Tier 1 players from Sampras' Era

[The_Order]

I've been doing competitive bodybuilding and male physique shows for five years now. I love doing them, getting on stage with some of the best in the world, and being back stage with legends of bodybuilding and fitness modeling. Don't know what you know about the bodybuilding and fitness world, but I've been fortunate enough to pump iron side by side with guys like Flex Lewis and Troy Alves at this years Las Vegas Olympia Expo. Meet Phil Heath at the Olympia press conference, and talk to some of best sport nutrition experts out there. Honored and blessed to be hanging out with the best in the world.

Thanks for the answer, I will take a look.

Her prediction was that he was done winning slams, which I stated I did not agree with. She also said Federer was done too, again I did not agree with it.

Do you want me to get the pattern and post it here?

I've never been really big into body building. I know the guys you were talking about though, I'm sure working out with those guys would've been a special moment for you.

You can link the prediction if you want. Up to you, I just thought it'd be interesting to reflect on it because I honestly can't remember what she was saying and now that Nadal has won a couple more, I would've thought that it's time to revisit it since to me that's what making a prediction is all about, to see whether it's come true or not.

 

[helloworld]

What was Roddick's H2H with Sampras? I don't remember.

Roddick never got to play the real Sampras. Even then, look up how he fared against 50% Sampras at 2002 US Open. :lol:

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I've never been really big into body building. I know the guys you were talking about though, I'm sure working out with those guys would've been a special moment for you.

You can link the prediction if you want. Up to you, I just thought it'd be interesting to reflect on it because I honestly can't remember what she was saying and now that Nadal has won a couple more, I would've thought that it's time to revisit it since to me that's what making a prediction is all about, to see whether it's come true or not.

It was. Bodybuilding is my biggest passion. I am certified personal trainer and nutritionist and have helped many natural athletes male and female get ready for the stage, or get people ready for their weddings etc.

Here is the pattern before Nadal smashed the mirror.

2005 - Wins FO, defeating world number one in semi final who was trying to complete the career slam
2006 - Win F0, defeating world number one in final, and preventing him from holding all four slams
2007 - wins FO, loses Wimbledon final
2008 -2009 Wins FO without losing a set, wins Wimbledon, and wins HC slam - Holds slams on all three surfaces

2009-2010 - All titles gone for reversal of the mirror to begin after first slam in Jan.

2010 - Win FO without losing a set, wins Wimbledon and wins HC slam - Holds slams on all three surfaces
2011 - Wins FO, loses Wimbledon final
2012 - Wins FO, defeating world number one in final, and preventing him from holding all four slams
2013 - Wins FO, defeating world number one in semifinal who was trying to complete the career slam

And that was the mirror pattern of Nadal's slams.

Roddick never got to play the real Sampras. Even then, look up how he fared against 50% Sampras at 2002 US Open. :lol:

All I asked was what was the Head to Head?

 

[The_Order]

It was. Bodybuilding is my biggest passion. I am certified personal trainer and nutritionist and have helped many natural athletes male and female get ready for the stage, or get people ready for their weddings etc.

Here is the pattern before Nadal smashed the mirror.

2005 - Wins FO, defeating world number one in semi final who was trying to complete the career slam
2006 - Win F0, defeating world number one in final, and preventing him from holding all four slams
2007 - wins FO, loses Wimbledon final
2008 -2009 Wins FO without losing a set, wins Wimbledon, and wins HC slam - Holds slams on all three surfaces

2009-2010 - All titles gone for reversal of the mirror to begin after first slam in Jan.

2010 - Win FO without losing a set, wins Wimbledon and wins HC slam - Holds slams on all three surfaces
2011 - Wins FO, loses Wimbledon final
2012 - Wins FO, defeating world number one in final, and preventing him from holding all four slams
2013 - Wins FO, defeating world number one in semifinal who was trying to complete the career slam

And that was the mirror pattern of Nadal's slams.

Well, if only Rafa had won the 2005 US Open...

All I asked was what was the Head to Head?

You see my sig? That guy is a hardcore Pete ****, expect no better from him.

BTW the h2h is 2-1 in favor of Roddick:

US Open 2002: SAMPRAS; 6-3 6-2 6-4
Houston 2002: RODDICK; 7-6(9) 6-3
Miami 2001: RODDICK; 7-6(2) 6-3

 

[The Hermit]

Too bad during that era, there are no tier 1 greats aside from sampras.

 

[mawashi]

And it's funny, because so many people don't understand why many Sampras fans like Nadal. It's not about "styles" of play, it's about their mentality. I never felt like Pete was out of a match. I could hold until the last point, because there was always the chance that he would turn it around.

I couldn't agree more, when Nadal's on the court he owns it. In his head he will do everything to hang in there. If Conners had a cast iron will to win, Nadal has hardern steel. Few other competitors had such focus to compete.

Let's see what Nadal had at his disposal, a weak serve that people said was even worse then Serena, creaking knees, a rather one dimensional game, honestly when compared to Gasquet, Wawrinka, Lopez he looks like a talentless wonder.

Yet the ace-less wonder continued to work at his game and during 2010 produced 3 GS and finally got his serve to really help him win the USO2010.
Where the net used to forbidden territory, he has one of the best percentages of points won at the net of most of the pros.

The fact he sees himself 2nd best to most of the top players in terms of talent is why he keeps winning cus he keeps improving. One only has to see the manner that Djokovic beat him during 2011 to know how lacking he was in that area.

Honestly, Nadal should have been just another Muster or Bruguera instead he clawed to his first Wimbledon in 2006, Oz 2007 and finally his first USO 2010. In a year few gave him any chance of wining anything more then some clay titles, he tore through 2013 with a better win loss record then Djokovic version 2011. A hard court streak that even the great Fed would be hard press to emulate and that's from a guy who had been written off after a dismal 2011 and forgettable 2012 season.

I think that till his knees fall off Nadal will continue to be one of the best players ever to enter the court cus he has the one gift that almost no other player has... a focus that would be then envy of any surgeon, fighter pilot or boxer... "I will play every point like it's match point".

 

[AngieB]

What if Pistol Pete had to contend with another tier 1 player during his generation?

Is there merit in saying that if he only managed 14 majors in an era with no real tier 1 player aside himself among his contemporaries, it wouldnt be as impressive as if Nadal were to win is 14th—considering he had to contend with the highest of tiered players in Federer?


It could be argued that Pete was just so good, he made his contemporaries look bad. if pete was slightly less of a player, it may have allowed the second greatest from his generation, Dre, to balance out the slam count between them, thus fabricating the perception that both are tier 1 players with around 11 slams each.

On the other hand, can't it be said that act of redistributing slams between Andre and Pete to produce two tier 1 players make Federer and Nadal's achievements so much more impressive? Federer's 17 and Nadal's 13 would look awfully good compared to Emerson's 12 and Borg, Laver, Sampras, and Agassi's 11.food for thought

Thought some of you "Weak Era" harlots might need a reality check.

Federer-Nadal-Djokovic is an historical anomoly. It is by far one of the strongest era's in tennis history. That being said doesn't equate other eras being weak.

The only eras in tennis history that you can definitively point to as being weak are the periods when tennis were interrupted by world war. Say, when Wimbledon was bombed during WWII.

AngieB

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Well, if only Rafa had won the 2005 US Open...



You see my sig? That guy is a hardcore Pete ****, expect no better from him.

BTW the h2h is 2-1 in favor of Roddick:

US Open 2002: SAMPRAS; 6-3 6-2 6-4
Houston 2002: RODDICK; 7-6(9) 6-3
Miami 2001: RODDICK; 7-6(2) 6-3

It would have been stunning, if the pattern was still going, I agree.

As for the Pete-Andy H2H, I knew what it was, I was just having a little fun.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think you're on target mostly, except, and it's a big exception, Murray is not a favorite to win RG.....and by favorite, I mean he's not even a favorite to hold his seed...we don't need to get into the actual favorite

Yeah, I would count that as an exception. But only time will prove if Murray is more unlikely to win the French than Sampras, for instance.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

You are so right. Our enjoyment of the game is rooted in the way it was first introduced to us and there are certain contexts within that setting.

The pressure was what thrilled me. Even today, I don't watch matches where I don't think any tension will exist. I fast forward and if I see that the score is fluctuating like deuce, ad, deuce, ad, I'll stop and watch the "fight." Lopsided matches, 0,0, 3 don't interest me, even if Nadal is administering it. The whole point of competition to me, is to fight. Without that important element, it is a waste of my time.

You've pretty much summarized what I like in tennis. Thanks!

 

[clayqueen]

I would consider at least double digit slam winners Tier 1.

agassi might be close because of the career slam but boris certainly was not a tier 1 great.

clear tier 1 greats are IMO Fed, nadal, pete, laver and borg. not sure about emerson because of his era.

Sampras can't be tier 1 because he didn't win a clay slam.

 

[paulorenzo]

I couldn't agree more, when Nadal's on the court he owns it. In his head he will do everything to hang in there. If Conners had a cast iron will to win, Nadal has hardern steel. Few other competitors had such focus to compete.

Let's see what Nadal had at his disposal, a weak serve that people said was even worse then Serena, creaking knees, a rather one dimensional game, honestly when compared to Gasquet, Wawrinka, Lopez he looks like a talentless wonder.

Yet the ace-less wonder continued to work at his game and during 2010 produced 3 GS and finally got his serve to really help him win the USO2010.
Where the net used to forbidden territory, he has one of the best percentages of points won at the net of most of the pros.

The fact he sees himself 2nd best to most of the top players in terms of talent is why he keeps winning cus he keeps improving. One only has to see the manner that Djokovic beat him during 2011 to know how lacking he was in that area.

Honestly, Nadal should have been just another Muster or Bruguera instead he clawed to his first Wimbledon in 2006, Oz 2007 and finally his first USO 2010. In a year few gave him any chance of wining anything more then some clay titles, he tore through 2013 with a better win loss record then Djokovic version 2011. A hard court streak that even the great Fed would be hard press to emulate and that's from a guy who had been written off after a dismal 2011 and forgettable 2012 season.

I think that till his knees fall off Nadal will continue to be one of the best players ever to enter the court cus he has the one gift that almost no other player has... a focus that would be then envy of any surgeon, fighter pilot or boxer... "I will play every point like it's match point".

honestly, you're selling nadal way, way short. nadal's forehand and the things he can do with it alone is better and more multi-faceted than gasquet, wawrinka, and lopez's forehands combined.

aside from gasquet and wawrinka's backhands, wawrinka and lopez's serves, and lopez's volleys, there isnt one aspect of their games that is better than nadal's.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Only people who watched a minimum of tennis during Pete's career would denigrate the quality of his opposition.

The usual suspects. Their flirting with tennis is no older than 2002, as their lack of knowledge says it all. Still, we know threads of this kind are designed to protect one player...a player who loses his standing with every passing day.