Nadal's complete lack of competition 2005-2010

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

In 2005 the following clay court specialists stopped playing

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

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

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

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

Moya - got old/backhand disintegrated.

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

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

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

Raiden · Dec 20, 2011

*********s have 2 choices to wiggle out of the conundrum:

Admit that Borg is the greatest claycourter of all time cuz unlike Borg Nadal had no clay competition, or,
Prop-up Fed as a fellow clay court genius/fellow claygoat contender :mrgreen:

.

Clarky21 · Dec 20, 2011

He beat the Goat to win 5 of those titles. I think that counts for something.

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

Clarky21 said:
He beat the Goat to win 5 of those titles. I think that counts for something.

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

woodrow1029 · Dec 20, 2011

BeHappy said:
Today's so called 'clay court specialists' like Tommy Robredo, David Ferrer and Almagro aren't even as good on clay as Sampras was.

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

woodrow1029 said:
I'm a bit lost with this sentence. I can't see Sampras beating any of these three on clay.

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

I guess most of this forum wasn't even watching tennis in 2005.

Crazy man · Dec 20, 2011

woodrow1029 said:
I'm a bit lost with this sentence. I can't see Sampras beating any of these three on clay.

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

DjokovicForTheWin · Dec 20, 2011

Sampras had less competition than Nadal. And he still couldn't win the FO, LOL.

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

DjokovicForTheWin said:
Sampras had less competition than Nadal. And he still couldn't win the FO, LOL.

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

How about Agassi and Kafelnikov? Berasatugai?

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

bluescreen · Dec 20, 2011

I'm surprised this thread has managed to stay on topic for a whopping 8 posts.

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

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

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

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

CMM · Dec 20, 2011

Nadal is so good it makes all of his opponents seem average.
It's true, at least on clay.

DjokovicForTheWin · Dec 20, 2011

BeHappy said:
Brugera, Courier, Chang, Muster aren't competition?

How about Agassi and Kafelnikov? Berasatugai?

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

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

dudeski · Dec 20, 2011

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

Typical ignorant Federer hater.

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

dudeski said:
Typical ignorant Federer hater.

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

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

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

TMF · Dec 20, 2011

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

He did not you ignorant troll.

Nathaniel_Near · Dec 20, 2011

Top thread this one.

dudeski · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Carsomyr · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

dudeski · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

dudeski · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

dudeski · Dec 20, 2011

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

Ask namelessone

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

Edberg had back problems.

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

Carsomyr · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

BeHappy said:
Edberg had back problems.

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

SLD76 · Dec 20, 2011

this is a complete fail thread.

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The competition was unbelievable back then.

SLD76 · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

The competition was unbelievable back then.

please stop, and save yourself some embarassment.

you have proven you know very little about tennis.

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

SLD76 said:
please stop, and save yourself some embarassment.

you have proven you know very little about tennis.

Nonsense.

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

BeHappy said:
Federer won 3 majors in 2004 to 2 in 2005 so you just proved my point.

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

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

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

tennis_pro said:
I just proved that you're a tool and you should thank me for it. Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French Open, check it again and come back to me.

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

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

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

Fate Archer · Dec 20, 2011

It saddens me a bit all the clay battles we could potentially witness if Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Kuerten didn't have their careers abbreviated by injuries, mental collapses and whatnot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

BeHappy said:
Keep running to wikipedia, you still know nothing about this sport.

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

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

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

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

SLD76 · Dec 20, 2011

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

psssssssstt....dont confuse him with facts.

tennis_pro · Dec 20, 2011

SLD76 said:
psssssssstt....dont confuse him with facts.

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

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLD76 · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

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

do you even remember what your original point was?

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

please stop, dont embarass yourself further.

BeHappy · Dec 20, 2011

SLD76 said:
do you even remember what your original point was?

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

please stop, dont embarass yourself further.

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

Carsomyr · Dec 20, 2011

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

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

Nadal's complete lack of competition 2005-2010

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

woodrow1029

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads