Sampras had the most terrible groundstrokes of all the champions
Osama Bin Ladetorest
And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
Look at all these matches at the FO. His poor groundstrokes are
exposed.
He pretty much got schooled by Brugera and Courier in 1993 and 1994...
his best years on tour.
Sampras-Bruguera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2WvQM6GH0I&feature=related
Sampras-Courier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op5UsMc_Weg
Pete Sampras at the FO (look a those straight sets drubbings)
------------------------------------
1989: Round-of-64 15 Michael Chang L 1-6 1-6 1-6
1991: Round-of-64 6 Thierry Champion L 3-6 1-6 1-6
1992: Quarter-Finals 3 11 Andre Agassi L 6-7 2-6 1-6
1993: Quarter-Finals 1 10 Sergi Bruguera L 3-6 6-4 1-6
4-6
1994: Quarter-Finals 1 7 Jim Courier L 4-6 7-5 4-6 4-6
1995: Round-of-128 2 Gilbert Schaller L 6-7 6-4 7-6 2-6
4-6
1996: Semi-Finals 1 6 Yevgeny Kafelnikov L 6-7 0-6 2-6
1997: Round-of-32 1 Magnus Norman L 2-6 4-6 6-2 4-6
1998: Round-of-64 1 Ramón Delgado L 6-7 3-6 4-6
1999: Round-of-64 2 Andrei Medvedev L 5-7 6-1 4-6 3-6
2000: Round-of-128 2 Mark Philippoussis L 6-4 5-7 6-7
6-4 6-8
2001: Round-of-64 5 Galo Blanco L 6-7 3-6 2-6
2002: Round-of-128 12 Andrea Gaudenzi L 6-3 4-6 2-6 6-7
Sampras career win-loss record at the French Open is 24-13 = 64%
And Whisper thinks Sampras could win against Nadal on clay... ROFLMAO
Joe Ramirez
> Even McEnroe had a better and more effective backhand and forehand.
> And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
> Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
> which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
>
inconsistent to play extended rallies on clay, but then Mac didn't
stay back rallying all day either. His best clay play was net-focused,
just like his play on the other surfaces.
Imagine a Sampras-McEnroe match with no volleying allowed, even after
the serve. Every shot has to be a groundstroke. Who would win? IMO,
Sampras would overpower McEnroe without difficulty.
Raja, The Great
That is not a realistic imagination. Why would anyone force to stay at
the baseline or volley? Would Nadal win against Lendl on clay if both
were forced to volley every point?
I can imagine peak 1984 McEnroe destroying peak 1994 Sampras on clay
with no restriction on the style of play.
Joe Ramirez
> On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 6:27 pm, Osama Bin Ladetorest <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:> Even McEnroe had a better and more effective backhand and forehand.
> > > And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
> > > Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
> > > which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
>
> > Pete's groundstrokes were better than Mac's. Sure, Sampras was too
> > inconsistent to play extended rallies on clay, but then Mac didn't
> > stay back rallying all day either. His best clay play was net-focused,
> > just like his play on the other surfaces.
>
> > Imagine a Sampras-McEnroe match with no volleying allowed, even after
> > the serve. Every shot has to be a groundstroke. Who would win? IMO,
> > Sampras would overpower McEnroe without difficulty.
>
> That is not a realistic imagination. Why would anyone force to stay at
> the baseline or volley?
Because we -- i.e., *you* -- want to compare their *groundstrokes*.
Why would anyone start a thread about groundstrokes and want to
compare volleys?
number_six
"Bait and switch"?
ahonkan
> Even McEnroe had a better and more effective backhand and forehand.
> And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
> Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
> which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
>
> Look at all these matches at the FO. His poor groundstrokes are
> exposed.
>
> He pretty much got schooled by Brugera and Courier in 1993 and 1994...
> his best years on tour.
>
> Sampras-Bruguerahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2WvQM6GH0I&feature=related
>
>
> Pete Sampras at the FO (look a those straight sets drubbings)
> ------------------------------------
> 1989: Round-of-64 15 Michael Chang L 1-6 1-6 1-6
> 1991: Round-of-64 6 Thierry Champion L 3-6 1-6 1-6
> 1992: Quarter-Finals 3 11 Andre Agassi L 6-7 2-6 1-6
> 1993: Quarter-Finals 1 10 Sergi Bruguera L 3-6 6-4 1-6
> 4-6
> 1994: Quarter-Finals 1 7 Jim Courier L 4-6 7-5 4-6 4-6
> 1995: Round-of-128 2 Gilbert Schaller L 6-7 6-4 7-6 2-6
> 4-6
> 1996: Semi-Finals 1 6 Yevgeny Kafelnikov L 6-7 0-6 2-6
> 1997: Round-of-32 1 Magnus Norman L 2-6 4-6 6-2 4-6
> 1998: Round-of-64 1 Ramón Delgado L 6-7 3-6 4-6
> 1999: Round-of-64 2 Andrei Medvedev L 5-7 6-1 4-6 3-6
> 2000: Round-of-128 2 Mark Philippoussis L 6-4 5-7 6-7
> 6-4 6-8
> 2001: Round-of-64 5 Galo Blanco L 6-7 3-6 2-6
> 2002: Round-of-128 12 Andrea Gaudenzi L 6-3 4-6 2-6 6-7
>
> Sampras career win-loss record at the French Open is 24-13 = 64%
>
> And Whisper thinks Sampras could win against Nadal on clay... ROFLMAO
You should qualify your stmt with 'for clay', since that's what
you are pointing at. But I would anyday prefer 'terrible
groundstrokes' that result in 14-4 record in slam finals than
great groundstrokes that result in an 8-11 record there.
Steffi didn't almost have a backhand (sliced almost all the
time) but that didn't seem to hurt her too badly.
It's not what you have got but how you use it.
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steffi hit a lot of topspin backhand in the 80s against Navratilova.
She used it against serve voleyers and net rushers. There was not
reason to use it against baseliners.
Whisper
And I can imagine giving Angelina Jollie a good shagging.
uly...@mscomm.com
pick him out of a line-up with 3 other people. Maybe his next post
will be something similarly inane like, "Sampras had a weak serve."
Sampras had the greatest running FH in the history of the game. His
standing FH was also lethal. He backhand (especially DTL), was
perfectly adequate and brillant on occasion.
And I hate Sampras and his game, but facts are facts.
undecided
> And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
> Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
> which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
>
> Look at all these matches at the FO. His poor groundstrokes are
> exposed.
>
> He pretty much got schooled by Brugera and Courier in 1993 and 1994...
> his best years on tour.
>
> Sampras-Bruguerahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2WvQM6GH0I&feature=related
>
>
> Pete Sampras at the FO (look a those straight sets drubbings)
> ------------------------------------
> 1989: Round-of-64 15 Michael Chang L 1-6 1-6 1-6
> 1991: Round-of-64 6 Thierry Champion L 3-6 1-6 1-6
> 1992: Quarter-Finals 3 11 Andre Agassi L 6-7 2-6 1-6
> 1993: Quarter-Finals 1 10 Sergi Bruguera L 3-6 6-4 1-6
> 4-6
> 1994: Quarter-Finals 1 7 Jim Courier L 4-6 7-5 4-6 4-6
> 1995: Round-of-128 2 Gilbert Schaller L 6-7 6-4 7-6 2-6
> 4-6
> 1996: Semi-Finals 1 6 Yevgeny Kafelnikov L 6-7 0-6 2-6
> 1997: Round-of-32 1 Magnus Norman L 2-6 4-6 6-2 4-6
> 1998: Round-of-64 1 Ramón Delgado L 6-7 3-6 4-6
> 1999: Round-of-64 2 Andrei Medvedev L 5-7 6-1 4-6 3-6
> 2000: Round-of-128 2 Mark Philippoussis L 6-4 5-7 6-7
> 6-4 6-8
> 2001: Round-of-64 5 Galo Blanco L 6-7 3-6 2-6
> 2002: Round-of-128 12 Andrea Gaudenzi L 6-3 4-6 2-6 6-7
>
> Sampras career win-loss record at the French Open is 24-13 = 64%
>
> And Whisper thinks Sampras could win against Nadal on clay... ROFLMAO
I wasn't going to respond to such a silly post but I recently watched
an Agassi documentary on Tennis Channel and they showed a 21-shot
rally between Pete and Andre. Pete won that from the baseline. Andre
was baseliner supremo so how do you explain that he could lose a 21-
shot rally against Pete. BTW, every shot was meant to hurt the other
guy. Amazing stuff.
Raja, The Great
What makes you think Andre "sampy bitch" Agassi was a great baseliner?
Raja, The Great
I suffered through his matches throughout the 90s. What are you
talking? Hitting one or two blinders on a fast court is not a sign of
being a great baseliner. He never had to face true great like Borg,
Lendl, Wilander, Nadal and Federer at their peak on a hard court or
carpet court. He was lucky to get geriatric Becker and wimpy Agassi
instead
Superdave
Imagining it is about as far as you'll get.
Rodjk #613
> On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 6:27 pm, Osama Bin Ladetorest <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:> Even McEnroe had a better and more effective backhand and forehand.
> > > And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
> > > Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
> > > which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
This really isn't fair. I mean, come on, who has been called boring
more than Lendl? (Maybe Wilander)
Pete's forehand was a powerful weapon. His backhand was not a floater.
His game developed around the faster courts of his day and (obviously)
was extremely efficient at what was needed to win.
>
> > Pete's groundstrokes were better than Mac's. Sure, Sampras was too
> > inconsistent to play extended rallies on clay, but then Mac didn't
> > stay back rallying all day either. His best clay play was net-focused,
> > just like his play on the other surfaces.
>
> > Imagine a Sampras-McEnroe match with no volleying allowed, even after
> > the serve. Every shot has to be a groundstroke. Who would win? IMO,
> > Sampras would overpower McEnroe without difficulty.
Yes.
> That is not a realistic imagination. Why would anyone force to stay at
> the baseline or volley? Would Nadal win against Lendl on clay if both
> were forced to volley every point?
The point was discussing groundstrokes.
> I can imagine peak 1984 McEnroe destroying peak 1994 Sampras on clay
> with no restriction on the style of play.
I have to agree with Joe...
Pete was much better off the ground than Mac, and even peak Mac could
not handle Pete's power.
Rodjk #613
uly...@mscomm.com
running FH ever and an incredible standing FH. I also never suggested
(or even mentioned) that Borg wasn't the superior baseliner. What does
that have to do with anything?
Edberg wasn't quite the volleyer Mac was, but it doesn't mean he
wasn't a superlative, awesome volleyer.
Ditto with Sampras at the baseline. You obviously have never bothered
to watch his matches at the AO or on American hardcourts. Sampras
invariably got the better of Agassi in long baseline rallies. And no
one doubts Agassi wasn't a tremendously gifted baseliner, one of the
all-time greats.
So what does it tell you that the supposedly poor baseliner Sampras
routinely blasted winners in rallies by Agassi?
And peak Sampras would demolish peak Mac on clay. McEnroe couldn't
handle Lendl or Becker's power. He sure as hell couldn't handle
Sampras' power or passing shots, even on clay.
Superdave
WOW !
undecided
Because he was dumbass.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree Agassi was a dumbass :) If he had any brain, he would have
mopped the floor with most baseliners (including the crappy ones like
Sampras). But Agassi believed in playing for the crowd. And those
flashy returns and forehands. He made a lot of errors and tried
impossible returns picking up the balls way too early and generally
made a jackass of himself. Post 1998 he grew up a little, but by that
time, he had lost any confidence in his ability to beat Sampras.
undecided
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still, he was one of the best baseliners of the 90s and the fact that
he couldn't keep up with Sampras even off the ground completely
destroys your assertion of Sampras's ground game prowess.
I think that you either did not watch Sampras or even if you did you
did not fully understand his strategy. Like his contemporaries often
said: "he could look completely ordinary for 5 games in a row and then
bam! you're down a set". Sampras was an opportunist. He would hang in
there and if he somehow got a sniff that he could break, that's when
he would pummel a couple of big forehands to win the break. He
definitely was not interested in long rallies since he knew that he
could hold serve easily by s&v.
uly...@mscomm.com
This statement from a prior post is laughable:
"But Agassi believed in playing for the crowd. And those
flashy returns and forehands. He made a lot of errors and tried
impossible returns picking up the balls way too early."
Again, it amazes me that so many people post here who obviously have
never watched an Agassi match but post errant nonsense and expect it
to be 'respected.' The above comment would have partly true in
1988-1991. After that, Agassi almost *never* played to the crowd.
Ever. That behavior was gone by the time he won Wimbledon in 1992. As
for the assertion that he tried "impossible returns" and "picked up
the balls way too early" is again laughable. Agassi was the greatest
ROS, along with Connors, in the history of the sport.
Agassi picked up balls "way too early" because he was supremely
talented in doing so and made very few UE's with that style of play.
And the fact remains that Pete Sampras generally outhit Agassi from
the baseline and won the vast majority of their long baseline rallies.
His baseline game was very good and always was.
Carey
Sampras was an excellent mover, but often didn't have his feet
precisely
under him at contact- partly because he was so talented he could get
away
with it in shorter points. Bam, bam, and like that... his late career
BH
a la Francoise Durr *was* a real eyesore though, and not especially
effective.
MBDunc
Agassi was slightly better than Sampras from baseline and probably
also had better fitness (since Gilbert days).
But Sampras of course was generally better thanks to:
* had way superior serving.
* had way superior volleying.
* had better movement.
* had better mental strenght.
That makes the difference.
.mikko
Whisper
> On Jun 19, 6:27 pm, Osama Bin Ladetorest<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Even McEnroe had a better and more effective backhand and forehand.
>> And Becker's groundstrokes were very good, but inconsistent. But
>> Sampras had a boring measured forehand and a softcock floater backhand
>> which were as ugly as his unibrowed face.
>>
>> Look at all these matches at the FO. His poor groundstrokes are
>> exposed.
>>
>> He pretty much got schooled by Brugera and Courier in 1993 and 1994...
>> his best years on tour.
>>
>> Sampras-Bruguerahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2WvQM6GH0I&feature=related
>>
>> Sampras-Courierhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op5UsMc_Weg
>>
>> Pete Sampras at the FO (look a those straight sets drubbings)
>> ------------------------------------
>> 1989: Round-of-64 15 Michael Chang L 1-6 1-6 1-6
>> 1991: Round-of-64 6 Thierry Champion L 3-6 1-6 1-6
>> 1992: Quarter-Finals 3 11 Andre Agassi L 6-7 2-6 1-6
>> 1993: Quarter-Finals 1 10 Sergi Bruguera L 3-6 6-4 1-6
>> 4-6
>> 1994: Quarter-Finals 1 7 Jim Courier L 4-6 7-5 4-6 4-6
>> 1995: Round-of-128 2 Gilbert Schaller L 6-7 6-4 7-6 2-6
>> 4-6
>> 1996: Semi-Finals 1 6 Yevgeny Kafelnikov L 6-7 0-6 2-6
>> 1997: Round-of-32 1 Magnus Norman L 2-6 4-6 6-2 4-6
>> 1999: Round-of-64 2 Andrei Medvedev L 5-7 6-1 4-6 3-6
>> 2000: Round-of-128 2 Mark Philippoussis L 6-4 5-7 6-7
>> 6-4 6-8
>> 2001: Round-of-64 5 Galo Blanco L 6-7 3-6 2-6
>> 2002: Round-of-128 12 Andrea Gaudenzi L 6-3 4-6 2-6 6-7
>>
>> Sampras career win-loss record at the French Open is 24-13 = 64%
>>
>> And Whisper thinks Sampras could win against Nadal on clay... ROFLMAO
>
> I wasn't going to respond to such a silly post but I recently watched
> an Agassi documentary on Tennis Channel and they showed a 21-shot
> rally between Pete and Andre. Pete won that from the baseline. Andre
> was baseliner supremo so how do you explain that he could lose a 21-
> shot rally against Pete. BTW, every shot was meant to hurt the other
> guy. Amazing stuff.
Raja is a strange type of tennis fan. He's actually personally jealous
of a pro tennis player? I'm glad he doesn't live on my continent.
Whisper
Well you're a confessed Samprasfucker so we'll take that as a given, no
point posting it.
When did Pete play peak Mac?
Whisper
McEnroe could easily handle Lendl & Becker power, but I agree Sampras
would have tested him fully.
Remember Becker as defending AO champ lost 46 36 57 to geriatric Mac at
'92 AO, & Mac crushed Lendl too many times at his peak to suggest he
couldn't handle his power - eg '84 USO final 63 64 61 & YEC final 75 60 64.
Whisper
>>>>> 1999: Round-of-64 2 Andrei Medvedev L 5-7 6-1 4-6 3-6
>>>>> 2000: Round-of-128 2 Mark Philippoussis L 6-4 5-7 6-7
>>>>> 6-4 6-8
>>>>> 2001: Round-of-64 5 Galo Blanco L 6-7 3-6 2-6
>>>>> 2002: Round-of-128 12 Andrea Gaudenzi L 6-3 4-6 2-6 6-7
>>
>>>>> Sampras career win-loss record at the French Open is 24-13 = 64%
>>
>>>>> And Whisper thinks Sampras could win against Nadal on clay... ROFLMAO
>>
>>>> I wasn't going to respond to such a silly post but I recently watched
>>>> an Agassi documentary on Tennis Channel and they showed a 21-shot
>>>> rally between Pete and Andre. Pete won that from the baseline. Andre
>>>> was baseliner supremo so how do you explain that he could lose a 21-
>>>> shot rally against Pete. BTW, every shot was meant to hurt the other
>>>> guy. Amazing stuff.
>>
>>> What makes you think Andre "sampy bitch" Agassi was a great baseliner?
>>
>> Because he was dumbass.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree Agassi was a dumbass :) If he had any brain, he would have
> mopped the floor with most baseliners (including the crappy ones like
> Sampras). But Agassi believed in playing for the crowd. And those
> flashy returns and forehands. He made a lot of errors and tried
> impossible returns picking up the balls way too early and generally
> made a jackass of himself. Post 1998 he grew up a little, but by that
> time, he had lost any confidence in his ability to beat Sampras.
lol - this is a serious 'analysis' & not jokes?
Please, please say yes. The idea a pro would take the approach you're
suggesting, despite training his whole life to win slams at any cost,
just beggars belief. I'm excited there are people like you out there
who really 'think' in this way - it's awesome.
Whisper
Guys like this actually think you should hold back on your weapons &
instead engage in long rallys?
They actually think a guy like Agassi, who had tennis forced down his
throat from age 4 & programmed to win everything, & who had massive
performance clauses in his contract would suddenly take a flippant
approach in slams & hit everything out just to showboat to the crowd...?
I mean this is what their words say, & we have to take it at face value.
So what if they train for hours each day, to hell with that when you
can just whack the ball out trying to impress the crowd.
Posters like this are some of the simple pleasures in life we shouldn't
take for granted. It makes me smile when I think of their 'analysis'
while buying my morning coffee.
Whisper
You forgot versatility. Agassi was fairly 1-dimensional & very few
surprises when you watch him play. Yes you could admire his ability at
his best, but he had a very limited range of shot. Sampras could hit
any shot & had the guts to go for it it any time - that alone would
unnerve opponents - just the idea he might crack a big one & come at
you. Trying to pin him to the baseline or attack his bh didn't really
work - he had a lot of options out there.
Carey
Why didn't Pete Sampras win the French Open, or come close?
Whisper
>> surprises when you watch him play. Yes you could admire his ability at
>> his best, but he had a very limited range of shot. Sampras could hit
>> unnerve opponents - just the idea he might crack a big one& come at
>> you. Trying to pin him to the baseline or attack his bh didn't really
>> work - he had a lot of options out there.
>
> Why didn't Pete Sampras win the French Open, or come close?
Already explained many times by tennis experts on tv/mags etc. He never
prepared for the clay. Newk/Stolle said he should have moved to Europe
3 months prior to FO & play all clay. Only rst dumbarses think 2 or 3
matches in World Team Cup shows an insatiable desire to win FO.
Federer did not need to change his game for several reasons;
- all courts are slow today, so you get guts like Rafa making his last 4
Wimbledon finals.
- Fed is a baseliner & clay is probably his best surface. If no Rafa
he'd probably have 6 FOs by now & be clay goat.
You do realize there are many players with less than 10% of Sampras'
ability who won FO right?
Stop wasting time with dumbarse posts. This is all common knowledge &
doesn't need to be rehashed every few weeks by half drunk rst cretins.
Carey
If I meet any half-drunk rst cretins, I will give them your message.
Did you ever see 'Being There', Peter Sellers's last released film?
Oh, one more thing- when Pete Sampras hired Jose Higueras, I assumed
that this was to help him win the French. The interesting thing is,
Sampras
said the same thing at the time, that this *was his goal*. Can you
imagine?
Raja, The Great
If Agassi was the best baseliner of the 90s, then it is a true sign of
clown era
Carey
Agassi was possibly the best ball-striker ever, along with Connors's
BH. Unfortunately he was a *terrible mover* relative to the best
players.
That doesn't lessen what he was able to accomplish at all.
Superdave
>
>
>Whisper wrote:
>> On 21/06/2011 9:07 PM, Carey wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Whisper wrote:
>> >> On 21/06/2011 3:09 PM, MBDunc wrote:
I guess Pete was as big a LIAR as whisper eh?
Carey
Who said anything about Federer? I only asked for opinions as
to why *Sampras never won the French Open* or came close.
Thomas R. Kettler
Superdave <the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not possible. Whisper worked at used car lots and touted the latest,
greatest drugs previously.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Carey
Whisper wrote:
> On 21/06/2011 1:57 AM, uly...@msomm.com wrote:
> > I never said Sampras was a great baseliner. I said he had the greatest
> > running FH ever and an incredible standing FH. I also never suggested
> > (or even mentioned) that Borg wasn't the superior baseliner. What does
> > that have to do with anything?
> >
> > Edberg wasn't quite the volleyer Mac was, but it doesn't mean he
> > wasn't a superlative, awesome volleyer.
> >
> > Ditto with Sampras at the baseline. You obviously have never bothered
> > to watch his matches at the AO or on American hardcourts. Sampras
> > invariably got the better of Agassi in long baseline rallies. And no
> > one doubts Agassi wasn't a tremendously gifted baseliner, one of the
> > all-time greats.
> >
> > So what does it tell you that the supposedly poor baseliner Sampras
> > routinely blasted winners in rallies by Agassi?
> >
> > And peak Sampras would demolish peak Mac on clay. McEnroe couldn't
> > handle Lendl or Becker's power. He sure as hell couldn't handle
> > Sampras' power or passing shots, even on clay.
>
>
> McEnroe could easily handle Lendl & Becker power, but I agree Sampras
> would have tested him fully.
Whisper, it's good to have you on record that losing H2H records are
meaningless, as shown by your cherry-picking wins by Mac v Lendl and
Becker.
Just a reminder: Mac v Lendl *in Majors*: Mac 3 Lendl 7.
Superdave
whisper can't count. he's fucked in the head.
bob
>Whisper wrote:
>> On 21/06/2011 9:07 PM, Carey wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Whisper wrote:
>> >> On 21/06/2011 3:09 PM, MBDunc wrote:
you have to look at the whole picture. as needing FO for career slam,
of course sampras wanted to win it. but at what cost? you have to
watch people's actions, preparation habits and all involved.
the bottom line is a few things:
- while having a talented game, sampras worst surface was red clay, it
took away many of his weapons. was more of patience surface.
- in 90s there was a large body count of clay specialists, far
different from today.
- with wimbledon 2 wks after FO, a guy like sampras always had
wimbledon in back of mind during FO.
- in order to truly want to win FO, sampras might want to dramatically
change style/strategy to do what every other clay court specialist was
doing at the time - yet he didn't do any such thing.
no - he just showed up at FO, gave his best 2 wk effort, played his
normal USO/Wim game, and frequently lost, and was disappointed for a
few days and went on to win the big prize. that's the long and short
of it.
bob
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
and i'll add 1 more: off clay, he literally always played to his
strengths and forced his opponent do do so also. the match was nearly
always played on his terms, win or lose.
this he has in common with nadal.
bob
bob
Raja, The Great
> On 21/06/2011 1:57 AM, ulys...@msomm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I never said Sampras was a great baseliner. I said he had the greatest
> > running FH ever and an incredible standing FH. I also never suggested
> > (or even mentioned) that Borg wasn't the superior baseliner. What does
> > that have to do with anything?
>
> > Edberg wasn't quite the volleyer Mac was, but it doesn't mean he
> > wasn't a superlative, awesome volleyer.
>
> > Ditto with Sampras at the baseline. You obviously have never bothered
> > to watch his matches at the AO or on American hardcourts. Sampras
> > invariably got the better of Agassi in long baseline rallies. And no
> > one doubts Agassi wasn't a tremendously gifted baseliner, one of the
> > all-time greats.
>
> > So what does it tell you that the supposedly poor baseliner Sampras
> > routinely blasted winners in rallies by Agassi?
>
> > And peak Sampras would demolish peak Mac on clay. McEnroe couldn't
> > handle Lendl or Becker's power. He sure as hell couldn't handle
> > Sampras' power or passing shots, even on clay.
>
> McEnroe could easily handle Lendl & Becker power,
You are joking right... McEnroe hardly beat Lendl or Becker after
1984.
AliAsoag
Insulted? Come one, Sampras has his place in the history. Nobody is
perfect, even GOAT Roger won only 1 FO (so far), so it's ok for
Sampras to not be able to play on clay. Like Lendl could never win
Wimby ...
AliAsoag
Because Federer is Whisper's nightmare. He never thought there will
ever be a player who can show much more beautiful and better tennis
than his idol. And much more successful.
AliAsoag
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com>
Not bad. This way you can excuse any lack of success. Becker never
wanted to win on clay. I guess Lendl never tried to win at Wimbledon.
And Murray just is not interested in winning slams.
AliAsoag
Interesting you despise Agassi's game as 1-dimensional but make up
Nadal's same game just because Agassi was Sampras' rival and Nadal is
Roger's who passed Sampras in the GOAT race. You can't have it
both ...
uly...@mscomm.com
groundies" because he never won the FO?
*Massive eye roll.*
Agassi had superlative groundstrokes and only won the FO once and only
because he was gifted with the #100 ranked player in the world in the
final. Connors had excellent groundstokes and never won it. Chang
barely won it and had great groundies.
Lendl had the greatest groundstrokes of anyone in the 80's and lost in
the FO final multiple times. Must mean he wasn't a great claycourt
player.
Anyone saying Sampras had terrible groundstokes is literally tennis
illiterate. He was the #1 player for what... 287 straight weeks? With
terrible groundstrokes?
Watch the USO 1995 final and then return and say Sampras was terrible
from the back of the court.
Carey
bob wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>
> you have to look at the whole picture. as needing FO for career slam,
> of course sampras wanted to win it. but at what cost? you have to
> watch people's actions, preparation habits and all involved.
>
> the bottom line is a few things:
> - while having a talented game, sampras worst surface was red clay, it
> took away many of his weapons. was more of patience surface.
> - in 90s there was a large body count of clay specialists, far
> different from today.
> - with wimbledon 2 wks after FO, a guy like sampras always had
> wimbledon in back of mind during FO.
> - in order to truly want to win FO, sampras might want to dramatically
> change style/strategy to do what every other clay court specialist was
> doing at the time - yet he didn't do any such thing.
>
> no - he just showed up at FO, gave his best 2 wk effort, played his
> normal USO/Wim game, and frequently lost, and was disappointed for a
> few days and went on to win the big prize. that's the long and short
> of it.
>
> bob
Actually you're quite wrong- did you watch any of his FO matches under
Higueras?
Sampras changed his service position, often going wide-and-wide,
stayed back on
both serves almost always, hit heavy top off both sides (particularly
noticeable on
that BH), only came in on a very short ball. He also gave *many
interviews* stating
that his big goal was to get a FO. You can look it up, and though you
won't, others
might. :)
AliAsoag
> So the assumption among some here is that Pete had "terrible
> groundies" because he never won the FO?
Did I say that? Read my post again. I said Sampras was just not able
to play on clay. And Whisper should not be insulted ...
> *Massive eye roll.*
>
> Agassi had superlative groundstrokes and only won the FO once and only
> because he was gifted with the #100 ranked player in the world in the
> final. Connors had excellent groundstokes and never won it. Chang
> barely won it and had great groundies.
>
> Lendl had the greatest groundstrokes of anyone in the 80's and lost in
> the FO final multiple times. Must mean he wasn't a great claycourt
> player.
>
> Anyone saying Sampras had terrible groundstokes is literally tennis
> illiterate. He was the #1 player for what... 287 straight weeks? With
> terrible groundstrokes?
>
> Watch the USO 1995 final and then return and say Sampras was terrible
> from the back of the court.
It's actually Whisper who links "ground strokes" with "winning FO" if
you read his posts ...
Whisper
>
>
> Whisper wrote:
>> On 21/06/2011 1:57 AM, uly...@msomm.com wrote:
>>> I never said Sampras was a great baseliner. I said he had the greatest
>>> running FH ever and an incredible standing FH. I also never suggested
>>> (or even mentioned) that Borg wasn't the superior baseliner. What does
>>> that have to do with anything?
>>>
>>> Edberg wasn't quite the volleyer Mac was, but it doesn't mean he
>>> wasn't a superlative, awesome volleyer.
>>>
>>> Ditto with Sampras at the baseline. You obviously have never bothered
>>> to watch his matches at the AO or on American hardcourts. Sampras
>>> invariably got the better of Agassi in long baseline rallies. And no
>>> one doubts Agassi wasn't a tremendously gifted baseliner, one of the
>>> all-time greats.
>>>
>>> So what does it tell you that the supposedly poor baseliner Sampras
>>> routinely blasted winners in rallies by Agassi?
>>>
>>> And peak Sampras would demolish peak Mac on clay. McEnroe couldn't
>>> handle Lendl or Becker's power. He sure as hell couldn't handle
>>> Sampras' power or passing shots, even on clay.
>>
>>
>> would have tested him fully.
>
> Whisper, it's good to have you on record that losing H2H records are
> meaningless, as shown by your cherry-picking wins by Mac v Lendl and
> Becker.
>
> Just a reminder: Mac v Lendl *in Majors*: Mac 3 Lendl 7.
>
Always said it's only slam finals that mean anything in h2h. How many
times have I said this yet still no one gets it?
Joe Ramirez
terrible" description. A much better way of defining the inquiry would
be, "Of the 6+ slam champions in the open era, who had the weakest
groundstrokes?" Note that "weakest" among this group does NOT imply
"terrible," or anything close to it.
Anyway, to answer the reformulated question, I would say that these
are the candidates for weakest groundstrokes:
1. Edberg
2. McEnroe
3. Newcombe (grandfathered into group)
This really shouldn't be a surprise, since these players were all
dedicated net men. Edberg and McEnroe both had relatively weak
forehands for players of their class, and their ground games as a
whole were somewhat soft. Newcombe's backhand was average, but he had
good power off the ground for a player of his era. I would say that
both Becker and Sampras, despite their own net orientation and
baseline inconsistency on slow surfaces, were a cut above this group
because of their power off both wings and ability to hit groundstroke
winners.
Raja, The Great
> The problem with the line of analysis pursued in the OP is the "most
> terrible" description. A much better way of defining the inquiry would
> be, "Of the 6+ slam champions in the open era, who had the weakest
> groundstrokes?" Note that "weakest" among this group does NOT imply
> "terrible," or anything close to it.
Yes you are the only one who got the point. I meant the most terrible
of the 11 players compared there (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl,
Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer and Nadal). This
doesnt mean Sampras had terrible groundstrokes. It just means he was
the worst of the lot (the 11 I have mentioned).
>
> Anyway, to answer the reformulated question, I would say that these
> are the candidates for weakest groundstrokes:
>
> 1. Edberg
> 2. McEnroe
I disagree with Edberg and McEnroe. Edberg had a great backhand and
McEnroe's could hit it consistently deep. There is no way he had
terrible ground strokes. Sampras had a loopy backhand and a hit or
miss forehand.
Check this out....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NETbU0teQkw
> 3. Newcombe (grandfathered into group)
LOL.... why would you include Newk... he is not up for discussion.
>
> This really shouldn't be a surprise, since these players were all
> dedicated net men. Edberg and McEnroe both had relatively weak
> forehands for players of their class, and their ground games as a
> whole were somewhat soft. Newcombe's backhand was average, but he had
> good power off the ground for a player of his era. I would say that
> both Becker and Sampras, despite their own net orientation and
> baseline inconsistency on slow surfaces, were a cut above this group
> because of their power off both wings and ability to hit groundstroke
> winners.
Becker had nice groundies. Sampras is nowhere in his league.
Raja, The Great
> So the assumption among some here is that Pete had "terrible
> groundies" because he never won the FO?
>
> *Massive eye roll.*
>
> Agassi had superlative groundstrokes and only won the FO once and only
> because he was gifted with the #100 ranked player in the world in the
> final. Connors had excellent groundstokes and never won it. Chang
> barely won it and had great groundies.
>
> Lendl had the greatest groundstrokes of anyone in the 80's and lost in
> the FO final multiple times. Must mean he wasn't a great claycourt
> player.
>
> Anyone saying Sampras had terrible groundstokes is literally tennis
> illiterate. He was the #1 player for what... 287 straight weeks? With
> terrible groundstrokes?
You missed the point. The original post was he had the worst
groundstrokes of all the modern champions. It did not mean he had the
worst groundstrokes of all players.
Raja, The Great
That means he was not good at groundstroking right? if you cannot move
properly what is the use of powerful groundstrokes. With Agassi, I
always noticed one thing.... he did not have enough power to finish
off a point. He hit it from side to side and bored the opponent into
submission. At least Connors came to the net when he got a chance.
Agassi was the Hewitt of his era.
Raja, The Great
> groundies" because he never won the FO?
>
> *Massive eye roll.*
>
> Agassi had superlative groundstrokes and only won the FO once and only
> because he was gifted with the #100 ranked player in the world in the
> final. Connors had excellent groundstokes and never won it. Chang
> barely won it and had great groundies.
>
> Lendl had the greatest groundstrokes of anyone in the 80's and lost in
> the FO final multiple times. Must mean he wasn't a great claycourt
> player.
Well, he had Borg and Wilander, who were clay court virtuosos. He was
great on all surface but he was no surface specialist. If not for
Wilander and Borg and his own neglection of FO, he would have won many
more FOs.
Look at this..
1981 - Lost to Borg
1982 - Lost to Wilander
1983 - Lost to Noah
1985 - Lost to Wilander
1988 - Lost to Svensson (was apparently injured the whole match)
1989 - Lost to Chang
1990 and 1991 - DNP
So ideally if not for Borg and Wilander, he would have won 3 more FOs
and if he was not injured probably 1988 and also if he played 1990 and
1991. Thats makes it 6 extra FOs he should have won. Unfortunately for
him, he was not paying attention to the slam count.... no one from the
80s was !!!!
Whisper
>>
>> Agassi was slightly better than Sampras from baseline and probably
>> also had better fitness (since Gilbert days).
>>
>> But Sampras of course was generally better thanks to:
>>
>> * had way superior serving.
>> * had way superior volleying.
>> * had better movement.
>> * had better mental strenght.
>>
>> That makes the difference.
>
> and i'll add 1 more: off clay, he literally always played to his
> strengths and forced his opponent do do so also. the match was nearly
> always played on his terms, win or lose.
> this he has in common with nadal.
>
> bob
Yes, you knew when Sampras played his best he always won, same with
Nadal but in a different way, but as effective.
When Roger played his best he always won, except v Nadal where he almost
always lost.
Whisper
> On Jun 21, 8:34 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey<carey_1...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> - while having a talented game, sampras worst surface was red clay, it
>> took away many of his weapons. was more of patience surface.
>> - in 90s there was a large body count of clay specialists, far
>> different from today.
>> - with wimbledon 2 wks after FO, a guy like sampras always had
>> wimbledon in back of mind during FO.
>> - in order to truly want to win FO, sampras might want to dramatically
>> change style/strategy to do what every other clay court specialist was
>> doing at the time - yet he didn't do any such thing.
>>
>> no - he just showed up at FO, gave his best 2 wk effort, played his
>> normal USO/Wim game, and frequently lost, and was disappointed for a
>> few days and went on to win the big prize. that's the long and short
>> of it.
>
> Not bad. This way you can excuse any lack of success. Becker never
> wanted to win on clay. I guess Lendl never tried to win at Wimbledon.
> And Murray just is not interested in winning slams.
It's no excuse. Sampras wouldn't have turned up if he thought he
couldn't win. He just made no effort to adapt his game for clay,
because Wimbledon was just around the corner. Fed/Rafa don't have to
make any changes as the suraces are slow today so you can actually win
Wimbledon from the baseline.
Whisper
>
> You are joking right... McEnroe hardly beat Lendl or Becker after
> 1984.
Mac retired end of '84. Just played part time inbetween snorting
coke/partying.
bob
wrote:
>
>
don't need to look it up, i did watch, and by the time he hired
higueras his FO chances were far slimmer than ever.
what i'm talking about to win FO isn't a 2 wk effort - it's a year
(maybe *years*) long effort to completely change his game.
never did it. why not do you think? in fact, at a younger age, but not
*that* young, he completely changed his game to try to be effective at
wimbledon.
the same could be said for a lot of the clay courters, maybe guga,
playng wimbledon. i contend that for yrs a good many of the top 3 clay
courters, guys with multiple FOs even, didn't give much effort at
wimbledon - and certainly didn't give any effort to change their games
- even if they played 2 weeks of "their version" of s/v or
chip/charge.
bob
bob
what sampras had was a lack of patience. it wasn't his style to rally
BH to BH for 20-30 hits, as wilander, guga, courier, bruguera, et al.
after a few shots, he'd invariably go for a corner or rush net.
for that matter, i'd say even agassi (terms of patience) was more
similar to sampras than those guys.
bob
bob
wrote:
agree, and i'll add this, as i've said many times - VS nadal, federer
invariably gets to playing nadal's game. nadal forces it, and fed
complies.
bob
bob
but we should define GS in the context where these guys used them. did
mac have an effective ground stroke for rushing net? because, for ex,
a clay courter who can roll it all day long doesn't have an effective
GS for rushing net, gives waist high sitters mid court.
bob
Superdave
that's an excuse? but Borgs personal problems don't count? i see i see.