View Single Post
Old 11-26-2012, 12:21 PM   #38
Mustard
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Mustard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bristol, England
Posts: 22,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Martin has reached 2 slam finals on hard courts.
At the time of the 1999 Australian Open, it was 1 major final, and that had been 5 years previously. His recent form had been very up and down. Deep runs in majors had been scarce for a few years.

Martin was a very good player, and 1999 ended up being the best year of his career alongside 1994, but we didn't know that at the time he played Kafelnikov at the 1999 Australian Open.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Sampras has only made it past the quarters once at RG (that semifinal blowout loss to Kafelnikov). Martin on hard courts > Stich or Sampras on clay. Of course Sampras or Stich are better than Martin on every surface probably (Stich vs Martin on hard courts is debateable) but it is comparing Martin on his best surface to them on by far their worst.
Sampras reached 3 quarter finals in a row at the French Open from 1992 to 1994. In 1994, he was the tournament favourite after just winning Rome, or at least co-favourite with Medvedev. Sampras was a proven major winner, going for 4 majors in a row, whereas Medvedev hadn't won a major. This is not the Sampras of 1997-2002, who would lose early at every French Open, but the Sampras of 1992-1996, who was a serious title contender.

And Stich, as I mentioned, a former French Open semi finalist, losing in 4 sets to Courier in 1991, and the 1993 Hamburg champion. Stich was always around the top 10 in the years before 1996 as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Meanwhile you prove yet again (for about the 100000000th time) you are quite stupid and illiterate.
Personal insults? Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
I did not say specifically Martin was a bigger win. I said Kafelnikov's biggest win in a slam was either Sampras at the 96 French OR Martin at the 99 Australian, which means arguably it could be either. Neither is an impressive "best ever slam win" for a 2 time slam winner though, so which you consider his biggest ever slam win means diddley squat.
I think your attacks on Kafelnikov are bizarre.

Last edited by Mustard : 11-26-2012 at 12:24 PM.
Mustard is offline   Reply With Quote