PDA

View Full Version : Pete Sampras is the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time


Rodeo
02-06-2006, 08:15 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/SlamTennisImages/sampras_wimbledon97.jpg

In a career that spanned three decades PETE SAMPRAS rewrote the record books of the Men's game and redefined the word "Champion". His quiet confidence, unfailing courage and unparalleled commitment to excellence defined him as a player and a person. Sampras' 14 GRAND SLAM titles are a mark which are likely to stand for all time, as will the legacy of a man who graced the sport of tennis with his singular brilliance and class.

:D

Grimjack
02-06-2006, 08:18 AM
Agreed. Greatest ever.

Not the best, however.

ACE of Hearts
02-06-2006, 08:20 AM
I will say that he had one of the best serves of all-time.The guy had perfect placement.Aces where always a thing with him.I liked his game all-around.Sometimes it would be boring because he just dominated with his big serve.

menelaos
02-06-2006, 08:28 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/SlamTennisImages/sampras_wimbledon97.jpg

In a career that spanned three decades PETE SAMPRAS rewrote the record books of the Men's game and redefined the word "Champion". His quiet confidence, unfailing courage and unparalleled commitment to excellence defined him as a player and a person. Sampras' 14 GRAND SLAM titles are a mark which are likely to stand for all time, as will the legacy of a man who graced the sport of tennis with his singular brilliance and class.

:D
He's the definitely great, but, with all due respect, his game is not better than Fed's -nor Agassi's for that matter.
This is another thread to spur Sampras-Fed controversy.

Chadwixx
02-06-2006, 08:36 AM
If he is so great why did he choke in the 5th set vs federer at wimbledon?

ACE of Hearts
02-06-2006, 08:40 AM
Maybe Roger will surpass Pete but too say that Agassi's game is better then Sampras is a big time joke!Agassi has more flare and is more known but Pete did it the quiet way, Agassi could never figured out Pete in the big matches.The only thing that Agassi can claim is of course the french open championship.

Michael Haller
02-06-2006, 08:40 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/SlamTennisImages/sampras_wimbledon97.jpg

In a career that spanned three decades PETE SAMPRAS rewrote the record books of the Men's game and redefined the word "Champion". His quiet confidence, unfailing courage and unparalleled commitment to excellence defined him as a player and a person. Sampras' 14 GRAND SLAM titles are a mark which are likely to stand for all time, as will the legacy of a man who graced the sport of tennis with his singular brilliance and class.

:D


He didn't win FO even once.
But Rod Laver won TWO grand slams.
And we must not forget Sampras played in a time with weak competition.

Federer is set to break Sampras's records in the near future.
And there goes another dream of U.S. superiority ..... :p

Fee
02-06-2006, 08:44 AM
If he is so great why did he choke in the 5th set vs federer at wimbledon?

Because he's human, damn him...

Backcourt Pickup
02-06-2006, 08:56 AM
I think Pete Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time, but in sports, everyone is always seeking to break records that stand. With new technology, fitness (Pete was never really known for his fitness), and technique in general, players like Federer, who has so much talent and is able to be so fit, and has such a complete game, are destined to eventually topple the legends of the game.

TennisAsAlways
02-06-2006, 08:58 AM
If he is so great why did he choke in the 5th set vs federer at wimbledon?

Because he's human, damn him...
Also, has anyone ever heard that a person can grow older?

Good day now. 8)

FalconX
02-06-2006, 08:59 AM
Pete was great. In my opinion federer's volleys and half volleys aren't even half as good as Pete's. And I think people really underestimate his baseline game. He beat Andre in many of those baseline rallies. He came up with some nice angles on the forehand side. Another part of his game that was understimated was his return game. He was so unpredicable on the return of serve. He would chip 2 return of serves and then on the third one he would suddenly crack one down the line.

But I really think Andre chocked in two of those US open finals against him. Those were Andre's to win and he just came out flat in the beginning and Pete ran away with it once he got ahead. And he was really unlucky to be in Hewitt's half of the draw in that last US open. If Pete was in that half he would never have beaten Hewitt. Hewitt was hot that season and pete's serve would never have held up against Hewitt return. That was a bad match up for Pete cuz I think Hewitt had equally good return as Agassi and much better passing shots. That was an exhausting match that Andre played against Hewitt and everyone was so excited about the prospect of Sampras/Agassi final that they forgot how much energy agassi had left in the tank.

bdog
02-06-2006, 09:05 AM
After watching the Aus open, one thing stood out in my mind. Roger got broke a lot.......I wonder if they have a stat for holding serve in majors. Be intersting to see. What I remember is Pete holding serve and if he lost a set, it was in the tie-breaker (Roger gets beat 6-2 plenty). A great stat to compare pros with, is who had the highest percentage of points won on second serve. Pete's was very high.....

TheRed
02-06-2006, 09:10 AM
He didn't win FO even once.
But Rod Laver won TWO grand slams.
And we must not forget Sampras played in a time with weak competition.

Federer is set to break Sampras's records in the near future.
And there goes another dream of U.S. superiority ..... :p

You know, I'm not even one of those "if you don't love everything about America, get out of our country" folks but Mr. Haller, why are you on an American website if you hate Americans and America so much? When you say something inflammatory, please back them up. Don't just say things to get attention. Although I think Federer is better than Sampras, Pete Sampras played at time when, Becker, Chang, Agassi, Edberg, Kafelnikov, and Kuertan played. His competition was not weak. If anything, it can be argued that Laver played against weak competition. Frankly, there just weren't as many ppl playing back then. #100 was not as good then as #100 is now.

FalconX
02-06-2006, 09:20 AM
After watching the Aus open, one thing stood out in my mind. Roger got broke a lot.......I wonder if they have a stat for holding serve in majors. Be intersting to see. What I remember is Pete holding serve and if he lost a set, it was in the tie-breaker (Roger gets beat 6-2 plenty). A great stat to compare pros with, is who had the highest percentage of points won on second serve. Pete's was very high.....

You are right. Pete was never afraid to go for it on the 2nd serve and some times he would even come to net volleying behind his 2nd which Federer never does. That's how confident Pete was about his serves. Sampras broke people a lot at at 4-4, 4-3, 5-5, and 5-4 because he put so much pressure on the other guy by holding his own service games so easily.

But I think Roger is far better returner. The guy is just content to get the ball back in play because he's so certain that he's a better player from the back, front and any part of the court.

Nalbandian
02-06-2006, 09:23 AM
You know, I'm not even one of those "if you don't love everything about America, get out of our country" folks but Mr. Haller, why are you on an American website if you hate Americans and America so much? When you say something inflammatory, please back them up. Don't just say things to get attention. Although I think Federer is better than Sampras, Pete Sampras played at time when, Becker, Chang, Agassi, Edberg, Kafelnikov, and Kuertan played. His competition was not weak. If anything, it can be argued that Laver played against weak competition. Frankly, there just weren't as many ppl playing back then. #100 was not as good then as #100 is now.

Michael Haller used to be known as Joe Pike is a known NAZ-I trash obsessed with Graf.... He is so notorious in posting Anti US /Anti Seles posts all over various message boards... This guy is a lunatic....

jukka1970
02-06-2006, 09:30 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/SlamTennisImages/sampras_wimbledon97.jpg

In a career that spanned three decades PETE SAMPRAS rewrote the record books of the Men's game and redefined the word "Champion". His quiet confidence, unfailing courage and unparalleled commitment to excellence defined him as a player and a person. Sampras' 14 GRAND SLAM titles are a mark which are likely to stand for all time, as will the legacy of a man who graced the sport of tennis with his singular brilliance and class.

:D

This is as bad as what Tennis magazine did, giving him the ranking of 1 ignoring the woman, and giving him the rank because he's male. The man couldn't even win the french open, heck he never made it to the finals.
There isn't even a need to make a comparison between other players to him. The fact that he couldn't win the French Open takes away the title of "greatest tennis player of all time" away from him. He's not even the greatest male tennis player of all time, let alone greatest tennis player. Two women have better records then he does in just about every department except for prize money. And gee, I wonder why he has more prize money, could it be because the amounts differ by gender in the slams? the answer is yes, of course it made a difference. And whether it's looked at over the entire time of tennis, or just the last 40 years, he's still not going to be the best tennis player.

He's also about as arrogant as you can get. Never mind that he hasn't given anything back to the sport after "retiring". He was on the tennis channel and was asked about Federer, Sampras comment was, "he reminds me of me". Can't get much more arrogant then that, not to mention he can only dream that the statement was true.

FalconX
02-06-2006, 09:33 AM
what is he supposed to say?He remind me of someone better than me?which is actually no one?!

Michael Haller
02-06-2006, 09:34 AM
You know, I'm not even one of those "if you don't love everything about America, get out of our country" folks but Mr. Haller, why are you on an American website if you hate Americans and America so much? ...


But I don't hate Americans and America at all!

As a matter of fact Reagan, Weinberger, George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and C. Rice are my all-time favourite politicians (not Hillary of course or that Kerry dude!!)
I read almost only U.S. literature.
I'm sipping a Ernst & Julio Gallo wine.


Actually I can't stand the French and the Russians .....

Nalbandian
02-06-2006, 09:37 AM
But I don't hate Americans and America at all!

As a matter of fact Reagan, Weinberger, George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and C. Rice are my all-time favourite politicians (not Hillary of course or that Kerry dude!!)
I read almost only U.S. literature.
I'm sipping a Ernst & Julio Gallo wine.


Actually I can't stand the French and the Russians .....

Gunther Pike....You copied and pasted this from your previous old post from another message board.
Do you think your twisted old deceitful ways will still work on the posters of this message board? LMAO Na-zi boy.

federerhoogenbandfan
02-06-2006, 09:38 AM
He could be, or Borg may be, or Laver might be, or even Rosewall or Gonzalez might be for those who consider what they may have achieved but for the pro-amateur split back then. There isnt one undisputed choice as of yet.

Michael Haller
02-06-2006, 09:39 AM
This is as bad as what Tennis magazine did, giving him the ranking of 1 ignoring the woman, and giving him the rank because he's male. The man couldn't even win the french open, heck he never made it to the finals.
There isn't even a need to make a comparison between other players to him. The fact that he couldn't win the French Open takes away the title of "greatest tennis player of all time" away from him. He's not even the greatest male tennis player of all time, let alone greatest tennis player. Two women have better records then he does in just about every department except for prize money. And gee, I wonder why he has more prize money, could it be because the amounts differ by gender in the slams? the answer is yes, of course it made a difference. And whether it's looked at over the entire time of tennis, or just the last 40 years, he's still not going to be the best tennis player.

He's also about as arrogant as you can get. Never mind that he hasn't given anything back to the sport after "retiring". He was on the tennis channel and was asked about Federer, Sampras comment was, "he reminds me of me". Can't get much more arrogant then that, not to mention he can only dream that the statement was true.

Yes, his failing to win FO at least once or at least making the finals is a big let-down. And there were even 4 women who were far more successful than him - Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

But I don't think he is arrogant. He seems to be quite a nice and modest guy. His reference to Federer is in no way arrogant.
BTW, this "giving back to the sport" crap is obviously an American thing. What do you mean by that?

Infinite42
02-06-2006, 09:39 AM
This is as bad as what Tennis magazine did, giving him the ranking of 1 ignoring the woman, and giving him the rank because he's male.

Karsten Braasch already proved that he would be ranked higher than most, if not all, of the women.

Fee
02-06-2006, 09:39 AM
I think Pete Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time, but in sports, everyone is always seeking to break records that stand. With new technology, fitness (Pete was never really known for his fitness), and technique in general, players like Federer, who has so much talent and is able to be so fit, and has such a complete game, are destined to eventually topple the legends of the game.

Pete played with a blood disorder that kept him from being as fit as other players. He developed a game that allowed him win points and matches quickly so that his physical weakness was rarely a factor when he played. Pete held the number one position for 6 straight years, and I agree with Jon Wertheim that this accomplishment is often overlooked and Pete is never given enough credit for it.

It is very possible that Roger Federer will one day break many of Sampras' records, but I prefer to wait until his career over so that we can compare the totality of their accomplishments. What Roger is doing right now is incredible and I would love to witness a complete Grand Slam in my lifetime, but for me Pete is still the best (and Rod Laver is a very very very close second).

Nalbandian
02-06-2006, 09:43 AM
Yes, his failing to win FO at least once or at least making the finals is a big let-down. And there were even 4 women who were far more successful than him - Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

But I don't think he is arrogant. He seems to be quite a nice and modest guy. His reference to Federer is in no way arrogant.
BTW, this "giving back to the sport" crap is obviously an American thing. What do you mean by that?

Navratilova and Evert are closest to Sampras in terms of greatness....

Court and Graf both have inflated records.....

Tennis Magazine did a AMAZING job in their rankings...

Sampras and Navratilova are #1 and the Greatest in their respective fields....

federerhoogenbandfan
02-06-2006, 09:52 AM
While I dont agree with those who say Roger is already the best ever when he has won only half the slams Sampras has, it it worth noting the same was done for Sampras back in the day. After 94 alot were already saying he was the best ever, and he had only 5 slams, just under half what Laver and Borg had.

stalliondan
02-06-2006, 10:06 AM
greatest server....no doubt, greatest slam winner...yes, greatest player ...no

tenalyser
02-06-2006, 10:14 AM
While I dont agree with those who say Roger is already the best ever when he has won only half the slams Sampras has, it it worth noting the same was done for Sampras back in the day. After 94 alot were already saying he was the best ever, and he had only 5 slams, just under half what Laver and Borg had.

I have to disagree with you on this one, I remember that Sampras didn't get mentioned as one of the greatest untill he won 10 Slams. The main difference between Sampras and Federer is that Roger had a more complete game than Sampras at the same age but he was such a Head case even worser than Safin (I remember a match between the two and the commentator made joke saying witch of the two player will break the most rackets) but you're right when you say that federer isn't the best player yet. Only time will tell and hopefully he will be preserved from serious injuries and from boredom.

fastdunn
02-06-2006, 10:30 AM
Certainly the greatest I've ever seen. I can't comment on Laver because
I never really watched him playing. I also think he played the most
complete all court tennis I've ever seen. Certainly the most optimal
and efficient all court game that a any human being ever implemented.
Federer does not play much net game kind of like Sampras in his
early days. Sampras successfully adopted net game into his game
as his career progressed. I'll have to see how Federer game evolves.
But then if he can win 20 slams with his baseline game, why net game ??


http://www.canoe.ca/SlamTennisImages/sampras_wimbledon97.jpg

In a career that spanned three decades PETE SAMPRAS rewrote the record books of the Men's game and redefined the word "Champion". His quiet confidence, unfailing courage and unparalleled commitment to excellence defined him as a player and a person. Sampras' 14 GRAND SLAM titles are a mark which are likely to stand for all time, as will the legacy of a man who graced the sport of tennis with his singular brilliance and class.

:D

federerhoogenbandfan
02-06-2006, 10:32 AM
I have to disagree with you on this one, I remember that Sampras didn't get mentioned as one of the greatest untill he won 10 Slams. The main difference between Sampras and Federer is that Roger had a more complete game than Sampras at the same age but he was such a Head case even worser than Safin (I remember a match between the two and the commentator made joke saying witch of the two player will break the most rackets) but you're right when you say that federer isn't the best player yet. Only time will tell and hopefully he will be preserved from serious injuries and from boredom.

Well I dont know about overseas but here in the U.S my impression was there was some talk of Sampras maybe being the best ever as early as 94. Donna Doherty and Peter Bodo wrote alot of articles in Tennis Magizine suggesting he might already be that great. Sally Jenkins, S.L Price also did the same. Fred Stolle and Cliff Drysdale said so numerous times on their ESPN telecasts when covering Sampras.

Rabbit
02-06-2006, 10:35 AM
It really doesn't matter what year it is, if there is a dominant player on the scene, the question "Best ever?" is always raised. It was raised about Connors back in 74 because of his dominant performance, power, and all out attacking game, it was raised about Borg because of his dominance over the French and Wimbledon, it was asked about McEnroe because of his talent. The key is perspective. Perspective about a career can't be accurate until that career is over or almost over. Yes, Borg at 25 looked to become the greatest player to ever step on court, and he very well may have been, but he retired at 26 so he opens the doors for questions. The same arguments can be made of any player who was touted at one time or another.

fastdunn
02-06-2006, 10:59 AM
I have to disagree with you on this one, I remember that Sampras didn't get mentioned as one of the greatest untill he won 10 Slams.

This is certianly not true. Pretty much right after he won 1990 US Open,
tennis experts started to mention his potential. It was just general public
who didn't really understand the greatness of his game.

However, when he got to 8 or 9 slams, experts did question Sampras'
fitness. They said Sampras definitely did not have fitness level of
top world class player and needed to be improved. Sampras probably
was not born with one. But he overcame it with his hard work and
efficiency of importance weighted all court game.

fastdunn
02-06-2006, 11:11 AM
Well I dont know about overseas but here in the U.S my impression was there was some talk of Sampras maybe being the best ever as early as 94. Donna Doherty and Peter Bodo wrote alot of articles in Tennis Magizine suggesting he might already be that great. Sally Jenkins, S.L Price also did the same. Fred Stolle and Cliff Drysdale said so numerous times on their ESPN telecasts when covering Sampras.

They certainly did including Mary Carillo. They tried to promote
Sampras as much as possible yet his image to general public was
"he wins too easily" or "boring" or "he doesn't care to win"...

In Federer's case, both general public and some experts somehow
got greatly inspired and truely "hope" he will achieve truely
out-of-this-world tennis.

I personally with Haas on Federer. Federer might not be that good
as people hope to be. Odds are favoring Federer now.
Comfortable dominance over current top 10 and the tour is
also favorable(slow surfaces, slow balls) but who knows how
things will change and really test Federer...

chaognosis
02-06-2006, 11:20 AM
I have to disagree with you on this one, I remember that Sampras didn't get mentioned as one of the greatest untill he won 10 Slams. The main difference between Sampras and Federer is that Roger had a more complete game than Sampras at the same age but he was such a Head case even worser than Safin (I remember a match between the two and the commentator made joke saying witch of the two player will break the most rackets) but you're right when you say that federer isn't the best player yet. Only time will tell and hopefully he will be preserved from serious injuries and from boredom.

I recently saw an old Sports Illustrated article written just after Wimbledon in either 1994 or '95, where Mats Wilander (I believe) was quoted as saying that Sampras was, in his opinion, the greatest tennis player after Rod Laver. If you like, I can double check for you to determine exactly which year it was and verify that it was Wilander, but hopefully I've provided enough to make you second-guess your memory.

devila
02-06-2006, 11:24 AM
He is not alone in pondering why the surface on which he originally learnt the game as a child poses the most problems

“I know the importance of winning the French and what it would do to my career,” “But I’m not going to change anything in my game very much.”

“Physically I feel I can make the transition to clay quite easily,” he said. “The way I move makes it very natural for me, but because the serve doesn’t bring as many free points as it does on other surfaces, I must be more patient, mentally and physically. It’s a different game on clay and you have to get used to that.

Of course I prefer grass or a hard court, where I have the feeling
that I if I hit a good shot, then the point is normally won. On clay
the way people can counter-punch is quite extraordinary. You can hit a
great shot, but the guy is on the run, he slides and totally gets back
in the rally, so sometimes you have to win the point not once but twice
or three times."
“The disappointment is in control. I’m not going to destroy the locker room and never play tennis again.”

“The first 11 clay-court matches of my pro career ended in defeat,” he recalls. “There was Gstaad in 1998 and ’99, a bad loss in Monte Carlo to Vince Spadea (7-6 6-0) and then another at Roland Garros to Patrick Rafter after I was given a wildcard entry. In 1999 I also got beaten in both (Davis Cup) rubbers when we played Belgium on clay in Brussels, and then in 2000 I lost to Andrei Medvedev in Rome and Andrei Pavel in Hamburg.

“At the time playing indoors was not a problem for me; neither was grass or hard court. But on clay I could not create surprises, because you have to hit too many balls and both physically and mentally you have to be so tough. Back then I simply wasn’t, but now I am so much stronger, and know I can play well in Paris.” -Federer http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2094-2025305,00.html

Aykhan Mammadov
02-06-2006, 11:24 AM
Still Sampras is the greatest, because of the results. Agree.

Anyhow Federer is obviously much more talented. He has very good chances to beat 14 GS record and become real greatest ( if he win also RG).

chaognosis
02-06-2006, 11:50 AM
I disagree only because the records by which we measure Sampras's greatness (14 major singles titles, finishing six years ranked No. 1) cannot be used to measure the greatness of previous champions. No one before Sampras seriously went after Emerson's then-record 12 major singles titles; quite literally, no one really cared about it (Emerson even claims he didn't know he HAD the record until Sampras broke it). Part of this has to do with the fact that, for a large chunk of the sport's history, most great tennis players had a few stellar years as amateurs and then turned professional (notably Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, and Laver). Likewise, Sampras's "record" six-year reign atop the rankings is restricted to the Open Era; most experts agree that Pancho Gonzalez was clearly the No. 1 player in the world for a span of at least eight years in the 1950s.

One achievement which actually HAS mattered to every great champion since the 1930s is the Grand Slam, and Rod Laver is the only player, male or female, to have one two of them. For that reason alone (not to mention his other superior achievements, both as an amateur, on the early professional tours, and during the early years of the Open Era), I think he is almost certainly the safest choice for "Greatest of All Time."

VGP
02-06-2006, 11:51 AM
Are people confusing greatness with "talent" or "ability" or "completeness" in one's game?

When people say that Sampras is the greatest but not the best player, it seems a contradiction to me. Results are results. It's hard to argue with them. If he weren't the best (singles) player then he wouldn't have the results.

Look at Brad Gilbert: No great shots, but won matches. He wasn't "talented" per se, but he did get to #4 in the world. He showed that he could PLAY the game.

Federer seems to have more game than Sampras. Sampras' greatness is reflected in his results, albeit on non-red clay surfaces. Federer's got the potential to catch and potentially surpass Sampras. Only time will tell.

As for questioning Sampras' fitness, with his thalassemia minor and less than top-notch work ethic, I think he was still one of the fittest athletes in the world at the time. Didn't some fitness organization test various athletes for fitness levels and Courier and Sampras were among the top?

The "experts" in the game are labeling Federer as the best player ever to pickup a racket. His talent, accomplishments, and domination are obvious. That makes me wonder how much Sampras paced himself throughout the season. Sampras made it a point to always peak at the right time (meaning during Grand Slam tournaments). It seemed a conscious effort to make his game "efficient." Quick points, shorter matches = less wear and tear = longevity in one's career.

Federer seems to want to win every tournament that he plays. I wonder if he'll end up with the same fate as Borg.

If Federer wins Roland Garros (ever) and eventually gets to double-digit singles slam titles or wins a calendar year slam (this year? - 10 GS titles by the end of '06) and falls short of 14 total, he'll still be considered the greatest given his game and domination.

I just wished he could (would) serve and volley more. Just my preference.



.....oh, I agree with chaognosis too. It's hard to compare eras.

Gugafan_Redux
02-06-2006, 11:55 AM
And we must not forget Sampras played in a time with weak competition.

Wrong. He made the competition appear weak. In fact, he weakened the competition: weakened their belief they could beat him, by his sheer will to win.

VGP
02-06-2006, 12:27 PM
Circular thought. Sampras faced more multiple slam winners than Federer. Federer keeps people from winning more slams.



In the end it's like I've said in the past....Federer is fulfilling his potential and Sampras is the measuring stick.

jukka1970
02-06-2006, 12:28 PM
Karsten Braasch already proved that he would be ranked higher than most, if not all, of the women.

Oh really, and how exactly would he be ranked higher. Where is the proof? I couldn't find one record he has more of then money earned. I'm not even sure who this Karsten Braasch is, I had to look it up. according to some stats this guy never made it past the first round in the french open in singles. How exactly does someone like that prove that Sampras was better then the women. The man is obviously clueless

John

jukka1970
02-06-2006, 12:34 PM
what is he supposed to say?He remind me of someone better than me?which is actually no one?!

How many examples would you like? He could have talked about what he liked in Federer's game, disliked in Federer's game. What was the reason that he had to make the comparison other then arrogance. Here let me be fair and give another example of arrogance. Now I love Navratilova, but she was a horrible commentator. She was arrogant as a commentator because each time she talked about a certain play she would always mention what she would have done. And my answer was so what, you're not playing, someone else is, stop talking about yourself. I should mention this was the only thing I didn't like about Navratilova.

You can keep dreaming that no one was better then Sampras, there were people in tennis history better then him. And again, he never won the French open or even made the finals, so that about kills the much for better then everyone else speech.

John

urban
02-06-2006, 12:44 PM
Sampras (or better: the fans of him) can claim this tag because of his records, of which i find the 7 Wimbies and 6 year end Nr.1 more imposing than the 14 majors, which players like Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver quite certainly could have toppled if eligible. It's a matter of personal choice and living memory, to find out the best out of 5-6 players on the top echelon. I personally prefer the ideal of the truly universal player, who can compete on all surfaces and under all conditions. Tilden, who never won RG (since 1925), but was World champion on clay in 1921 und won US clay 8 times, was such an universal players, as were Budge, Laver, Rosewall and Borg (who won Canadian Open on hard 63 63 over Mac in 1980). Gonzales has the benefit of the doubt, because of his long absence, although he never won clay pro at Roland Garros. So Sampras with his great fast court record should be ranked in the top 5, but imo not in front of Laver, Tilden and Borg.

jukka1970
02-06-2006, 12:46 PM
Navratilova and Evert are closest to Sampras in terms of greatness....

Court and Graf both have inflated records.....

Tennis Magazine did a AMAZING job in their rankings...

Sampras and Navratilova are #1 and the Greatest in their respective fields....

This thing about Court and Graf having inflated records is complete bull. If you think that way, then one could say the same thing about Sampras.

And for as much as I couldn't stand Sampras, one good thing that I can say is he had competition just like everyone else in tennis had. I know that Sampras worked for his wins, no one has it easy. Just because they win a lot, doesn't mean the rest of the field was horrible. So sorry but this inflated comment is just utter bull.

Sports Illustrated said that about Graf, yeah a sports magazine that covers 4 tennis matches a year really has an idea of the playing field, Not.

John

Infinite42
02-06-2006, 12:55 PM
Oh really, and how exactly would he be ranked higher. Where is the proof? I couldn't find one record he has more of then money earned. I'm not even sure who this Karsten Braasch is, I had to look it up. according to some stats this guy never made it past the first round in the french open in singles. How exactly does someone like that prove that Sampras was better then the women. The man is obviously clueless

John

Keep looking. In fact, look up "Karsten Braasch" and "Serena Williams" and "Venus Williams." I wouldn't throw a random name up there. You are obviously clueless.

VolklVenom
02-06-2006, 01:07 PM
Greatness isn't measured by the number of wins you have or prize money you make. It is measured by how well your game is valued by future champions.

Sampras idolized Laver and possibly mimicked his game.
Federer idolized Laver and in turn has mimicked Sampras in alot of respects.

fastdunn
02-06-2006, 01:08 PM
Federer seems to have more game than Sampras. Sampras' greatness is reflected in his results, albeit on non-red clay surfaces. Federer's got the potential to catch and potentially surpass Sampras. Only time will tell.


Although I agree Federer has potential AND experts also agree,
I (despite nobody in tennis world) am not so convince that
Federer has more game than Sampras. Right now, Wimbledon
is being played from baseline by everybody and the indoor seasons
are shorted. We simply do not know how much of net game Federer
has. As long as the tour is being kept this way, I think Federer can
break Sampras' record. But some conditions change, I'm not so
sure.


As for questioning Sampras' fitness, with his thalassemia minor and less than top-notch work ethic, I think he was still one of the fittest athletes in the world at the time. Didn't some fitness organization test various athletes for fitness levels and Courier and Sampras were among the top?


Of course, he is in top shape. I remember a Tennis magazine article by
two experts and they said Sampras certainly needed to improve his
fitness if he wanted to win 11 slams or more.


That makes me wonder how much Sampras paced himself throughout the season. Sampras made it a point to always peak at the right time (meaning during Grand Slam tournaments). It seemed a conscious effort to make his game "efficient." Quick points, shorter matches = less wear and tear = longevity in one's career.


I don't think it's necessarily about "quick points". He has imprtance
weighted text book tennis. His priority was 1. serve 2. forehand
3. backhand and volleys. He focused on holding his serve 1st
and optimal effort to break his opponent. He also cleaned up
flash shots of his eraly days and formulated his game into
couple of solid weapons for which the late Tim Gulikson contributed
a lot reportedly... In AO 2006, Federer seems to have started
cut down flash shots and play somewhat conservative tennis.

VGP
02-06-2006, 01:12 PM
I remember the "controversy" with Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Braasch was a good choice. Lower ranked and he used to smoke on the changeovers.

I think he kinda proved Stefan Edberg correct.

(I know, this is off topic.)

ACE of Hearts
02-06-2006, 01:19 PM
I think Fed is a better player then Sampras, while many Sampras fans might defend this, he will put any doubt when Federer wins the French Open.I think he will do that.

In terms of Sampras, his game was beautiful to watch.Serve and volley followed by his tradional running forehand.Also he sliced the ball very deep.If u watched Roger from the beginning, he was serve and volley then he decided to win from the baseline, i expect him to come to the net later on during his career.

tenalyser
02-06-2006, 01:31 PM
Oh really, and how exactly would he be ranked higher. Where is the proof? I couldn't find one record he has more of then money earned. I'm not even sure who this Karsten Braasch is, I had to look it up. according to some stats this guy never made it past the first round in the french open in singles. How exactly does someone like that prove that Sampras was better then the women. The man is obviously clueless

John

Ooh please don't make laugh, you really think that you can compare the men's level of play with the womens? It is true that Navratilova was a great athlete but the fact remains that men's are physically and mentally stronger (well there are some exceptions)than women in tennis . If you don't see the difference between the ATP and the WTA then I have to make the conclusion that you don't know much about tennis. A decent 400th player could beat anyone in the women's tour. And Karsten Braasch did a battle of sexes against the williams sisters and he was ranked 203rd . The score was 6-1 6-2 and that was during the williams sisters prime. They played the best they could but at the end he made them look like little kids without breaking a sweat, here is the article if you don't believe me

http://muscles_at_work.tripod.com/html/menvswomen.html
/1998: Williams Sisters vs Karsten Braasch.

The Williams sisters challenged 203rd-ranked German Karsten Braasch during the Australian Open. First Serena, then Venus challenged Karsten and he beat them both. Serena fell 6-1, Venus 6-2. They played as intensely as they could, while Braasch performed with gentlemanly restraint. "It was extremely hard," said 16-year-old Serena. "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the WTA Tour, and he got to them easily." That didn't stop her from boasting that, "this time next year I'll beat him. I have to pump some weight. ... I have to work hard to be on the men's tour." Venus, 17, wasn't about to concede too much, either, especially since she broke Braasch once. "I can beat men in the 300s and up," she said. "He thought we couldn't get a point. He didn't think we could play. We showed him we could." Braasch smiled at their claims. "Against anyone in the top 500, no chance," he said. "Because I was playing like 600 today."

fastdunn
02-06-2006, 01:42 PM
I think Fed is a better player then Sampras, while many Sampras fans might defend this, he will put any doubt when Federer wins the French Open.I think he will do that.


Actually, I'm convinced Federer will win French Open.
In fact, I think Federer is just unlucky to have Nadal last year.
I actually think Federer can win 2 or more French Open.
He actually strucked me as a top-spinning baseliner when I
1st saw him (and still see him that way especially when you compare
him with Sampras).

But I think Federer has been lucky in faster courts (becuase they
got much slower recently) and he has not played much of indoor
carpet yet. Plus reportedly ATP tour is now using slightly bigger
balls favoring baseliners.

These conditions may be kept for a while because public seems to
love long rallies. Personally I miss more variety of players.
Who knows. Maybe this is the way tennis will be played now.
As long as general public like this and more revenue draws in,
we're fine, right? Federer is destined to be the greatest then....

araghava
02-06-2006, 01:47 PM
>But I think Federer has been lucky in faster courts (becuase they
>got much slower recently) and he has not played much of indoor
>carpet yet. Plus reportedly ATP tour is now using slightly bigger
>balls favoring baseliners.

The flip side of this argument is that Sampras played when courts were lightning fast. Both wimbledon grass and indoor carpet were very fast surfaces and suited Sampras to a T.

chaognosis
02-06-2006, 01:47 PM
Sampras (or better: the fans of him) can claim this tag because of his records, of which i find the 7 Wimbies and 6 year end Nr.1 more imposing than the 14 majors, which players like Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver quite certainly could have toppled if eligible. It's a matter of personal choice and living memory, to find out the best out of 5-6 players on the top echelon. I personally prefer the ideal of the truly universal player, who can compete on all surfaces and under all conditions. Tilden, who never won RG (since 1925), but was World champion on clay in 1921 und won US clay 8 times, was such an universal players, as were Budge, Laver, Rosewall and Borg (who won Canadian Open on hard 63 63 over Mac in 1980). Gonzales has the benefit of the doubt, because of his long absence, although he never won clay pro at Roland Garros. So Sampras with his great fast court record should be ranked in the top 5, but imo not in front of Laver, Tilden and Borg.

On this matter of "universal player," I have two follow-up questions:

1) Do you think having a successful doubles career should be seen as a necessary component of universality? I know some people think McEnroe has a legitimate case over Sampras because of his doubles prowess. While I wouldn't go that far, I do think that at least some consideration should be paid to a player's record in doubles, and that this would result in a slight boost in the rankings for guys like McEnroe and many of the old Aussies.

2) Do either Lendl or Agassi qualify as a universal player? Lendl was dominant on hard and clay courts, and though he unfortunately never won Wimbledon, he nevertheless managed to reach two finals (and frequently lost to McEnroe or Becker, two of the best grass-court players of the Open Era). Agassi, on the other hand, has never really been dominant on any surface, but is the only player to win each of the four majors on their modern surfaces. I tend to think that both Lendl and Agassi fall a notch below the top echelon, though Lendl is close--even if his failure to take the Big W leaves him short of universality. Do you personally rank Lendl or Agassi higher?

VGP
02-06-2006, 01:50 PM
At least Federer grew up playing on clay. Sampras didn't. Although he did win clay court tournaments.

On the other hand, Becker grew up on clay and we all know how well he did on the dirt.....

I hope Federer does win Roland Garros.

I hope Federer wins Wimbledon - serving and volleying.


Including doubles - JMac could be one of greatest tennis players of all time.

Moose Malloy
02-06-2006, 02:04 PM
araghava-The flip side of this argument is that Sampras played when courts were lightning fast. Both wimbledon grass and indoor carpet were very fast surfaces and suited Sampras to a T.

True, but I don't think the conditions favored him to the degree that it does Federer now. Beating Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Rusedski, Philippoussis on grass, carpet is pretty tough to do. A few points here & there & Becker or Ivanisevic would have 7 Wimbledons, not Sampras. And Becker may be the best indoor player of alltime. But Sampras was still able to get the edge, head-to-head, on that surface. I think.
The reason the ATP slowed down the game was those Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic matches. Not sure they were anticipating a Fed-Hewitt showdown on grass played entirely from the backcourt.

As for questioning Sampras' fitness, with his thalassemia minor and less than top-notch work ethic, I think he was still one of the fittest athletes in the world at the time.

Sampras has won 33 five setters, 2nd only to Lendl in the Open era.

FalconX
02-06-2006, 06:17 PM
As for questioning Sampras' fitness, with his thalassemia minor and less than top-notch work ethic, I think he was still one of the fittest athletes in the world at the time. Didn't some fitness organization test various athletes for fitness levels and Courier and Sampras were among the top?


I just wanted to say that I have the same "condition" if you can call it that and it's never affected me one bit. I didn't even know about it until a routine blood test a couple of years ago. I would think much of the talk about this "condition" is BS. It only exhibits itself in your offspring in form of thalassemia major which can be fatal without a bone marrow transplant if your partner also has it.

devila
02-06-2006, 07:15 PM
Are people confusing greatness with "talent" or "ability" or "completeness" in one's game?
Look at Brad Gilbert: No great shots, but won matches. He wasn't "talented" per se, but he did get to #4 in the world. He showed that he could PLAY the game.
As for questioning Sampras' fitness, with his thalassemia minor and less than top-notch work ethic, I think he was still one of the fittest athletes in the world at the time. Didn't some fitness organization test various athletes for fitness levels and Courier and Sampras were among the top?

Sampras made it a point to always peak at the right time (meaning during Grand Slam tournaments). It seemed a conscious effort to make his game "efficient." Quick points, shorter matches = less wear and tear = longevity in one's career.

Federer seems to want to win every tournament that he plays. I wonder if he'll end up with the same fate as Borg.

If Federer wins Roland Garros (ever) and eventually gets to double-digit singles slam titles or wins a calendar year slam (this year? - 10 GS titles by the end of '06) and falls short of 14 total, he'll still be considered the greatest given his game and domination.

.....oh, I agree with chaognosis too. It's hard to compare eras.

You don't need to be a great intellectual to win tons of slams and matches. A lot of that involves great focus and physical fitness/dexterity.

Brad Gilbert is an unclassy, poor athlete and it's a shame that he was forced upon us.
Brad Gilbert reached #4, but he can't teach technique to students. For example, he told Roddick that he couldn't do anything but hit harder and break serve speed records. He was fired as coach. Instead of staying off TV, he was obsessed with making money and promoting himself. In the Davis Cup match at Belgium, Brad was so pitifully stupid. He was so obsessed with Agassi that he knew nothing about Davis Cup and court surfaces the US played on. He had no idea that Roddick had poor fitness. He ranted about Roddick having amazing fitness. Anyone who watched Roddick play at the same time as Brad, knew that Roddick couldn't serve well and run due to exhaustion.

VGP
02-06-2006, 08:44 PM
I just wanted to say that I have the same "condition" if you can call it that and it's never affected me one bit. I didn't even know about it until a routine blood test a couple of years ago. I would think much of the talk about this "condition" is BS. It only exhibits itself in your offspring in form of thalassemia major which can be fatal without a bone marrow transplant if your partner also has it.

I understand that there are varying degrees of severity when it comes to thalassemia. It's not exactly autosomal recessive as your post suggests. When it comes to being a world-class athlete mild forms of thalassemia would be a detriment.

Brad Gilbert is an unclassy, poor athlete and it's a shame that he was forced upon us.
Brad Gilbert reached #4, but he can't teach technique to students. For example, he told Roddick that he couldn't do anything but hit harder and break serve speed records. He was fired as coach. Instead of staying off TV, he was obsessed with making money and promoting himself. In the Davis Cup match at Belgium, Brad was so pitifully stupid. He was so obsessed with Agassi that he knew nothing about Davis Cup and court surfaces the US played on. He had no idea that Roddick had poor fitness. He ranted about Roddick having amazing fitness. Anyone who watched Roddick play at the same time as Brad, knew that Roddick couldn't serve well and run due to exhaustion.

I was merely using Brad Gilbert as an example. Like him or not, he did get to #4 in the rankings. Those were his results.

Just because someone is a good player doesn't mean that they would be a great coach to all players. What he taught Agassi was how to use his brain more. Like BG could teach Agassi how to hit.

I'd give Gilbert more credit when it comes to Davis Cup. He did play on the team several times.

When it comes to BG and Roddick, their plan worked in '03, but the other players got wise. There didn't seem to be much of a plan B. I get the impression that there was politics throughout the Roddick camp.

As to the original topic, Sampras was as good as I think he could be. His backhand wasn't the best, but he covered it up with his serve, forehand and net skills. Plus he did fight when he had to.

My favorite times were when he lost to Jaime Yzaga in the '94 USO fighting till the end. The '95 AO QF against Courier the infamous crying match. '95 Davis Cup final when he collapsed with cramps after defeating Andrei Chesnokov on clay in Moscow. The '96 USO win over Corretja which we've been bored with over the years with during rain delays. '00 Wimbledon winning #13 with a bum foot.

I guess I mean to say that I liked his game and his fight. For people to say he was boring, I just don't see it.

The same is being said of Federer by some. People look at how easy he makes it look and how routine his wins can be and think it's boring. My response is to enjoy it while it lasts.

drexeler
02-06-2006, 09:45 PM
Although I agree Federer has potential AND experts also agree,
I (despite nobody in tennis world) am not so convince that
Federer has more game than Sampras.
When you compare their games across all surfaces and events, Fed is better. On slow surfaces, Fed has a very big edge: At 24, he has already equalled Sampras at AO & FO and who knows how many more AO's he can win. On fast surfaces, he is on track with Sampras at similar ages. He has 8 Masters Series titles already compared to 11 total for Sampras.

Another way to prove Fed's game being better is to look at their service game win percentage. Sampras's hold percentage ranged from 88%-91%. Last 3 years, Fed's holding rates have been 87%, 92% (all-time record since broken by Roddick last year), 89%. So, on generally slower surfaces now-a-days with an inferior serve, he has been holding serve at about the same rate as Pete. Tells me his back up game is better.

Right now, Wimbledon
is being played from baseline by everybody and the indoor seasons
are shorted. We simply do not know how much of net game Federer
has. As long as the tour is being kept this way, I think Federer can
break Sampras' record. But some conditions change, I'm not so
sure.
First of all there is no rule you MUST serve-and-volley at Wim even if conditions were faster. Case in point is Agassi: He won W in 92 from the baseline by blitzing Mac and Becker and edging Ivanisevic. A player is better off, I think, by playing his natural style. (Wish Lendl hadn't tried to S-V against Cash.)

As for doubting Federer's net game, look back to 2003 - he won Wimbledon serve-and-volleying that year dropping only one set enroute. He also beat Pete in 2001 S-Ving. These days he doesn't S-V, but does throw in quite a few net rushes including chip and charges on opponents's serves (this is what got him the decisive break in the 2nd set in the AO final).

As for what will happen if surfaces are faster: It will help him hold serve at even a higher rate. (He has held serve much better at Wimbledon than at other slams last 3 years.) Moreover, there will be more serve-and-volleyers, which will play right into his strenghts (and Hewitt's as well, I suppose). He will use his variety on returns & passing shots - blocks, blasts, chips, flicks, heavily-topspun-dipping balls at the knees, acutely angled shots on the run, slice lobs etc - to befuddle the volleyers. No matter how great a volleyer you can't do anything unless the ball is within reach, and Fed's passing shots will be whizzing by at insane angles.

Coria
02-06-2006, 09:45 PM
Pete was great. In my opinion federer's volleys and half volleys aren't even half as good as Pete's. And I think people really underest
But I really think Andre chocked in two of those US open finals against him. Those were Andre's to win and he just came out flat in the beginning and Pete ran away with it once he got ahead. And he was really unlucky to be in Hewitt's half of the draw in that last US open. If Pete was in that half he would never have beaten Hewitt. Hewitt was hot that season and pete's serve would never have held up against Hewitt return. That was a bad match up for Pete cuz I think Hewitt had equally good return as Agassi and much better passing shots. That was an exhausting match that Andre played against Hewitt and everyone was so excited about the prospect of Sampras/Agassi final that they forgot how much energy agassi had left in the tank.

Had the US Open officials done the right thing and played the Men's final Monday, Agassi would have beat Pete in '95 and '02--there is no doubt in my mind. In '95, Agassi got off the court at close to 10:00 at night after beating number three in the world Becker--a brilliant match. Agassi used so much energy and clearly did not have it the next day against Pete, who played at 11:00 in the morning and an inferior Courier. At that time, Becker was CLEARLY better than Courier. And Pete got about 8-9 extra hours of rest. Bad, bad luck for Andre. But again, after playing six best of five matches, it is a disgrace that the Men have to play back to back the last weekend.

You already mentioned what happened in '02. Clearly, Pete was again more rested and had played an inferior opponent in Schalken. Agassi played and beat NO. 1 Hewitt in a brilliant win--the best match of the tourny. He was spent for the final. Pete got VERY lucky in both of those. It wasn't that Andre choked, or played badly, he just didn't have his best energy and played a guy who had more rest and had expended less energy. Just very bad luck for Andre. No doubt in my mind he would have won BOTH finals if he had an appropriate time to rest. He was playing better than Pete in both events.

urban
02-06-2006, 11:44 PM
To the question of universal player, which Chaognosis asked. Until 1980 doubles was always a factor to valuate a player. Connors (who played doubles in the beginning of his career with Nastase) and Borg were the first top players, who concentrated on singles. Since then doubles is devalued, so it is difficult to measure in an all time ranking. Other than Sampras McEnroe is the only player in my personal top ten, who wasn't successful on clay. But he is a sort of charmer because of his unique style and touch, and he gets points for his Davis Cup record and a bit for his doubles skill. There are of course factors like dominance, consistency, longevity and versatility, to reckon with. I would rate Lendl as an universal player, like Connors and Agassi, and i would rank him in the lower top ten alongside Kramer. I would rank Connors higher, because of his 2 big USO wins 82/83 over Lendl, when Lendl had all advantages on his side. Agassi's dilemma is his short time at years end Nr.1 (he gave up the race in 1995, when he was maybe Nr.1), so despite his versatility he was overshadowed by Sampras, against whom he choked quite a bit. Laver, Tilden, Borg, Sampras, Gonzales (most experts name Budge instead) would be my top 5, Rosewall, Budge, Connors,Mac, Lendl/ Kramer would round up top ten, with Perry, Agassi, Emerson, Newcombe following.

spam
02-07-2006, 01:37 AM
Ifs,buts and maybe's,Roger's game is clearly influenced by Sampras its just an evolution of if you like.The thing is, Federer probably will win Roland Garros and may,overtake Petes record ,we can only speculate.The one thing for sure is that somewhere down the road LIFE will hit Roger,he will go through periods of demotivation,bad form,injury,personal problems and the temptations that go hand in hand with sporting fame and fortune.Its how he handles the next 4-5 years(a lifetime in tennis)that will decide his fate.
We saw the first signs of real pressure at the AO and he's only halfway there.9-10 slams plus at least 1French would put him pretty level with Sampras in my books ,any more and hes no1.

Aussie Baseliner
02-07-2006, 02:05 AM
Sorry to go off topic somewhat but does Pete still compete on the senior tennis circuit. My opinion Pete is a legend of his time we will have to wait until Fed retires until a comparison can be made.

Shabazza
02-07-2006, 02:27 AM
Sorry to go off topic somewhat but does Pete still compete on the senior tennis circuit. My opinion Pete is a legend of his time we will have to wait until Fed retires until a comparison can be made.
nope he's playing golf rather than tennis these days. Nothing wrong with that.

pero
02-07-2006, 02:50 AM
nope he's playing golf rather than tennis these days. Nothing wrong with that.

he maybe will :)
he might come to novi classics this year, still is negotiating

jukka1970
02-08-2006, 03:05 AM
Ooh please don't make laugh, you really think that you can compare the men's level of play with the womens? It is true that Navratilova was a great athlete but the fact remains that men's are physically and mentally stronger (well there are some exceptions)than women in tennis . If you don't see the difference between the ATP and the WTA then I have to make the conclusion that you don't know much about tennis. A decent 400th player could beat anyone in the women's tour. And Karsten Braasch did a battle of sexes against the williams sisters and he was ranked 203rd . The score was 6-1 6-2 and that was during the williams sisters prime. They played the best they could but at the end he made them look like little kids without breaking a sweat, here is the article if you don't believe me

http://muscles_at_work.tripod.com/html/menvswomen.html
/1998: Williams Sisters vs Karsten Braasch.

The Williams sisters challenged 203rd-ranked German Karsten Braasch during the Australian Open. First Serena, then Venus challenged Karsten and he beat them both. Serena fell 6-1, Venus 6-2. They played as intensely as they could, while Braasch performed with gentlemanly restraint. "It was extremely hard," said 16-year-old Serena. "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the WTA Tour, and he got to them easily." That didn't stop her from boasting that, "this time next year I'll beat him. I have to pump some weight. ... I have to work hard to be on the men's tour." Venus, 17, wasn't about to concede too much, either, especially since she broke Braasch once. "I can beat men in the 300s and up," she said. "He thought we couldn't get a point. He didn't think we could play. We showed him we could." Braasch smiled at their claims. "Against anyone in the top 500, no chance," he said. "Because I was playing like 600 today."

Oh, I get it, so Sampras got ranked number 1 because he can serve and hit a return harder then then women. Hmm, yet more sexism, and you just backed up my point. Sampras got his position for being number 1 because he's male.

Yes, of course there is a difference between the power of the two genders in tennis. Men breaking the 150 mph mark on a serve, and my answer back is, so what? Since when is strength the difference in the greatest? Here I'll even be fair and back up the men for one. In a study done by the US Air Force, women have a 10x greater reflex when flying a fighter jet then men do. Does this mean women should get ranked better then men in a competition just because they have faster reflexes? No, not if the competition entails everything upon the flying of the fighter such as bombing a target. Now if this greatest tennis player was changed to most power tennis player then you have a point, but it's not so your argument is meaningless.

From your statement, you make it sound like this. The men go out everyday work their butts off, strength training, running drills, etc, etc, etc. The woman stay at home, watch tv, and realize the day before the event, hmm I better go outside and warm up so the fans can see me practicing.
IS THIS THE COMPLETE BS YOU'RE GETTING AT? Talk about someone that doesn't know about tennis

jukka1970
02-08-2006, 03:15 AM
Keep looking. In fact, look up "Karsten Braasch" and "Serena Williams" and "Venus Williams." I wouldn't throw a random name up there. You are obviously clueless.

I did look him up and researched before using the name. I just didn't mention the other part, because I didn't think you were going to be stupid enough to give merit to Karsten's comment for beating two women. I thought maybe there was an actual reason which is why I researched it. But now that I see you truly are an idiot for that being the reason you gave him credit, well then lets just shoot that theory down.

Since when does strength measure who the greatest tennis player is. I mean if it's just strength to eliminate the women from the number 1 seed, well I guess you better bumped Sampras down to about hmm, number 15. I mean I can think of a few players right off the top of my head that served a lot faster then Sampras ever did. And just to keep a separate argument from forming, no I wouldn't put Sampras at 15, i'd put him at 3. But your argument sure places him out of the top 10.

John

Brettolius
02-08-2006, 04:30 AM
Man you're an idiot. You are not even comprehending the point. Just wondering, if you beat someone at something, and a pretty good beating I might add, does that not make you BETTER? The number one women in the world could not beat any male ranked in the top 500. Fact. Now other than that, in the hacker ranks, sure, women can beat men. But if you really think that a women could beat a professional male tennis player, you're an imbecile, there's really no argument. Plus you're getting "strength" and "skill" and the COMBINATION of the 2 convoluted, jeez dude, do you even play tennis? And all this is not a slight to women's tennis, they are competetive with each other, but would not be with the men. Wake up.

tenalyser
02-08-2006, 04:38 AM
Oh, I get it, so Sampras got ranked number 1 because he can serve and hit a return harder then then women. Hmm, yet more sexism, and you just backed up my point. Sampras got his position for being number 1 because he's male.

Yes, of course there is a difference between the power of the two genders in tennis. Men breaking the 150 mph mark on a serve, and my answer back is, so what? Since when is strength the difference in the greatest? Here I'll even be fair and back up the men for one. In a study done by the US Air Force, women have a 10x greater reflex when flying a fighter jet then men do. Does this mean women should get ranked better then men in a competition just because they have faster reflexes? No, not if the competition entails everything upon the flying of the fighter such as bombing a target. Now if this greatest tennis player was changed to most power tennis player then you have a point, but it's not so your argument is meaningless.

From your statement, you make it sound like this. The men go out everyday work their butts off, strength training, running drills, etc, etc, etc. The woman stay at home, watch TV, and realize the day before the event, hmm I better go outside and warm up so the fans can see me practicing.
IS THIS THE COMPLETE BS YOU'RE GETTING AT? Talk about someone that doesn't know about tennis

:roll: Sexism,sexism and another sexism,are you a member of a feminist organization cause after reading your reply it really seems so. Did you actually read my post where did I mention that men are better that women because they serve harder :confused: ? That is completely irrational because tennis isn't all about power but a combination of power and placement and please cut that US air force crap that doesn't interest me if you want to make your point you will have to come with better arguments and stay on the subject. Your reply is filled with delusional thoughts and BS you seem to think that that everyone that doesn' share your point of view has a grudge against you.
Nowhere in my post did I say that man work harder than women, do me a
favor Jukka1970 keep in mind the facts and stop inventing thing is have never said . Men are built different that woman you don't have to be a genius to see that, it's not my fault that men hit harder run faster and make less errors on a tennis court, why do you think that the only play 3 sets maximum on the WTA and not 5 did it never past into your mind that may be the WTA players don't have as much resistance as most players on the ATP circuit. It doesn't mean that they are weaker but it just the way God created us.

Galactus
02-08-2006, 05:34 AM
If he is so great why did he choke in the 5th set vs federer at wimbledon?
In order for people to post endless negativity about him on future tennis forums. :rolleyes:

random1
02-08-2006, 06:51 AM
In a study done by the US Air Force, women have a 10x greater reflex when flying a fighter jet then men do.

Really? It's off-topic but interesting if true. Any source for the study?

legolas
02-08-2006, 10:18 AM
if federer beats petes record, roger will be the best of all time

Infinite42
02-08-2006, 10:30 AM
I did look him up and researched before using the name. I just didn't mention the other part, because I didn't think you were going to be stupid enough to give merit to Karsten's comment for beating two women. I thought maybe there was an actual reason which is why I researched it. But now that I see you truly are an idiot for that being the reason you gave him credit, well then lets just shoot that theory down.

Since when does strength measure who the greatest tennis player is. I mean if it's just strength to eliminate the women from the number 1 seed, well I guess you better bumped Sampras down to about hmm, number 15. I mean I can think of a few players right off the top of my head that served a lot faster then Sampras ever did. And just to keep a separate argument from forming, no I wouldn't put Sampras at 15, i'd put him at 3. But your argument sure places him out of the top 10.

John

You're obviously a bloody moron who doesn't understand common sense. You are not worth responding to further.

Brettolius
02-09-2006, 07:47 AM
Where are you at, Jukka? pwned?

rommil
02-09-2006, 08:00 AM
if federer beats petes record, roger will be the best of all time
Personally, Roger, even if he quits now, is better than Pete.

VGP
02-09-2006, 09:03 AM
Personally, Roger, even if he quits now, is better than Pete.

That would be up for debate, and perhaps history would then fade Federer's accomplishments.

Take Lew Hoad for example. Even Laver considers him his idol.

http://www.noticias.info/asp/PrintingVersionNot.asp?NOT=141589

If it weren't for the pro/amateur situation back then and given Hoad's back problems...

He had to stop even though he won 2A, 1 RG, 2 W. Three of the four in '56.

Plus he's won 6 GS doubles titles.

If Federer stops now, in ten years time, people would say that Sampras still holds the record (if no one else comes close) and they'd then say, "Remember Roger Federer? Yeah, he was one of the best. A very talented player....."

fastdunn
02-09-2006, 09:55 AM
>But I think Federer has been lucky in faster courts (becuase they
>got much slower recently) and he has not played much of indoor
>carpet yet. Plus reportedly ATP tour is now using slightly bigger
>balls favoring baseliners.

The flip side of this argument is that Sampras played when courts were lightning fast. Both wimbledon grass and indoor carpet were very fast surfaces and suited Sampras to a T.

I think we had variety of surface speed in 90's.
I don't think the court surface and ball speed have ever been
more manipulated than current ATP tour.

fastdunn
02-09-2006, 10:16 AM
When you compare their games across all surfaces and events, Fed is better. On slow surfaces, Fed has a very big edge: At 24, he has already equalled Sampras at AO & FO and who knows how many more AO's he can win. On fast surfaces, he is on track with Sampras at similar ages. He has 8 Masters Series titles already compared to 11 total for Sampras.

Another way to prove Fed's game being better is to look at their service game win percentage. Sampras's hold percentage ranged from 88%-91%. Last 3 years, Fed's holding rates have been 87%, 92% (all-time record since broken by Roddick last year), 89%. So, on generally slower surfaces now-a-days with an inferior serve, he has been holding serve at about the same rate as Pete. Tells me his back up game is better.
.

Federer is holding his service game very well NOW. There is no question
about Federer's greatness of now. I'm trying to think about couple of
years down the road. I just don't think he can maintain same edge
as now. Look how baghdatis attacked Federer's serves. Federer's
serving game looks invincable now but I don't think it will
hold up like Sampras' who had arguably the strongest serving games
ever.



First of all there is no rule you MUST serve-and-volley at Wim even if conditions were faster. Case in point is Agassi: He won W in 92 from the baseline by blitzing Mac and Becker and edging Ivanisevic. A player is better off, I think, by playing his natural style. (Wish Lendl hadn't tried to S-V against Cash.)
.

Of course, we have Borg right? (Although Borg Volleyed a lot more).
We had much more varieties before. I don't think we have ever had
this much percentage of baseliners at Wimbledon.

I'm simply argueing the tennis at Wimbledon is heavily munipulated now.
They changed the type of grass and opened the can of balls well
in advance to a match.


As for doubting Federer's net game, look back to 2003 - he won Wimbledon serve-and-volleying that year dropping only one set enroute. He also beat Pete in 2001 S-Ving. These days he doesn't S-V, but does throw in quite a few net rushes including chip and charges on opponents's serves (this is what got him the decisive break in the 2nd set in the AO final).
.

At Wimbledon, everybody could be a volleyer. As Sampras and Krajicek
said Wimbledon tests if you have 2nd serve and service return, not
exacty volley. Federer has a return game but not offensive as
Agassi's in 90's. Federer has pretty good 2nd serve but
argueably his weaker parts.
Federer still strikes me as a baseliner missing one element
that used to be very important traditionally.



As for what will happen if surfaces are faster: It will help him hold serve at even a higher rate. (He has held serve much better at Wimbledon than at other slams last 3 years.) Moreover, there will be more serve-and-volleyers, which will play right into his strenghts (and Hewitt's as well, I suppose). He will use his variety on returns & passing shots - blocks, blasts, chips, flicks, heavily-topspun-dipping balls at the knees, acutely angled shots on the run, slice lobs etc - to befuddle the volleyers. No matter how great a volleyer you can't do anything unless the ball is within reach, and Fed's passing shots will be whizzing by at insane angles.

Would he do that well against players like tall S&Ver's of 90's:
Krajicek, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras, Ivanesvich, Stich
in 90's condition ? I personally don't think so. Definitely not
at Wimbledon...

ACE of Hearts
02-09-2006, 10:19 AM
Hey Dunn, i think ur not giving Fed credit.I think he would do well against those players mentioned.The guy could come to net but he doesnt have too.I really feel that if he wins Wimbledon this year, he will tie Borg's 5 in a row next year barring injury!

The tennis guy
02-09-2006, 10:22 AM
Would he do that well against players like tall S&Ver's of 90's:
Krajicek, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras, Ivanesvich
in 90's condition ? I personally don't think so. Definitely not
at Wimbledon...

Federer did win against Sampras on old-style fast grass.

fastdunn
02-09-2006, 10:32 AM
I just wanted to say that I have the same "condition" if you can call it that and it's never affected me one bit. I didn't even know about it until a routine blood test a couple of years ago. I would think much of the talk about this "condition" is BS. It only exhibits itself in your offspring in form of thalassemia major which can be fatal without a bone marrow transplant if your partner also has it.

I don't think it's much of an issue for daily life.
But I think it could be an issue for a world class athelete who
travels all over the world all year long for about 15 years or so...

fastdunn
02-09-2006, 10:36 AM
Hey Dunn, i think ur not giving Fed credit.I think he would do well against those players mentioned.The guy could come to net but he doesnt have too.I really feel that if he wins Wimbledon this year, he will tie Borg's 5 in a row next year barring injury!

OK, I sounded like I'm not giving much credit to Fed.
I think Fed is an amazing player and I've never seen a player
who can hit amazing shots that consistently.

My point is that the current condition at Wimbledon favors
him a little bit. I just think he would have face much more
competition if Wimbledon has same condition as 90's...

drexeler
02-09-2006, 11:16 AM
Would he do that well against players like tall S&Ver's of 90's:
Krajicek, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras, Ivanesvich, Stich
in 90's condition ? I personally don't think so. Definitely not
at Wimbledon...

Fed's combined record vs. Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic is 5-0. He never lost a set to Krajicek, Ivanisevic in 4 matches, and that was a very green Federer. His record vs. other tall, power S&Ver's: 4-1 v Philippoussis (one loss on clay), 2-0 v. Karlovic, 8-2 v. Mirnyi, 4-0 v. Feliciano Lopez. No losses since Wim 2003.

I wouldn't want to speculate against peak Sampras (out of respect for both), but I believe he would have run roughshod over Ivanisevic, Becker (90's version), Krajicek types. He holds serve much better than them, he breaks opponents more often, plays better on bigger points (I can see Ivanisevic double-faulting like crazy in pressure situations), wins tie-break sets more often, moves much better, and has an array of shots (including those wristy flicks on the run that find impossible angles) they can only dream of - so I don't see how he could lose to them. Besides, when I look at Hewitt's and Agassi's records against Goran & Krajicek - Hew is 4-0 having never lost a set and Agassi is 3-0 at Wimbledon - that strenghtens my belief that Fed would do very well against those.

The way I see it, Fed does have some weaknesses: he tends to have a cold patch in every match where he will be shanking backhands, missing forehands, missing first serves and not putting enough into the first serves etc; he has a fitness problem if made to work hard and/or stretched to a 5th set; he tends to struggle with heavy topspin, hard groundies to his backhand. Only guys with great baseline strokes, with great backhands (or lefty forehands) can attack these weaknesses, I believe. If you put a power serve volleyer against him on a fast surface, you don't take advantage of his weaknesses. First, the points will be short which negates bringing fitness into play. Then, by attacking the net, you are turning his backhand from what could be a weak link into a weapon because he is so good off low balls and in hitting passing (angled) shots from that side. There is also not enough time for him to go into a cold spell - looking at the stats he makes far fewer errors at Wimbledon than at other slams.

By the way, I sense that you think less of Federer because he doesn't serve and volley. But my question to you is why does he need to do that when he is holding serve better than any of the tall S/Vers you mention (and almost equal to Sampras) And the faster grass of Wim in the 90's would have helped him hold his serve even better.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 11:20 AM
Federer is holding his service game very well NOW. There is no question
about Federer's greatness of now. I'm trying to think about couple of
years down the road. I just don't think he can maintain same edge
as now. Look how baghdatis attacked Federer's serves. Federer's
serving game looks invincable now but I don't think it will
hold up like Sampras' who had arguably the strongest serving games
ever.


Actually, Fed gets broken a lot more than Sampras in slam finals & slam semifinals. He can get away with it now when he's young, but it won't be as easy for him as Sampras when he gets older & can't play defense as well.

Federer did win against Sampras on old-style fast grass.

And he lost to Henman on fast grass, who was Pete's b****.

I'm sure Fed would do well on fast surfaces, but he clearly doesn't like playing on them. Read his comments at Shanghai last year, he was very critical of the surface, saying it was too fast & he couldn't get any rhythm. All indoor events were that fast in the 90s & the grass was even faster. Fed wouldn't like those conditions at all. Conditions today are perfect for his game.

VGP
02-09-2006, 11:20 AM
Federer did win against Sampras on old-style fast grass.

Is this for sure or had they started slowing the grass in '01?

Slower balls too?

drexeler
02-09-2006, 11:51 AM
Actually, Fed gets broken a lot more than Sampras in slam finals & slam semifinals.
True. Kevin Patrick once posted data that Sampras was broken only 4 times in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Federer has already been broken 5 times in his 3 Wimbledon finals. He's made it up by breaking his opponents 11 times in the 3 matches. When I stated that Fed was holding at about the same rate as Sampras, it was based on yearly service win percentage rates.


He can get away with it now when he's young, but it won't be as easy for him as Sampras when he gets older & can't play defense as well.
Sampras didn't have it much easier in his post-peak period either. After 97 AO, Sampras won only 1 slam outside of Wimbledon. So, if Fed's performance drops off at a similar level, the slower conditions at Wimbledon could hurt him.

spirit
02-09-2006, 11:56 AM
He could be, or Borg may be, or Laver might be, or even Rosewall or Gonzalez might be for those who consider what they may have achieved but for the pro-amateur split back then. There isnt one undisputed choice as of yet.

Never will be. Its an argument with no definite answer. But I do like to think about how all these greats might have fared playing against each other in all in their primes, all with the modern equipment after having had the time to adapt to it. I don't know, but from the little I've seen and read and heard about Gonzalez, I think he may have been too much for Pete. Gonzalez was known for his will to win, hatred at losing, ability to concentrate and to bear down and to intimidate opponents with his personna, stamina (not one of Pete's strong points I think).

And how would Pete have fared against Laver's all court shotmaking and strategy and feel for the game?

I have this fantasy of all the all time greats simultaneously tranformed to their prime and playing for who is the GOAT. The ending changes as I go over it, but one of those endings is for Gonzalez and John McEnroe playing in the finals, Gonzalez trying to stare down Mac, and to overpower him, and Mac using that incredible hand eye coordination in making unbelievable shots, including bringing Gonzalez out wide with that lefty serve to the ad court and placing the volley into the open court on the return. Don't know the outcome yet.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 12:11 PM
Sampras didn't have it much easier in his post-peak period either. After 97 AO, Sampras won only 1 slam outside of Wimbledon. So, if Fed's performance drops off at a similar level, the slower conditions at Wimbledon could hurt him.

True, but Sampras was still a contender for non-clay slams/ & was a world #1 for a while after '97 Australian. The natural decline & slowing down that happens in your late 20s was covered up a bit by that serve. Fed will find it tough to contend not only at Wimbledon, but the other slams as well if he loses a step. Heck, a 31 year old Sampras who was a shadow of his former self still bagged a US Open title. Because of his serve.

I don't think it's fair to compare Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Becker to the likes of Karlovic, Mirnyi, Lopez. Those guys are really mediocre players/athletes compared to the champs mentioned.

I looked up Fed'd head to head vs Krajicek & Ivanisevic. Those meetings weren't at the best times of their careers(Ivo was playing horribly in 2000, Fed beat Krajicek on grass at Richard's 1st event in 1 1/2 years after an injury layoff)
I still think Goran, Krajicek, & Becker would have been much tougher opponents for Fed on fast grass of the 90s than Roddick, Hewitt & these other clowns are for Fed on slow grass of today. Fed still might kick ***, but the matches would be a lot closer. I remember a great comment Sampras had on playing Goran on grass in the 90s. Something like, "you only have one or two chances to break a match. Those are basically match points, if you miss one you might not have another chance for 2 hours. that's pressure."

I don't think Fed faces that kind of pressure vs Roddick on slow grass(& Goran is a much more dangerous server than Roddick IMO, he served more aces than anyone in the history of tennis)

chaognosis
02-09-2006, 01:02 PM
I have this fantasy of all the all time greats simultaneously tranformed to their prime and playing for who is the GOAT. The ending changes as I go over it, but one of those endings is for Gonzalez and John McEnroe playing in the finals, Gonzalez trying to stare down Mac, and to overpower him, and Mac using that incredible hand eye coordination in making unbelievable shots, including bringing Gonzalez out wide with that lefty serve to the ad court and placing the volley into the open court on the return. Don't know the outcome yet.

I can see McEnroe, Sampras, or Federer making the final from the Open Era side. Not too sure about Gonzalez though--even Gonzalez said that Lew Hoad was unbeatable when his game was at its best (i.e., before his troublesome back really began to take its toll). Older players said the same thing about Ellsworth Vines, who at his peak played an utterly flawless game with a titanic serve and huge, flat groundstrokes. Vines was very up-and-down, so assuming he's "up" for this tournament, I think he reaches the semifinals and loses to Hoad, who simply hits the ball with more power than Vines ever saw in the 1930s, and also benefits from a post-Kramer "Big Game" strategic edge. Federer beats McEnroe in the other semifinal in a tough four-setter. Hoad then beats Federer in a five-set final.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 01:11 PM
Have you ever actually seen Hoad play? His name does seem to come up quite a bit with older champs talking about best ever, etc.
I think some of his aura might be due to having such a short(yet brilliant) peak before injury. One of the great "what-ifs" in tennis history.

The tennis guy
02-09-2006, 01:15 PM
Is this for sure or had they started slowing the grass in '01?

Slower balls too?

For sure. 2001 still used fast grass when Ivanisevic won. 2002 was the start of new grass when Hewitt won. Sampras only played on slow grass one time in 2002 when he lost to George Bastl at maybe second round.

Slower balls had started in late 90s already.

The tennis guy
02-09-2006, 01:22 PM
I'm sure Fed would do well on fast surfaces, but he clearly doesn't like playing on them. Read his comments at Shanghai last year, he was very critical of the surface, saying it was too fast & he couldn't get any rhythm. All indoor events were that fast in the 90s & the grass was even faster. Fed wouldn't like those conditions at all. Conditions today are perfect for his game.

No, not true. His critism was not fast surface itself, but a surface so much faster than the surface they have been playing because ATP has intentionally reduced the number of faster indoor surfaces.

As good as Federer is, he has the game to adapt on any surface. His complain was more about one single fast surface at year-end tournament.

By the way, grass is faster than all indoor surface is not true. You'll know if you have played on Newport traditional grass court.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 01:32 PM
No, not true. His critism was not fast surface itself, but a surface so much faster than the surface they have been playing because ATP has intentionally reduced the number of faster indoor surfaces.


How is that different from what I said? He doesn't like surfaces that fast, because he's not used to them because the tour phased them out? Sounds similar to what I was saying. Bottomline, he didn't like the speed, a speed which was more common a few years ago. I saw that match with Ljubicic, I don't think I've seen Fed under more pressure before. He got no rhythm from his opponent or the surface. That kind of match is what he would have been faced with from Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek in the 90s.

By the way, grass is faster than all indoor surface is not true. You'll know if you have played on Newport traditional grass court.

Do you believe the grass used at Wimbledon in the 90s was faster than indoor carpet? I've seen Ivanisevic play Krajicek on grass with virtually no returns put in play. When they played on indoor carpet many more returns made. Don't know about Newport, but I take it you haven't played on Wimbledon's courts in the 80s/90s. From a viewer's perspective, I've never seen any surface faster than those matches, even indoor carpet.

federerhoogenbandfan
02-09-2006, 02:14 PM
Sorry to go off topic somewhat but does Pete still compete on the senior tennis circuit. My opinion Pete is a legend of his time we will have to wait until Fed retires until a comparison can be made.

I did not know he ever played on the seniors tour, although I dont follow it closely. When was he playing on that? He must have kicked some serious a#s since most players on that tour havent played pro for a long time for the most part, and the fairly recent ones always seem to be a big dropoff from their tour levels.

Moose Malloy
02-09-2006, 03:05 PM
I wouldn't want to speculate against peak Sampras (out of respect for both), but I believe he would have run roughshod over Ivanisevic, Becker (90's version), Krajicek types. He holds serve much better than them, he breaks opponents more often, plays better on bigger points (I can see Ivanisevic double-faulting like crazy in pressure situations), wins tie-break sets more often, moves much better, and has an array of shots (including those wristy flicks on the run that find impossible angles) they can only dream of - so I don't see how he could lose to them. Besides, when I look at Hewitt's and Agassi's records against Goran & Krajicek - Hew is 4-0 having never lost a set and Agassi is 3-0 at Wimbledon - that strenghtens my belief that Fed would do very well against those.

I don't think he necessarily holds better than them. Over the course of a season yes(considering the guy was 81-4 last year I'd be shocked if he wasn't holding at a high %) but when you compare individual slams, its pretty similar. The ATP now has service stats of events from the last 10 or so years. Krajicek was only broken 6 times when he won Wimbledon. Fed was broken 7 times at last year's Wimbledon.

Again, its hard to compare since surface is so different today.

federerhoogenbandfan
02-09-2006, 03:33 PM
I don't think he necessarily holds better than them. Over the course of a season yes(considering the guy was 81-4 last year I'd be shocked if he wasn't holding at a high %) but when you compare individual slams, its pretty similar. The ATP now has service stats of events from the last 10 or so years. Krajicek was only broken 6 times when he won Wimbledon. Fed was broken 7 times at last year's Wimbledon.

Again, its hard to compare since surface is so different today.

You are taken Krajiceck's best Wimbledon vs a typical Fed Wimbledon though. Also Fed breaks much much better than Krajieck would.

Max G.
02-09-2006, 06:30 PM
I did not know he ever played on the seniors tour, although I dont follow it closely. When was he playing on that?

He wasn't. Sampras has not played on the seniors tour at all.

Yours!05
02-09-2006, 06:44 PM
I can see McEnroe, Sampras, or Federer making the final from the Open Era side. Not too sure about Gonzalez though--even Gonzalez said that Lew Hoad was unbeatable when his game was at its best (i.e., before his troublesome back really began to take its toll). Older players said the same thing about Ellsworth Vines, who at his peak played an utterly flawless game with a titanic serve and huge, flat groundstrokes. Vines was very up-and-down, so assuming he's "up" for this tournament, I think he reaches the semifinals and loses to Hoad, who simply hits the ball with more power than Vines ever saw in the 1930s, and also benefits from a post-Kramer "Big Game" strategic edge. Federer beats McEnroe in the other semifinal in a tough four-setter. Hoad then beats Federer in a five-set final.chaognosis - congrats on arriving at the correct outcome.;) Did you ever see him play?

urban
02-09-2006, 11:47 PM
Vines and Hoad are indeed the most difficult ro rank players in history. I would perodize in 3 time frames: 1920-1940, 1945-1973, 1974-2000. On his day Vines was maybe the best player before WWII, with the best serve and a cannonball forheand, so flat, that some say, you could read the producers mark on the flying ball. His great amateur year was 1932 with Wim and US wins. But he lost all titles in 1933, having physical problems in long five setters. As a pro he was better than old Tilden and - more significantly -Perry, and even out of shape, lost only by a little margin to Budge in 1939. Hoad was strong (only 1,75 high), had all the shots, looked like a god, but was unpredictable. Other than his great year 1956 (with a near miss GS), he wasn't that successful at majors, often lost to Patty, Drobny or Trabert. He excelled for the big moment (like Becker), especially at the Davis Cup. One example: He won Wim 1957 over Cooper with - what most say - his best performance ever. The next weeks as a fresh pro he lost 2-17 in his first pro tournaments. As a pro he was 20-45 to Rosewall and never won a big pro title at Wembley or US pro, despite reaching 5 or 6 finals. His best win was at Forest Hill 1959 over Gonzales 5-7, 6-1, 6-2, 6-1. Some excuse his lack of pro titles with his bad back, but i saw once an interview with him, where he said, that he lacked consistency.

chaognosis
02-09-2006, 11:55 PM
Hey urban, when you get the chance, could you take a look at the two questions I had for you a while back (post #52 in this thread, I believe). They seemed to get buried awfully quickly.

urban
02-10-2006, 12:05 AM
Hello, Chaognosis, Please go to Nr.60 on this thread, i tried to give some answers.

Yours!05
02-10-2006, 12:45 AM
Have you ever actually seen Hoad play? His name does seem to come up quite a bit with older champs talking about best ever, etc.
I think some of his aura might be due to having such a short(yet brilliant) peak before injury. One of the great "what-ifs" in tennis history.I did Moose, but I was at an age where I can't make any really useful forward comparisons. The last time was as Pro, serve clearly affected by his protruding disc, but still with immense power on groundstrokes and volleys. I have spoken to several orthopedic surgeons (those who do spinal fusions) about the exact nature of his complaint and that seems to be the consensus. The sort of thing that would have an ordinary mortal lying flat on the floor for weeks - and end with a fusion.
I remember his graceful, economical strokes and movement to the ball. I'd seen a lot of tennis by then, even more now, and believe I have not seen anything to compare.

devila
02-10-2006, 01:10 AM
We can't take anything away from Federer's success. But we do have to look
at his competition. There is a problem with this generation of
players. Even Sampras had folks that stood up to
him and challenged him often. This generation of players really lack
resolve and enough all-court training to step it up to Federer. The ones who do
have games that bother Federer -- Nadal, Hrbaty, Nalbandian, etc. -- weren't
healthy or focused 100%.

Davydenko refused to come to the net off of a great shot; he let Federer slice the ball back into play near the baseline or corner of the court.
When Nikolay did come to net, he had break points to win a set, but was so nervous that he missed a simple volley.

These new guys can hit great
groundstrokes, but few know how to transition to net or how to cover the
percentages when up there. Many players from
the 60s- 90s would approach off Federer's weak slices or pick them out of the air
completely.

This may sound outlandish, but Federer benefits from being the only emotionally-serious, physically gifted player on the circuit. Most of the others are just ball strikers with
big modern racquets, who can serve 120 mph, with some good placement. And, they hit hard enough to win.


Make a list of players that actually *know* how to play tennis. Nalbandian and Safin, to degrees. Haas, at
times. Nadal is a natural. Santoro and Gasquet have the tools, but lack height, power and endurance. Roddick's heart isn't in tennis.


Who really understands what they're doing from point to point? Who
comes into a match these days with different game plans? I can guarantee you,
players from the 90s would have found chinks in Federer's armor by now.
They just understood the game better.


Federer doesn't appeal to me the way
players of the 60s, 80s and 90s do. Yes, he has a single-hander and his physique allows him to move faster than most players. Yet, he still shanks backhands, and volleys aren't great.

chaognosis
02-10-2006, 01:16 AM
Hello, Chaognosis, Please go to Nr.60 on this thread, i tried to give some answers.

Ah, thank you. Not sure how I missed it.

urban
02-10-2006, 01:31 AM
I have read the recent book on Lew Hoad by his wife Jenny. There she tells, that Lew had back problems dating back to his amateur career. She further tells, that he was he was treated by a British doctor in the 50s with raidoactive material, which could have had an effect on his later strange leucemia desease. No one was loved more by his fellow players like Lew. He coached many players, including the Spain DC team and acted as a sort of mentor for Laver. When he suddenly died in Spain, Laver heard the news on LA airport, coming from Wimbledon. He didn't go home, but got instantly on a flight to Spain. Sadly, Lew's peak came before the big money went into tennis. So he seems to have had some financial problems at the end.

Yours!05
02-10-2006, 01:40 AM
I have read the recent book on Lew Hoad by his wife Jenny. There she tells, that Lew had back problems dating back to his amateur career. She further tells, that he was he was treated by a British doctor in the 50s with raidoactive material, which could have had an effect on his later strange leucemia desease. No one was loved more by his fellow players like Lew. He coached many players, including the Spain DC team and acted as a sort of mentor for Laver. When he suddenly died in Spain, Laver heard the news on LA airport, coming from Wimbledon. He didn't go home, but got instantly on a flight to Spain. Sadly, Lew's peak came before the big money went into tennis. So he seems to have had some financial problems at the end.One of the board members, a stringer, knew Lew well in Spain. I asked him for some details of his later tennis life, but he is only an occasional poster so perhaps that's why he didn't reply.

spirit
02-10-2006, 05:33 AM
I can see McEnroe, Sampras, or Federer making the final from the Open Era side. Not too sure about Gonzalez though--even Gonzalez said that Lew Hoad was unbeatable when his game was at its best (i.e., before his troublesome back really began to take its toll). Older players said the same thing about Ellsworth Vines, who at his peak played an utterly flawless game with a titanic serve and huge, flat groundstrokes. Vines was very up-and-down, so assuming he's "up" for this tournament, I think he reaches the semifinals and loses to Hoad, who simply hits the ball with more power than Vines ever saw in the 1930s, and also benefits from a post-Kramer "Big Game" strategic edge. Federer beats McEnroe in the other semifinal in a tough four-setter. Hoad then beats Federer in a five-set final.

Interesting scenario. I'll have to dwell on that. I think we should make this tournament a round robin format, not single elimination. That would be a better test of who is really the GOAT. I still like the chances of a Gonzalez (by sheer will to win, along with his power and cat like quickness) and McEnroe final. Mac would be up for this one, fitter than he ever was during his career. But both of us might be surprised. It might be Laver vs Hoad in the final.

Yours!05
02-10-2006, 05:49 AM
Between DC rubbers they just showed 1953 Davis Cup where Hoad & Rosewall bt. Trabert & Seixas.:cool:

urban
02-10-2006, 06:09 AM
Nice program, yours. I read somewhere, that the famous Hoad-Trabert match was played in the rain or at last on wet grass, with both players wearing spikes.Besides: The ITF have a new documentary, Davis Cup history in 8 parts on dvd on the market. I think, it is on TW.

Bryan Aldridge
02-10-2006, 06:10 AM
Pete had the best serve (1st and 2nd) Here's why:

The guy could consistently hit it in the high 120's - 130's with more RPMs of spin than anyone on the tour, including anyone today. Lots of guys had the speed (for example Roddick today) but no one had the unique combination of RPM's and velocity that made Sampras' serves so deadly. He would often hit unbelievable second serves over 120 mph with slice for aces down break point...

Pete normally held serve so easly, he could take chances on the returns. This is why he gave Agassi trouble on his own serves. (Watch US Open 2001 QF) Pete's forehand was huge and he could rip a winner off any ball, and everyone stayed away from it.

Pete had the best serve and volley.

Pete had the best running forehand.

His backhand when wasn't slicing wasn't very consistent, but his slice was very useful in setting up points and chipping and charging.

It's hard and unfair to compare "ability" in terms of say Agassi and Sampras. You have two guys who play opposite games, and were the best at them. Sampras didn't have the return, quickness and consistant ground game like agassi, but Agassi had no where near the serve or volleys and touch sampras had.

Yours!05
02-10-2006, 06:39 AM
Nice program, yours. I read somewhere, that the famous Hoad-Trabert match was played in the rain or at last on wet grass, with both players wearing spikes.Besides: The ITF have a new documentary, Davis Cup history in 8 parts on dvd on the market. I think, it is on TW.Thanks! Yes we saw the spikes, Hoad had never had them on before...could hardly walk.

Galactus
02-10-2006, 08:55 AM
Pete had the best serve and volley.
Pat Rafter?

fastdunn
02-10-2006, 10:19 AM
Fed's combined record vs. Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic is 5-0. He never lost a set to Krajicek, Ivanisevic in 4 matches, and that was a very green Federer. His record vs. other tall, power S&Ver's: 4-1 v Philippoussis (one loss on clay), 2-0 v. Karlovic, 8-2 v. Mirnyi, 4-0 v. Feliciano Lopez. No losses since Wim 2003.
.

You seem to be pretty knowledgable guy and I think you know
the head-to-head records mentioned for Ivanisevic and Krajicek
does not hold much meaning. All 2000 or later. Goran hovered
around #50 - 150 from 1999 until he retired except that one
gig at 2001 Wimbledon. I'm not sure about Krajicek but he
pretty much faded away with his knee injury some time around 1997.

I think Federer's return game(with that chip and block returns)
looks surprisingly weaker against some serve and volleyers.
For example, I remember his matches with NCAA champion
Jeff Morrison who is very rare pure S&Ver.
Federer won both encounters in straight sets.
But it was pretty tight despite what the score might suggests.
You'll see Federer's struggles to handle Morrison's serving games.
Federer has good return game but not as strong as baseliners
of 90's who dealt with these strong baseliners.


By the way, I sense that you think less of Federer because he doesn't serve and volley. But my question to you is why does he need to do that when he is holding serve better than any of the tall S/Vers you mention (and almost equal to Sampras) And the faster grass of Wim in the 90's would have helped him hold his serve even better.

I wouldn't say it's lack of "Serve and Volley". It's a dead part of
the sport anyway. But I think the "net game" is still important part of
it. I basically question if Federer really has it. My guess is he does not
really have net game (although he is working on it with Roche).

I think there will be a time he needs great amount of net game to
maintain his reign. He is fine now. But if history repeats, that's what
usually happens and most of great players ran out of tricks.
Sampras is only player who could do both truely well and
extended his reign very very long period.

People say he is an all courter but only in today's standard.
In terms of whole tennis history, he doesn't even volley as much as
the mother of all baseliner, Borg.

And I don't think Federer has huge confidence in holding his serve.
Sometimes stats lie you know. Certainly very good now but not like
top players in 90's when 1 break pretty much meant the set is over.

In fact, that makes Federer player with complete game style.
He anxiously tries to break his opponent's serving game as much
as possible..

NOTE:: All just my humble opinion. Just for the fun of thinking
about how good Federer will be......

fastdunn
02-10-2006, 10:25 AM
Pete had the best serve and volley.
.

I think Sampras was strong baseliner (mostly forehand)
with unreal serve.

And he fooled everybody at Wimbledon for a decade
pretending he is a volleyer.

Think about it... :)


Lots of guys had the speed (for example Roddick today) but no one had the unique combination of RPM's and velocity that made Sampras' serves so deadly. .

Maybe in 90's. 21 Century Roddick's serve is a different animal.
I expect Roddick's serve has more RPM than Sampras.
It's just lack of variety and predictable. And also readable.

I'm sure Federer is very happy to return very predictable Roddick's serves..
Look how much more trouble Federer had when returning
Bagdhatis' (or Nadal's for that matter).

Galactus
02-10-2006, 11:52 AM
Maybe in 90's. 21 Century Roddick's serve is a different animal.
I expect Roddick's serve has more RPM than Sampras.
It's just lack of variety and predictable. And also readable.

I'm sure Federer is very happy to return very predictable Roddick's serves..
Look how much more trouble Federer had when returning
Bagdhatis' (or Nadal's for that matter).
Possibly.
A friend of mine faced Rusedski, Arthurs, Rosset and Sampras back in 1993-94 when he played for the UK under 20's team: he reckoned Sampras was the slowest of the quartet but much the harder to return due to 'heaviness' of the serve - more often than not, he found himself being 'pushed back' beyond the baseline from Sampras' serves.
And this was in the early 90s when Sampras' serve hadnt fully developed yet...

The tennis guy
02-10-2006, 12:07 PM
How is that different from what I said? He doesn't like surfaces that fast, because he's not used to them because the tour phased them out? Sounds similar to what I was saying. Bottomline, he didn't like the speed, a speed which was more common a few years ago. I saw that match with Ljubicic, I don't think I've seen Fed under more pressure before. He got no rhythm from his opponent or the surface. That kind of match is what he would have been faced with from Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek in the 90s..

It is different. You implied that kind of match is what he would have been faced with from Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek in the 90s, thus the result wouldn't be in his favor. However, you neglect to say he is not used to it because there is virtually no surface as fast today as in 90s on supreme carpet except that one Master Cup event last year. You don't know what Federer would be like if he has played on those type of surfaces all the time. He would be a different type of player.

Do you believe the grass used at Wimbledon in the 90s was faster than indoor carpet? I've seen Ivanisevic play Krajicek on grass with virtually no returns put in play. When they played on indoor carpet many more returns made. Don't know about Newport, but I take it you haven't played on Wimbledon's courts in the 80s/90s. From a viewer's perspective, I've never seen any surface faster than those matches, even indoor carpet.

No. There are many types of indoor carpet, you can't group them together. They are not the same. Indoor supreme courts are faster than Wimbldeon type of grass to me personally. I have played on both in 80s and 90s (not Wimbledon grass, but similar grass in England). However, there are bad bounces on grass you have to deal with. Taraflex carpet can be faster, and also can be slower.

By the way, indoor carpet and grass difference is not just court speed you mentioned. Indoor has perfect condition, no heat, wind, sun, and most importantly bad bounce to deal with. It is also easier to move on carpet than on natural surface like grass.

Newport grass is the closest to old wimbledon grass you can find in this country. Soft, low skidish bounce. But it is not the fastest court.

Young Pete
02-10-2006, 12:13 PM
This is certianly not true. Pretty much right after he won 1990 US Open,
tennis experts started to mention his potential. It was just general public
who didn't really understand the greatness of his game.

However, when he got to 8 or 9 slams, experts did question Sampras'
fitness. They said Sampras definitely did not have fitness level of
top world class player and needed to be improved. Sampras probably
was not born with one. But he overcame it with his hard work and
efficiency of importance weighted all court game.


i agree w/ the above quote, ever since pete waz a junior, people have been talking about his potential to be the greatest in the sport. He's the kind of athlete thats born to win, who exhibits natural talent even at a young age. it started coming together at the 90 us open, where he was just unbeatable. not many fans / experts talked about federer's greatness as a junior, unlike pete. pete was and still is the greatest of all time. i do believe pete would have won about 3 to 4 more slams if he forced himself to in those tight matches vs. agassi in 95 au, safin and hewitt at the uso. but at that time, he let himself slip even though he knew he could beat those players any given day. i guess pete ran out of motivation temporarily in those tight matches.

VGP
02-10-2006, 12:42 PM
i agree w/ the above quote, ever since pete waz a junior, people have been talking about his potential to be the greatest in the sport. He's the kind of athlete thats born to win, who exhibits natural talent even at a young age. it started coming together at the 90 us open, where he was just unbeatable. not many fans / experts talked about federer's greatness as a junior, unlike pete. pete was and still is the greatest of all time. i do believe pete would have won about 3 to 4 more slams if he forced himself to in those tight matches vs. agassi in 95 au, safin and hewitt at the uso. but at that time, he let himself slip even though he knew he could beat those players any given day. i guess pete ran out of motivation temporarily in those tight matches.

Perhaps Sampras could have taken Agassi in the '95 AO, but remember that was an emotional week for him off the court. Hence the "crying" match against Courier in the QF.

In the USO finals of '00 and '01 against Safin and Hewitt, respectively, Pete got stomped. Crushing passing from Safin, dipping spinners from Hewitt. Awesome returning from both. On those days, a year apart, Sampras was made to look slow and confused like I had never seen before.

To a lot of the Sampras haters, I'm sure they felt vindicated.

Kinda like the Federer lovers love to latch on to the '01 4th rnd claiming that was proof that Federer's "better" than Sampras.

The way I saw the match, it was one of those "point here or there" matches. Someone's gotta come out the winner. Federer came out on top, but not by much.

For the time being, I'll agree with Tommy Haas......

Moose Malloy
02-10-2006, 01:08 PM
In the USO finals of '00 and '01 against Safin and Hewitt, respectively, Pete got stomped. Crushing passing from Safin, dipping spinners from Hewitt. Awesome returning from both. On those days, a year apart, Sampras was made to look slow and confused like I had never seen before.

No doubt. But it is worth noting that Sampras beat Safin in straight sets at the US Open one year later. His serving stats were much better that day than the 2000 final.

Also I came across this link, which notes the largest age differences among GS finalists in the open era. The 2000 & 2001 US Open finals are among the top 15. Out of those 15, only 5 times did the older player beat the younger player. An 8 & 9 year difference between finalists is very rare, which is the difference vs Safin & Hewitt.

As far as Sampras goes, I actually think he could be considered a bit of an underachiever. He got ill or injured many times throughout his career in big matches(not to mention missing the '99 US Open because of back injury, which he was favored to win). He might have 18 majors if he was as fit as Lendl, Courier, etc(though probably still no French)
Pete Fischer, his childhood coach, said that Sampras would have 20 majors if he trained as hard as Agassi.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_finalists.html#agediff_large

fastdunn
02-10-2006, 01:21 PM
Many people think Sampras was a longevity guy but I think his career
shortened at least 2-3 year eralier than he planned.

I think it's the year (1999?) he skipped AO after recording breaking
year-end #1 streak. He came back to tour and anxiously tried to prove he
is still the king. He uncharacteristically crushed top players
with baegle scores(6-0). You know he likes to cruise cool
with 1 break per set. A lot more showing off with unecessariy
huge serves and scissor kick overhead smashes.

I think it was pretty big mistake. He violated his own principle
of pacing himself which was the key to his longevity. He was
just too anxious to prove he was still the top dog.

In that process, I think he pushed him a bit too much and you
know he got struck with herniated disc.
Pretty much scissor kick disappeared and not so much brilliant
running forehand after that.
Agaasi mentioned Sampras was playing more of middle.

I don't think that injury was abrupt career ending injury and
people say it's just part of plain getting old. But I think it has taken
something out of him. I think it's taken couple of years out of his
career. Without that he could have added a couple of more slams,
at least 17-18 slams total.


i agree w/ the above quote, ever since pete waz a junior, people have been talking about his potential to be the greatest in the sport. He's the kind of athlete thats born to win, who exhibits natural talent even at a young age. it started coming together at the 90 us open, where he was just unbeatable. not many fans / experts talked about federer's greatness as a junior, unlike pete. pete was and still is the greatest of all time. i do believe pete would have won about 3 to 4 more slams if he forced himself to in those tight matches vs. agassi in 95 au, safin and hewitt at the uso. but at that time, he let himself slip even though he knew he could beat those players any given day. i guess pete ran out of motivation temporarily in those tight matches.

fastdunn
02-10-2006, 01:49 PM
For sure. 2001 still used fast grass when Ivanisevic won. 2002 was the start of new grass when Hewitt won. Sampras only played on slow grass one time in 2002 when he lost to George Bastl at maybe second round.

Slower balls had started in late 90s already.

These are constantly debated in Tennis Channel.

It is not just Wimbledon. ATP is using slight bigger balls favoring baseliners.
Simply because general public loves long rallies.
I could be wrong but I don't think bigger balls were ever experimented
in tennis history.

All surfaces are slowed and ATP shortened indoor carpet seasons
significantly, as I know.

Henman claimed Wimbledon open the can of slazenger balls 2 weeks
prior to the tournaments. Wimbledon admitted they open the ball
in advance but not like 2 weeks early. And they promised not to
do that any more...

Young Pete
02-10-2006, 02:34 PM
Pete had the best serve (1st and 2nd) Here's why:

The guy could consistently hit it in the high 120's - 130's with more RPMs of spin than anyone on the tour, including anyone today. Lots of guys had the speed (for example Roddick today) but no one had the unique combination of RPM's and velocity that made Sampras' serves so deadly. He would often hit unbelievable second serves over 120 mph with slice for aces down break point...

Pete normally held serve so easly, he could take chances on the returns. This is why he gave Agassi trouble on his own serves. (Watch US Open 2001 QF) Pete's forehand was huge and he could rip a winner off any ball, and everyone stayed away from it.

Pete had the best serve and volley.

Pete had the best running forehand.

His backhand when wasn't slicing wasn't very consistent, but his slice was very useful in setting up points and chipping and charging.

It's hard and unfair to compare "ability" in terms of say Agassi and Sampras. You have two guys who play opposite games, and were the best at them. Sampras didn't have the return, quickness and consistant ground game like agassi, but Agassi had no where near the serve or volleys and touch sampras had.

I WHOLE HEARETEDLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ACE of Hearts
02-10-2006, 02:52 PM
Barring injury, The Fed Express will have the most number of weeks at number 1.I wanna see that record fall!

Shabazza
02-10-2006, 03:24 PM
Barring injury, The Fed Express will have the most number of weeks at number 1.I wanna see that record fall!
which number? Consecutive weeks or most weeks at the top?

VGP
02-10-2006, 03:29 PM
Barring injury, The Fed Express will have the most number of weeks at number 1.I wanna see that record fall!


Four years is a long time......

Five years, if he wants to break the consecutive years at #1.....

If you put it that way, even I'd be tired of seeing Fed win....

troytennisbum
02-10-2006, 06:17 PM
Barring injury, The Fed Express will have the most number of weeks at number 1.I wanna see that record fall!

I don't even think this benchmark is a fair standard to measure Fed. because the men's tour is just a lot stronger now in the top 200 then it ever was when Pete played. To be and remain number #1 is simply harder nowdays to do on the men's tour, relatively speaking.

Also, think about it this way. If you had to compete against the top 20 on the men's tour today (to be #1), who's prime game would you rather have ???????
Federer's game or Pete's game ?????????

I think for even you did hard Sampras fans, deep in your heart you know that it would be Fed.

EOM

drexeler
02-10-2006, 08:20 PM
As far as Sampras goes, I actually think he could be considered a bit of an underachiever. He got ill or injured many times throughout his career in big matches(not to mention missing the '99 US Open because of back injury, which he was favored to win). He might have 18 majors if he was as fit as Lendl, Courier, etc(though probably still no French)

It's quite surprising that he won only 2 AO's during his peak. Even at the USO if you take away the somewhat surprising bookend championships (90 & 02), he won only (for his standards) 3 USO in his peak. So, during the span when he won 7 Wim, he won only 2 AO and 3 USO despite the fact that some of the big hitters like Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek etc. weren't much of a threat off the grass. So he probably underachieved in all slams other than Wimbledon.

VGP
02-10-2006, 09:05 PM
It's quite surprising that he won only 2 AO's during his peak. Even at the USO if you take away the somewhat surprising bookend championships (90 & 02), he won only (for his standards) 3 USO in his peak. So, during the span when he won 7 Wim, he won only 2 AO and 3 USO despite the fact that some of the big hitters like Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek etc. weren't much of a threat off the grass. So he probably underachieved in all slams other than Wimbledon.

Remember, Pete wasn't much of a heat player.

fastdunn
02-10-2006, 09:12 PM
It's quite surprising that he won only 2 AO's during his peak. Even at the USO if you take away the somewhat surprising bookend championships (90 & 02), he won only (for his standards) 3 USO in his peak. So, during the span when he won 7 Wim, he won only 2 AO and 3 USO despite the fact that some of the big hitters like Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek etc. weren't much of a threat off the grass. So he probably underachieved in all slams other than Wimbledon.

Sampras did not like hard courts on which balls bounce high...

The tennis guy
02-11-2006, 07:51 AM
These are constantly debated in Tennis Channel.

It is not just Wimbledon. ATP is using slight bigger balls favoring baseliners.
Simply because general public loves long rallies.
I could be wrong but I don't think bigger balls were ever experimented
in tennis history.

All surfaces are slowed and ATP shortened indoor carpet seasons
significantly, as I know.

Henman claimed Wimbledon open the can of slazenger balls 2 weeks
prior to the tournaments. Wimbledon admitted they open the ball
in advance but not like 2 weeks early. And they promised not to
do that any more...

I am with you. The combination of slow balls and courts make a lot more impact with the way players are playing than if only one thing is changed.

This is exactly the point people forget about because they keep bring up Federer would have difficulty against Ivanisevic, Krijicek on faster surfaces since he was not comfortable at Master Cup last year. Federer hadn't played on surface that fast for years because ATP got rid of most carpet tournaments now - for those left, they are much slower carpet - most indoor tournaments are slow to medium hardcourts now.

By the way, I strongly support ATP to bring the fast carpet back to support serve and volley style. You are not going to success with variety of styles of play if you try to eliminate the courts variety. Very small percentage courts are fast courts today. Even for faster courts left, most of them are higher bouncing than it used to because of new construction material.

armand
02-15-2006, 12:31 PM
From wikipedia:
"his long arms meant that he could serve like a 210 cm (7 feet) man although he was only 185 cm (6 ft 1 in);" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras

I'm speechless.

Brettolius
02-15-2006, 12:54 PM
From wikipedia:
"his long arms meant that he could serve like a 210 cm (7 feet) man although he was only 185 cm (6 ft 1 in);" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras

I'm speechless.

That's awesome! I never knew...

random1
02-16-2006, 07:11 AM
From wikipedia:
"his long arms meant that he could serve like a 210 cm (7 feet) man although he was only 185 cm (6 ft 1 in);" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras

I'm speechless.
LOL! Good ol' Wikipedia. The good and bad of letting anyone edit content...

fastdunn
02-16-2006, 10:47 AM
From wikipedia:
"his long arms meant that he could serve like a 210 cm (7 feet) man although he was only 185 cm (6 ft 1 in);" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras

I'm speechless.

I don't exactly buy that. One time I passed by Sampras at San Jose
tournament with my weight-lifting buddy. I can confirm my buddy
had longer arm than his. But I remember reading Tennis magazine
article that stated Sampras had unusually, very unusually flexible
arms...

Brettolius
02-16-2006, 12:09 PM
I don't exactly buy that. One time I passed by Sampras at San Jose
tournament with my weight-lifting buddy. I can confirm my buddy
had longer arm than his. But I remember reading Tennis magazine
article that stated Sampras had unusually, very unusually flexible
arms...
Yeah, we don't buy it either. It's hard in writing to pick up on sarcasm sometimes, but trust me, it's there, and it's slathered on thick!

ACE of Hearts
02-16-2006, 12:20 PM
Sampras had big wrists, i do agree that long arms generate power.

chrismaylor
02-16-2006, 10:47 PM
Cause there is this new guy on the tour, his name is Roger something...ever heard of him?? I know Pete is cute and all but other aspects go into the game of tennis.


Christopher Maylor



http://www.********.com
Serendipity Shoe Lifts ~ Be Taller Now

Galactus
02-17-2006, 03:21 AM
1 - Cause there is this new guy on the tour, his name is Roger something...ever heard of him??

Yeah, and also not that new anymore!

Galactus
02-17-2006, 11:04 AM
And not only that, but Sampras' competition was better 10 years ago.
If today's competition is so 'deep' then why is it that just two players, Federer and Nadal, dominate on grass, clay and hardcourts?
Nadal has won almost everything on clay on 2005.

It says something about today's 'superior depth' when virutally two players in the entire Top 10 win everything.

It's really annoying when today's 'fans' suggest that today's guys are so much better and superior than 10 years ago - where the hell are they then??? If they're that good, they'd be able to push both Federer and Nadal on grass and clay, respectively.

devila
02-17-2006, 11:55 AM
Somehow, Federer's supposed to be the knight in shining armor to his delusional fans. His fake modesty and lack of personality are cringe-inducing.
Nadal, at least, has a sense of humor and doesn't feel satisfied to lose against Federer. Agassi's in the top 8, just like when he was 18, near his peak. He was #5 a few months ago while "great competition" like Safin, Ljubicic and Nalbandian couldn't reach the top 3. Baghdatis got hyped by commentators and bandwagon jumpers just to make Federer look flawless.

pianeon
02-17-2006, 12:49 PM
It says something about today's 'superior depth' when virutally two players in the entire Top 10 win everything.

It also says something about those two players.

TheNatural
02-17-2006, 10:52 PM
Has anyone seen footage of Lew hoad playing. He must've been a heck of a player to beat Laver 11 matches in a row. It seems he crushed everyone when he was injury free.


About Hoad:
http://www.education.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2004/11/27/strp27.xml

Yours!05
02-18-2006, 12:02 AM
Has anyone seen footage of Lew hoad playing. He must've been a heck of a player to beat Laver 11 matches in a row. It seems he crushed everyone when he was injury free.


About Hoad:
http://www.education.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2004/11/27/strp27.xm See Posts #101,104-5,107-8,110. And there's been quite a bit about him before, if you search.

superman1
02-18-2006, 12:16 AM
Best player ever? Not until he hits 14 Grand Slams. He doesn't have to pass it, just reach it. Or he could win The Grand Slam and I'd give him the honor.

Most talented player ever? No...I give that honor to McEnroe and probably a few others guys who I've never seen (Laver, etc). They wouldn't admit to it but I believe they were more brilliant with a racquet than Federer, who only surpasses them because of better fitness and speed. Doesn't surpass Sampras.

Most unbeatable player ever? Yes, he deserves this one. Depth of tennis is definitely higher than it was back when Pancho Gonzalez was playing, and Federer wipes out 100% of the competition on any surface (watch him take out Nadal on clay this year).

DaveGrable
02-18-2006, 12:33 AM
No way man. Donald Young is the best tennis player ever. His dad said so, so it must be true.

Galactus
02-18-2006, 01:18 AM
It also says something about those two players.
It can mean both really: either Federer and Nadal are light-years ahead of everyone else in technical ability and mental strength...or...the rest of the ATP aren't that good themselves. ;)

urban
02-18-2006, 01:31 AM
I only saw Hoad on clips, Yours has seen him live. I saw an interview with Ashley Cooper, who described Lew's style as 'ping-pong'. At his best, he could step into the court, and take the ball extremely early. He played near the baseline like Federer today, making the court small, but attacked the serves with his strong arm and wrist. I read, that he shortened the shaft of his racket, to maximize this effect of his aggressive drives. Laver with his iron wrist could step into the heavy serves of a Newcombe, too, especially on the backhand.

Grimjack
02-18-2006, 05:19 AM
It can mean both really: either Federer and Nadal are light-years ahead of everyone else in technical ability and mental strength...or...the rest of the ATP aren't that good themselves. ;)

If only there were some direct, head-to-head results to fall back on between this generation's also-rans and Pete Sampras, we'd know for sure. If only he had played the Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks, and Federers of the modern game in publicly announced tournaments and had the results recorded for posterity. If only there were some way to know, we could tell conclusively whether Roger is simply the best of a weak field, or if that "weak field" would have been capable of handling even Sampras a whole lot easier than it handles Fed.

Alas, alas. Pity nobody will ever find a link to such conclusive info. It's like the tennis holy grail. Doomed to remain shrouded in mystery for all eternity.

Grimjack
02-18-2006, 05:20 AM
Oh, wait. Here we go.

http://www.atptennis.com

Mystery solved.

Galactus
02-18-2006, 06:39 AM
Xxxtest Postxxx

Galactus
02-18-2006, 06:41 AM
If only there were some direct, head-to-head results to fall back on between this generation's also-rans and Pete Sampras, we'd know for sure. If only he had played the Hewitts, Safins, Roddicks, and Federers of the modern game in publicly announced tournaments and had the results recorded for posterity. If only there were some way to know, we could tell conclusively whether Roger is simply the best of a weak field, or if that "weak field" would have been capable of handling even Sampras a whole lot easier than it handles Fed.

Alas, alas. Pity nobody will ever find a link to such conclusive info. It's like the tennis holy grail. Doomed to remain shrouded in mystery for all eternity.
Well, you certainly out-sarc'd me there Grimjack. ;)

Anyway, I think I'll take guys like Becker, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Ivanisevic, Phillippousis, Krajicek, Rafter over Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nadal, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Coria and we can agree to disagree.

In fact, let's forget Sampras - why not Federer vs prime Becker or Federer vs prime Agassi? I'd be hard-pushed to pick a winner from those matches, too.
Federer cuts people up on today's slow courts and bigger balls for sure, but Sampras drops the hammer on guys.

(BTW, that's a great little website, isn't it? How the hell did I miss that?)

Brettolius
02-20-2006, 05:58 AM
Best player ever? Not until he hits 14 Grand Slams. He doesn't have to pass it, just reach it. Or he could win The Grand Slam and I'd give him the honor.

Most talented player ever? No...I give that honor to McEnroe and probably a few others guys who I've never seen (Laver, etc). They wouldn't admit to it but I believe they were more brilliant with a racquet than Federer, who only surpasses them because of better fitness and speed. Doesn't surpass Sampras.

Most unbeatable player ever? Yes, he deserves this one. Depth of tennis is definitely higher than it was back when Pancho Gonzalez was playing, and Federer wipes out 100% of the competition on any surface (watch him take out Nadal on clay this year).

Sooo-lid post. You give the honor of most talented player to guys you've never seen? How does that shake?

rhubarb
02-20-2006, 06:30 AM
And not only that, but Sampras' competition was better 10 years ago.
If today's competition is so 'deep' then why is it that just two players, Federer and Nadal, dominate on grass, clay and hardcourts?
Nadal has won almost everything on clay on 2005.

It says something about today's 'superior depth' when virutally two players in the entire Top 10 win everything.

It's really annoying when today's 'fans' suggest that today's guys are so much better and superior than 10 years ago - where the hell are they then??? If they're that good, they'd be able to push both Federer and Nadal on grass and clay, respectively.

Hang on a minute, 10 years before 2005 was 1995. Wasn't that when Muster won almost everything on clay (and like Nadal, on some other surfaces too), and you're using that year to claim the depth was greater then than it is now?

West Coast Ace
02-20-2006, 04:34 PM
In fact, let's forget Sampras - why not Federer vs prime Becker or Federer vs prime Agassi? I'd be hard-pushed to pick a winner from those matches, too.
Did you just come out of a coma? Agassi already answered that for you. He said, "If Sampras there was always somewhere to go. There is no place with Federer." Translation: Sampras' game was beatable - if you could get his serve back - there are no weaknesses in Federer's game.

And the 'players were better 10 yrs ago' isn't going to fly. Players now are bigger and fitter. And they hit the ball harder and are better able to handle big serves - look at the guys who are beating Roddick these days.

devila
02-20-2006, 05:09 PM
The top 50 players now have allowed themselves to lose hardcourt and clay matches at an annoying, alarming rate. Nadal already lost a big lead in Miami, even when he got a bad call in the 3rd set. Roddick, Nalbandian, Gaudio, Coria, Ancic, etc. crumbled with big leads. Federer also said he wanted to win everything and couldn't do it.

Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Connors didn't have half a dozen choke jobs in 2 years, unlike the current players.

sarpmas
02-20-2006, 09:31 PM
Every era has it's competition, be it tougher or not. I believed Fed's dominance is not because of lack of competition, rather it is the lack of variety amongst his peers. Up until now, I think most of Fed's challengers are still unable to figure out how to handle Fed's all-court, pace-changing game. Fed's dominance is going to last for quite a while.

David L
05-15-2006, 05:20 AM
Interestingly, Mike Bryan believes Agassi is the greatest American player. You would think, as a doubles player and frequent volleyer, he would admire Sampras' game more. Apparently not.

Who is the greatest American tennis player of all time; Connors, McEnroe, Sampras or Agassi?
Mark Witchell, UK

Mike: I'm a big fan of Agassi. I've loved watching him and we idolised him when we were growing up. I think to win a Grand Slam on every surface is one of the toughest things to do. And he's still playing at 36. I'd have to say Agassi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4972470.stm

Fischer76
05-15-2006, 07:51 AM
This is as bad as what Tennis magazine did, giving him the ranking of 1 ignoring the woman, and giving him the rank because he's male. The man couldn't even win the french open, heck he never made it to the finals.
There isn't even a need to make a comparison between other players to him. The fact that he couldn't win the French Open takes away the title of "greatest tennis player of all time" away from him. He's not even the greatest male tennis player of all time, let alone greatest tennis player. Two women have better records then he does in just about every department except for prize money. And gee, I wonder why he has more prize money, could it be because the amounts differ by gender in the slams? the answer is yes, of course it made a difference. And whether it's looked at over the entire time of tennis, or just the last 40 years, he's still not going to be the best tennis player.

He's also about as arrogant as you can get. Never mind that he hasn't given anything back to the sport after "retiring". He was on the tennis channel and was asked about Federer, Sampras comment was, "he reminds me of me". Can't get much more arrogant then that, not to mention he can only dream that the statement was true.

So who are you saying is better Jarkko Nieminen or maybe Tuomas Ketola?
sheesh!!!

superman1
05-15-2006, 12:39 PM
Sooo-lid post. You give the honor of most talented player to guys you've never seen? How does that shake?

Has anyone here seen Rod Laver play? A bit before my time. But I just go by what the tennis experts say about him.

urban
05-15-2006, 01:47 PM
I have seen him play Bjorn Borg live in Germany in 1978. Borg was in his prime then and won 3 and 3.But the 40 year old Laver, for 20 minutes per set, electrified the crowd with his shotmaking, especially his rolled backhand. Was a bit like Korda's backhand. Korda in a BBC interview last year named Laver the most talented player, he ever engaged - in a training session in the 90s, when Laver was over 50 years old. Laver had freckles, a long nose and was a bit bow-legged, but he had a gigantic left arm, which could produce thunder and lihtning.

bdawg
05-15-2006, 01:48 PM
If he is so great why did he choke in the 5th set vs federer at wimbledon?

he choked? I saw that match and Federer hit some great returns to break and win the match.

drakulie
05-15-2006, 02:36 PM
McEnroe is a greater "TENNIS PLAYER" than both Federer and Sampras. He won singles, double and mixed doubles slams. The total of those slams is more than Sampras and Federer.

BaseLineBash
05-16-2006, 12:18 AM
You know, you don't just show up at a grand slam and automaticly win a trophy. 14.

superman1
05-16-2006, 01:29 AM
Even McEnroe just said recently that Federer is still behind Rod Laver and Pete Sampras in the so-called greatest of all time list, but that winning the French would put him on the same level as Laver and get him closer to Sampras. And McEnroe is the guy that's been saying that Federer is the best player he's ever seen. But there's a difference between that and the greatest, and right now Pete Sampras is the undisputed greatest. Most # of Slams in the era that produced the highest number of champions. It's not even an argument. And I agree that Federer is more talented.

BTW, McEnroe belongs very high up on that list. Right there with Borg, Agassi, and Lendl.