If Sampras played in the Fedal era....
felangey
I mean, a Sampras with "plenty left in the tank" got beaten by a not-ripe
teen Fed. We can only wonder how ugly it would look against mature Fed and
Nadal. Fugly.
In the FO at least we can safely say that Sampras wouldn't have gone
negative in his h2h with either of them.
Iceberg
> ....how many Wimbledons would he have won?
>
> I mean, a Sampras with "plenty left in the tank" got beaten by a not-ripe
> teen Fed. We can only wonder how ugly it would look against mature Fed and
> Nadal. Fugly.
a declining Henman beat Fed next round, peak Henman would've therefore
trashed him.
> In the FO at least we can safely say that Sampras wouldn't have gone
> negative in his h2h with either of them.
Sampras'd have probably won 8 straight Wimbledon's at least, no one of
Kraijcek sv'ing calibre about.
MBDunc
> On Feb 7, 12:14 pm, "felangey" <o...@cloudnine.com> wrote:
>
> > ....how many Wimbledons would he have won?
>
> > I mean, a Sampras with "plenty left in the tank" got beaten by a not-ripe
> > teen Fed. We can only wonder how ugly it would look against mature Fed and
> > Nadal. Fugly.
>
> a declining Henman beat Fed next round, peak Henman would've therefore
> trashed him.
"declining" Henman?
Until 2001 Henman's best rank was #8.
2002 Henman reached #4 and again 2004 he reached #4.
Also Henman's lone Master Serie title is from 2003.
The best slam results Henman had 2004 (2 x SF and 1 x QF)
How you can interpret than Henman 2001 was in decline?
> > In the FO at least we can safely say that Sampras wouldn't have gone
> > negative in his h2h with either of them.
>
> Sampras'd have probably won 8 straight Wimbledon's at least, no one of
> Kraijcek sv'ing calibre about.
After Krajicek Sampras would have had cakewalk draw and miracles would
have needed to prevent his 96 Wimb title....but of course that is
definitely not any quarantee (far from it) that things would have
progressed similarly later with this hypotetical path Sampras+Wimb96
(as there are practically infinite variables along all hypotetical
paths).
.mikko
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>....how many Wimbledons would he have won?
>
>I mean, a Sampras with "plenty left in the tank" got beaten by a not-ripe
>teen Fed. We can only wonder how ugly it would look against mature Fed and
>Nadal. Fugly.
In the 90's grass I think Sampras would have done well. Would have
been some great Sampras - Federer matches. Nadal would have been less
of a factor on that grass.
On current grass, it is an interesting question. This helps Nadal and
would hurt Sampras.
undecided
What does this tell us up Sampras? He was a superior player to Henman
but his ranking was dropping lower than Henman's towards his
retirement in 2002. Pete was basically done with tennis by 2002. New
wife, etc. The fire was not burning anymore. He thought he had
accomplished all he had set out to accomplish and I am sure he did not
think anyone would topple any of his records during his lifetime. I am
convinced that if he knew Fed was coming he would put some extra
effort in his training and in the slams. I don't see why couldn't pick
up an extra USO or Wimby like that. His USO 2002 form was pretty good.
Iceberg
wow, common sense!
Iceberg
you honestly think Sampras would've sat there and not won Wimbledon.
Joe Ramirez
>
> What does this tell us up Sampras? He was a superior player to Henman
> but his ranking was dropping lower than Henman's towards his
> retirement in 2002. Pete was basically done with tennis by 2002. New
> wife, etc. The fire was not burning anymore. He thought he had
> accomplished all he had set out to accomplish and I am sure he did not
> think anyone would topple any of his records during his lifetime. I am
> convinced that if he knew Fed was coming he would put some extra
> effort in his training and in the slams. I don't see why couldn't pick
> up an extra USO or Wimby like that. His USO 2002 form was pretty good.
It's interesting how the standard Sampras apologia has evolved from
Whisper's former favorite, "Old & Past It" -- now deemed too crude and
one-dimensional for nuanced fanboyism -- into a flexible hybrid of
"Couldn't Be Arsed" and "Plenty Left in the Tank." All Pete's losses
after Wimbledon 2000 -- Safin, Federer, Hewitt, Bastl, etc. -- are
simply the result of the fact that Sampras Couldn't Be Arsed. He
didn't care about his matches; "the fire was not burning anymore." Of
course, if Sampras had *wanted* to win more slams, why then he had
Plenty Left in the Tank. Pete thus escapes responsibility for losses
he did have and gains credit for wins he didn't have. The next step is
to construct a Sampras virtual slam count (somewhere in the
neighborhood of 16-17, no doubt) and start touting it as a better
indicator of Pete's level of greatness than his real-world count.
Iceberg
no need for that, it's fairly and obviously evident to anybody
sensible/impartial that if the bar had been set at 18-20, then Sampras
would've got there.
MBDunc
Well anyway peak Sampras was stupid to collect his slams at so slow
pace. It would have been way more fancy and efficient to just go and
collect some good three slam years (may be even all four to speed up
slam count iteration?) rather than be satisfied with miserable 1 or 2
slam years
.mikko
Joe Ramirez
If those are the credentials required, why are you applying for the
position?
Javier González
*WARNING* Full Iceberg detected.
Ali Asoag
> On Feb 7, 12:14 pm, "felangey"<o...@cloudnine.com> wrote:
>> ....how many Wimbledons would he have won?
>>
>> I mean, a Sampras with "plenty left in the tank" got beaten by a not-ripe
>> teen Fed. We can only wonder how ugly it would look against mature Fed and
>> Nadal. Fugly.
>
> a declining Henman beat Fed next round, peak Henman would've therefore
> trashed him.
felangey wrote "not-ripe teen Fed". Calm down. ;-)
>> In the FO at least we can safely say that Sampras wouldn't have gone
>> negative in his h2h with either of them.
Sampras was the best on clay back then because he didn't have a negative
H2H against a top player. ;-)
> Sampras'd have probably won 8 straight Wimbledon's at least, no one of
> Kraijcek sv'ing calibre about.
Illusion.
felangey
Icecube couldn't sink a beer, let alone the good ship Federer. :)
drew
We'll have to take him at his word when he says his game would stand
up in any era.
MY GAME on the other hand would have been sufficient for me to win at
least 20 majors in the 60s,
90s and in the current era. Unfortunately my game was clearly not
suitable when I was in my prime
and as a result I didn't win any majors. In fact I didn't win
anything of any significance. But in other
eras, yes, I woulda coulda done it all. Honest.
Whisper
8 - no way he loses Wimbledon finals to a claycourter who comes to the
net once in 5 hours (eg 2008 final).
Whisper
Possibly 9 - no Goran like in 1992.
felangey
Lol...behave yourself. Calme down....I am not saying he wouldn't get *any*.
He would maybe get a couple on talent....maybe another 1 if Fed's mono and
Nads knee years collided. :)
Iceberg
lol, Fed had mono.
bob
players who won slams during the timeframe sampras won slams:
becker - 6 total
edberg - 6 total
agassi - 8 total
courier - 4 total
bruguera -2 total
kuerten - 3 total
rafter - 2 total
safin - 2 total
(muster, moya, stich, krajicek, korda, ivanisivic, johannson, costa
each 1)
players who won slams during the timeframe that federer won slams:
roddick - 1 total
gaudio - 1 total
safin - 2 total
nadal - 9 total
jdp - 1 total
djok - 2 total
take out nadal and maybe djok and you're left with a pile of serious
stinko.
bob
Ali Asoag
> bob wrote:
>
> players who won slams during the timeframe sampras won slams:
> becker - 6 total
> edberg - 6 total
Are you sure "during timeframe Sampras won slams"? LOL. Becker won 4 of
his 6 before USO 1990 (first slam Sampras won), Edberg: same.
> kuerten - 3 total
Did Sampras really compete with Kuerten? I thought he consistently
failed in early rounds of FO so how could he meet Kuerten? LOL. I
remember how Kuerten both Agassi and Sampras on HC demolished at YEC
2000 (semi and final).
> rafter - 2 total
> safin - 2 total
The best! During Sampras's slam-winning timeframe Safin won 1 slam.
Guess against whom? LOL
The other slam win fell in Fed's timeframe (AO 2005).
> (muster, moya, stich, krajicek, korda, ivanisivic, johannson, costa
> each 1)
I don't bother researching here whether their wins fell in Sampras'
timeframe ...
Summary: Oh, oh, oh, bobbish, what a little liar you are!
> players who won slams during the timeframe that federer won slams:
> roddick - 1 total
> gaudio - 1 total
> safin - 2 total
> nadal - 9 total
> jdp - 1 total
> djok - 2 total
> take out nadal and maybe djok and you're left with a pile of serious
> stinko.
This shows how desperate the Fedhaters are. Twisting facts endlessly.
It's a matter of fact that there can only be as many Slams to distribute
as there are years times 4. And if someone (like Fed) wins the most, the
rest of the players have to be "one-slam-wonders". Simple as that!
John Liang
> bob wrote:
>
> players who won slams during the timeframe sampras won slams:
> becker - 6 total
> edberg - 6 total
> agassi - 8 total
> courier - 4 total
> bruguera -2 total
> kuerten - 3 total
> rafter - 2 total
> safin - 2 total
> (muster, moya, stich, krajicek, korda, ivanisivic, johannson, costa
> each 1)
When Sampras peaked, Edberg, Courier and to some extend Becker stopped
winning grand slams. Becker won 1 AO. Brugera, Muster, Kuerten, Moya
and Costa never had the talent on fast or medium fast surface.
Johannson was a journeyman that got lucky once in his life time won a
slam. The only consistant challenger for Sampras on surface like
grass court and hard court is Agassi and probably Rafter for about two
years.
>
> players who won slams during the timeframe that federer won slams:
> roddick - 1 total
> gaudio - 1 total
> safin - 2 total
> nadal - 9 total
> jdp - 1 total
> djok - 2 total
>
> take out nadal and maybe djok and you're left with a pile of serious
> stinko.
If we take out Agassi and Rafter in Sampras' era there is a bunch of
players who were essentially clay court players that never really that
good on grass and hard court. There were also players like Stich,
Ivo, Korda and Krajicek who had the talent but not the mentality to
become consistant grand slam champions.
>
> bob
Ali Asoag
Read my post, you will see how bobbish lied.
bob
wrote:
>On 2/7/2011 6:22 PM, bob wrote:
>> bob wrote:
>>
>> players who won slams during the timeframe sampras won slams:
>> becker - 6 total
>> edberg - 6 total
>
>Are you sure "during timeframe Sampras won slams"? LOL. Becker won 4 of
>his 6 before USO 1990 (first slam Sampras won), Edberg: same.
>
>> kuerten - 3 total
>
>Did Sampras really compete with Kuerten? I thought he consistently
>failed in early rounds of FO so how could he meet Kuerten? LOL. I
>remember how Kuerten both Agassi and Sampras on HC demolished at YEC
>2000 (semi and final).
>
>> rafter - 2 total
>> safin - 2 total
>
>The best! During Sampras's slam-winning timeframe Safin won 1 slam.
>Guess against whom? LOL
>
>The other slam win fell in Fed's timeframe (AO 2005).
>
>> (muster, moya, stich, krajicek, korda, ivanisivic, johannson, costa
>> each 1)
>
>I don't bother researching here whether their wins fell in Sampras'
>timeframe ...
>
>Summary: Oh, oh, oh, bobbish, what a little liar you are!
i never said they won all their slams at same time as sampras won his,
i said their total slams - i.e. the caliber of player they were.
>> players who won slams during the timeframe that federer won slams:
>> roddick - 1 total
>> gaudio - 1 total
>> safin - 2 total
>> nadal - 9 total
>> jdp - 1 total
>> djok - 2 total
>> take out nadal and maybe djok and you're left with a pile of serious
>> stinko.
>
>This shows how desperate the Fedhaters are. Twisting facts endlessly.
? i'm just showing facts here my friend ali.
bob
bob
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 12:22 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> bob wrote:
>>
>> players who won slams during the timeframe sampras won slams:
>> becker - 6 total
>> edberg - 6 total
>> agassi - 8 total
>> courier - 4 total
>> bruguera -2 total
>> kuerten - 3 total
>> rafter - 2 total
>> safin - 2 total
>> (muster, moya, stich, krajicek, korda, ivanisivic, johannson, costa
>> each 1)
>
>When Sampras peaked, Edberg, Courier and to some extend Becker stopped
>winning grand slams
blah blah blah....how come, they were still very young. blah blah
blah.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 2/7/2011 9:13 PM, John Liang wrote:
you mean how you misinterpreted the post.
bob
Ali Asoag
You said "players who won slams during the timeframe sampras won slams"
then cited the "total number". Too transparent, bobbish, too transparent.
>>> players who won slams during the timeframe that federer won slams:
>>> roddick - 1 total
>>> gaudio - 1 total
>>> safin - 2 total
>>> nadal - 9 total
>>> jdp - 1 total
>>> djok - 2 total
>>> take out nadal and maybe djok and you're left with a pile of serious
>>> stinko.
>>
>> This shows how desperate the Fedhaters are. Twisting facts endlessly.
>
> ? i'm just showing facts here my friend ali.
"Facts" that are none?
Ali Asoag
No, you simply lied. Citing Becker won 6 slams during the timeframe
Sampras won slams is just lying.
Ali Asoag
Give up, bobbish. It's getting ridiculous now for you.
bob
wrote:
no - citing becker was the level of player who who played while
sampras was winning slams, and himself was good enough to win slams in
that time so obviously couldn't be too far past it.
bob
Ali Asoag
Meaning you use "good names" to make Sampras' era up because while those
were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
no longer matching their good name.
Iceberg
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 2/8/2011 4:50 PM, bob wrote:
even though they won slams during that time, as bob said.
bob
i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
and it in itself is startling.
remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
bob
Ali Asoag
Yeah, Becker won 2, Edberg 2 ... during the time Sampras won Slams. But
he cited 6. LOL
Can I also claim Fed playing in same era as Sampras (total 14 Slams!!)
and even beat him? LOL.
Ali Asoag
LOL. Still believes the crap he tapped which had been refuted.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you compared 11 seasons for Pete to 5 seasons for Fed as equal in
sampling... just genius sampling methodology...
How embrassing for you...
P
MBDunc
There were deep problems with your biasanalysis. (for example you
compared Sampras and his all competition with complete record resume
while obviously 2007 Nadal had "only" three slams to that date...and
even Fed had "only" 12...).
> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
Hhow would 70:ies look if we remove Connors / Borg or how would 90:ies
look if we remove Sampras....
Think about it. If we remove Usain Bolt....noone would have missed
anything his caliber for this sprinter era nor his 100m/200m WR.
(noone would have noticed any hypotetical non-Bolt clown era for men's
100m still progressed as Asafa Powell run WR 9.72 2007 and T.Gay has
run 9.69 (2009).
.mikko
.mikko
felangey
> anything his caliber for this sprinter era nor his 100m/200m WR.
> (noone would have noticed any hypotetical non-Bolt clown era for men's
> 100m still progressed as Asafa Powell run WR 9.72 2007 and T.Gay has
> run 9.69 (2009).<
Exactly. Nicely put.
Pelle Svanslös
>
>> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>
> Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
> congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
> Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
> looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
The deficencies in Roddick's and Hewitt's games were well known all
along. Neither were considered advancements in tennis skills. Maybe they
would have won a lot if so, so and so, maybe not. Their games would be
viewed in the same light just the same.
> Hhow would 70:ies look if we remove Connors / Borg or how would 90:ies
> look if we remove Sampras....
>
> Think about it. If we remove Usain Bolt....noone would have missed
> anything his caliber for this sprinter era nor his 100m/200m WR.
> (noone would have noticed any hypotetical non-Bolt clown era for men's
> 100m still progressed as Asafa Powell run WR 9.72 2007 and T.Gay has
> run 9.69 (2009).
I don't know why you're bothering with this crap. You can read the
history of doping from this chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/World_record_progression_100m_men.png
Besides, among close competitors you'd have to assume there are some
dependecies in how things pan out. They push and pull each other. Take
away one, and you can't assume things go the same without. That goes for
their chemists too.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
MBDunc
> MBDunc wrote:
>
> >> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
> >> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>
> > Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
> > congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
> > Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
> > looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
>
> The deficencies in Roddick's and Hewitt's games were well known all
> along. Neither were considered advancements in tennis skills.
Roddick has his serve speed. Hewitt had his back then perfect counter
game. Ugly? yes. Efficient? also yes.
> > Think about it. If we remove Usain Bolt....noone would have missed
> > anything his caliber for this sprinter era nor his 100m/200m WR.
> > (noone would have noticed any hypotetical non-Bolt clown era for men's
> > 100m still progressed as Asafa Powell run WR 9.72 2007 and T.Gay has
> > run 9.69 (2009).
>
> I don't know why you're bothering with this crap. You can read the
> history of doping from this chart:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/World_record_progr...
¨
What I see. 40:ies to early fifties was stagnant (understandable due
to WW2 and lack of two OG's (1940/44))
Mid-60:ies tartan/rubber asphalt replaced clay at running tracks
(-0.1s)
Mexico 68 and high altitude set the records which were able to run
close only high altitudes for 15years. (-0.15s estimate)
Early 90:ies (name tokyo 91) sudden decrease were due to illegal tokyo
WC track (exemption from IAAF as track was too bouncy - explains long
jump WR too).
Then Greene did a good leap 99 (9.79)....
And of course doping applies to all and all eras. IMHO there are no
clean olympic sprinter medalists from 70/80/90:ies (and most of them
have been caught at some level anyway).
> Besides, among close competitors you'd have to assume there are some
> dependecies in how things pan out. They push and pull each other. Take
> away one, and you can't assume things go the same without. That goes for
> their chemists too.
That is partly true.
.mikko
Iceberg
the problem is Fed isn't Usain Bolt, Nadal plays certainly as good,
better usually and so did Sampras and Agassi. It's not like he's
anywhere near Bolt's distance ahead of the competition. You can hark
on all you like, but Canas spent a year getting high on an island,
away from all the media hype and influence and beat him twice in 2
weeks, proving the point. Sampras got it pretty much right the other
day when he said the competition wasn't there, Hewitt couldn't be
bothered much anymore after winning Wimbledon and getting married/
having a kid and as I've repeatedly said/pointed-out, many players
will go all out against likes of Nadal/Murray and then just fold and
literally hand the match over when it comes to Fed. It wasn't like
that when Sampras played.
Iceberg
interesting you guys reckon Bolt is taking stuff, my friend who's into
athletics reckons so too. What about Asafa Powell, isn't he absolutely
against taking anything? and he made a tirade re:this after Justin
Gatlin got banned.
Whisper
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> good on grass and hard court. There were also players like Stich,
>>>>>> Ivo, Korda and Krajicek who had the talent but not the mentality to
>>>>>> become consistant grand slam champions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read my post, you will see how bobbish lied.
>>>>
>>>> you mean how you misinterpreted the post.
>>>
>>> No, you simply lied. Citing Becker won 6 slams during the timeframe
>>> Sampras won slams is just lying.
>>
>> no - citing becker was the level of player who who played while
>> sampras was winning slams, and himself was good enough to win slams in
>> that time so obviously couldn't be too far past it.
>
> Meaning you use "good names" to make Sampras' era up because while those
> were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
> no longer matching their good name.
er, Becker would have won 3 more Wimbledons during Sampras' time if
Sampras wasn't around - maybe 4 more.
Whisper
>>>>> No, you simply lied. Citing Becker won 6 slams during the timeframe
>>>>> Sampras won slams is just lying.
>>>
>>>> no - citing becker was the level of player who who played while
>>>> sampras was winning slams, and himself was good enough to win slams in
>>>> that time so obviously couldn't be too far past it.
>>>
>>> Meaning you use "good names" to make Sampras' era up because while those
>>> were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
>>> no longer matching their good name.
>>
>> even though they won slams during that time, as bob said.
>
> i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
> competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
> was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
> and it in itself is startling.
>
> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>
> bob
Yes, that's why I can't remember any Fed matches aside from the Rafa
ones - which he lost most of, as you say.
Whisper
>>> Meaning you use "good names" to make Sampras' era up because while those
>>> were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
>>> no longer matching their good name.
>>
>> even though they won slams during that time, as bob said.
>
> Yeah, Becker won 2, Edberg 2 ... during the time Sampras won Slams. But
> he cited 6. LOL
>
> Can I also claim Fed playing in same era as Sampras (total 14 Slams!!)
> and even beat him? LOL.
Sampras knocked Becker out of 3 Wimbledons, so Becker woulda been 6, 7
time Wimbledon champ, & all time tier1 great.
Whisper
>>>> Meaning you use "good names" to make Sampras' era up because while
>>>> those
>>>> were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
>>>> no longer matching their good name.
>>>
>>> even though they won slams during that time, as bob said.
>>
>> i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
>> competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
>> was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
>> and it in itself is startling.
>> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>
> LOL. Still believes the crap he tapped which had been refuted.
Links?
I didn't see those posts where this had been refuted.
Like I said Becker would have joined the tier 1 goats if Sampras wasn't
around.
MBDunc
For me there is no 100% clean sport and it is all about getting the
most of the allowed "grey" area and slipping to darker grey and
illegal stuff is too tempting.
Boundaries may vary but for example both Fed/Tiger have gone through
eye laser surgery (for Woods they made his vision extra sharp too if I
recall correctly)...is that doping? Or is woman who gets breast
reduction to boost her sporting career also doping? It is a thin line.
.mikko
MBDunc
Probably true (for me this is easy to admit as a Becker fan). But 3
wimbledons extra? Far fetched.. Agassi is the guy who would ultimately
benefit the most of non-Sampras 90-02.
Hypotetical Becker odds with Samrpas absence:
I think 93 Wimb would have been 75% sure, after all Becker had
Courier's number.
95 Wimb?. Crapshoot with may be Goran in the final. Maybe 60-40 to
Becker.
1997. Most probably no. Becker did not play that good at any stage of
tournament. May be 20% chance at most?
So rough calculations: 0,75x0.60x0,20 = 9%, not that great odds for
three extra wimbs for Becker, but a reasonable bet is 1-2 more.
.mikko
Whisper
What about 1996 when if he didn't break his wrist?
Doubt Krajicek woulda beaten both Sampras & Becker in same Wimbledon -
too much experience.
MBDunc
IMHO without wrist injury Becker would have won Wimb 96 even if he
have had to face Sampras.
.mikko
Iceberg
Becker also said that he could still beat anyone at Wimbledon, except
Sampras.
Whisper
>> too much experience.-
>
> IMHO without wrist injury Becker would have won Wimb 96 even if he
> have had to face Sampras.
>
> .mikko
Hmm maybe. Sampras was a little flat that yr.
Sakari Lund
>i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
>competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
>was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
>and it in itself is startling.
>
>remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
Was that the analysis that players in the Fed era didn't win many
slams? As explained million times, that is circular reasoning that in
itself doesn't explain anything. It can just as well mean he was so
good that nobody else couldn't win them. Or he could have given a few
to others to make it look like a tougher era.
So since that doesn't prove anything, all you have is your subjective
opinions of the players.
Pelle Svanslös
> On 11 helmi, 12:20, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>
>>>> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>>>> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>>> Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
>>> congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
>>> Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
>>> looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
>> The deficencies in Roddick's and Hewitt's games were well known all
>> along. Neither were considered advancements in tennis skills.
>
> Roddick has his serve speed.
Too bad even this was negated by the items in the endless list of
deficencies. They are so well known, I don't think I have to re-type them.
> Hewitt had his back then perfect counter
> game. Ugly? yes. Efficient? also yes.
Efficient? Put him on clay, the harbinger of things to come for him, and
the efficiency would be gone. No put-away, all legs. Later, it would be
the same on HCs also.
Against a given opponent on a give surface on a given day, he was
"efficient" for a while.
>>> Think about it. If we remove Usain Bolt....noone would have missed
>>> anything his caliber for this sprinter era nor his 100m/200m WR.
>>> (noone would have noticed any hypotetical non-Bolt clown era for men's
>>> 100m still progressed as Asafa Powell run WR 9.72 2007 and T.Gay has
>>> run 9.69 (2009).
>> I don't know why you're bothering with this crap. You can read the
>> history of doping from this chart:
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/World_record_progr...
> ¨
> What I see. 40:ies to early fifties was stagnant (understandable due
> to WW2 and lack of two OG's (1940/44))
> Mid-60:ies tartan/rubber asphalt replaced clay at running tracks
> (-0.1s)
> Mexico 68 and high altitude set the records which were able to run
> close only high altitudes for 15years. (-0.15s estimate)
> Early 90:ies (name tokyo 91) sudden decrease were due to illegal tokyo
> WC track (exemption from IAAF as track was too bouncy - explains long
> jump WR too).
> Then Greene did a good leap 99 (9.79)....
>
> And of course doping applies to all and all eras.
Not uniformly of course.
If you draw a straight line through the crosses there's a change of
direction with the curve in 1990. That corresponds too well with the
arrival of EPO.
> IMHO there are no
> clean olympic sprinter medalists from 70/80/90:ies (and most of them
> have been caught at some level anyway).
At some level, sure. Not necessarily in competition testing though.
Jones was clean in Sydney.
The 100m dash is probably the worst example you could pick as an example
how competition works. It's impossible to separate drugs from results
and as a sport, it's so far removed from tennis it boggles the mind.
AliAsoag
Read my posts responding to him. But, I admit he (and you) will never
comprehend that (as usual) ...
> Like I said Becker would have joined the tier 1 goats if Sampras wasn't
> around.
Like Roddick would have joined the elite group hadn't Fed been around?
Coulda woulda crap again.
Look, he cited Becker (and Edberg) won 6 slams during Sampras" slam
winning time to say Sampras' era was tough. I refuted saying nope,
it's been only 2. That simply means that when Sampras started winning
slams, Becker (and Edberg) were no longer the men they were before.
Thus the reputation based on the past of a player doen't necessarily
give you the guarantee that this player continues playing the same
(excellent) game forever. Otherwise you should admit that (baby) Fed
beat still-peak Sampras at Wimby 2001 (because Sampras = 13? at that
time!!) and also that Fed played in the same era as Sampras.
It's like (I am exaggerating a bit now) you look back somewhen in the
future saying "Wow, I (Whisper) was playing tennis in the same era as
Sampras, Federer, Borg and so forth". Wouldn't that sound ridiculous?
AliAsoag
Coulda woulda crap again, as usual. Rarely heard facts from you,
merely coulda woulda shoulda. Poor Whisper, you.
CloudsRest
Were they all finals? Did Becker ever take the game seriously? From
what I see, no consistency or true commitment.
bob
the fact they were able to even win a slam tells me they were still
themselves. just that sampras raised the bar.
>Thus the reputation based on the past of a player doen't necessarily
>give you the guarantee that this player continues playing the same
>(excellent) game forever. Otherwise you should admit that (baby) Fed
>beat still-peak Sampras at Wimby 2001 (because Sampras = 13? at that
>time!!) and also that Fed played in the same era as Sampras.
sampras' situation in 01 and even early 02 is well documented.
>It's like (I am exaggerating a bit now) you look back somewhen in the
>future saying "Wow, I (Whisper) was playing tennis in the same era as
>Sampras, Federer, Borg and so forth". Wouldn't that sound ridiculous?
all the guy who were still winning slams when sampras was winning
slams - just read that list. and then read the fed list. amazing.
bob
bob
i said this many times but i'll repeat it once more just for you: for
the slam count of those guys i listed for both cases and look at their
GAMES. open your eyes and look at the GAMES. then tell me again.
see, you're a numbers guy when you wanna be, but an analyst when you
wanna be too.
bob
bob
wrote:
>MBDunc wrote:
>>
>>> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>>> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>>
>> Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
>> congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
>> Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
>> looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
>
>The deficencies in Roddick's and Hewitt's games were well known all
>along. Neither were considered advancements in tennis skills. Maybe they
>would have won a lot if so, so and so, maybe not. Their games would be
>viewed in the same light just the same.
OMG- BINGO. give the man a cigar. same as i've been saying all along.
maybe roddick or hewitt, as is, wins 12 slams if fed/nadal and a
couple others gets hurt or neve born - but does it make him sampras or
borg or mcenroe? of course not.
i'm literally begging the mikko's of the world to use their friggin
eyes and brain as opposed to counting 1+1+1=3.
bob
bob
<sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:31:37 -0500, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
>>competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
>>was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
>>and it in itself is startling.
>>
>>remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>>the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>
>Was that the analysis that players in the Fed era didn't win many
>slams?
last time- it's not about the slam count, it's about their games. last
time now.
bob
bob
wrote:
>Yeah, Becker won 2, Edberg 2 ... during the time Sampras won Slams. But
>he cited 6. LOL
>
>Can I also claim Fed playing in same era as Sampras (total 14 Slams!!)
>and even beat him? LOL.
i'm talking about people who won slams, both overlapping. federer
hadn't won a slam by 2001.
bob
bob
wrote:
plus becker aside, look at the rest of the list. agassi would've won
10 slams easy, and other guys overlapping slams with pete in that list
are nothing to sneeze at.
bob
bob
you really are one dumb sonovagun.
wat the post proves is a guy (many guys actually) capable of multiple
slams, multiple wimbledons, and winning slams during sampras timeframe
to prove his/their game was at high level, was pete's competition en
route to his 14 slams.
bob
Joe Ramirez
How about using one's eyes and brain to come up with "Sampras on
steroids"? Where were your exasperated denunciations of Roddick's
patent, crippling defects when that verdict was pronounced? 'Cause you
knew the truth "all along," right?
MBDunc
You did not find anything wrong 2001-2003 when Hewitt/Roddick were
year-end #1:s. Instead you praised the era and Roddick's game
especially.
Looking at Borg's game every expert said (before 76) that he has no
business in winning Wimbledon.
Someone like Bollittieri said that he eats his hat if Bruguera ever
wins a slam again (after he def Courier FO 93, Bollittieri called it
the flukest of all slam wins).
It is not that easy especially if nostalgic non-sense, Fed hate,
Sampras fanboyism and "eyecandy over results" -attitude blurr the mind
and vision.
.mikko
Sakari Lund
Like I said, your subjective opinion about their games.
CloudsRest
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:18:34 +0200, Sakari Lund
>
> >On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:31:37 -0500, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
> >>competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
> >>was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
> >>and it in itself is startling.
>
> >>remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
> >>the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>
> >Was that the analysis that players in the Fed era didn't win many
> >slams?
>
> last time- it's not about the slam count, it's about their games. last
> time now.
>
> bob
Then why did you just post something specifically about "slam count?"
What was so special about "their games" during Sampras era? What has
been wrong with "their games" during Federer era, other than they
yielded results that made Whisper look bad?
If Sampras played now instead of Federer, he would have roughly same
about of success he had in 90s. Likely less because defense and
return games are so much better. No French for sure, maybe 1 Oz. 3
US, 5 Wimbledon.
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Feb 11, 5:49 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:20:37 +0100, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> >>> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>> >>> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>>
>> >> Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
>> >> congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
>> >> Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
>> >> looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
>>
>> >The deficencies in Roddick's and Hewitt's games were well known all
>> >along. Neither were considered advancements in tennis skills. Maybe they
>> >would have won a lot if so, so and so, maybe not. Their games would be
>> >viewed in the same light just the same.
>>
>> OMG- BINGO. give the man a cigar. same as i've been saying all along.
>> maybe roddick or hewitt, as is, wins 12 slams if fed/nadal and a
>> couple others gets hurt or neve born - but does it make him sampras or
>> borg or mcenroe? of course not.
>>
>> i'm literally begging the mikko's of the world to use their friggin
>> eyes and brain as opposed to counting 1+1+1=3.
>
>How about using one's eyes and brain to come up with "Sampras on
>steroids"?
how many times we gonna beat the 'sampras on roids' post? at the time,
that post was talking potential - potential that was never lived up
to. who knew in 02 the guy hated to practice and the daily grind.
how bout we talk about what is and what was. roddick never improved
some serious flaws in his game, hewitt has obvious shortcomings in
talent and size/strength/athleticism (though he made good with his
limited capability).
> Where were your exasperated denunciations of Roddick's
>patent, crippling defects when that verdict was pronounced? 'Cause you
>knew the truth "all along," right?
i knew it the yr i had dinner with him and talking to people who
worked with him about it. i don't remember the date now, i dont'
record it all like you guys do.
bob
bob
i praised roddick's potential after i watched him VS agassi in DC
around 99 or 2000. he hit very hard and controlled pts VS agassi, but
had no consistency. i saw POTENTIAL - as of then undeveloped.
btw, how come nobody ever mentions that whisper also saw POTENTIAL in
nadal before he won a tournament????
>Looking at Borg's game every expert said (before 76) that he has no
>business in winning Wimbledon.
IMO, if he played mcenroe, becker or sampras at their peaks, borg wins
very few wimbledons if any.
>Someone like Bollittieri said that he eats his hat if Bruguera ever
>wins a slam again (after he def Courier FO 93, Bollittieri called it
>the flukest of all slam wins).
bolletieri had reasons for stuff i bet too.
>It is not that easy especially if nostalgic non-sense, Fed hate,
>Sampras fanboyism and "eyecandy over results" -attitude blurr the mind
>and vision.
once again - look at their games. just analyze the games.
bob
bob
<spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 11, 2:51 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:18:34 +0200, Sakari Lund
>>
>> <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:31:37 -0500, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>i posted a couple yrs ago an in depth analysis of the sampras
>> >>competition from 1990-2000 and the fed competition from 2003-2007. it
>> >>was startling. this last post is just a tiny tidbit of that evidence,
>> >>and it in itself is startling.
>>
>> >>remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>> >>the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>>
>> >Was that the analysis that players in the Fed era didn't win many
>> >slams?
>>
>> last time- it's not about the slam count, it's about their games. last
>> time now.
>>
>> bob
>
>Then why did you just post something specifically about "slam count?"
>What was so special about "their games" during Sampras era? What has
>been wrong with "their games" during Federer era, other than they
>yielded results that made Whisper look bad?
the results were bad, fine, but the games were horrendous.
>If Sampras played now instead of Federer, he would have roughly same
>about of success he had in 90s. Likely less because defense and
>return games are so much better. No French for sure, maybe 1 Oz. 3
>US, 5 Wimbledon.
if sampras played from 03-11 he'd win many Wim/USO, as before, no FO,
agreed. of course that's nothing to do with the post.
bob
Ali Asoag
OK. You just admitted Sampras was in 2001 still himself because he was
still able to win USO one year later. LOL. Baby Fed beat peak Sampras at
Wimbledon. Nobody Kraijek beat peak Sampras at Wimbledon. Domination is
something different ...
>> Thus the reputation based on the past of a player doen't necessarily
>> give you the guarantee that this player continues playing the same
>> (excellent) game forever. Otherwise you should admit that (baby) Fed
>> beat still-peak Sampras at Wimby 2001 (because Sampras = 13? at that
>> time!!) and also that Fed played in the same era as Sampras.
>
> sampras' situation in 01 and even early 02 is well documented.
Yeah, still himself as you described above.
>> It's like (I am exaggerating a bit now) you look back somewhen in the
>> future saying "Wow, I (Whisper) was playing tennis in the same era as
>> Sampras, Federer, Borg and so forth". Wouldn't that sound ridiculous?
>
> all the guy who were still winning slams when sampras was winning
> slams - just read that list. and then read the fed list. amazing.
Yeah, Sampras still winning slams as baby Fed beat him. Thanks.
Ali Asoag
> On 11/02/2011 3:44 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> Meaning you use "good names" to make Sampras' era up because while
>>>> those
>>>> were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
>>>> no longer matching their good name.
>>>
>>> even though they won slams during that time, as bob said.
>>
>> he cited 6. LOL
>>
>> Can I also claim Fed playing in same era as Sampras (total 14 Slams!!)
>> and even beat him? LOL.
>
>
> time Wimbledon champ, & all time tier1 great.
That did not answer my question.
Ali Asoag
... but already beat someone who was king of Wimbledon and still winning
slams. LOL
Ali Asoag
As I know you like lying: Links?
Ali Asoag
Woulda coulda crap proves nothing. Period.
Whisper
So Fed wouldn't have won more slams if Rafa wasn't around? Maybe even 2
calendar slams?
Nah - must be more coulda/woulda crap.
Whisper
Asioag now says Fed would still have 16 slams today if Rafa wasn't
around, as coulda/woulda is null & void.
Whisper
Probably the same guys who had Agassi as fave over Sampras at USO?
Whisper
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:56:57 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 11, 5:49 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> remove nadal (who beats fed regularly) and the guys winning slams in
>>>>>> the fed era are really bad players historically speaking.
>>>
>>>>> Noone would have questioned it. Flat earth society would have
>>>>> congrulated themselves with their correct Roddick prediction.
>>>>> Roddick / Hewitt would have remained #1/#2 switching places as like it
>>>>> looked like it will go on 2002-2003 around.
>>>
>>>> The deficencies in Roddick's and Hewitt's games were well known all
>>>> along. Neither were considered advancements in tennis skills. Maybe they
>>>> would have won a lot if so, so and so, maybe not. Their games would be
>>>> viewed in the same light just the same.
>>>
>>> OMG- BINGO. give the man a cigar. same as i've been saying all along.
>>> maybe roddick or hewitt, as is, wins 12 slams if fed/nadal and a
>>> couple others gets hurt or neve born - but does it make him sampras or
>>> borg or mcenroe? of course not.
>>>
>>> i'm literally begging the mikko's of the world to use their friggin
>>> eyes and brain as opposed to counting 1+1+1=3.
>>
>> How about using one's eyes and brain to come up with "Sampras on
>> steroids"?
>
> how many times we gonna beat the 'sampras on roids' post? at the time,
> that post was talking potential - potential that was never lived up
> to. who knew in 02 the guy hated to practice and the daily grind.
>
I've already explained this many times but not surprising rst can't
comprehend.
'Sampras on steroids' related to Roddick's compulsiveness on the court -
ie trying to play like Sampras on steroids by hitting huge
serves/forehands. I have never once said that Roddick could beat
Sampras or was better in any way. I lamented the state of the game
post-Sampras as the field quality looked pretty dire, & that's why I
said Roddick would win between 5 & 12 slams. It looks like he'd be on 7
or 8 by now if Federer wasn't around.
The rest of it is all made up stuff that keeps rst cretins amused during
off season. Not the sharpest bunch in this ng.
Whisper
>>>>> those
>>>>> were really good names, their performance - during Sampras' time - was
>>>>> no longer matching their good name.
>>>>
>>>> even though they won slams during that time, as bob said.
>>>
>>> Yeah, Becker won 2, Edberg 2 ... during the time Sampras won Slams. But
>>> he cited 6. LOL
>>>
>>> Can I also claim Fed playing in same era as Sampras (total 14 Slams!!)
>>> and even beat him? LOL.
>>
>> i'm talking about people who won slams, both overlapping. federer
>> hadn't won a slam by 2001.
>
> ... but already beat someone who was king of Wimbledon and still winning
> slams. LOL
Not only was he not winning slams but couldn't win any tournament at all
for 2 years.
Whisper
Straight from Becker's mouth;
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T388I1SX
Be sure to apologize to bob, else you'll have less cred.
MBDunc
> i praised roddick's potential after i watched him VS agassi in DC
> around 99 or 2000. he hit very hard and controlled pts VS agassi, but
> had no consistency. i saw POTENTIAL - as of then undeveloped.
Final time (this might get too complicated for you but...)
1) If the era is the deepest ever (as you and whisper claimed
2001-2003 and even early part of 2004) where dominating sampras-like
is next to impossible anymore) -> a lot of links via dejanews
available.
2a) -> how come you then predict /young) Roddick to win big straight
from the start and actually cheer for his win and praise his game (A
LOT) if you knew that Roddick will have to do / did it at the most
deepest era ever ...(see #1 and your claims - a lot of links via
dejanews available) => really....how good you thought Roddick would/
should/will be if he already got #1 and a slam during the deepest,
strongest and most competitive era ever?
2b) because if Roddick is "just" potential...he really should have had
no business in your regular "tier1" r.s.t preditictions (as you both
had roddick as the biggest fast court slam favourite
2003-2004...whisper even gave roddick 50/50 odds that he wins FO) -
again all of this during the most competitive/deepest era ever (which
of course retrospectively after 2005 wimb got dropped as a new dogma
applicable to carefully selected era emerged ):
3) ...and again: you never saw anything wrong back 2001-2003, if you
are that good analyst....you had many seasons to notice the
problem...but it did not happen because....?
4) ...I just remember, call it a blessing or a curse. ;)
.mikko
> btw, how come nobody ever mentions that whisper also saw POTENTIAL in
> nadal before he won a tournament????
Whisper tipped Nadal to win FO 2004 so it was clearly not about
potential but actual play back then. (I remember that whisper praised
Nadal already 2003....tipping Nadal to win FO 2004 (Nadal then
skipped)...I found that a bit strange especially when Whisper had
predicted Ferrero to have borg-like FO domination a year before -
whisper homehow really wrote a lot of positive stuff about ferreror
2001-2003).
No it was not about potential, but actual play. Do do not actually
remember anythings what you have written here for years 2001-2004?
> once again - look at their games. just analyze the games.
>
> bob
Why bother. Because I have done it in the past and you have either run
away off the thread or just have not understood the analysis (usually
including more complicated things like 1+1 = 2):
Maybe then when you do your homework first. I help and give some
tips:
a) study whole matchup issue in tennis. this is smt. I fail to
understand how come someones so deep fans of tennis just do not get.
b) knowing other (non-team) sports helps a lot, gives more
perspective.
c) hypocricy, lies and lack of actual tennis knowledge gets caught too
easily. What would be a cure, I wonder?
d) whatabout doing some research how conditions of men's tennis have
changed since 90:ies (general shift towards to more and more slower
conditions).
.mikko
CloudsRest
> On 12/02/2011 12:09 PM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:56:57 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
Liar sums it up perfectly.
bob
wrote:
>On 12/02/2011 12:09 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:56:57 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>> <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 5:49 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:20:37 +0100, Pelle Svanslös<pe...@svans.los>
yeah, and i'm tired of beating the obvious point that roddick probably
would've won many slams if not for fed is in fact proof of a pretty
sad level of top 5.
roddick is roddick - whether he won 10 slams or 1 - his game is what
it is. same for hewitt. the rst mantra that if fed or rafa weren't
around, and roddick won 8 slams somehow he'd be 'better'. no, not
better, just better record - same lousy BH, same game.
bob
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>On 12 helmi, 03:14, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> i praised roddick's potential after i watched him VS agassi in DC
>> around 99 or 2000. he hit very hard and controlled pts VS agassi, but
>> had no consistency. i saw POTENTIAL - as of then undeveloped.
>
>Final time (this might get too complicated for you but...)
probably you outthought yourself again. :-)
>1) If the era is the deepest ever (as you and whisper claimed
>2001-2003 and even early part of 2004) where dominating sampras-like
>is next to impossible anymore) -> a lot of links via dejanews
>available.
deep as in #2-100. NOT #2-4. i know you're gonna have a hard time with
this, unfortunately.
>2a) -> how come you then predict /young) Roddick to win big straight
>from the start and actually cheer for his win and praise his game (A
>LOT) if you knew that Roddick will have to do / did it at the most
>deepest era ever ...(see #1 and your claims - a lot of links via
>dejanews available) => really....how good you thought Roddick would/
>should/will be if he already got #1 and a slam during the deepest,
>strongest and most competitive era ever?
i once thought roddick would be the next best american player after
watching him VS agassi in D.C. around 99, but he lost something like 4
and 4, but controlled play, and was very young, big and athletic. so i
said, 'hey this guy has a lot of potential'.
>2b) because if Roddick is "just" potential...he really should have had
>no business in your regular "tier1" r.s.t preditictions (as you both
>had roddick as the biggest fast court slam favourite
>2003-2004...whisper even gave roddick 50/50 odds that he wins FO) -
>again all of this during the most competitive/deepest era ever (which
>of course retrospectively after 2005 wimb got dropped as a new dogma
>applicable to carefully selected era emerged ):
but whisper said rafa had potential before he ever won an slam and
nobody mentions it? why can't anybody say somebody might be tier I one
day based on potential?
>3) ...and again: you never saw anything wrong back 2001-2003, if you
>are that good analyst....you had many seasons to notice the
>problem...but it did not happen because....?
i never saw it in 1999-2001 or 2002 because he was still young. what
if we looked at 21 yr old fed?
>
>4) ...I just remember, call it a blessing or a curse. ;)
remember my arse. you make it up.
>> btw, how come nobody ever mentions that whisper also saw POTENTIAL in
>> nadal before he won a tournament????
>
>Whisper tipped Nadal to win FO 2004 so it was clearly not about
>potential but actual play back then. (I remember that whisper praised
>Nadal already 2003....tipping Nadal to win FO 2004 (Nadal then
>skipped)...I found that a bit strange especially when Whisper had
>predicted Ferrero to have borg-like FO domination a year before -
>whisper homehow really wrote a lot of positive stuff about ferreror
>2001-2003).
>No it was not about potential, but actual play. Do do not actually
>remember anythings what you have written here for years 2001-2004?
actual play? *before he made slam QF*? are you kidding me? please.
>> once again - look at their games. just analyze the games.
>>
>> bob
>
>Why bother. Because I have done it in the past and you have either run
>away off the thread or just have not understood the analysis (usually
>including more complicated things like 1+1 = 2):
no - you are defining how good a player is *as a fact* based on his
results solely. i am combining both his results *and* his game (VS his
competition) as viewed by my eyes and experience - and sure, my
opinion. but just using his results is fine - but often wrong.
>Maybe then when you do your homework first. I help and give some
>tips:
>a) study whole matchup issue in tennis. this is smt. I fail to
>understand how come someones so deep fans of tennis just do not get.
like joe's debunked multispinner? lol. i do study matchup issues,
pretty deeply too. and laugh at teh generalities of joe's multispinner
VS topspinner VS flat hitter.
>b) knowing other (non-team) sports helps a lot, gives more
>perspective.
>c) hypocricy, lies and lack of actual tennis knowledge gets caught too
>easily. What would be a cure, I wonder?
i don't know the cure, but i'd give you some if i could find it.
bob
bob
wrote:
we have these options:
- rafa was born 5 yrs later and fed retires with 20 slams (maybe more
cause confidence never takes a hit).
-rafa was born 5 yrs earlier and fed retiers with 8 (where rafa had
sore knees). :-)
-fed was born 5 or 10 or 20 yrs earlier and plays during a real era
and wins about 6-8.
bob
MBDunc
> deep as in #2-100. NOT #2-4. i know you're gonna have a hard time with
> this, unfortunately.
because #2-#100 is way more deciding factor as at slams you play first
4-5 matches always against the field, not top players. (Hell...sampras
even won 3 wimbs 97,98,00 without meeting anyone in top15).
> i once thought roddick would be the next best american player after
> watching him VS agassi in D.C. around 99, but he lost something like 4
> and 4, but controlled play, and was very young, big and athletic. so i
> said, 'hey this guy has a lot of potential'.
Roddick got to #1 and won a slam. So he fulfilled his potential better
than 99% of ranked tennis players.
> i never saw it in 1999-2001 or 2002 because he was still young. what
> if we looked at 21 yr old fed?
That is where you use hypocricy: Roddick / Fed / Hewitt are same aged.
Yet for Hewitt his *peak* must already been established 2000 (but long
gone after he turned 23y), for Roddick it apparently never realized
and for Fed is totally different animal : always at his peak year
after year and any hiccup is a mark of this actual mediocrity rather
than having a normal "bad day at the office"...
> remember my arse. you make it up.
You know well that I won't make up stuff. And at all those occasions I
have misquoted/misremembered I have always been first to say "sorry".
> >No it was not about potential, but actual play. Do do not actually
> >remember anythings what you have written here for years 2001-2004?
>
> actual play? *before he made slam QF*? are you kidding me? please.
OK. Enlight us about that "efficient, powerful and result providing"
actual play. Who has it now? Who has it 90:ies? Who has it 80:ies?.
> no - you are defining how good a player is *as a fact* based on his
> results solely.
Results are objective metrics. for subjective metrics there is tons of
irrelevant data for to analyse.
As tennis remains non-measurable sport, we only have successes
(titles, rankings etc) to compare.
.mikko
Vari L. Cinicke
So Whispabob have gone from "Only results matter" when Sampras has the
most slam titles to "Results are irrelevant" now that Federer has the
most slams. Color me surprised? NOT!
They are really, really sore losers and not worth the time. At least, if
they were remotely honest in their posts, I could see a reason to engage
them.
But more power to you for continuing to take them apart regularly. Guess
they really like that since they still ply their nonsense on rst to be
dismantled.
--
Cheers,
vc
felangey
> and wins about 6-8<
Who was he losing to so that he only had 6-8? Not Sampras...he handled him
pretty well as a pup on Sampras home turf. It woulda got ugly on HC and
Clay.
Dream on my sad, lying, twisting little man. =)
Iceberg
> >fed was born 5 or 10 or 20 yrs earlier and plays during a real era
> > and wins about 6-8<
>
> Who was he losing to so that he only had 6-8? Not Sampras...he handled him
> pretty well as a pup on Sampras home turf. It woulda got ugly on HC and
> Clay.
Henman kicked him to pieces, if we factor that in I'd say he'd be on 5
maybe.
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>On 12 helmi, 16:56, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> deep as in #2-100. NOT #2-4. i know you're gonna have a hard time with
>> this, unfortunately.
>
>because #2-#100 is way more deciding factor as at slams you play first
>4-5 matches always against the field, not top players. (Hell...sampras
>even won 3 wimbs 97,98,00 without meeting anyone in top15).
think of 2-4 are almost your level, but 5-100 way below VS 2-100 all
'substantially' below. that means 2-4 you might lose frequently, where
5-100 you win every time VS 2-100 you win nearly every time.
>> i once thought roddick would be the next best american player after
>> watching him VS agassi in D.C. around 99, but he lost something like 4
>> and 4, but controlled play, and was very young, big and athletic. so i
>> said, 'hey this guy has a lot of potential'.
>
>Roddick got to #1 and won a slam. So he fulfilled his potential better
>than 99% of ranked tennis players.
he didn't fill his own potential,no way.
>> i never saw it in 1999-2001 or 2002 because he was still young. what
>> if we looked at 21 yr old fed?
>
>That is where you use hypocricy: Roddick / Fed / Hewitt are same aged.
and like you remind me a thousand times, players can peak at different
ages. i think you once told me becker peaked at 17.
>Yet for Hewitt his *peak* must already been established 2000 (but long
>gone after he turned 23y), for Roddick it apparently never realized
>and for Fed is totally different animal : always at his peak year
>after year and any hiccup is a mark of this actual mediocrity rather
>than having a normal "bad day at the office"...
why are you overanalyzing the simple statement that when i first saw
roddick, around 99 or 2000, i thought he had potential, then learned
something about his personalty and changed my mind? all the while
federer rising like a rocketship in 2003 - 2007 VS a field with no top
5 competitors?
>> remember my arse. you make it up.
>
>You know well that I won't make up stuff. And at all those occasions I
>have misquoted/misremembered I have always been first to say "sorry".
>
>> >No it was not about potential, but actual play. Do do not actually
>> >remember anythings what you have written here for years 2001-2004?
>>
>> actual play? *before he made slam QF*? are you kidding me? please.
>
>OK. Enlight us about that "efficient, powerful and result providing"
>actual play. Who has it now? Who has it 90:ies? Who has it 80:ies?.
you're off topic - i simply stated that whisper touted rafa before he
won a slam (or probably made a slam QF) as a future multi slammer. and
he touted rafa harder than anybody else by big margin. yet we hear
'sampras on roids' daily. please.
>> no - you are defining how good a player is *as a fact* based on his
>> results solely.
>
>Results are objective metrics. for subjective metrics there is tons of
>irrelevant data for to analyse.
of course they're objective numbers. but if you can't see past those,
i can't help you. we'll never come close to the same side of this
argument. you better get ready to suck on graf's 21 slams and never
question a 1 of them then. and calling my a hypocrite. shame!
> As tennis remains non-measurable sport, we only have successes
>(titles, rankings etc) to compare.
not a chance - we have our eyeballs and knowledge of the game to
witness what we are watching. if you know nothing about tennis, only
statistics, then yes, you have only titles to compare.
bob
bob
wrote:
he wwasn't losing to anybody - he wasn't playing, he was a young
child. bad post felange.
bob
felangey
Exactly. Now shut up please.
Thank you. :)
CloudsRest
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:33:36 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
Oh really? I'm sure your opinion would remain if someone you liked
was winning instead. Please.
>
> you're off topic - i simply stated that whisper touted rafa before he
> won a slam (or probably made a slam QF) as a future multi slammer. and
> he touted rafa harder than anybody else by big margin. yet we hear
> 'sampras on roids' daily. please.
>
This must be a lie. If Nadal was touted even 1% as much, there's
simply no way someone like Whisper wouldn't be reminding everyone of
this daily. 2000 posts for Roddick's world domination, 2 for Nadal
(most likely for winning French) is probably much closer to the truth.
jdeluise
On 12-Feb-2011, CloudsRest <spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This must be a lie. If Nadal was touted even 1% as much, there's
> simply no way someone like Whisper wouldn't be reminding everyone of
> this daily. 2000 posts for Roddick's world domination, 2 for Nadal
> (most likely for winning French) is probably much closer to the truth.
It doesn't really matter, even ocean is right once in a while.
CloudsRest
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 20:42:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 12/02/2011 12:09 PM, bob wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:56:57 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
You should be tired of all that spinning & lying in order to cover up
all those mistakes. You might feel better by telling the truth.
Vari L. Cinicke
Whisper in July 2003 in a thread where others praised Nadal's potential:
"Haven't seen much of him, but looks like a top tenner for sure.... "
Whisper in August 2003 in a thread on "Nadal's the real deal" started by
H. Holbrook:
"I've only seen 5 minutes of him, but he could win FO next yr..... "
H. Holbrook was very gung-ho on then 17 year old Nadal.
There were several different people who were raving about Nadal on rst
at that time. But Whisper was not among them.
So wee bob's claims are just the usual bullshit and more of his whisper
worship. Not reality based at all.
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
While I am wasting time digging through old rst, here is another snippet
of wisdom from Whisper on career slam totals for some prospects:
>> > Roger Federer (1) - 7
>
> 2
>> > Andy Roddick (0) - 3
>
> 9
>
>> Nadal - 4
>
> 2
>
So Whisper thought that Roddick would win more than 2 times the career
slams of Federer and Nadal put together.
Genius! :D
--
Cheers,
vc
