Z
Zara
Guest
In that case, I'll take Weakeraovic over Weakerer for the same reason. I guess that makes us even.
Djokovic has lost his edge, says former mentor Pilic
- Thread starter Brauvenklatsch
- Start date
In that case, I'll take Weakeraovic over Weakerer for the same reason. I guess that makes us even.
Z
Zara
Guest
Djokovic can win 6 slams in the next 5 years until he is in his mid-30s. Pretty doable. As to Fed, well, I'll let you stick to your guns.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Pete had a weaker era than both of them.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nobody besides Agassi could do that, and he could do that because he had like next to zero mileage when he was 28/29. Novak has a crapload more mileage than Agassi at the same age.
Z
Zara
Guest
Yes I am sure. I mean just ask Hewitt. Anyway, why do you bring Pete up into this conversation? He's not goat so why mention him?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Neither is Novak so why mention him? Better yet, neither is Federer. I don't believe in the "GOAT" concept at all.
And ask Hewitt what? He took craps all over Pete most the time they played. He also played better in a stronger era with a stronger player stopping him (Federer at his absolute zenith) and he denied him several GS titles so it kind of makes up for it, no?
Z
Zara
Guest
Never say never. But you know something, I do like it when you say these things. Because it would be so lovely to see eat your own words and I believe you may have eaten some already - in case of Murray.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Not really. Don't see a difference between today's Murray and Hewitt of 2002.
Z
Zara
Guest
But you called Djokovic a weak era champion. You brought him up. The thread was about if Djokovic has indeed lost his edges. But you decided to get nasty on it and called him Weakeraovic. In other words, you went off topic. Sampras belongs nowhere in this discussion because he's not from the same era.
And I agree - Hewitt did crap all over Sampras. You said it a million times on different threads but it never gets old. Hewitt goat.
Z
Zara
Guest
I'll just wait for you to eat your own words. Maybe I'll serve it on a silver plate too.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I didn't go off topic. I responded to your asinine claim he would win 5+ majors and match Federer -- which I disagree with. I also don't agree he had a strong period with Federer, Murray and Wawrinka. I believe that period was horrible, 33/34 year old Federer, Murray who was coming back from surgery and Wawrinka as his biggest rivals.
I also don't believe he will ever get back to his old level, I think he may win another major or two but I don't think he will win 5+ majors and overtake Roger after the age of 30 with the amount of mileage he has on him.
Hewitt was Chang with more power and variety, Pete couldn't handle that in his later years. I actually use that as a blueprint Pete would struggle with guys like Nadal and Djokovic, since they are yet another step up in terms of aggressiveness from the back of the court. And they move A LOT better than Agassi, more like Hewitt/Chang.Zara said:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Weren't you the guy that said you could read player's minds? LOL. I'll never eat any of your words.
Z
Zara
Guest
Not players but only Sampras and only when Fedfan said that Sampras played exos with Federer because he wanted to prove that he's the real goat. Knowing Sampras as a player and having read his books a few times, I can safely say that Sampras didn't play exos with Federer to prove a stupid point. And Sampras doesn't only play exos with Federer. He's played with a number of players. Only Fed fans can come up with such nonsense (sorry Fedfan).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He obviously felt he could compete with him to some level though. Don't you think Pete felt he and Roger were comparable at the time?
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I haven't read it yet. How does it compare to Agassi's Open?
Z
Zara
Guest
I didn't 'claim' it. I said it's a possibility. Do you know the difference? And what you believe is what you believe - don't expect me to believe what you believe because what I believe is very different than yours, understand that. In other words, let's not impose your own belief on to others. At the end of the day, we are both expressing our opinions - reason why this forum exists.
As to the highlighted part - if that's how you feel then that's how you feel. I disagree entirely so no point going over this just to try to convince each other.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
An asteroid destroying the Earth in the next fifteen minutes is also a possibility. It's obvious to anybody with a semblance of intellect why you posted that CLAIM.
Do you know the difference between playing Nostradamus and making sly predictions?
Yeah, yeah. We know you believe the same old sappy BS 90's Clay does, he wasn't "motivated" (despite playing a full schedule and going deep in quite a few tournaments) and that he was past his prime after the age of 25.Zara said:
maruzo
Semi-Pro
No tennis player can sustain dominance over the entire field over his entire playing career. That's already been established.
So yes, Novak is in decline.
That does not mean his chance of winning a slam is any less than any other top pros in the field, Fed, Andy, and Rafa included.
That said, The momentum has definitely shifted from Novak to the others at the moment.
I don't see him winning a slam this year.
Z
Zara
Guest
Pete might have fancied an encounter when both were at their peak and if that was possible. But when he was slow and past his prime, he wouldn't fancy it. But he'd like to see where his tennis was at the stage and playing Federer might have given him some ideas. But Pete wouldn't want to prove anything even remotely as stupid as goat. He loves the game too much to be so lame. He was competitive but not stupid.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He would want to prove he could play with the greats LIKE Federer though.
Most the players don't even believe in the GOAT concept. It doesn't make sense and it was invented by the PEOPLE.
3fees
G.O.A.T.
I would not count him out. Watching acapulco matches, his ground strokes were top form hitting winners from the back hand side, his edge was lost on serve and return of serve, He gets his serve back and return of serve, he'll be a threat to win more titles and a slam or two this year.
Cheers
3Fees
Cheers
3Fees
Z
Zara
Guest
I don't believe in predictions so not really into Nostradamus. No one including Nostradamus can predict the future if they knew what goes on underneath or how the reality manifests itself . I don't think you can predict the future since future is not based on the past and things are always subject to change. I talked about possibilities which you interpreted as 'claim'. But that's your inability and that's alright if you have limited understanding.
As to Pete and Hewitt again, you are again trying so hard in your baiting that it's amusing. Anyway, gotta go to bed as a 200 pages long report awaits me first thing in the morning.
Last edited by a moderator:
Z
Zara
Guest
Do you mean compared to Agassi's book?
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
yes
Z
Zara
Guest
I haven't read Agassi's book yet. While I rate him very high as a tennis player, I don't particularly think he was very authentic in his book. He's too human - prone to those negative human traits so the book would probably translate that more. And time is precious - you don't want to read stuff that leaves you nowhere.
Sampras, on the other hand, is very direct and transparent about his feelings and approach, so I enjoyed reading it.
Z
Zara
Guest
I am sure Sampras felt quite honoured playing greats LIKE Federer in exo matches. He's, after all, a monkey who decided to swung from the tree one day and play tennis against posh and great players like Federer, Agassi etc.
Z
Zara
Guest
It's not. I don't buy half the stuff he says. Strange (but typical) though that you read Agassi's but not Sampras'.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Some of the stuff you say is quite confusing. You haven't read the book but have declared that it is not direct and transparent. I can tell you from my actual experience that it is, but it also comes with that "Agassi baggage" included which is probably what you're getting at. It's still a good read. The next thing I find very strange is that you'd find it typical that I've read Agassi's book but not Sampras'. It's not clear what is meant nor implied by this statement.
Z
Zara
Guest
Because I read bits and pieces of Agassi's book online. Some fans went and posted those. I didn't find those interesting. Read it.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-one-dimensional-calls-connors-a-name.296710/
But why do you want to impose your own experience about the book on to me? Do you think I am a child and unable to make up my own mind? And how do you know I'd like reading his stuff when over his career he never had anything good to say about anyone - especially about a person who was always very complimentary towards him? Do you want me to trust his book - what he says? He's not transparent or open, he's a showboat. Always was.
Answer me this - why didn't you read Sampras' book when you read Agassi's? I'll explain later why I thought it was incredibly typical.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I'm suggesting it's a good book and am recommending it. There's nothing complicated here.
Those extracts are but a tiny portion of his book.
I read (listened) to Agassi's book first because it was available as an audiobook, which I fancied. Now I'm reading (as in reading) Laver's.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
Anyone "can" win 6 slams in the next 5 years... The question is will he? I don't believe he will. I also don't believe he will play until he's 35 either..
Z
Zara
Guest
And yet by no means flattering, are they? But there's more. You do know TTW is not on the only forum on this planet?
So what's keeping you from reading Sampras' book? Is it not juicy enough for you?
Z
Zara
Guest
I don't know but it's not going to stop the possibilities or probabilities. Djokovic can change the momentum if he continues to be a write off.
What you believe is still your opinion.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I think you try to read into a lot of things that simply don't exist.
I'll get through all the various autobiogs in my own time. Not especially thinking about the order or pitting players up against each other. I read a lot of books so I dunno exactly when I'll read it. Right now I'm on Laver and a couple of books by Stephen Meyer.
I'm sure it's a good book and I look forward to reading it.
Z
Zara
Guest
What doesn't exist? The direct quotes from Agassi's books? You can't be serious.
But it's interesting that you read Agassi's book and now reading Laver's and yet you haven't found the time to read Sampras'. And you insist on reading Agassi's book. I am sure you will jump on Federer's book the minute it comes out in the future. Time wont be a factor. Don't even dare to deny it.
Listen, it's fine if you want to read the juicy ones first or the ones that floats your boat, but don't' expect others to go for the same reason. I like dull stuff because they are more authentic and true to life.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I'm talking about you finding things typical and having theories about it, when there's nothing to it. It's a bit like the Nadal example yesterday. You couldn't see how I derived the point and probably had some more complicated theory for the outburst, though I don't know.
On Agassi, Laver and Sampras, it's not something I think about. There are many tennis legends and not just those three. On Federer's future book, I doubt it. Still haven't bothered to read anything from Ronnie O'Sullivan who I like almost as much as Federer.
All the stuff about juicy and dull are your projections on my motives, which are wrong. I didn't recommend Agassi's book because it's a) juicy or b) dull. A good book is a good book.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually, yes. Yes I do.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
LMFAO
Z
Zara
Guest
No but the fact that you read Agassi's book but not Sampras' is a bit typical. Do you know that many casual fans have read Agassi's books than Sampras'? In fact, a lot of them don't even know that Sampras has a book too. Quite ironic - the mindsets behind these people when you consider that Sampras accomplished so much more than Agassi and was always a thorough gentleman all his career.
And when you say a good book is a good book - I hope you realize that it's only your opinion not a fact. Do you agree? Because I can find a few people who didn't like the book at all and thought it's load of self jibbar jabber, playing victim and blaming everyone for his own antics/downfall etc. Most people love that kind of stuff - that's why it's typical.
And Agassi has very little respect for others. He's like a child or even worse - he's unable to compliment anyone without insulting them first. I have no interest in humans like him let alone read their stories. I prefer genuine stories.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
It might well be typical, but that doesn't make me typical nor does it have to relate to me in how I make my choices. Also, you've misunderstood the whole point behind my good book statement. I find I have to keep explaining myself to you regarding really trivial things. Guess I have nothing more to add on it. I look forward to reading the autobiographies of the many tennis legends.
Z
Zara
Guest
Good enough. You won't have to explain yourself anymore. I will make sure of it.
guanzishou
G.O.A.T.
It's time for Nole to channel his inner bad boy Safin with more Amor and more Paz and more Aaaaahhh....
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
A rather fast one though.
Similar threads
