Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by pc1

If you're talking about Sampras, bear in mind that the US Open plays its semifinal the day before the final. It's not easy on any player but especially older players like Sampras was. Sampras also has that disease that affects his stamina. So the losses in the finals to Safin and Hewitt while a credit to both of them for winning, the one sided losses may be due to the tough schedule.

I wasn't taking away any credit from Sampras, I think he was impressive at both USO 2000 & 2001.

[TMF]

I can't imagine a top player losing to a 40 years old player today. Federer during his prime and now Nole would never lose to a 40 years old player at big stage(I'm not talking about exo), and they don't even have to play their best.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Blah blah blah, stay in your parallel tennis history, I wouldn't give you credit anymore.

Yes, I know, the facts are disturbing.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I wouldn't say that, except for 1959. In 1958 he had a lot of troubles, he was winning the tour by an 8 matches margin, and he lost it by a 15 matches margin!


Backtrack?
The Sampras example is not right, as I was saying. On Wilander, what I can say is: he has proved he could beat the big guys in big events. He proved it 7 times. Emerson never faced the big guys until 1968. It's funny that according to you there is really no connection with the big ones entering the main fields and his victories record dropping down, seriously.
Wilander had the same fields in 1988 and 1989. Emerson had totally different fields.
Moreover, no one of the tennis historicians or commentators has ever noticed that drastic drop in Emerson's game (simply because there was no drastic drop).


You're still using too much "if". I know that if Emerson had entered the Pro tour many years before, he probably would have had more chances to raise his level, but this is only a theory. Just watch Cooper: 3 out of 4 amateur majors, and then he was totally destroyed on the Pro tour, so were Mal Anderson, Alex Olmedo, and many others.
We will never know if Emerson would have raised his level while facing the Pros as a 25-year old boy: there's the possibility, but it's not sure at all. What we know - the only thing we really know - is that he never faced them until 1968, that he didn't raise his level, and that he was often beaten by older guys, including a 40 years old Pancho Gonzales, on clay (Pancho's weakest surface).



Ok, Pro Majors are NOT the equivalent of full majors. Thank you. Oh, wait... if Pro Majors were so easy tournaments to win, why no clay Pro Majors for Pancho? Duh...
(Just kidding, I know he was still decent on clay, just trying to demonstrate that your attempts to downsize Rosewall can by applied to Pancho Gonzales too).


The first I've answered to.

Actually, Hoad led by 18 to 8 going into Palm Springs, California, when his back acted up, and he lost that night and the next.
Kramer saw Gonzales the night before Palm Springs, and Gonzales had given up hope.

[kiki]

lefties:

1/Laver
2/Nadal
3/Connors
4/Mc Enroe
5/Brookes
6/Vilas
7/Fraser
8/Orantes
9/Drobny
10/Roche and Goran

others: Tanner,Gomez and also Rios and Korda.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

If you're talking about Sampras, bear in mind that the US Open plays its semifinal the day before the final. It's not easy on any player but especially older players like Sampras was. Sampras also has that disease that affects his stamina. So the losses in the finals to Safin and Hewitt while a credit to both of them for winning, the one sided losses may be due to the tough schedule.

come on pc1, I can understand fatigue being cited as a reason in 2001 - he had to come through a tough draw, but 2000 ? really ? he barely had to spend 2 hrs on court in the semi ..... he just got blown off by safin ...

and even in 2001, hewitt was just too good , especially in sets 2 and 3 ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Safin literally destroyed him in 2000. In 2001 he has beaten in sequence Rafter, Agassi, and Safin to reach the final. Emerson never did something similar in 1968. Fact.

jeez, really, again ? if you'd open your mind up a little and actually think ..... sampras was a clearly better player than emerson, less reliant on legs than him ....... if they had a comparable drop in level, you'd still expect sampras to have clearly better results, would you not ?

again, he was only 35-16 in 2001, winning zero titles .... he ended 2000 @ #3, while he ended 2001 @ #10 ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Not in my opinion. Of course Emerson was physically stronger in his 20s than in his 30s, but I'm sure that if tennis was still closed to Professional, he would have won a Slam in 1968 also. I mean: losing to Pancho Gonzales, 40 years old, on Pancho's weakest surface, when you're the defending champion... that's enough for me.

eh, and sampras lost at the AO to todd martin, a player he had completely owned till then ..todd martin ended the year ranked #57 ...

you are that sure emerson would have won a slam in the amateurs in 68 ? beating ashe, newk, roche etc ? well , well, then he wasn't that bad, was he ?

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Can't understand what this have to do with Emerson.

If you'd read it again, you'd notice I was talking about disregarding the ability/strength of a player at his prime and considering post-prime ( & pre-prime ) results and in some cases, saying pre or post prime years were part of heir prime or they were very close to it ..

that's what you're doing with emerson ...

[timnz]

Originally Posted by abmk

come on pc1, I can understand fatigue being cited as a reason in 2001 - he had to come through a tough draw, but 2000 ? really ? he barely had to spend 2 hrs on court in the semi ..... he just got blown off by safin ...

and even in 2001, hewitt was just too good , especially in sets 2 and 3 ....

I just think that in 2000 Safin had one of those matches when everything is going right. But that is not to indicate that Safin was superior to Sampras, we know this because Sampras handled Safin quite well in 2001

[abmk]

Originally Posted by timnz

I just think that in 2000 Safin had one of those matches when everything is going right. But that is not to indicate that Safin was superior to Sampras, we know this because Sampras handled Safin quite well in 2001

yeah, not saying safin was superior to sampras ...just that fatigue had no role whatsoever in that final in 2000 ....

also I think sampras was in better form in the 2000 USO than safin in the 2001 USO ..

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, not saying safin was superior to sampras ...just that fatigue had no role whatsoever in that final in 2000 ....

also I think sampras was in better form in the 2000 USO than safin in the 2001 USO ..

You could be right but I know that's been a major subject of debate in the past because playing the semi the day before hurts the older player much more.

abmk,

Who is your pick for the Australian? I haven't seen the top players in action but I guess I would go with Murray. Now watch he'll be slaughtered in his next match. lol.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

You could be right but I know that's been a major subject of debate in the past because playing the semi the day before hurts the older player much more.

I am right .....

you could use age as a possible reason if the player had a draining semi, but that was not the case at all here ...

Originally Posted by pc1

abmk,

Who is your pick for the Australian? I haven't seen the top players in action but I guess I would go with Murray. Now watch he'll be slaughtered in his next match. lol.

Logically , would have to go with djoker ... but hoping fed can take it of course ... would be a bit surprised if anyone other than the top 3 takes it .......tsonga, berdych,delpo,ferrer are contenders, but unlikely unless they are in absolute top form ...

murray isn't going to beaten atleast until the QF when he'll possibly face delpo , heh ...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

jeez, really, again ?

What does "again" mean? You are still answering too, aren't you?

if you'd open your mind up a little and actually think ..... sampras was a clearly better player than emerson, less reliant on legs than him ....... if they had a comparable drop in level

It was not comparable in my opinion.

again, he was only 35-16 in 2001, winning zero titles .... he ended 2000 @ #3, while he ended 2001 @ #10 ...

Reaching a Major final by beating in sequence Rafter, Safin and Agassi is enough for me. I repeat, Emerson never did something similar.

eh, and sampras lost at the AO to todd martin, a player he had completely owned till then ..todd martin ended the year ranked #57 ...

It was not his first loss with low-ranked players, so what?

you are that sure emerson would have won a slam in the amateurs in 68 ? beating ashe, newk, roche etc ? well , well, then he wasn't that bad, was he ?

Didn't say he was bad, I've said he was not a champion, there's a difference, can you see it? Moreover, without facing the Pro in 1968 their level probably wouldn't have raised... anyway, we are still talking about science fiction, as in the larger part of this discussion.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

What does "again" mean? You are still answering too, aren't you?


It was not comparable in my opinion.


Reaching a Major final by beating in sequence Rafter, Safin and Agassi is enough for me. I repeat, Emerson never did something similar.

again, are you really not getting this or just pretending to be thick ???

sampras was a clearly better player than emerson . even with major decline in level, he was still capable of doing quite a bit better than emerson with a similar sort of decline

but he declined majorly from 2000 to 2001 and that's a fact ...just look at his play and his results ...

so emerson did from 67 to 68 ...

I'm not saying sampras in 2001 and emerson in 68 are at the same level. I'm saying their decline in those years from the respective previous years are comparable

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

It was not his first loss with low-ranked players, so what?.

lol, so emmo losing to a 40-year old gonzales on clay, while gonzales was still within the top 10-15 for sure definitely proves emerson 'sucked' while sampras losing to todd martin who ended the year ranked #57 , the reaction is so what ? LOL !!

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Didn't say he was bad, I've said he was not a champion, there's a difference, can you see it? Moreover, without facing the Pro in 1968 their level probably wouldn't have raised... anyway, we are still talking about science fiction, as in the larger part of this discussion.

yeah, lol, ashe,newk, roche all improved as soon as they joined the pros, but emerson while 'still at his prime' did not, had no significant decline .... and emmo, not a 'champ', but was beating them in the amateurs multiple times ...

and this for 3 players, not just one ... if it is one, maybe you could say an exception ....

indeed that does sound like science fiction to me ...

reality is emerson's decline was a far more major factor than the beginning of the open era ...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

with a similar sort of decline

You are just repeating this again and again, but I disapprove that point, so you can stop it. We don't read this in the same way, that's your opinion, not mine.

lol, so emmo losing to a 40-year old gonzales on clay, while gonzales was still within the top 10-15 for sure definitely proves emerson 'sucked'

Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this point I mean that Pancho's (Rosewall's/Laver's/Gimeno's) level in his prime was much higher than Emerson's.

yeah, lol, ashe,newk, roche all improved as soon as they joined the pros, but emerson while 'still at his prime' did not, had no significant decline .... and emmo, not a 'champ', but was beating them in the amateurs multiple times ...

They were all in the right age to improve by facing a stronger opposition, while Emerson wasn't.

reality is emerson's decline was a far more major factor than the beginning of the open era ...

Not for me, he was just at the same level: couldn't improve that much because he was too old, but didn't decline neither. He just stayed at his level, that's what I think.

Oh, please let's stop this, it's becoming redundant.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

You are just repeating this again and again, but I disapprove that point, so you can stop it. We don't read this in the same way, that's your opinion, not mine.

disprove ? heh, in which alternate world are you in ?

does sampras having one good run in USO 2001 disprove that he declined majorly from 2000 to 2001 ? really ? with a 35-16 record and no titles ...

you cannot have exact results and exact decline for two players ! jeez !

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this point I mean that Pancho's (Rosewall's/Laver's/Gimeno's) level in his prime was much higher than Emerson's.

way to sneak in gimeno there .... pancho, rosewall, laver , yes , but gimeno ? nope ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Not for me, he was just at the same level: couldn't improve that much because he was too old, but didn't decline neither. He just stayed at his level, that's what I think.

Oh, please let's stop this, it's becoming redundant.

whatever, take another look at your double standards if you can.... you started 'whining' about disrespect when I put rosewall out of the top 5 for peak play & said that djoker would have it easy vs his serve ...

yet you have no qualms while stating that emerson having a physical game, won his first slam in 61 didn't decline much in 68 at all .... in fact you scoffed at the very possibility of him declining from 67 to 68, I gave very clear examples of wilander and sampras , you backtracked regarding the possibility of it and just stated it didn't happen ...

and again, you aren't quoting the full text of what I said, which is far more substantive and probably embarrassing to your arguments ....

you can stop if you want, but stop whining about 'disrespect' to rosewall when I didn't even say anything that much derogatory about him/his play , while you are off blatantly under-rating and under-mining another player - in this case emerson ...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

does sampras having one good run in USO 2001 disprove that he declined majorly from 2000 to 2001 ? really ? with a 35-16 record and no titles ...

He declined, but not that much. I repeat, he has beaten Agassi, Rafter and Safin in sequence, that's enough for me.

way to sneak in gimeno there .... pancho, rosewall, laver , yes , but gimeno ? nope

In my opinion he was way stronger than Emerson. I won't start an argument about this also, I'm pretty tired by this discussion.

in fact you scoffed at the very possibility of him declining from 67 to 68, I gave very clear examples of wilander and sampras , you backtracked regarding the possibility of it and just stated it didn't happen ...

My god, you're just exhausting! Just stop it please, we have different opinions! I've argumented a lot and made tons of examples, we simply don't read it the same way.

you can stop if you want, but stop whining about 'disrespect' to rosewall when I didn't even say anything that much derogatory about him/his play

You didn't? Just go back at the first post and read it. Now I've had enough.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

He declined, but not that much. I repeat, he has beaten Agassi, Rafter and Safin in sequence, that's enough for me.

yes, a 14 time grand slam champion going from W, F, SF @ 3 of the slams, winning 4 titles including wimbledon to only one slam final the next year , no other QFs at a major, going 35-16 and winning no titles that year ... yeah, sounds like the norm to me ... no big decline ...

sure sounds like a lot of respect for a 14 time major champion

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

In my opinion he was way stronger than Emerson. I won't start an argument about this also, I'm pretty tired by this discussion.


My god, you're just exhausting! Just stop it please, we have different opinions! I've argumented a lot and made tons of examples, we simply don't read it the same way.

sure we don't ... I live in the world of reality ... you live in an alternate world ... see the first part of my reply for proof ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

You didn't? Just go back at the first post and read it. Now I've had enough.

I already said I did. There was nothing that disrespectful ......up to you to stop making a big fuss about that/stop this conversation when you yourself have belittled Emerson quite a bit and now even sampras to an extent !

[FedericRoma83]

Ok, I won't go on with this, it is simply becoming boring, sorry. Just another braggart who can't accept multiplicity of opinions, straight into my ignore list.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

You are just repeating this again and again, but I disapprove that point, so you can stop it. We don't read this in the same way, that's your opinion, not mine.


Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this point I mean that Pancho's (Rosewall's/Laver's/Gimeno's) level in his prime was much higher than Emerson's.


They were all in the right age to improve by facing a stronger opposition, while Emerson wasn't.


Not for me, he was just at the same level: couldn't improve that much because he was too old, but didn't decline neither. He just stayed at his level, that's what I think.

Oh, please let's stop this, it's becoming redundant.

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?
And was Gimeno still part of the discussion?
Remember, Santana in the sixties was a much hotter product than Gimeno, but the pros could not afford to sign Santana or Emerson, who made more money as amateurs than Laver or Rosewall did as pros!

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Ok, I won't go on with this, it is simply becoming boring, sorry. Just another braggart who can't accept multiplicity of opinions, straight into my ignore list.

hah, the irony of it all

accepting different opinions when opinions are close to reality/backed up by facts is one thing, another thing when someone is just way off track .....

how about I say that you accept whenever someone says that the peak level of agassi, wilander, becker, edberg etc was far better than that of Rosewall ?