US Open dream matches
TT
It appears Nadal would beat Laver and lose to Sampras, while Federer
would beat Sampras and lose to Laver etc.
Now what they didn't consider was Federer vs. Nadal at USO. But then
again we already know what would happen, as they played the match in
almost identical surface at AO... and we all know how that ended, in
tears. With good luck we're going to actually see that match soon.
Anyway, here goes nothing:
US Open dream matches
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The great stage of the US Open has hosted any number of remarkable
rivalries and classic matches through its long and storied history. From
nail-biting first-round upsets through thrilling edge-of-your-seat
finals, there have been countless matchups that have brought down the
house—and helped build the Open’s reputation as one of the world’s
greatest sporting events.
The US Open is high drama at its most irresistible, providing a showcase
for the greatest in the game to prove why they merit that moniker. And
when greatness collides with greatness, the result is seldom short of
brilliant. That has been the formula for the success of this singular
event—as well as for those who have won here. Every competitor comes to
New York knowing that in order to be the best, they’ll need to beat the
best.
So what if the greats of one era could, somehow, compete with the greats
of another? What if the “bests” were not separated by time, but only by
a net? Just imagine if you could sit in the stands in Arthur Ashe
Stadium and watch the towering champions of the past facing the fi nest
players of the current generation with both players at the height of
their powers. Who would you want to see face off—and who would win?
That’s what USTA Magazine asked a distinguished panel of players,
coaches and journalists to do: pick their dream matchup, and tell us how
it might turn out. Here are their answers.
NICK BOLLETTIERI: PETE SAMPRAS VS. ROGER FEDERER
Coach
A Pete Sampras-Roger Federer US Open match would be more than
interesting, the biggest and best I can think of between two all-time
greats who have both been such a credit to the game. It would have been
a battle of one-handed backhands, with Sampras hitting his backhand
flatter but Federer more versatile off that side. Backhand to backhand,
Roger would have the edge. It would be an incredible match to watch
between two of the great servers of all time, with Sampras using that
slice serve out wide in the deuce court and Federer bringing the juice
when he has to. Sampras would have the edge with the running forehand,
but Federer would cover more ground than Sampras. It would be a heck of
a match to predict. Sampras would attack and play serve-and-volley and
he would keep coming at Roger on his backhand side. Both players are so
good under pressure. In the end, though, I think Federer would find a
way to negate Sampras attacking him all the time, so I would see him
winning a very close match.
TONY TRABERT: TRABERT VS. NOVAK DJOKOVIC
U.S. Nationals Champion 1953, 1955
I would find it intriguing to play a US Open match at my best against
Novak Djokovic when he is at the top of his game. The first thing I
would do is try to disrupt his rhythm and give him some soft shots that
bounce higher, to keep him from getting in his groove. I would
serve-and-volley some, but not all the time; I’d keep mixing it up. I
would make him serve to me down the middle in the deuce court because he
doesn’t like that one as much as going wide. I would also try to use
short angles to get him out of position, pulling my backhand short and
making the ball land near the service line to force him out wide.
Disrupting his flow would be the key for me but it would not be easy.
Novak would be a tough guy to beat, but you want to discover how you
would perform in a situation like this. It would be a challenge I would
enjoy.
STEVE FLINK: PETE SAMPRAS VS. RAFAEL NADAL
American journalist
Pete Sampras takes on Rafael Nadal, and the two icons put on a
stupendous show for the fans that often leaves them gasping. I have been
watching big-time tennis since 1965, and have seen a cavalcade of great
players in my time, from Laver and Rosewall and Gonzalez, right on up to
Roger Federer. But Sampras and Nadal are the two players in the men’s
game that I have most admired. In my book, Sampras was the ultimate
champion, the greatest server the game has yet witnessed, the man who
has played the game on medium to fast courts better than anyone. Nadal
is the quintessential competitor, singularly resilient, indefatigable.
Sampras comes full force at Nadal with his elegant serve-and-volley
attacking game, while Nadal counters with his lethal brand of topspin,
his tricky left-handed serve, and the best forehand of all time. Sampras
and Nadal go to a fifth-set tie-break, and the American is down match
point at 5-6. He aces Nadal down the T, then puts away a crisp backhand
volley after swinging his slice serve wide in the deuce court. Now Nadal
is down match point at 6-7. He unleashes a scorching inside-out
forehand, but Sampras answers with a dazzling running forehand
crosscourt winner that not even the redoubtable Nadal can track down.
The two great champions embrace at the net afterwards, well aware that
they have staged a classic.
BUD COLLINS: BILL TILDEN VS. ANDRE AGASSI; STEFFI GRAF VS. MAUREEN CONNOLLY
American journalist, Boston Globe
I must choose two matches: Bill Tilden-Andre Agassi and Steffi
Graf-Maureen Connolly. Big Bill in impeccable white flannels, Agassi in
one of his garish outfits. They play marvelous rallies. But Bill, with a
cannonball serve, incredible anticipation and master of every stroke,
wins. Graf and Connolly would be the only meeting between two champions
who have won the Grand Slam. Both are great retrievers and competitors.
But Graf could be an Olympic sprinter; her speed and reach give her the
edge.
PETER BODO: JIM COURIER VS. BJORN BORG
American journalist, Tennis Magazine
On paper, you might think that Jim Courier and Bjorn Borg on the hard
courts of the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center would be a
mismatch. After all, Courier won a grand total of four major titles
while Borg bagged 11. However, neither man ever won the US Open. Borg
was in four US Open finals but, haunted by bad luck and antipathy to
playing under artificial lights, he grew less and less confident as the
years rolled by. Courier also was snakebit at Flushing Meadows, despite
having a game that earned him two Australian Open titles on hard courts.
So what happens when two excellent clay-court players who never won a US
Open title meet, with one of them destined to break the hex? Borg’s
serve was solid, his ground strokes were excellent and his movement
perhaps the best in tennis history up to that time. Courier was a
baseliner cut from a different cloth. He relied on a fairly basic game
plan—step into the court and put yourself in position to hit a big
forehand blast. Borg undoubtedly would be looking to find Courier’s
backhand. Courier, by contrast, would focus on getting himself set up
for the kill shot. No point getting into a track meet with Borg.
Ultimately, I would pick Borg to master the US Open demons and win,
because as devastating as Courier’s forehand could be, Borg would have
run down all but the best of them. It would be an absorbing spectacle,
though, because Borg was a different player at the US Open than anywhere
else, and mental goblins are sometimes more daunting than physical ones.
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA: NAVRATILOVA VS. SERENA WILLIAMS
US Open champion 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987
I would be inspired if I could play Serena Williams on that US Open
stadium court. The atmosphere with both of us in our primes would be
electric. The key for me would be to neutralize her power and get into
the points on her serve, to make her hit more balls than she is used to
hitting in most of her matches. I would need to keep the ball as low as
possible, and I would try to hit short to bring her forward, and then
come in deep going the other way. Now she is going backwards as I come
in to the net.
On my serve I would not be able to serve-and-volley all of the time, but
I would do it a lot. I would serve into her body, mix it up a lot. I
served-and-volleyed a lot against Monica Seles and she had the best
return in the game then, and it was effective. I believe I could deal
with Serena’s pace. The harder the ball comes to me the faster it tends
to come back. And I would try to give her a lot of off-paced balls.
Getting into the rally would be another key for me. I could see Serena
and me having a very close match, something like 6-4 in the third set,
with maybe a few tie-breaks before that. There would be very few service
breaks and I could imagine a set without any breaks at all. It would be
exciting because we are two of the best athletes tennis has ever seen
and the crowd would respond positively to that.
JOHN NEWCOMBE: NEWCOMBE VS. ANDRE AGASSI
U.S. Nationals Champion 1967 & US Open Champion 1973
I would enjoy playing against Andre Agassi at the US Open. I called some
of his matches against Pat Rafter on television, and I think Andre and I
would have had similar types of matches to those he had with Pat. I
would have kept coming at him and attacking and you would not have seen
me playing from the backcourt. Andre would have done his great
counterpunching and hit those returns of serve he was known for. It
would have been fun and I would have loved the battle, getting in the
cauldron with him. It would have been for me like playing Jimmy Connors
in some ways, and I can imagine we would have appreciated what we both
were bringing to the court. I would have given him that nod of approval
after he hit a great passing shot, and he would have been that way with
me. If we could have played at the Open a few times, I think we each
would have won against each other. It would certainly be the kind of
match that would give the fans some great tennis.
NEIL HARMAN: ANDY MURRAY VS. JIMMY CONNORS
British journalist
How about Andy Murray and Jimmy Connors? The thought of the more
cerebral right-hander from Scotland against the most ferocious
competitor I ever saw on a tennis court would make for a magical matchup
in New York. Connors frightened me, so his opponents would fear him as
well: that we can know. The lefty against righty mixture, the
flat-hitting, smoking ground strokes of Connors against the more
flighty, thoughtful play of Murray. Fire against brimstone, two driven
men, neither of whom ever contemplated the prospect of defeat—what could
be better than that? I suppose Connors by virtue of his record would
emerge with a victory, but just to imagine these two locking antlers
would be enough to whet the appetite of any tennis fan.
MARY CARILLO: MONICA SELES VS. SERENA WILLIAMS
CBS TV commentator
A dream US Open match for me would be between Monica Seles and Serena
Williams, with both in peak form. Seles, the best returner I’ve ever
seen against the best server in Williams. Monica forcing Serena to deal
with short court angles she’s never faced in modern tennis, testing her
stamina and footwork. Facing off against Serena’s stunning athleticism
and ability to take anyone’s best stuff and deal with it. Both of them
refusing to lose. Two fierce competitors, understanding and embracing
the enormity of the moment on a Saturday night in New York. I would be
there for that one.
CLIFF DRYSDALE: RAFAEL NADAL VS. ROD LAVER
ESPN TV commentator
Let me see Rafa Nadal against Rod Laver at the US Open, because I want
to find out how the modern game of Nadal would do against the best
athlete tennis has ever had in Laver. Rod would not be able to serve and
volley against Nadal the way he did in his day, and would have to wait
for his chances to come in. Nadal would give Laver some problems with
his high topspin because Rod had a Continental grip, but Laver was so
great he would give Nadal a lot to worry about as well. It would be
fascinating to see. All things being equal, Nadal wins in four sets, but
it would depend on the equipment. If Rod could play Rafa with the old
wood racquets and strings, he would have a better chance, but with the
modern equipment Rafa would be tough to stop. The fans would be in for a
real treat if these two guys could meet in some kind of time warp. I
know I would be there to watch it.
CHRIS EVERT: EVERT VS. MARTINA HINGIS
US Open champion 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982
I would really enjoy playing against Martina Hingis with us both in our
primes because it would be a tactical match that would bring out the
best in both of us. If I played Maria Sharapova or either of the
Williams sisters, I might get blown off the court, but with Martina I am
sure I would be more comfortable and could get into the match. It would
be a thoughtful and interesting battle between us with strategy playing
a big role in it. I would have to be very alert because Martina is such
a tricky player. She has so much variety in her game. I would not know
when she might come to the net, or when she would use her drop shot. I
would use my drop shot as well. The tennis would be fun for both of us
because we would use our heads to try to find ways to win. I don’t know
who would win. Maybe I wouldn’t miss a ball but maybe Martina would have
too many surprises for me up her sleeve. It would be a nice battle of
the minds.
UBALDO SCANAGATTA: JOHN MCENROE VS. ROGER FEDERER
Italian journalist
Nothing could be better than to see two artists both called “genius” by
the unimaginative press: John McEnroe and Roger Federer. Here are the
most magical hands ever placed on a racquet: the left one of McEnroe and
the right one of Federer. I can imagine McEnroe saying of Federer, “This
guy behaves so well he reminds me of Borg.” And Federer replying, “Oh,
no, another left-hander! Wasn’t Nadal enough?” Who do I see winning?
Federer. Roger would return better than his opponent and neutralize
John’s first serve with a more effective sliced backhand. He would also
bother John with his higher trajectory ground strokes. Federer wins in
five after trailing two sets to love.
L. JON WERTHEIM: CHRIS EVERT VS. VENUS WILLIAMS
American journalist, Sports Illustrated
They say in boxing that “styles make fights.” And the same goes for
tennis. Yes, best matches are packed with fluctuating momentum and
moments of truth, demanding that both players ask deep questions of
themselves and their opponents. But the best matches also pit together
two different players—different games, different skill sets, different
philosophies. You could hardly get more different than Chris Evert and
Venus Williams. A quarter-century of time separates them; it may as well
be a millennium. Relentless consistency versus unparalleled athleticism.
A modest physique versus height that exceeds six feet. You could play
the “compare and contrast game” for a long time here.
Yet for every difference there is a similarity. Two ambitious women, who
came of age in South Florida, taught the sport by their parents. They
both prolonged their careers into their 30s. Maybe above all, they both
carried themselves with a certain dignity, a certain intensity they
brought to bear on the court.
Would Venus—the Venus who won the US Open and Wimbledon in 2000 and
2001—simply steamroll Chrissie with her force? Would Chrissie—the
Chrissie who won multiple majors in the same year as a matter of
course—neutralize the power on the other side of the net with her
pinpoint precision? Who would blink first? However it played out, we
would want to see it.
BJORN HELLBERG: ROY EMERSON VS. RAFAEL NADAL
Swedish Journalist
Here is a top-class contest at the US Open—Roy Emerson vs. Rafael Nadal.
These are two of the strongest battlers in the history of tennis, both
with the stamina to survive several hours in the toughest of conditions
in New York. It would be especially intriguing because of the sharp
contrast in styles between the two players: Nadal the brilliant
baseliner against the ruthless serve-and-volleyer and fighter Emerson.
Nadal would operate from the backcourt while Emerson would take every
opportunity to get to the net. I am sure this would be a most exciting
clash. Emerson would have to use all of his speed capacity if he has any
serious intentions of beating the steady Spaniard with the wonderful
topspin ground strokes. The fans would be thrilled to see this clash of
styles.
MARK PRESTON: MARTINA NAVRATILOVA VS. SERENA WILLIAMS
American journalist, USTA Magazine
There has never been a player I’ve admired more than Martina
Navratilova, both for her talent and her remarkable competitive ability.
Born in Czechoslovakia, but most assuredly made in America, Navratilova
did nothing less than change the face of women’s tennis with her
aggressive game, unparalleled commitment to fitness and unquenchable
desire to be the best. The only other woman on par with Navratilova in
terms of mental toughness and sheer fighting spirit is Serena Williams,
the greatest pure competitor of this era of women’s tennis. For that
reason alone, it would be a joy to see these two go head-to-head on the
game’s biggest stage; Navratilova’s precise serve-and-volley game
against Williams’ punishing power. The exchanges would be staggering in
their brilliance; two fighters engaged in the sort of heavyweight
slugfest that usually has ropes around it. Without a doubt, this one
goes the distance, as neither woman gives an inch. In three, it’s
Navratilova.
STAN SMITH: SMITH VS. PETE SAMPRAS
US Open Champion 1971
For me, playing against Pete Sampras at the US Open would be a great
experience. Our games were so similar as serve-and-volleyers. It would
probably come down to who would return better off the backhand, which
was the weaker side for both of us. But it would be a straightforward
serve-and-volley match. I know it would be tough for me to return
against Pete. He had such a great serve and his second serve was
outstanding. One of us would have to hit a big shot at the right time to
take control. It would be very difficult for me to break his serve. Pete
was so great whenever he was down on his serve but I would really like
the chance to compete against him since he was a player I respected a lot.
BOB BRETT: ROGER FEDERER VS. ROD LAVER
Coach
I would want to see Roger Federer play Rod Laver at the US Open. Both
players changed the game in their times. Laver was the first to really
hit the topspin backhand, and Federer changed tennis with the way he
stepped inside the court and stood in so close. Both Rod and Roger are
great shot-makers and both knew how to adjust, so if Federer had played
Laver with a wood racquet he would have adjusted to that, and if Rod had
played Roger with the newer racquets, he would have made that work as
well. If they had played on grass at the US Open in the old days maybe
Rod would have won, and on the hard courts now maybe Roger would have
the edge. I guess it would have ended up going to a fifth-set tie-break
either way.
S.L. PRICE: LEW HOAD VS. JOHN MCENROE
American journalist, Sports Illustrated
I was reporting a piece on Pancho Gonzalez, and, just to get a sense of
Pancho’s legendarily powerful serve, I began watching some
black-and-white footage of his matches from the 1950s. In the film,
Gonzalez’ opponent was Lew Hoad, a graceful Australian with a cannon
forehand that seemed transported back in time. Hoad was so athletic, so
daring, so spectacularly forceful that—even seen through the limiting
lens of a single-shot, distantly-placed camera—the effect was
electrifying. I couldn’t stop watching him—not Gonzalez. I started to
learn, then—and had it confirmed later—that Hoad was the one player that
the fearsome Gonzalez ever feared. Over and over, in chats with Rod
Laver and other Aussie greats, I kept hearing how, on his best days,
Hoad could’ve taken apart anyone: Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal.
So this is the match for me: Hoad, ballistic and free-wheeling, against
John McEnroe, who with his unique serve and astonishing net game, those
incredible hands and that combustible head, remains the first—and
only—player who ever made the hair on the back of my neck literally rise
in respect and awe. Because I never saw Hoad play live. And ever since
that day I saw him on fi lm, I’m certain that he would be the second.
TRACY AUSTIN: AUSTIN VS. CAROLINE WOZNIACKI
US Open Champion 1979, 1981
I wonder what it would be like to play against Caroline Wozniacki in a
big US Open match. I felt I was a very good mover, a smart player, good
with the tactics. My strengths were my consistency and focus, my mental
toughness. Caroline is a lot like I used to be. It would be a good chess
match between us. There would be very few free points for either of us.
Both of us have the ability to play well, point-in and point-out, to
outmaneuver each other. It would come down to who would blink first.
Neither one of us is overpowering but we don’t give an inch.
The match would be decided by who plays the right shot at the right
time. She wears down her opponent and doesn’t give them anything and you
must earn every point against Caroline.
Whoever plays the big points better would win, and it would be a very
good contest.
STEPHEN TIGNOR: JUSTINE HENIN VS. EVONNE GOOLAGONG
American journalist, Tennis magazine
My dream matchup? I want to see backhands. With that sweep across the
body, it’s the shot that allows the pros to show off their artistic
sides. There are two different but equally artistic players I would love
to see across the net from each other. One is Evonne Goolagong, the
laconically graceful Australian champion from the 1970s. The other is
Justine Henin, the dynamically graceful Belgian champion who retired
this year.
Here the beauty of old school and new would be united. Goolagong’s easy
movement, her caressed ground strokes, her flowing serve-and-volley
game, and her signature, sweeping underspin backhand would take us back
to the sport at the highest point in its wood racquet evolution. At the
same time, Henin’s whirling speed, her power-packed forehand—she
launched herself off the court to hit it—and her famous flyaway
one-handed topspin backhand would be as fine a representative of the
game’s power era that we could ask.
Goolagong and Henin were flip sides of the same artistic coin. Face to
face, they would bring the sport’s two schools of beauty, forever
separate in time, onto one court.
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2011-08-18/201108181313696096643.html
John Liang
> Here's an interesting article, opinions on who would win at USO match.
> It appears Nadal would beat Laver and lose to Sampras, while Federer
> would beat Sampras and lose to Laver etc.
>
> Now what they didn't consider was Federer vs. Nadal at USO. But then
> again we already know what would happen,
Yes, just like Del Po thrash Nadal 2,2,2. Peak Federer would deliver
two bagels to Nadal.
TT
"But then again we already know what would happen, as they played the
John Liang
USO and AO never played on identical surface. We know Nadal got
smashed
by Del P in USO judging by that score line we can easily see Federer
smash
Nadal to piece at his peak.
felangey
At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
TT
> On Aug 22, 12:41 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 21.8.2011 17:22, John Liang kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 12:07 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> Here's an interesting article, opinions on who would win at USO match.
>>>> It appears Nadal would beat Laver and lose to Sampras, while Federer
>>>> would beat Sampras and lose to Laver etc.
>>
>>>> Now what they didn't consider was Federer vs. Nadal at USO. But then
>>>> again we already know what would happen,
>>
>>> Yes, just like Del Po thrash Nadal 2,2,2. Peak Federer would deliver
>>> two bagels to Nadal.
>>
>> "But then again we already know what would happen, as they played the
>> match in almost identical surface at AO... and we all know how that
>> ended, in tears."
>
> USO and AO never played on identical surface.
Yes they do.
> We know Nadal got
> smashed
> by Del P in USO judging by that score line we can easily see Federer
> smash
> Nadal to piece at his peak.
That's just your opinion, which is not worth much against the
facts(their AO match).
TT
>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>
> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>
>
Will lose to Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Delpo, Connors, Sampras, Lendl,
Agassi etc.
But wins in 4 against likes of Ferrero, Roddick etc. Great champ.
Court_1
> >Nadal to piece at his peak<
>
> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
Without question. Nadal would be the one crying.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell me how old Federer was at the AO match? 27 or 28? Past his prime
my dear.
Can Nadal at 25 even make it into the finals of any slam event now let
alone non-clay events? We'lll see.
Court_1
But winning against Berdych, Soderling and Puerta makes Nadal a real
champ huh?
Do any of those guys have any slams? At least Roddick and Ferreo have
one slam each.
topspin
>
> STEPHEN TIGNOR: JUSTINE HENIN VS. EVONNE GOOLAGONG
> American journalist, Tennis magazine
>
> My dream matchup? I want to see backhands. With that sweep across the
> body, it’s the shot that allows the pros to show off their artistic
> sides. There are two different but equally artistic players I would love
> to see across the net from each other. One is Evonne Goolagong, the
> laconically graceful Australian champion from the 1970s. The other is
> Justine Henin, the dynamically graceful Belgian champion who retired
> this year.
>
> Here the beauty of old school and new would be united. Goolagong’s easy
> movement, her caressed ground strokes, her flowing serve-and-volley
> game, and her signature, sweeping underspin backhand would take us back
> to the sport at the highest point in its wood racquet evolution. At the
> same time, Henin’s whirling speed, her power-packed forehand—she
> launched herself off the court to hit it—and her famous flyaway
> one-handed topspin backhand would be as fine a representative of the
> game’s power era that we could ask.
>
> Goolagong and Henin were flip sides of the same artistic coin. Face to
> face, they would bring the sport’s two schools of beauty, forever
> separate in time, onto one court.
Tignor is a man with exquisite taste.
Sakari Lund
But somehow the article ignored the women's dominating USO player of
recent years, but they include even damn Wozniacki. Killed my interest
of reading such fantasies... :-)
topspin
Well, they were all personal choices, mostly with a bias towards local
compatriots (Tignor being a notable exception). However I find it hard
to believe that Tracey Austin's dream opponent from modern tennis
would be Wozniacki!
Maybe she was being kind. Or is trying to do some sort of deal with
Denmark. Or acting as cheerleader forthe USLTA and trying to big up
the current #1 (my own suspicion)..
Ali Asoag
> Here's an interesting article, opinions on who would win at USO match.
> It appears Nadal would beat Laver and lose to Sampras, while Federer
> would beat Sampras and lose to Laver etc.
This is a lie (half lie). He said on grass USO Laver would have won, on
hardcourt Fed. So either you have reading comprehension or you still do
what you alwys do: bending the truth.
> Now what they didn't consider was Federer vs. Nadal at USO.
This match cannot be considered "dream match" as Nadal is no great in
USO. Down far away from Fed' league there.
> But then
> again we already know what would happen, as they played the match in
> almost identical surface at AO... and we all know how that ended, in
> tears. With good luck we're going to actually see that match soon.
Yes, with luck i.e. Federer aging and down the hill.
Ali Asoag
> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>
>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>
>>
>
> Will lose to Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Delpo, Connors, Sampras, Lendl,
> Agassi etc.
TT is the most stupid poster on RST. "Fed will lose to ... Agassi".
LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
And the rest of the list yet needs to reach a final while Fed being peak ...
> But wins in 4 against likes of Ferrero, Roddick etc. Great champ.
Just wonder where your boy Nadal was all those finals ... LOL.
Ali Asoag
You are expecting too much from TT to have an answer here ...
Ali Asoag
Like he did after Wimby 2007.
Ali Asoag
Again, you are expecting too much from TT. You can see it because he did
not answer. Everytime TT didn't answer, he knows deep down he lost the
argument. Poor guy, because next moment he will start the next nonsense.
TT
> Tell me how old Federer was at the AO match? 27 or 28? Past his prime
> my dear.
How the hell could he be past his prime when he won RG+W that year?
TT
I rarely ever lose an argument. I sometimes choose not to reply because
someone's post is below par on rehashing arguments answered thousand
times. Or I may not read the reply.
John Liang
Nadal will lost to anyone you named on HC, I would also include guys
like
Edberg and Becker and the only guy Nadal would beat in USO is Wilander.
Court_1
> - Show quoted text -
As if anybody would actually believe that stupidity! Nice try.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't expect anything trust me on that one! ;) No worries!
Court_1
That is the dumbest comment you have ever made. All slams won by all
tennis players are won when they are in their prime? Don't make me
laugh. The greats still win slams after their prime. If Nadal wins a
slam in two years will he still be in his prime?
Whisper
I agree with the piece below. McEnroe the most exciting & talented
player ever, v probably the very best player of all time.
Whisper
Pure fantasy. I doubt there would be more than 1 or 2 credible experts
who'd tip Fed to beat Rafa in a peak match. There is no evidence to
support that position.
Whisper
>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>
> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>
>
I'd put several players ahead of Fed at USO at peaks, eg;
Sampras
Nadal
Connors
Agassi
Whisper
Fed would beat Lendl & Potro, but lose to the other guys.
Whisper
Absolutely no evidence to support that position. Everything points to
Fed losing yet again.
Whisper
Fed was still beating Blake, Berdych in straights in that slam, just
like all the others. I thought Rafa would be lucky to be able to play
the final given the torrid semi, but astonishingly he still beat a vert
fresh Fed playing his best stuff.
I have no respect for the nutso Fedfuckers who can't accept Rafa's slam
record v Fed - complete fruits. The only Fedfans I can tolerate are the
ones who acknowledge Rafa's superiority in a man-on-man contest. If Fed
led Rafa 7-2 in slams I wouldn't be touting Rafa as better.
Whisper
Kim is a bit like Lendl in that regard - no one really cares about them
because their games are essentially dull, & they always lost to the top
players at their best. That's just the way it is.
Whisper
> On 8/21/2011 9:50 AM, TT wrote:
>> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>>
>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Will lose to Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Delpo, Connors, Sampras, Lendl,
>> Agassi etc.
>
> TT is the most stupid poster on RST. "Fed will lose to ... Agassi".
> LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
>
er, Agassi would have 6 USOs if no Sampras. Also remember how 35 yr old
Agassi went toe-to-toe with peak 24 yr old Fed at 2004/2005 USOs?
I'd also give Agassi the edge over Fed at peaks at USO.
Whisper
Every time Fed lost to Rafa he wasn't at peak silly. Why can't you
accept that?
TT
You didn't answer my question. How could he win RG+W which he never done
before if he was not in his prime...weak draw? Luck?
TT
Not only that but he never was in his prime either. Except when he lost
to Safin at AO.
TT
Your level of posts just keeps soaring and soaring. And it looks like
it's a bottomless pit.
TT
He would not beat Lendl, he had big trouble with Kafelnikov to begin with.
TT
Obviously that was before Ali was born.
Sakari Lund
Yes, and he lost to Potro already. So we have concluded he couldn't
have beaten any even half-decent player in history at USO. Damn, we
are good at analysing things here!
felangey
>
>
> Sampras
> Nadal
> Connors
> Agassi<
Is this it from you, really? Over and out? Nothing left other than the
bitter bitter words and sentiment? Sad.
Superdave
If Sampras were to play Fed at the USO it would be:
Fed 2 Sampras 0
Shakes
the 2006 Fed (USO F or YEC version), and the 2008 Nadal (Wim version)
would be awesome.
Court_1
I answered your question but obviously you did not comprehend it or
you chose to ignore my answer. Federer was still good enough to win
slams after his prime just as other greats win slams after their
primes. This is not rocket science. What is so difficult about that to
understand? If Nadal wins a slam two years from now, does that mean he
will win a slam still in his prime? I did not see you answer my
question but I have not read the whole thread carefully.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
But your post stating that you never lose an argument is a high level
post? Who can take that seriously? Also saying you don't reply back to
other people's posts because they are sub par or you don't even read
them is funny coming from you. You are on here 24/7, of course you
read them. Don't say something that is so obviously transparent.
Court_1
> - Show quoted text -
I don't agree with you at all on this issue re Federer but even though
I disagree with a lot of your posts you don't seem to have an
inferiority complex with smart women like your cohort Bob does. What
does your wife do may I ask?(you have mentioned your wife to me in
previous posts so that is why I know you have one) Does she like
tennis? If she does like tennis does she agree with you on your nutty
theories? LOL. Forgive me if this has been answered on here but I am
relatively new.
I understand Rafa leads the h2h with Fed. I think Rafa is a great
player but the h2h results to me show Rafa is clearly superior on clay
over Fed. Before 2008 which to me was the start of Federer's decline,
the results between Rafa and Fed were more even at least on HC(I am
talking about all their matches not just slams) and Federer lead on
grass until 2008. So I don't think it shows Rafa is so superior to Fed
at all. I understand people who have the opinion that Rafa is superior
but I don't agree, heck even Rafa thinks Fed is superior to himself
and has stated it many times.
The kicker for me is the fact that Federer overall has way surpassed
Nadal with his acheivements and has been more dominant over the field
than Rafa has so to me that clearly makes Federer the superior player.
Now I know you don't agree with me but that is my viewpoint.
Court_1
Sampras ahead of Fed at their peaks? I am astonished you feel this
way! NOT.
LOL @ the fact that you put peak Agassi, a player you disprespect on
here all of the time, ahead of peak Fed at the USO. You must really
hate Fed! LMAO.
felangey
>
>
> Sampras
> Nadal
> Connors
> Agassi<
Oooh...and then.....and then.....and then you could zoooom off to Narnia on
your flying pig to spend all the magic beans the tooth fairy gave you.
felangey
Roffle. You rarely even grasp the basic premise of the arguments you stumble
into.
>"I sometimes choose not to reply because<
...some bigger boys are being mean to me".
felangey
Shakes
I don't think that is preposterous. Sampras has as many USO titles as
Fed does, and his game was very suited to the surface. IMO, it's a very
close call and a case can be made either way.
Agassi was no slouch either. As his matches in 2004, 2005 prove.
Shakes
Connors ? Come on !!
John Liang
> On 22/08/2011 1:06 AM, John Liang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 12:41 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 21.8.2011 17:22, John Liang kirjoitti:
>
> >>> On Aug 22, 12:07 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>> Here's an interesting article, opinions on who would win at USO match.
> >>>> It appears Nadal would beat Laver and lose to Sampras, while Federer
> >>>> would beat Sampras and lose to Laver etc.
>
> >>>> Now what they didn't consider was Federer vs. Nadal at USO. But then
> >>>> again we already know what would happen,
>
> >>> Yes, just like Del Po thrash Nadal 2,2,2. Peak Federer would deliver
> >>> two bagels to Nadal.
>
> >> "But then again we already know what would happen, as they played the
> >> match in almost identical surface at AO... and we all know how that
> >> ended, in tears."
>
> > smashed
> > by Del P in USO judging by that score line we can easily see Federer
> > smash
>
> Pure fantasy. I doubt there would be more than 1 or 2 credible experts
> who'd tip Fed to beat Rafa in a peak match. There is no evidence to
> support that position.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pure fantasy on your part when a guy like Nadal get repeatedly raped
on HC by likes of Youzhny and
Ferrer. Let alone that heavy thrashing that Del P delivered to him a
few years. There is no credible
evidence to suggest he can beat any of the good HC player of the last
twenty years. A lone final in
USO hardly suggest that he can consistantly threat anyone of a calibre
like Agassi let alone a five
time champion like Federer. There is obviously no evidence to
suggest him doing what you said
he would do when a career record of 2 wins out of 15 attempts could
not suggest anything more clearer.
John Liang
> On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>
> >> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>
> > At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>
> I'd put several players ahead of Fed at USO at peaks, eg;
>
> Sampras
> Nadal
> Connors
> Agassi
Nadal would not even be in the top 10 all time on HC.
John Liang
Plenty of evidence in how he fare in most of hard court slams. Two
wins out of 15
is hardly anything to suggest he would win against top competiton on
HC.
John Liang
Still lost to Fed and we know peak agassi own Sampras on slow hc of
AO.
>
> I'd also give Agassi the edge over Fed at peaks at USO.
I'd give Fed over Agassi anytime 8: 0 is pretty conclusive.
bob
i'll ask this again: are you aware there is a 4-5 yr age difference
between them? and that fed had won 10 slams well before nadal's 21st
birthday?
now maybe that doesnt' mean anything to you, who can tell.
bob
bob
i'd say clijsters had 2/3 chance to be him, no? she never loses there,
don't forget. ;-)
bob
bob
>21.8.2011 21:53, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> Tell me how old Federer was at the AO match? 27 or 28? Past his prime
>> my dear.
>
>How the hell could he be past his prime when he won RG+W that year?
and lost USO with match pts, and won AO following that. oh, he was
peak alright.
bob
bob
wrote:
>> Tell me how old Federer was at the AO match? 27 or 28? Past his prime
>> my dear.
>>
>> Can Nadal at 25 even make it into the finals of any slam event now let
>> alone non-clay events? We'lll see.
>
>Again, you are expecting too much from TT. You can see it because he did
>not answer. Everytime TT didn't answer, he knows deep down he lost the
>argument. Poor guy, because next moment he will start the next nonsense.
got your USO planned yet?
bob
Ali Asoag
> On 22/08/2011 7:46 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>>>
>>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Will lose to Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Delpo, Connors, Sampras, Lendl,
>>> Agassi etc.
>>
>> LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
>>
>
>
> er, Agassi would have 6 USOs if no Sampras. Also remember how 35 yr old
> Agassi went toe-to-toe with peak 24 yr old Fed at 2004/2005 USOs?
The almost-won guy ist better than the winning guy. Not bad. That's
Whispery. That's why Sampras is better than Fed becaue 14 is "almost"
greater than 16. LOL
> I'd also give Agassi the edge over Fed at peaks at USO.
Since when have you teamed up with TT?
John Liang
That means nothing we don't compare age differences but their result.
Federer
won way more HC slams than Nadal. For most part of his prime Nadal
was just
not there to compete with Federer on HC. He simply wasn't in the same
class
as Federer on HC. While Federer won most of the HC slams when Nadal
was
either No.1 or No.2 player in the world. If a No.1 and No.2 player in
the world
can only compile a record of 2 wins out of 15 attempts it simply means
he was
not good enough on that surface.
>
> now maybe that doesnt' mean anything to you, who can tell.
Does 2 wins out of 15 grand slam attempts and lacks of result in
defending non clay court slam
mean anything to you ? How does it comapare to someone who defended
the USO four times and Wimbledon
4 times against the same pool of players ?
>
> bob- Hide quoted text -
Ali Asoag
> On 22/08/2011 7:46 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 8/21/2011 9:50 AM, TT wrote:
>>> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>>>
>>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Will lose to Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Delpo, Connors, Sampras, Lendl,
>>> Agassi etc.
>>
>> TT is the most stupid poster on RST. "Fed will lose to ... Agassi".
>> LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
>>
>
>
> er, Agassi would have 6 USOs if no Sampras. Also remember how 35 yr old
> Agassi went toe-to-toe with peak 24 yr old Fed at 2004/2005 USOs?
>
So there are two ...
Ali Asoag
> On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Sampras
> Nadal
> Connors
> Agassi
This just shows again how desperate Fedhaters have become. Now they
start playing with "I would consider X, Y, Z better than FEd". How pathetic.
Why not consider facts? 16 Slams don't need "would", "could", "should".
LMAO.
Ali Asoag
> On Aug 21, 7:50 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 22.8.2011 0:49, Ali Asoag kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> alone non-clay events? We'lll see.
>>
>>> Again, you are expecting too much from TT. You can see it because he did
>>> not answer. Everytime TT didn't answer, he knows deep down he lost the
>>> argument. Poor guy, because next moment he will start the next nonsense.
>>
>> someone's post is below par on rehashing arguments answered thousand
>> times. Or I may not read the reply.->
>
LOL.
Ali Asoag
I told you, you are chatting with TT ...
Ali Asoag
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
That's a good attitude. I am taking TT's and Whisper's posts as
compensation for my hard work day life ...
Ali Asoag
Not yet, because I have some doubts FEd will reach even the
quarterfinals. I would like to go there on Sept. 7 and 8.
How is bobby's evaluation of Fed's chance of reaching quarter finals
this USO? ;-)
Ali Asoag
> 21.8.2011 21:53, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> my dear.
>
How the hell could Nadal be premature (*) in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when he
won RG in those year?
(*) He could only lose to Fed at Wimby 2006, 2007 because he was
premature (according to TT).
Ali Asoag
>> my dear.
>>
>
> like all the others. I thought Rafa would be lucky to be able to play
> the final given the torrid semi, but astonishingly he still beat a vert
> fresh Fed playing his best stuff.
>
> I have no respect for the nutso Fedfuckers who can't accept Rafa's slam
> record v Fed - complete fruits. The only Fedfans I can tolerate are the
> ones who acknowledge Rafa's superiority in a man-on-man contest. If Fed
> led Rafa 7-2 in slams I wouldn't be touting Rafa as better.
No Fedfan would not acknowledge Rafa's H2H against Fed. They just can't
accept the losers' (Fedhaters') making up this H2H to say NAdal is a
better player overall. Nadal might be better in the majority of the
matches they played, but they were most played on clay, and the
Fedhaters keep saying he is better on all surfaces. If he was, he should
have won more Slams than Fed.
Ali Asoag
> On 22/08/2011 1:50 AM, TT wrote:
>> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Agassi etc.
>>
>
>
> Fed would beat Lendl & Potro, but lose to the other guys.
Still thinking Roddick can handle Fed? That must be love.
Ali Asoag
1) Why don't you then just shut the fuck up and wait until their careers
are over and then count the Slams?
2) Why are you still insisting they are playing in the same era?
Ali Asoag
> On 22/08/2011 1:06 AM, John Liang wrote:
>>> 21.8.2011 17:22, John Liang kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 12:07 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>> Here's an interesting article, opinions on who would win at USO match.
>>>>> It appears Nadal would beat Laver and lose to Sampras, while Federer
>>>>> would beat Sampras and lose to Laver etc.
>>>
>>>>> Now what they didn't consider was Federer vs. Nadal at USO. But then
>>>>> again we already know what would happen,
>>>
>>>> Yes, just like Del Po thrash Nadal 2,2,2. Peak Federer would deliver
>>>> two bagels to Nadal.
>>>
>>> "But then again we already know what would happen, as they played the
>>> match in almost identical surface at AO... and we all know how that
>>> ended, in tears."
>>
>> smashed
>> by Del P in USO judging by that score line we can easily see Federer
>> smash
>> Nadal to piece at his peak.
>
>
> support that position.
Read the OP again. There was a guy tipping Fed would win against
Sampras. Then again another tipping Sampras would win against NAdal.
So Fed > SAmpras > NAdal which is pretty much common sense.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
The original post was poor. I don't think Nadal can win 2 sets from
Sampras on this slick USO
surface. It would probably be more like a straight sets or 4 sets
victory for Sampras.
John Liang
> On 8/22/2011 9:02 PM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
> 2) Why are you still insisting they are playing in the same era?- Hide quoted text -
>
They are playing the same era. And the result shows that Nadal find
handling the journeymen
on HC were just too difficult. Only Moron would place Nadal in top 5
on a super
fast hard court like USO when he had not history of been able to
defend any non clay court
slams and won 1 out of 7 attempt. If I have to pick 5 player in the
open era to play for me
in USO Nadal would not be on the list.
bob
wrote:
as it is a HC slam, very good. >80%. but starting next year, all bets
are off.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 8/22/2011 9:02 PM, bob wrote:
temper temper. you must agree with my post then. there's no law
against forming opinions as their careers progress.
>2) Why are you still insisting they are playing in the same era?
their eras overlap. this is obvious.
bob
Sakari Lund
Hey, I'll agree with that :-)
Court_1
> - Show quoted text -
Good plan! Taking those posts seriously would be akin to being some
kind of masochist. ;)
Whisper
> A three way match-up between the 1999 Sampras (Wim or YEC F version),
> the 2006 Fed (USO F or YEC version), and the 2008 Nadal (Wim version)
> would be awesome.
Nah, I think Rafa of 2010 USO was the best Rafa HC version. Sampras
would come out on top, then Rafa then Fed.
Iceberg
> On 8/21/2011 9:50 AM, TT wrote:
>
> > 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
> >>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>
> >> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>
> > Will lose to Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Delpo, Connors, Sampras, Lendl,
> > Agassi etc.
>
> LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
this must be written in irony, of all the people to laugh at vs Fed,
Agassi isn't the one. case you don't know, a nearly 40 year old Agassi
took a set off *peak* Fed and was nearly 2 sets up. Peak Agassi
would've easily handled peak Fed at the US Open.
Iceberg
agreed, would be a great mach up to see, but Nadal's AO play which
wasn't quite as good as USO2010 pretty much proves you're right on the
result.
Court_1
You have to just laugh at a guy who puts a player he considers "dirt",
namely the lowly Agassi above Fed on hard courts. In addition to that,
Federer has a total of 9 HC slams(USO and AO) more than Sampras,
Agassi, etc., yet Whisper and many other Fed haters put Federer dead
last at the USO on hard courts at his peak. He even puts Nadal ahead
of Federer on HC. Right, 9 HC slams is not better than 2 I guess in
the convoluted brains of some people!
The comedy in this place is just priceless!
Iceberg
> On Aug 22, 7:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22/08/2011 7:46 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>
> > > On 8/21/2011 9:50 AM, TT wrote:
> > >> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>
> > >>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>
> > >> Agassi etc.
>
> > > TT is the most stupid poster on RST. "Fed will lose to ... Agassi".
> > > LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
>
> > Agassi went toe-to-toe with peak 24 yr old Fed at 2004/2005 USOs?
>
> AO.
>
>
>
> > I'd also give Agassi the edge over Fed at peaks at USO.
>
thicko, Agassi has beaten Fed at the US Open.
Court_1
> On Aug 22, 7:08 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>
>
> > > At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>
>
> > Sampras
> > Nadal
> > Connors
> > Agassi
>
Exactly! If you go look at the ATP records on Wikipedia for example
(or any other stat site) and look at the Grand Slam or ATP title wins
by court surface, Nadal does not make the list of top 10 on any of
them for hard court surfaces.
Whisper
> On Aug 22, 5:14 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have no respect for the nutso Fedfuckers who can't accept Rafa's slam
>> record v Fed - complete fruits. The only Fedfans I can tolerate are the
>> ones who acknowledge Rafa's superiority in a man-on-man contest. If Fed
>> led Rafa 7-2 in slams I wouldn't be touting Rafa as better.-
>
> I disagree with a lot of your posts you don't seem to have an
> inferiority complex with smart women like your cohort Bob does. What
> does your wife do may I ask?(you have mentioned your wife to me in
> previous posts so that is why I know you have one)
Her faves were Edberg, Becker, Graf & also thinks Rafa is
endearing/modest. She sees Fed as arrogant & prefers Rafa. Hates
Sharapova, Jankovic, sistas but liked Henin.
> Does she like
> tennis? If she does like tennis does she agree with you on your nutty
> theories? LOL. Forgive me if this has been answered on here but I am
> relatively new.
She does like tennis - in fact insists I take her out & hit for an hour
every sunday morning & then go for coffee. She's not a hardcore fan &
wouldn't care much about 7543 etc - that kind of stuff would bore her.
>
> I understand Rafa leads the h2h with Fed. I think Rafa is a great
> player but the h2h results to me show Rafa is clearly superior on clay
> over Fed.
Only problem is Rafa also beat Fed in Wimbledon & AO finals on grass & HC.
I think Rafa at his best is a better big match player v Fed & other top
players. Fed's average is higher than Rafa's & almost always beats
Blake/Roddick types, while Rafa dips lower due to grinding nature of his
game.
> Before 2008 which to me was the start of Federer's decline,
> the results between Rafa and Fed were more even at least on HC(I am
> talking about all their matches not just slams) and Federer lead on
> grass until 2008. So I don't think it shows Rafa is so superior to Fed
> at all. I understand people who have the opinion that Rafa is superior
> but I don't agree, heck even Rafa thinks Fed is superior to himself
> and has stated it many times.
Rafa is talking about overall achievements. Fed is greater because he
won more, but he's already proven to be better than Fed in the big
matches that count.
>
> The kicker for me is the fact that Federer overall has way surpassed
> Nadal with his acheivements and has been more dominant over the field
> than Rafa has so to me that clearly makes Federer the superior player.
> Now I know you don't agree with me but that is my viewpoint.
I understand that viewpoint. It's like when Lendl was No.1 & winning
almost everything, excpet the big slams v big players (eg 0-3 v Becker
in 3 different slam finals). There's no way I can put my hand on my
heart & say Fed is better than Rafa when they play each other in slam
finals. Rafa is obviously better, & deserves his dues.
Whisper
> On Aug 22, 5:08 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>
>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>
>> I'd put several players ahead of Fed at USO at peaks, eg;
>>
>> Sampras
>> Nadal
>> Connors
>> Agassi
>
> way! NOT.
>
> LOL @ the fact that you put peak Agassi, a player you disprespect on
> here all of the time, ahead of peak Fed at the USO. You must really
> hate Fed! LMAO.
Like I said Agassi would be a 6 time USO champ & open era USO king if
Sampras wasn't around to spoil his party. He also won 4 AOs on HC's.
Combine that with the scare he gave Fed at 2004 & 2005 USOs despite
being 35 & Fed peak 24, & it's pretty easy to make my case.
Whisper
>> I'd put several players ahead of Fed at USO at peaks, eg;
>>
>>
>> Sampras
>> Nadal
>> Connors
>> Agassi<
>
> your flying pig to spend all the magic beans the tooth fairy gave you.
>
>
It's my personal opinion based on what I've seen in the game. Just
because Fed won a lot of slams v Bagditis, Roddick, Gonzalez types
doesn't mean he'd also beat Rafa, Sampras & Agassi. That kind of logic
only appeals to Fedfuckers.
Whisper
> On 2011-08-22 14:56:13 -0700, Court_1 said:
>
>> On Aug 22, 5:08 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>>
>>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sampras
>>> Nadal
>>> Connors
>>> Agassi
>>
>> way! NOT.
>>
>> LOL @ the fact that you put peak Agassi, a player you disprespect on
>> here all of the time, ahead of peak Fed at the USO. You must really
>> hate Fed! LMAO.
>
> Fed does, and his game was very suited to the surface. IMO, it's a very
> close call and a case can be made either way.
>
> Agassi was no slouch either. As his matches in 2004, 2005 prove.
>
Yep. I think peak Agassi would do better v Fed then he did at age 35.
Whisper
> On 2011-08-22 02:08:41 -0700, Whisper said:
>
>> On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>>
>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd put several players ahead of Fed at USO at peaks, eg;
>>
>>
>> Sampras
>> Nadal
>> Connors
>> Agassi
>
>
Connors is a bit of a stretch as I have to allow for
equipment/technology etc, but remember he owned 2 greats at USO - Borg &
Lendl. He's 4-0 in USO finals v those 2, never going more than 4 sets.
I can see him getting in Fed's head & never, ever giving up - like
Rafa does. Plus he'd have a big advantage playing in the US.
Whisper
> On Aug 22, 7:07 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2011 1:06 AM, John Liang wrote:
>> Pure fantasy. I doubt there would be more than 1 or 2 credible experts
>> who'd tip Fed to beat Rafa in a peak match. There is no evidence to
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> on HC by likes of Youzhny and
> Ferrer.
Slight hyperbole, but I already conceded a long time ago that Fed does
better v the same field. I just don't come to the same conclusion you
do - ie Fed is better than Rafa when they play each other in the biggest
& most critical matches.
Whisper
> On Aug 22, 7:08 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2011 1:21 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>
>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>
>> I'd put several players ahead of Fed at USO at peaks, eg;
>>
>> Sampras
>> Nadal
>> Connors
>> Agassi
>
Sure, but I was amazed at Rafa's form at 2010 USO. He was even serving
guys off the court. I think he saw it as a great opportunity to
complete the career slam & it was the peakest Rafa I've seen. On that
form I'd put him fave over Fed in any USO.
Whisper
> On Aug 22, 7:10 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2011 4:51 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 21, 11:21 am, "felangey"<th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Nadal to piece at his peak<
>>
>>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely no evidence to support that position. Everything points to
>> Fed losing yet again.
>
> Plenty of evidence in how he fare in most of hard court slams. Two
> wins out of 15
> is hardly anything to suggest he would win against top competiton on
> HC.
Doesn't mean his best stuff is better than Rafa when they play each
other in slam finals. Lendl won more titles than Becker, but he was
never better than Becker in slams.
Whisper
> On Aug 22, 7:29 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2011 7:46 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/21/2011 9:50 AM, TT wrote:
>>>> 21.8.2011 18:21, felangey kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>> At the US Open....peak Fed beats anyone thus far, no doubt.
>>
>>>> Agassi etc.
>>
>>> TT is the most stupid poster on RST. "Fed will lose to ... Agassi".
>>> LMAO. Obviously never watched tennis.
>>
>> er, Agassi would have 6 USOs if no Sampras. Also remember how 35 yr old
>> Agassi went toe-to-toe with peak 24 yr old Fed at 2004/2005 USOs?
>
> Still lost to Fed and we know peak agassi own Sampras on slow hc of
> AO.
>
Agassi did beat Sampras twice at AO, but I watched the matches & Sampras
had both on his racket. They were both upsets imo. Sampras would def
start fave v Agassi at any AO.
>>
>> I'd also give Agassi the edge over Fed at peaks at USO.
>
> I'd give Fed over Agassi anytime 8: 0 is pretty conclusive.
>
I'd say the Agassi of 2001 USO (when he lost to Sampras 76 67 67 67)
would beat Fed in any USO.
Whisper
>>
>> now maybe that doesnt' mean anything to you, who can tell.
>
>
> Does 2 wins out of 15 grand slam attempts and lacks of result in
> defending non clay court slam
> mean anything to you ?
Does Fed winning 15 non-clay slams mean he is expected to beat Rafa in
non-clay slams?
Superdave
No. But Sampras losing EIGHT times in R1.R2 at the FO means he would NEVER be
expected to beat Rafa in the final so let's call that as EIGHT final losses ok?
Rodjk #613
Why waste your time?
WhispaBob understand only what they want to understand, and that is
only to mock and demean Federer.
They won't understand match-up issues, they won't understand court
differences, they won't understand that different players reach peak
at different times, they won't understand styles, or pretty much
anything unless it is a way to take a shot at Federer.
So why bother with these long threads arguing with people who don't
have any intention of understanding anything?
Rodjk #613
Whisper
Overall I'd agree. However 2010 USO Rafa was an irresistable force.
Only lost 1 set all tournament, lost serve only 4 times etc. In that
form I really have to think he'd beat Fed from any year.
Whisper
61 62 64 I believe.
This was after Fed had beaten Sampras at Wimbledon, so can't say he was
a newbie.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Overall I'd agree. However 2010 USO Rafa was an irresistable force.
>Only lost 1 set all tournament, lost serve only 4 times etc. In that
>form I really have to think he'd beat Fed from any year.
He beat Gabashvili (2 tie-breaks), Istomin (1 tie-break), Simon,
Lopez, Verdasco, Youzhny in straight sets. Then he beat the old
Djokovic in 4 sets. It was a great achievement to complete the career
slam, but I don't agree that he played that amazing. He was much
better in 2008, although 2010 was probably his best level at USO.