hypochondriac

I swear you wilfully ignore my posts and read what you want to read.

I started writing a reply but couldn't be bothered as I am boring myself. I think my point was obvious. Nadal has certain skills which mean he is excellent on all surfaces but the best on clay. Federer's skills mean that at his peak he was the best on more than just one surface.

I never said Nadal was not an all-rounder. FFS...

Your saintsweb reputation rests on this...

Where did I say Nadal was just a clay court player? I said he is clearly the best clay court player whilst Federer was MORE of an all-rounder at his peak (more being the critical word there.)

My mate does that when we play squash. He isn't even any good. Really f*cks me off...

Are you ITK? We shall see!

Nadal is the ultimate clay court player. I don't think Federer is amazingly superior on grass like Nadal is on clay but at his best he was more of an all-rounder. Yes he does but many of them were on clay and often the reason they didn't play in slams was because Nadal had lost in an earlier round and Federer subsequently won.

Nah I can't agree with that. Nadal's game is sooo superior to anyone elses on clay that it isn't a fair comparison. Nadal's game is also mainly based on raw power which is impressive but not so great as the inventiveness from Roger. Put it this way, with both at the top of their game, I would rather watch Federer every single time. Plus he hasn't lost in a slam to a player outside of the top 30 since 2004 (they just mentioned that). It's an incredible record. Anyway I really hope Roger wins this year.

Yep. There was no way Federer was going to lose that final set once he won the fourth. The other guy's belief had gone.

For me too as well. Certainly the best to watch and the person you watch with open-mouthed awe at some of his shots (like the through the legs ones he does.)

Rarely am I annoyingly pedantic like MLG. In other news Federer wins. Get in.

FFS you knew what I meant. Don't be a tool. Anyway my definition of amazing and yours differ greatly.

No it isn't, it is factual. There can only be one winner so everyone else is a loser. Do you think Roger cares about anything other than winning the slams? Do you think he gives a stuff about challenger tournaments or anything else really? Of course he doesn't because Federer is a winner. You may consider it harsh but I bet it is how the top three think. Oh and Federer takes it to a fifth. Unlike Murray he is not a loser...

Yep that is the one cheers! You really are the MLG of kits ha.

You already agreed that grand slams are what matter and what he will be remembered for. It's like if a football team has an immaculate qualifying record. I personally don't care about anything in tennis except the four slams since being able to perform in them and win is what counts. By definition, everyone in the Premier League last season was a loser in that competition except Man City because they failed to win it. It's not a matter of opinion it is a fact.

Jesus. A bit over the top mate. And that's coming from me!

Oh yeah. My memory isn't what it was Lol. I didn't buy the socks and shorts though. That is ghey (though I do have some all white socks with red stripes at the top, what kit was that from?)

I do find it weird when people say they are bored with red and white stripes but maybe that is because I associate Southampton with that combination.

I think that just proves that it is all about opinions!

It seems you have failed to understand what I wrote.

I think it was grey thinking about it.

I agree with you, but lets be honest it's only a shirt. It will be gone in less than a year.

Maybe. I can't remember I only wear it for football and it's in a drawer at home somewhere.

I may well purchase the away kit though, having not bought a shirt since I got a discounted black away one the year we went got relegated from the championship (I think).