Sampras-Agassi 1999 YEC. UNREAL ATTACK. Sampras UNBEATABLE HERE
- Thread starter GameSampras
- Start date
austintennis2005
Professional
here's something for all you sampras haters:
They said Pete Sampras wasn't supposed to be a great clay court player. They said he would be the weak link for the United States in the 1995 Davis Cup finals against Russia.
Trouble is, they forgot to tell Pete Sampras.
Having won once in a dramatic singles match Friday and again as half of the U.S. doubles team Saturday, Sampras returned for a third straight match today with probably his best clay court performance ever. Powered by a virtually unreturnable serve, deft volleying and punishing forehands, he routed Russian ace Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 6-2, 6-4, 7-6 (7-4), leading the Americans to a 3-2 victory and their 31st Davis Cup championship since the tournament began in 1900.
"I've never seen better clay court tennis," U.S. captain Tom Gullikson said. "The combination of power and patience and precision serving. . . . It was flawless tennis."
Sampras, 24, the world's No. 1 player, was untouchable through two sets, then staved off a spirited challenge by Kafelnikov in the third. The victory, in just more than two hours, gave the United States its third point in the best-of-five-point final, clinching the Cup and making Jim Courier's subsequent loss to Andrei Chesnokov moot.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
Sampras can play very well on clay for a couple of matches. But he is not good enough to string together 7 best-of-5 matches.
380pistol
Banned
Agreed, Sampras could most definitely play on clay, and play well on any given day, see.....
-1991 French Open vs Muster
-1994 Italian Open F vs Becker
-1995 Davis Cup F vs Kafelnikov
-1996 French Open 2nd vs Bruguera
-1996 French Open QF vs Courier
But just as you said playing day in, week out, or for a certain period could become problematic for him. In his era with his eastern grip, attacking style and a lot of claycourt specialists, it would eventually get the better of him.
380pistol
Banned
Stop it. The ankle injury was not a probelem when he went 3-0 in RR play.
It was no problem when he doubled bagelled Gaudio in SF.
It wasn't a problem when he went up 2 sets to love on Nalbandian.
...but wait it became a factor when Nalbandian came back and led 6-7,6-7,6-2,6-1,4-0. Then.... oh look at that it's not a problem when Federer served for the match at 6-5 30-0 in the 5th.
But of course it came back in the tie breaker. So at what point in the finals exactly did the ankle flare up???
From 2004-2007 Nalbandian beat or played Federer tough in 6 of 10 matches (despite all of David's inconsistncies).
From 2003 Wimbledon to 2007 (when Roger wn 12 of 18 slams) Nalbandian beat or plated Federer tough in 8 of 13 matches (despite all of David's inconsistncies).
But you're right Fed hit his prime and Nalbandian was no longer problem. OK...... if you believe so.
You said the crowd rattled him.
Was Federer not older and more experienced in the 2005 US Open F than he was in the 2004 Aus Open 4th Rd???
Did Federer not have the experience of playing Agassi in Flushing, while dealing with delays, and horrible wether (that you even said favoured Andre) the year prior???
Was the crowd the reason Roger hit 5 winners, 26 unforced on his backhand side that day???
Was the crowd the reason Federer served at nearly 70% in the 2nd set, and into the mid 60's in 3rd, yet was broken in 3 out of 7 service games at one stretch???
How come the crowd did effect Federer from the onset when he won the 1st set 6-3????
Just curious???
lambielspins
Banned
You could say then Federer played David tough or beat him in 9 of 10 matches since Nalbandian had only 1 relatively easy win over Federer in all of them. All that matters is Roger won the vast majority of the matches and Nalbandian couldnt beat Roger on anything other than an indoor court where there are no slam events anyway so is as close to an irrelevant surface as there is these days. Calling Nalbandian a nemisis is beyond stupid, he hasnt fared nearly well enough vs Roger, especialy prime Roger, to warrant that. A player who you have the clear edge over is not your nemisis.
Last edited:
T
ThugNasty
Guest
Nah, federer can still beat sampras, even if sampras played at that level. And to the stupid OP, are you serious? Posting a video of sampras serving on an indoor court and putting away volleys is not a definition of unbeatable. On good days on fast courts, even roddick is blasting opponents of court with big serves and big forehands and playing attacking tennis. Federer would also excel at attacking on this indoor surface like he has shown he can in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
lambielspins
Banned
Agassi also played a bad match in this one, and both he and Sampras acknowledged so. The 1999 Wimbledon final would have been a better match to put up since unlike this match Agassi was atleast playing very well that day.
380pistol
Banned
Blah, blah, blah.........
I mean that's all you're worth. When you understand the Genesis of this issue and know what is being talked about I'll respond. But if you wanna continue to talk out of your ass, feel free.
380pistol
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iebd7LqFC-E&fmt=18 0:00 - 3:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WRv4TC73Ro&fmt=18
Enjoy. As Navratilova said.....
"Here's grasscourt tennis. This is how it should be played".
abmk
Bionic Poster
There is a reason why I provided the link. If you want, you can google it yourself about whether federer was or was not fully fit during shanghai 2005. I am not going to repeat this again and again .
You would've known if you had seen the matches.
Just troubling federer in some of the matches doesn't make nalbandian his nemesis.
For one you don't understand the difference in playing a R16/QF match vs playing a final or you don't want to admit it.
Secondly agassi raised his level in the 2nd set and the crowd got behind him.It gets even more difficult in such a case than in the beginning of a match. That should've been obvious.
Eventually though , he managed to raise his level when it was required and finished the match in 4 sets ....
380pistol
Banned
Did I say Roger did not hurt his ankle??? Did I?? I asked......
The ankle injury was not a probelem when he went 3-0 in RR play.
It was no problem when he doubled bagelled Gaudio in SF.
It wasn't a problem when he went up 2 sets to love on Nalbandian.
...but wait it became a factor when Nalbandian came back and led 6-7,6-7,6-2,6-1,4-0. Then.... oh look at that it's not a problem when Federer served for the match at 6-5 30-0 in the 5th.
But of course it came back in the tie breaker. So at what point in the finals exactly did the ankle flare up???
And you're absolutely right. Nalbandian is not Roger's nemesis. In July 2003 Fed won his fist slam, and would also take 12 of the next 18 leaving Nalbandian in his dust. David never even had chance vs Federer or came close in amcth from there on in ...... except in 8 of their 13 encounters.
For one you don't understand the difference in playing a R16/QF match vs playing a final or you don't want to admit it.
Secondly agassi raised his level in the 2nd set and the crowd got behind him.It gets even more difficult in such a case than in the beginning of a match. That should've been obvious.
Eventually though , he managed to raise his level when it was required and finished the match in 4 sets ....
The crowd bothered. But all the exprience of winning 6 slams never helped him. The croewd and the terible weather also bothered him 2004 as well. Of cousre Federer's level raised, but Agassi's never dipped, despite being 35, getting cortizone shots in his back and coming off 3 straight 5 setters.
What was I thinking???
abmk
Bionic Poster
1. You can't even read from a link that has been posted. Read it. * Yawn *
2. You don't know how to use google either
3. Beating federer 3 times in the previous 13 matches ( or 3 matches out of 11 at his peak) doesn't make nalbandian his nemesis.
You can keep repeating infinite no of times that nalbandian was roger's nemesis at his peak.Doesn't make a difference to me. That's it from me on this topic.
Of course experience helped. That's why he won it in 4 sets. No one is that good that he won't be affected at all.
When did I say agassi's level did not dip ? Of course it did and I did mention that in my first post regarding USO 2005. But it was federer raising his level that made more of a difference.
...and Muster beat Sampras indoors despite his well known achilles heel of playing serve and volleyers on any surface.
The same can be said for virtually any player who was good enough to reach the top or near the top of the rankings at some point though. When you reach an elite ranking level, there is a reason and that is that you have significant attributes that will be difficult for anyone to overcome REGARDLESS of surface if you are at your best on that day. As Brad Gilbert wrote in Winning Ugly, the players who are good enough to get to about top twenty in the world, every year they will play two or three matches where they're just playing out of their mind and NO ONE in the world will be able to beat them on that day. It happens...regularly when you consider how many top players we've had through the years.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
I can't seem to find the high-light video in your post, of him playing in a french open final.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
You never will find it.
380pistol
Banned
I read the link. Fed got a medical timeout after 3 games in the 4th set, then another one after losing that set. And it bothered him so much that he made up a 0-4 defict in the 5th and served for the match at 6-5 30-0.
Which you consistently fail to acknowledge.
Oh stop it. The crowd was the reason his backhand put up 5 winner and 26 unforced errors. The crowd was the reason he served at nearly 70% in the 2nd set and mid 60's into the 3rd, but was broken 3 times in 7 service games and was 6 pts away from going down 2 sets to 1.
Be serious. How much did the crowd "really" affect him?? Maybe, just maybe it wa Dre (even at 35), and certain matchup issues he presents. Nah.... couldn't be that. Had to be the crowd.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer couldn't let go the match tamely , could he ? He made a final effort and it nearly came off, just that nalbandian managed to overcome/hold his nerves .......
yeah, a dangerous match-up which is why agassi got bagelled by federer at YEC 2003 F when he was younger .. Doesn't have anything to do with federer's form right ?
380pistol
Banned
"Let the match go tamely". Serveing for a match up 30-0 is damn near winning from where I stand. Fighting back from down 4-0 in the 5th, to being two points away at 30-0... must have been that bionic ankle.
Nalbandian held his nerves. What about Federer, didn't he fight off 4 set pts in the 2nd set tie breaker alone. He held his nerve... despite the ankle.
This after holing a match point what 3 days earlier??? This after 2 battles in flushing. Not to mention a 34 yr old verion of Agassi battling Fed to 6-4 in the 3rd in Indian Wells (this after playing a horrible serve game to get broken at 4-4). That's HALF of Federer's victories.
Did I mention all these matches were played when Agassi was 33yrs 6 mos. +???
lambielspins
Banned
Sorry but going 0-8 vs someone, being somewhat competitive but always losing in 4 of 8, and being destroyed in the other 4 of 8, is not an overall close battle no matter how you spin it. An old Agassi was overall about equaly competitive with Federer as Hewitt and Roddick were from 2003-2005, and are Hewitt and Roddick are considered such close rivals to Federer, LOL!
Al Czervik
Hall of Fame
GameSampras makes a point that I hate admitting. I think right now you have a great argument that Fed already has the better career v. Pete's and is the more complete player whether he wins one more GS or not. However..
If I had to pick each guy at the top of his game and ask, who wins that match? I say the ape. Wimby '99 settled it for me. Agassi was in the midst of the most ridiculous run of his career. From what I recall, when Andre got a sniff of a return in that final, he hit a winner. Problem was, he rarely got that sniff. Pete just served him out of the building. I don't think anyone at anytime could have beaten him that day. Your counterargument is that Fed's serve is better than Agassi's, but I don't think Fed's serve could match Pete's on a day like that, plus there is no way Fed could have returned even like Andre that day.
Just my worthless $0.02.
If I had to pick each guy at the top of his game and ask, who wins that match? I say the ape. Wimby '99 settled it for me. Agassi was in the midst of the most ridiculous run of his career. From what I recall, when Andre got a sniff of a return in that final, he hit a winner. Problem was, he rarely got that sniff. Pete just served him out of the building. I don't think anyone at anytime could have beaten him that day. Your counterargument is that Fed's serve is better than Agassi's, but I don't think Fed's serve could match Pete's on a day like that, plus there is no way Fed could have returned even like Andre that day.
Just my worthless $0.02.
grafrules
Banned
Federer's serve is indeed much better than Agassi
Federer's forehand is better than Agassi and a much more destructive a single weapon and point finisher than any one shot of Agassi's
Federer's net game is better than Agassi
Federer's movement is much better than Agassi
Federer has more variety of shot than Agassi
Federer has a slice backhand which is effective on grass, Agassi does not
While Agassi is in many respects is regarded the better returner Federer is much harder to ace as often as Agassi
There are many more counterarguments one could make than Federer merely having a better serve than Agassi. Federer is just a better player than Agassi in most respects, and is obviously a better grass court player.
Last edited:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Agassi has a far better backhand than Federer.
Agassi takes the ball on the rise far better than Federer.
Agassi has far better returns than Federer.(Don't argue with ill logic)
Agassi is more consistent off the ground than Federer and never goes into a shankfest mode.
These advantages alone will give a prime Agassi a good chance against Federer on any surface, but grass.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
Er, he's comparing how fed matches up to sampras and agassi matches up to sampras.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Agreed, Federer was just the all-around better player.
lambielspins
Banned
Agassi was in tankfest mode 75% of his so called prime. Federer goes into tankfest mode 0% of his prime. Individuals with the little pea for a brain that helloworld has should never try to argue with anyone else period. The end.
GameSampras
Banned
Good lord is this thread still going on?? 12 pages? I guess I bring up some very debatable threads.
All I said was I dont think anyone could beat Pete when he was playing that type of "domination peak tennis" as he was at the YEC this match with Andre and his 99 Wimbeldon match. That was closest I seen to Pete truly getting "in the zone.".
All I said was I dont think anyone could beat Pete when he was playing that type of "domination peak tennis" as he was at the YEC this match with Andre and his 99 Wimbeldon match. That was closest I seen to Pete truly getting "in the zone.".
380pistol
Banned
Federer is a better player than Agassi, but I'll give my take on why.
Roger has the serve advantage, but when people say "much" better I don't know. Agassi was not going to dominate anyone with his serve but used it to set him up points on his terms and protected it very well. Look at his % of serve games won always very high.
Agassi is the better returner.... period!!! When it it comes to the abiltiy of returning the serve Agassi is the best ever (Connors may have an arguement). Federer has been effective in breaking his opponents moreso due to his overall game being superior to Dre, not his abilty to return the serve. A lot of times Fed just blocks balls, even floats them back and then tries to get in a rally, where the rest of his game can take over, not necessarily the return. Agassi is known to damage servers, with his return, put servers on the defensive, him go on the offence all from the reurning posuion. Agassi may get aced a lot, but that's by design rather than ability to return. Agassi made it a point to stand on the baseline and attack the server, and put on as much pressure on them. He seemed willing to give the aces to do so. Agassi could step back and be a more passive returner, get aced less... but would that make him better or more effective???
Gorundstrokes. Agassi. I think Federer's best stroke (forehand) gets the edge on Agassi best one (backhand), but in terms of sheer groundstrokes I go with Dre. To simplify if on compiled alist of best forehands and backhands, one would make the list of both, and it's not Federer.
http://tennis.com/features/greatestshots/greatestshots.aspx?id=108752
Forehand
http://tennis.com/features/greatestshots/greatestshots.aspx?id=108756
Backhand
From the baseline Agassi is better at taking the ball earlier and dictating play, Federer is better at defending and neutralizing his opponents. Where Federer gets the nod to me, is he is better at dictating play than Andre is defending and neutralizing his opponents.
Also Roger's ability to transition from defense to offense gives him a great advantage over Agassi.
Roger is simply better at net. While Agassi is adeuqaute and Federer is not among the greatest volleyers or has a net game to rival them, he's defintely more than adequate.
Federer moves better, may be a bit quicker, but his anticipation is what helps him. Agassi is faster than a lot realize. If you go back to his long hair days (and even mid 90's semi bald days), he was one of the fastest players on tour. The problem Agassi was never moving that much (unless he was playing Sampras), he was moving his opponents.
Just may take.
This is interesting. While I can see Sampras acing Agassi more, I don't see Federer getting away with blocking serves back like he does with say Roddick. Sampras would be all over those. Returning paasively would allow Sampras to impose his will.
Federer is at an advantage cuz he is better athlete, and that is needed when you play Sampras. Roger's ability to defend while a positive, may be a detriment vs Pete. Sitting back and defending and then capitilizing on opponenets mistakes, is not agood omen vs Sampras, cuz other than Steffi Graf, I've never seen anyone with the abiltiy to stay on the offensive side of a point like Pete.
Agassi may be able to at Pete's backhand better, and Pete may have success going at Roger's backhand, but Federer's forehand is more of weapon (depite how good his backhand is) than any singular weapon Agassi can bring to the table. They both have the advantage over Pete from the backcourt, but Sampras could more than hold his own from back there, and both would have issues passing Sampras for 3 out five sets. Roger can put more pressure on Pete's serve with his own serve than Dre can with his,but then Pete can put more pressure on anyone's serve with his own, than anyone whoeer played.
Just my handicap.
380pistol
Banned
Agassi was in tankfest mode 75% of his so called prime. Federer goes into tankfest mode 0% of his prime. Individuals with the little pea for a brain that helloworld has should never try to argue with anyone else period. The end.
So then how come form 1988 to 2005 Agassi was able to finish in the top 10 every year except 2??
1993 - hampered with a wrist injury
1997 - missed 3 of 4 slams
16 out of 18 does not = 75%!!!!!
And what 13 of 18 years he qualified for YEC. He even qualified in 1998 (making it 14) but didn't play with an injury.
And don't make me go through Federer and Agassi's rspective career's comparing who they had to up against. It won't bode well for Roger, trust me.
abmk
Bionic Poster
not far better , just better ..on the faster courts, fed's backhand easily rivals agassi's ....
far better, hell no , not a chance. I don't see too much difference in the 'quality' of their returns ...
But agassi went into tankfest mode much much more :-?
380pistol
Banned
FEDERER - in his prime
AGASSI - 33 years +, back problems, and how many other physical ailments. Losing to Niemenen and damn near crawling out of Roland Garros, pulling out of Wimbledon. In 2005 only top 10 payers he was able to beat where whom??? Gaudio and Coria?? After losing to Federer in 2004 Sf (where Roger escaped 6-4 in the 3rd) Dre went 5-6 up to Cincinnati.
These are the two entities you're comparing??? And Federer still had myriads of trouble with this Andre HALF the time they played!!!!
Yes Federer never beat Agassi til Dre was 33 yrs, 6 mos.!!!! What did Agassi do fromNovember 2003 to December 2005, enlighten me??? Or are you gonna tell me that was the best of Dre???
Listen, I'm dealing with science. Either come at me scientific, or don't come at all!!!
abmk
Bionic Poster
back problems bothered him in mid-2005 and late-2005 , not before that. Don't make that an excuse for all the matches before mid-2005 !
agassi ended 2003 year end no4, reaching masters cup finals ... are you telling me he was bad then ? :shock:
also he was mentally more tougher post 98-99 than he was before ...
I love reading this desperate hysteria that is now forming on the Sampras fanatics in this thread. One particular Sampras fanatic probably though this would be a genius thread to start to make their mancrush look great. Instead it simply ended up making them look frantic and desperate as all their arguments get shot down.
abmk
Bionic Poster
380pistol
Banned
Blah, blah, blah.....
Now you're gonna tell me Andre at 33+ was at the peak of his career, the height of his powers. I love how you didn't adress Andre goin 5-6 from March to August in 2004. We wont talk about that.
Yeah in 2003 Agssi started his summer by losing to....
-P'sis (he was 6-1 otherwise with only loss coming when he was rk in the 100's)
-Gonzalez in DC
-Sheuttler in Canada
-Ferrero (who was in the midst of what 4 matches in 5 days??)
His lat 4 tourneys before yec. Before that Roddick in Queens, and Ferrer (#60) in Rome. So you're equating Federer with ACL kneed out P'sis, Gonzalez, Scheuttler, a gassed Ferrero, young Roddick (before his 1st slam) and David Ferrer. Good to know.
He was more mentally tougher then than in 98-99??
You mean 1998 when he stated the year #86 and was #4 by YEC?? No mental toughness required there.
How about 1999, battling back vs def. champ Moya in Paris, and coming from 2 sets down to win French Open?? Was he tough enough for you??
Oh no no mental toughness there but he showed it in 2003 losing to ACL kneed out P'sis, Gonzalez, Scheuttler, a gassed Ferrero, young Roddick (before his 1st slam) and David Ferrer his last 7 tournaments before losing to Roger at YEC. Really????
abmk
Bionic Poster
I never said that. I said he was still playing good.
Read what I wrote carefully , I said he was mentally more tough post 98-99 ( By that I mean he wasn't that tough before 98-99 )
This is quite correct. Sampras showed to the discerning eye, that he could beat anybody clay. Sampras' best on clay was devatastating. He lacked the mentality and the physicality (his physical disorder) to do it for 7 best of 5 matches though. Deep down, he knew this.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Agassi was in tankfest mode 75% of his so called prime. Federer goes into tankfest mode 0% of his prime. Individuals with the little pea for a brain that helloworld has should never try to argue with anyone else period. The end.
I'm afraid the one with the pea brain is yourself. People who actually have a brain will provide evidence for their argument, not insult. Insult is for kids and mentally immature grown ups, or should I say ******** people.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
ROFL!!! This is the most rediculous quote I've heard in a long time. :lol:
abmk
Bionic Poster
suit yourself ! that won't change the fact that federer's backhand is as much of a weapon as agassi's on fast courts.
the green god
Professional
And who is your mancrush, cowboy.
380pistol
Banned
Understand where I'm coming from. Agassi was still playing well, granted. How well??? I noted his last 7 or 8 tournaments before Roger beat him for the 1st time in 2003 YEC. Take it for what it is.
He wasn't mentally tough 1999 prior. Did you see the 1992 Wimbledon F?? How about the the 1994 US Open 4th, that Dre called his "Bar Mitzvah of Tennis"??
What about when a young Agassi fell behing Connors 2 sets to 1, then stuck out his open palm to his coach Bollitieri implying he'd win it in 5... which he did.
He's been mentally tough, but at times he's been a scatter brain (on and off the court), and at times not even focusing on tennis. He had a meltdown in the 2001 Wim SF when he was up a break in the 5th, had a break pt for a double break, served for the match, cussed at a lines woman, lost it at the umpire, and then lost to Rafter 8-6 in the 5th.
But he did become a lot more maturer ipost 1999. which likely helped his game though.
GameSampras
Banned
Well Agassi couldnt have been as BAD as some would love to make him out to be. Sampras did say that Andre was the best player he ever played against. He may not have had the consistency year after year but he is still among the all time greats.
Looking back, sure you can say Andre was a very inconsistent player over the years, sure he had some down years, but you would be hardpressed to find many in history that could beat Andre when he was on his game. 1995, 1999,2000,2001. He was playing some unreal tennis at the time. How many players in history could have defeated Andre at the 00 Australian? One or two? How about 2001 US OPEN? Only Pete could IMO. And NO I dont think Roger could seriously. Not the way Andre was playing there
Looking back, sure you can say Andre was a very inconsistent player over the years, sure he had some down years, but you would be hardpressed to find many in history that could beat Andre when he was on his game. 1995, 1999,2000,2001. He was playing some unreal tennis at the time. How many players in history could have defeated Andre at the 00 Australian? One or two? How about 2001 US OPEN? Only Pete could IMO. And NO I dont think Roger could seriously. Not the way Andre was playing there
380pistol
Banned
I'm afraid the one with the pea brain is yourself. People who actually have a brain will provide evidence for their argument, not insult. Insult is for kids and mentally immature grown ups, or should I say ******** people.Agassi was in tankfest mode 75% of his so called prime. Federer goes into tankfest mode 0% of his prime. Individuals with the little pea for a brain that helloworld has should never try to argue with anyone else period. The end.
I'm going to have to concur. Hence.....
So then how come form 1988 to 2005 Agassi was able to finish in the top 10 every year except 2??
1993 - hampered with a wrist injury
1997 - missed 3 of 4 slams
16 out of 18 does not = 75%!!!!! Must be that "new math".
And what 13 of 18 (in 2007 was #7 but didn't play with injury) years he qualified for YEC. He even qualified in 1998 (making it 14) but didn't play with an injury.
And what in 12/13 of those 18 years he either entered YEC or finished the year in the top 6!!!
And don't make me go through Federer and Agassi's rspective career's comparing who they had to up against. It won't bode well for Roger, trust me.
julesb
Banned
This thread is hilarious to the thread. Especialy the mass hysteria from GameSampras and 380pistol going ballastic. I almost fell over laughing reading some of the recent parts. Thank goodness Federer or someone more consistent and greater than Agassi wasnt in his prime along with Sampras. One of them might have pulled a Gunther Parche.
380pistol
Banned
Ah yes, insted of the likes of Agassi, Courier and Becker, He would have preferred Roddick, a flailing Hewitt and a guy who spent the most consecutive weeks @ #2... yet could n't make a SF of a slam on hardcourts, while Pete ran to his 1st 12 slams.
So who would be calling for Gunther Parche???
GameSampras
Banned
And whos been so consistent and great in the Fed era? Roddick has been in the top 10 consecutively for years. Who else? But how much talent did this guy really have outside of his serve and FH which has gone MIA over the past few years? Blake? Didnt pete dispatch of him with ease this past week? How about Nalbandian? whats he ever done? Nadal? He wasnt threat outside of RG for quite a while and still fails to even make a final on HC slams. Nadal is still only consistent on this slow grass garbage that Wimbeldon is these days and dirtball French courts.
Nadal should be pretty darn happy he is allowed to stand 10 feet behind the baseline these days. That style of game on the faster courts, any great serve-volleyer would eat him alive
Nadal should be pretty darn happy he is allowed to stand 10 feet behind the baseline these days. That style of game on the faster courts, any great serve-volleyer would eat him alive
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
yet he had his 3rd highest winning % that year and he reached the Masters Cup finals which means he was in 'good' form( not exactly peak) in there. Overall it was a pretty decent year . End of story.
Yes, he held his nerves during Wim 1992 and goran didn't . How about the 1990 FO final that he lost to gomez then ?
just an example
Being mentally tough isn't only about playing crucial points well in certain matches ...
Its also about trying to as consistent as possible and raising ur game at the bigger events and on the bigger occasions.
Similar threads
