Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Young guns in 2002....

29 views
Skip to first unread message

felangey

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 1:15:23 PM3/12/12
to
....funny pic....blast from the past. Quite some talent there.

http://www.thenextpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Balls-Please-2001.jpg

jdeluise

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 1:43:49 PM3/12/12
to

On 12-Mar-2012, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:

> ....funny pic....blast from the past. Quite some talent there.
>
> http://www.thenextpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Balls-Please-2001.jpg

Good one. As a huge Tommy Haas fan, Pelle should like this.

Pelle Svanslös

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 1:59:37 PM3/12/12
to
Would you believe, Tommy Haas uses a racquet from the 80s strung with
Lux at, geez, 40kg. That is probably the deaddiest configuration there
is. It hurts thinking about it.

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

Javier González

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 2:05:14 PM3/12/12
to
On Mar 12, 2:43 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12-Mar-2012, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>
> > ....funny pic....blast from the past. Quite some talent there.
>
> >http://www.thenextpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Balls-Plea...
>
> Good one.  As a huge Tommy Haas fan, Pelle should like this.

Not a bad bunch... 25 slams, 9 YECs, 10 YE#1s...

Comments:
- Dunno what's Kuerten (born 76) Grosjean (78) and Haas (78) doing
there...
- pity about Ferrero's illness and subsequent loss of confidence. Had
a good game.
- Haas and Safin the standout underachievers in the bunch. But mostly
Haas... Safin did win a couple of slams and a ye#1.
- Grosejean the odd man out.

FedererISgodX

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 2:11:06 PM3/12/12
to
Yes, and hewitt and Roddick were the two that overachieved, due to the
transitional era.

Javier González

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 5:47:48 PM3/12/12
to
Mmmmm... I don't think they overachieved. Hewitt's game is not pretty,
but he won his slams fair and square. Roddick? Hmmmmm... don't really
know. I think guys like Johansson or Gaudio when the words "slam
overachiever" come to mind. Roddick made multiple finals between 2003
and 2009.

FedererISgodX

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 6:00:15 PM3/12/12
to
Hewitt as a Tennis player is and always has been very limited. His
main talent is grit and mental strength. He's never really even been a
better player than say Murray is now for example, and Murray may not
even win a solitary slam. Roddick and Hewitt obv took advantage of the
transitional era to grab both slams.

Moreover, if you took away the roddick serve, would he really be a
better player than even Haas or Grosjean? Doubtful.

Safin was immeasurably more talented than Hewitt, but slamwis only has
equivalent, and career-wise inferior results.

Court_1

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 6:11:43 PM3/12/12
to
Disagree about Hewitt. I don't think Murray is so much better than
Hewitt was in his prime at all. I think if Hewitt were in his prime
today he could still be probably 4 or 5 in the world. Remember grandpa
Hewitt who was injured with a bad toe took a set off of prime Djokovic
at the AO this year.

Certainly Hewitt was a better player than David Ferrer who is number 5
in the world today. The players today below number 4 or 5 are a bunch
of clowns for the most part IMO. Hewitt is a better player than most
of those clowns and you mention the fact that Hewitt had grit and
determination, well those factors alone would put him above most of
the clowns today like Tsonga and Fish who have the mental strength of
a bug. Mental strength is a huge part of being at the top and that is
why Murray has not won a slam. Hewitt is much stronger mentally than
Murray has been so far and it would not matter what era Hewitt played
in. Hewitt had the bad luck of many injuries which put him off the
path at the top.

bob

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 6:22:19 PM3/12/12
to
hewitt would have a tough go of it against a very powerful baseliner
(i.e. rafa, fed, agassi type). his best moment was VS an old and out
of form sampras whose game was suited to hewitt's - i.e. backboard
type stuff against s/v player, and VS roddick on occasion (big server,
little else). hewitt's limitations would've prevented him from beating
a peak sampras/agassi/fed/nadal IMO. yet i still see peak hewitt as #5
today, cause after #4 we fall off a cliff.

bob

Court_1

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 6:34:34 PM3/12/12
to
On Mar 12, 6:22 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

>yet i still see peak hewitt as #5
> today, cause after #4 we fall off a cliff.


That is what I am saying. Prime.Hewitt could easily be number 4 or 5
in the world today and I personally do not see Murray as much better
than prime Hewitt.

bob

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 6:48:08 PM3/12/12
to
murray has much bigger calves, hence would have no trouble.

bob

Court_1

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 6:49:21 PM3/12/12
to
On Mar 12, 6:48 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:34:34 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
> <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 12, 6:22 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>yet i still see peak hewitt as #5
> >> today, cause after #4 we fall off a cliff.
>
> >That is what I am saying.  Prime.Hewitt could easily be number 4 or 5
> >in the world today and I personally do not see Murray as much better
> >than prime Hewitt.
>
> murray has much bigger calves, hence would have no trouble.

:)

number_six

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 8:27:43 PM3/12/12
to
On Mar 12, 10:15 am, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
> ....funny pic....blast from the past. Quite some talent there.
>
> http://www.thenextpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Balls-Plea...

Indeed, though not in the graphic design department.

I didn't like that poster at the time, still don't today. The tour
obviously told everyone to cop an attitude. Their expressions look
ridiculous.

How do we say -- they lack "street cred."

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Mar 12, 2012, 11:32:20 PM3/12/12
to
It's a tennis poster after all... :))))

P

number_six

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 12:18:49 AM3/13/12
to
Exactly...which is why the contrived attempt to look menacing yields
such a preposterous result!

Pelle Svanslös

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 2:15:57 AM3/13/12
to
On 12.3.2012 23:11, Court_1 wrote:

(1):
> I think if Hewitt were in his prime
> today he could still be probably 4 or 5 in the world.

(2):
> The players today below number 4 or 5 are a bunch
> of clowns for the most part IMO. Hewitt is a better player than most
> of those clowns

This is a very good summary of it. Hewitt is better than the clowns, but
still among them as far as real players are concerned.

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

Superdave

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 2:27:11 AM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:15:57 +0100, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:

>On 12.3.2012 23:11, Court_1 wrote:
>
>(1):
>> I think if Hewitt were in his prime
>> today he could still be probably 4 or 5 in the world.
>
>(2):
>> The players today below number 4 or 5 are a bunch
>> of clowns for the most part IMO. Hewitt is a better player than most
>> of those clowns
>
>This is a very good summary of it. Hewitt is better than the clowns, but
>still among them as far as real players are concerned.


I would compare him to perhaps Ferrer. You know, tenacious and capable
of the big upset. Of course Hewitt is a slam winner but lets not
forget that was in the Sampras era and against Sampras where clowns
actually had a chance. In the Fed era, he has done squat.

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 4:52:54 AM3/13/12
to
Yes... Hewitt was able to win 2 majors at the end of the Pete-Andre
Era, then as experienced champion was shut out during Fed-Rafa era...

P

john

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:05:33 AM3/13/12
to


"bob" wrote in message news:ogtsl75c0hkgnphk7...@4ax.com...
An out of form Sampras would usually beat Agassi but not Hewitt, strange
wasn't it ?
It also said a lot about Sampras' era competition. Hewitt owns Kafelnikov
7:0 and
Rafter 3:0.





bob

Manuel aka Xax

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:16:36 AM3/13/12
to
Can't agree more.
ATP and/or photographer wanted them to look so mean that it ruined the
whole thing.
Ridiculous is also what I had in mind.
Anything else would have been better (even not caring/knowing about
every player's own style... wich was a thing in construction for most
of them).

Superdave

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:33:47 AM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:05:33 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
very very strange indeed. he won 14 slams. how many were top 5 when he
beat them in the final?

how many were outside the top 10?

i wonder how that compares with Fed?

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

i think sampras sucked a lot of cock like whisper no?

Whisper

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:38:59 AM3/13/12
to
On 13/03/2012 10:05 PM, john wrote:
>
>> hewitt would have a tough go of it against a very powerful baseliner
>> (i.e. rafa, fed, agassi type). his best moment was VS an old and out
>> of form sampras whose game was suited to hewitt's - i.e. backboard
>> type stuff against s/v player, and VS roddick on occasion (big server,
>> little else). hewitt's limitations would've prevented him from beating
>> a peak sampras/agassi/fed/nadal IMO. yet i still see peak hewitt as #5
>> today, cause after #4 we fall off a cliff.
>
> An out of form Sampras would usually beat Agassi but not Hewitt, strange
> wasn't it ?

Strange only to low IQ types. Only the dumbest fans think Hewitt was
better than Sampras. There are very few fans this dumb, given you're
the only one on the internet anywhere who thinks this. It can't be all
the other fans & professional analysts missed it can it?




john

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:45:58 AM3/13/12
to


"Whisper" wrote in message
news:l5ednTleVOlPrMLS...@westnet.com.au...
Whisper, we all know you are the dumbest poster here you don't even need
to show up in RST to retain that title.



Whisper

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:49:41 AM3/13/12
to
Hewitt is a fluke slam champ. Keep in mind yes he won 2001 USO, but
Sampras crushed him in 2000 USO & Agassi did likewise in 2002 USO. 2001
he was lucky to beat Roddick in 5 set q/f.

Hewitt would have maybe 1% chance of beating peak Sampras/Agassi in
slams? Maybe 1.5% but that's max.


Whisper

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:53:41 AM3/13/12
to
I'm serious. Show me 1 other person on earth who agrees with you that
Hewitt was a better tennis player than Sampras?

Don't you think it's unusual you're the only one? Yes maybe you are
that smart & can see it, but surely it can't be every other analyst is
too dumb to see it? The odds would suggest you're that dumb, given no
one else backs your views. I'm not saying this to be nasty, but that's
what the evidence suggests.



Superdave

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 7:53:41 AM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:49:41 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
Realistically, it's definitely more than 50%, probably more than 75%
and perhaps as high as 85%.

Whisper

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 8:00:23 AM3/13/12
to
On 13/03/2012 10:53 PM, Superdave wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:49:41 +1100, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2012 5:27 PM, Superdave wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:15:57 +0100, Pelle Svanslös<pe...@svans.los>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12.3.2012 23:11, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (1):
>>>>> I think if Hewitt were in his prime
>>>>> today he could still be probably 4 or 5 in the world.
>>>>
>>>> (2):
>>>>> The players today below number 4 or 5 are a bunch
>>>>> of clowns for the most part IMO. Hewitt is a better player than most
>>>>> of those clowns
>>>>
>>>> This is a very good summary of it. Hewitt is better than the clowns, but
>>>> still among them as far as real players are concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would compare him to perhaps Ferrer. You know, tenacious and capable
>>> of the big upset. Of course Hewitt is a slam winner but lets not
>>> forget that was in the Sampras era and against Sampras where clowns
>>> actually had a chance. In the Fed era, he has done squat.
>>
>>
>> Hewitt is a fluke slam champ. Keep in mind yes he won 2001 USO, but
>> Sampras crushed him in 2000 USO& Agassi did likewise in 2002 USO. 2001
>> he was lucky to beat Roddick in 5 set q/f.
>>
>> Hewitt would have maybe 1% chance of beating peak Sampras/Agassi in
>> slams? Maybe 1.5% but that's max.
>>
>
> Realistically, it's definitely more than 50%, probably more than 75%
> and perhaps as high as 85%.


It's very close to zero I'm afraid. But for a few points he never would
have won a slam at all. Hewitt would not have better chances of beating
peak Sampras/Agassi than Chang had.


john

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 8:07:24 AM3/13/12
to


"Whisper" wrote in message
news:l5ednTteVOneqMLS...@westnet.com.au...

On 13/03/2012 10:45 PM, john wrote:
>
>
> "Whisper" wrote in message
> news:l5ednTleVOlPrMLS...@westnet.com.au...
>
> On 13/03/2012 10:05 PM, john wrote:
>>
>>> hewitt would have a tough go of it against a very powerful baseliner
>>> (i.e. rafa, fed, agassi type). his best moment was VS an old and out
>>> of form sampras whose game was suited to hewitt's - i.e. backboard
>>> type stuff against s/v player, and VS roddick on occasion (big server,
>>> little else). hewitt's limitations would've prevented him from beating
>>> a peak sampras/agassi/fed/nadal IMO. yet i still see peak hewitt as #5
>>> today, cause after #4 we fall off a cliff.
>>
>> An out of form Sampras would usually beat Agassi but not Hewitt, strange
>> wasn't it ?
>
>> Strange only to low IQ types. Only the dumbest fans think Hewitt was
>> better than Sampras. There are very few fans this dumb, given you're
>> the only one on the internet anywhere who thinks this. It can't be all
>> the other fans & professional analysts missed it can it?
>
> Whisper, we all know you are the dumbest poster here you don't even need
> to show up in RST to retain that title.
>
>
>



>I'm serious. Show me 1 other person on earth who agrees with you that
>Hewitt was a better tennis player than Sampras?

Show me one person who did not think Hewitt played a better match than
Sampras in USO final. Of course we know you are dumb and have incredible
difficulty to comprehend in things written in your own language. Show me
1 link where I said Hewitt was a greater player than Sampras. Hewitt was
the
better player in that match than Sampras and that is why he won the USO
final
in 2001.


>Don't you think it's unusual you're the only one? Yes maybe you are that
>smart & can see it, but surely it can't be every other analyst is too dumb
>to see it? The odds would suggest you're that dumb, given no one else
>backs your views. I'm not saying this to be nasty, but that's what the
>evidence suggests.

The available evidence so far suggest you need more IQ test, I remember last
time
you had an IQ of 59 about half of normal human average, it is either
medicine time
or go for another test for you. By the way you need to start some serious
reading
and comprehension class. From your post we can see an early sign of
dementia.

john

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 8:12:09 AM3/13/12
to


"Whisper" wrote in message
news:dI6dnTlrpf5Iq8LS...@westnet.com.au...
Of course we all know how accurate you are with numbers. Remember Roddick
only had to play 70% of his max to beat Federer at 100% and we all know
which
idiot come out with that figure.

Superdave

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 8:13:15 AM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:00:23 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
EXCUSE ME ?

99% of ALL your posts are ..."he never wuda" .... he never "cuda" ...
" he never "shuda" and it's very "close to 0" and it's "almost 100%"
and shit lidat !

NO FUCKING FACTS AT ALL !!!

Just BULLSHIT piled upon more BULLSHIT !!!

Hewitt beats Sampras/ I mean really really kicks his fucking ass in
STRAIGHT SETS at the USO and YOU fucking say it's almost ZERO !!!

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha 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 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Take a POLL. 99% of RST think YOU are a fucking ZERO !

Whisper

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 8:18:12 AM3/13/12
to
Sampras was old, close to retirement & not winning anything for 2 years.
You never mention peak Fed losing 61 63 60 in a slam final? How come?

Never mind I know why.


john

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 8:31:50 AM3/13/12
to


"Whisper" wrote in message
news:uumdnfw-hsyfpsLS...@westnet.com.au...
You are talking about Sampras, dumb ass. And Sampras was in the middle of
his
peak according whisperian logic.

felangey

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 9:33:47 AM3/13/12
to
>ATP and/or photographer wanted them to look so mean that it ruined the
>whole thing.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06K8107442b8T/900x.jpg

felangey

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 9:36:01 AM3/13/12
to
>Hewitt was the better player in that match than Sampras and that is why he
>won the USO final in 2001.

Sampras never earnestly lost a match in his career. There were always
extenuating circumstances.

bob

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 11:58:07 AM3/13/12
to
i don't believe i ever made an excuse for a sampras loss prior to wim
2000. not even 1 that i can recall.

bob

bob

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 12:12:22 PM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:49:41 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

IMO when we talk about hewitt we talk about style of play advantages,
i.e. the dirty matchup word, like i said many times, matchups exist
they just are not an excuse for losing. hewitt best matched up against
s/v because of ROS was his most advantageous shot, and he poorly
matched up against guys stronger from the baseline than himself
(agsssi, fed, nadal for ex).

that said, hewitt's absolute peak level was good enough to beat an out
of form sampras and probably could beat old/out of form becker/edberg
too. but matchup or not, his level was not good enough to beat those
guys anywhere near their peak.

hewitt fell into good timing with his 2 slams, won both on fast courts
during a lull between great s/v player (wim 2000) and next great round
of baseliners (2003). IMO open/shut case.

bob

bob

unread,
Mar 13, 2012, 12:18:43 PM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:31:50 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
i never filter anyone, and i'm going against my better judgement
responding to john, but here goes 1 more time.

sampras after wim 2000 set the slam record and most wimbledons, and a
rare match where his parents attended. he was emotionally drained, and
right afterward lost focus, stopped prepping the same, stopped
training the same and didn't care too much. sooon after that
developed annoying back problem too.

yet he still showed up to slams, gave his best shot for 2 wks, which
in some cases was still good enough for a good showing. wasn't til
spring 2002 after almsot 2 yrs of losing routinely that he was being
dissed badly in the press and got a little peeved and decided for a
few more months to see if he could shut em up. which he did.

bob

John Liang

unread,
Mar 14, 2012, 12:50:05 AM3/14/12
to
On Mar 14, 3:18 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:31:50 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Whisper"  wrote in message
> >news:uumdnfw-hsyfpsLS...@westnet.com.au...
>
> >On 13/03/2012 11:13 PM, Superdave wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:00:23 +1100, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 13/03/2012 10:53 PM, Superdave wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:49:41 +1100, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
lines of excuses. The same Sampras would come up and best his arch
rival 4 out of 5 times in the same time frame. He did not lost focus
in getting to slam finals just got slammed by players that were too
hot for him on the day.

bob

unread,
Mar 14, 2012, 6:48:39 PM3/14/12
to
all legit facts though.

>The same Sampras would come up and best his arch
>rival 4 out of 5 times in the same time frame. He did not lost focus
>in getting to slam finals just got slammed by players that were too
>hot for him on the day.

and yet lose to soooo many poor players.

>> yet he still showed up to slams, gave his best shot for 2 wks, which
>> in some cases was still good enough for a good showing. wasn't til
>> spring 2002 after almsot 2 yrs of losing routinely that he was being
>> dissed badly in the press and got a little peeved and decided for a
>> few more months to see if he could shut em up. which he did.
>>
>> bob


bob

arnab.z@gmail

unread,
Mar 15, 2012, 4:43:17 AM3/15/12
to
Your version is too kind to Sampras. Not objective. As expected.

john

unread,
Mar 15, 2012, 6:13:42 AM3/15/12
to


"bob" wrote in message news:o082m71bj0cdkm35a...@4ax.com...
They are not legit at all and certainly no proove on this. As for
developing
back problem, well a lot of players play with this type of injury through
out
their career, eg Edberg always had back problem since 1989 had to ease up
on his serve, Lendl also had the back problem through out part of his
career.


>The same Sampras would come up and best his arch
>rival 4 out of 5 times in the same time frame. He did not lost focus
>in getting to slam finals just got slammed by players that were too
>hot for him on the day.

>and yet lose to soooo many poor players.

Yet, he got to the final of grand slam and got beaten by a hot player. A
fact you find hard to accept.

bob

unread,
Mar 15, 2012, 7:29:55 PM3/15/12
to
there's not really a version, just what happened. and what happened to
sampras in those 22 months or so is how i said. i don't see why it
bothers people anyhow, if you want to make a legit argument that fed
would beat pete, just take peak fed's game VS peak pete's.

bob

bob

unread,
Mar 15, 2012, 7:31:06 PM3/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:13:42 +1100, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
of course this is what happened, you're being unaware of it is not my
problem john.

bob

john

unread,
Mar 16, 2012, 10:40:32 AM3/16/12
to


"bob" wrote in message news:vru4m7tufkgd7bm2j...@4ax.com...
Of course not, Sampras played with injury just like other players in any
era and making
excuse for his injury in a trait of most of your arguments.

bob

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Mar 16, 2012, 2:58:30 PM3/16/12
to
On Mar 13, 5:18 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 13/03/2012 11:13 PM, Superdave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:00:23 +1100, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 13/03/2012 10:53 PM, Superdave wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:49:41 +1100, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> Never mind I know why.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah! Pete was defending Wimbledon champion... heading into the 2001
championships... the place he felt most confident in the entire tour,
center court Wimbledon, "his office" he called it... he was the
greatest Wimbledon champion of all time wasn't he? And yet baby Fed
took him out... yep...

P

Manuel aka Xax

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 5:35:17 AM3/27/12
to
Thanks for that one, I had missed it, and didn't read this thread
after my previous post .

Doesn't get any better...
I couldn't even recognize for sure two or three players (is that
Dimitrov behind Tsonga? Who is the one with the yellow shirt on the
back left? I guess the asian player must be Nishikori)...
What the fuck is doing Verdasco here?

Nadal looks absolutly stupid.
Isner somewhat caught in the light, or lost / unconcerned.
Federer, Murray, Berdych, Ferrer & Raonic are looking near okay,
slightly unconcerned (not carring about that "ferocious look" everyone
has been asked to put on his face), if not bored (Ferrer).
Djokovic, Tsiparevic & Tomic have most successfully translated the
"mean looking guys".
Nishikori & Dimitrov (if I guessed right) are okay, not acting much.
I like Tsonga's posture: like he was looking at something,
questioning.

Who is the asshole responsible for these ads?
How dumb is it trying to ask players to look angry, when everyting has
changed (thanks to Mac, or self-parodic Mac) on court to kill most
display of anger (even self-inflicted ones)?
How cheap is that (false) rebel attitude campaign...
0 new messages