Sampras Makes an Encouraging Statement about Nadal.

First topic message reminder :

Pete Sampras has echoed much of what has been debated on this forum re Rafa´s return . I am sure that Nadal fans will find this article encouraging. For those of you who are not Im sure you will find it debateable at the very least

http://www.10sballs.com/2012/12/07/pete-sampras-knows-rafael-nadal-will-pass-his-record/

Danny_1982 wrote:I'm surprised that Rafa fans are enjoying putting down Rosol. All he did was play a few sets of lights out tennis that he'll probably never repeat. If he played Rafa another 5 times I'd put money that Rafa would win all 5.

He wasn't ungracious afterwards, his conduct during the match was fine... Yet he has drawn quite a bit of criticism on here. Surprising.

I don't know whether people criticized it but for sure some Rafa fans played down the win to mere fluke and injury, which I strongly condemn, coz every win comes with a bit of luck , so it doesn't matter whether Lucas did Luck-ass/fluke-ass he was the better player on the given day and rightly won and deserves credit for the win. But saying that thats only some portion of Rafa fans and not all Rafa fans.

bogbrush wrote:Nadal fans seem to have a lot of weird hatred for Lucas. Why?

Not sure who you are talking about, but as for me I can confirm this is not the case.
I may have spelt his surname backwards, but this was tongue in cheek rather than anything. I don't hate any professional tennis player really (don't know any well enough), in-fact even if I was to make a list of the tennis players i dislike Rosol would not appear on this.

As for his Wimbledon win, I believe Rosol deserves full credit.
Funnily enough my stance on the 'injury' reason in general is very similar to that of Julius. And I don't always agree with Julius as well
I think if a player turns up to a match, he turns up to a match and plays. Before a match the player always has a choice of pulling out, but if he doesn't take his option than anything he does during the match will be recorded.
The fact is Rosol beat Nadal on the day, whether Nadal is injured or not is not Rosol's problem. Would Nadal have won if he was fully fit? As julius would say: Who knows?
It's a hypothetical, we can't know for sure. We do not have an access to a time machine like back to the future.
Rosol deserves full credit for the win.

btw I still stand by my comment that i think the win was a one-off for Rosol. I don't think he will beat Nadal again.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Now only you could interpret any negative remark as "hatred" BB thats weird I wonder why ??

You seem to like having a dig at him, for sure.

It Must Be Love wrote:

btw I still stand by my comment that i think the win was a one-off for Rosol. I don't think he will beat Nadal again.

Again nobody can say that for sure, so far with what we have Rosol leads h2h against Nadal, not discrediting Rafa's achievements but I am not sure either whether Rafa will ever beat Rosol and I standby my comment.

If they do play again, I am almost certain Nadal will win (unless Nadal is injured).

We'll have to wait and see though.

Edit: Just to clear up, nothing is a 100% certainty

bogbrush wrote:Nadal fans seem to have a lot of weird hatred for Lucas. Why?

As far as "weird hatred" goes nothing can beat the weird hatred of certain Federer fans directed towards Nadal. Ha ha! There are whole forums dedicated to this subject...

Lucas has made his mark on tennis history. You don't often get to do that by winning a single early round match at a slam. It was quite amusing how he suddenly became "everyone's" favorite player. And if anyone tries to be a little realistic about his magnificent win they are accused of weird hatred.

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Now only you could interpret any negative remark as "hatred" BB thats weird I wonder why ??

You seem to like having a dig at him, for sure.

That is a far cry from HATRED BB. I do not hate anyone . i cannot afford that depth of emotion on somebody i dont like..!!!! And speaking of digs it is no more than your frequent digs at Nadal fans... you cant help yourself can you ???. My comment on Rosol was that if he was such a brilliant player why was he left sitting on the benches at the DC. But all the Nadal wums cant leave the Rosol game alone. (on which I have made no comment) Shows how exciting tennis has been without him this last 6mths doesnt it. ??? That is the only thing that can be said about him...... oh no I forgot.. and his time wasting..

Splatter approach as usual; when in doubt moan about the precise words, others behaviour, etc.....

Fact is that a few, including you, really exhibit a problem with Rosol. Not as much as Rafa had, obviously, because you don't try to shoulder charge him on court, but still....

Óh really BB.. this is not your normal style... childish isn´t the word for it. Usually this playground banter is beneath you.
Splatter approach means what exactly... as you know I do like the precise words..

Fact is, that a few, including you really exhibit a problem with Nadal- Even more than Rosol had obviously.

But hey good luck to your new idol Rosol.. cos if he can beat Nadal then he is certainly in with a chance with the rest isnt he... ???

you hate federer

LS if that is addressed to me... get your facts right. I do not like Federer
THAT... and let me spell it out for those who do not understand the difference
IS NOT H A T E .. [b]REALLY... like the words love and friend it is used far too loosely... DISLIKE OK??????

Rosol was just one match.....sh*t happens in players careers. Would Rosol beat Nadal again? Well we all know there's prob. only a very small chance of that happening - it was the perfect match for Rosol, he said as such, and unlikely to happen again. Every player has their nightmare match they'd rather forget about. Dont mention Bastl to Sampras...or Doonan to Becker...or even Lendl to McEnroe! Perhaps even Canas to Federer.

Either way, look at the threads on this forum...its always the Nadal focussed ones that attract attention - love or hate him, he's good for tennis talk, everyone has to admit that.

Do you know what Lydian I really in Gods Honest Truth do not care if there is not a living soul on this forum that likes Nadal.. thats their perogative. I do, and I will post accordingly.I am safe in the knowledge that Nadal did not become one of today´s greatest tennis players because of a loss of one match to Rosol or anybody else for that matter or indeed that he gives a toss as to what people´s opinion is about it.
What he is and what he has achieved cannot be taken away from him by petty wumsmanship

Haddie - Rafa is one of the greatest ever, and Rosol is not in the same league as him. I appreciate that there may be a number of wums that try and get to Rafa fans by mentioning him, but the truth is that the two cannot be compared.

He beat Rafa by reaching a level I doubt he'll reach again, and fair play to him for that. But it's just a single loss. It's history. That's the bit I don't get. I'm a Murray fan, and during one of Murray's poor post AO spells he got beat in straights by Donald Young who was in stinking form.

Sone people found the result quite amusing, but I've barely even thought of Donald Young since as I realise it was one off. A freak occasion. Young has not become someone I enjoy mocking or criticising because he beat Murray. I don't have any desire to constantly point out his flaws. That's the bit I don't understand.... Why do Rafa fans even care enough to comment? He's hardly a rival. There's a good chance they'll never meet again.

I understand a Rafa fan picking holes in Novak, Roger or Andy..... But Rosol? Seriously, why do you care?

I dont but Im left asking the same question as to why any real knowledgeable poster on hear who professes to know far more about the game than I do.. keep raising it .. now who are the ones that should not be bothered. Had it been that Rosol had beaten any other of the top 4 the whole thing would have been dead and buried. But the wums have had a field day as they always do at Rafa´s expense.. but.erm . but constantly point out his flaws..??? I mentioned that he did not play at the DC.. now if that is me constantly pointing out his flaws... I would say it was his team captain that did that obviously. But enough said I SERIOUSLY do not care if he meets Rafa again anyway

Fair enough Haddie. I'm referring to people calling him "Losor" and sarcastically calling him a great player because he was left out of the DC team. I'm not saying why are you individually fixated with him, more Rafa fans in general.

I do agree with you that Rafa seems to draw more wums than anyone. Never really understood that. But I just find it strange that some Rafa fans bite at the Rosol thing. That's all.

Yep, it happens to the best of 'em as lydian says.

And whilst Rafa has suffered several defeats to players ranked well outside the top 20 in Slams over recent years, I guess the Rosol match became headline news because so little was known of him previously.

But even this was trumped, I'd say, by Karlovic knocking out Hewitt in the opening round - when Karlovic wasn't even inside 200. I do believe this remains the only time a defending Wimbledon Champ has fallen in R1 ( ) So ..... Federer beware in 2013 ....... !!

lydian : your Bastl and Doonan examples both feature in this selection of all-time biggest Wimbledon upsets
http://www.thetennisspace.com/wimbledon-top-10-upsets/

Nice points lags...yep I'd agree with the Dr Ivo victory.
And to be fair to Nadal...neither Sampras or Becker disappeared for 6mths afterwards due to injury. We could clearly see Nadal wasnt right in the match...but hey, what a win for Rosol...I;ve never seen someone just smack the ball all over the place and it all went in...even serving for the match he was banging down aces...crazy stuff. He ceetainly made a name for himself for sure...didnt think much of the huge calf tattoo though...

It Must Be Love wrote:If they do play again, I am almost certain Nadal will win (unless he is injured again).

We'll have to wait and see though.

hahahahahah, typical die hard Nadal worshipping that Nadal will lose only if he is injured, so you got all ends covered already, first if they play again Nadal will win and then provided Nadal is not injured , so if by chance Rosol beats Nadal again its down to Nadal's injury only , OMG you making me laugh big time IMBL.

These are speculations at the poorest level.

Y not just agree on the given play Rosol was the better player and move on, if by chance the match happens again we can discuss that more, I don't think so it would happen, even if it happens if Rosol can play like that again I am not sure Rafa can win for sure, nothing is guaranteed.

lydian wrote:Nice points lags...yep I'd agree with the Dr Ivo victory.
And to be fair to Nadal...neither Sampras or Becker disappeared for 6mths afterwards due to injury. We could clearly see Nadal wasnt right in the match...but hey, what a win for Rosol...I;ve never seen someone just smack the ball all over the place and it all went in...even serving for the match he was banging down aces...crazy stuff. He ceetainly made a name for himself for sure...didnt think much of the huge calf tattoo though...

Everything was perfect except Nadal wasn't right, we are sick of the excuses, the way Rosol played Nadal could have done little even if he would have been 500% fit, on the given day with the conditions and luck favoring him Rosol was clearly the better player and rightly deserved the win, as discussed earlier this is not the first time an underdog upsetting a Champ, it has happened in the past and might happen again as well.

When Philli won Samp for the first time people thought it was outright fluke and never would happen again, but it happened again, so there is no guarantee Rosol could not play a match like that again in his career if he happens to play Rafa again, who knows he might be inspired and repeat his feat for an absolute shock to Rafa fans. Rosol had some luck in that match, but he didn't just win by luck he won by performance too, had he had outright luck on that day it should have been a straight set win.

Danny_1982 wrote:Fair enough Haddie. I'm referring to people calling him "Losor" and sarcastically calling him a great player because he was left out of the DC team. I'm not saying why are you individually fixated with him, more Rafa fans in general.

I do agree with you that Rafa seems to draw more wums than anyone. Never really understood that. But I just find it strange that some Rafa fans bite at the Rosol thing. That's all.

Haddie is not a Rafa worshipper nor a wum, he is a good sensible poster, and secondly its not Rafa who draws more wums, Federer drawn more wums in 606 than anybody in the history of the game, some of them use to be poor Sampras worshipper who could not tolerate Fed's success and Fed be called as the GOAT in general. This thing happens with every champ, now if its happening with Rafa means he is more popular and a legend in making , if Nole continue to get more success he would draw more wums in the future.

The more wums the player draws towards him is an indirect indicator of a successful career, I don't know which player it was but I remember a quote "Love or hate I am always in the headline " .

Invisible, rather than randomly labelling me things, perhaps you can consider reading my posts??

Let me re-post my post at 10:02 pm yesterday:

It Must Be Love wrote:
Not sure who you are talking about, but as for me I can confirm this is not the case.
I may have spelt his surname backwards, but this was tongue in cheek rather than anything. I don't hate any professional tennis player really (don't know any well enough), in-fact even if I was to make a list of the tennis players i dislike Rosol would not appear on this.

As for his Wimbledon win, I believe Rosol deserves full credit.
Funnily enough my stance on the 'injury' reason in general is very similar to that of Julius. And I don't always agree with Julius as well
I think if a player turns up to a match, he turns up to a match and plays. Before a match the player always has a choice of pulling out, but if he doesn't take his option than anything he does during the match will be recorded.
The fact is Rosol beat Nadal on the day, whether Nadal is injured or not is not Rosol's problem. Would Nadal have won if he was fully fit? As julius would say: Who knows?
It's a hypothetical, we can't know for sure. We do not have an access to a time machine like back to the future.
Rosol deserves full credit for the win.

btw I still stand by my comment that i think the win was a one-off for Rosol. I don't think he will beat Nadal again.

As I said, if there is a match in the future, I still believe Rafa would win, unless he is injured.

i guess that is the difference between nadal fans and fed fans.
Rafa fans can tell when he is injured and fed fans can't.

done here?

Sorry LS, Im not sure what you're talking about here.
Is Federer currently injured? I'm not exactly sure what you're point is.

never mind

Ok LS, no worries.

But I've said it once and I'll say it again: I believe Rosol deserves full credit for his victory against Nadal in Wimbledon 2012.
I've always personally believed that you should get full credit for beating your opponent- whether they're injured or not is irrelevant- you can only beat who is put out in front of you.
Same applies to this case here- Rosol deserved the victory.

Danny, just to clear up Im not sure I've seen any Nadal fans here show they hate Rosol.

Personally I don't hate Rosol at all, in-fact I don't even dislike the guy. He seems quite friendly.
If you want to see hatred, on ja someone claimed that Nadal's crimes were 'worse than Hitlers' and backed it up with some weird logic on how Nadal has negatively served humanity.

At the risk of being told to mind my own business I'm going to try and act as peace-maker here, and hopefully bring some sort of (amicable....??!) closure to what has become a rather tiresome little spat.....

invisible : IMBL has clearly given full credit, more than once, to Rosol for his victory. You will accept that, surely ....?

IMBL : Yes, it is fair to say that if they should meet again, then by all reasonable assumptions the odds are very much weighted towards a Nadal victory.

However, there can be no way of knowing for certain that this would be the outcome. Rosol has beaten Nadal once and it is perfectly feasible - albeit perhaps unlikely - that he could do so again.

Are we happy now ...? Sort of ...??

It seems harsh and even immature to continually focus on one match as a means of ridiculing Nadal ; although IMO it's just as wrong to try to use injury as some sort of excuse.

All this might so easily have centred instead on Mr. Federer if a certain A. Falla had been able to serve it out at 5-4 back in 2010 .........

It Must Be Love wrote:
As I said, if there is a match in the future, I still believe Rafa would win, unless he is injured.

Thats called worshiping, Rafa win on Rosol is not guaranteed if they play again, I don't see any reasons to say he can win the next time for sure, please give us you research materials on why Rafa would win Rosol 100% certainty if they meet again, until you provide that its a meaningless argument and a failed research as usual

Thanks Lags, I agree fully with every comment you say there

Including this:

However, there can be no way of knowing for certain that this would be the outcome. Rosol has beaten Nadal once and it is perfectly feasible - albeit perhaps unlikely - that he could do so again.

This line from you Lags, is why I don't believe in betting
Although I would fancy Nadals chances if they played again, Rosol could win again! This is why I don't bet.
Also Emancipator would be angry with me if I was to gamble, and I wouldn't want that, would I?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
As I said, if there is a match in the future, I still believe Rafa would win, unless he is injured.

Thats called worshiping, Rafa win on Rosol is not guaranteed if they play again, I don't see any reasons to say he can win the next time for sure, please give us you research materials on why Rafa would win Rosol 100% certainty if they meet again, until you provide that its a meaningless argument and a failed research as usual

As I just said to Lags, I don't believe anything in sport is 100%
I just said I believe Nadal would win, just like I believe Djokovic will win next years Australian Open
Can you quote where I said I was 100% sure on anything, I can't remember that.

imbl and IC: http://www.hark.com/clips/rwjghkzhvb-all-right-youre-going-the-right-way-for-a-smacked-bottom

lags72 wrote:invisible : IMBL has clearly given full credit, more than once, to Rosol for his victory. You will accept that, surely ....?

Hey Lags, respect your post as usual, but I hope you agree here , IMBL if he/she gives full credit to Rosol win then Rafa injury excuses should not be stated, that means IMBL is not ready to give full credit but partial credit for the win, so IMBL is confused on his/her own statement or he/she refuses to understand what exactly being written.

lags72 wrote:
IMBL : Yes, it is fair to say that if they should meet again, then by all reasonable assumptions the odds are very much weighted towards a Nadal victory.

However, there can be no way of knowing for certain that this would be the outcome. Rosol has beaten Nadal once and it is perfectly feasible - albeit perhaps unlikely - that he could do so again.

pretty much perfectly said, Rafa will be outright favorite to win the next encounter in most people's view but the favourties don't always win, Fed was tipped as the favourite to win FO 2006,2007, even 2008 [ridiculousy, as he was the no.1 seed in all these tournaments] but we know the results , I can give several examples for this.

lags72 wrote:

It seems harsh and even immature to continually focus on one match as a means of ridiculing Nadal ; although IMO it's just as wrong to try to use injury as some sort of excuse.

All this might so easily have centred instead on Mr. Federer if a certain A. Falla had been able to serve it out at 5-4 back in 2010 .........

I don't ridiculate Nadal based on 1 match, indeed I do like Nadal, I just don't like the worshiping of him by some Rafa fans who claim he can lose only if he is injured and all his losses be attributed to injury, Rafa without a doubt is a great champ, and every great champ do have off days, Fed should have gone down to Falla but didn't happen, the next time when they faced the match was close and I don't see any Fed fan dismissing Fella as a threat to Fed if he is playing well. Indeed Fella on Fed's draw was considered as potential danger draw for Fed when it happened.

Lol LS... But Im still not sure what I've said wrong here.* IC is misquoting me, I never said I was 100% sure of anything, I only said I believed Nadal would win if they had a Part 2

*unless you work for Paddy Power

dont make me post it again

My point was that whether Nadal is injured or not is irrelevant, as you can only beat who is put in front of you.
The opponent deserves full credit, not partial credit.

Forget it anyway, just continue misquoting me

invisible : I really try hard to take a balanced view but in all honesty I think you're misinterpreting IMBL's line of thought here, and maybe even trying to prolong conflict just for the sake of it.

IMBL is merely expressing a firm belief that Nadal would win the next encounter, should there be one.

This is not about guarantees, certainties or 'research' - but merely IMBL's personal opinion.

And I don't feel it's rocket science to conclude that IMBL's belief is based on Nadal's past achievements and overall track record in the sport ; a markedly superior record to that of Rosol, as I'm sure you would agree.....

Your own opinion is of course somewhat different (and no reasonable poster would deny that you're entitled to it), and based presumably on the fact that Rosol has beaten him once, so could quite feasibly do it again. I'm with you - specifically on that point.

So, when all said & done it is - literally - a matter of opinion.

I also agree with you ic - as I've already stated - that Rosol's victory should not be tarnished by any talk of injury. Rafa was, after all, in good enough shape to get through seven rounds at RG, just a couple of weeks or so beforehand.

If there were any cast-iron certainties there would be no point in playing any matches at all. The umpire could just email the most likely result to the ATP without asking the players to start.

Finally, on Federer ..... his own run of minimum QF's and no early exits at the Slams must come to an end at some point and it might well be at the hands of an 'unknown' a la Rosol. Although it's unlikely to be the headline news it once would have been in his prime, given that his next birthday will be his 32nd

@ Lags, I am not mis interpreting anything what IMBL said, he said he gives full credit, full means 100%, I don't think full means 75%, 50% thats partial credits, hope he understands it, and you can see for yourself he is confused and confusing you further, its pretty clear he then never gave Rosol full credits in that case his statements stand void, as per Rafa- Rosol h2h, Rosol leads Rafa , simple as that.

How much ever Nadal worshipers cry on the spoilt milk, the fact is Rosol won Rafa by outplaying him and I know its a difficult pill to digest for some, LS, BB and many more tried explaining but in vain.

???
Rosol beat Nadal on the day and deserves full credit. Full=100%
When have I said differently??

lags72 wrote:invisible : I really try hard to take a balanced view but in all honesty I think you're misinterpreting IMBL's line of thought here, and maybe even trying to prolong conflict just for the sake of it.

Yes that's what I was wondering.

Well I hear what you say invisible.

I shared your concern at the many implications - not just on this thread but over several months ever since that infamous match - that the victory was purely, or even partly, down to injury. I've always subscribed to the old Jimmy Connors philosophy that once you walk on to court, you're fit to play ....

But in the post at 7.11pm IMBL does at least now say clearly (even if maybe a little late for your liking ...??) that any injury was irrelevant in terms of the result.

You can accept that at face value, surely...?

Actually Lags, I said this at 10:02 pm yesterday too:

As for his Wimbledon win, I believe Rosol deserves full credit.
Funnily enough my stance on the 'injury' reason in general is very similar to that of Julius. And I don't always agree with Julius as well
I think if a player turns up to a match, he turns up to a match and plays. Before a match the player always has a choice of pulling out, but if he doesn't take his option than anything he does during the match will be recorded.
The fact is Rosol beat Nadal on the day, whether Nadal is injured or not is not Rosol's problem.

My point is not that Nadal was/ was not injured; but that it is irrelevant. Your quote from Connors summed my view up well.

lags72 wrote:And I don't feel it's rocket science to conclude that IMBL's belief is based on Nadal's past achievements and overall track record in the sport ; a markedly superior record to that of Rosol, as I'm sure you would agree.....

That belief is wrong, why, Fed is more accomplished player than Rafa, but look what happened between their h2h, Fed is more accomplished player than Simon Giles but look what happened in their meetings?, Simon was considered closed to useless when he beat Fed, it did include some luck in it as Fed was playing close to rubbish in 2008, but what happened in AO when they two squared off? it went to close 5 sets thats when Fed was playing his absolute best, when a player beats a champ they get inspired when they play again, so I won't be surprised if Rosol gets inspired and repeat such performance against Rafa when he play him again.

No Rocket science needed here to understand I guess

lags72 wrote:Well I hear what you say invisible.

I shared your concern at the many implications - not just on this thread but over several months ever since that infamous match - that the victory was purely, or even partly, down to injury. I've always subscribed to the old Jimmy Connors philosophy that once you walk on to court, you're fit to play ....

But in the post at 7.11pm IMBL does at least now say clearly (even if maybe a little late for your liking ...??) that any injury was irrelevant in terms of the result.

You can accept that at face value, surely...?

He says that but the very next moment he says Rafa lost only due to injury , and to add more he said Rafa will beat Rosol the next time as long as Rafa is not injured, he already got his excuse ready , what else do u want me to do Lags than laughing at his twister comments.

???
Just making it up as you go along.
Usual tactics.

When did I say Nadal 'only lost due to injury'?

IMBL go read your own comments, you yourself will find it funny, coz you have deviated from 0 to 360 degree, nothing usual tactics, its easy to find flaws in your argument, I don't have to be a rocket scientist to explain it.

Your the same guy who quoted Nadal lost due to injury and said Rafa will lose to Rosol for sure when the meet next time around as long as he is not injured, whats the meaning of it?

cant you guys just do this on private messages?

Do what?
All that's happening is IC continuously making up quotes and then using it to attack me.

It's a two-way loss; either I respond and I get into a tiresome argument where IC keeps on fabricating new quotes, or I stay silent and indicate that these false quotes are true.

LuvSports! wrote:cant you guys just do this on private messages?

Its a public forum and both of us have the rights to discuss the issue as long as its civilized I don't see a problem why it can't be discussed here? I don't have anything personal to discuss with IMBL so there is no point in using a private message.

IMBL, you lead to tiresome argument with almost everybody coz you say one thing and change it next moment and when people point your argumentation flaws you rather than addressing it jump on them.

Lets get back to square one and make it easy for u

1]Do Rosol deserve full credit for the win over Nadal ? [Full means 100%, other wise in English we call it partial] [ Y/N]

2]Do you think Rosol has no chance to win over Nadal when they meet next time around [no chance means Rafa to win 100%] ? [Y/N]

3]Do you agree in the past underdog has beaten champs when no odds were given and repeated it again to prove they can actually do it? [Y/N]

so lets make simple and hence you can't twist your argument any more .