Nadal, Federer, Sampras

[arahim]

Among these three on clay
Nadal > Federer >> Sampras

On HC
Federer >> Nadal
Sampras >> Nadal

On Grass
Federer >> Nadal
Sampras >> Nadal

On the results up to now since two players are still active.
Discuss.

[moduli]

>> suggest "far superior".


What I would love to see is 10 matches played on various surfaces,
best of five, the winner of the series
gets a couple of mil. That would settle it ;-)

[Iceberg]

Sampras would win, if he could be bothered.

[Ulysses]

You forgot:

Grass: Sampras > Federer (their one meeting doesn't determine the
whole equation).

There is no way Sampras would EVER have lost to Nadal on grass. Nadal
would never have gotten a single set off Pete on Wimbledon grass.

[moduli]

Even on today's grass? I suspect you're right if it were on pre 2002--the year
Hewitt and Nalby got to the final.

[Iceberg]

On May 4, 8:24 pm, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

he was pretty much retired after W2000, he'd done what he wanted to
do. A peak un-retired Sampras would serve volley the lights out of
modern guys.

[moduli]

Provided they don't return well-enough sure. Sampras would have to improve
his baseline game in today's environment...use great approach shots to finish
points off at the net. Sadly we won't see anytime soon.

[TT]

Well Nadal seems to be better than Federer on clay, grass and hard,
after 2007.

[arahim]

No one will even consider Nadal yet at the Edberg, Becker level for
non-clay. Everyone has a before and since and sometimes in the
middle:) Since 2011 Djokovic seems to be better than Nadal on clay,
grass and hard.

[wkhedr]

You judge players based on how you saw them playing in their times but
the reality is players adjust their games based on the competition
they have and the style they face.

[TT]

5.5.2012 2:16, arahim kirjoitti:
> On May 4, 4:06 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 4.5.2012 20:22, arahim kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Among these three on clay
>>> Nadal> Federer>> Sampras
>>
>>> On HC
>>> Federer>> Nadal
>>> Sampras>> Nadal
>>
>>> On Grass
>>> Federer>> Nadal
>>> Sampras>> Nadal
>>
>>> On the results up to now since two players are still active.
>>> Discuss.
>>
>> Well Nadal seems to be better than Federer on clay, grass and hard,
>> after 2007.
>
> No one will even consider Nadal yet at the Edberg, Becker level for
> non-clay.

Actually Nadal has done better at Wimbledon than Edberg.

> Everyone has a before and since and sometimes in the
> middle:) Since 2011 Djokovic seems to be better than Nadal on clay,
> grass and hard.

Arnab?

You certainly seem like an uninhibited troll.

[Whisper]

That would be great wouldn't it.

Sampras would win all the grass & HC matches as he'd be up for it.

[Scott]

I love qualifiers like "after 2007." How about if we add: "...and in
the dark."

[Ulysses]

"You judge players based on how you saw them playing in their times."

And how is anyone supposed to judge them? It is an impossibility to
judge ANY play except "during their times" when they played! I'm
supposed to judge Bill Tilden by how he could have played in 2001,
when he's dead?

My point was clear: Sampras with 1990's technology and with his exact
game as it existed then, would beat any incarnation of Rafael Nadal on
grass. I don't care if Nadal has the Babolat strings and the spin. He
wouldn't return Pete's serve often and if he did, Sampras would have
the put-away volley. Nadal has never in his entire career played
anyone who pressured him on every single point as Sampras would. Rafa
would have no rhythm and would hit about 3 groundstrokes the whole
match. He's also never played on grass as fast as it was in Pete's
time.

Watch a Sampras match at Wimbledon in his prime. No one (except
Krajicek serving lights out at 140MPH), could beat that game then or
now.

[Whisper]

So it was dark when Rafa led 2 sets to love & mp?

Interesting. Eclipse?

[Whisper]

Nice to a post that makes sense these days.

[Superdave]

Roger would (and did) beat him easily and Rafa would absolutely destroy him.

[Whisper]

Easily? What what was the score again?

In all seriousness peak Sampras would beat peak Rafa 62 64 63 & beat Fed
63 36 63 75 at Wimbledon.

[Carey]

If he would-coulda, why didn't he?

[Whisper]

>> In all seriousness peak Sampras would beat peak Rafa 62 64 63& beat Fed

>> 63 36 63 75 at Wimbledon.
>
> If he would-coulda, why didn't he?

Same reason Fed couldn't beat Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011 or Berdych at
Wimbledon 2010.

Wait, you're saying they were better than Fed?

[Superdave]

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

try pissing into the wind. it'll go farther than this bullshit will.

[Superdave]

On the day? yes they were. they won didn't they.

[Scott]

don't be an ass.

6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7***
***--was concluded in the dark

[Whisper]

Ok it's on record from Haze. Tsonga & Berdych were better at Wimbledon
than Fed last 2 years, Rafa has owned Fed by being better than him 9 times.

[Whisper]

On 6/05/2012 10:24 PM, Scott wrote:
> On May 5, 10:44 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 6/05/2012 1:25 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 4, 7:06 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 4.5.2012 20:22, arahim kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>> Among these three on clay
>>>>> Nadal> Federer>> Sampras
>>
>>>>> On HC
>>>>> Federer>> Nadal
>>>>> Sampras>> Nadal
>>
>>>>> On Grass
>>>>> Federer>> Nadal
>>>>> Sampras>> Nadal
>>
>>>>> On the results up to now since two players are still active.
>>>>> Discuss.
>>
>>>> Well Nadal seems to be better than Federer on clay, grass and hard,
>>>> after 2007.
>>
>>> I love qualifiers like "after 2007." How about if we add: "...and in
>>> the dark."
>>

>> So it was dark when Rafa led 2 sets to love& mp?

>>
>> Interesting. Eclipse?
>
> don't be an ass.
>
> 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7***
> ***--was concluded in the dark
>

Yes, but it was glorious sunshine when Rafa led 64 64 43 0-40. What was
the excuse at that point?

Pretty anal to think Rafa couldn't beat Fed unless it got dark. He's
always beaten Fed from day 1.

[Patrick Kehoe]

> ***--was concluded in the dark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Toni Nadal has said the apprehension in the Nadal camp was almost more
than he could bare going into the 2008 W final... losing 3 straight
finals was a possible realit that he was frightened might give Federer
an advantage at Wimbledon Rafa would not be able to reverse... tension
in the camp was never higher, according to Toni... thus, it must be
said, so much the greater the glory for winning it... however, it's
fascinating how much the Nadal camp put into the NEED to win that
particular final...

P

[Shakes]

Good points about returns and rhythm.

[Whisper]

On 7/05/2012 3:22 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On May 6, 5:24 am, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 5, 10:44 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/05/2012 1:25 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 4, 7:06 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>> 4.5.2012 20:22, arahim kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>>> Among these three on clay
>>>>>> Nadal> Federer>> Sampras
>>
>>>>>> On HC
>>>>>> Federer>> Nadal
>>>>>> Sampras>> Nadal
>>
>>>>>> On Grass
>>>>>> Federer>> Nadal
>>>>>> Sampras>> Nadal
>>
>>>>>> On the results up to now since two players are still active.
>>>>>> Discuss.
>>
>>>>> Well Nadal seems to be better than Federer on clay, grass and hard,
>>>>> after 2007.
>>
>>>> I love qualifiers like "after 2007." How about if we add: "...and in
>>>> the dark."
>>

>>> So it was dark when Rafa led 2 sets to love& mp?

>>
>>> Interesting. Eclipse?
>>
>> don't be an ass.
>>
>> 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7***
>> ***--was concluded in the dark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Toni Nadal has said the apprehension in the Nadal camp was almost more
> than he could bare going into the 2008 W final... losing 3 straight
> finals was a possible realit that he was frightened might give Federer
> an advantage at Wimbledon Rafa would not be able to reverse... tension
> in the camp was never higher, according to Toni... thus, it must be
> said, so much the greater the glory for winning it... however, it's
> fascinating how much the Nadal camp put into the NEED to win that
> particular final...
>
> P

Full credit to Fed for making it a very close match in the end, but
really should have been 64 64 63 romp for Rafa.

[RaspingDrive]

But does not factor into the analysis that Rafa adapts and improves.
There is evidence that he does, as you have opined before, which I
also agree with :) Seen in that light claims that Sampras would beat
any incarnation are grandiose. Not that he won't but there is
possibility that he loses here and there. Even at Wimbledon. That is,
if you agree that Nadal is already one among the elite.

[Shakes]

Sure, I agree. My own opinion is that Sampras would win more than he
would lose on grass.

[arahim]

On May 5, 9:21 am, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:

> "You judge players based on how you saw them playing in their times."
>
> And how is anyone supposed to judge them? It is an impossibility to
> judge ANY play except "during their times" when they played! I'm
> supposed to judge Bill Tilden by how he could have played in 2001,
> when he's dead?
>

Exactly. One can pick whoever they think is err... boat:) and give
reasons for it. The issue is the kinds of criteria that are setup by
some and when they are negated by facts to move on to other ridicuous
criteria:) To pose opinion as something etched in numbers that can be
drawn out to conclusively show who was goat, boat etc.

Sampras is a worthy candidate for non-clay boat discussions I suppose
and nothing wrong with anyone thinking him so.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 5, 1:19 am, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> You forgot:
>
> Grass: Sampras > Federer (their one meeting doesn't determine the
> whole equation).
>

Why?

> There is no way Sampras would EVER have lost to Nadal on grass.

Why?

> Nadal
> would never have gotten a single set off Pete on Wimbledon grass.

Why?

Do you think if you say something with intensifiers like "no way" and
"EVER" and "not a single", suddenly it becomes a trustworthy opinion?
This is not a shouting contest.

[Shakes]

FWIW, Uly gave her reasons in another post below to Scott. :-)

[arnab.z@gmail]

I read it. It makes very little sense. Why dream up a scenario like
that? What's the point?

Sampras playing in 1990s conditions and rackets would beat any kind of
Rafa in straight sets? That sounds laughably wrong. Even Shuzo
Matsuoka from Japan won a set against Sampras back in 1995 wimbledon,
a japanese guy whose highest ranking ever was 46 !! Rafa is a 10 time
slam champ. Of course he would give trouble to Sampras, on any
surface.

The only explanation to this insanity is that RST is a lunatic asylum,
and Uly has gone partially mad to keep up with the trolls. The way she
chooses her words to give a superficial force to her opinion reminds
me of a kind of arrogant posturing that I expect from trolls like
Whimpy.

[Shakes]

You can disagree with her post, but why make her a troll just because
she thinks Sampras is the goat of grass ? :-)

[Court_1]

On May 7, 3:24 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I read it. It makes very little sense. Why dream up a scenario like
> that? What's the point?

It makes a lot of sense. Why are you getting so frustrated about an
honest opinion given even if you disagree with it?

I happen to think that what Uly said makes perfect sense. Think about
the matches where Federer defeated Nadal. In many of those matches
Federer played attacking tennis and came out playing aggressive tennis
and he remained in the aggressive mode throughout the match. Now think
about Sampras who was known for playing some of the best attacking
tennis in the game. He would continue to come in on Nadal and Nadal
would not be able to establish much pace with his groundstrokes and
Sampras would put constant pressure on Nadal. And yes, I think even on
today's grass Sampras would defeat Nadal more often than the other way
around.

[Whisper]

The thing is Sampras plays the kind of game that forces you to be
reactive & play differently then you normally do. Look at the way
Agassi played against Sampras v the way he played everyone else. He
lloed like 2 different players.

Sampras v Rafa would look nothing like Rafa v Fed or Rafa v Djoker,
where the game is 99% decided from the baseline. There are very few
quick points, or points where you're under the gun constantly from an
attacking player hitting big shots & coming in. Yes Rafa would make
some great passes, but he'd have to keep doing it over & over & Sampras
wouldn't abandon the attacking strategy. You can't just assume Rafa
would withstand that kind of pressure & keep threading the needle for 5
sets. Nobody can do that. That's why on balance the attacking player
has big advantages.

[arahim]

How did Krajicek and Sampras play each other?

> Sampras v Rafa would look nothing like Rafa v Fed or Rafa v Djoker,
> where the game is 99% decided from the baseline.  There are very few
> quick points, or points where you're under the gun constantly from an
> attacking player hitting big shots & coming in.  Yes Rafa would make
> some great passes, but he'd have to keep doing it over & over & Sampras
> wouldn't abandon the attacking strategy.  You can't just assume Rafa
> would withstand that kind of pressure & keep threading the needle for 5
> sets.  Nobody can do that.  That's why on balance the attacking player

> has big advantages.- Hide quoted text -

[arnab.z@gmail]

Of course I can. Thanks for stating the obvious.

> but why make her a troll just because
> she thinks Sampras is the goat of grass ? :-)

"The way she chooses her words to give a superficial force to her
opinion reminds me of a kind of arrogant posturing that I expect from
trolls like Whimpy."

Where is "Uly is a troll because she thinks Sampras is goat of grass"
in this reasoning? Sampras's being the grass goat has no relation with
me finding Uly's post troll-like. You are putting words in my mouth.
That's quite dishonest, man. Gotta be careful there, you are slipping
into the dark side of trolling. You sure you want go down that
path? :-)

[RaspingDrive]

Fair point. After all, he has 7 Wimbledons and Rafa only two.

[Whisper]

No doubt in my mind. Rafa maybe gets a set here & there on grass.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 5, 5:38 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 5.5.2012 2:16, arahim kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 4:06 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org>  wrote:

> >> 4.5.2012 20:22, arahim kirjoitti:
>
> >>> Among these three on clay
> >>> Nadal>    Federer>>    Sampras
>
> >>> On HC
> >>> Federer>>    Nadal
> >>> Sampras>>    Nadal
>
> >>> On Grass
> >>> Federer>>    Nadal
> >>> Sampras>>    Nadal
>
> >>> On the results up to now since two players are still active.
> >>> Discuss.
>
> >> Well Nadal seems to be better than Federer on clay, grass and hard,
> >> after 2007.
>

> > No one will even consider Nadal yet at the Edberg, Becker level for
> > non-clay.
>
> Actually Nadal has done better at Wimbledon than Edberg.
>
> > Everyone has a before and since and sometimes in the
> > middle:) Since 2011 Djokovic seems to be better than Nadal on clay,
> > grass and hard.
>
> Arnab?
>
> You certainly seem like an uninhibited troll.

I must have scared the bejeezus out of you to make you hallucinate
like this.

[moduli]

What about on a slow hardcourt? Say AO.

[Shakes]

Krajicek plays a similar game to Sampras - big serving, quick-fire
tennis.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 8, 1:42 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 3:24 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I read it. It makes very little sense. Why dream up a scenario like
> > that? What's the point?
>
> It makes a lot of sense.

No, it doesn't.

> Why are you getting so frustrated about an
> honest opinion given even if you disagree with it?
>

I am not frustrated at all. I think it's Ulyses who is frustrated. Her
posts day in and day out prove that. I don't blame her. This
environment is toxic.

> I happen to think that what Uly said makes perfect sense.

So you think Nadal would never ever take a set off Sampras on grass?
Because that's what Uly said.

> Think about
> the matches where Federer defeated Nadal. In many of those matches
> Federer played attacking tennis and came out playing aggressive tennis
> and he remained in the aggressive mode throughout the match. Now think
> about Sampras who was known for playing some of the best attacking
> tennis in the game. He would continue to come in on Nadal and Nadal
> would not be able to establish much pace with his groundstrokes and
> Sampras would put constant pressure on Nadal. And yes, I think even on
> today's grass Sampras would defeat Nadal more often than the other way
> around.

What a tortuous scenario! I disagree completely. This is a completely
made-up scenario based on no real information. May be the all-out
attacking strategy would backfire for Sampras. May be Rafa would
adapt. Who knows?

The best, the most honest answer would be "We'd never know". It's not
the most sexy, the most provocative answer. But if you are being
honest, that's what you should say.

Besides, that's not what Ulysses was talking about. Ulysses flat out
said that Nadal would never ever take a set off Sampras. What kind of
silly exaggeration is that! How can one take a poster like that
seriously? Again, I don't think it's her fault. She is basically
counter-trolling by making over-the-top statements like this. Reading
her posts gives one a feeling that she is trying to ram her opinion by
intentionally using absolute statements and intensifiers. She doesn't
need to do that. And I don't think in her heart she is not like this.
She needs to stay cool, make calm, factual statements without
exaggeration. Mikko is a good example.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 8, 1:42 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And yes, I think even on
> today's grass Sampras would defeat Nadal more often than the other way
> around.

BTW, This is actually an admissible opinion. It starts by an opinion
marker "I think" and doesn't use any absolute intensifier. One can
even defend such an opinion in a convincing manner with carefully
crafted arguments and scenarios.

Of course, this contrasts sharply with Ulysses's over-the-top
remarks.

[moduli]

Yes, Mikko is the best commentator. Extremely rational and relentless
without being obnoxious.

Apparently Ulysses says it boring not to post dramatically.

[wkhedr]

Anybody can say and choose any words to post here, it does not have to
be right or wrong.
For me I definitely don't agree, it is underestimating Rafa for sure.
They think Sampras would win his service game when he does not serve 3
or 4 aces in the game. Also they think his second serve will do the
magic against Rafa. Rafael will stay behind putting pressure returning
serves and hitting passing shots from twenty feet behind the baseline.
Also sampras atomic backhand won't stand a chance against nadal
assault using his high bouncing balls.
Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.

[Court_1]

On May 7, 4:41 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:


> So you think Nadal would never ever take a set off Sampras on grass?
> Because that's what Uly said.

No, of course I did not mean Nadal would never even take a set off of
Sampras, that is an exaggeration but I do think Sampras would defeat
Nadal on grass more times than not.

> What a tortuous scenario! I disagree completely. This is a completely
> made-up scenario based on no real information. May be the all-out
> attacking strategy would backfire for Sampras. May be Rafa would
> adapt. Who knows?

So how is your scenario any different? What information is your
opinion based on? All we can do is offer opinions on here since we
obviously don't know for sure what would happen if Sampras and Nadal
played on grass.

> The best, the most honest answer would be "We'd never know". It's not
> the most sexy, the most provocative answer. But if you are being
> honest, that's what you should say.

Why should I say something that I don't believe? I believe that
Sampras would defeat Nadal on grass more often than Nadal would defeat
Sampras for the reasons I outlined in an above post.

> She needs to stay cool, make calm, factual statements without
> exaggeration. Mikko is a good example.

You can't dictate how other people should post. Everybody has a
different style of posting. Plus who says she is not calm and cool?
Also, how can any of us make a factual statement about something which
we will never know for sure? Again, all we can do is speculate.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 8, 2:51 am, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 2:17 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 1:19 am, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> > > You forgot:
>
> > > Grass: Sampras > Federer (their one meeting doesn't determine the
> > > whole equation).
>
> > Why?
>
> > > There is no way Sampras would EVER have lost to Nadal on grass.
>
> > Why?
>
> > > Nadal
> > > would never have gotten a single set off Pete on Wimbledon grass.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Do you think if you say something with intensifiers like "no way" and
> > "EVER" and "not a single", suddenly it becomes a trustworthy opinion?
> > This is not a shouting contest.
>
> Anybody can say and choose any words to post here, it does not have to
> be right or wrong.

I also believe in the freedom of expression. But it doesn't mean one
can spray irresponsible comments whenever one feels like it. Language
has a certain power to sway minds and opinions of others. Any
discussion is a potential verbal battlefield. If you use your freedom
of expression not as a privilege, but as a weapon, the situation soon
turns chaotic, unclear and sometimes flat out ugly with verbal mud-
throwing. Do you think that is a desirable thing? I don't.

> For me I definitely don't agree, it is underestimating Rafa for sure.
> They think Sampras would win his service game when he does not serve 3
> or 4 aces in the game. Also they think his second serve will do the
> magic against Rafa. Rafael will stay behind putting pressure returning
> serves and hitting passing shots from twenty feet behind the baseline.
> Also sampras atomic backhand won't stand a chance against nadal
> assault using his high bouncing balls.
> Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
> most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.

I more or less agree with your scenario. I don't think Sampras will
have it so easy with Rafa.

[Court_1]

On May 7, 4:51 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
> most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.

So how do you explain Federer's wins over Nadal when Federer is
playing a more consistent attacking style tennis? If it is true that
Federer is more successful when he plays a more aggressive style
against Nadal , then wouldn't the next logical conclusion be that
Sampras, who plays an even more aggressive style than Federer, would
win most of his matches against Nadal? Federer or Sampras are for sure
not going to beat Nadal from the baseline as we have clearly seen over
and over in many of the Federer/Nadal matches.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 8, 2:57 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 4:41 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So you think Nadal would never ever take a set off Sampras on grass?
> > Because that's what Uly said.
>
> No, of course I did not mean Nadal would never even take a set off of
> Sampras, that is an exaggeration but I do think Sampras would defeat
> Nadal on grass more times than not.
>
> > What a tortuous scenario! I disagree completely. This is a completely
> > made-up scenario based on no real information. May be the all-out
> > attacking strategy would backfire for Sampras. May be Rafa would
> > adapt. Who knows?
>
> So how is your scenario any different? What information is your
> opinion based on?

I didn't even paint any scenario.

> All we can do is offer opinions on here since we
> obviously don't know for sure what would happen if Sampras and Nadal
> played on grass.

Sure. But let's not overexaggerate with the opinions. Let's stay
withing certain bounds.

> > The best, the most honest answer would be "We'd never know". It's not
> > the most sexy, the most provocative answer. But if you are being
> > honest, that's what you should say.
>
> Why should I say something that I don't believe?  I believe that
> Sampras would defeat Nadal on grass more often than Nadal would defeat
> Sampras for the reasons I outlined in an above post.

I still believe that the best, the most honest answer to this is "We'd
never know."

> > She needs to stay cool, make calm, factual statements without
> > exaggeration. Mikko is a good example.
>
> You can't dictate how other people should post.

No, but I can certainly offer my opinion about how people should

post.

> Everybody has a
> different style of posting. Plus who says she is not calm and cool?
> Also, how can any of us make a factual statement about something which
> we will never know for sure?  Again, all we can do is speculate.

That's not all we can do. We can also choose to not speculate by
saying "We'd never know". :-)

[arahim]

Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.
It's not even close and they are all hc and grass games. That's a
ratio better than the 18-10 between you know who with half the games
on clay.

[Shakes]

People here do that all the time, no ? After all, this is RST.

> Where is "Uly is a troll because she thinks Sampras is goat of grass"
> in this reasoning? Sampras's being the grass goat has no relation with
> me finding Uly's post troll-like. You are putting words in my mouth.
> That's quite dishonest, man. Gotta be careful there, you are slipping
> into the dark side of trolling. You sure you want go down that
> path? :-)

No, but if someone here makes a similar kind of statement, but for Fed
instead of Sampras, I somehow think you wouldn't say "troll-like".
That's why I asked the question.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Apparently, according to Sampras fanboys here on rst, the fact that
Krajicek knocked off Pete in Wimbledon doesn't count because it wasn't
a "slam final". Poor Krajicek, doesn't even credit for knocking off
the reigning Wimbledon champ in his absolute prime in a best of 5
setter because of such a technicality.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On May 8, 3:05 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 4:51 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
> > most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.
>
> So how do you explain Federer's wins over Nadal when Federer is
> playing a more consistent attacking style tennis?

Let me answer for him. Federer never played a consistent S/V style
attacking tennis à la Sampras in any of his wins against Nadal. He
played a mixture of agressive and defensive. In fact, optimally,
Federer wants to be strategically aggressive against Nadal, not all-
out aggressive.

>  If it is true that
> Federer is more successful when he plays a more aggressive style
> against Nadal , then wouldn't the next logical conclusion be that
> Sampras, who plays an even more aggressive style than Federer, would
> win most of his matches against Nadal?

That's not evident, because playing all-out aggressive against Nadal
might have bad consequences. It's not a question of turning up the
heat and watch Nadal melt away kinda situation. It's much more nuanced
than that.

> Federer or Sampras are for sure
> not going to beat Nadal from the baseline as we have clearly seen over
> and over in many of the Federer/Nadal matches.

But Federer did beat Nadal 4 times playing mainly from the baseline in
all of his YEC matches, on fast, low-bouncing courts.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Not people. Trolls do that here all the time. Even Ulysses didn't use
to do it when she first started posting regularly.

> > Where is "Uly is a troll because she thinks Sampras is goat of grass"
> > in this reasoning? Sampras's being the grass goat has no relation with
> > me finding Uly's post troll-like. You are putting words in my mouth.
> > That's quite dishonest, man. Gotta be careful there, you are slipping
> > into the dark side of trolling. You sure you want go down that
> > path? :-)
>
> No, but if someone here makes a similar kind of statement, but for Fed
> instead of Sampras, I somehow think you wouldn't say "troll-like".
> That's why I asked the question.

It would probably not be similar at all, because Federer has not
retired yet and his fanboys are not posting 10 years after their
idol's retirement. That kind of trolling takes a special kind of
dedication, yet to be matched by any of the fanboys of current tennis
players.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 7.5.2012 23:15, arahim wrote:
>
> Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
> number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.

Why stop at that? You'll figure out a way to scrap the remaining two
somehow. It's the RST way.

--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif

[Shakes]

Okay, what does Krajicek's performance against Sampras have to do with
Nadal's performance ?

[Shakes]

Well, that will be known only 10 yrs from now when new fans claim that
the new #1 player is a couple of notches above Fed, is the most
talented player ever, Fed wouldn't have much chance etc. :-)

[arahim]

Nothing. But it is the same argument that is used against Federer when
discussing his results against Nadal. I don't even believe in this
argument but someone who is going to apply even a flawed argument
should apply it consistently across.

[Shakes]

But how is it the same ? Krajicek cost Sampras 1 slam. Nadal cost
Federer most probably 3 slams (if you think of 2012 AO) and most
definitely 2 (all these even outside of the FO). FWIW, even Leander
Paes has a winning record over Sampras. :-)

[Vlado]

Has Federer beat Nadal once at all legitimatelly ever and anywhere?
Please remind me of a decent match that Federer won.
I sure as hell don't remember and I am mostly serious.

Oh and I see people throwing non sense terms like "aggressive"
"fast" and what not as if that sounds impressive by itself. How come
then Federer never gets injured?

[arahim]

Ah, I see which category you are in:)

[arahim]

On May 7, 2:36 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
> On 7.5.2012 23:15, arahim wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
> > number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.
>
> Why stop at that? You'll figure out a way to scrap the remaining two
> somehow. It's the RST way.
>

Exactly the point and how the Federer-Nadal comparison has been done.
I believe Federer is now down 18-5 in some rst circles:)

> --http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif

[Shakes]

Oh, no, you don't. :-)

At that level, the slams are what count, no ? Otherwise, Murray has a
leading H2H against Fed. :-)

[Superdave]

>Sampras v Rafa would look nothing like Rafa v Fed or Rafa v Djoker,
>where the game is 99% decided from the baseline. There are very few
>quick points, or points where you're under the gun constantly from an
>attacking player hitting big shots & coming in. Yes Rafa would make
>some great passes, but he'd have to keep doing it over & over & Sampras
>wouldn't abandon the attacking strategy. You can't just assume Rafa
>would withstand that kind of pressure & keep threading the needle for 5
>sets. Nobody can do that. That's why on balance the attacking player
>has big advantages.

Rafa would defeat Sampras with ease even if he didn't cheat. After btb 50
shot rallies sampras would be well .... shot. he'd be slobbering all over the
court and begging for thassalemia inhalers or a slice of pizza.

[Court_1]

On May 7, 6:46 pm, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Has Federer beat Nadal once at all legitimatelly ever and anywhere?

You expect me to give you a serious answer to that ridiculous comment?
You are the very definition of the word troll.

The tennis player who you idolize is a quitter who retires and the
drop of a hat and a faker who tanks matches. Let's see how long he can
"dominate" and stay at number one, ok? I don't think it will be for a
number of years the way Federer did. Until then just shut your trap.

[Court_1]

On May 7, 5:12 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me answer for him. Federer never played a consistent S/V style
> attacking tennis à la Sampras in any of his wins against Nadal. He
> played a mixture of agressive and defensive. In fact, optimally,
> Federer wants to be strategically aggressive against Nadal, not all-
> out aggressive.

Yes, I know Federer never played a consistent S/V style tennis in the
traditional sense when he defeated Nadal, but what Federer did do in
those winning matches was manage to stay more aggressive throughout
the match rather than start out aggressively and then fold mentally
like a wilted lettuce leaf as soon as Nadal started to "up" his play.
Sampras would never give Nadal the chance to let the Nadal style of
play dictate the match as Federer has often done. Sampras would keep
attacking and put constant pressure on Nadal. Now remember I was not a
huge Sampras fan, I was more of an Agassi fan so I am not biased when
I say that Sampras would likely win the majority of matches against
Nadal on grass.

> That's not evident, because playing all-out aggressive against Nadal
> might have bad consequences. It's not a question of turning up the
> heat and watch Nadal melt away kinda situation. It's much more nuanced
> than that.

Look, there really is nothing to argue IMO because all you have to do
is look at the recent IW match between Nadal and Federer to know that
when Federer plays aggressively throughout the match and sticks with
a game plan (in this case Federer kept hitting deep to Nadal's bh) he
can win the match. Forget about what Federer may have done at W 2006
and W 2007 to defeat Nadal because now Federer is years older and
there is no way in hell Federer can outdefend Nadal now. Federer has
to play aggressively throughout the whole match and execute his game
plan perfectly in order to beat Nadal.

> But Federer did beat Nadal 4 times playing mainly from the baseline in
> all of his YEC matches, on fast, low-bouncing courts.

He may have played mostly from the baseline but he was able to mix up
his shots and also play both offensively and defensively and execute
his shots perfectly. On a slower surface unlike the YEC it is more
difficult to do that because Nadal has more time to react to Federer's
shots and 99.9% of them come back as winners when Nadal has more time.

[Court_1]

On May 7, 7:31 pm, Superdave <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:

On clay yes, but on grass and HC, no he wouldn't Dave. He would not
give Nadal the chance to have 50 shot rallies.

[arahim]

Well if slams is what counts Federer has the most at this point. Again
this is not my contention that slams only count or h2h only counts or
does not count at all etc but if it is yours then so be it.

[Shakes]

No, I mean a loss in a slam counts for more than a loss in a non-slam
when we talk about guys like Fed, Sampras, Nadal etc.

> Again
> this is not my contention that slams only count or h2h only counts or
> does not count at all etc but if it is yours then so be it.
>

I think it's a combination.

[Vlado]

I asked a simple question and got this angry heap thrown upon me.

[Superdave]

Maybe it is because you are an asshole ?

Have a look in the mirror. Are you brown and slimy on the inside,
hairy on the outside and can't stand the smell of yourself like Rafa ?

[Superdave]

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

cuda, wuda, shuda. you sound like whisper.

[PeteWasLucky]

We all know playing aggressive tennis against nadal is not enough by
itself, you need to play perfect consistent tennis for the entire
match. We have seen Federer playing aggressive game for a set or parts
of sets and losing his precision and this was the end.
How many players have you seen returning serves from 10-15 ft behind
the baseline in Sampras' era?
Have you seen players hit passing shots from very far behind the
baseline in Sampras' era like Nadal does now?

And sorry there is no grass left in Wimbledon in the 2nd week, it's
almost like a clay court from the baseline, and the grass is not
slippery any more in the service box, serves hit the grass now and
bounce high, makes it easy for returners now than it was before they
changed the grass and changed what was under the grass.

It's a different world, different racquets, different courts, only
fools would think any player from an older era would beat a player
from a recent one.

Give me Edberg, Mac, Sampras, Laver, any of these great players and
put them now with their old racquets and technique to play Nadal, Fed,
Djok or Murray, it won't even be funny.

[arahim]

and that h2h is but one of the components of against the field, then
there is the surface etc., etc.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Yeah, let's see if that happens. If the new guy breaks all of Fed's
records, I bet Fed himself will say that the new guy is the best
player in history. Although some Federer fanboys will bear grudges.
Some rational Federer fans will probably move on and enjoy the new #1,
just like some of the Sampras fans of 1990s now enjoy Federer. :-)

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 6:29 AM, moduli wrote:
> On 2012-05-07, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 8/05/2012 5:42 AM, Court_1 wrote:

>>> On May 7, 3:24 pm, "arnab.z@gmail"<arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read it. It makes very little sense. Why dream up a scenario like
>>>> that? What's the point?
>>>

>>> It makes a lot of sense. Why are you getting so frustrated about an
>>> honest opinion given even if you disagree with it?
>>>
>>> I happen to think that what Uly said makes perfect sense. Think about
>>> the matches where Federer defeated Nadal. In many of those matches
>>> Federer played attacking tennis and came out playing aggressive tennis
>>> and he remained in the aggressive mode throughout the match. Now think
>>> about Sampras who was known for playing some of the best attacking
>>> tennis in the game. He would continue to come in on Nadal and Nadal
>>> would not be able to establish much pace with his groundstrokes and
>>> Sampras would put constant pressure on Nadal. And yes, I think even on
>>> today's grass Sampras would defeat Nadal more often than the other way
>>> around.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No doubt in my mind. Rafa maybe gets a set here& there on grass.
>
> What about on a slow hardcourt? Say AO.


I still favour Sampras. Rafa would give him plenty of balls he can tee
off on. I know Agassi beat Sampras twice at AO, but if you watch those
matches it really was a lucky break for Andre. Pete had both matches
easily in hand & they just got away from him. He woulda played with
more intensity if it were Wim or USO.

If Sampras wasn't jacked up & Rafa was, the maybe Rafa wins? Who knows,
but if we're talking peak Sampras v peak Rafa, then have to go with the
king.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 6:51 AM, wkhedr wrote:

> On May 7, 2:17 pm, "arnab.z@gmail"<arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 5, 1:19 am, Ulysses<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You forgot:
>>
>>> Grass: Sampras> Federer (their one meeting doesn't determine the
>>> whole equation).
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> There is no way Sampras would EVER have lost to Nadal on grass.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> Nadal
>>> would never have gotten a single set off Pete on Wimbledon grass.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Do you think if you say something with intensifiers like "no way" and
>> "EVER" and "not a single", suddenly it becomes a trustworthy opinion?
>> This is not a shouting contest.
>

> Anybody can say and choose any words to post here, it does not have to
> be right or wrong.
> For me I definitely don't agree, it is underestimating Rafa for sure.
> They think Sampras would win his service game when he does not serve 3
> or 4 aces in the game. Also they think his second serve will do the
> magic against Rafa. Rafael will stay behind putting pressure returning
> serves and hitting passing shots from twenty feet behind the baseline.
> Also sampras atomic backhand won't stand a chance against nadal
> assault using his high bouncing balls.

> Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
> most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.

That's an opinion by a guy who thinks current players are superior to
past. Taken with a grain of salt. Sorry.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 7:02 AM, arnab.z@gmail wrote:

> On May 8, 2:51 am, wkhedr<wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 2:17 pm, "arnab.z@gmail"<arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 5, 1:19 am, Ulysses<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You forgot:
>>
>>>> Grass: Sampras> Federer (their one meeting doesn't determine the
>>>> whole equation).
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>>> There is no way Sampras would EVER have lost to Nadal on grass.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>>> Nadal
>>>> would never have gotten a single set off Pete on Wimbledon grass.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>> Do you think if you say something with intensifiers like "no way" and
>>> "EVER" and "not a single", suddenly it becomes a trustworthy opinion?
>>> This is not a shouting contest.
>>
>> Anybody can say and choose any words to post here, it does not have to
>> be right or wrong.
>

> I also believe in the freedom of expression. But it doesn't mean one
> can spray irresponsible comments whenever one feels like it.



But Shakes made a good point which you failed to address - if someone
says Federer would beat everyone on grass, you never criticize...? Why
don't you suggest it may be irresponsible?



> Language
> has a certain power to sway minds and opinions of others. Any
> discussion is a potential verbal battlefield. If you use your freedom
> of expression not as a privilege, but as a weapon, the situation soon
> turns chaotic, unclear and sometimes flat out ugly with verbal mud-
> throwing. Do you think that is a desirable thing? I don't.

>
>> For me I definitely don't agree, it is underestimating Rafa for sure.
>> They think Sampras would win his service game when he does not serve 3
>> or 4 aces in the game. Also they think his second serve will do the
>> magic against Rafa. Rafael will stay behind putting pressure returning
>> serves and hitting passing shots from twenty feet behind the baseline.
>> Also sampras atomic backhand won't stand a chance against nadal
>> assault using his high bouncing balls.
>> Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
>> most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.
>

> I more or less agree with your scenario. I don't think Sampras will
> have it so easy with Rafa.



Not easy. Sampras dominated Courier, but they were never really easy
matches. Yes the result was rarely in doubt, but he still had to play
top tennis. Anyone who thinks Rafa would beat Sampras must be thinking
he'd play mostly from the baseline & not attack/put constant pressure on
him with huge shots.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 7:05 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On May 7, 4:51 pm, wkhedr<wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>

>> Let me summarize, beating nadal with serve and volley only won't work
>> most of the matches and when it works it would be in four or five sets.
>
>

> So how do you explain Federer's wins over Nadal when Federer is
> playing a more consistent attacking style tennis? If it is true that
> Federer is more successful when he plays a more aggressive style
> against Nadal , then wouldn't the next logical conclusion be that
> Sampras, who plays an even more aggressive style than Federer, would
> win most of his matches against Nadal? Federer or Sampras are for sure
> not going to beat Nadal from the baseline as we have clearly seen over
> and over in many of the Federer/Nadal matches.

That's true. Rafa would be tough to beat from the baseline, unless he's
really off his game. Sampras would be belting flat hard approach shots
& asking Rafa to keep passing him every point, not once or twice per set
as he's used to. With his serve he'd get a lot of aces/winners, & easy
replies he can take care of.

Rafa would win on clay, Sampras on grass & HC. The best chance of a
competitive match between the 2 would be on a slow-ish AO HC, with
Sampras just below his best.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 7:06 AM, arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On May 8, 2:57 am, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 4:41 pm, "arnab.z@gmail"<arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So you think Nadal would never ever take a set off Sampras on grass?
>>> Because that's what Uly said.
>>
>> No, of course I did not mean Nadal would never even take a set off of
>> Sampras, that is an exaggeration but I do think Sampras would defeat
>> Nadal on grass more times than not.
>>
>>> What a tortuous scenario! I disagree completely. This is a completely
>>> made-up scenario based on no real information. May be the all-out
>>> attacking strategy would backfire for Sampras. May be Rafa would
>>> adapt. Who knows?
>>
>> So how is your scenario any different? What information is your
>> opinion based on?
>
> I didn't even paint any scenario.
>
>> All we can do is offer opinions on here since we
>> obviously don't know for sure what would happen if Sampras and Nadal
>> played on grass.
>
> Sure. But let's not overexaggerate with the opinions. Let's stay
> withing certain bounds.
>
>>> The best, the most honest answer would be "We'd never know". It's not
>>> the most sexy, the most provocative answer. But if you are being
>>> honest, that's what you should say.
>>
>> Why should I say something that I don't believe? I believe that
>> Sampras would defeat Nadal on grass more often than Nadal would defeat
>> Sampras for the reasons I outlined in an above post.
>
> I still believe that the best, the most honest answer to this is "We'd
> never know."
>
>>> She needs to stay cool, make calm, factual statements without
>>> exaggeration. Mikko is a good example.
>>
>> You can't dictate how other people should post.
>
> No, but I can certainly offer my opinion about how people should
> post.
>
>> Everybody has a
>> different style of posting. Plus who says she is not calm and cool?
>> Also, how can any of us make a factual statement about something which
>> we will never know for sure? Again, all we can do is speculate.
>
> That's not all we can do. We can also choose to not speculate by
> saying "We'd never know". :-)


Well let's hope this is the way you'll post next time someone suggests
Fed is best.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 7:15 AM, arahim wrote:

> On May 7, 1:38 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 12:50 pm, arahim<arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> But does not factor into the analysis that Rafa adapts and improves.
>>>>> There is evidence that he does, as you have opined before, which I
>>>>> also agree with :) Seen in that light claims that Sampras would beat
>>>>> any incarnation are grandiose. Not that he won't but there is
>>>>> possibility that he loses here and there. Even at Wimbledon. That is,
>>>>> if you agree that Nadal is already one among the elite.
>>
>>>> The thing is Sampras plays the kind of game that forces you to be

>>>> reactive& play differently then you normally do. Look at the way

>>>> Agassi played against Sampras v the way he played everyone else. He
>>>> lloed like 2 different players.
>>
>>> How did Krajicek and Sampras play each other?
>>
>> Krajicek plays a similar game to Sampras - big serving, quick-fire
>> tennis.
>
> Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
> number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.

The h2h is 4-6, with K winning a couple in final set t/b's. Reverse 1 &
it's 5-5. You guys are getting desperate?

> It's not even close and they are all hc and grass games. That's a
> ratio better than the 18-10 between you know who with half the games
> on clay.
>
>

They met in slams twice & it's 1-1. Both times in Q/f. As far as
history is concerned these guys were not rivals. Zero slam finals
contested.

Nice try though, trying to say it's the same as Fed v Rafa, who played
more slam finals than any other 2 rivals ever.

I do feel kind of sorry for you, knowing Krajicek is all you got. I
wonder if I say Krajicek was definitely better than Sampras would that
help?

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 7:22 AM, arnab.z@gmail wrote:

> On May 8, 3:15 am, arahim<arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 1:38 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 7, 12:50 pm, arahim<arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>>> On May 7, 12:46 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 7/05/2012 11:20 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On May 6, 2:22 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 5, 9:21 am, Ulysses<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> "You judge players based on how you saw them playing in their times."
>>
>>>>>>>> And how is anyone supposed to judge them? It is an impossibility to
>>>>>>>> judge ANY play except "during their times" when they played! I'm
>>>>>>>> supposed to judge Bill Tilden by how he could have played in 2001,
>>>>>>>> when he's dead?
>>
>>>>>>>> My point was clear: Sampras with 1990's technology and with his exact
>>>>>>>> game as it existed then, would beat any incarnation of Rafael Nadal on
>>>>>>>> grass. I don't care if Nadal has the Babolat strings and the spin. He
>>>>>>>> wouldn't return Pete's serve often and if he did, Sampras would have
>>>>>>>> the put-away volley. Nadal has never in his entire career played
>>>>>>>> anyone who pressured him on every single point as Sampras would. Rafa
>>>>>>>> would have no rhythm and would hit about 3 groundstrokes the whole
>>>>>>>> match. He's also never played on grass as fast as it was in Pete's
>>>>>>>> time.
>>
>>>>>>>> Watch a Sampras match at Wimbledon in his prime. No one (except
>>>>>>>> Krajicek serving lights out at 140MPH), could beat that game then or
>>>>>>>> now.
>>
>>>>>>> Good points about returns and rhythm.
>>

>>>>>> But does not factor into the analysis that Rafa adapts and improves.
>>>>>> There is evidence that he does, as you have opined before, which I
>>>>>> also agree with :) Seen in that light claims that Sampras would beat
>>>>>> any incarnation are grandiose. Not that he won't but there is
>>>>>> possibility that he loses here and there. Even at Wimbledon. That is,
>>>>>> if you agree that Nadal is already one among the elite.
>>
>>>>> The thing is Sampras plays the kind of game that forces you to be
>>>>> reactive& play differently then you normally do. Look at the way
>>>>> Agassi played against Sampras v the way he played everyone else. He
>>>>> lloed like 2 different players.
>>
>>>> How did Krajicek and Sampras play each other?
>>
>>> Krajicek plays a similar game to Sampras - big serving, quick-fire
>>> tennis.
>>
>> Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
>> number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.

>> It's not even close and they are all hc and grass games. That's a
>> ratio better than the 18-10 between you know who with half the games
>> on clay.
>

> Apparently, according to Sampras fanboys here on rst, the fact that
> Krajicek knocked off Pete in Wimbledon doesn't count because it wasn't
> a "slam final". Poor Krajicek, doesn't even credit for knocking off
> the reigning Wimbledon champ in his absolute prime in a best of 5
> setter because of such a technicality.
>



Of course he gets credit. It's just a 1-off loss in a slam v Krajicek.
Surely you can't expect him to win 8 Wimbledons in a row without 1 bad
day?

If Rafa only ever beat Fed once in a slam, & a Q/f at that, who would be
saying Rafa was better than him?

That's what you guys are apparently trying to do with Krajicek v
Sampras? I really feel bad for you guys because you apparently have
nothing else.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 7:53 AM, Shakes wrote:

> On May 7, 2:15 pm, arahim<arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 1:38 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> How did Krajicek and Sampras play each other?
>>
>>> Krajicek plays a similar game to Sampras - big serving, quick-fire
>>> tennis.
>>
>> Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
>> number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.
>> It's not even close and they are all hc and grass games. That's a
>> ratio better than the 18-10 between you know who with half the games
>> on clay.
>>

>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Okay, what does Krajicek's performance against Sampras have to do with
> Nadal's performance ?

Apparently the record between 2 guys who never met in a slam final is
comparable to 2 guys who played more slam finals than anyone else in
history?

Not sure how they can draw that bow, but hey it is rst.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 8:34 AM, arahim wrote:

> On May 7, 2:53 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, what does Krajicek's performance against Sampras have to do with
>> Nadal's performance ?

> Nothing. But it is the same argument that is used against Federer when
> discussing his results against Nadal.

Really?

Do you seriously think if Fed & Rafa never met in a slam final, & met
only twice in slam q/f's are were 1-1, & Fed won 14 slams & Rafa 1,
anyone would be saying Rafa was better?

It appears so, because you clearly say 'it's the same argument'?

Want to retract before it's too late, or you comfortable with it?

[Whisper]

>> reactive& play differently then you normally do. Look at the way

>> Agassi played against Sampras v the way he played everyone else. He
>> lloed like 2 different players.
>>
>> Sampras v Rafa would look nothing like Rafa v Fed or Rafa v Djoker,
>> where the game is 99% decided from the baseline. There are very few
>> quick points, or points where you're under the gun constantly from an

>> attacking player hitting big shots& coming in. Yes Rafa would make
>> some great passes, but he'd have to keep doing it over& over& Sampras

>> wouldn't abandon the attacking strategy. You can't just assume Rafa

>> would withstand that kind of pressure& keep threading the needle for 5

>> sets. Nobody can do that. That's why on balance the attacking player
>> has big advantages.
>
> Rafa would defeat Sampras with ease even if he didn't cheat. After btb 50
> shot rallies sampras would be well .... shot. he'd be slobbering all over the
> court and begging for thassalemia inhalers or a slice of pizza.

There would be no 10 shot rallies, let alone 50. Sampras would be
teeing off & putting Rafa under the gun constantly throughout the match.
He would definitely cave as Sampras got stronger.

[Whisper]

>>> reactive& play differently then you normally do. Look at the way

>>> Agassi played against Sampras v the way he played everyone else. He
>>> lloed like 2 different players.
>>
>>> Sampras v Rafa would look nothing like Rafa v Fed or Rafa v Djoker,
>>> where the game is 99% decided from the baseline. There are very few
>>> quick points, or points where you're under the gun constantly from an

>>> attacking player hitting big shots& coming in. Yes Rafa would make
>>> some great passes, but he'd have to keep doing it over& over& Sampras

>>> wouldn't abandon the attacking strategy. You can't just assume Rafa

>>> would withstand that kind of pressure& keep threading the needle for 5

>>> sets. Nobody can do that. That's why on balance the attacking player
>>> has big advantages.
>>
>> Rafa would defeat Sampras with ease even if he didn't cheat. After btb 50
>> shot rallies sampras would be well .... shot. he'd be slobbering all over the
>> court and begging for thassalemia inhalers or a slice of pizza.
>
> On clay yes, but on grass and HC, no he wouldn't Dave. He would not
> give Nadal the chance to have 50 shot rallies.

Correct. He'd either hit a winner, force an error, force an easy
putaway, or hit an error himself. Rafa would be under the gun
constantly, & Sampras would just keep hitting big on the lines & Rafa
would wilt. On clay Rafa's physicality & slow dirt would give him huge
advantage, but everywhere else Rafa is toast.

Just look at the guys who've smashed Rafa in slams (Tsonga, Gonzalez
etc) - they all played a flat, hard hitting Sampras-lite style.

[Whisper]

Why not just admit the obvious? Nobody can take Fed's slams away, but
Rafa clearly owned him.

If Rafa had the same record as Krajicek over Sampras, nobody would ever
talk about him.

The only reason Krajicek is even mentioned is because that's the closest
thing there is to a guy having his number. It really tells you how good
Sampras was, that there was no one in his whole career who had his number.

[Whisper]

On 8/05/2012 12:09 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
> And sorry there is no grass left in Wimbledon in the 2nd week, it's
> almost like a clay court from the baseline, and the grass is not
> slippery any more in the service box, serves hit the grass now and
> bounce high, makes it easy for returners now than it was before they
> changed the grass and changed what was under the grass.
>
> It's a different world, different racquets, different courts, only
> fools would think any player from an older era would beat a player
> from a recent one.

What about vice versa?

>
> Give me Edberg, Mac, Sampras, Laver, any of these great players and
> put them now with their old racquets and technique to play Nadal, Fed,
> Djok or Murray, it won't even be funny.

Give me all current guys v Laver with his equipment, & it would be very
ugly for modern boys.

[Superdave]

I got news for you. They are. Go swallow that.

[Superdave]

It is so EASY to excercize your imagination isn't it?

Well go put your Batman costume on because I have a dose of reality for you.

Federer 1 Sampras 0 at Wimbledon the World Championships.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:15:25 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 8/05/2012 7:15 AM, arahim wrote:
> > On May 7, 1:38 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 7, 12:50 pm, arahim<arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> But does not factor into the analysis that Rafa adapts and improves.
> >>>>> There is evidence that he does, as you have opined before, which I
> >>>>> also agree with :) Seen in that light claims that Sampras would beat
> >>>>> any incarnation are grandiose. Not that he won't but there is
> >>>>> possibility that he loses here and there. Even at Wimbledon. That is,
> >>>>> if you agree that Nadal is already one among the elite.
> >>
> >>>> The thing is Sampras plays the kind of game that forces you to be
> >>>> reactive& play differently then you normally do. Look at the way
> >>>> Agassi played against Sampras v the way he played everyone else. He
> >>>> lloed like 2 different players.
> >>
> >>> How did Krajicek and Sampras play each other?
> >>
> >> Krajicek plays a similar game to Sampras - big serving, quick-fire
> >> tennis.
> >
> > Yes and in h2h does better as well. For the six years Sampras was
> > number one at year end the record stands in favor of Krajicek 6-2.
>
>
> The h2h is 4-6, with K winning a couple in final set t/b's. Reverse 1 &
> it's 5-5. You guys are getting desperate?
>

Revers 1 of those Krajicek you would have Krajicek having Sampras number completely. It was 6-2 before Krajicek was injured and could easily go to 7:1.

>
> > It's not even close and they are all hc and grass games. That's a
> > ratio better than the 18-10 between you know who with half the games
> > on clay.
> >
> >
>
>
> They met in slams twice & it's 1-1. Both times in Q/f. As far as
> history is concerned these guys were not rivals. Zero slam finals
> contested.

As far as history is concern Krajicek wasn't one of the player that Sampras like to play and he was one of the player who could beat Sampras even when Sampras was in his peak.

>
> Nice try though, trying to say it's the same as Fed v Rafa, who played
> more slam finals than any other 2 rivals ever.
>
> I do feel kind of sorry for you, knowing Krajicek is all you got. I
> wonder if I say Krajicek was definitely better than Sampras would that
> help?

Krajicek had the game to trouble Sampras more than any of other big serving player or Agassi and that is something you find difficult to take. We do know that don't we ?

[wkhedr]

Yes I agree, he would finish the rally too quickly the same way he did
in all these FO he played.

[Vlado]

On May 7, 9:48 pm, Superdave <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:

No I am pretty sure I dislike both Fedal's more or less yet only one
is promoted
by the mainstream media and total idiots as untouchable, cult
figure,royalty, deity.
I like to poke at untouchable people

[wkhedr]

Sure

[Whisper]

>> They met in slams twice& it's 1-1. Both times in Q/f. As far as

>> history is concerned these guys were not rivals. Zero slam finals
>> contested.
>
> As far as history is concern Krajicek wasn't one of the player that Sampras like to play and he was one of the player who could beat Sampras even when Sampras was in his peak.
>
>>
>> Nice try though, trying to say it's the same as Fed v Rafa, who played
>> more slam finals than any other 2 rivals ever.
>>
>> I do feel kind of sorry for you, knowing Krajicek is all you got. I
>> wonder if I say Krajicek was definitely better than Sampras would that
>> help?
>
> Krajicek had the game to trouble Sampras more than any of other big serving player or Agassi and that is something you find difficult to take. We do know that don't we ?

Why? They never met in a slam final. They were not rivals.

[Vlado]

Where is this myth coming of playing more aggressive against Nadal?
Nadal's defense definitely exposes weakneses of his opponents so the
only way to beat him is by a balanced game and unfortunatelly there is
only
one player today that has that balanced game and thus can beat Nadal.

[arnab.z@gmail]

How many times did Rafa win against Federer in Wimbledon on grass?

No, you cannot bring in non-grass, non-Wimbledon results to bear on
this scenario.