mike danny
Bionic Poster
You're kidding, right?Sampras
less difficult opponents than the 3 greatest players that ever lived?
You're kidding, right?Sampras
less difficult opponents than the 3 greatest players that ever lived?
Courier was literally a set away from winning French 3 times in succession. He beat Agassi both times he won, once in final and once in semi. Who else you wanted Courier to beat in order for you to consider his wins as legitimate.He played Novak and Roger in 10 of his 11 finals, 2 of the 3 greatest players that ever lived. Who did Courier play, that was as good as those 2? His final opponents were much easier than Andy Murray's opponents.
That win of Krajicek is comparable to Soderling's against Nadal. But for some braintards that will be a proof that Sampras was not a beast at WimbledonGood luck beating the player who beat Sampras and retained that high level throughout. Beating prime Sampras in straight sets at WB already puts Krajicek's grass peak higher than Murray's, so Andy looks toast.
True. Wawrinka went through either Nadal or Novak or both in his 3 slam wins. Better than Murray. Laughable to consider that Becker/Edberg wont be able to do the same. Giving Becker no chance at Wimbledon is simply hilarious.Wawrinka won as many slams as Murray against the same competition. That's why Murray's struggles are overstated.
Knowing that Wawrinka won 3 slams against the Big 3, it's ludicrous to give Becker/Edberg incredibly small chances.
And getting blown away. Did you see Krajicek's level at that Wimbledon?Why only the winners draw? Murray could just have likely ended up in the opposite half to Krajicek, thereby meeting him in the final.
Are you in any way casting an aspersion over Sampras' wimbledon reign to make your point look valid? Because seriously that takes out any seriousness that your posts may seem to have.Sampras last 3 opponents in 97, a washed up Becker (retired after the tournament), doubles specialist Woodbridge and the mighty Pioline. Example of another brutal draw.
I was responding to the post that said every single Wimbledon draw between 90 and 99 (bar 96) was tough. A washed up Becker in 97 (retired after the tournament), Woodbridge and the mighty Pioline was not a tough draw. It was as easy as they come. That much is irrefutable.Are you in any way casting an aspersion over Sampras' wimbledon reign to make your point look valid? Because seriously that takes out any seriousness that your posts may seem to have.
Please go and watch for Edberg's peak levelThe levels that Wawa reached to win those slams were superior to what Edberg ever reached. Can you imagine Edberg going toe to toe with Novak like Wawa did at the Aussie? That was some of the highest level tennis ever seen there. Not very likely does Edberg win at least 2 Aussies and 2 Wimbledon's in Roger/ Rafa/ Novak era.
Poor effort my friend. I didn't say that Murray was better or greater. I said he would have a good chance of beating him in the final. Try again.
Where Krajicek would be the clear favorite.Why only the winners draw? Murray could just have likely ended up in the opposite half to Krajicek, thereby meeting him in the final.
Rosewall won 2 French titles, one at 18, the other at 33. He also won 4 French Pro titles at RG, beating the likes of: Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno. He probably would have won more French Pro at RG had they not moved that event indoors on wood, where he beat Laver in 4 consecutive finals. France seems to have been Ken's lucky Country. Therefore, Ken should be at least in the top 5 clay court players of ALL-Time, as he won many more titles on clay besides the French.Muster underachieved at the French no doubt. But 1 Slam and 6 masters (and 33 other clay titles), is better than 2 Slams and 2 Masters (plus only 1 other clay title). Muster is generally considered greater of the two in most clay polls. Here's one for example:
![]()
Top 10 male clay-court players of all time - Tennis365
Isaac Seelochan ranks the top 10 male tennis players to have set foot on the red dirt.www.tennis365.com
Couriers 5 titles ultimately is to meagre, especially when we are talking all of clay.