Crack is not going to convince to anybody except to the *******s. It doesn't matter if Roger win 20 slams, there's alway a way for poster coming up with a silly logic(e.g. 14-4 > 15-6).
No, by my 'logic' Kuerten was barely good enough to get me to turn on the television. I don't like clay. I don't like war of attrition tennis. I did like Guga's backhand.
Now, gonna do this for Bruce38 and TMF (hi guy, been a while!)...
Pete had a higher WP in slam finals. You can spin that how you like. It's still true.
Bruce?
I am not the one contorting WP and adding finals losses. Losses are losses, guy. And how you lose is significant, if you don't play your best in the biggest moments, especially.
Pete 14...Roger 15...it's not enough of a disparity to conclude anything definitively. Roger gets to 16-17-18 and shows some mettle doing so, the argument changes. We aint there yet.
You see, some guys may have less slams but may be better players, or were better in their prime.
There are other criteria to judge by. John McEnroe completely dominated the game for 4 years. I'd take his 4 yrs on top over Lendl's.
I'll take Mac's 4 yrs over Connors and Agassi, and the way those guys were compilers, rarely beating the best player or their chief rivals, unlike McEnroe, who did.
____________________________________________________________
AO, 07. I was on a hot streak, picking underdogs, in the early rounds. Once I saw the beginning of Tipsarevic-Federer, I was in shock, and so pissed that I had not bet on Tipsarevic, who was +5000 on the money line, because I love Roger so much.
Friday night, up all night, white knuckler, extended 5th set, no breakers...I thought the man in the sun glasses was pulling the win of his lifetime.
Roger, 8-6 in the 5th. Thank God. Roger won, AND I lost no money.
After the match, Roger gave an interview, and was asked things like 'did you feel he had you?' and 'were you worried?'
Roger said he wasn't worried. He said that it's his attitude to keep playing, and that chances are in a match like that, his opponent would not sustain his level of play. And I said, that's a great attitude, and if it wasn't his attitude, he'd have gone home after round 3.
He said the same thing about the Berdych match last year. Keep playing, sustain your level, the other guy's will drop.
Well, what about 1/13 on BPs against Nadal @ Wimbledon? What about the RG final in 06 and 07...up 6-1 in 1, blew 18 BPs in the other? Did the other guy's level drop at AO 08 or USO 09?
No. Roger folded up shop instead, and those matches make me ANGRY. He should have 19. He should be 19-1 or 20-0 in slam finals. That's how I feel.
And Sampras should be 18-0. I love these guys, they are the most talented to come along, and I budget for zero losses when it matters for them. Losing to Agassi at the AO? Embarrassing. The Edberg loss? Horrible. Atrocity. Losing to Hewitt and Safin...undignified.
See, I feel the same about both guys. I don't like excuses. I'm a fan, it's subjective, and I am pissed when my guy loses, no matter what. No matter mono, or some Greek blood disease or Gully getting brain cancer.
I don't care. But having watched it all, I can say for a fact that Pete did not fold up the tent like Roger in the slams he lost. Pete couldn't manage clay, so be it. But Pete wasn't afraid to lose, and he played bigger points better. Roger might say he isn't afraid to lose, but he is.
As for Nadal, it's less than zero. If I wanna watch safe tennis, I'll go watch the replay of Austin-Evert from 1979.
