Sampras vs Edberg head to head

[soccerfan777]

Since only slams matter according to Whisper...

Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.

Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.

He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.

1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.

18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2

Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!! The even more funny thing is they played three tie-breakers in those slam meetings and Edberg won all of them. The first set they played, it was Sampras who won it. Seems like Edberg figured out the clown after the first set.

Safe to say that if Sampras had to deal with peak Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker, he would have been toast.

[*skriptis]

imbecille

[PeteWasLucky]

Edberg is the most talented serve and volleyer I have watched.

[The Iceberg]

lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January.

[Tier3]

lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January. <<

Sampras chided his own performance and cited that USO finals loss as the one that spurred him to become a better competitor, which he certainly became. I wasn't unhappy since I liked Edberg a lot and was glad to see him defend his title.

[Guypers]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:29:27 PM UTC-4, Tier3 wrote:
> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January. <<
>
> Sampras chided his own performance and cited that USO finals loss as the one that spurred him to become a better competitor, which he certainly became. I wasn't unhappy since I liked Edberg a lot and was glad to see him defend his title.

If Pete played during the last 12 years, how many majors would he have?
FO, lol
USO, AO, WO?
4 or 5 at most?

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:29:27 AM UTC-5, Tier3 wrote:
> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January. <<
>
> Sampras chided his own performance and cited that USO finals loss as the one that spurred him to become a better competitor,

And lose in straights to Edberg again in the very next slam...lol

[soccerfan777]

Shut up Whisper's poodle.

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:29:27 AM UTC+10, Tier3 wrote:
> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January. <<
>
> Sampras chided his own performance and cited that USO finals loss as the one that spurred him to become a better competitor, which he certainly became. I wasn't unhappy since I liked Edberg a lot and was glad to see him defend his title.

But a lot of players that Sampras faced in grand slam finals apart from Agassi during his peak were simply not in Edberg's class. Sampras had light weight competition to build up his slam total. I think there is a lot of undue credit given to Sampras as a great clutch player when the competition he faced was considerably light weight compare to the late 80s and what Federer faces in the current era.

[John Liang]

Most of their matches were tight, a lot of them went to 3rd set tie breaks in the best of 3 format. You obviously stupid enough to believe Sampras did not bother to try hard in a final when he tried hard to make the final.

[soccerfan777]

Yes Edberg got lucky twice... Fuck off.

[soccerfan777]

Yeah that's why rate him below all time greats. His slam count is vastly inflated.

[Tier3]

Yeah that's why rate him below all time greats. His slam count is vastly inflated. <<

That's so subjective. When I make a case that I think men's slam counts are now inflated, I make it based on the way the game is being played and more uniformity in court types not who played who to win 14 and 17 slams. That's a hell of a lot of slams any which way. You're just blowing shit out your ass with this stuff. Edberg was a great and elegant player, but nobody in their right mind thinks he was better than peak/mature Sampras. Pete won a big one early, in rather spectacular fashion, and it took him a while to play up to that consistently. He raised the bar on power baseline tennis as a 19 year old winning that--fuck Lendl, who I happen to like. Everyone knew Sampras was talented as hell before he won the USO. Lendl had invited him to stay at his house to practice. During his prime years he always improved right up to '99 when he injured his back before the USO--which he would have been heavily favored to win. He wasn't the same after that, but still managed 3 consecutive USO finals, winning the last against this biggest rival and one of the greats of the game himself, Agassi. Doesn't get much better than that.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-7, Tier3 wrote:

> That's so subjective. When I make a case that I think men's slam counts are now inflated, I make it based on the way the game is being played and more uniformity in court types not who played who to win 14 and 17 slams. That's a hell of a lot of slams any which way. You're just blowing shit out your ass with this stuff. Edberg was a great and elegant player, but nobody in their right mind thinks he was better than peak/mature Sampras. Pete won a big one early, in rather spectacular fashion, and it took him a while to play up to that consistently. He raised the bar on power baseline tennis as a 19 year old winning that--fuck Lendl, who I happen to like. Everyone knew Sampras was talented as hell before he won the USO. Lendl had invited him to stay at his house to practice. During his prime years he always improved right up to '99 when he injured his back before the USO--which he would have been heavily favored to win. He wasn't the same after that, but still managed 3 consecutive USO finals, winning the last against this biggest rival and one of the greats of the game himself, Agassi. Doesn't get much better than that.

Yes, post his back surgery in 1999, his movement, esp. to the FH side, slipped a bit. He wasn't as explosive as before. He also didn't appear as lithe as before (seemed to have put on some weight).

Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a great HC player, fast or slow.

[The Iceberg]

nice joke, Nadal got 7 games off a Tsonga playing like a hung-over Sampras.

[The Iceberg]

LOOLOLLLLOOLLL

[jdeluise]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:


>
> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster
> surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a
> great HC player, fast or slow.

But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
"holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.

[The Iceberg]

he invented the slam chase race, you doughnut.

[The Iceberg]

he tried hard to make the final, but was happy just to be there. If this wasn't the case, he'd talk about the 93 AO instead, do you understand, thicko Fedfan?.

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 16:50:15 UTC+2 schreef soccerfan777:

> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>
> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>
> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
>
> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>
> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>
> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>
> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!!

This should disturb Whisper since Edberg was a great player himself. Not some flash in the pan journeyman against whom it's just perfectly fine losing against. The fact Sampras couldn't beat a great when it mattered most automatically disqualifies him from any realistic GOAT and BOAT conversation according to Whisper. Especially since Edberg was past his peak while Sampras was at or close to his peak himself.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 4:12:06 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:

> But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
> "holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
> of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.

Yes, Fed did prevent Roddick from winning more slams. And it is to Fed's credit as well. Though I would say that Agassi was most definitely a better player overall (except maybe on grass) than Roddick.

[jdeluise]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:


>
> Yes, Fed did prevent Roddick from winning more slams. And it is to
> Fed's credit as well. Though I would say that Agassi was most
> definitely a better player overall (except maybe on grass) than
> Roddick.

Ask Whisper about that one a few years ago and he'd beg to differ.

[soccerfan777]

haha. Yes. that's true.

[soccerfan777]

I wouldn't say Sampras necessarily prevented Agassi that much. Sampras beat Agassi 4 times at USO. But he also lost twice at AO.

Agassi won once at FO and lost twice at Wimbledon. Agassi was not great on grass and could have easily lost it to someone else. And even on USO he won it only twice and was vastly inconsistent that he could have lost to someone else if not Sampras.

I would safely say Federer was prevented by Nadal many times at FO because it was quite clear Federer was second best on clay for many years and if not for Nadal he would have definitely won it.

[soccerfan777]

Yes. This proves Whisper is not a boat candidate after all.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:33:29 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 7:00:00 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 4:12:06 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> >
> > > But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
> > > "holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
> > > of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.
> >
> > Yes, Fed did prevent Roddick from winning more slams. And it is to Fed's credit as well. Though I would say that Agassi was most definitely a better player overall (except maybe on grass) than Roddick.
>
> I wouldn't say Sampras necessarily prevented Agassi that much. Sampras beat Agassi 4 times at USO. But he also lost twice at AO.

Raja, isn't 4 losses at one slam a lot ? Also, I think Agassi wouldn't have had a walk-about if he hadn't lost the '95 USO F to Sampras. That loss had a big impact on Agassi.

>
> Agassi won once at FO and lost twice at Wimbledon. Agassi was not great on grass and could have easily lost it to someone else. And even on USO he won it only twice and was vastly inconsistent that he could have lost to someone else if not Sampras.
>

I don't see anybody beating Agassi in the USO F in 1995 or 2002. Courier was past his peak in 1995, and Agassi had already beaten the defending champion (and #1 player) Hewitt in the SF in 2002. The only one in doubt would be 1990 since Lendl would've made the F if no Sampras.

Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.

> I would safely say Federer was prevented by Nadal many times at FO because it was quite clear Federer was second best on clay for many years and if not for Nadal he would have definitely won it.

Sure.

[jdeluise]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:


> I don't see anybody beating Agassi in the USO F in 1995 or
> 2002. Courier was past his peak in 1995, and Agassi had already beaten
> the defending champion (and #1 player) Hewitt in the SF in 2002. The
> only one in doubt would be 1990 since Lendl would've made the F if no
> Sampras.

Yeah yeah, that's what they always say. Court_1 didn't see anyone
beating Nadal at Wimbledon for years, or anyone beating Djokovic at the
FO after he beat Nadal. When you consider that Agassi was a bit of a
talented flake there are definitely no guarantees with him.

[Shakes]

True.

[John Liang]

Going back to Edberg, I think he did match up extremely well against Sampras. Nobody rated Edberg's return game very highly but he was very effective in blocking the big serves back into play, he was an all out aggressor with an in your face type game that constantly putting pressure on even against the best. On fast court this sort of game was more effective than Agassi's baseline ball bashing game.

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko 30. syyskuuta 2015 1.35.39 UTC+3 Shakes kirjoitti:
> Yes, post his back surgery in 1999, his movement, esp. to the FH side, slipped a bit. He wasn't as explosive as before. He also didn't appear as lithe as before (seemed to have put on some weight)

I think Sampras did build muscle mass which actually harmed him long run. Slowed and made him more injury prone. (a'la Hewitt). Gained some maybe but lost some too...

> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a great HC player, fast or slow.

Indeed. Agassi's HC record is great - and this after being 0-4 at USO Sampras matches.

.mikko

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:10:29 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:33:29 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 7:00:00 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 4:12:06 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> > >
> > > > But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
> > > > "holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
> > > > of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.
> > >
> > > Yes, Fed did prevent Roddick from winning more slams. And it is to Fed's credit as well. Though I would say that Agassi was most definitely a better player overall (except maybe on grass) than Roddick.
> >
> > I wouldn't say Sampras necessarily prevented Agassi that much. Sampras beat Agassi 4 times at USO. But he also lost twice at AO.
>
> Raja, isn't 4 losses at one slam a lot ? Also, I think Agassi wouldn't have had a walk-about if he hadn't lost the '95 USO F to Sampras. That loss had a big impact on Agassi.
>
> >
> > Agassi won once at FO and lost twice at Wimbledon. Agassi was not great on grass and could have easily lost it to someone else. And even on USO he won it only twice and was vastly inconsistent that he could have lost to someone else if not Sampras.
> >
>
> I don't see anybody beating Agassi in the USO F in 1995 or 2002.

Agree about 1995. Looking at who Sampras beat enroute (buncha clowns and past it Courier) there is no one who could have beaten Agassi. And Agassi was #1 and in prime form then. It was indeed a shocker. The crowd was in full support of both Agassi and Seles and both lost.

Disagree about 2002. Sampras beat Haas and Roddick and both were favorites to win the match. Roddick won USO next year and Haas had beaten Federer and reached semis of AO 2002. I can see any one of them taking out Agassi.

>Courier was past his peak in 1995, and Agassi had already beaten the defending champion (and #1 player) Hewitt in the SF in 2002. The only one in doubt would be 1990 since Lendl would've made the F if no Sampras.

Lendl would have taken Agassi out. He was caught off-guard by the rookie in the QF. Had he won that he would have taken McEnroe and Agassi out. That was a key slam loss for Lendl.

>
> Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.

Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.

So in totality except 1995 USO which Agassi would have definitely won Sampras did not stop Agassi anywhere from definitely winning the slam.

[soccerfan777]

Yeah but there is difference between slow high bouncing hard courts (Flinders Park) and fast low bouncing hard courts (Flushing Meadows), at least in the 90s. Now both AO and USO seem to be of the same speed and bounce.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>
> > Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.
>
> Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.

"Flipper" was a total zero with virtually nothing else but his monster serve. As Agassi pointed out, he was in big trouble if unable to win a point in one or two shots. I don't know why some people take that guy seriously. He couldn't even beat Rafter in a slam final.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:17:08 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> >
> > > Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.
> >
> > Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
>
> "Flipper" was a total zero with virtually nothing else but his monster serve.

Wasn't Ivanisevic the same? And he made so many Wimbledon finals and eventually even won one?

>As Agassi pointed out, he was in big trouble if unable to win a point in one or two shots. I don't know why some people take that guy seriously. He couldn't even beat Rafter in a slam final.

In the 90s grass, that's all you did. Finish the point in 1 or 2 shots. Sampras himself admitted he was extremely luck Flipper got injured. Flipper won the 1st set.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:

> Disagree about 2002. Sampras beat Haas and Roddick and both were favorites to win the match. Roddick won USO next year and Haas had beaten Federer and reached semis of AO 2002. I can see any one of them taking out Agassi.
>

I can't see either of them beating Agassi. Roddick has a horrific record against Agassi as it is (1-5 with the one win coming on grass). Haas is even more flaky and hot-headed than Agassi. Plus he doesn't have enough depth/solidity in his game to beat Agassi on HC.

> >Courier was past his peak in 1995, and Agassi had already beaten the defending champion (and #1 player) Hewitt in the SF in 2002. The only one in doubt would be 1990 since Lendl would've made the F if no Sampras.
>
> Lendl would have taken Agassi out. He was caught off-guard by the rookie in the QF. Had he won that he would have taken McEnroe and Agassi out. That was a key slam loss for Lendl.
>

I agree. I think Lendl had a good record against Agassi.

> Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
>

Well, Flipper was injured anyways and so I'm assuming he wouldn't have made the F.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:23:45 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:17:08 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.
> > >
> > > Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
> >
> > "Flipper" was a total zero with virtually nothing else but his monster serve.
>
> Wasn't Ivanisevic the same? And he made so many Wimbledon finals and eventually even won one?
>

Ivanisevic was not as bad as you make him out to be. He was mentally flaky, but, apart form his serve, he had quite good volleys, a very good BH, moved well for someone who was 6'4". He was definitely a better grass court player than Roddick. He beat Edberg, Becker, Sampras at Wim.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:27:39 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>
> > Disagree about 2002. Sampras beat Haas and Roddick and both were favorites to win the match. Roddick won USO next year and Haas had beaten Federer and reached semis of AO 2002. I can see any one of them taking out Agassi.
> >
>
> I can't see either of them beating Agassi. Roddick has a horrific record against Agassi as it is (1-5 with the one win coming on grass). Haas is even more flaky and hot-headed than Agassi. Plus he doesn't have enough depth/solidity in his game to beat Agassi on HC.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Tommy_Haas/Andre_Agassi/

Pretty close.

>
> > >Courier was past his peak in 1995, and Agassi had already beaten the defending champion (and #1 player) Hewitt in the SF in 2002. The only one in doubt would be 1990 since Lendl would've made the F if no Sampras.
> >
> > Lendl would have taken Agassi out. He was caught off-guard by the rookie in the QF. Had he won that he would have taken McEnroe and Agassi out. That was a key slam loss for Lendl.
> >
>
> I agree. I think Lendl had a good record against Agassi.
>
> > Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
> >
>
> Well, Flipper was injured anyways and so I'm assuming he wouldn't have made the F.

No. You cant make that assumption. He retired against Sampras in the QF. If we won against Sampras without having that injury, it would really hard to believe that he would have got injured in the semis or finals. Be reasonable come on. That was his best chance to win Wimbledon.

[soccerfan777]

His volleying got better towards the end of this career. He was a miserable one dimensional server for most of the 90s. He beat Sampras in 1992, when Sampras was not playing very well. He beat Becker in 1994. Enough said. He did beat Edberg in 1992. But 1992 was not a great year for him and him winning USO was a big surprise. He barely won it having played 5 setters against Krajicek, Lendl and Chang in a row. And his win-loss that year was atrocious.

[The Iceberg]

Whisper's often said it was just a bad matchup that he didn't foresee. Correctly he's said Roddick would have got at least 5 slams without Fed being there.

[The Iceberg]

Agassi is still annoyed at Sampras for preventing him winning a lot more, at least he was only a few years ago, when he wrote his book. Agassi prevented himself a lot too due to being a very emotional bloke.

[John Liang]

Whisper said right after their match at Wimbledon 2003 Roddick only needs to play 70% of his max to beat Federer at 100%. That was absolutely wrong. Unless Federer was expected to be run over by a truck or dead in an accident Whisper was dead wrong since 2003. He was never correct and his prediction for both players were incorrect. So he did not Correctly said anything regarding the two.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 12:50 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>
> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>
> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
>
> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>
> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>
> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>

> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!! The even more funny thing is they played three tie-breakers in those slam meetings and Edberg won all of them. The first set they played, it was Sampras who won it. Seems like Edberg figured out the clown after the first set.
>
> Safe to say that if Sampras had to deal with peak Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker, he would have been toast.
>

You really must be retarded. No troll would even bother with this
argument, so I think you must have drunk a lot of alcohol in recent yrs
that have damaged your brain.

Only Stevie Wonder would watch a Sampras match & have no idea what all
the fuss is about.




--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 12:56 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> soccerfan777 wrote:
>> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>>
>> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87%
>> by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and
>> 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his
>> win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>>
>> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years
>> from 1985-1991.
>>
>> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>>
>> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>>
>> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
>> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>>
>> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams...
>> bwahahahaha!!! The even more funny thing is they played three
>> tie-breakers in those slam meetings and Edberg won all of them. The
>> first set they played, it was Sampras who won it. Seems like Edberg
>> figured out the clown after the first set.
>>
>> Safe to say that if Sampras had to deal with peak Connors, Borg,
>> McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker, he would have been
>> toast.
>
>

> imbecille
>
>


I think he may have a legitimate brain injury?

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 1:13 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Edberg is the most talented serve and volleyer I have watched.
>

Roche & Laver were better, as was McEnroe.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 3:12 AM, Guypers wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:29:27 PM UTC-4, Tier3 wrote:
>> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January. <<
>>
>> Sampras chided his own performance and cited that USO finals loss as the one that spurred him to become a better competitor, which he certainly became. I wasn't unhappy since I liked Edberg a lot and was glad to see him defend his title.
>
> If Pete played during the last 12 years, how many majors would he have?
> FO, lol
> USO, AO, WO?
> 4 or 5 at most?
>


14

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 6:22 AM, John Liang wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:29:27 AM UTC+10, Tier3 wrote:
>> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January. <<
>>
>> Sampras chided his own performance and cited that USO finals loss as the one that spurred him to become a better competitor, which he certainly became. I wasn't unhappy since I liked Edberg a lot and was glad to see him defend his title.
>

> But a lot of players that Sampras faced in grand slam finals apart from Agassi during his peak were simply not in Edberg's class. Sampras had light weight competition to build up his slam total. I think there is a lot of undue credit given to Sampras as a great clutch player when the competition he faced was considerably light weight compare to the late 80s and what Federer faces in the current era.
>

What tough players did Fed face in his peak yrs? Hewitt & Roddick?

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 6:44 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:11:48 AM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:

>> On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 15:50:15 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>>>
>>> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>>>
>>> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
>>>
>>> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>>>
>>> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>>>
>>> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
>>> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>>>
>>> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!! The even more funny thing is they played three tie-breakers in those slam meetings and Edberg won all of them. The first set they played, it was Sampras who won it. Seems like Edberg figured out the clown after the first set.
>>>
>>> Safe to say that if Sampras had to deal with peak Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker, he would have been toast.
>>

>> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January.
>

> Yes Edberg got lucky twice... Fuck off.
>


Sampras was a kid, a 1 slam wonder when he lost to Edberg. Everybody
loves Edberg & never begrudge those wins, but I can honestly say there
isn't a single tennis expert on the planet who thinks Edberg was a
better player than Sampras. There really isn't 1 person who understands
tennis who thinks that.

[John Liang]

Federer won more than 90% of his slam with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in the draw during his peak, so was it his fault that your BOAT of this era Nadal failed to reach finals more than 50% of the time when Federer was in non clay court finals. Don't forget it was your own assessment that Roddick was a potential 12 slam winner and was only restricted by Federer to just 1 slam. Do you seriously think peak Federer would not win against Piolines, Martins type in grand slam finals ?

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 7:59 AM, Tier3 wrote:
>
> Yeah that's why rate him below all time greats. His slam count is vastly inflated. <<
>
> That's so subjective. When I make a case that I think men's slam counts are now inflated, I make it based on the way the game is being played and more uniformity in court types not who played who to win 14 and 17 slams. That's a hell of a lot of slams any which way. You're just blowing shit out your ass with this stuff. Edberg was a great and elegant player, but nobody in their right mind thinks he was better than peak/mature Sampras. Pete won a big one early, in rather spectacular fashion, and it took him a while to play up to that consistently. He raised the bar on power baseline tennis as a 19 year old winning that--fuck Lendl, who I happen to like. Everyone knew Sampras was talented as hell before he won the USO. Lendl had invited him to stay at his house to practice. During his prime years he always improved right up to '99 when he injured his back before the USO--which he would have been heavily favored to win. He wasn't the same after that, but still managed 3 consecutive U
SO finals, winning the last against this biggest rival and one of the greats of the game himself, Agassi. Doesn't get much better than that.
>



Raja has never played a competitive tennis match in his life. He really
doesn't have any idea what tennis is.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 8:35 AM, Shakes wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-7, Tier3 wrote:
>
>> That's so subjective. When I make a case that I think men's slam counts are now inflated, I make it based on the way the game is being played and more uniformity in court types not who played who to win 14 and 17 slams. That's a hell of a lot of slams any which way. You're just blowing shit out your ass with this stuff. Edberg was a great and elegant player, but nobody in their right mind thinks he was better than peak/mature Sampras. Pete won a big one early, in rather spectacular fashion, and it took him a while to play up to that consistently. He raised the bar on power baseline tennis as a 19 year old winning that--fuck Lendl, who I happen to like. Everyone knew Sampras was talented as hell before he won the USO. Lendl had invited him to stay at his house to practice. During his prime years he always improved right up to '99 when he injured his back before the USO--which he would have been heavily favored to win. He wasn't the same after that, but still managed 3 consecutive

USO finals, winning the last against this biggest rival and one of the greats of the game himself, Agassi. Doesn't get much better than that.
>
> Yes, post his back surgery in 1999, his movement, esp. to the FH side, slipped a bit. He wasn't as explosive as before. He also didn't appear as lithe as before (seemed to have put on some weight).

>
> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a great HC player, fast or slow.
>

Yes, Sampras always raised his game v Agassi in big matches, the way
Rafa does v Fed.

[John Liang]

There isn't anyone think Edberg was a greater player than Sampras but Sampras was not unbeatable and Edberg certainly can beat Sampras at slam level matches.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 9:12 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>

>> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster
>> surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a
>> great HC player, fast or slow.
>

> But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
> "holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
> of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.
>

I give Fed huge credit for his consistency over 12 years. it's
phenomenal really. Roddick definitely regressed after a promising start.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 9:34 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 16:50:15 UTC+2 schreef soccerfan777:

>> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>>
>> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>>
>> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
>>
>> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>>
>> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>>
>> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
>> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>>
>> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!!
>

> This should disturb Whisper since Edberg was a great player himself. Not some flash in the pan journeyman against whom it's just perfectly fine losing against. The fact Sampras couldn't beat a great when it mattered most automatically disqualifies him from any realistic GOAT and BOAT conversation according to Whisper. Especially since Edberg was past his peak while Sampras was at or close to his peak himself.
>

Doesn't disturb me at all. I loved Edberg's game. Sampras was a 1 slam
wonder at the time beating Edberg easily in tune-ups 62 63 type, but got
tight in a couple of big slam matches. That's mostly a case of huge
experience v massive inexperience, very common in tennis history.

In fact Edberg probably is responsible for Sampras turning things around
& dominating tennis like nobody has to date (6 yrs in a row yr-end
No.1). Sampras said the loss to Edberg in '92 USO final made him
realize r/up would never be good enough again.

[John Liang]

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 11:37:09 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 30/09/2015 9:12 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> > Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster
> >> surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a
> >> great HC player, fast or slow.
> >
> > But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
> > "holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
> > of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.
> >
>
>
>
> I give Fed huge credit for his consistency over 12 years. it's
> phenomenal really. Roddick definitely regressed after a promising start.

Regress, hardly but you have real problem admitting that your own tennis analytical skill is near the bottom, there were very few people in RST believe Roddick was a superior talent than Federer and you were one of those, other been bob who is your sidekick. Fed actually earn his credit you have given no credit to him but plenty of excuses about how he won his grand slams.

[John Liang]

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 11:42:17 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 30/09/2015 9:34 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 16:50:15 UTC+2 schreef soccerfan777:
> >> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
> >>
> >> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
> >>
> >> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
> >>
> >> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
> >>
> >> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
> >>
> >> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
> >> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
> >>
> >> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!!
> >
> > This should disturb Whisper since Edberg was a great player himself. Not some flash in the pan journeyman against whom it's just perfectly fine losing against. The fact Sampras couldn't beat a great when it mattered most automatically disqualifies him from any realistic GOAT and BOAT conversation according to Whisper. Especially since Edberg was past his peak while Sampras was at or close to his peak himself.
> >
>
> Doesn't disturb me at all. I loved Edberg's game. Sampras was a 1 slam
> wonder at the time beating Edberg easily in tune-ups 62 63 type, but got
> tight in a couple of big slam matches. That's mostly a case of huge
> experience v massive inexperience, very common in tennis history.

Sampras was already a grand slam champion and so there is no excuse in lacking in experience in both AO semi and USO final. If we look at all their results through out their matches Edberg can certainly match Sampras and a lot of their matches were tight even when Sampras was clearly at his peak and Edberg was fading.

>
> In fact Edberg probably is responsible for Sampras turning things around
> & dominating tennis like nobody has to date (6 yrs in a row yr-end
> No.1). Sampras said the loss to Edberg in '92 USO final made him
> realize r/up would never be good enough again.

Edberg was nearly 5 years older than Sampras and lucky for Sampras Edberg actually faded away after 92 USO.

[Guypers]

What a moron! Laver was a shit volleyer, Rosewall, Newc were great volley eras! Dope

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 10:36 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 6:35:02 PM UTC-5, kaennorsing wrote:
>> Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 16:50:15 UTC+2 schreef soccerfan777:
>>> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>>>
>>> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>>>
>>> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
>>>
>>> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>>>
>>> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>>>
>>> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
>>> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>>>
>>> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!!
>>
>> This should disturb Whisper since Edberg was a great player himself. Not some flash in the pan journeyman against whom it's just perfectly fine losing against. The fact Sampras couldn't beat a great when it mattered most automatically disqualifies him from any realistic GOAT and BOAT conversation according to Whisper. Especially since Edberg was past his peak while Sampras was at or close to his peak himself.
>

> Yes. This proves Whisper is not a boat candidate after all.
>

Give up on Lendl mate. Nobody rates him. It's ok to be a fan but
really dumb trying to drag down true tier 1 greats like Sampras to boost
Lendl.

I liked Ivan but he really was a pedestrian talent compared to the
greats of the game.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2015 11:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>

>> I don't see anybody beating Agassi in the USO F in 1995 or
>> 2002. Courier was past his peak in 1995, and Agassi had already beaten

>> the defending champion (and #1 player) Hewitt in the SF in 2002. The
>> only one in doubt would be 1990 since Lendl would've made the F if no
>> Sampras.
>

> Yeah yeah, that's what they always say. Court_1 didn't see anyone
> beating Nadal at Wimbledon for years, or anyone beating Djokovic at the
> FO after he beat Nadal. When you consider that Agassi was a bit of a
> talented flake there are definitely no guarantees with him.
>


Yes, but Shakes is right with these examples. Agassi was at his
absolute peak in '95 USO & '99 Wimbledon, & only Sampras could stop him.

[John Liang]

Saying Sampras is not BOAT does not logically boost Lendl, Sampras is not BOAT or GOAT. There is no BOAT.

[Whisper]

On 1/10/2015 12:23 AM, MBDunc wrote:

> keskiviikko 30. syyskuuta 2015 1.35.39 UTC+3 Shakes kirjoitti:
>> Yes, post his back surgery in 1999, his movement, esp. to the FH side, slipped a bit. He wasn't as explosive as before. He also didn't appear as lithe as before (seemed to have put on some weight)
>

> I think Sampras did build muscle mass which actually harmed him long run. Slowed and made him more injury prone. (a'la Hewitt). Gained some maybe but lost some too...

>
>> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a great HC player, fast or slow.
>

> Indeed. Agassi's HC record is great - and this after being 0-4 at USO Sampras matches.
>
> .mikko
>


Yes, imagine if he was 4-0 v Sampras at USO. He'd have 10 HC slams
(best ever slam winner on hardcourts) & 12 slams overall, & Sampras
would have only 10. Just goes to show how important those big slam
finals v your main rival really are. Funny how how Fedfuckers try to
downplay Fed's 2-9 h2h v Rafa in slams, when he'd be far & away the all
time goat if he reversed that.

Sampras realized the legacy importance of those USO matches v Agassi &
never gave him a chance in any of them.

[Whisper]

On 1/10/2015 9:30 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>
>> Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.
>
> Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
>

Only a bona fide moron would expect a no slammer to be fave v Sampras.

[Whisper]

On 1/10/2015 10:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:17:08 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.
>>>
>>> Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
>>

>> "Flipper" was a total zero with virtually nothing else but his monster serve.
>
> Wasn't Ivanisevic the same? And he made so many Wimbledon finals and eventually even won one?
>

>> As Agassi pointed out, he was in big trouble if unable to win a point in one or two shots. I don't know why some people take that guy seriously. He couldn't even beat Rafter in a slam final.
>
> In the 90s grass, that's all you did. Finish the point in 1 or 2 shots. Sampras himself admitted he was extremely luck Flipper got injured. Flipper won the 1st set.
>
>


Didn't Sampras lose it by double faulting on break point?

[Whisper]

On 1/10/2015 10:31 AM, Shakes wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:23:45 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:17:08 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, I don't see anybody beating Agassi in 1999 Wim F. Ivanisevic was gone, as was Philippoussis. Agassi himself beat Rafter. And, no, Henman wasn't beating Agassi, even on grass.
>>>>
>>>> Flipper would have beaten Sampras and Agassi if not for the injury. I wouldn't favor Agassi too much against Flipper. I would have favored him against Henman for sure. But Henman would have mince meat against Flipper who was in fine form and had also made USO finals the previous year.
>>>
>>> "Flipper" was a total zero with virtually nothing else but his monster serve.
>>
>> Wasn't Ivanisevic the same? And he made so many Wimbledon finals and eventually even won one?
>>
>

> Ivanisevic was not as bad as you make him out to be.

Indeed he beat Lendl easily at Wimbledon.

[Whisper]

Yes, & there is no doubt at all Seppi can easily beat Federer at slam
matches.

[Whisper]

You are disqualified from commenting on Fed v Roddick because you said
there was no way in hell Federer would have a better career than
Roddick. You changed your tune after Fed won 10 slams & Roddick still
had 1, but that doesn't count for obvious reasons. Your real insight
was your original view.

[John Liang]

Seppi never beat Federer in a slam final and base on your flaw magic Federer could have played half assed in a slam 3rd round match. While Edberg beat Sampras in a slam final when both were fully assed.

[Whisper]

I like Edberg & would welcome him being better than Sampras. Only true
morons think he actually was. I don't think you think Edberg was really
better than Sampras, but for some weird reason you want to equate it
with Fed v Nadal situation? Incredibly stupid imo.

[Whisper]

Fuck off stupid. You know less about tennis than my terrier.

[soccerfan777]

Sampras himself rates Lendl as top 5 in Open era. So piss off with your "no one" crap.

>
> I liked Ivan but he really was a pedestrian talent compared to the
> greats of the game.

LOL. yet he kicked everyone ass. And especially McEnroe whom he led 7-3 in slams.

I disagree Lendl had no talent. Lendl said he had not much natural talent but practiced hard and developed a powerful game. Whether talent is acquired naturally or by practice it doesn't matter.

[soccerfan777]

That's true. If you look at single match, I would say the way Krajicek destroyed Sampras in 1996 and Stich destroyed Becker in 1991, at the very beak they are the BOATS. If not BOATS, they are at least the best since 1990.

It is an absolute rubbish idea to calculate who was the best. Its all subjective.

[John Liang]

I hit the nail right on its head. Where did I say there is no way in hell Federer would have a better career than Roddick, can you please produce the link? I have certainly have more insight than you ever had. I said after 2003 W that Federer would be more successful than Roddick and you on the other hand said something like Roddick would be too powerful and Federer was all wrist action, would not be able to see let along hitting those shots against nuclear power of Roddick's ground strokes. Google yourself for those 'wonderful' comments from our bottom barrel analyst using the Whisper alias.

[John Liang]

Edberg is not great than Sampras but he proved your idea of somehow Sampras was somehow unbeatable was dead wrong. There is nothing you say will make Sampras ranked ahead of Federer, nothing will regardless how many new term you like to invent, how many goal post you like to shift. For Nadal as it stands Federer's 7 Wimbledon, 5 USO, 4 AO and 1 FO still rated far better than Nadal's 9 FO, 2 W , 2 USO and 1 AO .

[soccerfan777]

lol, what a lying cunt. Lendl was injured and retired in the 4 set, after having won the 1st set. And this was in 1992 when was seeded 10th and already past it. Lendl had struggled against Sandon Stolle the earlier round winning only 7-5 in fifth.

[soccerfan777]

Bastl can easily beat peak Sampras in slams matches.

[Guypers]

LOL!

[jdeluise]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:


>
>
> Only a bona fide moron would expect a no slammer to be fave v Sampras.

How about all those journeymen smacking their lips when they heard they
had to play Sampras in Paris?

[jdeluise]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:

> You changed your tune after Fed won 10 slams & Roddick still
> had 1, but that doesn't count for obvious reasons. Your real insight
> was your original view.

Oh really.... this is an interesting development. Let's apply it to you :)

[soccerfan777]

Yzaga liked to handle peak Sampras even at USO...lol. Sampras lost USO 1994 to a journeyman...lol. And 1994 was Sampras' best year.

[bob]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:37:05 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 30/09/2015 9:12 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>> Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>

>>> Most folks criticize Agassi as being Sampras' bunny on the faster
>>> surfaces. It's to Sampras' credit that he made it so. Agassi was a
>>> great HC player, fast or slow.
>>

>> But that's the way it goes... Federer is given no credit by Whisper for
>> "holding down" Roddick, even though he previously prasied every aspect
>> of Roddick's game, said he would win all the slams etc.
>>
>
>
>

>I give Fed huge credit for his consistency over 12 years. it's
>phenomenal really. Roddick definitely regressed after a promising start.

roddick got caught up in the money and fame early, and didn't practice
accordingly til it was very late in career.

bob

[jdeluise]

Roddick was a one-trick pony from the start. You guys didn't see it?
Wow... just wow...

[soccerfan777]

Yes. And he the most aesthetically unpleasing game I have ever seen. Only a true fucktard like Whisper would fall in love with his game.

Ivanisevic was unwatcheable and had awful groundstrokes and volleys but improved his volleying towards the end of his career. Roddick essentially bumrooted in spite of having a huge serve.

[*skriptis]

Stolle is a bit better than Cowan

[John Liang]

Rubbish bob, Roddick was pretty dedicated to his tennis under both Gilbert and Connors but he just did not have the talent that Federer had and most casual observers in RST could see it back in 2003 except with Tier 1 idiot like you and your master could not see the talent gulf between Federer and Roddick.

[Tier3]

Rubbish bob, Roddick was pretty dedicated to his tennis under both Gilbert and Connors but he just did not have the talent that Federer had and most casual observers in RST could see it back in 2003 except with Tier 1 idiot like you and your master could not see the talent gulf between Federer and Roddick. <<

Roddick seemed pretty dedicated to me and he did add some components--slice and better volleys/willingness to come in. I think his FH which helped gain him early results became a bit old hat to other players. Where I didn't like him as a player or personality, I came to respect his competitiveness. He was definitely outmatched by Fed and others in the talent dept, he had a couple of weapons and usually gave a good account of himself on the court. But for a missed high BH volley, he may well have won a Wimbledon title vs Fed. He was bringing it that day.

[Whisper]

That's only in hindsight. In real time they were shitting themselves,
like Courier, Bruguera, Muster & Costa were when Sampras beat them in
Paris. They probably felt like they won the lottery when Sampras played
half-arsed & he let them win.

[jdeluise]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> writes:

>
> That's only in hindsight. In real time they were shitting themselves,
> like Courier, Bruguera, Muster & Costa were when Sampras beat them in
> Paris. They probably felt like they won the lottery when Sampras
> played half-arsed & he let them win.

LOL, get real.... Sampras was never fave at the FO. I say this as a
Sampras fan who wanted him to win it. It was obvious stars would have
to align for him to win that tournament, or he had to change his game...

[Whisper]

Are u ok? I'm serious. You're exhibiting signs of depression. Do you
have anyone to talk to?

[Whisper]

He took the wrong approach. He changed his game trying to become a more
'complete player', & became far less effective. He should have kept
honing his strengths.

[Whisper]

He should have stayed a 1 trick pony. He was poorly advised.

[Whisper]

er, these kind of comments from a Lendl fan of all people.

: )

[bob]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:57:30 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/10/2015 3:32 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>> bob <b...@nospam.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:37:05 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I give Fed huge credit for his consistency over 12 years. it's
>>>> phenomenal really. Roddick definitely regressed after a promising
>>>> start.
>>>
>>> roddick got caught up in the money and fame early, and didn't practice
>>> accordingly til it was very late in career.
>>
>> Roddick was a one-trick pony from the start. You guys didn't see it?
>> Wow... just wow...
>>
>
>
>He should have stayed a 1 trick pony. He was poorly advised.

he was poorly advised and didn't have the ethic on his own either.
plus if not for fed he'd have quite a few wimbledons - some 'one trick
pony.'

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:31:52 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 30/09/2015 6:44 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:

>> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:11:48 AM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 15:50:15 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>>> Since only slams matter according to Whisper...
>>>>
>>>> Edberg who had his best win-loss percentage in 1987 (a whopping 87% by Edberg standards), and second and third best in 1991 (84%) and 1990 (82%), had already faded by 1992. In fact if you look at his win-loss percentages, his best 7 years were between 1985-1991.
>>>>
>>>> Turns out Sampras never faced Edberg in slams during his best years from 1985-1991.
>>>>
>>>> He did meet Edberg twice in slams after Edberg had faded.
>>>>
>>>> 1992 USO and 1993 AO. And guess what, who won it?... Edberg.
>>>>
>>>> 18.01.93 1/2 Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 7-6(5), 6-3, 7-6(3)
>>>> 31.08.92 fin Stefan Edberg Pete Sampras 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-2
>>>>

>>>> Sampras won a grand total of 1 set against Edberg in slams... bwahahahaha!!! The even more funny thing is they played three tie-breakers in those slam meetings and Edberg won all of them. The first set they played, it was Sampras who won it. Seems like Edberg figured out the clown after the first set.
>>>>
>>>> Safe to say that if Sampras had to deal with peak Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker, he would have been toast.
>>>
>>> lol not knowing any history about tennis, you obviously don't know that Sampras didn't even bother hardly trying to play Edberg in that final, he was just happy to be there as he'd already been the Youngest EVER USO champ. Sampras then decided to give Edberg a good beating at the year end finals. Edberg prob got lucky in the January.
>>
>> Yes Edberg got lucky twice... Fuck off.

>>
>
>
>Sampras was a kid, a 1 slam wonder when he lost to Edberg. Everybody
>loves Edberg & never begrudge those wins, but I can honestly say there
>isn't a single tennis expert on the planet who thinks Edberg was a
>better player than Sampras. There really isn't 1 person who understands
>tennis who thinks that.

it all falls back to when players were at their peak or close, which
is why i harp on it so much. though pete won that early USO, and his
talent became obvious, he really was in his peak zone from around
93-2000 minus some injury spells. that's 7 yrs IMO, which is why i
find it so crazy people refuse to admit fed could possibly have a 10
yr peak, or at very least, 7 yrs also.

bob

[MBDunc]

perjantai 2. lokakuuta 2015 16.43.28 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
> it all falls back to when players were at their peak or close, which
> is why i harp on it so much. though pete won that early USO, and his
> talent became obvious, he really was in his peak zone from around
> 93-2000 minus some injury spells. that's 7 yrs IMO, which is why i
> find it so crazy people refuse to admit fed could possibly have a 10
> yr peak, or at very least, 7 yrs also.
>
> bob

Sampras '98 was not peak Sampras *) . Similar to Connors 75, 79, Mac 82, Wilander 86, Lendl 88, Fed 08 - great peak periods interrupted by a hiccup year.

They are human after all.

*) Only Top5 player he beat 1998 was Moya indoors.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/pete-sampras/s402/player-activity?year=1998

This is pale shit compared to Pete's real great stints.

.mikko

[John Liang]

So 96 Pete was at his peak and he lost to Krajicek in straight sets at Wimbledon meaning that he was not BOAT at all. How could peak BOAT lost to a one slam wonder in straight sets ? Did you consult your master before the above post, bob? What you effectively saying is Sampras is not BOAT and he is not GOAT either. So you actually agree with Soccerfan that Sampras is not BOAT.

[John Liang]

Coming from the 'woulda, shoulda, coulda' tennis analyst bob.

[Scott]

Whisper thinks Pete is entitled to "half arrsed" credit but not Fed.

[*skriptis]

"Scott" <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfa01d23-71c6-4b4a...@googlegroups.com...

> Whisper thinks Pete is entitled to "half arrsed" credit but not Fed.

Er, Whisper always critcizes Sampras' half-arsed approach.
Federer is always much better value to watch and also Sampras is at loss
achievement-wise with his half arsed approach in some of the matches.

However..Whisper also points out, fully arsed Sampras couldn't be beaten,
unlike Federer.
It's an oppinion. Not all have to agree with it.

And those who isagree are perfectly entitled to state their own oppinion,
instead of posting mbecille stuff about Sampras being in the same league
with Lendl or some crap like that.

[soccerfan777]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:01:02 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> "Scott" <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfa01d23-71c6-4b4a...@googlegroups.com...
> > Whisper thinks Pete is entitled to "half arrsed" credit but not Fed.
>
>
> Er, Whisper always critcizes Sampras' half-arsed approach.

No he doesn't dumbass. He uses it as a crutch. And Sampras was never half-arsed. He himself admitted he tried his level best to win FO but never could.

[John Liang]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 9:01:02 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> "Scott" <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfa01d23-71c6-4b4a...@googlegroups.com...
> > Whisper thinks Pete is entitled to "half arrsed" credit but not Fed.
>
>
> Er, Whisper always critcizes Sampras' half-arsed approach.
> Federer is always much better value to watch and also Sampras is at loss
> achievement-wise with his half arsed approach in some of the matches.

Whisper used his half assed as a reason for Sampras' repeated failure at FO, we knew that very well and we also knew you are just like bob 2nd. When was the last time you voiced a different opinion to Whisper on Sampras ?

>
> However..Whisper also points out, fully arsed Sampras couldn't be beaten,
> unlike Federer.

Not base on fact. Sampras lost USO final to Hewitt and Safin, it is ridiculous to claim he won all the way up to semi fully arsed but somehow played half arsed to lost two finals. The claim of 'fully arsed Sampras couldn't be beaten is just riculous.

[MBDunc]

lauantai 3. lokakuuta 2015 10.33.48 UTC+3 John Liang kirjoitti:
> > However..Whisper also points out, fully arsed Sampras couldn't be beaten,
> > unlike Federer.
>
> Not base on fact. Sampras lost USO final to Hewitt and Safin, it is ridiculous to claim he won all the way up to semi fully arsed but somehow played half arsed to lost two finals. The claim of 'fully arsed Sampras couldn't be beaten is just riculous.

"I wish Sampras had Safin's backhand" - guess who said this 2000....

But Safin and especially Hewitt are underrated nowadays. Retrospectively Hewitt does not look "that good" but in reality every tennis expert was sure that he is going to be a big deal 1998-99. Hewitt delivered. Did the best he could. Maybe should have won a bit more (one slam more?)...but then barrage of Fed/Nadal just was too much to ask (alone 2004-05 Fed stopped Hewitt five times at slams)

.mikko