Search results

Djokovic's case can't be beat at this point. And I say that despite the fact I CANNOT STAND the nasty *******. I take solace in that at least he choked away the Grand Slam in '21.

By the definition of "sportsman", he is most certainly not the best sportsman. No matter how much he achieves.

I would agree Sampras' forehand was ugly. Not the same as whether it was good. For those who don't see it, it's the "flying elbow" thing. Just not aesthetic in the least. Overall, Tiafoe's is so damn ugly it wins any poll: even in a Former Players section.

Was the difference between synthetic and natural enough to really affect the play of people at this level, or was it more a matter of these professionals being willing to pay for the best?

Nothing counts except actually achieving it. That's why it's so difficult, and that's why it's the ultimate achievement in the sport.

Sure, but it's hard to tell how much of Ivo's mental fragility came from the repeated near-misses over the years and how much of it was simply innate. He's so emotional and endearingly flaky that I suspect he never had the makeup to be a consistent, dominating champion even with success out of...

Djokovic. Mac was beloved here in America regardless, with the stupid jingoistic thing.

Was Muster known for crazy intensity prior to the accident, or was that something brought on by the need to regain what was taken from him?

2002 was Hewitt's freak year, right? So maybe Pete gets one more. Fed took 'til 2003 to break out and Lleyton's not going to have Pete's number on Centre Court. But it's still an if, as his general decline had set in and getting '01 doesn't guarantee an overall rejuvenation. And as such, '02 is...

I'm far the only one to cite it, or feel it was a matchup we missed out on. The preeminent rivalry of the time, at that point possibly in the sport ever, and the only GS we didn't get the matchup. There's nothing to "overdramatize".

Sure he wasn't a "big" server but he had an excellent kick serve. If Edberg could win Wimbledon, overcoming Becker no less, Rafter could have. If you're going to pick out anything as a weakness in his play, shouldn't it be the ground game?

Why the **** are you in a "former tennis pros" forum?

Relax. People like to ponder what-ifs about their favorite players. And the loss of a Fedal US Open final is a small tragedy in the sport's history. Nothing bigger than that. This is what this section is for.

That's not a win. Overrated cheaters aside, there's no need to "stick a fork" in someone who just played a Masters final. I mean, come on: be real.

On today's courts, does he still have Agassi's number? Which of them benefits more from the surfaces?

...pathetic approval-begging.

Points re: Sampras: When you began to describe how later players followed his "template", I expected you to go into the actual style of play vs. his framing of career goals. I think more fans would look to playstyles as evidence of influence; after all, that's the actual action on the court...

So, two questions re: Nadal, though I won't quibble with placing him lowest of the Three. First, with your interesting carryover of the "lineal champion" concept from boxing: how was he not lineal champion - if briefly - from Wimbledon 2008 -> Djokovic's dominant breakout in 2011? You've already...

He asked you about a specific point in time, which was how you originally worded the premise. Based on the year leading up to August '95, one could absolutely argue Agassi was the best player in the world. The contemporaneous head-to-head with Pete is telling.

This is a very fair point, though for whatever reason nobody seems to talk about Agassi '95 or '99 in the same reverent tone they often do Mac 1984. The biggest thing is the feeling that Sampras probably had his number even then. Record aside, you weren't left with the same sense of dominance.

I think that's weighting the Slams too much, as is the current trend. Murray's entire brilliant career has gotta carry more weight than that against your theoretical Wawrinka's four peak moments. Similarly, with Mac/Andre: you've got very, very close Slam counts. You've got longevity and...

...it's not.

Wow. As private as we always thought he was. All the best to them.

He had the wrong mentality. I respected his humility regarding Federer as a person, but as a top competitive athlete you have to have that fire, that arrogance that says I'm beating that ******* the next time. Instead, by the time he was down 4 or 5 matches in the H2H we all knew he would lose...

There's a big caveat to that. Remember the Wimbledon era Sampras played in (and dominated), and the complaints/fears that the game was devolving into a simple serving contest. When the pattern of S&V is simply serve, serve, serve/miss, serve... that's nowhere near the energy expenditure of...

"Megafanoftennis" is trolling.

sort of by definition, retiring on a "last hurrah" means he COULD still win. But yes, it was a lot harder and infrequent. Anecdotally, I think it was more about his motivation and distaste for the daily grind of the tour than thinking he absolutely COULDN'T win. He had just proven the game was...

As I alluded to above, I think he simply dropped clay as a priority as he entered his prime and clarified his goals. His game was designed to dominate on fast courts, winning Wimbledon was his grail from youth, as his historical potential became clear he targeted the Slam record, and then much...

No one's game who made an RG SF and won an Italian Open was garbage. Don't overvalue his changing priorities as his career progressed.

Karlovic. Those who remember, know. Couldn't believe he was getting away with that ****.