Federer is amazing
Sao Paulo Swallow
that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
steve jaros
> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
he is way past his own prime.
I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the time ...
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Whisper
> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>
> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
> he is way past his own prime.
>
> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the time ...
>
>
What about Sampras beating 3 former USO & No.1 champs in 3 successive
matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin & Rafter)?
SliceAndDice
Nope. He did it on fast hard court. Fed did it on his worst surface.
Gracchus
> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
> he is way past his own prime.
He'll be 30 in a couple of months. Saying he's* way* past his prime is
overstating things a bit.
uly...@mscomm.com
over Mac in the '82 W. final. No one thought he had a chance, and
Connors was 29, just like Fed.
Yeah, Sod over Rafa was deeply shocking too, but a QF doesn't carry
the weight of semis of finals.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
steve jaros
Agassi and Rafter were contemporaries of Sampras so at same level of
career, and Safin was far too flaky to ever put together a long
win-streak. He could beat anyone on a given day, but lose to anyone too.
--
If you want to be loved, never leave your mistress
without making her cry a little ..
- Balzac
steve jaros
> The last slam match that had such a shocking result, I think, is Jimbo
> over Mac in the '82 W. final. No one thought he had a chance, and
> Connors was 29, just like Fed.
good call. i said connors over lendl that same year. works either way.
--
So wrong it is to confound independence with liberty.
No one is less independent than a citizen of a free state.
- De Tocqueville
RahimAsif
You are kidding right? There are quite a few posters in RST that gave
Fed (a 4-time FO finalist) a fighting chance over Djoker (a 0-time FO
finalist). No one in their right mind predicted Soderling had a chance
against Rafa in FO 2009 (when Rafa had never lost a match at the FO
till that point). Just because you didn't see it coming (saying
something to the effect of even the 2004 Fed won't beat this Djoker)
doesn't mean no one else did...
RahimAsif
wrote:
> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
Federer is to tennis what Sachin Tendulkar is to cricket. They have
unparalleled love for the game...
Whisper
> On Jun 3, 9:11 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>
>>> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>>>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
>>>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>>
>>> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
>>> he is way past his own prime.
>>
>>> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
>>> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the time ...
>>
>> matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin& Rafter)?
>
> Nope. He did it on fast hard court. Fed did it on his worst surface.
Incorrect. Clay is arguably Roger's best surface. Just because Rafa is
better than him doesn't mean it's his weakest surface.
There's no way Roger would have won as many Wim/USO/AO if he had to play
peak Rafa more often.
John Doe
RzR
lol
if sampras had to play fed, he wouldnt win squat
Superdave
I just had a terrible thought.....
Imagine Rafa vs Sampras at the FO ?
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
That match would be so laughable they could make a cartoon out of it.
Whisper
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:11:30 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>>>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
>>>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>>>
>>> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
>>> he is way past his own prime.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
>>> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the time ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin& Rafter)?
>>
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I think that's way more impressive than beating a 2 time AO champ at FO
- a guy who never won FO or made No.1.
Whisper
> On 6/3/2011 8:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>>>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
>>>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>>>
>>> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
>>> he is way past his own prime.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
>>> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the
>>> time ...
>
>> What about Sampras beating 3 former USO & No.1 champs in 3 successive
>> matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin & Rafter)?
>
> Agassi and Rafter were contemporaries of Sampras so at same level of
> career, and Safin was far too flaky to ever put together a long
> win-streak. He could beat anyone on a given day, but lose to anyone too.
>
And lets put Djoker in perspective. He's a 2 time AO champ who never
even made FO final or No.1. Why is beating him at FO such a monumental
achievment?
It's not.
Beating Rafa in final would be the real deal.
Whisper
Incorrect. Sampras would beat Fed 4/5 at Wimbledon & USO.
kaennorsing
> Incorrect. Clay is arguably Roger's best surface. Just because Rafa is
> better than him doesn't mean it's his weakest surface.
This is so absurd it's not even funny... Fed always struggled on clay
and lost his first 13 matches on it. Everyone knows it's clearly his
worst surface - by far.
> There's no way Roger would have won as many Wim/USO/AO if he had to play
> peak Rafa more often.
Another absurd statement, since Rafa has never beaten Federer post-
Wimbledon season and narrowly defeated Fed only once in all but
complete darkness... And that was at Rafa's very peak and clearly
after Federer's peak.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Let's break that down in FACT and FICTION shall we?
FACT-
The 1/5 represents Federers existing DEFEAT of Sampras at Wimbledon in 2003.
FICTION -
The 4/5 represents Cuda Wuda Sampras fan fucking where he would beat Fed at
Wimbledon/USO in matches that were never played and never will be.
Gracchus
> The 1/5 represents Federers existing DEFEAT of Sampras at Wimbledon in 2003.
2001. Which is actually more impressive.
Whisper
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:49:33 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/06/2011 5:23 PM, RzR wrote:
>>> if sampras had to play fed, he wouldnt win squat
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>
> Let's break that down in FACT and FICTION shall we?
>
> FACT-
>
> The 1/5 represents Federers existing DEFEAT of Sampras at Wimbledon in 2003.
>
> FICTION -
>
> The 4/5 represents Cuda Wuda Sampras fan fucking where he would beat Fed at
> Wimbledon/USO in matches that were never played and never will be.
Funny you don't use the actual h2h facts when comparing Fed v Rafa even
at peak.....?
Whisper
Why aren't you as impressed with Rafa's h2h v Fed then? That should be
really impressive given Fed was at his peak every single time he played
Rafa. You must be a Fedfucker deluxe to ignore that elephant & focus on
1 match when Sampras was at arse-end & retired a yr later.
Joe Ramirez
> On 4/06/2011 11:53 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 9:11 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>
> >>> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> >>>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
> >>>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>
> >>> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
> >>> he is way past his own prime.
>
> >>> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
> >>> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the time ...
>
> >> What about Sampras beating 3 former USO& No.1 champs in 3 successive
> >> matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin& Rafter)?
>
> > Nope. He did it on fast hard court. Fed did it on his worst surface.
>
> Incorrect. Clay is arguably Roger's best surface.
False. It is his worst surface. He just happens to be very good on his
worst surface.
SliceAndDice
He was on a historic 43 match winning streak. So yes, beating him is a
big deal.
SliceAndDice
Absurd. Try again.
Whisper
Incorrect. Fed's worst surface is Rafa.
Whisper
Not in an historical sense. eg do we know who snapped Vilas' streak
without looking it up?
Guess it mustn't be a big deal.
John Liang
Of course Sampras was at ass end of his career when he was losing to
any clowns imaginable
on his worst surface in the 1st two rounds of a grand slam.
Contrasting that to Federer who only
lost 4 finals to the best clay courter in the history on his worst
surface. Of course idiot like yourself
always it is greater career achievement to lost to clowns in early
rounds of slam rather than losing
to main rivals in the grand slam final.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny the goal post shift to h2h after Federer is ahead of Sampras in
your 7543 system.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
coulda, woulda and shoulda has no place in serious tennis analysis.
Superdave
whisper always creates his own greatest obstacles.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course it was more impressive beating a multiple slam champ like
Sampras like Blanco or Gudenzi did in the first/second round.
Joe Ramirez
So Sampras' worst "surface" is Galo Blanco? How ignominious.
In event, your repeating something untrue will not make it true.
Compare Fed's career winning percentages on clay, grass, and hard
court (we can exclude carpet because it's obsolete and for Federer was
largely a prelaunch surface). Fed's clay winning percentage is his
lowest *even if you exclude his matches against Nadal*. And his French
Open career winning percentage before 2011 is his worst at the slams
even if all the losses to Nadal are excluded from the calculation.
Please consider yourself debunked (which I know will not dissuade you
from posting more bunk, unfortunately).
SliceAndDice
I do..Nastase.
John Liang
Clay is Federer's weaker surface.
>
> There's no way Roger would have won as many Wim/USO/AO if he had to play
> peak Rafa more often.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Firstly woulda, coulda, shouda have not place in serious tennis
analysis. Secondly Nadal played most of the tournaments that Federer
entered so Nadal could not play his best of those tournament more
regularly only highlight how consistantly he can achieve what you
consider to be his best level and even at that best level it took five
sets for him to beat Federer who was not at his peak. Krajicek can
claim his best form is better than a lot of player but the important
thing is to bring best level more often rather than 2 out 15 attempts
like Nadal.
undecided
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I think he was 7-0 against the top-10 during this streak having
beaten both Fed and Rafa twice each.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Djokovic winning streak? He beat Rafa 4 times and Fed 3 times during
it.
Court_1
> On Jun 4, 8:06 am, steve jaros <sjar...@chill.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
> > he is way past his own prime.
>
> overstating things a bit.
No it is not. He is way past his prime, it is true.
Court_1
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:11:30 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
> >> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> >>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
> >>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>
> >> he is way past his own prime.
>
> >> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the time ...
>
> >What about Sampras beating 3 former USO & No.1 champs in 3 successive
> >matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin & Rafter)?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL!
Patrick Kehoe
Fed 6/10 over Pete about right... Fed greater numbers for hardcourt
slams... 9 to 7...
P
Patrick Kehoe
Good one!
P
P
undecided
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 06:52:32 -0700 (PDT), undecided <cost...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I stand corrected but i was just trying to make a point which your
numbers further enforce.
steve jaros
> On 4/06/2011 2:43 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 8:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>>> > On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>>>>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
>>>>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
>>>> he is way past his own prime.
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
>>>> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the
>>>> time ...
>>
>>> What about Sampras beating 3 former USO & No.1 champs in 3 successive
>>> matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin & Rafter)?
>>
>> Agassi and Rafter were contemporaries of Sampras so at same level of
>> career, and Safin was far too flaky to ever put together a long
>> win-streak. He could beat anyone on a given day, but lose to anyone too.
>>
>
>
> And lets put Djoker in perspective. He's a 2 time AO champ who never
> even made FO final or No.1. Why is beating him at FO such a monumental
> achievment?
What was monumental was his win streak, easily the best ever given the
competition he beat. It's definitely a signature win for Federer.
--
As a tourist, you become economically significant but
existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
- D. Foster Wallace
steve jaros
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 06:52:32 -0700 (PDT), undecided<cos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 3:47 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/06/2011 2:43 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2011 8:11 PM, Whisper wrote:
>>>>> On 4/06/2011 11:06 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2011 7:46 PM, Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
>>>>>>> He still has more drive than 99 percent of the guys on tour. To care
>>>>>>> that much after all he's accomplished is an achievement in itself.
>>>
>>>>>> Yes, what a unique talent. Outstanding win over a peak-prime champ when
>>>>>> he is way past his own prime.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm trying to think of a result similar to this. Maybe Jimbo beating
>>>>>> Lendl at the 82 USO final? Though Lendl wasn't a slam champ at the
>>>>>> time ...
>>>
>>>>> matches at 2001 USO (Agassi, Safin& Rafter)?
>>>
>>>> Agassi and Rafter were contemporaries of Sampras so at same level of
>>>> career, and Safin was far too flaky to ever put together a long
>>>> win-streak. He could beat anyone on a given day, but lose to anyone too.
>>>
>>> And lets put Djoker in perspective. He's a 2 time AO champ who never
>>> even made FO final or No.1. Why is beating him at FO such a monumental
>>> achievment?
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>>
>>> Beating Rafa in final would be the real deal.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> And I think he was 7-0 against the top-10 during this streak having
>> beaten both Fed and Rafa twice each.
>
> Djokovic winning streak? He beat Rafa 4 times and Fed 3 times during
> it.
He beat peak-Rafa FOUR times and Fed 3 times during the streak? That
would be like Lendl going on a streak in 1981 and beating Mac 4 times
and Borg 3 times during it. Almost unthinkable ...
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
*skriptis
"kaennorsing" <ljub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc7ddadb-5639-4a2d...@z33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 4 jun, 09:15, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> Incorrect. Clay is arguably Roger's best surface. Just because Rafa is
> better than him doesn't mean it's his weakest surface.
This is so absurd it's not even funny... Fed always struggled on clay
and lost his first 13 matches on it. Everyone knows it's clearly his
worst surface - by far.
> There's no way Roger would have won as many Wim/USO/AO if he had to play
> peak Rafa more often.
>Another absurd statement, since Rafa has never beaten Federer post-
>Wimbledon season and narrowly defeated Fed only once in all but
>complete darkness... And that was at Rafa's very peak and clearly
>after Federer's peak.
How can a #1 player, holder of two slams and YEC, a guy who reached the
final of that Wimbledon without losing a set, a guy who in that very
tournament is just starting an 8-consecutive slam final streak, a streak
bigger than former record of 7 striagh slam final appearances*
That guy is "cleary past his peak"?
I'd like to have your brain to have a rest...must be joy.
*skriptis
"Court_1" <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a53d5af-9080-4fa4...@v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
He's past his peak but still in his prime. He's a slam winning guy, and he's
in a slam final today. He's on his usual level.
peak>prime>contender>past it
peak - means being at your very best
prime - is when you play well, but as well as during peak, and occasionaly
you lose some close important matches (his stage of career)
contender - you lose more often than you win, but a slam win is still
possible
past it - done