d-quik
Hall of Fame
i meant they sort of "kept up" in those last references. i was really just running out of things to say
The Biggest Disappointment Of This Decade?
- Thread starter Conquistador
- Start date
u have never seen ivanišević and u say he is like karlović???
he is one of the best grasscourters ever, just UNLUCKY to be in the same era as sampras
wimbledon champion, 3 time finalist, 2 time semi-finalist
uso semifinalist
- 4 out of his best 8 slams losing to sampras, arguably the best player ever
- 2 times it was in 5 tough sets
- he won 22 overall titles
- he won grand slam cup
- top 10 player for many years
this is karlović?
lol he had EVERY SINGLE SHOT better than not just karlović but many many todays players
in other words, if surfaces today were as fast as in 90s
prime ivanišević would be number 2 in the world now
he was only quite weak on clay but on all other surfaces he was very good
yes this is one of the top disappointments
although i would rather say: slow surface at wimbledon that actually caused it
even though it was obvious in early 00s that serve and volley was going to die because players simply started to play differently
tough to say why
grafrules
Banned
ROTFL!! Ivanisivec was a heck of alot better then Karlovic, that is the one thing you are right on.
Every shot better then many of todays players? That is funny. His groundstrokes would be among the worst in the top 30 today. His volleys were not any good either, although that is true of many of todays players too, he only came in since he had such a huge serve most of his volleys were easy (and he still missed a ton of those even). World #2 today with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, too funny. Yeah great on hard courts when he only made the quarters of a hard court slam twice his whole career, again too funny.
Good comedy reading, thanks for the amusement value.
Johansson beat Nadal at an indoor tournament despite having a bum shoulder and being washed up (when Nadal was world #2). I'd say he's fairly talented.
yea it must be that steffi graf would do in 90s better than ivanišević (atp tour)
yes, his baseline shots were very good,
not good compared to agassi or courier but compared to most others they were very good, he would have all the baseline shots better than MANY top 50 players today
his serve was the biggest weapon ever in tennis
his volleys were good, better than federers volleys right now
he was better than nadal and đoković on any surface except clay, its just
that he had opponents he could lose against
against best goran murray wouldnt take 5 games in 3 sets on hard/carpet/grass
and he was not playing slam quaters against players like baghdatis etc
he lost 4 slams he could have WON to sampras
he lost wimby 90 due to lack of experience to the great boris becker
he lost wimby 92 to agassi, when agassi showed one of the best baseline
performances ever on grass
and with injured arm he managed to win wimbledon DEFEATING GREAT RODDIK EN ROUTE TO THE TITLE
(roddick who played solid game at that time)
tacotanium
Professional
What happened?
Oricus
Rookie
Your gift of a foresight adds much to this discussion.
grafrules
Banned
Would you agree Goran's prime was 92-98? If so these are his hard court losses in slams from 92-98:
1992 Australian Open- 2nd round to Krickstein
1992 U.S Open- 3rd round to Volkov
1993 U.S Open- 2nd round to Carlos Costa
1994 Australian Open- quarters to Courier
1994 U.S Open- 1st round to Zoecke (!?!)
1995 Australian Open- 1st round to Steeb
1995 U.S Open- 1st round to Steven
1996 Australian Open- 3rd round to Furlan
1996 U.S Open- semis to Sampras
1997 Australian Open- quarters to Muster
1997 U.S Open- 1st round to Pescariu (!?!)
1998 Australian Open- 1st round to Siemerink
1998 U.S Open- 4th round to Rafter
So sorry but this tougher competition baloney to excuse Goran's hard court slam record does not cut it. 70% of the time he isnt losing to a top player in the 2nd week, he is losing in early rounds to an unseeded player. To say he is a better hard court player then Djokovic or even Nadal is a total farce. Roddick is even a much better hard court player then Goran.
Goran was great on grass of the 3 major slam surfaces then, that is it. Nothing else. Not a big threat on hard courts, and of course not on clay either.
Goran would not have won all those added majors with Sampras out of the way. The 1996 U.S Open would have been Chang's. He is a much better hard court players then Goran. Wimbledon 1994 might have been Goran's, ok, or he might have choked vs say Todd Martin in the final anyway. Wimbledon 1995 might have been Goran's, or he might have lost to Becker or Agassi in the final. Wimbledon 1998 would probably have been Henman, Henman had a great head to head with Goran (4-1) and Goran needed the a rain delay to avoid getting crushed in the 2002 semis.
So yeah Goran might have had another 1 or 2 Wimbledons without Sampras if he were lucky. We can say that about many of todays players without Federer. Hewitt and Roddick would each have more slams without Federer too.
ill be short: goran on given day can beat anyone, on bad day can lose to anyone
2nd, he didnt win wimby in 2002 talking about your knowledge of tennis from 90s
roddick is shame for the sport though
grafrules
Banned
So I had a small typo. Big deal. If you knew anything about Goran's career you would know you were being a complete fool to say he is better then Djokovic or Nadal on hard courts. A guy who lost in most of the hard court slams he played in early rounds to nobodies better then todays top players on hard courts, LOL!
So on a bad day he can lose to anyone? Well it sure looks like he didnt have many good days on hard courts then doesnt it.
Choking is part of the game. Nadal has regularly choked as well, especially on hardcourts.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
2002 isn't the 90s.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Goran was an absolutely TOPnotch athlete.
As mentioned above by cenc, he had every shot.
Of course, I was happy for him when he won Wimbledon even though it was at the expense of one of the best guys in the sport.
Speaking of beating the nice guy....
I watched the good Goran demolish an aging Edberg in the qtrs of the US Open in '96. This was moments after the Pete/Corretja 5th set breaker. What a day/night of tennis!
Anyway, Goran beat Edberg so comprehensively from every part of the court, man, it was a display of new vs old. Good touch, laser passes, fine lobs and lots of great attacking, too. Not just a big lefty serve on Goran. At least not on the good days. Sad for Edberg that day, but if that was any indication of Goran's talent, I'd call him a candidate for disappointments in tennis.
But in the end, a Safin is a Safin, a Rios is a Rios, a Nastase is a Nastase and a Goran is a Goran (well, three Gorans)....and it's the equally talented harder working people like Pete and Roger who win the most big matches.
As mentioned above by cenc, he had every shot.
Of course, I was happy for him when he won Wimbledon even though it was at the expense of one of the best guys in the sport.
Speaking of beating the nice guy....
I watched the good Goran demolish an aging Edberg in the qtrs of the US Open in '96. This was moments after the Pete/Corretja 5th set breaker. What a day/night of tennis!
Anyway, Goran beat Edberg so comprehensively from every part of the court, man, it was a display of new vs old. Good touch, laser passes, fine lobs and lots of great attacking, too. Not just a big lefty serve on Goran. At least not on the good days. Sad for Edberg that day, but if that was any indication of Goran's talent, I'd call him a candidate for disappointments in tennis.
But in the end, a Safin is a Safin, a Rios is a Rios, a Nastase is a Nastase and a Goran is a Goran (well, three Gorans)....and it's the equally talented harder working people like Pete and Roger who win the most big matches.
superstition
Hall of Fame
Kathryn Harris who ran Florida's elections and was a Bush campaigner (major conflict of interest) delayed the manual recount as much as possible. She pretended that it would be against the law to do one, even though it says right in Florida's code that manual recounts are available, the bottom line is to determine the intent of the voter and count votes, and manual recounts had already been used in Florida in the past. Once the matter finally made it to the Florida Supreme Court and the court told election officials to start counting manually, Bush sued to the US Supreme Court to stop the process, which they did. Then, they allowed only a tiny amount of time to finish the manual recount, making it impossible to complete. Essentially, they appointed Bush.
Machine recounts, which Harris pretended were enough don't take chads into account (pieces of paper that didn't fully detach), even though chads (dimpled/pierced or hanging) are a common problem with punch card ballots. The Florida Supreme Court finally said "count the votes manually, determine the intent of the voter as the code says, et cetera. This was after major delaying tactics by Harris and Fox "News" calling the election for Bush based on fake numbers to put pressure on Gore to concede. The "states rights" (Bush supporting conservatives) justices voted 5-4 (liberals/moderates) to stop the recount in order to delay further and make it harder (impossibly eventually) to do the recount. Gore offered to the Bush campaign a full manual recount of the state and Bush refused. Then Gore asked for a recount of counties Democratically leaning using punch card ballots (the Republican leaning counties mostly had the more accurate optical scanners).
In addition to the Harris/Supreme Court/Fox/Bush business, George's brother Jeb Bush got a company to create a "felon list" to deny blacks the ability to vote, and the list was not accurate at all. The badly designed and illegal (yes, illegal) butterfly ballot also cost Gore many more votes than Bush's declared "win" margin. Many many more. This isn't just speculation. Because of the ballot's bad design, voters voted in statistically impossible numbers for a socialist candidate instead of Gore, a candidate who got basically no voters elsewhere in Florida.
The Republican Party staged a fake riot at one of the election centers where the manual recount was taking place in order to get it stopped, by making it seem like there was general public outrage about the process. The riot was covered by the mainstream media as being legitimate and James Carlyle (of the Carlyle Group which got a no-bid contract from Bush later for Iraq) was on TV constantly propagandizing for Bush. The media didn't focus enough on the fact that Florida law gave election officials wide latitude to count votes with chads, as well as over-votes. Determining the intent of the voter was the charge, in order to count votes as the ideal, not throw them out as the ideal.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, a conservative Bush supporter who presided over the US Supreme Court during the election suit, not only voted to stop the count and then to short-circuit the process, preventing its completion, he later came out with a letter to the public asking them to forget about the Bush vs. Gore decision the court made (because it was faulty). How convenient to apologize after making the decision, pretending not to have known the rulings were faulty.
It turns out that if all counties had been manually recounted, Gore would have been declared the winner. So, in essence, Bush was appointed by Kathryn Harris, Jeb Bush, and The US Supreme Court's 5 conservative justices.
His win over Roddick in the USO when Roddick was the defending champion was much more relevant than that win in a small indoor event.
The TV film 'Recount', about the 2000 election scandal in Florida, premiered in the UK last week. it was very interesting. It was very left leaning, so it is difficult to know how true and unbiased it was, but it was fascinating all the same, and Laura Dern captured Harris perfectly.
superstition
Hall of Fame
Well, I wrote that post. It's what I saw and read and I followed the process closely.
I agree, though if the Federer-Nadal 2007 wimby final had the exact same scoreline the other way around, according to a lot of people it would be joking. Same for 4th set tiebreak this year. I don't think either of them regularly joke. They're so used to playing the big points that they ain't gonna waste them just like that.
Azzurri
Legend
oranges
Hall of Fame
Really?
No, he/she is kidding, he got all his breaks against Sampras, for instance, with his serve.
Azzurri
Legend
oh...but it does not surprise me if she was serious.
oranges
Hall of Fame
If you read again, you'll realize I was not serious and I'm tired of reading the serve-only cliche.
Azzurri
Legend
huh?? No clue what you mean.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
jmo, but i've heard this opinion espoused by a few people, and honestly, i think it's insane. marat safin is a big guy with solid strokes, and when he's on, makes for a difficult opponent.
but to say his overall talent level even approaches a player like roger, i personally think that is insane. and i would all but guarantee marat would agree with you.
you've seen roger play, right?
mental midget
Hall of Fame
about goran-
after edberg, he was my favorite player for a long time. the original marat safin, as it were, it was always drama with this guy. as far as his tennis goes--
first, the karlovic comparison is waaay off. karlovic is truly a one-shot freak. not his fault, really, a 6'10' frame is simply not conducive to a well-rounded tennis game. goran was a lanky 6'4 or so, and had every shot in the book: good hands, a solid backhand, and on a good day, a very lethal forehand. however he was not terribly consistent, so typically, a few shots into a rally, there would be a winner, or an error. historically, more of the latter than the former.
the serve has been discussed ad nauseum. most lethal first serve i've ever seen. better than karlovic, certainly. people would be zip codes away from getting a racket on that curling, slicing, booming thing.
and correct me if i'm wrong, but goran actually had some success at the french, did he not? quarters or semis at least once. not a total clown on clay, i don't think.
after edberg, he was my favorite player for a long time. the original marat safin, as it were, it was always drama with this guy. as far as his tennis goes--
first, the karlovic comparison is waaay off. karlovic is truly a one-shot freak. not his fault, really, a 6'10' frame is simply not conducive to a well-rounded tennis game. goran was a lanky 6'4 or so, and had every shot in the book: good hands, a solid backhand, and on a good day, a very lethal forehand. however he was not terribly consistent, so typically, a few shots into a rally, there would be a winner, or an error. historically, more of the latter than the former.
the serve has been discussed ad nauseum. most lethal first serve i've ever seen. better than karlovic, certainly. people would be zip codes away from getting a racket on that curling, slicing, booming thing.
and correct me if i'm wrong, but goran actually had some success at the french, did he not? quarters or semis at least once. not a total clown on clay, i don't think.
Federer doesn't choke, he's just not a good clay courter. Hey, this is easy.
Like the tiebreaks in the last two Wimbledon finals ?
If Federer had blown a tiebreak like Nadal did against Murray and then losing the fourth set where Murray had almost given up it would have been seen as a choke by a lot of people. Nadal gets away with it because of his reputation. He doesn't get a free pass with me.
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
Yes, I was thinking of this thread during his game with Murray today.
David Nalbandian is the definite answer to this post.
David Nalbandian is the definite answer to this post.
Similar threads
