Monte Carlo Rolex Masters 2019, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[Ricardo]

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!

Trying and fool somebody else, Nadal, Borg and Lendl undebatably > Fed while Novak is not. Who is comparing Nadal, Borg and Lendl again? In fact who says for sure Lendl/Borg gap is bigger than Borg/Nadal?

The more you make claims, the more I kick your clueless butt.

Do the right thing, go back to the drawing board and don’t post nonsense.

 

[Federberg]

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!

You haven't clarified. Frankly the only thing worthwhile is to retract. I certainly accept Lendl being in the group with Rafa and Borg. In his day he was money at RG if he chose to turn up. You can't say that for either Novak or Roger. I take exception to your putting Novak in that group. It's clear to me you weren't watching tennis in that era. It boggles my mind that you come up with this stuff. I guess these days one can spend a few minutes on Wikipedia and become an expert. It's not that easy.

Let's not even talk about dismissing the clay court credentials of guys like Muster in favour of Federer and Djokovic. That's not at all obvious to me

 

[Federberg]

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.

Loving the car example. That's spot on!

 

[Moxie]

I'm very happy for Fabio's win. (Sorry @mrzz, but I had to root for him.) I was a bit put off by that cheap meme about Rafa fans whining, @El Dude, since I clearly said I was away for Easter and not watching, but no real matter. Since this thread has turned into Federer v. Djokovic on clay, I will weigh in. (There is a lot of pettiness about historic grouping that was frankly too tedious to do more than skim over...seemed more bile than argument.) I agree with whomever is in the camp that they are close. It's hard to put one firmly over the other. There was a time (and not a short one) where Roger was the 2nd best on clay to Rafa. When Novak became 2.0, then he took over the #2 spot on clay. I don't think anyone would dispute that each would have won more important titles, and RG more than once, mostly likely, if they didn't have to play Rafa. As great movers, (not to mention great champions,) it's no wonder that they had a lot of great results on clay. As to the lack of MC and Rome on Roger's resume, I'd say he had to play Rafa a lot when they were both more prime, and Djokovic did get to play a rather "road-worn" Rafa. I make no excuses for their match-up, which is a thing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If you tally up all factors, how many players in the Open Era were greater clay courters than Roger? Rafa, Borg, Lendl, Novak, and then it gets questionable. Vilas? Wilander? Hard to say. I suppose we could talk about Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, etc. Meaning, only four players were clearly better on clay than Roger, and I'm sure some will complain about my inclusion of Novak. But at the very worst he's one of the top 10 clay courters of the Open Era.

That said, winning another RG would do more for either resume than them winning any other Slam.

El Dude, you were claiming you were being misunderstood and in later posts, you seem to agree that it is debatable whether Roger or Novak is a better clay court player. But, in your original posting quoted above, see the bolded part. You say "...…….Novak, and then it
gets questionable", which clearly indicates that in your mind there is no question that Novak is better than Roger. Your agreement with the general feeling that Roger and Novak are so close that is difficult to pick one over the other comes after your unequivocal clear cut
calling Novak is better than Roger on clay. If you actually had the feeling that they were close, you would not put Novak before the
phrase "...…….and then it is questionable".

It is as simple as that. Avogadr's number argument of mrzz clearly fails as well in view of the bolded part above.

Sorry. I don't mean to gang up. But, had to call out the problem in your argument here.

 

[mrzz]

It is as simple as that. Avogadr's number argument of mrzz clearly fails as well in view of the bolded part above.

Well spot, but that is not the point. One can say that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay and that still does not mean that Djokovic is on the same status of the other three, which is precisely the point of the Avogadro's number argument, which holds. If El Dude assumed that Djokovic > Federer on clay, that's his call, and we can debate that. But the whole discussion was (at least people said it was) about the grouping.

And, again, even if I don't agree with that, the numbers favor Djokovic (the wikipedia article fails to mention winning percentage on clay and number of master titles).

 

[Fiero425]

Well spot, but that is not the point. One can say that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay and that still does not mean that Djokovic is on the same status of the other three, which is precisely the point of the Avogadro's number argument, which holds. If El Dude assumed that Djokovic > Federer on clay, that's his call, and we can debate that. But the whole discussion was (at least people said it was) about the grouping.

And, again, even if I don't agree with that, the numbers favor Djokovic (the wikipedia article fails to mention winning percentage on clay and number of master titles).

Well Nole's proved he's better on clay defeating Rafa along the way winning in Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid, & Paris in straight sets over the years! Roger got a couple good wins defeating Nadal outside of the FO years ago in the last decade! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Well Nole's proved he's better on clay defeating Rafa along the way winning in Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid, & Paris in straight sets over the years! Roger got a couple good wins defeating Nadal outside of the FO years ago in the last decade! :whistle:

But if you're comparing them to Nadal, who had the better 5-setter against him on clay? I'd say Roger in Rome '06 was better than Novak's RG SF '13...both were 5-setters.

 

[herios]

Roger excelled on clay in 2 different peculiar places: Madrid and Hamburg.
Those are a bit different, Madrid is the altitude, Hamburg the heavier, humid conditions. In both places he won the masters and beat Nadal.
Interesting how the conditions can switch the balance.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Well spot, but that is not the point. One can say that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay and that still does not mean that Djokovic is on the same status of the other three, which is precisely the point of the Avogadro's number argument, which holds. If El Dude assumed that Djokovic > Federer on clay, that's his call, and we can debate that. But the whole discussion was (at least people said it was) about the grouping.

And, again, even if I don't agree with that, the numbers favor Djokovic (the wikipedia article fails to mention winning percentage on clay and number of master titles).

I fully support Dude's right to think that Novak is better than Fed on clay, even though I disagree.
However, I don't like the hypocrisy of his claim that he agrees it is debatable after having the phrase of "questionable" after Novak and not before "Novak".

However, saying Avogadro's number, 13 and w are larger than v, when w and v are actually quantum states whose exact values depend upon the observer (even though it is known both are less than 13) is incendiary to say the least (than merely saying w is larger than v).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger excelled on clay in 2 different peculiar places: Madrid and Hamburg.
Those are a bit different, Madrid is the altitude, Hamburg the heavier, humid conditions. In both places he won the masters and beat Nadal.
Interesting how the conditions can switch the balance.

It should not be only about their performance against Ralph when comparing Novak and Fed on clay. Roger has reached the finals of both MC, Rome four times and RG five times. It is unfair to say that Roger had success only in Madrid and Hamburg.

While I agree that Madrid is bit different, I would say Hamburg is quite reasonable and normal place. Due to the politics of ATP they got the shaft. In actual reality, it is a very good tournament.

Finally, during the prime years of Roger, there was no doubt that he is better than anyone else other than Ralph on clay and also that the difference between him and the rest of the field (minus Ralph, of course) is quite high. I am not so sure that the same thing can be said of Novak.

Also, as had already been pointed by others while Roger was dealing with prime Ralph, Novak was dealing with wornout Ralph in some of his victories over Ralph (but not all).

 

[Moxie]

Roger excelled on clay in 2 different peculiar places: Madrid and Hamburg.
Those are a bit different, Madrid is the altitude, Hamburg the heavier, humid conditions. In both places he won the masters and beat Nadal.
Interesting how the conditions can switch the balance.

I think you should be a little more careful with terminology. It's not so much that Roger "excelled" in Madrid and Hamburg. He won them over Rafa. He hung tough with Rafa in other clay events, as did Novak...who also lost to Rafa, at all of them, I think, but beat him sometimes. Yes, when Rafa was a bit older and more beat up.

 

[El Dude]

@GameSetAndMath, I already clarified my view and agreed that it is close, and sure, perhaps my wording was problematic - but only when nitpicked like you did. And "hypocrisy?" Isn't that a bit strong?

This is much ado about nothing and remember where the argument started: with Ricardo's usual machismo bullying. I'm not sure that anything productive has ever come from that.

 

[El Dude]

You haven't clarified. Frankly the only thing worthwhile is to retract. I certainly accept Lendl being in the group with Rafa and Borg. In his day he was money at RG if he chose to turn up. You can't say that for either Novak or Roger. I take exception to your putting Novak in that group. It's clear to me you weren't watching tennis in that era. It boggles my mind that you come up with this stuff. I guess these days one can spend a few minutes on Wikipedia and become an expert. It's not that easy.

Let's not even talk about dismissing the clay court credentials of guys like Muster in favour of Federer and Djokovic. That's not at all obvious to me

I almost missed this jewel. You really are something, Federberg. You circled back to the groupings, after all. Again, I made no comparison of Novak and the other three - except in that I was suggesting that they are all better than Roger on clay. That is all! It is really that simple, but you and Ricardo made it into something else.

I honestly think you are being willfully obtuse and don't care about what I actually think, only what you want me to think so you can make me into your strawman, but here's another attempt to explain: 10, 8, 5, and 3 are all larger numbers than 2. By saying that, all I am saying is how those four numbers relate to 2, not to each other.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

Now if you want to talk about whether Novak or Roger were better on clay, sure, let's go ahead. I have admitted that maybe they're closer than my original post implied. But stop complaining about me grouping Novak in with those other guys, because I am not saying--and never said in this thread--that he is as good as them on clay, only that he gets the edge over Roger.

 

[Federberg]

I almost missed this jewel. You really are something, Federberg. You circled back to the groupings, after all. Again, I made no comparison of Novak and the other three - except in that I was suggesting that they are all better than Roger on clay. That is all! It is really that simple, but you and Ricardo made it into something else.

I honestly think you are being willfully obtuse and don't care about what I actually think, only what you want me to think so you can make me into your strawman, but here's another attempt to explain: 10, 8, 5, and 3 are all larger numbers than 2. By saying that, all I am saying is how those four numbers relate to 2, not to each other.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

Now if you want to talk about whether Novak or Roger were better on clay, sure, let's go ahead. I have admitted that maybe they're closer than my original post implied. But stop complaining about me grouping Novak in with those other guys, because I am not saying--and never said in this thread--that he is as good as them on clay, only that he gets the edge over Roger.

I call BS on that mate. That’s just you retreating without admitting it (it’s what you do). When challenged on that you stuck with it and came up with a silly analogy, and then claimed that you were misunderstood about planets. Great post by GSM pointing out more of your nonsense. Your problem is that you’re never wrong.... just nitpicked

 

[Fiero425]

So tiring! :cuckoo: :suicide: :sleep:

 

[Federberg]

Sleep then

 

[GameSetAndMath]

@GameSetAndMath, I already clarified my view and agreed that it is close, and sure, perhaps my wording was problematic - but only when nitpicked like you did.

Sorry, it is not nitpicking, but words matter. It is the direct meaning of your post. When you list a collection of players and then say beyond that point it becomes questionable, you are clearly saying that your initial collection of players are universally acknowledged as definitely being superior to Federer on clay. You are not merely saying in your opinion Novak has edge over Fed (which BTW you are entitled to hold).

 

[Federberg]

Sorry, it is not nitpicking, but words matter. It is the direct meaning of your post. When you list a collection of players and then say beyond that point it becomes questionable, you are clearly saying that your initial collection of players are universally acknowledged as definitely being superior to Federer on clay. You are not merely saying in your opinion Novak has edge (which BTW you are entitled to hold).

Thank you mate!

And given ample time to retract we instead get insults and accusations of pettiness. Not that I give a sh*t. Folks buy his BS and immediately want to give him a pass. I’m sick of it

 

[El Dude]

I call BS on that mate. That’s just you retreating without admitting it (it’s what you do). When challenged on that you stuck with it and came up with a silly analogy, and then claimed that you were misunderstood about planets. Great post by GSM pointing out more of your nonsense. Your problem is that you’re never wrong.... just nitpicked

I freely admit when I'm wrong - but I don't just bow to macho dudes like you just because you tell me I'm wrong. This is your projection, and I've seen it again and again as you go after people on variations of this theme, while not once every admitting any wrong-doing on your part.