Federer Admirer
New User
this is why i think federer will be the best ever. Federer lost to a unpredictable guga last year but still he won 1 of the claycourt masters serise, did sampras ever win a claycourt masters series
Sampras blemish
- Thread starter Coria
- Start date
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Wow, you said it - it must be true
Funny how many people just on the Sampras bandwagon - has the most majors, seemed (to the public) to be a nice guy, must be the best.
Stuck - the surface didn't matter as much back then because the racket technology and player size and training levels weren't what they are now. Typing every other sentence in all caps won't change the facts. He has the most majors because Laver wasn't allowed to compete for 8 years during his prime. Sampras had no such problems.Stuck said:
Funny how many people just on the Sampras bandwagon - has the most majors, seemed (to the public) to be a nice guy, must be the best.
Bertchel Banks
Semi-Pro
No nice guy goes out of his way to insult fans (Venus and Serena) who only want to get their picture taken with the man they think is the greatest. The way he treated Venus at 2000 Wimbledon and the comments he made about Serena at the 2001 USO was lacking in grace.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Coria - Your condescending attitude and assumption that I don't know tennis means nothing to me. You have a European Clay bias; I have a Grass bias.
I expressed my *opinion* that the French is boring. You label it "wrong", which is pretty funny. (I like purple. Is that wrong too?)
Your comments about playing on grass make me think you ignore the touch, shot making and artistry demonstrated by so many grass courters. "Oh well."
Thanks for playing. Come again....
- KK
I expressed my *opinion* that the French is boring. You label it "wrong", which is pretty funny. (I like purple. Is that wrong too?)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.Coria said:
Hurray!!! You used a qualifier! (I disagree with your view, but I appreciate the fact that you tempered your assertion.)
Let's see ... Connors (1), Mac (3), Borg (5), Agassi (1) ... and not a "cannon" among them.
Hmmm. Sampras, Agassi, Borg, Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker. Yup, I guess you're right. These Wimby Champs were terrible on other surfaces, huh?
Your comments about playing on grass make me think you ignore the touch, shot making and artistry demonstrated by so many grass courters. "Oh well."
Thanks for playing. Come again....
- KK
Datacipher
Banned
Federer Admirer said:
Geez, where do these people come from? Is this Rickson?
Datacipher
Banned
Yes, that's the thing Kaptain, it's funny that the only players who say the FO is the most prestigous tournaments are clay court specialists who have never won any other GS. The great champions from the other GS are contenders at every GS, yes, even at the FO they tend to have an outside shot.
Grass, is quick, the points are short. But those who say it is "easy" or that it is about serve only don't understand the game. The truth is that when serving is enhanced, your return becomes even more important. Your concentration also is at a premium, for though the points don't last long, and you dont' grind away, every single point becomes more important on grass, because each game may be your one and only chance to break and turn the match. Further, the points are more spontaneous and improvised as erratic bounces and quick strikes, make the game more unpredictable. Clay court specialists tend to want to do one thing, the same groundstrokes over and over, that's something to be appreciated, but so is the improv jazz that grasscourt play is. Reflexes and touch are truly put to the test at Wimbledon.
This is what made Sampras great, NOT big serving. Ivanisevic got more free points off his serve at Wimbledon, and yet he and so many other big servers failed time and again to defeat Sampras. That isn't luck. I always marveled and appreciated how Sampras could go in against an Ivanisevic or Rusedski or (insert server here) who would absolutely stay with Sampras ace for ace, power for power....and yet, Pete would pull out set after set....5 games all, suddenly Pete would hit 2 blistering returns, a crucial pass and get a double fault and you knew the set was his.
Grass, is quick, the points are short. But those who say it is "easy" or that it is about serve only don't understand the game. The truth is that when serving is enhanced, your return becomes even more important. Your concentration also is at a premium, for though the points don't last long, and you dont' grind away, every single point becomes more important on grass, because each game may be your one and only chance to break and turn the match. Further, the points are more spontaneous and improvised as erratic bounces and quick strikes, make the game more unpredictable. Clay court specialists tend to want to do one thing, the same groundstrokes over and over, that's something to be appreciated, but so is the improv jazz that grasscourt play is. Reflexes and touch are truly put to the test at Wimbledon.
This is what made Sampras great, NOT big serving. Ivanisevic got more free points off his serve at Wimbledon, and yet he and so many other big servers failed time and again to defeat Sampras. That isn't luck. I always marveled and appreciated how Sampras could go in against an Ivanisevic or Rusedski or (insert server here) who would absolutely stay with Sampras ace for ace, power for power....and yet, Pete would pull out set after set....5 games all, suddenly Pete would hit 2 blistering returns, a crucial pass and get a double fault and you knew the set was his.
L
laurie
Guest
Let's see now. French Open is true tennis and Wimbledon is a joke. Which champion is a joke - Gasto Gaudio or Roger Federer?
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
laurie just served a Winner...!
- KK
- KK
L
laurie
Guest
Best to deal with now and not look at the past. Hang on....Krajicek was champion in 1996 and Kuerten in 1997. Please, lets be consistent. I used 2004 as a base. How about last two years then.
2003 French champion - Ferrero
2003 Wimbledon champion - Federer
2002 French champion - Costa
2002 Wimbledon champion - Hewitt
The French does seem to throw up more one slam champions than Wimbledon.
Since 1989 French:
Andres Gomez
Micheal Chang
Thomas Muster
Carlos Moya
Ferrero (so far, that can change)
Costa
Gaudio (will probably stay that way)
Since 1989 Wimbledon
Micheal Stich
Richard Krajicek
Goran Ivanesevic
Two to one there in numbers. Interesting
2003 French champion - Ferrero
2003 Wimbledon champion - Federer
2002 French champion - Costa
2002 Wimbledon champion - Hewitt
The French does seem to throw up more one slam champions than Wimbledon.
Since 1989 French:
Andres Gomez
Micheal Chang
Thomas Muster
Carlos Moya
Ferrero (so far, that can change)
Costa
Gaudio (will probably stay that way)
Since 1989 Wimbledon
Micheal Stich
Richard Krajicek
Goran Ivanesevic
Two to one there in numbers. Interesting
L
laurie
Guest
Cheers Kaptain!
laurie said:
Oh, I didn't realise I had to quote champions from the same year
Yes, certainly over the last 15 years or so, Roland Garros does have more one-off champions than any of the other slams. The US Open has none at all.
I'm not sure that makes it a less difficult slam though; if anything it shows that it is harder to win, because guys don't repeat so much.
And please let's not call Gaudio a joke champion, that's just mean. He won it fair and square, came through tough battles. Whilst I don't think he will repeat this year, I doubt he'll disgrace himself.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
West Coast Ace said:
I'd have to disagree. Agassi's best results are at the Australian where they have a medium paced surface. The USTA has always seen Agassi as its poster boy and for good reason.
West Coast Ace said:
And you need to reread what I first posted. Yes, I said along side McEnroe and Edberg Sampras' volleys are not stellar. Here we agree. But, Sampras' volleys are far above adequate. I believe that was the word you used. I went on to say that I rated Sampras' volleys with Becker's.
West Coast Ace said:
You'd better watch some of the WITC matches on TTC. Smith's volleys were no where near what Sampras' are. IMO, Smith's were the passable volleys, not Sampras. Newcombe's I'll agree with, the guy had a great net game.
West Coast Ace said:
I think you've resorted to pulling names out of a hat since Tilden was primarly a baseliner with big groundstrokes. Budge I'll have to take your word for because I've never seen footage of him playing although from what I've read the serve/volley game wasn't the dominate strategy until Jack Kramer revolutionized the sport in the late 40s. Kramer coined the phrase percentage tennis to describe his tennis. John McEnroe later reinforced this by saying that with a wood racket the easiest way to win a point was to hit the ball before it bounced.
West Coast Ace said:
Really? How exactly did Chang match Sampras? At anything? They're 12 - 8 lifetime (Sampras), Grand Slam titles is 14 to 1, singles records are 762 - 222 and 662 - 312 respectively (which gives Sampras a winning percentage of 77.4% and Chang 67.9%) and prize money is $43 million to $19 million. Hey, don't get me wrong, I like Mike as much as the next guy, but comparing him to Sampras is like comparing Muster to Borg.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
West Coast Ace,
agree that since Ashe Stadium opened in '97, the US Open has been on the fast side(all the players say this)
But before that, it was definitely a medium surface. Concerns about the power game caused the USTA to slow the court down from '93 to '95. Many of the big servers were upset early those years & baseliners did very well. I have a '94 Tennis magazine in which it was confirmed that they added more sand in the top layer of the surface for the '94 US Open(which Agassi won)
Check out the link at the bottom:
This after Becker's 1st round loss:
Q. Boris, what happened the first two sets?
BECKER BORIS: Well, I had a hard time with the circumstances here. It was extremely slow. They made the court extremely slow this year; especially Center Court and the Grandstand, and they changed the balls. They made them very heavy and very soft and that is very bad for my game. It took me an hour to get used to all that. But by the time the first hour passed, it was two sets to Love down. He, on the other hand, he really started in full gear and hardly missed a ball for the first hour and a half. All those combinations made it hard for me to play good tennis at the beginning.
Q. How disappointed are you now that it is over?
BECKER BORIS: Extremely disappointed. I played one of the best summers of my life. I felt good. I was winning a tournament without losing a set. I really thought I had a very good chance, but when I first came here and played with the balls and on the surface I knew I was in trouble. I knew that for some reason they were really trying to slow it down this year and everybody knows I am not the best on the slow surface.
from Edberg:
Q. Is it slower this year?
STEFAN EDBERG: I don't know, I wasn't here very long last year, but -- well, the court is a little bit slow, I agree with that, but I quite like playing on slow hardcourt because it gives you a chance to play back and you can play serve and volley if you're good enough, there's no doubt about that. So I think the court played very nicely this year. I'd rather have them a little bit slower than quicker.
http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/94usopen.html
agree that since Ashe Stadium opened in '97, the US Open has been on the fast side(all the players say this)
But before that, it was definitely a medium surface. Concerns about the power game caused the USTA to slow the court down from '93 to '95. Many of the big servers were upset early those years & baseliners did very well. I have a '94 Tennis magazine in which it was confirmed that they added more sand in the top layer of the surface for the '94 US Open(which Agassi won)
Check out the link at the bottom:
This after Becker's 1st round loss:
Q. Boris, what happened the first two sets?
BECKER BORIS: Well, I had a hard time with the circumstances here. It was extremely slow. They made the court extremely slow this year; especially Center Court and the Grandstand, and they changed the balls. They made them very heavy and very soft and that is very bad for my game. It took me an hour to get used to all that. But by the time the first hour passed, it was two sets to Love down. He, on the other hand, he really started in full gear and hardly missed a ball for the first hour and a half. All those combinations made it hard for me to play good tennis at the beginning.
Q. How disappointed are you now that it is over?
BECKER BORIS: Extremely disappointed. I played one of the best summers of my life. I felt good. I was winning a tournament without losing a set. I really thought I had a very good chance, but when I first came here and played with the balls and on the surface I knew I was in trouble. I knew that for some reason they were really trying to slow it down this year and everybody knows I am not the best on the slow surface.
from Edberg:
Q. Is it slower this year?
STEFAN EDBERG: I don't know, I wasn't here very long last year, but -- well, the court is a little bit slow, I agree with that, but I quite like playing on slow hardcourt because it gives you a chance to play back and you can play serve and volley if you're good enough, there's no doubt about that. So I think the court played very nicely this year. I'd rather have them a little bit slower than quicker.
http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/94usopen.html
hyperwarrior
Professional
bump 10 char
