Andy Roddick lost to the eventual champion in 10 Grand Slams!

darthpwner

Banned
did you watch the other 2 matches when roddick owned sampras in miami and hoston when sampras was still playing good tennis. Roddick was injured in US open or he would have won.

roddick v smapras H2H - 2-1 in favour of roddick
in the 2nd half of his career after he got the year end #1 record, sampras played 4 just the grand slams. the other tournaments he didnt care as much b cuz the wheels were coming off and he couldnt move and grind like he could in his prime.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Sampras got him where it counted. By that time Pete had already broken the slam record, and was sticking around to win one more. Pete's career was esentially over by that point. He was only hunting for one more slam. By his own admission. He wasnt playing for the meaningless tournaments. He was playing for the slams. He even admitted in doiing so
Edberg - Samrpas in majors 2-0

Edberg got him where it counted, Edberg > Sampras at slams right?
 

random1

Rookie
Could well have won at least 2, probably 4 Wimbledons (2004,2009, maybe 2005, probably 2003), US Open 2006, and he would have had a good chance against gonzalez in AO 2007.

Roddick would have been the legend of a generation, had Fed not been around. Andy really is THAT good.
And with the confidence that comes with that success, he may have had more...

I've always said that without Federer, people would be talking about whether Roddick is as good as Sampras. He'd have threatened at Wimbledon every year.

Alas, you play the hand that's dealt....
 
Whats with all these Federer fans who all of a sudden Roddick fans? Is it because Federer has beaten the crap out of Roddick all his career and won many slam finals against him?
 

GameSampras

Banned
Whats with all these Federer fans who all of a sudden Roddick fans? Is it because Federer has beaten the crap out of Roddick all his career and won many slam finals against him?
They are trying to get us into the way of thinking that Roger has played all these great talents during his era. Trying to build Roddick up as if he was some special tennis phenomenon. Good luck trying to make that happen.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Whats with all these Federer fans who all of a sudden Roddick fans? Is it because Federer has beaten the crap out of Roddick all his career and won many slam finals against him?
Roddick made it to 17 QF's, 10 SF's and 5 finals in his career. Who in your glorious 90's has made it to 17 QF's in slams in the 90's? Courier? Chang? Goran? Muster? Bruguera?

Agassi at the age of 28 had 18 QF's, Roddick is 26(turning 27 at the US), do you think he cares about the opinion of internet trolls who never picked up a racket to recognize his accomplishments?
 

random1

Rookie
Chang at USO

From 91-97, Michael Chang lost to the eventual champion 6 of those 7 years. He was really consistently strong on hard courts throughout his career, just never quite got over the hump....
 

GameSampras

Banned
Whats with all these Federer fans who all of a sudden Roddick fans? Is it because Federer has beaten the crap out of Roddick all his career and won many slam finals against him?
Trying to build up Roddick as he if he was some special tennis phenomenon thus trying to make Fed's domination over him look as some special feat. But we know the truth. We stick Roddick in the 80s or 90s he doesnt see much more success if any in those either.


2-19 h2h vs. Fed

Going on 10 years as a consistent top 10, with one slam to show for himself.


Ohhh what a legend
 
Roddick made it to 17 QF's, 10 SF's and 5 finals in his career. Who in your glorious 90's has made it to 17 QF's in slams in the 90's? Courier? Chang? Goran? Muster? Bruguera?

Agassi at the age of 28 had 18 QF's, Roddick is 26(turning 27 at the US), do you think he cares about the opinion of internet trolls who never picked up a racket to recognize his accomplishments?
Please Courier is much better than Roddick, he has 4 slams beat to the final at every slam and has wins over guys like Sampras, Edberg and Agassi at the slams.
 
Last edited:

Enigma_87

Professional
Please Courier is much better than Roddick, he has 4 slams beat to the final at every slam and has wins over guys like Sampras, Edberg and Agassi at the slams.
And Courier was around for exactly how long?

Roddick has 17 QF's in his resume, how many players from the 90's have better resumes at slams besides Pete and Andre?

Do you know what consistency means?
From 01-08 Roddick has been 7/8 occasions in the US QF's.

Roddick has nothing to prove to some internet trolls.
 
And Courier was around for exactly how long?

Roddick has 17 QF's in his resume, how many players from the 90's have better resumes at slams besides Pete and Andre?

Do you know what consistency means?
From 01-08 Roddick has been 7/8 occasions in the US QF's.

Roddick has nothing to prove to some internet trolls.
Courier has a much better resume than Roddick 4 slams a been to the final of every slam and wins over top players Agassi, Edberg and Sampras.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Courier has a much better resume than Roddick 4 slams a been to the final of every slam and wins over top players Agassi, Edberg and Sampras.
And Federer has much better resume than Sampras, yet you claim he's not better right?

Has anyone in the 90's been as consistent as Roddick? At GS and rankings?

Roddick has achieved a lot in his career. When two internet clowns who have hardly picked up a racked call him clown themselves, is a bit over the top.
 

GameSampras

Banned
And Federer has much better resume than Sampras, yet you claim he's not better right?

Has anyone in the 90's been as consistent as Roddick? At GS and rankings?

Roddick has achieved a lot in his career. When two internet clowns who have hardly picked up a racked call him clown themselves, is a bit over the top.


Players certainly have accomplished more in the 90s slam wise than Roddick.. Consistency, Consistency.. Roddick can have all the top 10 consistency he wants... Its overshadowed by his pathetic slam results and choking.


When you got a player like say Hewitt, who only had a few good years run, and people are arguing he had the better than Roddick, who has been hanging around the top 10 for almost a decade, that is saying something.


You can have all the consistency at the top you want, but if you dont win the bigs, youre nothing more than an era filler to me. A marginal threat. But thats all.

Only one other player has proven to be a champion outside of Fed, thats Nadal.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Players certainly have accomplished more in the 90s slam wise than Roddick.. Consistency, Consistency.. Roddick can have all the top 10 consistency he wants... Its overshadowed by his pathetic slam results and choking.


When you got a player like say Hewitt, who only had a few good years run, and people are arguing he had the better than Roddick, who has been hanging around the top 10 for almost a decade, that is saying something.


You can have all the consistency at the top you want, but if you dont win the bigs, youre nothing more than an era filler to me. A marginal threat. But thats all.

Only one other player has proven to be a champion outside of Fed, thats Nadal.
So how many 17 QF draw fillers were there in the 90's?

Pathetic to lose 8 times to one of the greatest players in history in the late stages of slams? Pathetic to make it to 7 QF's in 8 apps at the US?

Gotta admire your double standards - Goran who has even more "pathetic" slam results and has less finals is a grass court beast, and yet Roddick is a clown.
 
And Federer has much better resume than Sampras, yet you claim he's not better right?

Has anyone in the 90's been as consistent as Roddick? At GS and rankings?

Roddick has achieved a lot in his career. When two internet clowns who have hardly picked up a racked call him clown themselves, is a bit over the top.
Erm this Wimbledon final was Roddick's first slam final in 3 years he hasn't been a factor since 05 hardly consistancy.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Players certainly have accomplished more in the 90s slam wise than Roddick.. Consistency, Consistency.. Roddick can have all the top 10 consistency he wants... Its overshadowed by his pathetic slam results and choking.


When you got a player like say Hewitt, who only had a few good years run, and people are arguing he had the better than Roddick, who has been hanging around the top 10 for almost a decade, that is saying something.


You can have all the consistency at the top you want, but if you dont win the bigs, youre nothing more than an era filler to me. A marginal threat. But thats all.

Only one other player has proven to be a champion outside of Fed, thats Nadal.


Roddick is consistently stopped by Federer nearly every time at a slam. For some reason, I highly doubt he's as bad as you say.



Oh, and Hewitt managed to peak earlier than Roddick. That is the only reason why he has an extra slam on his resume. If he had peaked at the same time as Roddick, I give him a slam at most because then he starts running into Federer.
 
Roddick is consistently stopped by Federer nearly every time at a slam. For some reason, I highly doubt he's as bad as you say.
Djokovic lost to champion in RG 06, 07 and 08 (Nadal), champion in US 07 and 08, champion in AO 07 (Fed).

Why on earth should he deserve any respect for that? It's about winning.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Erm this Wimbledon final was Roddick's first slam final in 3 years he hasn't been a factor since 05 hardly consistancy.
Erm, Roddick has lost to Federer at 07 US and 09,07 AO in QF's and SF's.

Just to let you know he lost in 06 US final against to Federer, hardly he wasn't a factor then?

And Federer is that 15 times GS champion, just to point out.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Roddick is consistently stopped by Federer nearly every time at a slam. For some reason, I highly doubt he's as bad as you say.



Oh, and Hewitt managed to peak earlier than Roddick. That is the only reason why he has an extra slam on his resume. If he had peaked at the same time as Roddick, I give him a slam at most because then he starts running into Federer.
Is he?? because Roddick has been taken out by multiple players at slams outside of Fed over the course of his career. Is that all because of Federer?
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Djokovic lost to champion in RG 06, 07 and 08 (Nadal), champion in US 07 and 08, champion in AO 07 (Fed).

Why on earth should he deserve any respect for that? It's about winning.
In other words is doesn't matter if you lose to Delgado, Yzaga, Korda, Krajicek(not intentional list, easier to list those than to list to whom Courier lost for example) and if you lose to Federer?
 

GameSampras

Banned
So how many 17 QF draw fillers were there in the 90's?

Pathetic to lose 8 times to one of the greatest players in history in the late stages of slams? Pathetic to make it to 7 QF's in 8 apps at the US?

Gotta admire your double standards - Goran who has even more "pathetic" slam results and has less finals is a grass court beast, and yet Roddick is a clown.


Where are Roddick's slams if he is such a great player.. Thats all I am asking.

And dont use the Federer excuse because someone has already posted all of ROddick's losses at the slams, and thats not all Federer there taking out Roddick these last 5-6 years.


And I never identified Goran as an all time great either. Not sure where youre getting this information from.. I said he was a deadlier player than Roddick on grass. Which he was. Unless you want to try and deny this in some fashion
 

Enigma_87

Professional
Where are Roddick's slams if he is such a great player.. Thats all I am asking.

And dont use the Federer excuse because someone has already posted all of ROddick's losses at the slams, and thats not all Federer there taking out Roddick these last 5-6 years.


And I never identified Goran as an all time great either. Not sure where youre getting this information from.. I said he was a deadlier player than Roddick on grass. Which he was. Unless you want to try and deny this in some fashion
Ok, how many more grass titles has the deadlier player Goran than Roddick?
 
In other words is doesn't matter if you lose to Delgado, Yzaga, Korda, Krajicek(not intentional list, easier to list those than to list to whom Courier lost for example) and if you lose to Federer?
Well, against Fed he's got 7 (seven) losses :confused:. That's quite a lot actually. Yeah, I guess he deserves some respect then. But there were plenty of other slams in last 6-7 years.
 

Enigma_87

Professional
He's got 8 losses against Fed in slams, but in 7 of those Fed became champion (all except AO 08 ). He probably could have had some of those Wimbledons and the US Open.
Well it's an unknown variable.

Roddick is 1-1 against Murray and Djokovic at slams, 2-2(aside from RG 2-3 overall) against Hewitt, 1-1 against Safin, 1-0 against Nadal(but it was in 04).

So really the only lopsided record is against Federer. You never know how many slams would Roddick win, but if it wasn't Federer around he could boost his confidence as well. And confidence is one (if not the most) very important thing in tennis.
 

Bloodshed

Professional
did you watch the other 2 matches when roddick owned sampras in miami and hoston when sampras was still playing good tennis. Roddick was injured in US open or he would have won.

roddick v smapras H2H - 2-1 in favour of roddick
You can't be serious about that statement Nebula.

Roddick looked perfectly fine to me. Sampras was just playing fantastic tennis and even if Roddick was 100% fine, he had absolutely nothing vs Sampras.

But I did not watch the 2 other matches so I can't comment on those.
 
You can't be serious about that statement Nebula.

Roddick looked perfectly fine to me. Sampras was just playing fantastic tennis and even if Roddick was 100% fine, he had absolutely nothing vs Sampras.

But I did not watch the 2 other matches so I can't comment on those.
Flame proof suit at hte ready here:)

but seriously the roddick-sampras analogy is not great....the later it got
in pete's career...the less he cared outside slams..particularly post99,
let's see how fed goes in 2010 and 2011 shall we?

it's happening now with murray's h2h with fed...but not even a petetard lke
me takes it that seriously...fed crushed him in match that mattered so
who's better?
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Is he?? because Roddick has been taken out by multiple players at slams outside of Fed over the course of his career. Is that all because of Federer?


Hewitt has been taken out of slams by other people too from 2001-2006 yet we all know that if Federer was not around, Hewitt would have far more slams.



From 2003-2006 I'd say if there was no Federer, both Hewitt and Roddick are splitting slams and competing for the #1 spot.
 

hewittboy

Banned
From 2003-2006 I'd say if there was no Federer, both Hewitt and Roddick are splitting slams and competing for the #1 spot.
I agree with that. That was the rivalry everyone was forecasting after their amazing 2001 U.S Open quarterfinal which turned out to be the match that decided the U.S Open title that year. Then Federer came along and everything changed. Roddick and Hewitt are both better than 1 or 2 slam winners. They are just unlucky to be in the era of ultra consistent and dominant Federer. Someone like Kafelnikov won 2 slams in the latter half of the 90s and he isnt as good as Hewitt or Roddick. He was getting slapped around by Hewitt even when Kafelnikov was at his career peak and Hewitt was just up and coming in 99 and 2000.
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
Courier has a much better resume than Roddick 4 slams a been to the final of every slam and wins over top players Agassi, Edberg and Sampras.
Sampras fans always run away whenever Edberg is brought into the picture. How come none of you answered this post ?

Edberg - Samrpas in majors 2-0

Edberg got him where it counted, Edberg > Sampras at slams right?
I guess Sampras was lucky that Edberg went off his peak from 1992 else Sampras would've been taken out by him at Wim/USO frequently, considering he could not beat Edberg even in late-1992 and early-1993 when Edberg was miles away from his 1991 form. The form that Edberg displayed in the 1991 USO F would thrash Sampras the same way he thrashed Courier.
 
Sampras fans always run away whenever Edberg is brought into the picture. How come none of you answered this post ?



I guess Sampras was lucky that Edberg went off his peak from 1992 else Sampras would've been taken out by him at Wim/USO frequently, considering he could not beat Edberg even in late-1992 and early-1993 when Edberg was miles away from his 1991 form. The form that Edberg displayed in the 1991 USO F would thrash Sampras the same way he thrashed Courier.
From a petetard...I honestly agree you're right here...but i won't "runaway"
but i'll respond...

First of all, edberg is one hell of a player...volleys sampras would be proud of
thus In a way..it supports our argument pete had to deal with some serious
foes in that early 90's period..

What was stopping fed in 2002 wimby or US ancic? mirnyi? HoFamers for sure.

take edberg out of the equation and pete may well have more slams

BUT we won't hold that against Fed...the fact is as you rightly say..they both
lost just for differing reasons.

It's not as clear as you make it...pete improved...after all that 92Usfinal
pete only just turned 21....both pete and fed teething issues.
91 edberg vs 95 sampras...ok seriously awesome match if s@v fan but you
sound like pete would get samshed...we just don't know...we didn't see that

just like we didn't really see peak rafter or agassi vs fed.

Pete improved during the course of early 93...that's my retort...more beef..
better volleys...and better mentally after 92 lessons.
 
From a petetard...I honestly agree you're right here...but i won't "runaway"
but i'll respond...

First of all, edberg is one hell of a player...volleys sampras would be proud of
thus In a way..it supports our argument pete had to deal with some serious
foes in that early 90's period..

What was stopping fed in 2002 wimby or US ancic? mirnyi? HoFamers for sure.

take edberg out of the equation and pete may well have more slams

BUT we won't hold that against Fed...the fact is as you rightly say..they both
lost just for differing reasons.

It's not as clear as you make it...pete improved...after all that 92Usfinal
pete only just turned 21....both pete and fed teething issues.
91 edberg vs 95 sampras...ok seriously awesome match if s@v fan but you
sound like pete would get samshed...we just don't know...we didn't see that

just like we didn't really see peak rafter or agassi vs fed.

Pete improved during the course of early 93...that's my retort...more beef..
better volleys...and better mentally after 92 lessons.
i forgot to add one more thing....these arguments forget about the most
important thing in human histroy...health..

Fed has been ...quite frankly...spectacular in this regard...what is it now?
40 slams strafiht? pete had injury issues during his career and it depends
on if you hold that against him or not...

The rafter 98 match is good example...US99 etc....
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Sampras fans always run away whenever Edberg is brought into the picture. How come none of you answered this post ?



I guess Sampras was lucky that Edberg went off his peak from 1992 else Sampras would've been taken out by him at Wim/USO frequently, considering he could not beat Edberg even in late-1992 and early-1993 when Edberg was miles away from his 1991 form. The form that Edberg displayed in the 1991 USO F would thrash Sampras the same way he thrashed Courier.
Sampras was 3-3 vs. Edberg from '90-'92 when Sampras was 18-21 years old and had not yet peaked. '90-'92, when Edberg was 24-26 years old, were the ONLY years Edberg ranked #1 at any time.

For further perspective up until '92 Edberg was:

4-3 v. Courier
3-3 v. Agassi

5
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
From a petetard...I honestly agree you're right here...but i won't "runaway"
but i'll respond...

First of all, edberg is one hell of a player...volleys sampras would be proud of
thus In a way..it supports our argument pete had to deal with some serious
foes in that early 90's period..

What was stopping fed in 2002 wimby or US ancic? mirnyi? HoFamers for sure.

take edberg out of the equation and pete may well have more slams

BUT we won't hold that against Fed...the fact is as you rightly say..they both
lost just for differing reasons.

It's not as clear as you make it...pete improved...after all that 92Usfinal
pete only just turned 21....both pete and fed teething issues.
91 edberg vs 95 sampras...ok seriously awesome match if s@v fan but you
sound like pete would get samshed...we just don't know...we didn't see that

just like we didn't really see peak rafter or agassi vs fed.

Pete improved during the course of early 93...that's my retort...more beef..
better volleys...and better mentally after 92 lessons.
Sorry for the rant because I know there might be good fans like you who might respond, but it irks me whenever posters like fabregas, gamesampras etc. point out all the losses of Fed against Nadal in slams and use that against him, and ignore the same when it came to Sampras.

I could use the same against Sampras.

I will say one thing however, Sampras did get lucky that he did not face Edberg at Wim in 1993. IMO, he would've lost. Edberg seemed to have Sampras' number at the time.

I always thought that Sampras, because of his one-handed BH could not effectively deal with the kick serve to his BH. Courier, with his two-hander, did not have such issues. Sampras always matched-up better with Becker because he could deal effectively with pace, but not with bounce. And Edberg had some serious kick to his serve during his prime.

You see, tennis is a game of match-ups. It's just that Nadal matches up so brilliantly with Federer. Sampras didn't have such issues during his reign. Guys who matched up well with him and who could take him out of his comfort zone - like Krajicek, Stich etc. were never consistent enough to pose a challenge to him.

Whether you like it or not, that's a fact.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Sampras was 3-3 vs. Edberg from '90-'92 when Sampras was 18-21 years old and had not yet peaked. '90-'92, when Edberg was 24-26 years old, were the ONLY years Edberg ranked #1 at any time.

For further perspective up until '92 Edberg was:

4-3 v. Courier
3-3 v. Agassi

5


Yes but Edberg did beat Pete when it counted most too.
 

Joseph L. Barrow

Professional
Absolutely. My gripe is with the characterization that Edberg was "past his prime" when he won those two Major encounters, and/or that Sampras had reached his own.

5
Yes, I haven't panned too far back in this conversation, but if (as seems probable) the intended implication is that Sampras' losses to Edberg are analogous to Federer's travails against Nadal, then I think it is a weak connection; Sampras lost to Edberg only twice in Slams, while 21 years old and in between his own first and second Slam titles, and never had the chance to rectify that head-to-head in Grand Slams after reaching his own prime. Federer was being bested by Nadal inside and out of the Grand Slams throughout the peak years of his career. This does not necessarily mean that Sampras is ultimately greater than Federer, but I think that in terms of "getting the better of one's major contemporaries," he does have the advantage.
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
Absolutely. My gripe is with the characterization that Edberg was "past his prime" when he won those two Major encounters, and/or that Sampras had reached his own.

5
But he was. Anybody who has seen Edberg play would know this. You want to see Edberg's peak ? Watch him dismantle Becker at the 1988 Wim F and Chang, Courier and Lendl at the 1991 USO. That was Edberg at his peak.

Now compare that to his performance against the same Lendl in the 1992 USO. He was struggling, to say the least. He was less explosive in coming in to the net, his serve had less stick to it.

If you cannot see that, I don't think you remember the matches very well.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
But he was. Anybody who has seen Edberg play would know this. You want to see Edberg's peak ? Watch him dismantle Becker at the 1988 Wim F and Chang, Courier and Lendl at the 1991 USO. That was Edberg at his peak.

Now compare that to his performance against the same Lendl in the 1992 USO. He was struggling, to say the least. He was less explosive in coming in to the net, his serve had less stick to it.

If you cannot see that, I don't think you remember the matches very well.

If you weren't aware Edberg was actually ill with the flu or some other respiratory malady for the US Open in '92 and still beat Lendl and a less experienced Sampras. It was obvious, it was commented on both during and after that Open.

Again the only years Edberg reached #1 at all were '90, '91 and '92.

You're obviously motivated on this point but IMO you're wrong based on his play, his results and his ranking.

5
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Yes, I haven't panned too far back in this conversation, but if (as seems probable) the intended implication is that Sampras' losses to Edberg are analogous to Federer's travails against Nadal, then I think it is a weak connection; Sampras lost to Edberg only twice in Slams, while 21 years old and in between his own first and second Slam titles, and never had the chance to rectify that head-to-head in Grand Slams after reaching his own prime. Federer was being bested by Nadal inside and out of the Grand Slams throughout the peak years of his career. This does not necessarily mean that Sampras is ultimately greater than Federer, but I think that in terms of "getting the better of one's major contemporaries," he does have the advantage.



However, do realize that Nadal only bested Federer on clay (and all the matches were close during Federer's peak years) and lost at both Wimbledons when they played. Outside of that, Nadal has managed to beat Federer outside of his peak years on other surfaces, but by no means were the easy matches either.




Their H2H in slam play is extremely skewed. Nadal simply was never good enough to reach a HC slam final during the peak Federer years. If he did, I would say their H2H in slam play looks quite different.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
If you weren't aware Edberg was actually ill with the flu or some other respiratory malady for the US Open in '92 and still beat Lendl and a less experienced Sampras. It was obvious, it was commented on both during and after that Open.

Again the only years Edberg reached #1 at all were '90, '91 and '92.

You're obviously motivated on this point but IMO you're wrong based on his play, his results and his ranking.

5


Isn't 92 the year that Edberg spent 3x more court time than Sampras, was sick, and still won?
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
If you weren't aware Edberg was actually ill with the flu or some other respiratory malady for the US Open in '92 and still beat Lendl and a less experienced Sampras. It was obvious, it was commented on both during and after that Open.

Again the only years Edberg reached #1 at all were '90, '91 and '92.

You're obviously motivated on this point but IMO you're wrong based on his play, his results and his ranking.

5
I might be wrong on his ranking and his results, but I am not wrong about his play. See, so far, Federer had better results in 2009 than he did in 2005, but that does not necessarily mean his play was better. Edberg's peak was in 1991, as evidenced by his results and his play:

1991 AO - SF (5 set loss to Lendl that he should've won)
1991 FO - QF (lost to Courier in QF)
1991 Wim - SF (lost to Stich without being broken once)
1991 USO - W

1992 AO - F (loss to Courier)
1992 FO - ??
1992 Wim - QF loss to Ivanisevic
1992 USO - W

Clearly, he was better in 1991.

Further, there was NO match in 1992 that he played at the level he displayed in 1991. All I am saying is that it is not far fetched to think that, given the trouble that Edberg gave to Sampras as late as in 1993, Edberg from 1990 and 1991 would've given Sampras all sorts of trouble.

My point is that if people say Fed was lucky not to have Agassi, Sampras during his reign, one could also say that Sampras was lucky not to have Edberg, Becker, Lendl etc. at their peaks during his reign.

At the end of the day, this is all speculative and doesn't mean anything.

What really means anything is the trophies they won. Those are real.

And Fed leads that race as of today.
 
Last edited:
Top