Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Should Sampras have won wimbledon 2001 if there was hawkeye? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=434869)

1477aces 08-04-2012 08:50 AM

Should Sampras have won wimbledon 2001 if there was hawkeye?
 
Sampras lost to federer here, but in the first set tiebreaker, sampras had set point up 6-5 and federer was serving. the video replay showed that federer's first serve missed, but the first serve was counted in and sampras missed the return. Sampras complained a little, but he didn't get the call. I think there was a good chance sampras would take the set if it was set point on second serve, also, maybe sampras got distracted due to this and lost the tiebreaker. If he beat federer, sampras would have played henman, ivanisivec, and rafter, who I think he could have beat. It wasn't for sure that sampras would have won, but he could definitely have won.

SStrikerR 08-04-2012 12:20 PM

Shoulda coulda woulda. You can make up alternate realities for any match

Mustard 08-04-2012 12:24 PM

Even if Sampras had gotten past Federer, I don't think he'd have won the title, because he was playing below his usual Wimbledon standard in 2001. Henman or Ivanisevic would have taken him out.

Nadal_Power 08-04-2012 12:48 PM

The match was amazingly close, we can't say that

Limpinhitter 08-04-2012 04:14 PM

The bottom line is that Sampras had his chance, in classic Sampras fashion - after playing a mediocre match, and fairly poor return game, he had break point and a second serve opportunity against Federer to go up 6-5 in the fifth set and serve for the match. But, instead of rising to the occasion as he had in so many previous matches, he lost the point, the game, and lost his next service game to lose the match.

Long Face 08-09-2012 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1477aces (Post 6779712)
Sampras lost to federer here, but in the first set tiebreaker, sampras had set point up 6-5 and federer was serving. the video replay showed that federer's first serve missed, but the first serve was counted in and sampras missed the return. Sampras complained a little, but he didn't get the call. I think there was a good chance sampras would take the set if it was set point on second serve, also, maybe sampras got distracted due to this and lost the tiebreaker. If he beat federer, sampras would have played henman, ivanisivec, and rafter, who I think he could have beat. It wasn't for sure that sampras would have won, but he could definitely have won.

But that was just the 1st set.....

Tagg 12-07-2012 08:09 AM

sampras was on the decline, but he had his chances in that match, he didn't take them

federer took his, end of story

that's how grass tennis, proper grass tennis, used to be

decided by a few points here and there

nowadays it's nowhere near as tense or exciting

Razoredge 12-07-2012 09:59 AM

No Federer was destined to beat Sampras that day.

sonicare 12-07-2012 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 6780209)
Even if Sampras had gotten past Federer, I don't think he'd have won the title, because he was playing below his usual Wimbledon standard in 2001. Henman or Ivanisevic would have taken him out.

Sampras was playing at his absolute peak. Go look at his serve stats. He was a 4 time defending champion. It is just that a baby fed in his diapers was too good for a peak sampras. deal with it.


pc1 12-07-2012 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 6780209)
Even if Sampras had gotten past Federer, I don't think he'd have won the title, because he was playing below his usual Wimbledon standard in 2001. Henman or Ivanisevic would have taken him out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare (Post 7051611)
Sampras was playing at his absolute peak. Go look at his serve stats. He was a 4 time defending champion. It is just that a baby fed in his diapers was too good for a peak sampras. deal with it.

Sampras was losing to a lot of players in those days and he was clearly in decline. Check his record out.

ATP Tour career earnings
Year Majors ATP wins Total wins Earnings ($) Money list rank
1997 2 6 8 6,498,311 1
1998 1 3 4 3,931,497 1
1999 1 4 5 2,816,406 2
2000 1 1 2 2,254,598 5
2001 0 0 0 994,331 11
2002 1 0 1 1,222,999 12
Career 14 50 64 43,280,489

As you can see Sampras won zero tournaments that year 2001 and his won-lost record was 35-16. Not nearly up to Sampras standards.

The next year he lost to Bastl in the second round at Wimbledon. It was incredible how he won the US Open in 2002 when he looked totally washed up. Even with the US Open win in 2002 his record was only 27-17! That means he barely won more than half his matches going into the US Open that year 2002.

jxs653 12-07-2012 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare (Post 7051611)
Sampras was playing at his absolute peak. Go look at his serve stats. He was a 4 time defending champion. It is just that a baby fed in his diapers was too good for a peak sampras. deal with it.

Sampras was playing at his absolute peak? Definately you didn't see the match. He was flat that day.

Tagg 12-07-2012 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare (Post 7051611)
Sampras was playing at his absolute peak. Go look at his serve stats. He was a 4 time defending champion. It is just that a baby fed in his diapers was too good for a peak sampras. deal with it.


trying too hard, lad

if you actually watched tennis at that time, you'd know sampras was well past his peak

keep digging though


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse