Novak's thoughts about the Rafa defeat

"You can't underestimate any opponent. I don't think Rafa did, he's well aware of the quality of all the players on the tour.

"But it's a Grand Slam. It's Wimbledon. Everybody wants to come up with their best game, especially when you're playing one of the top players.

"You have nothing to lose. You're out there on the court and you're going for your shots.

"It can serve as an example for everybody that anything is possible in this sport. Even though myself, Rafa, Roger, Murray, we've been dominant in Grand Slams, and it's expected of us to reach the last four.

"But tennis is improving. Everybody plays equally well."

Djokovic had a minor scare against another Czech on Friday in a third round match which was played, just like Nadal's, under the Centre Court roof.


http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-29/top-stories/32473586_1_america-s-ryan-harrison-novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal

What I found interest was the last line of the quote tennis is improving a view that I myself share. Also i am glad that Novak acknowledges the efforts and the talents of the mid ranking guys. In the era of top level dominance I think it is often lost upon the majority of fans how good the also rans are. This period is replete with tough talent and ability that is what I find most amusing about those who put forward the thesis that outside of the top 4 there isn't much quality there. For my money we have seen in recent weeks both with the struggles of the big 3 in the last two slams we have seen how the lower ranked guys are of top quality and that the competition is incredibly strong. I think many people were spoiled by Roger's easy success against his outgunned contemporaries. However i think what we are seeing today is a great deal of talent and ability top to bottom in the tour. However the top guys are just that much better and more consistent then we usually see and therefore this perception exists that since they are getting the results the second tier guys aren't doing enough. I think that is patently false.

Oh dear, when are we going to stop with these era debates?

1. Socal, you and some others perceive 2002-2003 era to relatively "weaker". Some call it transitional? Why so? There was no clear winner or top player in that era and seeds used to get consistently knocked out in early rounds. If seeds struggling or going out in early rounds is your definition of strong competition, why that particular ear is perceived to be as weak?

2. Has this strong competition been there for last 2-3 years or has it been a recent phenomenon with results in last two slams? I don't think you can argue that competition is strong since top 4 are consistently reaching Semis or making at least quarters. If this is more recent phenomenon, then your sample is too small to make statements like this, I must say.

3. Everybody knows guys at the top are better. That is the very reason they are at top. But better at what actually? Better in the sense that they produce results consistently. Taylor Dent has made a statements on the lines of (I'm paraphrasing), "There isn't much difference between shot-making talent of guys around 80-100 and guys in top 10 but guys in top 10 produce results consistently".

4. The perception that second tier guys aren't doing enough is correct. Jim Courier made a statement during French Open and JMac made a similar statement during Wimbledon about this. They think that a lot of second tier guys are going into matches thinking that they stand no chance of winning and they don't play freely. In fact, what they must be doing is play freely and test these top guys. They may lose a set 6-0 or 6-1 but since they aren't favourites anyway, nobody is going to care. So in terms of efforts or mind,, they aren't doing enough.

Well said spuranik.

David Ferrer struggles to #4 at peak and returns to #5 when old. Federer is one event from being #1 at 31 and miles below his peak form. No young stars come through. Are these hallmarks of a tougher period? Personally I think all eras are more or less the same, with technology and conditions making it tough to equate performance.

Look, all hs comes down to boosting Djokovic. It's not rocket science to figure it out, and it becomes more important since he missed his shot at the GS.

I do get confused at the logic though; a short time go it was 'proof' of this eras strength that the top 4 never lost in Slams, now it's proof because one has, yet earlier periods are denigrated because it happened more often. Odd.

Still, Novak says its really tough so tt must be proof.

Just one question. Can anyone recall a pro ever saying "it's a bit thin on the tour these days, things have slipped a bit"?

I have been much critical of the past era but with time, i have become more appreciative of the obvious limitation in that era; consistency. Even though the current era is more talented than the previous, consistency has been the big difference. Bagdhatis for example yesterday showed he could battle on equal foot against Murray but ask him to do so consistently and you'll be left disappointed. He is an example of the past ran-ins of the that era; not good enough but not consistent enough either.

You rate Berdych as consistent? And Tsonga?

I think Rogers reaction to Rafa's defeat strangely is more appropriate. Apparently after watching the 5th set he couldn't stop laughing... not at Rafa's misfortune but because of the absurdity of it. I can understand that some Nadal fans might take Rogers reaction the wrong way but I can totally understand where he's coming from.

Federer also said that he believed that he was "lucky" to get through the Beneteau match and that Nadal was "unlucky" in his. There is truth in this. Both Nadal and Federer have done enough to prove their credentials. In that context a freaky result is just that... a freaky result. IMO not good for fans but I think I may have said that before...

IMO it is not a good idea for current players to talk about how weak or strong their own "era" is compared to others. Where did all this start? I could be a multi slam winning all time great if I could have played in a weaker era? Pfft!

At least more consistent than most players of the past era they can be compared to. Remember Berdych and Tsonga have a decent Grand slam record. Though my use of consistency lies with the top 4.

Berdych just went out in the first round..

hawkeye wrote:I think Rogers reaction to Rafa's defeat strangely is more appropriate. Apparently after watching the 5th set he couldn't stop laughing... not at Rafa's misfortune but because of the absurdity of it. I can understand that some Nadal fans might take Rogers reaction the wrong way but I can totally understand where he's coming from.

Federer also said that he believed that he was "lucky" to get through the Beneteau match and that Nadal was "unlucky" in his. There is truth in this. Both Nadal and Federer have done enough to prove their credentials. In that context a freaky result is just that... a freaky result. IMO not good for fans but I think I may have said that before...

IMO it is not a good idea for current players to talk about how weak or strong their own "era" is compared to others. Where did all this start? I could be a multi slam winning all time great if I could have played in a weaker era? Pfft!

Totally agree.

It's disrespectful and self-promoting talking like this, but I have to say they didn't start it, it's mainly a product of the meda hyping their product and fans on the Internet.

Era crap. Once you look at the facts it all gets exposed.

Take for instance the era of Borg & Connors v the pre-Open era. No contest, right? I mean, those pre-Open guys had no competition. But then we get Ken Rosewall getting to the Wimbledon final at 40! Beating Ashe, Smith, Tanner & Newcombe. Then beating Gerulaitis three years later at 43, and being top 10 in his 40's.
Or how about Laver at 38 losing in 1976 to Borg 2-6, 7-6, 6-7?

Oh, that seems odd. How would Borg at 40 fare against peak Laver or Rosewall? Maybe it was the other way around. Or not.

It's just not that simple, yet people on here jump to tiny comments or fast talk from paid-to-please commentaters. Or maybe they just want to be pleased with their favourite and aren't content with their achievements, so want to boost them.

Typical socal, a few words from Djokovic and you jump on it even though it seems rather contradictory to what you said previously. Before you said you judged an era by the depth of it's top 4 players (or was it top 10) and now you're not saying that. Remarkably strange turn around.

The point is if the era is so strong, why hasn't Fed been going out earlier in slams like in R2 or R3 instead of QFs or SFs? After all, he had it so easy from 2003 up and until 2005 when he padded his records according to you, so surely he's more vulnerable to being beaten by this higher quality field now? Instead we have Rafa going out, the only one of the top 4 seeds to go out. It shows that his loss was more a freak result but it doesn't explain why Fed isn't since he'd be more prone to this because of his age but also because he wasn't tested as much in the past. You should think a little harder socal before coming up with trite stuff.

by luciusmann Today at 1:04 pm
Typical socal, a few words from Djokovic and you jump on it even though it seems rather contradictory to what you said previously. Before you said you judged an era by the depth of it's top 4 players (or was it top 10) and now you're not saying that. Remarkably strange turn around.

He's a convert to the Church of Djokovic.

Only rule is: Follow the Eggman.

Federer @31 is showing the young guns like Raonic, Dimitrov, Harrison, and to some extent, his 'peers' what it takes to reach, and then, stay at the top.

10 years from now, perhaps earlier, someone may do a 100m dash in sub 9 seconds. Does that make Usain Bolt any worse an athlete? No, IMVHO.

For Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Pancho, McEnroe, Sampras, et al, posters here seem to forget the competition has always been fierce, and will always be fierce.

PS: Does anyone remember Paavo Nurmi on here? (Hope my spelling is correct ).

BTW, ESPN's quick poll, suggests that the FO 2009 Soderling v Nadal match was a bigger upset compared to the W 2012 Rosol v Nadal.

BTW, ESPN's quick poll, suggests that the FO 2009 Soderling v Nadal match was a bigger upset compared to the W 2012 Rosol v Nadal.

Well he was 4 time reigning champion, and his 2008 win was totally dominant.

At very least we knew who Soderling was though, he's had a bit of success in early rounds, Rosol was just something else.

Nadal is simply not that good unless he's on clay or really slow hard.

His match against Rosol wasn't too shocking for me, I knew the man was not very good on grass and his Wimbledon wins have been flukes.

I know one thing, Federer has gone through it all reaching record semi and quarter final consecutive appearances. Nadal couldn't.

Seifer Almasy wrote:I know one thing, Federer has gone through it all reaching record semi and quarter final consecutive appearances. Nadal couldn't.

Is it necessary to compare Nadal with Federer? It's well known Fed has a good quarters and semis grand slam record, why bring Nadal into it? Nadal has his own records and will have time to add to them. As good as Fed's quarters and semis record is, I'd rather he has less of them and win some actual slams at this point in his career!

The truth is Nadal went out in R2 but if Fed goes out in the semis to Djokovic, then the net result of both Nadal and Fed is the no difference (the same), neither got the title! As Nadal said, rather truthfully, for a player, it's actually worse to lose in the latter stages of a slam because then you feel you could have won it. Let's wait and see if Fed can step things up tomorrow, he hasn't done what he really needs to do which is show us he has the ability to win Wimbledon this year.

Yes I think it is

Seifer Almasy wrote:Yes I think it is

If you take pleasure in the misfortune of others and make everything a comparison, I feel rather sorry for you.

Nadal had a blip, so what? At least he won a slam last month, as a Fed fan, I'm still waiting for Fed to do the same 2 1/2 years later. It's not about which round you get knocked out (unless you care mainly about rankings), it's about winning the title.

bogbrush wrote:Era crap. Once you look at the facts it all gets exposed.

Take for instance the era of Borg & Connors v the pre-Open era. No contest, right? I mean, those pre-Open guys had no competition. But then we get Ken Rosewall getting to the Wimbledon final at 40! Beating Ashe, Smith, Tanner & Newcombe. Then beating Gerulaitis three years later at 43, and being top 10 in his 40's.
Or how about Laver at 38 losing in 1976 to Borg 2-6, 7-6, 6-7?

Oh, that seems odd. How would Borg at 40 fare against peak Laver or Rosewall? Maybe it was the other way around. Or not.

It's just not that simple, yet people on here jump to tiny comments or fast talk from paid-to-please commentaters. Or maybe they just want to be pleased with their favourite and aren't content with their achievements, so want to boost them.

That said it all, anyway.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Yes I think it is

To GOAT, or not, that is the question.

Fedal is so passé. We have seen them together since 2005. 7 years. Perhaps the 7th day of W has some surprises.

laverfan wrote:Federer @31 is showing the young guns like Raonic, Dimitrov, Harrison, and to some extent, his 'peers' what it takes to reach, and then, stay at the top.

10 years from now, perhaps earlier, someone may do a 100m dash in sub 9 seconds. Does that make Usain Bolt any worse an athlete? No, IMVHO.

For Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Pancho, McEnroe, Sampras, et al, posters here seem to forget the competition has always been fierce, and will always be fierce.

PS: Does anyone remember Paavo Nurmi on here? (Hope my spelling is correct ).

BTW, ESPN's quick poll, suggests that the FO 2009 Soderling v Nadal match was a bigger upset compared to the W 2012 Rosol v Nadal.

2009 Soderling upset is the biggest upset in Tennis history without a doubt, Rafa never lost a match in FO before and after, even the GOAT could not beat him and then one sudden day a sparringly known Robin Soderling comes and delivers an upset, it was a huge shock for everybody.

But Robin deserved a big win over Rafa, I still remember his 2007 Wimby clash with Rafa, Robin was so unlucky to lose that match, so he got a bigger reward. Its real sad his 2nd part of career is getting hampered with Mono and injuries just when his game started to click.

luciusmann wrote:Typical socal, a few words from Djokovic and you jump on it even though it seems rather contradictory to what you said previously. Before you said you judged an era by the depth of it's top 4 players (or was it top 10) and now you're not saying that. Remarkably strange turn around.

The point is if the era is so strong, why hasn't Fed been going out earlier in slams like in R2 or R3 instead of QFs or SFs? After all, he had it so easy from 2003 up and until 2005 when he padded his records according to you, so surely he's more vulnerable to being beaten by this higher quality field now? Instead we have Rafa going out, the only one of the top 4 seeds to go out. It shows that his loss was more a freak result but it doesn't explain why Fed isn't since he'd be more prone to this because of his age but also because he wasn't tested as much in the past. You should think a little harder socal before coming up with trite stuff.

Yes I do judge an era based on the strength of the top guys. And in that respects this era I think we can agree is pretty good with Rafa and Novak and Roger even at 30. However the prevailing view is that part of the reason the big 4 have success is quote the next tier guys aren't that good. I disagree the next tier guys are good for their position and therefore the big 4's success has REALLY NOTHING OR LITTLE TO DO WITH THE SUPPOSED WEAKNESS OF THE NEXT TIER GUYS.

I'll tell you what is trite stuff Lucius, what is trite is this desire for a certain player's fan's not to admit was in obvious by every objective measure that the competitions today is much tougher than 2000-2007 period and the early period of Roger's rise. Roger is a great player, probably the greatest of all time, but he certainly wilt chamberlained his numbers a little bit early on his career against highly inconsistent contemporaries who were quickly pushed aside in their primes by the subsequent generation.

People talk about the Rosol match as it is a fluke, is it? Look at the struggles Djoko had at the french and Roger in the early rounds as well. Look at how Benny pushed him. Also look at the tough matches Andy has had and how he has been knocked out at the french earlier than the semi. In short, the people who claim that Roger's numbers are a reflection of his greatness alone and that he never padded his numbers against the relative weaker competition of (Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, hewitt, and nalbandian), the same people who refuse to see the TOP GUYS as weak in Roger's era are the same guys who claim the second tier guys are weak in this era. But the top guys today have it easy because the guys ranked 5-100 are not strong enough they say. Really Berdych isn't a strong number 6 yet Andy Roddick and Ferrerro are strong number #1s?

So let me get this straight there are no weak eras, especially if Roger dominated in that period. But the current era is weak outside the top 4? Because that is the logical inconsistency and junk that we have been fed by the fed apologist. Roger's era is of course not weak how could you ever determine such a thing, by looking at objective results how insane? But of course it is easy to see that outside the Big 4 according to these apologists that the competition is weak. So this era is weak outside of the top 4, then what does that say about the era of one shot Andy and Fat Dave?

Just wanted to get the fed apologist party line straight. There are no weak eras especially if Roger dominates in that period, except the current era which is weak outside the top 4 i, makes a lot of sense to me? if you can analyze the weakness of the current era you can sure as hell determine that Nalby, hewitt, Ferrerro, and Roddick ARE NOT as good as Nadal, Novak and Murray.

Have you noticed how hard it has been for the current young guys to break in and supersede the Novak, nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Berdy, Del potro group of guys?

How easy was it for Novak/Nadal/Murray etc. generation to push aside the Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/and Nalby group of players? Pretty damn easy as most of these guys who were dominant figures in the pre and early Roger days were OVERRAN IN THEIR PHYSICAL PRIMES BY THE YOUNGER GUYS THAT ARE DOMINATING TODAY. Yes many of that generation player had success and some are still having it. But the greatest players of that generations were basically run off the court by the current generation.

Here we go again, with opinion masquerading as reason.

Any era where a player well down the slope of his decline could even have a shot at #1 can't be so pre-eminent. Not weak, but certainly nothing worth worshipping. Federer by common assent is in that stage, yet here he is with that shot - not even needing to win this event, he has chances right though to Shanghai and the current #1 can make no headway on his points tally until then.

Hewitt; the injury ridded 31 year old who took a set off Djokovic at the AO. Is it really sensible to assess his 2001 standard from the evidence of his near retired state? I do hope nobody assess Djokovic 2011 by how he plays in 2017 after a bunch of injuries and operations, should he be so unlucky.

socal1976 wrote:Have you noticed how hard it has been for the current young guys to break in and supersede the Novak, nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Berdy, Del potro group of guys?

How easy was it for Novak/Nadal/Murray etc. generation to push aside the Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/and Nalby group of players? Pretty damn easy as most of these guys who were dominant figures in the pre and early Roger days were OVERRAN IN THEIR PHYSICAL PRIMES BY THE YOUNGER GUYS THAT ARE DOMINATING TODAY. Yes many of that generation player had success and some are still having it. But the greatest players of that generations were basically run off the court by the current generation.

Which young guys are those? There's hardly any in the top 100!

And they can't get past Ferrer, Fish - most not even past the much derided Roddick, Nalbandian & Hewitt. Some of whom, by the way, we're ruined by injury.

bogbrush wrote:Here we go again, with opinion masquerading as reason.

Any era where a player well down the slope of his decline could even have a shot at #1 can't be so pre-eminent. Not weak, but certainly nothing worth worshipping. Federer by common assent is in that stage, yet here he is with that shot - not even needing to win this event, he has chances right though to Shanghai and the current #1 can make no headway on his points tally until then.

Hewitt; the injury ridded 31 year old who took a set off Djokovic at the AO. Is it really sensible to assess his 2001 standard from the evidence of his near retired state? I do hope nobody assess Djokovic 2011 by how he plays in 2017 after a bunch of injuries and operations, should he be so unlucky.

Andre Agassi world #1 at 33 years of age in 2003. Case closed by your own assessment then the 2003 was a crap period. By the way Sampras also at 31 and a shell of himself won a slam in that period.

Now I can go back to the happiness of ignoring you because as usual your points are easily shot out of the water. So is Roger inferior to Agassi? Agassi in the heyday of the weak era in 2005 managed to reach the finals of the USO and should have taken Roger to 5 sets on a day Roger was playing lights out peak tennis.

I did say in decline. Agassi didn't decline at that point mainly because of the incredible focus he put on his fitness and the game moving to him.

And I also said any such era wasn't weak, just not pre-eminent.

Always pays to read first before impulsively reacting. A tip you just can't seem to take.

Read up on history of the sport and you'll learn the foolishness of your silly weak era / Golden Era ideas. Learn about the pre-Open guys, and how they fared. It's far, far more complex than you think.

I just checked on the young guys who can't get past the current "elite".

I got down to reading that Mardy Fish, post heart surgery and 30 is untroubled by any such young player and fell about laughing. I just held on long enough to see that Andy Roddick, who apparantly retired from Wimbledon yesterday, has hardly anyone describable as a young player above him.

OMG Just saw that Gael Monfils isn't headed by any young player!! Or Verdasco or Lopez!!!!

Golden!

No BB I think your employees have been kissing your assss for so long you have started to believe everything that falls out your keester is gold. Wrong buddy, go read your history I have a degree in history and have forgotten more about history then you will ever know. We know there are no weak or strong periods in the history or nature. I mean there are no periods called golden ages or dark ages. There is no such things as boom and bust cycles. 1928 was just like 1930 or was it? The fact is that everything in life has up and down periods and progress is not linear.

We saw that in tennis. We went from Pete, Andred, courier, lendl, edberg, and becker to a doldrums period and then back to Rafa, Roger, and Novak. See peak valley peak just like how nature works in waves.

Do you know why it's called the Dark Ages?
Clue: it's got nothing to do with the period itself, simply the lack of recorded history.

And yes, 1928 had all the problems that were revealed in the Depression, unless you think that emerged from nothing. Superficial analysis does seem to be your thing though.

And do you know how lame it is to tell people you have degrees in something or other? Sticking around in school may impress your circle but it means little to people in the real World. It may help you learn the labels but anyone knowing their stuff would realise the labels are fatuous in most cases.

Edit: I don't need anyone to tell me my business acumen - >£8m profit a year from my own business tells me I know my stuff.

2nd Edit: do you like what I'm telling you about the young guns right now? Look at the "quality" they can't get past!

Oh yea young guns of this era have a stiff competition in

1]Roger Federer
2]David Ferrrer
3]Mardy Fish
4]Tommy Haas
5]Nalbandian
6]X Mallise
7]Roddick

and man more 27 + like
Tsonga
Berdych
John Isner

etc,..

so yes its a stronger era than all.

luciusmann wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:Yes I think it is

If you take pleasure in the misfortune of others and make everything a comparison, I feel rather sorry for you.

Nadal had a blip, so what? At least he won a slam last month, as a Fed fan, I'm still waiting for Fed to do the same 2 1/2 years later. It's not about which round you get knocked out (unless you care mainly about rankings), it's about winning the title.

nadal and murray takes pleasure in others unforced errors no? so it is only fair for their defeats to received the same scorn.

Alas I see this has turned into an era debate.

I would join in for now, but I think it is more suitable to wait for after Wimbledon, no? Also can we show one era is better than other, as Bogbrush has said before, and correctly so, the points all add up to the same amount every year (except rare occasions such as disqualifications).

All I can say now is as a top player, let's take Djokovic for example, he would prefer having a consistent and decent quality Top20-100 (i.e. strength in depth lower down the rankings) rather than having so many guys in the top 5 who are superb quality and can challenge him in every moment.

luciusmann wrote:

If you take pleasure in the misfortune of others and make everything a comparison, I feel rather sorry for you.

Nadal had a blip, so what? At least he won a slam last month, as a Fed fan, I'm still waiting for Fed to do the same 2 1/2 years later. It's not about which round you get knocked out (unless you care mainly about rankings), it's about winning the title.

Lucius, you are a great poster

Josiah Maiestas wrote:nadal and murray takes pleasure in others unforced errors no? so it is only fair for their defeats to received the same scorn.

I think you've misunderstood the context in which I've made my remarks. It was on the context that Seifer, or SA takes a great deal of pleasure in slating and hating players that's quite different than the tactics you employ to win a tennis match (which is what you're referring to). Murray or Nadal's way of winning may not be pretty but it is effective. Just like Nadal playing to Fed's backhand continuously, I mean it's not pretty but it does work. Isn't the main objective in tennis matches to win? I prefer Fed to win all his matches but not if he doesn't know how beat the opponent across the net.

I really don't see what the value is in hating a player. All that wasted negative energy. I can't believe all that pent up hared is good for the body either. I clearly prefer Fed over other players and always support Fed over Nadal or Djokovic but I don't see any value in denigrating other players, it's rather infantile. It makes far more sense we all conduct ourselves with good courtesy and politely. It makes for a pleasant forum and a more enjoyable one too.

It Must Be Love wrote:Alas I see this has turned into an era debate.

I would join in for now, but I think it is more suitable to wait for after Wimbledon, no? Also can we show one era is better than other, as Bogbrush has said before, and correctly so, the points all add up to the same amount every year (except rare occasions such as disqualifications).

All I can say now is as a top player, let's take Djokovic for example, he would prefer having a consistent and decent quality Top20-100 (i.e. strength in depth lower down the rankings) rather than having so many guys in the top 5 who are superb quality and can challenge him in every moment.

Precisely, IMBL because of the nature of tournament tennis it is much harder to win slams in a top heavy era where you are faced with a handful of top top level guys as opposed to playing in an era lets say where the talent is more evenly distributed among the top 30. It is always the 3-5 best guys of any era that determine who wins the major trophies. That is why I find all this talk about the modest successes of Mardy Fish and David Ferrer as proof of how good the early 2000 guys are as comical. When have fish or ferrer decided so much as a masters title between them? How do they impact the difficulty of winning a slam 4 times a year? The answer is they really don't. Why not look at how the flagships of the early 2000s performed, outside of fed of course in the last few years?

Anyway of course it is tougher to win if you have to beat a prime Nadal a prime Murray and a still dangerous Federer in the semi and final as opposed to your 3rd or 4th round opponent being a little better or a little worse. 28 of the last 29 slams have been won by 3 men. That shows how hard it is to break into the club, it is not from a deficiency of players outside the top 3. It is because of their superlative nature and add murray for the masters level at least.

And here was me thinking this whole article was based on the idea that there was great strength in depth now. Now you're reversing your position (because I showed you there isn't and that the young players of 2012 are unable to topple Verdasco, Monfils and Fish - and mostly unable to topple the retiring Roddick).

Your flip-flopping knows no limits; because your knowledge of the game so severely does.

socal1976 wrote:I have a degree in history and have forgotten more about history then you will ever know.

bogbrush wrote:I don't need anyone to tell me my business acumen - >£8m profit a year from my own business tells me I know my stuff.

Well, I'm really handsome. Seriously, you should see me. I'm like a male version of Helen of Troy.

I once threw a coin into a cup from 10 yards...you should have seen it.

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I have a degree in history and have forgotten more about history then you will ever know.

bogbrush wrote:I don't need anyone to tell me my business acumen - >£8m profit a year from my own business tells me I know my stuff.

Well, I'm really handsome. Seriously, you should see me. I'm like a male version of Helen of Troy.

I know, bad isn't it? My only mitigation is reaction to being told my employees kiss my arse (I wish!).

Funny thing is none of this stuff is verifiable; we may all be sad gits who sit on internet forums for an unhealthy amount of time. ooh er......

Not this era crap again.

Players don't choose what era's they are born into.

You will not find anyone past, present or future that can play the game like Federer. Many have tried to play like a Borg or a Sampras and have failed to match their subsequent achievements.

One player's dominance does not mean that the particular field they played in was full of sub par players.

bogbrush wrote: we may all be sad gits who sit on internet forums

May? Lol...

We all spend far too much time on here, indeed I bet we bore our friends at tennis clubs rigid with tennis opinions and stats about players many of them have never heard of!

Normally I agree Lucius, I had nothing to hate Nadal for until I started reading forums from 2009 onwards, his fans are the worst i've seen. Not helped by his horrible fist pumps either.

bogbrush wrote:
...Funny thing is none of this stuff is verifiable...

I must confess to a certain sense of relief that this website doesn't require a self portrait as an avatar, by which my claim could be scrutinised...!

Although if Lydian's story about throwing a coin in the cup is true, then that's blooming impressive!

Josiah Maiestas wrote: his fans are the worst i've seen.

Give it a rest hey? I'm sick of being told what I am on this forum...it's pathetic generalised comments like this that add fuel to the fire.

HM...YouTube link on its way...

If the rest were like you Lydian I wouldn't hate on Nadal.

Makes me wish I never went on forums in the first place, corrupted my mind a bit.

CP and SA and few others from BBC606 peed me off. Nadal is a decent guy most the time I just hate the trolls

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I have a degree in history and have forgotten more about history then you will ever know.

bogbrush wrote:I don't need anyone to tell me my business acumen - >£8m profit a year from my own business tells me I know my stuff.

Well, I'm really handsome. Seriously, you should see me. I'm like a male version of Helen of Troy.

I know, bad isn't it? My only mitigation is reaction to being told my employees kiss my arse (I wish!).

Funny thing is none of this stuff is verifiable; we may all be sad gits who sit on internet forums for an unhealthy amount of time. ooh er......

I should also say that my comment was written with a smile. Seeing you and SoCal wind each other up is becoming a form of entertainment in its own right! I actually think that if events could contrive for you to become flatmates, we would have the makings of a good sitcom! (probably one with lots of 'Bottom'-style slapstick violence!).

It's a bit harsh to hate on a player because of fans who seem to annoy.

I admit I find some Nadal fans to be annoying beyond belief with constant moaning about negative comments and yet see fit for other players to be criticised and yes there are times I want to stick the boot in on Nadal, but it is not his fault that he may have fans who are annoying. Same with some Federer fans. Some annoy me with their blatant bandwagon jumping ways. They seem to have jumped on his bandwagon after 2006 and not have any awareness of his play and achievements before then. Sometimes even Murray fans get on my nerves with often pessimistic views despite the reality and gravity of his matches.

End of the day it's their time they waste on making forums a bit un-bearable for some. If you can ignore the voice that says do not stoop to their level, you might enjoy being impartial and neutral much better.

Yes I know this is all rich coming from me, but I do try to make an effort with not getting annoyed

Anything soCal can do Boggy can do better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfHBPusZg6E