
Main
Date: 21 Jan 2009 08:36:36
From: stephenj
Subject: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

I find two things astonishing about this: 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches from tying him. 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind ANYONE in overall slams.  The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.  Thurgood Marshall



Date: 22 Jan 2009 06:54:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

stephenj wrote: > I find two things astonishing about this: > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > from tying him. > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > ANYONE in overall slams. > > > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc

 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 15:06:08
From:
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Jan 21, 8:51=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:44:16 0800 (PST), gregor...@hotmail.com wrote: > >On Jan 21, 8:35=A0pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Jan 21, 7:54=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > >> > stephenj wrote: > >> > > I find two things astonishing about this: > > >> > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 match= es > >> > > from tying him. > > >> > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches beh= ind > >> > > ANYONE in overall slams. > > >> > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would h= ave > >> > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc > > >> er, I assume you mean because he lost in 4 finals, he was 4 matches > >> away from 18? I don't know where you're getting the 22 from though.. > > >I assume he means SF losses  I guess Sampras lost 4 GS semis  > >Wimbledon 92, FO 96, USO 98 and AO 00. (but that's another 8 matches > >of course). > > >Actually those four matches are pleasingly symmetrical  one at each > >GS and in a nice twoyear sequence ... > > Four years between the first two... I'm losing my mind ... first picking Nalby to make the final and now this ...

 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 19:45:04
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote: > stephenj wrote: >> I find two things astonishing about this: >> >> 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches >> from tying him. >> >> 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind >> ANYONE in overall slams. >> >> >> > > > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc Little flaw in your reasoning: Sampras has no more matches available.

  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 22:03:27
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote > Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > stephenj wrote: > >> I find two things astonishing about this: > >> > >> 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > >> from tying him. > >> > >> 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > >> ANYONE in overall slams. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have > > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc > > Little flaw in your reasoning: Sampras has no more matches available. Yes, and anyway Federer lost a few GS finals too. If I understand well, the same scheme applied to Fed would make him the winner of several CGS. But the exercize is rather pointless.

 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 20:58:10
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On 21Jan2009, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote: > stephenj wrote: > > I find two things astonishing about this: > > > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > > from tying him. > > > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > > ANYONE in overall slams. > > > > > > > > > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc The difference here is that you are looking at history whereas the OP was talking about future. In your heart do you really believe Federer will never win a slam or two in the future given he is just 27?

  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:07:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

jdeluise wrote: > On 21Jan2009, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > >> stephenj wrote: >>> I find two things astonishing about this: >>> >>> 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches >>> from tying him. >>> >>> 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind >>> ANYONE in overall slams. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have >> 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc > > The difference here is that you are looking at history whereas the OP was > talking about future. In your heart do you really believe Federer will > never win a slam or two in the future given he is just 27? Depends. Of course he has a good chance on paper but there are some unique factors like the pressure of actually matching & then surpassing the all time record. This will come into play as long as he plays tough opponents like Rafa\Murray\Djoker in the money match. He could luck out & have only Blake level types. If he beats Djoke in semis & Rafa in final no arguments, but he'll still find the pressure immense going for 15. Certainly it's not a given he'll win 2 more slams.

 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 12:44:16
From:
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Jan 21, 8:35=A0pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote: > On Jan 21, 7:54=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > > stephenj wrote: > > > I find two things astonishing about this: > > > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > > > from tying him. > > > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > > > ANYONE in overall slams. > > > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have > > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc > > er, I assume you mean because he lost in 4 finals, he was 4 matches > away from 18? I don't know where you're getting the 22 from though.. I assume he means SF losses  I guess Sampras lost 4 GS semis  Wimbledon 92, FO 96, USO 98 and AO 00. (but that's another 8 matches of course). Actually those four matches are pleasingly symmetrical  one at each GS and in a nice twoyear sequence ...

  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:55:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jan 21, 8:35 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> On Jan 21, 7:54 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >> >>> stephenj wrote: >>>> I find two things astonishing about this: >>>> 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches >>>> from tying him. >>>> 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind >>>> ANYONE in overall slams. >>> Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have >>> 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc >> er, I assume you mean because he lost in 4 finals, he was 4 matches >> away from 18? I don't know where you're getting the 22 from though.. > > I assume he means SF losses  I guess Sampras lost 4 GS semis  > Wimbledon 92, FO 96, USO 98 and AO 00. (but that's another 8 matches > of course). > > Actually those four matches are pleasingly symmetrical  one at each > GS and in a nice twoyear sequence ... > > > Actually he also had '93 AO semi loss to Edberg so overall 14 more matches & he'd have 23 slams.

  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 22:51:49
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:44:16 0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: >On Jan 21, 8:35 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> On Jan 21, 7:54 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >> >> > stephenj wrote: >> > > I find two things astonishing about this: >> >> > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches >> > > from tying him. >> >> > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind >> > > ANYONE in overall slams. >> >> > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have >> > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc >> >> er, I assume you mean because he lost in 4 finals, he was 4 matches >> away from 18? I don't know where you're getting the 22 from though.. > >I assume he means SF losses  I guess Sampras lost 4 GS semis  >Wimbledon 92, FO 96, USO 98 and AO 00. (but that's another 8 matches >of course). > >Actually those four matches are pleasingly symmetrical  one at each >GS and in a nice twoyear sequence ... Four years between the first two...

 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 12:35:15
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Jan 21, 7:54=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote: > stephenj wrote: > > I find two things astonishing about this: > > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > > from tying him. > > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > > ANYONE in overall slams. > > Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have > 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc er, I assume you mean because he lost in 4 finals, he was 4 matches away from 18? I don't know where you're getting the 22 from though..

  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:52:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

GOAT wrote: > On Jan 21, 7:54 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >> stephenj wrote: >>> I find two things astonishing about this: >>> 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches >>> from tying him. >>> 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind >>> ANYONE in overall slams. >> Depends how you look at that stat  4 more matches & Sampras would have >> 18 slams, another 4 he'd have 22 etc > > er, I assume you mean because he lost in 4 finals, he was 4 matches > away from 18? I don't know where you're getting the 22 from though.. > 4 s/f losses.


Date: 21 Jan 2009 07:00:16
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Jan 21, 2:36 pm, stephenj <s...@cox.com > wrote: > I find two things astonishing about this: > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > from tying him. > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > ANYONE in overall slams. > >  > The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from > enacting stupid laws. > >  Thurgood Marshall Fed will not match Pete in this tournament, that's for sure.

 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:33:18
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Jan 21, 10:00=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote: > On Jan 21, 2:36 pm, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote: > > > I find two things astonishing about this: > > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > > from tying him. > > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > > ANYONE in overall slams. > > >  > > The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from > > enacting stupid laws. > > >  Thurgood Marshall > > Fed will not match Pete in this tournament, that's for sure. Whistle louder. The graveyard ghosts are gonna get'choo.


Date: 21 Jan 2009 11:47:46
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

stephenj <sjex@cox.com > wrote: > I find two things astonishing about this: > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > from tying him. > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > ANYONE in overall slams. Well said. Sadly, in this place we have raving, slobbering fanbois/gurlz of both that think that one somehow makes the other irrelevant. Mark Spitz didn't suddendly vanish or have someone come over to his house to confiscate his medals because of Phelps' performance at Beijing...


Date: 21 Jan 2009 06:50:54
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed: 5 matches from Sampras ...

On Jan 21, 6:36=A0am, stephenj <s...@cox.com > wrote: > I find two things astonishing about this: > > 1) given all the slams pete won, that ANYONE could be just 5 matches > from tying him. > > 2) given everything federer has won, that he's still 5 matches behind > ANYONE in overall slams. > >  > The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from > enacting stupid laws. > >  Thurgood Marshall ++ Shows the amazing achievements of both... far to many people here on RST feel the need to run down one or the other of these two titans of the game... it is fun, though, watching this run at the record book... it's a VERY under reported story all the same, unless you follow tennis quite closely, you might not be aware of Federer's chase really... if Federer gets to 15 and is not one the cover of SI, for example, that will say alot about tennis in North America... Becker used to be on the cover almost every time he won a slam, it seemed... (not really but tennis was so much higher up the sporting pecking order)... P P

