How come Sampras didn't win a slam in 2001?
ocean
Could the same happen to Fed in 2011? He has won slams for 8 years in
a row as well from 2003-2010. Borg(1974-1981) was the other player to
win slams for 8 yrs in a row. Nobody won slams for 9 yrs in a row in
the Open era.
RzR
yes it could, because he is still the main guy to beat...just ask any
player...once rafa becomes the main guy to beat in other players minds,
fed will have much easier time winning slams again
Inglourious Basterd
slam for 8 yrs in a row. That's a quite incredible achievement and we
have to applaud all three guys who have done it. None should be
considered a failure for not winning a slam in a 9th consecutive year
(Fed's fate in this case yet to be decided).
Iceberg
Sampras had hit his slam chase thing, Borg just quit cos he was bored.
They both woulda hit 10+ years of winning slams if the posts had been
further.
Ali Asoag
Woulda coulda shoulda. Whisper seems to teach his fanboys well.
bob
wrote:
sampras didn't win a slam in 2001 because he was playing at a very low
level, brought on by lack of focus, lack of motivation, lack of
interest, lack of training, lack of dedication and prep. after
Wim2000, he achieved all he wanted.
fed tells us he's extremely motivated....said so last month.
bob
john
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9gi7b6pibbhfl5u4b...@4ax.com...
Your master's logic indicated Sampras was in middle of his peak in 2001..
Iceberg
no it's just common sense, anyone with an ounce of tennis knowledge
would agree. Borg quit with 11 slams at 25, I suppose you reckon he
wouldn't get any more.
Inglourious Basterd
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT), ocean <Aranci...@selin.com>
> wrote:
>
> >He won slams in the previous 8 years in a row from 1993-2000.
>
> >Could the same happen to Fed in 2011? He has won slams for 8 years in
> >a row as well from 2003-2010. Borg(1974-1981) was the other player to
> >win slams for 8 yrs in a row. Nobody won slams for 9 yrs in a row in
> >the Open era.
>
> sampras didn't win a slam in 2001 because he was playing at a very low
> level, brought on by lack of focus, lack of motivation, lack of
> interest, lack of training, lack of dedication and prep. after
> Wim2000, he achieved all he wanted.
>
That hardly makes sens when we consider how Sampras played at the USO
2001. Three very impressive wins against Rafter, Agassi (in one of the
best matches of the decade) and Safin. Are you saying he suddenly lost
his motivation when in the biggest match of all, the final? A more
likely explanation is that he had his ass handed to him by a younger,
fitter Hewitt who knew how to take advantage of Sampras' serve.
Iceberg
yes, well he played pretty well, but be honest, was the motivation
REALLY there following W2000? he probably more enjoyed playing his old
rival Agassi than anything else, the man who brought out his best
game. After playing Agassi, playing super retriever Hewitt is hardly
going to match up is it, esp if you're a bit tired etc.
AliAsoag
This woulda coulda is nice to express one's regret that someone might
have achieved more (e.g.). But you can't use it to say "A is better
than B because if A would ...". That's BS. Comparion has to base on
real achievements, not on would-have-been.
Javier González
> On Oct 10, 11:56 pm, Inglourious Basterd
>
> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > The more pertinent question to ask is how a guy could win at least one
> > slam for 8 yrs in a row. That's a quite incredible achievement and we
> > have to applaud all three guys who have done it. None should be
> > considered a failure for not winning a slam in a 9th consecutive year
> > (Fed's fate in this case yet to be decided).
>
A schism in the curch of Whisper? ;)
AliAsoag
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT), ocean <Aranci...@selin.com>
Die Sampras say back then that he was not interested in winning?
And Nadal says again and again that Fed is much better than him. So
believe him finally like you do to Fed!
bob
<thetruet...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 12 Oct, 03:40, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT), ocean <Aranci...@selin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >He won slams in the previous 8 years in a row from 1993-2000.
>>
>> >Could the same happen to Fed in 2011? He has won slams for 8 years in
>> >a row as well from 2003-2010. Borg(1974-1981) was the other player to
>> >win slams for 8 yrs in a row. Nobody won slams for 9 yrs in a row in
>> >the Open era.
>>
>> sampras didn't win a slam in 2001 because he was playing at a very low
>> level, brought on by lack of focus, lack of motivation, lack of
>> interest, lack of training, lack of dedication and prep. after
>> Wim2000, he achieved all he wanted.
>>
>
>That hardly makes sens when we consider how Sampras played at the USO
>2001. Three very impressive wins against Rafter, Agassi (in one of the
>best matches of the decade) and Safin. Are you saying he suddenly lost
>his motivation when in the biggest match of all, the final?
no. i'm saying his preparation to play on the tour, including peaking
for slams, tailed off dramatically after Wim 2000. he made some slam
finals in 2001 just based on showing up at the tournament and giving a
good effort for 2 wks and letting talent alone take it. a far cry from
how he trained for previous 10 yrs.
> A more
>likely explanation is that he had his ass handed to him by a younger,
>fitter Hewitt who knew how to take advantage of Sampras' serve.
nothing "likely" or "unlikely" about it. i know what he did.
bob
bob
<ali.a...@arcor.de> wrote:
>On Oct 11, 8:40 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT), ocean <Aranci...@selin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >He won slams in the previous 8 years in a row from 1993-2000.
>>
>> >Could the same happen to Fed in 2011? He has won slams for 8 years in
>> >a row as well from 2003-2010. Borg(1974-1981) was the other player to
>> >win slams for 8 yrs in a row. Nobody won slams for 9 yrs in a row in
>> >the Open era.
>>
>> sampras didn't win a slam in 2001 because he was playing at a very low
>> level, brought on by lack of focus, lack of motivation, lack of
>> interest, lack of training, lack of dedication and prep. after
>> Wim2000, he achieved all he wanted.
>>
>> fed tells us he's extremely motivated....said so last month.
>
>Die Sampras say back then that he was not interested in winning?
he kinda did, yes. said it, and showed it through his preparation
habits. fed has done no such thing.
bob
Ali Asoag
That's just providing against a probable loss. Like Nadal always saying
that the opponent is favorite.
Iceberg
> On 10/12/2010 7:05 PM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:24:19 -0700 (PDT), AliAsoag
how on earth is that the same thing?
bob
wrote:
what on earth does nadal saying that fed is the favorite over him, and
sampras not prepping very well after Wim 2000, have to do with each
other?
bob
Shakes
It's hard to prepare against age.
Ali Asoag
Searching for excuses even before the match starts ...
Ali Asoag
Can you guys not read? Read it again:
Ali: Did Sampras say back then that he was not interested in winning?
Iceberg: he kinda did, yes.
Ali: That's just providing against a probable loss. Like Nadal always
saying that the opponent is favorite.
What does this mean? I didn't compare "Sampras not prepping very well
..." with "Nadal always favoring others", I compare "Sampras saying that
he was not interested in winning" with "Nadal always favoring others" as
SEEKING excuses before the matches.
Understood, dumbo?
bob
wrote:
nobody can stop time, agreed. but some people can delay it better than
others, with proper effort (like agassi). none of this is very
relevant to sampras, he wasn't all that old in 2000, just lost
motivation.
bob
bob
wrote:
saying your opponent is the "favorite" has absolutely nothing to do
with "making excuses." you are 1 serious dumbo ali. tier I dumbo of
RST.
bob