Rafa v. Roddick: Sampras measurement?
Scott
a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
Vrai Cinico
You cannot be serious.
Despite the idiot who thought Roddick was the second coming of
Sampras, they couldn't be more different in their mindset.
Roddick's serve is huge, true. But the rest of his game is nothing
like Sampras's.
--
Cheers,
vc
Jason Catlin
Yeah, I don't see this comparison either. Pete would try to serve and
volley against Rafa, which Roddick obviously will do very little of.
Also, as far as "bazooka" weapons, I think the guys on the other side
of the draw have more of that than Roddick. If Roddick wins it will be
with the serve and then by eliciting enough UEs from Rafa with great
defense and consistency. I don't think Roddick has enough power off
the ground to get many balls past Nadal.
SliceAndDice
Who would have said this about Roddick in 2003? He did show flashes of
his 2003 game during last year's Wimbledon final. Nowadays his game
has become overly defensive.
Scott
great post. i guess i didn't realize my post was going to attract
more than the usual RST flies...
Whisper
Are you serious.....?
Scott
however, let's go back then. Roddick's serve is huge, his FH is huge,
and he's taking the net well. How would his results compare to Pete's
against Rafa?
Whisper
Roddick can't produce the kind of power, spin & placement that Sampras
could, & also can't move like Pete, or has anywhere near the talent - so
it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.
Scott
>
meanwhile, Pete has that HUGE hole with his bh wing. every time they
get into a rally--guess who wins.
fuck off, newbie. ;
SliceAndDice
Whatever happened to Sampras on steroids?
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back to the subject of Roddick's forehand. He's always described as a
player with a huge serve and forehand, yet I think there are at least
a dozen players in the top 50 with a more powerful forehand than
Roddick:
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Depo, Soderling, Cilic, Tsonga, Gonzalez,
Verdasco, Monfils, Berdych, Querrey, Belluci, Lopez, Andreev, Gulbis
and Chardy.
And that's just the top 50. In a match with any of these players, I
think 9 times out of 10 the opponent would have more fh winners than
Roddick would have.
I'm surprised I've never heard an announcer point this out.
Scott
how about peak Roddick's FH? say, from 2001 to 2004?
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I might be in the minority on this, but I just don't think it was ever
that huge. For example, in that five-set match with Hewitt at the Open
in 01, I thought Hewitt was hanging even or even dictating the
majority of the rallies and Roddick was hitting mostly loopers on the
forehand without doing too much damage.
I know he used to go for flatter winners and I remember him hitting
the forehand well against Fed one time in Montreal, but overall I just
don't think his technique is up there with the likes of, let's say,
Verdasco or Andreev, never mind people like Fed or Gonzo. I don't
think he has that same racquet head speed those players do to
routinely blow the ball by people.
Whisper
> On Apr 1, 10:34 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2010 1:31 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 9:59 pm, Vrai Cinico<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 1, 9:49 pm, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Rafa v. Roddick. is this what Rafa v. Sampras would have looked like?
>>
>>>>> a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
>>>>> says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
>>
>>>>> meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
>>>>> different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
>>
>>>>> is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
>>>>> slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
>>
>>>> You cannot be serious.
>>
>>>> Despite the idiot who thought Roddick was the second coming of
>>>> Sampras, they couldn't be more different in their mindset.
>>
>>>> Roddick's serve is huge, true. But the rest of his game is nothing
>>>> like Sampras's.
>>
>>> sure, Roddick of 2010 doesn't compare to Roddick of 2003-2004.
>>> however, let's go back then. Roddick's serve is huge, his FH is huge,
>>> and he's taking the net well. How would his results compare to Pete's
>>> against Rafa?
>>
>> Roddick can't produce the kind of power, spin& placement that Sampras
>> it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
>> trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> meanwhile, Pete has that HUGE hole with his bh wing. every time they
> get into a rally--guess who wins.
>
> fuck off, newbie. ;
>
>
er, Sampras had no hole on the bh dumbfuck. Yes it's true he
sliced/dinked it in half-arsed mode, but when he stepped it up to get
the break he produced the best bh winners I've ever seen in my life.
There's a reason why he won 14 slams, 6 yrs No.1 etc & other big servers
won next to nothing. You're way too dumb to figure it out.
Whisper
> On Apr 1, 10:34 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2010 1:31 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 9:59 pm, Vrai Cinico<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 1, 9:49 pm, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Rafa v. Roddick. is this what Rafa v. Sampras would have looked like?
>>
>>>>> a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
>>>>> says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
>>
>>>>> meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
>>>>> different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
>>
>>>>> is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
>>>>> slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
>>
>>>> You cannot be serious.
>>
>>>> Despite the idiot who thought Roddick was the second coming of
>>>> Sampras, they couldn't be more different in their mindset.
>>
>>>> Roddick's serve is huge, true. But the rest of his game is nothing
>>>> like Sampras's.
>>
>>> sure, Roddick of 2010 doesn't compare to Roddick of 2003-2004.
>>> however, let's go back then. Roddick's serve is huge, his FH is huge,
>>> and he's taking the net well. How would his results compare to Pete's
>>> against Rafa?
>>
>> it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
>> trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.
>
> Whatever happened to Sampras on steroids?
All explained many times - google it.
Scott
sorry, i just don't see that Pete BH standing up, dumbass. Rafa's
heavy ball hit to Pete's BH over and over will make Pete a desperate
man who *has* to attack the net. that's the situation where Pete can
be beaten.
Whisper
>> won next to nothing. You're way too dumb to figure it out.-
>
> sorry, i just don't see that Pete BH standing up, dumbass. Rafa's
> heavy ball hit to Pete's BH over and over will make Pete a desperate
> man who *has* to attack the net. that's the situation where Pete can
> be beaten.
You poor dumb fuck. If peak Agassi couldn't get the better of Sampras
in the big matches how the fuck would Rafa do it with his relatively
passive game? If Sampras' bh was as you describe every single pro would
have attacked it relentlessly & he'd be ranked 45, not No.1 6 yrs in a row.
Oh wait, you figure the pros didn't want to pick on his bh as that would
be mean...?
lol - you're completely fucked.
Scott
Andre hit it a lot earlier than Rafa. Andre hit it early and tried to
yank his opponent from side to side.
meanwhile, Rafa is behind the baseline hitting high RPM balls to
Pete's BH that fly up to Pete's chest. Pete doesn't have an answer
for that. Sure, he could hit winners when the conditions were right.
however, no one during his day used such a heavy ball to his BH like
Rafa has. Pete's mechanics on his BH side really weren't that
refined.
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pete would've beat Rafa on a fast court just like he beat everyone
else. Dominate his own service games and get 1 break a set, or maybe
win a tiebreaker. Probably a lot of rallies on Rafa's serve would end
in Sampras bh UEs or Rafa winners off a weak slice. But what would
Pete care as long as he was holding serve..
Whisper
>>
>> Oh wait, you figure the pros didn't want to pick on his bh as that would
>> be mean...?
>>
>> lol - you're completely fucked.-
>
> Andre hit it a lot earlier than Rafa. Andre hit it early and tried to
> yank his opponent from side to side.
>
> meanwhile, Rafa is behind the baseline hitting high RPM balls to
> Pete's BH that fly up to Pete's chest. Pete doesn't have an answer
> for that. Sure, he could hit winners when the conditions were right.
> however, no one during his day used such a heavy ball to his BH like
> Rafa has. Pete's mechanics on his BH side really weren't that
> refined.
>
>
Nobody attacks Rafa the way Sampras would, because nobody plays like
Sampras or has the same talent. Trust me, Sampras would be licking his
lips playing Rafa off clay. Think of the way Tsonga, Del Potro &
Gonzalez blasted Rafa in easy straight set slam semis for an idea how it
would go.
Scott
well, i still think Rafa's heavy ball gives Pete problems on the BH
wing. then there's Rafa's freaky intensity. most of Pete's biggest
rivals were all headcases (e.g., Agassi, Kafelnikov, Rios, Rafter) in
comparison.
however, thanks for the post.
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I think it all depends how fast the hard court is. Whisper's
crazy if he thinks Pete would be winning the
majority of the baseline rallies. No one with a 1-hander is going to
be too comfortable on the court with Rafa's spin.
Manco
Javier González Nicolini
Whatever you're smoking... I don't want it, it clearly kills your
braincells.
They both have a huge serve. And that's about it. In particular for
this case, Roddick's approaches to the net leave holes big enough to
drive garbage trucks through them. Sampras knew how to hit an approach
shot, and also how to follow it, two things that Roddick doesn't
really know how, and that Nadal will exploit easily.
Javier González Nicolini
Goddammit Scott, see what you have done? Now I have to agree with
Whisper!
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:DpudnZM9E7X5_CjW...@westnet.com.au...
Winning 14 slams or other big server won close to nothing (that got nothing
to do with Sampras) does
not hide the fact that Sampras backhand is his weaker wing on the ground
strokes.
kaennorsing
Yeah, that's about how I see the match unfolding. Lot of forays to the
net would result in some great volleys and passing shots, which would
be nice to watch. I think it's safe to say the games and points would
be pretty short and that would definitely benefit Sampras. The AO type
of surface speed would probably result in the closest type of match,
with anything quicker or slower a foregone conclusion. Sampras would
probably have a positive h2h mostly because Rafa is more likely to
make it far on the faster surfaces than vice versa.
Scott
wrote:
you think that Pete with his noticeably weak BH and that small racquet
Pete always used is going to handle Nadal's spin? i don't. baseline
rallies will go to Rafa. the only question is whether Pete's net game
can make up for it.
Scott
wrote:
i still Pete losing the baseline rallies, though. If Rafa can pin
Pete on the baseline then he'll win the match.
Whisper
> On Apr 2, 12:31 am, Javier González Nicolini<jagon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 7:34 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/2/2010 1:31 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 1, 9:59 pm, Vrai Cinico<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 1, 9:49 pm, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Rafa v. Roddick. is this what Rafa v. Sampras would have looked like?
>>
>>>>>> a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
>>>>>> says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
>>
>>>>>> meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
>>>>>> different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
>>
>>>>>> is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
>>>>>> slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
>>
>>>>> You cannot be serious.
>>
>>>>> Despite the idiot who thought Roddick was the second coming of
>>>>> Sampras, they couldn't be more different in their mindset.
>>
>>>>> Roddick's serve is huge, true. But the rest of his game is nothing
>>>>> like Sampras's.
>>
>>>> sure, Roddick of 2010 doesn't compare to Roddick of 2003-2004.
>>>> however, let's go back then. Roddick's serve is huge, his FH is huge,
>>>> and he's taking the net well. How would his results compare to Pete's
>>>> against Rafa?
>>
>>> it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
>>> trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.
>>
>> Goddammit Scott, see what you have done? Now I have to agree with
>> Whisper!-
>
> you think that Pete with his noticeably weak BH and that small racquet
> Pete always used is going to handle Nadal's spin? i don't. baseline
> rallies will go to Rafa. the only question is whether Pete's net game
> can make up for it.
>
>
>
Serious question - have you ever played tennis at any competitive level?
Whisper
Agassi couldn't do it with his flat/powerful groundies.
Why couldn't Rafa 'pin back' Tsonga, Del Potro & Gonzalez? Why did he
let them thrash him in straight set slam semis?
Sakari Lund
<jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I might be in the minority on this, but I just don't think it was ever
>that huge. For example, in that five-set match with Hewitt at the Open
>in 01, I thought Hewitt was hanging even or even dictating the
>majority of the rallies and Roddick was hitting mostly loopers on the
>forehand without doing too much damage.
I am in the same minority. I never thought Roddick's forehand was that
big, and always used to say it too, at the time when Whisper and bob
were ecstatic about it.
Whisper
It was pretty huge in 2003 - check out USO final. His confidence was at
peak that yr, & Fed sucked the life out of him.
TT
It never was. And Safin's game is true blue powderpuff.
--
"So the ones who think I only concentrate on Grand Slams are wrong. I
try to win and play well in every tournament. The tough part in
Indian Wells and Miami is that it is best of three and that sort of
knockout tennis is brutal."
TT
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Catlin
>> <jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I might be in the minority on this, but I just don't think it was ever
>>> that huge. For example, in that five-set match with Hewitt at the Open
>>> in 01, I thought Hewitt was hanging even or even dictating the
>>> majority of the rallies and Roddick was hitting mostly loopers on the
>>> forehand without doing too much damage.
>>
>> I am in the same minority. I never thought Roddick's forehand was that
>> big, and always used to say it too, at the time when Whisper and bob
>> were ecstatic about it.
>>
>
> It never was. And Safin's game is true blue powderpuff.
>
Not to mention Hewitt.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Check out the SF when Nalby was outhitting him for three sets minus
one point. It was easy to look good against Ferrero.
Whisper
> TT wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Catlin
>>> <jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I might be in the minority on this, but I just don't think it was ever
>>>> that huge. For example, in that five-set match with Hewitt at the Open
>>>> in 01, I thought Hewitt was hanging even or even dictating the
>>>> majority of the rallies and Roddick was hitting mostly loopers on the
>>>> forehand without doing too much damage.
>>>
>>> I am in the same minority. I never thought Roddick's forehand was that
>>> big, and always used to say it too, at the time when Whisper and bob
>>> were ecstatic about it.
>>>
>>
>> It never was. And Safin's game is true blue powderpuff.
>>
>
> Not to mention Hewitt.
>
I agree he shouldn't be mentioned.
TT
Sorry.
Scott
Del Potro is 6'6". Tsonga was just thrashed by Rafa. Gonzo, when
he's on, is pretty tough.
Tsonga is the player in that group who most resembles Sampras. his
Bazooka SV game has taken him to a 1:5 HTH against Rafa.
Scott
i don't lie about how good i am at tennis. i don't make up stories
about having competed against Peter Doohan, and I don't repeatedly
claim to be a club champ (when i'm not).
i also don't have any sock puppets here.
Javier González Nicolini
You could ask that question, yes - but that renders the comparison
with Roddick completely useless. Roddick really hasn't much of a net
game, whereas Sampras was one of its best practitioners in the 90s.
Whisper
So Tsonga has similar record to Sampras.
moron
Whisper
Neither do I. I played him again 3 weeks ago. I led 3-1 before he came
back.
> and I don't repeatedly
> claim to be a club champ (when i'm not).
Right now I'm looking at dozens of tennis trophies on top of my fridge.
>
> i also don't have any sock puppets here.
>
Only dickheads use sp's.
TT
>
>
> Right now I'm looking at dozens of tennis trophies on top of my fridge.
>
Either you have a very large fridge or damn small trophies.
Scott
uh, who said that "Tsonga has [a] similiar record to Sampras", moron?
(Answer: No one. You made it up.)
Scott
well, maybe i didn't make it clear in the first post. i'm suggesting
a Rafa v. Pete match on today's surfaces, not during the air-hockey
90s.
Whisper
>>>>> it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
>>>>> trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.
>>
>>>> Goddammit Scott, see what you have done? Now I have to agree with
>>>> Whisper!-
>>
>>> you think that Pete with his noticeably weak BH and that small racquet
>>> Pete always used is going to handle Nadal's spin? i don't. baseline
>>> rallies will go to Rafa. the only question is whether Pete's net game
>>> can make up for it.
>>
>> You could ask that question, yes - but that renders the comparison
>> with Roddick completely useless. Roddick really hasn't much of a net
>> game, whereas Sampras was one of its best practitioners in the 90s.-
>
> well, maybe i didn't make it clear in the first post. i'm suggesting
> a Rafa v. Pete match on today's surfaces, not during the air-hockey
> 90s.
moron lol
Ted S.
> I am in the same minority. I never thought Roddick's forehand was that
> big, and always used to say it too, at the time when Whisper and bob
> were ecstatic about it.
I think the reason it looked big is because a lot of them were easy
putaways after the big serves. I've rather crudely referred to
Roddick's game in the past as putting down a big serve, standing there
admiring it as though he's having an orgasm, and then (if necessary)
putting away a forehand on the second shot. If you could return the
serve consistently (a la Federer, who repeatedly held Roddick to low ace
counts), you could get Roddick in rallies and beat him there.
Roddick's game was also hindered for years by having one of his
country's more prominent commentators also being the Davis Cup captain
(Pat McEnroe of course), with the result that Roddick matches on TV were
nothing but blowing endless sunshine up Roddick's ass.
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
john
Even if Scott is not playing competitive tennis at any level it does not
mean anything
for a Nadal and Sampras match. Very poor line of argument.
>
>
Scott
great analysis (for you).
heyguys
> "Whisper" <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
I just don't see Nadal consistently beating Sampras on fast or low-
bouncing surfaces. Just as Sampras wouldn't do well against Nadal on
slow or high-bouncing surfaces. At W, the Sampras second serve would
be the big difference (his is much better than Fed's), plus his BH
doesn't show any weakness on grass.
Jason Catlin
The key element that you're (purposefully?) ignoring is the importance
of having a 2-handed bh against Rafa. There's just no way a 1-handed
bh player can consistently rip winners off that side against Rafa's
spin. You can't be serious if you think that.
Your Gonzo example goes back three years (and even then he was doing
all the damage with the forehand side), but what's happened since
then? Nadal has owned him every time, just like he's owned Gasquet,
Haas and every other 1-handed player. He even has a winning record
against the GOAT because of this advantage.
But then you put him up against a 2-handed backhand player at
virtually the same level and more often than not he's getting run side-
to-side and totally on the defense. That would be Delpo, Djokovic,
Cilic, etc. (even Murray suddenly becomes an offensive terror against
Rafa because the heavy spin doesn't bother him).
Sampras is a far far greater player than Delpo, Djoke, Murray and
Cilic, but that doesn't mean that his backhand matches up against Rafa
as well as theirs do. We all know he could still beat Rafa because of
his serve and net play, but to think he'd be just teeing off on the
backhand against Rafa's huge topspin is downright absurd.
Whisper
It's the big fridge in the garage. Actually there are 23 trophies & a
few medals (gold) & plates on the fridge - have more in the back shed.
Whisper
>>>>> trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>> Goddammit Scott, see what you have done? Now I have to agree with
>>>> Whisper!-
>>> you think that Pete with his noticeably weak BH and that small racquet
>>> Pete always used is going to handle Nadal's spin? i don't. baseline
>>> rallies will go to Rafa. the only question is whether Pete's net game
>>> can make up for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Serious question - have you ever played tennis at any competitive level?
>
> Even if Scott is not playing competitive tennis at any level it does not
> mean anything
> for a Nadal and Sampras match. Very poor line of argument.
>>
>
>
I think Scott simply doesn't understand the game on any reasonable
level. It would help if he played I think.
But even if he doesn't play he should realize his arguments fail several
logic tests - eg every pro would hit every single shot to Sampras' bh to
win the match. I know I would.
Whisper
It's patently obvious you have no idea what you're talking about in this
thread. Let it go.
Whisper
Look, let's all just accept the fucking obvious. Sampras would beat
Rafa off clay, & Rafa would handle him on clay. Rst posts paint Sampras
as some Wayne Arthurs type. Everyone should go back & watch how he
played big matches v red hot Agassi/Becker etc. Rafa would be roasted
at Wim/USO absolutely no doubt about it. Rafa would beat Wayne Arthurs
I'll give you that.
Raja, The Great
Red hot Agassi? When was that? only 1995. And he won in USO and lost
in AO. So they were pretty much even. Becker was red hot in 1986 and
1989, not in 1995, 1996 like ONLY YOU seem to think.
Sampras was not a Wayne Arthurs type. He had a great FIRST and SECOND
serve. Rusedski, Arthurs etc were not great with their second serves.
Krajicek was injured all the time. Ivanisevic and Stich were mental
midgets. Sampras was strong mentally too. Apart from the serve and
mental strength there was really nothing in his game. His
groundstrokes were laughably mediocre, his volleys were good but
nowhere as good as prime McEnroe, Becker or Edberg or even Rafter/Cash
types.
> - Show quoted text -
Jason Catlin
I don't think I've ever read a post here saying Sampras = Ivanisevic,
Stich or Krajicek, let alone a virtual nobody like Arthurs.
The point is that the matchup between Nadal and Sampras FROM THE
BASELINE would be similar to any other Nadal matchup against a 1-
handed player. If the court was fast enough, sure, Pete would be able
to dominate his own service games better than anyone today. But he'd
be shanking some backhands, futilely trying to slice and watching
winners whiz by, just like every other 1-hander does against Rafa.
What you want to do is take Rafa's ball up around shoulder height on
the backhand and drive it to both corners, which I've only seen done
consistently by 2-handed players. That's what he fears the most.
That's what just completely neutralizes him, even demoralizes him on
some occasions. And neither Fed or Sampras, with all their strengths,
have that particular ability because they don't have a two-hander.
john
"heyguys" <heyg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b93498b-5d6a-4831...@10g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
That's fine analysis. I think Sampras would have the edge on the fast
grass court,
he would also have advantage on carpet and the fast hard court at USO. But
on the slow
court and current wimbledon grass he would not have much advantage over
Nadal.
john
"Jason Catlin" <jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6e4aaf7-96ea-4ceb...@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I don't think just because his serve Sampras would be able to dominate his
own service game better than anyone today. Sorry Catlin the return of serve
by the guys like Hewitt is what really kill off the serve and volley game.
The string, the court surface and ball means even on fast surface is
difficult to
dominate with the serve and volley game.
Jason Catlin
> "Jason Catlin" <jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry, I should have said on fast courts.
Scott
LOL. more Whisper "analysis".
Scott
i'm glad someone here sees the problem Pete has with his BH against
Rafa.
Pete would have to come into the net on almost every point. he did a
lot of this late in his career, but not younger.
if they play in the 90s, Pete wins. if they play on today's surfaces
with Luxilon available, Rafa wins.
john
I think Sampras would need to bring more game than just serve and volley
against
today's player and that is even on fast courts.
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
The other X factor though is that I think Pete if he were playing
today might very well serve even bigger than he did back then. I
remember in the 1993 USO final. Pete's first serve of the match was
like 125 mph and the crowd was oohing and ahhing at this great act of
intimidation against a first-time finalist. Nowadays everybody serves
at that speed.
So Pete, if he were playing today, might serve consistently over 130,
and combined with his great disguise, that might have made his serve
even better.
I do agree though that the strings and new racquets and court speed
help the returner even more so he would've had to develop his ground
game more.
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even at 90s Wimbledon, when the rallies averaged like 3 shots?
heyguys
> "Jason Catlin" <jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I think the issue is that people have visions of 2008 Nadal in their
head and are comparing it to 2002 Sampras. You have to figure the
advances in string technology are going to make Sampras' peak game
even more potent today across all aspects of his game and potentially
neutralizing much of the effect of slower overall surfaces. I mean,
does Nadal have a winning H2H vs Federer on grass/hard court? No. No
reason to think he would against Sampras either.
Shakes
Personally, I think, on the current surfaces, Nadal would hold his own
against Sampras better than Agassi did back then. I would still favour
Sampras at Wim and USO though.
However, except for the return, I don't think Agassi has any
overwhelming advantage over Nadal vis-a-vis Sampras. Nadal is faster,
has better passing shots, hits better on the run, and is mentally more
stronger, smarter. Further, Nadal's serve, esp. for 1HBH's, is less
attackable than Agassi's because it is very heavy and loopy, and very
accurate.
It is no fluke that Nadal is second only to Federer as far as winning
slams is concerned.
CloudsRest
And you are painting Sampras as some unbeatable force, and clearly
this wasn't the case. Maybe in your fantasies, but not in reality.
Whisper
>> Look, let's all just accept the fucking obvious. Sampras would beat
>> as some Wayne Arthurs type. Everyone should go back& watch how he
>> played big matches v red hot Agassi/Becker etc.
>
> Red hot Agassi? When was that? only 1995. And he won in USO and lost
> in AO. So they were pretty much even. Becker was red hot in 1986 and
> 1989, not in 1995, 1996 like ONLY YOU seem to think.
>
> Sampras was not a Wayne Arthurs type. He had a great FIRST and SECOND
> serve. Rusedski, Arthurs etc were not great with their second serves.
> Krajicek was injured all the time. Ivanisevic and Stich were mental
> midgets. Sampras was strong mentally too. Apart from the serve and
> mental strength there was really nothing in his game. His
> groundstrokes were laughably mediocre, his volleys were good but
> nowhere as good as prime McEnroe, Becker or Edberg or even Rafter/Cash
> types.
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
So what were all those baseline winners.....?
Whisper
> I don't think I've ever read a post here saying Sampras = Ivanisevic,
> Stich or Krajicek, let alone a virtual nobody like Arthurs.
>
> The point is that the matchup between Nadal and Sampras FROM THE
> BASELINE would be similar to any other Nadal matchup against a 1-
> handed player. If the court was fast enough, sure, Pete would be able
> to dominate his own service games better than anyone today. But he'd
> be shanking some backhands, futilely trying to slice and watching
> winners whiz by, just like every other 1-hander does against Rafa.
>
> What you want to do is take Rafa's ball up around shoulder height on
> the backhand and drive it to both corners, which I've only seen done
> consistently by 2-handed players. That's what he fears the most.
> That's what just completely neutralizes him, even demoralizes him on
> some occasions. And neither Fed or Sampras, with all their strengths,
> have that particular ability because they don't have a two-hander.
If the situation was as you describe then Sampras/Fed would never beat
Rafa anywhere. All Rafa has to do is loop every single ball high to
their bh's & they're toast.
Whisper
bs
Rafa takes clay & that's it.
Whisper
>> I don't think I've ever read a post here saying Sampras = Ivanisevic,
>> Stich or Krajicek, let alone a virtual nobody like Arthurs.
>
>> The point is that the matchup between Nadal and Sampras FROM THE
>> BASELINE would be similar to any other Nadal matchup against a 1-
>> handed player. If the court was fast enough, sure, Pete would be able
>> to dominate his own service games better than anyone today. But he'd
>> be shanking some backhands, futilely trying to slice and watching
>> winners whiz by, just like every other 1-hander does against Rafa.
>
> I don't think just because his serve Sampras would be able to dominate his
> own service game better than anyone today. Sorry Catlin the return of serve
> by the guys like Hewitt is what really kill off the serve and volley game.
> The string, the court surface and ball means even on fast surface is
> difficult to
> dominate with the serve and volley game.
>
>
Great analysis. Rafa must be happy he belted Roddick today, as
predicted by top tier rst analysis. On paper Roddick had zero chance &
couldn't hurt Rafa at all. Good work guys.
Oh wait! Roddick can easily handle Rafa but Sampras wouldn't.....? I
think I'm getting the hang of this analysis stuff.
CloudsRest
> against Sampras better than Agassi did back then. I would still favour
> Sampras at Wim and USO though.
>
> However, except for the return, I don't think Agassi has any
> overwhelming advantage over Nadal vis-a-vis Sampras. Nadal is faster,
> has better passing shots, hits better on the run, and is mentally more
> stronger, smarter. Further, Nadal's serve, esp. for 1HBH's, is less
> attackable than Agassi's because it is very heavy and loopy, and very
> accurate.
>
> It is no fluke that Nadal is second only to Federer as far as winning
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agassi had movement issues, many times resulting in clean winners on
shots that really shouldn't have been winners. Nadal is more
consistent overall, to go along with things you mentioned. Both guys
had attackable, weaker serves. But Nadal's lefty serve, particular
the wide one into the deuce court, is a key edge.
Whisper
Give us your analysis on how Roddick has the game to beat Rafa but
Sampras would get manhandled.
Whisper
>> What you want to do is take Rafa's ball up around shoulder height on
>> the backhand and drive it to both corners, which I've only seen done
>> consistently by 2-handed players. That's what he fears the most.
>> That's what just completely neutralizes him, even demoralizes him on
>> some occasions. And neither Fed or Sampras, with all their strengths,
>> have that particular ability because they don't have a two-hander.-
>
> i'm glad someone here sees the problem Pete has with his BH against
> Rafa.
>
> Pete would have to come into the net on almost every point. he did a
> lot of this late in his career, but not younger.
>
> if they play in the 90s, Pete wins. if they play on today's surfaces
> with Luxilon available, Rafa wins.
Dumb cunt. Stop spamming ng with rubbish.
Whisper
>>
>> I don't think just because his serve Sampras would be able to dominate his
>> own service game better than anyone today. Sorry Catlin the return of
>> serve
>> by the guys like Hewitt is what really kill off the serve and volley game.
>> The string, the court surface and ball means even on fast surface is
>> difficult to
>> dominate with the serve and volley game.
>
>> Sorry, I should have said on fast courts.
>
> I think Sampras would need to bring more game than just serve and volley
> against
> today's player and that is even on fast courts.
>
>
I think if even Roddick can make a mockery of your & Scotts' softcock
'analysis' you best stop posting for a while - try & learn something
about the game & maybe you can make some kind of contribution to rst one
day.
Whisper
> The other X factor though is that I think Pete if he were playing
> today might very well serve even bigger than he did back then. I
> remember in the 1993 USO final. Pete's first serve of the match was
> like 125 mph and the crowd was oohing and ahhing at this great act of
> intimidation against a first-time finalist. Nowadays everybody serves
> at that speed.
>
> So Pete, if he were playing today, might serve consistently over 130,
> and combined with his great disguise, that might have made his serve
> even better.
>
> I do agree though that the strings and new racquets and court speed
> help the returner even more so he would've had to develop his ground
> game more.
I'm glad Roddick has stepped up his ground game to the point it is
better than Rafa's. Top notch analysis.
Superdave
>On 4/2/2010 11:06 PM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Catlin
>> <jasonca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I might be in the minority on this, but I just don't think it was ever
>>> that huge. For example, in that five-set match with Hewitt at the Open
>>> in 01, I thought Hewitt was hanging even or even dictating the
>>> majority of the rallies and Roddick was hitting mostly loopers on the
>>> forehand without doing too much damage.
>>
>> I am in the same minority. I never thought Roddick's forehand was that
>> big, and always used to say it too, at the time when Whisper and bob
>> were ecstatic about it.
>>
>
>
>It was pretty huge in 2003 - check out USO final. His confidence was at
>peak that yr, & Fed sucked the life out of him.
Fed has destroyed many wannabe hc champions careers in the past and now he is
about to destroy an existing clay court champions career in 2010. yup.
CloudsRest
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't see you making any predictions before the match. Now you are
talking big after the fact? Asshole.
Whisper
> On Apr 2, 2:24 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/3/2010 3:27 AM, john wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I don't think just because his serve Sampras would be able to dominate his
>>>> own service game better than anyone today. Sorry Catlin the return of
>>>> serve
>>>> by the guys like Hewitt is what really kill off the serve and volley game.
>>>> The string, the court surface and ball means even on fast surface is
>>>> difficult to
>>>> dominate with the serve and volley game.
>>
>>>> Sorry, I should have said on fast courts.
>>
>>> I think Sampras would need to bring more game than just serve and volley
>>> against
>>> today's player and that is even on fast courts.
>>
>> 'analysis' you best stop posting for a while - try& learn something
>> day.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Didn't see you making any predictions before the match. Now you are
> talking big after the fact? Asshole.
I saw the match going either way thus made no prediction. You guys
failed to convince me Rafa would win, despite your convictions & best
attempts at analysis.
CloudsRest
>
> - Show quoted text -
Too cowardly to make a call, got it. Just talk trash afterwards,
despite not actually having seen the match. The result happened to go
the way you wanted today, not that you had any real confidence in that
beforehand. Who started much of the recent nadal v. roddick
discussions, btw? I saw this coming a few days ago, saying how people
are mistaken thinking Roddick would have no chance against Nadal. It
isn't a foregone conclusion that Nadal would just win most of their
matches, and it'd be interesting to see them play at a major. Nadal
is still climbing out of his downward arc, while Roddick has pretty
much been heading upwards for nearly a year now.
Although one should remember this is basically Roddick's last chance
for points for a couple months, thus has a bit more incentive. And
clearly he's comfortable in that stadium, having won their before.
john
But after 02 Wimbledon we did not have a single Wimbledon champ play s/v
tennis.
Scott
today's outcome was post-peak-Roddick beating post-peak-Rafa. Perhaps
you can't understand what the concept of "peak" means? (Hint: It
means the best tennis a player has achieved.)
Scott
any serious tennis analyst knows that Roger's BH is superior to
Pete's. How come you can't grasp this?
Scott
LOL!
Scott
any serious tennis fan can see how Luxilon and improved tennis racquet
technology has changed the game. How come you can't? I mean, you
presumably watch tennis. Why is this so hard for you?
Superdave
Oh i am sure he can and does. He just will never be able to face up to it
publically and admit it. He loves Pete so intensely. It would be like admitting
your wife is more attractive and better in bed than his you see.
bob
wrote:
>On Apr 1, 11:15 pm, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2010 1:37 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 1, 10:34 pm, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> On 4/2/2010 1:31 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Apr 1, 9:59 pm, Vrai Cinico<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Apr 1, 9:49 pm, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Rafa v. Roddick. is this what Rafa v. Sampras would have looked like?
>>
>> >>>>> a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
>> >>>>> says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
>>
>> >>>>> meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
>> >>>>> different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
>>
>> >>>>> is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
>> >>>>> slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
>>
>> >>>> You cannot be serious.
>>
>> >>>> Despite the idiot who thought Roddick was the second coming of
>> >>>> Sampras, they couldn't be more different in their mindset.
>>
>> >>>> Roddick's serve is huge, true. But the rest of his game is nothing
>> >>>> like Sampras's.
>>
>> >>> sure, Roddick of 2010 doesn't compare to Roddick of 2003-2004.
>> >>> however, let's go back then. Roddick's serve is huge, his FH is huge,
>> >>> and he's taking the net well. How would his results compare to Pete's
>> >>> against Rafa?
>>
>> >> Roddick can't produce the kind of power, spin& placement that Sampras
>> >> could,& also can't move like Pete, or has anywhere near the talent - so
>> >> it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
>> >> trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > meanwhile, Pete has that HUGE hole with his bh wing. every time they
>> > get into a rally--guess who wins.
>>
>> > fuck off, newbie. ;
>>
>> er, Sampras had no hole on the bh dumbfuck. Yes it's true he
>> sliced/dinked it in half-arsed mode, but when he stepped it up to get
>> the break he produced the best bh winners I've ever seen in my life.
>>
>> There's a reason why he won 14 slams, 6 yrs No.1 etc & other big servers
>> won next to nothing. You're way too dumb to figure it out.-
>
>sorry, i just don't see that Pete BH standing up, dumbass.
but roddick's BH does stand up? dumbo.
> Rafa's
>heavy ball hit to Pete's BH over and over will make Pete a desperate
>man who *has* to attack the net. that's the situation where Pete can
>be beaten.
where did you ever get the idea that sampras strategy would include
rallying his BH to rafa's FH all match long? dumbo x 2.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 8:58 am, Javier González Nicolini <jagon...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 4:28 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 12:31 am, Javier González Nicolini <jagon...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 1, 7:34 pm, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 4/2/2010 1:31 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Apr 1, 9:59 pm, Vrai Cinico<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Apr 1, 9:49 pm, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >>> Rafa v. Roddick. is this what Rafa v. Sampras would have looked like?
>>
>> > > > >>> a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
>> > > > >>> says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
>>
>> > > > >>> meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
>> > > > >>> different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
>>
>> > > > >>> is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
>> > > > >>> slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
>>
>> > > > >> You cannot be serious.
>>
>> > > > >> Despite the idiot who thought Roddick was the second coming of
>> > > > >> Sampras, they couldn't be more different in their mindset.
>>
>> > > > >> Roddick's serve is huge, true. But the rest of his game is nothing
>> > > > >> like Sampras's.
>>
>> > > > > sure, Roddick of 2010 doesn't compare to Roddick of 2003-2004.
>> > > > > however, let's go back then. Roddick's serve is huge, his FH is huge,
>> > > > > and he's taking the net well. How would his results compare to Pete's
>> > > > > against Rafa?
>>
>> > > > Roddick can't produce the kind of power, spin & placement that Sampras
>> > > > could, & also can't move like Pete, or has anywhere near the talent - so
>> > > > it's a completely invalid comparison. You must be a newbie, dumb or
>> > > > trolling. Doesn't really matter which just fuck off with this nonsense.
>>
>> > > Goddammit Scott, see what you have done? Now I have to agree with
>> > > Whisper!-
>>
>> > you think that Pete with his noticeably weak BH and that small racquet
>> > Pete always used is going to handle Nadal's spin? i don't. baseline
>> > rallies will go to Rafa. the only question is whether Pete's net game
>> > can make up for it.
>>
>> You could ask that question, yes - but that renders the comparison
>> with Roddick completely useless. Roddick really hasn't much of a net
>> game, whereas Sampras was one of its best practitioners in the 90s.-
>
>well, maybe i didn't make it clear in the first post. i'm suggesting
>a Rafa v. Pete match on today's surfaces, not during the air-hockey
>90s.
you mean the super slow surfaces that allow roddick to make several
Wimbledon finals?? listen, take a rest.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 8:04 am, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2010 10:30 PM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 12:29 am, Javier González Nicolini<jagon...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Apr 1, 6:49 pm, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Rafa v. Roddick. is this what Rafa v. Sampras would have looked like?
>>
>> >>> a certain so-and-so, a highly prolific RST poster and public nuisance,
>> >>> says Pete's Bazooka Weapons would have nullified Rafa's game.
>>
>> >>> meet Andy Roddick. Bazooka Weapons--yes, he's got a huge serve.
>> >>> different than Pete's; but nevertheless, damn tough to get back.
>>
>> >>> is Rafa v. Roddick what we would see if peak Rafa met peak Pete in a
>> >>> slam? Would Pete have fared better against Rafa than Andy has?
>>
>> >> Whatever you're smoking... I don't want it, it clearly kills your
>> >> braincells.
>>
>> >> They both have a huge serve. And that's about it. In particular for
>> >> this case, Roddick's approaches to the net leave holes big enough to
>> >> drive garbage trucks through them. Sampras knew how to hit an approach
>> >> shot, and also how to follow it, two things that Roddick doesn't
>> >> really know how, and that Nadal will exploit easily.
>>
>> > i still Pete losing the baseline rallies, though. If Rafa can pin
>> > Pete on the baseline then he'll win the match.
>>
>> Agassi couldn't do it with his flat/powerful groundies.
>>
>> Why couldn't Rafa 'pin back' Tsonga, Del Potro & Gonzalez? Why did he
>> let them thrash him in straight set slam semis?-
>
>Del Potro is 6'6". Tsonga was just thrashed by Rafa. Gonzo, when
>he's on, is pretty tough.
>
>Tsonga is the player in that group who most resembles Sampras. his
>Bazooka SV game has taken him to a 1:5 HTH against Rafa.
when healthy, nadal is a great baseliner on slow and a very good one
on fast surfaces.
but rafa (peak or not) has never faced off clay a great overall player
who is at net all match with fantastic 2 serves. if he did, he'd have
little chance.
laws of physics and stochastics back me up. :-)
bob
bob
1st, rafa isn't playing his best tennis for 1 yr now.
2nd, comparing rafa VS to roddick to rafa VS sampras is moronic.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 5:06 pm, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
agree, roger's BH is excellent and superior to pete's, and it can get
broken down in fed VS rafa matches.
however, what you're missing, while fed is forced to rally 20 straight
times to his BH every pt due to fear of net, sampras would have no
such dilemma.
bob
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
you mean like "sampras" who he'd pass like gas the entire match and "baffle"
with his topspin ?
what the hell would pete do when all his "nuclear" volleys came flying back
to the left of him and the right of him and over him just out of reach ?
pick his arse ?
what the hell would pete do when his serves came back with shoulder high
wicked topspin to his backhand ?
fart ?
Superdave
hey bob, now that's fucking RETARDED !
if you really think Sampras could handle those wicked topspin shoulder high
shots to his bh any better than Fed then you are dumber than you are ugly.
john
"Scott" <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:00edbafc-f004-4f8b...@30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Very hard for Whisper because he is a dumbass. He is plain dumb.
john
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:td9er5lr8amplv9sc...@4ax.com...
Sampras would have been passed because his approach shot is not very
effective.
>
> bob
Scott
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:53:19 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>
lol. Roger's "fear of net" wasn't on display when he was just a baby
knocking Pete out of W. Roger came to the tour as a volleyer first,
baseliner second. Luxilon strings are part of the reason all players
have "fear of net."
Whisper
Fuck off moron. It's clear you know absolutely fuck all about tennis.
Whisper
>
> any serious tennis analyst knows that Roger's BH is superior to
> Pete's. How come you can't grasp this?
>
>
BS.