TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
And you are in love with Federer.The ignorance.
That is it.
And you are in love with Federer.The ignorance.
That is it.
And you are in love with Federer.
It’s 1:25. Go to bed and cuddle with your wife dear.And you love your non sequiturs.
It’s 1:25. Go to bed and cuddle with your wife dear.
Calm down, no need to get hysterical here.I thought that you are all for freedom , and now you are giving me instructions what to do! Next thing you know, you will tell me to go buy an EV!
Calm down, no need to get hysterical here.
Top explanations/excuses:If people are to accept Fed as the GOAT, then one needs to explain them the drop in dominance from pre-2008 with no Andy, Novak and mature Rafa, to past-2008 where Andy, Nole and mature Rafa were present.
They need to explain Fed's obvious failure in the H2H vs Rafa.
If they can't, then the argument for GOAT cannot be made.
It doesn't mean automatically that Pete is GOAT, but that the GOAT issue remains very much a question mark.
2020 will bring a lot of answers.
Pinworthy post.Yeah a 6'1" guy who could hit howitzer serves up the ass of an insect sure was boring. One of the best pure athletes to ever play was boring. Extreme risk taking was boring. Yeah, sure. Just admit you love baseline tennis instead of taking digs at the guy who didn't have to resort to 15 stroke trench warfare to win.
In polarized conditions, Fed would have many more Berdych, Tsonga and Stahkovsky moments. Sure, when he plays on cushion covered courts that nullify the danger of a power player he's immune to upset but best you believe he's biting dust WAY more in the live n die conditions of Pete's heydayI like Becker as well, but let’s be honest, he was always beatable. And do you really think peak Federer would have lost to him even in RR matches or have a 40-15 situation? On the other hand Sampras never had to play against Djokovic of course. By the way, contrary to your suggestion Agassi has a slightly better H2H percentage wise against Becker (9-5) than Sampras (12-7).
To Sampras himself: He may have a winning H2H record against most of the important players of his era (not all, see Krajicek, Stich and later Hewitt, Safin etc. when he really wasn’t THAT old). But his problem was that just like Becker he literally could lose to anyone on any day when one aspect of his game wasn’t working. Okay, let’s say this was the case apart from Wimbledon. Look at the names he lost to at Slams from 1997-2002 and don’t say me Federer would have lost to anyone of them during the same age.
But by the way, that are only arguments why Sampras wasn’t GOAT. Other than that I was his fan and loved watching him play.
Top explanations/excuses:
1. Mono
2. Pretty backhand
3. Age
4. Backhand
5. 90 square inch
6. Backhand
7. Movement
8. Conditions (lol)
9. Easy competition for Djokodal (lol)
10. Backhand
Feel free to add any I missed
Is it really the case? I mean, today the percentage of service games won is higher than in the 90s, maybe apart from grass. I don’t think Federer would have had many losses just due to being outserved or overpowered.In polarized conditions, Fed would have many more Berdych, Tsonga and Stahkovsky moments. Sure, when he plays on cushion covered courts that nullify the danger of a power player he's immune to upset but best you believe he's biting dust WAY more in the live n die conditions of Pete's heyday
Is it really necessary for me to post a 40-15 gif or do you know that's the response/ownage of your gif?I know just the right thing to cheer you up:
Is it really necessary for me to post a 40-15 gif or do you know that's the response/ownage of your gif?
Sampras had better clay competition than Fed aside from Nadal, who he never beat anyways.90's Clay would still be here talking up Sampras' competition on clay if he wasn't banned.
Top explanations/excuses:
1. Mono
2. Pretty backhand
3. Age
4. Backhand
5. 90 square inch
6. Backhand
7. Movement
8. Conditions (lol)
9. Easy competition for Djokodal (lol)
10. Backhand
Feel free to add any I missed
Was a PATHETIC attempt to pull Petros fans down onto the sinking ship that is Fedfandom. Pretty much every response points out how Fed won't even top his own time and therefore OP's attempt conpletely backfired. Don't know if he was around to see that tho, sadly"Now I know how Sampras fans feel"
Is there a premise here?
13. Strings/topspin (LOL)11. Bad Light (Wimbledon 2008 final)
12. Distracting parents (Djokovic's)
13. Strings/topspin (LOL)
14. Father/family
11. Bad Light (Wimbledon 2008 final)
12. Distracting parents (Djokovic's)
15. Bad back13. Strings/topspin (LOL)
14. Father/family
This is now a thread. Wonder how long in terms of hours it would take to hit 10015. Bad back
16. Matchup issue
17. Mentality problem
18. Draws15. Bad back
16. Matchup issue
17. Mentality problem
Now a thread near you18. Draws
I Agree we need a list of the excuses in a separate threadNow a thread near you
Boohoo.Sampras had better clay competition than Fed aside from Nadal, who he never beat anyways.
Next.
15. Bad back
16. Matchup issue
17. Mentality problem
Fedster did manage to almost get him to 5 thoBoohoo.
had one up but it was taken down. Truth hurts I guessI Agree we need a list of the excuses in a separate thread
I know!! Always like that.had one up but it was taken down. Truth hurts I guess
By all means, post whatever you want. In the meantime, here is another blitzer:
Watching their hero end as top of his time is something Fed fans will never know either.Watching their hero win 3 slams at 35+ is something Sampras/Djoko/Nadal fans will never get to feel.
Lucky Fed fans.
Watching their hero end as top of his time is something Fed fans will never know either.
Does 3rd get a plate?Federer holds up the plate instead
19. ATP conspiracy18. Draws
20. Wind19. ATP conspiracy
Does 3rd get a plate?
21. Consistency a.k.a. Making it so far on clay, opponent not making it deep enough on his best surface20. Wind
22. No masters on grass21. Consistency a.k.a. Making it so far on clay, opponent not making it deep enough on his best surface
23. Clay season too long22. No masters on grass
21. Consistency a.k.a. Making it so far on clay, opponent not making it deep enough on his best surface
Does 3rd get a plate?
Just today someone used it on the forum saying Federer would lose in 4 at RG if not for the wind. Others more radical even say Federer would have defeated Nadal without the wind. Seems like ad hoc excuses to rationalize the loss in 3.20. Wind
Haha. Are you still sore that your guy lost to a pony-tailed teenager at his own backyard and never won there again? And yes, the number 20 is 6 slams greater than 14. I am afraid you have to live with it. No amount of rationalization will help you get over basic facts.Watching their hero end as top of his time is something Fed fans will never know either.
He didn't say it, but Federer is better than Sampras, especially on clay and slow/medium hardcourts.In an interview with 3iguales, former Chilean player Fernando Gonzalez was asked who was the better player between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras. The Swiss holds six more Grand Slam titles than the American, 20 vs 14. Gonzalez said: "It's like comparing Pele to Maradona, Maradona to Messi."
In other words, Fernando doesn't think Federer is the better player
Agassi was a fantastic returner. His serve was effective, his forehand powerful. His game suited him to win more than one Wimbledon title. Agassi at Wimbledon 1999 was a solid rival, definetely not easier than Roddick. But Sampras was so dominant on fast grass that virtually no one could touch him.He didn't say it, but Federer is better than Sampras, especially on clay and slow/medium hardcourts.
Pete's competition on grass is not even close as tough as the one Fed had.Murray, 2004, 2009 Roddick, Nadal and especially Djokovic are greater competition than Sampras ever had.Krajicek 1996 might be better that Arod and Murray, but anyway Pete never beat him on grass.
I've seen you biased towards Sampras, that why I told you these things.
You have a point with 1999 Agassi, but the american was inconsitent.Fed's rivals reached consecutive Wimbledon finals.Agassi was a fantastic returner. His serve was effective, his forehand powerful. His game suited him to win more than one Wimbledon title. Agassi at Wimbledon 1999 was a solid rival, definetely not easier than Roddick. But Sampras was so dominant on fast grass that virtually no one could touch him.
There is no such a thing as GOAT, so, would you please shut up.
Was that short enough?
So you believe that 2 or more players are exactly equal in greatness?