No, I'm pointed out to 90's clay that Hewitt isn't chopped liver. He's a hell of a grass player.
Greatest USO player of all time?
- Thread starter Prisoner of Birth
- Start date
No, I'm pointed out to 90's clay that Hewitt isn't chopped liver. He's a hell of a grass player.
abmk
Bionic Poster
agassi in 98 was just coming out of a huge slump , when a young hewitt beat him ...
The USO 2002 semi b/w them was nowhere close to a destruction, it was a hard-fought 4-setter ... see the USO 2001 final for the definition of a destruction ....
I do think that Connors would rank above Sampras in this comparison. Connors's much greater consistency at the event easily trumps Sampras's one extra final appearance. During his 1993-1997 peak, Sampras lost twice at the US Open before the quarters, in 1994 and 1997 (although admittedly in 1994 he hadn't played a single warm-up match due to that summer ankle injury). Connors reached 12 consecutive semi-finals at the tournament from 1974-1985, so he was factor there every single year in his prime. However Sampras's feat of winning the tournament as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s was amazing.
Between Connors and Federer, Federer obviously had the greater dominance with his 5 consecutive titles. In the modern era, winning a hard court major 5 years in a row is more impressive than achieving that at either RG or Wimbledon. That is because the modern era is so hard-court orientated, and there is way more strength in depth on hard courts than either clay or grass. However I would give the slight edge to Connors because of his incredible longevity and overall record at the tournament. To me he is definitely still the open era US Open king.
Between Connors and Federer, Federer obviously had the greater dominance with his 5 consecutive titles. In the modern era, winning a hard court major 5 years in a row is more impressive than achieving that at either RG or Wimbledon. That is because the modern era is so hard-court orientated, and there is way more strength in depth on hard courts than either clay or grass. However I would give the slight edge to Connors because of his incredible longevity and overall record at the tournament. To me he is definitely still the open era US Open king.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
Legend
US Open 1993, Australian Open 1997, Wimbledon 1997, Wimbledon 2000 say hi.
Not saying they're garbage draws but they weren't exactly daunting.
zagor
Bionic Poster
But according to a number of Sampras die-hards here, Hewitt and Safin are very weak opposition so Sampras getting a beatdown from them in back-to-back USO finals is much more embarrassing then Fed losing two 5 setters to Novak (at the same age for comparison), right? If Fed is going the distance with a champ like Novak, a presumably better player like Sampras should have still been roflstomping them instead of the opposite happening in 2000 and 2001 USO finals.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Sampras destroyed Safin in 2001 USO, and destroyed Hewitt in 2000 USO. He was just gassed out in both finals due to old age and Thalassemia disorder.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Just kidding of course, but the problem is that some *******s (not you), when discussion is about Nadal's achievements, says that he is dirtballer who was lucky that grass is slowed, but when we talk about Federer and Sampras, Nadal is a great grass courter. :???: I was joking few days ago with Prisoner of Birth on that and he was pissed off for nothing
So? Some *******s, when discussion is about Fed's achievements, say that he's a mentally weak crybaby with no BH who had success in an extremely weak era (consisting of a bunch of clowns and baby Rafa) but of course when comparing Nadal to other tennis greats in the past him "owning" the "GOAT" is immediately brought up and Fed is presented as some great opposition for warrior Rafa.
Point is, on modern grass (the one on which both Nadal and Fed won their Wimbledons) Nadal is a heck of a player, the only one comparable as Sampras' opposition on "fast" grass is Becker but if we for example compare the timeline since Sampras and Fed won their first Wimbledons, Becker made one F and Nadal five, Becker's best run at Wimbledon happened during 1985-1991 while Sampras didn't win his first Wimbledon until 1993.
Whether Nadal would do as good on old grass or Becker on modern is a moot point, we're comparing them as opponents to Fed and Sampras in the conditions in which they faced them.
Or another example, whether Fed would have won 5 USO titles had it been played on green clay as he did on HC is irrelevant, fact is he did win them.
zagor
Bionic Poster
That's all great but still doesn't change the fact that Sampras got destroyed in back-to-back USO finals against weak era clowns Hewitt and Safin which is quite embarrassing, old age or not.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Need I remind you the destruction that past-prime Safin gave to Federer in his absolute prime AKA 2005 AO? Now, that's embarassing.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Need I remind you the destruction that past-prime Safin gave to Federer in his absolute prime AKA 2005 AO? Now, that's embarassing.
Actually I have that match on DVD
but prey tell, since when is a close fought 5 setter a "destruction"? A bit of a stretch to call it that isn't it? I guess 29 year old Korda "destroyed" Sampras at 1997 USO? And Rafter annihilated (don't know if that's a stronger verb than destroyed) him next year? But since you went off USO, how about Krajicek's -I don't know what to call it- against Sampras during his absolute prime aka 1996 Wimbledon?BTW. Safin's 2005 AO victory was his only title there so saying he was not in his prime when that match happened is a bit strange.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Yes, this "weak era" was the sole reason for his never-to-be surpassed record of 51 consecutive Grand Slam match wins.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Because Bill Tilden was dominant? Players like Bill Johnston, Gordon Lowe, Gerald Patterson, Wallace Johnson, Vinny Richards, Howard Kinsey, John Doeg and Frank Hunter, are not "weak competition".
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Did Big Bill have to play the best 3 out of 5 for 7 straight matches against the top world class professional players to win his USO titles?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
He did in 1920, 1921 and 1922. In 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1929, I can only see 6 best-of-5 sets matches listed for those years on the tennis archives website.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
So Mustard I must ask you, are you a believer in the weak era theory as it pertains to Federer? I'm just interested in your opinion.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Need I remind you the destruction that past-prime Safin gave to Federer in his absolute prime AKA 2005 AO? Now, that's embarassing.
that 5-setter, arguably the finest match of all time , is a destruction ?
that was past his prime safin ?
Talker
Hall of Fame
that 5-setter, arguably the finest match of all time , is a destruction ?
that was past his prime safin ?
Haha. OMG.......
She should have called a friend.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Not at all. Players can only beat who they come up against, in whatever era.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
So Krajicek played brilliant in 96 and it was a total one off. And, Pete didn't win that year. So Krajicek is completely irrelevant when talking about Sampras's Wimbledon WINS. Krajicek was a non factor every year apart from 96 when Sampras couldn't beat him. Hence he is not a viable rival when talking about how pete had to beat amazing players to WIN his titles.
Sure Roddick or Hewitt would be unlikely to beat Sampras in his prime at Wimbldon. But So was Krajicek. A Rod and Hewitt are both much better overall players than Richard, much more consistant. It's just Richard fluked a win against all odds. The dude had 4 career slam semi finals, total. Roddick is good enough to fluke a win if the stars alligned like they did for Richard, he's a much better player.
Becker was a great player and he was still good when Sampras played him. But we are talking about Sampras, and don't get me wrong he is one of the all time greatest players. He is already above Becker. But even if they are on the same level, take one guy slightly post prime and pitt them against a player of similar ability in their prime and it's a significant edge. You can see this with how the edge swung to Nadal in 2008 over Federer.
So yeah Becker was great, but people acting like Pete beat a prime Becker? No sorry. Pete was actually lucky that the previous era was so strong, because it gave him a chance to beat up on former greats a bit past their prime. However how many great players came through with pete of his own generation? Agassi (who won most of his titles later on when Pete was gone) Courier who won 4 slams in a very narrow time period, Rafter who won 2 slams... that's about it. And Agassi was the only guy who stuck around for Federer to beat (which he gets no credit for, unlike Sampras who gets credit for beating Becker 8-12 years after he first won Wimbledon) Not only that but Federer didn't have a group of great players 5 years younger that he could take advantage of when they slipped below their best. Sampras did, and like I said he had few real rivals his own age and unlike Federer, really felt the pace when young guns like Safin and Hewitt turned up.
Not attacking him, but I'm saying he had a chance to take advantage of the aging stars of the era before him. HIS actual era was not that great. Not really any better than Federer's. Only difference was Federer didn't have the fading stars to beat up on since Sampras's era was weaker than before.
90's Clay
Banned
Federer didn't have the "fading stars" to compete with? Ummm Agassi? He was fading since 2002-2003. And Agassi didn't win most of his titles after Pete was gone.. Quit the nonsense.. How many titles did Agassi win after the USO in 2002? Exactly. The Australin Open in 2003? What else?? .
Andre was probably worse in 2003-2006 then Becker was 1993-1997. Andre didn't win CRAP after Australia.. He slowed down and overall his game took a dump (outside of the USO in 2004-2005). But thats the equivalent of Becker giving those last ditch efforts at places like the Masters in 96 or Wimbledon.
Still I disagree.. I think Becker even at an older age is superior to a prime roddick on grass.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Safin was at his absolute peak at the 2005 Australian Open.that 5-setter, arguably the finest match of all time , is a destruction ?
that was past his prime safin ?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Safin played one of his career peak matches at the 2005 Australian Open perhaps but he was not at his career peak for sure. His best years were definitely 2000, 2002, and maybe 2004.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I already said Agassi was the only one who stuck around. I mentioned him. Also I mean he won most of his slams after Sampras was no longer in his prime. 5 of Agassi's 8 slams came 1999 onwards, and in 1999 Sampras was towards the end of his prime surely.
But yeah he was the only fading legend around, partly because the era before Sampras was much stronger than his own era or Federer's for that matter. But it gives this illusion that Pete competed against all these greats in HIS era. He didn't, he had lukewarm leftovers. Still doesn't take away from either Sampras of Federer's greatness, but I feel people talk up Sampras's competition too much, talking of flukers like Krajicek... not saying Federer had better, but it aint a whole lot worse.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Safin basically only peaked for one tournament. Maybe two, including the 2000 US Open. His runner up performances were his 'prime', but I wouldn't go as far as saying that was his peak.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Safin won 7 tournaments in 2000 (which included Toronto, the US Open and Paris Indoors), and it was only Kuerten winning the Masters Cup in Lisbon that stopped Safin finishing the year as world number 1.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
So Federer > Sampras at Wimbledon. Because 8>7.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yes Fed is superior to Sampras at W and Sampras has a better record at USO. Although 5 consecutive titles could be regarded as a greater feat than 5 non consecutive, regardless of extra finals.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I think Connors > Sampras > Federer at the USO for now.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I don't understand why Connors > Sampras. Same # of titles, except in fewer attempts for Sampras and more finals for Sampras as well.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Number of attempts doesn't matter. Any Quarterfinal appearance is much, much better than a non-appearance. The only thing Sampras has over Connors is the 1 final. But just look at Connors's stats. Insane longevity. Great consistency. Wins across different surfaces. Number of wins. Everything. All that weighs down the one additional final for me.
I mean, think about it. Connors has 12 consecutive Semifinals to Sampras's 3. And he's got 98 wins! :shock:
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
More quarters > more finals? Sorry but weird logic to me. And Sampras was almost a month older than Connors when he won his last USO title.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Don't you read? I said Quarterfinal > nonappearance. Sampras has the 1 final over Connors and that is it. That is it! Connors leads everywhere else. And by so much. Just look at the OP. And age means nothing, sorry.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
What dominance? Connors won 5 USO titles over 10 years. That means he lost half. 50% success during his prime years is not dominance. Nadal at RG, now THAT's dominance.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Greater dominance than Sampras, no? Greater consistency, no? 5 more Semifinals, no? 7 more Quarterfinals, no? 27 more wins, no? Wins across different surfaces, no? Greater player, no?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yes, Sampras leads by 1 final. Finals are much more important than quarters. 1 extra final is much more significant than 10 extra quarters. Sorry but with a good draw, it's not that big a deal to make a quarter. The matches become difficult STARTING in quarters. That's where one has to play top 20 players (usually).
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yes, and Connors has 5 more semifinal appearances. Connors has 12 consecutive semifinals. Sampras has just 3. 12 to 3! Look at the difference in consistency there? Yes, the final is more important. But add up Connors's consistency, longevity, number of wins and dominance, and the sum is greater than 1 final.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
So the only thing it takes to be considered the better player is to play an event more often? I disagree. Let's use a different angle. Sampras played USO 14 times: 8 times he made the finals, 6 times he didn't. That means he made the finals more often than not. Connors played 22 USO: 7 times he made the final, 15 times he didn't. That's a much lower success rate. Quantity should overcome quality? Sampras may have played fewer USO but he had a better success rate. If Nadal played only 10 RG and won 9 out of the 10, he would be a better clay player than a guy who'd play 20 RG, won fewer than 9 titles and made semis the rest of the way, sorry.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
That's a loser's way of thinking. It's never better to quit than fight on. Never.
TheFifthSet
Legend
To be fair, Sampras won his 5 over 13 years.
also, I'd say Connors competition at the USO was slightly stronger than Pete's, if you compare who they beat in their 5 wins.
Personally I think its a toss up, both legendary US Open players of course.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
But if you don't think the number of finals is the decider than you are also a hypocrite...
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
But a champion plays to win titles, not to make quarters or semis. 5 titles out of 14 attempts is better than 5 titles out of 22 attempts. And 8 finals out of 14 sure is a lot better than 7 finals out of 22. If one's not competitive enough to win anymore, why hang around indefinitely? (Apart from fun, fame and money ha ha)
TheFifthSet
Legend
True but remember that it took Connors and Sampras the same amount of attempts (14) to win 5 US Opens. I think the additional years of near title runs should be seen as a bonus for Connors.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Good point. So Connors gets a point for longevity. Sampras for consistency (reached finals most of the time he played) and Fed has got to get the dominance part because his 6 finals were consecutive.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Yup, agreed.
It's hard to back a horse in this race, they're pretty evenly matched and all have certain things in their favour, don't see how anyone could argue there's a chasmal difference between the 3.Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I have always maintained a final is more important than all other stats (after titles, of course). But Connors has the huge edge in every other department, which more than trumps a single final. How can you not see it?
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Connors had 5 finals in a row. And 12 semifinals in a row. Sampras, on the other hand, has 3 and 3.
5>3 (consecutive finals)
12>3 (consecutive semifinals)
13>4 (consecutive quarterfinals)
You're kidding me with Sampras being more consistent. That's just totally ridiculous. Get real. Please. You're embarrassing yourself. Just because Connors played for ages and Sampras quit early doesn't mean Sampras > Connors. By that weird logic Borg>Nadal.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
