Azzurri
Legend
correct. according to Namranger Pete at his best vs. Andre at his best...Pete would lose. According to Namranger, Pete was at his best. Guess he missed the Courier match.:shock:
Who do you regard as tennis history's 2 most overrated players and why ?
- Thread starter BDuncan
- Start date
correct. according to Namranger Pete at his best vs. Andre at his best...Pete would lose. According to Namranger, Pete was at his best. Guess he missed the Courier match.:shock:
thx for the suggestion
however when i write official letters its better than posts here
i dont think its necessary to write perfectly HERE
so...
if you cant understand something, i will write with correct grammar & everything ok?
when i said that alves (or someone) would defeat prime borg or someone due to different equipment
Azzurri
Legend
not sure what you mean. who is alves? Borg's game was not that of wood era..if you think about it. he was a modern day type of player (way ahead of anyone playing in those days). His style would still be great today. I meant that OLD time players like Budge would probably have a tough time because the game was played differently back then with their wood racquets.
not sure what you mean. who is alves? Borg's game was not that of wood era..if you think about it. he was a modern day type of player (way ahead of anyone playing in those days). His style would still be great today. I meant that OLD time players like Budge would probably have a tough time because the game was played differently back then with their wood racquets.
i dont think ANYONE with wooden racket can beat any todays top 300-400 player
Yup. Pete Sampras was not at his best in 95. He only won 2 slams and 2 masters titles. He also beat Agassi at the USO final, during a stretch where Agassi was playing some of the best tennis in his life.
Sampras could not beat Agassi at the Australian Open. That is what I stated. You're just twisting words around trying to attack me. Try to learn to read old man. Maybe you forgot your bifocals?
Also, it was not one match. Sampras is 0-2 against Agassi at the Australian Open. For you to say that Sampras could not deal with emotional stress while he was playing tennis is absolutely ridiculous. Sampras was one of the most mentally tough players, ever. Yes, his coach was diagnosed with a terminal illness. But guess what, he went on and proceeded to go through a very tough 5 setter against Courier in the QF of the Australian Open (During a time when Courier was playing excellent tennis). He continued to play well in the semis, and as he reached the final, he just ran into Agassi, who was just a better player on that type of surface.
On slow HCs, Sampras struggled against Agassi. This is just a fact. Even at tournaments like Toronto, Indian Wells, and Miami, Agassi holds a winning record over Sampras. The matches that Sampras did win were very tough ones too. Most of the time, they met on fast surfaces like the USO / US Hardcourts / Grass. Sampras just was not that good on slow HCs. Great on fast surfaces though (USO and Wimbledon).
Last edited:
edmondsm
Legend
I have enjoyed reading your guys' discourse Nam and Azzuri. I don't know if it has been mentioned already but when Sampras won the AO in 1997, he didn't face any dangerous hardcourt players. Unless you consider Carlos Moya a dangerous hardcourter. He almost lost to a very young Dominik Hrbaty in the 4th round. Agassi was not at the tournament as he was in the depths of a slump.
Azzurri
Legend
you mean WITH a wood racquet, yes? that is correct, obvious but correct.
Azzurri
Legend
just when I thought you coudn't possibly be anymore POINTLESS and here comes more. I said Pete was not at his prime in this ONE particular match. YOU mention in YOUR post the 1995 AO match..NOT THE ENTIRE YEAR. Also, 1995 was not Pete's best year.
Was Agassi better on slower surfaces then Pete? once again...OBVIOUSLY YES. who would argue that? Again, you were not talking surfaces.
Emotional stress? When did I say he could not deal with it? I said he was not at his PRIME on that particluar match. Just to let you know, of his 14 GS titles, most did not include the impending DEATH of his best friend. So, yea the situation with his coach was a little more than he was used to. Did you not notice he was CRYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOOL!
look, you are one big idiot. I just can't believe how dumb and ignorant you are.
Last edited:
marc45
G.O.A.T.
actually, hewitt beat him worse the following year, and this is coming from a pete fan that doesn't like to think of such things
Azzurri
Legend
nam is clueless. he does not know what he writes. when someone calls him out on his stupidity, he then goes and states the obvious. unreal.:shock:
rebound ace was slower than your typical hardcourt. he did destroy Muster. but yea...no great HC players were there for him. but he vwas rolling in that tourney. probably would have won regardless.
Azzurri
Legend
Sampras won 9 tourneys at IW, Miami and Cincinatti (all were the same type HC surfaces). He SKIPPED most of the Toronto tourneys. Again...you are clueless. you lie and have no idea what you are talking about.
note: Agassi did dominate Miami. But to say Pete was not a good "slow" hard court player is ridiculous. I guess his 2 AO don't count.
Azzurri
Legend
I feel your pain. hard to argue with the clueless.
Safin is overrated big time. Nice player, big underachiever and way overrated.
AustraliA
Banned
Azzurri: Great to see you keeping the "no spin zone" alive!
That Nam guy has just spent 2 days attacking me in a Hewitt thread.. The funny thing is, that the basis of his argument was that a few years back, Hewitt was voted #10 in a list of the most hated sportsmen.. The fact that the top 9 were Ameican didn't matter to him..
As you are an American, and many other members here are. I told him that that poll was not a good advertisement to make your point with..
That Nam guy has just spent 2 days attacking me in a Hewitt thread.. The funny thing is, that the basis of his argument was that a few years back, Hewitt was voted #10 in a list of the most hated sportsmen.. The fact that the top 9 were Ameican didn't matter to him..
As you are an American, and many other members here are. I told him that that poll was not a good advertisement to make your point with..
Sampras wasn't in his prime in 95? What the hell are you on? In 95 he won Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, 2 Masters Titles, and he made an Australian Open Semi. If that's not Sampras' prime, I don't know what is.
Azzurri
Legend
Azzurri: Great to see you keeping the "no spin zone" alive!
That Nam guy has just spent 2 days attacking me in a Hewitt thread.. The funny thing is, that the basis of his argument was that a few years back, Hewitt was voted #10 in a list of the most hated sportsmen.. The fact that the top 9 were Ameican didn't matter to him..
As you are an American, and many other members here are. I told him that that poll was not a good advertisement to make your point with..
Hewitt is a choir boy compared to some American athletes. we have some huge jerks. probably the biggest DB's in the world are American athletes.
even when he is wrong, he just can't admit it or at least say "I was not thinking that or good points..etc."..just a pain to deal with.
stormholloway
Legend
Australian Open Final in '95.
Azzurri
Legend
no you idgit, he was not in his prime. stop reading Wikipedia and act like you know something. 1994 was a better year for him even though he lost a bit early in the USO. If memory serves me he won 2 majors and won 3 or 4 masters titles out of 5 entered. 1997 may also have been a better year. he was #1 from start to finish and won the most money in his career in 1997. 1995 was a great year, but to call one better is too difficult. Notice I listed two.
by the way, he made it to the AO finals. in 94 and 97 he won the master's title..NOT so in 1995. Gee, maybe you're wrong...AGAIN!
you said it, "I don't know what is"
Azzurri
Legend
I noted in another post he really needs to read what he writes before he clicks the submit button.
marc45
G.O.A.T.
i'm pretty sure pete thought safin would be his successor but it didn't work out that way for sure....think about it, in 2000 after safin beat pete and was looking like the next legend, federer was already in his third year on tour still three years away from his first major while not much younger than marat....strong first impression and another nice run in oz, but far, far short of what most were expecting.....i hope he can live with it
Azzurri
Legend
yep, Pete thought Marat was going to rule tennis. So, so did Pete overrate Marat or did Marat underachieve?
Yea ok. I'm sure Pete wasn't in his prime in 95. Only won 2 slams, slam final (people make mistakes), and still won quite a few titles along the way.
Yes, he won Indian Wells alot. But when he encountered Agassi on a slow HC, he got beat more times then not. He was not that good of a slow HC player. He was very susceptible to being upset on a slow HC.
And you honestly have to be on something if you don't think Sampras was in his prime in 1995. According to your logic, Sampras was never in his prime.
Yes, he won Indian Wells alot. But when he encountered Agassi on a slow HC, he got beat more times then not. He was not that good of a slow HC player. He was very susceptible to being upset on a slow HC.
And you honestly have to be on something if you don't think Sampras was in his prime in 1995. According to your logic, Sampras was never in his prime.
marc45
G.O.A.T.
well, i just got done reading pete's auto, but mom has the book. i know pete spoke on this. i'm sure it's both. definitely the latter. i'm guessing pete had a hard time relating to a guy that would squander a good chunk of that talent, though pete came to a crossroads himself at 92 open, and certainly witnessed agassi's spells of tennis depression. i did want to mention that safin deserves major credit for being on two, i believe, davis cup championship teams...he's been gutsy there. unfortunately his highs on the tennis court seem to take up equal time, in my mind at least, with that image of endless buxom babes in his box at that oz open that he surprisingly lost to johanssen. i guess they softened the blow, pun kind of intended. p.s. my mom, in her seventies, loves safin. that may be telling.
Azzurri
Legend
did you not understand. I said its hard to say when Pete was in his prime or when he had his best year. I gave you two other examples. how did you miss that?
well if you are correct (about pete's record vs. andre on slower HC...big if with regards to you), then what does that mean? to a moron its means Pete was not so great on slower HC, but to someone with common sense it means Andre was just a bit better than Pete on slower HC. Since Pete won quite a few slow HC tourneys and skipped many more it would be ignorant to state Pete was not that good on slow HC. By the way, how many people had more HC master series wins than Pete regardless???
love how you agree with me on something I called you out on. yes bbbbbut, heeee. "not that good on slower hard court"..give me a break.:shock:
Azzurri
Legend
I think Marat could care less. he seemed to be interested more in the "extras" that tennis gave. Yes, Pete was all about tennis.
You're arguing over a single comment just because you misread it totally, and spinned it around just to make me look bad. Great job.
My argument was this to the above poster (way way back) who somehow thought Agassi and Sampras at their very bests could beat Federer in 2005 (when he was playing possibly the best tennis of his life).
Sampras had a very hard time beating Agassi on slow HCs. That's a fact. He was 0-2 against Agassi at the Australian Open, another slow HC (in 2000 they sped it up, and he had favorable indoor conditions at night, and still lost in 5).
Agassi, who was known as the King of the Australian Hardcourts in the early 2000s, got completely demolished by Federer in 2005 in the QF. This was during a period when Agassi was playing great tennis. Even at 110%, Agassi was unable to beat Federer (USO 2005 Final).
There's no way in hell, even with Sampras and Agassi at their very best, could have beaten Federer in 2005 at the Australian Open (in a reasonable amount of matches, say 5). Federer was playing some of the best tennis we had ever seen from him.
How we got off topic into a discussion about Sampras' slow hardcourt ability I have no idea. Obviously you're just running around trying to attack me.
Also, it is not a big if. In the matches that they played on traditionally slow hardcourts, Agassi has a 6-2 record over Sampras.
2001 Indian Wells Final (Agassi d. Sampras 7-6(5) 7-5 6-1)
2000 Australian Open S (Agassi d. Sampras 6-4 3-6 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-1)
1998 Montreal / Toronto QF (Agassi d. Sampras 6-7(5) 6-1 6-2)
1995 Montreal / Toronto F (Agassi d. Sampras 3-6 6-2 6-3)
1995 Key Biscayne F (Agassi d. Sampras 3-6 6-2 7-6(3))
1995 Indian Wells F (Sampras d. Agassi 7-5 6-3 7-5)
1995 Australian Open F (Agassi d. Sampras 4-6 6-1 7-6(6) 6-4)
1994 Key Biscayane F (Sampras d. Agassi 5-7 6-3 6-3)
So yes, I would say Agassi is a little more than slightly better than Sampras on slow HCs. A slumping Agassi in 1994 still managed to take Sampras to 3 in a tough fought final. Sampras had one fairly easy win at Indian Wells in 95. The rest were victories for Agassi (some fairly tough, some not). Agassi did not own Sampras on slow HCs by any means, but he definitely wasn't just slightly better then Sampras, otherwise he wouldn't be 6-2 against him on slow HCs (most which are much faster back in the 90s than they are today).
The rest of their meetings were on very fast surfaces, indoors, grass, or fast hardcourts (USO, Cincinnati). They also met a couple of times on clay (where surprisingly Sampras won quite a few of their matches).
2001 Indian Wells Final (Agassi d. Sampras 7-6(5) 7-5 6-1)
2000 Australian Open S (Agassi d. Sampras 6-4 3-6 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-1)
1998 Montreal / Toronto QF (Agassi d. Sampras 6-7(5) 6-1 6-2)
1995 Montreal / Toronto F (Agassi d. Sampras 3-6 6-2 6-3)
1995 Key Biscayne F (Agassi d. Sampras 3-6 6-2 7-6(3))
1995 Indian Wells F (Sampras d. Agassi 7-5 6-3 7-5)
1995 Australian Open F (Agassi d. Sampras 4-6 6-1 7-6(6) 6-4)
1994 Key Biscayane F (Sampras d. Agassi 5-7 6-3 6-3)
So yes, I would say Agassi is a little more than slightly better than Sampras on slow HCs. A slumping Agassi in 1994 still managed to take Sampras to 3 in a tough fought final. Sampras had one fairly easy win at Indian Wells in 95. The rest were victories for Agassi (some fairly tough, some not). Agassi did not own Sampras on slow HCs by any means, but he definitely wasn't just slightly better then Sampras, otherwise he wouldn't be 6-2 against him on slow HCs (most which are much faster back in the 90s than they are today).
The rest of their meetings were on very fast surfaces, indoors, grass, or fast hardcourts (USO, Cincinnati). They also met a couple of times on clay (where surprisingly Sampras won quite a few of their matches).
Last edited:
TennisLover17
Semi-Pro
Lol religious experience.
Breaker
Legend
AustraliA
Banned
I like the South African guy Kroenig?
You will hear dead silnce, and then a player will hit an amazing shot, and out of no where, he will shout..
Oh stop it!..................
My wife was nagging me the other night, and at a vital point of her attack, he yelled that out.. My daughter said to my wife. See mummy, the tv guy is telling you to leave daddy alone
You will hear dead silnce, and then a player will hit an amazing shot, and out of no where, he will shout..
Oh stop it!..................
My wife was nagging me the other night, and at a vital point of her attack, he yelled that out.. My daughter said to my wife. See mummy, the tv guy is telling you to leave daddy alone
navratilovafan
Banned
Only problem is Sampras was actually still really good and close to his best in 2000. He was not in 2001.
lol thats what i said when u 1st started talking about me that way
helloworld
Hall of Fame
What is this?? A 35 year-old Andre playing 110%?? Seriously, Agassi at the age of 35 was plagued by back injuries and could barely move at 60% compared to his prime. An immobile Andre was able to dominate Federer from the baseline for about half the match with his cannon-like groundstrokes alone. Agassi also took Federer to 5 sets at the same USO tournament in 2004, but just ran out of gas at the tail end of the fifth set. Federer is a great tennis player, but Agassi in his prime(who could actually move) definitely has the necessary weapons to dismantle Federer on hard court.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes but so is the other way around although I don't know if Agassi ever truly had a prime.Also since Fed matured he went 8-0 against older Agassi,the only place where Agassi could give Fed a run for his money once Fed matured was USO where he was carried by the crowd,nowhere else.You also have to factor that in USO final 2005 all the pressure was on Fed and the whole stadium was against him while Agassi had nothing to lose,those were tough conditions for Fed to play in as the crowd can definitely be a big factor(you remember how Mathieu gave Nadal arguably his toughest match at FO in 2006).
navratilovafan
Banned
First of all older Agassi was 0-8 vs prime Federer so dont kid yourself into thinking he was truly a competitive rival at that point just because once in awhile he took a set. Secondly you point out a couple matches that were closer, yet there were many matches at that point where Federer slaughtered Agassi (2003 Masters final, 2005 Aussie Open, 2005 Dubai, etc..). Thirdly Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams, over half of them, from ages 29 to 33, so he wasnt nearly as past his prime as a more typical 35 year old. Agassi at 33-35 was playing alot better then he was at 26, 27, and 28, and if one were to dispute that then one just has to look at his results during those respective times. If Agassi were truly in his prime from 22 to 28 like a player more typically is then we wouldnt even be talking about him today, as his career would be inferior to someone like Jim Courier's in this case.
It is ridiculous to say Agassi was dominating half the 2005 final when he only won one set. As someone who actually watched the match, Agassi did well in a set and a half where Federer was spraying backhands and Agassi was playing near flawlessly and taking advantage of any Federer vurnerability, and even in those the main difference was the break point conversion. The other two and a half sets where Federer had his backhand under control (first set, second half of third set, fourth set) he was destroying Agassi by pelting winners from all parts of the court past him in a way Agassi never was to Federer even during the set and a half he did pretty well. McEnroe in the booth who is in love with Agassi basically said as much as well.
There have also been alot of older players who have fared alot better vs a younger great then Agassi did vs Federer, which again was go 0-8 and get destroyed in half their matches. Gonzales at a much older age did better vs Laver and Rosewall than that. Rosewall at a much older age did better vs Newcombe than that. Lendl at nearly as old an age was still getting wins over Sampras, which Agassi couldnt do to Federer ever at that point.
Last edited:
The 2004 QF, if anyone watched, was a terrible match. There were winds swirling at what, 30-40 mph? There was no way anyone could have played well in those conditions.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I just can't stop laughing reading NamRanger's posts. :lol: Federer the god, Federer the invincible. :lol: Keep it up, man.
mrDamien
Hall of Fame
Totally agreed with you on Roddick. He seems brainless when comes to volley and too chicky to go in front of the net. An overrated player and does not deserve to play at YEC.
I just can't stop laughing reading NamRanger's posts. :lol: Federer the god, Federer the invincible. :lol: Keep it up, man.
It's silly. He's either trolling or about 12yrs old! Or a gay non-tennis fan who loves mighty Roger....
Azzurri
Legend
Azzurri
Legend
don't you realize you are argueing with YOURSELF you Gunza! I agree for the 3rd time that Agassi was a better slow HC player than Pete. YOU said Pete was not very good or whtever and I PROVED you wrong. Keep it going, you are providing entertainment for us all.
Azzurri
Legend
sorry Cenc. I don't recall. maybe you could forward the thread. if you are correct, I owe you an apology.
Azzurri
Legend
Nam forgets that Federer did not win the 2005 AO. I don't get why he uses this as an example.
Yes, a 35 year old Agassi is not a good example, but that is what Namranger does..provides illogical and poor examples when making an arguement.
Azzurri
Legend
I just can't stop laughing reading NamRanger's posts. :lol: Federer the god, Federer the invincible. :lol: Keep it up, man.
yes, me too. he makes things interesting with his complete regard for logic.
sorry Cenc. I don't recall. maybe you could forward the thread. if you are correct, I owe you an apology.
topic was deleted due to "friendly" conversations
and yes that was when u started telling me that i was ******** etc
u dont need to apologise
Similar threads
