Cahill: Federer is a better player now than he was 6-7 years ago

[NatF]

Originally Posted by DRII

Psyche!

haven't you learned anything by now?

You don't think those 5 I mentioned would be a more daunting prospect in the quarters than say Almagro or Tsonga etc...?

[Paullaconte1]

Hi think he is not better than 6-7 year ago, but he is definitely better than 2/3 years ago.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Do you get off on trying to sound like a know it all smart*****? Agassi said what he said, and we have video evidence, results, etc. to prove how awesome Fed was. Stop trying to bring him down every single opportunity, please. It's getting to the point where every time you say something we have to quote you and try to not to tell you to go to a mental institution, it's getting preposterous.

We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams.


Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams.


Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.

The Nadal thing has been beaten to death,, and is a unique situation. Prime Fed>Current Fed. Agassi wasn't wrong in his assessment. That is all.

[sportsfan1]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

Depends what they mean as better. He'll have more skills, knowledge, experience & tactics now than he had back then, it's just that his body lets him down more often than it would have in the past.
Fed in 2006 for instance played 97 matches, back in the days of 5 set masters finals, and still managed to win 12 tournaments throughout the year. Last year Fed played 83 matches, his highest since 2006, and looked completely gassed post-Cincinnati.

This is a good observation, hopefully his reduced schedule this year will help him (win more Grand slams). But it could go either way.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams.


Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by abmk

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

Sampras's record at the French Open in his last six appearances there is 5 wins and 6 losses. To ask Nadal to play him on Clay would be an insult to Nadal. Maybe Ferrer will do.

[President]

Originally Posted by abmk

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

90's Clay thinks that Sampras would MASSACRE 2 time Wimbledon champ and 3 time finalist Nadal on grass, but then turns around and says 1 time RG Semifinalist Petros Sampras has a "punchers chance" against Nadal at the French Open...

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by abmk

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

Only at RG what? Hes 2-0 vs. Fed on hard courts at the slams as well.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by President

90's Clay thinks that Sampras would MASSACRE 2 time Wimbledon champ and 3 time finalist Nadal on grass, but then turns around and says 1 time RG Semifinalist Petros Sampras has a "punchers chance" against Nadal at the French Open...

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

[smoledman]

Maybe Fed is better then he was in 2006, but the field has gotten more better then his own improvement which is why he's not dominating the game utterly.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Only at RG what? Hes 2-0 vs. Fed on hard courts at the slams as well.

one of them was at age 30+ ...sampras @ 29 was losing to todd martin @ the AO, someone who he had owned before and ended the year 2001 @ #57 ......

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

no, he wouldn't have a chance at all ... Its as close to zero as it gets in tennis ...

isner's serve on clay is by some distance better than pete's and that was a 1R match .... in the later stages of a tourney, nadal is far less susceptible .. he'd simply massacre pete

bruguera, muster were wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy below par when pete beat them ... courier was almost done being a threat ... agassi and kafelnikov are good, but not great on clay ...

if you think sampras has a better chance on clay ( making only one semi @ RG ) vs nadal than nadal on grass ( two time champion and three time finalist @ wimbledon) vs sampras, you have serious problems ....

[President]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

You are ridiculous man...you hype Sampras as some unbeatable grass god who a 2 time Wimbledon champion and grass great himself would have no chance against. Then you turn around and say that Sampras (who is way less accomplished on clay than Nadal is on grass) has a decent shot against Nadal on clay (who is better on the surface by some distance than Sampras on grass). Do you not see the problem here?

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

you realize that by filtering out facts that don't support your presuppositions your're putting yourself in a position where you can never learn anything new? you are truly stuck, unfortunately, in the 90's. say hi to chandler and monica for us.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by President

You are ridiculous man...you hype Sampras as some unbeatable grass god who a 2 time Wimbledon champion and grass great himself would have no chance against. Then you turn around and say that Sampras (who is way less accomplished on clay than Nadal is on grass) has a decent shot against Nadal on clay (who is better on the surface by some distance than Sampras on grass). Do you not see the problem here?

Ummm when did I say Pete's chances would be "great" or even "decent" I said he would just have a puncher's chance.

Try and read next time

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Ummm when did I say Pete's chances would be "great" or even "decent" I said he would just have a puncher's chance.

Try and read next time

Nadal is a much better grass player than Pete on clay. I think you are in denial that Nadal has a much greater chance of beating Pete on grass than Pete beating Nadal on clay.

[President]

90's clay..why do you hate Federer so much? What about him irritates you so much or is it just that you would hate anybody who broke Petros' records?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by TMF

Nadal is a much better grass player than Pete on clay. I think you are in denial that Nadal has a much greater chance of beating Pete on grass than Pete beating Nadal on clay.

Depends on the speed of course.

Fast Grass- Nadal has 0 percent chance
90s French- Pete has a 20 percent chance (Rafa wouldn't be able to generate the same topspin as he does now
Slow grass- Nadal has maybe a 10-15 percent chance
Today's French- Pete has maybe a 35-40 percent chance (Its easier for big hitter today at the French then it was in the 90s when the French was Monte Carlo Slow)