can fed catch lendl?

[bob]

only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
now...

bob

[*skriptis]

bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

If Fed really went for it, he could theoretically win another 22
tournaments to surpass Connors, even as of now, let alone if he
started pursuing that a decade ago.

All the Auckland, Brisbane, Munich, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, St
Petersburg, Vienna, Moscow, Stockholm, Washington, etc.


There are plenty of those 250s where hardly any of the top 10 guys
show up.



--


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

[soccerfan777]

Drink much?

[bob]

very little. you?

bob

[soccerfan777]

Why the troll then? Who in rst said Wimbledon is equal to all other tournaments outside the slams (or say YEC)?

[bob]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777

<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:35:40 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:30:25 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
>> <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:16:25 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>> >> only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
>> >> jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
>> >> now...
>> >>
>> >> bob
>> >
>> >Drink much?
>>
>> very little. you?
>
>Why the troll then? Who in rst said Wimbledon is equal to all other tournaments outside the slams (or say YEC)?

some are saying wimbledon is equal to other slams. if so, i claim all
professional tournaments are equal. why not?

bob

[soccerfan777]

No one told you to have a bottle of cheap Burgundy wine straight. I know it is very cheap, but you don't have to be that stupid.

[stephenJ]

Truth is, Connors's 109 tourney titles was a bit more highly valued 30
years ago than now. Didn't make him anywhere near GOAT then, but it was
something talked about.

Just goes to show ... slams are what matter, which is why in the end,
Jimmy threw all his tournament trophies except for the slams into the
dumpster.


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

[infiniti_...@yahoo.com]

Federer and Djokovic could each lose more than 11 grand slam finals. Lendl would like that.

[bob]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 14:11:19 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777

lol. you're ok raja. full o shit sometimes, but ok with me. no - i'm
simply asking if anyone thinks all slams are equal, why not all
professional tournaments equal?

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 17:53:34 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On 5/26/2016 12:16 PM, bob wrote:
>> only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
>> jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
>> now...
>
>
>Truth is, Connors's 109 tourney titles was a bit more highly valued 30
>years ago than now. Didn't make him anywhere near GOAT then, but it was
>something talked about.

it certainly was. in fact, when connors was still playing it was
talked about much. connors was introduced at matches as "all time
singles champion" as a matter of fact. then came the slam race...

>Just goes to show ... slams are what matter, which is why in the end,
>Jimmy threw all his tournament trophies except for the slams into the
>dumpster.

i agree, but if you can't see wimbledon is the most important
tournament, how can you decipher between ANY tournaments?

bob

[Whisper]

I think Laver has 200 singles titles?

[Whisper]

TT?

[Whisper]

Which golfer would choose to win PGA over Masters? They are both slams.

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 8:53 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 5/26/2016 12:16 PM, bob wrote:
>> only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
>> jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
>> now...
>
>
> Truth is, Connors's 109 tourney titles was a bit more highly valued 30
> years ago than now. Didn't make him anywhere near GOAT then, but it was
> something talked about.
>
> Just goes to show ... slams are what matter, which is why in the end,
> Jimmy threw all his tournament trophies except for the slams into the
> dumpster.
>
>

"Laver's 200 singles titles are the most in tennis history, and he holds
the all-time male singles records of 22 titles in a single season (1962)
and seven consecutive years (1964–70) winning at least 10 titles per
season. He excelled on all of the court surfaces of his time: grass,
clay, hard, carpet, and wood/parquet.

Despite being banned from playing the Grand Slam tournaments for the
five years prior to the Open Era, he still won 11 singles titles because
he is the only player to twice achieve the calendar-year Grand Slam, in
1962 and 1969, and remains the only man to do so during the Open Era. He
also won eight Pro Slam titles, including the calendar year Pro "Grand
Slam" in 1967, and contributed to five Davis Cup titles for Australia
during an age when Davis Cup was deemed as significant as the Grand Slams."

Laver ticked every box over many yrs, & owned all his rivals.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 10:08 AM, bob wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 17:53:34 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> On 5/26/2016 12:16 PM, bob wrote:
>>> only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
>>> jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
>>> now...
>>
>>
>> Truth is, Connors's 109 tourney titles was a bit more highly valued 30
>> years ago than now. Didn't make him anywhere near GOAT then, but it was
>> something talked about.
>
> it certainly was. in fact, when connors was still playing it was
> talked about much. connors was introduced at matches as "all time
> singles champion" as a matter of fact. then came the slam race...
>

Yes, Connors was a guy who really was very close to achieving some of
the greatest feats in tennis. In '74 he won the 3 slams he entered.
There's little doubt he would have been overwhelming fave to win FO that
yr & complete the calendar slam had he entered. Borg hadn't quite
arrived, & even if he did Jimbo was probably better than him on clay in
those early yrs. Consider Jimbo beat Borg comfortably in 2 USO's
(straight setter & 4 set win) on clay in late 70's, & this was after
Borg had won a couple FO's.

Then consider Newk beat Jimbo in '75 AO final in one of the best grass
court matches of all time in 4 sets. Jimbo was playing amazing stuff
yet Newk still hustled him out in 4 sets with a wood racket. This just
backs up my idea great players are great in any era. It's retarded
suggesting past greats couldn't compete with modern greats - end of the
day it's about tennis skills.

[MBDunc]

perjantai 27. toukokuuta 2016 11.37.30 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
> Yes, Connors was a guy who really was very close to achieving some of
> the greatest feats in tennis. In '74 he won the 3 slams he entered.
> There's little doubt he would have been overwhelming fave to win FO that
> yr & complete the calendar slam had he entered.

Nastase was actually an easy favourite for 74 FO. Connors had just started his reign and he had no clay creds back then. It surely would have not been any gimme for Connors.

This "overwhelming fave" is very very very far from actual truth. Connors in his book is way more sensible and pragmatic about this issue.

> Borg hadn't quite
> arrived, & even if he did Jimbo was probably better than him on clay in
> those early yrs. Consider Jimbo beat Borg comfortably in 2 USO's
> (straight setter & 4 set win) on clay in late 70's, & this was after
> Borg had won a couple FO's.

Then again peak Connors lost to Orantes and Vilas at USO. And Connors on red clay - one shared title from his whole career....

> Then consider Newk beat Jimbo in '75 AO final in one of the best grass
> court matches of all time in 4 sets. Jimbo was playing amazing stuff
> yet Newk still hustled him out in 4 sets with a wood racket. This just
> backs up my idea great players are great in any era. It's retarded
> suggesting past greats couldn't compete with modern greats - end of the
> day it's about tennis skills.

Newk had been ranked #1 as recently as six months before and was actually ranked #2 during AO 75. I am not sure how you can use this example for proving "great players are great in a ny era.

"Newk still hustled him out in 4 sets with a wood racket" ... ? So? A wood racket? Mid-70;ies? Ooohh! Really? A wooden racket? Newk must have been the stupidest pro ever when choosing ancient gear instead of graffiti+luxilon -combo.

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 7:02 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> perjantai 27. toukokuuta 2016 11.37.30 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Yes, Connors was a guy who really was very close to achieving some of
>> the greatest feats in tennis. In '74 he won the 3 slams he entered.
>> There's little doubt he would have been overwhelming fave to win FO that
>> yr & complete the calendar slam had he entered.
>
> Nastase was actually an easy favourite for 74 FO. Connors had just started his reign and he had no clay creds back then. It surely would have not been any gimme for Connors.
>

Sure, & I agree Nastase was helluvva player at his peak. I doubt modern
day fans realize how good these guys were at peak. Still at the time
Jimbo was super confident & woulda been huge factor at '74 FO no doubt.

> This "overwhelming fave" is very very very far from actual truth. Connors in his book is way more sensible and pragmatic about this issue.
>

Well he woulda been at least a big fave.

>> Borg hadn't quite
>> arrived, & even if he did Jimbo was probably better than him on clay in
>> those early yrs. Consider Jimbo beat Borg comfortably in 2 USO's
>> (straight setter & 4 set win) on clay in late 70's, & this was after
>> Borg had won a couple FO's.
>
> Then again peak Connors lost to Orantes and Vilas at USO. And Connors on red clay - one shared title from his whole career....

Bottom line Jimbo was the best player in those yrs, & if he could beat
Borg on clay in slams then you can't rule him out v Vilas & co.

>
>> Then consider Newk beat Jimbo in '75 AO final in one of the best grass
>> court matches of all time in 4 sets. Jimbo was playing amazing stuff
>> yet Newk still hustled him out in 4 sets with a wood racket. This just
>> backs up my idea great players are great in any era. It's retarded
>> suggesting past greats couldn't compete with modern greats - end of the
>> day it's about tennis skills.
>
> Newk had been ranked #1 as recently as six months before and was actually ranked #2 during AO 75. I am not sure how you can use this example for proving "great players are great in a ny era.

Newk was 31, 32 & well past his peak, & Jimbo at his best coming off his
best yr ever. It was a revelation watching the quality of that match, &
how Jimbo looked to be in the best form he's capable of - yet Newk still
won in 4 sets with a wood racket. The quality of play was pretty
amazing even if they were using modern rackets, let alone the old stuff.
That's a match every serious fan should have on their bucket list -
you'll be amazed I'm sure.

>
> "Newk still hustled him out in 4 sets with a wood racket" ... ? So? A wood racket? Mid-70;ies? Ooohh! Really? A wooden racket? Newk must have been the stupidest pro ever when choosing ancient gear instead of graffiti+luxilon -combo.
>
> .mikko
>

My point speaks to the quality of tennis produced with poor equipment.
A real eye-opener & every would-be analyst should watch that match.

As an aside Laver was even better than peak Newk, & Newk himself says
Laver is the only guy who would beat him at his best. Newk has a huge
ego so it's a big concession from him. He thinks at his best he's
better than Jimbo/Borg/Mac, but not Laver.

What's interesting is the only guy ever mentioned to be better than peak
Laver is Lew Hoad, & that's from many of the greatest players.

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 7:23 PM, Whisper wrote:
> As an aside Laver was even better than peak Newk, & Newk himself says
> Laver is the only guy who would beat him at his best. Newk has a huge
> ego so it's a big concession from him. He thinks at his best he's
> better than Jimbo/Borg/Mac, but not Laver.
>
> What's interesting is the only guy ever mentioned to be better than peak
> Laver is Lew Hoad, & that's from many of the greatest players.
>
>

"Rod Laver, writing for the Herald-Sun newspaper in 2012, ranked Lew as
the greatest player of the 'Past Champions' era of tennis. Laver
described his strengths of "power, volleying and explosiveness" as
justification of his accolade.[3] Serious back problems plagued Hoad
throughout his career, particularly after he turned professional, and
led to his effective retirement from tennis in 1967 although he made
sporadic comebacks, enticed by the advent of the open era in 1968."

"Gonzales, who is considered to be among the greatest tennis players of
all time, always maintained that Hoad was the toughest, most skilful
adversary that he had ever faced. "He was the only guy who, if I was
playing my best tennis, could still beat me."

"said Gonzales in a 1995 New York Times interview.[208] "I think his
game was the best game ever. Better than mine. He was capable of making
more shots than anybody. His two volleys were great. His overhead was
enormous. He had the most natural tennis mind with the most natural
tennis physique."[206] In a 1970 interview he stated that "Hoad was
probably the best and toughest player when he wanted to be. After the
first two years on the tour, his back injury plagued him so much that he
lost the desire to practice. He was the only man to beat me in a
head-to-head tour"

"In a 1963 article in World Tennis Rosewall judges Gonzales to be a
notch above Hoad but stated that "...the latter is the greatest of all
time when he is 'on'.", an opinion echoed by Frew McMillan."


"According to Kramer, "Hoad had the loosest game of any good kid I ever
saw. There was absolutely no pattern to his game.... He was the only
player I ever saw who could stand six or seven feet behind the baseline
and snap the ball back hard, crosscourt. He'd try for winners off
everything, off great serves, off tricky short balls, off low volleys.
He hit hard overspin drives, and there was no way you could ever get him
to temporise on important points." Kramer compares Hoad to another great
player, Ellsworth Vines. "Both were very strong guys. Both succeeded at
a very young age.... Also, both were very lazy guys. Vines lost interest
in tennis (for golf) before he was thirty, and Hoad never appeared to be
very interested. Despite their great natural ability, neither put up the
outstanding records that they were capable of. Unfortunately, the latter
was largely true because both had physical problems."

"With his movie-star good looks, powerful physique, and outgoing
personality, Hoad became a tennis icon in the 1950s. As Kramer says,
"Everybody loved Hoad, even Pancho Gonzales. They should put that on
Lew's tombstone as the ultimate praise for the man.... Even when Hoad
was clobbering Gonzales, Gorgo wanted his respect and friendship."

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 7:34 PM, Whisper wrote:
> "With his movie-star good looks, powerful physique, and outgoing
> personality, Hoad became a tennis icon in the 1950s. As Kramer says,
> "Everybody loved Hoad, even Pancho Gonzales. They should put that on
> Lew's tombstone as the ultimate praise for the man.... Even when Hoad
> was clobbering Gonzales, Gorgo wanted his respect and friendship."
>

Look at the muscles on the guy, ahead of his time;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Lew_Hoad_and_Jaroslav_Drobny_Rome_1953.jpg

[Whisper]

Look at this grasscourt form v Rosewall;

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5489/11861575603_0d4d9e5da2_b.jpg


Perfect tennis for me would be watching grasscourt tennis with the likes
of Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, McEnroe, Edberg, Roche, Krishnan & maybe Sampras.

Anyone who was slightly uncomfortable at net would be flushed out quickly.

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 7:53 PM, Whisper wrote:

>
> Perfect tennis for me would be watching grasscourt tennis with the likes
> of Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, McEnroe, Edberg, Roche, Krishnan & maybe Sampras.
>
> Anyone who was slightly uncomfortable at net would be flushed out quickly.
>
>

Watch some of this tennis with a 38 yr old Laver playing peak Borg on
clay. Check out Laver's bh passing shot at 1:38;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU&feature=player_detailpage#t=91s


Imagine the extra spin/power etc Laver would have gotten with a modern
racket?

Lew Hoad played like Laver but with more power.

[TT]

That's all nice but he didn't win WTF...

[TT]

27.5.2016, 12:34, Whisper kirjoitti:
> "With his movie-star good looks

Yeah, Hoad looked a bit like Sean Penn. Not sure if that's good looks
though.

Hoad:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Lew_Hoad_portrait.jpg/220px-Lew_Hoad_portrait.jpg

Penn:
https://67.media.tumblr.com/a84247bf7b7813673de946a46d90deb7/tumblr_mt1seobsI91s5l612o1_500.jpg

[soccerfan777]

Got trounced by Rosewall both the year in 1971 and 1972. Well not trounced but lost to a geriatric opponent.


The 1972 finals is considered one of the greatest matches ever. Rosewall was 38 years old then. Laver only a meager 34 ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCT_Finals

[TT]

I wasn't serious. Nobody cares about WTF.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

> 27.5.2016, 17:29, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:32:25 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>>> 27.5.2016, 11:10, Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>> On 27/05/2016 8:53 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2016 12:16 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>>> only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
>>>>>> jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
>>>>>> now...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Truth is, Connors's 109 tourney titles was a bit more highly valued 30
>>>>> years ago than now. Didn't make him anywhere near GOAT then, but it was
>>>>> something talked about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just goes to show ... slams are what matter, which is why in the end,
>>>>> Jimmy threw all his tournament trophies except for the slams into the
>>>>> dumpster.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Laver's 200 singles titles are the most in tennis history, and he holds
>>>> the all-time male singles records of 22 titles in a single season (1962)

>>>> and seven consecutive years (1964?70) winning at least 10 titles per

>>>> season. He excelled on all of the court surfaces of his time: grass,
>>>> clay, hard, carpet, and wood/parquet.
>>>>
>>>> Despite being banned from playing the Grand Slam tournaments for the
>>>> five years prior to the Open Era, he still won 11 singles titles because
>>>> he is the only player to twice achieve the calendar-year Grand Slam, in
>>>> 1962 and 1969, and remains the only man to do so during the Open Era. He
>>>> also won eight Pro Slam titles, including the calendar year Pro "Grand
>>>> Slam" in 1967, and contributed to five Davis Cup titles for Australia
>>>> during an age when Davis Cup was deemed as significant as the Grand Slams."
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's all nice but he didn't win WTF...
>>
>> Got trounced by Rosewall both the year in 1971 and 1972. Well not trounced but lost to a geriatric opponent.
>>
>>
>> The 1972 finals is considered one of the greatest matches ever. Rosewall was 38 years old then. Laver only a meager 34 ;-)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCT_Finals
>>
>
> I wasn't serious. Nobody cares about WTF.
>

It's the 6th most important tournament. Don't be ignorant.




--

[bob]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 17:45:53 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

i know that, but since people want to claim wimbledon = FO or AO, why
not say wimbledon = cincy? just as looney.

bob

[soccerfan777]

You don't because "Rafa" didnt even win once. Pathetic.

[MBDunc]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:37:30 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> Then consider Newk beat Jimbo in '75 AO final in one of the best grass
> court matches of all time in 4 sets. Jimbo was playing amazing stuff
> yet Newk still hustled him out in 4 sets with a wood racket. This just
> backs up my idea great players are great in any era. It's retarded
> suggesting past greats couldn't compete with modern greats - end of the
> day it's about tennis skills.

Why an elder age champ doing good deeds was a sign of champ's own personal greatness earlier when during recent times it has been a bane and an ultimate proof of weak era? (Agassi post 2004, Fed '14, '15)

.mikko

[stephenJ]

That's why nobody should ever talk about Fed as being "GOAT", rather he
should be regarded as "Post-Laver GOAT". Laver's accomplishments are
unique, and also sadly for historians, many of his accomplishments came
during amateur and "barnstorming" pro eras before the open era. There's
just no way to value his amateur Grand Slam and all those "pro tour"
wins, which had a dodgy, barnstorming nature.

What we can say about Laver is he dominated as an amateur, dominated as
a barnstorming pro, and then dominated when the Open era dawned as well.
So at worst he always deserves to be regarded as at least "co-GOAT" with
whoever has the best open era achievements.

[stephenJ]

I have never taken seriously anyone who doesn't realize W is the top
tournament and always has been.

[Whisper]

On 28/05/2016 9:45 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> On 5/27/2016 3:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> Laver ticked every box over many yrs, & owned all his rivals.
>
>
> That's why nobody should ever talk about Fed as being "GOAT", rather he
> should be regarded as "Post-Laver GOAT". Laver's accomplishments are
> unique, and also sadly for historians, many of his accomplishments came
> during amateur and "barnstorming" pro eras before the open era. There's
> just no way to value his amateur Grand Slam and all those "pro tour"
> wins, which had a dodgy, barnstorming nature.

Perhaps, but then why is Laver the common factor? Nobody else seemed to
be able to do it? Hoad got close to calendar slam, losing USO final.

>
> What we can say about Laver is he dominated as an amateur, dominated as
> a barnstorming pro, and then dominated when the Open era dawned as well.
> So at worst he always deserves to be regarded as at least "co-GOAT" with
> whoever has the best open era achievements.

Yes, it would probably take someone winning 3 calendar slams to put
Laver a clear 2nd?

Remember how Federer cried like a baby in Laver's presence at AO a few
yrs ago? Rod tried to calm him down & was thinking 'c'mon, man-up'.

[bob]

me too, but for personal reasons and biases, some here in RST seem to
do just that. hell i wish fed didn't win 7 wimbledons and possibly 8
this yr, but it is what it is.

bob

[ahonkan]

On Thursday, 26 May 2016 22:46:25 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:
> only 6 more tournaments to do it. of course nobody's catching GOAT
> jimmy. i mean, since wimbledon and all the other tournaments are equal
> now...
>

> bob

Fed won 6 titles last year and so I thought he had a realistic chance of
catching Lendl if 2016 went the same way. But he's played just 4 and won
0 so far. The grass season is 2 tournaments and he may win Cincy again.
So it seems he has no real chance of catching Lendl any more.

[stephenJ]

FWIW, the only way Fed wins an 8th W this year is if Joker's plane
crashes into the English Channel heading over to it. Fed can't beat
Joker in a slam final, and there is nobody in the draw good enough to do
his dirty work for him either.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 5:27:53 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:

> FWIW, the only way Fed wins an 8th W this year is if Joker's plane
> crashes into the English Channel heading over to it. Fed can't beat
> Joker in a slam final, and there is nobody in the draw good enough to do
> his dirty work for him either.

All it takes is one bad day for any player to lose. So funny how people view the current best as invincible and then get shocked by an upset...no matter how many times we've seen it happen. I don't expect Federer to win Wimbledon, but as long as it's mainly one guy blocking him, he has a chance.

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 8:27:53 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:

> FWIW, the only way Fed wins an 8th W this year is if Joker's plane
> crashes into the English Channel heading over to it. Fed can't beat
> Joker in a slam final, and there is nobody in the draw good enough to do
> his dirty work for him either.

Well, Kevin Anderson almost did the dirty work at Wimbledon last year. Djokovic looks invincible at the moment but eventually he will have a dip in form. He's 29 with a fair bit of mileage. None of these greats can outrun Father Time. Something always happens to change the dynamics, i.e. natural decline, younger players finally catching up, injury, etc.

I think faves for Wimbledon would be Djokovic, Murray, Federer (IF Federer is healthy enough.)

[Court_1]

+1.

Djokovic is invincible until he isn't.

[TT]

30.5.2016, 21:09, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> I think faves for Wimbledon would be Djokovic, Murray, Federer

And Tomic.

[bob]

i see the stars aligning and djok will win FO, come to wimbledon after
that big high, drop a bit emotionally and potentially lose to fed or
earlier. and bingo, fed has 8 without ever playing a s/v player in a
final.

bob

[bob]

some of it will depend on how djok does at FO IMO. but as of now, say
djok wins FO. i'll have it about 40/30/20/10 for
djok/fed/murray/field. .01% for nads. :-)

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT), ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

i think you just gave raja an erection.

bob

[ahonkan]

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 06:47:37 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:

> i see the stars aligning and djok will win FO, come to wimbledon after
> that big high, drop a bit emotionally and potentially lose to fed or
> earlier. and bingo, fed has 8 without ever playing a s/v player in a
> final.

Non sequitur, the part about having 8 w/o ever playing a s/v player
in a final. I recall him beating a certain s/v player, a 4-time
defending champ with 7 titles, in R4 when he was a mere teen.
There are hardly any s/v players in the field and it can be argued that
Fed is one of the better ones if not the best in that dept among them.
I am not comparing him to the s/v era greats, of course.
Djok has been a little shaky compared to last year (losing to Murray on
clay) and has had a couple of wobbles in routine matches. So the part
about having a dip after winning FO is very much possible. But then, the
lure of a CYGS is even greater and that of a Golden Grand Slam, even more.
It depends on how the stars align, indeed.

[Shakes]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:

> i see the stars aligning and djok will win FO, come to wimbledon after
> that big high, drop a bit emotionally and potentially lose to fed or
> earlier. and bingo, fed has 8 without ever playing a s/v player in a
> final.
>
> bob

That's a scenario that I considered as being very probable. Conversely, if Djok doesn't win the FO, he could come to Wim deflated and that might give Fed a chance again. Looks like this FO could be a big factor for Djok.

[bob]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT), ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 06:47:37 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:
>
>> i see the stars aligning and djok will win FO, come to wimbledon after
>> that big high, drop a bit emotionally and potentially lose to fed or
>> earlier. and bingo, fed has 8 without ever playing a s/v player in a
>> final.
>
> Non sequitur, the part about having 8 w/o ever playing a s/v player
> in a final. I recall him beating a certain s/v player, a 4-time
> defending champ with 7 titles, in R4 when he was a mere teen.

and the s/v player was in the midst of 2001 where he lost in early
rounds to nobodies and barely beat a terrible player in 5 sets just
before playing fed.

> There are hardly any s/v players in the field and it can be argued that
> Fed is one of the better ones if not the best in that dept among them.

fed may be considered a better than average volleyer today, based on
the others, but not a serve/volley player at all.

> I am not comparing him to the s/v era greats, of course.
> Djok has been a little shaky compared to last year (losing to Murray on
> clay) and has had a couple of wobbles in routine matches. So the part
> about having a dip after winning FO is very much possible. But then, the
> lure of a CYGS is even greater and that of a Golden Grand Slam, even more.
> It depends on how the stars align, indeed.

i'm just saying fed IMO is going to hvae a good chance at Wimbledon
this yr. IMO probably his last good chance for a slam.

bob

[ahonkan]

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:26:40 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:

No arguments with most of what you've said, except for your regurgitation
of Whisperspeak in the 1st para. Since when is alleged poor form an excuse
for any loss? If Pete couldn't get up for Wimbledon (see, no Wimby!), he
shouldn't have played. Fed skipped FO because he wasn't ready. Note that
the same 'in the middle of a bad slump' Pete reached USO final a couple of
months later. So please ...

[infiniti_...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:

jeez, federer has barely played any matches this year. suddenly he's just gonna turn it on and win a major? i doubt it.

[Rodjk #613]

Philippoussis.

Rodjk #613

[Whisper]

On 31/05/2016 11:46 AM, ahonkan wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 06:47:37 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:
>
>> i see the stars aligning and djok will win FO, come to wimbledon after
>> that big high, drop a bit emotionally and potentially lose to fed or
>> earlier. and bingo, fed has 8 without ever playing a s/v player in a
>> final.
>
> Non sequitur, the part about having 8 w/o ever playing a s/v player
> in a final. I recall him beating a certain s/v player, a 4-time
> defending champ with 7 titles, in R4 when he was a mere teen.

Then you must also recall a more mediocre s/v'er giving the same Fed a
clinic the very next rd at the same Wimbledon?

[Whisper]

Somehow I don't think Djoker losing at FO will derail his Wimbledon
efforts. He will be shooting for 3 in a row & 4 overall . That's right
up there in Wimbledon greats territory (Laver won 4).

[Whisper]

On 31/05/2016 11:56 AM, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2016 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT), ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 06:47:37 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:
>>
>>> i see the stars aligning and djok will win FO, come to wimbledon after
>>> that big high, drop a bit emotionally and potentially lose to fed or
>>> earlier. and bingo, fed has 8 without ever playing a s/v player in a
>>> final.
>>
>> Non sequitur, the part about having 8 w/o ever playing a s/v player
>> in a final. I recall him beating a certain s/v player, a 4-time
>> defending champ with 7 titles, in R4 when he was a mere teen.
>
> and the s/v player was in the midst of 2001 where he lost in early
> rounds to nobodies and barely beat a terrible player in 5 sets just
> before playing fed.
>

An indeed the same Fed got pasted by Henman in the next rd. Looks like
Fed couldn't really handle s/v guys at all, but could beat jaded Sampras
7-5 in the 5th set, at a time when Sampras couldn't win anything.

[Whisper]

But the same Fed got smashed by Henman at the same Wimbledon. Sampras
always cruised by Henman without breaking a sweat. You make no point at
all.

[bob]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT), ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:26:40 UTC+5:30, bob wrote:
>
>No arguments with most of what you've said, except for your regurgitation
>of Whisperspeak in the 1st para. Since when is alleged poor form an excuse
>for any loss?

so all fed's losses in the past 12 months were at his peak? you know
better.

> If Pete couldn't get up for Wimbledon (see, no Wimby!),

saying "wimby" is like saying "cali" or "frisco." yikes!

> he
>shouldn't have played. Fed skipped FO because he wasn't ready.

no - fed skipped cause he was either (a) injured or (b) wanted to max
his wimbledon potential. sampras was going through a sore back too,
but also his practice was half arsed and motivation gone.
apples/oranges situation.

> Note that
>the same 'in the middle of a bad slump' Pete reached USO final a couple of
>months later. So please ...

pete showed up to slams thinking he could play his best for 2 weeks
and see how it went. and he didn't stop practicing, but his intensity
level went from a 10 to a 5. the yearlong preparation, dieting,
fitness routine, everything done to maximize your game, was greatly
reduced. not so for federer since 2010.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 00:21:04 -0700 (PDT), infiniti_...@yahoo.com
wrote:

if he's rested (he is) and healthy (not sure).

bob

[Carey]

Thanks for pointing that out. :)

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:26:02 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2016 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT), ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com>

> > If Pete couldn't get up for Wimbledon (see, no Wimby!),

> saying "wimby" is like saying "cali" or "frisco." yikes!

It's like anyone except a Vietnam War veteran talking about 'Nam. Say "Wimby" to any traditional Brit, and they'll probably beat in your skull with their umbrella.

[bob]

yep, good catch. he played a s/v player who never won a slam and was
coming off 3 knee surgeries recently.

bob

[bob]

lol. or worse - serve you iced tea.

bob

[soccerfan777]

Type Lendl in this page and see how many times he is listed. He has tons of other records...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles

[bob]

chill out raja, take a joke. i liked lendl too.

bob
>

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777

> > Type Lendl in this page and see how many times he is listed. He has tons of other records...

> chill out raja, take a joke. i liked lendl too.

Lendl was a great contrast with Borg/Connors/Mac. He had his own villainous charm, like a pro wrestler playing the Eastern bloc bad guy. People used to compare Safin to Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" based on his appearance, but Lendl matched the personality more.

[bob]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
>
>> > Type Lendl in this page and see how many times he is listed. He has tons of other records...
>
>> chill out raja, take a joke. i liked lendl too.
>
>Lendl was a great contrast with Borg/Connors/Mac. He had his own villainous charm, like a pro wrestler playing the Eastern bloc bad guy.

he certainly did, and he wasn't liked much. i felt sorry for him.

> People used to compare Safin to Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" based on his appearance, but Lendl matched the personality more.

far more, the communist machine drago (lendl) brought down by the
overmatched but plucky american rocky (jimbo).

bob

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus

> > People used to compare Safin to Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" based on his appearance, but Lendl matched the personality more.

> far more, the communist machine drago (lendl) brought down by the
> overmatched but plucky american rocky (jimbo).

Remember that USO final between them (either '82 or '83) where Lendl tried to spike an overhead through Connors at the net? Connors tried to give the finger-shake warning to Lendl, who wouldn't make eye-contact, and when the camera came back close-up to Connors on the baseline, he clearly mouthed "motherfucker." :)

One of Lendl's better "Drago moments" was after crushing Vilas, when he said, "I did not even want him to win a point. I was not even thinking about a game."

[bob]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>
>> > People used to compare Safin to Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" based on his appearance, but Lendl matched the personality more.
>
>> far more, the communist machine drago (lendl) brought down by the
>> overmatched but plucky american rocky (jimbo).
>
>Remember that USO final between them (either '82 or '83) where Lendl tried to spike an overhead through Connors at the net? Connors tried to give the finger-shake warning to Lendl, who wouldn't make eye-contact, and when the camera came back close-up to Connors on the baseline, he clearly mouthed "motherfucker." :)

i remember it well. in fact i always thought that lendl was afraid or
intimidated by jimmy, at least early 80s when jimmy beat him in the
1st 3 slam encounters.

>One of Lendl's better "Drago moments" was after crushing Vilas, when he said, "I did not even want him to win a point. I was not even thinking about a game."

bob

[Carey]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus

>

> far more, the communist machine drago (lendl) brought down by the
> overmatched but plucky american rocky (jimbo).
>
> bob

Are you forgetting Lendl doing that routinely to JMac? (21-15 overall, 7-3 in Majors, both in Lendl's favor).

[stephenJ]

> On 5/31/2016 11:38 AM, bob wrote:

> yep, good catch. he played a s/v player who never won a slam and was
> coming off 3 knee surgeries recently.

Flipper could be formidable. Was beating peak Sampras at 99 W when he
retired with an injury. At least Fed had to actually win the whole
match, LOL.





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

[bob]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:15:08 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On 5/31/2016 11:38 AM, bob wrote:
>
>> yep, good catch. he played a s/v player who never won a slam and was
>> coming off 3 knee surgeries recently.
>
>Flipper could be formidable. Was beating peak Sampras at 99 W when he
>retired with an injury. At least Fed had to actually win the whole
>match, LOL.

i know, back then you'd penciled in that match for flipper after set
1.

bob

[stephenJ]

Remember, when Fed and Sampras played, Sampras (a) hadn't lost a match
at Wimbledon in 5 years, and (b) Sampras was much closer to his peak
than Fed was to his.

These are objective facts, not fanboy hand waving.

[stephenJ]

Looked an awful lot like Pete's match vs Krajicek in 96 - a
bigger/stronger guy who happened to be 'on' that day beating him at his
own game.

[stephenJ]

When was Safin ever compared to Drago? Safin was jovial and fun-loving.

Lendl was publicly like the typical Communist robot, but more than that,
when Lendl was on top, he was from a Communist country and Communism
still existed in Europe.

[stephenJ]

> On 5/31/2016 8:59 PM, bob wrote:

> i remember it well. in fact i always thought that lendl was afraid or
> intimidated by jimmy, at least early 80s when jimmy beat him in the
> 1st 3 slam encounters.

I think it was more the reverse: Lendl was the big bully, and in 82-83
even Mac was intimidated by him on the court. Jimmy was never
intimidated by anyone, which discombobulated Lendl.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:10:08 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> On 5/31/2016 8:17 PM, Gracchus wrote:

> > Lendl was a great contrast with Borg/Connors/Mac. He had his own villainous charm, like a pro wrestler playing the Eastern bloc bad guy. People used to compare Safin to Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" based on his appearance, but Lendl matched the personality more.

> When was Safin ever compared to Drago? Safin was jovial and fun-loving.

I said "based on his appearance."

[Whisper]

It's an objective fact 2001 was a time when Henman was far better than
Federer on grass & beat him easily at Wimbledon, & Agassi crushed
Federer at USO. Sampras always beat Henman at Wimbledon & Agassi at
USO, thus if Fed could squeak past Sampras 7-5 in 5th in 2001 at
Wimbledon it suggests he himself was playing far worse than Agassi &
Henman, 2 players he owned. Throw in the fact Sampras couldn't win a
tournament for more than 2 yrs after he set the slam record in 2000
until he retired & it's proof positive Sampras was in the worst form
slump of his career. No amount of fanboy waving can change it.

[bob]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:04:16 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
the motions and getting back treatments all the time. he was just a
very poor player for about 18 months. and yep, fed squeaked by him,
was the highlight of his young life.

bob

[stephenJ]

> On 6/2/2016 7:39 PM, bob wrote:

> slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
> the motions

Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha!

[Guypers]

Lol, massa commands, slave follows!

[bob]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 19:50:08 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

> > On 6/2/2016 7:39 PM, bob wrote:
>
>> slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
>> the motions
>
>Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
>Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha!

no, he was going through the motions in everyday training that led up
to every tournament. i'm sure during the 2 weeks of every slam he
tried hard. like if i tried to run 10 miles after not running for a
year. wouldn't do me much good during the race.

bob

[John Liang]

Wasn't Sampras in the USO final a few weeks later, base on whisperian logic he would be in middle of his peak ?

[John Liang]

The only people believe in this sort of crap are yourself and whisper.

[Whisper]

On 3/06/2016 10:50 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 6/2/2016 7:39 PM, bob wrote:
>
>> slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
>> the motions
>
> Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
> Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha!
>
>
>

What about when Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets a couple days earlier -
peak Pete in your estimation?

[Whisper]

Only if you think all players are the same - ie Bruguera was same
quality as Sampras so same standards apply.

If that's the case then we also have to compare Federer to lesser
players to work out his peak too - eg Soderling made FO finals in 2009 &
2010 & that was his peak. That means anytime Fed made 2 slam finals in
a row he too was at his peak, eg last 2 Wimbledon finals, thus Fed is peak.

[Tier3]

>Lendl was a great contrast with Borg/Connors/Mac. He had his own villainous charm, like a pro wrestler playing the Eastern bloc bad guy. People used to compare Safin to Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" based on his appearance, but Lendl matched the personality more. <<

Lendl made a good Drago--Dolph Lundgren may have been channeling Lendl since the movie came out when Lendl was on the rise vs Connors and McEnroe. It was a long time ago, but I distinctly recall thinking of Lendl watching it on the big screen. Safin reminded more of one of those Russian circus dancing bears, both in appearance and personality. What a waste of talent.

[John Liang]

In 1996 USO Corretja pushed Sampras to five sets, Hbarty pushed Sampras to five in 97 AO, So Sampras wasn't at his peak during those tournaments ?

[John Liang]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:02:52 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 3/06/2016 12:51 PM, John Liang wrote:
> > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:04:20 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 3/06/2016 4:02 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> An indeed the same Fed got pasted by Henman in the next rd. Looks like
> >>>> Fed couldn't really handle s/v guys at all, but could beat jaded Sampras
> >>>> 7-5 in the 5th set, at a time when Sampras couldn't win anything.
> >>>
> >>> Remember, when Fed and Sampras played, Sampras (a) hadn't lost a match
> >>> at Wimbledon in 5 years, and (b) Sampras was much closer to his peak
> >>> than Fed was to his.
> >>>
> >>> These are objective facts, not fanboy hand waving.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's an objective fact 2001 was a time when Henman was far better than
> >> Federer on grass & beat him easily at Wimbledon, & Agassi crushed
> >> Federer at USO. Sampras always beat Henman at Wimbledon & Agassi at
> >> USO, thus if Fed could squeak past Sampras 7-5 in 5th in 2001 at
> >> Wimbledon it suggests he himself was playing far worse than Agassi &
> >> Henman, 2 players he owned. Throw in the fact Sampras couldn't win a
> >> tournament for more than 2 yrs after he set the slam record in 2000
> >> until he retired & it's proof positive Sampras was in the worst form
> >> slump of his career. No amount of fanboy waving can change it.
> >
> > Wasn't Sampras in the USO final a few weeks later, base on whisperian logic he would be in middle of his peak ?
> >
>
>
>
> Only if you think all players are the same - ie Bruguera was same
> quality as Sampras so same standards apply.

No, I questioned the lack of logic in your argument, when you consistently have 1 set of logic for Sampras and another for other players.

>
> If that's the case then we also have to compare Federer to lesser
> players to work out his peak too - eg Soderling made FO finals in 2009 &
> 2010 & that was his peak. That means anytime Fed made 2 slam finals in
> a row he too was at his peak, eg last 2 Wimbledon finals, thus Fed is peak.

Wasn't that your theory about Brugera in 96 when the guy was winning 5 out of 6 matches in clay court tune up events?

[Tier3]

Flipper could be formidable. Was beating peak Sampras at 99 W when he
retired with an injury. At least Fed had to actually win the whole
match, LOL. <<

Phillipousis could hit the snot out of the ball and a better volleyer that Ivo--the contemporary I compare him to the most. You have to have talent to connect the way Phil could. I doubt he would have beaten Sampras in that one, but we'll never know. Sampras was playing fabulous s/v tennis in ''99 too. Had Philippousis taken him out we wouldn't have seen perhaps Sampras' greatest match played in the final that year.

[stephenJ]

How many times have I said that neither Sampras nor Federer was at their
peak?

What I've said - and what is undeniable - is that Pete was clearly
closer to his peak at that Wimbledon than Federer was to his peak.

[Tier3]

>>
Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha<<

No kidding. That was a good match from both players and the best s/v match I can ever recall seeing from Fed. Younger legs probably made the difference in the 5th. I wanted Sampras to win but the sheer talent and style of Fed was exciting to see and I wanted him to see him win a lot in the future.

[stephenJ]

I'm not sure I ever saw Sampras serve better? He was serving enormously
in that match, Fed admitted he almost wilted under the pressure Sampras
was putting on him.

Maybe Pete served better in 99 W or 02 USO final?

[Tier3]

>>How many times have I said that neither Sampras nor Federer was at their
peak?

What I've said - and what is undeniable - is that Pete was clearly
closer to his peak at that Wimbledon than Federer was to his peak. <<

Sort of meaningless this peak business in a 1-off match, but Sampras was definitely not at physical peak to play a long 5-setter.

[Whisper]

So why isn't Fed at peak now? Same logic.

[Tier3]

I'm not sure I ever saw Sampras serve better? He was serving enormously
in that match, Fed admitted he almost wilted under the pressure Sampras
was putting on him.

Maybe Pete served better in 99 W or 02 USO final? <<

Don't recall that specifically, but I do remember Fed's brilliant handling of Philippousis' huge serve in his first Wimbledon win. ''02 USO Sampras definitely went big on serve and had a great day. He had to and he knew it. He also had to win that 4th set because the old wheels would likely have come off in the 5th. He knew that too. A great close. Sampras lost a bit in the legs as far as match stamina, but he never lost much if anything on his serve.

[Whisper]

On 3/06/2016 11:07 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> On 6/3/2016 6:30 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 3/06/2016 10:50 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2016 7:39 PM, bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
>>>> the motions
>>>
>>> Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
>>> Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha!
>
>> What about when Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets a couple days earlier -
>> peak Pete in your estimation?
>
> How many times have I said that neither Sampras nor Federer was at their
> peak?
>
> What I've said - and what is undeniable - is that Pete was clearly
> closer to his peak at that Wimbledon than Federer was to his peak.
>
>

But even at his peakest - 2004 & 2005 - Fed still had tougher matches v
Agassi at USO than Sampras ever did, & Agassi certainly wasn't peak at
age 35.

What good is it if Sampras was 'closer to his peak' in 2001 when he
didn't beat Fed, a kid who was getting the shit beat out of him by
Henman & Agassi at USO/Wim, 2 guys Fed completely owned at Wim/USO? Wtf
are u smoking these days?

Bet your next post is how Serena has no chance in the final tomorrow.

[Whisper]

Fed couldn't have been that good in 2001 given he was getting smacked by
Henman & Agassi at Wim/USO.

Using Sampras 2001 as some kind of marker is poor form. The guy was
aimless & not winning anything for 2 yrs until he retired.

[Whisper]

On 3/06/2016 11:14 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> On 6/3/2016 8:12 AM, Tier3 wrote:
>>>>
>> Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
>> Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha<<
>>
>> No kidding. That was a good match from both players and the best s/v
>> match I can ever recall seeing from Fed. Younger legs probably made
>> the difference in the 5th. I wanted Sampras to win but the sheer
>> talent and style of Fed was exciting to see and I wanted him to see
>> him win a lot in the future.
>
> I'm not sure I ever saw Sampras serve better? He was serving enormously
> in that match, Fed admitted he almost wilted under the pressure Sampras
> was putting on him.
>
> Maybe Pete served better in 99 W or 02 USO final?
>
>

Serve let him down when he was 2 pts from winning.

[bob]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:07:31 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2016 6:30 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 3/06/2016 10:50 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2016 7:39 PM, bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
>>>> the motions
>>>
>>> Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
>>> Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha!
>
>> What about when Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets a couple days earlier -
>> peak Pete in your estimation?
>
>How many times have I said that neither Sampras nor Federer was at their
>peak?
>
>What I've said - and what is undeniable - is that Pete was clearly
>closer to his peak at that Wimbledon than Federer was to his peak.

saying so doesn't make it so. if we want to judge it as a % of their
peak, i'd say sampras was lower, he was horrible in that year.

bob

[stephenJ]

The facts say it is so. Sampras was higher ranked, Sampras made USO
final just a month later. Any analysis of their results around the time
of W clearly shows Sampras was much, much closer to his peak than Fed
was to his.

[Whisper]

I think Fed was winning some tune-ups at least while Sampras was winning
nothing. I'd go with Fed being much closer to his peak at that time.

[Carey]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 7:52:49 PM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:


>
> The only people believe in this sort of crap are yourself and whisper.

Yep. ;)

[bob]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:51:11 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2016 9:40 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:07:31 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2016 6:30 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 3/06/2016 10:50 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/2/2016 7:39 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> slump isn't even the right word, he didn't care and was going through
>>>>>> the motions
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Sampras was going through the motions in the 4th round at
>>>>> Wimbledon. Bwawhawhahwahaha!
>>>
>>>> What about when Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets a couple days earlier -
>>>> peak Pete in your estimation?
>>>
>>> How many times have I said that neither Sampras nor Federer was at their
>>> peak?
>>>
>>> What I've said - and what is undeniable - is that Pete was clearly
>>> closer to his peak at that Wimbledon than Federer was to his peak.
>>
>> saying so doesn't make it so. if we want to judge it as a % of their
>> peak, i'd say sampras was lower, he was horrible in that year.
>
>The facts say it is so. Sampras was higher ranked,

based on previous 52 weeks i reckon.

> Sampras made USO final just a month later. Any analysis of their results around the time
>of W clearly shows Sampras was much, much closer to his peak than Fed
>was to his.

sampras' results were abysmal that year, particularly his match at
wimbledon before fed. plus a 7 time champ playing a newbie, surely it
was the highlight of fed's life to that pt, while for pete, drudging
through retirement scenarios...

bob