AUSTRALIAN OPEN, Melbourne, ATP GRAND SLAM

[britbox]

And there's social media. Becker, who seems to be campaigning to get his job back, was still tweeting advice to Novak. Any wonder Rafa sticks with Uncle Toni?

Yep, and I think he's known Moya so long he feels able to let him in.

McEnroe is like a foghorn... and Becker is probably feeling the financial pinch.

 

[Moxie]

YOu're right. SF should be on the same day, even if one is at day and the other at night.

I think so. The additional day of rest for the top half is less of an advantage before the SF than before the Final.

 

[Moxie]

Yep, and I think he's known Moya so long he feels able to let him in.

The addition of Moya makes perfect sense, and I'm surprised they didn't add him before he went to Raonic. But yes, long friendship, he's a fellow Mallorcan...rather like family. I'm pleased they finally brought him on.

 

[Denis]

Nightmare scenario of a Fedal final becoming very likely. I need to root for Dimitrov and Wawrinka now, ugh...

 

[Moxie]

Nightmare scenario of a Fedal final becoming very likely. I need to root for Dimitrov and Wawrinka now, ugh...

Now you know what it feels like.

 

[mrzz]

Three one-handed backhands in the semis.

For the sake of the one-handed bh´s... hope one of those is on the trophy... but obviously not just because of that.

 

[teddytennisfan]

So since Nadal beats Federer more often than not that means he has better volleys? Why stop there? It must mean he has the better serve as well. Djokovic beats the crap out of Nadal so that must mean he has the better volleys than Rafa and for sure his overhead is way better than Rafa's.

See how stupid your logic is yet?

that is actually something that can be argued.

the point being --

some of you have claimed roger federer is the most ''complete ever".

and then shift arguments from that to ''becuse he has A BETTER "

this and that LIST.

fine -- AS far as that goes.
roger has a 'better serve than nadal"
roger has a ''better volley than nadal"
roger has a ''better...what ELSE? "


NEVERMIND -- SO LONG AS ROGER IS THE''most COMPLETE player ever|"

NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS.

never mind that nadal ''KEEPS BETING YOU" (MN).

after having that statement --

you NOW create a straw argument -- and turn it to me or MN --

'so now that nadal beats roger more -- that means nadal has a BETTER SERVE? BETTER THESE AND THAT?"

as if I or anyone was making a FALSE claim of nadal being a better server etc..

or even IF NADAL CAN BE CLAIMED TO BE A BETTER VOLLEYER because he beats roger more often --

not only in their meetings but IN FACT IN VOLLEY TO VOLLEY...

the FACT REMAINS NADAL BEAT HIM -- uh -- about TWO TIMES as much..

THE burden of proof -- folk --is on THOSE that made statements of roger being ''the most complete ever"

which is the same kind of claims as

"teh greatest ever|"

''the ''best ever"



because the PROOF TO THE CONRARY -- apart from being the most SUCCESSFUL in majors in history --

keeps rearing up...

so to say: "roger is the GREATEST EVER" -- "EXCEPT THAT NADAL KEPT BEATING HIM -- " AND now we even have records like that of NOLE'S AND EVEN ANDY since their mid-2000 meetings when roger was at his height.

or ''roger is the BEST ever" -- except that nadal kept beating him -- and we also have nole and andy

or ''roger is the MOST COMPLETE ever" -- except that nadal kept beating him -- and we also have nole and andy

so now -- KEEP CHANGING THE DEFINTIONS

"roger has better serves than nadal - better volleyes"

except that nadal kept beating him and nole and andy do too...


in EVERY STATEMENT about roger being ABOVE ANY OF HIS OWN RIVALS...

when the big picture is seen -- between the three of these at least --

they have been tearing roger some new holes....

so how does THAT RECORD substantiate the claims

roger 'is the greatest, the best and most complete ever"

'when YOUR OWN RIVALS KEEP BEATING YOU?"

 

[teddytennisfan]

If Rafa loses this set without at least forcing Raonic to raise his level it would be hugely disappointing. He's less comfortable on his service games and not putting as much pressure on Raonic's.

WE'VE PERHAPS forgotten that at his very best -- rafa hs been one of the very best returners of serve...he reads them really quite well. i think it's been one of the under-appreciated parts of his game.

 

[Federberg]

that is actually something that can be argued.

the point being --

some of you have claimed roger federer is the most ''complete ever".

and then shift arguments from that to ''becuse he has A BETTER "

this and that LIST.

fine -- AS far as that goes.
roger has a 'better serve than nadal"
roger has a ''better volley than nadal"
roger has a ''better...what ELSE? "


NEVERMIND -- SO LONG AS ROGER IS THE''most COMPLETE player ever|"

NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS.

never mind that nadal ''KEEPS BETING YOU" (MN).

after having that statement --

you NOW create a straw argument -- and turn it to me or MN --

'so now that nadal beats roger more -- that means nadal has a BETTER SERVE? BETTER THESE AND THAT?"

as if I or anyone was making a FALSE claim of nadal being a better server etc..

or even IF NADAL CAN BE CLAIMED TO BE A BETTER VOLLEYER because he beats roger more often --

not only in their meetings but IN FACT IN VOLLEY TO VOLLEY...

the FACT REMAINS NADAL BEAT HIM -- uh -- about TWO TIMES as much..

THE burden of proof -- folk --is on THOSE that made statements of roger being ''the most complete ever"

which is the same kind of claims as

"teh greatest ever|"

''the ''best ever"



because the PROOF TO THE CONRARY -- apart from being the most SUCCESSFUL in majors in history --

keeps rearing up...

so to say: "roger is the GREATEST EVER" -- "EXCEPT THAT NADAL KEPT BEATING HIM -- " AND now we even have records like that of NOLE'S AND EVEN ANDY since their mid-2000 meetings when roger was at his height.

or ''roger is the BEST ever" -- except that nadal kept beating him -- and we also have nole and andy

or ''roger is the MOST COMPLETE ever" -- except that nadal kept beating him -- and we also have nole and andy

so now -- KEEP CHANGING THE DEFINTIONS

"roger has better serves than nadal - better volleyes"

except that nadal kept beating him and nole and andy do too...


in EVERY STATEMENT about roger being ABOVE ANY OF HIS OWN RIVALS...

when the big picture is seen -- between the three of these at least --

they have been tearing roger some new holes....

so how does THAT RECORD substantiate the claims

roger 'is the greatest, the best and most complete ever"

'when YOUR OWN RIVALS KEEP BEATING YOU?"

Not even sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here goes... Until someone surpasses his achievements, it's going to be tough to argue against the greatness tag, no matter what people like you say. I suggest you get over it or root against him.

 

[Carol]

WE'VE PERHAPS forgotten that at his very best -- rafa hs been one of the very best returners of serve...he reads them really quite well. i think it's been one of the under-appreciated parts of his game.

Well, sone people forget things very easy, and the negativity always is there, sigh!
Rafa has played brilliant, his backhand going straight to Raonic feet made to this one suffering a back lower pain. I'm very happy the way he is playing, getting his lost confidence back but he clearly has not forgot to play, vamos!!!!!!!

 

[mrzz]

WE'VE PERHAPS forgotten that at his very best -- rafa hs been one of the very best returners of serve...he reads them really quite well. i think it's been one of the under-appreciated parts of his game.

Point one person who under rates Nadal´s return and/or the way he reads the serve (and, if you do, I point you a lunatic).

I guess people confuse not calling the guy the greatest serve reader of all time to under-rating it.

 

[britbox]

Results from the Australian Open Men's Singles Quarterfinal matches on Wednesday

9-Rafa Nadal (Spain) beat 3-Milos Raonic (Canada) 6-4 7-6(7) 6-4
15-Grigor Dimitrov (Bulgaria) beat 11-David Goffin (Belgium) 6-3 6-2 6-4

 

[britbox]

15-Grigor Dimitrov (Bulgaria) beat 11-David Goffin (Belgium) 6-3 6-2 6-4

 

[britbox]

9-Rafa Nadal (Spain) beat 3-Milos Raonic (Canada) 6-4 7-6(7) 6-4

 

[britbox]

Order of Play - Thursday

 

[britbox]

 

[teddytennisfan]

Not even sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here goes... Until someone surpasses his achievements, it's going to be tough to argue against the greatness tag, no matter what people like you say. I suggest you get over it or root against him.

well -== i joined the argument because of the claims..

that are belied by the RESULTS.

now i just borke down the specific wordings of those claims -- words -- as we realize are VERY powerful..they can be made to mean many things -- as often as not -- even NOT what they are supposed to say..

and the case of roger -- is a classic example.

so -- you then ''bother to respond"

and what do we have?

you then cite the record of success -- THIS IN ITSELF is not being argued against..

HE DID WIN 17 majors, the highest numbers of wins of this and that -- FACTS. RECORDS. no one is pretending they are not what they ARE.

but then keep returning the ''qualitative" descriptions:

roger is the ''most complete ever"
question -- HOW SO? in the actual GAME itself? in the SHOT MAKING ?
IF SO -- break it down one by one -

serve? - and against whom returning? or compared to WHOSE?
FOREHAND -- how so ? better than whose? if so does THIS make roger "the most complete ever?"
backhand -- how so? did he actually win more backhand to backhand against another ''best backhander?" does THIS make him the most complete EVER?

and we can keep going down the list of qualifications...

but at the end of the day -- call the game ''most beautiful, most complete ever, the best ever, the greatest ever..the most super duper whatever ever".

NADAL OWNS him in their career. even NOVAK who matured much later than roger and at times was even vilified for daring to state ''i also want to be number one -- i also want to show i also have some quality" began novak's/ now VERY good record against the ''best, most complete, greatest ever".

so -- how can MERELY SAYING that because people LOVE the way roger plays and being successful at it MORE than anyone in history --

is the SAME as ''best, most complete, greatest ever" superlatives -- when his RECORD against some of his own rivals -- EACH OF WHOM had to grow into the game DURING ROGER'S dominance years but started beating him soon --

is NOT SUBSTANTIATING these words that people like to describe him

"best, most complete, greatest EVER?"

this is like arguing that the ONLY way to say a mountain is the tallest peak on earth -- is MOUNT EVEREST (IT IS) -- IS because we CAN see it and admire it with our own naked eyes if we went to see it ourselves. fine.

EXCEPT that - now we learn the TRUE tallest peak is UNDER the ocean in the pacific. (whatever the name of that is-- but to FISH that's even taller) .

so -- it is also a matter of how one defines those things.

but in the case of using them for roger -- there are TOO MANY QUALIFYING FACTORS that speak against those words and superlatives.

and it's not good enough to just respond with ''we said so== take it or leave it"

because there are those factors that speak against it. if there were NO such factors -- OF COURSE no one would say anything ''against' it - .

 

[britbox]

that is actually something that can be argued.

because the PROOF TO THE CONRARY -- apart from being the most SUCCESSFUL in majors in history --

keeps rearing up...

so to say: "roger is the GREATEST EVER" -- "EXCEPT THAT NADAL KEPT BEATING HIM -- " AND now we even have records like that of NOLE'S AND EVEN ANDY since their mid-2000 meetings when roger was at his height.

You lost me when you put Murray in the same conversation and apart from being the most SUCCESSFUL in majors in history - yeah, I mean why would anyone consider something as meaningless as that as having any relevance?

 

[DarthFed]

^ Novak is ahead in the H2H by 1 and keep in mind Roger has been washed up for many years now. And Novak has owned Rafa, a guy who has barely been #1 for 100 weeks in his career, and Novak has been owned in majors by Stan frickin Wawrinka, and has also been losing to cream puffs this past year. I'd say they all have holes to point out.

 

[britbox]

well -== i joined the argument because of the claims..

that are belied by the RESULTS.

now i just borke down the specific wordings of those claims -- words -- as we realize are VERY powerful..they can be made to mean many things -- as often as not -- even NOT what they are supposed to say..

and the case of roger -- is a classic example.

so -- you then ''bother to respond"

and what do we have?

you then cite the record of success -- THIS IN ITSELF is not being argued against..

HE DID WIN 17 majors, the highest numbers of wins of this and that -- FACTS. RECORDS. no one is pretending they are not what they ARE.

but then keep returning the ''qualitative" descriptions:

roger is the ''most complete ever"
question -- HOW SO? in the actual GAME itself? in the SHOT MAKING ?
IF SO -- break it down one by one -

serve? - and against whom returning? or compared to WHOSE?
FOREHAND -- how so ? better than whose? if so does THIS make roger "the most complete ever?"
backhand -- how so? did he actually win more backhand to backhand against another ''best backhander?" does THIS make him the most complete EVER?

and we can keep going down the list of qualifications...

but at the end of the day -- call the game ''most beautiful, most complete ever, the best ever, the greatest ever..the most super duper whatever ever".

NADAL OWNS him in their career. even NOVAK who matured much later than roger and at times was even vilified for daring to state ''i also want to be number one -- i also want to show i also have some quality" began novak's/ now VERY good record against the ''best, most complete, greatest ever".

so -- how can MERELY SAYING that because people LOVE the way roger plays and being successful at it MORE than anyone in history --

is the SAME as ''best, most complete, greatest ever" superlatives -- when his RECORD against some of his own rivals -- EACH OF WHOM had to grow into the game DURING ROGER'S dominance years but started beating him soon --

is NOT SUBSTANTIATING these words that people like to describe him

"best, most complete, greatest EVER?"

this is like arguing that the ONLY way to say a mountain is the tallest peak on earth -- is MOUNT EVEREST (IT IS) -- IS because we CAN see it and admire it with our own naked eyes if we went to see it ourselves. fine.

EXCEPT that - now we learn the TRUE tallest peak is UNDER the ocean in the pacific. (whatever the name of that is-- but to FISH that's even taller) .

so -- it is also a matter of how one defines those things.

but in the case of using them for roger -- there are TOO MANY QUALIFYING FACTORS that speak against those words and superlatives.

and it's not good enough to just respond with ''we said so== take it or leave it"

because there are those factors that speak against it. if there were NO such factors -- OF COURSE no one would say anything ''against' it - .

You seem to be equating "complete" as having the best shot in every category ever....

...and there are far more rounded players who can often get blown out by a guy with one weapon... How the hell do you think Ivo Karlovic has made a living for so many years?