View Single Post
Old 04-17-2012, 09:28 AM   #55
monfed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup8489 View Post
Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.
Why the heck should Sampras's incompetence on a surface(in this case clay) be overlooked? I mean he was so mediocre/below average on clay that he was losing to nobodies there. And this incredible serve of his(which some say is a bigger weapon than a FH) amounted to zilch on clay. In other words it appeared that good because he played on lightning quick surfaces of the 90s. Plus his weak ground game is no excuse to exempt him from his performance on clay. Edberg a pure S&Ver/net rusher reached the finals of RG and almost won it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup8489 View Post
Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.
A serve's effectiveness includes not just speed/power but also placement and guile. Federer's serve is more about placement and guile, it's hard to get a read on his serve. That's the one complaint most of his opponents have,they just can't figure out his serve placement. Roddick's serve is more about power, so it depends what your definition of effectiveness is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup8489 View Post

Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.
You talk as if Sampras has 3-5 more Wimby's than Federer. It's just one more and Federer lost that 08 final 9-7 in the fifth , so it's not a lot. If Federer had won the 08 Wimby,then he'd currently have 7 consecutive Wimby's surpassing Sampras's 7 Wimby's in a 8 year period.

And BTW Federer has won 65 consecutive grass matches,Pete has not. Federer has won 5 consecutive Wimby's ,Pete has not. If Federer wins one more Wimby, then Sampras would have to pat his 6 Year end championships a little more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup8489 View Post
You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.
Sampras's incompetence on clay exempts him from putting him in the same bracket as Federer. You'll just have to deal with it.
  Reply With Quote