Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Tennis sensation, Oct 31, 2010.
Yeah, you are right :cry::cry:
He could not in the fourth because he was too tired. Yet he looked completely relaxed, not even remotely alarmed. I think he was in the zone then, and knew that he was going win the match.
I grew up a Chang fan, so I would change the 1996 USO final. Obviously it would have given Chang a 2nd slam, but if he won that match Chang also would have been #1 in the world.
I am surprised that no one said Fed vs Del Potro FO 09 or USO 09
Probably because Fed didn't play Del Potro in the FO Final 09
It is clear that I meant SF FO 09 and F USO 09
Ok. But I'm joking dude. I tend to joke with
2006 Rome Masters finals - it would change the whole rivalry had Federer won that match, it would be a huge boost for Fed
As a match itself without the pre and post history it's definately the 2009 Australian Open final, obvious reasons.
that 5 setter at Flushing must have been Pat´s most disapointing defeat ever.Still, one must take his hat off lendl´s ability to carve himself out, not being the first time he did so ( Gerulatis at the Masters, Mc Enroe at FO,Zivojinovic at Wimbledon...).
Lendl was one guy you loved to hate, and was a major part in one of tennis brightest eras.
I actually liked Lendl - partly because it was unfashionable to do so but mainly because of his game - his running F/H and B/H down-the-line were works of art in my opinion.
I also detested McEnroe and his unsportsmanlike antics and loved the
match-up between him and the Czech.
They really disliked each other and that really added to the theatre of it all as did the fact they possessed games which were the polar opposite of each other.
Lendl was a difficult character back then no doubt about it but so was McEnroe - the Aussie players of the time (Cash excepted) didn't care for him because of his behaviour and Lendl, while no saint, certainly never behaved as poorly.
It's interesting to see Mc and Lendl together now - they've understandably mellowed and seem to have a pretty high regard for each other.
It was a great rivalry, in an era of great rivalries - I loved tennis in the 80s.
More interesting in some ways than what we've got now.
Any era when you could have Lendl, Mc, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander etc all playing in a Major is a fine era indeed.
I know it dude.
Completely agree - add Cash, Leconte, Noah among so many others.
2004 Roland Garros Womens Final
i would change the outcome of the wimbledon final between roddick and federer.
Well said; even if so different, both Mac and Lendl share the era and its atmosphere, and probably that hot relationship will slowly switch into respect because they probably share more in common than they would admit.
Your list of characters , to which one can add
Vilas,Borg,Vitas,Tanner,Clerc,Noah,Leconte,Mecir,Cash and Kriek was so special that makes, as I´ve stated before, the most interesting era for tennis ( not certainly the only one, but probably the era when tennis peaked its top popularity).
Characters and style of play, varied conditions and very different abilities.
Vilas / Wilander French 1982. Vilas won Monte-Carlo, Madrid, was very strong, and, at thirty years old, it was his last chance to win a Grand Slam. He won the first set, had a set point in the tie-break of the second set, and I'm not sure that his return was out. Very very unlucky.
USO 2010 SF I wanted to see Fed and Nadal play in all four slams, even if it costs Nadal his USO trophy, they would be making history
I completely agree.
I miss the variety and the personalities - these days the tennis is technically superb but it's lacking a little in star power and there's a sameness about much of it.
Those guys I mentioned amassed more than 40 Majors between them - when they all turned up to play, the round of 16 onward frequently featured battles between guys who all occupied the No.1 ranking.
Those were the days.
I would have liked to see Borg win one of the US Open finals he contended. How that would have changed the landscpe of tennis, I don't know. But anyone of those would be my first choice.
I disagree when you say today players are technically superb; condiitons are not by far the same in terms of rackets and stirngs.Today matherials help them a lot to disguisse technichal shortcomings.Whereas, in the wooden age or even grafite, they could not hide their shortcomings, and the rackets and strings accentuated the technichal differences between good and memdiocre players.That is why 80´s players, f.e, were generally speaking better from that point of view.
Plus, having to play on so many different surfaces ( not like today) and faster surfaces, too, let to a much more varied stroke production.Swings technichal mastership were paramount to dominate those faster turfs.
There are very good players today that would also be great players back then, but the overall picture is, and this is MHO, quite worse.Even if todays players were greater technichally speaking, the way they play ( all the same) makes them look quite weaker than the 80´s.Federer and, possibly Nadal would be comparable but not the rest.
As fair as would seem Borg win, at least 1 USO, then it would be also fair to see Tanner or Mac Enroe ( or Gerulaitis) beating him at Wimbledon.The lack of luck he had at New York, was fully compensated by the great luck he had at London.There are many reasons for that, but the concept is there.
I would take a Wimbledon title away from Borg if it meant he had a US Open title. The fact he never won the US Open, there is a glaring hole in his resume. And I do think it would have propelled him to even greater heights.
Would have liked to see Tsonga win that AO 08.
Yeah same here! Let's see, hope he wins Kooyong 2011 starting in 12 days!
In an interview I heard of in you tube, Borg said he´d never change a USO title for any of his 5 W titles.May be he was resented, I don´t know, but he clearly stated that.
Adding a USO title still doesn't give Borg a career slam b/c he's missing the AO. For a player like Lendl(missing W) and Pete(missing FO), they would gladly trade one of their slam for the one that eluded them. Big difference.
Andre Agassi's final match against Benjamin Becker, I'd change it to Agassi's win. I wish he could have gone out with a victory
2009 Wimbledon, Roger Federer vs Andy Roddick. I'd change this to Roddick for the win.
Match for Africa in Madrid.
My top 5:
1. Wimbly 2008 final
2. Wimbly 2009 final
3. AO 2009 final
4. RG 2004 final
5. Agassi-Sampras USO 2001
In Borg´s time, the AO - quite unfortunately- did not count at all, so a Masters or WCT Finals win was considered, by full right , a GS win.
The Aussie tourney was skipped by almost all top players, even the australians, and it did not regain a true competitive status until the mid 80´s, when Wilander,Lendl and even Mac Enroe give it a serious glance.
The AO is the reason why Laver gets so much praise for his Calendar and Career slam, and that was before Borg's time. Since there's only 7 players that have captured all 4 GS, I'm sure Borg wouldn't mind be place in history. I don't know about the WCT or Masters in those day, however, I do know that Borg's legacy would be greater with a career slam simply b/c not many have done it. And he would have more credibility in a goat debate. I'm sure he would give up those WCT/Master for a USO and AO.
Completely wrong.The AO was as big as nowadays when Laver played it, it just went downwords at the very end of Laver´s career and stayed down until the mid 80´s.But when Rod had his second GS, the field was just as strong as the other 3 GS.It was during Borg´s peak that it was considered a second class event.
Surely Borg would have given up one of his two Masters for a USO crown.But not for an AO of that time.In fact, many players would be glad to exchange their Ao for a Masters or WCT title during those years (given the weakness of the Aussie event then, not now of course).
Coming back at which GS match would I change its result, I think it would be the FO that Mc lost in 5 sets vs Lendl.He´d have won the 3 top titles of that year, and in Paris he displayed such an awesome exhibition of net play, doing things we´ll never see do again on slow red clay...had he won it, I think many concepts of play would have been debated.
It went down in prestige because the Australian Open tournament struggled to adapt to the demands of the open era where professionalism was the main game, and this became apparent around the mid-1970s when the top players started to stay away in droves for all sorts of reasons. Borg said that he'd have only gone down there again if he had been on course to win the calendar year Grand Slam, and that never happened because of Borg's failure to win the US Open.
From 1983 onwards, things started to improve at the Australian Open. When the Australian Open got equal prestige with the other open era majors is open to question. Some say 1983, others 1988 and some not until 1995.
Despite all this, the Australian Open was always considered one of the four majors, even during it's most difficult patch. It's just that this prestige didn't matter when compared to the other, more professional and more profitable tournaments for the players.
2009 W final - Andy Beats Fed
In fact, guys like Vitas Gerulaitis ( 1 win),Roscoe Tanner (1 win),Guillermo Vilas(2 wins) and Johan Kriek ( 2 wins) keep somehow that old prestige alive, bothering to go down under and compete during Christmas Time.I think it was good for them and good for the prestige of the title.
Otherways, surprising winners like Edmondson or Teacher would rather be the rule instead of the exception.
To me, after Wilander won the trophy twice, the Australian Open was attractive enough to appeal the main stars in the pro circuit.except Connors, who already had won the title in the past, the best crop of players competed there (Edberg,Mc,becker,Wilander,Lendl,Cash,Noah,Mecir,Leconte), so, IMO, the tournament regained his status as the 4 th leg of the Gran Slam around 1985 or so.
2009 wimby final
2004 or 2009 Wimby final. Both hurt my heart in different ways.
hahahahahaha ohhh sure
¿What about Rosewall? I think he should deserve at least one Wimbledon crown to make up for those years he spendt as an outlaw - sorry, as a pro banned from GS action-.IMHO, he would have won 2-3 titles at the All England...
Finals of 2002 Australian Open and 2004 Roland Garros.
No he doesn't deserve any slam if he don't play, simple as that. There's many players missed some playing times throughout their career for certain reason, especially injury(i.e. Haas, Guga). Woulda, shoulda have won is pointless. The answer is NO. Capiche ?
Rome 2006 final. That match would have changed everything if Federer hadn't gotten impatient on match point. I think Federer would have won a lot more matches after that. It's really obvious that after that Federer has never really had the belief that he could beat Nadal, he's lost a lot of important matches to Nadal over the years, and I genuinely think it all started here.
¿Do you know who Ken Rosewall is ? Plus this post is which player would we like to have a result changed.Of course, we cannot change the past, but this is what this post is about.
2008 Wimbledon final. I think that comeback would have meant the world to Roger. He would feel invincible at SW19 if it came this way.
But you said Rosewall deserve a slam when he wasn’t playing, right? I stand my ground...no one deserve any title simply when he doesn’t play.
Yes, this thread is about which player you want RESULTS changed. Since Rosewall wasn’t playing(as you pointed out) he has no RESULTS, therefore he has nothing to change. Capiche ?
And stop typing the upside-down exclamation point and question mark(¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¿¿¿¿¿¿).
It’s annoying !
He was not playing because he was forbidden to play.he was an outlawer, like Laver,Gonzales and Hoad.A shame that will never be erased.so, being the situation so unfair to him, the least we could say is that, yes, he is the guy that never won Wimbledon who most deserved it.
TMF, Ken Rosewall turned professional after he surprisingly beat Lew Hoad to win the 1956 US Championships, which prevented Hoad achieving the calendar year Grand Slam. Professionals weren't allowed to play at Wimbledon until 1968, so Rosewall wasn't eligible to play at Wimbledon from 1957-1967. As an amateur player, Rosewall lost in the final of Wimbledon in 1954 and 1956, to Drobny and Hoad respectively. By the time Rosewall was allowed to play Wimbledon as a professional, he was 33 years old.
At 34 he barely lost to the nº 1 player of 1970 John Newcombe, who was an absolute beast at Wimbledon.Not one single person that day on the Centre Court was rooting for Newcombe, who was considered one of the nicest and most friendly guys who ever picked up a racket.
Newcombe said he found that hard, with the Wimbledon crowd all against him. Newcombe won the 1970 Wimbledon final against Rosewall in 5 sets, and the irony is that Rosewall beat Newcombe in 4 sets in the quarter finals of 1974 Wimbledon, at a time when Newcombe was ranked world number 1 on the computer. Rosewall went on to reach his fourth Wimbledon final but was beaten badly by Connors in the final, who was playing a revolutionary type of tennis for 1974.
Separate names with a comma.