Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

Ah, the whole early break in the fifth argument. My argument is that a guy who has won a record number of Wimbledon's shouldn't have played a C- level match and lose to a guy who can't beat world 2,000 on grass. Your argument is that a guy with 1 AO should've beaten one with 5, after being clearly outplayed most of the match and never leading until the first game of the 5th.

Ummm, where did I state Nadal should have beaten Federer at the AO? All I said was "the AO win for Roger was huge." That's literally my only argument. It was a huge win, especially since it COULD have gone the other way. Since it went to 5 sets and Nadal was up a break, AND he had historically owned Federer, I'm sure you agree it could have gone the other way. But it didn't. Roger played better and won. What's your problem exactly?

And I don't want to touch on the laughable Wimbledon argument since at the time, Nadal hadn't lost to nobodies at Wimbledon and he was reaching the final in every appearance. That's like saying Nadal beat a nobody in those FO's finals because Roger sucks on clay, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't reached a semi there since 2012. Except, when Nadal was beating him, Roger was reaching the final at RG every year. You're applying Nadal's level on grass now to his level on grass then. Makes no sense.

 

[DarthFed]

Ummm, where did I state Nadal should have beaten Federer at the AO? All I said was "the AO win for Roger was huge." That's literally my only argument. It was a huge win, especially since it COULD have gone the other way. Since it went to 5 sets and Nadal was up a break, AND he had historically owned Federer, I'm sure you agree it could have gone the other way. But it didn't. Roger played better and won. What's your problem exactly?

And I don't want to touch on the laughable Wimbledon argument since at the time, Nadal hadn't lost to nobodies at Wimbledon and he was reaching the final in every appearance. That's like saying Nadal beat a nobody in those FO's finals because Roger sucks on clay, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't reached a semi there since 2012. Except, when Nadal was beating him, Roger was reaching the final at RG every year. You're applying Nadal's level on grass now to his level on grass then. Makes no sense.

Well you started playing the what if game for AO and I was basically pointing out that Roger has a lot more what ifs in the H2H matchup over the years. And if we are talking 5 set losses he has a ton more what ifs period since he still has a really bad 5 set record in the business end of majors. The most glaring stat is that Rafa has made only 26 major semis to Roger's 42 and yet there is still just a 3 slam difference since Roger really didn't make the most of his opportunities even at his strongest slams.

And at Wimbledon Roger is supposed to step up and play well in the finals. He did not and lost to a guy who has always been vulnerable and limited on grass. But even with his uninspiring play it ended up being tighter than this last AO final.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well you started playing the what if game for AO and I was basically pointing out that Roger has a lot more what ifs in the H2H matchup over the years. And if we are talking 5 set losses he has a ton more what ifs period since he still has a really bad 5 set record in the business end of majors. The most glaring stat is that Rafa has made only 26 major semis to Roger's 42 and yet there is still just a 3 slam difference since Roger really didn't make the most of his opportunities even at his strongest slams.

Ok, I can't disagree but you're going overboard here. I was just pointing out how big the AO match this year could prove to be because their respective careers are fleshed out a lot more than say, in 2009, where people didn't even know if Roger would break the record and Nadal was sitting on 5 slams (6 after winning that AO final). Things are a lot different now.

Obviously both fan bases can play what ifs, including what if Fed beats Del Potro in 2009, takes one of his missed 29292929 break point opportunities against Nadal in all of their major matches, or Nadal doesn't miss that easy backhand against Djokovic at the AO in 2012, converts one of the break points in the fifth set at Wimbledon (2007), doesn't get hurt against Wawrinka (could have lost anyway but it's hilarious how people pretend this was a done deal. He was down a set and 2-0. That's it), etc...

I don't think I'm disputing any of that and I don't know that I was playing a what if game. All I said was that the win could prove huge, historically.

 

[Obsi]

Give it a rest. He's a much better poster than you and at least lives in the real world. By that I'm referring to your infamous Djokovic is better than Federer thread.

@Federberg said that Donald Trump is a fascist. That is more nonsensical than anything I've ever said.

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg said that Donald Trump is a fascist. That is more nonsensical than anything I've ever said.

Hmmmm... did I? Please copy the post in here so that I can see. I don't recall it, I certainly think he has fascistic tendencies, but I honestly don't remember outright calling him one. I could have, just want to see proof

 

[Federberg]

... or are you just talking out of your backside as usual obsi?

 

[Carol]

Rafa arrived to Mallorca, nice picture with Moya's wife and kids

 

[Obsi]

Hmmmm... did I? Please copy the post in here

Here it is

A far right person is the sitting President of the United States. I simply can't believe it. I'm sure there have been people with such sympathies in my lifetime. Nixon had his southern strategy, but not since Woodrow Wilson has there been a President who unashamedly supports the KKK.

 

[Federberg]

Here it is

You utter moron. Where does it say fascist in there?

 

[Obsi]

You utter moron. Where does it say fascist in there?

What an idiot you are. You don't have to use the word "fascist" to say that someone is a fascist.

You implied that Trump is a fascist.

 

[Federberg]

What an idiot you are. You don't have to use the word "fascist" to say that someone is a fascist.

You implied that Trump is a fascist.

No you don't have to use the word, but just because someone is a racist doesn't make them a fascist. Again... you utter, complete, imbecilic, pathetic MORON...

 

[Obsi]

No you don't have to use the word, but just because someone is a racist doesn't make them a fascist. Again... you utter, complete, imbecilic, pathetic MORON...

1. Only an idiot can say that Trump supports KKK.
2. The term "far right" is used to describe fascism so it can be interpreted you said that Trump is a fascist.

 

[Federberg]

1. Only an idiot can say that Trump supports KKK.
2. The term "far right" is used to describe fascism so it can be interpreted you said that Trump is a fascist.

Lol! I'll put this down to your desire to stalk me, which is very flattering by the way, but you are ignorant. His words and actions very much imply that he has sympathies in that direction.

But let's get to the key point (which has nothing to do with the thread by the way) perhaps the ignorant or poorly educated might make that mistake about the far right and fascism - I actually thought you understood in another thread with your circular diagram - But the authoritarian component is missing you moron, that is an essential component of fascism. You can be fascist but not explicitly racist get it?

Now I know you're a child, and your tendency to co-opt information from the interweb without actually comprehending it is likely caused by a very low IQ and deep insecurities, so you get this lesson for free. But if I have to keep educating you I'll have to make you pay..

 

[Obsi]

Lol! I'll put this down to your desire to stalk me, which is very flattering by the way, but you are ignorant. His words and actions very much imply that he has sympathies in that direction.

I'll repeat again: only an idiot can say that Trump supports KKK.

But let's get to the key point (which has nothing to do with the thread by the way) perhaps the ignorant or poorly educated might make that mistake about the far right and fascism - I actually thought you understood in another thread with your circular diagram - But the authoritarian component is missing you moron, that is an essential component of fascism. You can be fascist but not explicitly racist get it?

Now I know you're a child, and your tendency to co-opt information from the interweb without actually comprehending it is likely caused by a very low IQ and deep insecurities, so you get this lesson for free. But if I have to keep educating you I'll have to make you pay..

You're a bigger idiot than I thought. I'm not saying that "far right" automatically means "fascist".

It's a fact that serious scholars use the term "far right" to describe fascism. The term is also used to describe ideologies that ain't fascist. All I'm saying is that it can be interpreted you implied that Trump is a fascist and I believe that's what you wanted to say. I can't prove my belief is right but neither you can't prove otherwise.

 

[Federberg]

I'll repeat again: only an idiot can say that Trump supports KKK.



You're a bigger idiot than I thought. I'm not saying that "far right" automatically means "fascist".

It's a fact that serious scholars use the term "far right" to describe fascism. The term is also used to describe ideologies that ain't fascist. All I'm saying is that it can be interpreted you implied that Trump is a fascist and I believe that's what you wanted to say. I can't prove my belief is wrong but neither you can't prove otherwise.

You said this....

@Federberg said that Donald Trump is a fascist. That is more nonsensical than anything I've ever said.

You are either a moron or a liar. Which is it?

 

[Obsi]

You said this....

@Federberg said that Donald Trump is a fascist. That is more nonsensical than anything I've ever said.

You are either a moron or a liar. Which is it?

"Lie is an intentionally false statement"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lie#lie_Noun_200

So, even if my statement is false it doesn't mean it's a lie. It has to be intentional. In other words, it can be classified as a lie only if I knew that you didn't imply that Trump is a fascist.

Can you prove I knew you didn't imply so?

 

[Obsi]

What happened you idiot? Do you have proof I knew?

 

[Federberg]

"Lie is an intentionally false statement"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lie#lie_Noun_200

So, even if my statement is false it doesn't mean it's a lie. It has to be intentional. In other words, it can be classified as a lie only if I knew that you didn't imply that Trump is a fascist.

Can you prove I knew you didn't imply so?

Lol! Ok if you're saying your falsehood wasn't intentional (and I'll concede you seem to be acknowledging this, credit to you)... you've just admitted you're a moron. That's all I needed to know. Moving on...

 

[Obsi]

Lol! Ok if you're saying your falsehood wasn't intentional (and I'll concede you seem to be acknowledging this, credit to you)

I don't concede that my statement is false. Can you prove you didn't imply Trump is a fascist?

you've just admitted you're a moron. That's all I needed to know. Moving on...

I can't believe what an idiot you are. Can you explain why my previous means I admitted I'm a moron?

 

[Federberg]

I don't concede that my statement is false. Can you prove you didn't imply Trump is a fascist?



I can't believe what an idiot you are. Can you explain why my previous means I admitted I'm a moron?

Lol! I don't need to. What I said is written in black and white. I'm confident non-morons can understand

Obviously you can't but that's because you're Obsi the moron. That's ok. Own it..