WIMBLEDON 2008 MENS FINAL - SportsBettingSystem.co.uk

http://www.SportsBettingSystem.co.uk
Sports Betting System UK - Sports Betting Systems

SPORTS BETTING MADE SIMPLE AND SECURE - Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer, Auto Racing, Golf, Tennis, Horse Racing, Boxing etc...

I Win Over 97% Of My Sports Bets!
Find Out How I Do It Here...

http://www.SportsBettingSystem.co.uk

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• Wimbledon
• 2008
• Mens
• Final
• Federer
• Nadal
• Highlights
• Tennis
• Sports
• Betting
• System
• UK

[chachris08]

the king of all surfaces was sleeveless here.

[FranciscMadeira]

hi, check my video with tennis trick shots

watch?v=3tCgivq6haM

[pistolpete58]

@GueorguiJoukov 'm not even going to reply to the second part as many 90s players despite the disadvantage of not having polyester strings hit 90-100mph+ forehands. Fed hits maybe one or two in a match if not that, and if you want to compare pace, Sampras definitely hit harder than Fed. Nonetheless, Ill give Fed credit for the fact that hes a good champion and has an amazing technique.

[pistolpete58]

@GueorguiJoukov Um seeing Nadal is fit again, he will very much be able to dominate any of his opponents including a substandard Federer in comparison. Well regardless of your baseless statement that he couldn't get to Agassi is because they only played once in 92'; and if you look carefully, Sampras beat more FO Champs than Fed or Agassi did in a single French so I'm not sure what your trying to imply here (Sampras is only 2-3 in clay h2h v agassi)

[pistolpete58]

@GueorguiJoukov If you are a rare man able to understand then you should understand my reasons and how I mitigate them when I speak of the career of Pete. The 'biomechinal beauty'? I think u need to calm down by using superlatives which are frankly, uneccessary. Do u rly think his game would allow him to win 16 GS's in the conditions and level of competition in the 90s n dominate 2 the extent tht he reaches 20 out of the last 21 GS finals?

[pistolpete58]

@GueorguiJoukov The fact that Pete dominated his era by holding the number one position for 6 years running, a feat Fed will never do shows whose got a more complete game; discarding Sampras in relation to Fed and achievements is ignorance.

[pistolpete58]

@GueorguiJoukov his game is aesthically pleasing but if your basing the definition of GOAT on how good a persons game is no one did it better than Pete. Yes I understand everything is an art, and if your good at it, it's your chance to paint your masterpiece. But yes 'ease and outrageous level' does goes hand in hand when hes facing the kind of players I mentioned in GS.

[GueorguiJoukov]

@pistolpete58

Of course Nadal is a genius, but he cannot get to finals facing the same players Federer faces, playing on the same surfaces. And, speaking of his closest historical rival, Sampras, he couldn't even get to Agassi at Paris, so it was hard for Agassi to get a winning reccord.

Do not look at results, look at how... people lost sight of his baseline game - how it was in 2004 to 2007. He hitted 100mph forehands landing in the service box...

[GueorguiJoukov]

@pistolpete58

I'm not a delusional jerk; I am just a rare man able to understand. I am well aware of why you speak this way, of what motivates your words... The problem is that you will not find in me such a thing because I never argue considering my person...

I consider Federer being so great because of the ease he shows us on the court, because of how he seems to master each part of his game. Really, you need to see the biomechnical beauty in his game to see why he dominated.

[GueorguiJoukov]

@pistolpete58

I never said that his victories were the reason why he stands as the greatest player of all time, though it is a necessary condition. If you recall reading my comments couple of months ago, I spoke of his game, not of his results.

The greatest artist is one which exhibits the greatest mastery of his art and, with such an ease, such a complete game and an outrageous level of consistancy, it is hard to discard Roger Federer... if only something came near, it could be arguable.