Sampras against top players

[soccerfan777]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras_career_statistics#Record_against_other_players

Richard Krajicek (4–6)
Lleyton Hewitt (4–5)
Michael Stich (4–5)
Marat Safin (3–4)
Sergi Bruguera (2–3)

LOL... so much so for dominating players from his own era.

Even geriatric players from the 80s gave him a tough time except Connors and McEnroe.

Boris Becker (12–7)
Stefan Edberg (8–6)
Ivan Lendl (5–3)
John McEnroe (3–0)
Jimmy Connors (2–0)
Mats Wilander (2–1)

He lost 17 times to Becker/Edberg/Lendl/Wilander.

[The Iceberg]

ABAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHA! 6 consecutive years at Number 1! THEEEEE REAL GOAT record! he tricked everyone with the slam thing!!

[MBDunc]

I said already 2002 that Sampras' most superb record is 6 x year-end #1 in-a-row. Only Pancho can have similar claim.

.mikko

[soccerfan777]

Except that Pancho was actually adjudged year #1 not through some wacko point system but by experts and he actually played a H2H tour against major professionals on the pro tour. So his Year end #1 is valid.

Sampras year-end #1 is as meaningful as someone finish #1 at the end of this month.

If you were to truly judge the best player of the year - Sampras was most likely not the best player in 1995 (Muster won 12 tournaments including the French and had a 83 % win loss much better than Sampras winning only 5 tournaments at 82% or Andre Agassi who won 7 at 89%). Its true Sampras won one more slam that year than Agassi and Muster that doesnt make his claim undisputed. I would put Muster at #1 and Agassi at #2 and Sampras only at #3 in 1995.

I would say he was the best in 1993 and 1994 and the weak 1997. Rest are all disputed. In 1998 Rios was much better.

So in essence Sampras was the best only in 1993, 1994 and the weak year 1997.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:57:58 PM UTC-5, MBDunc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:40:11 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:
>> > On Monday, 30 April 2018 17:42:18 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras_career_statistics#Record_against_other_players
>> > >

>> > > Richard Krajicek (4?6)
>> > > Lleyton Hewitt (4?5)
>> > > Michael Stich (4?5)
>> > > Marat Safin (3?4)
>> > > Sergi Bruguera (2?3)

>> > >
>> > > LOL... so much so for dominating players from his own era.
>> > >
>> > > Even geriatric players from the 80s gave him a tough time except Connors and McEnroe.
>> > >

>> > > Boris Becker (12?7)
>> > > Stefan Edberg (8?6)
>> > > Ivan Lendl (5?3)
>> > > John McEnroe (3?0)
>> > > Jimmy Connors (2?0)
>> > > Mats Wilander (2?1)

>> > >
>> > > He lost 17 times to Becker/Edberg/Lendl/Wilander.
>> >
>> > ABAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHA! 6 consecutive years at Number 1! THEEEEE REAL GOAT record! he tricked everyone with the slam thing!!
>>
>> I said already 2002 that Sampras' most superb record is 6 x year-end #1 in-a-row. Only Pancho can have similar claim.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> Except that Pancho was actually adjudged year #1 not through some wacko point system but by experts and he actually played a H2H tour against major professionals on the pro tour. So his Year end #1 is valid.
>
> Sampras year-end #1 is as meaningful as someone finish #1 at the end of this month.
>
> If you were to truly judge the best player of the year - Sampras was most likely not the best player in 1995 (Muster won 12 tournaments including the French and had a 83 % win loss much better than Sampras winning only 5 tournaments at 82% or Andre Agassi who won 7 at 89%). Its true Sampras won one more slam that year than Agassi and Muster that doesnt make his claim undisputed. I would put Muster at #1 and Agassi at #2 and Sampras only at #3 in 1995.
>
> I would say he was the best in 1993 and 1994 and the weak 1997. Rest are all disputed. In 1998 Rios was much better.
>
> So in essence Sampras was the best only in 1993, 1994 and the weak year 1997.

I never imagined it's possible to be this dumb.
--


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

[Whisper]

Sampras won Wimbledon & USO & was r/up at AO.

Agassi won AO.

Muster won FO.

Pretty obvious Muster & Agassi couldn't rank higher than Sampras.

Would you say Sampras was no.1 if he only won AO & Muster won Wim/USO?








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

[Whisper]

Raja actually isn't this dumb. He's simply drunk & jealous.



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Shakes]

Not jealous. He just doesn't like Sampras.

[*skriptis]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

He's jealous of Sampras winning Wimbledon and jealous of Sampras
being similar to Lendl in terms of their prominence, but polar
opposite in terms of actually winning slam titles.


Sampras almost always rose to the occasion, Lendl almost never.

They're kinda the same in mpoat ranking, Sampras 98 pts, Lendl 95.
Also similar #1 stats. 286 weeks vs 270 weeks.

But Sampras 14 slams, Lendl 8.

Hehe.

[soccerfan777]

Yeah I don't. I did want him to win FO though. I never liked his approach of holding your serve and go hit or miss with opponent's serve. His matches were predictably boring. He won when his serve was on and lost when it wasn't. There was hardly a match out there where he won with spectacular groundstrokes or volleys alone. Even Becker who had a big serve was a lot more all-round and interesting to watch. But that said, I respect him. And I consider him superior to the likes of Eberg/Becker/Wilander/Agassi. He just was not dominant enough like Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer/Nadal/Djoker... if you look at all these players they had multiple years where they won 90% of their matches. Sampras has NONE.


Nothing to be jeolous of. He has not got the numbers to be jealous of. And he supremely sucked on clay. I don't have much admiration for clay bozos.

[soccerfan777]

You are mistaken. I have almost never cared for slam counts. My favorite players are Lendl, Graf and McEnroe and only of them won slams in double digits.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:10:31 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:25:16 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

> > Not jealous. He just doesn't like Sampras.
>
> Yeah I don't. I did want him to win FO though. I never liked his approach of holding your serve and go hit or miss with opponent's serve. His matches were predictably boring. He won when his serve was on and lost when it wasn't. There was hardly a match out there where he won with spectacular groundstrokes or volleys alone. Even Becker who had a big serve was a lot more all-round and interesting to watch. But that said, I respect him. And I consider him superior to the likes of Eberg/Becker/Wilander/Agassi. He just was not dominant enough like Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer/Nadal/Djoker... if you look at all these players they had multiple years where they won 90% of their matches. Sampras has NONE.
>

Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered. I can see why some folks find his game boring. He didn't have the grace of Edberg or Fed, or the flair of Mac or Fed. But it takes tremendous skill to play the way he did. If you can't see it, you can't see it.

>
> Nothing to be jeolous of. He has not got the numbers to be jealous of. And he supremely sucked on clay. I don't have much admiration for clay bozos.

You should love Nadal the most then; he's the clay King.

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:10:31 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:25:16 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > Not jealous. He just doesn't like Sampras.
> >
> > Yeah I don't. I did want him to win FO though. I never liked his approach of holding your serve and go hit or miss with opponent's serve. His matches were predictably boring. He won when his serve was on and lost when it wasn't. There was hardly a match out there where he won with spectacular groundstrokes or volleys alone. Even Becker who had a big serve was a lot more all-round and interesting to watch. But that said, I respect him. And I consider him superior to the likes of Eberg/Becker/Wilander/Agassi. He just was not dominant enough like Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer/Nadal/Djoker... if you look at all these players they had multiple years where they won 90% of their matches. Sampras has NONE.
> >
>
> Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina

Not true. He knew that he would not get broken easily and all he needed was one break of game to win the set. And even if he did not break the opponent he could win in a tie-break. So it was essentially conserving energy for his own serves.

That made it extremely boring.

> to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered.

That was essentially a big fuck you to his fans and spectactors... i.e. not producing an all-round and doing the bare minimum.

>I can see why some folks find his game boring. He didn't have the grace of Edberg or Fed, or the flair of Mac or Fed. But it takes tremendous skill to play the way he did. If you can't see it, you can't see it.

Yes skill to put in consistent aces or unreturnable serves even on second serve. I appreciate that part of his game. And also great overheards. But thats about it. I like to watch players who play a more all-round game (especially great groundstrokes and volleys when needed).

>
> >
> > Nothing to be jeolous of. He has not got the numbers to be jealous of. And he supremely sucked on clay. I don't have much admiration for clay bozos.
>
> You should love Nadal the most then; he's the clay King.

Not really. I admire what he is able to do. But I prefer power baseliners with clean shots. Nadal flattens it once in a while but is more of a topspinner. Federer is a lot more interesting to watch. And I think if not for Nadal he would have won FO at least thrice.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:03:42 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

> > Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina
>
> Not true. He knew that he would not get broken easily and all he needed was one break of game to win the set. And even if he did not break the opponent he could win in a tie-break. So it was essentially conserving energy for his own serves.
>
> That made it extremely boring.

Okay, I concede that his propensity to tank return games was not always linked to stamina. He played many long matches and won many too. However I think long matches in hot/humid conditions exposed his endurance limitations quicker than it probably would've for most players.

Still, part of the thrill, for me, was because you never knew (and neither did the opponent) when he would suddenly grab those 2-3 points needed to break his opponent. He'd look like he was struggling keeping balls in play against absolute nobody players relatively regularly, but he'd win 18 times out of 20 in the end. He'd look and play completely ordinary, even BELOW ordinary...until he reeled off a few winners out of nowhere, and would play one game out of nowhere, at a level FAR above what he had been playing the whole match or set, and the next thing you know, you're scratching your head, thinking did I just lose this set/this match, and if so how? It was beautiful to watch, IMO. :)

>
> > to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered.
>
> That was essentially a big fuck you to his fans and spectactors... i.e. not producing an all-round and doing the bare minimum.
>

You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for. Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.

> >I can see why some folks find his game boring. He didn't have the grace of Edberg or Fed, or the flair of Mac or Fed. But it takes tremendous skill to play the way he did. If you can't see it, you can't see it.
>
> Yes skill to put in consistent aces or unreturnable serves even on second serve. I appreciate that part of his game. And also great overheards. But thats about it. I like to watch players who play a more all-round game (especially great groundstrokes and volleys when needed).
>

He did hit great groundstrokes AND volleys when needed. Watch his USO matches against Agassi, Courier etc.

[jdeluise]

On Tue, 01 May 2018 17:57:19 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for.
> Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a
> tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do
> with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.

Whisper is a crude, disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest and biased poster,
so possibly there is some of that. You give those types lots of latitude
if they praise Sampras though.

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:03:42 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina
> >
> > Not true. He knew that he would not get broken easily and all he needed was one break of game to win the set. And even if he did not break the opponent he could win in a tie-break. So it was essentially conserving energy for his own serves.
> >
> > That made it extremely boring.
>
> Okay, I concede that his propensity to tank return games was not always linked to stamina. He played many long matches and won many too. However I think long matches in hot/humid conditions exposed his endurance limitations quicker than it probably would've for most players.
>
> Still, part of the thrill, for me, was because you never knew (and neither did the opponent) when he would suddenly grab those 2-3 points needed to break his opponent. He'd look like he was struggling keeping balls in play against absolute nobody players relatively regularly, but he'd win 18 times out of 20 in the end. He'd look and play completely ordinary, even BELOW ordinary...until he reeled off a few winners out of nowhere, and would play one game out of nowhere, at a level FAR above what he had been playing the whole match or set, and the next thing you know, you're scratching your head, thinking did I just lose this set/this match, and if so how? It was beautiful to watch, IMO. :)

Most champions do that. Steffi won a lot of matches while playing like crap. So did Lendl. Mecir outshone and outsmarted him in matches many times but still got beat fairly easily.

>
>
> >
> > > to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered.
> >
> > That was essentially a big fuck you to his fans and spectactors... i.e. not producing an all-round and doing the bare minimum.
> >
>
> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for. Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.

Not really. I disliked him and Ivanisevic ever since the 1994 final. I never hated him. But just found his approach to the game excruciatingly boring. For me he was a improved version of Ivansevic with a bit more skills and a lot more mental strength, nothing more. He lacked the charm and all-courtness of Stich and Krajicek.

>
> > >I can see why some folks find his game boring. He didn't have the grace of Edberg or Fed, or the flair of Mac or Fed. But it takes tremendous skill to play the way he did. If you can't see it, you can't see it.
> >
> > Yes skill to put in consistent aces or unreturnable serves even on second serve. I appreciate that part of his game. And also great overheards. But thats about it. I like to watch players who play a more all-round game (especially great groundstrokes and volleys when needed).
> >
>
> He did hit great groundstrokes AND volleys when needed. Watch his USO matches against Agassi, Courier etc.

Where Agassi and Courier who favor slow hard courts of AO were sitting ducks.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Nonsense. I think it has to do with your ego. Whisper is generally
regarded as the top 1 poster around here, while you not so
much.

1. He's regular on court.
2. His insight is superb.
3. His tennis knowledge is vast.
4. He's a very readable/humorous.

He's not the top gentleman of rst, I admit that, as he's drawn to
mud sometimes but he does the job.

[soccerfan777]

He likes to find holes in Federer's resume instead. And also appreciate crappy commercial Bollywood movies

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Tue, 01 May 2018 17:57:19 -0700, Shakes wrote:
> >
> >> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for.
> >> Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a
> >> tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do
> >> with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
> >
> > Whisper is a crude, disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest and biased poster,
> > so possibly there is some of that. You give those types lots of latitude
> > if they praise Sampras though.
>
>
> Nonsense. I think it has to do with your ego. Whisper is generally
> regarded as the top 1 poster around here,

By whom? Lets have a poll. Cant have more than 3 votes (Iceberg, bob and you?) Rest think he is a frigging idiot.

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:16:34 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Tue, 01 May 2018 17:57:19 -0700, Shakes wrote:
> >
> >> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for.
> >> Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a
> >> tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do
> >> with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
> >
> > Whisper is a crude, disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest and biased poster,
> > so possibly there is some of that. You give those types lots of latitude
> > if they praise Sampras though.
>
>
> Nonsense. I think it has to do with your ego. Whisper is generally
> regarded as the top 1 poster around here, while you not so
> much.

By selected few like you and bob.

>
> 1. He's regular on court.
> 2. His insight is superb.
> 3. His tennis knowledge is vast.
> 4. He's a very readable/humorous.
>
> He's not the top gentleman of rst, I admit that, as he's drawn to
> mud sometimes but he does the job.

What job does he do ?

[jdeluise]

On Tue, 01 May 2018 18:39:08 -0700, John Liang wrote:


> What job does he do ?

He's in IT, and I hear he doesn't want to post his name on here as he
knows you're his boss in real life.

[Shakes]

Well, I give almost everyone lots of latitude in case you are talking about making personal attacks. In terms of player's games, game styles etc., yes I find myself agreeing with Whisper more often than not.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:14:54 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

> > Still, part of the thrill, for me, was because you never knew (and neither did the opponent) when he would suddenly grab those 2-3 points needed to break his opponent. He'd look like he was struggling keeping balls in play against absolute nobody players relatively regularly, but he'd win 18 times out of 20 in the end. He'd look and play completely ordinary, even BELOW ordinary...until he reeled off a few winners out of nowhere, and would play one game out of nowhere, at a level FAR above what he had been playing the whole match or set, and the next thing you know, you're scratching your head, thinking did I just lose this set/this match, and if so how? It was beautiful to watch, IMO. :)
>
> Most champions do that. Steffi won a lot of matches while playing like crap. So did Lendl. Mecir outshone and outsmarted him in matches many times but still got beat fairly easily.
>

No, most champions don't deliberately tank return games (as you yourself said you hated Sampras for doing the bare minimum). I am not talking about winning when a player is out of form or being outclassed by opponents. That's common to all great players. I am talking about sleep walking through most of the return games, and then blitzing the opponent to get the break.

> > You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for. Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
>
> Not really. I disliked him and Ivanisevic ever since the 1994 final. I never hated him. But just found his approach to the game excruciatingly boring. For me he was a improved version of Ivansevic with a bit more skills and a lot more mental strength, nothing more. He lacked the charm and all-courtness of Stich and Krajicek.
>

Comon, Raja, you are comparing him with 3 one-slammers ? Seriously ?

> > He did hit great groundstrokes AND volleys when needed. Watch his USO matches against Agassi, Courier etc.
>
> Where Agassi and Courier who favor slow hard courts of AO were sitting ducks.

Agassi was a sitting duck at the USO ? He made 6 finals there including one at 35 yrs old.

[Shakes]

Me ?

[The Iceberg]

On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 22:03:42 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:10:31 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:25:16 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> >
> > > > Not jealous. He just doesn't like Sampras.
> > >
> > > Yeah I don't. I did want him to win FO though. I never liked his approach of holding your serve and go hit or miss with opponent's serve. His matches were predictably boring. He won when his serve was on and lost when it wasn't. There was hardly a match out there where he won with spectacular groundstrokes or volleys alone. Even Becker who had a big serve was a lot more all-round and interesting to watch. But that said, I respect him. And I consider him superior to the likes of Eberg/Becker/Wilander/Agassi. He just was not dominant enough like Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer/Nadal/Djoker... if you look at all these players they had multiple years where they won 90% of their matches. Sampras has NONE.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina
>
> Not true. He knew that he would not get broken easily and all he needed was one break of game to win the set. And even if he did not break the opponent he could win in a tie-break. So it was essentially conserving energy for his own serves.
>
> That made it extremely boring.
>
> > to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered.
>
> That was essentially a big fuck you to his fans and spectactors... i.e. not producing an all-round and doing the bare minimum.

Good, you're admitting that Sampras was so good he didn't even have to bother in some matches!

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 2 May 2018 02:20:48 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> > jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > On Tue, 01 May 2018 17:57:19 -0700, Shakes wrote:
> > >
> > >> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for.
> > >> Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a
> > >> tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do
> > >> with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
> > >
> > > Whisper is a crude, disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest and biased poster,
> > > so possibly there is some of that. You give those types lots of latitude
> > > if they praise Sampras though.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense. I think it has to do with your ego. Whisper is generally
> > regarded as the top 1 poster around here,
>
>
> By whom? Lets have a poll. Cant have more than 3 votes (Iceberg, bob and you?) Rest think he is a frigging idiot.

PWL has many times admitted to learning a lot from Whisper and one day dreams of being as clever as him!

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 2 May 2018 07:17:58 UTC+1, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:14:54 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > Still, part of the thrill, for me, was because you never knew (and neither did the opponent) when he would suddenly grab those 2-3 points needed to break his opponent. He'd look like he was struggling keeping balls in play against absolute nobody players relatively regularly, but he'd win 18 times out of 20 in the end. He'd look and play completely ordinary, even BELOW ordinary...until he reeled off a few winners out of nowhere, and would play one game out of nowhere, at a level FAR above what he had been playing the whole match or set, and the next thing you know, you're scratching your head, thinking did I just lose this set/this match, and if so how? It was beautiful to watch, IMO. :)
> >
> > Most champions do that. Steffi won a lot of matches while playing like crap. So did Lendl. Mecir outshone and outsmarted him in matches many times but still got beat fairly easily.
> >
>
> No, most champions don't deliberately tank return games (as you yourself said you hated Sampras for doing the bare minimum). I am not talking about winning when a player is out of form or being outclassed by opponents. That's common to all great players. I am talking about sleep walking through most of the return games, and then blitzing the opponent to get the break.
>
>
> > > You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for. Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
> >
> > Not really. I disliked him and Ivanisevic ever since the 1994 final. I never hated him. But just found his approach to the game excruciatingly boring. For me he was a improved version of Ivansevic with a bit more skills and a lot more mental strength, nothing more. He lacked the charm and all-courtness of Stich and Krajicek.
> >
>
> Comon, Raja, you are comparing him with 3 one-slammers ? Seriously ?

it is quite funny, Raja is a true Sampras detractor, saying he wasn't an "all courter" is the best.

[Whisper]

On 2/05/2018 5:57 AM, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:10:31 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:25:16 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
>>> Not jealous. He just doesn't like Sampras.
>>
>> Yeah I don't. I did want him to win FO though. I never liked his approach of holding your serve and go hit or miss with opponent's serve. His matches were predictably boring. He won when his serve was on and lost when it wasn't. There was hardly a match out there where he won with spectacular groundstrokes or volleys alone. Even Becker who had a big serve was a lot more all-round and interesting to watch. But that said, I respect him. And I consider him superior to the likes of Eberg/Becker/Wilander/Agassi. He just was not dominant enough like Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer/Nadal/Djoker... if you look at all these players they had multiple years where they won 90% of their matches. Sampras has NONE.
>>
>
> Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered. I can see why some folks find his game boring. He didn't have the grace of Edberg or Fed, or the flair of Mac or Fed. But it takes tremendous skill to play the way he did. If you can't see it, you can't see it.
>
>>

Exactly. Surprising Raja doesn't see it. You can't win what he did
with just a serve & bozo groundies. If true, then the history books
would be littered with big serving bozos winning many slams. In reality
you see them winning 1 slam if lucky (Goran, Krajicek, Stich). Obviously
Sampras had a lot more than those guys x 10.

There are many matches where Sampras hit Agassi & the best baseliners
off the court from the baseline. He just didn't have the physical
stamina to play long baseline rallies. It's really incredible he could
still win big matches while not trying very hard for about half the
match. Who else could get away with that approach? Where would
Fed/Rafa etc be if they half-arsed half of every match?

[Whisper]

On 2/05/2018 11:02 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2018 17:57:19 -0700, Shakes wrote:
>
>> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for.
>> Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a
>> tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do
>> with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
>
> Whisper is a crude, disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest and biased poster,

Don't hold back.

[Whisper]

It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.

[John Liang]

Yes, you are obvious an eagle looked a like turkey amongst the turkeys, but you are still a turkey.

[John Liang]

The best baseliner that Sampras faced on a hard court is Agassi, Agassi is certainly not at the level that Fed/Nadal/Djoker are/were. The three guys from the present generation have not just offensive baseline game but also defensive game that far surpass what Agassi was capable of. All 3 were also better server than Agassi. And why should anyone care about Sampras played half assed, quarter assed or even no assed at all, at end of their career is what titles they had that matters not how many matches they played without arse. Sorry 20 slam wins full arsed is better than 14 slam half arsed.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:17:58 AM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:14:54 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > Still, part of the thrill, for me, was because you never knew (and neither did the opponent) when he would suddenly grab those 2-3 points needed to break his opponent. He'd look like he was struggling keeping balls in play against absolute nobody players relatively regularly, but he'd win 18 times out of 20 in the end. He'd look and play completely ordinary, even BELOW ordinary...until he reeled off a few winners out of nowhere, and would play one game out of nowhere, at a level FAR above what he had been playing the whole match or set, and the next thing you know, you're scratching your head, thinking did I just lose this set/this match, and if so how? It was beautiful to watch, IMO. :)
> >
> > Most champions do that. Steffi won a lot of matches while playing like crap. So did Lendl. Mecir outshone and outsmarted him in matches many times but still got beat fairly easily.
> >
>
> No, most champions don't deliberately tank return games (as you yourself said you hated Sampras for doing the bare minimum).

Well thats not a positive.

>I am not talking about winning when a player is out of form or being outclassed by opponents. That's common to all great players. I am talking about sleep walking through most of the return games, and then blitzing the opponent to get the break.
>

That is again not a positive. I consider it a chicken-shit strategy to not try to break opponents serve. The problem with Sampras was his groundstrokes were not good so he had to go for broke and it made for ugly tennis. You hardly ever saw him involved in breathtaking rallies like Federer had with Nadal at last years AO, simply because he didn't have the talent to do so. He did not have the flair or McEnroe, Edberg and Becker at the net either. So it was overall extremely calculated tennis and hence uber-boring.

Unless you marvel 20-30 aces per match there was nothing much to appreciate in Sampras' game.

>
> > > You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for. Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
> >
> > Not really. I disliked him and Ivanisevic ever since the 1994 final. I never hated him. But just found his approach to the game excruciatingly boring. For me he was a improved version of Ivansevic with a bit more skills and a lot more mental strength, nothing more. He lacked the charm and all-courtness of Stich and Krajicek.
> >
>
> Comon, Raja, you are comparing him with 3 one-slammers ? Seriously ?

Well they didnt have the mental fortitude to win more than 1. But really should have. Krajicek and Stich were extremely talented players.

>
>
> > > He did hit great groundstrokes AND volleys when needed. Watch his USO matches against Agassi, Courier etc.
> >
> > Where Agassi and Courier who favor slow hard courts of AO were sitting ducks.
>
> Agassi was a sitting duck at the USO ? He made 6 finals there including one at 35 yrs old.

Yes he was a sitting duck against quality opponents. He won USO only twice one of which was against the "giant" Todd Martin ;-)

[soccerfan777]

Agassi was not a very good baseliner. He hardly went for the kill and when he kid he hit it out most of the time. The most attractive thing about his game was his ROS which was extremely flashy if not the most effective like say Djoker, Hewitt, Murray etc.

He was no Borg/Lendl/Wilander/Federer/Nadal/Djoker when it comes to baseline tennis. He wasn't even a Murray. He has won only 3 slams outside AO which are on hard court/clay. And three of his AO wins (all in the 2000s) came with easy-peasy draws.

[The Iceberg]

would you be a crispy duck? :)

[soccerfan777]

That's a racist taunt. Can't expect anything better from you.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:54:26 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:17:58 AM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

> > No, most champions don't deliberately tank return games (as you yourself said you hated Sampras for doing the bare minimum).
>
> Well thats not a positive.

Of course, I am not saying it's a positive. It's just that I was fascinated by the approach. Never saw anybody else before or since play that way.

> >I am not talking about winning when a player is out of form or being outclassed by opponents. That's common to all great players. I am talking about sleep walking through most of the return games, and then blitzing the opponent to get the break.
> >
>
> That is again not a positive. I consider it a chicken-shit strategy to not try to break opponents serve.

Why ? It worked, right ? Mac, Connors for example used mind games and gamesmanship to break opponents' rhythm etc. and used it to their advantage. As long as it's within the rules and through the racquet, it's good IMO. If you don't like it, that's a different story.

> The problem with Sampras was his groundstrokes were not good so he had to go for broke and it made for ugly tennis.

His groundstrokes were not at the level of Fed/Djok/Nadal, but that's a far cry from "not good". He had very good groundstrokes.

> You hardly ever saw him involved in breathtaking rallies like Federer had with Nadal at last years AO, simply because he didn't have the talent to do so.

I think it's out of sight, out of mind in this case. He played some great rallies against Agassi (among others) at the AO/USO, Becker at the YEC etc., but we forget because it's been nearly 20 years since we saw those matches.

> He did not have the flair or McEnroe, Edberg and Becker at the net either. So it was overall extremely calculated tennis and hence uber-boring.

Boring doesn't mean it's not good.

>
> Unless you marvel 20-30 aces per match there was nothing much to appreciate in Sampras' game.
>
>

That's one thing to marvel at, sure. But there are others too.

I can see you have way too much bias against him, so this discussion is pointless though it was fun.

> >
> > Comon, Raja, you are comparing him with 3 one-slammers ? Seriously ?
>
> Well they didnt have the mental fortitude to win more than 1. But really should have. Krajicek and Stich were extremely talented players.
>
> >

Yes, they were very talented, esp. Stich who could be sublime when "on". But just mental fortitude is not enough to cover a gap of 13 slams.

> > Agassi was a sitting duck at the USO ? He made 6 finals there including one at 35 yrs old.
>
> Yes he was a sitting duck against quality opponents.

He beat a lot of top players at the USO - Becker, Stich, Chang, Hewitt, Kafelnikov etc . Like you say for Fed reg. FO and Nadal, if there was no Sampras, Agassi would've won 4-5 USO's.

[Guypers]

Cheap greek, $1 tipper! LOL

[undecided]

Well, when you start saying that the dominant player of the 90s did not have good groundstrokes, you lose all credibility. His go to pattern was to cheat a bit to his BH and dare players to hit to his FH. Most players of the time were afraid to go to his 'not so good' FH as he usually blasted running winners from it. Yeah, not so good.

[soccerfan777]

Not so good compare to all-time great baseliners. Not saying he was not top ATP 100 level.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:54:26 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:17:58 AM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > No, most champions don't deliberately tank return games (as you yourself said you hated Sampras for doing the bare minimum).
> >
> > Well thats not a positive.
>
> Of course, I am not saying it's a positive. It's just that I was fascinated by the approach. Never saw anybody else before or since play that way.

And never want to again... lol

>
> > >I am not talking about winning when a player is out of form or being outclassed by opponents. That's common to all great players. I am talking about sleep walking through most of the return games, and then blitzing the opponent to get the break.
> > >
> >
> > That is again not a positive. I consider it a chicken-shit strategy to not try to break opponents serve.
>
> Why ? It worked, right ? Mac, Connors for example used mind games

Thats entirely different. That made for great spectacle... shanking service returns in a lackadaisical manner isn't.

> and gamesmanship to break opponents' rhythm etc. and used it to their advantage. As long as it's within the rules and through the racquet, it's good IMO. If you don't like it, that's a different story.

Well depends. I mostly do not like it. I think it is not gentleman like. But Connors and McEnroe did it so often that it became a part of the routine and players like Lendl and Becker were hardly bothered with it. They might have secretly relished the tantrums...lol

>
> > The problem with Sampras was his groundstrokes were not good so he had to go for broke and it made for ugly tennis.
>
> His groundstrokes were not at the level of Fed/Djok/Nadal, but that's a far cry from "not good". He had very good groundstrokes.
>
> > You hardly ever saw him involved in breathtaking rallies like Federer had with Nadal at last years AO, simply because he didn't have the talent to do so.
>
> I think it's out of sight, out of mind in this case. He played some great rallies against Agassi (among others) at the AO/USO, Becker at the YEC etc., but we forget because it's been nearly 20 years since we saw those matches.
>
> > He did not have the flair or McEnroe, Edberg and Becker at the net either. So it was overall extremely calculated tennis and hence uber-boring.
>
> Boring doesn't mean it's not good.

Like Dire Straits you mean... still it is boring though. How can you appreciate boring? You can respect it, but how do you appreciate it?

>
> >
> > Unless you marvel 20-30 aces per match there was nothing much to appreciate in Sampras' game.
> >
> >
>
> That's one thing to marvel at, sure. But there are others too.
>
> I can see you have way too much bias against him, so this discussion is pointless though it was fun.

Yes but it is valid bias. For me 90s men's tennis dominated by aces and unreturnable serves are mind-numbing. No wonder they slowed down the courts. If you have matches with a rally of maximum 5, it becomes unwatcheable. Remember those "classic" Sampras-Ivanisevic final... fond memories, huh?

>
>
> > >
> > > Comon, Raja, you are comparing him with 3 one-slammers ? Seriously ?
> >
> > Well they didnt have the mental fortitude to win more than 1. But really should have. Krajicek and Stich were extremely talented players.
> >
> > >
>
> Yes, they were very talented, esp. Stich who could be sublime when "on". But just mental fortitude is not enough to cover a gap of 13 slams.

What else then? If you all the talent and weaponry, all you need is mental strength. Oh you need dedication and being injury free as well. I think Stich and Krajicek suffered in that department as well.

>
> > > Agassi was a sitting duck at the USO ? He made 6 finals there including one at 35 yrs old.
> >
> > Yes he was a sitting duck against quality opponents.
>
>
> He beat a lot of top players at the USO - Becker, Stich, Chang, Hewitt, Kafelnikov etc .

With the exception of Becker, none of them is an all-time great. And Becker of 1995-96 was good in flashes. He could lose to anybody anyday. He was a lot more consistent between 1986-89.

>Like you say for Fed reg. FO and Nadal, if there was no Sampras, Agassi would've won 4-5 USO's.

Doubt it. Agassi could lose to anybody. Even if you count all the matches he lost to Sampras to USO, he could have lost to the player Sampras beat in SF or QF...

1990 USO - would have lost to Lendl in the final if not for Sampras who took him out in QF

1995 USO - would have most likely lost to Courier whom Sampras took out in SF. Courier had beaten Agassi six times in a row before that including 1992 USO Open.

2001 USO - Agassi lost to Sampras in QF. If not Sampras, he would have lost likely lost to Safin in SF or Hewitt in final. I don;t see him beating Safin and Hewitt back to back

2002 USO - Extremely weak draw and Agassi choked massively here. He should have won this one.

So yes, if not for Sampras, Agassi would have won 1 more USO.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

> > Why ? It worked, right ? Mac, Connors for example used mind games
>
> Thats entirely different. That made for great spectacle... shanking service returns in a lackadaisical manner isn't.

Great spectacle, sure. But I think that's worse than tanking returns. Not that it made me hate Mac/Connors.

>
> > and gamesmanship to break opponents' rhythm etc. and used it to their advantage. As long as it's within the rules and through the racquet, it's good IMO. If you don't like it, that's a different story.
>
> Well depends. I mostly do not like it. I think it is not gentleman like. But Connors and McEnroe did it so often that it became a part of the routine and players like Lendl and Becker were hardly bothered with it. They might have secretly relished the tantrums...lol

Lendl probably did relish Mac's tantrums (probably he knew Mac was a paper tiger), but he was unnerved by Connors, I felt.

> >
> > Boring doesn't mean it's not good.
> Like Dire Straits you mean... still it is boring though. How can you appreciate boring? You can respect it, but how do you appreciate it?

When you find that not many others can do it, then it's worth respecting.

> > I can see you have way too much bias against him, so this discussion is pointless though it was fun.
>
> Yes but it is valid bias. For me 90s men's tennis dominated by aces and unreturnable serves are mind-numbing. No wonder they slowed down the courts. If you have matches with a rally of maximum 5, it becomes unwatcheable. Remember those "classic" Sampras-Ivanisevic final... fond memories, huh?

They only played 2 Wim finals in the 90's. How about the USO, AO matches in the '90's ? We had some great contrasting styles there. Ivanisevic was not a factor and Sampras didn't ace his way like he did at Wim. You cannot use one slam - Wim - to malign an entire era.

> >
> > Yes, they were very talented, esp. Stich who could be sublime when "on". But just mental fortitude is not enough to cover a gap of 13 slams.
>
> What else then? If you all the talent and weaponry, all you need is mental strength. Oh you need dedication and being injury free as well. I think Stich and Krajicek suffered in that department as well.
>

What matters is your "base level", not just your "peak level". That's what determines your long term consistency and success. The peak level of Krajicek or Stich could probably be higher than Sampras' peak level, but Sampras' week-in, week-out level was higher. So that's why those guys didn't put themselves in a position to win more slams.

BTW I love Stich. I think he was superb and could've definitely won more slams. I wouldn't say he could've had a Sampras level career though. Watch his 1994 USO F against Agassi. He would've found Agassi a tough customer.

> > He beat a lot of top players at the USO - Becker, Stich, Chang, Hewitt, Kafelnikov etc .
>
> With the exception of Becker, none of them is an all-time great. And Becker of 1995-96 was good in flashes. He could lose to anybody anyday. He was a lot more consistent between 1986-89.

Agassi beat Becker in 1990 USO SF as well. Becker had made the Wim F a couple of months back, and he would go on to win the AO a few months later. I agree about your statement of Becker from late-1991 to mid-1995.

>
> >Like you say for Fed reg. FO and Nadal, if there was no Sampras, Agassi would've won 4-5 USO's.
>
> Doubt it. Agassi could lose to anybody. Even if you count all the matches he lost to Sampras to USO, he could have lost to the player Sampras beat in SF or QF...
>
> 1990 USO - would have lost to Lendl in the final if not for Sampras who took him out in QF

Possibly, yes.

>
> 1995 USO - would have most likely lost to Courier whom Sampras took out in SF. Courier had beaten Agassi six times in a row before that including 1992 USO Open.
>

Quite possible, yes.

> 2001 USO - Agassi lost to Sampras in QF. If not Sampras, he would have lost likely lost to Safin in SF or Hewitt in final. I don;t see him beating Safin and Hewitt back to back
>

Agassi beat Hewitt the very next year. So I think he can do it. I give him the edge over Safin too. Safin was even more inconsistent than Becker.

> 2002 USO - Extremely weak draw and Agassi choked massively here. He should have won this one.
>
> So yes, if not for Sampras, Agassi would have won 1 more USO.

2 more. :))

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:21:34 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > Why ? It worked, right ? Mac, Connors for example used mind games
> >
> > Thats entirely different. That made for great spectacle... shanking service returns in a lackadaisical manner isn't.
>
> Great spectacle, sure. But I think that's worse than tanking returns. Not that it made me hate Mac/Connors.
>
> >
> > > and gamesmanship to break opponents' rhythm etc. and used it to their advantage. As long as it's within the rules and through the racquet, it's good IMO. If you don't like it, that's a different story.
> >
> > Well depends. I mostly do not like it. I think it is not gentleman like. But Connors and McEnroe did it so often that it became a part of the routine and players like Lendl and Becker were hardly bothered with it. They might have secretly relished the tantrums...lol
>
> Lendl probably did relish Mac's tantrums (probably he knew Mac was a paper tiger), but he was unnerved by Connors, I felt.
>
>
> > >
> > > Boring doesn't mean it's not good.
> > Like Dire Straits you mean... still it is boring though. How can you appreciate boring? You can respect it, but how do you appreciate it?
>
> When you find that not many others can do it, then it's worth respecting.
>
>
> > > I can see you have way too much bias against him, so this discussion is pointless though it was fun.
> >
> > Yes but it is valid bias. For me 90s men's tennis dominated by aces and unreturnable serves are mind-numbing. No wonder they slowed down the courts. If you have matches with a rally of maximum 5, it becomes unwatcheable. Remember those "classic" Sampras-Ivanisevic final... fond memories, huh?
>
> They only played 2 Wim finals in the 90's. How about the USO, AO matches in the '90's ? We had some great contrasting styles there. Ivanisevic was not a factor and Sampras didn't ace his way like he did at Wim. You cannot use one slam - Wim - to malign an entire era.
>
>
> > >
> > > Yes, they were very talented, esp. Stich who could be sublime when "on". But just mental fortitude is not enough to cover a gap of 13 slams.
> >
> > What else then? If you all the talent and weaponry, all you need is mental strength. Oh you need dedication and being injury free as well. I think Stich and Krajicek suffered in that department as well.
> >
>
> What matters is your "base level", not just your "peak level". That's what determines your long term consistency and success. The peak level of Krajicek or Stich could probably be higher than Sampras' peak level, but Sampras' week-in, week-out level was higher. So that's why those guys didn't put themselves in a position to win more slams.

Agree.

>
> BTW I love Stich. I think he was superb and could've definitely won more slams. I wouldn't say he could've had a Sampras level career though. Watch his 1994 USO F against Agassi. He would've found Agassi a tough customer.

Hehe he would never have had the success of even Courier. He just was not consistent enough.

>
>
> > > He beat a lot of top players at the USO - Becker, Stich, Chang, Hewitt, Kafelnikov etc .
> >
> > With the exception of Becker, none of them is an all-time great. And Becker of 1995-96 was good in flashes. He could lose to anybody anyday. He was a lot more consistent between 1986-89.
>
> Agassi beat Becker in 1990 USO SF as well. Becker had made the Wim F a couple of months back, and he would go on to win the AO a few months later. I agree about your statement of Becker from late-1991 to mid-1995.

AO and USO were on drastically different surfaces back then. Anyway I said Becker was at his best between 1996-89. Actually screw 1987, it was bad for him. His best three years were 1986, 88 and 89. None of the other years come close. Actually 1990 was not super bad but he flaked out completely in slams and YECs.

Just look at the %s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker_career_statistics#Singles

>
> >
> > >Like you say for Fed reg. FO and Nadal, if there was no Sampras, Agassi would've won 4-5 USO's.
> >
> > Doubt it. Agassi could lose to anybody. Even if you count all the matches he lost to Sampras to USO, he could have lost to the player Sampras beat in SF or QF...
> >
> > 1990 USO - would have lost to Lendl in the final if not for Sampras who took him out in QF
>
> Possibly, yes.
>
> >
> > 1995 USO - would have most likely lost to Courier whom Sampras took out in SF. Courier had beaten Agassi six times in a row before that including 1992 USO Open.
> >
>
> Quite possible, yes.
>
> > 2001 USO - Agassi lost to Sampras in QF. If not Sampras, he would have lost likely lost to Safin in SF or Hewitt in final. I don;t see him beating Safin and Hewitt back to back
> >
>
> Agassi beat Hewitt the very next year. So I think he can do it. I give him the edge over Safin too. Safin was even more inconsistent than Becker.

But not way in hell he was gonna go past both of them together. Safin of 2001 was not as good as Safin of 2000, but still was playing well. And Hewitt blasted Sampras in the final. Agassi would have had no chance.

>
> > 2002 USO - Extremely weak draw and Agassi choked massively here. He should have won this one.
> >
> > So yes, if not for Sampras, Agassi would have won 1 more USO.
>
> 2 more. :))

No guarantee for 2001. 2002 was only possible because of the weak draw.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:21:34 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:40:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>
> > > Why ? It worked, right ? Mac, Connors for example used mind games
> >
> > Thats entirely different. That made for great spectacle... shanking service returns in a lackadaisical manner isn't.
>
> Great spectacle, sure. But I think that's worse than tanking returns. Not that it made me hate Mac/Connors.
>
> >
> > > and gamesmanship to break opponents' rhythm etc. and used it to their advantage. As long as it's within the rules and through the racquet, it's good IMO. If you don't like it, that's a different story.
> >
> > Well depends. I mostly do not like it. I think it is not gentleman like. But Connors and McEnroe did it so often that it became a part of the routine and players like Lendl and Becker were hardly bothered with it. They might have secretly relished the tantrums...lol
>
> Lendl probably did relish Mac's tantrums (probably he knew Mac was a paper tiger), but he was unnerved by Connors, I felt.

Yes early on. I think he was bullied by Connors in the 1982 final. But he also played like shit. He played much better in the semis against McEnroe. I think he again under-performed in 1983 but he was not in very good form that year or the next.

I am pretty sure he relished playing Connors from 1985 onwards. The 1985 USO was the best I see him play. And he easily beat Connors and McEnroe back to back. He dropped only 3 sets between 1985-87 USO. He was that dominant at peak.

>
>
> > >
> > > Boring doesn't mean it's not good.
> > Like Dire Straits you mean... still it is boring though. How can you appreciate boring? You can respect it, but how do you appreciate it?
>
> When you find that not many others can do it, then it's worth respecting.
>
>
> > > I can see you have way too much bias against him, so this discussion is pointless though it was fun.
> >
> > Yes but it is valid bias. For me 90s men's tennis dominated by aces and unreturnable serves are mind-numbing. No wonder they slowed down the courts. If you have matches with a rally of maximum 5, it becomes unwatcheable. Remember those "classic" Sampras-Ivanisevic final... fond memories, huh?
>
> They only played 2 Wim finals in the 90's. How about the USO, AO matches in the '90's ?

They never met at the AO.
https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/goran-ivanisevic-vs-pete-sampras/i034/s402

> We had some great contrasting styles there. Ivanisevic was not a factor and Sampras didn't ace his way like he did at Wim. You cannot use one slam - Wim - to malign an entire era.

But Wimbledon was the main tournament. And they both sullied it. They met 4 times at Wimbledon with Ivanisevic winning the first one. Each of them were unwatcheable crap!

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 12:40:58 -0700, soccerfan777 wrote:

>> Why ? It worked, right ? Mac, Connors for example used mind games
>
> Thats entirely different. That made for great spectacle... shanking
> service returns in a lackadaisical manner isn't.
>
>> and gamesmanship to break opponents' rhythm etc. and used it to their
>> advantage. As long as it's within the rules and through the racquet,
>> it's good IMO. If you don't like it, that's a different story.
>
> Well depends. I mostly do not like it. I think it is not gentleman like.
> But Connors and McEnroe did it so often that it became a part of the
> routine and players like Lendl and Becker were hardly bothered with it.
> They might have secretly relished the tantrums...lol

Wasn't Shakes in the camp that found Federer's SABR "rude" or
"disrespectful" towards the server?

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

It's kinda like underarm serving, or "Panenka" penalty kick.

It is disrespectful to an extent. Only fedfucker would pretend it
wasn't and be offended with the objective suggestion.


Go ahead. Do it?

--


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

[soccerfan777]

Shakes is being a hypocrite if you thought SABR was disrespectful especially since he thinks Sampras tanking (his own words) return games was disprectful to the crowd and especially his own fans.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Shakes is being a hypocrite if you thought SABR was disrespectful especially since he thinks Sampras tanking (his own words) return games was disprectful to the crowd and especially his own fans.
>

He was talking about the opponent. Not crowds.

And Sampras wasn't tanking it was half effort.

[soccerfan777]

Are you his lawyer? Fuck off dipshit

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 15:55:21 -0700, soccerfan777 wrote:

> Are you his lawyer? Fuck off dipshit

Maybe... *skriptis said he'd take a bullet for Whisper, Shakes may be his
mysterious third client.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Are you his lawyer? Fuck off dipshit
>

You're an idiot.


Sampras was, overall probably giving 100% full effort to win
matches as that is the desired goal.

But the nature of his game, energy reserves and health condition
were such that he had to optimize his effort.


Would you say a guy who's 2-0 sets up and a triple break behind in
the third, is "tanking" for conserving energy, avoiding
unnecessary clowning on court that could get him an injury and
not busting his ass off to win a game at 0-5?

You probably would.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:23:04 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Shakes is being a hypocrite if you thought SABR was disrespectful especially since he thinks Sampras tanking (his own words) return games was disprectful to the crowd and especially his own fans.

That was an overstatement from my side. He didn't tank as in purposely hit returns into the net, or hit shots into the back fence etc. What I meant to say was that he didn't bust his gut trying to win every point unless an opening presented itself or it was a tie-break. That's not disrespectful to the crowds or the game.

[Shakes]

Maybe I was but why would Raja care ? Anyways IIRC I didn't put it in the same category of "disrespectful" as Mac/Connor's antics. But I probably put it as sneaky. Hypothetically, if someone stood to receive serve just outside the service box, how would it make the server feel ? After all, it's within the rules of the game.

Lol, your problem with me is because I am silent on Whisper, bob ? Aren't they small issues to be angry over ?

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 16:41:54 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> Lol, your problem with me is because I am silent on Whisper, bob ?
> Aren't they small issues to be angry over ?

Angry? I'm not angry.

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 16:41:54 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> Anyways IIRC I didn't put it in the same category of "disrespectful" as
> Mac/Connor's antics. But I probably put it as sneaky. Hypothetically, if
> someone stood to receive serve just outside the service box, how would
> it make the server feel ? After all, it's within the rules of the game.

I'm not sure why it would matter to you what the returner does as long as
it's within the boundaries of the rules of the game. Haven't you
repeatedly defended time-wasting tactics Djok/Nadal employ which might
actually be against the rules?

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 00:13:55 +0200, *skriptis wrote:

> It's kinda like underarm serving, or "Panenka" penalty kick.
>
> It is disrespectful to an extent. Only fedfucker would pretend it
> wasn't and be offended with the objective suggestion.
>

So you're advocating that if he can take advantage of the opponent's weak
serve by coming in on it he shouldn't do so in order to satisfy you? lol

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

You're such a weirdo.

Time-wasting they "employ" is in most cases not time wasting at
all, and is justifiable due to them playing monster rallies. So
it's not a deliberate act, but a normal pace both are comfortable
with. Are you even aware of that?

ATP can always speed up the courts if they want, but you can't
force guys to serve immediately one after another if every point
they play is a 40-strokes rally.


Secondly, they received warnings like they should in situations it
was obvious they took too long. Same way people get foot faulted.
So why are you whining this much as if the rules have never been
enforced?


Federer is rushing his opponents, serving quickly, far quicker
than it's usually done, but you're not calling him out for that,
do you?

Otoh these guys take it slower, which is ok if it's within time,
and most often it is, when it's obviously not, they did receive
warnings.


But let's be honest about it? You're hoping they force Nadal to
take only 10 seconds between the points and thus take away his
physical edge he has over his opponents or Federer.


I know that's what you want.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Don't pretend you're Cosmo Kramer. You're failing comic test.

Nobody has "that weak of a serve on ATP tour". He's not doing SABR
against me, but against fellow ATP pros. Who all serve well
enough.

The whole point of SABR is about surprise and unexpected, not
about punishing weak serve like you tried to spin it.


That was so lame.


SABR is totally within the rules. But it's underarm serving level.

If you're ok with Nadal serving underarm/underhand or whatever to
Federer, I'm ok with SABR too.

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 02:33:44 +0200, *skriptis wrote:

> You're such a weirdo.
>
> Time-wasting they "employ" is in most cases not time wasting at
> all, and is justifiable due to them playing monster rallies. So it's
> not a deliberate act, but a normal pace both are comfortable with. Are
> you even aware of that?
>
> ATP can always speed up the courts if they want, but you can't
> force guys to serve immediately one after another if every point they
> play is a 40-strokes rally.

The rules don't differentiate between length of points, play is intended
to be as continuous as possible.

But beyond that, certainly other sports are far more strenuous than
tennis from that perspective so no excuses there.

>
>
> Secondly, they received warnings like they should in situations it
> was obvious they took too long. Same way people get foot faulted.
> So why are you whining this much as if the rules have never been
> enforced?

Yes, on occasion they call warnings, which I support. I would appreciate
it if they properly applied the rules consistently. The point is, it is
clear the rules *do* get violated time and time again with respect to
time and yet you only complain about a "disrepectful" or "sneaky" tactic
that's completely valid and within the rules of the sport. Talk about
hypocritical!

>
>
> Federer is rushing his opponents, serving quickly, far quicker
> than it's usually done, but you're not calling him out for that, do
> you?

Even if it's true, why would I call him out for it? You have evidence he
serves when his opponent isn't looking/isn't ready? I haven't seen that.

>
> Otoh these guys take it slower, which is ok if it's within time,
> and most often it is, when it's obviously not, they did receive
> warnings.

And Nadal promptly whines and moans, calls in the referee, grimaces and
scowls, says how unfair it is to him because he's a delicate flower, etc.

>
>
> But let's be honest about it? You're hoping they force Nadal to
> take only 10 seconds between the points and thus take away his physical
> edge he has over his opponents or Federer.
>
>
> I know that's what you want.

They can just play by the rules. The clock at the USO this year is a
welcome addition. You may like to watch Nadal towel off after missing a
first serve, I do not.

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 02:39:29 +0200, *skriptis wrote:

> Don't pretend you're Cosmo Kramer. You're failing comic test.
>
> Nobody has "that weak of a serve on ATP tour". He's not doing SABR
> against me, but against fellow ATP pros. Who all serve well enough.
>
> The whole point of SABR is about surprise and unexpected, not
> about punishing weak serve like you tried to spin it.

What's wrong with surprise or unexpected moves? If he can pull off
hitting returns against monster servers closer to the service line why
not?

Is coming to the net disrespectful to the baseliner opponent too?

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 5:10:17 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2018 16:41:54 -0700, Shakes wrote:
>
> > Anyways IIRC I didn't put it in the same category of "disrespectful" as
> > Mac/Connor's antics. But I probably put it as sneaky. Hypothetically, if
> > someone stood to receive serve just outside the service box, how would
> > it make the server feel ? After all, it's within the rules of the game.
>
> I'm not sure why it would matter to you what the returner does as long as
> it's within the boundaries of the rules of the game.

It wouldn't matter to me, or make me angry. I said it's natural for Djok (or any other server) to get a little pissed. Any professional player would feel insulted by it.

> Haven't you
> repeatedly defended time-wasting tactics Djok/Nadal employ which might
> actually be against the rules?

I never defended it but didn't buy it as a reason for losing.

[Shakes]

Well, then you probably take the opposing view just for the heck of it. :)

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 18:36:52 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> It wouldn't matter to me, or make me angry. I said it's natural for Djok
> (or any other server) to get a little pissed.

Or it's a sign they need to improve their serve?

Do you also feel they take offense at net approaches since it takes away
angles? I mean sure, maybe the returner hit a short ball and Roger is
taking advantage of that, but do you think he shouldn't so as not to be
"disrespectful" of their poor return?

> Any professional player would feel insulted by it.

Says "Shakes".

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

In current era yes, as nobody expects it.

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 07:57:14 +0200, *skriptis wrote:

>
> In current era yes, as nobody expects it.

So you call me a weirdo but I'd rather see inventive play within the
boundaries of the rules and you'd rather see Nadal parading around
toweling off after a fault or Djok bounce the ball endlessly. To each
his or her own!

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:09:50 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2018 18:36:52 -0700, Shakes wrote:
>
> > It wouldn't matter to me, or make me angry. I said it's natural for Djok
> > (or any other server) to get a little pissed.
>
> Or it's a sign they need to improve their serve?
>

That is one way. Or maybe they could've done a Lendl - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAPwx3z950&t=0m52s

Would've been nice to see Fed's reaction.

> Do you also feel they take offense at net approaches since it takes away
> angles? I mean sure, maybe the returner hit a short ball and Roger is
> taking advantage of that, but do you think he shouldn't so as not to be
> "disrespectful" of their poor return?
>
> > Any professional player would feel insulted by it.
>
> Says "Shakes".

Lol, it's clear you are arguing just because I'm a Sampras fan and/or you put me in the same group as Whisper, Bob, *Skriptis. Carry on.

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 02 May 2018 23:33:31 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> That is one way. Or maybe they could've done a Lendl -
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAPwx3z950&t=0m52s
>
> Would've been nice to see Fed's reaction.

How about you tell me, you know how they all feel, right?

>
> Lol, it's clear you are arguing just because I'm a Sampras fan and/or
> you put me in the same group as Whisper, Bob, *Skriptis. Carry on.

Lol all you please, your hypocrisy and bias was just exposed for all to
see and you bowed out. Next?

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:43:12 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2018 23:33:31 -0700, Shakes wrote:
>
> > That is one way. Or maybe they could've done a Lendl -
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAPwx3z950&t=0m52s
> >
> > Would've been nice to see Fed's reaction.
>
> How about you tell me, you know how they all feel, right?
>

I do know how you feel. I am not sure about how Fed feels though I would've liked to see how he would've felt. He wouldn't have liked it, I bet. Apparently once Murray hit towards Fed directly in one of the AO's when he was up at the net, and he was very upset.

> >
> > Lol, it's clear you are arguing just because I'm a Sampras fan and/or
> > you put me in the same group as Whisper, Bob, *Skriptis. Carry on.
>
> Lol all you please, your hypocrisy and bias was just exposed for all to
> see and you bowed out. Next?

Actually it's your bias that was exposed, not mine. It's funny that you equate standing at the service box to receive serve as being on the same level of mental "sledging" as approaching the net. Seriously ? Are you saying if Agassi had done a SABR on Sampras or stood to receive serve 10 feet inside the baseline, Sampras wouldn't be livid ? Compare that to how Sampras would've felt if Agassi approached the net. And you say there is no difference. Amazing !

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 00:04:46 -0700, Shakes wrote:

>
> Actually it's your bias that was exposed, not mine. It's funny that you
> equate standing at the service box to receive serve as being on the same
> level of mental "sledging" as approaching the net. Seriously ? Are you
> saying if Agassi had done a SABR on Sampras or stood to receive serve 10
> feet inside the baseline, Sampras wouldn't be livid ? Compare that to
> how Sampras would've felt if Agassi approached the net. And you say
> there is no difference. Amazing !

What's this now? The SABR is Fed *standing* at the service box or 10
feet inside the baseline? Do you even know what SABR is, Shakes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGiooBma8J0

Here's a bit of advice for you, you want to show us a worthwhile argument
that isn't rubber stamped by Whisper/Bob/*skriptis you become a bit more
honest. OK?

[Whisper]

On 3/05/2018 12:54 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:17:58 AM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>>> Not really. I disliked him and Ivanisevic ever since the 1994 final. I never hated him. But just found his approach to the game excruciatingly boring. For me he was a improved version of Ivansevic with a bit more skills and a lot more mental strength, nothing more. He lacked the charm and all-courtness of Stich and Krajicek.
>>>
>>
>> Comon, Raja, you are comparing him with 3 one-slammers ? Seriously ?
>
> Well they didnt have the mental fortitude to win more than 1. But really should have. Krajicek and Stich were extremely talented players.
>




People don't believe me when I say you're trolling. Here's the proof.
Nobody can follow tennis for more than a few months (let alone what 25
yrs?) & really believe 1 slam wonders are 'extremely talented' compared
to Sampras. lol pull the other one Raja : )




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

[Whisper]

On 3/05/2018 1:00 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 5:27:56 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
>> On 2/05/2018 5:57 AM, Shakes wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:10:31 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:25:16 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not jealous. He just doesn't like Sampras.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I don't. I did want him to win FO though. I never liked his approach of holding your serve and go hit or miss with opponent's serve. His matches were predictably boring. He won when his serve was on and lost when it wasn't. There was hardly a match out there where he won with spectacular groundstrokes or volleys alone. Even Becker who had a big serve was a lot more all-round and interesting to watch. But that said, I respect him. And I consider him superior to the likes of Eberg/Becker/Wilander/Agassi. He just was not dominant enough like Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer/Nadal/Djoker... if you look at all these players they had multiple years where they won 90% of their matches. Sampras has NONE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Different tastes for different folks. I find him fascinating to watch for the some of the same reasons which you don't. :) He mostly slept on the return games because he didn't have the physical stamina to keep up the effort game-in, game-out like other players, and yet he was able to break the biggest servers of his era (on surfaces more conducive to big servers) when it mattered. I can see why some folks find his game boring. He didn't have the grace of Edberg or Fed, or the flair of Mac or Fed. But it takes tremendous skill to play the way he did. If you can't see it, you can't see it.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Surprising Raja doesn't see it. You can't win what he did
>> with just a serve & bozo groundies. If true, then the history books
>> would be littered with big serving bozos winning many slams. In reality
>> you see them winning 1 slam if lucky (Goran, Krajicek, Stich). Obviously
>> Sampras had a lot more than those guys x 10.
>>
>> There are many matches where Sampras hit Agassi & the best baseliners
>> off the court from the baseline. He just didn't have the physical
>> stamina to play long baseline rallies. It's really incredible he could
>> still win big matches while not trying very hard for about half the
>> match. Who else could get away with that approach? Where would
>> Fed/Rafa etc be if they half-arsed half of every match?
>>
> Agassi was not a very good baseliner. He hardly went for the kill and when he kid he hit it out most of the time. The most attractive thing about his game was his ROS which was extremely flashy if not the most effective like say Djoker, Hewitt, Murray etc.
>
> He was no Borg/Lendl/Wilander/Federer/Nadal/Djoker when it comes to baseline tennis. He wasn't even a Murray. He has won only 3 slams outside AO which are on hard court/clay. And three of his AO wins (all in the 2000s) came with easy-peasy draws.
>
>

But Sampras kncoked him out of 6 slams he woulda won & had 14 slams
total himself.

[Whisper]

On 3/05/2018 5:40 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
>>>
>>
>> That's one thing to marvel at, sure. But there are others too.
>>
>> I can see you have way too much bias against him, so this discussion is pointless though it was fun.
>
> Yes but it is valid bias. For me 90s men's tennis dominated by aces and unreturnable serves are mind-numbing. No wonder they slowed down the courts. If you have matches with a rally of maximum 5, it becomes unwatcheable. Remember those "classic" Sampras-Ivanisevic final... fond memories, huh?
>



Is that why this week you get 4 spectators watching a pro match?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/how-does-this-happen.615890/

Your point is there would only be 1 fan watching this match if it were
90's, so tennis is 4 times more popular today?

; )

[Whisper]

I have Sampras on video admitting he only tried to break if he got the
guy down 0-30, 15-30 on serve.

[soccerfan777]

Links please! And that would make Sampras' case only weaker. It's pretty lame to cheat your own fans

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 2 May 2018 16:42:01 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:10:36 AM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2 May 2018 12:09:35 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:44:37 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

> > > > On 2/05/2018 11:16 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> > > > > jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > > > >> On Tue, 01 May 2018 17:57:19 -0700, Shakes wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> You could still find things to appreciate if you knew what to look for.
> > > > >>> Even folks who dislike him and/or not his fans agree that he had a
> > > > >>> tremendous game. I think you cut him too short. Probably something to do
> > > > >>> with Whisper, myself and other Sampras fans on RST.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Whisper is a crude, disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest and biased poster,
> > > > >> so possibly there is some of that. You give those types lots of latitude
> > > > >> if they praise Sampras though.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense. I think it has to do with your ego. Whisper is generally
> > > > > regarded as the top 1 poster around here, while you not so
> > > > > much.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. He's regular on court.
> > > > > 2. His insight is superb.
> > > > > 3. His tennis knowledge is vast.
> > > > > 4. He's a very readable/humorous.
> > > > >
> > > > > He's not the top gentleman of rst, I admit that, as he's drawn to
> > > > > mud sometimes but he does the job.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
> > >
> > > Yes, you are obvious an eagle looked a like turkey amongst the turkeys, but you are still a turkey.
> >
> > would you be a crispy duck? :)
>
> That's a racist taunt. Can't expect anything better from you.

can't expect anything better from you, the most racist and race obsessed member of RST, what a surprise, YOU being the humour police! halt nothing funny allowed here cos you wanna dictate everything!

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Thu, 03 May 2018 00:04:46 -0700, Shakes wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually it's your bias that was exposed, not mine. It's funny that you
>> equate standing at the service box to receive serve as being on the same
>> level of mental "sledging" as approaching the net. Seriously ? Are you
>> saying if Agassi had done a SABR on Sampras or stood to receive serve 10
>> feet inside the baseline, Sampras wouldn't be livid ? Compare that to
>> how Sampras would've felt if Agassi approached the net. And you say
>> there is no difference. Amazing !
>
> What's this now? The SABR is Fed *standing* at the service box or 10
> feet inside the baseline? Do you even know what SABR is, Shakes?

And do you know what SABR is?
Let me help you, it's:

"Sneak Attack By Roger"


Therefore don't you consider yourself a bit wacko for criticizing
Shakes who merely said the shot is a bit sneaky and
disrespectful?

Would you criticize someone for saying USA is "united"?

Nobody has said it's outside the rules, it's totally legit. But
like I said it's underhand serve category. Underhand serve is not
normally used.


People use drop shot when their opponents stand too far away to
exploit the situation.

But nobody does underhand serve to exploit anything, they don't
use it when e.g. their opponents wait serve too far away. Oh, no.
Underhand serve is used primarily as a surprise attack, and one
that throws you off balance completely.

What would you say if Nadal or Djokovic started underhand serve vs
Federer?

[soccerfan777]

Fuck off you bland, fish and chips who don't know salt and pepper exists, eating English "the sun never rises on whose empire" arsehole.

See that was not racist and immensely funny just like that crispy duck joke.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

I wish more ATP players went on the attack on the second serve. Murray's 80mph second serve should be crushed time and time again, but it rarely is. Return winners are a highlight for me.

[soccerfan777]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2018 00:04:46 -0700, Shakes wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Actually it's your bias that was exposed, not mine. It's funny that you
> >> equate standing at the service box to receive serve as being on the same
> >> level of mental "sledging" as approaching the net. Seriously ? Are you
> >> saying if Agassi had done a SABR on Sampras or stood to receive serve 10
> >> feet inside the baseline, Sampras wouldn't be livid ? Compare that to
> >> how Sampras would've felt if Agassi approached the net. And you say
> >> there is no difference. Amazing !
> >
> > What's this now? The SABR is Fed *standing* at the service box or 10
> > feet inside the baseline? Do you even know what SABR is, Shakes?
>
>
> And do you know what SABR is?
> Let me help you, it's:
>
> "Sneak Attack By Roger"
>
>
> Therefore don't you consider yourself a bit wacko for criticizing
> Shakes who merely said the shot is a bit sneaky and
> disrespectful?

Bit sneaky is not the same as being disrespectful. If you are a fruity fairy then you would be offended by SABR.

[John Liang]

Would have does not mean anything at all......

[John Liang]

Hold on a minute, firstly Krajicek and co were extremely talented and they did not win more than 1 slam because they lack either the physical talent or mentality to be a great champion. Wasn't Tomic very talented in your book and even claim he was talent enough to win 2 Wimbledon before 2016 ? Was Tomic extremely talented compare to say Edberg who actually won 2 Wimbledon ?

[Carey]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:00:28 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:

> >
> Agassi was not a very good baseliner. He hardly went for the kill and when he kid he hit it out most of the time. The most attractive thing about his game was his ROS which was extremely flashy if not the most effective like say Djoker, Hewitt, Murray etc.
>

This is nuts. Agassi struck the ball as well as anyone who has ever played the game, off both sides,
and developed a money overhead and serve too (over twenty aces *against Federer* at USO 05. IIRC).
He had heavy feet; if not for that, his Major count would be in the teens, and I don’t even like the guy.

[soccerfan777]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 12:14:28 PM UTC-5, Carey wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:00:28 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>
> > >
> > Agassi was not a very good baseliner. He hardly went for the kill and when he kid he hit it out most of the time. The most attractive thing about his game was his ROS which was extremely flashy if not the most effective like say Djoker, Hewitt, Murray etc.
> >
>
> This is nuts. Agassi struck the ball as well as anyone who has ever played the game, off both sides,

Not in his latter years. Actually I have not seen Agassi blow anyone off the court like Lendl or Graf or even Davenport did. Even in his younger days players like Wilander could handle him. See the 1988 FO SF.

> and developed a money overhead and serve too (over twenty aces *against Federer* at USO 05. IIRC).

Yes his serve improved over the years. But we are talking ground strokes.

> He had heavy feet; if not for that, his Major count would be in the teens, and I don’t even like the guy.

He was inconsistent. Even more than Sampras. How many times did he lose before the QF of the slams. Check for yourself. I say he got lucky to cap some cheap AOs in the 2000s, or else he would have ended up lower than Edberg.

[Carey]

Wilander got AA on dirt in '88. He was 2-5 against Agassi, and never beat him after that FO.

Have a look at Stich v Agassi, then Stich v Sampras. That’s a better measure.

[soccerfan777]

Well Wilander was useless after 1988 ;-)

>
> Have a look at Stich v Agassi, then Stich v Sampras. That’s a better measure.

Stich had trouble against Agassi for sure. But Stich was a pretty good (not great) baselinerbut primarily a serve-volleyer. Compare Agassi to Courier. Courier won 6 matches in a row against him.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Jim_Courier/Andre_Agassi/

If you disregard their first two encounters as Courier was too young... then Courier leads it 7-3.

If Agassi couldn't cut it against Courier, you think he would be able to handle the likes of Borg/Lendl/Wilander/Federer/Nadal/Djoker in their primes? No way.

[Carey]

The Agassi v Courier matchup is actually a good one to look at, with neither guy being a top-flight mover, so point taken. Agassi’s limitations against the players you mention would be caused by his
movement, though, not his groundies.

I’d like to see prime AA against Djok and Nadal on HC, esp AO.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:39:12 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:

> >
> > And do you know what SABR is?
> > Let me help you, it's:
> >
> > "Sneak Attack By Roger"
> >
> >
> > Therefore don't you consider yourself a bit wacko for criticizing
> > Shakes who merely said the shot is a bit sneaky and
> > disrespectful?
>
>
> Bit sneaky is not the same as being disrespectful. If you are a fruity fairy then you would be offended by SABR.
>

We are arguing semantics here - disrespectful, sneaky etc.

Here is another thought. Player X is facing a break-point on his serve. The opponent is expecting a big 1st serve, maybe an ace, and prepares himself for that. Then X throws in an underhand serve, and the opponent is unable to react. The opponent loses the crucial BP opportunity. Would the opponent be a fruit fairy and be upset about it ? Or would he take it in the same way as if it had been an ace ?

Would you call that normal or sneaky or smart/clever ? If it's completely normal and there is nothing sneaky about it, why don't any of the pros use that as a tactic ?

Chang did that against Lendl in the 1989 FO and Lendl was so stunned he actually lost his composure and lost the match.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:34:07 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:

>
> And do you know what SABR is?
> Let me help you, it's:
>
> "Sneak Attack By Roger"
>
>
> Therefore don't you consider yourself a bit wacko for criticizing
> Shakes who merely said the shot is a bit sneaky and
> disrespectful?
>
> Would you criticize someone for saying USA is "united"?
>
> Nobody has said it's outside the rules, it's totally legit. But
> like I said it's underhand serve category. Underhand serve is not
> normally used.
>
>
> People use drop shot when their opponents stand too far away to
> exploit the situation.
>
> But nobody does underhand serve to exploit anything, they don't
> use it when e.g. their opponents wait serve too far away. Oh, no.
> Underhand serve is used primarily as a surprise attack, and one
> that throws you off balance completely.
>
> What would you say if Nadal or Djokovic started underhand serve vs
> Federer?
>
>

JD, like Raja, either has a problem with Sampras, and therefore with Sampras fans on RST or he has a problem with us personally.

[*skriptis]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:39:12 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:

>> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
>
>> >
>> > And do you know what SABR is?
>> > Let me help you, it's:
>> >
>> > "Sneak Attack By Roger"
>> >
>> >
>> > Therefore don't you consider yourself a bit wacko for criticizing
>> > Shakes who merely said the shot is a bit sneaky and
>> > disrespectful?
>>
>>

>> Bit sneaky is not the same as being disrespectful. If you are a fruity fairy then you would be offended by SABR.
>>
>
>
> We are arguing semantics here - disrespectful, sneaky etc.
>
> Here is another thought. Player X is facing a break-point on his serve. The opponent is expecting a big 1st serve, maybe an ace, and prepares himself for that. Then X throws in an underhand serve, and the opponent is unable to react. The opponent loses the crucial BP opportunity. Would the opponent be a fruit fairy and be upset about it ? Or would he take it in the same way as if it had been an ace ?
>
> Would you call that normal or sneaky or smart/clever ? If it's completely normal and there is nothing sneaky about it, why don't any of the pros use that as a tactic ?
>
> Chang did that against Lendl in the 1989 FO and Lendl was so stunned he actually lost his composure and lost the match.
>
>

Lendl was a fruit
fairy. Couldn't take underhand serve.



Also great point about semantics. I wanted to post same thing but
lost the thread.

That's classic Raja nonsense, using semantics to confuse everyone.
Like, sneaky is so different from disrespectful, or the other day
in the Gandhi thread, patriotism is so different from the
nationalism etc.

It's boring as hell.

[*skriptis]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Raja is a complex case, but jd
is envious.

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 20:17:40 +0200, *skriptis wrote:


> Raja is a complex case, but jd is envious.

Envious of whom?

I honestly would have thought Sampras fan would like to see inventive
play that involves net-rushing (which is what SABR is all about, but
Shakes didn't realize that, apparently). I guess not if Roger does it?
In that case it's "disrespectful" and "sneaky"?

You guys are really need to work on getting your story straight!

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 11:14:30 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> JD, like Raja, either has a problem with Sampras, and therefore with
> Sampras fans on RST or he has a problem with us personally.

In actual fact I respect Sampras a great deal.

[Carey]

The idea that chip and charge is anything other than a completely legitimate tennis tactic stikes me as
bizarre. Nadal/Djok/Murray et al want to stay in a groove. Getting them out of it is the right play.

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 03 May 2018 11:09:41 -0700, Shakes wrote:

> Would you call that normal or sneaky or smart/clever ? If it's
> completely normal and there is nothing sneaky about it, why don't any of
> the pros use that as a tactic ?

I think the pros should employ more surprise tactics like this, otherwise
they become to ingrained in particular patterns of play that "could" be
exploited by the right opponent. SABR is interesting because it takes
advantage of a moment when the opponent is looking up, I don't think it
was "invented" by Fed nor do I think it's particularly effective in the
long haul, but it adds a different element for the server to consider.

Let's consider that you described SABR as "Fed standing 10 feet inside
the baseline" or "Fed standing at the service line". So clearly you
didn't even know what SABR is but chose to write about it anyway. Tell
me, how can you call something "disrespectful" or "sneaky" when you don't
even know what it is? Doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous?

>
> Chang did that against Lendl in the 1989 FO and Lendl was so stunned he
> actually lost his composure and lost the match.

I see, so you excuse a player for losing his composure and match because
of his opponent's tactic within the bounds of the game, but time wasting
tactics, medical timeouts, toilet breaks mid-set don't matter.

[soccerfan777]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:39:12 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:07 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And do you know what SABR is?
> > > Let me help you, it's:
> > >
> > > "Sneak Attack By Roger"
> > >
> > >
> > > Therefore don't you consider yourself a bit wacko for criticizing
> > > Shakes who merely said the shot is a bit sneaky and
> > > disrespectful?
> >
> >
> > Bit sneaky is not the same as being disrespectful. If you are a fruity fairy then you would be offended by SABR.
> >
>
>
> We are arguing semantics here - disrespectful, sneaky etc.
>
> Here is another thought. Player X is facing a break-point on his serve. The opponent is expecting a big 1st serve, maybe an ace, and prepares himself for that. Then X throws in an underhand serve, and the opponent is unable to react. The opponent loses the crucial BP opportunity. Would the opponent be a fruit fairy and be upset about it ? Or would he take it in the same way as if it had been an ace ?

Everything is fair in love and war. He should not be a fruit and accept it.

>
> Would you call that normal or sneaky or smart/clever ? If it's completely normal and there is nothing sneaky about it, why don't any of the pros use that as a tactic ?
>
> Chang did that against Lendl in the 1989 FO and Lendl was so stunned he actually lost his composure and lost the match.

ANd I never forgave him for that. I think one problem with Lendl was he was too stiff on court (though he was funny off-court). He should have laughed it off and kicked Chang's ass as he should have. Hingis doing the same to Graf did not fluster her.

In fact I think the crowd was unfair to Hingis that day. Even though I like Graf a lot more and definitely wanted Graf to win.

[soccerfan777]

I do not have a problem with Rodjk. He is a huge Sampras fan and I met him personally.

The problem I have with you is you are sneaky. You pop up in threads which was essentially troll bait and pretend to be rational version of Whisper, *dipshit, bob etc even though you share the same agenda - denigrate other greats to Sampras' benefit.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:49:29 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:

> I think the pros should employ more surprise tactics like this, otherwise
> they become to ingrained in particular patterns of play that "could" be
> exploited by the right opponent.

On paper, yes. But I can bet you anything that a player like Fed or Nadal would never, probably ever, serve underarm even if it's within the rules. And we both know why.

> SABR is interesting because it takes
> advantage of a moment when the opponent is looking up, I don't think it
> was "invented" by Fed nor do I think it's particularly effective in the
> long haul, but it adds a different element for the server to consider.
>
> Let's consider that you described SABR as "Fed standing 10 feet inside
> the baseline" or "Fed standing at the service line". So clearly you
> didn't even know what SABR is but chose to write about it anyway. Tell
> me, how can you call something "disrespectful" or "sneaky" when you don't
> even know what it is? Doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous?
>

No, it's not disingenuous. The only difference between my hypothetical example and the SABR is that Fed starts off standing at the baseline and then runs forward towards the service line rather than standing close to the service line to begin with. Other than that, the message is the same. Look, for the umpteenth time, I have no problems with Fed using it. My point was I can see why the server might get pissed.

> I see, so you excuse a player for losing his composure and match because
> of his opponent's tactic within the bounds of the game, but time wasting
> tactics, medical timeouts, toilet breaks mid-set don't matter.

Where did I excuse Lendl for the loss ? I said Lendl was unnerved/stunned by the tactic. And I can see why. But too bad it cost him the match. That's an entirely different discussion. My point was regarding the opponent getting rattled.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 12:19:37 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

> >
> > We are arguing semantics here - disrespectful, sneaky etc.
> >
> > Here is another thought. Player X is facing a break-point on his serve. The opponent is expecting a big 1st serve, maybe an ace, and prepares himself for that. Then X throws in an underhand serve, and the opponent is unable to react. The opponent loses the crucial BP opportunity. Would the opponent be a fruit fairy and be upset about it ? Or would he take it in the same way as if it had been an ace ?
>
> Everything is fair in love and war. He should not be a fruit and accept it.
>

On paper, yes. But then would you think a player like Fed would do that ? Never !

> >
> > Would you call that normal or sneaky or smart/clever ? If it's completely normal and there is nothing sneaky about it, why don't any of the pros use that as a tactic ?
> >
> > Chang did that against Lendl in the 1989 FO and Lendl was so stunned he actually lost his composure and lost the match.
>
> ANd I never forgave him for that. I think one problem with Lendl was he was too stiff on court (though he was funny off-court). He should have laughed it off and kicked Chang's ass as he should have. Hingis doing the same to Graf did not fluster her.
>
> In fact I think the crowd was unfair to Hingis that day. Even though I like Graf a lot more and definitely wanted Graf to win.

Agree about Lendl letting it affect him. But you brought up an interesting example. Why do you think that the crowd reacted like that when Hingis pulled it off ?

[Shakes]

There is nothing to straighten here. I don't have a problem with Fed doing it. Don't know how many times I have to stress it. I am saying I can see why Djok or whoever would get a little upset about it.

And SABR is not analogous to traditional net rushing. It's not like a traditional chip charge. Fed runs forward when the player tosses the ball and before he strikes it; IOW when he's not looking. That's very different from coming forward after the serve is delivered. In that sense, it's like an underhand serve.

[Carey]

Why bring underhand serving into the question? Has anyone used that in a match of significance in the
last quarter-century?

As for Federer moving forward at the last moment, yes, that’s how it’s done, otherwise the server is tipped
off and will serve accordingly. Whoever gets to make their decision later has a chance of taking control of
the point, which is, so far as I know, the objective in a tennis match.