PDA

View Full Version : Nadal's complete lack of competition 2005-2010


BeHappy
12-20-2011, 08:43 AM
In 2005 the following clay court specialists stopped playing

-Keurten - 3 times RG champ, at age 26 had to basically retire because of his hip injury. Even with his injury he knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005, Federer was obviously at his very best. He had a very similar playing style to Soderling, except with a better backhand and far better movement.

-Coria - won 5 clay court tournaments in a row 2004. had a mental breakdown and couldn't serve at all after 2005. Had one of the most incredible matches in claycourt history with Nadal in the Rome final in 2005. He too stopped playing that year.

-Gaudio - went 42-8 on clay in 2005, beat and Bagelled Nadal that year as defending French open champion (as all the great backhands have: Nalbandian, Djokovic etc). Like Coria he had a mental breakdown and stopped playing.

Ferrero - Got the chickenpox in 2005, came back and his forehand had disappeared. Still hasn't recovered his forehand, he ceased to be a top 10 player after that.

Moya - got old/backhand disintegrated.

Today's so called 'clay court specialists' like Tommy Robredo, David Ferrer and Almagro aren't even as good on clay as Sampras was. Nadal had literally no competition until Djokovic came into his own this year.

Keurten in particular would have been a HUGE problem for Nadal with his incredible backhand, he would have dominated off that wing the same as Nalbandian, Djokovic and Davydenko have. The same with Gaudio. Coria was just incredible and would have had his wins too.


Can we really say Nadal would have 6 RG titles if every single clay court specialist hadn't been struck down at the same time?

jerriy
12-20-2011, 08:48 AM
*********s have 2 choices to wiggle out of the conundrum:
Admit that Borg is the greatest claycourter of all time cuz unlike Borg Nadal had no clay competition, or,
Prop-up Fed as a fellow clay court genius/fellow claygoat contender :mrgreen:.

Clarky21
12-20-2011, 08:49 AM
He beat the Goat to win 5 of those titles. I think that counts for something.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 08:50 AM
He beat the Goat to win 5 of those titles. I think that counts for something.

Federer wouldn't have gotten anywhere near those RG finals if Keurten, Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero hadn't all broken down. Not a chance. It's massively inflated Federer's record on clay as much as it has Nadal's.

woodrow1029
12-20-2011, 08:58 AM
Today's so called 'clay court specialists' like Tommy Robredo, David Ferrer and Almagro aren't even as good on clay as Sampras was.

I'm a bit lost with this sentence. I can't see Sampras beating any of these three on clay.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 08:59 AM
I'm a bit lost with this sentence. I can't see Sampras beating any of these three on clay.

Sampras won Rome, got to 3 RG quarterfinals and a semi final. Almagro, Robredo and Ferrer don't have a better record than Sampras on clay by any means.

And Sampras did it in the clay court golden age of Courier, Muster, Brugera, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov. There was such depth back then that Sampras had to beat Courier just to get to the Semi final of the French Open.

Sampras was better on clay than every single clay court specialist today bar Nadal. That's how bad today's "clay court specialists" are.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 09:31 AM
I guess most of this forum wasn't even watching tennis in 2005.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 09:36 AM
I'm a bit lost with this sentence. I can't see Sampras beating any of these three on clay.

Even Roddick beat Robredo on clay, lol. Sampras would have his chances. Almagro I don't rate one bit. However I was impressed with his attitude last FO and kept it together mentally with Nadal despite losing 3 close sets, Ferrer I think would completely destroy Sampras on clay.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-20-2011, 09:38 AM
Sampras had less competition than Nadal. And he still couldn't win the FO, LOL.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 09:40 AM
Sampras had less competition than Nadal. And he still couldn't win the FO, LOL.

Brugera, Courier, Chang, Muster aren't competition?

How about Agassi and Kafelnikov? Berasatugai?

Golden age of clay. Meanwhile Djokovic is getting blown out of RG by Nadal's pigeon.

bluescreen
12-20-2011, 09:46 AM
I'm surprised this thread has managed to stay on topic for a whopping 8 posts.

And I'm equally surprised no one has has given the ol' "Nadal is so good it makes all of his opponents seem average" gambit.

I agree that the clay court competition from 05-10 wasn't as deep as the '90's or the early 2000's, but we can't forget about Federer. A majority of Nadal's tournament wins on clay pitted Nadal against Federer--many in which Federer was in his prime--and Nadal won almost every time.

Federer, in my eyes, is equal to about 3 or 4 great claycourters. Because he was so consistent in getting deep in clay court tournaments, Nadal didn't get a chance to play other good clay courters in the Finals of most of his clay tournaments.

To summarize: a "lack of competition" is impossible if Federer is in the draw.

CMM
12-20-2011, 09:47 AM
Nadal is so good it makes all of his opponents seem average.
It's true, at least on clay.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-20-2011, 09:47 AM
Brugera, Courier, Chang, Muster aren't competition?

How about Agassi and Kafelnikov? Berasatugai?

Golden age of clay. Meanwhile Djokovic is getting blown out of RG by Nadal's pigeon.

Those guys are competition but Sampras didn't always lose to those guys on clay, he lost to a bunch of other nobodies.

dudeski
12-20-2011, 09:49 AM
Federer wouldn't have gotten anywhere near those RG finals if Keurten, Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero hadn't all broken down. Not a chance. It's massively inflated Federer's record on clay as much as it has Nadal's.

Typical ignorant Federer hater.

Federer is 3-0 vs Coria (2-0 clay). 5-0 vs Gaudio (2-0 clay) and 9-3 vs Ferrero (3-0 on clay).

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 09:50 AM
Those guys are competition but Sampras didn't always lose to those guys on clay, he lost to a bunch of other nobodies.

For about 5 years when Sampras actually cared about clay the results were winning Rome, 3 RG quarter finals and a semi final in the most competitive field in clay court history.

Djokovic doesn't have the stamina to win on clay over 5 sets.

Typical ignorant Federer hater.

Federer is 3-0 vs Coria (2-0 clay). 5-0 vs Gaudio (2-0 clay) and 9-3 vs Ferrero (3-0 on clay).

Coria and Gaudio were just coming in to their own (A bit like Hewitt beating Federer the first 8 times they played), and Ferrero hasn't been good on any surface in nearly 7 years.

He snook a win against Keurten in Hamburg when Keurten was fresh from surgery, but even on one leg, on an injury that was so bad Keurten was only weeks from retirement, and at Federer's absolute best, Keurten knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005.

TMF
12-20-2011, 09:59 AM
He snook a win against Keurten in Hamburg when Keurten was fresh from surgery, but even on one leg, on an injury that was so bad Keurten was only weeks from retirement, and at Federer's absolute best, Keurten knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005.

He did not you ignorant troll.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 10:00 AM
Top thread this one.

dudeski
12-20-2011, 10:00 AM
For about 5 years when Sampras actually cared about clay the results were winning Rome, 3 RG quarter finals and a semi final in the most competitive field in clay court history.

Djokovic doesn't have the stamina to win on clay over 5 sets.



Coria and Gaudio were just coming in to their own (A bit like Hewitt beating Federer the first 8 times they played), and Ferrero hasn't been good on any surface in nearly 7 years.

He snook a win against Keurten in Hamburg when Keurten was fresh from surgery, but even on one leg, on an injury that was so bad Keurten was only weeks from retirement, and at Federer's absolute best, Keurten knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005.

Federer is younger than Gaudio and Ferrero and 6 month older than Coria. Please cut the crap out. Federer only lost to one of them, Ferrero, twice in 2000 and once in 2003 because Ferrero was earlier bloomer than Fed. Fed owns them all since end of 2003. Including owning both Coria and Gaudio in 2004/2005 on clay when they were in their peak.

Guga beat Fed in 2004 FO. Fed reached prime on clay in 2005.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:03 AM
Federer is younger than Gaudio and Ferrero and 6 month older than Coria. Please cut the crap out. Federer only lost to one of them, Ferrero, twice in 2000 and once in 2003 because Ferrero was earlier bloomer than Fed. Fed owns them all since end of 2003. Including owning both Coria and Gaudio in 2004/2005 on clay when they were in their peak.

Guga beat Fed in 2004 FO. Fed reached prime on clay in 2005.

Wasn't 2004 the year Federer won 3 grand slams? I think he was pretty good in 2004.

Federer is the same age as Hewitt and lost to him the first 8 times they played. Players mature at different rates and you know it.

Gaudio was a journeyman before he won the French Open and only as defending RG champ in 2005 did he transform into a real force on clay. Yes he beat Coria in 2004 and that was a good win, but everyone knows Coria lost his mind after that 2004 French Open final.

Carsomyr
12-20-2011, 10:06 AM
Those guys are competition but Sampras didn't always lose to those guys on clay, he lost to a bunch of other nobodies.

Pete Sampras's losses at the French Open 1995-2002:
1995: Lost 1R to Schaller, ranked #24
1996: Lost SF to Kafelnikov, ranked #7
1997: Lost 3R to Norman, ranked #65
1998: Lost 2R to Delgado, ranked #97
1999: Lost 2R to Medvedev, ranked #100
2000: Lost 1R to Philippoussis, ranked #25
2001: Lost 2R to Blanco, ranked #76
2002: Lost 1R to Gaudenzi, ranked #69.

He would definitely get regularly beaten by the likes of Ferrer and Almagro.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:09 AM
Pete Sampras's losses at the French Open 1995-2002:
1995: Lost 1R to Schaller, ranked #24
1996: Lost SF to Kafelnikov, ranked #7
1997: Lost 3R to Norman, ranked #65
1998: Lost 2R to Delgado, ranked #97
1999: Lost 2R to Medvedev, ranked #100
2000: Lost 1R to Philippoussis, ranked #25
2001: Lost 2R to Blanco, ranked #76
2002: Lost 1R to Gaudenzi, ranked #69.

He would definitely get regularly beaten by the likes of Ferrer and Almagro.

I like the way you started from 1995, Sampras stopped caring about the French Open after 1996. He got to 3 quarter finals, a semi final (beating Courier) and won Rome.

Better than Almagro, Ferrer and Robredo. Today's "claycourt specialists".

dudeski
12-20-2011, 10:10 AM
Wasn't 2004 the year Federer won 3 grand slams? I think he was pretty good in 2004.

Federer is the same age as Hewitt and lost to him the first 8 times they played. Players mature at different rates and you know it.

Gaudio was a journeyman before he won the French Open and only as defending RG champ in 2005 did he transform into a real force on clay. Yes he beat Coria in 2004 and that was a good win, but everyone knows Coria lost his mind after that 2004 French Open final.

We both know that Nadal the clay GOAT is the only thing that stopped Fed from having 5 or 6 FOs. No point even talking about Guga, Gaudio or Coria. It's like saying Sampras sucks on hard courts because he lost 1992 USO final to old man Edberg.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:13 AM
We both know that Nadal the clay GOAT is the only thing that stopped Fed from having 5 or 6 FOs. No point even talking about Guga, Gaudio or Coria. It's like saying Sampras sucks on hard courts because he lost 1992 USO final to old man Edberg.

Old man Edberg? What? He would have been 25-26 at the most surely?

dudeski
12-20-2011, 10:19 AM
Old man Edberg? What? He would have been 25-26 at the most surely?

Yes he is 5 1/2 years older than Sampras and in 1992 he played 5 setters in R16, Q, S and he still had the energy to beat Sampras in the final. Does that mean that Sampras only won 5 USO because Agassi sucks and Edberg stopped playing?

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:22 AM
Yes he is 5 1/2 years older than Sampras and in 1992 he played 5 setters in R16, Q, S and he still had the energy to beat Sampras in the final. Does that mean that Sampras only won 5 USO because Agassi sucks and Edberg stopped playing?

He was 25 years old. I don't know what universe 25 is 'old' in...

dudeski
12-20-2011, 10:23 AM
He was 25 years old. I don't know what universe 25 is 'old' in...

Ask namelessone :)

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:32 AM
Wasn't 2004 the year Federer won 3 grand slams? I think he was pretty good in 2004.

Federer is the same age as Hewitt and lost to him the first 8 times they played. Players mature at different rates and you know it.

Gaudio was a journeyman before he won the French Open and only as defending RG champ in 2005 did he transform into a real force on clay. Yes he beat Coria in 2004 and that was a good win, but everyone knows Coria lost his mind after that 2004 French Open final.

You paethetic little hater, Hewitt led 3-0 (Fed won sets in every match) before Fed won 2 of the next 3 matches. Hewitt didn't even beat Federer for the 8th time until Halle 2010, fool.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:34 AM
Old man Edberg? What? He would have been 25-26 at the most surely?

Luckily for Sampras Edberg was done after 1993, obviously a 30-year old Edberg couldn't pwn Sampras a** like he did twice in slams in 1992 and 1993.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:36 AM
I like the way you started from 1995, Sampras stopped caring about the French Open after 1996. He got to 3 quarter finals, a semi final (beating Courier) and won Rome.

Better than Almagro, Ferrer and Robredo. Today's "claycourt specialists".


And what big names did Sampras beat on clay, exactly? I'd like to know. Cause all I see is cake draws in all his deep runs.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:37 AM
You paethetic little hater, Hewitt led 3-0 (Fed won sets in every match) before Fed won 2 of the next 3 matches. Hewitt didn't even beat Federer for the 8th time until Halle 2010, fool.

I just double checked that one the atp website (Hewitt still led 7-2 so my point still stands)

Anyway, looking at the head to head, it's listed as 18-8 to Federer, but I can't count more than 7 wins for Hewitt from their list of matches?

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:37 AM
And what big names did Sampras beat on clay, exactly? I'd like to know. Cause all I see is cake draws in all his deep runs.

Beat Courier in the QF of the French Open the year he got to the semi final, that's just off the top of my head.

Luckily for Sampras Edberg was done after 1993, obviously a 30-year old Edberg couldn't pwn Sampras a** like he did twice in slams in 1992 and 1993.


Edberg had back problems.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:39 AM
I just double checked that one the atp website (Hewitt still led 7-2 so my point still stands)

Anyway, looking at the head to head, it's listed as 18-8 to Federer, but I can't count more than 7 wins for Hewitt from their list of matches?

There's no "still led", you claimed Federer didn't beat Hewitt until the 9th meeting while Federer won 2 of the first 7 meetings and Hewitt needed to wait until 2010 to score for the 8th time against Federer, so eat your own sh*t now.

Carsomyr
12-20-2011, 10:40 AM
He was 25 years old. I don't know what universe 25 is 'old' in...

He'd been winning majors since he was 19 and had nearly 750 matches under his belt by the time of the 1992 U.S. Open; he wasn't exactly a spring chicken.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:40 AM
Beat Courier in the QF of the French Open the year he got to the semi final, that's just off the top of my head.

Not only Courier was not THE Courier of 1991-1993 but Sampras also had to rely on a massive choke to even sneak through him. Anything else? Do you want to mention how Sampras beat Muster on clay in 1989 when Muster was 4 years before his clay prime haha (and also had to rely on a choke from Muster who led 2-0 in sets)?


Edberg had back problems.

When he owned Sampras in slams? Well that's even worse for Pete, imagine if Stefan was fit LOL

SLD76
12-20-2011, 10:42 AM
this is a complete fail thread.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:43 AM
There's no "still led", you claimed Federer didn't beat Hewitt until the 9th meeting while Federer won 2 of the first 7 meetings and Hewitt needed to wait until 2010 to score for the 8th time against Federer, so eat your own sh*t now.

Federer was being dominated and he turned it around, you just proved my point with your own words.

He'd been winning majors since he was 19 and had nearly 750 matches under his belt by the time of the 1992 U.S. Open; he wasn't exactly a spring chicken.

He was 25 for goodness sake. Sampras had been winning majors since he was 19 and he peaked at the age of 28-29.

Not only Courier was not THE Courier of 1991-1993 but Sampras also had to rely on a massive choke to even sneak through him.

Of course he was THE Courier, Sampras just kept knocking him out of grand slams.




When he owned Sampras in slams? Well that's even worse for Pete, imagine if Stefan was fit LOL

The competition was unbelievable back then.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 10:46 AM
Federer was being dominated and he turned it around, you just proved my point with your own words.



He was 25 for goodness sake. Sampras had been winning majors since he was 19 and he peaked at the age of 28-29.



Of course he was THE Courier, Sampras just kept knocking him out of grand slams.





The competition was unbelievable back then.

please stop, and save yourself some embarassment.

you have proven you know very little about tennis.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:46 AM
Federer was being dominated and he turned it around, you just proved my point with your own words.

That point stands as it did but you're getting your data from some FAIL sources. Btw Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French, it was the 2004 French. FAIL.


Of course he was THE Courier, Sampras just kept knocking him out of grand slams.

You're telling me that Courier from 1996 = Courier from 1991-1993
HAHAHAHA make a thread in the Former Pro Player Section and look at the replies, fool.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:48 AM
That point stands as it did but you're getting your data from some FAIL sources. Btw Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French, it was the 2004 French. FAIL.

Federer won 3 majors in 2004 to 2 in 2005 so you just proved my point. Unlike you I'm not running off to wikipedia or youtube, I watched these matches and I'm going by memory so there are going to be some irrelevant mistakes as to exact dates and so on.




You're telling me that Courier from 1996 = Courier from 1991-1993
HAHAHAHA make a thread in the Former Pro Player Section and look at replies, fool.

Most of them claim to have watched Cochet play Lacoste 85 years ago, most of them are complete fantasists.

please stop, and save yourself some embarassment.

you have proven you know very little about tennis.

Nonsense.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:50 AM
Federer won 3 majors in 2004 to 2 in 2005 so you just proved my point.

I just proved that you're a tool and you should thank me for it. Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French Open, check it again and come back to me. Federer wasn't in his clay prime until 2005/2006, in 2004 he also lost to freaking Costa on clay.

They claim to have Cochet play Lacoste 85 years ago, most of them are complete fantasists.

Wise enough to know Courier from 1996 wasn't half as good on clay as he was in 1992.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:51 AM
I just proved that you're a tool and you should thank me for it. Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French Open, check it again and come back to me.

Keep running to wikipedia, you still know nothing about this sport. In fact if he beat him in 2004, a year Federer won 3 slam compared to just 2 in 2005, that just proves my point even more strongly.



Wise enough to know Courier from 1996 wasn't half as good on clay as he was in 1992.

That's a matter of opinion. The standard of competition on clay was way higher in the mid 90's than the early 90's.

Fate Archer
12-20-2011, 10:53 AM
It saddens me a bit all the clay battles we could potentially witness if Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Kuerten didn't have their careers abbreviated by injuries, mental collapses and whatnot.

Aside from Kuerten, who would be pretty much a threat to everyone in his way, I think Coria and Gaudio would be more of a threat to Nadal than Federer, given how they matchup and their past results.

Gaudio is one of the few who can boast with his 3 wins over Nadal on the surface, and Coria gave Nadal one of his roughest battles at the 2005 Rome final. The prospect of meeting Coria not in the final would be absolutely terrfying as even winning against him, it would certainly take a toll on Nadal's gass tank, as their matches were very physical with really long rallies.

As for Federer in 2004 on clay, it was either too hot or too cold. He was still a bit inconsistent, he lost a match against Costa at Rome where he was pretty much bossing Costa around the court and shouldn't have lost, or he could get red hot and and make some really impressive runs, demolishing even some past/future RG champions and finalists (Hamburg that year was one of his most impressive clay tournament runs).

As for his game, Fed's footwork and movement on clay wasn't yet optimized on the surface untill 2005 where he started to feel and move really comfortably, from 2005 Fed started to really master the sliding and the way to move on clay.

That was pretty evident on his match against Kuerten that year, where many times he would slip on points and not move with the same proficiency on the surface that he would start to show in the next few years.

2005 was the year Fed took his movement and footwork, which were already great to begin with, to a whole new level, not only on clay but pretty much anywhere else.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:55 AM
Keep running to wikipedia, you still know nothing about this sport.

You're making a complete fool of yourself, these are the OFFICIAL stats from the OFFICIAL ATP WEBSITE or maybe you got better sources? I proved you wrong twice and waiting for more fails.


That's a matter of opinion. The standard of competition on clay was way higher in the mid 90's than the early 90's.

How come nobody else except you claims that Courier wasn't better in 1996 than he was in 1992? I don't know...maybe cause you're a *********** who wants to magnify Sampras' wins on clay?

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:57 AM
Keep running to wikipedia, you still know nothing about this sport. In fact if he beat him in 2004, a year Federer won 3 slam compared to just 2 in 2005, that just proves my point even more strongly.

What point? Are you MAD? You claimed Kuerten beat Fed at the 2005 FO when in fact it was the 2004 FO, wtf are you still arguing about? WTF does Federer winning 3 majors in 2004 or 2 majors in 2005 have to do with Kuerten beating Federer at the French Open!??!!?!?!?!?

SLD76
12-20-2011, 10:57 AM
What point? Are you MAD? You claimed Kuerten beat Fed at the 2005 FO when in fact it was the 2004 FO, wtf are you still arguing about? WTF does Federer winning 3 majors in 2004 or 2 majors in 2005 have to do with Kuerten beating Federer at the French Open!??!!?!?!?!?

psssssssstt....dont confuse him with facts.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 10:59 AM
psssssssstt....dont confuse him with facts.

this is hilarious, words aren't enough to describe what a complete fool this guy is

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 10:59 AM
You're making a complete fool of yourself, these are the OFFICIAL stats from the OFFICIAL ATP WEBSITE or maybe you got better sources? I proved you wrong twice and waiting for more fails.




How come nobody else except you claims that Courier wasn't better in 1996 than he was in 1992? I don't know...maybe cause you're a *********** who wants to magnify Sampras' wins on clay?

Because this an American website, Courier isn't winning on clay anymore? Must be that he's declined, Nevermind the emergence of Brugera, the re-emergence of Muster and Chang, Kafelnikov starting to get really good, Korda starting to get really good, Agassi getting even better etc etc.

The reality is that the clay court field got WAY better in the mid 90's. Courier picked his up in a lull between the Wilander/Lendl Era and the mid 90's golden age. He was still doing well in hard court slams too, Sampras and Agassi had just matured and were just knocking him out.

What point? Are you MAD? You claimed Kuerten beat Fed at the 2005 FO when in fact it was the 2004 FO, wtf are you still arguing about? WTF does Federer winning 3 majors in 2004 or 2 majors in 2005 have to do with Kuerten beating Federer at the French Open!??!!?!?!?!?

It says a lot about how good Kuerten was. The better Federer was, the more impressive Keurten's win was.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 11:02 AM
Because this an American website, Courier isn't winning on clay anymore? Must be that he's declined, Nevermind the emergence of Brugera, the re-emergence of Muster and Chang, Kafelnikov starting to get really good, Korda starting to get really good, Agassi getting even better etc etc.

The reality is that the clay court field got WAY better in the mid 90's. Courier picked his up in a lull between the Wilander/Lendl Era and the mid 90's golden age. He was still doing well in hard court slams too, Sampras and Agassi had just matured and were just knocking him out.



It says a lot about how good Kuerten was. The better Federer was, the more impressive Keurten's win was.


do you even remember what your original point was?

And courier 1996...wasnt that after his mental burnout period. wasnt pretty much on his way out of the game by then?


please stop, dont embarass yourself further.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 11:04 AM
do you even remember what your original point was?

And courier 1996...wasnt that after his mental burnout period. wasnt pretty much on his way out of the game by then?


please stop, dont embarass yourself further.

Yes I remember very clearly what my point was despite you and all your sock puppet accounts trying to annoy me.

Carsomyr
12-20-2011, 11:05 AM
He was 25 for goodness sake. Sampras had been winning majors since he was 19 and he peaked at the age of 28-29.

Sampras did not peak at 28-29. He played a couple of exceptional matches in 1999. He was also losing to Philippoussis at Wimbledon before the latter had to retire. Why do people not understand yet that it's more the mileage and less the age that slows athletes? Sampras was clearly past his best even in his final year of being #1, as he crammed more matches into his schedule than his aging body could handle.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 11:05 AM
provable, actual facts and data do tend to be annoying.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 11:06 AM
Sampras did not peak at 28-29. He played a couple of exceptional matches in 1999. He was also losing to Philippoussis at Wimbledon before the latter had to retire. Why do people not understand yet that it's more the mileage and less the age that slows athletes? Sampras was clearly past his best even in his final year of being #1, as he crammed more matches into his schedule than his aging body could handle.

pssssssst, dont confuse him with actual facts and data.

I mean there is a reason why grinders tend to burn out quicker and that 25 in tennis, especially for a grinder, is old.

but dont let these facts get in the way of Be Happily Ignorant's little world.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 11:07 AM
Sampras did not peak at 28-29. He played a couple of exceptional matches in 1999. He was also losing to Philippoussis at Wimbledon before the latter had to retire. Why do people not understand yet that it's more the mileage and less the age that slows athletes? Sampras was clearly past his best even in his final year of being #1, as he crammed more matches into his schedule than his aging body could handle.

Sampras peaked in 1999, through Wimbledon and the hard court season before his back gave out was the highest level of tennis he ever played. His backhand was never better, his second serve was never stronger, his volleys were never better, he moved as well as he ever has. He made Agassi, who was playing arguably as well as his peak in 1995, look completely helpless in numerous tournaments.

And Philipoussis was a very very talented player, losing to him would have been like Federer losing to Safin in the 2005 AO, no disgrace at all.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 11:08 AM
Because this an American website, Courier isn't winning on clay anymore? Must be that he's declined, Nevermind the emergence of Brugera, the re-emergence of Muster and Chang, Kafelnikov starting to get really good, Korda starting to get really good, Agassi getting even better etc etc.

Oh my God...an American website? that's your excuse? Maybe just go ask Federer and Kuerten when they played at the French Open? Where the f*** do you get your info from? Nonsensopedia?

AAAAaaaaaa so it was Muster, Chang, Bruguera who kept beating Courier on clay in the 1st and 2nd rounds on clay after 1995, bad luck with the draws for Courier, then :D Or maybe Courier losing in the 1st round of the 1995 Rome Masters (f.e.) to T Guardiola a guy who won 13 ATP matches in his CAREER was because Jim was too scared to play Muster/Bruguera in the latter rounds? Don't know...

The reality is that the clay court field got WAY better in the mid 90's. Courier picked his up in a lull between the Wilander/Lendl Era and the mid 90's golden age. He was still doing well in hard court slams too, Sampras and Agassi had just matured and were just knocking him out.

Oh really? Kafelnikov, Moya and Agassi are such titans that prime Nadal, Djokovic, Federer would have no chance against them on clay.

Btw I just checked Courier's best FO run in 1992 - guess who he beat - Korda, Agassi, Muster, Medvedev every one of the losing in straight sets
Wow I checked 1991 - he beats Agassi again at the French! Moreover Stich and Edberg.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 11:11 AM
Oh my God...an American website? that's your excuse? Maybe just go ask Federer and Kuerten when they played at the French Open? Where the f*** do you get your info from? Nonsensopedia?

AAAAaaaaaa so it was Muster, Chang, Bruguera who kept beating Courier on clay in the 1st and 2nd rounds on clay after 1995, bad luck with the draws for Courier, then :D Or maybe Courier losing in the 1st round of the 1995 Rome Masters (f.e.) to T Guardiola a guy who won 13 ATP matches in his CAREER was because Jim was too scared to play Muster/Bruguera in the latter rounds? Don't know...

You mean like Federer losing to Volandri? Everyone has bad matches.



Oh really? Kafelnikov, Moya and Agassi are such titans that prime Nadal, Djokovic, Federer would have no chance against them on clay.

Btw I just checked Courier's best FO run in 1992 - guess who he beat - Korda, Agassi both pwned :D

Korda and Agassi weren't at their best then. There was no Brugera, no Muster (car crash recovery still ongoing - took years), no Berasatugai, Chang wasn't playing well etc etc.

KAfelnikov and Agassi were just as good as Djokovic on clay in my opinion, but they were playing in a far tougher field.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 11:11 AM
It says a lot about how good Kuerten was. The better Federer was, the more impressive Keurten's win was.

Again, wtf does this have to do with anything? You still claim that Federer played Kuerten at the 2005 French Open?

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 11:13 AM
Again, wtf does this have to do with anything? You still claim that Federer played Kuerten at the 2005 French Open?

Read my original post and then maybe you'll understand. This thread pertains to the threat these players would have posed to Federer and Nadal. Beating Federer in 2004 on one leg was incredibly impressive and proves how good Keurten was.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 11:15 AM
You mean like Federer losing to Volandri? Everyone has bad matches.

Javier Sánchez beat Courier in Monte Carlo on clay in 1996 straight before the French Open with the scoreline of 6-3 6-3. There are more which I don't bother to check now.

Korda and Agassi weren't at their best then.

Neither was Courier in 1996. Thanks for playing.

merlinpinpin
12-20-2011, 11:17 AM
Aside from the controversy here, I find it amusing that all the distinguished members of the "PeteGOATforever" club (kiki, Behappy and helloworld) insist on spelling Kuerten "Keurten".

Multiple accounts, anyone? ;)

The funny thing is that it's true, all the *pure* clay-courters (ie players that thrive on this surface especially) besides Nadal disappeared after 2005 (although Federer was much better than them on clay at the time, he is anything but a clay-courter, obviously). How some people can think this strengthens the "PeteGOATforever" claim is beyond me, though... :shock:

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 11:17 AM
Read my original post and then maybe you'll understand. This thread pertains to the threat these players would have posed to Federer and Nadal. Beating Federer in 2004 on one leg was incredibly impressive and proves how good Keurten was.

The point was you claimed Kuerten beat Federer at the 2005 FO and you CONTINUED TO THINK that it was in 2005 even though I provided with some actual data that it was in 2004, instead.

merlinpinpin
12-20-2011, 11:20 AM
Neither was Courier in 1996. Thanks for playing.

Surely you jest. He ended up the year at a very impressive #26 and won THE clay GS of Philadelphia that year... ;)

SLD76
12-20-2011, 11:20 AM
Aside from the controversy here, I find it amusing that all the distinguished members of the "PeteGOATforever" club (kiki, Behappy and helloworld) insist on spelling Kuerten "Keurten".

Multiple accounts, anyone? ;)

The funny thing is that it's true, all the *pure* clay-courters (ie players that thrive on this surface especially) besides Nadal disappeared after 2005 (although Federer was much better than them on clay at the time, he is anything but a clay-courter, obviously). How some people can think this strengthens the "PeteGOATforever" claim is beyond me, though... :shock:

honestly, who knows his point really was.

he may not even know.

TMF
12-20-2011, 11:22 AM
beHappy,

Guga never beat Fed at the 2005 FO.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2005&m=s&e=520#

In fact, they never met again on any event after 2004.

Mustard
12-20-2011, 11:25 AM
The Original Post is riddled with errors.

In 2005 the following clay court specialists stopped playing

-Keurten - 3 times RG champ, at age 26 had to basically retire because of his hip injury. Even with his injury he knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005, Federer was obviously at his very best. He had a very similar playing style to Soderling, except with a better backhand and far better movement.

Kuerten's win over Federer at the French Open was in 2004, not 2005. After a second hip surgery in September 2004, he was never the same again, but he did persist in playing until the 2008 French Open when he lost to Mathieu in the first round. And sorry, but Kuerten was nothing like Soderling in terms of playing style.

-Coria - won 5 clay court tournaments in a row 2004. had a mental breakdown and couldn't serve at all after 2005. Had one of the most incredible matches in claycourt history with Nadal in the Rome final in 2005. He too stopped playing that year.

Coria won 3 clay-court tournaments in 3 weeks in July 2003 without dropping a set, which were in Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel and Sopot. Coria won 2 clay-court tournaments in 2004, in Buenos Aires and Monte Carlo.

Coria did play in 2006 with severe service yips problems, and later tried comebacks, losing a competitive 4-set match to Robredo at the 2008 French Open, but the yips continue to plague him badly.

-Gaudio - went 42-8 on clay in 2005, beat and Bagelled Nadal that year as defending French open champion (as all the great backhands have: Nalbandian, Djokovic etc). Like Coria he had a mental breakdown and stopped playing.

Gaudio beat Nadal when he was ranked higher than Nadal. That soon changed once Nadal shot up the rankings. And the "mental breakdown" bit is not funny, considering that Gaudio once had clinical depression.

Ferrero - Got the chickenpox in 2005, came back and his forehand had disappeared. Still hasn't recovered his forehand, he ceased to be a top 10 player after that.

Ferrero got chickenpox in March 2004, which certainly changed him as a player. It's odd how Ferrero got to the semi finals or better at the French Open every year from 2000-2003, yet hasn't gotten past the third round since 2004. On the other hand, Ferrero has been in a couple of Wimbledon quarter finals since then.

Can we really say Nadal would have 6 RG titles if every single clay court specialist hadn't been struck down at the same time?

Nadal has lost just one best of 5 sets match on clay in his life. Ponder on that.

Carsomyr
12-20-2011, 11:26 AM
Sampras peaked in 1999, through Wimbledon and the hard court season before his back gave out was the highest level of tennis he ever played. His backhand was never better, his second serve was never stronger, his volleys were never better, he moved as well as he ever has. He made Agassi, who was playing arguably as well as his peak in 1995, look completely helpless in numerous tournaments.

That is entirely subjective and entirely rubbish.

And Philipoussis was a very very talented player, losing to him would have been like Federer losing to Safin in the 2005 AO, no disgrace at all.

You're comparing Philippoussis to Safin?

:lol:

DjokovicForTheWin
12-20-2011, 11:43 AM
Pete Sampras's losses at the French Open 1995-2002:
1995: Lost 1R to Schaller, ranked #24
1996: Lost SF to Kafelnikov, ranked #7
1997: Lost 3R to Norman, ranked #65
1998: Lost 2R to Delgado, ranked #97
1999: Lost 2R to Medvedev, ranked #100
2000: Lost 1R to Philippoussis, ranked #25
2001: Lost 2R to Blanco, ranked #76
2002: Lost 1R to Gaudenzi, ranked #69.

He would definitely get regularly beaten by the likes of Ferrer and Almagro.

LOLLLLLLLLLL, proof that Sampras was a tennis midget on clay. Can he even be on a list that contains the likes of Federer and Laver?

DRII
12-20-2011, 11:49 AM
I would love to have seen Guga vs Rafa on clay!!!

I don't know who would have prevailed. I would probably lean Nadal, I don't think Guga has ever faced spin like that coming off of Nadal's racquet. And given the fact that Ferrero started to give Kuerten alot of trouble even when he was healthy further leads me to believe Nadal would win the majority of their encounters, maybe by a wide margin...

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 11:50 AM
Aside from the controversy here, I find it amusing that all the distinguished members of the "PeteGOATforever" club (kiki, Behappy and helloworld) insist on spelling Kuerten "Keurten".


First of all, I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think Sampras as the GOAT. Secondly I always misspell Kuerten's name because I just spell it phonetically.



The Original Post is riddled with errors.

Not it isn't, I'll clarify all your misunderstandings now:

Kuerten's win over Federer at the French Open was in 2004, not 2005. After a second hip surgery in September 2004, he was never the same again, but he did persist in playing until the 2008 French Open when he lost to Mathieu in the first round. And sorry, but Kuerten was nothing like Soderling in terms of playing style.


This is the only mistake I made, saying 2005 instead of 2004, but it's even more impressive that he beat Federer in 2004 and strengthens my argument.

Kuerten played very like Soderling. His strokes looked very different but in the end it was big booming groundstrokes just like Soderling, but with better movement and a better backhand, albeit a weaker serve.

I said Kuerten 'basically retired' not officially, but in reality he played very very little.


Coria won 3 clay-court tournaments in 3 weeks in July 2003 without dropping a set, which were in Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel and Sopot. Coria won 2 clay-court tournaments in 2004, in Buenos Aires and Monte Carlo.

So?


Coria did play in 2006 with severe service yips problems, and later tried comebacks, losing a competitive 4-set match to Robredo at the 2008 French Open, but the yips continue to plague him badly.

That doesn't contradict what I said, and the Robredo match wasn't an attempted comeback but rather a last minute wild card.



Gaudio beat Nadal when he was ranked higher than Nadal. That soon changed once Nadal shot up the rankings. And the "mental breakdown" bit is not funny, considering that Gaudio once had clinical depression.


Gaudio beat Nadal in 2005 when Nadal reached his best. And how is the mental breakdown bit supposed to be funny? It's accurate.


Nadal has lost just one best of 5 sets match on clay in his life. Ponder on that.

That's the point of this thread.

Hitman
12-20-2011, 11:58 AM
Rafa on clay used to be an indestructible beast. And part of why his competition looked weak was that he had them already beat before the match began, with his aura. Maybe that same aura would have hindered the aforementioned players in the OP, since so much of this game is mental.

I guess the flip side is, they were historically better players, and might have been able to deal with the mental pressure a bit better than those who suffered his wrath.

merlinpinpin
12-20-2011, 12:00 PM
No the real question is--would Nadal have beaten Coria, Gaudio et all on clay using the 2-year ranking system? :lol:

SLD76
12-20-2011, 12:01 PM
fact. rafa is quite quite quite quite good on clay

fact. yes, the clay era was weaker around the time of his ascendancy.

that said with surface homogenization, you lost somewhat the 'surface specialists' although some players are naturally better at certain surfaces.

what does it all mean?

rafa is damn good on clay.

Mustard
12-20-2011, 12:06 PM
Not it isn't, I'll clarify all your misunderstandings now:


This is the only mistake I made, saying 2005 instead of 2004, but it's even more impressive that he beat Federer in 2004 and strengthens my argument.

Kuerten rolled back the years that day, but he couldn't play that good day in-day out at that point as he had between 1999-2001.

Kuerten played very like Soderling. His strokes looked very different but in the end it was big booming groundstrokes just like Soderling, but with better movement and a better backhand, albeit a weaker serve.

There are no similarities that I can see.

I said Kuerten 'basically retired' not officially, but in reality he played very very little.

Because of his hip problems.

So?

So Coria didn't win 5 clay-court tournaments in 2004.

That doesn't contradict what I said, and the Robredo match wasn't an attempted comeback but rather a last minute wild card.

Coria had been struggling on the challenger tour in attempting a comeback. He got a wildcard into the 2008 French Open after Roddick withdrew from the tournament.

Gaudio beat Nadal in 2005 when Nadal reached his best.

Completely incorrect. In that 2005 Buenos Aires match where Gaudio beat Nadal, Gaudio was world number 8 and reigning French Open champion while Nadal was ranked at world number 48 at that stage. Gaudio did not beat Nadal again after this match, although he gave him some tough matches.

And how is the mental breakdown bit supposed to be funny? It's accurate.

Gaudio was clinically depressed.

That's the point of this thread.

That's how good Nadal is on clay in best of 5 sets.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:13 PM
Kuerten rolled back the years that day, but he couldn't play that good day in-day out at that point as he had between 1999-2001.
So?

There are no similarities that I can see.

Tall power baseliners, very consistent. Big serves.


Because of his hip problems.

So?


So Coria didn't win 5 clay-court tournaments in 2004.

so?

Coria had been struggling on the challenger tour in attempting a comeback.

So? He played 2-3 matches, I think he actually retired after a few games in his first one. You make it sound like he was a touring professional on the comeback trail.


He got a wildcard into the 2008 French Open after Roddick withdrew from the tournament.


So?


Completely incorrect. In that 2005 Buenos Aires match where Gaudio beat Nadal, Gaudio was world number 8 and reigning French Open champion while Nadal was ranked at world number 48 at that stage. Gaudio did not beat Nadal again after this match, although he gave him some tough matches.


Nadal was at his best in 2005, and his ranking reflected that very very quickly. Gaudio won that French Open because Coria's calf cramped, before that French Open (which is the only reason he was World Number 8 ), he was ranked 44 in the world and a journeyman.


Gaudio was clinically depressed.

So? That's what I said, mental breakdown.



That's how good Nadal is on clay in best of 5 sets.
No, that's how bad his competition was.

Mustard
12-20-2011, 12:18 PM
so?

So, your claim in the OP was incorrect.

So? He played 2-3 matches, I think he actually retired after a few games in his first one. You make it sound like he was a touring professional on the comeback trail.

Coria did try a comeback, but his serve was a total mess and he had some injury problems as well.

Nadal was at his best in 2005, and his ranking reflected that very very quickly.

Stop using hindsight. Nadal was ranked 48 in the world when Gaudio beat him at 2005 Buenos Aires, 40 places below Gaudio. Nadal had 1 career title at that stage, from 2004 Sopot.

No, that's how bad his competition was.

LOL.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:24 PM
So, your claim in the OP was incorrect.


Which one? I was going by memory so if a fact or figure is very slightly off it doesn't matter as long as it was mainly right and the point it supports still stands.


Coria did try a comeback, but his serve was a total mess and he had some injury problems as well.


That's a misleading thing to say. He played 2 matches on the challenger tour and retired from one of them, months and months later he's asked to fill in at the French and he agrees and never plays again, hardly a comeback attempt. And his serve was OK in that Robredo match actually.


Stop using hindsight. Nadal was ranked 48 in the world when Gaudio beat him at 2005 Buenos Aires, 40 places below Gaudio. Nadal had 1 career title at that stage, from 2004 Sopot.

Nadal's level on clay in 2005 was higher than it is today. That was the year he reached his high level that lasted through to 2008. You have only to watch that Rome final or watch him storm the French Open to see that. Gaudio beat Nadal at his best on clay.

single_handed_champion
12-20-2011, 12:37 PM
Nadal's level on clay in 2005 was higher than it is today. That was the year he reached his high level that lasted through to 2008. You have only to watch that Rome final or watch him storm the French Open to see that. Gaudio beat Nadal at his best on clay.

So Gaudio became a force of nature once he won his first (and only) Slam, while Nadal has been declining since he started playing on clay. He must have been a real beast iun his very first match on clay then :lol:

I saw you dismiss someone else with a 'that is a matter of opinion'. Pretty much everything you've said has been exactly that as well.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 12:38 PM
This is the only mistake I made, saying 2005 instead of 2004, but it's even more impressive that he beat Federer in 2004 and strengthens my argument.


How come? Federer was playing way better at the 2005 FO compared to the 2004 FO while Kuerten lost in the 2005 FO in the 1st round to a nobody. If Kuerten playing 10 % of his capabilities could beat a very good Federer at the 2005 FO that would be something.

You are so insecure that you have to add "which strengthens my argument" after every sentence.

kiki
12-20-2011, 12:38 PM
Aside from the controversy here, I find it amusing that all the distinguished members of the "PeteGOATforever" club (kiki, Behappy and helloworld) insist on spelling Kuerten "Keurten".

Multiple accounts, anyone? ;)

The funny thing is that it's true, all the *pure* clay-courters (ie players that thrive on this surface especially) besides Nadal disappeared after 2005 (although Federer was much better than them on clay at the time, he is anything but a clay-courter, obviously). How some people can think this strengthens the "PeteGOATforever" claim is beyond me, though... :shock:

I am a member of the LAVER GOAT club, not Pete´s

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:44 PM
How come? Federer was playing way better at the 2005 FO compared to the 2004 FO while Kuerten lost in the 2005 FO in the 1st round to a nobody. If Kuerten playing 10 % of his capabilities could beat a very good Federer at the 2005 FO that would be something.

You are so insecure that you have to add "which strengthens my argument" after every sentence.


But it does strengthen my argument, Federer won 3 slams in 2004, he was at his very best.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:46 PM
So Gaudio became a force of nature once he won his first (and only) Slam, while Nadal has been declining since he started playing on clay. He must have been a real beast iun his very first match on clay then :lol:

I saw you dismiss someone else with a 'that is a matter of opinion'. Pretty much everything you've said has been exactly that as well.

Well it's a fact that Gaudio was a journeyman in 2004, and in 2005 went 42-8, so that isn't a matter of opinion.

Everyone who watched Nadal in 2005 knows he was as good then (on clay) as ever, and had some of his best matches then. And yes that is a matter of opinion, but consider his victories against Federer on hardcourts that year and that it was the start of his dominance on clay and it's hard to see how you could say he improved on clay after that.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 12:48 PM
But it does strengthen my argument, Federer won 3 slams in 2004, he was at his very best.

This is 100 % debatable, Federer went 81-4 in 2005 (had match points in 2 of those losses, and served for the match and had a 30-0 in a third), in 2004 he still has weird losses to guys like Henman, Costa, teenage Berdych or Hrbaty.

Most would argue that 2005 Federer on clay > 2004 Federer on clay, anyway
Nobody in this world would argue that 2005 Kuerten on clay > 2004 Kuerten on clay

My point stands.

Mustard
12-20-2011, 12:49 PM
Which one? I was going by memory so if a fact or figure is very slightly off it doesn't matter as long as it was mainly right and the point it supports still stands.

The Coria point regarding tournaments won in 2004.

That's a misleading thing to say. He played 2 matches on the challenger tour and retired from one of them, months and months later he's asked to fill in at the French and he agrees and never plays again, hardly a comeback attempt. And his serve was OK in that Robredo match actually.

Coria played 12 matches from his October 2007 comeback until he played Robredo at the 2008 French Open (the 13th match of his comeback), and not all of them were on the challenger circuit as he played at Vina Del Mar, Costa Do Sauipe, Barcelona and Casablanca in 2008.

Nadal's level on clay in 2005 was higher than it is today. That was the year he reached his high level that lasted through to 2008. You have only to watch that Rome final or watch him storm the French Open to see that. Gaudio beat Nadal at his best on clay.

You're using hindsight. The 2005 Buenos Aires tournament was in February 2005, not later in the year.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:52 PM
The Coria point regarding tournaments won in 2004.


Irrelevant. He was a dominant force on clay and pushed Nadal hard, my point stands.


Coria played 12 matches from his October 2007 comeback until he played Robredo at the 2008 French Open (the 13th match of his comeback), and not all of them were on the challenger circuit as he played at Vina Del Mar, Costa Do Sauipe, Barcelona and Casablanca in 2008.

I was referring to the 2008 matches.



You're using hindsight. The 2005 Buenos Aires tournament was in February 2005, not later in the year.

Yes I am using hindsight, so what? In hindsight, Nadal was as good on clay in 2005 as ever.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 12:53 PM
Well it's a fact that Gaudio was a journeyman in 2004, and in 2005 went 42-8, so that isn't a matter of opinion.

Everyone who watched Nadal in 2005 knows he was as good then (on clay) as ever, and had some of his best matches then. And yes that is a matter of opinion, but consider his victories against Federer on hardcourts that year and that it was the start of his dominance on clay and it's hard to see how you could say he improved on clay after that.

Nadal didn't beat Federer on a hard court in 2005. Can you actually bother to check the correct stats before posting them instead of using your head which memorized almost everything wrongly?

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 12:54 PM
Yes I am using hindsight, so what? In hindsight, Nadal was as good on clay in 2005 as ever.

Your hindsight is so full of fail, every stat you post is wrong

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:56 PM
Nadal didn't beat Federer on a hard court in 2005. Can you actually bother to check the correct stats before posting them instead of using your head which memorized almost everything wrongly?

I was thinking of Dubai which was only 2 months into 2006, and Miami 2004 which I confused with 2005 where he took Federer to 5 sets.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 12:59 PM
I was thinking of Dubai which was only 2 months into 2006, and Miami 2004 which I confused with 2005 where he took Federer to 5 sets.

Quote:
Everyone who watched Nadal in 2005 knows he was as good then (on clay) as ever (..) that is a matter of opinion, but consider his victories against Federer on hardcourts that year

You didn't mention any other year and I don't give a damn Dubai is 2 months into 2006 nor about Miami 2004, Nadal didn't beat Federer on a hard court in 2005. Get your facts right.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 01:00 PM
Quote:
Everyone who watched Nadal in 2005 knows he was as good then (on clay) as ever (..) that is a matter of opinion, but consider his victories against Federer on hardcourts that year

You didn't mention any other year and I don't give a damn Dubai is 2 months into 2006 nor about Miami 2004, Nadal didn't beat Federer on a hard court in 2005. Get your facts right.

You're so desperate it's funny.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 01:02 PM
You're so desperate it's funny.

desperate? do you even know what that means? I'm lolling my a** here proving you wrong in every post, if that means I'm desperate, then let it be :)

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 01:08 PM
desperate? do you even know what that means? I'm lolling my a** here proving you wrong in every post, if that means I'm desperate, then let it be :)

Delusion at it's most extreme here.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 01:13 PM
Delusion at it's most extreme here.

its delusional why you persist when everyone has shown you know F*** all
about tennis.

Povl Carstensen
12-20-2011, 01:14 PM
BeHappy, I think you should show the respect of checking your facts better.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 01:17 PM
BeHappy, I think you should show the respect of checking your facts better.

It was nearly 7-8 (2004-2005) years ago and everything I said was right in substance if not technically, but in future I guess I'd better before all the little geeks on this forum swarm on me and pick me up on irrelevant technicalities that have nothing to do with my argument.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 01:19 PM
It was nearly 7 years ago and everything I said was right in substance if not technically, but in future I guess I'd better before all the little nerds on this forum swarm on me.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


as for the rest of what you wrote, translation: 'geez, why are you guys getting on my back just because I dont know what Im talking about"


rofl. I told you to stop before you embarassed yourself, but you wouldnt listen.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 01:21 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


as for the rest of what you wrote, translation: 'geez, why are you guys getting on my back just because I dont know what Im talking about"


rofl. I told you to stop before you embarassed yourself, but you wouldnt listen.

ok tennis_pro

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 01:22 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


as for the rest of what you wrote, translation: 'geez, why are you guys getting on my back just because I dont know what Im talking about"


rofl. I told you to stop before you embarassed yourself, but you wouldnt listen.

Well if that's true that means he used a second account. He's on a highway to ban, then.

SLD76
12-20-2011, 01:24 PM
ok tennis_pro

tennis pro isnt the only one capable of discerning you routinely do not know what you are talking about.

tennis_pro
12-20-2011, 01:24 PM
It was nearly 7-8 (2004-2005) years ago and everything I said was right in substance if not technically, but in future I guess I'd better before all the little geeks on this forum swarm on me and pick me up on irrelevant technicalities that have nothing to do with my argument.

Might as well say Sampras has 140 majors instead of 14. DAMN WHY IS EVERYONE PICKING ON ME, IT'S JUST 1 FREAKING ZERO!

NamRanger
12-20-2011, 01:40 PM
BeHappy is trolling, but he does have a point that the clay competition is absolutely a joke from 2006 and on.

kishnabe
12-20-2011, 01:51 PM
You're so desperate it's funny.

You are the desperate one....trying to muffle the truth with your joke!

beast of mallorca
12-20-2011, 02:08 PM
You're so desperate it's funny.

Behappy must be-so-sad now because he's being mangled with his incorrect posts, lol

Fate Archer
12-20-2011, 02:35 PM
There are no similarities that I can see.

I think that one aspect where that they are similar, besides both of them being big hitters, is that the clay surface seems to give them the optimal time to prepare and unleash their big strokes.

That's how many were explaining Soderling's success on the surface despite his counter-intuitive game that should wield better results on faster surfaces.
Kuerten too had some very big preparation on his strokes, specially on the backhand and for that resason he used to play quite behind the baseline.

Other than these few similarities they have quite different strokes.

The player who reminds me the most about Kuerten playing today is Wawrinka, who has a very similar backhand, both in appearance and effect, is also a big hitter on both wings and has a very big serve, like Kuerten.

Of course, the similarites end at that as well, as Guga is a much better player as far as intangibles, mental strength and career results go.

Cup8489
12-20-2011, 02:40 PM
I like the way you started from 1995, Sampras stopped caring about the French Open after 1996. He got to 3 quarter finals, a semi final (beating Courier) and won Rome.

Better than Almagro, Ferrer and Robredo. Today's "claycourt specialists".

since when is 1995 after 1996?

Thanks for playing.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 03:16 PM
Behappy must be-so-sad now because he's being mangled with his incorrect posts, lol

beast of mallorca
since when is 1995 after 1996?

Thanks for playing.

never said that





All the claycourt specialists (Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Ferrero) stopped being factors after 2005. That coincides with Nadal's 6 French Opens/81 match winning streak etc. Now Nadal has competition and he isn't winning all the time anymore. Djokovic, like everyone else who dominates Nadal (Davydenko, Nalbandian etc) has one of the best backhands in the world. Kuerten and Gaudio fit that mold and obviously would have caused him major problems. This takes away from his legacy massively.

Quibbling over dates is missing the point.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 03:21 PM
I think that one aspect where that they are similar, besides both of them being big hitters, is that the clay surface seems to give them the optimal time to prepare and unleash their big strokes.

That's how many were explaining Soderling's success on the surface despite his counter-intuitive game that should wield better results on faster surfaces.
Kuerten too had some very big preparation on his strokes, specially on the backhand and for that resason he used to play quite behind the baseline.

Other than these few similarities they have quite different strokes.

The player who reminds me the most about Kuerten playing today is Wawrinka, who has a very similar backhand, both in appearance and effect, is also a big hitter on both wings and has a very big serve, like Kuerten.

Of course, the similarites end at that as well, as Guga is a much better player as far as intangibles, mental strength and career results go.

Yeah, as I said later, they are similar in that they are tall, very consistant power baseliners - the natural enemy of the retriever. Their strokes certainly look very different, and Kuerten was much faster and hadn't got quite as much on the serve, but their actual style of play is the same.

Carsomyr
12-20-2011, 03:35 PM
I like the way you started from 1995, Sampras stopped caring about the French Open after 1996. He got to 3 quarter finals, a semi final (beating Courier) and won Rome.

Better than Almagro, Ferrer and Robredo. Today's "claycourt specialists".

Give me a link where Sampras said he quit caring after 1996.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 03:37 PM
Give me a link where Sampras said he quit caring after 1996.

No .

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 03:42 PM
BeHappy is trolling, but he does have a point that the clay competition is absolutely a joke from 2006 and on.

That's a spectacularly blind point of view.


2005 onwards consists of some of the greatest clay courters ever. I assure you, Robredo and co would easily destroy guys like Borg, Kuerten, Muster and other FO champions on clay. Players are always improving and are better every single era, didn't you hear that?

Carsomyr
12-20-2011, 03:43 PM
No .

That's what I thought.

Fate Archer
12-20-2011, 04:17 PM
Yeah, as I said later, they are similar in that they are tall, very consistant power baseliners - the natural enemy of the retriever. Their strokes certainly look very different, and Kuerten was much faster and hadn't got quite as much on the serve, but their actual style of play is the same.

Kuerten had as good or an even better serve than Soderling I think. Of course Soderling's serve is harder as far as top speeds go, but Kuerten was very cluchy on his own serve and generally had great placement. He has one of the best records of aces in a single match (made 47 aces on a Davis Cup match against Nestor).

Soderling vs Kuerten would make a great matchup at RG too, I think.

The Brazilian vs the improved Swedish. :)

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:29 PM
beast of mallorca


never said that





All the claycourt specialists (Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Ferrero) stopped being factors after 2005. That coincides with Nadal's 6 French Opens/81 match winning streak etc. Now Nadal has competition and he isn't winning all the time anymore. Djokovic, like everyone else who dominates Nadal (Davydenko, Nalbandian etc) has one of the best backhands in the world. Kuerten and Gaudio fit that mold and obviously would have caused him major problems. This takes away from his legacy massively.

Quibbling over dates is missing the point.

Kuerten at his best against Nadal would have been an awesome sight, however I don't think anything can take away massively from Nadal's CC legacy, the guy's one of the best ever on that surface regardless of what argument you come up with.

Agassifan
12-20-2011, 05:44 PM
Rafa Nadal won all his slams in the weak era

SoBad
12-20-2011, 05:51 PM
The strong field of claycourters was the only solid competition in the early Nadal era. True, the grass and hardcourt field was very weak 2004 - 2007. The strongest player there was injured unmotivated post-prime Safin.

bullfan
12-20-2011, 06:20 PM
Quite frankly, I think Nadal is the possibly the best clay court player ever, and it hasn't mattered who his competition is. Here's a guy that had by almost all accounts a horrible 2011, given the expectations, and where did he succeed, on clay.

He was in horrible shape and made the USO finals, and then totally rose to occasion on his home turf, clay. Nadal and clay are a tennis match made in heaven. He came to DC SF in horrible shape and kicked proverbial azz on it twice. He then did it again in the finals. Sure, the first set he sucked, but he then got his game back.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, as if Nadal wouldn't be as good on clay if there were other great clay players? I doubt it would matter period. Nadal was made for clay.

FlashFlare11
12-20-2011, 09:28 PM
The strong field of claycourters was the only solid competition in the early Nadal era. True, the grass and hardcourt field was very weak 2004 - 2007. The strongest player there was injured unmotivated post-prime Safin.

Do you watch tennis? I think you forgot about Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Haas, Agassi, and, oh yeah, this one Swiss guy (can't remember his name though).

SoBad
12-21-2011, 07:14 PM
Do you watch tennis? I think you forgot about Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Haas, Agassi, and, oh yeah, this one Swiss guy (can't remember his name though).

Thanks for the list of the one-slam wonders and slamless chokers and drugged-out retirees that dominated the 2004 - 2007 hardcourt/grasscourt era. This proves my point.

FlashFlare11
12-21-2011, 07:40 PM
Thanks for the list of the one-slam wonders and slamless chokers and drugged-out retirees that dominated the 2004 - 2007 hardcourt/grasscourt era. This proves my point.

If it was such a weak era of grass-court players, why did it take your hero so long to make a final there, much less win it?

NamRanger
12-21-2011, 08:08 PM
That's a spectacularly blind point of view.


2005 onwards consists of some of the greatest clay courters ever. I assure you, Robredo and co would easily destroy guys like Borg, Kuerten, Muster and other FO champions on clay. Players are always improving and are better every single era, didn't you hear that?




Did you really say Robredo would smash Kuerten?



Do you understand that Kuerten with a bum hip straight setted Federer in 2004 at the FO? Are you that stupid? LOL. Easily destroy. My god. I just fell out of my chair when I read Robredo would destroy any past great on clay.

bullfan
12-21-2011, 08:14 PM
If it was such a weak era of grass-court players, why did it take your hero so long to make a final there, much less win it?

I think the whole premise behind the main OP post was a fail.

Apun94
12-21-2011, 08:43 PM
This is a ridiculous discussion, to be honest. Theres absolutely no doubt that Nadal is the GOAT on clay. This dude has a 12-2 record against the second best clay courter of all time. If this doesnt end the discussion, i dont know wat will. Yes, rafa has had problems against players with sick backhands, but eventually hes beaten them all, if the others were so gud, why didnt they win so much??? Sampras can never even come close! This was seriously a JOKE! u r talking about a man who made only one sf appearance in about 15 tries. Hows he better than nadal??? and secondly if u r saying that sampras had players like agassi to conteste with, remember nadal beating agassi on hardcourts in 05(agassi made the final of us that yr)( no offence to agassi)

FlashFlare11
12-21-2011, 08:47 PM
This is a ridiculous discussion, to be honest. Theres absolutely no doubt that Nadal is the GOAT on clay. This dude has a 12-2 record against the second best clay courter of all time. If this doesnt end the discussion, i dont know wat will. Yes, rafa has had problems against players with sick backhands, but eventually hes beaten them all, if the others were so gud, why didnt they win so much??? Sampras can never even come close! This was seriously a JOKE! u r talking about a man who made only one sf appearance in about 15 tries. Hows he better than nadal??? and secondly if u r saying that sampras had players like agassi to conteste with, remember nadal beating agassi on hardcourts in 05(agassi made the final of us that yr)( no offence to agassi)

No disagreement here! I can't think of any way Nadal can prove his mastery of clay. I believe he's achieved everything you can on the surface. He only needs one more RG to have the record of most titles there. There is nothing more he can do. His game is tailor-made for the surface. In my opinion, as a huge Federer fan, Nadal is the greatest ever on clay.

tennnnis
12-21-2011, 09:36 PM
In 2005 the following clay court specialists stopped playing

-Keurten - 3 times RG champ, at age 26 had to basically retire because of his hip injury. Even with his injury he knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005, Federer was obviously at his very best. He had a very similar playing style to Soderling, except with a better backhand and far better movement.

-Coria - won 5 clay court tournaments in a row 2004. had a mental breakdown and couldn't serve at all after 2005. Had one of the most incredible matches in claycourt history with Nadal in the Rome final in 2005. He too stopped playing that year.

-Gaudio - went 42-8 on clay in 2005, beat and Bagelled Nadal that year as defending French open champion (as all the great backhands have: Nalbandian, Djokovic etc). Like Coria he had a mental breakdown and stopped playing.

Ferrero - Got the chickenpox in 2005, came back and his forehand had disappeared. Still hasn't recovered his forehand, he ceased to be a top 10 player after that.

Moya - got old/backhand disintegrated.

Today's so called 'clay court specialists' like Tommy Robredo, David Ferrer and Almagro aren't even as good on clay as Sampras was. Nadal had literally no competition until Djokovic came into his own this year.

Keurten in particular would have been a HUGE problem for Nadal with his incredible backhand, he would have dominated off that wing the same as Nalbandian, Djokovic and Davydenko have. The same with Gaudio. Coria was just incredible and would have had his wins too.


Can we really say Nadal would have 6 RG titles if every single clay court specialist hadn't been struck down at the same time?

Nadal beat federer 6 times to win RG 6 times. I thought Federer is one of the great clay courter of all time.

Clarky21
12-21-2011, 10:06 PM
Nadal beat federer 6 times to win RG 6 times. I thought Federer is one of the great clay courter of all time.


Nadal beat Fed 5 times at RG,not 6.

ledwix
12-21-2011, 11:22 PM
Nadal hits shots that would dominate any era, "strong" or "weak," on clay courts. That is clear to anyone who watches the actual level of play. Same goes for Federer in his prime on hard or grass. Both guys are phenomenal, and to degrade their achievements because of the kind of spin that goes on in this forum is hilarious.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 01:43 AM
The hilarity in this thread continues.

Nadal makes almost any opponent look weak on clay.

RG finalists like Gaudio and Coria were pushed to five sets by young Nadal not to mention the fact that at 16 he was already pushing guys like Moya and Corretja on clay.

Nadal playing like utter crap can get to a final on clay, that's how good he is on this surface.

It is very hard to find a tough draw for Nadal on clay.

To beat a prime Nadal on this surface you would need Muster's willingness to grind, Courier's tenacity, Borg's speed and maybe Moya's BH which was good on high balls. And even then it's a tough battle, especially over five sets.

Nadal dominates clay like Fed dominates HC and grass. Only a handful of players could match them there in the whole of tennis history and it is too much to ask that they all come from this era.

zagor
12-22-2011, 06:06 AM
Did you really say Robredo would smash Kuerten?



Do you understand that Kuerten with a bum hip straight setted Federer in 2004 at the FO? Are you that stupid? LOL. Easily destroy. My god. I just fell out of my chair when I read Robredo would destroy any past great on clay.

Turn on your sarcasm detector Nam.

To beat a prime Nadal on this surface you would need Muster's willingness to grind, Courier's tenacity, Borg's speed and maybe Moya's BH which was good on high balls. And even then it's a tough battle, especially over five sets.

:shock:

Anyway I guess 2011 version of Novak has Muster's willingness to Grind, Courier's tenacity and Borg's speed, that's some high praise.

Oh and his BH is better than Moya's, LOL.

Nadal dominates clay like Fed dominates HC and grass. Only a handful of players could match them there in the whole of tennis history and it is too much to ask that they all come from this era.

Yes but Fed is supposedly a weak era benefactor who's not really that good, as a consequence I guess that makes Nadal's accomplishments look less impressive as well. That's of course unless Nadal is not part of Fed's era (he was a baby during Fed's dominant years), but on the other hand that would mean Nadal is at the peak of his career now.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 06:21 AM
Oh and his BH is better than Moya's, LOL.



:oops:

I meant to say KUERTEN BH because of how well he handled high balls.

Damn fast typing.

zagor
12-22-2011, 06:24 AM
:oops:

I meant to say KUERTEN BH because of how well he handled high balls.

Damn fast typing.

LOL! Yeah, Guga's BH was amazing, best one hander I've ever seen. Moya rarely hit BHs during a match :)

To be honest on his (Guga's) best day I see him as much more of a threat to best CC version of Nadal than say Muster, I don't see where Muster's edge would be except in fitness and I don't think that's enough, Nadal blows him away in every other department (yes, including mental toughness).

helloworld
12-22-2011, 07:00 AM
Nadal beat federer 6 times to win RG 6 times. I thought Federer is one of the great clay courter of all time.

Nope. Borg, Vilas, Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster, and many more were much better than Fed on clay.

Fate Archer
12-22-2011, 07:37 AM
The hilarity in this thread continues.

Nadal makes almost any opponent look weak on clay.

RG finalists like Gaudio and Coria were pushed to five sets by young Nadal not to mention the fact that at 16 he was already pushing guys like Moya and Corretja on clay.

Nadal playing like utter crap can get to a final on clay, that's how good he is on this surface.

It is very hard to find a tough draw for Nadal on clay.

To beat a prime Nadal on this surface you would need Muster's willingness to grind, Courier's tenacity, Borg's speed and maybe Moya's BH which was good on high balls. And even then it's a tough battle, especially over five sets.

Nadal dominates clay like Fed dominates HC and grass. Only a handful of players could match them there in the whole of tennis history and it is too much to ask that they all come from this era.

Well, using the term "young" Nadal to make a point when it comes to clay is kind of pointless, as the Nadal of 18-21 years old played probably his best tennis on the surface around that age. It's not to be viewed as something out of the extraordinary If he was both having and giving trouble to a lot of these guys when he was on arguably his best year on the surface (2005). It's exactly the point of this thread, he was having competition.

I think you yourself is one who strongly advocates the idea of Nadal's decline on the surface and how he played much better on his younger years afterall.

Anyway, the point is, granted it's hard to give a player of Nadal's caliber competition on the surface, but even on this era, there were plenty who could fit the task but for several reasons they were plagued with mental collapses or injuries.

Coria, Gaudio, Kuerten (probaly still had some good 3 or 4 years of competing if not for injuries) are great clay courters in this era, some of them made a short appearance in the start of Nadal's rise and already gave him some of the most difficult matches he had to face in his claycourt career.

The claycourt field could be much stronger if these guys could keep playing to the best of their potential in the next few years, but it didn't happen.
In a way that reminds a bit some of the missed talents of Nalbandian, Safin, Malisse and some other great prospects who could have given Fed some more trouble on his dominating years.

Sentinel
12-22-2011, 08:25 AM
Lack of competition makes Nadal's 10 slams "less special".

Except for those slams where he was "almost injured"[1] or played without "mental strength".


[1] courtesy kiki

TMF
12-22-2011, 08:48 AM
Nope. Borg, Vilas, Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster, and many more were much better than Fed on clay.

Nice try but we all take your opinion with a grain of salt. Muster and Bruguera ranked below Federer.

Greatest Clay-Court Tennis Player Ever (http://www.rankopedia.com/Greatest-Clay-Court-Tennis-Player-Ever-(Male)/Step1/2657/.htm)

Crazy man
12-22-2011, 09:09 AM
Did you really say Robredo would smash Kuerten?



Do you understand that Kuerten with a bum hip straight setted Federer in 2004 at the FO? Are you that stupid? LOL. Easily destroy. My god. I just fell out of my chair when I read Robredo would destroy any past great on clay.

Didn't you at least sense some sarcasm in my post ? :)


Not to late to ask family for a sarcasm detector for Christmas, they are pretty cheap too. Lol, is my sarcasm that good that some of the better posters can't tell it??? Robredo couldn't even beat Roddick on clay lolololol, Guga would p!ss on Robredo, yes I know!

celoft
12-22-2011, 10:05 AM
He beat the GOAT 5 times to win RG.

Vilas, Kuerten, Bruguera, Muster,

None of them have 5 RG finals like Federer.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 11:56 AM
Well, using the term "young" Nadal to make a point when it comes to clay is kind of pointless, as the Nadal of 18-21 years old played probably his best tennis on the surface around that age. It's not to be viewed as something out of the extraordinary If he was both having and giving trouble to a lot of these guys when he was on arguably his best year on the surface (2005). It's exactly the point of this thread, he was having competition.

I think you yourself is one who strongly advocates the idea of Nadal's decline on the surface and how he played much better on his younger years afterall.

Anyway, the point is, granted it's hard to give a player of Nadal's caliber competition on the surface, but even on this era, there were plenty who could fit the task but for several reasons they were plagued with mental collapses or injuries.

Coria, Gaudio, Kuerten (probaly still had some good 3 or 4 years of competing if not for injuries) are great clay courters in this era, some of them made a short appearance in the start of Nadal's rise and already gave him some of the most difficult matches he had to face in his claycourt career.

The claycourt field could be much stronger if these guys could keep playing to the best of their potential in the next few years, but it didn't happen.
In a way that reminds a bit some of the missed talents of Nalbandian, Safin, Malisse and some other great prospects who could have given Fed some more trouble on his dominating years.

Depends on what you think his "younger" years are. For me, Nadal is still young on clay in 04-06 gamewise. He did develop a more mature game on clay circa 2007(though this thing is subjective) which peaked in 2008 and was very good in 2008-2010.

Nadal in 2005 has his first breakout year on clay after missing clay season 2004. He had some tough battles in that clay season(with Coria especially) but the people are looking at this in reverse: it's not that Coria stayed with Nadal it's the other way round. Nadal was a near nobody on clay in 2005 while Coria was a fresh RG finalist from 2004. In theory Nadal should have been blown off the court.

I'd agree about Coria being a worthy rival to Nadal from 2005 onwards since he was at his peak or near it circa 2005 and was pretty young still, at 23 years old. If Coria had progressed, he had another 2-3 good years in which to test Nadal.

Kuerten and Gaudio had clay pedigree and things that could irk Nadal but they do have one thing against them. Gaudio was heading towards the 28 mark in 2005 and Kuerten towards 30. Clay is a young man's game most of the time and with a young fit guy like Nadal things would have been hard.

Subventricular Zone
12-22-2011, 12:41 PM
Another stupid thread. Moving on.

Crazy man
12-22-2011, 04:26 PM
Turn on your sarcasm detector Nam.



:shock:



Just wait until he sees the post I made under the Federer decline thread, he'd probably commit suicide......

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 06:48 PM
Nice try but we all take your opinion with a grain of salt. Muster and Bruguera ranked below Federer.

Greatest Clay-Court Tennis Player Ever (http://www.rankopedia.com/Greatest-Clay-Court-Tennis-Player-Ever-(Male)/Step1/2657/.htm)

err, TMF, Sampras ranked at #15 destroys the credibility of that ranking!!

Crisstti
12-22-2011, 07:44 PM
It's hard to believe BeHappy is serious here...

Anyway, glad to see Fed fans have done a good job of defending Rafa :)

helloworld
12-22-2011, 11:23 PM
Nice try but we all take your opinion with a grain of salt. Muster and Bruguera ranked below Federer.

Greatest Clay-Court Tennis Player Ever (http://www.rankopedia.com/Greatest-Clay-Court-Tennis-Player-Ever-(Male)/Step1/2657/.htm)

This ranking is a complete joke. Sampras ranked 15 and Djokovic 22? Djokovic would destroy Sampras on clay. In fact, all players ranked below 15 are probably better clay courter than Sampras. Muster won 40 singles titles on clay. People have no complete clue how good he was on clay.

Stop embarrassing yourself with a garbage ranking like this one. :oops:

MariaRafael
12-22-2011, 11:43 PM
In 2005 the following clay court specialists stopped playing

-Keurten -
-Coria -
-Gaudio -
Ferrero - Got the chickenpox in 2005, came back and his forehand had disappeared. Still hasn't recovered his forehand, he ceased to be a top 10 player after that.

Moya - got old/backhand disintegrated.

no competition until Djokovic came into his own this year.

Can we really say Nadal would have 6 RG titles if every single clay court specialist hadn't been struck down at the same time?

You shouldn't have included 2005 in your *****ing session. Coria was good enough to play against Nadal for 5 hours 15 minutes in May 2005.

According to ATP, Carlos Moya abandoned it on 07.03.2011. He may be nearly dead due to old age in 2005, but his ranking varied between 5 and 32 which is not bad at all.

According to the very same ATP, Gaudio's ranking was even better - between 5 and 12. It wasn't too bad in 2006 either - between 7 and 34.

Don't know how chicken pox can deteriorate somebody's forehand forever, or why you should include Ferrero in the list of retired players. ALso I wouldn't exclude Almagro, Verdasco and Ferrer from the list of good clay courters if I were you. Fortunately I am not.

Don't understand your further sentiments about Federer. Has anybody ever said that he is a bad clay courter? He is only when compared to Nadal. If Nadal is taken out of this equation, Federer would be better than Coria, Gaudio and Cuerten taken together because he would have won 5 RG titles.

The fact that Rafa Nadal beats everybody and his dog for so many years means only that Rafa Nadal is so good.

MariaRafael
12-23-2011, 12:27 AM
Lack of competition makes Nadal's 10 slams "less special".

Except for those slams where he was "almost injured"[1] or played without "mental strength".


[1] courtesy kiki

Lack of competition makes Federer's 16 slams "not special at all". His only RG title was won playing against a journeyman. His 4 Wimbleys were snatched from lop-sided Roddick and Phyllipouses who's never been recognized as a tennis great. He also managed to beat two other journeymen: Baghdatis and Gonsales. Marat Safin was coming back after the injury in 2004, was unseeded, and had to fight through the toughest draw one may have.

So I am taking the liberty of removing 8 of his titles which makes him worse than Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and Nadal :twisted:

zagor
12-23-2011, 12:39 AM
Lack of competition makes Federer's 16 slams "not special at all". His only RG title was won playing against a journeyman. His 4 Wimbleys were snatched from lop-sided Roddick and Phyllipouses who's never been recognized as a tennis great. He also managed to beat two other journeymen: Baghdatis and Gonsales. Marat Safin was coming back after the injury in 2004, was unseeded, and had to fight through the toughest draw one may have.

So I am taking the liberty of removing 8 of his titles which makes him worse than Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and Nadal :twisted:

Only 8 ? That's very generous of you, you're being too kind. However that wouldn't make him worse than Emerson, I'll let you find out why.

MariaRafael
12-23-2011, 12:53 AM
Have you seen this :twisted:? It was a symmetric answer to a troll who comes here with the only purpose of abusing Nadal. Nothing personal against Federer (see my previous post).

ANd I won't let you get Roy Emerson off the list of evergreats. The guy won 2 careeer slams in singles and 3 career slams in doubles. His overall slam number is 28 while Federer's gelded number of slams is only 8.

helloworld
12-23-2011, 01:24 AM
Have you seen this :twisted:? It was a symmetric answer to a troll who comes here with the only purpose of abusing Nadal. Nothing personal against Federer (see my previous post).

ANd I won't let you get Roy Emerson off the list of evergreats. The guy won 2 careeer slams in singles and 3 career slams in doubles. His overall slam number is 28 while Federer's gelded number of slams is only 8.

Emerson was actually the 'Roddick' of this era. He was never the best in his era. Most of his slams were won in the amateur era back when the top pros couldn't compete in the grand slam event. He was the best amateur of his time, but he was never the best among the top pros.

tennis_pro
12-23-2011, 02:35 AM
Only 8 ? That's very generous of you, you're being too kind. However that wouldn't make him worse than Emerson, I'll let you find out why.

Yea I'm impressed. If you take out some of Sampras' joke draws (2000 Wimbledon being the most obvious one) he'll have less than 8, for sure, no?

TMF
12-23-2011, 09:20 AM
Yea I'm impressed. If you take out some of Sampras' joke draws (2000 Wimbledon being the most obvious one) he'll have less than 8, for sure, no?

Jenny, a poster who we haven't seen around for a long time have pointed out that Fed beat more top ten players than Sampras did at the slam.

kiki
12-23-2011, 12:40 PM
Lack of competition makes Federer's 16 slams "not special at all". His only RG title was won playing against a journeyman. His 4 Wimbleys were snatched from lop-sided Roddick and Phyllipouses who's never been recognized as a tennis great. He also managed to beat two other journeymen: Baghdatis and Gonsales. Marat Safin was coming back after the injury in 2004, was unseeded, and had to fight through the toughest draw one may have.

So I am taking the liberty of removing 8 of his titles which makes him worse than Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and Nadal :twisted:

Jesusˇˇ don´t be cruel,as Elvis would say...

It is not Federer´s fault to find such a weak competition and then be unable to beat Nadal for 5 years in a major.He just took advantage of the situation of tennis in a period that was Post-Sampras reign and before Nadal´s dominance.I always viewed Federer like Emerson: taking advantage of the Santana´s, Ralston,Pietrangelis,Mc Kinley,Osuna or Stolle...till pros were entitled to play the majors and then...Laver,Rosewall were too big a fish for him.

Fed and Emmo are below Laver,Borg and Sampras but this is something than any person with experience,insight,background and common sense could say loud and high.

kiki
12-23-2011, 12:42 PM
Emerson was actually the 'Roddick' of this era. He was never the best in his era. Most of his slams were won in the amateur era back when the top pros couldn't compete in the grand slam event. He was the best amateur of his time, but he was never the best among the top pros.

Emmo and Roddick in the same sentenceˇˇˇ blasfemiaˇˇˇ

West Coast Ace
12-23-2011, 12:50 PM
Sampras won Rome, got to 3 RG quarterfinals...

And Sampras did it in the clay court golden age....Let me guess - you're a comedian.

kiki
12-23-2011, 12:50 PM
Nice try but we all take your opinion with a grain of salt. Muster and Bruguera ranked below Federer.

Greatest Clay-Court Tennis Player Ever (http://www.rankopedia.com/Greatest-Clay-Court-Tennis-Player-Ever-(Male)/Step1/2657/.htm)

Bruguera 2 RG to Federer´s 1.Federer may be better than Muster on clay, but...better than Bruguera?

kiki
12-23-2011, 12:52 PM
He beat the GOAT 5 times to win RG.



None of them have 5 RG finals like Federer.

And Kuerten didn´t need to play 5 finals to win 3 titles...to Fed´s single 1

in 2004, when Kuerten was done, they faced at the FO...guess what happened?

BeHappy
12-23-2011, 01:35 PM
Let me guess - you're a comedian.

Do Ferrer, Almagro or Robredo have better records?

TMF
12-23-2011, 01:58 PM
Bruguera 2 RG to Federer´s 1.Federer may be better than Muster on clay, but...better than Bruguera?

Didn't you even read the link I've posted ?

There's a thread about Fed vs Bruguera on clay and most fans believe Fed is a better cc.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=390380&highlight=Bruguera

tennis_pro
12-23-2011, 02:02 PM
And Kuerten didn´t need to play 5 finals to win 3 titles...to Fed´s single 1

in 2004, when Kuerten was done, they faced at the FO...guess what happened?

Using the same logic, Gaudio is a better player than Murray.

NamRanger
12-23-2011, 02:07 PM
Using the same logic, Gaudio is a better player than Murray.



He is on clay.

tusharlovesrafa
12-24-2011, 04:20 AM
Jenny, a poster who we haven't seen around for a long time have pointed out that Fed beat more top ten players than Sampras did at the slam.

Fed only has 4 slams technically and rest he won due to lack of competition.

tlm
12-24-2011, 06:43 AM
Rafa has benefited from some weak competition in his career, but not near as much as fed did.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 06:57 AM
Bruguera 2 RG to Federer´s 1.Federer may be better than Muster on clay, but...better than Bruguera?

Federer is NOT better than Muster on clay. Muster won 40 singles on clay, which is greater than Nadal. Muster is just unlucky to have had only 1 French Open. He always got nervous on the biggest stage.

Mustard
12-24-2011, 07:18 AM
Federer is NOT better than Muster on clay. Muster won 40 singles on clay, which is greater than Nadal. Muster is just unlucky to have had only 1 French Open. He always got nervous on the biggest stage.

Muster is 44-11 in career finals. He lost early at a lot of French Opens because he either ran into someone like Courier when Courier was considered the best clay-courter, or serve and volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Rafter and Stich.

Sentinel
12-24-2011, 07:42 AM
Can someone tell a newbie here which slams Federer actually won ?

What are these esoteric rules by which slams are deemed legit. Are there some rites of passage we newbs must go through to be privy to such information.

Why do some experts say 8 and some 4 ?

Steve132
12-24-2011, 07:47 AM
Muster is 44-11 in career finals. He lost early at a lot of French Opens because he either ran into someone like Courier when Courier was considered the best clay-courter, or serve and volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Rafter and Stich.

I'm a great admirer of Muster, but Federer would have dispatched any of those serve and volleyers in straight sets at RG. For example, Becker never won a title on clay, and prime Sampras lost to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado at RG.

tudwell
12-24-2011, 08:09 AM
The "weak competition" argument is circular and illogical. Some eras (the late 90s-early 00s) are more egalitarian, with various people winning. Other eras are much more lopsided (2004-present) with one person dominating the field. One can just as easily turn the argument on its head and say that Sampras was a lesser player because he was not as dominant as Federer (or Djokovic in 2011) and that this allowed his competition to inflate their records and appear more talented. It's all nonsense. An era is an era. None is any weaker than any other (barring mitigating factors like World War II or, for specific tournaments, absence of top players like the Australian in the 70s).

DRII
12-24-2011, 08:39 AM
The "weak competition" argument is circular and illogical. Some eras (the late 90s-early 00s) are more egalitarian, with various people winning. Other eras are much more lopsided (2004-present) with one person dominating the field. One can just as easily turn the argument on its head and say that Sampras was a lesser player because he was not as dominant as Federer (or Djokovic in 2011) and that this allowed his competition to inflate their records and appear more talented. It's all nonsense. An era is an era. None is any weaker than any other (barring mitigating factors like World War II or, for specific tournaments, absence of top players like the Australian in the 70s).

Tell that to the wta tour of the last few years, which is undeniably weaker than in the past! Of course with the atp it is much more nuanced, but to deny Federer won a slew of slams during a relatively weak period of competition would be denial. Same is true for many of Graf's slam wins.

It's not their fault, but it happened nevertheless.

I do agree that this discussion can be circular and never ending, but is certainly not without merit, especially in some cases.

TMF
12-24-2011, 08:46 AM
Tell that to the wta tour of the last few years, which is undeniably weaker than in the past! Of course with the atp it is much more nuanced, but to deny Federer won a slew of slams during a relatively weak period of competition would be denial. Same is true for many of Graf's slam wins.

It's not their fault, but it happened nevertheless.


It's not the fans' fault either when most of them disagree with you.

And most have said the WS's era was one of the weakest in history.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 08:51 AM
I'm a great admirer of Muster, but Federer would have dispatched any of those serve and volleyers in straight sets at RG. For example, Becker never won a title on clay, and prime Sampras lost to journeymen such as Schaller and Delgado at RG.

Federer dispatching a Becker or a Sampras easily is kind of stretching even on clay. Federer didn't handle guga with broken hip in 2004 very well either...

DRII
12-24-2011, 09:00 AM
It's not the fans' fault either when most of them disagree with you.

And most have said the WS's era was one of the weakest in history.

I don't know which polls you are referring to, but who cares, my opinion is not based on popularity.

And fyi the William sisters era includes several other (non-black) players, which seems to be a thing with you, including Henin, and Clijsters. So you're dissing them as well!

TMF
12-24-2011, 09:26 AM
I don't know which polls you are referring to, but who cares, my opinion is not based on popularity.
Yeah, but notice you always end up in a minority group. Objective/fair posters outnumbered biased posters.


And fyi the William sisters era includes several other (non-black) players, which seems to be a thing with you, including Henin, and Clijsters. So you're dissing them as well!

No. It's just a lot of people have repeatedly mention about the WS's generation was weak. Kim/Henin retire early, in case you didn't notice. I know you love Venus so I can understand how you feel.

tudwell
12-24-2011, 09:31 AM
Tell that to the wta tour of the last few years, which is undeniably weaker than in the past! Of course with the atp it is much more nuanced, but to deny Federer won a slew of slams during a relatively weak period of competition would be denial. Same is true for many of Graf's slam wins.

It's not their fault, but it happened nevertheless.

I do agree that this discussion can be circular and never ending, but is certainly not without merit, especially in some cases.

The WTA is different, though I don't really follow it at all. Several top players left the game far before their natural decline: Henin, Clijsters, going further back Hingis. It's evident when Clijsters comes back and wins half of the slams she's participated in that the era is weaker without her being there. But I see no correlative incidences in the men's side. Guys like Hewitt and Safin both struggled with injuries, but when they came back they still couldn't beat Federer (except at the 2005 Australian, obviously).

I think what it comes down to is determining what, exactly, a "strong era" is. Nobody outside the top four made a grand slam final or won a Masters event this year (though Murray was ranked fifth during the Australian Open). Is that a strong era? The top four have shown their consistency and dominance over the rest of the field, but that also means the rest of the field is not good enough to beat them. Then you have years like 1998 where half of the slam finalists weren't even top 10 seeds and no one won more than a single slam title. This demonstrates more depth of field and less dominance on the part of the very top guys. So which is a stronger era? Sampras apologists like to have it both ways. They point out Gonzalez and Baghdatis as poor grand slam finalists when in reality their being in a grand slam final at all is indicative of the type of depth that they claim made the 90s so tough.

BeHappy
12-24-2011, 10:04 AM
The WTA is different, though I don't really follow it at all. Several top players left the game far before their natural decline: Henin, Clijsters, going further back Hingis. It's evident when Clijsters comes back and wins half of the slams she's participated in that the era is weaker without her being there. But I see no correlative incidences in the men's side. Guys like Hewitt and Safin both struggled with injuries, but when they came back they still couldn't beat Federer (except at the 2005 Australian, obviously).

I think what it comes down to is determining what, exactly, a "strong era" is. Nobody outside the top four made a grand slam final or won a Masters event this year (though Murray was ranked fifth during the Australian Open). Is that a strong era? The top four have shown their consistency and dominance over the rest of the field, but that also means the rest of the field is not good enough to beat them. Then you have years like 1998 where half of the slam finalists weren't even top 10 seeds and no one won more than a single slam title. This demonstrates more depth of field and less dominance on the part of the very top guys. So which is a stronger era? Sampras apologists like to have it both ways. They point out Gonzalez and Baghdatis as poor grand slam finalists when in reality their being in a grand slam final at all is indicative of the type of depth that they claim made the 90s so tough.


No I think you're confused. Gonzalez and Baghdatis have no slams. There were lots great multiple slam champions that Sampras faced in finals like Becker, Courier, Edberg, Agassi. Gonzalez and Baghdatis are more like Arnauld Clement or Verkerk - fluke finalists.

jackson vile
12-24-2011, 10:10 AM
No I think you're confused. Gonzalez and Baghdatis have no slams. There were lots great multiple slam champions that Sampras faced in finals like Becker, Courier, Edberg, Agassi. Gonzalez and Baghdatis are more like Arnauld Clement or Verkerk - fluke finalists.

Never really looked at it this way, you make a really good point.

Towser83
12-24-2011, 10:32 AM
The WTA is different, though I don't really follow it at all. Several top players left the game far before their natural decline: Henin, Clijsters, going further back Hingis. It's evident when Clijsters comes back and wins half of the slams she's participated in that the era is weaker without her being there. But I see no correlative incidences in the men's side. Guys like Hewitt and Safin both struggled with injuries, but when they came back they still couldn't beat Federer (except at the 2005 Australian, obviously).

I think what it comes down to is determining what, exactly, a "strong era" is. Nobody outside the top four made a grand slam final or won a Masters event this year (though Murray was ranked fifth during the Australian Open). Is that a strong era? The top four have shown their consistency and dominance over the rest of the field, but that also means the rest of the field is not good enough to beat them. Then you have years like 1998 where half of the slam finalists weren't even top 10 seeds and no one won more than a single slam title. This demonstrates more depth of field and less dominance on the part of the very top guys. So which is a stronger era? Sampras apologists like to have it both ways. They point out Gonzalez and Baghdatis as poor grand slam finalists when in reality their being in a grand slam final at all is indicative of the type of depth that they claim made the 90s so tough.

Excellent post. You are so right that people can look at it both ways. It's happened again this year with a lot of Nadal fans saying Djokovic won in a weak year because it was always the top 4 making finals thus proving how weak the rest of the tour was. But before that Nadal had greater competition than Federer because he had to beat Djokovic, Federer etc and Federer was often beating lower ranked guys, where as now Djokovic having to beat the rest of the top 4 instead of the lower ranked guys proves it's a weak field. It's so contradictory.

Mansewerz
12-24-2011, 10:34 AM
Keep running to wikipedia, you still know nothing about this sport. In fact if he beat him in 2004, a year Federer won 3 slam compared to just 2 in 2005, that just proves my point even more strongly.




That's a matter of opinion. The standard of competition on clay was way higher in the mid 90's than the early 90's.

Are you dense? Federer's 2005 was much better than 2004, it's just that he run into a beast-mode Safin at the 2005 Aussie open. Are you really saying that his 81-4 2005 was worse than the 74-6 2004?

Towser83
12-24-2011, 10:43 AM
No I think you're confused. Gonzalez and Baghdatis have no slams. There were lots great multiple slam champions that Sampras faced in finals like Becker, Courier, Edberg, Agassi. Gonzalez and Baghdatis are more like Arnauld Clement or Verkerk - fluke finalists.

Yeah but most of these slam champs were past their slam winning days. Becker won his first slam 5 years before he even first played Sampras, Courier was done winning slams by 1993 (when Sampras won his second major and first Wimbledon) and in fact only won slams from 91-93. Edberg was 5 years older, won his last slam in 1992 when Sampras still had 13 of his 14 slams left to win and Sampras never managed to beat him in a slam either. These guys might have been slam winners, but they weren't slam winners when Sampras was doing most of his winning, and really you're only as good as your current playing level. Their playing levels wasn't generally slam winning when Pete was doing the best part of his winning. Agassi is really the only one who was in his prime at the same time as Sampras.

Steve132
12-24-2011, 11:07 AM
Federer dispatching a Becker or a Sampras easily is kind of stretching even on clay. Federer didn't handle guga with broken hip in 2004 very well either...

The Federer-Kuerten match at RG 2004 has become a favorite of Fed haters, but this is a prime example of cherry picking results. Forget for the moment that Kuerten - a three-time FO champion, by the way - actually played very well in that match, as anyone who saw it will attest. The more general issue is that we need to examine a player's entire record (at least during his prime years) in order to assess his ability, not focus on a single match. I don't see Sampras fans talking about his losses to Delgado et al.

Since Federer became Federer (c. 2004) his record at Roland Garros is as follows:

2004 - Lost to Kuerten, third round
2005 - lost to Nadal, semi-final
2006 - lost to Nadal, final
2007 - lost to Nadal, final
2008 - lost to Nadal, final
2009 - won
2010 - lost to Soderling, quarter-final
2011 - lost to Nadal, final

Overall, Federer has won 9 clay court titles, including one major and five Masters tournaments. There is a huge difference between his achievements on the surface and those of Sampras and Becker.

BeHappy
12-24-2011, 11:30 AM
Yeah but most of these slam champs were past their slam winning days. Becker won his first slam 5 years before he even first played Sampras, Courier was done winning slams by 1993 (when Sampras won his second major and first Wimbledon) and in fact only won slams from 91-93. Edberg was 5 years older, won his last slam in 1992 when Sampras still had 13 of his 14 slams left to win and Sampras never managed to beat him in a slam either. These guys might have been slam winners, but they weren't slam winners when Sampras was doing most of his winning, and really you're only as good as your current playing level. Their playing levels wasn't generally slam winning when Pete was doing the best part of his winning. Agassi is really the only one who was in his prime at the same time as Sampras.

Courier, Agassi, Becker, Edberg. You say they were past their slam winning days?


Edberg actually beat Sampras in a slam final.

Becker came right back into form in the mid 90's, won the AO a few months after he lost to Sampras at Wimbledon and they had some of the best matches of all time on the indoor circuit like Stuttgart and Hannover.

Agassi was obviously not past his best.

Sampras (and Agassi) put a stop to Courier winning slams. Sampras beat Courier in finals (Wimbledon) and just knocked him out of countless slams.


So all in all, your argument doesn't hold in my opinion.

Federer could have had that competition, but instead Roddick stopped hitting his forehand, Safin hurt his knee, Hewitt had kids and became constantly injured, Ferrero lost his forehand somehow, Davydenko is a choker, Nadal couldn't play on hard courts yet - and there was no one at all for 3-4 years until Djokovic and Murray came into form. The second they became even half as good as they are today, Federer's dominance started slipping in non slam tournaments (2007). For me, what Federer achieves nowadays is actually much more impressive because he actually has to beat real players.

When Federer was at his peak the top 5 was basically Ferrer, Robredo, Blake and Roddick (and Nadal who was a non factor on hard courts).

Same with Nadal as I said in the first post of this thread. They are both incredible players but what happened in 2005 is actually unparalleled in sporting history - Ferrero, Coria, Kuerten, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Gaudio - essentially the entire top field of men's tennis - ceased to be factors, allowing journeymen into the top 5 and the weakest field in history.

RoddickAce
12-24-2011, 11:49 AM
I think what it comes down to is determining what, exactly, a "strong era" is. Nobody outside the top four made a grand slam final or won a Masters event this year (though Murray was ranked fifth during the Australian Open). Is that a strong era? The top four have shown their consistency and dominance over the rest of the field, but that also means the rest of the field is not good enough to beat them. Then you have years like 1998 where half of the slam finalists weren't even top 10 seeds and no one won more than a single slam title. This demonstrates more depth of field and less dominance on the part of the very top guys. So which is a stronger era? Sampras apologists like to have it both ways. They point out Gonzalez and Baghdatis as poor grand slam finalists when in reality their being in a grand slam final at all is indicative of the type of depth that they claim made the 90s so tough.

Good point. I also agree that comparing eras is very circular.

I made a post a while back with the same logic.

Basically, a lot of Sampras fans claimed that Federer's competiton was weak because of they don't have as many slams as Sampras's competition.

If that logic applies, then it is also reciprocal in application.
Fed constantly beats Roddick, who only has 1 slam. Therefore, Federer constantly wins over weak competition.

Roddick lost to Federer in many slams and slam finals, who has 16 slams. Therefore, Roddick had many chances to win slams, but lost to a player good enough to win 16 slams. Therefore, Roddick is actually a very good player.


We would then have to look at the players that were beaten in every single slam that was played. The the quality of THOSE players would be determined by how many slams they won and who they beat, and so on. It would be a perpetual loop.

RoddickAce
12-24-2011, 12:02 PM
Yeah but most of these slam champs were past their slam winning days. Becker won his first slam 5 years before he even first played Sampras, Courier was done winning slams by 1993 (when Sampras won his second major and first Wimbledon) and in fact only won slams from 91-93. Edberg was 5 years older, won his last slam in 1992 when Sampras still had 13 of his 14 slams left to win and Sampras never managed to beat him in a slam either. These guys might have been slam winners, but they weren't slam winners when Sampras was doing most of his winning, and really you're only as good as your current playing level. Their playing levels wasn't generally slam winning when Pete was doing the best part of his winning. Agassi is really the only one who was in his prime at the same time as Sampras.

Agreed.

Also, by the same nature. Those players, Edberg, Becker, etc., were able to rack up many slams before they faced Sampras. Edberg won slams from 1985 until 1992. That's 8 years of playing to rack up slams before Sampras started dominating tennis.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc., are all of the same generation as Federer. So when they start to win slams, Federer starts dominating. And because Federer is a much better player, he prevents them from racking up their slam total.

eg) Player A is an early bloomer, winning 4 slams from 1991-1993. Then he declined and stop winning slams or at least stopped being a constant threat. Since 1995, Player B, a very good player, comes by and wins 10 slams, beating that 5-time slam winner in his wins. Therefore, Player B had strong competition?

If Player A bloomed at the same time as Player B, how many slams would each have?

helloworld
12-24-2011, 12:50 PM
Are you dense? Federer's 2005 was much better than 2004, it's just that he run into a beast-mode Safin at the 2005 Aussie open. Are you really saying that his 81-4 2005 was worse than the 74-6 2004?

How is 2005 Federer better than 2004 Federer? Federer played one of his most dominant match in 2004 USO, double bagelled Hewitt in the process. In 2005, Federer faced 35 year-old Agassi and got blown away by Andre for almost two sets. I'd say 2004 Fed was better than 2005 Fed.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 12:58 PM
Courier, Agassi, Becker, Edberg. You say they were past their slam winning days?


Edberg actually beat Sampras in a slam final.

Becker came right back into form in the mid 90's, won the AO a few months after he lost to Sampras at Wimbledon and they had some of the best matches of all time on the indoor circuit like Stuttgart and Hannover.

Agassi was obviously not past his best.

Sampras (and Agassi) put a stop to Courier winning slams. Sampras beat Courier in finals (Wimbledon) and just knocked him out of countless slams.


So all in all, your argument doesn't hold in my opinion.

Federer could have had that competition, but instead Roddick stopped hitting his forehand, Safin hurt his knee, Hewitt had kids and became constantly injured, Ferrero lost his forehand somehow, Davydenko is a choker, Nadal couldn't play on hard courts yet - and there was no one at all for 3-4 years until Djokovic and Murray came into form. The second they became even half as good as they are today, Federer's dominance started slipping in non slam tournaments (2007). For me, what Federer achieves nowadays is actually much more impressive because he actually has to beat real players.

When Federer was at his peak the top 5 was basically Ferrer, Robredo, Blake and Roddick (and Nadal who was a non factor on hard courts).

Same with Nadal as I said in the first post of this thread. They are both incredible players but what happened in 2005 is actually unparalleled in sporting history - Ferrero, Coria, Kuerten, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Gaudio - essentially the entire top field of men's tennis - ceased to be factors, allowing journeymen into the top 5 and the weakest field in history.

This is true. Federer's top competition in his generation just gave up competing, which allowed lesser players to fill in the top spots instead, hence the very weak era.

TheMusicLover
12-24-2011, 01:29 PM
This is true. Federer's top competition in his generation just gave up competing, which allowed lesser players to fill in the top spots instead, hence the very weak era.

Ridiculous nonsense.
Well, if Fed's era was so weak as you think, how come the same guy in his thirties is still capable of beating the crap out of anyone right now when he's on? What does that say about Djokovic' 'era'?

jerriy
12-24-2011, 02:33 PM
Courier, Agassi, Becker, Edberg. You say they were past their slam winning days?


Edberg actually beat Sampras in a slam final.

Becker came right back into form in the mid 90's, won the AO a few months after he lost to Sampras at Wimbledon and they had some of the best matches of all time on the indoor circuit like Stuttgart and Hannover.

Agassi was obviously not past his best.

Sampras (and Agassi) put a stop to Courier winning slams. Sampras beat Courier in finals (Wimbledon) and just knocked him out of countless slams.


So all in all, your argument doesn't hold in my opinion.

Federer could have had that competition, but instead Roddick stopped hitting his forehand, Safin hurt his knee, Hewitt had kids and became constantly injured, Ferrero lost his forehand somehow, Davydenko is a choker, Nadal couldn't play on hard courts yet - and there was no one at all for 3-4 years until Djokovic and Murray came into form. The second they became even half as good as they are today, Federer's dominance started slipping in non slam tournaments (2007). For me, what Federer achieves nowadays is actually much more impressive because he actually has to beat real players.

When Federer was at his peak the top 5 was basically Ferrer, Robredo, Blake and Roddick (and Nadal who was a non factor on hard courts).

Same with Nadal as I said in the first post of this thread. They are both incredible players but what happened in 2005 is actually unparalleled in sporting history - Ferrero, Coria, Kuerten, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Gaudio - essentially the entire top field of men's tennis - ceased to be factors, allowing journeymen into the top 5 and the weakest field in history.No, Towser83 was absolutely spot on.You may fool most here who're too young to remember but to portray Edberg and Becker, as players who were not past their peak in the 1990s is ludicrous. It doesn't matter in the slightest that they were sporadically good enough in the very early 90s. It remains an absolute fact that they were past their peak by that time. Roughly speaking, Lendl, Becker and Edberg are to the '80s what Sampras, Agassi were to the '90s and Fed/Nad to the '00s.

You are also exaggerating the every clay specialist suddenly went out of form in 2005. That is poppycock.

The fact is many of those so called pre-2005 "greats" were not so great in the first place. That's why they were exposed. Only Guga's career finished in that year (actually the end of the previous year: 2004). Other than that, nothing special happened in 2005. All the other players (other than Guga) simply got their *** kicked. No excuses.

tudwell
12-24-2011, 02:52 PM
No I think you're confused. Gonzalez and Baghdatis have no slams. There were lots great multiple slam champions that Sampras faced in finals like Becker, Courier, Edberg, Agassi. Gonzalez and Baghdatis are more like Arnauld Clement or Verkerk - fluke finalists.

Sampras faced Courier in the only grass court final of his entire career at Wimbledon 1993. Courier was not a great grass court player. Federer playing Roddick in 3 finals is far more impressive. Additionally, Sampras never beat Edberg in a slam so I don't know why you're bringing him up. They played twice early in Sampras's career and after that Edberg was done. He's hardly indicative of the tough competition Sampras had to beat to win the slams that he won. Becker and Agassi are the real deal, of course, but they were also wildly inconsistent in Sampras's prime years. He never had to deal with someone with the consistency of Nadal or Djokovic or even Murray.

Anyway, for every Gonzalez or Baghdatis that Federer faced, Sampras had a Martin or a Pioline to even it out. They both had their share of easy draws and their share of tough opponents. Sampras's era was not any more difficult than Federer's.

tudwell
12-24-2011, 03:19 PM
Courier, Agassi, Becker, Edberg. You say they were past their slam winning days?


Edberg actually beat Sampras in a slam final.

Becker came right back into form in the mid 90's, won the AO a few months after he lost to Sampras at Wimbledon and they had some of the best matches of all time on the indoor circuit like Stuttgart and Hannover.

Agassi was obviously not past his best.

Sampras (and Agassi) put a stop to Courier winning slams. Sampras beat Courier in finals (Wimbledon) and just knocked him out of countless slams.


So all in all, your argument doesn't hold in my opinion.

Federer could have had that competition, but instead Roddick stopped hitting his forehand, Safin hurt his knee, Hewitt had kids and became constantly injured, Ferrero lost his forehand somehow, Davydenko is a choker, Nadal couldn't play on hard courts yet - and there was no one at all for 3-4 years until Djokovic and Murray came into form. The second they became even half as good as they are today, Federer's dominance started slipping in non slam tournaments (2007). For me, what Federer achieves nowadays is actually much more impressive because he actually has to beat real players.

When Federer was at his peak the top 5 was basically Ferrer, Robredo, Blake and Roddick (and Nadal who was a non factor on hard courts).

Same with Nadal as I said in the first post of this thread. They are both incredible players but what happened in 2005 is actually unparalleled in sporting history - Ferrero, Coria, Kuerten, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Gaudio - essentially the entire top field of men's tennis - ceased to be factors, allowing journeymen into the top 5 and the weakest field in history.

Do you even read what you write? First you say this:

Sampras (and Agassi) put a stop to Courier winning slams.

And then criticize Federer's competition for not winning slams against him? Hewitt and Roddick and even Safin didn't simply disappear. Federer beat them. Federer put a stop to them winning slams. They didn't just magically get worse. Hewitt lost to the eventual champion in all 7 of the slams he competed in in 2004 and 2005, losing to Federer at five of them. Roddick certainly didn't disappear after 2005 and lost to Federer in two more slam finals and countless other matches. Safin did pretty much disappear but he was always wildly inconsistent and was never going to be one of Federer's main rivals regardless. The clay guys are hardly worth consideration, considering how little of Federer's legacy is based on his clay court record. You also conveniently leave out slam champions like Nadal and Agassi who, despite age differences, were still some of Federer's top competition.

And just because those players disappeared doesn't mean the players who filled the gaps were any worse. I'll grant you that 2006 certainly wasn't the strongest era in history, but neither was Sampras's 1998, for example. The field was weak for a year, at best, during Federer's reign. In 2005 it was still strong with many guys from Federer's generation (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) at their peak as well as younger guys like Nadal coming into their own, and in 2007 it undeniably picked up again.

Mustard
12-24-2011, 04:01 PM
BeHappy, how did Agassi put an end to Courier winning slams? Agassi didn't even beat Courier between his 1990 French Open and 1996 Australian Open wins over Courier while Courier beat Agassi 6 straight times in this period.

beast of mallorca
12-24-2011, 04:05 PM
BeHappy, how did Agassi put an end to Courier winning slams? Agassi didn't even beat Courier between his 1990 French Open and 1996 Australian Open wins over Courier while Courier beat Agassi 6 straight times in this period.

You have to understand that Behappy is an idot, so no question there.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 08:45 PM
You have to understand that Behappy is an idot, so no question there.

What is an "idot"? Is it another word for "genius"? You're an idot! :)

SLD76
12-24-2011, 10:56 PM
You have to understand that Behappy is an idot, so no question there.

now this we can agree on.

BeHappy
12-26-2011, 04:40 AM
BeHappy, how did Agassi put an end to Courier winning slams? Agassi didn't even beat Courier between his 1990 French Open and 1996 Australian Open wins over Courier while Courier beat Agassi 6 straight times in this period.

Mustard, how did Djokovic ever stop Nadal winning in any major at all? Djokovic has a 16-7 losing record 2007-2010, losing in 3 French Open matches, 1 Wimbledon and a USO final in 2010, not to mention a Davis Cup.



Courier was winning slams up to 1993, why on earth would you pick a time frame like 1990-1996? Off the top of my head I remember Agassi knocking Courier out of the Australian Open in 1996, when Courier was playing extremely well, in retrospect this was Courier's last chance at a win.

Therefore Agassi deserved a mention, in parentheses, besides Sampras as playing a role in stopping Courier winning slams.

BeHappy
12-26-2011, 04:42 AM
Do you even read what you write? First you say this:



And then criticize Federer's competition for not winning slams against him? Hewitt and Roddick and even Safin didn't simply disappear. Federer beat them. Federer put a stop to them winning slams. They didn't just magically get worse. Hewitt lost to the eventual champion in all 7 of the slams he competed in in 2004 and 2005, losing to Federer at five of them. Roddick certainly didn't disappear after 2005 and lost to Federer in two more slam finals and countless other matches. Safin did pretty much disappear but he was always wildly inconsistent and was never going to be one of Federer's main rivals regardless. The clay guys are hardly worth consideration, considering how little of Federer's legacy is based on his clay court record. You also conveniently leave out slam champions like Nadal and Agassi who, despite age differences, were still some of Federer's top competition.

And just because those players disappeared doesn't mean the players who filled the gaps were any worse. I'll grant you that 2006 certainly wasn't the strongest era in history, but neither was Sampras's 1998, for example. The field was weak for a year, at best, during Federer's reign. In 2005 it was still strong with many guys from Federer's generation (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) at their peak as well as younger guys like Nadal coming into their own, and in 2007 it undeniably picked up again.

Safin hurt his knee, Hewitt has been constantly injured for nearly 7 years, Ferrero lost his forehand, Roddick stopped hitting his forehand.

Nadal couldn't play on hard courts till 2008, constantly losing to journeymen in early rounds, despite his success against Federer when he made it that far in the draw occasionally. Agassi was done after 2005 too.

tudwell
12-26-2011, 07:53 AM
Safin hurt his knee, Hewitt has been constantly injured for nearly 7 years, Ferrero lost his forehand, Roddick stopped hitting his forehand.

Nadal couldn't play on hard courts till 2008, constantly losing to journeymen in early rounds, despite his success against Federer when he made it that far in the draw occasionally. Agassi was done after 2005 too.

Safin did hurt his knee, but he was at the top of the game in 2004 and 2005. He was ranked in the top 5 from November 2004 until November 2005. Federer and Safin met five times in 04-05, with Safin wining only the one time at the 2005 Australian. He disappeared after that, sure, but a new generation of tennis players quickly followed.

As for Hewitt, he struggled with injuries but so does every player. Hewitt was still out there battling away and performing better than 99% of tennis players. He dropped out of the top 10 for most of 2004, thanks to injuries, but he solidified himself in the top 5 in October of that year and didn't drop out until Januray of 2006.

And Roddick changing his game style says nothing about his level of play. He still reached slam finals and semis and quarterfinals, and he still won a few Masters events and plenty of other events. He was top 10 until 2011. The season that just ended. Pretending like Roddick magically disappeared and stopped being a contender against Federer is monumentally stupid.

Additionally, Nadal was quite capable on hardcourts. He won 5 of his total 11 hardcourt titles between 05 and 07, including 3 Masters titles and a win in Dubai defeating Federer in the final. In 2005 alone Nadal won 4 Masters event, the same as Federer, leaving only one for other guys to pick up. I don't see how anyone can win 4/9 Masters events in a single year, skyrocketing to number two after also winning a slam and 11 total titles, and not be considered a top threat. He did underperform at the slams, however, reaching only two quarterfinals in this time period.

I don't care about Ferrero - he was never going to be one of Federer's top rivals, loss of forehand or not - and Agassi was done after 2005, yes, and I've already admitted that 2006 was by far the weakest of Federer's years of domination. But 2004 and 2005 were not weak years, despite what pathetic revisionist Sampras fanboys would like to think.

tudwell
12-26-2011, 08:51 AM
Also, you want to talk about weak competition, look at Sampras's 1998 season. He finished the year at number one but, if you look at the data, he didn't do much better than Juan Martin del Potro did in 2009, when he finished at number five.

Here's Sampras's year:

Slams: W, SF, QF, 2R
WTF: SF
Masters: F, F, SF, QF, 3R, 3R, 3R, 3R (1 DNP)
Other: W, W, W, F, 3R, 3R, 1R, 1R

Titles/finals: 4/7
Win/loss: 61-17 (78%)
Year-end ranking: 1


And here is del Potro's:

Slams: W, SF, QF, 2R
WTF: F
Masters: F, SF, SF, QF, QF, QF, 2R, 2R (1 DNP)
Other: W, W, QF, QF, 1R

Titles/finals: 3/5
Win/loss: 54-16 (77%)
Year-end ranking: 5


The two performed exactly the same at the slams. Sampras won one more mickey mouse title than del Potro did, but del Potro outperformed Sampras at the WTF and was more consistent at Masters events. Sampras has a slightly greater win/loss ratio. And before Sampras fans cry, "But the competition was harder!!," here's a list of Sampras's and del Potro's defeats.

Sampras 1998:
Karol Kucera (20)
Andre Agassi (71)
Thomas Muster (20)
Wayne Ferreira (36)
Fabrice Santoro (25)
Michael Chang (14)
Ramon Delgado (97)
Mark Woodforde (66)
Andre Agassi (11)
Patrick Rafter (3)
Leander Paes (100)
Patrick Rafter (3)
Wayne Ferreira (35)
Richard Krajicek (11)
Greg Rusedksi (13)
Jason Stoltenberg (29)
Alex Corretja (6)

del Potro 2009:
Roger Federer (2)
Mardy Fish (24)
Radek Stepanek (19)
Andy Murray (4)
Ivan Ljubicic (66)
Novak Djokovic (3)
Roger Federer (2)
Roger Federer (2)
Lleyton Hewitt (56)
Andy Murray (3)
Edouard Roger-Vasselin (189)
Jurgen Melzer (43)
Radek Stepanek (14)
Andy Murray (4)
Nikolay Davydenko (7)


It's worth noting Sampras didn't even play a top 10 player until he lost to Patrick Rafter at Cincinnati, and he won all of 3 titles in this time period. He finished 5-3 against the top 10, while del Potro finished the year 11-9 against the top 10 (with players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray compared to Sampras's Rafter, Corretja, Kucera, and Moya).

Sampras had far easier competition in 1998 than del Potro did, and he performed at about the exact same level. If Sampras had played in today's field, he would not have six consecutive year-end number ones. Federer's 2010, which I would say is his sixth-best year, is better than Sampras's sixth best year (1998 ), but because Sampras had easier competition, he got another number one year-end ranking while Federer settled for number two because he's up against real greats like Rafael Nadal.

tudwell
12-26-2011, 11:00 AM
1997 was a crap year too. Sampras's biggest competition came from Muster, Kafelnikov, and Rafter. Guys like Bjorkman and Rusedski were in the top five. People love to crap on Blake and Ljubicic for being in the top five in 06, when each of them has more titles than Bjorkman and Rusedski combined. Sampras's last two years at number one were a joke. Agassi was MIA. Courier was washed-up. Edberg was loooooong gone. Becker was still hanging around in places, but was old and rapidly declining. Sampras in 1997 and 1998 had weaker competition than Federer did in 2006, which was his easiest year by a country mile.

Also, delusional Sampras fanboys pretend Federer hasn't won any slams since Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray came into their own. This is far from the case. Djokovic had his break-out tournaments at Indian Wells and Miami in 2007, after which he reached his first two slam semifinals at the French Open and Wimbledon. In that time period, Djokovic has won four slams, Federer six, and Nadal eight. Federer's won more than Djokovic and is staying competitive with Nadal, who's five years his younger. So people can't simply brush away Federer's accomplishments claiming he faced injured Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick because it's not true.

Mustard
12-26-2011, 11:10 AM
What's wrong with Bjorkman and Rusedski? They were very good players in 1997.

Sampras was a clear number 1 in 1997. He won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, Cincinnati, Paris Indoors, as well as the Grand Slam Cup and World Championships double. In fact, apart from 1994, 1997 is Sampras' best year on the tour. The real low point of 1997 for Sampras was losing to Korda in the R16 of the US Open, when Sampras had been the overwhelming favourite for the title. His French Open challenge flopped as well.

As for 1998, nobody was dominant that year, but Sampras was just a bit more consistent overall than Rios and Rafter. Sampras played a lot of tournaments in late 1998 as he desperately tried to beat Connors' record of finishing 5 consecutive calendar years as number 1. Sampras just managed it but was so knackered that he pulled out of the 1999 Australian Open.

tudwell
12-26-2011, 11:20 AM
Sampras was a clear number 1 in 1997. He won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, Cincinnati, Paris Indoors, as well as the Grand Slam Cup and World Championships double. In fact, apart from 1994, 1997 is Sampras' best year on the tour. The real low point of 1997 for Sampras was losing to Korda in the R16 of the US Open, when Sampras had been the overwhelming favourite for the title. His French Open challenge flopped as well.

As for 1998, nobody was dominant that year, but Sampras was just a bit more consistent overall than Rios and Rafter. Sampras played a lot of tournaments in late 1998 as he desperately tried to beat Connors' record of finishing 5 consecutive calendar years as number 1. Sampras just managed it but was so knackered that he pulled out of the 1999 Australian Open.

I'm not saying that Sampras wasn't a deserving No. 1 in those years. I'm just looking at the competition he faced, an issue some Sampras fans (especially stupid ones like BeHappy) like to bring up regarding the current era, which is pretty much undeniably a whole lot stronger than the late 1990s.

Of course, 1993-1996 were very strong years and Sampras deserves much praise for dominating them the way he did. But 1997 and especially 1998 were not as impressive. His 1998 was about as impressive as del Potro's 2009.

Mustard
12-26-2011, 11:28 AM
I'm not saying that Sampras wasn't a deserving No. 1 in those years. I'm just looking at the competition he faced, an issue some Sampras fans (especially stupid ones like BeHappy) like to bring up regarding the current era, which is pretty much undeniably a whole lot stronger than the late 1990s.

If we look at the 6 year period from 1998-2003, we have a total of 24 majors and 15 different players winning majors. Since the start of 2004, there's been 32 majors and only 6 different players winning majors.

There's different ways of looking at this. Some people will say that the 1998-2003 period was "strong" because there were so many different winners, while others will say it's a "weak era" because nobody was strong enough to dominate. Some people will say that because of the Fedalovic domination since 2004, that this is a "strong era", but other people will ask "why aren't the rest of the field challenging them more?" and conclude that it's a "weak era".

Of course, 1993-1996 were very strong years and Sampras deserves much praise for dominating them the way he did. But 1997 and especially 1998 were not as impressive. His 1998 was about as impressive as del Potro's 2009.

Sampras' 1997 was a hell of a lot better than his 1996. As for 1995, Agassi was number 1 for most of that calendar year (30 weeks). Sampras managed to win the US Open in 1995, a massive victory, which Agassi dealt with very badly indeed. Even then, Agassi could easily have finished 1995 as number 1 if he had bothered to play more tournaments, but he didn't believe he deserved it after losing the US Open final.

tudwell
12-26-2011, 11:54 AM
If we look at the 6 year period from 1998-2003, we have a total of 24 majors and 15 different players winning majors. Since the start of 2004, there's been 32 majors and only 6 different players winning majors.

There's different ways of looking at this. Some people will say that the 1998-2003 period was "strong" because there were so many different winners, while others will say it's a "weak era" because nobody was strong enough to dominate. Some people will say that because of the Fedalovic domination since 2004, that this is a "strong era", but other people will ask "why aren't the rest of the field challenging them more?" and conclude that it's a "weak era".

I made this same point earlier in the thread. Defining "strong competition" is circular, which is why the whole debate is pretty much pointless. However, applying the standards that Sampras fans themselves like to employ, it becomes apparent that no year in Federer's reign at the top was as weak as Sampras's 1998 or probably even his 1997.

Besides, I think it's pretty obvious that the top players in men's tennis didn't magically get worse between 2003 and 2004. Federer got better. And he stayed better for quite some time. So when guys like Nadal and Djokovic come around who can match some of his accomplishments and knock him off the top spot, it's easy to think they're also better than the players Federer was originally dominant over. Thus, we have more and better guys at the top of the game than we did five or six years ago, thus it's a stronger era.

Sampras' 1997 was a hell of a lot better than his 1996. As for 1995, Agassi was number 1 for most of that calendar year (30 weeks). Sampras managed to win the US Open in 1995, a massive victory, which Agassi dealt with very badly indeed. Even then, Agassi could easily have finished 1995 as number 1 if he had bothered to play more tournaments, but he didn't believe he deserved it after losing the US Open final.

Sampras's accomplishments in 1997 were better than in 1996, but the competition he faced was a lot weaker. All of his main rivals from earlier in his career (Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, etc.) were falling by the wayside, and no dominant personalities had established themselves at or near the top the way Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray did for Federer.

BeHappy
12-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Besides, I think it's pretty obvious that the top players in men's tennis didn't magically get worse between 2003 and 2004. Federer got better.

Did Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt ever get to a slam final again? Or reach semi finals with the same consistency?

Safin did hurt his knee and he never was the same again.

Ferrero did get the chicken pox and various other injuries and never was the same again (bizarrely).

Hewitt was constantly injured, and while he played through them for a while he's missed half of every year annually for a long time now.

Are you seriously going to argue that the Roddick who hit more forehand winners than Federer in their classic 2004 Wimbledon quarter (semi?) final, and who broke Federer multiple times had the same forehand after 2005?

Do you think Keurten was the same player after his hip injury? Really?

What about Coria after he had his mental breakdown and couldn't serve anymore?

What about Gaudio and his mental breakdown? Going from a defending RG Champion and bagelling a prime 2005 Nadal (42-8 on clay that season) to ripping his shorts off on court while losing to some player i have never seen again.


NONE of these players (bar hewitt for a while) were just getting beaten by Federer, they weren't even in the top ten anymore, they were getting beaten by journeymen.

And everyone knows 1998 was Sampras's worst year as no. 1. I agree. Everyone does.

But from 2005 onwards Federer and Nadal had absolutely no competition for years.

PrinceMoron
12-26-2011, 02:15 PM
Blue clay smiling on me / Nothing but blue clay do I see / Blue clay singing a song / Nothing but blue clay from now on. / I never saw the ball shining so bright ... (in Madrid so far, but it is a start).

BeHappy
12-27-2011, 08:34 AM
Blue clay smiling on me / Nothing but blue clay do I see / Blue clay singing a song / Nothing but blue clay from now on. / I never saw the ball shining so bright ... (in Madrid so far, but it is a start).

hilarious username

Crazy man
12-27-2011, 08:51 AM
even Safin didn't simply disappear. Federer beat them. Federer put a stop to them winning slams. They didn't just magically get worse. Hewitt lost to the eventual champion in all 7 of the slams he competed in in 2004 and 2005, losing to Federer at five of them. Roddick certainly didn't disappear after 2005 and lost to Federer in two more slam finals and countless other matches. Safin did pretty much disappear but he was always wildly inconsistent and was never going to be one of Federer's main rivals regardless. The clay guys are hardly worth consideration, considering how little of Federer's legacy is based on his clay court record. You also conveniently leave out slam champions like Nadal and Agassi who, despite age differences, were still some of Federer's top competition.





Nice contraditcion in one paragraph.



By the way, Federer didn't ruin Safin's career. Injuries did. (plus Marat's terrible attitude/temper/mentality on court). You forget Safin was the only guy outside Kuerten and Nadal at the FO - in my opinion the greatest clay courters ever (along with Borg), to beat Federer in a slam from years 2004-2007. AO 2004 Safin if fully fit would have beaten Federer, Safin was running on 0% energy after going through hell against guys like Roddick (#1 at the time) and Agassi, let alone facing tough prospects in Blake et al. This is a feat in itself considering Safin missed most of 2003.


Safin's career ended during 2005, his matches with Federer after that horiffic injury don' tdenote what would have happened if Safin continued to improve and stay injury free (however that's difficult for tall players like Marat).




At the end of the day, those who watched Safin (not you) would realise Safin would have been a worthy contender for Federer on the hard courts if it wasn't for injuries. A few of those matches were close in Dubai and Halle where Safin at Dubai 2004 wasn't anything special and Halle.... well, Safin stated he was playing in pain during Halle. Safin was inconsistent because of his mentality and injuries. When focused he was very consistent.




You're analysis of Roddick is quite stupid also. Ask most people who aren't biased towards Federer, they will tell you Roddick changing his game lost him at least a few slams. Ferrero, you realise that he was very talented right and lost out to injuries (that's a conversation for another day).





These my friend, are facts that I submit to you.

jackson vile
12-27-2011, 09:36 AM
Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are not the quality of Novak, Nadal, Murray, etc.

tennis_pro
12-27-2011, 09:47 AM
Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are not the quality of Novak, Nadal, Murray, etc.

I wanna know the "etc.". Oh and btw. lol at Murray being better than Hewitt or Safin. Maybe now when Safin is retired and Hewitt on the brink of retirement.:)

jackson vile
12-27-2011, 09:51 AM
I wanna know the "etc.". Oh and btw. lol at Murray being better than Hewitt or Safin. Maybe now when Safin is retired and Hewitt on the brink of retirement.:)

Murray is not even close to finished, how consistent has Murray been? With Safin you were always hoping that he could pull off one of his two performances that made him "Safin".

Hewitt was not that good, remember we had lots of number ones, he just happened to end with it, also had Ferrero as year end #1 LOL Wow, must have been tough then, same with Roddick being #1.

TMF
12-27-2011, 09:52 AM
Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are not the quality of Novak, Nadal, Murray, etc.

Slamless Murray?? ROFL !

Fed had Rafa and even some *******s have said a young Rafa was better on clay than this old, past prime at 24/25 year old.

jackson vile
12-27-2011, 09:56 AM
Slamless Murray?? ROFL !

Fed had Rafa and even some *******s have said a young Rafa was better on clay than this old, past prime at 24/25 year old.

That is one surface, Federer was only ever just a challenge on clay to **** man period.

helloworld
12-27-2011, 10:02 AM
Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are not the quality of Novak, Nadal, Murray, etc.

You're embarrassing yourself. :oops:

Cup8489
12-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Murray is not even close to finished, how consistent has Murray been? With Safin you were always hoping that he could pull off one of his two performances that made him "Safin".

Hewitt was not that good, remember we had lots of number ones, he just happened to end with it, also had Ferrero as year end #1 LOL Wow, must have been tough then, same with Roddick being #1.

Ferrero was never year end number 1. Hewitt finished as no 1 in 2001 and 2002. Nice try, though.

joeri888
12-28-2011, 06:59 AM
Hewitt or Roddick could well have had a year like Djokovic's 11 if it wasn't for Federer.

Think about it. If Federer was the Federer of old, Djokovic might be a 1 slam wonder as well. Federer was pretty close at AO11, and Djokovic not yet the fully confident Djokovic of now. While I consider AO his best surface against Roger, 2006 Roger would have made sure Djokovic wouldn't win that match. Now you go tell me he would have won Wimbledon...

Roddick and Hewitt never got the chance to be legends.. even if they lost to lesser players they never got the chance to be consistently that good. Safin and Nalbandian were dangerous, inconsistent players. Probably a bit like Tsonga and Del Potro are nowadays, but certainly no less.

DRII
12-28-2011, 07:07 AM
Whats Darker than black???

merlinpinpin
12-28-2011, 07:23 AM
Murray is not even close to finished, how consistent has Murray been? With Safin you were always hoping that he could pull off one of his two performances that made him "Safin".

Hewitt was not that good, remember we had lots of number ones, he just happened to end with it, also had Ferrero as year end #1 LOL Wow, must have been tough then, same with Roddick being #1.

Now, let's try and go for some intelligent trolling for a change, so please enlighten us and tell us which year Ferrero finished as #1... :roll:

tennis_pro
12-28-2011, 07:27 AM
Murray is not even close to finished, how consistent has Murray been? With Safin you were always hoping that he could pull off one of his two performances that made him "Safin".

Hewitt was not that good, remember we had lots of number ones, he just happened to end with it, also had Ferrero as year end #1 LOL Wow, must have been tough then, same with Roddick being #1.

Ferrero's best year-end ranking was no 3 in 2003, a year in which he was by far the best clay courter (Monte Carlo, French Open wins, lost in the SF in Rome to....a young Federer), made the US Open final, won Madrid on hard courts (beat Federer in the SF who was the then Wimbledon champion). Complete nobody, I should say.

TMF
12-28-2011, 08:48 AM
Murray is not even close to finished, how consistent has Murray been? With Safin you were always hoping that he could pull off one of his two performances that made him "Safin".
It doesn't matter if Murray plays for another 20 years, his mental strength cannot even compare to Hewitt's pinky. Safin's power ground game would overwhelmed against a pusher like Murray. Roddick's serve belongs in the elite group of all time great, which Nole/Murray and especially Nadal can't touch.


Hewitt was not that good, remember we had lots of number ones, he just happened to end with it, also had Ferrero as year end #1 LOL Wow, must have been tough then, same with Roddick being #1.

Roddick became #1 when Fed only had 1 slam. After that, prime Fed take over the #1 spot during his prime. Until 2011 when Fed has decline, that was time Nole(6 years younger) overtake his ranking.

Just remember...Safin/Roddick/Hewitt played Fed when he was at the height of his power. Today, a 30 year old is competing against the three younger players(Nole/Murray/Nadal). Big difference.

Crazy man
12-28-2011, 09:01 AM
Roddick and Hewitt never got the chance to be legends.. even if they lost to lesser players they never got the chance to be consistently that good. Safin and Nalbandian were dangerous, inconsistent players. Probably a bit like Tsonga and Del Potro are nowadays, but certainly no less.

No. Just no.



Whats Darker than black???

Anime, a really good anime in fact, the guy in my avatar is the lead character in season 1, OVA and is one of the main characters in the second season.

jackson vile
12-28-2011, 09:04 AM
Ferrero was never year end number 1. Hewitt finished as no 1 in 2001 and 2002. Nice try, though.

He was in the race with 4 or 5 other players, Ferrero had #1 ranking at one point during the year and where in a tight race for year end #1.

If Ferrero can grab #1 ranking I have to question that a lot. Ferrero is not even at Murray's level.

The funny part is the ****s will claim the 1 slam for these guys, but then on the other hand will now claim consistency is more relevant LOL

Ferrero had a great year, and Hewitt had a great two year, but that does not make a great tennis player or does it?

Careful painting that corner.

jackson vile
12-28-2011, 09:07 AM
He is exactly right, Delpo has 1 slam, but I don't see anyone of use trying to hold him up. Same for Nalbandian, he had some of the most amazing performances ever. Only thing different is that he didn't win a slam.




No. Just no.





Anime, a really good anime in fact, the guy in my avatar is the lead character in season 1, OVA and is one of the main characters in the second season.

Crazy man
12-28-2011, 09:13 AM
Like I said, Safin has had some great performances, but that is it period. They guy was all over the place, he could have been a hell of a lot more but wasn't. .

Um. The guy beat a hell of a load of players. Managed to make semifinals in all slams. Yet you say he was all over the place?


All injury excuses aside it is up to the player to deal with the cards they are dealt and deal themselves. Otherwise we can sit here and say that Tommy Haas would have done this that and the other thing.


Haas has 0 slams. Safin has 2. People tend to forget that Safin had two horiffic injuries (03 & 05) as well as smaller injuries which hindered him, yet the guy still came back, plaed through pain in 2005 and still played until 2009. Safin is one of the most successful injury-plagued players ever. Haas had his injuries and bad luck, but was a choker. Safin showed before and after his injuries he had what it took to beat the best.



Fact remains is that Murray consistently out plays Safin game per game and Murray is not even done yet.

Facts: Safin has 2 slams, DC's and has been #1

More facts: Murray has won 0 slams in what has been pretty much an injury-free career


So for sporadic amazing performances Safin wins a clapping ovation.

Wins against Federer, Sampras, Guga Kuerten, Agassi, Djokovic, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero among other great players (mostly in slams no less) yet you call Safin out for having rare performances (keep in mind injuries). Other than Nadal on hard courts, who the hell has Murray beaten. At least out of prime Safin can beat Djokovic in a slam. Lol


As far a tennis standards are concerned Murray is head and shoulders above and his stats show that year in year out he maintains his level. Tennis is about consistency not a couple performances.

Safin ended in the top 5 for many seasons (again, keep in mind injuries). Stats are facts: Murray has 0 slams. He has not shown he can win a slam yet. When he does, great good for him. Achievements, victories and skill Safin completely p!sses on Murray.

jackson vile
12-28-2011, 09:16 AM
Sorry bro, Safin was all over the place period. If you want we can look at total accumulated points as well.

I am not arguing that Safin has not had some amazing performances, but so has Murray. Murray only problem is he can't finish in finals of slams, that is it. He is consistent as hell, much more than Safin for sure.

On top of that Murray is not even done yet.

tennis_pro
12-28-2011, 09:27 AM
Sorry bro, Safin was all over the place period. If you want we can look at total accumulated points as well.

I am not arguing that Safin has not had some amazing performances, but so has Murray. Murray only problem is he can't finish in finals of slams, that is it. He is consistent as hell, much more than Safin for sure.

On top of that Murray is not even done yet.

And who exactly did Murray beat in a big match?

Cause I remember Safin beating prime Federer on a hard court (probably the only time prime Fed lost in a HC slam), pretty prime Sampras in a US Open final (and again at the AO 1,5 years later), Agassi, Kuerten at the French Open (Agassi again at the 2004 AO - one of the all-time matches, Safin beat peak Roddick in the previous round), peak Hewitt in an AO final, straight setted Djokovic (the then AO champion) at Wimbledon in 2008 that's just on top of my head

what about Murray? he beat Nadal twice in a HC slam but many Nadal fans claim that Nadal was tired in their US Open match and injured in the 2010 AO quarter. Other than that he was straight setted by Federer twice in slams (27-29 year old Federer I should add), completely owned by Novak this year i n the AO final and is now firmly the top 3's pidgeon in slams. Safin was never anyone's pidgeon, when he came to play everyone was afraid of him.

DRII
12-28-2011, 09:30 AM
It doesn't matter if Murray plays for another 20 years, his mental strength cannot even compare to Hewitt's pinky. Safin's power ground game would overwhelmed against a pusher like Murray. Roddick's serve belongs in the elite group of all time great, which Nole/Murray and especially Nadal can't touch.




Roddick became #1 when Fed only had 1 slam. After that, prime Fed take over the #1 spot during his prime. Until 2011 when Fed has decline, that was time Nole(6 years younger) overtake his ranking.
Just remember...Safin/Roddick/Hewitt played Fed when he was at the height of his power. Today, a 30 year old is competing against the three younger players(Nole/Murray/Nadal). Big difference.


So i guess you conviently forgot when Nadal overtook Federer in 2008 to become #1 and did it again in 2010...

jackson vile
12-28-2011, 09:31 AM
I love it, a #3 pigeon, what a loser position #3 is what scandal what a disgrace.

Like I said Safin had some great performances, so did Delpo, Nalbandian, etc

And total BS about Safin not being a pigeon, the guy was a train wreck most of the time. A huge waste of talent, woulda, coulda, shoulda, etc.

And who exactly did Murray beat in a big match?

Cause I remember Safin beating prime Federer on a hard court (probably the only time prime Fed lost in a HC slam), pretty prime Sampras in a US Open final (and again at the AO 1,5 years later), Agassi, Kuerten at the French Open, peak Hewitt in an AO final, straight setted Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2008 that's just on top of my head

what about Murray? he beat Nadal twice in a HC slam but many Nadal fans claim that Nadal was tired in their US Open match and injured in the 2010 AO quarter. Other than that he was straight setted by Federer twice in slams (27-29 year old Federer I should add), completely owned by Novak this year i n the AO final and is now firmly the top 3's pidgeon in slams. Safin was never anyone's pidgeon, when he came to play everyone was afraid of him.

TMF
12-28-2011, 09:35 AM
So i guess you conviently forgot when Nadal overtook Federer in 2008 to become #1 and did it again in 2010...

Yeah, after his record setting 237 straight weeks at #1 and Nadal record setting 160 weeks at the #2. It's about time for Nadal to take over since Roger is 5 years older.

tennis_pro
12-28-2011, 09:38 AM
I love it, a #3 pigeon, what a loser position #3 is what scandal what a disgrace.

Like I said Safin had some great performances, so did Delpo, Nalbandian, etc

And total BS about Safin not being a pigeon, the guy was a train wreck most of the time. A huge waste of talent, woulda, coulda, shoulda, etc.

I thought Murray was the no 4 but seems like you have some very recent data from the ATP.

Safin - for a guy that that was a "train wreck" most of the time he still managed to win 2 majors, reach additional 2 finals, reach at least the SF of every major, win 5 MS titles, 15 titles total, reach the no 1 position. What does it tell us about Murray who is reputedly so much more consistent than Safin? Murray is Federer's and Djokovic's pidgeon in any big match and the only great player he could beat in a major until recently (Nadal) is dominating him.

Crazy man
12-28-2011, 09:43 AM
Sorry bro, Safin was all over the place period. If you want we can look at total accumulated points as well.

I am not arguing that Safin has not had some amazing performances, but so has Murray. Murray only problem is he can't finish in finals of slams, that is it. He is consistent as hell, much more than Safin for sure.

On top of that Murray is not even done yet.

Murray has had like 2 amazing performances in slams. Both against Nadal on hard court - his weakest surface and Murray's strongest. Yet Safin who has beaten Kuerten and Ferrero at the FO, Federer at AO, Sampras at AO and US, Agassi at AO and FO, Roddick at AO, Hewitt at AO has as many? Seriously?

BeHappy
12-28-2011, 09:49 AM
Murray has had like 2 amazing performances in slams. Both against Nadal on hard court - his weakest surface and Murray's strongest. Yet Safin who has beaten Kuerten and Ferrero at the FO, Federer at AO, Sampras at AO and US, Agassi at AO and FO, Roddick at AO, Hewitt at AO has as many? Seriously?

Don't forget Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Crazy man
12-28-2011, 09:52 AM
Don't forget Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Must have forgotten, I was trying to remember Murray's many epic slam victories and sadly forgot some of Safin's rare victories over great opponents. My bad!

DRII
12-28-2011, 10:02 AM
No. Just no.





Anime, a really good anime in fact, the guy in my avatar is the lead character in season 1, OVA and is one of the main characters in the second season.

Oh, cool...

Have you seen Claymore?

DRII
12-28-2011, 10:05 AM
I thought Murray was the no 4 but seems like you have some very recent data from the ATP.

Safin - for a guy that that was a "train wreck" most of the time he still managed to win 2 majors, reach additional 2 finals, reach at least the SF of every major, win 5 MS titles, 15 titles total, reach the no 1 position. What does it tell us about Murray who is reputedly so much more consistent than Safin? Murray is Federer's and Djokovic's pidgeon in any big match and the only great player he could beat in a major until recently (Nadal) is dominating him.

Safin was kind of like the Venus Williams of the ATP. When they're on, they're nearly unbeatable, but just were not as consistent...

Crazy man
12-28-2011, 10:13 AM
Oh, cool...

Have you seen Claymore?

Nah, heard about it though. Might watch it tonight, you should watch DTB if you're into Anime.

DRII
12-28-2011, 10:17 AM
I'll check it out...

helloworld
12-28-2011, 10:31 AM
Don't forget Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Yep, not to mention Djokovic was ranked #3, while Safin was almost retired. Djokovic was never great on grass. He was very lucky this era has no grass court specialist.
Djokovic in the 90s would have exactly 0 wimbledon title.

Fate Archer
12-28-2011, 10:31 AM
Oh, cool...

Have you seen Claymore?

Woot, I'm a huge Claymore fan. :)

But I always followed the manga, the anime counterpart is animated in a high quality until the 13 or 14th episode from what I remember. From episode 20 onwards the story diverges a lot from the original source which is the manga.

As a great fan of the manga I was really disapointed with how they ended the anime, but for 1st time watchers of the series it was ok I guess as they aren't aware of the awesomeness of the manga.

Great show if you wanna see some blood and gore from a badass female protagonist perspective. :)

DRII
12-28-2011, 10:57 AM
Woot, I'm a huge Claymore fan. :)

But I always followed the manga, the anime counterpart is animated in a high quality until the 13 or 14th episode from what I remember. From episode 20 onwards the story diverges a lot from the original source which is the manga.

As a great fan of the manga I was really disapointed with how they ended the anime, but for 1st time watchers of the series it was ok I guess as they aren't aware of the awesomeness of the manga.

Great show if you wanna see some blood and gore from a badass female protagonist perspective. :)

Exactly, I agree (kind of like Kill Bill)...

I think Funamation had no choice because the Manga is still on-going but they had to wrap up the series because there was not enough material to make a season 2. I would have loved to have seen a season 2. The storyline is so intriguing! And the voice acting was superb!

I read the manga online, it seems like forever to wait an entire month for about 30 pages! Sometimes I start over to give Norihiro Yagi more time LOL...

Fate Archer
12-28-2011, 12:01 PM
Exactly, I agree (kind of like Kill Bill)...

I think Funamation had no choice because the Manga is still on-going but they had to wrap up the series because there was not enough material to make a season 2. I would have loved to have seen a season 2. The storyline is so intriguing! And the voice acting was superb!

I read the manga online, it seems like forever to wait an entire month for about 30 pages! Sometimes I start over to give Norihiro Yagi more time LOL...

Yeah, it's too bad the animation had to end up like that, I thought they could have concluded in the time skip right after that epic battle in Pieta. That was a quite fitting moment to wrap things up and foreshadow a next season, but well, sucks it didn't happen that way.

There are always some rumours of a next season coming, specially now with Berserk having a remake, but I'm not sure if it will ever happen.

As to the manga, yeah, sometimes the wait is quite painful, specially in the early parts when things really hook you up in the story, but it's worth the wait most of the time. :)
I've been following for some years now so I'm already used to the 1 month wait compared to the weekly and more mainstream series like Naruto or Bleach.

There is always some other stuff to follow until the next claymore chapter rolls around. Only a few more days for the next one already. :)