Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by buder, Jul 8, 2007.
You are lucky your boy came after Connors/Borg/Mac/Lendl and before Federer/Nadal.
you are going to get flamed for this
you would compare mac to sampras
The AELTC gave Federer a pass on this by disadvantaging the bottom half of the draw. Nadal played seven days in a row due to faulty scheduling on the AELTC's part. And still, Nadal took a well-rested Federer to the fifth, and had chances to win. But, I guess fatigue finally set in. The other semi-finalists broke down before today, so I don't understand what you're crowing about. That was a fabulous edge they gave Federer. Even an idiot can surmise that Nadal being human his body could only take so much. All Fed had to do was wait. And after the injury timeout, I'm sure he was bolstered by that. As far as Sampras, he won Wimbledon on one leg, he was the disadvantaged one, not his opponents. He was also 10 years Federer's senior when he lost to him. Federer is in his prime and was thoroughly challenged by a one dimensional clay-courter (his words). Again I ask, what are you crowing about? All that rest, and a walkover, and still he barely eked out a win!
i want to see you play sampras.
Have you ever heard about someone called Agassi?or...Ivanisevic?!Rafter?!Stich?!Becker?!Courier?!
Doesn't take long for the excuse boys to show up. Weather this, scheduling that. Oh well, you've got to give them something to hold on to... :-D
IMO, Pete is still the greatest Wimbledon champion ever.
wow. thats an intelligent statemet why dont you ask connors/borg/mac/lendl or fed/nadal what they think about your moronic statement
Well it's not Federer's fault that he is good enough not to even have to play 5 set matchs and Nadal isn't. Plus, it's Nadal. They were talking all tournament about how even after his matches he would go out and play more because he didn't get enough match time. He wanted more match time. Be careful what you wish for. haha
The insecurity continues ... lol
It is so funny how 15 little words is going cause a lynching...lol
You have got to love the art or debating
The difference is that Federer plays tennis, not serving contest.
Federer's serve won it for him today. His serve is his biggest weapon after his forehand and it has been a major factor in all of his major wins just like it was for Sampras. Federer's serve saved him in 2005 US Open final against Agassi too.
Not many guys today can hit 20+ aces clutch in the finals of a major I would think. I would take Federer's serve over any other pro even Andy Roddick.
Those guys are lucky they didn't have to play Sampras on a proper Wimbledon surface - not the **** they played on today.
None of them apart from Borg have Sampras' mental strength either.
I agree, actually. Agassi was Pete's greatest opponent and he doesn't hold a candle to Nadal.
I realize that Rafa has yet to win a major off clay, but he will. Believe me - he will. Agassi isn't good enough to carry Rafa's jockstrap.
Nadal is a physical beast. A half-man, half-panther. The first of his kind.
If Federer can still dominate tennis with Djokovic and Nadal in their primes (which will happen in a year or so), he is the greatest ever. He doesn't even have to win the French.
I agree with you actually. Nadal will prove to be a much greater champion and player then Agassi by the time his career is over. I have no doubt he wins atleast 10 slams.
Actually wouldn't Sampras be the one who was lucky that his era wasn't packed with even MORE champions? That would be the greatest drag ever if all the games best players only played in one ten year span.
Anyway, doesn't affect me at all if Sampras or Federer or Nadal wins or loses. Either way, I'm still the one on the couch eating potato chips.
Emerson held the Grand Slam title record for something like 20-30 years before Sampras finally broke it. Sampras and his fans figured he would be able to rest on his laurels for decades. That Federer is so quickly approaching Sampras' record has Sampras and his fans insecure to say the least.
Who started this thread again? It might surprise some but there are many Sampras fans secure in their support of Pete & his legacy. If someone feels insecure to the point of needing to flame arguably the GOAT to validate their guy then there's not much Sampras fan can do (maybe smirk). Btw, it's a good bet Sampras fan knows about Emerson's 12 slams. By all accounts, Fed will break Pete's slam record but rest assured, Pete's legacy remains intact as one of the all time greats - perhaps GOAT? Like Pete himself, an appreciation for former greats is widely given. Thanks again for explaining why Sampras fans (myself included) should feel insecure (gee, who says lightning does not strike twice).
I fully agree with you on this
Please dont use the seven day in a row excuse....yes nadal played seven days in a row, but really on the days he played soderling, he did not play for long periods of time....he would have most probably been on the practise courts for longer had the tournament run its normal course
Actually, if you want to be technical, "our boy" was able to play in both times. Although obviously he wasn't at his best at either times. Regardless, if you take him in his prime probably the only person to compare would be Federer. And the more I watch Federer the more I doubt that too.
Federer has what, one person on him trying to take the #1 spot from him? If it weren't for Nadal he wouldn't be challenged. He's a great player but I'm sure he has as many titles as he does because there aren't as many players on tour right now that deserve to be number one. When Sampras was doing it there was Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanesevic, Krajicek, Kafelnikov. etc etc. Sure they were clearly not the world number one, but they were all closer than today's top 10. I doubt Federer would be winning as much as he does now if he were to play in their league. He's an amazing player but I don't think he has that extra step that say Sampras had to kick it up a notch when a great player is taking it to him.
Also, some of the top ranked players now played with Sampras before he retired. And he was beating them. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Moya etc. etc.
Why would they feel insecure? It's not like to win a slam they go up against the same people as the winners prior to their time.
Nadal had match point on Soderling before the rains came but hit the forehand wide. He had an opportunity to close that match out but didn't. If you want to point the finger, point it at your boy.
This conspiracy theory crap is ridiculous.
Lol... where are your arguments? Do you need some attention? :lol:
the fatigue excuses are really starting to get lame. was he fatigued when he lost only one match during clay season and then continued to win the french again?
i do think that the overall skill level has steadily risen over time and its not just because of racquets which is also a lame excuse. the only big difference wood would really make is more broken racquets. agassi's game really paved the way for some on the rise power baselining which is something that many hadn't really hadn't thought about before. its not like agassi thought of it and invented it, it was just something he happened to be doing because he was taught to hit hard ever since he was a child.
an almost retiring sampras and upcoming federer played 5 close sets. i think both in their prime would have been some classic stuff and could go either way. of course sampras' game would have been heavily based on his serve-volley and crosscourt forehand while federer would have more of a baseline/insideout forehand focus.
in terms of nadal being the only one up to the challenge right now. while some may find his clay style irritating, he is scary good and he's improving by the minute. watch out for him to do some big damage at the US and AO soon.
Don't you mean all those guys are lucky they didn't play in the same era as Sampras?
Huh. I wonder why anyone would feel the need to say that. By the way, despite the fact that Sampras was an exhausted, battle-weary legend when he and a doe-eyed kid named Federer finally met up doesn't do much for your case. And Nadal? Pssh. Yeah, sure.
Exactly. Tennis is not about your name, it's about how good you play. Sampras played pretty f'ing good, better than any of those other legends you listed.
Courier was nearing the end of his best tennis when Sampras began to dominate. Agassi was up and down. Chang is a Hewitt clone at best. Rafter is a better Henman, but still no all-time great. Ivanisevic is a more talented but mentally weaker Roddick. Krajicek is an erratic one-hit wonder, who played well vs Sampras (but rarely did well enough in slams to come close to playing him), and crap vs alot of low ranked guys. Krajicek and Ivanisevic were barely contenders anywhere but grass as well. Kafelnikov only amazes how he ever was able to win 2 slam titles. If Federer could choose between playing Kafelnikov and Chang in 20 slam finals in a row, or only playing Nadal in 2 in his whole career, he would choose the former in a heartbeat to avoid the latter.
Federer and Nadal would both whip all of those guys soundly, except maybe Agassi in his commited years giving them some competition, and those years were fewer then those they were not.
No they were not. Except for Agassi and fading Courier, they were wannabees like the the guys outside the top 2 today. Pretenders to the very best. The guys thrilled to pick up the scraps that Sampras left behind, just like the guys in the top 10 today are thrilled to pick up the scraps Nadal and Federer leave behind.
You are going to have to come up with a better group of players then the one you listed to convince anyone of that. Wait that was Sampras's competition. Well I guess you will have take someone else's competition then.
Not too well apparently. Sampras had losing head to heads with all of Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt.
People can keep making arguments and it will continue forever. The only score that matters is that Fed has 11 and counting, Sampras 14, and Laver has 11. However, Laver has all 4 slams, that is what really matters.
Pete is certainly one of the all-time greats, but could never be the GOAT. How can you become the greatest when you didn't win one of the slams? That distinction goes to Rod Laver, the only GOAT.
Tough to argue against Rod. I wish Pete had a better attitude about clay & the FO. Five set fatigue & the emotions over Gully in the end were too much to overcome for Pete at the 96 FO (his best showing at RG). What was/is frustrating was his dominant won/loss record against YK including his clay Davis Cup win to then lose to him at the SF at RG (grumble). Even if Pete had won the FO in 96, the win would have given him a Career Slam not a Calender Slam. Pete would agree: Rod was amazing.
Pretty damn much, the truth at least for this post you are.
Nadal is truly a beast.
let's come back to this questionable comment when Nadal has gotten his 8th major, on all four surfaces.
Fed's serve saved his panicky, whiny ass ('can we shut it off'?!!).
as great as he is, i wish he'd quit crying like a little B**Ch already.
it goes to show how crucial this win was.. being pushed so hard on the playground by man-beast Nadal. open the floodgate.. wah wah...
i can just imagine the day he wins the FO over Nadal... the clay court is gonna turn into Mudstock.
nevertheless, he's THE artist and is blessed to not be subjected to S&Vers anywhere, let alone good S&Vers. but, he did show the courage of a champ in the fifth set. only if Nadal had a somewhat effective serve. He will need to work on that.. if Agassi can improve and make his serve a weapon at the latter part of his briliant career, so can Nadal, but sooner rather than later.
Fed is the luckiest F**Ker in tennis history to have such weak, one dimensional field (sans Nadal the STRONG one-dimensional beast with good touch at the net).
Anyway, ATP is getting boring.. the only time i get somewhat excited is when Fed gets geared up to face Nadal, Canas and Haas...
Gonna book my flight to Maucau for the Xhibition!
The joker is only 20. relax.
look out for Donald young, son
still lookin', nothing there to see
hahahahah it was a joke. i see his earlobe blings tho.. get rid of them , idiot
No he's not...
"advantage they gave him"...Fed took his good draw and used it, much like the draw a spaniard I remember from last year taking to the finals...
Separate names with a comma.