GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
Australian Open Final 2018: Federer v Cilic
- Thread starter britbox
- Start date
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
the AntiPusher
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,008
- Reactions
- 7,120
- Points
- 113
I know he does.. There is no “Real Matchup” or force that can stop Durant plus Step Curry has gotten BETTER.
OKC's Big 3 is better.....there is no way Golden State can stop them. And Durant is a coward who will shy away from Westbrook when it gets tight. Golden State will need Curry or Thomspon to save them because Durant will run from the challenge.
February 6th - OKC at Golden State. Mark it on your calendar. Hopefully OKC will be on a 12-game win streak going into that one. 8 down, 4 to go.
ftan
Masters Champion
Congrats to fellow Fed Fans, time to update the profile pic for me I guess. I was here throughout the match n chat, but just felt I was jinxing him everytime i wanted to write, lol.. yea I am superstitious that way and being up at 1 am doesn't help either.
I saw the post match interviews and its great to actually know that Fed was actually thinking about winning/losing, thinking ahead and all that crap and it was not his skills tht were giving up (what I mean is, it was the loss in concentration and not only Cilic firepower for his abysmal showing in set 4 and 2 )
But hey hey, winning good or ugly ..20 slams it is and I will take it, rather than having to mourn for next few weeks over a well played loss
I saw the post match interviews and its great to actually know that Fed was actually thinking about winning/losing, thinking ahead and all that crap and it was not his skills tht were giving up (what I mean is, it was the loss in concentration and not only Cilic firepower for his abysmal showing in set 4 and 2 )
But hey hey, winning good or ugly ..20 slams it is and I will take it, rather than having to mourn for next few weeks over a well played loss
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
You can't be serious. If OKC couldn't beat the Dubs when they still had KD how can they possibly be better than them now. Curry is a better guard than Westbrook. KD is better than Camelo. Thompson is a match for George. And we're not even mentioning Draymond, or the fact that the Dubs are utilise the sum of their parts better than any team in the league. In what world can OKC be better?
Because they have added Paul George and Carmelo Anthony since that time.
No he's not. He's a better shooter. Westbrook is better at everything else.
I disagree. Melo is a better face-up player with a quicker release and he is also tougher and more courageous in pressure moments.
No he's not, lol. George is the best wing defender in the NBA and a far more versatile player than Thompson. Thompson might be a better shooter percentage-wise but George is no slouch in that area either.
Please do. Offensively he is an oaf half the time and is very lucky to be playing on the team that he does so he can get easy assists.
This is a meaningless cliché.
The world in which OKC blew them out in November and Golden State could not stop or keep up with their Big 3.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
Keep in mind you are arguing with someone who just said Carmelo is better than KD. At some point it's too over the top to take seriously. It'd be like saying someone like Dimitrov is better than Djokovic in his prime and being serious about it
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reactions
- 5,764
- Points
- 113
Or kind of like saying someone like David Nalbandian was better than Federer in their prespective primes.
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
Well that's even worse than saying Carmelo is better than Durant! And yes I know that's his opinion.
They've only played once. But besides that, I am basing my view on having watched these players for years. There is no way that Golden State can defend OKC.
Better at the hardest technical aspects of the game and more talented, yes.
But not better in a practical day-to-day sense.
The combination of skill, shotmaking, point construction, improvisation, and versatility at the back of the court.
Was Federer better than Nalbandian at not hitting 11 double faults with his belly sagging over his belt in a match against a barely Top 100 player? Yes, infinitely better. Not even close.
But was Nalbandian better at dictating points from the back of the court off both wings? Yes.
The latter is more difficult to teach and to do.
The former is important but not an indicator of exceptional talent standing alone. Everyone at the pro level can do that if they put in the work and concentrate on it.
shawnbm
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reactions
- 1,246
- Points
- 113
I don't understand, Cali, and it has been a loooong time since I have heard of you around here--but I do recall your staunch defense of the Argentine against all-comers, which is admirable. That being said, the only shot I give the Argentine over Roger in that period is the backhand; Federer served better and his forehand was an effortless thing of beauty and power, a whip of a forehand that hit more winners than any other shot in tennis apart from Dr. Ivo's service. Federer at net had a natural and less strenuous versatility than most any other player, including that of Daveed. The overhead? I dare say Roger's is one of the most reliable and punishing in all of tennis history since the dawn of the Open Era. He rarely, rarely misses an overhead, and that is counting the ones he hits as a backhand drive going backwards--a symbol of raw talent. Improvisation? Roger at that time was a human highlight film of unreal shots from not only the baseline, but at net and in the middle of the court. Roger was generally more versatile than the Argentine, as I have not touched on drop shots and half-volley flicks until now. I really respectfully disagree that the Argentine had it over Fed back then.
El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reactions
- 5,764
- Points
- 113
@shawnbm said it well, but I will add a few things. @calitennis127 , it seems that you're essentially saying that in a neutral context--one without any pressure, like a practice session--David Nalbandian is actually a technically superior player to Roger Federer. That the difference in their accomplishments mainly boils down to Roger's ability to compete. Yes? You might agree with some of shawnbm's refinements, but you seem to generally believe that Nalbandian's technically ability is superior and, presumably, as good as the tennis world has ever seen?
This is actually somewhat of a non-falsifiable statement. In other words, it is hard to prove you wrong because there is no real way to know, unless we had a panel of knowledgable judges watch each perform in practice sessions many times.
I am also reminded of the Harlem Globetrotters, who can do all manner of things with a basketball but would get slaughtered by any professional--or college--team. Nalbandian isn't quite the Harlem Globetrotters, but the analogy serves insofar as it points out that a huge aspect of performance is the ability to compete - to translate those technical skills to a competitive match.
I would also argue that a major part of Roger's greatness is that he can do pretty much anything well. He does a few things amazingly well, but everything else he does at least very well. He has no weaknesses, no gaps in his ability. I don't think this was true of Nalbandian.
It is also interesting to compare Nalbandian and Nadal, because Nadal has been accused of being less skilled than his actual results would entail. But here's the thing: a large part of Rafa's greatness is his ability to come up with a two-handed backhand screamer across court, or one of those down the line forehands, or the right serve at the right time. Rafa is so money when it really matters - and that is talent, that is ability, that is greatness. In fact, it may be that by comparing Nalbandian and Nadal, we have the perfect context to differentiate what makes a player great vs. what makes a player simply very good (and talented).
This is actually somewhat of a non-falsifiable statement. In other words, it is hard to prove you wrong because there is no real way to know, unless we had a panel of knowledgable judges watch each perform in practice sessions many times.
I am also reminded of the Harlem Globetrotters, who can do all manner of things with a basketball but would get slaughtered by any professional--or college--team. Nalbandian isn't quite the Harlem Globetrotters, but the analogy serves insofar as it points out that a huge aspect of performance is the ability to compete - to translate those technical skills to a competitive match.
I would also argue that a major part of Roger's greatness is that he can do pretty much anything well. He does a few things amazingly well, but everything else he does at least very well. He has no weaknesses, no gaps in his ability. I don't think this was true of Nalbandian.
It is also interesting to compare Nalbandian and Nadal, because Nadal has been accused of being less skilled than his actual results would entail. But here's the thing: a large part of Rafa's greatness is his ability to come up with a two-handed backhand screamer across court, or one of those down the line forehands, or the right serve at the right time. Rafa is so money when it really matters - and that is talent, that is ability, that is greatness. In fact, it may be that by comparing Nalbandian and Nadal, we have the perfect context to differentiate what makes a player great vs. what makes a player simply very good (and talented).
