Was 2011 the best year of the 00s?

Was 2011 the best year of the 00s so far?

  • Yes! Fedalovic gave us historic matches!

    Votes: 25 51.0%
  • No! Baghdatis and Kiefer didn't make slam semis!

    Votes: 8 16.3%
  • ROFLMAO!!!!

    Votes: 16 32.7%

  • Total voters
    49
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Here is the complete quote:

Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 – when he collected nine of his majors – as his prime. But Sampras contends: “The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn’t as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open – my last match ever – was the highest level I have ever played.

“Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older.
When I was dominating I didn’t have any bad matches and players overall weren’t as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily.”

Very interesting. Pete basically said the same as Fed :) The quote is saying he got BETTER going from 1997 to 2002, culminating in the best match he every played.
Nope, once again the manipulation is a fail.
The only thing Pete says is that the best tennis he played was when he got older. That makes complete sense. Anyone who knows Pete's career knows he was at his best in '99.
You are trying to get Pete to say the same thing Roger said - he was at his best in his 30s as opposed to his 20s - when Pete says nothing of the sort.
Sad really, how far you're going to invalidate your own favorite players' words.
 

PilotPete

Professional
Nope, once again the manipulation is a fail.
The only thing Pete says is that the best tennis he played was when he got older. That makes complete sense. Anyone who knows Pete's career knows he was at his best in '99.
You are trying to get Pete to say the same thing Roger said - he was at his best in his 30s as opposed to his 20s - when Pete says nothing of the sort.
Sad really, how far you're going to invalidate your own favorite players' words.
What manipulation? Yes Pete played better when he was older. Pete was older in 2001 than in 1996. Ergo he played his best match at Wimbledon in 2001. Simple logic. It's interesting you prattle on about Federer and using his words as concrete but give so much latitude to Sampras' words. The hypocrisy is funny.

He said he was BETTER later than the period 93-97. Later he was in his 30s! Wow, you are really stretching buddy.

Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 – when he collected nine of his majors – as his prime. But Sampras contends:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Not sure everyone agrees that 99 Pete was his best version. Best if you don't talk about sad with the amount of banned accounts you've had and the way you flaunt your bitterness about Fed surprassing Pete like a badger of honour. He literally says the players were getting better when he was #1 and that he was 10x the player as he got older. It's the exact same type of remark as what Fed made, except Pete goes far enough to say that the players in his peak years weren't as good as later on.

It's not an ad hominem when it's objectively true (y)
Again, Pete in '99 is older than Pete in '94-'95, and yes, most people agree that Pete of '99 was his scariest, best form. Pete didn't say he was at his best as a player in his 30s as opposed to his 20s like Roger did. Nothing you say can/will change that.


I think you need to look up the definition of ad hominem ;) And also, the rules which say accusing someone of being a banned account is itself, a bannable offense. Haven't reported you yet, but may if you keep this up.
(y)
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
What manipulation? Yes Pete played better when he was older. Pete was older in 2001 than in 1996. Ergo he played his best match at Wimbledon in 2001. Simple logic. It's interesting you prattle on about Federer and using his words as concrete but give so much latitude to Sampras' words. The hypocrisy is funny.

He said he was BETTER later than the period 93-97. Later he was in his 30s! Wow, you are really stretching buddy.

Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 – when he collected nine of his majors – as his prime. But Sampras contends:
and '99 is later than '97, and also the year most who follow Pete agree he was at his best. The fail is hilarious at this point.

And Roger's words:
“I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. (2015)
;)
 

PilotPete

Professional
and '99 is later than '97, and also the year most who follow Pete agree he was at his best. The fail is hilarious at this point.

And Roger's words:
“I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. (2015)
;)
There is no fail. He said he was better after his prime period. You may believe 99 is best, that's fine. But 2001/2002 is AFTER 1999. He said he got better as he was older. i.e. when he lost to Federer :)
 

fundrazer

Legend
Pete played his "best" tennis in 99 and then started struggling immediately the year after against transition era champs Safin and Hewitt. Hmmm :unsure:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
There is no fail. He said he was better after his prime period. You may believe 99 is best, that's fine. But 2001/2002 is AFTER 1999. He said he got better as he was older. i.e. when he lost to Federer :)
The problem is you have no evidence for your claim, whereas I do for mine. I've read Pete's book ;)
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Pete played his "best" tennis in 99 and then started struggling immediately the year after against transition era champs Safin and Hewitt. Hmmm :unsure:
Injured and couldn't play in the US Open. He was never the same after.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Report me. I don't care, I know you're a previously banned member so you'll just be drawing attention to yourself.

Funny how I'm the one manipulating the quote when you're the one arguing he's talking about only 1999 Pete when there's no evidence in the quote for that. The fact is he only names 2002 USO Pete, not 1999 Pete - but yes he's obviously just talking about 1999 :-D Also keep ignoring the fact he said the players were getting better too, which was my original reply more than commenting on Pete's evaluation of his own game.
Yes, he mentioned his level in one tournament - the 2002 USO Pete. The same tournament where Pete destroyed Roddick and Haas, Fed's "strong" competition :-D
Fed's quote is not about his level in one tournament, it is about him as a player overall. Pete's statement about himself as a player overall (I was 10X the player as I got older) does not reference a specific time. And it isn't even the same statement as the one where he says his level at the 2002 USO was its best. That's what you said to start off this whole thread, remember? Don't get lost in your own non-sense ;)
 

PilotPete

Professional
The problem is you have no evidence for your claim, whereas I do for mine. I've read Pete's book ;)
Actually I do, because I understand English. HE clearly says he was better when he was older. Game over. Your claim that you read Pete's book is not evidence.

He didn't just mention his level in one tournament. He said that one tournament was his best EVER. But he was generally playing better after the period of his prime.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Actually I do, because I understand English. HE clearly says he was better when he was older. Game over. Your claim that you read Pete's book is not evidence.
And '99 is him being older than '95. Game over :)
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Show me where he pointed out 1999? And by your own logic 2001 > 1999. Game over ;) He lost to Federer in 2001 :)
Show me where he pointed to 2001? :)
I can show you quotes where he summarizes 01-02 as terrible years/period in his career. Can you do the same for '99? :)
 

PilotPete

Professional
Show me where he pointed to 2001? :)
I can show you quotes where he summarizes 01-02 as terrible years/period in his career. Can you do the same for '99? :)
He said he was better when he OLDER. He was OLDER in 2001 than he was in his prime. Game over :).

Claiming you can show me quotes is not evidence.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes, he mentioned his level in one tournament - the 2002 USO Pete. The same tournament where Pete destroyed Roddick and Haas, Fed's "strong" competition :-D
Fed's quote is not about his level in one tournament, it is about him as a player overall. Pete's statement about himself as a player overall (I was 10X the player as I got older) does not reference a specific time. And it isn't even the same statement as the one where he says his level at the 2002 USO was its best. That's what you said to start off this whole thread, remember? Don't get lost in your own non-sense ;)
Who calls Haas Federer's strong competition? lol. Yes beating injured young Roddick, much more telling then getting straight setted in back to back finals by Fed's gen including eating two breadsticks from 20 year old Hewitt...

Pete literally says "as I got older", he's talking in a broad sense - he even references the fact that he wasn't as consistent in his later career as well by bringing up having more bad days and better opponents. You're the one trying to twist the quote to fit your narrative by applying it to a single year. If he just meant 1999 why didn't he say his play was in 1999? Why the broad strokes statement of "as I got older"?

BTW what I said to start the thread was correcting your erroneous recanting of the quote. Keep tying yourself in knots man we can all see it.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Who calls Haas Federer's strong competition? lol. Yes beating injured young Roddick, much more telling then getting straight setted in back to back finals by Fed's gen including eating two breadsticks from 20 year old Hewitt...

Pete literally says "as I got older", he's talking in a broad sense - he even references the fact that he wasn't as consistent in his later career as well by bringing up having more bad days and better opponents. You're the one trying to twist the quote to fit your narrative by applying it to a single year. If he just meant 1999 why didn't he say his play was in 1999? Why the broad strokes statement of "as I got older"?

BTW what I said to start the thread was correcting your erroneous recanting of the quote. Keep tying yourself in knots man we can all see it.
From Pete's book summarizing 2002:

"The Australian Open had been a disappointment, Davis Cup a shock, the French Open a nonstarter, and Wimbledon nothing less than a catastrophe. There was no silver lining anywhere."

Sounds like him playing at his highest level, doesn't it ;)
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
'99 Pistol was somewhat sluggish by his standards, due in no small part to the extra mass/muscles he'd put on. Probably at the peak of his power tennis (particularly in the '99 YEC final), or anyone's really, but not as graceful as his pre-'98 versions. The latter would beat his '99 self more often than not.

This was probably the last time he displayed the best combo of power, skill and athleticism, when he reportedly stunned the crowd into "cathedral silence":


And....

From Pete's book summarizing 2002:

"The Australian Open had been a disappointment, Davis Cup a shock, the French Open a nonstarter, and Wimbledon nothing less than a catastrophe. There was no silver lining anywhere."

Sounds like him playing at his highest level, doesn't it ;)
If you've read Pete's book you should know that he does go on to say the '02 USO final was "close to" his best a la the '99 Wimby final (or something to that effect). Not sure if you wanna rely on the book here.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
From Pete's book summarizing 2002:

"The Australian Open had been a disappointment, Davis Cup a shock, the French Open a nonstarter, and Wimbledon nothing less than a catastrophe. There was no silver lining anywhere."

Sounds like him playing at his highest level, doesn't it ;)
Not sure what you're arguing here. I think Pete was at his best in 1994, certainly not 2002 and not 1999 either although his summer that year was fire. The fact is in Pete's quote he doesn't name a specific year, so your insistence that he's just talking about 1999 is unfounded. Besides that what Pete is saying there is about his results, not level of play ;)

Again...leaving Pete aside he said the players were getting better as he got older. Hewitt FTW.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
'99 Pete was somewhat sluggish by his standards, due in no small part to the extra mass/muscles he'd put on. Probably at the peak of his power tennis (particularly in the '99 YEC final), or anyone's really, but not as graceful as his pre-'98 versions. The latter would beat his '99 self more often than not.

This was probably the last time he displayed the best combo of power, skill and athleticism, when he reportedly stunned the crowd into "cathedral silence":


And....



If you've read Pete's book you should know that he does go on to say the '02 USO final was "close to" his bets a la his '99 Wimby final (or something to that effect). Not sure if the book is something you wanna rely on here.
I have read the book, and I have no problem accepting Pete's quote that the 02 USO Final was "close to" his best. Players peak for matches/events all the time. Doesn't mean they've improved as a player, which is what Federer said about himself. I just can't get over how badly his own fans need to discredit their idol's words
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Not sure what you're arguing here. I think Pete was at his best in 1994, certainly not 2002 and not 1999 either although his summer that year was fire. The fact is in Pete's quote he doesn't name a specific year, so your insistence that he's just talking about 1999 is unfounded. Besides that what Pete is saying there is about his results, not level of play ;)

Again...leaving Pete aside he said the players were getting better as he got older. Hewitt FTW.
lol, do you really want me to bring in more quotes from the book, or are you going to acknowledge that quote from Pete cannot be honestly interpreted to refer to his 01-02 years?

That's the whole point of this discussion. You keep trying to equate Pete's quote with Roger's when they are not the same. Pete could easily have gotten "better as he got older" and also have had a SEVERE decline from '01-'02 as common sense would dictate. Its not that hard: '94-'95 Pete is "winningest Pete" and '97-'99 Pete could be "OLDER, best Pete". Roger's quote narrows down a very specific point in time: he said HE WAS A BETTER PLAYER THAN EVER in 2015, and gave us specific reasons as to why. He then even went so far as to list specific areas of his game that he felt were improved over his younger self. This is radically different from the vague statement of Pete's you are trying to equate it with, a vague quote which cannot be interpreted past 2000 given future statements from Pete's book and other sources that supersede the quote you are religiously referring to.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
lol, do you really want me to bring in more quotes from the book, or are you going to acknowledge that quote from Pete cannot be honestly interpreted to refer to his 01-02 years?

That's the whole point of this discussion. You keep trying to equate Pete's quote with Roger's when they are not the same. Pete could easily have gotten "better as he got older" and also have had a SEVERE decline from '01-'02 as common sense would dictate. Its not that hard: '94-'95 Pete is "winningest Pete" and '97-'99 Pete could be "best Pete". Roger's quote narrows down a very specific point in time: he said HE WAS A BETTER PLAYER THAN EVER in 2015, and gave us specific reasons as to why. He then even went so far as to list specific areas of his game that he felt were improved over his younger self. This is radically different from the vague statement of Pete's you are trying to equate it with.
But Pete gave reasons for his worse results e.g. less consistent and better players.

They're very similar quotes, you're the one bending over backwards to preserve some intellectual integrity that was never there to begin with :-D BTW Pete explained why he thought he was better too, he came in behind and improved his second serve. Something he only did really in his latter years outside of Wimbledon.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
But Pete gave reasons for his worse results e.g. less consistent and better players.

They're very similar quotes, you're the one bending over backwards to preserve some intellectual integrity that was never there to begin with :-D BTW Pete explained why he thought he was better too, he came in behind and improved his second serve. Something he only did really in his latter years outside of Wimbledon.
But he didn't give a specific year, and given evidence (future quotes, results) and common sense, we know it can't refer to 01-02. That's what I'm saying. I don't deny that '97-'99 Pete could very well have been better than winningest '94-95 Pete, for the reasons you listed.

YOU are trying to equate the quotes, when they are not equivalent: Pete's is vague ("older" which is any period from post 95), Roger's specific (2015). You haven't yet acknowledged this difference.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
I have read the book, and I have no problem accepting Pete's quote that the 02 USO Final was "close to" his best. Players peak for matches/events all the time. Doesn't mean they've improved as a player, which is what Federer said about himself. I just can't get over how badly his own fans need to discredit their idol's words
Pete's words during the post-match presser, which referenced his overall (alleged) improvement as a player (and which I'm pretty sure weren't included in the book), were nonsense, yet another case of a player getting carried away following an emotional victory.

Ditto Fed's own words and you know it. The guy hasn't come close to winning 30% of his return games since '11 as he used to in 2003-07 (and even that's being generous 'cause you have to round up to arrive at 28%), and RGW% has historically been the most revealing barometer of players' form since '91 at least (when the ATP began tracking it). The pros themselves aren't necessarily the best judges of that, as we can see from the Pete and Fed examples.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Pete's words during the post-match presser, which referenced his overall (alleged) improvement as a player (and which I'm pretty sure weren't included in the book), were nonsense, yet another case of a player getting carried away following an emotional victory.

Ditto Fed's own words and you know it. The guy hasn't come close to winning 30% of his return games since '11 (and even that's being generous 'cause you have to round up to arrive at 28%), and RGW% has historically been the most revealing barometer of players' form since '91 at least (when the ATP began tracking it). The pros themselves aren't necessarily the best judges of that, as we can see from the Pete and Fed examples.
Pete's words in the post match presser were superseded by later statements of his that are more objective, which is my point. If Fed does the same in the future, then I will graciously acknowledge it, and update my argument.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
But he didn't give a specific year, and given evidence (future quotes, results) and common sense, we know it can't refer to 01-02. That's what I'm saying. I don't deny that '97-'99 Pete could very well have been better than winningest '94-95 Pete, for the reasons you listed.

YOU are trying to equate the quotes, when they are not equivalent: Pete's is vague ("older" which is any period from post 95), Roger's specific (2015). You haven't yet acknowledged this difference.
lol at 1998 Pete being better than 94/95 Pete. I mean the context of the quote e.g. talking about winning slams, more bad days, more losses due to the better players etc...logically it refers to the New Balls Gen cleaning his clock in slams which happend in 00-02 :unsure:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
lol at 1998 Pete being better than 94/95 Pete. I mean the context of the quote e.g. talking about winning slams, more bad days, more losses due to the better players etc...logically it refers to the New Balls Gen cleaning his clock in slams which happend in 00-02 :unsure:
Now you are just deflecting/baiting ;)
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
2011 is easily the best season of the last decade, and this is coming from a nadal fan........brave nadal fans accepted the 6-0 hammering at the hands of novak and believed that rafa would turn the tables soon........not surprisingly rafa avenged all those losses in 2012 and 2013 before declining in 2014 and onwards.........

2011 was an amazing season with probably the greatest beginning to a season 48-0 or something.........then we had all those glorious grandslam battles between the big-3.........i rate it very high, along with laver's 1969, fed's 2006 (ok weak era but still he played some great clay finals), rafa's 2008.........
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Yeah and AC, will probably smash out the new Outbreak zombies mode with some mates, basically the only social thing we can do atm with lockdown lol.
Mix in a bit of TTbait/trollin' between rounds, sounds like a good day lol
I'm so behind on COD, last I remember was fighting zombies with JFK *sigh*
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
2011 is easily the best season of the last decade, and this is coming from a nadal fan........brave nadal fans accepted the 6-0 hammering at the hands of novak and believed that rafa would turn the tables soon........not surprisingly rafa avenged all those losses in 2012 and 2013 before declining in 2014 and onwards.........

2011 was an amazing season with probably the greatest beginning to a season 48-0 or something.........then we had all those glorious grandslam battles between the big-3.........i rate it very high, along with laver's 1969, fed's 2006 (ok weak era but still he played some great clay finals), rafa's 2008.........
No shame in losing to 2011 Peakovic, even on clay. The guy was fueled by the heart of a dying star that year
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
That's an old one man. I loved that one though, playing as JFK and and Nixon, good banter lol.
Ohhhooo saaaayyy can you seeeeeeeeeeee...BOOOM!

I also remember Castro being dismissive of Nixon in the cutscene lol. Such a good addition to the series
 

Gazelle

Legend
I will do this very simply so it is easy to follow:
Federer won his majors during a WEAK ERA. Federer himself IS NOT A WEAK PLAYER. A GREAT PLAYER can win MANY MAJORS during a WEAK ERA and be made to seem MUCH GREATER THAN THEY ARE because of said WEAK ERA they stockpiled their stats in.

So, saying Federer won during a weak era, and saying Nole's wins were tougher than Feddy's because they involved Federer himself rather than Baghdatis or Bjorkman is not in fact a double standard or hypocritical. It not only makes perfect sense, but it follows logically.
Or a great player can be so strong that it makes the era look weaker than it was.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Or a great player can be so strong that it makes the era look weaker than it was.
You have to ask yourself honestly if a professional circuit for a world wide sport should be made to look weak by anyone, no matter how good the player. And also, if said players should be falling over themselves to praise the top player while they are supposed to be competing against him?
 

Gazelle

Legend
You have to ask yourself honestly if a professional circuit for a world wide sport should be made to look weak by anyone, no matter how good the player. And also, if said players should be falling over themselves to praise the top player while they are supposed to be competing against him?
Yes, this annoys me too when I see Djokovic win even when injured.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
2010 by far the best season i have ever seen. FO W USO back to back on 3 separate surfaces has not and will never be repeated.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
This is from peak Federer too :
“I’m not 24 anymore so things have changed in a big way and I probably won’t play any clay court event except the French. That is what it is going to look like, I need rest, my body needs healing, I need time as well to prepare, you will probably see me at the French again,” he told ESPN in an on-court interview after his win over Nadal.

"With age, I feel like I play down my chances just because I don't think a 36-year-old should be a favourite of a tournament, it should not be the case."

Federer was indeed peaking in old age, ain't it @PETEhammer ?
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
This is from peak Federer too :
“I’m not 24 anymore so things have changed in a big way and I probably won’t play any clay court event except the French. That is what it is going to look like, I need rest, my body needs healing, I need time as well to prepare, you will probably see me at the French again,” he told ESPN in an on-court interview after his win over Nadal.

"With age, I feel like I play down my chances just because I don't think a 36-year-old should be a favourite of a tournament, it should not be the case."

Federer was indeed peaking in old age, ain't it @PETEhammer ?
Sure, his body needs more recovery time. And the statement about a 36 year old not being a favorite is more playing to perceptions about older players generally not being favorites as opposed to him specifically.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Sure, his body needs more recovery time. And the statement about a 36 year old not being a favorite is more playing to perceptions about older players generally not being favorites as opposed to him specifically.
No, Fed is not an exception, that applies to him too, at 36.He is human, just like the others.He was obviously referring to him too.
Exactly, the body needs more recovery time, hence he was not at his peak.
 
Last edited:

Omega_7000

Legend
We have a couple of threads going on right now about 2004, 2005 etc. so I thought, "why not talk about 2011?" Instead of me listing the stats/reasons, I also thought, "why not have it be an interactive discussion?"

So basically 2011: the rise of Nole with prime Federer, Prime Nadal, good ol' Murray bringing up the rear in the background. Best year of the 00s (00-20)? Why or why not?

Edit: By "00s" is meant since the year 2000 to present. No need for the obligatory, "2011 was such a strong year it defied common sense and now qualifies as 00s."-esque jokes. I know you all are very smart
Still feeling the burn of Pete's records being eclipsed i see
 
I will do this very simply so it is easy to follow:
Federer won his majors during a WEAK ERA. Federer himself IS NOT A WEAK PLAYER. A GREAT PLAYER can win MANY MAJORS during a WEAK ERA and be made to seem MUCH GREATER THAN THEY ARE because of said WEAK ERA they stockpiled their stats in.

So, saying Federer won during a weak era, and saying Nole's wins were tougher than Feddy's because they involved Federer himself rather than Baghdatis or Bjorkman is not in fact a double standard or hypocritical. It not only makes perfect sense, but it follows logically.
It really doesn't. You've said bugger all here.
 
Top