Vindicates me against people like this:
Comparing Haas to players like Andreev is an insult.
Already said I agree with you by the way, 1-2 slams for Haas if he was injury free.
Is Tommy Hass basically a Federer who was prone to injury?
- Thread starter DRII
- Start date
Vindicates me against people like this:
Comparing Haas to players like Andreev is an insult.
Already said I agree with you by the way, 1-2 slams for Haas if he was injury free.
abmk
Bionic Poster
duh, , almost every player would be better off without injuries affecting them ....... Isn't that plain common sense ????
yes, coming back to the degree of how much better haas' career would have been , he never showed that much of talent or peak performance that fed did - for example the sampras match at wimbledon in 2001, the destruction of safin in hamburg 2002 etc etc ... .....
Haas never had the x-factor, didn't have that one dominant weapon to distinguish himself from the others ( fed had/has three - forehand, movement and clutch serve ) ..
he might have won a slam or two if he were not so injury prone ... But don't you think maybe, maybe its slightly dumb to assume that a player who hasn't reached a slam final, would be close to reaching GOAT status if not for injuries ?
abmk
Bionic Poster
career-wise, yes, it would be an insult to compare haas to andreev ...
level of performance wise ( USO 2008 andreev, AO 2010 andreev and AO 2011 simon ) to haas ( AO 2006, FO 2009 ), no ...
It would be an insult to compare peter doohan to becker, career-wise, but fact is he did beat him at his very peak at wimbledon in an excellent performance ...... something players far superior to doohan in lendl, cash could not ...
Definitely,watch any of his matches with Nadal, his backhand holds up great, his lack of movement is why he never won a set off Nadal but his backhand is incredible.
Because Becker played badly...
Haas is a top player who can rise to Federer's level, Andreev is a poor man's Nadal who dragged Federer down to his level. That's the difference.
abmk
Bionic Poster
still takes one hell of a performance to beat peak becker in straights at wimbledon ... and so it was ...
disagree, andreev was actually playing well on both those occasions...
haas was bagelled by federer in set 2 at AO 2006, before federer slumped & haas began to play better .....
in FO 2009, federer didn't lose a point on first serve, but played a terrible breaker, his forehand was flying around like crazy for two sets and half until he hit that I/O forehand to save the BP that would have haas serving for the match ..... then once federer found his form/confidence back, haas slumped and the result was a bagel in the 4th ....even the 5th wasn't that hard a set for federer ...
You don't understand the sport. Keep making excuses but Haas beat Federer today and proved my point.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, you have near zero clue of the sport. But keep going .....
what point of yours did he prove ? that he is far superior player to andreev overall and better than simon ? duh , we all know that .....
doesn't mean those performances by him in those slams against federer were better than those by andreev/simon vs federer in the respective slam matches mentioned ...
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
theres no difference. andreev almost beat federer in a slam, just like haas. in order to do so he had to play very very well. the fact that he used a nadal like strategy (high spin to the backhand) is irrelevant.
overall, yes simon and especially andreev are not near as good/talented as haas. but in those matches where they almost beat federer, they were playing at a comparable level.
i don't see how we can extrapolate haas' results to say that if he wasn't so injured he would have won multiple slams let alone dominated like federer. federer is an extra special talent, a true GOAT candidate. haas is not cut from the same cloth. although tommy was very good, I can't see him winning more than 1 or 2 slams. (which is very good considering he has none, and has never made a final)
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
what? don't you see the major flaw in that logic. being injured holds one back obviously. But this shows nothing of what one could accomplish bar injury. haas could have had a injury free career and still not won any slams.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I like Tommy and happy for his late career win today but definitely no. He peaked in 2002 and still couldnt reach a slam final in the worst year in mens tennis history. He wasnt considered a real threat to win slams even while Hewitt was #1 and Haas was peaking. His only real shot was the 2002 Australian and there in great form he lost to a subpar Safin who played as poorly for 3 sets in the semis as he did in losing to Johansson in the final.
haas is a light version of federer considering his arsenal and playstyle. federer is just slightly better at almost everything except maybe the backhand DTL. and of course as people have mentioned haas has always been sort of a nutcase. not as bad as safin but still -.-
i dont think he ever had the potential of becoming fed-like even without injuries. but hes always been the next best thing to watch on a tennis court right after fed for me. thats quite something
i dont think he ever had the potential of becoming fed-like even without injuries. but hes always been the next best thing to watch on a tennis court right after fed for me. thats quite something
World Beater
Hall of Fame
haas is a nice player but he doesnt have the same kind racquet head speed as federer especially on the fh and his serve/return isnt as good.
Federer is better in almost every area but haas is good enough to get a victory here and there.
Federer is better in almost every area but haas is good enough to get a victory here and there.
Yes, Andreev played phenomenally well in his 2008 USO match with Federer, and that particular match opened my eyes to the fact that Federer had incredible defensive skills (without which he would have lost that match), something we often forget about Federer, and something Haas didn't have.
Yeah but there's a difference between what Haas or Safin or even Djokovic do, which is take Federer on at his own game and just play better and beat him - and what Andreev did which is drag him down to his level by hitting the ball high to Federer's backhand and waiting for him to hit it short .
The first case is playing World Class tennis, the latter is clearly just a match upissue where Federer was dragged down to Andreev's level.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I disagree...
I think Haas had the talent to be a multiple slam winner barring his many injuries and resulting time lapses. His form and versatility also reminds me of Federer (minus some speed and explosive forehand but Haas has a better backhand and a very good serve in his heyday)...
We also don't know how an uninterrupted (Haas) progression would have affected the players who did go on to win slams...
Haas has troubled Federer.
Obviously I don't think injury would stop any player from winning slams!
To you see me starting a thread about Blake in this regard or Bagdahtis
Get a clue!
TennisLovaLova
Hall of Fame
Haas is very talented.
Much more than Nadal or Murray.
But modern tennis doesnt reward talent anymore.
Much more than Nadal or Murray.
But modern tennis doesnt reward talent anymore.
Federererer
Banned
Haas would have won at least 16 slams were it not for his career ending injuries.
I don’t follow this reasoning about “dragging down”. In the first place, Andreev played very aggressively in that match and often forced Federer to play great defense to stay in the point, and then go on the attack. But in any case, what is a player supposed to do? Hit only the kinds of shots that don’t bother his opponent? Play only his opponent’s game, play on his terms, in order to be “world class”? The whole point, seems to me, is to force your opponent out of his confort game, so I don’t understand why doing it in one direction is supposed to be world class, but in the opposite direction it becomes a dragdown to lowly levels. I don’t know that great offense is an inherently superior talent than great defense. If the defender is able to neutralize the offense (by whatever means) then the offense maybe isn’t as "world class". If a player has trouble with a particular kind of shot that his opponent can hit, but others can’t, why is that shot dragging the game down to a low level? Why isn’t the fact that the player cannot prevent his opponent from hitting that shot considered a flaw in his offensive skills? It’s always a two way street. Great offense is only great to the extent it overcomes great defense. And viceversa.
Matt H.
Professional
his peak time should have been 2001-2005.
It just flat out never got going. Parents almost dying and shoulder surgery took out end of 2002, all of 2003, and the first slam of 2004.
Spent all of 2004 trying to regain form, ended year at #17. 2005 more injury including landing on a ball during warm-up at Wimbledon. That semi final run by Ginepri at the '05 Open coulda been Haas's.
It just flat out never got going. Parents almost dying and shoulder surgery took out end of 2002, all of 2003, and the first slam of 2004.
Spent all of 2004 trying to regain form, ended year at #17. 2005 more injury including landing on a ball during warm-up at Wimbledon. That semi final run by Ginepri at the '05 Open coulda been Haas's.
dominikk1985
Legend
No. Haas technique is every bit as good as rogers but roger had a lot more speed and power.
Andreev was aggressive off short balls, but he got those short balls by hitting the ball up high to Federer's backhand - it's just a match up thing. Andreev isn't actually that good. Haas, Djokovic, Safin don't get that short ball, they have to play Federer on his own terms so when they win it's more impressive.
Volandri hit his extreme eastern spinny backhand up high to Federer's and got a win, it was just a match up thing, Volandri isn't actually that good.
Blake and Davydenko used to beat Nada regularly by hitting low skidding shots to his western forehand, and never ever trouble Federer, it's just a match up thing, they weren't actually that good.
Surely you can understand this?
Yeah.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Best of three is BS.....
It means nothing.
It means nothing.
The Dark Knight
Legend
10 characters
zagor
Bionic Poster
So we finally get to the real point of this thread, seriously can you get any more predictable? We get it, you're extremely butthurt Fed won 16 slams but coming up with hundred different hypothetical scenarios in which Fed isn't as successful doesn't change the fact that he did indeed win 16 slams.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Lets be real here. This is Haas's first win over Federer in 10.5 years and while I am happy for him it was a rink a dink tournament (althogh one desperate ****s use to build up his grass greatness, LOL). His only slam win over Federer was saving match point in the 5th set over baby Federer in the 2002 Australian, at the time Haas was at his peak, and Federer hit more winners even in that mtach. Haas at his career peak failed to win a slam or make a slam final even when the mens game was at perhaps its all time worst (even weaker than the Federer era) with Hewitt as the dominant #1 and scrub winners galore of slams.
1) Federer's a terrible tactician. His losses to Nadal early on in his career are perfect examples of this. He absolutely refused to adapt no matter what. By the time he began adapting, he was way past his physical peak. Federer was full well and capable of defeating Nadal at the FO in both 2006 and 2007. He just needed to actually not play like a stubborn idiot. He absolutely refused to basically cheat and force a virtual one dimensional Nadal at the time to play outside his usual style of play, instead he allowed Nadal to beat him over relentlessly by staying way too far back, while never forcing Nadal to serve into different directions, especially on the AD court.
2) Haas early in his career was abit braindead, but after his come back in 2007, Haas is a far better tactician than Federer. People overrate Federer's tactical abilities. He has two tricks, the slice backhand that he literally abuses over and over again against players like Roddick, Berdych, etc. who cannot properly deal with it, and his inside out forehand. His variety is completely overrated. Period.
3) Federer is not better at the net than Haas; not even close. He may have had the physical skills to be better, but he never fully utilized them, and there are plenty of time he bricked volleys that he should never miss. Haas plays a much smarter and craftier game than Federer because he's pretty much forced to since he doesn't have anywhere near as many weapons as Federer does. This is especially true post 2005 when Federer played a much less aggressive game and came less and less to the net, and instead focused more on just simply beating opponents from the back of the court. The last "allcourt" style Federer played was early in 2005. In fact, his one dimensional style of play of glueing himself onto the baseline has hurt him plenty of times.
Last edited:
above bored
Semi-Pro
Hardly, for the reasons already mentioned, and that's notwithstanding the fact Federer played poorly in the Halle final. Haas was solid, but nothing spectacular.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Insecurity shining through as usual...
Matt H.
Professional
pre-shoulder problems in 2001, his fastest serve was 136. I don't think he's hit a serve over 130 in 10 years.
You have to go back to old video from 1999 and 2000. The buzz was Tommy being the next big thing.
He was the "big hitter" before his shoulder, i believe, caused him to dial it back.
You have to go back to old video from 1999 and 2000. The buzz was Tommy being the next big thing.
He was the "big hitter" before his shoulder, i believe, caused him to dial it back.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Nah, just calling things as they really are.
We're all waiting with bated breath what next brilliant hypothetical scenario are you gonna come up with in order to lessen the pain caused by the terrible fact that Fed won 16 slams.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
No pain for me compadre; Federer had the talent to take advantage of a relatively weak and transitional time for a number of years...
It is what it is. Would make Nadal winning more than 16 that much sweeter though (if it happens he would have had to deal with the former GOAT throughout his enitre career)...
single_handed_champion
Professional
No, Haas is basically a poor man's Federer who was prone to injuries that cut short a potentially rewarding Slamless career in the top 5. I like the guy but he just does not have a big enough game.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Haas peaked in even more of a transitional field than Federer did. Are you forgetting Haas's peaked coincided with Hewitt as the dominant #1, and Johansson, washed up Costa, and broken shouldered wild card Ivanisevic as slam champions. Yet even then NOBODY took Haas's chances seriously to win a slam, even while ranked #2 or #3, and literally nobody there behind Hewitt and an aging Agassi. Atleast Federer made hay with his weak era, winning everything in sight, before the real competition began to come, and even then he continued to contend and win while arguably on slight decline. The Federer era wasnt even a transitional era, as the best players his age like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, had most of their own shining time then, it simply wasnt a great generation overall other than Federer, so not a great era, but still an era. The true transition era was 1998-2002 which was a mess which no order, chaos, and a lost generation of players who didnt ever become anyone due to injuries or whatever reason (eg- Philippoussis, Enqvist, Rios). Dont stoop to the Federer fanboys level of stupidity by presenting an argument equally as stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
abmk
Bionic Poster
BigServer1
Legend
I have been agreeing with you left and right lately, NadalAgassi. Great points, and I agree. At the very least people should be cool to agree to disagree about this stuff. Both sides have valid arguments, it's just a matter of opinion at the end of it all.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Are you forgetting that Haas' supposed peak was halted by his parents’ tragic accident and resulting layoff and then his shoulder injury and surgery (which few players ever recover from)!!!
So your assessment of Hass' potential is short-sighted and largely wrong. I assume that you others don't know how devastating a break in momentum can be to one's career. You build up this entire crescendo and then, suddenly a pause (especially and long pause) and poof almost all is lost! Not to mention that in the interim others are getting better and star is born (Federer) who sucks up all the air and establishes himself -- leaving you in the dust.
Of course I would not make this argument regarding every player, but i thought Haas was a special talent and could have definitely been a multi slam champion not given his 'bad' luck! If you disagree then fine, but do not try and insinuate that i am stooping down to Fedephants' level -- because that is not the case!
zagor
Bionic Poster
Your actions speak otherwise but hey, whatever you say.
Well if Fed merely took advantage of a weak transitional period in tennis then that doesn't really make him the GOAT now does it? I do think Nadal will win more slams than Fed and go down as the greater player though.
Haas wins maybe 1 or 2 slams at best. He had the potential to pick up one or two, but no means was he winning 4+. He just doesn't have the firepower, and really never did. Even pre-shoulder surgery, he didn't have massive firepower like a Safin did.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Haas is never a slam winner imo. There's just been better players on all the surfaces at every point in his career.
In 2003 he certainly could have picked up a slam at either the AO or the USO. If he continued on his upward rise from 2002, it was likely that he could have taken out Agassi or Roddick at the USO. And remember, Haas is a god awful match-up for Roddick, to the point where even a prime/peak level Roddick has had trouble even with an old way past his prime Haas.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
On no planet was Haas winning the 2003 Australian Open. A fit and strong Agassi at any age owns Haas, especialy on his best surface of rebound ace, just look at their joke of a Rome final in 2002 on clay, far from Agassi's favorite surface.
The 2003 U.S Open? Maybe if Haas lucked out to play Roddick in the semis, a round Haas never reached at the U.S Open anyway, where Roddick had his worst performance of the event he had a shot. Then again at the wide open 2001 and 2002 U.S Opens he couldnt get past the round of 16 (yeah lost to the eventual winner but both were winnable matches). Roddick is a good matchup for Haas, but there were many guys at the event with potential to take out even a peaking Haas- Federer of course, Nalbandian, Agassi, Ferrero, Hewitt. His surviving the draw and everyone in it would be unlikely.
Haas was never stopping Federer's rise. Even watching their two matches that year Federer didnt find Haas very difficult to play (he lost their Australian Open match due to choking mainly) even at that point, when Federer wasnt all that great yet.
The 2003 U.S Open? Maybe if Haas lucked out to play Roddick in the semis, a round Haas never reached at the U.S Open anyway, where Roddick had his worst performance of the event he had a shot. Then again at the wide open 2001 and 2002 U.S Opens he couldnt get past the round of 16 (yeah lost to the eventual winner but both were winnable matches). Roddick is a good matchup for Haas, but there were many guys at the event with potential to take out even a peaking Haas- Federer of course, Nalbandian, Agassi, Ferrero, Hewitt. His surviving the draw and everyone in it would be unlikely.
Haas was never stopping Federer's rise. Even watching their two matches that year Federer didnt find Haas very difficult to play (he lost their Australian Open match due to choking mainly) even at that point, when Federer wasnt all that great yet.
Haas has actually a very respectable record against Agassi, 4-6, and he's scored some good wins on him on HCs. Most of their HC matches have been very close, so I don't see how Agassi rolls him. Virtually none of their HC matches have been blowouts by any stretch of the imagination, and Agassi had an extremely weak draw all the way to the final in 2003. I don't see how anyone can say Agassi would have rolled over Haas, considering Haas has always played Agassi tough from a historical standpoint.
Haas has very respectable records against Nalbandian, Ferrero, and Hewitt. In fact, Haas is 3-0 against Nalbandian, with a win on Nalbandian on by far his best surface, during Nalbandian's peak years (2005-2006), while also being 2-3 against Ferrero (Ferrero's 3 wins are on clay), while also being 4-6 overall against Hewitt. Federer in 2003 was not stopping Haas on a HC, he was still plenty inconsistent. Those are by far the best players in 2003, so I'd say Haas is a pretty decent shot at winning either the AO or the USO if he could have avoided injuries/bad luck. Not saying a for sure shot, but he certainly was talented enough and the field was weak enough for him to do it. I've seen stranger things happen, so why not.
And even at Hewitt's best, he was very susceptible to being upset. He should have beaten Agassi at the USO in 2002, but had a bit of a mental meltdown and Agassi capitalized big time on it. I don't see any of those players in 2003 being unstoppable, especially considering Haas was on the upward rise and was easily one of the best players on the tour at the time.
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Look at when Haas's wins over Agassi were though. 2 wins in 1998, Agassi was working his way back and very vurnerable to all the top players at that point. A win in 2006, meaningless obviously. One win in 2004 in 3 sets, ok a good win there, although not the Agassi of 1999-2002 at that point.
Agassi has blown out Haas a few times, I remember a match in Scotsdale on hard courts, in 1998 I think it was interestingly enough as that is the year Haas had his most success, which Agassi lost only 3 or 4 games. The Rome blowout I mentioned. A blowout one year in Lyon on carpet when Haas got 4 or 5 games in a 2 set loss. Of their 3 matches I recall them playing (might have forgotten one) from mid 1999-early 2003 when Agassi was at his late career best, Haas didnt win a set in any of them, includng the blowout losses in Rome and Lyon I mentioned. The Rome final was their biggest match so IMO is telling to how a big match between them might look. Even if I underestimating how competitive Haas would be no way he actually beats a hot Agassi on his best surface in a slam final. Not a chance IMO. Maybe wins a set at best. That is all assuming Haas is even in the final, the guy who never made a slam final.
Federer in 2002 had match point vs Haas at the Australian Open then beat him easily in Paris later that year. Why wouldnt have have a chance vs Haas on a fast hard court. Most believe if Federer didnt draw and lose to his career nemisis Nalbandian in the round of 16 that year he would have won the U.S Open, or if he didnt lose that tight match to Roddick in Canada and lose his confidence. It is not like he was a hard court mug at that point. He lost round of 16 yet again at the Open that year, but that is peak Haas's annual result there as well. Even if Haas could have beaten all the guys I mentioned, that doesnt mean he could have beaten 3 or 4 of them in a row to win the title. Maybe he could have, but it seems more unlikely than likely. He isnt mentally tough enough and doesnt have that extra gear the guys who win majors do.
Agassi has blown out Haas a few times, I remember a match in Scotsdale on hard courts, in 1998 I think it was interestingly enough as that is the year Haas had his most success, which Agassi lost only 3 or 4 games. The Rome blowout I mentioned. A blowout one year in Lyon on carpet when Haas got 4 or 5 games in a 2 set loss. Of their 3 matches I recall them playing (might have forgotten one) from mid 1999-early 2003 when Agassi was at his late career best, Haas didnt win a set in any of them, includng the blowout losses in Rome and Lyon I mentioned. The Rome final was their biggest match so IMO is telling to how a big match between them might look. Even if I underestimating how competitive Haas would be no way he actually beats a hot Agassi on his best surface in a slam final. Not a chance IMO. Maybe wins a set at best. That is all assuming Haas is even in the final, the guy who never made a slam final.
Federer in 2002 had match point vs Haas at the Australian Open then beat him easily in Paris later that year. Why wouldnt have have a chance vs Haas on a fast hard court. Most believe if Federer didnt draw and lose to his career nemisis Nalbandian in the round of 16 that year he would have won the U.S Open, or if he didnt lose that tight match to Roddick in Canada and lose his confidence. It is not like he was a hard court mug at that point. He lost round of 16 yet again at the Open that year, but that is peak Haas's annual result there as well. Even if Haas could have beaten all the guys I mentioned, that doesnt mean he could have beaten 3 or 4 of them in a row to win the title. Maybe he could have, but it seems more unlikely than likely. He isnt mentally tough enough and doesnt have that extra gear the guys who win majors do.
Have you realized that Mr. Haas won 0 Grand Slams, 0 YEC's, only 1 Masters (back when Stuttgart was a Master, he defeated Mirnyi of all people) and 4 equivalent to today's ATP 500's (3 in Memphis, where the field is always weak). The best part of his resume are 4 GS semis, 3 in Australia. He never reached a GS final either. Where is the proof that he could go all the way at the highest of levels?
Not saying he would have for sure, but it was a pretty big possibility. From 2002-2003 Haas would have only gotten better. I mean, it's a much more realistic prediction for Haas to pick up maybe a slam in 2003 than it is to predict say Kafelnikov winning two, and yet Kafelnikov ended up winning two AOs. If Thomas Johansson can win a slam, Haas certainly could have won one. It wasn't like Haas wasn't competitive versus the top players of his era; he scored good wins over the top players during his time. Kafelnikov got absolutely pummeled nearly every time he played against a top 5 player, and yet he still ended up winning TWO.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
