Groundstrokes matter on grass too

[Pelle Svanslös]

Rogi demolishes Sampras' best chance in the 2001 match. 5th set 4-all,
Rogi to 2nd serve, advantage Sampras.

The BH return from Pete here is perhaps the few things Smapras can look
back with regret in that match. Otherwise, a superb performance.

But the "Millenium FH" demolishes the return. Rogi fakes the off CC but
pulls it DTL. Trademark Federer, devastating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG70ifjGLqQ#t=3h38m37s

The final game is worth watching in its entirety. Four cracking returns
from Rogi and Sampras is crushed. Not a chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG70ifjGLqQ#t=3h47m28s

[The Iceberg]

Retired Sampras crushed in 5 sets by max peak Fed before he had mono, but he then crushed by GOAT fh of Henman LOL

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Retired Sampras crushed in 5 sets by max peak Fed before he had mono, but he then crushed by GOAT fh of Henman LOL
>

Hasn't Sampras also beat Federer couple of years later?
--

[PeteWasLucky]

I have been wondering for long time why the crowds were crazy about Roger and happy to see him beating Sampras even Roger wasn't the famous Roger he became later.

[Whisper]

On 24/05/2017 11:06 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> I have been wondering for long time why the crowds were crazy about Roger and happy to see him beating Sampras even Roger wasn't the famous Roger he became later.
>

Because the tennis fans in England are true tennis fans & understand the
game. They knew Sampras was far more talented than Federer & could beat
him in his sleep.

Federer beating Sampras is similar to Doohan beating Becker at Wimbledon
- a colossal fluke, 1 in a million etc.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:55:51 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 24/05/2017 11:06 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:

> > I have been wondering for long time why the crowds were crazy about Roger and happy to see him beating Sampras even Roger wasn't the famous Roger he became later.

> Because the tennis fans in England are true tennis fans & understand the
> game. They knew Sampras was far more talented than Federer & could beat
> him in his sleep.

> Federer beating Sampras is similar to Doohan beating Becker at Wimbledon
> - a colossal fluke, 1 in a million etc.

Except that Doohan didn't go on to win 18 slams afterward or even 1. A troublesome little detail that easily debunks "fluke" theory.

[PeteWasLucky]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

I agree that they understand tennis but I think they were happy to
see a long clown era finally coming to an end.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[*skriptis]

PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Even if Sampras had won everything due to playing in clown era,
that era could only become more clownish once he retires or
declines, and another fine player replaces him.

So you realize your post is neither funny, neither provocative,
but simply illogical and dumb?





--

[Scott]

Nice post.

[Scott]

It was a clown-era post--which is typical for this particular "analyst."

[Scott]

I remember watching this point live. Fed played that crucial point perfectly.

[Whisper]

Not really. Federer in 2001 was getting hammered by Henman & Agassi in
slams. Fed needed to do at 19 what Sampras did at 19, so absolutely
nobody can suggest it was 1-off/fluke/shocker from Sampras etc.

[Gracchus]

Feeble rebuttal that doesn't hold water. Nobody would "suggest" that it was a fluke from Federer either except you. Suppose Sampras won the USO at age 19 and then never won another slam in his career. That same USO title would then be seen as a fluke. Only his subsequent slams put the win in context and make us see the event as the first big achievement in the career of a great championship. Well the same with Federer. Unlike Doohan, he didn't beat a great champion at Wimbledon and never do anything else. His subsequent 18 slams put the win over Sampras in context as a harbinger of great things to come. So your comparison really is absurd, as you probably already know. Sorry, but you can't just invent these arbitrary little "Rules of Whisper" (real champs win their first slams as teenagers, etc.) and expect anyone to take them seriously. Everyone here knows that they're lame attempts to diminish Federer. Hasn't worked before and it never will. The Great Man is just too great. You'll never be able to change that, so just deal with it.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 7:13:12 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:

> in the career of a great championship.

"champion" that is.

[stephenJ]

On 5/25/2017 9:13 AM, Gracchus wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:52:57 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>> On 25/05/2017 1:15 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:55:51 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2017 11:06 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have been wondering for long time why the crowds were crazy about Roger and happy to see him beating Sampras even Roger wasn't the famous Roger he became later.
>>>
>>>> Because the tennis fans in England are true tennis fans & understand the
>>>> game. They knew Sampras was far more talented than Federer & could beat
>>>> him in his sleep.
>>>
>>>> Federer beating Sampras is similar to Doohan beating Becker at Wimbledon
>>>> - a colossal fluke, 1 in a million etc.
>>>
>>> Except that Doohan didn't go on to win 18 slams afterward or even 1. A troublesome little detail that easily debunks "fluke" theory.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not really. Federer in 2001 was getting hammered by Henman & Agassi in
>> slams. Fed needed to do at 19 what Sampras did at 19, so absolutely
>> nobody can suggest it was 1-off/fluke/shocker from Sampras etc.
>
> Feeble rebuttal that doesn't hold water. Nobody would "suggest" that it was a fluke from Federer either > >except you. Suppose Sampras won the USO at age 19 and then never won another slam in his career. That same > >USO >title would then be seen as a fluke.

Actually, since it was almost 3 years until he won his second slam, it's
not much of stretch to call Sampras's 1990 USO win a fluke.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Whisper]

On 26/05/2017 12:13 AM, Gracchus wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:52:57 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>> On 25/05/2017 1:15 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:55:51 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2017 11:06 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have been wondering for long time why the crowds were crazy about Roger and happy to see him beating Sampras even Roger wasn't the famous Roger he became later.
>>>
>>>> Because the tennis fans in England are true tennis fans & understand the
>>>> game. They knew Sampras was far more talented than Federer & could beat
>>>> him in his sleep.
>>>
>>>> Federer beating Sampras is similar to Doohan beating Becker at Wimbledon
>>>> - a colossal fluke, 1 in a million etc.
>>>
>>> Except that Doohan didn't go on to win 18 slams afterward or even 1. A troublesome little detail that easily debunks "fluke" theory.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not really. Federer in 2001 was getting hammered by Henman & Agassi in
>> slams. Fed needed to do at 19 what Sampras did at 19, so absolutely
>> nobody can suggest it was 1-off/fluke/shocker from Sampras etc.
>
> Feeble rebuttal that doesn't hold water.

Opposite in fact.

Nobody would "suggest" that it was a fluke from Federer either except
you. Suppose Sampras won the USO at age 19 and then never won another
slam in his career.

Impossible scenario.

That same USO title would then be seen as a fluke. Only his subsequent
slams put the win in context and make us see the event as the first big
achievement in the career of a great championship. Well the same with
Federer. Unlike Doohan, he didn't beat a great champion at Wimbledon and
never do anything else. His subsequent 18 slams put the win over Sampras
in context as a harbinger of great things to come.

Sampras was losing in *every* tournament he entered for the last 2+ yrs
of his career. Yes Fed beat him once, but somebody else beat him all
the other times. You have to acknowledge this fundamental fact.

So your comparison really is absurd, as you probably already know.
Sorry, but you can't just invent these arbitrary little "Rules of
Whisper" (real champs win their first slams as teenagers, etc.) and
expect anyone to take them seriously. Everyone here knows that they're
lame attempts to diminish Federer. Hasn't worked before and it never
will. The Great Man is just too great. You'll never be able to change
that, so just deal with it.
>

Yes Federer is great & I have been consistent in saying he's my fave
player the last 10+ yrs. He just isn't the best I've seen. He's in my
top 5 though.

[Whisper]

USO was the hardest slam for any player to 'fluke'. It had always been
won by guys who ranked No.1 at some point. Indeed Sampras beat 4 guys
who got to no.1 at that USO (Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl & Muster). It was
arguably the toughest slam draw of all time.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Guypers]

Stimpy, the cheap ugly greek is at best behing Fed, Rafa, Novak, Rod, Borg, Budge, even behind
Gorgi!!!!!!

[Whisper]

> Stimpy, the cheap ugly greek is at best behing Fed, Rafa, Novak, Rod, Borg, Budge, even behind
> Gorgi!!!!!!
>

So in your estimation Sampras is such a hack that Federer, despite
playing until age 36 has been unable to better Pete's 7 Wimbledon's & 5
USO's, & has 5 yr-end No.1 crowns v Pete's 6 yrs.

Pity Pete quite at 31 & Fed is still going strong winning slams at 36.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.

http://www.avg.com

[Gracchus]

But Mac hadn't cared about winning since 1985, right? Remember how many times you've asserted this to defend his crap results in the second half of his career? But if Sampras beat him in 1990, he must have been at his fiercest, whereas when Federer beat Sampras, Sampras no longer cared about winning. You're hilarious.

Then 1990 Lendl with his failing back and Muster....Muster on HC. Seriously?

[Guypers]

Look at the competition, Rafa, ND, Stan, Andy, compared to Pioline, Chang, Courier, Andre, tier 3 at best!

[soccerfan777]

Thanks for exposing Whisper's lies and hypocrisies once again.

[Scott]

As when JMDP won the USO in 2009 for his lone slam? The problem with your posts here is they invariably warrant a correction about 90% of the time.

[John Liang]

Pity Fed is holding the grand slam record now not Sampras. If Nadal wins this year's FO he will be ahead of Sampras. How many slam did you say Federer was going to win after 2003 Wimbledon ? That must be the worst piece of analysis ever in RST consolidate your position as one of the worst analysis in RST.

[stephenJ]

Cilic? Del Potro?

Seems like the USO is prone to big guys getting hot at the right time.

Actually, I don't believe much in the fluke concept. You win what you
win. Sampras won the 90 USO, like Federer beat Sampras at 01 W. They are
what they are.




---

[Whisper]

I thought of him immediately, but 2 things here;

1. I said USO *was* arguably toughest slam to win (until current era)
2. Potro can be dismissed as a 1-off fluke.

Fed should have beaten Potro in 3 sets, 4 at worst. Sampras certainly
wouldn't lose to a stiff like that at his peak in a USO final

[Whisper]

In this era yes. Before that it was pretty much only guys who got to
No.1 who could win it.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[stephenJ]

> On 5/26/2017 3:38 AM, Whisper wrote:

> In this era yes. Before that it was pretty much only guys who got to
> No.1 who could win it.

If you look at 90 USO, it was tailor-made for a hot young kid to steal
it. Edberg, the #1 seed who had just won Wimbledon, was astonishingly
knocked out in round 1, which opened it up for everyone. Mac was
unseeded, a pale shadow of his peak self on all surfaces and hadn't won
the USO in six years. Lendl? Sure, he'd made the USO final 8 straight
years, pretty amazing, but also was past his prime, had already won his
last slam and that only because Edberg had to retire.

The only seeming peak-power was defending champ Becker, but it was
Agassi who did the dirty work of beating him, not Sampras. So it really
was kind of a nice set-up for Pete, he really only had to beat his
fellow young-gun Agassi, who also had never won a slam.


---

[Whisper]

On 26/05/2017 11:01 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> > On 5/26/2017 3:38 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> In this era yes. Before that it was pretty much only guys who got to
>> No.1 who could win it.
>
> If you look at 90 USO, it was tailor-made for a hot young kid to steal
> it.

I was hoping for a Mac v Becker final & remember being very annoyed we
got Sampras v Agassi.

Wouldn't it be fun if there really were multiple universes & we could
somehow tap into that for something as trivial as sport? Perhaps an app
on my ipad where I can choose Mac & Becker winning those semis & stream
that final from the alternate universe? Or choose the universe where
Mark Chapman gets killed by a bus crossing the street, & John Lennon
goes on to live to 90 producing amazing music we never got to hear?

But back to the main topic. I think what's revealing is Sampras'
temperament at such a young age. He had only just turned 19 a few days
before USO & was playing with the poise of a seasoned grand slam champ
veteran. You don't see that in youngsters these days. They all look
petrified & turn to water cometh the moment. Makes me think the true
champions are more born than made.

You have to give Sampras kudos for the way he played his whole career.
He never backed away or showed fear in any match I can think of. Sure
he had bad matches, but he always had the belief if he played his best
the other guy was on the losing end. You don't see that kind of
confidence much these days. Hewitt had it, but he had far less
firepower so was up against it physically.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[John Liang]

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:04:59 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 26/05/2017 11:01 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> > > On 5/26/2017 3:38 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >
> >> In this era yes. Before that it was pretty much only guys who got to
> >> No.1 who could win it.
> >
> > If you look at 90 USO, it was tailor-made for a hot young kid to steal
> > it.
>
>
> I was hoping for a Mac v Becker final & remember being very annoyed we
> got Sampras v Agassi.

Jaro summarized the 90 USO quite well.it was exactly what happened in 90 USO.

>
> Wouldn't it be fun if there really were multiple universes & we could
> somehow tap into that for something as trivial as sport? Perhaps an app
> on my ipad where I can choose Mac & Becker winning those semis & stream
> that final from the alternate universe? Or choose the universe where
> Mark Chapman gets killed by a bus crossing the street, & John Lennon
> goes on to live to 90 producing amazing music we never got to hear?
>
> But back to the main topic. I think what's revealing is Sampras'
> temperament at such a young age. He had only just turned 19 a few days
> before USO & was playing with the poise of a seasoned grand slam champ
> veteran. You don't see that in youngsters these days. They all look
> petrified & turn to water cometh the moment. Makes me think the true
> champions are more born than made.
>
> You have to give Sampras kudos for the way he played his whole career.
> He never backed away or showed fear in any match I can think of.

Did he ? What happened on clay. How did he lost 8 times to journeymen at FO and with one of poorest record on clay of any men ranked at No.1

[PeteWasLucky]

> Did he ? What happened on clay. How did he lost 8 times to journeymen at FO and with one of poorest record on clay of any men ranked at No.1

It doesn't matter, he played with courage and showed no fear in defeat :) lol

[stephenJ]

Sampras deserves all kinds of kudos for lots of things, but on this
issue he did have the "hangdog look", which was indicative of being
psychologically down, but yes, even then I got the sense that it was
just an in the moment discouragement thing, it didn't reflect a general
fear of that opponent.


---

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 24 mei 2017 17:15:07 UTC+2 schreef Gracchus:

> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:55:51 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> > On 24/05/2017 11:06 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
> > > I have been wondering for long time why the crowds were crazy about Roger and happy to see him beating Sampras even Roger wasn't the famous Roger he became later.
>
> > Because the tennis fans in England are true tennis fans & understand the
> > game. They knew Sampras was far more talented than Federer & could beat
> > him in his sleep.
>
> > Federer beating Sampras is similar to Doohan beating Becker at Wimbledon
> > - a colossal fluke, 1 in a million etc.
>
> Except that Doohan didn't go on to win 18 slams afterward or even 1. A troublesome little detail that easily debunks "fluke" theory.

Yes, Whisper probably enjoys making a fool of himself when assessing Federer. Sampfucker deluxe.