Federer's game so far

[PeteWasLucky]

I'd say his level is good so far with two problematic areas.
The first area is his return of serve, in all matches he lost he was not returning well and without returning the ball back he couldn't press and create chances. I am wondering if there is some stats that can show this for 2015 or at least for the matches he lost.

The second area is he looked bored and not interested during many matches. This is a sign he is getting closer to retirement or is just keeping his eye on slams specially Wimbledon. But once he fails achieving what he is still interested in, he will leave the game.

[arahim]

Probably stays around past the Olympics.

[TT]

19.5.2015, 19:00, PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
> I'd say his level is good so far with two problematic areas.
> The first area is his return of serve, in all matches he lost he was not returning well and without returning the ball back he couldn't press and create chances. I am wondering if there is some stats that can show this for 2015 or at least for the matches he lost.

That's probably true for matches he lost...

I have points won stats for his career and 2015, but has to be noted
that he has played at least 3 MM tournaments this year I think.

Serve, points won:
69,11 % - career
70,57 % - 2015

Return, points won:
39,97 % - career
40,80 % - 2015

His breakpoints converted and return points won are roughly same for
2015. He has been slightly worse than normal on saving breakpoints but
we're talking about couple points difference only.

Nadal has been very bad on breakpoints this year... he's won 74% of his
matches this year but should have won around 84% if he played
breakpoints as he normally does.

[Court_1]

It is going to be tough for him to win a slam even Wimbledon. I think Wimbledon is his best (and probably only shot) but it is not going to be easy with Djokovic, a resurgent Murray and possibly kids like Kyrgios around for Federer to win Wimbledon. Federer had the shot of a lifetime last year in that final vs Djokovic and he blew it. Let's face it. He will need to be in full flight for two solid weeks and have a draw open up for him or have Djokovic or Murray be off if they meet. That five year age difference matters.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 1:20:48 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:

> It is going to be tough for him to win a slam even Wimbledon. I think Wimbledon is his best (and probably only shot) but it is not going to be easy with Djokovic, a resurgent Murray and possibly kids like Kyrgios around for Federer to win Wimbledon. Federer had the shot of a lifetime last year in that final vs Djokovic and he blew it. Let's face it. He will need to be in full flight for two solid weeks and have a draw open up for him or have Djokovic or Murray be off if they meet. That five year age difference matters.

I wouldn't put Murray as a clear fav. over Fed on grass. Even Djok is marginally a fav. IMO, Fed is more in danger of losing to Kyrgios types.

If Fed gets to the F and sees Murray or Djok (esp. Murray), I think he has a reasonably good shot. He's still the more natural player on the surface among the three.

[Court_1]

Federer is the more natural grass player but his age over Djokovic and Murray may be enough to favor the other two over Federer? I hope not and I hope Federer can win one more title. Kyrgios will probably be a danger for all at Wimbledon in coming years unless he turns out to be another disappointment.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 2:00:52 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:

>
> Federer is the more natural grass player but his age over Djokovic and Murray may be enough to favor the other two over Federer?

That's what I would think, but Murray and Djok don't seem to win as many free points off their serve as Fed typically does, and they do a lot more running than Fed does. Plus they are not as mentally stable through a match like Nadal. They have more ups and downs through the course of a five set match.

> I hope not and I hope Federer can win one more title. Kyrgios will probably be a danger for all at Wimbledon in coming years unless he turns out to be another disappointment.

I am still very neutral about Kyrgios' temperament through a tournament. But I meant players of that mould - big serving, excellent power but still quick around the court.

[RaspingDrive]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 4:55:37 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:

Placing my prediction on record for future crowing (hoping it is not eating humble pie): If Federer gets to the final he loses.

If Murray gets to the final he wins. Djokovic also has a decent shot, but probably not against Murray. Nadal, well, I don't know.

[RaspingDrive]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 4:20:48 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
Federer to win Wimbledon. Federer had the shot of a lifetime last year in that final vs Djokovic and he blew it. Let's face it. He will need to be in full

Yeah, he totally blew it. At the completion of the fourth set, I thought Djokovic was out of it and dreamed of Federer lifting the cup the eighth time. But, unfortunately, Federer was too satisfied that he had dragged the match to a fifth set and was content to let Djokovic dictate.

[Court_1]

Federer's fh was erratic in that match. What has happened to Federer's fh
of his prime? It is not the same. Sigh. :(

[Scott]

Maybe Fed got tired?

[Fednatic]

maybe he could CHEAT like Rafa ?

you would support him then right?

[Rodjk #613]

I wonder how often Federer thinks about that missed overhead on Djokovic's serve at 4-4 in the 5th?

Rodjk #613

[PeteWasLucky]

I forgot what happened in the fifth, all I remember there was an opportunity to have two break points for Federer somewhere there in the fifth.

[Rodjk #613]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 7:54:16 AM UTC+3, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> I forgot what happened in the fifth, all I remember there was an opportunity to have two break points for Federer somewhere there in the fifth.

4-4 in the fifth, I believe it was 15-15. Fed came to the net and Djokovic threw up a lob to Fed's backhand side. He backpedeled and hit a overhead moving to his left. A difficult but not unmakable shot. The ball hit the tape and it was 30-15 rather than 15-30.

15-30 is not a break, but at 4-4 in the fifth it can be huge.

Rodjk #613

[Whisper]

On 20/05/2015 2:54 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> I forgot what happened in the fifth, all I remember there was an opportunity to have two break points for Federer somewhere there in the fifth.
>

The Sampras/Federer match was far closer - Sampras blew sitters that
would have given him decisive break.

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko 20. toukokuuta 2015 7.26.26 UTC+3 Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>
> I wonder how often Federer thinks about that missed overhead on Djokovic's serve at 4-4 in the 5th?
>
> Rodjk #613

Oh...you reminded me Becker-Edberg Wimb final 90 when in 5th set Becker was already break up and 30-15 with his serve ....then misses total sitter at net....ends up broken and then later loses the match.

But the most famous close-calls are from golfs like "DOUG SANDERS -
ALL that stood between the top US golfer and victory at the 1970 British Open was a 2ft putt on the final green at St Andrews.
The crowd held their breath as he gently tapped the ball - and completely missed the hole. And if that wasn't enough, he went on to lose the play-off to Jack Nicklaus.
And to cap it all, he never managed to reach the same level of play again after his fateful putt."

.mikko

[PeteWasLucky]

In the 7th game in the fifth, Federer had a break point, played a loose point to go deuce, if he converted it, he would have won.

[ali...@alinefx.com]

Fed needs to win those close matches. No one reme embers the losers of these close matches. And if fed had won more than a good share of these kinda matches he would have been at 21 - 22 slams already

[PeteWasLucky]

Winning the FO after being down two sets in two matches is one of these.
Winning seventh Wimbledon with a bad back struggling in the first rounds is one of these matches.

[Whisper]

On 21/05/2015 1:19 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> In the 7th game in the fifth, Federer had a break point, played a loose point to go deuce, if he converted it, he would have won.
>

The story of his life. He seems to have lost every closely contested
big match he's ever played. Definitely not a model of a big match
player. He needs to be a lot better than the opponent to win as his
fighting qualities aren't there.

[Whisper]

On 21/05/2015 6:09 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Winning the FO after being down two sets in two matches is one of these.
> Winning seventh Wimbledon with a bad back struggling in the first rounds is one of these matches.
>

Hmm, but it was against Haas, Roddick & Potro. Not good examples of
Fed's 'mental toughness' in huge matches v the best players.

[PeteWasLucky]

Ah you forgot beating djokovic and Murray in the SF and final of Wimbledon.

[ahonkan]

Hmm. So what makes a match huge is the opponent? That's just like
'Sampras not losing a single FO final' (mainly because he never
reached one). Then again, when Fed comes back from a 2-set deficit
vs Delpo at AO, it's no big deal but when he loses to Delpo at USO
it's terrible?

So Fed winning 2 Wimbie finals vs Rafa means nothing (though 1 was a
5-setter) but the one he lost is the only one that mattered?

Why is Fed beating Djoker in slam SFs and finals not big? Why is his
FO 2011 SF win over Djoker not important?

Why is Fed beating Murray in 3-4 slam finals is not big? Why is Fed
beating the then no.2-8 players in slam finals not big? He has an
excellent record vs his contemoporaries. Never forget that Fed has
always been 5-6 yrs older than his biggest competitors, something
Pete never faced (and he lost badly to the youngsters like Fed,
Hewitt & Safin).

Why is Rafa losing in R1, R2 & R3 in 3 straight years to rank nobodies
not important?

It's clear that you have a single agenda and that's to put down Fed.

[John Liang]

Federere won more matches than your idol Sampras at slam level and he also won more grand slams and contested more finals than Sampras. Talking about mental toughness was Samrpas crumbling against bottom rated clay court players like Andrea Gudenzi, Schaler, Delgado type or anyone in the draw in no less than 8 attempts at FO better example than Federer against Nadal ?

[jdeluise]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:

>
> The story of his life. He seems to have lost every closely contested
> big match he's ever played. Definitely not a model of a big match
> player. He needs to be a lot better than the opponent to win as his
> fighting qualities aren't there.

Well, he beat Sampras in a closely contested 5 set big match :)

[PeteWasLucky]

lol

[Whisper]

On 21/05/2015 10:06 PM, ahonkan wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2015 15:35:23 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:
>
> Why is Fed beating Murray in 3-4 slam finals is not big? Why is Fed
> beating the then no.2-8 players in slam finals not big? He has an
> excellent record vs his contemoporaries. Never forget that Fed has
> always been 5-6 yrs older than his biggest competitors, something
> Pete never faced (and he lost badly to the youngsters like Fed,
> Hewitt & Safin).
>

Why are you lying & painting 1-sided story? You know full well old
Sampras crushed Safin & Hewitt in straights at 2000 & 2001 USOs but
don't mention it? Why?

Also you lied & sad Sampras lost 'badly' to Federer? Why?

I'm not picking on Fed for the fun of it. He is my fave player of this
era by far. However you'd have to be a complete moron to think he
didn't lose the vast majority of tight important matches. Just accept
it & move on.

[Whisper]

You forgot to mention Fed's losses to players far weaker than Rafa. Why?

[Whisper]

Wasn't big for Sampras or the tennis world at the time. Only became
notable years later.

[John Liang]

I forgot to mention Sampras lost more regularly to weaker players. Most noteworth were those great matches against the likes of delgados whose only major career achievement come out of that win.

[bob]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 18:16:55 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I forgot to mention Sampras lost more regularly to weaker players. Most noteworth were those great matches against the likes of delgados whose only major career achievement come out of that win.

i think it's pretty clear that sampras didn't get up as well as fed
did for meaningless matches, nor was he or anyone else as consistently
near his best as fed was/is. which makes me wonder how nadal bested
him so often...

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:51:00 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

spot on post. would be like kyrgios beating fed last yr then going on
to 15 slams etc.. not to mention sampras was horrible against everyone
in that timeframe, not just fed.

bob

[Fednatic]

HE CHEATED. Everybody knows it.

[Whisper]

On 24/05/2015 11:16 AM, John Liang wrote:
> I forgot to mention Sampras lost more regularly to weaker players. Most noteworth were those great matches against the likes of delgados whose only major career achievement come out of that win.
>

Players are judged on their best achievements, not worst. How many
times do you have to be told?

[Whisper]

Yes, Fed was playing arguably the goat/boat at Wimbledon so it was the
biggest match possible for him. For Pete it was a routine match v a
hotshot kid. Failing to get up for these kind of matches him realize it
was time to go.

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <p_CdnX0MNu29GcDI...@westnet.com.au>,
beav...@ozemail.com (Whisper) wrote:

> *From:* Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
> *Date:* Thu, 21 May 2015 17:07:20 +1000

ISTR a five-set Wimbledon final against Roddick that went 11-9 in the
fifth.

wg

[Rodjk #613]

That does not count in whisper-world.

Rodjk #613

[John Liang]

Grand slam match is meaningless. It was alwasy meaningless for Sampras if he could not win at FO. Which make me wonder as great as Sampras was why it took a player not even remotely in Nadal's class but a journeyman to get better of Samrpas not once but 8 or 9 times...

[John Liang]

Well, bob is very much in demand to defend his master.

[John Liang]

So they are now judge on their best achievements and not woulda, coulda type analysis. Can you stick that in your own head ?

[John Liang]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:25:25 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

So you don't remmeber stick that to your own head. How many time do you hve to be told not to use woulda/coulda/shoulda type analysis ?

[Whisper]

Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a priority.
Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO every year &
played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no doubt.

[Whisper]

I don't judge Fed on his losses to clowns as obviously that's just a bad
day or whatever. It never crosses my mind Seppi is better than Fed for
eg. In your mind it's different. You think every clown Sampras lost to
must be better than him, & then get confused about his slam wins, record
No.1 stats etc. It's not rocket science.

[John Liang]

It is not hard to work with facts. Would, could can not be used as fact and in your language is not for serious tennis analysis.

[jdeluise]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:

>
> Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a
> priority. Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO
> every year & played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no
> doubt.

er, young teenage Nadal beat Sampras' clay conqueror in his very first
ATP match. Can't really see it tbh, he had neither the game nor the
physicality to win on the dirt.

--
"I didn't predict great things for Roddick because of his talent"
- Whisper on Roddick, circa 2015
"I'm certainly impressed with his talent. He will achieve great things"
- Whisper on Roddick, circa 2001

[Whisper]

On 25/05/2015 9:26 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a
>> priority. Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO
>> every year & played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no
>> doubt.
>
> er, young teenage Nadal beat Sampras' clay conqueror in his very first
> ATP match. Can't really see it tbh, he had neither the game nor the
> physicality to win on the dirt.
>

I think he had the game. He's played some pretty good stuff on the clay
beating many FO champs. Needed a few chips falling his way though, like
faster sunbaked courts, avoid long points etc. A big factor was
Wimbledon being so soon after FO, so he wasn't going to play baseline
stuff at that time of year. If FO was 6 months apart he probably woulda
won 1 or 2.

[John Liang]

If he really had a game to win consistently on clay he would have done much better than just 1 semi final showing at FO. He did beat a few FO champ but you had to look at when he beat them. He beat Bruguera when Bruguera was winning about 6 matches in 5 clay court tournaments in 1996, he beat Muster when Muster was coming off an injury, he beat Costa when Costa was a rookie. No woulda could and shoulda can explain his 8 or 9 losses in his 13 attempts at FO.

[Rodjk #613]

An honest Sampras fan would say that Pete was not that good on clay and for several reasons. Chief among them was the fact that he never really felt comfortable sliding on clay. He could have put in more work on the surface, but Pete realized that his chances of winning there were unlikely and that all the work would not pay off. Sort of like his mentor, Lendl; who put in so much work on grass to make a game not suited for grass only somewhat suitable. Sampras did the math and figured his chances were not that great and so only put in a cursery effort. His style of play (remember when pro tennis sported several styles of play? And all could be successful?)

Pete showed that he was talented enough to win on clay against the best players, but probably would never be able to do so over Bo5 at the French. Endurance was neither a facet of his game or his physical ability.

Again, it (the French) is a hole in his resume. But not enough to bury him as second rate, especially knowing the speed differences in the courts at that time. Remember, up till Pete it was quite common for players to not win all the slams. Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, Courier...none of them won all four. Andre did, barely, with 1 Wimbledon and 1 FO.

An honest Sampras fan would also say that there is no issues saying that Federer has surpased Pete, but that does not take away from his great career, awesome power game and outstanding sportsmanship.

Rodjk #613

[Whisper]

Honesty cuts both ways. If we're honest we'd agree that all surfaces
are slow today, there is very little if any diversity in playing styles etc

There is no way in hell Rafa wins all 4 slams in the 90's - he'd win 3
or 4 FOs & maybe 1 AO.

[Rodjk #613]

I think I said that above. Actually, I did make both points, that courts are slower and that there is little diversity.
"...knowing the speed differences in the courts at that time"
Clay is probably the same. But hard courts and grass were faster then. Meaning that there was a greater disparity between surfaces making it more difficult to win on all surfaces. But some players did.

"remember when pro tennis sported several styles of play? And all could be successful?"

So I made both of those points.

>
> There is no way in hell Rafa wins all 4 slams in the 90's - he'd win 3
> or 4 FOs & maybe 1 AO.

Borg did. Lendl managed to win multiple year end tournaments and other events on fast indoor. He won 3 US Opens and reached 2 Wimbledon finals. Wilander won the US Open and he won on grass in Australia.
Is it a sure thing that Nadal wins like Wilander/Lendl did?
I tend to think that he would.

If Borg can win 5 Wimbledons on the fast, slick grass courts I see no reason why Nadal could not. Of course there is no guarentee, but I think that Nadal is at least as talented as Wilander.

Rodjk #613

[Whisper]

I like Nadal & agree he is talented - unique in many ways - however he
wouldn't survive on fast 90's grass/hc. He stands 12 ft behind the
baseline - that's suicidal. You can do it today because everything is
slow & everybody is behind the baseline. I just can't see how Rafa
would deal with Sampras' serve & net attack while planted so far behind
the baseline. It's a dream matchup for Pete.

A nightmare on clay of course. : )

[John Liang]

Again saying Sampras is not top rated clay court player in no way diminish his win on other surfaces. He would not be considered top 10 on his own era that is based on what other players in his era did on clay. You just have to accept that Samrpas never manage to transfer his power game successfully onto clay.

[Rodjk #613]

One of the reasons that I post so rarely (even though I read pretty much every post) is because I find that others say things much more concisely and elequently than I...

As a Sampras fan, I find that what John said is quite reasonable.

Rodjk #613

[bob]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 15:26:46 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a
>> priority. Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO
>> every year & played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no
>> doubt.
>
>er, young teenage Nadal beat Sampras' clay conqueror in his very first
>ATP match. Can't really see it tbh, he had neither the game nor the
>physicality to win on the dirt.

sampras dreamed of Wimbledons first and USOs second. FO and AO were
marks to check off a list, and no way on earth he'd radically change
his style of play to win a FO with wimbledon 2 weeks after. no way.

bob

[bob]

an honest fan of anyone would agree that:
(1) the convergence of surfaces has had a huge effect on who wins
where
(2) having a GS total # to shoot for as a teen (especially when GS
overall # count got touted so highly more or less recently) is an
advantage.
(3) in sampras' day i don't recall anybody being great at wimbledon +
fo similtaneously, too many clay specialists + surfaces were too
different. agassi probably came closest with 1 each.

let's be honest now.

bob

[Fednatic]

Of course not because he figured he had little chance of winning them
with his lame two legged stool of a game aimed at only the fastest
surfaces. Surfaces btw that they tailored to his game at Wimbledon
where they helped him CHEAT!

[Guypers]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:29:35 AM UTC-4, Fednatic wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 09:02:37 -0400, bob <b...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 24 May 2015 15:26:46 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a
> >>> priority. Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO
> >>> every year & played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no

> >>> doubt.i

> >>
> >>er, young teenage Nadal beat Sampras' clay conqueror in his very first
> >>ATP match. Can't really see it tbh, he had neither the game nor the
> >>physicality to win on the dirt.
> >
> >sampras dreamed of Wimbledons first and USOs second. FO and AO were
> >marks to check off a list, and no way on earth he'd radically change
> >his style of play to win a FO with wimbledon 2 weeks after. no way.
> >
> >bob
>
> Of course not because he figured he had little chance of winning them
> with his lame two legged stool of a game aimed at only the fastest
> surfaces. Surfaces btw that they tailored to his game at Wimbledon
> where they helped him CHEAT!

If Pete played today, he may be 6 or 7, behind Nishi and Berdych!!

[PeteWasLucky]

You understand that Whisper is a troll that spent his life trying to put Federer in a class three levels below Sampras. First it started by slams count, then by 7543, then blue chips, then if he has the balls to win important five sets matches, also clowns era, etc.
To be honest the only person that had the knowledge, info and patience to shut him off is John.

[Whisper]

Maybe, but he'd be winning Wim & USO most years.

[MBDunc]

maanantai 25. toukokuuta 2015 14.26.36 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > If Borg can win 5 Wimbledons on the fast, slick grass courts I see no reason why Nadal could not. Of course there is no guarentee, but I think that Nadal is at least as talented as Wilander.

> I like Nadal & agree he is talented - unique in many ways - however he
> wouldn't survive on fast 90's grass/hc. He stands 12 ft behind the
> baseline - that's suicidal

Look where Borg is when returning serves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elK42cXMM48

.mikko

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 26.5.2015 23:15, MBDunc wrote:
> maanantai 25. toukokuuta 2015 14.26.36 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>>
>>> If Borg can win 5 Wimbledons on the fast, slick grass courts I see no reason why Nadal could not. Of course there is no guarentee, but I think that Nadal is at least as talented as Wilander.
>

>> I like Nadal& agree he is talented - unique in many ways - however he

>> wouldn't survive on fast 90's grass/hc. He stands 12 ft behind the
>> baseline - that's suicidal
>
> Look where Borg is when returning serves...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elK42cXMM48
>

Compare that to Rafa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5DoaEgzpE#t=1m15s

Rafa returns further back on clay.

Can't remember what happens on HC, who cares about that.

[MBDunc]

maanantai 25. toukokuuta 2015 16.06.46 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
> an honest fan of anyone would agree that:
> (1) the convergence of surfaces has had a huge effect on who wins
> where

True, gradually slowened conditions during 2000s were bane for example for Roddick, Hewitt...

> (2) having a GS total # to shoot for as a teen (especially when GS
> overall # count got touted so highly more or less recently) is an
> advantage.

No. Does not matter. All play for big wins -one at the time- Bolt is not training for 2020 Olympics, but 2016 Olympics....Everyone is trying to win Masters or The Open....not to get absolute Nicklaus numbers...

> (3) in sampras' day i don't recall anybody being great at wimbledon +
> fo similtaneously, too many clay specialists + surfaces were too
> different. agassi probably came closest with 1 each.

Clay specialists - yes there were more of those because it was easier to make journeyman career with focusing on clay only (best of 14 rank system and overally more clay tournaments)...but this is still marginal, very marginal...you could vice verac claim that today it is extra hard for all because everyone is actually specialized in current homogenous slow conditions?

FO + wimb final same year: open era:
Laver 2x
Borg 3x
Mac
Lendl 2x
Edberg
Courier
Agassi
Federer 4x
Nadal 5x
Djokovic

Other Grass and clay slam finals same year (AO on grass before 88, USO on clay 75-77)
Connors 75, 77
Borg 76
Vilas 77, 78
Wilander 83, 85

.mikko

[MBDunc]

Borg of course 4x (78-81)

.mikko

[Whisper]

Couldn't do that v Pete in 90's.

[bob]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:36:19 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>maanantai 25. toukokuuta 2015 16.06.46 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
>> an honest fan of anyone would agree that:
>> (1) the convergence of surfaces has had a huge effect on who wins
>> where
>
>True, gradually slowened conditions during 2000s were bane for example for Roddick, Hewitt...
>
>> (2) having a GS total # to shoot for as a teen (especially when GS
>> overall # count got touted so highly more or less recently) is an
>> advantage.
>
>No. Does not matter. All play for big wins -one at the time- Bolt is not training for 2020 Olympics, but 2016 Olympics....Everyone is trying to win Masters or The Open....not to get absolute Nicklaus numbers...

it does matter - in a huge way. give a runner a 9.8 sec 100m to shoot
for and he'll train for it; give him 9.7 sec and he'll shoot for that.
it matters hugely.

>> (3) in sampras' day i don't recall anybody being great at wimbledon +
>> fo similtaneously, too many clay specialists + surfaces were too
>> different. agassi probably came closest with 1 each.
>
>Clay specialists - yes there were more of those because it was easier to make journeyman career with focusing on clay only (best of 14 rank system and overally more clay tournaments)...but this is still marginal, very marginal...you could vice verac claim that today it is extra hard for all because everyone is actually specialized in current homogenous slow conditions?

that's just the pt: you don't need to "specialize" in anything in
particular for the homogeneous era. the 4 men who have dominated the
past 10 years play quite a similar game, minus fed's 1H BH (the lone
exposed weakness that cost him about 8-10 slams).

>FO + wimb final same year: open era:
>Laver 2x
>Borg 3x
>Mac
>Lendl 2x
>Edberg
>Courier
>Agassi

********

>Federer 4x
>Nadal 5x
>Djokovic

*********
and there you have it! i love when your numbers come to my rescue
mikko. this almost goes to "clown era" too, my friend. :-)

[bob]

nobody argues that sampras' FO results were poor for a top caliber
champion. john mentioning that isn't new ground. what we've all been
discussing for over a decade is WHY, not WHAT. if nobody can add to
the why, there's not much more to say.

bob

[Shakes]

Correct. Most folks are content with counting the numbers. When comparing to another era, it's disingenuous to not take into account the circumstances of that era.

[Guypers]

We do, Fed, Laver, Borg, Rafa, Sampras are the top in history!

[jdeluise]

Guypers <gap...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> We do, Fed, Laver, Borg, Rafa, Sampras are the top in history!

Not according to Whisper, he said he could prove that current eras are
tougher.

[Shakes]

Of course, but the point in contention was digging deeper into why winning the CGS was more difficult during the 80's and 90's than it is today.

[arahim]

That's like saying Nadal woulda not won any FOs were it in November.

[arahim]

Since the courts have slowed that's like saying in today's game Sampras would not win a Wimbledon...may be true.

[MBDunc]

perjantai 29. toukokuuta 2015 16.13.18 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
>
> >No. Does not matter. All play for big wins -one at the time- Bolt is not training for 2020 Olympics, but 2016 Olympics....Everyone is trying to win Masters or The Open....not to get absolute Nicklaus numbers...
>
> it does matter - in a huge way. give a runner a 9.8 sec 100m to shoot
> for and he'll train for it; give him 9.7 sec and he'll shoot for that.
> it matters hugely.

Totally irrelevant comparison. Then there should be a lot of golfers near to Nicklaus numbers.

Since Jack made this 18th major: Tiger 14, Faldo 6.... with your logic there all those michelsons, elses and ilroys should have easy 10 majors as their targets are so much better than Jack had (hogan/hagen/sarazen/palmer/snead - 40%-60% of Jack's final count)

.mikko

[MBDunc]

perjantai 29. toukokuuta 2015 16.13.18 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:

> >FO + wimb final same year: open era:
> >Laver 2x
> >Borg 3x
> >Mac
> >Lendl 2x
> >Edberg
> >Courier
> >Agassi
>
> ********
> >Federer 4x
> >Nadal 5x
> >Djokovic
> *********
> and there you have it! i love when your numbers come to my rescue
> mikko. this almost goes to "clown era" too, my friend. :-)

Why do you need rescue? Problems? "clown era" ... well I do not care those discussions anymore; I also pass discussions with flat earth society members and tin hatters too.

> >Other Grass and clay slam finals same year (AO on grass before 88, USO on clay 75-77)
> >Connors 75, 77
> >Borg 76
> >Vilas 77, 78
> >Wilander 83, 85
> >
> >.mikko

You deliberately missed these.

.mikko

[Whisper]

Correct. We all know rst Fedfans are 100% disingenuous.

[Whisper]

McEnroe has to go in that list. He was better than Borg.

[Whisper]

Players adjust to the condition in their era. Sampras clearly had more
versatility than Rafa.

[Fednatic]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 19:35:15 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

NOT on the CLAY

[Fednatic]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 19:33:17 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

NO he was NOT.

[Fednatic]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 19:33:17 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

Compare their 7543's

[bob]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 11:06:02 AM UTC-7, Guypers wrote:
>> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:01:43 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
>
>> > Correct. Most folks are content with counting the numbers. When comparing to another era, it's disingenuous to not take into account the circumstances of that era.
>>
>> We do, Fed, Laver, Borg, Rafa, Sampras are the top in history!
>
>Of course, but the point in contention was digging deeper into why winning the CGS was more difficult during the 80's and 90's than it is today.

correct...and also, to be straight, nobody really shot for a total
slam count # til pete hit about 10 and press started talking about it
trying to drum up tennis popularity in usa.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 19:33:17 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

:-)
bob

[bob]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 01:02:21 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>perjantai 29. toukokuuta 2015 16.13.18 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
>>
>> >No. Does not matter. All play for big wins -one at the time- Bolt is not training for 2020 Olympics, but 2016 Olympics....Everyone is trying to win Masters or The Open....not to get absolute Nicklaus numbers...
>>
>> it does matter - in a huge way. give a runner a 9.8 sec 100m to shoot
>> for and he'll train for it; give him 9.7 sec and he'll shoot for that.
>> it matters hugely.
>
>Totally irrelevant comparison. Then there should be a lot of golfers near to Nicklaus numbers.

no golfers came across hewitt/roddick.

>Since Jack made this 18th major: Tiger 14, Faldo 6.... with your logic there all those michelsons, elses and ilroys should have easy 10 majors as their targets are so much better than Jack had (hogan/hagen/sarazen/palmer/snead - 40%-60% of Jack's final count)

see above.

bob

[Guypers]

It was not harder in the 80s or 90s!! Chang, Courier, Pioline oh plz
Ferrer would thrash them 1,2,3!!!!!!!

[Fednatic]

Their 7543 says otherwise !

[pltrgyst]

>> We do, Fed, Laver, Borg, Rafa, Sampras are the top in history!
>
> McEnroe has to go in that list. He was better than Borg.

Hmmm. I'd rather have Borg's record.

Hell, I'd rather *be* Borg than McEnroe.

-- Larry

[Guypers]

Yes, excluding Tilden, Budge, Cochet, Perry and the pre-war stars,
Rosewall, Pancho, Agassi, Lendl, even Connors would be ahead of Mac,

[Court_1]

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 5:33:07 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> McEnroe has to go in that list. He was better than Borg.

Nobody rational thinks McEnroe was greater overall than Borg. Stop the nonsense please. 11>7.

[Court_1]

Federer did a great job vs that clown Monfils today. Keep it up Fed! Do the same to crybaby Stan!

[ahonkan]

On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 07:18:04 UTC+5:30, Court_1 wrote:
> Federer did a great job vs that clown Monfils today. Keep it up Fed! Do the same to crybaby Stan!

Fed usually has no problems with Stan. It's Nishi who Fed will find
hard to beat.
I think Murray in this form should beat Ferrer though Ferrer has
never lost to Murray on clay in 4 previous matches. Djoker should
beat Rafa in 4 and Murray again in 4. Somehow Murray finds a way
to lose vs Djoker.
I give Nishi the best chance to beat Djoker, then Stan and then Fed.
Fed won't be able to handle 3 bruising matches back to back.

[jdeluise]

ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com> writes:


> I give Nishi the best chance to beat Djoker, then Stan and then Fed.
> Fed won't be able to handle 3 bruising matches back to back.

Forget Nishi

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 11:28:45 PM UTC-4, ahonkan wrote:

> Fed usually has no problems with Stan. It's Nishi who Fed will find
> hard to beat.

That could be true. It all depends which Nishikori shows up. Will it be the Nishikori who beat Djokovic pretty easily at the USO SF or will it be the Nishikori who succumbed pretty easily to Cilic in the final? Federer and Nishikori have never played each other in a slam before so it will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out if it takes place. For some reason I am leaning towards a Federer victory over Nishikori if they meet. I could regret that one, lol.

> I think Murray in this form should beat Ferrer though Ferrer has
> never lost to Murray on clay in 4 previous matches.

I give Murray the slight edge this time as well.

> Djoker should
> beat Rafa in 4 and Murray again in 4. Somehow Murray finds a way
> to lose vs Djoker.

Yes, I am leaning in that direction although I hope I am wrong and that Djokovic loses either to Nadal or Murray somehow.

> I give Nishi the best chance to beat Djoker, then Stan and then Fed.
> Fed won't be able to handle 3 bruising matches back to back.

I think whoever wins the Djokovic-Nadal QF will probably win the whole thing.

[Court_1]

LOL. You dislike Nishikori almost as much as I dislike Berdshit.

[Rodjk #613]

As has been pointed out again and again, this is nonsense.
The slam count was known and talked about long before Pete. It is just that between Borg and Pete no one really got close enought to discuss it.

As for the rest, I will post (again) this article from the 1981 Sports
Illustrated article "How's this for a feat of Clay" about Borg's 6th
French Open.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124552/3/index.htm

"Borg's sixth French title makes it 11 Grand Slam singles
championships, one more than Bill Tilden won, and ties him with Rod
Laver for second on the alltime list. The leader is Roy Emerson with
12. That's right. Borg has one major championship to go. And Wimbledon
is coming up fast."

So, for the umpteenth time- can we quit saying that Sampras invented
the slam race?

Rodjk #613

[TT]

That doesn't mean there was a slam race though... look at articles from
modern day... there are countless articles about exotic records that
have no meaning at all. For example an article about most matches won...
does it mean we're now at most matches won race?

Obviously slam race was irrelevant since Borg didn't bother with it and
nobody thought Emerson greater than guys below him. So no, there was no
slam record race at the time.

[Rodjk #613]

So an article from 1981 talking about the slam race shows that there wasn't a slam race?

Rodjk #613

[The Iceberg]

On Monday, 25 May 2015 11:31:47 UTC+1, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:28:51 PM UTC+3, John Liang wrote:
> > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 6:58:07 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> > > On 25/05/2015 9:26 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> > > > Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a
> > > >> priority. Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO
> > > >> every year & played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no
> > > >> doubt.
> > > >
> > > > er, young teenage Nadal beat Sampras' clay conqueror in his very first
> > > > ATP match. Can't really see it tbh, he had neither the game nor the
> > > > physicality to win on the dirt.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think he had the game. He's played some pretty good stuff on the clay
> > > beating many FO champs. Needed a few chips falling his way though, like
> > > faster sunbaked courts, avoid long points etc. A big factor was
> > > Wimbledon being so soon after FO, so he wasn't going to play baseline
> > > stuff at that time of year. If FO was 6 months apart he probably woulda
> > > won 1 or 2.
> >
> > If he really had a game to win consistently on clay he would have done much better than just 1 semi final showing at FO. He did beat a few FO champ but you had to look at when he beat them. He beat Bruguera when Bruguera was winning about 6 matches in 5 clay court tournaments in 1996, he beat Muster when Muster was coming off an injury, he beat Costa when Costa was a rookie. No woulda could and shoulda can explain his 8 or 9 losses in his 13 attempts at FO.
>
>
> An honest Sampras fan would say that Pete was not that good on clay and for several reasons. Chief among them was the fact that he never really felt comfortable sliding on clay. He could have put in more work on the surface, but Pete realized that his chances of winning there were unlikely and that all the work would not pay off. Sort of like his mentor, Lendl; who put in so much work on grass to make a game not suited for grass only somewhat suitable. Sampras did the math and figured his chances were not that great and so only put in a cursery effort. His style of play (remember when pro tennis sported several styles of play? And all could be successful?)
>
> Pete showed that he was talented enough to win on clay against the best players, but probably would never be able to do so over Bo5 at the French. Endurance was neither a facet of his game or his physical ability.
>
> Again, it (the French) is a hole in his resume. But not enough to bury him as second rate, especially knowing the speed differences in the courts at that time. Remember, up till Pete it was quite common for players to not win all the slams. Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, Courier...none of them won all four. Andre did, barely, with 1 Wimbledon and 1 FO.
>
> An honest Sampras fan would also say that there is no issues saying that Federer has surpased Pete, but that does not take away from his great career, awesome power game and outstanding sportsmanship.

I an honest Sampras fan and way I see it is that Fed has never gotten near the 6 consecutive years, he benefited from the clown era where due to media pressure the clowns would just hand him matches too cos they were ordered that he was literaly 'unbeatable'. Canas showed this was not the case.

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 29 May 2015 20:14:55 UTC+1, arahim wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 3:41:14 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:

> > > Rodjk #613

> > >
> >
> >
> > Honesty cuts both ways. If we're honest we'd agree that all surfaces
> > are slow today, there is very little if any diversity in playing styles etc
> >
> > There is no way in hell Rafa wins all 4 slams in the 90's - he'd win 3
> > or 4 FOs & maybe 1 AO.
>
> Since the courts have slowed that's like saying in today's game Sampras would not win a Wimbledon...may be true.

Sampras wanted to Wimbledon, so he won it.

[TT]

No, but we know that it was irrelevant then. Read my post again.