie. Remember the semis? Verdasco gave Rafa all he could say grace over in 5. Then, Rafa takes the title from Fed. Verdasco definitely played Rafa tougher than Fed did, but that's apples and oranges - agreed.

quote:

---

Hopefully I can catch the Fed/Berdych rematch later.

---

Me too. Tennis channel or what?