Monte Carlo Rolex Masters 2019, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[Federberg]

Guys, this is getting ridiculous. You are nitpicking on El Dude's post. The quote is there and it only says that x,y, z and w are larger than v. Nothing about the any hierarchy amongst x,y, z and w.

If, by virtue of old posts, you are so sure about what he actually think about x,y,z and w, why don't you wait for him to actually say something about it and just then argue/complaint/insult or whatever crap you feel like doing? It gets amazingly boring to watch that shit.

don't presume mate. If you're bored, do something else, I couldn't care less.

And frankly you miss the point, which makes me wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. He says that x, y, z and w are larger than v. And given the chance to explain himself, he yet again groups w with x, y and z. No one has challenged him on the hierarchy amongst x, y, z and w. The point is that there is substantively no distance between w and v, yet he persists in grouping w with x, y and z. It's not that difficult. If you're going to jump to his defence then at least get your facts right.

 

[Federberg]

But that isn't true, Federberg - I'm not "intent on creating distance between Novak and Roger." Despite Ricardo's ridiculous implication, I'm not some secret Novak fan. You know that Roger is my guy. But I'm also interested in seeing things as truthfully as possible and, in the end, care less about my guy being better than I do about understanding what is true.

Why do you insist on me saying something I'm not actually saying? Even when I clarify or correct, you say I'm either lying or back-pedalling...you don't take anything I say at face value.

You're taking the planet analogy too concretely or willfully misunderstanding to continue your apparent vendetta. The simple point is that all four planets are larger than Earth. That is all. Now how much larger is a different matter, and I agree Novak-Roger is debatable.The gas giant part is not at all what I'm getting at, and you know this - but you're apparently more interested in being right than in actually understanding what I'm saying and believe, which makes this conversation pointless and simply masochistic on my part.

No mate. You keep doing the same thing and claiming that you're not. Novak is not in the same category as the other 3. To put him there you imply that there is no debate about how he stacks up against Federer. I might be a fan of Federer's tennis, but I find the fandom boring, so I've nothing against having an honest discussion about his clay court status. Just don't make the claim that Novak is in a completely different category to Federer. There's no factual basis for that

 

[El Dude]

No mate. You keep doing the same thing and claiming that you're not. Novak is not in the same category as the other 3. To put him there you imply that there is no debate about how he stacks up against Federer. I might be a fan of Federer's tennis, but I find the fandom boring, so I've nothing against having an honest discussion about his clay court status. Just don't make the claim that Novak is in a completely different category to Federer. There's no factual basis for that

OK, fair enough - if that is the issue (Novak vs. Roger). Maybe I should have been more clear that I think it is debatable. But again, you're mischaracterizing what I actually said. I did not say there is no debate, nor did I compare him to the other three. But it seems (now, at least) that your main issue is Novak vs. Roger on clay. If that is the case, let's focus on that rather than this other BS.

 

[mrzz]

don't presume mate. If you're bored, do something else, I couldn't care less.

And frankly you miss the point, which makes me wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. He says that x, y, z and w are larger than v. And given the chance to explain himself, he yet again groups w with x, y and z. No one has challenged him on the hierarchy amongst x, y, z and w. The point is that there is substantively no distance between w and v, yet he persists in grouping w with x, y and z. It's not that difficult. If you're going to jump to his defence then at least get your facts right.

He rightly groups x,y,z and w, as the chosen criterium to belong the group is being larger than v. 4,13, 1001 and Avogadro's number are all larger than 3.

This is the only fact to get right. The rest is some assumption about what he believes. I could try to read something in his planet analogy, as you can from my numbers. Maybe I included 13 because I fear witches, or my mother was killed by some guy with a chainsaw.

Yes, I am jumping on his defense, but mostly in defense of this forum... the more discussions like that, the less real discussions about tennis we have. And you know that.

 

[Federberg]

OK, fair enough - if that is the issue (Novak vs. Roger). Maybe I should have been more clear that I think it is debatable. But again, you're mischaracterizing what I actually said. I did not say there is no debate, nor did I compare him to the other three. But it seems (now, at least) that your main issue is Novak vs. Roger on clay. If that is the case, let's focus on that rather than this other BS.

that was always my issue with your post. And it was the same for Ricardo. He clearly stated the same thing!

 

[Federberg]

He rightly groups x,y,z and w, as the chosen criterium to belong the group is being larger than v. 4,13, 1001 and Avogadro's number are all larger than 3.

This is the only fact to get right. The rest is some assumption about what he believes. I could try to read something in his planet analogy, as you can from my numbers. Maybe I included 13 because I fear witches, or my mother was killed by some guy with a chainsaw.

Yes, I am jumping on his defense, but mostly in defense of this forum... the more discussions like that, the less real discussions about tennis we have. And you know that.

mate, in this forum we have passionate debates about tennis players. If you don't know that I suggest you get with the programme. Don't presume to try to moderate, certainly not when I"m involved. It's irritating

 

[mrzz]

mate, in this forum we have passionate debates about tennis players. If you don't know that I suggest you get with the programme. Don't presume to try to moderate, certainly not when I"m involved. It's irritating

And what someone does when he is irritated? He says something about it.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[El Dude]

that was always my issue with your post. And it was the same for Ricardo. He clearly stated the same thing!

That isn't really true, Federberg. Ricardo went at me for grouping Novak with the other three and you piled on. And more to the point, I didn't actually say what you guys think I said.

So again, either you both intentionally and willfully misinterpreted what I was saying, or you just didn't get it. Either way, why not actually ask for clarification on my view before jumping on the Ricardo bandwagon?

 

[Federberg]

That isn't really true, Federberg. Ricardo went at me for grouping Novak with the other three and you piled on. And more to the point, I didn't actually say what you guys think I said.

So again, either you both intentionally and willfully misinterpreted what I was saying, or you just didn't get it. Either way, why not actually ask for clarification on my view before jumping on the Ricardo bandwagon?

Sigh... It seems like we're talking in circles here. Yes we had an issue with your grouping Novak with Lendl, Borg and Nadal. By doing so you separate Novak from Federer without justification. Novak does not belong in that elite group. So yes, you said exactly what we thought you said. And if I might presume to advocate for Ricardo in this case. We completely disagree with that. The fact that you continue to persist leads me to believe you really think keeping him in that group is justified. As we say over here... "Nah bruv..."

 

[El Dude]

Nope, you're still misunderstanding. But nothing new, really. Moving on...

 

[Federberg]

Nope, you're still misunderstanding. But nothing new, really. Moving on...

yes... let's move on. If you had corrected that grouping when you responded that would be one thing. But you didn't. You still haven't. You just keep saying you're misunderstood. It's a wonderful out without clarifying what you're saying if you're saying something different. You haven't, so I'll keep seeing it the way you wrote it

 

[Ricardo]

Haha, asshole, imbecile, plain stupid.....the dog starts barking when el don’t know gets exposed!

Like I said there is no example better than, claiming Fedalvic, Laver and Becker being better than Edberg as GOATs, and I will say this claim is wrong because Becker vs Edberg is debatable while the rest is not, so grouping them together is simply wrong. In doing so it indirectly elevates Becker to where he shouldn’t be.

Time and again, even hiding behind fancy stats el dude is caught making laughable statements, admits nothing and goes on mindless barking and insults.....it’s a fact he doesn’t know this sport.

Now we can see his insults are unjustified, he can’t back up with nothing so it’s nothing but personal frustration. I’ll claim that he is really an imbecile, one with a very thick skin. And I got evidence shown above, and don’t forget that he did claim Pioline to be some all time underachiever....when being corrected you all know how he reacted, the same shit...

So I’ll continue to kick his butt.

 

[Ricardo]

Nope, you're still misunderstanding. But nothing new, really. Moving on...

Nothing new, after making imbecile claims, oh you all misunderstood me.....poor me! Don’t gang up on me! You all attack me! I never said nothing wrong! (I’ll never admit anyway)

So el don’t know lives on!

 

[Ricardo]

Guys, this is getting ridiculous. You are nitpicking on El Dude's post. The quote is there and it only says that x,y, z and w are larger than v. Nothing about any hierarchy amongst x,y, z and w.

If, by virtue of old posts, you are so sure about what he actually thinks about x,y,z and w, why don't you wait for him to actually say something new about it and just then argue/complaint/insult or whatever crap you feel like doing? It gets amazingly boring to watch that shit.

This analogy doesn’t work. The numbers x, y, z and w are either larger, equal or less than v if we assume they are all constants (but they have to be or it’s all meaningless), none of that is debatable.

Comparing Nadal, Borg, Novak and Lendl to Fed is all about tennis common sense. These are not mathematical constants, but common sense tells you the other three are undeniably better than Fed while Novak vs Fed is up to personal belief, it’s his personal opinion only. I don’t need to repeat the real legit analogy in Fedalvic/Laver here.

I’ll say in coming to his rescue, you gave a crap example yourself. Perhaps you are also clueless? Stay out of this anyways, don’t read if you don’t like it.

 

[Ricardo]

That isn't really true, Federberg. Ricardo went at me for grouping Novak with the other three and you piled on. And more to the point, I didn't actually say what you guys think I said.

So again, either you both intentionally and willfully misinterpreted what I was saying, or you just didn't get it. Either way, why not actually ask for clarification on my view before jumping on the Ricardo bandwagon?

They all wilfully and intentionally misinterpreted, they all don’t get it....it’s all their fault.

You don’t get why your butt is continually being kicked.

 

[mrzz]

This analogy doesn’t work. The numbers x, y, z and w are either larger, equal or less than v if we assume they are all constants (but they have to be or it’s all meaningless), none of that is debatable.

Comparing Nadal, Borg, Novak and Lendl to Fed is all about tennis common sense. These are not mathematical constants, but common sense tells you the other three are undeniably better than Fed while Novak vs Fed is up to personal belief, it’s his personal opinion only. I don’t need to repeat the real legit analogy in Fedalvic/Laver here.

I’ll say in coming to his rescue, you gave a crap example yourself. Perhaps you are also clueless? Stay out of this anyways, don’t read if you don’t like it.

Man, the whole point is the Djokovic/Federer relation on clay. I agree it is debatable -- I won't even tell my opinion on that [edit: I ended up telling it], but the moment one assumes that Djokovic is slightly better than Federer on clay (and there arguments supporting that claim), then it is over, Djokovic would (given this assumption) be part of the group of players who are better than Federer on clay, which includes the ones who are undisputedly better. That does not mean that Djokovic is undisputedly better than Federer.

My analogy still works. I can always say that 4.1, 287364324, 2398474329329 and one gazillion are larger than 4. Of course, I can always add a disclaimer and say "but notice that just 287364324, 2398474329329 and one gazillion are much larger than 4". This helps, sure, but it is not ultimately necessary.

The discussion here is who actually is the "4.1", Federer or Djokovic? Djokovic has the better numbers, that is undeniable. Can we put that in to context? Sure, we can. But the numbers are there. We could put Lendl's three French Opens in context too (mind it, I won't).

The irony of it all is that I think -- as old posters will remember -- that Federer is a much better clay courter than usually accepted. Not only I think that, on his peak , he was a better clay court player than Djokovic, I also think that the difference between him and Nadal is smaller than the results indicate. But do the numbers back up my opinion? No, and I know that, so I won't bother to get in passionate discussions.

About staying out of it... it is a free board, after all.

 

[Ricardo]

On clay courts, they are tied with a head-to-head record of 4–4 with six of their eight meetings taking place in semifinals. Due to the dominance of Rafael Nadal on clay, it's rare for Federer and Djokovic to encounter each other on the surface and have only once faced each other in a clay final, in the 2015 ATP Internazionali BNL d'Italia finals, where Djokovic beat Federer in straight sets. When they do meet on clay, it's often an unpredictable encounter. They've split their two French Open semifinals with Federer winning in 2011[9] and Djokovic winning the rematch in 2012.[12] In addition, Federer has beaten Djokovic three times in Monte Carlo,[28][30][31] and Djokovic has beaten Federer three times in Rome.

Taken from wiki. Records show they are so close anyone who takes one above the other to a higher group has no tennis common sense. Personal beliefs should come into this, as I think Fed had higher ceiling than Djoker at their best, but I will never say Nadal, Borg, Lendl and Fed >> Novak because I can’t say for sure above Fed/Novak. That’s the truth, not the one el don’t know proclaims.

 

[Ricardo]

Man, the whole point is the Djokovic/Federer relation on clay. I agree it is debatable -- I won't even tell my opinion on that [edit: I ended up telling it], but the moment one assumes that Djokovic is slightly better than Federer on clay (and there arguments supporting that claim), then it is over, Djokovic would (given this assumption) be part of the group of players who are better than Federer on clay, which includes the ones who are undisputedly better. That does not mean that Djokovic is undisputedly better than Federer.

My analogy still works. I can always say that 4.1, 287364324, 2398474329329 and one gazillion are larger than 4. Of course, I can always add a disclaimer and say "but notice that just 287364324, 2398474329329 and one gazillion are much larger than 4". This helps, sure, but it is not ultimately necessary.

The discussion here is who actually is the "4.1", Federer or Djokovic? Djokovic has the better numbers, that is undeniable. Can we put that in to context? Sure, we can. But the numbers are there. We could put Lendl's three French Opens in context too (mind it, I won't).

The irony of it all is that I think -- as old posters will remember -- that Federer is a much better clay courter than usually accepted. Not only I think that, on his peak , he was a better clay court player than Djokovic, I also think that the difference between him and Nadal is smaller than the results indicate. But do the numbers back up my opinion? No, and I know that, so I won't bother to get in passionate discussions.

About staying out of it... it is a free board, after all.

Wrong again, if x is designated 4.1, y is 4, then x > y. But in their case, either can be 4.1 or 4, his personal assumption has no say, because when it’s debatable then it becomes a variable. You need to look at my Becker/Edberg example, that’s legit and yours is not.

Or if you like, one says Ferrari, Lamborghini, Nissan are all more prestigious than Toyota and I’ll says that’s idiotic as there is so little that separates Nissan/Toyota, and putting Nissan with Ferrari and Lamborghini would be laughable.....try and put this in perspective. El don’t know is just plain stupid, get over it.

 

[El Dude]

yes... let's move on. If you had corrected that grouping when you responded that would be one thing. But you didn't. You still haven't. You just keep saying you're misunderstood. It's a wonderful out without clarifying what you're saying if you're saying something different. You haven't, so I'll keep seeing it the way you wrote it

Let's move on but not move on, is that it?

I've clarified what I was saying several times, but you aren't accepting it because you seem to take issue with my ranking Novak over Roger. I mean, if it was just the grouping thing, why not take issue with me including Lendl with Rafa and Borg? Isn't that grouping even more uneven, with a bigger gap between Rafa/Borg and Lendl than Lendl and Roger/Novak?

Again, I think Roger vs. Novak on clay is debatable. I gave Novak the edge because his overall numbers are slightly better and he fared a bit better against Rafa. But that wasn't the point of my initial point at all...in fact, the point was to disagree with Fiero and point out that Roger was a great clay player!

 

[Ricardo]

I would agree though that the huge difference in clay results between Fedal comes down to, Nadal is simply better, he is a nightmare matchup for Fed, and he was firmly in feds head. Lost count of how many times Fed was up double breaks in a set against Nadal only to lose it, that’s when you know the head isn’t right.