Federer's Wimbledon 2017 Backhand Highlights

[kaennorsing]

The one that didn't lose him a set!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42eRyDmhDk

[Whisper]

On 20/07/2017 3:09 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
> The one that didn't lose him a set!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42eRyDmhDk
>
>

Yes, much better tennis than the 2006 USO final.

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

[MBDunc]

Fed and his good backhand day from 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moEMh2_ihbQ&t=537s

.mikko

[Whisper]

The thing that struck me most in that clip is Blake hitting good serves,
Fed bunting them back slow & high over the net. Guess what Blake was doing?

Yes - moving back behind the baseline, waiting for the ball to softly
land & then commencing a baseline rally. I have no words.

[Makarand Patil]

Instead let's look at Sampras serving at his best, he serves a 129 mph monster serve to Fed's backhand and burgeons to the net, and then...
https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s

[Whisper]

Yes, Sampras very slow at that stage of his career. Still got a racket
on it, & was 2 pts from beating Fed. Not bad at rockbottom career point.



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

[Makarand Patil]

Most likely Sampras was not expecting his 129 mph serve to come back like that on grass. Can't blame him, he essentially played against soft-cock first serve returners all his career. Young Fed and prime-Hewitt were truly nightmares for him.

--
"BOAT can also be due to transition/soft cock era, so it's a far lesser title than GOAT." - Whisper 8:12:06

[The Iceberg]

Sampras had pretty much retired by this point, next time he lost to George Bastl, another huge nightmare of a returner LOL

[Makarand Patil]

Sure. Now please post video evidence of Bastl returning a 129 mph Sampras serve in their Wimbledon match.

[The Iceberg]

I saw a junior return a 130mph serve at Wimbledon this year, would prefer to dig that vid out instead.

[Makarand Patil]

LOL... figured you'd run away. Only interested in Bastl returning a 129 mph Sampras serve at Wimbledon. Very specific here - 129 mph Sampras serve on Wimbledon grass.

--
"Most slams is what it's all about. Dickhead consensus on RST is not worth beans." Whisper 8:11:06

[Whisper]

Nightmares? Sampras did well to lose 7-5 in the 5th set to Federer.
Everybody else was beating him easier in those years. Also Sampras beat
Hewitt in straight sets 2000 USO semi, also in his rockbottom period.

You're not very good at arguing your case are you?

[Whisper]

So Fed could handle Sampras' serve, but Henman was way too much for him
the next rd? Thinking is not your strong point. Do something that
doesn't require logic.

[Whisper]

What about 128 or 130?

[PeteWasLucky]

> So Fed could handle Sampras' serve, but Henman was way too much for him
the next rd? Thinking is not your strong point. Do something that
doesn't require logic.

So if Sampras won the fifth set against Federer and continued to win the title he wouldn't be old and retiring?

[Makarand Patil]

Yep not bad, after landing 70% of his first serves in against a teenage Fed.

> Everybody else was beating him easier in those years. Also Sampras beat
> Hewitt in straight sets 2000 USO semi, also in his rockbottom period.

Only to be handed breadsticks the very next year.

> You're not very good at arguing your case are you?

Tsk tsk, the video evidence crushed your balls, didn't it :)?
https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s

[Makarand Patil]

129+, so Bastl returning 130 mph Sampras serve and then winning the point is perfectly acceptable.

[me]

Sampras was hardly at 'rockbottom' at the 2000 US open. He had just won Wimbledon, he reached the final at the US open and ranked world number one after that.

[Makarand Patil]

LOL... is this your rebuttal?

> Thinking is not your strong point. Do something that
> doesn't require logic.

Being the resident dickhead, you must be an expert at doing things that don't require logic.

[Whisper]

This video?;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-StNLYs6o


This match is more indicative how good Fed was at Wimbledon 2001.

[Makarand Patil]

Nope, this video
https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s

[Whisper]

I see junior players doing this all time. Do you play tennis?

[Whisper]

No need to get abusive. Fed's form in 2001 was never good enough to
trouble Tim Henman. Granted Tim was probably at his peak, so no shame
Fed couldn't breathe the same air at that age.

[Makarand Patil]

You see junior players returning 129 mph Sampras serves at Wimbledon all the time? Wow!
Nope, I haven't played or watched your kind of tennis.

[Whisper]

Why 1 specific video? Why not the video of USO 2001 where Agassi
creamed Fed 61 62 64?

You sound moronic picking 1 match & ignoring all the others. Cherry
picking on steroids. All evidence has to be factored in to work out
where Fed's form was in 2001. It was well behind Henman/Agassi, & many
others. That's still ok for a 19 yr old, but he was no 19 yr old
Sampras crushing 4 world No.1's & winning USO. Light yrs from that level.

[stephenJ]

That was a rocket serve, but it wasn't very well placed, right into
Fed's wheel house. Watch the rest of the game and Sampras is able to
fight back from 0-40 to win the game, in part thanks to two aces to the
same ad-court, including one to Fed's backhand side, but much better places.



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

[me]

Players develop at different rates. Hewitt and Federer were born in the same year. Hewitt was light years ahead of Federer at the beginning of their careers, both in achievements and head-to-head. Of course, we all know how that rivalry ended up.

[stephenJ]

Between 2000-2003, Federer was inconsistent. He didn't develop a
consistent game as quickly as peer Hewitt did. One manifestation of that
is playing one good match followed by a poor one.

This isn't rocket science ...




---

[Makarand Patil]

Oh, I can pick any number of matches I want. Starting from the same 19 year old Fed returning Krajicek's first serves in Vienna Indoors to later on in his career returning the serves of "Sampras on Steroids" and returning Raonic's serves in recent Wimbledon.

But I just love the fact that the "nuclear weapons" of your crush working at full throttle (70% first serves, avg 1st speed 121 mph) still couldn't help him beat a Teenage Fed.

[Whisper]

The biggest joke is Sampras is not in my top few faves - but don't let
that stop you. Carry on.

: )

[SliceAndDice]

Sampras made USO final in the next couple of months and won the Open next year. No, he was at peak.

[Makarand Patil]

LOL... so you say. You have the Tennis-IQ of a 6 year old. It isn't that hard to figure you out. My guess is you would enjoy a threesome with Mac'n'Pete with A-Rod to change :)

[SliceAndDice]

Have mercy on them Makarand. This is a massacre LOL.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 20 juli 2017 14:44:29 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

So a 19 year old who fails to handle the hostile, Davis Cup-like home crowd a day after dethroning the Wimbledon king in a 5 set thriller is more indicative of his level than the superb performance against that Wimbledon king? Really? Which match was bigger in your opinion?

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 20 juli 2017 14:49:14 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

What about 'losses don't matter. Only the wins count'... Except when it's about Federer right? Then it's the opposite way, where only the losses are meaningful... Please save us your retarded logic from now on.

[Whisper]

No, let him unleash it all on us. Fedfuckery in full bloom is one of my
guilty pleasures.

: )

[RaspingDrive]

This is nothing for Whisper. In fact, he has survived a more macabre massacre: He predicted utmost one slam for Federer while the visionary superdave predicted a final slam count of between 18 and 22 for Federer.

[Whisper]

For Sampras the Fed match was routine. For Fed it was massive. Fed was
not a great player/slam champ at the time so zero hype for the match.
That means it wasn't important, rather an interesting match. Important
would be where 1 of the guys wins the title. Both Sampras & Fed were
well below slam winning level in 2001, despite some pretty points played.

[stephenJ]

> On 7/20/2017 9:34 AM, Whisper wrote:

> For Sampras the Fed match was routine. For Fed it was massive. Fed was
> not a great player/slam champ at the time so zero hype for the match.
> That means it wasn't important, rather an interesting match. Important
> would be where 1 of the guys wins the title.

4th round matches at Wimbledon are putatively important and command 100%
attention/motivation from participants. At the time, neither guy knew he
wasn't going to win the title so regarded the match as huge.



---

[Whisper]

You're missing the point. Fed v Sampras was not the Wimbledon final.
If it were yes it would have been massive/changing of the guard type thing.

Sampras had just survived a 5 set scare from Barry Cowan & was losing in
every tournament he entered, & Fed couldn't match Henman/Agassi at that
time.

If Sampras won it 7-5 in 5th Fed fans would never mention it. I find
that... cute?

: )

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 12:36 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> > On 7/20/2017 9:34 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> For Sampras the Fed match was routine. For Fed it was massive. Fed
>> was not a great player/slam champ at the time so zero hype for the
>> match. That means it wasn't important, rather an interesting match.
>> Important would be where 1 of the guys wins the title.
>
> 4th round matches at Wimbledon are putatively important and command 100%
> attention/motivation from participants. At the time, neither guy knew he
> wasn't going to win the title so regarded the match as huge.
>
>
>

But we know neither guy was going to win it, based on Sampras' results
at the time, & also Fed's pre & post 2001 Wimbledon results. There was
never any indication either guy was going to win Wimbledon. Sure
Sampras was touted by some due to his record, but that was the 1st year
since 1991 that I tipped against him at Wimbledon.



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

[me]

You really think Sampras has no chance against Henman, Ivanisevic and Rafter?

[John Liang]

The biggest joke is Sampras is not in my top few faves, This is most stupid joke you ever told in RST. Not fooling anyone here.

[stephenJ]

Are you serious? Sampras was the #1 seed, and 4-time defending champ.
Who was thought to have any chance to beat him? Rafter, who he beat in
the 2000 title match? Henman? LOL. Agassi? LOL. Sampras wasn't quite at
his peak, but the field was devoid of any serious challengers.

I mean, for crissakes, the event was won by Goran, a clown Sampras had
beaten many times before in big matches and who was himself far from his
peak and injured to boot! If there was any W of the past 30 years that
was wide open and could be won by anyone, it was 2001 Wimbledon.

It was there for the taking for Pete, if he just got past Federer.


---

[SliceAndDice]

I watched this match live and remember Sampras having an unbeatable aura at Wimbledon in those days. I was fully expecting Sampras to conjure some magic and find a way to beat Roger. To my surprise instead, it was Roger who did so. Contrary to what Whisper says, this was a very well-played match. Yes, Sampras may not have been having a great year, but he immediately sensed the danger and raised his level against Roger. Winning Wimbledon meant everything to Pete. In Pete's defense though, winning a close match at Wimbledon usually hinges on coming on top of a handful of points and sometimes the law of averages catches up with you. Hence, Borg, Sampras and Federer winning Wimbledon as many times as they did are very very impressive feats.

[Guypers]

Saw it live, had seen Fed in Davis cup before that, brilliant talent, boat, greatest of all time, like Jordan, Viv!

[SliceAndDice]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:31:10 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:

When Roger and Dimitrov faced each other in the 4th round this year, I was remembering this match and was worried that this could be another "changing of guard" match. But fortunately or unfortunately, Grigor is no Roger Federer and it turned out to be an easy match. But hopefully not all is lost for Grigor, lot of players are peaking in the late 20s these days.

[SliceAndDice]

This match was my first time, and subsequent viewings confirmed that this man can do things on a tennis court I had ever seen before.

[Carey]

I have the Sampras-Fed Wimbledon match on DVD, with Peter Fleming doing live
commentary. Quite contrary to Limpy's claims (imagine that), Fleming said at
the time that there was a "big buzz" about this match in the locker room,
and that *Sampras was well aware* what a threat Federer posed. It's amazing
to me still, how relaxed Federer was on this occasion... he looked he had found
his true home... as indeed he had, even if it was took a couple of more years
'til he won there. The very best things take time. :)

[stephenJ]

IMO you nailed this. I too watched the match, and I'd never really heard
of Federer. I was rooting for Sampras and I think I sensed the danger
about as soon as Pete did, LOL. Pete may have not come into the match
thinking much of his opponent but surely within a few games he realized
this was a dangerous opponent.

The match *was* very well played by both guys, excellent tennis.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 20 juli 2017 17:17:29 UTC+2 schreef StephenJ:

Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end... The next match vs Henman did not have the same upside and Federer just didn't play the big points as well as he did vs a very hostile Henman crowd.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:

> Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...

Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point. Would Sampras approach a match against Fed the same way he would have if it had been an Agassi or a Rafter or even Ivanisevic ? From a normal human perspective, it's expected that Fed would be more jacked playing Sampras than the other way around.

BTW, the same applies for any player. Would Fed approach a match against, say, Thiem with the same intensity as he would against Nadal or Djok or Murray ?

> The next match vs Henman did not have the same upside and Federer just didn't play the big points as well as he did vs a very hostile Henman crowd.

What do you mean by "same upside" ? FWIW, Fed always had problems against Henman. He didn't win a full match against Henman until well into 2004.

[SliceAndDice]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 4:23:56 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
>
> > Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
>
> Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point. Would Sampras approach a match against Fed the same way he would have if it had been an Agassi or a Rafter or even Ivanisevic ? From a normal human perspective, it's expected that Fed would be more jacked playing Sampras than the other way around.
>

Even if he did not *approach* the match the same way, wouldn't he have quickly snapped to attention after seeing how good the kid was? I think Sampras cared too much about winning Wimbledon to not take any match seriously. He knew how razor-thin the margins between winning and losing a match were.

[Carey]

Yeah, it was Fed's 'stealth' wot wun the match for him. Despite JMac saying
on TV at Wimbledon 2000, WRT Federer: "this kid has all the shots... he could win a bunch of Majors."

As if Sampras wouldn't know. Sheesh.

[Shakes]

Of course. Like I said it doesn't mean much at the end of it, but I can see how Fed would be more pumped up than Sampras was (going into the match).

I actually liked the match and I also posted in another thread that I thought Fed played better in this match than in his 2003 Wim F. Scud is no Sampras, not even the 2001 version.

[*skriptis]

SliceAndDice <vish...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

My feeling about that match is that Federer got himself pumped up
for a great opponent on a centre court, playing well above his
level at the time, while Sampras, even while playing some good
stuff was generally in a non champion mood and mentally
deflated.

The fact Federer went out in the next round and reached another QF
only two years later and Sampras himself was in the middle of 2
year lull period says it all.


I mean, what's next, digging out Monfils' wins vs Djokovic or
Gasquet's vs Nadal in their early days?
--


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

[Shakes]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 1:59:05 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:

>
> Yeah, it was Fed's 'stealth' wot wun the match for him. Despite JMac saying
> on TV at Wimbledon 2000, WRT Federer: "this kid has all the shots... he could win a bunch of Majors."
>
> As if Sampras wouldn't know. Sheesh.

Sampras wouldn't know what ? That Fed was going to win 19 slams and 8 Wim's ?

[SliceAndDice]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:11:42 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> SliceAndDice <vish...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 4:23:56 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> >>
> >> > Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
> >>
> >> Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point. Would Sampras approach a match against Fed the same way he would have if it had been an Agassi or a Rafter or even Ivanisevic ? From a normal human perspective, it's expected that Fed would be more jacked playing Sampras than the other way around.
> >>
> > Even if he did not *approach* the match the same way, wouldn't he have quickly snapped to attention after seeing how good the kid was? I think Sampras cared too much about winning Wimbledon to not take any match seriously. He knew how razor-thin the margins between winning and losing a match were.
> >
>
>
> My feeling about that match is that Federer got himself pumped up
> for a great opponent on a centre court, playing well above his
> level at the time, while Sampras, even while playing some good
> stuff was generally in a non champion mood and mentally
> deflated.
>

Fed did pump himself up, but I disagree with the second part. If you watched the match, Sampras played very well. And he wasn't in a lull. He was defending Wimbledon champion and defending USO finalist. Australian and French were never his strongest slams. Maybe losing this match caused him to slump?

And it is VERY common for young players to lose the next match after the biggest win of their career, especially against a wily home crowd favorite.

[AZ]

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:23:56 AM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
>
> > Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
>
> Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point.

Oh please! We all know why Whimpy makes up these scenarios. Why are you trying to contort it in a way make it appear valid? Makes you look bad.

[Guypers]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:11:42 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

LOL, hahaha

[Guypers]

No, stimpy was not good enuf, if the cheap greek played fed2017, both at peak would be hewitt redux, 60,75,60!!!!!!!!

[*skriptis]

AZ <arnab....@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:23:56 AM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
>>
>> > Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
>>
>> Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point.
>
> Oh please! We all know why Whimpy makes up these scenarios. Why are you trying to contort it in a way make it appear valid? Makes you look bad.

Being bad is cool. Girls love bad boys.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 20 juli 2017 22:23:56 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:

Obviously Fed didn't feel much pressure vs Sampras, as it was his idol. So more upside than vs Henman, against whom Roger probably - deep down - believed he should win. Especially after beating Sampras... Big difference for a teenager, in terms of the mindset. After all, Fed wasn't the mentally most mature one at that stage. He continued to disappoint on the big stages for a few more years. Not just vs Henman.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:23:54 PM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:23:56 AM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> >
> > > Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
> >
> > Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point.
>
> Oh please! We all know why Whimpy makes up these scenarios. Why are you trying to contort it in a way make it appear valid? Makes you look bad.
>

What about it is invalid ? I was looking at it from a psychological point of view. At the time the match happened, Fed was not even as big a name as Henman.

I don't understand the problem though. I am not giving excuses for the loss. I was just pointing out it's not an incorrect observation that Fed would be much more pumped going into the match than Sampras would've been.

[bob]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
>
>> Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
>
>Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point. Would Sampras approach a match against Fed the same way he would have if it had been an Agassi or a Rafter or even Ivanisevic ? From a normal human perspective, it's expected that Fed would be more jacked playing Sampras than the other way around.

you're talking to people who adore federer and hate sampras.

obviously an old 7 time champ, who's way out of form for over a year,
playing a kid who never won anything yet, isn't going to have anywhere
near the same approach as a kid playing his idol. but fed won 7-5 in
the 5th, neither was anywhere near peak, and fed was trounced by
hemnan right after.

>BTW, the same applies for any player. Would Fed approach a match against, say, Thiem with the same intensity as he would against Nadal or Djok or Murray ?

of course not.

>> The next match vs Henman did not have the same upside and Federer just didn't play the big points as well as he did vs a very hostile Henman crowd.

>What do you mean by "same upside" ? FWIW, Fed always had problems against Henman. He didn't win a full match against Henman until well into 2004.

bob

[bob]

no - those don't fit the agenda.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:23:54 PM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:23:56 AM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
>> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
>> >
>> > > Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
>> >
>> > Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point.
>>
>> Oh please! We all know why Whimpy makes up these scenarios. Why are you trying to contort it in a way make it appear valid? Makes you look bad.
>>
>
>What about it is invalid ? I was looking at it from a psychological point of view. At the time the match happened, Fed was not even as big a name as Henman.
>I don't understand the problem though. I am not giving excuses for the loss. I was just pointing out it's not an incorrect observation that Fed would be much more pumped going into the match than Sampras would've been.

anyone who doesn't see that is being dishonest. but per fed's fans,
nadal and sampras are hacks, after all, fed has 19 slams.

bob

[Carey]

what the agenda kenneth

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 12:55 AM, me wrote:

> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:43:49 PM UTC+1, Whisper wrote:
>> On 21/07/2017 12:36 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>> > On 7/20/2017 9:34 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> For Sampras the Fed match was routine. For Fed it was massive. Fed
>>>> was not a great player/slam champ at the time so zero hype for the
>>>> match. That means it wasn't important, rather an interesting match.
>>>> Important would be where 1 of the guys wins the title.
>>>
>>> 4th round matches at Wimbledon are putatively important and command 100%
>>> attention/motivation from participants. At the time, neither guy knew he
>>> wasn't going to win the title so regarded the match as huge.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> But we know neither guy was going to win it, based on Sampras' results
>> at the time, & also Fed's pre & post 2001 Wimbledon results. There was
>> never any indication either guy was going to win Wimbledon. Sure
>> Sampras was touted by some due to his record, but that was the 1st year
>> since 1991 that I tipped against him at Wimbledon.
>>
>>
>

> You really think Sampras has no chance against Henman, Ivanisevic and Rafter?
>
>

Every player has a chance against anyone, but yes I completely dismissed
Sampras as a viable winner in 2001. In fact as soon as Goran beat
Roddick in 3rd rd I immediately tipped Goran to win, & Sampras was still
alive in the tournament. I recall Yury giving me huge props for that
prediction.



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

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 12:57 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:06:26 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>> On 20/07/2017 11:03 PM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:52:30 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 20/07/2017 10:45 PM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:44:29 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/07/2017 10:35 PM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:11:42 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2017 6:14 PM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 1:06:39 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2017 5:47 PM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:02:42 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2017 4:00 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 8:28:27 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2017 3:09 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The one that didn't lose him a set!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42eRyDmhDk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, much better tennis than the 2006 USO final.

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed and his good backhand day from 2006.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moEMh2_ihbQ&t=537s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing that struck me most in that clip is Blake hitting good serves,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed bunting them back slow & high over the net. Guess what Blake was doing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - moving back behind the baseline, waiting for the ball to softly
>>>>>>>>>>>> land & then commencing a baseline rally. I have no words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead let's look at Sampras serving at his best, he serves a 129 mph monster serve to Fed's backhand and burgeons to the net, and then...
>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras very slow at that stage of his career. Still got a racket
>>>>>>>>>> on it, & was 2 pts from beating Fed. Not bad at rockbottom career point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> "A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most likely Sampras was not expecting his 129 mph serve to come back like that on grass. Can't blame him, he essentially played against soft-cock first serve returners all his career. Young Fed and prime-Hewitt were truly nightmares for him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nightmares? Sampras did well to lose 7-5 in the 5th set to Federer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep not bad, after landing 70% of his first serves in against a teenage Fed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everybody else was beating him easier in those years. Also Sampras beat
>>>>>>>> Hewitt in straight sets 2000 USO semi, also in his rockbottom period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only to be handed breadsticks the very next year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're not very good at arguing your case are you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tsk tsk, the video evidence crushed your balls, didn't it :)?
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This video?;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-StNLYs6o
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This match is more indicative how good Fed was at Wimbledon 2001.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, this video
>>>>> https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why 1 specific video? Why not the video of USO 2001 where Agassi
>>>> creamed Fed 61 62 64?
>>>>
>>>> You sound moronic picking 1 match & ignoring all the others. Cherry
>>>> picking on steroids. All evidence has to be factored in to work out
>>>> where Fed's form was in 2001. It was well behind Henman/Agassi, & many
>>>> others. That's still ok for a 19 yr old, but he was no 19 yr old
>>>> Sampras crushing 4 world No.1's & winning USO. Light yrs from that level.
>>>
>>> Oh, I can pick any number of matches I want. Starting from the same 19 year old Fed returning Krajicek's first serves in Vienna Indoors to later on in his career returning the serves of "Sampras on Steroids" and returning Raonic's serves in recent Wimbledon.
>>>
>>> But I just love the fact that the "nuclear weapons" of your crush working at full throttle (70% first serves, avg 1st speed 121 mph) still couldn't help him beat a Teenage Fed.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The biggest joke is Sampras is not in my top few faves - but don't let
>> that stop you. Carry on.
>>
>> : )
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
>
> The biggest joke is Sampras is not in my top few faves, This is most stupid joke you ever told in RST. Not fooling anyone here.
>


But he isn't. There are few matches of his I'd watch again. There are
a lot more Fed matches I'd rewatch.

Being a fan, or anti-fan, doesn't mean you have to be delusional.



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

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 1:17 AM, stephenJ wrote:

> On 7/20/2017 9:43 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 21/07/2017 12:36 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>> > On 7/20/2017 9:34 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> For Sampras the Fed match was routine. For Fed it was massive. Fed
>>>> was not a great player/slam champ at the time so zero hype for the
>>>> match. That means it wasn't important, rather an interesting match.
>>>> Important would be where 1 of the guys wins the title.
>>>
>>> 4th round matches at Wimbledon are putatively important and command
>>> 100% attention/motivation from participants. At the time, neither guy
>>> knew he wasn't going to win the title so regarded the match as huge.
>
>> But we know neither guy was going to win it, based on Sampras' results
>> at the time, & also Fed's pre & post 2001 Wimbledon results. There
>> was never any indication either guy was going to win Wimbledon. Sure
>> Sampras was touted by some due to his record, but that was the 1st
>> year since 1991 that I tipped against him at Wimbledon.
>

> Are you serious? Sampras was the #1 seed, and 4-time defending champ.
> Who was thought to have any chance to beat him? Rafter, who he beat in
> the 2000 title match? Henman? LOL. Agassi? LOL. Sampras wasn't quite at
> his peak, but the field was devoid of any serious challengers.
>
> I mean, for crissakes, the event was won by Goran, a clown Sampras had
> beaten many times before in big matches and who was himself far from his
> peak and injured to boot! If there was any W of the past 30 years that
> was wide open and could be won by anyone, it was 2001 Wimbledon.
>
> It was there for the taking for Pete, if he just got past Federer.
>
>

People forget where Sampras' game was in 2001. I genuinely gave him
like 5% chance of winning. 1st time I ever tipped against him at
Wimbledon. Indeed I backed Goran from rd 3 while Pete was still in it.
It's in the archives if you don't believe me.

Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5, Fed beat him in 5. Imo
Henman/Goran/Rafter would all have beaten Pete in 2001 in 4 sets.

I see where you're going wrong. When you think of 'Sampras' you're
thinking of the overall Pete model. I'm specifically referring to the
post July 2000 version. He deflated completely after breaking the slam
record.

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 1:31 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:

> I watched this match live and remember Sampras having an unbeatable aura at Wimbledon in those days.

Not in 2001. First yr I gave up on him.

>I was fully expecting Sampras to conjure some magic and find a way to beat Roger. To my surprise instead, it was Roger who did so.

I though he'd win this match too, but lose to Henman.

> Contrary to what Whisper says, this was a very >well-played match.

It was an extremely well played match, so no contradiction from me.
Both guys were very distant from their peaks, or from Henman/Goran level
though.

> Yes, Sampras may not have been having a great year, but he immediately sensed the danger and raised his level >against Roger. Winning Wimbledon meant everything >to Pete.

Did he do the same v Barry Cowan? What about Bastil the following yr?

> In >Pete's defense though, winning a close match at Wimbledon usually hinges on coming on top of a handful of points and >sometimes the law of averages catches up with you. >Hence, >Borg, Sampras and Federer winning Wimbledon as many times as they did are very very impressive feats.
>

Yes, but this debate isn't about that. It's the false idea Sampras &
Fed were close to peak form - nowhere near it imo.

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 1:36 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:

>>> ---

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

>> I watched this match live and remember Sampras having an unbeatable aura at Wimbledon in those days. I was fully expecting Sampras to conjure some magic and find a way to beat Roger. To my surprise instead, it was Roger who did so. Contrary to what Whisper says, this was a very well-played match. Yes, Sampras may not have been having a great year, but he immediately sensed the danger and raised his level against Roger. Winning Wimbledon meant everything to Pete. In Pete's defense though, winning a close match at Wimbledon usually hinges on coming on top of a handful of points and sometimes the law of averages catches up with you. Hence, Borg, Sampras and Federer winning Wimbledon as many times as they did are very very impressive feats.
>
> When Roger and Dimitrov faced each other in the 4th round this year, I was remembering this match and was worried that this could be another "changing of guard" match. But fortunately or unfortunately, Grigor is no Roger Federer and it turned out to be an easy match. But hopefully not all is lost for Grigor, lot of players are peaking in the late 20s these days.
>
>

Wow. People still talking about Dimitri? That guy is a lost cause &
has been for many yrs.

[Whisper]

On 21/07/2017 1:38 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:

>> Saw it live, had seen Fed in Davis cup before that, brilliant talent, boat, greatest of all time, like Jordan, Viv!
>
> This match was my first time, and subsequent viewings confirmed that this man can do things on a tennis court I had ever seen before.
>
>

I felt the same about McEnroe. I'm disappointed nobody else has come
along to play like he did.

: (

[Whisper]

I don't believe I ever said the match was very well played? They did
the best they could on the day is my point.



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

[AZ]

Sure. If we are being naive. Who knows really? Who cares? Is it even an issue? Why are we even talking about such an intangible metric (pumped up-ness) which might or might have had consequences which are unmeasurable. It's such a vague, fickle, speculative notion that the only purpose it can serve is to muddy the discussion to peddle some other POV. Which is exactly what the lying sack of shit was going for. Surely you are aware of this.

[Whisper]

Sampras said a month ago he knew Fed was going to be good, had all the
shots. He laughed & said he never saw him grabbing the game by the
throat to this extent, winning 18 slams (at the time) etc

[Whisper]

So he wasn't in a lull before he lost to Fed? Odd, given the last
tournament he won was a year earlier.

>
> And it is VERY common for young players to lose the next match after the biggest win of their career, especially against a wily home crowd favorite.
>

But Fed wouldn't win a slam until 2 more years had passed. That's not
just 'losing the next match' is it?

[Whisper]

I think you mean 60 76 60?

[Tuan]

So Pete was in a lull because he hasn't won a slam for (nearly) a year, but Fed has always been at peak although he hadn't won a slam in 5 years :)

[AZ]

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:30:28 AM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> AZ Wrote in message:

So you are one of these girls I suppose, given your love for "bad boy" Whimpy?

[Whisper]

er, Pete couldn't win a tune-up let alone a slam. Fed has always won
tune-ups.

[SliceAndDice]

I thought you said Pete did not care about tune-ups, and Fed did.

[Tuan]

All it shows is Fed's lull is better than Pete's lull!

[AZ]

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 6:00:47 AM UTC+6, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> > On 21/07/2017 8:27 PM, Tuan wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:05:15 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> > >> On 21/07/2017 7:20 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:11:42 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> > >>>> SliceAndDice gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > >>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 4:23:56 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:26:12 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Spot on. Everyone was ecstatic that Sampras lost so they actually had a chance to win the title for a change. Downplaying the significance of this match is retarded. Just one more title for Sampras to get to the magic #8. Instead, Fed got there in the end...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Without any attempts to downplay Fed's win or make an excuse for Sampras' loss, Whisper has a valid point. Would Sampras approach a match against Fed the same way he would have if it had been an Agassi or a Rafter or even Ivanisevic ? From a normal human perspective, it's expected that Fed would be more jacked playing Sampras than the other way around.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Even if he did not *approach* the match the same way, wouldn't he have quickly snapped to attention after seeing how good the kid was? I think Sampras cared too much about winning Wimbledon to not take any match seriously. He knew how razor-thin the margins between winning and losing a match were.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My feeling about that match is that Federer got himself pumped up
> > >>>> for a great opponent on a centre court, playing well above his
> > >>>> level at the time, while Sampras, even while playing some good
> > >>>> stuff was generally in a non champion mood and mentally
> > >>>> deflated.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Fed did pump himself up, but I disagree with the second part. If you watched the match, Sampras played very well. And he wasn't in a lull. He was defending Wimbledon champion and >defending USO finalist. Australian and French were never his strongest slams. Maybe losing this match caused him to slump?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So he wasn't in a lull before he lost to Fed? Odd, given the last
> > >> tournament he won was a year earlier.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> And it is VERY common for young players to lose the next match after the biggest win of their career, especially against a wily home crowd favorite.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> But Fed wouldn't win a slam until 2 more years had passed. That's not
> > >> just 'losing the next match' is it?
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > >> http://www.avg.com
> > >
> > > So Pete was in a lull because he hasn't won a slam for (nearly) a year, but Fed has always been at peak although he hadn't won a slam in 5 years :)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > er, Pete couldn't win a tune-up let alone a slam. Fed has always won
> > tune-ups.
> >
> >
> I thought you said Pete did not care about tune-ups, and Fed did.

He is such a lying sack of shit that he can't even keep his lies straight. He just vomits them out.

[Whisper]

On 22/07/2017 1:08 AM, Vishal wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 1:32:35 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

>> On 21/07/2017 12:55 AM, me wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Every player has a chance against anyone, but yes I completely dismissed
>> Sampras as a viable winner in 2001. In fact as soon as Goran beat
>> Roddick in 3rd rd I immediately tipped Goran to win, & Sampras was still
>> alive in the tournament. I recall Yury giving me huge props for that
>> prediction.
>>
>>

> *Your* dismissing Sampras means exactly zilch. If Sampras had gotten past Federer, we can safely say that he had a very good chance of lifting his 8th Wimbledon trophy. Rafter I would give an outside chance of beating him, but Henman and Ivanisevic's chances were ZERO, imo. The mental baggage of multiple losses to Sampras here was too much for them to bear. That is why a fresh face like Federer was needed to break the Sampras juggernaut at Wimbledon.
>
>


Classic example of Fedfuckery.

Fed was not an established star at the time so it wasn't billed as a
heavyweight match like when 2 slam winners meet.

[John Liang]

I don't think the line of argument different to your prediction of Nadal beating Federer in this year's Wimbledon. Of course nobody thought Muller would win, Nadal certainly was't the four time defending Wimbledon champion like Sampras. In fact it sounds more reasonable than your fake Nadal fuckery prediction when we consider Nadal lost last 5 Wimbledon before the fourth round.

[John Liang]

It is more like he won whenever he cared.

[John Liang]

Also French Open during Pete's era was the worst of slams and suddenly one decade later is now one of the bluest of blue chip slam according to whimp.

[Makarand Patil]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:57:35 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:

> On 7/20/2017 2:47 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:02:42 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 20/07/2017 4:00 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 8:28:27 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> >>>> On 20/07/2017 3:09 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
> >>>>> The one that didn't lose him a set!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42eRyDmhDk
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, much better tennis than the 2006 USO final.
> >>>>

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

> >>> Fed and his good backhand day from 2006.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moEMh2_ihbQ&t=537s
> >>>
> >>> .mikko
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The thing that struck me most in that clip is Blake hitting good serves,
> >> Fed bunting them back slow & high over the net. Guess what Blake was doing?
> >>
> >> Yes - moving back behind the baseline, waiting for the ball to softly
> >> land & then commencing a baseline rally. I have no words.
> >
> > Instead let's look at Sampras serving at his best, he serves a 129 mph monster serve to Fed's backhand and burgeons to the net, and then...
> > https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
> >
>

> That was a rocket serve, but it wasn't very well placed, right into
> Fed's wheel house. Watch the rest of the game and Sampras is able to
> fight back from 0-40 to win the game, in part thanks to two aces to the
> same ad-court, including one to Fed's backhand side, but much better places.
>
>
>
> ---

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

Perhaps so, Stephen. How would you judge the serve placement of say the
below Sampras first serve on the same court a couple of years earlier?
https://youtu.be/tC68VxH-N_o?t=27m4s (a good 10 mph slower than the below serve to Fed)
https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s

I really would like to see which top player of Sampras-era could have won
the point almost effortlessly returning that 129 mph serve of his on that
court (keeping the serve placement just as it was to Fed). Not as a
challenge or something, but looking for a genuine answer with evidence. I
watched most of Sampras's matches at Wimbledon from 1992, and any serve of
his of that speed was a guaranteed point for Sampras, especially on grass.
How unreturnable a serve looks directly depends on how the returner makes
the serve look.

While Sampras has the best serve I have seen, I do think the monstrosity of
the serve was also exaggerated by wimpy big serve returning skills of the
players of his era. No top player with Hewitt's or Federer's big-serve
returning caliber in Sampras era.

Now I am not claiming that Fed couldn't be aced or that Fed returned all of
Sampras first serves as if he was returning a Hingis second serve.

But Fed's distinct and extraordinary ability to frequently put Sampras's
huge first serves back into play did cause lot of difficulties for Sampras
in the match. Both Pete Fleming (commentating for BBC) and Johnny Mac
(commentating for NBC) also made this point.
https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=1h32m41s

In any case, the reason behind my original post was to refute the rather
naive analysis that always coming in behind a big serve against a 2006 Fed
would make it easy-peasy to win the point.

[Whisper]

On 23/07/2017 11:34 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:57:35 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 7/20/2017 2:47 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
>
> Perhaps so, Stephen. How would you judge the serve placement of say the
> below Sampras first serve on the same court a couple of years earlier?
> https://youtu.be/tC68VxH-N_o?t=27m4s (a good 10 mph slower than the below serve to Fed)
> https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
>
> I really would like to see which top player of Sampras-era could have won
> the point almost effortlessly returning that 129 mph serve of his on that
> court (keeping the serve placement just as it was to Fed). Not as a
> challenge or something, but looking for a genuine answer with evidence. I
> watched most of Sampras's matches at Wimbledon from 1992, and any serve of
> his of that speed was a guaranteed point for Sampras, especially on grass.
> How unreturnable a serve looks directly depends on how the returner makes
> the serve look.
>
> While Sampras has the best serve I have seen, I do think the monstrosity of
> the serve was also exaggerated by wimpy big serve returning skills of the
> players of his era. No top player with Hewitt's or Federer's big-serve
> returning caliber in Sampras era.

I think you're overestimating guys like Hewitt. He won 2 slams in his
career, & in both he was mere points from losing in 5 set cliffhangers
in earlier rds. That's very close to being a slamless wonder.

To really make solid arguments you have to use something meatier than eg
Hewitt, or Fed of 2001 who was completely bamboozled by Henman's serving
at Wimbledon.

[John Liang]

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 6:28:56 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 23/07/2017 11:34 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:57:35 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2017 2:47 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps so, Stephen. How would you judge the serve placement of say the
> > below Sampras first serve on the same court a couple of years earlier?
> > https://youtu.be/tC68VxH-N_o?t=27m4s (a good 10 mph slower than the below serve to Fed)
> > https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
> >
> > I really would like to see which top player of Sampras-era could have won
> > the point almost effortlessly returning that 129 mph serve of his on that
> > court (keeping the serve placement just as it was to Fed). Not as a
> > challenge or something, but looking for a genuine answer with evidence. I
> > watched most of Sampras's matches at Wimbledon from 1992, and any serve of
> > his of that speed was a guaranteed point for Sampras, especially on grass.
> > How unreturnable a serve looks directly depends on how the returner makes
> > the serve look.
> >
> > While Sampras has the best serve I have seen, I do think the monstrosity of
> > the serve was also exaggerated by wimpy big serve returning skills of the
> > players of his era. No top player with Hewitt's or Federer's big-serve
> > returning caliber in Sampras era.
>
>
> I think you're overestimating guys like Hewitt. He won 2 slams in his
> career, & in both he was mere points from losing in 5 set cliffhangers
> in earlier rds. That's very close to being a slamless wonder.
>

To say Hewitt is not a good returner is underestimating his ability as a returner. He had a good record against just about any s/v type player of Sampras era. Not just Sampras but also Rafter and against Henman. I don't know how did Henman ever bamboozled Hewitt with his serving because he had 0:8 record against Hewitt. If there is anyone that Henman hated to play he will be Hewitt. Winning clift hanger in early round does not mean the guy is not a worthy champion, there were plenty of greater players winning from impossible position in the early round, Becker won against Nystrom in 5 in one of his first Wimbledon in 80s, Edberg won against Masur in 85 AO after been down 2 sets, Sampras himself was almost out to Hrbarty in AO in an early round in 94 before winning AO against Martin. Agassi was down 0:2 against Medvedev in 99 FO. Any guy who won the last point of a grand slam championship is a grand slam champion that is how they will be remembered not how they nearly lost the early round. A two time slam champion is a two time slam champion.

[Makarand Patil]

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 1:28:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 23/07/2017 11:34 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 5:57:35 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2017 2:47 AM, Makarand Patil wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps so, Stephen. How would you judge the serve placement of say the
> > below Sampras first serve on the same court a couple of years earlier?
> > https://youtu.be/tC68VxH-N_o?t=27m4s (a good 10 mph slower than the below serve to Fed)
> > https://youtu.be/BG70ifjGLqQ?t=17m44s
> >
> > I really would like to see which top player of Sampras-era could have won
> > the point almost effortlessly returning that 129 mph serve of his on that
> > court (keeping the serve placement just as it was to Fed). Not as a
> > challenge or something, but looking for a genuine answer with evidence. I
> > watched most of Sampras's matches at Wimbledon from 1992, and any serve of
> > his of that speed was a guaranteed point for Sampras, especially on grass.
> > How unreturnable a serve looks directly depends on how the returner makes
> > the serve look.
> >
> > While Sampras has the best serve I have seen, I do think the monstrosity of
> > the serve was also exaggerated by wimpy big serve returning skills of the
> > players of his era. No top player with Hewitt's or Federer's big-serve
> > returning caliber in Sampras era.
>
>
> I think you're overestimating guys like Hewitt. He won 2 slams in his
> career, & in both he was mere points from losing in 5 set cliffhangers
> in earlier rds. That's very close to being a slamless wonder.
>

This is the most absurd logic I have heard (even coming from someone with
very limited Tennis IQ like you). Becker had very close matches in the
earlier rounds in many of his Slam victories. Against Derrick Rostagno in 89
US Open (2nd round), against Camporese in 91 AO (3rd round), against Thomas Johansson (2nd round) & Rusedski (1st round) in 96 AO, against Nystrom in 85 Wimbledon. So should we say Becker "almost had only 2 Slams" instead of 6?

Sampras's matchup issues with a peak-Hewitt were pretty evident. Sampras
himself admits in his book that he played right into Hewitt's hands because
Hewitt's game was perfectly built against serve and volleyers (and once
serve-volley became extinct, Hewitt could no longer dominate).

> To really make solid arguments you have to use something meatier than eg
> Hewitt, or Fed of 2001 who was completely bamboozled by Henman's serving
> at Wimbledon.
>

Retarded analysis. Fed actually had plenty of break opportunities against
Henman and broke Henman more times in that match than he broke Sampras in
the previous round. If anything, Fed's problem against Henman was holding
his own serve. The sets that Henman won against Fed in the match, he won 7-
5,7-6,7-6. It was very tight. Fed couldn't put it together when it mattered.
Understandable given that he was coming off the biggest victory of his
career in the earlier round. Fed's serve also wasn't yet a weapon that it
would turn out to be later on, and Henman won many more points returning
Fed's serve than Sampras did (not surprising given Sampras's limited
returning skills on that surface).

--
"Most slams is what it's all about. Dickhead consensus on RST is not worth beans." - Whisper 8:11:06

[Guypers]

+1
Good post, Fed 50% beat the stimpy greek!

[Whisper]

If that were true it wouldn't have taken Federer 2 more *years* to do
something meaningful in the game right?

A 1-off, narrow result like that against a guy who was at rockbottom of
his career, suggests it was just just due to the old guy being burnt out
& in worst form of his career, rather than any brilliance from Federer.
That brilliance surely would have shone more often, not sink without a
trace for 2 more yrs. Fed just continued to lose & lose to not just
Agassi at USO (smashed in 3 sets), but everyone everywhere.

You need to retract this post as it's quite embarrassing. No logic to
support it.

[bob]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:54:30 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

good post. people can say whatever they want about fed's stellar
accomplishments but the 2001 sampras wimbledon match wasn't meaningful
in determining what either would do at peak.

and if henman were so great, wonder why sampras owned him on his home
grass turf.

bob

[John Liang]

Well, so what it took two years to break through for his first slam and then flood gate open he won 18 more, which is way better than you predicted. Some people never get it done like your Roddick on steroid, he should be winning 2 Wimbledons by now with your prediction.

>
> A 1-off, narrow result like that against a guy who was at rockbottom of
> his career, suggests it was just just due to the old guy being burnt out
> & in worst form of his career, rather than any brilliance from Federer.
> That brilliance surely would have shone more often, not sink without a
> trace for 2 more yrs. Fed just continued to lose & lose to not just
> Agassi at USO (smashed in 3 sets), but everyone everywhere.

Still having problem accepting Hewitt been a difficult player for Sampras. Yes, sure Agassi smashed a 20 years old Fed in USO and around the same age Pete was thrashed by Christo Van Rensburg at Wimbledon in straight sets. Agassi was ranked higher than Fed during their USO match. Christo wouldn't be top 50 when he smashed Sampras.

[John Liang]

You have a habit of licking whimp's boots, don't you little bob?

[Whisper]

Fed was 20, but you do realize Sampras was 19 when he won the USO right?
Are you really suggesting Fed achieved more at 20 & 21 than Sampras at 19?