Would Roddick be Top50 without his power serve ?
serve & volley
French Open - where serve is not dominant - he could never pass the
2nd round and only won 2 matches. Perhaps for making progress, his new
trainer should tell him to take pace off his serve while not playing GS.
Javier González Nicolini
I think he would - around 40-50. If you take away the serve(*), you'd
get a player with erratic but strong forehand, a wobbly backhand,
suspect footwork (specially for clay), and so-so stamina.
(*) I'm thinking "no serve at all", something that makes virtually no
damage, think right-handed Nadal.
Arietta
without his serve?
Javier González Nicolini
> What is the point?
Point? POINT? You mean wouldacouldashoulda RST speculation should have
a POINT??!
;) ;)
> Would Sampras have won even one single grand slam
> without his serve?
IMO, barely.
(And there goes the merry-go-round for another spin or a hundred
thousand or so)
Vari L. Cinicke
What do you mean? IWNSHO, Sampras has the best groundstrokes the game
has seen.
You newbies! ;-)
Cheers,
vc
Javier González Nicolini
> What do you mean? IWNSHO, Sampras has the best groundstrokes the game
> has seen.
>
> You newbies! ;-)
According to certain tier I analysts, he couldawouldashoulda won all 14
plus a couple of FO's just on the strength of his backhand.
(With apologies to http://www.4q.cc/index.php?pid=top100&person=chuck )
- Superman wears Pete Sampras pajamas.
- The bogeyman checks his closet for Pete Sampras before going to bed.
- According to the relativity theory, Pete Sampras can ace you
yesterday.
GregRupedski
"Javier González Nicolini" <jago...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139513602.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Arietta is quite correct. With no serve, Sampras would not have been a GS
champion, he would have been top 20 and possibly a top 10 player. At his
peak he was outrallying Agassi/Courier from the baseline and his net game
was at or near the top. He would have been talented all courter, but he
could not have dominated.
Roddick without his serve would be somewhere between 100-300 on the tour.
There are a lot of satellite players who could beat the rest of Roddick's
game.
However, Arietta is also correct, the serve IS part of the game, the most
important part and always has been since we started playing outdoors.
Neither can be blamed for being able to execute the most important stroke so
well.
Mikko Ämmälä
;)
.mikko
Arietta
Thank you. Exactly what I wanted to say!
Dave Hazelwood
>What is the point? Would Sampras have won even one single grand slam
>without his serve?
nope.
Good Deal
a prime sampras couldn't beat a prime federer...
"Arietta" <opus1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139513148....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave Hazelwood
>even with his serve...
>a prime sampras couldn't beat a prime federer...
Exactly. Glad to see some intelligent people here and not just Whisperologists.
David Henry
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:gq7ou1dsbrbpuivpu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:40:01 -0800, "Good Deal" <go...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>even with his serve...
>>a prime sampras couldn't beat a prime federer...
>
>
> Exactly. Glad to see some intelligent people here and not just
> Whisperologists.
That's not right. Sampras has the most potent fast-court game in the history
of tennis.
Federer's game is based in rhythm. Sampras takes that away, as he pre-empts
more points than Federer ever did. And he could defeat players like Agassi
and Courier on hardcourt from the baseline, as well as Bruguera and Muster
on clay from the baseline.
What do you see in Federer's game that suggests that Sampras couldn't defeat
it? Sampras wasn't a slow player about the court, and his pace of shot and
variation of shot mean Federer would be up against it. Federer wouldn't be
getting the same ball all the time. And I like Sampras's forehand against
Federer on a fast court because he hits through it more.
Neither would win all the time. It's probably about a 50-50 split, which is
what it should be.
Federer doesn't seem to like excessive spin from Nadal. Do we carry this
over to him not being able to defeat Borg, who is even more agile than
Nadal?
Dave
GregRupedski
"David Henry" <telem...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1eqdnfYgfpu...@comcast.com...
> What do you see in Federer's game that suggests that Sampras couldn't
defeat
> it?
You need to ask this? Hazelwood doesn't need a rational reason for anything!
Sampras wasn't a slow player about the court, and his pace of shot and
> variation of shot mean Federer would be up against it. Federer wouldn't be
> getting the same ball all the time. And I like Sampras's forehand against
> Federer on a fast court because he hits through it more.
>
> Neither would win all the time. It's probably about a 50-50 split, which
is
> what it should be.
Likely very close to. Hard to imagine either winning a dominating majority
of the matches over the long run.
Whisper
Good insight. Fed would be under the gun from Sampras from the get go -
no luxury of bumrooting for a while & then cracking the loose ones. He'd
have to do a good job of returning Sampras' serves, keep him away from
the net, & be prepared to hit a lot of passing shots under big pressure
50-50 appears not right to me - Sampras would prevail 4/5 at Wim/USO imo
- Agassi at 35 looked like beating Fed last 2 USOs - never came that
close v Sampras.
Whisper
It woulda been a top rivalry for sure - Sampras had the bigger weapons &
hungriest at Wim/USO so I'm pretty confident he woulda won most matches
there - Fed woulda cleaned up everywhere Sampras didn't bring his
hungriest tennis.....
Mikko Ämmälä
As a serious tennis analyst you should know that a single matchup does
not mean anything. Otherwise we could always bring on Yzaga, Schaller,
Delgato and co...
Last time I checked, Fed has won his last 8 meeting with Agassi...can
not top that...
.mikko
Whisper
>>
>> Good insight. Fed would be under the gun from Sampras from the get go
>> - no luxury of bumrooting for a while & then cracking the loose ones.
>> He'd have to do a good job of returning Sampras' serves, keep him away
>> from the net, & be prepared to hit a lot of passing shots under big
>> pressure
>>
>>
>> 50-50 appears not right to me - Sampras would prevail 4/5 at Wim/USO
>> imo - Agassi at 35 looked like beating Fed last 2 USOs - never came
>> that close v Sampras.
>
>
> As a serious tennis analyst you should know that a single matchup does
> not mean anything. Otherwise we could always bring on Yzaga, Schaller,
> Delgato and co...
'single matchup'? - Agassi pushed him to 5 sets '04 USO & had a big
lead in '05 final.....
>
> Last time I checked, Fed has won his last 8 meeting with Agassi...can
> not top that...
>
True, but Fed is 24 & peak, Agassi 36 & shoulda retired 5 yrs ago....
Mikko Ämmälä
> Mikko Ämmälä wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Good insight. Fed would be under the gun from Sampras from the get
>>> go - no luxury of bumrooting for a while & then cracking the loose
>>> ones. He'd have to do a good job of returning Sampras' serves, keep
>>> him away from the net, & be prepared to hit a lot of passing shots
>>> under big pressure
>>>
>>>
>>> 50-50 appears not right to me - Sampras would prevail 4/5 at Wim/USO
>>> imo - Agassi at 35 looked like beating Fed last 2 USOs - never came
>>> that close v Sampras.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a serious tennis analyst you should know that a single matchup does
>> not mean anything. Otherwise we could always bring on Yzaga, Schaller,
>> Delgato and co...
>
>
>
>
> 'single matchup'? - Agassi pushed him to 5 sets '04 USO & had a big
> lead in '05 final.....
Big lead? One service break with sets 1-1 (a lead cannot be any
smaller). Then the fourth set was easy.
As a serious tennis analyst you should know that Agassi is the one of
best windy day players there (6 Key Biscayne titles where wind is always
present). That USO 2004 match was practically played under the wind storm.
And you have many times said here: Only wins count no matter how close
they are...
>> Last time I checked, Fed has won his last 8 meeting with Agassi...can
>> not top that...
>>
>
> True, but Fed is 24 & peak, Agassi 36 & shoulda retired 5 yrs ago....
Why? He is still fit. Plays at his maximum when healthy and obviously
enjoys it (he is no wreck ala Vilas late 80:ies)...while he is not
anymore competitive on grass or clay, he is still top4-6 on HC stuff and
as seen with a lucky break (USO 2005) can even reach final.
(+ he won AO 2003, so retiring 5 yrs ago would have had some impact to
his career)
.mikko
Robi
Mikko Ämmälä wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > Mikko Ämmälä wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Good insight. Fed would be under the gun from Sampras from the get
> >>> go - no luxury of bumrooting for a while & then cracking the loose
> >>> ones. He'd have to do a good job of returning Sampras' serves, keep
> >>> him away from the net, & be prepared to hit a lot of passing shots
> >>> under big pressure
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 50-50 appears not right to me - Sampras would prevail 4/5 at Wim/USO
> >>> imo - Agassi at 35 looked like beating Fed last 2 USOs - never came
> >>> that close v Sampras.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As a serious tennis analyst you should know that a single matchup does
> >> not mean anything. Otherwise we could always bring on Yzaga, Schaller,
> >> Delgato and co...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 'single matchup'? - Agassi pushed him to 5 sets '04 USO & had a big
> > lead in '05 final.....
>
> Big lead? One service break with sets 1-1 (a lead cannot be any
> smaller). Then the fourth set was easy.
>
> As a serious tennis analyst you should know that Agassi is the one of
> best windy day players there (6 Key Biscayne titles where wind is always
> present). That USO 2004 match was practically played under the wind storm.
A common myth: Agassi took a set off Fed and then took him to a
tiebreak the NIGHT BEFORE when rain eventually postponed play to the
next day. It was when play resumed on the thursday that it became
excessively windy; of course you could argue that the wind was the
reason Agassi won the 4th set that day, but at the same time he won a
set off Fed the previous day when the conditions were relatively normal.
Mikko Ämmälä
It was already windy day at the start. It became almost unplayable next day.
.mikko
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>>> does not mean anything. Otherwise we could always bring on Yzaga,
>>> Schaller, Delgato and co...
>>
>> 'single matchup'? - Agassi pushed him to 5 sets '04 USO & had a big
>> lead in '05 final.....
>
>
> Big lead? One service break with sets 1-1 (a lead cannot be any
> smaller). Then the fourth set was easy.
3-6 6-2 4-2 + game point to go to 5-2. Agassi is an old man (12 yrs
oldaer & Fed at peak)... I couldn't believe Fed was fighting for his
life in this match....
>
> As a serious tennis analyst you should know that Agassi is the one of
> best windy day players there (6 Key Biscayne titles where wind is always
> present). That USO 2004 match was practically played under the wind storm.
er, we're talking geriatric Agassi - only won 1 tune-up in last 2 yrs....
Sampras faced peak prime Agassi in '95 USO final & beat him easier than
this - Agassi was on fire & had won 4 tune-ups leading into USO.
>
> And you have many times said here: Only wins count no matter how close
> they are...
>
>>> Last time I checked, Fed has won his last 8 meeting with Agassi...can
>>> not top that...
>>>
>>
>> True, but Fed is 24 & peak, Agassi 36 & shoulda retired 5 yrs ago....
>
>
> Why? He is still fit. Plays at his maximum when healthy and obviously
> enjoys it (he is no wreck ala Vilas late 80:ies)...while he is not
> anymore competitive on grass or clay, he is still top4-6 on HC stuff and
> as seen with a lucky break (USO 2005) can even reach final.
How would 24 yr old Sampras go v 35 yr old Agassi? He couldn't reach
Sampras' shots when he was younger & faster, so wouldn't be moving at all.
That's the weakness in Fed's game - he allows everyone to play with him.
Really shoulda beaten Agassi by the same type of margins Jimbo beat
Rosewall in '74 Wim/USO final.
>
> (+ he won AO 2003, so retiring 5 yrs ago would have had some impact to
> his career)
>
> .mikko
I'm not literally suggesting he shoulda retired, rather he's minimum 5
yrs past his best.
Whisper
He won it 6-2 & barely lost 3rd 5-7. He also won 4th set 6-3.
Sampras played Agassi 4 times at USO & never lost sets this badly. In
fact he only lost 3 sets to Agassi in total at USO;
4-6
6-7
5-7
Anyway, not Fed's fault. He's a pro & doing his best......
Mikko Ämmälä
> Mikko Ämmälä wrote:
>> Big lead? One service break with sets 1-1 (a lead cannot be any
>> smaller). Then the fourth set was easy.
>
> 3-6 6-2 4-2 + game point to go to 5-2. Agassi is an old man (12 yrs
> oldaer & Fed at peak)... I couldn't believe Fed was fighting for his
> life in this match....
It is still no big lead. Bumrooting hack called Corretja had matchpoint
against Sampras in his prime (USO96).
Agassi played great. Especially 2nd set was on par with the best Agassi
play ever. Kudos for him. But that was still not enough.
>> As a serious tennis analyst you should know that Agassi is the one of
>> best windy day players there (6 Key Biscayne titles where wind is
>> always present). That USO 2004 match was practically played under the
>> wind storm.
>
>
>
> er, we're talking geriatric Agassi - only won 1 tune-up in last 2 yrs....
Since when tuneups have suddenly became important in your book? Do some
research and you will find that there have been a lot of 30-35y top
champions in different sports who have been at their prime at very late
years. More demanding a given sport event is, more likely it is that
there are "geriatrics" fighting for top spot.
You are overestimating the age significancy.
> Sampras faced peak prime Agassi in '95 USO final & beat him easier than
> this - Agassi was on fire & had won 4 tune-ups leading into USO.
Sampras played great that match. Agassi played good but that was not
enough. Agassi just never learnt to read Pete's serve and Pete always
played great against him.
>> And you have many times said here: Only wins count no matter how close
>> they are...
>>
>>>> Last time I checked, Fed has won his last 8 meeting with
>>>> Agassi...can not top that...
>>>>
>>>
>>> True, but Fed is 24 & peak, Agassi 36 & shoulda retired 5 yrs ago....
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? He is still fit. Plays at his maximum when healthy and obviously
>> enjoys it (he is no wreck ala Vilas late 80:ies)...while he is not
>> anymore competitive on grass or clay, he is still top4-6 on HC stuff
>> and as seen with a lucky break (USO 2005) can even reach final.
>
>
>
> How would 24 yr old Sampras go v 35 yr old Agassi? He couldn't reach
> Sampras' shots when he was younger & faster, so wouldn't be moving at all.
>
> That's the weakness in Fed's game - he allows everyone to play with him.
> Really shoulda beaten Agassi by the same type of margins Jimbo beat
> Rosewall in '74 Wim/USO final.
Well Agassi himself have said that Agassi 2005 would trounce Agassi
1995...(Interview at USO2005)
Fed beat Hewitt with some bagels in the 2004 final, a good indicator as
Hewitt has h2h record over Sampras and has breadsticked him at USO final.
Jimbo just matched Rosewall's soft game well. Rosewall has absolute
nothing to hurt Connors.
>> (+ he won AO 2003, so retiring 5 yrs ago would have had some impact to
>> his career)
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
>
> I'm not literally suggesting he shoulda retired, rather he's minimum 5
> yrs past his best.
Of course Agassi is not at his peak but he is quite close it. He serves
better than ever (his ace count has doubled since mid-90:ies) his shots
are still there and he is as fit as 10y ago. The footwork of course is
not the same and his reflexes have suffered a bit.
(serving example 1992 Wimbledon final when Agassi did 8 aces during the
whole 5 set match...nowadays Andre routinely makes 4-10 aces/match of
two sets on HC)
.mikko
Dave Hazelwood
your mad.
robin
are FAR more physically tough than tennis) in their mid thirties, there
is no reason that Agassi can't.
Dave Hazelwood
All such poppycock is nonsense remember ? All that matters is wins.
Age don't matter, longevity don't matter, losses don't matter, big leads
don't matter, 5 sets don't matter.
Wins matter.
And last time I checked, Fed has won his last 8 meeting with Agassi...can
not top that...
Dave Hazelwood
Why are you discussing losses ? Remember they don't count. If
you want to discuss losses Sampras has a lot to discuss. He lost a LOT !
Are we going to get down to discussing points now ?
Dave Hazelwood
Thats right and the greatest heavyweight boxer in history did not necessarily
hold the title the longest nor win the most title fights.
This is why I say:
Sampras has achieved the best slam performance in tennis.
Borg was the greatest tennis player.
Whisper can't understand that.
Whisper
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Good insight. Fed would be under the gun from Sampras from the get go -
>>no luxury of bumrooting for a while & then cracking the loose ones. He'd
>>have to do a good job of returning Sampras' serves, keep him away from
>>the net, & be prepared to hit a lot of passing shots under big pressure
>>
>>
>>50-50 appears not right to me - Sampras would prevail 4/5 at Wim/USO imo
>>- Agassi at 35 looked like beating Fed last 2 USOs - never came that
>>close v Sampras.
>
>
>
>
> your mad.
My mad what..?
Whisper
If you think Borg could beat Sampras at Wimbledon you're off your rocker.
Dave Hazelwood
Borg would not only beat him, he would demolish him.
Dave Hazelwood
And at Roland Garros, well it would be total annihilation.
I doubt you could find anything left of poor Pete with a microscope.
GregRupedski
"Mikko Ämmälä" <mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
news:43ec639f$0$22962$9b53...@news.fv.fi...
> Whisper wrote:
> > Mikko Ämmälä wrote:
>
> Agassi played great. Especially 2nd set was on par with the best Agassi
> play ever. Kudos for him. But that was still not enough.
"the best Agassi play ever." Give it a rest! lol. He did play great, in
fact, he himself said after the match, that he felt he played better than
Federer, but Federer played a few key points in the 5th set well. But you
can't play your "best ever" when you're a step slower than you were.
> Since when tuneups have suddenly became important in your book? Do some
> research and you will find that there have been a lot of 30-35y top
> champions in different sports who have been at their prime at very late
> years. More demanding a given sport event is, more likely it is that
> there are "geriatrics" fighting for top spot.
>
> You are overestimating the age significancy.
I can't believe you're trying to sell this. Here's something you can learn
about TENNIS, not "different sports". Tennis players usually don't play
their best in their 30's, why? The premium on quickness, strength can be
maintained, even speed, but agility and quickness tend to take a hit, more
importantly, tennis players accumulate a lot of wear and tear, more so than
almost any other sport, running around bending, lunging, changing directions
constantly and jumping at your top speed for 30 years, several hours a day
will do that to you. Agassi has plenty of wear and tear on that body.
> Of course Agassi is not at his peak but he is quite close it. He serves
> better than ever (his ace count has doubled since mid-90:ies) his shots
> are still there and he is as fit as 10y ago. The footwork of course is
> not the same and his reflexes have suffered a bit.
YOU just said 2 posts ago, that Agassi was no longer competitive on grass
and clay....but he's quite close to his peak??!!! LOL.
The ace count doesn't sound right at all, but i"m not familiar with that
stat. Please provide numbers and sources, I would sincerely appreciate that.
> (serving example 1992 Wimbledon final when Agassi did 8 aces during the
> whole 5 set match...nowadays Andre routinely makes 4-10 aces/match of
> two sets on HC)
Oh, man, I wrote the last part before reading this. Now I see you have just
drawn stats from 1 match off the top of your head. By the way, he hit 9 aces
in that match, not 8. He also about 18 aces against Lendl in 4 sets in the
USO semis and about 14 against Becker in the same event 6 years later. I
have monitored Agassi's serve closely over the years, it has gone through
several distinct incarnations. What has not changed though is that 1. every
year, they talk about his new faster, more consistent serve
2.it's the same in terms of effectiveness
Agassi could always hit a high number of aces for 1 match or 1 tournament.
He could also always hit an occassional extreme blast, 128mph in 1991, 125
mph at AO in 1995 (both wold be well into the 130's on today's radar...which
is the same as his most extreme serves today.) but generally his best serves
are around 120-124 now, which translate to 110-115 then. He get's nearly
exactly the same amount of aces, although he did go through phases where he
did not go for many aces at all, but merely rolled everything in. I do
believe he's gotten slightly more consistent on 1st serve, say about 5% more
consistent on a flat serve.
Mikko Ämmälä
Tillden (1930->), Bugde (1950->), Secura (1950->), Rosewall (1968->),
Laver (1969->), Connors (1982->, Agassi (2001->) - every tennis
generation have had a great player who had done really well after
turning 30...why this age should be an exception when there are a lot
more older champs at other sports too?
>>Of course Agassi is not at his peak but he is quite close it. He serves
>>better than ever (his ace count has doubled since mid-90:ies) his shots
>>are still there and he is as fit as 10y ago. The footwork of course is
>>not the same and his reflexes have suffered a bit.
>
>
> YOU just said 2 posts ago, that Agassi was no longer competitive on grass
> and clay....but he's quite close to his peak??!!! LOL.
> The ace count doesn't sound right at all, but i"m not familiar with that
> stat. Please provide numbers and sources, I would sincerely appreciate that.
Because on grass and clay the relative importance of footwork is higher.
Basic stuff for anyone who knows smt about tennis. And Agassi has lost
his footwork (he was not that fast even at his heydays)
>>(serving example 1992 Wimbledon final when Agassi did 8 aces during the
>>whole 5 set match...nowadays Andre routinely makes 4-10 aces/match of
>>two sets on HC)
>
>
> Oh, man, I wrote the last part before reading this. Now I see you have just
> drawn stats from 1 match off the top of your head. By the way, he hit 9 aces
> in that match, not 8. He also about 18 aces against Lendl in 4 sets in the
> USO semis and about 14 against Becker in the same event 6 years later. I
> have monitored Agassi's serve closely over the years, it has gone through
> several distinct incarnations. What has not changed though is that 1. every
> year, they talk about his new faster, more consistent serve
> 2.it's the same in terms of effectiveness
For everyone of (non great serve reputation) top players there are a
couple of occasions where he has cracked a bunch of aces (Borg vs
Connors at 3 set easy SF USO 1981 - 14 aces for Borg and 17 more
unreturned, Chang hit once 25 aces against Sampras etc...)
> Agassi could always hit a high number of aces for 1 match or 1 tournament.
> He could also always hit an occassional extreme blast, 128mph in 1991, 125
> mph at AO in 1995 (both wold be well into the 130's on today's radar...which
> is the same as his most extreme serves today.)
At least that AO 1995 result was at the match were Agassi was leading
noname 2-0 sets and tried then in one service game break his radar
record (pointing out the radar) after he first hit 119mph (btw that
125mph shot was fault, he hit 121mph shot in while chasing the record)
if we are talking about the same match.
.mikko
Vari L. Cinicke
> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:gq7ou1dsbrbpuivpu...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:40:01 -0800, "Good Deal" <go...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>even with his serve...
>>>a prime sampras couldn't beat a prime federer...
>>
>>
>>Exactly. Glad to see some intelligent people here and not just
>>Whisperologists.
>
>
>
> That's not right. Sampras has the most potent fast-court game in the history
> of tennis.
>
> Federer's game is based in rhythm. Sampras takes that away, as he pre-empts
> more points than Federer ever did. And he could defeat players like Agassi
> and Courier on hardcourt from the baseline, as well as Bruguera and Muster
> on clay from the baseline.
>
> What do you see in Federer's game that suggests that Sampras couldn't defeat
> it? Sampras wasn't a slow player about the court, and his pace of shot and
> variation of shot mean Federer would be up against it. Federer wouldn't be
> getting the same ball all the time. And I like Sampras's forehand against
> Federer on a fast court because he hits through it more.
>
The forehand did win him a bunch of points in their Wimbledon match. But
Sampras as the king of variety? Come on, now. You have mistaken Sampras
for Federer. Sampras didn't beat anyone with guile. He won because he
could not be broken and he could hit risky shots on his returns and if
it clicked one game out of 4 or 5 that was good enough.
It was the variety and the better return game that helped Federer beat
Sampras then. His return game against big servers has been getting
better and better.
> Neither would win all the time. It's probably about a 50-50 split, which is
> what it should be.
>
Pure conjecture. Any other ratio would be as well.
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Too bad Sampras decided to lose the first match. He was probably
planning to win the next 4 and make you happy.
Alas, that never came to pass. We are left with a h2h that favors Federer.
Of course, we will ignore the fact that Federer improved his game so
much since he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. Wasn't that Sampras' home turf?
Wasn't he the 4-time defending champion who was going to match Borg's 5
in a row? Wasn't he talking about winning Wimbledon when he was 35? I
forget the details.
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Like that fateful Wimbledon you keep forgetting?
Coulda-woulda king you are turning into. Can you grasp reality at all?
Many people think the hungriest tennis Sampras ever brought was in the
USO Final against Hewitt where he left with two breadsticks! :-P
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Let me axe you a question. If a single break in a losing effort is so
meaningful, what do you make of Federer's victory over Sampras at Wimbledon?
You love getting axed, don't you? :-P
Cheers,
vc
Dave Hazelwood
Golly. Is that the same USO at which Federer later fed Hewitt
twin Bagels ?
Let's get this right....
Hewitt double breadsticks Sampras and then ...
Federer double bagels Hewitt but ......
Whisper thinks Federer would have never matched up to Sampras ????
I guess if the rectum tickles the intestine, then the flower boy dances ?
Vari L. Cinicke
>
> He won it 6-2 & barely lost 3rd 5-7. He also won 4th set 6-3.
>
> Sampras played Agassi 4 times at USO & never lost sets this badly. In
> fact he only lost 3 sets to Agassi in total at USO;
>
> 4-6
> 6-7
> 5-7
>
> Anyway, not Fed's fault. He's a pro & doing his best......
He wasn't even doing his best when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. That is
what is pissing you off, if you want to know the truth.
Yes, it is not Federer's fault that he beat the best of the last
generation (Sampras, Agassi) and he is beating the best of the current
generation.
The next generation is coming and so far only Nadal's superior defense
is holding up well. If Nadal can work on his offense, he can give
Federer trouble. But so far, he has not shown any good signs of that.
Maybe he will bring new elements in his comeback from injury. But he may
also have lost a bit of speed. Without his speed, he won't make it very far.
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Who is the only player on the planet with at least 7 wins in a row
against Agassi? No, not Sampras. Yes, Federer. :-)
Cheers,
vc
haru...@gmail.com
just gave him the average tour serve, or a courier type serve. Sampras
had the best non-claycourt forehand, was a great volleyer and on the
move on non-clay courts he was hands down the best player from his
cohort, the cohort after his and most likely the cohort before his
(less sure about this last claim). By this I am not talking about
pure chang type speed, I am talking about all the different
possibilities that could occur on a tennis court: the running forehand,
the chip block on the back hand wide on grass, the backhand drive
followed into the net to finish of a volley, the block forehand ROS
followed into the court etc.
I find this a useful way to evaluate what makes a player good. It
requires some imagination, some understanding of what makes the player
good, how things might have been different if the person for whatever
reason had this one skill removed.
For ex. if you gave courier the average tour forehand where would he
be: I would say down to 1 or 2 slams. He would still have the
consistency, the backhand would be exposed more, the mental toughness
would still be there, the physical edge would still be there, but you
have removed the huge weapon from his arsenal, the one thing that
really separated him from the rest of the tour. Courier with an
average forehand on the tour is possibly a move towards robby ginepri
in 2004.
Other thought experiments: what would happen to sampras if you changed
wimby into u.s. open? not so much. What about wimby into australian, he
takes a a hit but he still looks good (he still gets to 9). What about
wimby into clay? He takes an even bigger hit. But then 2/4 slams would
be on clay, maybe pete fisher lets sampras stay with the 2 hander,
things get murkier in this scenario.
BTW you don't have to be influenced by my view or whispers view or some
random person posting this thread. The RST archives are a huge
resource. There are many articulate defenders of the complete sampras
game all through the 90s (kwansik kim, benjamin ma, mike ma, shuen
somethng, yes a lot of them seem to be asian: )! ). Even the people
who don't care for his game have a far deeper understanding of what he
could do on the court. I find posts by these people to be far more
interesting than any single 1 line post or random article about
sampras.
srikanth
Robi
grass? Agassi hasn't played a grass court event for three years. I
agree about this point regarding his clay court performances - that's
where his slow movement really hampers him. But his absolute best HC
play today is not far off his peak HC play, imo.
Whisper
Have I ever forgotten it? I said they both played poorly that Wimbledon
- neither made semis. What more can you say about it? Maybe if it were
the final you'd have some kind of point, but in reality Fed got smacked
by Pete's lapdog (Tim) & Sampras was losing every week.
Be like commenting on a match between Borg & Mac 'today' & drawing
conclusions - you sure you've been playing tennis long...?
>
> Coulda-woulda king you are turning into. Can you grasp reality at all?
14 > 7 is reality.
>
> Many people think the hungriest tennis Sampras ever brought was in the
> USO Final against Hewitt where he left with two breadsticks! :-P
>
Again if Fed doesn't at least make USO final when he's 30 (let alone
getting breadsticked) then he gets discounted for his peak - you can't
have different rules for Fed - there's a word for that.
Whisper
I've never met anyone so fixated on 1 single match...? Bizarre.
How about showing us how great Lendl was when he smacked old Jimbo....
Whisper
How's your blood pressure?
Get it checked.
It's only a game, & Sampras is the king - Fed has publicly stated so &
is *chasing* him. Get over it.
Whisper
You have to have same standards for Fed - let's see if he's good enough
to make 3 straight USO finals when he's > 30 - if he stops winning slams
at say 28 then he's lesser.
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> He won it 6-2 & barely lost 3rd 5-7. He also won 4th set 6-3.
>>
>> Sampras played Agassi 4 times at USO & never lost sets this badly. In
>> fact he only lost 3 sets to Agassi in total at USO;
>>
>> 4-6
>> 6-7
>> 5-7
>>
>> Anyway, not Fed's fault. He's a pro & doing his best......
>
>
> He wasn't even doing his best when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. That is
> what is pissing you off, if you want to know the truth.
That match again - the only time I think of it is when you specifically
bring it up - which is every 2nd day or so. Why don't you also bring up
the straight set loss to Ancic in the following yr, when Fed was a
better player? Somehow you never ever mention this match - clearly a
cherrypicking fanboy.
>
> Yes, it is not Federer's fault that he beat the best of the last
> generation (Sampras, Agassi) and he is beating the best of the current
> generation.
All over 30 - being an impartial tennis analyst you will of course hold
Fed to the same standard when he's old - if he loses to some whizz kid
then hopefully you'll be impartial & draw the same conclusions...?
Somhow I have doubts...
Whisper
If Fed loses to some whizz kid 10 times in a row when he's 35, will this
mean his current form wasn't really that good in hindsight?
Keep the fanboyz stuff in check before responding - transparent to top
tier analysts.
Javier González Nicolini
> Somehow you never ever mention this match - clearly a
> cherrypicking fanboy.
You mean like the USO 2000 and 2001 finals never happened, but the 2002
did? ;)
Shakes
so you mean to say all those who appreciated pete's game thru the '90's
(like kim, ma etc.) or doing so now like whisper, bob, etc. are real
tier 1 analysts. All those who claim sampras was so good, he never had
any weaknesses in his game, could never be beaten fairly, and who only
lost bcos he didn't want to win, who had the best forehand in history,
the best backhand in history, the best volley in history, is the best
mover in tennis in history are the real tier 1 analyists ? Wow !
so, let me get it straight: sampras was so good that he never had any
weaknesses in his game, he could beat anyone on any surface
consistently if he wanted to, he could never be beaten fairly by
anybody in past or present, and maybe future, he could have won the
french if he didn't focus on wim, he could've won every slam he played
if he really wanted to, he had the best serve (no arguments here), the
best volley, the best forehand, the best backhand, the best movement in
history. well, that's one hell of a package.
so, i gather federer is just an average player making hay while the sun
shines, and he wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance against sampras,
becker, edberg, stich, krajicek, goran etc.
ok, now i know what unbiased tier 1 analysis means.
ROFL !!
David Henry
"Shakes" <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139606681....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
No, Fed is right in there with those guys. He just wouldn't dominate against
that crop of players.
I like Hewitt, and Roddick and Safin, somewhat, but they don't come close to
Edberg, Becker, Stich, and Krajicek, who could be a world beater on his day.
And let's not forget Todd Martin, who could do it all, and gave Pete and
Andre a few scares. And Forget could be tough, too (defeated Pete in Davis
Cup). And all of these players have more punch on the groundies and move
better than Mirnyi and Karlovic. We're basically "treated" to a watered-down
version of this style of players these days. They're really far from
complete.
Federer could well still be No. 1 with this bunch. I just don't see him
dominating for the reason that he needs more rhythm than Pete. He
essentially is a baseliner, and less explosive a player than Sampras.
Dave
Whisper
Yes, good insight (I woulda said obvious, but this is rst). If Sampras
was anything remotely like Vari & co. describe he wouldn't have more
than 2 or 3 slams, & certainly not no.1 6 straight yrs. To maintain
that kind of consistency for a whole career obviously means he couldn't
have been a 1-trick pony - woulda been worked out & solved yrs ago.
Sampras was a freakish, once in a lifetime talent. Who else can go
from a 2 handed bumrooter, to a an allcourt power player, to exclusively
serve/volley?
Krajicek/Arthurs are the true 1-trick ponies & have the expected results
- yet rst boffins see little difference?
I don't think it's pure trolling, so have to put it down to
cluelessness....?
Whisper
>
> grass? Agassi hasn't played a grass court event for three years. I
> agree about this point regarding his clay court performances - that's
> where his slow movement really hampers him. But his absolute best HC
> play today is not far off his peak HC play, imo.
>
You have a short memory. He was twice as good even in 2000 s/f when he
beat Sampras in 5 - that form woulda beaten Fed in this AO final....
Whisper
The fact Sampras made finals at his age speaks volumes.....
Adam Thirnis
Like Lendl.
Whisper
Well it's a hell of a record. So I guess this means you think Federer
has the best everything in history...?
Shakes
David Henry wrote:
>
> No, Fed is right in there with those guys. He just wouldn't dominate against
> that crop of players.
>
> I like Hewitt, and Roddick and Safin, somewhat, but they don't come close to
> Edberg, Becker, Stich, and Krajicek, who could be a world beater on his day.
> And let's not forget Todd Martin, who could do it all, and gave Pete and
> Andre a few scares. And Forget could be tough, too (defeated Pete in Davis
> Cup). And all of these players have more punch on the groundies and move
> better than Mirnyi and Karlovic. We're basically "treated" to a watered-down
> version of this style of players these days. They're really far from
> complete.
>
> Federer could well still be No. 1 with this bunch. I just don't see him
> dominating for the reason that he needs more rhythm than Pete. He
> essentially is a baseliner, and less explosive a player than Sampras.
>
> Dave
in all this analysis, u r all making a fundamental mistake. u r
comparing fed's current style of play versus the style of play that was
prevalent in the mid '80's to mid '90's.
imo, if we imagine fed to be magically transported back to that era
(i.e., say he was born circa 1971, like sampras), we must also allow
the assumption that fed might as well have been a predominantly s/v
player like all those guys. especially given he has a replica of the
build in terms of height, weight, and long limbs that sampras had.
on the other hand, if you want to transport all those players to the
current era (the other way around in putting fed in that mix), u must
also allow for the assumption that they too might not have played that
s/v style. players develop a style that best suits their chances of
winning. Under current conditions, where the courts are slower, balls
are slower, racquets are lighter, stiffer, and where shots with heavy
topspin are so dominant, s/v is not the percentage game anymore.
Given his returning capabilities (imo, he's superior to everyone except
hewitt), his quickness, his capability of finding the angles when
needed, he can dominate just like sampras did. a truly unbiased
observer would recognize that it's a travesty to suggest fed couldn't
have beaten those players.
i'll give u another analogy. agassi, with just his returning
capabilities and consistent groundies (and he had a relatively weaker
serve then, and he still has a relatively weaker serve), beat the heck
out of everyone, except sampras, in 1994-1995 (beat becker 8 times in a
row, 6-3 against edberg, 4-3 against goran, 4-3 against krajicek,
murdered stich in the 1994 USO final etc.). do you think federer cannot
do significantly better given that he is as good a returner as agassi
(come to think of it, agassi never did figure out the sampras' serve),
is definitely much faster around the court, has a bigger serve, and is
definitely better at the net ?
my guess is take out sampras and put fed in his place and fed would
still have won 7 slams like he did now. i accept that he probably
wouldn't have had 81-4 seasons though.
Shakes
Whisper wrote:
>
> Well it's a hell of a record. So I guess this means you think Federer
> has the best everything in history...?
i'm not suggesting that fed has the best everything in history, just
pointing out the fact the neither was sampras the best in everything.
amassing a hell of a record doesn't mean that the concerned player was
the best in every shot in the game.
u can argue all u want but if fed surpasses pete's slam record, using
the 7543 record but allowing extra points for cygs or ncygs (if he wins
the FO this yr), he'll go down as the greater player.
till then, sampras is the greater player. happy ?
haru...@gmail.com
things you are saying in this message. I never said he had the best
volleys in history or had the best forehand in history or that he could
have won the french etc.
I am guessing you didn't even read anything that I wrote or maybe you
think I am someone else.
Bye Bye shakes. Have fun writing to yourself.
srikanth
Shakes
so i guess u were talking about lendl here:
"Sampras
had the best non-claycourt forehand, was a great volleyer and on the
move on non-clay courts he was hands down ***the best player from his
cohort, the cohort after his and most likely the cohort before his
(less sure about this last claim).*** By this I am not talking about
Dave Hazelwood
Oj, yes you can !
Hey it was Sampras choice to play while old and endure all that ignominy.
If Fed doesn't want to and quits on top a la Borg more power to him. You
can't have it both ways.
Dave Hazelwood
Borg is goat. Sampras is weasel.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Whisper
Kind of....
David Henry
I don't know if that works. Because I can't at all imagine the reverse:
Sampras/Edberg/Becker not serve and volleying because the other pros are
baseliners. I especially don't see Edberg not serve and volleying, as he
went against the Swedish grain to begin with, playing a forward attacking
style, while the other Swede's hung out behind the baseline. Using Edberg,
it's not so much a playing style of the times thing, as much as it is a
player doing what comes natural and what they're best at.
Sampras didn't decide to serve and volley because he thought it would be a
style of play that would stack up well against the competition or because
everyone else was doing it -- and he had good reason to, coming up with
Agassi, Courier and Chang -- he did it because he saw that only serve and
volley players won Wimbledon. Wimbledon is why Sampras converted to serve
and volley play. It's quite a good thing that Sampras won so many
Wimbledons, as that's what he molded his game towards. Luckily, the US Open
plays lightning fast and his game translated to that surface, too.
Federer plays predominantly from the baseline, in part, because he grew up
on slow red clay, though I wouldn't call him a clay courter. I think
Federer's forehand makes him the perfect inbetween player -- not a strict
baseliner, but not a serve-volleyer, either. Federer is fast-court
traditional off the backhand, but very much a claycourter with hardcourt
instincts off the forehand. The grip and heighth over the net on the
forehand decides that.
Federer grew up on clay, while Sampras grew up on hardcourts. And it shows.
One needs rhythm, the other pre-empts points better than anyone in history.
It's why each approaches tennis as he does. Using this observation, I think
Sampras has the edge, as he doesn't need rhythm from Federer to execute a
winning style.
> on the other hand, if you want to transport all those players to the
> current era (the other way around in putting fed in that mix), u must
> also allow for the assumption that they too might not have played that
> s/v style. players develop a style that best suits their chances of
> winning. Under current conditions, where the courts are slower, balls
> are slower, racquets are lighter, stiffer, and where shots with heavy
> topspin are so dominant, s/v is not the percentage game anymore.
That's been a slow transition for over a decade, though. I agree the
equipment has something to do with it. But if Karlovic and Mirnyi can be
somewhat successful playing s/v tennis, I don't see why a real althlete with
good coordination can't pull it off. There still is an advantage to playing
a style that the rest of the tour isn't used to. Connors showed that in the
late 90's, when his flat style stymied the topspin madness of the time.
> Given his returning capabilities (imo, he's superior to everyone except
> hewitt), his quickness, his capability of finding the angles when
> needed, he can dominate just like sampras did. a truly unbiased
> observer would recognize that it's a travesty to suggest fed couldn't
> have beaten those players.
Of course he can beat them. I always say any number one can defeat another.
I just woudn't expect Federer to *dominate* Sampras's class of competitors
the way he does his own. Too much game back then. The players understand
better how to find weaknesses, as opposed to just pounding away as they do
now. How many players can actually hit a decent knifed slice approach up the
line anymore???? They hit over the ball and give themselves even less time
to react to the volleys that they're worse at hitting than their
contemporaries 10 years ago. A double whammy.
Sampras lost more often to the big guns of his day than Federer does to the
big guns of today. Is that a Sampras v Federer thing? Or a 90's field v 00's
field thing? I'd go with the latter.
> i'll give u another analogy. agassi, with just his returning
> capabilities and consistent groundies (and he had a relatively weaker
> serve then, and he still has a relatively weaker serve), beat the heck
> out of everyone, except sampras, in 1994-1995 (beat becker 8 times in a
> row, 6-3 against edberg, 4-3 against goran, 4-3 against krajicek,
> murdered stich in the 1994 USO final etc.). do you think federer cannot
> do significantly better given that he is as good a returner as agassi
> (come to think of it, agassi never did figure out the sampras' serve),
> is definitely much faster around the court, has a bigger serve, and is
> definitely better at the net ?
>
> my guess is take out sampras and put fed in his place and fed would
> still have won 7 slams like he did now. i accept that he probably
> wouldn't have had 81-4 seasons though.
I don't know if I agree with the switcheroo. I think had Fed played during
Sampras's time -- on real grass -- he'd have a lot harder time playing
against Becker and Edberg, who didn't stay back on grass more than three
strokes. Under those conditions, Fed finds no rhythm. Instead, Federer would
be more French Open heavy in his conquests, as he'd sure whip the Beckers
and Edbergs of the day on clay. But then he'd still have to contend with
Bruguera, who uses even more wicked spin than Nadal. So it gets iffy.
Dave
Shakes
here we go again. why the reservation when u claim to be unbiased, and
a fed fan too ? if he beats sampras in ur 7543 + ncygs/cygs rating, he
is superior. u can't 'but ...' it away.
Kris
Shakes wrote:
>
> Given his returning capabilities (imo, he's superior to everyone except
> hewitt), his quickness, his capability of finding the angles when
> needed, he can dominate just like sampras did. a truly unbiased
> observer would recognize that it's a travesty to suggest fed couldn't
> have beaten those players.
>
> i'll give u another analogy. agassi, with just his returning
> capabilities and consistent groundies (and he had a relatively weaker
> serve then, and he still has a relatively weaker serve), beat the heck
> out of everyone, except sampras, in 1994-1995 (beat becker 8 times in a
> row, 6-3 against edberg, 4-3 against goran, 4-3 against krajicek,
> murdered stich in the 1994 USO final etc.). do you think federer cannot
> do significantly better given that he is as good a returner as agassi
> (come to think of it, agassi never did figure out the sampras' serve),
> is definitely much faster around the court, has a bigger serve, and is
> definitely better at the net ?
very good analogy, Shakes. People keep harping on
Becker/Edberg/Stich/Krajicek as tough opponets. If you look at the
record, together they faced Sampras just 8 times in 9 years (1992-2000).
Whereas Fed has faced Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal 11 times already
in 3 years. So the much touted group was not even good enough to reach
later stages of slams. Furthermore, Sampras had a 5-3 record in those 8
matches, Fed had a 9-2 record in his 11 matches. If we swapped Fed and
Pete, I can't see Fed doing worse than 5-3 or Pete doing better than
9-2. On top of that, like you said Agassi killed those 90's guys from
the baseline.
People are just in denial about Fed's success and trying to rationalize
by denigrating the opposition. If they open their eyes, they will see a
tier I champion (like Laver, Borg, Sampras) in his prime who will
naturally make the opposition look inferior.
>
> my guess is take out sampras and put fed in his place and fed would
> still have won 7 slams like he did now. i accept that he probably
> wouldn't have had 81-4 seasons though.
>
He would really have had a great shot at a CYGS in 1996.
Whisper
No reservations - 15 slams & 81 points would make it conclusive in my
book (Sampras has 80), even if he wins less Wimbledons - also will get
bragging rights for other significant milestones like;
- non-calendar slam
- More Wim/USO combos
- Yr-end No.1
- YECs
Note I'm not fussed on whether he breaks Sampras 6 yrs No.1 record or
YECs - if he can crack 81 slam points he's da man.
He now has 37 points which is phenomenal in 2.5 yr period.
For some perspective;
- Borg 59 points
- Jimbo 42 points
- McEnroe 41 points
- Lendl/Agassi 33 points
- Becker 32 points
- Edberg 30 points
- Wilander 26 points
If he wins Wimbledon he'll go past Mac/Jimbo & in pursuit of Borg.
Sampras is a big mountain to climb, but we'll see how he goes. Borg
won't be easy to catch either...
Whisper
Of course he looks like he'll make tier 1 at this point, but so did Mac
in '84 (finished tier 2). Fed will make tier 2 with 1 more slam (top of
tier 3 atm).
>
>>
>> my guess is take out sampras and put fed in his place and fed would
>> still have won 7 slams like he did now. i accept that he probably
>> wouldn't have had 81-4 seasons though.
>>
> He would really have had a great shot at a CYGS in 1996.
>
Lots of coulda woulda there which is meaningless - Fed is doing ok as it
is - if he keeps it up it seems a mere formality before he's tier 1.
Earliest he can do that is USO this yr if he wins calendar slam,
otherwise will have to wait til next yr (needs minimum 50 points to get
into tier 1 conversation)....
GregRupedski
"Mikko Ämmälä" <mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
news:43ec8d2c$0$1631$9b53...@news.fv.fi...
> GregRupedski wrote:
> Tillden (1930->), Bugde (1950->), Secura (1950->), Rosewall (1968->),
> Laver (1969->), Connors (1982->, Agassi (2001->) - every tennis
> generation have had a great player who had done really well after
> turning 30...why this age should be an exception when there are a lot
> more older champs at other sports too?
Again, it's because of the wear and tear. You are also acknowledging here,
that these players are extreme exceptions...as you say...on per
generation...you're contradicting your own arguments. Further, nobody
thought those players were playing BETTER in their 30's than their 20's. Mr.
modern longevity Connors admitted that on several occasions.
> For everyone of (non great serve reputation) top players there are a
> couple of occasions where he has cracked a bunch of aces (Borg vs
> Connors at 3 set easy SF USO 1981 - 14 aces for Borg and 17 more
> unreturned, Chang hit once 25 aces against Sampras etc...)
Of course they do! That's the point, you can't take one match and then
generalize to an entire decade. I take it by your total lack of
acknowledgment, that indeed you ahve no data and just made your statistic
up. So that issue is resolved.
> > Agassi could always hit a high number of aces for 1 match or 1
tournament.
> > He could also always hit an occassional extreme blast, 128mph in 1991,
125
> > mph at AO in 1995 (both wold be well into the 130's on today's
radar...which
> > is the same as his most extreme serves today.)
>
> At least that AO 1995 result was at the match were Agassi was leading
> noname 2-0 sets and tried then in one service game break his radar
> record (pointing out the radar) after he first hit 119mph (btw that
> 125mph shot was fault, he hit 121mph shot in while chasing the record)
> if we are talking about the same match.
No. Must not have been the same match as Agassi's was in. By the way, Agassi
was always capable of hitting into the low 120's
GregRupedski
"Robi" <artsm...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1139584928....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
grass? Agassi hasn't played a grass court event for three years. I
agree about this point regarding his clay court performances - that's
where his slow movement really hampers him. But his absolute best HC
play today is not far off his peak HC play, imo.
I agree in that when Agassi is facing a lesser opponent and can control the
center of the court, his play today is not much worse or maybe as good as
his peak. However, against Federer for example, Agassi's loss of a step
because very painfully evident, to those who saw him when he was young. It
is the single biggest factor that holds Agassi back in his matches with Fed
now. An extra step or 2 would make a world of difference in those tight
matches.
GregRupedski
"robin" <robins...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139571330.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If Lennox Lewis and Lance Armstrong can be top of their sports (which
> are FAR more physically tough than tennis) in their mid thirties, there
> is no reason that Agassi can't.
Gee, it's great when people who don't know anything about athletics chime in
with their ignorant opinions.
I can't bring myself to even start addressing this one....
GregRupedski
<haru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139617786.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ROFL. That's exactly what I thought when I read that srikanth, it was one of
the worst repsonses I've ever seen. Revealed the worthlessness of the poster
and the uselessness of responding!
Dave Hazelwood
Your own response above is worth about as useless as tits on a bull too.
Vari L. Cinicke
Of course, the rest of the world has a much higher sanity quotient than
Whispos and lumps his "system" in the "monkey and a typewriter" category.
A "system" tailored to boost Sampras is pleasing to the worshipper in
Whisper. I can't see any realists buying into the baloney.
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Your "system" is still stupid and aimed only at boosting Sampras. The
fact that you keep touting it shows your lack of active brain cells. No
offense meant!
Blue Chimp! :-)
Cheers,
vc
Whisper
Whether you choose to believe me or not, I'm not a big Sampras fan.
He's the best because he's won the most at the biggest events - if it
were Agassi or Hewitt then they would be da man.
You're a fruity fanboy.
Whisper
I apply it evenly to all players, so you can't make that claim. It's a
no-brainer Wimbledon is considered the world cup of tennis.
Your problem is you hate Sampras, which is scary weird....
It's only a game & he's won the most so = goat.
Like I said you don't have to watch him or talk about him - no one is
forcing you.
Vari L. Cinicke
Applying a bias evenly makes it fair? Wow, you are good! :-P
Here is a system for you to apply evenly to all players. Give it a shot.
Wimbledon = 5
French Open = 35
US Open = 5
AO = 25
All 4 slams = 10000
I applied it evenly to all players. Wow, the results were not very
surprising. Agassi with 10150 >> Sampras with 110 points.
Tier 1 has a 200 point cutoff and Tier 2 150. I applied that evenly to
all players too. Both Borg and Laver made it into Tier I.
Same rules applied to everyone make so much sense, don't they? ;-) ;-)
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
Not a question of what I choose to believe. It is just a question of
what your posting record implies.
No other interpretation than Biggest Sampras Fanboy Ever works for your
posts.
Also, that is not an insult. Just captures how you feel about Sampras.
Why bother denying it? Doesn't such a great champion deserve your
adulation? :-)
Cheers,
vc
Adam Thirnis
Whisper wrote:
>
> Whether you choose to believe me or not, I'm not a big Sampras fan.
Which is weird because why else do you keep bringing him up in almost
every thread whether it's relevant or not? Ultimately it's probably
just trolling for want of anything better to do.
Whisper
You're the loon as no one has FO anywhere near Wimbledon, including Borg
(alltime FO king)...
Whisper
It's all about achievements for me.
You fanboyz can continue deluding yourselves with lesser players.....
Vari L. Cinicke
I am glad you didn't think much of your defense of "applying the same
rules to all players". I figured even you wouldn't be that biased.
Glad my illustration cleared that up.
Your Blue Chimp "system" is crap. Isn't if funny that it
"coincidentally" favors the one player almost all your posts are about? :-D
Cheers,
vc
Whisper
>>
>>
>>
>> You're the loon as no one has FO anywhere near Wimbledon, including
>> Borg (alltime FO king)...
>
>
> I am glad you didn't think much of your defense of "applying the same
> rules to all players". I figured even you wouldn't be that biased.
>
> Glad my illustration cleared that up.
>
> Your Blue Chimp "system" is crap. Isn't if funny that it
> "coincidentally" favors the one player almost all your posts are about? :-D
>
> Cheers,
>
> vc
Catch 22
David Henry
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:2kvou1p290lnh0bsg...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:49:36 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On 10 Feb 2006 03:35:30 -0800, "robin" <robins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If Lennox Lewis and Lance Armstrong can be top of their sports (which
>>>>are FAR more physically tough than tennis) in their mid thirties, there
>>>>is no reason that Agassi can't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> necessarily
>>> hold the title the longest nor win the most title fights.
>>>
>>> This is why I say:
>>>
>>> Sampras has achieved the best slam performance in tennis.
>>>
>>> Borg was the greatest tennis player.
>>>
>>> Whisper can't understand that.
>>
>>If you think Borg could beat Sampras at Wimbledon you're off your rocker.
>
> Borg would not only beat him, he would demolish him.
With wood?
Only problem is: Sampras knows how to play with graphite....
Dave ; >