PDA

View Full Version : Llodra and Almagro - two titles each. Fed, one title.


johnny ballgame
06-09-2008, 09:38 AM
Mr. Pete Sampras, your slam record is quite safe.

Messarger
06-09-2008, 09:50 AM
I'm not a Federer fan, but Llodra & Almagro didnt have to deal with mono.

fgzhu88
06-09-2008, 10:24 AM
Fed- 12 slams. Almagro- nobody

christo
06-09-2008, 10:57 AM
Mr. Pete Sampras, your slam record is quite safe.

why don't we ask pete?

iamke55
06-09-2008, 11:17 AM
Mono still in. How else can you explain a guy hitting single digit UEs per match in 2003 Wimbledon playing at the same dominant level for 4 years, and then dropping to become your average top 5 player?

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2008, 11:21 AM
iamke55, your an idiot.Nuff said.

zagor
06-09-2008, 11:23 AM
Federer AO semifinal,FO final,Monte Carlo and Hamburg finals.So far Fed is having a better year then your idol Sampras did in '98.If Fed takes Wimbledon this year I'll remember this thread.

johnny ballgame
06-09-2008, 11:28 AM
Mono still in. How else can you explain a guy hitting single digit UEs per match in 2003 Wimbledon playing at the same dominant level for 4 years, and then dropping to become your average top 5 player?

The same way I can explain it for many other greats of the past:

They have it. They lose it. Some get it back. Some only get part of it back. And some just plain lose it.

See McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Wilander, Agassi, Becker, Courier, Lendl, etc.

Also, others get better at the same time.

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2008, 11:30 AM
This thread should be saved up when the year ends.So much doom and gloom.

malakas
06-09-2008, 11:31 AM
13 July 2007-27 April 2008 Rafael Nadal 0 titles. ( in case you're also a ********)

Pete Sampras titles in 1998 (same age as Fed) : 4 (Philadelphia, Atlanta, Wimbledon, Vienna) only 1 slam and no finalist in any other Slams that year.

So your point?

eric draven
06-09-2008, 11:41 AM
The same way I can explain it for many other greats of the past:

They have it. They lose it. Some get it back. Some only get part of it back. And some just plain lose it.

See McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Wilander, Agassi, Becker, Courier, Lendl, etc.

Also, others get better at the same time.

Another way of saying that is once a player gets to his late 20's you're body just doesn't respond/recover the way that it did earlier in your career. With the exception of Agassi (and Borg for other reasons) on Ballgame's list each and every one of those players results declined once the player got beyond age 26.

McEnroe couldn't keep up his serve and volley game once the power era was introduced.

Borg just mentally couldn't take the strain to stay number one.

Sampras admitted that he had to become more of a serve and volleyer in the latter part of his career so he could end points sooner.

Wilander suffered both mental and physical burnout in his mid-twenties.

Agassi admitted that he wasted the first 5 years of his career and it was the only reason he was effective towards the end of it. And lets not forget he could barely walk off the court at the end.

Becker, once the ultimate power player in his teens and early twenties, could only muster moments of greatness on the court in the latter part of his career. He stopped because he was not satisfied to simply make the quarters or semis of the Slams.

Courier, a power-baseline player that had a dominant two year period and just couldn't keep up the grind-it-out pace that his style demanded. Again, a player who could conjure up phenomenal matches on big occassions but not on a consistent basis when he got older.

Lendl, the prototype for today's modern player: fitness, power, a big forehand and serve for weapons. Essentially, he was ushered out of the game by Sampras at the 1990 US Open (and a bad back).

Professional Sports is a young man/woman's game. It's impossible to think that Federer has time on his side at this point whereas Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal do. Five years from now we'll be saying the same thing about them when the next crop of young and hungry players begins to threaten their dominance. Heck, that could happen even sooner.

johnny ballgame
06-09-2008, 01:19 PM
So your point?

My point is that I don't see Fed reaching 15 slams. Maybe 14, but not 15.

Taking a whooping from Mardy Fish. Getting pushed around by Ramirez Hidalgo and Janko Tipsarevic. Losses to Stepanek and Roddick and Murray. Threatened by Monfils. Winning four games in a slam final.

Sure, Sampras produced some magic following a couple years of mediocre play. I just don't see Fed producing the same kind of magic to get to 15 slams.

AAAA
06-09-2008, 01:42 PM
Professional Sports is a young man/woman's game. It's impossible to think that Federer has time on his side at this point whereas Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal do. Five years from now we'll be saying the same thing about them when the next crop of young and hungry players begins to threaten their dominance. Heck, that could happen even sooner.

You're right there, Federer doesn't have time on his side against Nadal or Djokovic. Nadal is about 5 years younger and Djokovic about 6 years roughly. Nadal is fitter and physically stronger than Federer ever was.

veroniquem
06-09-2008, 01:49 PM
You're right there, Federer doesn't have time on his side against Nadal or Djokovic. Nadal is about 5 years younger and Djokovic about 6 years roughly. Nadal is fitter and physically stronger than Federer ever was.
Absolutely. Fed was completely dominant. People are gonna have to get used to the "was" in this sentence. I'm sure they will, little by little.

Q&M son
06-09-2008, 02:45 PM
Very bad comparison...........

veroniquem
06-09-2008, 02:53 PM
Fed- 12 slams. Almagro- nobody
the OP meant in 2008 obviously.

malakas
06-09-2008, 02:55 PM
the OP meant in 2008 obviously.

which just shows how brilliant the OP is,to judge the future of a player only by half a season on a year he has suffered by a serious illness.:neutral:

deme08
06-09-2008, 02:58 PM
which just shows how brilliant the OP is,to judge the future of a player only by half a season on a year he has suffered by a serious illness.:neutral:

not to mention, 1 slam final + 2 masters final + 1 atp title is still better than 2 insignificant atp titles.

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2008, 03:00 PM
The french open has been a mirage for some of these people.Hopefully when wimbledon comes around, all these idiots will go back to their pathetic little caves.

janipyt05
06-09-2008, 03:02 PM
so what the year is not yet, Fed is far more consistent than those 2 guys. I'm sure Fed will pick it up, Wimbledon and US Open still to go, folk have a little faith.

veroniquem
06-09-2008, 03:04 PM
not to mention, 1 slam final + 2 masters final + 1 atp title is still better than 2 insignificant atp titles.
Ok you're gonna hate me for this but I guess someone has to say it: the 1 ATP title was insignificant too.

veroniquem
06-09-2008, 03:07 PM
so what the year is not yet, Fed is far more consistent than those 2 guys. I'm sure Fed will pick it up, Wimbledon and US Open still to go, folk have a little faith.
Of course those 2 guys can't compare to Fed. The OP just wanted to point out that Fed's results have been poor so far. It can still change with all the big tournaments to come and Fed is still the favorite at Wimby but his form at RG is not very reassuring, is it?

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2008, 03:11 PM
People are really getting on him with roland garros.Federer is the second best on clay, second!!!!!!!!!!!Not Djokovic, Federer!!!!!!!!!!He ran into the best claycourter, a 3 time champion.A guy who hasnt loss.Now Federer is entering a GS where he hasnt lost since 2002?2002!!!!He has a grass streak on the line.U cant compared the 2.Clay is his weakest surface if u wanna say weak when he is the second best on that surface!!

janipyt05
06-09-2008, 03:16 PM
Of course those 2 guys can't compare to Fed. The OP just wanted to point out that Fed's results have been poor so far. It can still change with all the big tournaments to come and Fed is still the favorite at Wimby but his form at RG is not very reassuring, is it?

I didn't mean for my comment to sound rdue, I'm just saying i have seen so many post where people are just dogging on Fed, and i think its just crazy to call him out for his loses this year or at RG, it was sad to watch him humilated like that, but it happens.
I hope he can shrug it of in time for Wimbledon because if Fed loses Wimbeldon now that would be a big blow, to me you can't just switch on greatness even if you are the worlds best.

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2008, 03:20 PM
He was flat as a pancake in that match.U have to give Nadal credit for playing extremely well.I thought in the 3rd set he gave up.He had the same tactics he has had over the last 2 matches.Trading baseline rallies on clay is suicide against Nadal.Not to mention that his backhand breaks down because of the topspin.

johnny ballgame
06-09-2008, 03:36 PM
to judge the future of a player only by half a season on a year he has suffered by a serious illness.:neutral:

LOL. Nice excuse!

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2008, 03:45 PM
Its not an excuse.U would be dumb not to see it.The guy looked out of sorts.

johnny ballgame
02-02-2009, 04:06 PM
Mr. Pete Sampras, your slam record is quite safe.

Check the date on that original post. Gotta pat myself on the back for that prediction.

viduka0101
02-02-2009, 04:46 PM
Check the date on that original post. Gotta pat myself on the back for that prediction.

ha ha you are such a pompous *****, i appreciate that

zagor
02-03-2009, 05:39 AM
Check the date on that original post. Gotta pat myself on the back for that prediction.

You should wait untill Fed retires before you pat yourself on the back.He only needs 1 more to equal it and 2 to break it.

johnny ballgame
02-03-2009, 06:40 AM
You should wait untill Fed retires before you pat yourself on the back.He only needs 1 more to equal it and 2 to break it.

Indeed. I did say in this thread that he will likely get 14 but not 15.