tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:50:23
From: Whisper
Subject: 2003 to 2009


In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;

5 straight Wimbledons
5 straight USO's
5 straight FO's


How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?






 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 08:14:17
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
On Dec 21, 11:00=A0pm, "Stapler" <stap...@tmp.com > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > contend with them. What has Federer done that is comparable?
>
> > OK, he beat Sampras at Wimbledon but that doesn't count. Neither do 5
> > Wimbledons in a row or 5 US Opens in a row because those are
> > meaningless AKA Sampras didn't accomplish those feats.
>
> Why shit on Sampras to get back at Whisper? Sampras was a great champ and=
I
> suggest you buy his book, very enlightening. For one thing I learned from
> the horses mouth, he took every event seriously aka "could be arsed at
> tune-ups". Unlike what Whisper claims, I bet he hasn't even read the book=
.

I have to agree here.
Just because Whisper denigrates Federer is no cause for the rest of
the pack to jump on Sampras.

I do understand the intent, though...
But in wasting our time trying to teach Whisper about logic, the only
outcome is the denigrating of Pete.

Best solution, ignore the troll as much as possible.

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 08:43:16
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
On Dec 21, 4:33=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>
> > 5 straight Wimbledons
> > 5 straight USO's
> > 5 straight FO's
>
> > How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?
>
> I'll give you a hint: in exactly the same way it validates them.

Whimpy is getting desperate. Federer is about to eclipse Sampras's
most valuable records so he needs to bring the clown era argument to
the fore again.


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:20:07
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:50:23 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>
>
>In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>
>5 straight Wimbledons
>5 straight USO's
>5 straight FO's
>
>
>How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?
>


That period includes *30* years ! And, I need not remind you that in
that period Sampras failed to accomplish *any* of the above. Does that
mean he *is* the clown ?


 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 07:33:42
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
>
>
> In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>
> 5 straight Wimbledons
> 5 straight USO's
> 5 straight FO's
>
> How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?

I'll give you a hint: in exactly the same way it validates them.


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 22:03:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>>
>> 5 straight Wimbledons
>> 5 straight USO's
>> 5 straight FO's
>>
>> How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?
>
> I'll give you a hint: in exactly the same way it validates them.


Not quite. You'd have a point if there were other great players around.
I refuse to believe Blake/Ljubo would be multi slam champs without
Fed/Rafa around.



   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 08:59:40
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>>>
>>> 5 straight Wimbledons
>>> 5 straight USO's
>>> 5 straight FO's
>>>
>>> How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?
>>
>> I'll give you a hint: in exactly the same way it validates them.
>
>
> Not quite. You'd have a point if there were other great players around.
> I refuse to believe Blake/Ljubo would be multi slam champs without
> Fed/Rafa around.

That's because they wouldn't. Why pick Blake/Ljubo, and conveniently forget
about Roddick/Hewitt/Djokovic/Safin who would be multi-slam winners if not for
Fed and Rafa, and a bunch of one-off winners like
Gonzalez/Flipper/Murray/Baghdatis. Oh, I know, because it doesn't suit your
theory.


    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:19:47
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>>>>
>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons
>>>> 5 straight USO's
>>>> 5 straight FO's
>>>>
>>>> How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?
>>> I'll give you a hint: in exactly the same way it validates them.
>>
>> Not quite. You'd have a point if there were other great players around.
>> I refuse to believe Blake/Ljubo would be multi slam champs without
>> Fed/Rafa around.
>
> That's because they wouldn't. Why pick Blake/Ljubo, and conveniently forget
> about Roddick/Hewitt/Djokovic/Safin who would be multi-slam winners if not for
> Fed and Rafa, and a bunch of one-off winners like
> Gonzalez/Flipper/Murray/Baghdatis. Oh, I know, because it doesn't suit your
> theory.

Is it Whisper's fault that there aren't giants of the game like
Pioline/Martin these days? Sampras won 14 slams despite having to
contend with them. What has Federer done that is comparable?

OK, he beat Sampras at Wimbledon but that doesn't count. Neither do 5
Wimbledons in a row or 5 US Opens in a row because those are meaningless
AKA Sampras didn't accomplish those feats.

--
Cheers,

vc


     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 05:00:59
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> contend with them. What has Federer done that is comparable?
>
> OK, he beat Sampras at Wimbledon but that doesn't count. Neither do 5
> Wimbledons in a row or 5 US Opens in a row because those are
> meaningless AKA Sampras didn't accomplish those feats.

Why shit on Sampras to get back at Whisper? Sampras was a great champ and I
suggest you buy his book, very enlightening. For one thing I learned from
the horses mouth, he took every event seriously aka "could be arsed at
tune-ups". Unlike what Whisper claims, I bet he hasn't even read the book.




      
Date: 23 Dec 2008 06:27:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009
Stapler wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> contend with them. What has Federer done that is comparable?
>>
>> OK, he beat Sampras at Wimbledon but that doesn't count. Neither do 5
>> Wimbledons in a row or 5 US Opens in a row because those are
>> meaningless AKA Sampras didn't accomplish those feats.
>
> Why shit on Sampras to get back at Whisper? Sampras was a great champ and I
> suggest you buy his book, very enlightening. For one thing I learned from
> the horses mouth, he took every event seriously aka "could be arsed at
> tune-ups". Unlike what Whisper claims, I bet he hasn't even read the book.
>
>



lol what a dork.

So the reason he won only 2 Queen's title but 7 Wimbledons is just flip
of the coin?



     
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:27:24
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009

"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:7gs3l.88813$_Y1.66083@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons
>>>>> 5 straight USO's
>>>>> 5 straight FO's
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?
>>>> I'll give you a hint: in exactly the same way it validates them.
>>>
>>> Not quite. You'd have a point if there were other great players around.
>>> I refuse to believe Blake/Ljubo would be multi slam champs without
>>> Fed/Rafa around.
>>
>> That's because they wouldn't. Why pick Blake/Ljubo, and conveniently
>> forget
>> about Roddick/Hewitt/Djokovic/Safin who would be multi-slam winners if
>> not for
>> Fed and Rafa, and a bunch of one-off winners like
>> Gonzalez/Flipper/Murray/Baghdatis. Oh, I know, because it doesn't suit
>> your
>> theory.
>
> Is it Whisper's fault that there aren't giants of the game like
> Pioline/Martin these days? Sampras won 14 slams despite having to contend
> with them. What has Federer done that is comparable?
>
> OK, he beat Sampras at Wimbledon but that doesn't count. Neither do 5
> Wimbledons in a row or 5 US Opens in a row because those are meaningless
> AKA Sampras didn't accomplish those feats.


yawn




 
Date: 21 Dec 2008 11:00:42
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 2003 to 2009

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:494e1166$0$15737$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> In this brief period in tennis history we will have 2 guys winning;
>
> 5 straight Wimbledons
> 5 straight USO's
> 5 straight FO's
>
>
> How does this negate 'clown era' claims exactly?


You'll jinx Nadal. :)