"Five Minutes Before the F-ing Match!"

[tented]

According to tabloids,

And if the tabloids said it, it must be true.

 

[Fiero425]

Lads, stop slagging the counter-punchers! Rafa counter-punched his way to 14 majors, that right, Lux? :snigger

Nothing embarrassing about having 14 majors, but it took him longer to get there due to the way he plays! He's breaking down in so many ways and has had to take extended periods off the tour like no #1 player in the history of the game! I've been saying the same about Murray and Serena, playing defensively when they have the ability to finish off points and opponents a lot sooner! It eventually catches up to you as evidenced by what we hear in the news of late! For Nadal to allow qualifiers and WC's to take him to the limit and at Wimbledon to actually beat him just proves my point! Federer hasn't missed a major since he started his run over 10 years ago; these other players can't say the same! I wish I could get through to people without thinking I'm trolling; these are just facts! These players can close out the "also-rans" a lot sooner and maybe extend their careers! Serena's waited too late and won't approach the longevity of Martina; finally thinking of her legacy last year and overdid it BIG TIME! It's all catching up to her so we shouldn't be surprised by her results! :nono

 

[Kieran]

Lads, stop slagging the counter-punchers! Rafa counter-punched his way to 14 majors, that right, Lux? :snigger

Nothing embarrassing about having 14 majors, but it took him longer to get there due to the way he plays!

I was being sarcastic about Rafa being a counter-puncher.

And what do you mean, "it took him longer to get there..?"

Rafa won his 14th major during his 38th slam - that's quicker than Roger, who won his 14th in his 41st slam...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is to wet your appetite for tabloid journalism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2679018/What-happened-five-minutes-Andy-Murrays-match-He-heard-shout-five-minutes-game-lost-three-sets.html

 

[Kieran]

Here is to wet your appetite for tabloid journalism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2679018/What-happened-five-minutes-Andy-Murrays-match-He-heard-shout-five-minutes-game-lost-three-sets.html

They kinda cover a lot of bases, don't they? :laydownlaughing

 

[Fiero425]

Lads, stop slagging the counter-punchers! Rafa counter-punched his way to 14 majors, that right, Lux? :snigger

Nothing embarrassing about having 14 majors, but it took him longer to get there due to the way he plays!

I was being sarcastic about Rafa being a counter-puncher.

And what do you mean, "it took him longer to get there..?"

Rafa won his 14th major during his 38th slam - that's quicker than Roger, who won his 14th in his 41st slam...

I guess when I'm tired I need to go check the history; a true lack of amusement as well! All I can tell you is Federer was quite prolific; adding 3 majors a year for 3 of his career years! That's something Rafa hasn't done regardless of his totals along with his lack of WTF's! That's why I've held off on "The GOAT" talk and go at people who do!

 

[Kieran]

Lads, stop slagging the counter-punchers! Rafa counter-punched his way to 14 majors, that right, Lux? :snigger

Nothing embarrassing about having 14 majors, but it took him longer to get there due to the way he plays!

I was being sarcastic about Rafa being a counter-puncher.

And what do you mean, "it took him longer to get there..?"

Rafa won his 14th major during his 38th slam - that's quicker than Roger, who won his 14th in his 41st slam...

I guess when I'm tired I need to go check the history; a true lack of amusement as well! All I can tell you is Federer was quite prolific; adding 3 majors a year for 3 of his career years! That's something Rafa hasn't done regardless of his totals along with his lack of WTF's! That's why I've held off on "The GOAT" talk and go at people who do!

Stop sputtering and admit it: Rafa wasn't slow in getting to 14 at all, unless you're already thinking Roger was really slow.

And all this, despite his injuries, and the fact he went through his main rivals to succeed, as opposed to going around them...

 

[Fiero425]

Lads, stop slagging the counter-punchers! Rafa counter-punched his way to 14 majors, that right, Lux? :snigger

Nothing embarrassing about having 14 majors, but it took him longer to get there due to the way he plays!

I was being sarcastic about Rafa being a counter-puncher.

And what do you mean, "it took him longer to get there..?"

Rafa won his 14th major during his 38th slam - that's quicker than Roger, who won his 14th in his 41st slam...

I guess when I'm tired I need to go check the history; a true lack of amusement as well! All I can tell you is Federer was quite prolific; adding 3 majors a year for 3 of his career years! That's something Rafa hasn't done regardless of his totals along with his lack of WTF's! That's why I've held off on "The GOAT" talk and go at people who do!

Stop sputtering and admit it: Rafa wasn't slow in getting to 14 at all, unless you're already thinking Roger was really slow.

And all this, despite his injuries, and the fact he went through his main rivals to succeed, as opposed to going around them...

Sputtering? Have I misstated something about Roger winning 3 majors a year for 3 years! Does he not have a handful of WTF's while Nadal hasn't had much of a sniff? Some GOAT! :nono :clap :snigger :angel: I'll take the balance of Fed's career over Rafa's anytime!

 

[Kieran]

Stop sputtering and admit it: Rafa wasn't slow in getting to 14 at all, unless you're already thinking Roger was really slow.

And all this, despite his injuries, and the fact he went through his main rivals to succeed, as opposed to going around them...

Sputtering? Have I misstated something about Roger winning 3 majors a year for 3 years! Does he not have a handful of WTF's while Nadal hasn't had much of a sniff? Some GOAT! :nono :clap :snigger :angel:

Who mentioned "goats?" I'm responding to your suggestion that Rafa was slow getting to 14. He got there quicker than Roger - and he went through his main rivals to do it, on all surfaces.

You have to give him credit, buddy, no need to denigrate him for that. The "goat" thingy is something Fedfans feel entitled about, and it's a pure nonsense...

 

[Fiero425]

Stop sputtering and admit it: Rafa wasn't slow in getting to 14 at all, unless you're already thinking Roger was really slow.

And all this, despite his injuries, and the fact he went through his main rivals to succeed, as opposed to going around them...

Sputtering? Have I misstated something about Roger winning 3 majors a year for 3 years! Does he not have a handful of WTF's while Nadal hasn't had much of a sniff? Some GOAT! :nono :clap :snigger :angel:

Who mentioned "goats?" I'm responding to your suggestion that Rafa was slow getting to 14. He got there quicker than Roger - and he went through his main rivals to do it, on all surfaces.

You have to give him credit, buddy, no need to denigrate him for that. The "goat" thingy is something Fedfans feel entitled about, and it's a pure nonsense...

Getting there slow is exaggerated! I just said he missed a lot of time on court, skipping a number of majors so he might have gotten there faster if not for his body breaking down! Can you acknowledge that?

 

[Kieran]

Getting there slow is exaggerated! I just said he missed a lot of time on court, skipping a number of majors so he might have gotten there faster if not for his body breaking down! Can you acknowledge that?

If it's exaggerated, that's only because it's false, but you're the one who said it, not me. I think he got there fast, given everything he's been through.

If his body hadn't broken down, well, who knows how many more he'd have now, right? Can you acknowledge that?

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, I hear what you are saying and don't agree with Fiero's anti-Rafa crusade, but to be fair you're using a selective and narrow measurement when you say that Rafa was quicker to 14 Slams than Roger. You are looking only at number of Slams, but not age or number of years. I think part of Fiero's point is that since playing his first Slam, Rafa has missed six and Roger none.

Consider also:

- Rafa won his 14th Slam just after turning age 28. On his 28th birthday, Roger had won 15 Slams.
- Rafa won his 14th Slam in his 12th year playing in Slams. Roger had won 16 Slams in in his 12th year playing in Slams.

Some other facts to consider, that aren't necessarily meant to prove any point but just to throw in the mix:
- Both Rafa and Roger have won Slams within a 10-year stretch (so far).
- Rafa's Slams are more spread out, with only three multi-Slam seasons (so far) and at least one Slam in each of those 10 years (to Roger's eight years in a row).
- Roger's Slams are more clustered, with five multi-Slam seasons (including three three-Slam years to Rafa's one).

Anyhow, they've taken two routes to similar results. Ten years from now people will likely still be debating who is greater, but I'm guessing the view will be that they're both similar, with Rafa being the greatest specialist of all time and Roger being the greatest generalist.

 

[Fiero425]

Kieran, I hear what you are saying and don't agree with Fiero's anti-Rafa crusade, but to be fair you're using a selective and narrow measurement when you say that Rafa was quicker to 14 Slams than Roger. You are looking only at number of Slams, but not age or number of years. I think part of Fiero's point is that since playing his first Slam, Rafa has missed six and Roger none.

Consider also:

- Rafa won his 14th Slam just after turning age 28. On his 28th birthday, Roger had won 15 Slams.
- Rafa won his 14th Slam in his 12th year playing in Slams. Roger had won 16 Slams in in his 12th year playing in Slams.

Some other facts to consider, that aren't necessarily meant to prove any point but just to throw in the mix:
- Both Rafa and Roger have won Slams within a 10-year stretch (so far).
- Rafa's Slams are more spread out, with only three multi-Slam seasons (so far) and at least one Slam in each of those 10 years (to Roger's eight years in a row).
- Roger's Slams are more clustered, with five multi-Slam seasons (including three three-Slam years to Rafa's one).

Anyhow, they've taken two routes to similar results. Ten years from now people will likely still be debating who is greater, but I'm guessing the view will be that they're both similar, with Rafa being the greatest specialist of all time and Roger being the greatest generalist.

Finally! Thanks! I got no sleep last night and don't have the will to put up much of a fight! lol! :clap :angel:

 

[Kieran]

That's true, El Dude, but injury kept Rafa from playing his 38 slams by a younger age. As I asked Fiero (and he hasn't replied) - how many would Rafa have if he was never injured? It's a rhetorical one, but if we're saying he's slow getting to 14 - which is what I was responded to - that's only because he was injured. No other reason. And he was injured during a lot of slams he played in, as we saw in Oz.

Yes, Roger won three slams a season a few times, but that's because he could. Rafa had both Roger and peak Novak to negotiate - and he went through both of them. He didn't need them to be injured or absent to buff up his total. That may seem unfair but then it's unfair to say Roger won his faster, or somehow better.

They've both had incredible runs, and as I also said, this goat nonsense is what fires up these debates. It's impossible for me to think of Roger in those terms, when I've witnessed Rafa.

And it's impossible for me to think of Rafa in those terms too...

 

[Fiero425]

That's true, El Dude, but injury kept Rafa from playing his 38 slams by a younger age. As I asked Fiero (and he hasn't replied) - how many would Rafa have if he was never injured? It's a rhetorical one, but if we're saying he's slow getting to 14 - which is what I was responded to - that's only because he was injured. No other reason. And he was injured during a lot of slams he played in, as we saw in Oz.

Yes, Roger won three slams a season a few times, but that's because he could. Rafa had both Roger and peak Novak to negotiate - and he went through both of them. He didn't need them to be injured or absent to buff up his total. That may seem unfair but then it's unfair to say Roger won his faster, or somehow better.

They've both had incredible runs, and as I also said, this goat nonsense is what fires up these debates. It's impossible for me to think of Roger in those terms, when I've witnessed Rafa.

And it's impossible for me to think of Rafa in those terms too...

Oh please, I'm not going to get into a "what if" scenario! That would be even more ridiculous than you ignore what was just spelled out to you! The fact is he did miss a bunch of majors and a lot of tournaments in general! That's all I've been saying! :nono uzzled :angel: - BTW, this will definitely make my note-taking blog; #13 if you have address of "What's up #12!"

 

[Kieran]

Fiero, you're being illogical: you're the one who started "what if" by saying Rafa would have gotten there faster if he'd never been injured.

Why did you say this?

Because you were proven wrong in your assertion that Rafa was "slow" getting to 14.

Try keep up, buddy...

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, you're being illogical: you're the one who started "what if" by saying Rafa would have gotten there faster if he'd never been injured.

Why did you say this?

Because you were proven wrong in your assertion that Rafa was "slow" getting to 14.

Try keep up, buddy...

As I said, I'm too tired to bother with this argument! You have your view and I have mines! DONE! :angel:

 

[Kieran]

Good man. And we'd know what yours was if you were consistent... :snigger

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, you have a tendency to say "The GOAT discussion is ridiculous, but if there is one it is definitely Rafa." I don't have a problem with you thinking that Rafa is the GOAT, but just be up-front about it!

Anyhow, It is worth nothing that of the six Slams that Rafa missed, only one was the French Open - and that was when he was very young (17 going on 18) and likely wouldn't have won. The same with the Wimbledon of the same year (2004) and probably the 2006 Australian Open, which he didn't win until 2009.

Rafa would have had a legitimate shot to win the next three - 2009 Wimbledon, 2012 US Open, and 2013 Australian Open. But all three? Possible but unlikely. So I think we can say that he would have 0-2 more Slams if not for injury.

And sorry, except in extreme cases, if you're healthy enough to play in a Slam final then you're healthy enough to win it. Or if you don't buy that, we should at least consider that every player has matches that they aren't feeling their best - I'm sure Roger hasn't been in peak health for every Grand Slam match he's ever played.

So, in the end, it all kind of evens out - it is what is, not "what could have been."
R

 

[Kieran]

El Dude, answer Fiero with the "what if", that's what I was doing.

As for goat, I just said it isn't Rafa, now I'm saying it again. That's clear enough, isn't it? You're probably more offended that I don't think it's Roger, either...