prosealster
Professional
likewise...
If you think these exhibitions are NOT rigged, that's your business. But don't pretend you know, because you don't.
If this doesn't prove "scripted" exos...
- Thread starter Kim
- Start date
likewise...
If you think these exhibitions are NOT rigged, that's your business. But don't pretend you know, because you don't.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Pete just has a bigger more offensive game than Fed and is too hot to handle with his new k90 and new technology strings.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Fed only made 13 unforced errors to petes 15 in the 3rd match. Fed makes up to 30 or 40 soemtimes when hes on the atp. Pete was just too hot to handle.
J-man
Hall of Fame
Even if it is not scripted it's not the same Federer you see at Wimbledon or any other ATP tournament/GS. So Sampras winning doesn't really mean anything. But nonetheless, good job to Sampras.http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3rHOzi_DzgoNQgTagpod2y-qMCw
Some quotes:
"Sampras poked fun at his losses - 6-4, 6-3 in South Korea on Tuesday and 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5) in Malaysia on Thursday - and urged Federer to "throw me a bone" in Saturday's finale. He likened the possibility of just winning a set against Federer to an eighth Wimbledon title.
When Federer, fresh from winning the Masters Cup in Shanghai, China, last week, said Sampras has "a chance" on Saturday, the American sheepishly repeated, "just a chance."
See, Sampras suggests/urged Federer to throw him a bone, and in fact likens winning a set against Fed as winning another Wimby... And Fed says Sampras "has a chance"... AND GUESS WHAT, Sampras gets the First Set against Fed in their last match
Scripted. Period. Anyone else naive about this?
Enough said.
Kinda funny how after these 3 matches everyone on this message board is trying to muster why Federer looked so vulnerable against Sampras...either: "It's just an exhibition" so "It was staged" or "He wasn't trying".....YET no one has really analyzed how they matched up against eachother. No Federer fan wants to admit how Sampras served up Federer on his first AND second serve.
How many times did Pete NOT go for a shot? If anything it was Pete that wasn't trying as hard as he could...Roger tried to run everything down-from dropshots to lobs and running side to side. Everyone loves a good conspiracy though right? Likening Federer as someone who SOLD HIMSELF out to the exhibitions? Federer is a real Davydenko then eh?
How many times did Pete NOT go for a shot? If anything it was Pete that wasn't trying as hard as he could...Roger tried to run everything down-from dropshots to lobs and running side to side. Everyone loves a good conspiracy though right? Likening Federer as someone who SOLD HIMSELF out to the exhibitions? Federer is a real Davydenko then eh?
alwaysatnet
Semi-Pro
But I'm not the one making the claims of rigging, am I?likewise...
If you think these exhibitions are NOT rigged, that's your business. But don't pretend you know, because you don't.
The cynics are. Let them prove what they claim. Can you prove it?
How do we know all matches aren't rigged, for that matter? At some point common sense has to win out. The matches are assumed to be straight and until some evidence to the contrary pops up that's a given. Your suspicions aren't proof of anything!
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are arguably the two greatest players ever. They both win a lot (more than anyone ever). So what does Federer have to gain by throwing matches? What would Federer's motivation be for losing to Pete Sampras? Would he want to taint, even a little, his legacy as the greatest of them all? Why would he intentionally lose and make an argument for Pete's cause? It makes no sense.
Federer's ego would never allow it. He's on the cusp of winning the most slams ever not for no reason. He doesn't like losing to anybody! Least of all to his chief competition for the title of greatest player of all time.
He isn't going to make any more money by doing this. His cut of all of this is already insured by his contract with the promoters. The event doesn't need hyping and any tennis fan interested in seeing these two play isn't going to attend, or not attend, based on what happened in Macao (or where ever). They are going because it's a historic event and a chance to see these two greatest players ever, even if Pete is well past his prime.
I guess you need to post about something to kill the dead time in your life but try to have some common sense about this all. Otherwise you just come off like a cynical fool. And you don't want that, do you?
Last edited:
FedForGOAT
Professional
This is the best post in this thread by far. perfect representation of what actually happened, IMO. I'm not saying these were necessarily scripted, but they definitely weren't played like important matches. Fed wasn't playing his best at all in those matches (save the 2nd, perhaps). He was playing a bit like the way he was playing when he lost to Gonzo. He was definitely not putting his best out there, and lost to a player that was really hot that day. This is why it's an exo. Fed doesn't have to play his best. doesn't mean pete is a better player, or that Fed is done or anything else. It was an exo, and it was played as such.
You need to listen to what Fed said after his match with Isner. He did not make an UE for 105 consecutive points.do you know what he said? He said something along the lines of: unforced error? whats an unforced error? he doesn't let me hit the ball, so I can't make an error.
That sums it up. statistics are misleading. In the first exo match, for example, Fed didn't get to shots he obviously could have gotten to. so they counted as winners for Sampras. but that doesn't mean Sampras was playing great, just that fed wasn't trying.
Also, I'm pretty sure that a service winner counts as a forced error all the time, even if it was a serve that is easily returnable.
statistics out of context don't mean much.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Ok forgett he stats, it was just a number i noticed, but nothing to make an arguement with. So first exo sampars looked half asleep and jetlagged so we can forgett hat one. Fed said Sampras was twice as fast in the 2nd one.
My take is Fed cant touch the Sampras' serve, so then it just came down to how Pete handled Feds serve. SO he broke once, he's the goat so thats nothing surprising. Basically Sampras handles Feds game pretty comfortably.
Its impossible for Fed to play his best v Sampras when he cant read his serve or can hardly touch it(Fed said Sampras's serve is incredible and he cant read it- I dont think hes lieing). Feds best is when he plays guys like roddick who feed him loopy topspin forehands and never come to net to hit a decent volley. Or his best is versus guys who never come to net in general and just let him get into rhythm. Feds best isnt going to be versus a guy who gives him no rhythm regardless of whether hes at 90% , 100% or whatever. Againt a guy like Sampras Fed would have many more days where he looks 'off' compared to when he playe guys who play on the baseline and let him dictate.
Sampras can dictate so much that he can make opponents look so bad like they're not trying, his pressure and the way he makes them try to come up with shots straight away can make them miss more than ussual. I can see how that could look like not trying to Fed fans who are used to him engaging in rallys then picking his moment to go for a winner. Versus Sampras he has to go for a winner more often when Sampras demands. Its not easy to suddenly face someone like Sampras let alone when you havn't faced it all year. Feds great but Sampras is reminding him that hes only been great versus less than great opposition.
Sampras is so relaxed in his own serve and game, that it looks like hes just playing any regular player.
Anyways this is too much analysis..Sampras is just a legend and when he turns it on he can make anyone look ordinary.
My take is Fed cant touch the Sampras' serve, so then it just came down to how Pete handled Feds serve. SO he broke once, he's the goat so thats nothing surprising. Basically Sampras handles Feds game pretty comfortably.
Its impossible for Fed to play his best v Sampras when he cant read his serve or can hardly touch it(Fed said Sampras's serve is incredible and he cant read it- I dont think hes lieing). Feds best is when he plays guys like roddick who feed him loopy topspin forehands and never come to net to hit a decent volley. Or his best is versus guys who never come to net in general and just let him get into rhythm. Feds best isnt going to be versus a guy who gives him no rhythm regardless of whether hes at 90% , 100% or whatever. Againt a guy like Sampras Fed would have many more days where he looks 'off' compared to when he playe guys who play on the baseline and let him dictate.
Sampras can dictate so much that he can make opponents look so bad like they're not trying, his pressure and the way he makes them try to come up with shots straight away can make them miss more than ussual. I can see how that could look like not trying to Fed fans who are used to him engaging in rallys then picking his moment to go for a winner. Versus Sampras he has to go for a winner more often when Sampras demands. Its not easy to suddenly face someone like Sampras let alone when you havn't faced it all year. Feds great but Sampras is reminding him that hes only been great versus less than great opposition.
Sampras is so relaxed in his own serve and game, that it looks like hes just playing any regular player.
Anyways this is too much analysis..Sampras is just a legend and when he turns it on he can make anyone look ordinary.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
I think Sampras should play Nadal next. We already know how he can handle Fed. BRing it on.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I think if Sampras played Nadal on the same fast indoor surfaces as these 3 exhibitions, it would be no contest. Sampras would win. Sampras would be camping at the net knocking off sitter volleys from Nadal's topspin shots that travel high over the net.
Aside from the pure talents of each no exo can duplicate tournament play and in particular for Sampras big tournament play.
They're not going to feel the pressure or be forced to find that intensity. Both were probably playing faster and looser with nothing to lose and nothing to gain and ultimately neither was going to kill themselves trying, especially from Fed's side, who came through another year unscathed physically.
Even if both could be tempted to go "tennis balls to the wall" by an astronomical sum of money/winner take all set-up, it's still different than playing for majors and history. It simply can't be replicated.
It's what it was. An exhibition of the talents of the last two greatest players on earth, minus the heart/guts/pressure of playing for history.
Enjoy it for what it was.
They're not going to feel the pressure or be forced to find that intensity. Both were probably playing faster and looser with nothing to lose and nothing to gain and ultimately neither was going to kill themselves trying, especially from Fed's side, who came through another year unscathed physically.
Even if both could be tempted to go "tennis balls to the wall" by an astronomical sum of money/winner take all set-up, it's still different than playing for majors and history. It simply can't be replicated.
It's what it was. An exhibition of the talents of the last two greatest players on earth, minus the heart/guts/pressure of playing for history.
Enjoy it for what it was.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
This whole debate reminds of of when Federer beat Roddick at this year's US Open in 3 tight sets and the idiots came on this board and claimed that Federer was only playing at 60% because the match was closer than expected. Now that was a Grand Slam QF so if Federer only plays at 60% then, he must be trying even harder to beat Sampras because now people are saying that Federer was playing at 75% against Sampras. Puleeeeeze!
It's like anytime Federer has a close match the Federer fanboys on this board come out to claim that Federer was playing at well under 100% of what he could be playing at and was not trying his best nor giving it his all, i.e., that he was taking it easy on his opponent. It's as if, if Federer played at 100% he would never lose a single game in any match against any opponent. Give me a break!!!!!!!
It's like anytime Federer has a close match the Federer fanboys on this board come out to claim that Federer was playing at well under 100% of what he could be playing at and was not trying his best nor giving it his all, i.e., that he was taking it easy on his opponent. It's as if, if Federer played at 100% he would never lose a single game in any match against any opponent. Give me a break!!!!!!!
MasturB
Legend
As one of Federer's biggest fans, I personally think his footwork is on the decline. You watch his footwork from the 2006 Masters event as opposed to 2007, and you'll see a huge difference. 2004 may have been his best year in terms of overall footwork and ballstriking. However 2006 may have been his best year in terms of shotmaking. Alot of the matches I watched from 2006 had him striking the ball so cleanly with lots of topspin and pace.
2007, i've never seen him use his backhand slice so much up until this year. It all started with the spring hardcourt season.In Australia there wasn't that much of a difference, but at Indian Wells and through the clay season I noticed a huge change. He's also had alot of unforced errors on both wings. It could be he's playing a bit more conservative, but I feel he's losing a few steps and his footwork is feeling the effects of it.
Last edited:
prosealster
Professional
hey mate...i'm just presenting the otherside of the coin based on the statement that you made.. i think it's well known that exo are just exo... people play at different intensity and the pros dont treat them seriously enough.. that's why it's never included in the official H2H records...hence it's just not as straightforward as u say that it's up to people to prove rather than disprove whether it was a 100% legit contest... I know for a fact that when i used to play competitive tennis...i would beat mates who are a lot higher than me in national ranking at practice...but in national tournments, the intensity is just different..and i lose to them just about everytime...people who knows that they are good dont have to prove anything to anyone on practice matches..
urself also made a lot of assumptions about what rog thinks if he lose to pete...also do really think interests in the MSG will be the same if rog bagle/breadstick pete (not saying he can) for the 1st 3 matches vs the score line we have now??
also saying i have to post something to kill dead time in my life is another assumption....do u know that for a fact.... and the last statement u said sounds condescending to me...as i said above...it is comon sense that pros treat exos differently than tour matches...so just because ur 'common sense' doesnt agree with other's doesnt give u a pass to patronize others... I believe confucius once said... those that tries to exert superiority by patronize others usually have inner sense of insecurity ( or something like that)... and i know u probably dont mean that...so i will not take offence... cheers
alwaysatnet
Semi-Pro
I understand that the nature of an exhibition is different than that of a real match. It's still a large leap from there to assume that the outcome is rigged. It may not be life and death like a grand slam final, but it's still pretty important in these guy's minds to cement their places in history. So do I think it's somewhat serious? Yes. I sure do.
And yeah, I'm assuming Roger hates losing but that assumption is backed up by watching him play for a matter of years now and seeing his reaction to losses. You don't get to be number one in the world by not caring if you win or not. And the fact that he is playing the guy, Pete Sampras, who is the yardstick of greatness he is trying to surpass, makes his will to win all the greater. When Pete and Roger played a few practice sets in Pete's backyard Roger made sure the media knew he won the sets. He has worked hard to be the Alpha male tennis player and doesn't regard that lightly.
And yes, I think there will be a butt in almost every seat because Pete is playing Roger regardless of the earlier exhibition scores. This is like watching Rocky Marciano vs. Muhammad Ali in a boxing exhibition: it's historical! Pete's not getting any younger so this is the best chance to see these two square off (aside from the one Wimbledon match). That can't be overestimated, in my view.
The closing of my post could be seen as patronizing (okay, it was a little) so I apologize for that. But not for being annoyed by the cynical nature of a lot of posts at TW, not just the ones involving this exhibition. Like I said, belief is one thing but proof is another.
And yeah, I'm assuming Roger hates losing but that assumption is backed up by watching him play for a matter of years now and seeing his reaction to losses. You don't get to be number one in the world by not caring if you win or not. And the fact that he is playing the guy, Pete Sampras, who is the yardstick of greatness he is trying to surpass, makes his will to win all the greater. When Pete and Roger played a few practice sets in Pete's backyard Roger made sure the media knew he won the sets. He has worked hard to be the Alpha male tennis player and doesn't regard that lightly.
And yes, I think there will be a butt in almost every seat because Pete is playing Roger regardless of the earlier exhibition scores. This is like watching Rocky Marciano vs. Muhammad Ali in a boxing exhibition: it's historical! Pete's not getting any younger so this is the best chance to see these two square off (aside from the one Wimbledon match). That can't be overestimated, in my view.
The closing of my post could be seen as patronizing (okay, it was a little) so I apologize for that. But not for being annoyed by the cynical nature of a lot of posts at TW, not just the ones involving this exhibition. Like I said, belief is one thing but proof is another.
Last edited:
lambielspins
Banned
Stop replying to these frigging Sampras-Federer threads. Just let them die.
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
Don't tell me what to do. OOPS
lambielspins
Banned
Why are you helping to keep these dumb Sampras-Federer threads going and bringing them up. Just let them go.
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
And what did you just do, genius?
Great analysis...I also think Federer's footwork has been 'lazy'. However, I think he's doing it on purpose...trying to 'save himself' and add a couple more years to his career, much the same way Sampras did in 1998 and on, they picked which points to play hard and when needed- they would go all out.