IF USO had switched to RED CLAY in 1978 how many slams would Sampras have?

[soccerfan777]

My guess is 9!

I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a
red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly
dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt
have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and
it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay.

[Ulysses]

"He didnt have the groundstrokes..."

You appparently have never seen a Sampras match. His groundstrokes
were awesome. He had the greatest running FH the game has ever seen.
His DTL backhand was also an incredible shot.

And his mental strength was second to none.

[reilloc]

So, if, since childhood, Sampras had learned on clay and practiced in
anticipation of paying his country's championship on clay he'd do worse?

LNC

[Ulysses]

The people who trash Sampras here are hilarious. It's so obvious they
never bothered to watch a single match of his. The dude has 14 slams
but has horrendous groundstrokes?? O.... K.....

He routinely out hit and out-manouvered Agassi from the back of the
court and Agassi was the greatest ballstriker in the game. Sampras had
exceptional groundstrokes.

[Iceberg]

Raja hates Sampras, he also refuses to accept that he won Rome.

[soccerfan777]

I don't hate Sampras and he won Italian open in a very weak field
once. Big fucking deal

[soccerfan777]

On Nov 16, 11:54 am, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:04 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My guess is 9!
>
> > I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a
> > red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly
> > dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt
> > have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and
> > it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay.
>
> "He didnt have the groundstrokes..."

I meant groundstrokes needed for clay. You can slice, hit flat or hit
topspin. Sampras couldn't hit topspin like Nadal or even Federer to
win FO. Flat strokes and slices work on fast carpet or hard courts but
not much on clay

>
> You appparently have never seen a Sampras match. His groundstrokes
> were awesome. He had the greatest running FH the game has ever seen.
> His DTL backhand was also an incredible shot.
>
> And his mental strength was second to none.

Couldn't help him at FO

[Rodjk #613]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Italian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles#Seeds


1. Pete Sampras (Champion)
2. Michael Stich (Quarter-finals)
3. Jim Courier (Quarter-finals)
4. Goran Ivanišević (Semi-finals)
5. Michael Chang (Second Round)
6. Andrei Medvedev (Third Round)
7. Thomas Muster (Third Round)
8. Boris Becker (Final)
9. Cédric Pioline (Third Round)
10. Marc Rosset (First Round)
11. Arnaud Boetsch (First Round)
12. Andre Agassi (Third Round)
13. Wayne Ferreira (Third Round)
14. Richard Krajicek (Third Round)
15. Alexander Volkov (Second Round)
16. Paul Haarhuis (First Round)

This is not a weak field for 1994.

Rodjk #613

[soccerfan777]

On Nov 16, 1:02 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 12:42:21 PM UTC-6, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 12:35 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ulysses wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 10:19 am, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11/16/2012 11:04 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>
> > > > > > My guess is 9!
>
> > > > > > I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a
>
> > > > > > red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly
>
> > > > > > dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt
>
> > > > > > have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and
>
> > > > > > it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay.
>
> > > > > So, if, since childhood, Sampras had learned on clay and practiced in
>
> > > > > anticipation of paying his country's championship on clay he'd do worse?
>
> > > > > LNC
>
> > > > The people who trash Sampras here are hilarious. It's so obvious they
>
> > > > never bothered to watch a single match of his. The dude has 14 slams
>
> > > > but has horrendous groundstrokes?? O.... K.....
>
> > > > He routinely out hit and out-manouvered Agassi from the back of the
>
> > > > court and Agassi was the greatest ballstriker in the game. Sampras had
>
> > > > exceptional groundstrokes.
>
> > > Raja hates Sampras, he also refuses to accept that he won Rome.
>
> > I don't hate Sampras and he won Italian open in a very weak field
>
> > once. Big fucking deal
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Italian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Sing...

>
>     1. Pete Sampras (Champion)
>     2. Michael Stich (Quarter-finals)
>     3. Jim Courier (Quarter-finals)
>     4. Goran Ivanišević (Semi-finals)
>     5. Michael Chang (Second Round)
>     6. Andrei Medvedev (Third Round)
>     7. Thomas Muster (Third Round)
>     8. Boris Becker (Final)
>     9. Cédric Pioline (Third Round)
>     10. Marc Rosset (First Round)
>     11. Arnaud Boetsch (First Round)
>     12. Andre Agassi (Third Round)
>     13. Wayne Ferreira (Third Round)
>     14. Richard Krajicek (Third Round)
>     15. Alexander Volkov (Second Round)
>     16. Paul Haarhuis (First Round)
>
> This is not a weak field for 1994.
>

> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay my bad. I meant weak draw. He got lucky not having to face
Courier or Stich or Chang or Medvedev or Muster who could have
humiliated him.

He beat Krickstein (American hard courter), Corretja (who did not make
a slam QF until 1996 USO), Chesnokov (who was old and crap since
1990), Gaudenzi (whose best years were ahead of him), Dosedel (whose
best years were ahead of him and Becker whose best years were behind
him.

[soccerfan777]

If he did that he would have probably won 0 Wimbledons. The keys to
his success on fast courts was his ever reliable serve. If he paid
more attention in developing a top notch topspin forehand and
backhand, he would have to change his approach towards the game and
his serve would have been toast. His entire approach to the game was
holding his serve and hitting some wild returns and some flukey
forehands hoping to break the opponents game - which more or less he
did not care. As he could get them in the tie-breaks.

That approach failed him big time as he could not hold his serve
95-100% of the time on the slow clay. And most of his serves which
could have been aces on fast hard court, carpet and grass, came back
with equal venom on clay.

This just does not happen to Sampras. Big servers but with overall
limited groundstroke games have always suffered at the FO - eg Becker,
Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Krajicek, Davenport, Venus Williams and
Sharapova until 2012. That Sharapova won FO is one of the greatest
miracle in tennis history. Who would have bet that in say 2009?

[jdeluise]

On 16-Nov-2012, wrote:

> Who would have bet that in say 2009?

Maybe she had a pot of curry before the last couple matches? Iceberg?

[soccerfan777]

I have a crazy theory. Sharapova won 2012 French Open because

* Her serve has not been as good as 2008 AO since surgery. So she is
always in trouble at AO/Wimbledon/USO. French Open is on clay which
does not punish weaker serves that much.
* She is more mature, so doesn't go for outright winners. She has
actually learnt a bit about constructing points on clay.
* She is actually hitting more topspin these days - not just flat
blinders.
* The only decent opponent she met is Kvitova and she is no Henin.
* She ate that 16 year old pizza ;-)

[Iceberg]

He says in his book and I seen it on an interview that his serve just
happened, he just suddenly started firing aces, so you're talking
cobblers, he could've developed a total clay game and had the serve as
well.

[ca1houn]

How many viewer? Were not going to watch that shit

[Scott]

On Nov 16, 2:02 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 12:42:21 PM UTC-6, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 12:35 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ulysses wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 10:19 am, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11/16/2012 11:04 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>
> > > > > > My guess is 9!
>
> > > > > > I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a
>
> > > > > > red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly
>
> > > > > > dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt
>
> > > > > > have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and
>
> > > > > > it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay.
>
> > > > > So, if, since childhood, Sampras had learned on clay and practiced in
>
> > > > > anticipation of paying his country's championship on clay he'd do worse?
>
> > > > > LNC
>
> > > > The people who trash Sampras here are hilarious. It's so obvious they
>
> > > > never bothered to watch a single match of his. The dude has 14 slams
>
> > > > but has horrendous groundstrokes?? O.... K.....
>
> > > > He routinely out hit and out-manouvered Agassi from the back of the
>
> > > > court and Agassi was the greatest ballstriker in the game. Sampras had
>
> > > > exceptional groundstrokes.
>
> > > Raja hates Sampras, he also refuses to accept that he won Rome.
>
> > I don't hate Sampras and he won Italian open in a very weak field
>
> > once. Big fucking deal
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Italian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Sing...

>
>     1. Pete Sampras (Champion)
>     2. Michael Stich (Quarter-finals)
>     3. Jim Courier (Quarter-finals)
>     4. Goran Ivanišević (Semi-finals)
>     5. Michael Chang (Second Round)
>     6. Andrei Medvedev (Third Round)
>     7. Thomas Muster (Third Round)
>     8. Boris Becker (Final)
>     9. Cédric Pioline (Third Round)
>     10. Marc Rosset (First Round)
>     11. Arnaud Boetsch (First Round)
>     12. Andre Agassi (Third Round)
>     13. Wayne Ferreira (Third Round)
>     14. Richard Krajicek (Third Round)
>     15. Alexander Volkov (Second Round)
>     16. Paul Haarhuis (First Round)
>
> This is not a weak field for 1994.
>

it was a tune-up. no credit given.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

Sampras's groundstrokes were good, but not great. The famous running FH provided occasional variation but it didn't win him matches, it's the s/v that did it. The running FH mostly caught opponents at the net unawares, but wouldn't work against opponents like Djokovic, Nadal or Murray who cover the back court well and are cautious about coming to the net. At best I'd say Pete's groundstrokes were on a par with Hewitt or less, there's no comparison with today's top players.

[Shakes]

On Nov 16, 5:12 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:54:44 AM UTC+11, Ulysses wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 9:04 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My guess is 9!
>
> > > I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a
>
> > > red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly
>
> > > dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt
>
> > > have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and
>
> > > it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay.
>
> > "He didnt have the groundstrokes..."
>
> > You appparently have never seen a Sampras match. His groundstrokes
>
> > were awesome. He had the greatest running FH the game has ever seen.
>
> > His DTL backhand was also an incredible shot.
>

> At best I'd say Pete's groundstrokes were on a par with Hewitt or less,

Are you serious ?

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

If Pete's groundstrokes were better than Hewitt's then how did Hewitt beat him? With s/v?

[Court_1]

Seriously, can you knock it off already! You are clearly not playing
with a full deck. I was never a big Sampras fan because I found his
personality dull but his tennis was awesome. You are in the Twilight
Zone with your comments above. Terrible tennis analysis, you should be
banned from here permanently with comments like these.

[Shakes]

Comon, not again ! I guess Berdych's groundstrokes are better than
Fed's, then, right ? He has beaten Fed the last 2 times they played in
slams.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

In those matches yes. But you haven't answered my question.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Nov 16, 5:12 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

???

Pete had a tremendous forehand... not just the running bomb... he
could bunt it down the line or buggywhip it cross court with the best
all time... get real... you should try looking at some of Pete matches
again... you seemed to have forgotten a lot about his game... he was a
titanic player...

P

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

I'm sure he can produce spectacular shots, but not consistently like today's top baseliners. Today 15- and 20-shot rallies don't even surprise us any more - how many of those did he encounter? Djokovic and co are a new species that evolved in a new environment, specifically to counter one of the best attacking players of all time on slower courts. Have you seen how many bombs Federer has to throw at Murray and Djokovic just to win a single point? How can you believe that a player who made his career out of s/v can be as good as them from the baseline? If his groundstrokes are as good as you think how come he couldn't beat Hewitt, and how come he couldn't make a single FO final?

[Pelle Svanslös]

To some extent I would agree. If the game was to play a 1000 points
starting with an underhand serve and only FHs allowed, yeah, Rafa would
beat Sampy senseless.

In real tennis, somebody serves, lands two balls short (there's aways
going to be those whether you hit it with a woodie, an iron or a
putter), Pete deals with them, and it's curtains.

That's all, Folks.

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Shakes]

On Nov 16, 11:52 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:

> --http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x3...

Yes, if the game was to make players hit a 1000 balls using each
groundstroke, Sampras would be toast.

[Shakes]

Just like Hewitt had better groundstrokes in the USO 2001 F when he
beat Sampras. I agree.

[Whisper]

On 17/11/2012 4:04 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> My guess is 9!
>
> I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a
> red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly
> dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt
> have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and
> it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay.
>

Sampras was so talented he could have developed any kind of tennis
style. He chose the one that would give him best odds of winning the
biggest slams & securing No.1. If USO & Wimbledon were on clay he would
have evolved a different style. You'd have to be pretty fucking thick
to think he'd develop a game that fits no surfaces.

[Whisper]

This is rst. I've never seen a collection of people in real life who
think like this. It's fascinating to me. I used to think people here
were joking or trolling, but now I know they actually think this way.
It still leaves me gobsmacked.

[Whisper]

Give it up Raja. You've been trying for years, but it's clear you'll
never understand tennis. Stick to grandpa rock.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

I actually agree with Ulysses. Agassi seemed to bring out the best of Sampras. Perhaps that's because Agassi returned so well that he forced Sampras into rallies more than any other opponent. Nevertheless, the courts were faster in those days and favoured attackers more, so you could win a rally with one or two brilliant shots, but don't have to do it over and over. And on clay...

[Whisper]

No offense Raja but you really have almost no understanding of pro
tennis. All I've seen from you over the years is a romantic love for
Ivan Lendl, & never a post that made much sense. I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt & assume you're just one of those geeks who thinks
he's funny.

[Whisper]

Look raja there would be nobody here who relates to what you're saying
in a tennis sense. It's all just really bizarre. I actually do feel
sorry for you. I feel you are a very lonely person & have no true
friends in real life. If I knew you I'd probably give you a few tips on
how to improve your life.

[Whisper]

Lol what a moron. You're almost at raja level.

: )

[Whisper]

I'm certain he is. But don't discourage him. I get off on dumb folk.

: )

[Whisper]

You're right. Sampras could not make top 10 today. We'd have to think
he could overcome Tipsarevic/Monaco/Fish types. Not happening.

: )

[Whisper]

On 17/11/2012 1:07 PM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

How did he beat Agassi all 4 times at USO in 3 or 4 sets, while Fed with
a supposedly better ground game had far tougher matches v 35 yr old Agassi?

[Whisper]

Wimbledon & USO no less, in routine 4 set matches. Lucky Fed peaked in
transition yrs as he clearly couldn't cope with today's evolved players.

: )

[Whisper]

How did Sampras beat 7 FO champs on clay? Same logic.

: )

[Whisper]

He beat Hewitt in straight sets in USO semis when he was at low
motivation & close to retirement.

[Whisper]

I think you're getting close to insanity.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:16:10 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:

> I think you're getting close to insanity.

I'd like to say that I am driving you to it, but you're already far gone :)

[Whisper]

: )

[jlia...@gmail.com]

Federer beat AGassi in straight sets and serve 20 aces pass Agassi in AO and AGassi usually beat Sampras in AO.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

We knew Hewitt wasn't assed about semi but was fully assed about the final when the stake is higher.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

He beat them when they were in middle of their peak according to Whisperian logic. Some of them were barely making their first year on tour, the other one was in middle of his peak when winning 6 matches in 5 clay court tournaments

[jlia...@gmail.com]

That is a long transition and of course he couldn't cope with today's evolving players by winning the most important tournament in the world Wimbledon when the guy who could cope with the evolving player of his era lost 6,1,1 in USO final.

[Whisper]

Agassi was 48 yrs old at the time.

[Whisper]

How did we know this? Please explain via credible links.

[Whisper]

Yes, just like Federer beating 'peak' 35 yr old Agassi at AO. Now I
know why you think Fed is the best ever.

: )

[Whisper]

Lucky for Sampras all the losses you harp on about here for 10 yrs are
in last 2 yrs of his career. It proves Sampras was god during his peak,
only losing when he was a yr or 2 from retirement. You have nothing
else except losses when Sampras was old.

Also good thing he beat Hewitt & Safin in straight sets at USO in those
last 2 yrs. It means your arguments are incredibly weak. What's
amazing is you think you're making a point? This is absolutely
hilarious, & I thank you for exposing yourself like this.

: )

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:52:38 AM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 12:19 AM, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:58:43 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote: >> On 17/11/2012 1:07 PM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:51:26 PM UTC+11, Shakes wrote: >> >>>> On Nov 16, 5:12 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> At best I'd say Pete's groundstrokes were on a par with Hewitt or less, >> >>>> >> >>>> Are you serious ? >> >>> >> >>> If Pete's groundstrokes were better than Hewitt's then how did Hewitt beat him? With s/v? >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> How did he beat Agassi all 4 times at USO in 3 or 4 sets, while Fed with >> >> a supposedly better ground game had far tougher matches v 35 yr old Agassi? > > Federer beat AGassi in straight sets and serve 20 aces pass Agassi in AO and AGassi usually beat Sampras in AO. > Agassi was 48 yrs old at the time.

That is when Sampras beat him right ? retard.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:53:15 AM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 12:20 AM, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:09:14 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote: >> On 17/11/2012 6:35 PM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:17:01 PM UTC+11, Patrick Kehoe wrote: >> >>>> On Nov 16, 5:12 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:54:44 AM UTC+11, Ulysses wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:04 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> My guess is 9! >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> I am sure Connors and McEnroe would have figured out a way to win a >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> red clay USO, but Sampras simply wouldn't have since he was overly >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> dependant on his big serve which was negated on red-clay. He didnt >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> have the groundstrokes or the ability to tackle topspin at the FO and >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> it would have been the same at the USO, if it was played on red-clay. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> "He didnt have the groundstrokes..." >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> You appparently have never seen a Sampras match. His groundstrokes >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> were awesome. He had the greatest running FH the game has ever seen. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> His DTL backhand was also an incredible shot. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> Sampras's groundstrokes were good, but not great. The famous running FH provided occasional variation but it didn't win him matches, it's the s/v that did it. The running FH mostly caught opponents at the net unawares, but wouldn't work against opponents like Djokovic, Nadal or Murray who cover the back court well and are cautious about coming to the net. At best I'd say Pete's groundstrokes were on a par with Hewitt or less, there's no comparison with today's top players. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ??? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Pete had a tremendous forehand... not just the running bomb... he >> >>>> >> >>>> could bunt it down the line or buggywhip it cross court with the best >> >>>> >> >>>> all time... get real... you should try looking at some of Pete matches >> >>>> >> >>>> again... you seemed to have forgotten a lot about his game... he was a >> >>>> >> >>>> titanic player... >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> P >> >>> >> >>> I'm sure he can produce spectacular shots, but not consistently like today's top baseliners. Today 15- and 20-shot rallies don't even surprise us any more - how many of those did he encounter? Djokovic and co are a new species that evolved in a new environment, specifically to counter one of the best attacking players of all time on slower courts. Have you seen how many bombs Federer has to throw at Murray and Djokovic just to win a single point? How can you believe that a player who made his career out of s/v can be as good as them from the baseline? If his groundstrokes are as good as you think how come he couldn't beat Hewitt, and how come he couldn't make a single FO final? >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> He beat Hewitt in straight sets in USO semis when he was at low >> >> motivation & close to retirement. > > We knew Hewitt wasn't assed about semi but was fully assed about the final when the stake is higher. > How did we know this? Please explain via credible links.

Credible link ? Did you use any credible link to explain your way out of any Sampras losses ?

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:58:03 AM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 12:25 AM, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:00:16 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote: >> On 17/11/2012 1:18 PM, Shakes wrote: >> >>> On Nov 16, 6:07 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:51:26 PM UTC+11, Shakes wrote: >> >>>>> On Nov 16, 5:12 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>> At best I'd say Pete's groundstrokes were on a par with Hewitt or less, >> >>>> >> >>>>> Are you serious ? >> >>>> >> >>>> If Pete's groundstrokes were better than Hewitt's then how did Hewitt beat him? With s/v? >> >>> >> >>> Comon, not again ! I guess Berdych's groundstrokes are better than >> >>> Fed's, then, right ? He has beaten Fed the last 2 times they played in >> >>> slams. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wimbledon & USO no less, in routine 4 set matches. Lucky Fed peaked in >> >> transition yrs as he clearly couldn't cope with today's evolved players. >> >> >> >> : ) > > That is a long transition and of course he couldn't cope with today's evolving players by winning the most important tournament in the world Wimbledon when the guy who could cope with the evolving player of his era lost 6,1,1 in USO final. > Lucky for Sampras all the losses you harp on about here for 10 yrs are in last 2 yrs of his career. It proves Sampras was god during his peak, only losing when he was a yr or 2 from retirement. You have nothing else except losses when Sampras was old. Also good thing he beat Hewitt & Safin in straight sets at USO in those last 2 yrs. It means your arguments are incredibly weak. What's amazing is you think you're making a point? This is absolutely hilarious, & I thank you for exposing yourself like this. : )

That make Federer even more like god because he beat two of the best player in the most important tournament at Wimbledon at 31 when Sampras could only get 8 games in 3 sets when Hewitt wasn't remotely the top 3 player in the world and had softest soft cock game compare to Murray and Djokovic. You have very weak argument as always.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:54:17 AM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 12:22 AM, jlia...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:04:34 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> How did Sampras beat 7 FO champs on clay? Same logic. >> >> >> >> : ) > > He beat them when they were in middle of their peak according to Whisperian logic. Some of them were barely making their first year on tour, the other one was in middle of his peak when winning 6 matches in 5 clay court tournaments > Yes, just like Federer beating 'peak' 35 yr old Agassi at AO. Now I know why you think Fed is the best ever. : )

at 31 Federer beat the best player in the world at Wimbledon and Sampras only won 8 games against Hewitt. Now you know why I think Fed is the best.

[Whisper]

Hewitt is very close to never having won a slam. When he won Wimbledon
he was 2 points from losing in Q/f, & Roddick was a few points from
beating him in the USO that he won. This is the guy you put up against
Sampras? It's like saying John Alexander was better than Rod Laver
because he beat him 63 76 when Rod was 36 yrs old.

[Whisper]

How'd he go against Rafa even at his peak?

; )

[jlia...@gmail.com]

The question did Hewitt won those points against those players and won the match. How many people remember Derrick Rostagno was a few point in beating Becker in 89 USO or Wally Masur who had a 2:0 lead over Edberg in 85 AO before Edberg won the last 3 sets. If Roddick did not win that tiebreak in USO semi against Nalbandian then how far away was the Sampras on seroid was from been a zero slam wonder, I guess we did not hear from you saying Roddick was lucky to win his only grand slam, did we? So according to you by his grand slam result and reputation Hewitt should not be even taking a game or sets from Sampras, unforutnately for you he did and he won 3 sets from Sampras in USO final.