How many Slams would Sampras have won if Fed had been in the same era?

[Ali Asoag]

I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).

Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
more than Sampras.

Discuss.

[John Liang]

Who knows on today's slow to medium type court.

[Wile E.]

On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).

Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.

In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.

[John Liang]

I don't think Sampras can win more than 3 AO because this is the slam
he performed least well apart from FO. He is always a chance at W and
USO. You can pencil in 0 for him at FO.

[Gracchus]

On Sep 19, 12:27 pm, "Wile E." <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.

Good thing no one told Federer that, or he might not have won their
only slam encounter!

Fan, you are precious.

[John Liang]

On Sep 19, 2:27 pm, "Wile E." <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>
> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.

Nadal came along a long time ago and he was a tier 1 player that
consistently lost to
tier 5 or 6 type for 5 or 6 years. If there is one player that would
not been a factor on
slightly faster court it would be Nadal. He spent more than half of
his career to figured
out how to beat tier 5 or 6 players..

>
> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),


> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.


>
>
>
>
>
> > Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> > more than Sampras.
>

> > Discuss.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Whisper]

14


Fed wins about 3 or 4.

[Whisper]

Sampras & Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.

[Whisper]

He's actually very close to the truth. It's very unlikely Rafa is the
only tier 1 player Fed couldn't beat at peak. Imo he wouldn't even beat
peak Agassi at USO/AO either.

Not only has Fed lost 7 times to Rafa in slams, but he's also lost 4
slam semis to Djoker.

[kaennorsing]

> Sampras & Agassi would have been shut out of many slams, as would Rafa.

Fixed it.

[John Liang]

On Sep 19, 6:42 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 1:28 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>
> > I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>
> > Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> > more than Sampras.
>
> > Discuss.
>
> 14

More like 7-8.

>
> Fed wins about 3 or 4.

About the same number 7-8.

[John Liang]

On Sep 19, 6:53 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 3:11 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 12:27 pm, "Wile E."<jsm...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> >> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
> >> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>
> > Good thing no one told Federer that, or he might not have won their
> > only slam encounter!
>
> > Fan, you are precious.
>
> He's actually very close to the truth.  It's very unlikely Rafa is the
> only tier 1 player Fed couldn't beat at peak.  Imo he wouldn't even beat
> peak Agassi at USO/AO either.

He actually quite far from the truth. Nadal is the only top tier
player who has consistent in losing to
tier 4 or 5 players for four or five years. He is also the only tier
1 player who failed to defend any
of his non clay court grand slam titles. IMO he would be in trouble
against any of the journey men
on fast surface and old grass court because of his inefficient
technique with his strokes. Federer on
the other hand always has the talent to take the ball real earth and
can play serve and volley if the
speed of the court is fast.

>
> Not only has Fed lost 7 times to Rafa in slams, but he's also lost 4
> slam semis to Djoker.

Sampras lost to nobodies 8 times in first and second round in FO.

[John Liang]

> Sampras & Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Sampras could not even shut out Hewitt and let along Fed. Agassi lost
in straight sets on his best surface
at AO.

[Iceberg]

Hewitt could easily beat Fed anytime on grass, when he was up for it
and motivated, as Halle 2010 proved.

[John Liang]

> and motivated, as Halle 2010 proved.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Did he eat his pizza on those occassion he lost since 2003 Davis Cup
semi ? He probably didn't.

[Iceberg]

0 for Fed there too, Nadal/Agassi would see to that.

[John Liang]

Nadal would go out to anyone on HC and Agassi wont' win until he start
eating that pizza.

[Iceberg]

yes, this is a good assessment. I can't see any evidence that Fed's
USO/AO play esp USO play would beat peak Agassi and if they're honest,
anybody who's watched either of them play at Flushing Meadow would
agree. Sampras would definitely be in the teens of slams if he played
in the same era, that's pretty much without doubt.

[John Liang]

> in the same era, that's pretty much without doubt.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I can see plenty of evidence that Fed would beat Agassi in USO/AO and
he would stragiht
set Sampras a few times at the same venue. Sampras would be lucky to
even get to 8. As for
evidence of any of them beating one and another it would be up to any
woulda, coulda, shoulda
type evidence I can make along the way.

[Rodjk #613]

Nice troll...

Rodjk #613

[bob]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:53:38 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

i think you're on to something with the logic of "How can we have 3
guys in past 4-5 yrs achieveing historical type tennis seasons"... i'm
having a hard time believing that clown season could last a full 9
yrs, got to dig deep to figure this one out.

bob

[John Liang]

On Sep 19, 10:11 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:53:38 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>

> bob- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

With whisperbob type of intelligence you chance of figuring it out is
almost zero.

[MBDunc]

On 19 syys, 15:11, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:53:38 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>

Well...happened in the past also:

Connors 74 - historical season?
Borg 78-80 - historical seasons?
Mac 81 and esp. 84 - historical season?
Lendl's 86/87 are not shabby either.
Wilander's 88 surely is historical, right?

Even relatively recently: Agassi 99-00 went W-F-W-W in a row (FO 99 -
AO 00).

.mikko

[Oceanaught]

On today's slow courts, Sampras would be fucked....

[bob]

you are confirming the thought process - those happened 20+ yrs ago,
were not 3 slam seasons except connors and wilander's who was minus
wimbledon. now all of a sudden happening routinely?

bob

[Whisper]

On 19/09/2011 7:22 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Sep 19, 6:53 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/09/2011 3:11 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 19, 12:27 pm, "Wile E."<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
>>>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
>>>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>>
>>> Good thing no one told Federer that, or he might not have won their
>>> only slam encounter!
>>
>>> Fan, you are precious.
>>
>> He's actually very close to the truth. It's very unlikely Rafa is the
>> only tier 1 player Fed couldn't beat at peak. Imo he wouldn't even beat
>> peak Agassi at USO/AO either.
>
> He actually quite far from the truth. Nadal is the only top tier
> player who has consistent in losing to
> tier 4 or 5 players for four or five years. He is also the only tier
> 1 player who failed to defend any
> of his non clay court grand slam titles.

Real shame Federer couldn't put a player like that in his place no?

[Whisper]

On 19/09/2011 7:23 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Sep 19, 6:43 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/09/2011 2:27 PM, Wile E. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>
>>> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
>>> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.
>>
>>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
>>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
>>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>>
>>>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>>>> more than Sampras.
>>
>>>> Discuss.
>>

>> Sampras& Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sampras could not even shut out Hewitt and let along Fed. Agassi lost
> in straight sets on his best surface
> at AO.

Sampras at 30 thrashed peak Hewitt in straights at USO. If he could do
that at a time when he wasn't winning any tournaments at all, there's
little point talking about Sampras' absolute form. Stop wasting b/w &
talking nonsense.

[Whisper]

>> Sampras& Agassi would have been shut out of many slams, as would Rafa.
>
> Fixed it.


Federer easily shut out Blake, Berdych & Bagditis out of slams.

[Javier González]

On Sep 19, 12:28 am, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>

> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> more than Sampras.
>
> Discuss.

Obvious troll is obvious...

[MBDunc]

Well noone saw Bolt-type of records being possible either.

.mikko

[MBDunc]

On 19 syys, 16:20, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 7:23 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 6:43 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 19/09/2011 2:27 PM, Wile E. wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de>    wrote:
> >>>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>
> >>> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
> >>> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.
>
> >>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> >>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
> >>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>
> >>>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> >>>> more than Sampras.
>
> >>>> Discuss.
>
> >> Sampras&  Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sampras could not even shut out Hewitt and let along Fed.  Agassi lost
> > in straight sets on his best surface
> > at AO.
>
> Sampras at 30 thrashed peak Hewitt in straights at USO.

Peak Hewitt? 19 years, ranked #9 and in his first ever slam semi? ...

.mikko

[TT]

Can't believe people answer this thread...

[Jarmila Kratochvilova]

19.9.2011 16:36, MBDunc kirjoitti:

> Well noone saw Bolt-type of records being possible either.
>
> .mikko

I did.

[bob]

how many "bolts" do we have going now? 3 or 1?

bob

[bob]

didn't you once tell me becker peaked at 16?

bob

[MBDunc]

No I didn't. Becker turned 17 November 1984 when he had absolutely no
creds yet.

.mikko

[MBDunc]

On 19 syys, 22:06, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well what do you think about Djokovic-Nadal-Federer top3 lineup?

Do you miss names like Chang, Corretja, Korda, Rios, Moya, Muster,
Haas, Norman or Kafelnikov being up there instead? (all reached #1 or
#2 at some point 96-02).

.mikko

[Shakes]

I think it's interesting for the game that Djok has emerged as the
leader now. Nice change. A little more variety in the playing styles
would be even better. Seen from that perspective, nothing to beat
Connors-Borg-Mac, or even Wilander-Lendl-Becker-Edberg.

>
> Do you miss names like Chang, Corretja, Korda, Rios, Moya, Muster,
> Haas, Norman or Kafelnikov being up there instead? (all reached #1 or
> #2 at some point 96-02).
>
> .mikko

I do, if only for the playing styles. : -) I actually liked Korda, even
Rios and Kafelnikov.

[MBDunc]

Problem with all three was same: very flaky which made them
underachievers. (OK Rios lost it mostly because constant injuries).

The key issue was that none of these were made into constant forces.
One day they could be world beaters while next following months they
descended into average journeymen. Especially Korda was just handful
of flashes (91, 93, end of 97-start of 98) combined with ten years of
journeyman career.

.mikko

[Shakes]

Even Korda lost it due to injury. He had ankle problems around 1994 (if
I remember correctly) that he was supposed to treat with surgery that
yr. For whatever reason, he put it off until 1997. After that he only
had a couple of yrs left in his prime. But when he was on, he was
awesome. His BH was a laser. Just a flat, walloping monster. I remember
him passing Sampras in the 5th set (Korda was down 3-1) in their USO
4th rd encounter with his BH time and again.

>
> The key issue was that none of these were made into constant forces.
> One day they could be world beaters while next following months they
> descended into average journeymen. Especially Korda was just handful
> of flashes (91, 93, end of 97-start of 98) combined with ten years of
> journeyman career.
>
> .mikko

True, but then that's why they were dangerous floaters. Guys like
Korda, Scud, even Stich, Pioline were usually ranked around 15-16
during the 1996-2000 timeframe. WHich means you would run into them in
the 4th rd or so. I think playing a Korda or Scud or Stich in the 4th
rd is a lot trickier than playing a guy ranked around 15-16 today. The
90's had quite a few, what I call, half-champions. Guys like Safin,
Nalby. Guys who were usually not -**sed about playing week-in,
week-out. But they had plenty of game. And during the occasion they
could hold themselves together, they could beat anybody.

[ca1houn]

On Sep 19, 3:09 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:23 am, John Liang <jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 6:43 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 19/09/2011 2:27 PM, Wile E. wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de>  wrote:
> > > >> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>
> > > > Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
> > > > slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.
>

> > > > In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> > > > beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
> > > > Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>

> > > >> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> > > >> more than Sampras.
>
> > > >> Discuss.
>

> > > Sampras & Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sampras could not even shut out Hewitt and let along Fed.  Agassi lost
> > in straight sets on his best surface
> > at AO.
>

> Hewitt could easily beat Fed anytime on grass, when he was up for it
> and motivated, as Halle 2010 proved.

He was up for it and motivated at Halle but not Wimbledon lol Hewitt a
bigger dumb ass then I would have believe. What happen at the us open
final in 2004? A slam doesn't motivate u what would.

[ca1houn]

On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>

> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> more than Sampras.
>
> Discuss.

I think Nadal would have more trouble beating Agassi and Sampras then
Federer. Agassi would hit to flat and take the ball on the rise not
given Nadal anytime. Sampras would serve him off the court and hit a
huge forehand. This would leave Federer to face either Agassi who
would not be a problem because Federer would have to many options and
just outplay Andre. Like Sampras use to do to poor old Andre.
Sampras is not the best returner in the game so it would be a serve
fest which then lead to a tiebreak where Federer could rally a little
better then Sampras and win those critical point needed to win the
match. If Sampras and Federer played 10 time at each slam the record
would mostly likely be at Wimbledon 7/3 in favor Sampras, I hate to
give it to Sampras because I know Federer is one of the best grass
player of all time but I really think Sampras game is the all time
best for this surface. 10/0 at the French going to Federer. Aussie
open 7/3 Federer all the way. Us open 6/4 Federer better all around
game. Agassi would walk away with maybe 3 win in all that. For the
Nadal fan your in luck he should get 8 slams all on clay. Then again
Gugo and a couple of other clay loser would have stop him.

[MBDunc]

On 19 syys, 22:06, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well what do you think about Djokovic-Nadal-Federer top3 lineup?

Do you miss names like Chang, Corretja, Korda, Rios, Moya, Muster,
Haas, Norman or Kafelnikov? (all reached #1 or #2 at some point
96-02).

.mikko

[MBDunc]

I remember watching Korda winning Stuggart 97 (watched the SF/F from
TV) and that was top notch showing out there. Unbelievable shots.

Korda's biggest problem was that with his 6ft 3" frame and lefty
delivery he should have been more than just OK server.

> > The key issue was that none of these were made into constant forces.

> > One day they could be world beater while next following months they

> > descended into average journeymen. Especially Korda was just handful
> > of flashes (91, 93, end of 97-start of 98) combined with ten years of
> > journeyman career.
>
> > .mikko
>
> True, but then that's why they were dangerous floaters. Guys like
> Korda, Scud, even Stich, Pioline were usually ranked around 15-16
> during the 1996-2000 timeframe. WHich means you would run into them in
> the 4th rd or so. I think playing a Korda or Scud or Stich in the 4th
> rd is a lot trickier than playing a guy ranked around 15-16 today.

From current ranks: Tsonga, Berdych - both have already some good
upsets executed - (perhaps also Monfils/Gasquet though I have already
lost faith on these) fits the bill today? Maybe Del Potro in his
current form too? Cilic gamewise but he lacks big results/upsets.

.mikko

[Shakes]

Yes, Tsonga, DelPo are the players of those types. Also, it must be
said that the seeding changed from a total of 16 seeds to 32 seeds.
That has made it relatively easier for the top seeds to get through the
1st week with fewer bumps.

They're in for a good reason, and, yet, at the same time, they protect
the top seeds. For example, someone seeded 5-8 could be expected to
reach the QFs to maintain his ranking. On the way to the QFs, he's
guaranteed to meet only players of lesser or about equal rank. Only
after he reaches his level will the road get tougher. This provides for
a momentum of sorts.
Previously, only 16 players were seeded. Now, every slam seeds 32.
Increasing the # of seeds works in two ways. First, it of course
protects more players. Second, it gives more leeway to the seeded
player in terms of results. If you look at the ranking points, there's
almost a 700-800 points difference between #16 and #32. This means that
the 16th ranked can drop significant points, and still remain seeded.
There's little penalty in doing worse for more players now, than it
used to be before. Only if a player falls out of the top-32 is he in
danger of meeting a top player in the first 2 or 3 rounds.

[John Liang]

> Real shame Federer couldn't put a player like that in his place no?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The real shame is not been able to put away players like Galo Blanco
type in the first round of FO.
And repeatedly been put away by those type of player 8 times in the
same grand slam.

[John Liang]

> talking nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

19 years old pake Hewitt in his first slam semi ? Sampras must be
peak when Van Rensburg beat
him at Wimbledon in R2.

[Ted S.]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:39:05 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc wrote:

> Do you miss names like Chang, Corretja, Korda, Rios, Moya, Muster,
> Haas, Norman or Kafelnikov? (all reached #1 or #2 at some point
> 96-02).

This confused me for a bit, as I knew Dick Norman never reached #2. :-)

(Yes, I figured out what you meant.)

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova

[John Liang]

Magnus Norman was No.2 and FO r/p .

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 2:53 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 3:11 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 12:27 pm, "Wile E."<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
>>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
>>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>>

>> Good thing no one told Federer that, or he might not have won their
>> only slam encounter!
>>
>> Fan, you are precious.
>
>
> He's actually very close to the truth. It's very unlikely Rafa is the
> only tier 1 player Fed couldn't beat at peak.

Wim 2006, 2007?

In the contrast, Nadal could never beat Fed at peak off-clay.

> Imo he wouldn't even beat
> peak Agassi at USO/AO either.

If he could beat Sampras at peak at Wimby, what does Agassi at USO/AO mean?

> Not only has Fed lost 7 times to Rafa in slams,

5 times on clay where Sampras could not even reach a single time the finals.

> but he's also lost 4
> slam semis to Djoker.

And how many time did Djoker lose to Fed? And how old or how fit was Fed
when losing to Djoker? And who was the only one that beat Djoker this
year so far (retirement doesn't count)?

Be honest to yourself, Whisper. You can lie to other people, but why lie
to yourself?

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 2:42 AM, Whisper wrote:

> On 19/09/2011 1:28 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>

>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>> more than Sampras.
>>
>> Discuss.
>
>

> 14

okay, let's say 4.

> Fed wins about 3 or 4.

+ 15.

[Ali Asoag]

Ovious troll is obvious ...

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 3:34 PM, ca1houn wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>
>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>> more than Sampras.
>>
>> Discuss.
>
> I think Nadal would have more trouble beating Agassi and Sampras then
> Federer. Agassi would hit to flat and take the ball on the rise not
> given Nadal anytime. Sampras would serve him off the court and hit a
> huge forehand. This would leave Federer to face either Agassi who
> would not be a problem because Federer would have to many options and
> just outplay Andre.

Nice analysis.

> Like Sampras use to do to poor old Andre.
> Sampras is not the best returner in the game so it would be a serve
> fest which then lead to a tiebreak where Federer could rally a little
> better then Sampras and win those critical point needed to win the
> match. If Sampras and Federer played 10 time at each slam the record
> would mostly likely be at Wimbledon 7/3 in favor Sampras,

Disagree! I would say 7/3 for Fed. Fed's return is too good for
Sampras's serve. And Fed would pass every net attempt of Sampras. BTW,
Nadal would do the same to Sampras's S&V!

> I hate to
> give it to Sampras because I know Federer is one of the best grass
> player of all time but I really think Sampras game is the all time
> best for this surface.

I don't understand why people think they must play S&V on grass. Nadal
would beat Sampras 5/5 on grass, let alone Fed. Sampras just had luck to
play in weak era.

> 10/0 at the French going to Federer. Aussie
> open 7/3 Federer all the way. Us open 6/4 Federer better all around
> game.

Agree. 7/3 at USO, I would rather say, though.

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 3:24 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Sep 19, 6:42 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

>> On 19/09/2011 1:28 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>
>>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>>> more than Sampras.
>>
>>> Discuss.
>>

>> 14
>
> More like 7-8.

>>
>> Fed wins about 3 or 4.
>

> About the same number 7-8.

20+

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 7:22 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 7:08 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>> On 19 sep, 10:43, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/09/2011 2:27 PM, Wile E. wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>>

>>>> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
>>>> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.
>>>

>>>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
>>>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
>>>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>>>

>>>>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>>>>> more than Sampras.
>>>
>>>>> Discuss.
>>>

>>> Sampras& Agassi would have been shut out of many slams, as would Rafa.
>>
>> Fixed it.
>
>
> Federer easily shut out Blake, Berdych & Bagditis out of slams.

Like Sampras did to Pioline and Co.?

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 2:43 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 2:27 PM, Wile E. wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>
>> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
>> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.
>>
>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>>> more than Sampras.
>>>
>>> Discuss.
>>
>
>

> Sampras & Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.

How could this have happend if they would not have been able to reach
the finals? LOL

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/19/2011 5:37 AM, Rodjk #613 wrote:

> On Sep 18, 10:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>>

>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
>> more than Sampras.
>>
>> Discuss.
>

> Nice troll...

Nice troll ...

[bob]

i like it. i'm not criticizing the field after 07. just don't like the
convergence on style.

>Do you miss names like Chang, Corretja, Korda, Rios, Moya, Muster,
>Haas, Norman or Kafelnikov? (all reached #1 or #2 at some point
>96-02).

those all better than 03-06 btw.

bob

[bob]

in order to believe peak sampras would beat peak nadal/fed at
wimbledon you have to believe s/v tennis has an advantage over sitting
back on fast surfaces (historically, obviously the case).
but i've been told few hundred times here (usually by same 1-2 guys)
that the courts make s/v obsolete today. i neither believe that nor do
i think it's relevant as cross era players should be compared to a
historic standard for courts or at very least a hybrid middle ground
of the courts of their respective eras.

bob

[Whisper]

Not bad insight. I'd still go with Sampras to beat Fed 4/5 at both Wim
& USO. I also agree Rafa wouldn't have much joy off clay v those guys.

[Whisper]

Who would stop them? Wait I know - Blake, Berdych & Ljubo right?

[MBDunc]

On 20 syys, 11:54, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:39:05 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>

Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Agassi and even Ferrero (ok he faded
away rapidly after AO 04 and never recovered) all reached multiple
slam finals during that timeframe (2003-2006).

I have no problem with above name list looks very solid opponent list
for Fed (a bunch of previous #1:s and then already slam winning
Nadal).

.mikko

[Sakari Lund]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:06:41 -0400, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:

>how many "bolts" do we have going now? 3 or 1?

2.

[John Liang]

Firstly they are not fast surface anymore. Secondly there are more
than 1 way to
play on fast court and serve and volley is just one way of playing the
game.
If a player can return well and can serve well to set up points he
stand a good
chance to win just as a serve and volleyer.

> but i've been told few hundred times here (usually by same 1-2 guys)
> that the courts make s/v obsolete today. i neither believe that nor do
> i think it's relevant as cross era players should be compared to a
> historic standard for courts or at very least a hybrid middle ground
> of the courts of their respective eras.
>

> bob- Hide quoted text -

[John Liang]

On Sep 20, 6:54 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:39:05 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>

That is call lying blindly. Hewitt,Roddick and Safin are better than
all the guys
above.

[bob]

ffs mikko, we already discussed nadal/agassi/ferrero in that
timeframe. we're left with roddick/hewitt as also in prime with fed.

>I have no problem with above name list looks very solid opponent list
>for Fed (a bunch of previous #1:s and then already slam winning
>Nadal).

quit trying to argue things you don't actually believe mikko, it's not
fooling anyone.

bob

[MBDunc]

Those were the times....:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/844c2a2509a48dbc/fbaabf4b5ad5e9f7

.mikko

[John Liang]

> quit trying to argue things you don't actually believe mikko, it's not
> fooling anyone.

That bit of advice is more suitable for yourself and you know you are
not fooling anyone.

[Joe Ramirez]

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/...

LOL. Don't ever put bob and antibob in the same room, lest
annihilation ensue!

"1. i believe that all that can be asked of someone is to dominate the
time in which they play, regardless of the competition at that time."

"5. i believe for the most part -- although there is the rare
exception like graf -- that tennis (and all sports) get better on
'absolute terms' as time progresses (not yr to yr, but decade to
decade)..it's quite obvious, just watch a tape of tennis in the 60s
and watch the way sampras/agassi/hewitt hit a ball now?"

:)

[bob]

damn near choked myself this morning. :-)

>"1. i believe that all that can be asked of someone is to dominate the
>time in which they play, regardless of the competition at that time."
>"5. i believe for the most part -- although there is the rare
>exception like graf -- that tennis (and all sports) get better on
>'absolute terms' as time progresses (not yr to yr, but decade to
>decade)..it's quite obvious, just watch a tape of tennis in the 60s
>and watch the way sampras/agassi/hewitt hit a ball now?"

i believe both of these and posted JUST YESTERDAY:
"has anyone seen anybody every play better than djok of this year?"
you forgot to add that eh mikko??

what i do *not* believe is that *skills* have increased or
*diversified* in any way - in fact the opposite. and this is what is
hurting the game, and what ikeep harping on. change in technology;
change in courts; change in mentality - all killing the *skill game*,
the game people really want to see. watch the highlight reels, the
touch shots, net shots, variety shots - those are on the highlight
reels every night and those are the ones where fans are on their feet.
*never* for the blasted FH from baseline cause the racket did it.
this are all consistent with my posts and belilefs.

and btw, i think past 10-20yrs we've seen a leveling off of the main
reason i wrote that 10 yrs ago - i.e. comparing how many people played
tennis in 60s VS 90s. steady increase, then a leveling off which would
explain some of the above (which couldn't be known in 2002).

bob

[bob]

2002 bob post:

1. i believe that all that can be asked of someone is to dominate the
time in which they play, regardless of the competition at that time.

for this, how many times you heard me say: "fed dominated clowns but i
don't hold it against him, it wasn't his fault".

forgot to search that one, eh mikko? if i change my mind on something,
i'll have no problem saying so.

bob

[AliAsoag]

Exactly, as Nadal's case had shown at AO and USO prior 2009 and 2010
respectively.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>

> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> more than Sampras.
>
> Discuss.

Fed and Rafa:

Fed 12
Pete 10
Nadal 9
Agassi 3

P

[Carey]

Joe R didn't highlight the really damning quotes of yours, bub, but
let
them speak quietly for themselves. Good job.

[Carey]

On Sep 19, 6:20 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 7:23 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 6:43 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com>  wrote:

> >> On 19/09/2011 2:27 PM, Wile E. wrote:
>

> >>> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de>    wrote:
> >>>> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>

> >>> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
> >>> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.
>

> >>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> >>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
> >>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>

> >>>> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> >>>> more than Sampras.
>
> >>>> Discuss.
>

> >> Sampras&  Agassi would have shut Fed out of many slams, as would Rafa.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>

> > Sampras could not even shut out Hewitt and let along Fed.  Agassi lost
> > in straight sets on his best surface
> > at AO.
>
> Sampras at 30 thrashed peak Hewitt in straights at USO. If he could do
> that at a time when he wasn't winning any tournaments at all, there's
> little point talking about Sampras' absolute form.  Stop wasting b/w &
> talking nonsense.

Oh, we've got a new Lisperism: 'Absolute Form'.. ya gotta love this
stuff. ;)

[John Liang]

> stuff.  ;)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nothing really new from Whisper and bob with this absolute form, best
at peak, best
at best, BOAT just a lot of rehash of the old rubbish. 7543 has to
go since on that
scale Sampras is not longer the best.

[Superdave]

no longer the best at slams

no longer the best at 7543

no longer the best at the USO

never was the best at the AO

a total disaster at the FO

soon no longer the best at wimbledon

what can he be best at then?

eating grape leaves?

[Whisper]

Sampras 14
Agassi 8
Nadal 7
Federer 6

[Whisper]

Best at Wimbledon & USO (way more finals than Fed), & best at No.1 weeks
& year-end. Fed is best at Halle.

[John Liang]

> & year-end.  Fed is best at Halle.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Worst at FO of anyone with at least 6 slam wins.

[John Liang]

> Federer 6- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Sampras 7
Nadal 7
Agassi 6
Federer 16

[TT]

21.9.2011 8:02, Superdave kirjoitti:

> no longer the best at the USO
>

Never was

[TT]

Won USO 7 times?

[Whisper]

Open era.

[TT]

So he doesn't have the record then...

[Whisper]

True. Tilden is all time USO king. Sampras is best of open era,
followed by Connors & Fed 3rd.

[felangey]

> Sampras 14
> Agassi 8
> Nadal 7
> Federer 6

Dreams are fun, aren't they!

[AliAsoag]

On Sep 19, 7:58 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 19.9.2011 16:22, Javier González kirjoitti:
>
> > On Sep 19, 12:28 am, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de>  wrote:

> >> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>

> >> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> >> more than Sampras.
>
> >> Discuss.
>

> > Obvious troll is obvious...
>
> Can't believe people answer this thread...

You don't even believe in yourself, it seems now as I saw some answers
from you ...

[Patrick Kehoe]

Ya... Fed best of Open Era at USO with 5 wins in a row, unmatched...
Fed best AO just nipping Agassi... 2nd to Pete at Wimbledon though has
win over Pete at Wimbledon on center court... 16 majors, the record...
between just Feds, Pete, Andre and that era, Fed would come out ahead
as he did in this era...

P

[Carey]

There was no USO in Tilden's time.. get a grip.

[Carey]

On Sep 19, 5:42 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:29:27 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>
> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >On 19 syys, 15:11, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:53:38 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 19/09/2011 3:11 PM, Gracchus wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 19, 12:27 pm, "Wile E."<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> >> >>> In other words, given Sampras is a tier 1 player and Federer can't
> >> >>> beat tier 1 players (as evident h2h 18>8 where Nadal owns Federer),
> >> >>> Fed wouldn't have even come close to beating tier 1 Sampras.
>

> >> >> Good thing no one told Federer that, or he might not have won their
> >> >> only slam encounter!
>
> >> >> Fan, you are precious.
>
> >> >He's actually very close to the truth. It's very unlikely Rafa is the
> >> >only tier 1 player Fed couldn't beat at peak. Imo he wouldn't even beat
> >> >peak Agassi at USO/AO either.
> >> >Not only has Fed lost 7 times to Rafa in slams, but he's also lost 4
> >> >slam semis to Djoker.
>
> >> i think you're on to something with the logic of "How can we have 3
> >> guys in past 4-5 yrs achieveing historical type tennis seasons"... i'm
> >> having a hard time believing that clown season could last a full 9
> >> yrs, got to dig deep to figure this one out.
>
> >Well...happened in the past also:
>
> >Connors 74 - historical season?
> >Borg 78-80 - historical seasons?
> >Mac 81 and esp. 84 - historical season?
> >Lendl's 86/87 are not shabby either.
> >Wilander's 88 surely is historical, right?
>
> you are confirming the thought process - those happened 20+ yrs ago,
> were not 3 slam seasons except connors and wilander's who was minus
> wimbledon. now all of a sudden happening routinely?
>
> bob

nice try- figures don't lie, but liars figure.

[Carey]

On Sep 18, 9:27 pm, "Wile E." <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:28 pm, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>
> Federer wouldn't have been a factor, remember Federer won most of his
> slams vs much lessor players until Nadal came along.

Hmm.. This 'statement' doesn't state anything. Nadal was on the scene
big time ca '05-
Federer won most of his majors after that date- why didn't Nadal stop
him?

[Superdave]

Because he couldn't ?

Neither could Sampras.

[TT]

>>>>>> Best at Wimbledon& USO

>>
>>>>> Won USO 7 times?
>>
>>>> Open era.
>>
>>> So he doesn't have the record then...
>>
>> True. Tilden is all time USO king. Sampras is best of open era,

>> followed by Connors& Fed 3rd.

>
> There was no USO in Tilden's time.. get a grip.

Yes there was. Different name doesn't change anything.

[TT]

Because Nadal's game wasn't complete outside clay. But on clay he did
stop Federer, boy did he do it!

[ca1houn]

Wait doesn't the three of them have 5 each also did Sampras when them
all in a row I think not. Federer easy over Sam as and Connors.
Connors can get some credit for winning them on 3 different surfaces
but not much since that really not an option now of days

[Joe Ramirez]

> but not much since that really not an option now of days.

Whisper gives Sampras credit for his three losing finals at the USO,
which is reasonable. Connors has two finals, and Fed only one. Of
course, in all other contexts, Whisper gives no one any credit for
finals, and in fact argues that losing finals are worthless for legacy
purposes, have no value, and are really no better than a first-round
loss. This is example 1,416 of the dialectic of Whisperism.

[Sakari Lund]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:

>> > True.  Tilden is all time USO king.  Sampras is best of open era,
>> > followed by Connors & Fed 3rd.
>>
>> Wait doesn't the three of them have 5 each also did Sampras when them
>> all in a row I think not.  Federer easy over Sam as and Connors.
>> Connors can get some credit for winning them on 3 different surfaces
>> but not much since that really not an option now of days.
>
>Whisper gives Sampras credit for his three losing finals at the USO,
>which is reasonable. Connors has two finals, and Fed only one. Of
>course, in all other contexts, Whisper gives no one any credit for
>finals, and in fact argues that losing finals are worthless for legacy
>purposes, have no value, and are really no better than a first-round
>loss. This is example 1,416 of the dialectic of Whisperism.

In fact, in many contexts Whispers says losing in 1st round is better
for legacy purposes than losing in the final.

[drew]

On Sep 18, 11:28 pm, Ali Asoag <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> I would say 1- 3 (all in AO).
>

> Even if Nadal had been in the same era as Sampras, he would have won
> more than Sampras.
>
> Discuss.

Odd things happen during time travel. Move Sampras into this
generation and he becomes
a marginal basketball player who retires at 23 to play online poker.

[Joe Ramirez]

http://www.officialpokerrankings.com/ongamepoker/player/poker/results/0C699B02AB03401CA531A06FB9227B2F.html?t=2