Sampras vs Agassi 2001 US final
felangey
For all the ribbing of Whisper, he does sort of have a point about game
speed.
Everything about the game is better now (save volleying) - players are
fitter, faster, stronger....just overall better tennis players. However,
check out the speed and low bounce of the ball above. Every time I watch
older footage, it takes me by surprise initially how fast the ball/court
elements were compared to what they have become.
akamai
Or watch Federer vs Nalbandian AUS Open 2004 quarterfinal or Federer
vs Blake US Open 2003
Shakes
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY
>
> For all the ribbing of Whisper, he does sort of have a point about game
> speed.
>
> Everything about the game is better now (save volleying) - players are
> fitter, faster, stronger....just overall better tennis players.
Disagree. And yet, I would rather watch the 2001 USO F rather than the
2010 USO F (Nadal - Djok).
Best yrs were from 1985-1993, and 1995. Great variety and great
rivalries.
Ali Asoag
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY
>
> For all the ribbing of Whisper, he does sort of have a point about game
> speed.
Yup. How can Whisper say Sampras was old and done?
Watching that, I have compassion for Sampras. How can such a fine player
consistently fail on clay? Whipser may have an answer? ;-)
BTW, it was not the final.
--
Say, how dumb are you, Whisper? Probably you are so dumb that you
can't realize that you are dumb.
Fan
>
I simply do not believe that Sampras got suddenly that good without
some help after an entire year of stumbling around. He moved as if the
law of gravity did not apply to him. It was probably the best I saw
Sampras play and I watched most of their encounters. It was simple
incredible.
MBDunc
USO qf 2001 match Sampras - Agassi is an odd match retrospectively.
* some list it as one of the very great matches.
- quality was great sure and it had two iconic players playing at
their home venue.
* some list it as one of the most overrated matches ever
- there were no breaks of serve and most of the service games went
without extra tense. And last three tie-breakers were also not close.
- it was qf and none of players went for the title.
I think that match also featured Agassi's alltime ace record (18)?
.mikko
Whisper
Yes, it's obvious to me the game is slower & more 1-dimensional today.
Fedfuckers take this the wrong way. I'm not criticizing Fed - indeed
I've said he's the best thing going in the game last few yrs.
But seriously, take him & Rafa out & you'd have empty stadiums even in
slam finals.
It's all about context. In the absence of top players from the past the
typical tennis viewer thinks this is as good as it gets, because they
don't have that reference point.
MBDunc
> On 10/28/2010 2:34 AM, felangey wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY
>
> > For all the ribbing of Whisper, he does sort of have a point about game
> > speed.
>
> > Everything about the game is better now (save volleying) - players are
> > fitter, faster, stronger....just overall better tennis players. However,
> > check out the speed and low bounce of the ball above. Every time I watch
> > older footage, it takes me by surprise initially how fast the ball/court
> > elements were compared to what they have become.
>
> Yes, it's obvious to me the game is slower & more 1-dimensional today.
> Fedfuckers take this the wrong way. I'm not criticizing Fed - indeed
> I've said he's the best thing going in the game last few yrs.
>
> But seriously, take him & Rafa out & you'd have empty stadiums even in
> slam finals.
You claim applies to every era. Take top dogs off and retrospectively
it would appear bad (as we have a reference). However in a dimension
where there never were Fed/Nadal maybe Roddick has 5-7 slams, Hewitt
has 4-6 slams, Djokovic has 4-6 slams, Murray has 2-3 slams....
> It's all about context. In the absence of top players from the past the
> typical tennis viewer thinks this is as good as it gets, because they
> don't have that reference point.
Didn't you just say in another thread that your opinions share the
mainstream view? = typical tennis viewer = averagejoe?
.mikko
Whisper
> On 28 loka, 10:36, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 10/28/2010 2:34 AM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY
>>
>>> For all the ribbing of Whisper, he does sort of have a point about game
>>> speed.
>>
>>> Everything about the game is better now (save volleying) - players are
>>> fitter, faster, stronger....just overall better tennis players. However,
>>> check out the speed and low bounce of the ball above. Every time I watch
>>> older footage, it takes me by surprise initially how fast the ball/court
>>> elements were compared to what they have become.
>>
>> Fedfuckers take this the wrong way. I'm not criticizing Fed - indeed
>> I've said he's the best thing going in the game last few yrs.
>>
>> slam finals.
>
> You claim applies to every era. Take top dogs off and retrospectively
> it would appear bad (as we have a reference). However in a dimension
> where there never were Fed/Nadal maybe Roddick has 5-7 slams, Hewitt
> has 4-6 slams, Djokovic has 4-6 slams, Murray has 2-3 slams....
>
>> It's all about context. In the absence of top players from the past the
>> typical tennis viewer thinks this is as good as it gets, because they
>> don't have that reference point.
>
> Didn't you just say in another thread that your opinions share the
> mainstream view? = typical tennis viewer = averagejoe?
>
> .mikko
Tennis isn't rocket science. What average Joe thinks is correct.
Iceberg
> On 10/27/2010 9:34 AM, felangey wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VUBtEbuOuY
>
> > For all the ribbing of Whisper, he does sort of have a point about game
> > speed.
>
> Yup. How can Whisper say Sampras was old and done?
>
> Watching that, I have compassion for Sampras. How can such a fine player
> consistently fail on clay? Whipser may have an answer? ;-)
>
> BTW, it was not the final.
yes was the quarter-final, suggests a couple of things about
felangey ;)
Iceberg
yes, but those no breaks of serve is what made it so exciting, you
didn't know who had the edge. Is that really the same today? the game
is obviously more slower today than back then too, but they did this
so people would 'enjoy' the rallies, personally I much preferred
watching something like this, am I alone, perhaps not, Look at the
crowd at Mahut vs Isner at Wimbledon.
Yama
: * some list it as one of the very great matches.
: - quality was great sure and it had two iconic players playing at
: their home venue.
: * some list it as one of the most overrated matches ever
: - there were no breaks of serve and most of the service games went
: without extra tense. And last three tie-breakers were also not close.
: - it was qf and none of players went for the title.
I watched only part of it, but I thought it felt so...sterile. Very clinical.
It was like both of them had perfected their service games so that other
had little chance. It was in some ways some of the best tennis they
played against each other, but in some ways also most boring.
Inglourious Basterd
>
> - Show quoted text -
there was a large crowd because it was a one-off circus event. Not
because people want to watch 2 guys endlessly hold their serves.
Pelle Svanslös
This is like good post extract. Water it down and you'll still have
excellent juice. Wowzers.
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
Whisper
But they were very aggressive & making things happen - tennis like it
used to be. Far better than 2 guys essentially playing defensive from
baseline. That's why most stadiums are empty. Fans want to see dynamic
tennis.
Ali Asoag
He just wanted to do Whisper a favor making Pete's achievement up a bit. :-)