tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 13 Feb 2009 07:00:43
From:
Subject: Federer is the new version of Emerson
May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
and has been unable to beat his main rival.





 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:21:38
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 5:33=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 5:21=A0pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 helmi, 00:05, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 4:15 pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 helmi, 21:34, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor co=
mpetition
> > > > > > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > > > > > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0F=
ive years
> > > > > > age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and Na=
dal would
> > > > > > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we=
may
> > > > > > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > > > > > But life's not like that.
>
> > > > > > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was i=
n his
> > > > > > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had a=
n up and
> > > > > > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Fed=
erer.
> > > > > > These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampras. =
=A0Where is
> > > > > > Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > > > > > Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
>
> > > > > > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If y=
ou're
> > > > > > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by some=
body
> > > > > > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > > > > > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > > > > > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > > > > > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > > > > > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > > > > > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =
=A0In
> > > > > > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's.=
=A0He
> > > > > > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a maj=
or.
>
> > > > > > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded bu=
t it is
> > > > > > a fact in tennis.
>
> > > > > I would add that you can't be another great player's bitch
>
> > > > Is there a GOAT condending player who has been perfect in every sen=
se?
>
> > > > Tilden was stopped by French armada.
>
> > > > Budge was great but was 50/50 against not-peak Vines.
>
> > > > Kramer? He has a case but no numbers.
>
> > > > Gonzales? He has a case and (relative pro circuit) numbers.
>
> > > > Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> > > > mark...if not separate tours?
>
> > > > Borg? He could have had the absolute numbers but chose not to have
> > > > after losing some key matches to Mac.
>
> > > > Sampras? He has the best case and is GOAT in my books but his recor=
ds
> > > > are may be the most vulnerable to exploit.
>
> > > > Fed? Tier1 for sure....just imagine what records he would have if n=
o
> > > > Nadal....(but this applies relatively to every great)
>
> > > > .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Sure, every great seems to have a mark against, but Fed's little
> > > conundrum stikes me as particularly bad. =A0It's not just that the ki=
d
> > > is spanking him everywhere including Wimbledon(!), but that Fed's gam=
e
> > > has regressed both in style and effectiveness as Nadal has gotten
> > > better, modified and added more tools. I don't know if it is lack of
> > > balls or if Fed is hung up on asthetics of baseline ballet, but he ha=
s
> > > played like an idiot for years now.
>
> > Eh...if not Nadal...?
>
> > Fed won USO and has been in every last four slam final....he must
> > still do smt. right, right? Of last 5 slams:
>
> > AO 2008 : smt was obv. wrong, no footwork, struggling early rounds.
> > lost to Djoko at SF
> > FO 2008 : miserable final loss to Nadal, no excuse.
> > Wim 2008: Great event by Fed but lost narrowly to great (and better)
> > player - scoreline flatters Fed.
> > USO 2007: Won.
> > AO 2009: =A0Lost final but arguably should have won.
>
> > Above record is still a great complete record....and you start
> > wonder...if no Nadal....(especially when Wimb 2008/AO 2009 where
> > eventually very close)
>
> > .mikko
>
> > In fact Fed 2008 was a great year...but he himself created a monster
> > as both Fed/Sampras said.
>
> > .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't think we can say "if not Nadal". =A0Nadal exists for a good
> reason--to provide Fed with a challenge that none of these other guys
> can offer. =A0God even gave him the tools to deal with Nadal on the
> faster surfaces, but Fed has not used them properly. =A0I should have
> said Fed played like an idiot vs. Nadal last few years. =A0I concede
> that Fed has handled the rest rather easily and has had great success,
> but this is all anyone is thinking about now, the situation with
> Nadal. =A0And that is going to stick. =A0Fed almost got waxed at
> Wimbledon--this could be even worse than it is for him.- Hide quoted text=
-
>
> - Show quoted text -

I know what you're saying and I've expressed similar arguments here
myself. But I'm starting to get
won over to Mikko's point of view.

Every situation for every great is different. In Fed's case, he's up
against a younger, all-time great opponent.
Comparing that situation to what Sampras had to deal with, we see
clearly that there was no younger, all-time great opponent that he was
faced with. It was Agassi at the beginning and Agassi to the very end.
Personally, I think Pete would have dealt with a Nadal challenge more
decisively at Wimby than Fed has done.

But at the end of the day, my opinion and anyone else's is just that,
an opinion. And what is subjective is also meaningless, doesn't *hold
up in court* as they say.

So all we're left with are the numbers. If Fed gets past Pete, he's
goat.


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 20:56:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 5:33 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I don't think we can say "if not Nadal". Nadal exists for a good
>> reason--to provide Fed with a challenge that none of these other guys
>> can offer. God even gave him the tools to deal with Nadal on the
>> faster surfaces, but Fed has not used them properly. I should have
>> said Fed played like an idiot vs. Nadal last few years. I concede
>> that Fed has handled the rest rather easily and has had great success,
>> but this is all anyone is thinking about now, the situation with
>> Nadal. And that is going to stick. Fed almost got waxed at
>> Wimbledon--this could be even worse than it is for him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I know what you're saying and I've expressed similar arguments here
> myself. But I'm starting to get
> won over to Mikko's point of view.
>
> Every situation for every great is different. In Fed's case, he's up
> against a younger, all-time great opponent.
> Comparing that situation to what Sampras had to deal with, we see
> clearly that there was no younger, all-time great opponent that he was
> faced with. It was Agassi at the beginning and Agassi to the very end.
> Personally, I think Pete would have dealt with a Nadal challenge more
> decisively at Wimby than Fed has done.
>
> But at the end of the day, my opinion and anyone else's is just that,
> an opinion. And what is subjective is also meaningless, doesn't *hold
> up in court* as they say.
>
> So all we're left with are the numbers. If Fed gets past Pete, he's
> goat.



Yes he can outdo Sampras on the court in the way Borg achieved more than
McEnroe, but I see the Borg v Mac situation as identical to Fed v Nadal.

Mac was young up & commer 5 yrs younger than Borg & was just coming into
his best form while Borg was at his very peak. Borg just barely beat
Mac in '80 Wimbledon final then proceeded to lose the last 3 slam finals
to him, with each win getting more decisive for Mac. After many yrs of
being top dog no.2 was never going to cut it for Borg & he quit.

This is similar to Fed getting somewhat fortunate win v Rafa in '07
Wimbledon final (Fed won 2 t/b's yet still took 5 sets to win), & then
proceeding to lose last 3 slam finals to him. It looks even worse for
Fed as he has lost 5 slam finals to Rafa.

So what I'm trying to say is while everyone considers Borg had the
greater career, the vast majority of experts consider McEnroe the better
player. This is one of the reasons Borg's goat claims took a big dive.





   
Date: 16 Feb 2009 10:41:02
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:56:56 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 5:33 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> I don't think we can say "if not Nadal". Nadal exists for a good
>>> reason--to provide Fed with a challenge that none of these other guys
>>> can offer. God even gave him the tools to deal with Nadal on the
>>> faster surfaces, but Fed has not used them properly. I should have
>>> said Fed played like an idiot vs. Nadal last few years. I concede
>>> that Fed has handled the rest rather easily and has had great success,
>>> but this is all anyone is thinking about now, the situation with
>>> Nadal. And that is going to stick. Fed almost got waxed at
>>> Wimbledon--this could be even worse than it is for him.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I know what you're saying and I've expressed similar arguments here
>> myself. But I'm starting to get
>> won over to Mikko's point of view.
>>
>> Every situation for every great is different. In Fed's case, he's up
>> against a younger, all-time great opponent.
>> Comparing that situation to what Sampras had to deal with, we see
>> clearly that there was no younger, all-time great opponent that he was
>> faced with. It was Agassi at the beginning and Agassi to the very end.
>> Personally, I think Pete would have dealt with a Nadal challenge more
>> decisively at Wimby than Fed has done.
>>
>> But at the end of the day, my opinion and anyone else's is just that,
>> an opinion. And what is subjective is also meaningless, doesn't *hold
>> up in court* as they say.
>>
>> So all we're left with are the numbers. If Fed gets past Pete, he's
>> goat.
>
>
>
>Yes he can outdo Sampras on the court in the way Borg achieved more than
>McEnroe, but I see the Borg v Mac situation as identical to Fed v Nadal.
>
>Mac was young up & commer 5 yrs younger than Borg & was just coming into
>his best form while Borg was at his very peak. Borg just barely beat
>Mac in '80 Wimbledon final then proceeded to lose the last 3 slam finals
>to him, with each win getting more decisive for Mac. After many yrs of
>being top dog no.2 was never going to cut it for Borg & he quit.
>
>This is similar to Fed getting somewhat fortunate win v Rafa in '07
>Wimbledon final (Fed won 2 t/b's yet still took 5 sets to win), & then
>proceeding to lose last 3 slam finals to him. It looks even worse for
>Fed as he has lost 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>
>So what I'm trying to say is while everyone considers Borg had the
>greater career, the vast majority of experts consider McEnroe the better
>player. This is one of the reasons Borg's goat claims took a big dive.
>

You're a fucking joke with your "fairy tales".


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 05:56:19
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 15, 8:51=A0am, One <O...@ebay.com > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote innews:57fd2142-b7ac-43a3-8f5d-21a2305ec6=
f5@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 8:39=A0am, One <O...@ebay.com> wrote:
> >> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote
> >> innews:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e99
> > 5...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 7:29=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 14, 10:06=A0pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and
> >> >> > > that's something big that he has going for him in these
> >> >> > > endless goat debates
> >> > .
> >> >> > > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat
> >> >> > > Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year
> >> >> > > was ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras being
> >> >> > > fatigued had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>
> >> >> > > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
> >> >> > > dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>
> >> >> > > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
> >> >> > > Sampra
> >> > s
> >> >> > > era,
> >> >> > > his
> >> >> > > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then
> >> >> > > there is Rafter
> >> >> > > won
> >> >> > > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
> >> >> > > Sampras pe
> >> > ak.
> >> >> > > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition
> >> >> > > on the f
> >> > ast
> >> >> > > court.
> >> >> > > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and
> >> >> > > apart from Sampras
> >> >> > > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
> >> >> > > troubl
> >> > e
> >> >> > > Samrpas
> >> >> > > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster
> >> >> > > Queen grass court.-
>
> >> >> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
> >> >> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
> >> >> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO,
> >> >> 99 Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>
> >> >> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>
> >> >> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
> >> >> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his
> >> >> when he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent
> >> >> results at Slams on hard courts).
>
> >> >> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed
> >> >> fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with
> >> >> Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is
> >> >> very annoying for you. You're countering it by saying all great
> >> >> champs have their match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>
> >> >> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he
> >> >> lost that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible
> >> >> USO scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting
> >> >> to be fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how
> >> >> those two matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight
> >> >> sets against each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles
> >> >> with Nadal because in the latter case those two players have
> >> >> competed over and over against each other with both at or close to
> >> >> peak.
>
> >> >> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that
> >> >> NOBODY emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously
> >> >> challenge him, while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in
> >> >> Nadal. Pete at peak had to deal with a great fast court player in
> >> >> Agassi who was only stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams
> >> >> by the greatness of Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no
> >> >> one new was challenging him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten
> >> >> generation was probably THE WORST generation on fast courts ever.
> >> >> Not a single Wimby or USO won by guys born between 1973-1977. So
> >> >> not even a Roddick-level fast court player, let alone a Nadal or
> >> >> Agassi.
>
> >> >> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
> >> >> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a
> >> >> Slam match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In
> >> >> Roger's case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there
> >> >> was something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted
> >> >> text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a
> >> > match to a younger, all-time great player
> >> > was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
> >> > although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
> >> > year at age 23.
>
> >> In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played* a
> >> younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and Safin
> >> as greats.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Of course, they don't come around that often! Basically it's just
> > another twist on Joe
> > Ramirez's "missing champions" point.
>
> Yes the "chain" is very clear. Borg had Mac/Lendl who then had
> Becker/Edberg who then had Sampras who had noone. Federer now has Nadal.
> There is a definite "missing link" in the late 90s.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You can't forget though that Sampras had Agassi in his own generation.
So he didn't have things that
easy either. Of course there are different arguments as to why Andre
was such a flake for most of his career.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 15:05:24
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote in
news:ed04d26c-bee2-4d04-9131-f76b7a887db2@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 15, 8:51 am, One <O...@ebay.com> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote
>> innews:57fd2142-b7ac-43a3-8f5d-21a2305ec6
> f5@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 8:39 am, One <O...@ebay.com> wrote:
>> >> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote
>> >> innews:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e99
>> > 5...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 7:29 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and
>> >> >> > > that's something big that he has going for him in these
>> >> >> > > endless goat debates
>> >> > .
>> >> >> > > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he
>> >> >> > > beat Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next
>> >> >> > > year was ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras
>> >> >> > > being fatigued had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>>
>> >> >> > > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
>> >> >> > > dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>>
>> >> >> > > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players
>> >> >> > > during Sampra
>> >> > s
>> >> >> > > era,
>> >> >> > > his
>> >> >> > > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams
>> >> >> > > then there is Rafter
>> >> >> > > won
>> >> >> > > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
>> >> >> > > Sampras pe
>> >> > ak.
>> >> >> > > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little
>> >> >> > > competition on the f
>> >> > ast
>> >> >> > > court.
>> >> >> > > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and
>> >> >> > > apart from Sampras
>> >> >> > > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game
>> >> >> > > to troubl
>> >> > e
>> >> >> > > Samrpas
>> >> >> > > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster
>> >> >> > > Queen grass court.-
>>
>> >> >> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast
>> >> >> court Slams. But of course the reason for that was
>> >> >> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95
>> >> >> USO, 99 Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>>
>> >> >> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>>
>> >> >> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of
>> >> >> those Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years
>> >> >> past his when he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very
>> >> >> inconsistent results at Slams on hard courts).
>>
>> >> >> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge
>> >> >> Fed fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big
>> >> >> time with Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other
>> >> >> post) is very annoying for you. You're countering it by saying
>> >> >> all great champs have their match-up issues and Pete's was with
>> >> >> Hewitt.
>>
>> >> >> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he
>> >> >> lost that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that
>> >> >> horrible USO scheduling having to play back to back days. If
>> >> >> you're wanting to be fairminded about this, you'll say we just
>> >> >> can't conclude how those two matched up, as they each won a
>> >> >> Slam match in straight sets against each other. It's not
>> >> >> comparable to Fed's struggles with Nadal because in the latter
>> >> >> case those two players have competed over and over against each
>> >> >> other with both at or close to peak.
>>
>> >> >> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that
>> >> >> NOBODY emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously
>> >> >> challenge him, while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in
>> >> >> Nadal. Pete at peak had to deal with a great fast court player
>> >> >> in Agassi who was only stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court
>> >> >> Slams by the greatness of Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at
>> >> >> Wimbledon, no one new was challenging him. The Kafelnikov,
>> >> >> Henman, Rios, Kuerten generation was probably THE WORST
>> >> >> generation on fast courts ever. Not a single Wimby or USO won
>> >> >> by guys born between 1973-1977. So not even a Roddick-level
>> >> >> fast court player, let alone a Nadal or Agassi.
>>
>> >> >> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
>> >> >> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in
>> >> >> a Slam match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29.
>> >> >> In Roger's case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly
>> >> >> there was something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide
>> >> >> quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a
>> >> > match to a younger, all-time great player
>> >> > was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
>> >> > although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
>> >> > year at age 23.
>>
>> >> In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played*
>> >> a younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and
>> >> Safin as greats.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Of course, they don't come around that often! Basically it's just
>> > another twist on Joe
>> > Ramirez's "missing champions" point.
>>
>> Yes the "chain" is very clear. Borg had Mac/Lendl who then had
>> Becker/Edberg who then had Sampras who had noone. Federer now has
>> Nadal. There is a definite "missing link" in the late 90s.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You can't forget though that Sampras had Agassi in his own generation.
> So he didn't have things that
> easy either. Of course there are different arguments as to why Andre
> was such a flake for most of his career.

Sure Sampras had Agassi - but he never beat him at the Australian Open or
French Open. Whisper has now decided that we judge greatness by matches
against your "main rival"(and we're not allowed to factor in age). In which
case by Whisper's own standards all we can say is that Sampras was very
good at beating Agassi at Wimbledon and the US Open - but Agassi lost to a
ton of other guys at those slams too. I actually think there was more to
Sampras than that.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 05:45:31
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 15, 8:39=A0am, One <O...@ebay.com > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote innews:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e99=
5c@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 7:29=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 14, 10:06=A0pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> >> > > something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
> >> > > debates
> > .
> >> > > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat
> >> > > Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was
> >> > > ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued
> >> > > had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>
> >> > > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
> >> > > dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>
> >> > > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
> >> > > Sampra
> > s
> >> > > era,
> >> > > his
> >> > > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then
> >> > > there is Rafter
> >> > > won
> >> > > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
> >> > > Sampras pe
> > ak.
> >> > > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on
> >> > > the f
> > ast
> >> > > court.
> >> > > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart
> >> > > from Sampras
> >> > > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
> >> > > troubl
> > e
> >> > > Samrpas
> >> > > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen
> >> > > grass court.-
>
> >> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
> >> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
> >> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO, 99
> >> Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>
> >> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>
> >> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
> >> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his when
> >> he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent results at
> >> Slams on hard courts).
>
> >> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed
> >> fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with
> >> Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is very
> >> annoying for you. You're countering it by saying all great champs
> >> have their match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>
> >> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he lost
> >> that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible USO
> >> scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting to be
> >> fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how those
> >> two matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight sets
> >> against each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles with Nadal
> >> because in the latter case those two players have competed over and
> >> over against each other with both at or close to peak.
>
> >> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that NOBODY
> >> emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously challenge him,
> >> while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in Nadal. Pete at peak
> >> had to deal with a great fast court player in Agassi who was only
> >> stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams by the greatness of
> >> Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no one new was challenging
> >> him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten generation was probably
> >> THE WORST generation on fast courts ever. Not a single Wimby or USO
> >> won by guys born between 1973-1977. So not even a Roddick-level fast
> >> court player, let alone a Nadal or Agassi.
>
> >> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
> >> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a Slam
> >> match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In Roger's
> >> case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there was
> >> something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a match
> > to a younger, all-time great player
> > was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
> > although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
> > year at age 23.
>
> In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played* a
> younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and Safin as
> greats.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course, they don't come around that often! Basically it's just
another twist on Joe
Ramirez's "missing champions" point.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:51:13
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote in
news:57fd2142-b7ac-43a3-8f5d-21a2305ec6f5@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 15, 8:39 am, One <O...@ebay.com> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote
>> innews:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e99
> 5c@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 7:29 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and
>> >> > > that's something big that he has going for him in these
>> >> > > endless goat debates
>> > .
>> >> > > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat
>> >> > > Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year
>> >> > > was ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras being
>> >> > > fatigued had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>>
>> >> > > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
>> >> > > dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>>
>> >> > > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
>> >> > > Sampra
>> > s
>> >> > > era,
>> >> > > his
>> >> > > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then
>> >> > > there is Rafter
>> >> > > won
>> >> > > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
>> >> > > Sampras pe
>> > ak.
>> >> > > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition
>> >> > > on the f
>> > ast
>> >> > > court.
>> >> > > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and
>> >> > > apart from Sampras
>> >> > > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
>> >> > > troubl
>> > e
>> >> > > Samrpas
>> >> > > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster
>> >> > > Queen grass court.-
>>
>> >> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
>> >> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
>> >> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO,
>> >> 99 Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>>
>> >> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>>
>> >> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
>> >> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his
>> >> when he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent
>> >> results at Slams on hard courts).
>>
>> >> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed
>> >> fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with
>> >> Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is
>> >> very annoying for you. You're countering it by saying all great
>> >> champs have their match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>>
>> >> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he
>> >> lost that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible
>> >> USO scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting
>> >> to be fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how
>> >> those two matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight
>> >> sets against each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles
>> >> with Nadal because in the latter case those two players have
>> >> competed over and over against each other with both at or close to
>> >> peak.
>>
>> >> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that
>> >> NOBODY emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously
>> >> challenge him, while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in
>> >> Nadal. Pete at peak had to deal with a great fast court player in
>> >> Agassi who was only stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams
>> >> by the greatness of Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no
>> >> one new was challenging him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten
>> >> generation was probably THE WORST generation on fast courts ever.
>> >> Not a single Wimby or USO won by guys born between 1973-1977. So
>> >> not even a Roddick-level fast court player, let alone a Nadal or
>> >> Agassi.
>>
>> >> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
>> >> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a
>> >> Slam match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In
>> >> Roger's case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there
>> >> was something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted
>> >> text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a
>> > match to a younger, all-time great player
>> > was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
>> > although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
>> > year at age 23.
>>
>> In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played* a
>> younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and Safin
>> as greats.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Of course, they don't come around that often! Basically it's just
> another twist on Joe
> Ramirez's "missing champions" point.


Yes the "chain" is very clear. Borg had Mac/Lendl who then had
Becker/Edberg who then had Sampras who had noone. Federer now has Nadal.
There is a definite "missing link" in the late 90s.



   
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:53:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
One wrote:
> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote in
> news:57fd2142-b7ac-43a3-8f5d-21a2305ec6f5@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Feb 15, 8:39 am, One <O...@ebay.com> wrote:
>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote
>>> innews:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e99
>> 5c@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 15, 7:29 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and
>>>>>>> that's something big that he has going for him in these
>>>>>>> endless goat debates
>>>> .
>>>>>>> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat
>>>>>>> Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year
>>>>>>> was ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras being
>>>>>>> fatigued had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>>>>>>> Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
>>>>>>> dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>>>>>>> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
>>>>>>> Sampra
>>>> s
>>>>>>> era,
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then
>>>>>>> there is Rafter
>>>>>>> won
>>>>>>> 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
>>>>>>> Sampras pe
>>>> ak.
>>>>>>> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition
>>>>>>> on the f
>>>> ast
>>>>>>> court.
>>>>>>> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and
>>>>>>> apart from Sampras
>>>>>>> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
>>>>>>> troubl
>>>> e
>>>>>>> Samrpas
>>>>>>> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster
>>>>>>> Queen grass court.-
>>>>> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
>>>>> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
>>>>> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO,
>>>>> 99 Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>>>>> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>>>>> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
>>>>> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his
>>>>> when he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent
>>>>> results at Slams on hard courts).
>>>>> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed
>>>>> fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with
>>>>> Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is
>>>>> very annoying for you. You're countering it by saying all great
>>>>> champs have their match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>>>>> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he
>>>>> lost that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible
>>>>> USO scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting
>>>>> to be fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how
>>>>> those two matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight
>>>>> sets against each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles
>>>>> with Nadal because in the latter case those two players have
>>>>> competed over and over against each other with both at or close to
>>>>> peak.
>>>>> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that
>>>>> NOBODY emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously
>>>>> challenge him, while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in
>>>>> Nadal. Pete at peak had to deal with a great fast court player in
>>>>> Agassi who was only stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams
>>>>> by the greatness of Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no
>>>>> one new was challenging him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten
>>>>> generation was probably THE WORST generation on fast courts ever.
>>>>> Not a single Wimby or USO won by guys born between 1973-1977. So
>>>>> not even a Roddick-level fast court player, let alone a Nadal or
>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
>>>>> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a
>>>>> Slam match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In
>>>>> Roger's case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there
>>>>> was something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted
>>>>> text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a
>>>> match to a younger, all-time great player
>>>> was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
>>>> although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
>>>> year at age 23.
>>> In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played* a
>>> younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and Safin
>>> as greats.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Of course, they don't come around that often! Basically it's just
>> another twist on Joe
>> Ramirez's "missing champions" point.
>
>
> Yes the "chain" is very clear. Borg had Mac/Lendl who then had
> Becker/Edberg who then had Sampras who had noone. Federer now has Nadal.
> There is a definite "missing link" in the late 90s.
>


So you agree Fed benefited until Rafa matured & won a non-clay slam?



    
Date: 16 Feb 2009 06:01:44
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:53:43 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>One wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:57fd2142-b7ac-43a3-8f5d-21a2305ec6f5@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 8:39 am, One <O...@ebay.com> wrote:
>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote
>>>> innews:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e99
>>> 5c@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 15, 7:29 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and
>>>>>>>> that's something big that he has going for him in these
>>>>>>>> endless goat debates
>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat
>>>>>>>> Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year
>>>>>>>> was ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras being
>>>>>>>> fatigued had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>>>>>>>> Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
>>>>>>>> dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>>>>>>>> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
>>>>>>>> Sampra
>>>>> s
>>>>>>>> era,
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then
>>>>>>>> there is Rafter
>>>>>>>> won
>>>>>>>> 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
>>>>>>>> Sampras pe
>>>>> ak.
>>>>>>>> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition
>>>>>>>> on the f
>>>>> ast
>>>>>>>> court.
>>>>>>>> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and
>>>>>>>> apart from Sampras
>>>>>>>> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
>>>>>>>> troubl
>>>>> e
>>>>>>>> Samrpas
>>>>>>>> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster
>>>>>>>> Queen grass court.-
>>>>>> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
>>>>>> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
>>>>>> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO,
>>>>>> 99 Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>>>>>> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>>>>>> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
>>>>>> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his
>>>>>> when he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent
>>>>>> results at Slams on hard courts).
>>>>>> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed
>>>>>> fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with
>>>>>> Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is
>>>>>> very annoying for you. You're countering it by saying all great
>>>>>> champs have their match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>>>>>> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he
>>>>>> lost that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible
>>>>>> USO scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting
>>>>>> to be fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how
>>>>>> those two matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight
>>>>>> sets against each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles
>>>>>> with Nadal because in the latter case those two players have
>>>>>> competed over and over against each other with both at or close to
>>>>>> peak.
>>>>>> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that
>>>>>> NOBODY emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously
>>>>>> challenge him, while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in
>>>>>> Nadal. Pete at peak had to deal with a great fast court player in
>>>>>> Agassi who was only stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams
>>>>>> by the greatness of Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no
>>>>>> one new was challenging him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten
>>>>>> generation was probably THE WORST generation on fast courts ever.
>>>>>> Not a single Wimby or USO won by guys born between 1973-1977. So
>>>>>> not even a Roddick-level fast court player, let alone a Nadal or
>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
>>>>>> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a
>>>>>> Slam match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In
>>>>>> Roger's case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there
>>>>>> was something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted
>>>>>> text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a
>>>>> match to a younger, all-time great player
>>>>> was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
>>>>> although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
>>>>> year at age 23.
>>>> In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played* a
>>>> younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and Safin
>>>> as greats.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Of course, they don't come around that often! Basically it's just
>>> another twist on Joe
>>> Ramirez's "missing champions" point.
>>
>>
>> Yes the "chain" is very clear. Borg had Mac/Lendl who then had
>> Becker/Edberg who then had Sampras who had noone. Federer now has Nadal.
>> There is a definite "missing link" in the late 90s.
>>
>
>
>So you agree Fed benefited until Rafa matured & won a non-clay slam?


I agree Sampras benefitted from playing "clowns" until Fed came along
and showed him who was boss at the 1981 world championships which
forced Sampras into retirement as he then saw the handwriting on the
wall.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 05:12:23
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 15, 7:29=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:06=A0pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> > > something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates=
.
> > > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> > > in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
> > > think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
> > > with such a lopsided result.
>
> > > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
> > > on fast courts anyway.
>
> > > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampra=
s
> > > era,
> > > his
> > > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is
> > > Rafter
> > > won
> > > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras pe=
ak.
> > > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the f=
ast
> > > court.
> > > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
> > > Sampras
> > > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to troubl=
e
> > > Samrpas
> > > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass
> > > court.-
>
> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO, 99
> Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>
> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>
> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his when he
> played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent results at Slams
> on hard courts).
>
> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed fan
> and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with Nadal
> at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is very annoying
> for you. You're countering it by saying all great champs have their
> match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>
> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he lost
> that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible USO
> scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting to be
> fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how those two
> matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight sets against
> each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles with Nadal because
> in the latter case those two players have competed over and over
> against each other with both at or close to peak.
>
> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that NOBODY
> emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously challenge him,
> while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in Nadal. Pete at peak
> had to deal with a great fast court player in Agassi who was only
> stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams by the greatness of
> Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no one new was challenging
> him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten generation was probably THE
> WORST generation on fast courts ever. Not a single Wimby or USO won by
> guys born between 1973-1977. So not even a Roddick-level fast court
> player, let alone a Nadal or Agassi.
>
> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a Slam
> match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In Roger's
> case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there was
> something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a match
to a younger, all-time great player
was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
year at age 23.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:39:13
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote in
news:ffba0845-c9b8-46bd-a21b-cb80889e995c@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 15, 7:29 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>> > > something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>> > > debates
> .
>> > > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat
>> > > Hewitt in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was
>> > > ugly, but I think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued
>> > > had a lot to do with such a lopsided result.
>>
>> > > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be
>> > > dominated," on fast courts anyway.
>>
>> > > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
>> > > Sampra
> s
>> > > era,
>> > > his
>> > > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then
>> > > there is Rafter
>> > > won
>> > > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during
>> > > Sampras pe
> ak.
>> > > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on
>> > > the f
> ast
>> > > court.
>> > > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart
>> > > from Sampras
>> > > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
>> > > troubl
> e
>> > > Samrpas
>> > > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen
>> > > grass court.-
>>
>> You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
>> Slams. But of course the reason for that was
>> Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO, 99
>> Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?
>>
>> Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?
>>
>> As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
>> Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his when
>> he played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent results at
>> Slams on hard courts).
>>
>> I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed
>> fan and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with
>> Nadal at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is very
>> annoying for you. You're countering it by saying all great champs
>> have their match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.
>>
>> The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he lost
>> that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible USO
>> scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting to be
>> fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how those
>> two matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight sets
>> against each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles with Nadal
>> because in the latter case those two players have competed over and
>> over against each other with both at or close to peak.
>>
>> Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that NOBODY
>> emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously challenge him,
>> while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in Nadal. Pete at peak
>> had to deal with a great fast court player in Agassi who was only
>> stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams by the greatness of
>> Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no one new was challenging
>> him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten generation was probably
>> THE WORST generation on fast courts ever. Not a single Wimby or USO
>> won by guys born between 1973-1977. So not even a Roddick-level fast
>> court player, let alone a Nadal or Agassi.
>>
>> In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
>> younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a Slam
>> match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In Roger's
>> case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there was
>> something wrong with that post-Pete generation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Slight correction there. Should be "the first time Pete lost a match
> to a younger, all-time great player
> was against Roger." That loss to Rafa in 2004 wasn't at a Slam,
> although he did lose to him at a Slam the next
> year at age 23.

In fact that Federer match was the only time Sampras ever *played* a
younger, all-time great player - unless one regards Hewitt and Safin as
greats.



 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 04:29:48
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 10:06=A0pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> > something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
> > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> > in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
> > think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
> > with such a lopsided result.
>
> > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
> > on fast courts anyway.
>
> > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras
> > era,
> > his
> > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is
> > Rafter
> > won
> > 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras peak=
.
> > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fas=
t
> > court.
> > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
> > Sampras
> > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
> > Samrpas
> > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass
> > court.-

You use Agassi as an example of somone who *only* won 3 fast court
Slams. But of course the reason for that was
Sampras. Without Pete, Agassi most probably wins 90 USO, 95 USO, 99
Wimby, 2002 USO, arguably 2001 USO. So then what?

Sp then he would have *only* 8 fast court Slams?

As for Becker, I can concede he was past his best in some of those
Sampras matches if you'll concede Pete was four years past his when he
played Hewitt (after 1997 Pete had very inconsistent results at Slams
on hard courts).

I've been around rst to know what this is about. You're a huge Fed fan
and so therefore the idea that Fed is struggling big time with Nadal
at age 27 (and Whisper brings it up every other post) is very annoying
for you. You're countering it by saying all great champs have their
match-up issues and Pete's was with Hewitt.

The problem is that Pete was probably 4 years past peak when he lost
that USO final to Hewitt. He was dealing with that horrible USO
scheduling having to play back to back days. If you're wanting to be
fairminded about this, you'll say we just can't conclude how those two
matched up, as they each won a Slam match in straight sets against
each other. It's not comparable to Fed's struggles with Nadal because
in the latter case those two players have competed over and over
against each other with both at or close to peak.

Your more sensible argument in support of Fed is to say that NOBODY
emerged in the generation after Pete's to seriously challenge him,
while Roger is dealing with an animal at peak in Nadal. Pete at peak
had to deal with a great fast court player in Agassi who was only
stopped from winning 7 or 8 fast court Slams by the greatness of
Sampras. But from 1997-2000 at Wimbledon, no one new was challenging
him. The Kafelnikov, Henman, Rios, Kuerten generation was probably THE
WORST generation on fast courts ever. Not a single Wimby or USO won by
guys born between 1973-1977. So not even a Roddick-level fast court
player, let alone a Nadal or Agassi.

In fact, a bit of trivia: the first time Pete lost a match to a
younger, all-time great player (defined by 6 or more Slams) in a Slam
match was against Roger at 2001 Wimby, when Pete was 29. In Roger's
case, that happened in 2004, when he was 22. Clearly there was
something wrong with that post-Pete generation.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:45:08
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 15 helmi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> Incorrect. Hewitt was a mere transitional champ who took advantage of
> post-Sampras/pre-Fed era. The fact Hewitt is 1-1 with Sampras in slams
> proves Sampras was far superior given Hewitt was at peak & had 10 yr
> advantage.

Obv. Sampras >>Hewitt but your example does not prove anything. Sample
data is small and Hewitt was quite young at their first GS match
(which was won by Sampras in relatively tight three setters).


> Not even close. Agassi at 36 was still the best returner in the game,
> thus proving 90's were far tougher.

Of course Agassi at 36 was not the best returner in the game. To say
so is incredibly biased non-sense. And even then it surely does not
prove anything.

Agassi's "quessing strategy" on big-server returns made his returning
look flashy and is perfect eye-candy for averagejoes who only follow
tennis from their best-of/highlight reels. Digging deeper you could
see that the alarming number of the player's ace records on tour has
been made against Andre...even Sampras had his ace record made against
Agassi.

JJohansson 51 aces in four sets at relatively slow venue topping the
charts (AO 2004).

.mikko





 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 21:03:45
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 7:16=A0pm, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4996c8dc$0$23957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 14, 3:17 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampra=
s
> >>> era,
> >>> his
> >>> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is
> >>> Rafter
> >>> won
> >>> 2 in USO. =A0Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras
> >>> peak.
> >>> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the f=
ast
> >>> court.
> >>> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
> >>> Sampras
> >>> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to troubl=
e
> >>> Samrpas
> >>> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass
> >>> court.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>
> >> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
> >> that mean?
>
> >> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
> >> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>
> >> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
> >> other tune-ups is highly relevant?
>
> > Yes, though I'm not sure John is trolling - he genuinely appears to be
> > that dumb. =A0Unusual, as most Asians I know are pretty smart.
>
> With your IQ at 59 I don't see how you can judge other people as dumb,
> certainly you are not qualified because your own intelligence is below
> normal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
> >> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>
> >> To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
> >> controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
> >> player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
> >> especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
> >> on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
> >> and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
> >> incredibly tenacious.
>
> > Exactly, & peak Agassi was deadly against guys who 'let him play' - tha=
t's
> > why I think Agassi would beat Fed on HC's quite comfortably.
>
> Because you are dumb to think Federer will be just any other guys who
> let Agassi play. =A0Of course you are excuse for been as stupid as you ar=
e
> with IQ of 59 and your only contribution to RST are the bullshit 7543 and
> Roddick on steroid.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> If Fed could just hit 7-10 more aces/service
> >> winners per match, he'd probably never lose to Rafa on a fast court.
>
> > I don't go along with that. =A0Rafa adapts to what's going on in the ma=
tch.
> > If Fed served a few more aces he'd just knuckle down & play tougher in
> > other points.
>
> > That's why it always appears Fed has a chance if he just served a few m=
ore
> > aces - it's an illusion.



++ Pete is GOAT if majors is measure... monster big strike tennis game
produced standard of 14 as yardstick for majors in men's tennis.

Laver is mythical GOAT like figure with 2 seaons slams... perfect slam
year performance level achieved twice!

Borg seemingly was headed for GOAT status and ran out of internal
fire, burned out at 25, redefined fitness for elite tennis.

Federer all court Talent GOAT of the moment, inching toward Pete's
slam record stat - standing now at 13 - facing dominating rival in
Nadal.

Nadal - at 22/23 - winner of 6 slams, dominating GOAT level rival in
Federer, resetting bar for elite level counter hitting power
(defensive) tennis.


P




 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 08:32:11
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 14 Feb, 14:27, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 13:56, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > robin wrote:
> > > On 14 Feb, 05:34, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> robin wrote:
> > >>> On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > >>>> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> > >>>> mark...if not separate tours?
> > >>> What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered t=
he
> > >>> pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are=
no
> > >>> reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
> > >>> played.
> > >> Yes, but he only won 5 open era slams, with 3 being on clay & 1 on g=
rass.
>
> > >> His fault? =A0Of course not, but it's not the same as Sampras winnin=
g 14
> > >> in open era.
>
> > > Laver was 30 when the open era started, hence that is not a reasonabl=
e
> > > criticism.
>
> > I'm not criticizing Laver, just reporting the facts.
>
> > > There were also no hard court slams in his era. You cannot
> > > judge a player poorly for things which are nothing to do with tennis
> > > abilities.
>
> > I don't judge him poorly, by the same token I don't give credit for wha=
t
> > he might have won.
>
> No one is asking you to, nor is there any need. He has 2 CYGS. That is
> the ultimate achievement in tennis, and Laver did it twice. The only
> way to deny Laver as the greatest is to play silly games, where you
> try to do him down for things which have nothing to do with tennis. No
> hardcourt slams. Only 5 open era slams. We shouldn't award Laver a
> hard court slam or more open era slams because he would have won them
> had he had the chance, but neither should we criticise him for it
> either.
>
> > >In fact Laver's open era record, given his age, is further
> > > evidence of his superiority.
>
> > > Sampras's failure to win the French open was a failure in his tennis
> > > playing. Federer's poor head to head against Nadal is a failure in hi=
s
> > > tennis playing. Laver's failure to win more than 5 open era slams is =
a
> > > failure of his date of birth.
>
> > We cannot go down the path of giving any player coulda/woulda. =A0Imo
> > Rosewall comes out on top if we do that.
>
> No need for coulda/woulda. Laver won 2 CYGS. That isn't coulda/woulda.
> That is fact. You are confusing the concept of awarding players coulda/
> woulda, with the concept of not criticising them for things beyond
> their control. The two are completely different.

You might want to refer to this

http://tinyurl.com/cy9j9q

in your discussions. Others might also...

;-)


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 06:27:59
From: robin
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 14 Feb, 13:56, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 14 Feb, 05:34, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> robin wrote:
> >>> On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >>>> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> >>>> mark...if not separate tours?
> >>> What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered the
> >>> pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are n=
o
> >>> reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
> >>> played.
> >> Yes, but he only won 5 open era slams, with 3 being on clay & 1 on gra=
ss.
>
> >> His fault? =A0Of course not, but it's not the same as Sampras winning =
14
> >> in open era.
>
> > Laver was 30 when the open era started, hence that is not a reasonable
> > criticism.
>
> I'm not criticizing Laver, just reporting the facts.
>
> > There were also no hard court slams in his era. You cannot
> > judge a player poorly for things which are nothing to do with tennis
> > abilities.
>
> I don't judge him poorly, by the same token I don't give credit for what
> he might have won.
>

No one is asking you to, nor is there any need. He has 2 CYGS. That is
the ultimate achievement in tennis, and Laver did it twice. The only
way to deny Laver as the greatest is to play silly games, where you
try to do him down for things which have nothing to do with tennis. No
hardcourt slams. Only 5 open era slams. We shouldn't award Laver a
hard court slam or more open era slams because he would have won them
had he had the chance, but neither should we criticise him for it
either.

> >In fact Laver's open era record, given his age, is further
> > evidence of his superiority.
>
> > Sampras's failure to win the French open was a failure in his tennis
> > playing. Federer's poor head to head against Nadal is a failure in his
> > tennis playing. Laver's failure to win more than 5 open era slams is a
> > failure of his date of birth.
>
> We cannot go down the path of giving any player coulda/woulda. =A0Imo
> Rosewall comes out on top if we do that.

No need for coulda/woulda. Laver won 2 CYGS. That isn't coulda/woulda.
That is fact. You are confusing the concept of awarding players coulda/
woulda, with the concept of not criticising them for things beyond
their control. The two are completely different.


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:45:56
From: robin
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 14 Feb, 13:31, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> One wrote:
> > Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
> >news:49965597$0$23955$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
> >> MBDunc wrote:
> >>> On 13 helmi, 20:22, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>>>>> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor
> >>>>>> competition and has been unable to beat his main rival.
> >>>>> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0Five
> >>>>> years age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and
> >>>>> Nadal would be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same
> >>>>> time, we may have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
> >>>>> But life's not like that.
> >>>>> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in
> >>>>> his late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had a=
n
> >>>>> up and coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by
> >>>>> Federer. These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampra=
s.
> >>>>> =A0Where is Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
> >>>>> Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
> >>>>> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If you'r=
e
> >>>>> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> >>>>> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
> >>>>> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
> >>>>> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
> >>>>> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
> >>>>> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> >>>>> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =A0I=
n
> >>>>> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. =A0=
He
> >>>>> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
> >>>>> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it
> >>>>> is a fact in tennis.
> >>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> >>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
> >>>> debates. Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he
> >>>> beat Hewitt in the semis of the USO.
> >>> To be fair Sampras beat young Hewitt in quite tight three set match.
>
> >>> And yes. Sampras is still the GOAT just because his numbers. Whether
> >>> he dominated his own hypotetical clown era (martins, piolines and co)
> >>> or whether he had his bitches is irrelevant. Sampras' numbers put him
> >>> GOAT. Fed is close but not yet there. All else is hypotetical
> >>> (whether peak Fed/Nadal is better than Sampras or not)
>
> >>> .mikko
>
> >> Not so fast. =A0Rafa's superiortiy over Fed in slam finals on all
> >> surfaces is not hypothetical.
>
> > Neither was Hewitt's over Sampras.
>
> 1-1 in slams, 3 sets all - all on HC. =A0 Hewitt's superiority over
> Sampras in slams is 100% hypothetical.

Nadal is 1-2 with Federer in grass court slam meetings ( 6-8 in sets),
yet you have no problem claiming that Nadal has superiority over
Federer on grass.


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:44:42
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 8:36=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> I don't go along with that. =A0Rafa adapts to what's going on in the
> match. =A0If Fed served a few more aces he'd just knuckle down & play
> tougher in other points.
>
> That's why it always appears Fed has a chance if he just served a few
> more aces - it's an illusion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You could be right, but if Fed were capable of just dialing up a few
more aces when he needed them, then
he'd have a Sampras serve, no?


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:59:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:36 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I don't go along with that. Rafa adapts to what's going on in the
>> match. If Fed served a few more aces he'd just knuckle down & play
>> tougher in other points.
>>
>> That's why it always appears Fed has a chance if he just served a few
>> more aces - it's an illusion.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You could be right, but if Fed were capable of just dialing up a few
> more aces when he needed them, then
> he'd have a Sampras serve, no?


Even if he did, he'd still let Rafa play in other points, & that's
generally a losing strategy v Rafa.


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:34:21
From: robin
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 14 Feb, 05:34, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> >> mark...if not separate tours?
>
> > What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered the
> > pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are no
> > reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
> > played.
>
> Yes, but he only won 5 open era slams, with 3 being on clay & 1 on grass.
>
> His fault? =A0Of course not, but it's not the same as Sampras winning 14
> in open era.

Laver was 30 when the open era started, hence that is not a reasonable
criticism. There were also no hard court slams in his era. You cannot
judge a player poorly for things which are nothing to do with tennis
abilities. In fact Laver's open era record, given his age, is further
evidence of his superiority.

Sampras's failure to win the French open was a failure in his tennis
playing. Federer's poor head to head against Nadal is a failure in his
tennis playing. Laver's failure to win more than 5 open era slams is a
failure of his date of birth.






  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:56:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
robin wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 05:34, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>>> On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
>>>> mark...if not separate tours?
>>> What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered the
>>> pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are no
>>> reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
>>> played.
>> Yes, but he only won 5 open era slams, with 3 being on clay & 1 on grass.
>>
>> His fault? Of course not, but it's not the same as Sampras winning 14
>> in open era.
>
> Laver was 30 when the open era started, hence that is not a reasonable
> criticism.


I'm not criticizing Laver, just reporting the facts.


> There were also no hard court slams in his era. You cannot
> judge a player poorly for things which are nothing to do with tennis
> abilities.


I don't judge him poorly, by the same token I don't give credit for what
he might have won.



>In fact Laver's open era record, given his age, is further
> evidence of his superiority.
>
> Sampras's failure to win the French open was a failure in his tennis
> playing. Federer's poor head to head against Nadal is a failure in his
> tennis playing. Laver's failure to win more than 5 open era slams is a
> failure of his date of birth.
>


We cannot go down the path of giving any player coulda/woulda. Imo
Rosewall comes out on top if we do that.


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:33:10
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:56:58 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>robin wrote:
>> On 14 Feb, 05:34, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> robin wrote:
>>>> On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>>> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
>>>>> mark...if not separate tours?
>>>> What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered the
>>>> pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are no
>>>> reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
>>>> played.
>>> Yes, but he only won 5 open era slams, with 3 being on clay & 1 on grass.
>>>
>>> His fault? Of course not, but it's not the same as Sampras winning 14
>>> in open era.
>>
>> Laver was 30 when the open era started, hence that is not a reasonable
>> criticism.
>
>
>I'm not criticizing Laver, just reporting the facts.


You wouldn't know a fact if it fucked you.


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 04:20:25
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 11:46=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 3:17=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8c60c3c3-db3f-4600-8e49-a738e92f7882@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competit=
ion
> > > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> > > age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> > > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > > But life's not like that.
>
> > > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> > > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > > These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> > > Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > > Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> > > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> > > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> > > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> > > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it i=
s
> > > a fact in tennis.
>
> > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> > something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
> > Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> > in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
> > think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
> > with such a lopsided result.
>
> > Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
> > on fast courts anyway.
>
> > Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras =
era,
> > his
> > greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is R=
after
> > won
> > 2 in USO. =A0Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras p=
eak.
> > Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fas=
t
> > court.
> > Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
> > Sampras
> > being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
> > Samrpas
> > otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass c=
ourt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>
> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
> that mean?
>
> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>
> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
> other tune-ups is highly relevant?
>
> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>
> To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
> controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
> player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
> especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
> on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
> and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
> incredibly tenacious. If Fed could just hit 7-10 more aces/service
> winners per match, he'd probably never lose to Rafa on a fast court.- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

excellent post.


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 03:47:42
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 5:48=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 4:51 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competitio=
n
> >>> and has been unable to beat his main rival.
> >> Emmo was better as he won multiple times at all 4 slams no?
>
> > Let's see: If Emerson's 12 slams (amateur era, CGS, heavy on AOs) are
> > superior to Federer's 13 slams (open era, no FO, heavy on W/USO), then
> > they are probably superior to Sampras' 14 slams (open era, no FO,
> > heavy on W/USO) as well. Or at least equal to Pete's, no? After all,
> > if Emmo beats 13, mustn't he be no lower than 14?
>
> > Of course, anyone with sense would agree that Emerson's achievements,
> > though worthy of respect, aren't directly comparable to either
> > Federer's or Sampras'. Nice, concise troll though.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Then I guess you would give Laver's '62 calendar slam short thrift too?

Yep - even Laver admitted the competition wasn't great in the
amateurs.

He beat Marty Mulligan in one of those slams finals that year - or was
it Martino Mulligano? LOL



 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 03:46:18
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 3:17=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> <jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c60c3c3-db3f-4600-8e49-a738e92f7882@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competitio=
n
> > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> > age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > But life's not like that.
>
> > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> > Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> > a fact in tennis.
>
> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
> think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
> with such a lopsided result.
>
> Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
> on fast courts anyway.
>
> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras er=
a,
> his
> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is Raf=
ter
> won
> 2 in USO. =A0Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras pea=
k.
> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fast
> court.
> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
> Sampras
> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
> Samrpas
> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass cou=
rt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here's where I don't get your logic:

A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
that mean?

Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
and 27) are rather meaningless?

Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
other tune-ups is highly relevant?

Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.

To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
incredibly tenacious. If Fed could just hit 7-10 more aces/service
winners per match, he'd probably never lose to Rafa on a fast court.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:06:06
From: john
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

<jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6fd66675-4435-4c66-99ad-8de83d3e9772@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 3:17 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> <jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c60c3c3-db3f-4600-8e49-a738e92f7882@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> > age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > But life's not like that.
>
> > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> > Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> > a fact in tennis.
>
> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
> think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
> with such a lopsided result.
>
> Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
> on fast courts anyway.
>


> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras
> era,
> his
> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is
> Rafter
> won
> 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras peak.
> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fast
> court.
> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
> Sampras
> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
> Samrpas
> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass
> court.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>Here's where I don't get your logic:

>A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
>that mean?

>Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
>and 27) are rather meaningless?

How many slam final did Becker reached between 92 to 96 exactly 2 and how
many slam did he win during the years between 1985 to 1991? I don't think
it would take rocket scientist to figured out Becker's best was gone after
that Wimbledon
91 final. Sure he fought hard in years after 91 but he was never the same
Becker
of the late 80s and early 90s. Becker between 85 - 91 reached 6 wimbledon
finals, 1 AO
and 1 USO final contrasting that with his result after 91. Jason to think
Becker was a consistant
slam contender in peak Sampras era is bordering ignorance because he simply
was not.


>Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
>other tune-ups is highly relevant?

Hewitt beat Sampras even when Sampras was a multiple defending champ in
Wimbledon proove the guy had a game to trouble Sampras. You don't win
4 out of 5 matches without an effective game against Sampras. Hewitt
certainly had
an effective game against Sampras.


>Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
>up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.

Note Becker certainly was not a wash up in 96 but he was not at his peak...


>To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
>controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
>player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
>especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
>on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
>and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
>incredibly tenacious. If Fed could just hit 7-10 more aces/service
>winners per match, he'd probably never lose to Rafa on a fast court.

Sampras game was effective in his era but one thing you have failed to
realize is
that the returning game in today's game is much bigger than it was in
Sampras
era. I don't think you realize why Hewitt's game was very effective against
Sampras,
and it certainly was not because Sampras was not serving big against him but
more
because of how Hewitt actually return the serve and pass him repeatedly.




   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 17:37:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
john wrote:
> <jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>
>> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
>> that mean?
>
>> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
>> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>
> How many slam final did Becker reached between 92 to 96 exactly 2 and how
> many slam did he win during the years between 1985 to 1991? I don't think
> it would take rocket scientist to figured out Becker's best was gone after
> that Wimbledon
> 91 final. Sure he fought hard in years after 91 but he was never the same
> Becker
> of the late 80s and early 90s. Becker between 85 - 91 reached 6 wimbledon
> finals, 1 AO
> and 1 USO final contrasting that with his result after 91. Jason to think
> Becker was a consistant
> slam contender in peak Sampras era is bordering ignorance because he simply
> was not.


It's pretty clear Becker would have won 6 Wimbledons if Sampras didn't
stop him. You seem too dumb to realize Becker was never a consistent
slam contender outside Wimbledon even in 1985-1990 - ie he only ever
made 1 slam final outside Wimbledon in that period, & that was '89 USO
when he was lucky to save MP's in 3rd rd v Rostagno. This proves he was
no worse up to '96 as he also woulda won 3 more Wimbledons if not for
Sampras.


>
>
>> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
>> other tune-ups is highly relevant?
>
> Hewitt beat Sampras even when Sampras was a multiple defending champ in
> Wimbledon proove the guy had a game to trouble Sampras.

They are 1-1 in slams, trading straight set wins at USO. All this
actually boosts Sampras' goat credentials - amazing he could give Hewitt
10 yrs & still be even at that age.


> You don't win
> 4 out of 5 matches without an effective game against Sampras. Hewitt
> certainly had
> an effective game against Sampras.



Incorrect. Hewitt was a mere transitional champ who took advantage of
post-Sampras/pre-Fed era. The fact Hewitt is 1-1 with Sampras in slams
proves Sampras was far superior given Hewitt was at peak & had 10 yr
advantage.


>
>
>> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
>> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>
> Note Becker certainly was not a wash up in 96 but he was not at his peak...
>



Most experts agree Becker peaked in '96. Given the way he pushed
Sampras in several big matches backs that up.


>
> Sampras game was effective in his era but one thing you have failed to
> realize is
> that the returning game in today's game is much bigger than it was in
> Sampras
> era.


Not even close. Agassi at 36 was still the best returner in the game,
thus proving 90's were far tougher.


> I don't think you realize why Hewitt's game was very effective against
> Sampras,
> and it certainly was not because Sampras was not serving big against him but
> more
> because of how Hewitt actually return the serve and pass him repeatedly.
>
>


You're pretty dumb. The few wins Hewitt had in tune-ups were like 3rd
set t/b's, & the only blow out was when he was fatigued in 2001 USO
final. You are the only person I've ever heard suggest Hewitt was even
remotely close to Sampras' level. Given that, I have no option but to
dismiss everything you say about it. Find me just 1 expert who agrees
with you (shouldn't be hard on Google) & I'll listen.



    
Date: 15 Feb 2009 19:14:31
From: john
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4997b819$0$623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> <jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>>
>>> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
>>> that mean?
>>
>>> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
>>> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>>
>> How many slam final did Becker reached between 92 to 96 exactly 2 and how
>> many slam did he win during the years between 1985 to 1991? I don't
>> think
>> it would take rocket scientist to figured out Becker's best was gone
>> after that Wimbledon
>> 91 final. Sure he fought hard in years after 91 but he was never the
>> same Becker
>> of the late 80s and early 90s. Becker between 85 - 91 reached 6
>> wimbledon finals, 1 AO
>> and 1 USO final contrasting that with his result after 91. Jason to
>> think Becker was a consistant
>> slam contender in peak Sampras era is bordering ignorance because he
>> simply was not.
>
>
> It's pretty clear Becker would have won 6 Wimbledons if Sampras didn't
> stop him. You seem too dumb to realize Becker was never a consistent slam
> contender outside Wimbledon even in 1985-1990 - ie he only ever made 1
> slam final outside Wimbledon in that period, & that was '89 USO when he
> was lucky to save MP's in 3rd rd v Rostagno. This proves he was no worse
> up to '96 as he also woulda won 3 more Wimbledons if not for Sampras.

Rubbish, where did Becker get those 3 extra Wimbledons? Your analysis is
based on woulda and coulda, the fact remain Becker reached 2 slam finals
between
his last slam win and his victory in 91 AO. Compare that to his peak
performance
in late 90s that is a big difference. Poor analyst like yourself can not
analyze fact
but can only analyze base on coulda and woulda and that have been your
trademark
for years.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
>>> other tune-ups is highly relevant?
>>
>> Hewitt beat Sampras even when Sampras was a multiple defending champ in
>> Wimbledon proove the guy had a game to trouble Sampras.
>
> They are 1-1 in slams, trading straight set wins at USO. All this
> actually boosts Sampras' goat credentials - amazing he could give Hewitt
> 10 yrs & still be even at that age.

If we take you coulda and woulda analytical skills had Hewitt won 2 more tie
breaks
in his match with Sampras he would easily lead their h2h by a 7:2 margin.

>
>
>> You don't win
>> 4 out of 5 matches without an effective game against Sampras. Hewitt
>> certainly had
>> an effective game against Sampras.
>
>
>
> Incorrect. Hewitt was a mere transitional champ who took advantage of
> post-Sampras/pre-Fed era. The fact Hewitt is 1-1 with Sampras in slams
> proves Sampras was far superior given Hewitt was at peak & had 10 yr
> advantage.

Incorrect, the fact is Hewitt had a return game and passing game to troulbe
Sampras, he would not have won their matches if he has not got an effective
tools to difuse Samrpas' serve, he was a transitional champ but one had an
effective game plan to play Samrpas' type of serve and volley player and
this
is backed up by his record not only against Sampras but other sver like
Rafter
and Henman.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
>>> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>>
>> Note Becker certainly was not a wash up in 96 but he was not at his
>> peak...
>>
>
>
>
> Most experts agree Becker peaked in '96. Given the way he pushed Sampras
> in several big matches backs that up.


Links please, you don't count as an expert.
>
>
>>
>> Sampras game was effective in his era but one thing you have failed to
>> realize is
>> that the returning game in today's game is much bigger than it was in
>> Sampras
>> era.
>
>
> Not even close. Agassi at 36 was still the best returner in the game,
> thus proving 90's were far tougher.

How come the best returner in the game lost the last 3 matches against
Sampras and
a transitional champ like Hewitt won 4 out of his 5 matches against Sampras
? That
seems to proove that current player if you count hewitt as current corp put
more effort
in their returning games.

>
>
>> I don't think you realize why Hewitt's game was very effective against
>> Sampras,
>> and it certainly was not because Sampras was not serving big against him
>> but more
>> because of how Hewitt actually return the serve and pass him repeatedly.
>
>
> You're pretty dumb. The few wins Hewitt had in tune-ups were like 3rd set
> t/b's, & the only blow out was when he was fatigued in 2001 USO final.
> You are the only person I've ever heard suggest Hewitt was even remotely
> close to Sampras' level. Given that, I have no option but to dismiss
> everything you say about it. Find me just 1 expert who agrees with you
> (shouldn't be hard on Google) & I'll listen.

Pretty stupid for a person like you with IQ 59 telling other people dumb.
It is a fact that
someone with a softcock game like Hewitt's beat Sampras repeatedly,
something like 4 out
of last 5 times and if Hewitt had some luck it would have been 7:2 in his
favour. If Sampras was
not having a problem with returning game the result would have been other
way around. Was
Hewitt ever near Samrpas level in term of greatness and the answer is no but
the guy had a game
to trouble sampras is a fact you like to ignore. Base on your history of
analyzing on coulda
and woulda rather than real fact your opinion is dismissed.
>




     
Date: 15 Feb 2009 19:53:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> It's pretty clear Becker would have won 6 Wimbledons if Sampras didn't
>> stop him. You seem too dumb to realize Becker was never a consistent slam
>> contender outside Wimbledon even in 1985-1990 - ie he only ever made 1
>> slam final outside Wimbledon in that period, & that was '89 USO when he
>> was lucky to save MP's in 3rd rd v Rostagno. This proves he was no worse
>> up to '96 as he also woulda won 3 more Wimbledons if not for Sampras.
>
> Rubbish, where did Becker get those 3 extra Wimbledons? Your analysis is
> based on woulda and coulda, the fact remain Becker reached 2 slam finals
> between
> his last slam win and his victory in 91 AO.



Yes, because of Sampras. Woulda been the same deal for Becker in 80's
if Sampras was around. You'll remember Becker admitted if he played his
best ever tennis he'd still lose to Sampras. I suspect he has better
insight into this issue than you.



> Compare that to his peak
> performance
> in late 90s that is a big difference. Poor analyst like yourself can not
> analyze fact
> but can only analyze base on coulda and woulda and that have been your
> trademark
> for years.


What difference? He saved MP's v Rostagno at USO & Lendl had him on the
ropes in Wimbledon semis 2 sets to 1 before rain came. A couple more
points & Becker wouldn't have even made '89 Wim/USO finals let alone win
them.

>>
>> Incorrect. Hewitt was a mere transitional champ who took advantage of
>> post-Sampras/pre-Fed era. The fact Hewitt is 1-1 with Sampras in slams
>> proves Sampras was far superior given Hewitt was at peak & had 10 yr
>> advantage.
>
> Incorrect, the fact is Hewitt had a return game and passing game to troulbe
> Sampras, he would not have won their matches if he has not got an effective
> tools to difuse Samrpas' serve, he was a transitional champ but one had an
> effective game plan to play Samrpas' type of serve and volley player and
> this
> is backed up by his record not only against Sampras but other sver like
> Rafter
> and Henman.


Then I guess Hewitt also had the perfect game to diffuse Fed given he
led 7-2 in their rivalry? Fed only caught up because Hewitt was clearly
past his peak, eg same as Becker post '91 if we use your same logic.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:36:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 3:17 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras era,
>> his
>> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is Rafter
>> won
>> 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras peak.
>> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fast
>> court.
>> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
>> Sampras
>> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
>> Samrpas
>> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass court.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>
> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
> that mean?
>
> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>
> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
> other tune-ups is highly relevant?


Yes, though I'm not sure John is trolling - he genuinely appears to be
that dumb. Unusual, as most Asians I know are pretty smart.



>
> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>
> To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
> controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
> player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
> especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
> on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
> and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
> incredibly tenacious.


Exactly, & peak Agassi was deadly against guys who 'let him play' -
that's why I think Agassi would beat Fed on HC's quite comfortably.


> If Fed could just hit 7-10 more aces/service
> winners per match, he'd probably never lose to Rafa on a fast court.


I don't go along with that. Rafa adapts to what's going on in the
match. If Fed served a few more aces he'd just knuckle down & play
tougher in other points.

That's why it always appears Fed has a chance if he just served a few
more aces - it's an illusion.


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:16:01
From: john
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4996c8dc$0$23957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 3:17 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras
>>> era,
>>> his
>>> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is
>>> Rafter
>>> won
>>> 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras
>>> peak.
>>> Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fast
>>> court.
>>> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
>>> Sampras
>>> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
>>> Samrpas
>>> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass
>>> court.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>>
>> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
>> that mean?
>>
>> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
>> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>>
>> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
>> other tune-ups is highly relevant?
>
>
> Yes, though I'm not sure John is trolling - he genuinely appears to be
> that dumb. Unusual, as most Asians I know are pretty smart.

With your IQ at 59 I don't see how you can judge other people as dumb,
certainly you are not qualified because your own intelligence is below
normal.

>
>
>
>>
>> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
>> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>>
>> To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
>> controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
>> player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
>> especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
>> on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
>> and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
>> incredibly tenacious.
>
>
> Exactly, & peak Agassi was deadly against guys who 'let him play' - that's
> why I think Agassi would beat Fed on HC's quite comfortably.

Because you are dumb to think Federer will be just any other guys who
let Agassi play. Of course you are excuse for been as stupid as you are
with IQ of 59 and your only contribution to RST are the bullshit 7543 and
Roddick on steroid.

>
>
>> If Fed could just hit 7-10 more aces/service
>> winners per match, he'd probably never lose to Rafa on a fast court.
>
>
> I don't go along with that. Rafa adapts to what's going on in the match.
> If Fed served a few more aces he'd just knuckle down & play tougher in
> other points.
>
> That's why it always appears Fed has a chance if he just served a few more
> aces - it's an illusion.




   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 15:18:36
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in
news:4996c8dc$0$23957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 3:17 am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during
>>> Sampras era, his
>>> greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there
>>> is Rafter won
>>> 2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras
>>> peak. Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition
>>> on the fast court.
>>> Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart
>>> from Sampras
>>> being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to
>>> trouble Samrpas
>>> otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen
>>> grass court.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Here's where I don't get your logic:
>>
>> A guy like Becker is "fading fast" during Sampras' peak. So what does
>> that mean?
>>
>> Sampras' wins against him at 1993 Wimby and 1995 Wimby (Becker age 25
>> and 27) are rather meaningless?
>>
>> Yet Hewitt's win over Sampras at 2001 USO (Sampras age 30) and at
>> other tune-ups is highly relevant?
>
>
> Yes, though I'm not sure John is trolling - he genuinely appears to be
> that dumb. Unusual, as most Asians I know are pretty smart.
>
>
>
>>
>> Note that Becker won the 1996 AO, so in my view he was hardly washed
>> up. It's just that Sampras was better.That's all.
>>
>> To be fair, when we look at Sampras v. Fed, I don't think it's highly
>> controversial to say Fed is the more well-rounded, better all-surface
>> player. He's clearly better on clay. But Sampras' game was bigger,
>> especially the serve, and that just made it impossible for opponents
>> on fast courts. As great as Fed is, he "lets the other guy play" more
>> and that's what hurts him against a guy like Nadal, who is so
>> incredibly tenacious.
>
>
> Exactly, & peak Agassi was deadly against guys who 'let him play' -
> that's why I think Agassi would beat Fed on HC's quite comfortably.

Only if he suddenly started to hit heavy left-handed topspin.



 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 03:30:58
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 12:53=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:05=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal being =
GOAT
> > are nothing more than simple trolling.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
> Lendl are the greatest ever.

I agree. They are all dominating champions who were #1 for a long
time.

>=A0They are all-time great players who have
> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. =A0It
> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
> factors.
>
> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
> place in tennis history.

Yes 270 weeks as #1 when so many great players were playing, strong
claim there.



  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 12:36:00
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

"Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:25036fe2-2ea8-485e-b90a-1ccc99fae9e8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 12:53 am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal being
> > GOAT
> > are nothing more than simple trolling.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
> Lendl are the greatest ever.

I agree. They are all dominating champions who were #1 for a long
time.

> They are all-time great players who have
> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. It
> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
> factors.
>
> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
> place in tennis history.

>Yes 270 weeks as #1 when so many great players were playing, strong
>claim there.


No claim.

286 >270






   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 15:45:24
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in
news:gn6ab4$tb$1@ss408.t-com.hr:

>
> "Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:25036fe2-2ea8-485e-b90a-1ccc99fae9e8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Feb 14, 12:53 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> > Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal
>> > being GOAT
>> > are nothing more than simple trolling.
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
>> Lendl are the greatest ever.
>
> I agree. They are all dominating champions who were #1 for a long
> time.
>
>> They are all-time great players who have
>> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. It
>> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
>> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
>> factors.
>>
>> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
>> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
>> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
>> place in tennis history.
>
>>Yes 270 weeks as #1 when so many great players were playing, strong
>>claim there.
>
>
> No claim.
>
> 286>270

But the field was very weak in the last half of the 90s - no great champs
at peak at all really.


    
Date: 15 Feb 2009 04:46:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
One wrote:
> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in
> news:gn6ab4$tb$1@ss408.t-com.hr:
>
>> "Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:25036fe2-2ea8-485e-b90a-1ccc99fae9e8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
>> .. On Feb 14, 12:53 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal
>>>> being GOAT
>>>> are nothing more than simple trolling.
>>> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
>>> Lendl are the greatest ever.
>> I agree. They are all dominating champions who were #1 for a long
>> time.
>>
>>> They are all-time great players who have
>>> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. It
>>> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
>>> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
>>> factors.
>>>
>>> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
>>> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
>>> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
>>> place in tennis history.
>>> Yes 270 weeks as #1 when so many great players were playing, strong
>>> claim there.
>>
>> No claim.
>>
>> 286>270
>
> But the field was very weak in the last half of the 90s - no great champs
> at peak at all really.


No Pernfors/Mecir types...?


     
Date: 15 Feb 2009 11:58:51
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in
news:4997038f$0$23899$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> One wrote:
>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in
>> news:gn6ab4$tb$1@ss408.t-com.hr:
>>
>>> "Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:25036fe2-2ea8-485e-b90a-1ccc99fae9e8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.co
>>> m. .. On Feb 14, 12:53 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal
>>>>> being GOAT
>>>>> are nothing more than simple trolling.
>>>> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
>>>> Lendl are the greatest ever.
>>> I agree. They are all dominating champions who were #1 for a long
>>> time.
>>>
>>>> They are all-time great players who have
>>>> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras.
>>>> It certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players
>>>> on the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
>>>> factors.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
>>>> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
>>>> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
>>>> place in tennis history.
>>>> Yes 270 weeks as #1 when so many great players were playing, strong
>>>> claim there.
>>>
>>> No claim.
>>>
>>> 286>270
>>
>> But the field was very weak in the last half of the 90s - no great
>> champs at peak at all really.
>
>
> No Pernfors/Mecir types...?

joke?



     
Date: 15 Feb 2009 19:15:37
From: john
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4997038f$0$23899$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> One wrote:
>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in
>> news:gn6ab4$tb$1@ss408.t-com.hr:
>>> "Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:25036fe2-2ea8-485e-b90a-1ccc99fae9e8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
>>> .. On Feb 14, 12:53 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal
>>>>> being GOAT
>>>>> are nothing more than simple trolling.
>>>> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
>>>> Lendl are the greatest ever.
>>> I agree. They are all dominating champions who were #1 for a long
>>> time.
>>>
>>>> They are all-time great players who have
>>>> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. It
>>>> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
>>>> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
>>>> factors.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
>>>> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
>>>> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
>>>> place in tennis history.
>>>> Yes 270 weeks as #1 when so many great players were playing, strong
>>>> claim there.
>>>
>>> No claim.
>>>
>>> 286>270
>>
>> But the field was very weak in the last half of the 90s - no great champs
>> at peak at all really.
>
>
> No Pernfors/Mecir types...?

plenty of martin and pioline type surfacing around that time...




 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 22:53:03
From: drew
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 12:05=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal being GO=
AT
> are nothing more than simple trolling.

I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
Lendl are the greatest ever. They are all-time great players who have
great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. It
certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
factors.

In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
place in tennis history.




  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:02:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
drew wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal being GOAT
>> are nothing more than simple trolling.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
> Lendl are the greatest ever.


Wow - I shouldn't be surprised but after reading your recent posts it
fits with your knowledge level.


> They are all-time great players who have
> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras. It
> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
> factors.



Pray tell, what are these other significant factors? Must be something
I've missed in all these years of following the game.


>
> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.


He only dominated when the greats were out of action/not prime.


> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
> place in tennis history.
>
>


Yes - it's clear he was incapable of beating the best when they were
peak, but was professional enough to get some slams v lesser lights like
Pernfors, Mecir & Wilander. It's really not more complicated than that
& Lendl himself has confirmed this as his position.


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 08:38:10
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
drew wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal
>> being GOAT are nothing more than simple trolling.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with asserting that Borg or Federer or
> Lendl are the greatest ever. They are all-time great players who have
> great credentials and all dominated during their respective eras.

Dominated? Borg won only 2/4 slams, and was owned by his upcoming rival.
He never reigned significantly at the top of the rankings either.
Lendl never won Wimbledon, was an epitome of a choker, and lesser player won
3 slams in a year in the middle of his's peak.
Federer, Nadal, no need to mention.

Sure, you could say Sampras' record isn't perfect either. It isn't.
He has the numbers though, these guys don't.


I don't mind anyone saying eg Lendl was a better claycourt player than
Sampras. And three FO titles prove he's greater as well.
But let's have some sense here too.



>It
> certainly makes more sense to me than trying to separate players on
> the basis of majors won when there might be other significant
> factors.
>
> In the case of Lendl, he dominated during a golden age of tennis.
> That he had to pluck 8 major wins during a career that included so
> many all-time great players has to be a factor in determining his
> place in tennis history.


"golden age of tennis" is as sound as "clown era of tennis".

If he had been that good (GOAT) there wouldn't be too many multiple slam
winners during his era.





 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55
From: drew
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 14, 12:05=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> drew wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> >>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
> >>> debates.
>
> > Every man has his weakness. =A0Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
> > he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
> > game. =A0Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
> > impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>
> > There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
> > never made it to #1.
>
> > But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
> > bitch.
>
> >> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > There is no GOAT.
>
> > That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>
> This view is absurd.
> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't erase t=
he
> fact that he holds *most* records out there.

The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
greatness.

If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
the player with a record number of majors?

Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.

It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
distinction of having sold the most.

Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a positive
correlation. Great players tend to have great results but when you
scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to judge
greatness on the basis of stats.


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 23:58:24
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
drew wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't erase the
>> fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>
> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
> on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
> greatness.



Not really. The guy with the best quality mix of slams is the
'Achievement goat'. That is black & white, but not for dumb cunts like
yourself apparently.

It's not rocket science. 7 Wimbledons is clearly a better *achievement*
than 5 Wimbledons & so on.

>
> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
> the player with a record number of majors?


Depending on the mix it could make him 'Achievement goat'.


>
> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.


'Achievement goat' is in fact counting beans - a moron would prefer 3
Wimbledons over 5.

'Ability goat' is of course more subjective & very difficult to
determine - this I feel is what you're trying to say in your confused
fashion.


>
> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
> distinction of having sold the most.


Again it's ability v achievement.


>
> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a positive
> correlation. Great players tend to have great results but when you
> scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to judge
> greatness on the basis of stats.


What's folly is reading your unconvincing arguments. All you're
basically saying here is you haven't got a fucking clue who's goat & no
idea how to go about it. Here's a tip - fuck off & lurk until you
actually get some ideas & can make a good contribution to the ng.






  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 08:20:31
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
drew wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> drew wrote:
>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>> debates.
>>
>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
>>> he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
>>> game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
>>> impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>
>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
>>> never made it to #1.
>>
>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
>>> bitch.
>>
>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>>> There is no GOAT.
>>
>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>>
>> This view is absurd.
>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't
>> erase the fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>
> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
> on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
> greatness.

It is not true.
He owns slam record, Wimbledon all-time record, open era USO/YEC records,
year-end #1 record and weeks at #1 records.
That's most in post 1970-era.

pre-1970 greatest player is of course Laver. It can be debated who is
greatest of theese two.



> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
> the player with a record number of majors?

If that doesn't make him the greatest what could? Where do you achieve
greatness, in your mind?



> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.

Federer would be, of course, greater than Nadal and Nadal would be better
than Federer.
Difficult concept?
Or you're suggesting that Safin isn't greater player than Santoro becase he
has a losing h2h record against him?
And the difference between them is *only* 2 slams?

Overall, your hypothetical scenaio would tarnish Federer's claim to be the
greatest ever, but with 13 slams only he'd be out of the discussion anyway
so it wouldn't matter.



> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
> distinction of having sold the most.

No it isn't. Players win slams by themselves, fans buy tickets.


> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a positive
> correlation. Great players tend to have great results but when you
> scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to judge
> greatness on the basis of stats.

Yes, completely wrong to do that, then just tell the world how it's done?




  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 07:14:52
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com >
wrote:

>On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> drew wrote:
>> > On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> >>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>> >>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>> >>> debates.
>>
>> > Every man has his weakness.  Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
>> > he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
>> > game.  Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
>> > impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>
>> > There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
>> > never made it to #1.
>>
>> > But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
>> > bitch.
>>
>> >> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>
>> > Wrong.
>>
>> > There is no GOAT.
>>
>> > That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>>
>> This view is absurd.
>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't erase the
>> fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>
>The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
>on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
>greatness.
>
>If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
>the player with a record number of majors?
>
>Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>
>It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>distinction of having sold the most.
>
>Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a positive
>correlation. Great players tend to have great results but when you
>scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to judge
>greatness on the basis of stats.


very very well said.

this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.

11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:03:18
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Superdave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> drew wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>>> debates.
>>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
>>>> he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
>>>> game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
>>>> impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
>>>> never made it to #1.
>>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
>>>> bitch.
>>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>>> Wrong.
>>>> There is no GOAT.
>>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>>> This view is absurd.
>>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't erase the
>>> fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
>> on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
>> greatness.
>>
>> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
>> the player with a record number of majors?
>>
>> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>>
>> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>> distinction of having sold the most.
>>
>> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a positive
>> correlation. Great players tend to have great results but when you
>> scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to judge
>> greatness on the basis of stats.
>
>
> very very well said.
>
> this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.
>
> 11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !



It wouldn't matter if Borg won 11/11 - he's still inferior to Sampras in
every category bar clay.



    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:28:26
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:03:18 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>>>> debates.
>>>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
>>>>> he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
>>>>> game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
>>>>> impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
>>>>> never made it to #1.
>>>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
>>>>> bitch.
>>>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> There is no GOAT.
>>>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>>>> This view is absurd.
>>>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't erase the
>>>> fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>>> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>>> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
>>> on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
>>> greatness.
>>>
>>> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>>> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
>>> the player with a record number of majors?
>>>
>>> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>>> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>>> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>>> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>>>
>>> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>>> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>>> distinction of having sold the most.
>>>
>>> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a positive
>>> correlation. Great players tend to have great results but when you
>>> scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to judge
>>> greatness on the basis of stats.
>>
>>
>> very very well said.
>>
>> this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.
>>
>> 11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !
>
>
>
>It wouldn't matter if Borg won 11/11 - he's still inferior to Sampras in
>every category bar clay.

He's way ahead in NOT losing and way way ahead in not losing to
clowns.


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 08:40:38
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Superdave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> drew wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>>> debates.
>>>
>>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
>>>> he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
>>>> game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
>>>> impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>>
>>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody
>>>> and never made it to #1.
>>>
>>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning
>>>> a bitch.
>>>
>>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> There is no GOAT.
>>>
>>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>>>
>>> This view is absurd.
>>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't
>>> erase the fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>>
>> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
>> on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
>> greatness.
>>
>> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
>> the player with a record number of majors?
>>
>> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>>
>> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>> distinction of having sold the most.
>>
>> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a
>> positive correlation. Great players tend to have great results but
>> when you scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to
>> judge greatness on the basis of stats.
>
>
> very very well said.
>
> this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.
>
> 11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !


What if Federer wins his 15th in his 60th slam?

He wouldn't surpass Sampras with it?


Troll




    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 09:41:06
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:40:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>>>> debates.
>>>>
>>>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
>>>>> he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
>>>>> game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
>>>>> impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody
>>>>> and never made it to #1.
>>>>
>>>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning
>>>>> a bitch.
>>>>
>>>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> There is no GOAT.
>>>>
>>>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.
>>>>
>>>> This view is absurd.
>>>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't
>>>> erase the fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>>>
>>> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>>> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all time
>>> on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view of
>>> greatness.
>>>
>>> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>>> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or just
>>> the player with a record number of majors?
>>>
>>> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>>> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>>> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>>> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>>>
>>> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>>> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>>> distinction of having sold the most.
>>>
>>> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a
>>> positive correlation. Great players tend to have great results but
>>> when you scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting to
>>> judge greatness on the basis of stats.
>>
>>
>> very very well said.
>>
>> this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.
>>
>> 11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !
>
>
>What if Federer wins his 15th in his 60th slam?
>
>He wouldn't surpass Sampras with it?
>
>
>Troll
>


He would have the record for the most slams BUT he would not
necessarily be the greater player.


     
Date: 14 Feb 2009 10:50:40
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Superdave wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:40:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Superdave wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew
>>> <drew@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>>>>> debates.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch
>>>>>> when he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete
>>>>>> Sampras' game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point
>>>>>> where he was impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody
>>>>>> and never made it to #1.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without
>>>>>> owning a bitch.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no GOAT.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for
>>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>> This view is absurd.
>>>>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't
>>>>> erase the fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>>>>
>>>> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>>>> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all
>>>> time on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view
>>>> of greatness.
>>>>
>>>> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>>>> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or
>>>> just the player with a record number of majors?
>>>>
>>>> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>>>> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>>>> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>>>> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>>>>
>>>> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>>>> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>>>> distinction of having sold the most.
>>>>
>>>> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a
>>>> positive correlation. Great players tend to have great results but
>>>> when you scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting
>>>> to judge greatness on the basis of stats.
>>>
>>>
>>> very very well said.
>>>
>>> this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.
>>>
>>> 11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !
>>
>>
>> What if Federer wins his 15th in his 60th slam?
>>
>> He wouldn't surpass Sampras with it?
>>
>>
>> Troll
>>
>
>
> He would have the record for the most slams BUT he would not
> necessarily be the greater player.


Then he should quit like Borg, now while his PERCENTAGES are still high.

It will only get worse from now on.




      
Date: 14 Feb 2009 11:07:34
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:50:40 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:40:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> Superdave wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:45:55 -0800 (PST), drew
>>>> <drew@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 14, 12:05 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>>>>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>>>>>>> debates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch
>>>>>>> when he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete
>>>>>>> Sampras' game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point
>>>>>>> where he was impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody
>>>>>>> and never made it to #1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without
>>>>>>> owning a bitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no GOAT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This view is absurd.
>>>>>> The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't
>>>>>> erase the fact that he holds *most* records out there.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only important stat that he owns is a significant one; major
>>>>> titles. If you are so sure about labelling the greatest of all
>>>>> time on the basis of this record then you have a very narrow view
>>>>> of greatness.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Federer completes his career with 16 majors and establishes a
>>>>> record for majors does that make him the greatest player ever or
>>>>> just the player with a record number of majors?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here he is at 27 with 13 majors getting whacked consistently by
>>>>> Nadal. Now Nadal might end up with 11 major titles. Who was the
>>>>> greater player? Nadal or Federer? I don't know but it should be
>>>>> clear that the answer isn't as obvious as counting beans.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like saying Celine Dion is the greatest singer of all time
>>>>> because she's sold the most records or Madonna or whoever has the
>>>>> distinction of having sold the most.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most successful is not the same as greatest ever. There is a
>>>>> positive correlation. Great players tend to have great results but
>>>>> when you scratch the surface you see the folly of even attempting
>>>>> to judge greatness on the basis of stats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> very very well said.
>>>>
>>>> this is why we all know that Bjorn Borg is the real goat.
>>>>
>>>> 11/27 beats the shit out of 14/52 !
>>>
>>>
>>> What if Federer wins his 15th in his 60th slam?
>>>
>>> He wouldn't surpass Sampras with it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Troll
>>>
>>
>>
>> He would have the record for the most slams BUT he would not
>> necessarily be the greater player.
>
>
>Then he should quit like Borg, now while his PERCENTAGES are still high.
>
>It will only get worse from now on.
>

That is not a given. In fact, I think his best years are still to
come. Look at Agassi.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 20:24:38
From: drew
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 1:25=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> > something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.

Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
impotent without short points and fast surfaces.

There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
never made it to #1.


But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
bitch.

>
> This is why Pete is the GOAT.

Wrong.

There is no GOAT.

That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 06:05:11
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
drew wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:25 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>> debates.
>
> Every man has his weakness. Pete Sampras was everybody's bitch when
> he played on clay and that is the big criticism of Pete Sampras'
> game. Too much reliance upon the serve to the point where he was
> impotent without short points and fast surfaces.
>
> There are plenty of players out there who were bitches to nobody and
> never made it to #1.
>
>
> But there aren't too many who made it to number one without owning a
> bitch.
>
>>
>> This is why Pete is the GOAT.
>
> Wrong.
>
> There is no GOAT.
>
> That simple truth will never stop simple men from looking for one.


This view is absurd.
The fact that Sampras doesn't hold every record out there doesn't erase the
fact that he holds *most* records out there. And that makes him present-day
goat.

If some would like to argue about Laver being goat, that's plausible and
always interesting and worth discussing. For obvious reasons of course.


Posts about Borg, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal being GOAT
are nothing more than simple trolling.





 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 15:28:57
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 13 Feb, 18:22, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:37=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competitio=
n
> > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0Five year=
s
> > age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and Nadal woul=
d
> > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > But life's not like that.
>
> > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had an up and
> > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampras. =A0Where i=
s
> > Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
>
> > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If you're
> > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =A0In
> > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. =A0He
> > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> > a fact in tennis.
>
> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
> think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
> with such a lopsided result.
>
> Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
> on fast courts anyway.

Sampras was clays bitch


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:33:30
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 5:21=A0pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 14 helmi, 00:05, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:15 pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 helmi, 21:34, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor comp=
etition
> > > > > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > > > > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0Fiv=
e years
> > > > > age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and Nada=
l would
> > > > > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we m=
ay
> > > > > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > > > > But life's not like that.
>
> > > > > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in =
his
> > > > > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had an =
up and
> > > > > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Feder=
er.
> > > > > These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampras. =A0W=
here is
> > > > > Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > > > > Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
>
> > > > > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If you=
're
> > > > > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebo=
dy
> > > > > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > > > > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > > > > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > > > > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > > > > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > > > > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =
=A0In
> > > > > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. =
=A0He
> > > > > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major=
.
>
> > > > > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but =
it is
> > > > > a fact in tennis.
>
> > > > I would add that you can't be another great player's bitch
>
> > > Is there a GOAT condending player who has been perfect in every sense=
?
>
> > > Tilden was stopped by French armada.
>
> > > Budge was great but was 50/50 against not-peak Vines.
>
> > > Kramer? He has a case but no numbers.
>
> > > Gonzales? He has a case and (relative pro circuit) numbers.
>
> > > Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> > > mark...if not separate tours?
>
> > > Borg? He could have had the absolute numbers but chose not to have
> > > after losing some key matches to Mac.
>
> > > Sampras? He has the best case and is GOAT in my books but his records
> > > are may be the most vulnerable to exploit.
>
> > > Fed? Tier1 for sure....just imagine what records he would have if no
> > > Nadal....(but this applies relatively to every great)
>
> > > .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sure, every great seems to have a mark against, but Fed's little
> > conundrum stikes me as particularly bad. =A0It's not just that the kid
> > is spanking him everywhere including Wimbledon(!), but that Fed's game
> > has regressed both in style and effectiveness as Nadal has gotten
> > better, modified and added more tools. I don't know if it is lack of
> > balls or if Fed is hung up on asthetics of baseline ballet, but he has
> > played like an idiot for years now.
>
> Eh...if not Nadal...?
>
> Fed won USO and has been in every last four slam final....he must
> still do smt. right, right? Of last 5 slams:
>
> AO 2008 : smt was obv. wrong, no footwork, struggling early rounds.
> lost to Djoko at SF
> FO 2008 : miserable final loss to Nadal, no excuse.
> Wim 2008: Great event by Fed but lost narrowly to great (and better)
> player - scoreline flatters Fed.
> USO 2007: Won.
> AO 2009: =A0Lost final but arguably should have won.
>
> Above record is still a great complete record....and you start
> wonder...if no Nadal....(especially when Wimb 2008/AO 2009 where
> eventually very close)
>
> .mikko
>
> In fact Fed 2008 was a great year...but he himself created a monster
> as both Fed/Sampras said.
>
> .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think we can say "if not Nadal". Nadal exists for a good
reason--to provide Fed with a challenge that none of these other guys
can offer. God even gave him the tools to deal with Nadal on the
faster surfaces, but Fed has not used them properly. I should have
said Fed played like an idiot vs. Nadal last few years. I concede
that Fed has handled the rest rather easily and has had great success,
but this is all anyone is thinking about now, the situation with
Nadal. And that is going to stick. Fed almost got waxed at
Wimbledon--this could be even worse than it is for him.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:21:15
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 14 helmi, 00:05, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:15 pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 helmi, 21:34, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > > > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > > > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> > > > age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> > > > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > > > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > > > But life's not like that.
>
> > > > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > > > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> > > > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > > > These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> > > > Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > > > Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> > > > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> > > > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > > > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > > > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > > > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > > > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > > > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > > > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> > > > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> > > > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > > > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> > > > a fact in tennis.
>
> > > I would add that you can't be another great player's bitch
>
> > Is there a GOAT condending player who has been perfect in every sense?
>
> > Tilden was stopped by French armada.
>
> > Budge was great but was 50/50 against not-peak Vines.
>
> > Kramer? He has a case but no numbers.
>
> > Gonzales? He has a case and (relative pro circuit) numbers.
>
> > Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> > mark...if not separate tours?
>
> > Borg? He could have had the absolute numbers but chose not to have
> > after losing some key matches to Mac.
>
> > Sampras? He has the best case and is GOAT in my books but his records
> > are may be the most vulnerable to exploit.
>
> > Fed? Tier1 for sure....just imagine what records he would have if no
> > Nadal....(but this applies relatively to every great)
>
> > .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure, every great seems to have a mark against, but Fed's little
> conundrum stikes me as particularly bad. It's not just that the kid
> is spanking him everywhere including Wimbledon(!), but that Fed's game
> has regressed both in style and effectiveness as Nadal has gotten
> better, modified and added more tools. I don't know if it is lack of
> balls or if Fed is hung up on asthetics of baseline ballet, but he has
> played like an idiot for years now.

Eh...if not Nadal...?

Fed won USO and has been in every last four slam final....he must
still do smt. right, right? Of last 5 slams:

AO 2008 : smt was obv. wrong, no footwork, struggling early rounds.
lost to Djoko at SF
FO 2008 : miserable final loss to Nadal, no excuse.
Wim 2008: Great event by Fed but lost narrowly to great (and better)
player - scoreline flatters Fed.
USO 2007: Won.
AO 2009: Lost final but arguably should have won.

Above record is still a great complete record....and you start
wonder...if no Nadal....(especially when Wimb 2008/AO 2009 where
eventually very close)

.mikko

In fact Fed 2008 was a great year...but he himself created a monster
as both Fed/Sampras said.

.mikko


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:10:13
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 4:51=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> Emmo was better as he won multiple times at all 4 slams no?

Let's see: If Emerson's 12 slams (amateur era, CGS, heavy on AOs) are
superior to Federer's 13 slams (open era, no FO, heavy on W/USO), then
they are probably superior to Sampras' 14 slams (open era, no FO,
heavy on W/USO) as well. Or at least equal to Pete's, no? After all,
if Emmo beats 13, mustn't he be no lower than 14?

Of course, anyone with sense would agree that Emerson's achievements,
though worthy of respect, aren't directly comparable to either
Federer's or Sampras'. Nice, concise troll though.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 16:48:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:51 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
>>> and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>> Emmo was better as he won multiple times at all 4 slams no?
>
> Let's see: If Emerson's 12 slams (amateur era, CGS, heavy on AOs) are
> superior to Federer's 13 slams (open era, no FO, heavy on W/USO), then
> they are probably superior to Sampras' 14 slams (open era, no FO,
> heavy on W/USO) as well. Or at least equal to Pete's, no? After all,
> if Emmo beats 13, mustn't he be no lower than 14?
>
> Of course, anyone with sense would agree that Emerson's achievements,
> though worthy of respect, aren't directly comparable to either
> Federer's or Sampras'. Nice, concise troll though.
>
> Joe Ramirez


Then I guess you would give Laver's '62 calendar slam short thrift too?



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:05:08
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 4:15=A0pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 13 helmi, 21:34, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competit=
ion
> > > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0Five ye=
ars
> > > age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and Nadal wo=
uld
> > > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > > But life's not like that.
>
> > > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had an up a=
nd
> > > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > > These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampras. =A0Where=
is
> > > Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > > Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
>
> > > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If you're
> > > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =A0In
> > > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. =A0He
> > > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it i=
s
> > > a fact in tennis.
>
> > I would add that you can't be another great player's bitch
>
> Is there a GOAT condending player who has been perfect in every sense?
>
> Tilden was stopped by French armada.
>
> Budge was great but was 50/50 against not-peak Vines.
>
> Kramer? He has a case but no numbers.
>
> Gonzales? He has a case and (relative pro circuit) numbers.
>
> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> mark...if not separate tours?
>
> Borg? He could have had the absolute numbers but chose not to have
> after losing some key matches to Mac.
>
> Sampras? He has the best case and is GOAT in my books but his records
> are may be the most vulnerable to exploit.
>
> Fed? Tier1 for sure....just imagine what records he would have if no
> Nadal....(but this applies relatively to every great)
>
> .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sure, every great seems to have a mark against, but Fed's little
conundrum stikes me as particularly bad. It's not just that the kid
is spanking him everywhere including Wimbledon(!), but that Fed's game
has regressed both in style and effectiveness as Nadal has gotten
better, modified and added more tools. I don't know if it is lack of
balls or if Fed is hung up on asthetics of baseline ballet, but he has
played like an idiot for years now. It could simply be that Fed could
beat everyone else playing baseline rally tennis and just took the
easier way for him. I think the great champ always needs to keep his
sights on the biggest threat. Fed might even yield a couple more
slams doing it his way, but now he has this nadal cross to bear, and
it is heavy. Fed now needs Nadal to meet him in slam finals and he
must win a couple back or he is fucked in the goat dept even if he
ends with 15. I can't have a bitch-boy goat. Fed has one shortcut to
offsetting this liability--beat Nadal at FO.



 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 08:51:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Arancione@selin.com wrote:
> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>


Emmo was better as he won multiple times at all 4 slams no?



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:47:24
From: robin
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
>
> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
> mark...if not separate tours?
>

What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered the
pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are no
reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
played.



  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 16:34:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
robin wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 21:15, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
>> mark...if not separate tours?
>>
>
> What question mark? He won a CYGS pre open era. He then conquered the
> pro tour. Then, at 30 years old, he won an open era CYGS. There are no
> reasonable question marks for Laver. He succeeded whereever he
> played.
>


Yes, but he only won 5 open era slams, with 3 being on clay & 1 on grass.

His fault? Of course not, but it's not the same as Sampras winning 14
in open era.



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:15:35
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 13 helmi, 21:34, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> > age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > But life's not like that.
>
> > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> > Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> > a fact in tennis.
>
> I would add that you can't be another great player's bitch

Is there a GOAT condending player who has been perfect in every sense?

Tilden was stopped by French armada.

Budge was great but was 50/50 against not-peak Vines.

Kramer? He has a case but no numbers.

Gonzales? He has a case and (relative pro circuit) numbers.

Laver? He is the only one who has it all but still with a question
mark...if not separate tours?

Borg? He could have had the absolute numbers but chose not to have
after losing some key matches to Mac.

Sampras? He has the best case and is GOAT in my books but his records
are may be the most vulnerable to exploit.

Fed? Tier1 for sure....just imagine what records he would have if no
Nadal....(but this applies relatively to every great)

.mikko


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:08:25
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On 13 helmi, 20:22, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> > His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> > age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> > be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> > have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> > But life's not like that.
>
> > You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> > late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> > coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> > These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> > Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> > Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> > You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> > lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> > else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> > Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> > Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> > Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> > All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> > consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> > other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> > has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> > Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> > a fact in tennis.
>
> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
> in the semis of the USO.

To be fair Sampras beat young Hewitt in quite tight three set match.

And yes. Sampras is still the GOAT just because his numbers. Whether
he dominated his own hypotetical clown era (martins, piolines and co)
or whether he had his bitches is irrelevant. Sampras' numbers put him
GOAT. Fed is close but not yet there. All else is hypotetical (whether
peak Fed/Nadal is better than Sampras or not)

.mikko



  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 16:24:34
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
MBDunc wrote:
> On 13 helmi, 20:22, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
>>>> and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>>> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
>>> age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
>>> be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
>>> have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>>> But life's not like that.
>>> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
>>> late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
>>> coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
>>> These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
>>> Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>>> Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>>> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
>>> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
>>> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>>> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>>> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>>> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>>> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
>>> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
>>> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
>>> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>>> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
>>> a fact in tennis.
>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
>> Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
>> in the semis of the USO.
>
> To be fair Sampras beat young Hewitt in quite tight three set match.
>
> And yes. Sampras is still the GOAT just because his numbers. Whether
> he dominated his own hypotetical clown era (martins, piolines and co)
> or whether he had his bitches is irrelevant. Sampras' numbers put him
> GOAT. Fed is close but not yet there. All else is hypotetical (whether
> peak Fed/Nadal is better than Sampras or not)
>
> .mikko
>


Not so fast. Rafa's superiortiy over Fed in slam finals on all surfaces
is not hypothetical.


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 11:41:29
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in
news:49965597$0$23955$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> MBDunc wrote:
>> On 13 helmi, 20:22, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor
>>>>> competition and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>>>> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five
>>>> years age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and
>>>> Nadal would be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same
>>>> time, we may have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>>>> But life's not like that.
>>>> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in
>>>> his late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an
>>>> up and coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by
>>>> Federer. These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras.
>>>> Where is Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>>>> Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>>>> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
>>>> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
>>>> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>>>> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>>>> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>>>> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>>>> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
>>>> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
>>>> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
>>>> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>>>> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it
>>>> is a fact in tennis.
>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>> debates. Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he
>>> beat Hewitt in the semis of the USO.
>>
>> To be fair Sampras beat young Hewitt in quite tight three set match.
>>
>> And yes. Sampras is still the GOAT just because his numbers. Whether
>> he dominated his own hypotetical clown era (martins, piolines and co)
>> or whether he had his bitches is irrelevant. Sampras' numbers put him
>> GOAT. Fed is close but not yet there. All else is hypotetical
>> (whether peak Fed/Nadal is better than Sampras or not)
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
> Not so fast. Rafa's superiortiy over Fed in slam finals on all
> surfaces is not hypothetical.
>

Neither was Hewitt's over Sampras.


    
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:31:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
One wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
> news:49965597$0$23955$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 13 helmi, 20:22, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor
>>>>>> competition and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>>>>> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five
>>>>> years age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and
>>>>> Nadal would be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same
>>>>> time, we may have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>>>>> But life's not like that.
>>>>> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in
>>>>> his late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an
>>>>> up and coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by
>>>>> Federer. These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras.
>>>>> Where is Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>>>>> Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>>>>> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
>>>>> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
>>>>> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>>>>> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>>>>> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>>>>> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>>>>> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
>>>>> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
>>>>> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
>>>>> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>>>>> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it
>>>>> is a fact in tennis.
>>>> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
>>>> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat
>>>> debates. Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he
>>>> beat Hewitt in the semis of the USO.
>>> To be fair Sampras beat young Hewitt in quite tight three set match.
>>>
>>> And yes. Sampras is still the GOAT just because his numbers. Whether
>>> he dominated his own hypotetical clown era (martins, piolines and co)
>>> or whether he had his bitches is irrelevant. Sampras' numbers put him
>>> GOAT. Fed is close but not yet there. All else is hypotetical
>>> (whether peak Fed/Nadal is better than Sampras or not)
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>>
>>
>> Not so fast. Rafa's superiortiy over Fed in slam finals on all
>> surfaces is not hypothetical.
>>
>
> Neither was Hewitt's over Sampras.


1-1 in slams, 3 sets all - all on HC. Hewitt's superiority over
Sampras in slams is 100% hypothetical.



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 12:05:48
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 1:50=A0pm, One <O...@ebay.com > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote in news:cac098bd-a1cd-4651-9e28-2747cf4e4737
> @v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> Funny I never realised many of the top players were barred from the slams
> 2003 onwards. And guess you didn't see the 06 and 07 Wimbledon finals?

Rafa was a pup not in his peak yet.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 11:34:54
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 12:37=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0Five years
> age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and Nadal would
> be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> But life's not like that.
>
> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had an up and
> coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampras. =A0Where is
> Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
>
> Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
>
> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If you're
> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =A0In
> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. =A0He
> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> a fact in tennis.

I would add that you can't be another great player's bitch.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 18:50:32
From: One
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
Arancione@selin.com wrote in news:cac098bd-a1cd-4651-9e28-2747cf4e4737
@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> and has been unable to beat his main rival.

Funny I never realised many of the top players were barred from the slams
2003 onwards. And guess you didn't see the 06 and 07 Wimbledon finals?


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 10:25:30
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

>
> Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
> something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.


This is why Pete is the GOAT.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 10:23:21
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>



This is why Fed cant be GOAT.



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 10:22:00
From:
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 12:37=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. =A0Five years
> age difference makes a big difference. =A0Now if Federer and Nadal would
> be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> But life's not like that.
>
> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. =A0You had an up and
> coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> These guys have solid credentials. =A0Safin whacked Sampras. =A0Where is
> Safin now? =A0Where is Hewitt now?
>
> Don't look for the logic. =A0There isn't any.
>
> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. =A0If you're
> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. =A0In
> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. =A0He
> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> a fact in tennis.

Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
with such a lopsided result.

Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
on fast courts anyway.


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 19:17:24
From: john
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

<jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:8c60c3c3-db3f-4600-8e49-a738e92f7882@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 12:37 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
> age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
> be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
> have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.
>
> But life's not like that.
>
> You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
> late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
> coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
> These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
> Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?
>
> Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.
>
> You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
> lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
> else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.
>
> Sampras had his bitch Agassi.
>
> Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.
>
> Nadal has his bitch Federer.
>
> All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
> consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
> other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
> has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.
>
> Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
> a fact in tennis.

Notice though that Sampras wasn't a bitch for anyone and that's
something big that he has going for him in these endless goat debates.
Even in your example with Hewitt, when Sampras was 29 he beat Hewitt
in the semis of the USO. The USO final the next year was ugly, but I
think most would agree that Sampras being fatigued had a lot to do
with such a lopsided result.

Like Sampras so proudly says, "my game was too big to be dominated,"
on fast courts anyway.


Notice there weren't any other great fast court players during Sampras era,
his
greatest rival Agassi only won 3 fast court grand slams then there is Rafter
won
2 in USO. Becker and Edberg were fading really fast during Sampras peak.
Sampras benefited from an era when he had little competition on the fast
court.
Hewitt won the last 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras and apart from
Sampras
being fatigue Hewitt really had the return and passing game to trouble
Samrpas
otherwise he would not have beaten Sampras even on faster Queen grass court.




 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 09:37:43
From: drew
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 10:00 am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> and has been unable to beat his main rival.

His 'main rival' today was not his main rival 5 years ago. Five years
age difference makes a big difference. Now if Federer and Nadal would
be the same age, breaking onto the circuit at the same time, we may
have seen a different stat sheet for Federer.

But life's not like that.

You had young Hewitt whacking Sampras by the time Sampras was in his
late 20s and Federer whacking Hewitt in his prime. You had an up and
coming Roddick who is consistently top 5 getting whacked by Federer.
These guys have solid credentials. Safin whacked Sampras. Where is
Safin now? Where is Hewitt now?

Don't look for the logic. There isn't any.

You beat the guys you have to beat to win the big ones. If you're
lucky, the guys you have trouble with get taken care of by somebody
else before they cause you trouble deep into a draw.

Sampras had his bitch Agassi.

Federer had his bitches Hewitt and Roddick.

Nadal has his bitch Federer.

All great players but to really rack up the stats you've got to
consistently meet your bitch in the latter stages of the draw. In
other words, your bitch has to be your bitch and nobody else's. He
has to take out the guy who might whack you then gift you a major.

Now this might be a little complicated for the simple-minded but it is
a fact in tennis.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 07:55:14
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 10:02=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> <Aranci...@selin.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cac098bd-a1cd-4651-9e28-2747cf4e4737@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> > and has been unable to beat his main rival.
>
> Intriguing theory.

No, it's silly. Carving out a few years from the open era, when tennis
has been globalized and standardized like never before, and claiming
they are comparable to a time when there were two completely separate
circuits and known top players were barred from the slams, is
ridiculous.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 07:48:00
From: ca1houn
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson
On Feb 13, 7:00=A0am, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> and has been unable to beat his main rival.

You can only go against what being offer too you


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 16:02:30
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer is the new version of Emerson

<Arancione@selin.com > wrote in message
news:cac098bd-a1cd-4651-9e28-2747cf4e4737@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> May have the slam record but won most of them against poor competition
> and has been unable to beat his main rival.


Intriguing theory.