tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 25 Jan 2009 00:26:37
From: Fan
Subject: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
first two sets but not today...




 
Date: 28 Jan 2009 23:50:19
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 27 jan, 05:18, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:59=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Corretja?
>
> Corretja once beat Sampras on grass. Fluke happens...

Thanks for smashing whiskey's ass.

Anyway, since when has Corretja won the French?
Okay, went to final couple of times, so according to whiskey's logical
"almost won the title".

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:18:06
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 26, 9:59=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Corretja?

Corretja once beat Sampras on grass. Fluke happens...


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:24:50
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 26 jan, 22:09, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:53=A0pm, Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-01-26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. =A0He also e=
asily
> > > beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. =A0Reading imbecilic p=
osts
> > > on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality =
he
> > > won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> > Remind me, who did he play in the final?
>
> Hey, he may have played Becker in the final, but he deserved an easier
> opponent after slaying the clay greats Slava Dosedel and Andrea
> Gaudenzi in the previous two rounds ...

:-) !
Good one.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:23:40
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 26 jan, 15:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> <xami...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5b9fdafe-d83d-492d-95a7-56b5722fd5f1@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 jan, 08:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > xami...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On 25 jan, 13:18, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> wkhedr wrote:
> > >>>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match
> > >>>> as well.
> > >>> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play
> > >>> &
> > >>> let Berdych do his thing.
> > >> sort of like Sampras at the FO eh ?
>
> > > In fact, at the french it's what almost any other player did TO
> > > Sampras. :-)
> > > Not the opposite, yet, how fun it would have been to see Sampras
> > > trying to outbumroot any claycourter?!?
>
> > > Share & Enjoy,
> > > Manolo
>
> > It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
> > beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
> > on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
> > won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> > Still, facts will ultimately define their careers & not rst fanfucking.
>
> Fuck off.
> Sampras never beat 7 FO champ on clay: 7 players (out of the hundreds
> Sampras lost to on clay) turned out, at the end, to be FO winner. Not
> by the time they lost to Sampras...
> Worse: he beat them in tune up mostly.
>
> And again your endless Fed/Sampy match.
> I'd rather have a final like the one Fed lost to Rafa at Rome then any
> of what YOU call "bigger clay title than Federer".
> Anyone having decent knowledge about tennis would rather too.
>
> Had Sampras to face oversized composite racquet ?
> No.
> Chang's racquet was laught at in that era.
> Only Prince dared build such atrocity.
> Now every brand has such crap in its lineup.
> And Rafa's racquet head size is ??? Let me guess...
>
> ***
>
> Fed uses a bigger racquet than Sampras so your post is really shameless.

Do you really think you gave me big news?
Fed uses the smallest racquet of the pack, so your post is really...
Also Sampras is using Federer's racquet since they played exos (maybe
even before, don't know).
Federer started playing using Sampras racquet...
Even while Pete was playing his racquet evolved (in fact Sampras
racquet was a "split" from Edberg ProStaff, IIRC).
This is an endless debate.
The point remains that it requires more skills to play with smaller
heads, not the brand, by the way :-) !

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:09:13
From:
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 26, 8:53=A0pm, Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk >
wrote:
> On 2009-01-26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. =A0He also eas=
ily
> > beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. =A0Reading imbecilic pos=
ts
> > on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
> > won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> Remind me, who did he play in the final?

Hey, he may have played Becker in the final, but he deserved an easier
opponent after slaying the clay greats Slava Dosedel and Andrea
Gaudenzi in the previous two rounds ...



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:59:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:53 pm, Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk>
> wrote:
>> On 2009-01-26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
>>> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
>>> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
>>> won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>> Remind me, who did he play in the final?
>
> Hey, he may have played Becker in the final, but he deserved an easier
> opponent after slaying the clay greats Slava Dosedel and Andrea
> Gaudenzi in the previous two rounds ...
>


Corretja?



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 04:48:31
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 26 jan, 08:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> xami...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 25 jan, 13:18, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> wkhedr wrote:
> >>>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match =
as well.
> >>> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play=
&
> >>> let Berdych do his thing.
> >> sort of like Sampras at the FO eh ?
>
> > In fact, at the french it's what almost any other player did TO
> > Sampras. :-)
> > Not the opposite, yet, how fun it would have been to see Sampras
> > trying to outbumroot any claycourter?!?
>
> > Share & Enjoy,
> > Manolo
>
> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. =A0He also easil=
y
> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. =A0Reading imbecilic posts
> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
> won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> Still, facts will ultimately define their careers & not rst fanfucking.

Fuck off.
Sampras never beat 7 FO champ on clay: 7 players (out of the hundreds
Sampras lost to on clay) turned out, at the end, to be FO winner. Not
by the time they lost to Sampras...
Worse: he beat them in tune up mostly.

And again your endless Fed/Sampy match.
I'd rather have a final like the one Fed lost to Rafa at Rome then any
of what YOU call "bigger clay title than Federer".
Anyone having decent knowledge about tennis would rather too.

Had Sampras to face oversized composite racquet ?
No.
Chang's racquet was laught at in that era.
Only Prince dared build such atrocity.
Now every brand has such crap in its lineup.
And Rafa's racquet head size is ??? Let me guess...


Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 15:14:45
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different

<xamigax@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:5b9fdafe-d83d-492d-95a7-56b5722fd5f1@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On 26 jan, 08:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> xami...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 25 jan, 13:18, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> wkhedr wrote:
> >>>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match
> >>>> as well.
> >>> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play
> >>> &
> >>> let Berdych do his thing.
> >> sort of like Sampras at the FO eh ?
>
> > In fact, at the french it's what almost any other player did TO
> > Sampras. :-)
> > Not the opposite, yet, how fun it would have been to see Sampras
> > trying to outbumroot any claycourter?!?
>
> > Share & Enjoy,
> > Manolo
>
> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
> won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> Still, facts will ultimately define their careers & not rst fanfucking.

Fuck off.
Sampras never beat 7 FO champ on clay: 7 players (out of the hundreds
Sampras lost to on clay) turned out, at the end, to be FO winner. Not
by the time they lost to Sampras...
Worse: he beat them in tune up mostly.

And again your endless Fed/Sampy match.
I'd rather have a final like the one Fed lost to Rafa at Rome then any
of what YOU call "bigger clay title than Federer".
Anyone having decent knowledge about tennis would rather too.

Had Sampras to face oversized composite racquet ?
No.
Chang's racquet was laught at in that era.
Only Prince dared build such atrocity.
Now every brand has such crap in its lineup.
And Rafa's racquet head size is ??? Let me guess...

***


Fed uses a bigger racquet than Sampras so your post is really shameless.




 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:21:03
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 25 jan, 13:18, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >wkhedr wrote:
> >> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.
>
> >He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
> >let Berdych do his thing.
>
> sort of like Sampras at the FO eh ?

In fact, at the french it's what almost any other player did TO
Sampras. :-)
Not the opposite, yet, how fun it would have been to see Sampras
trying to outbumroot any claycourter?!?


Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:05:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
xamigax@gmail.com wrote:
> On 25 jan, 13:18, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wkhedr wrote:
>>>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.
>>> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
>>> let Berdych do his thing.
>> sort of like Sampras at the FO eh ?
>
> In fact, at the french it's what almost any other player did TO
> Sampras. :-)
> Not the opposite, yet, how fun it would have been to see Sampras
> trying to outbumroot any claycourter?!?
>
>
> Share & Enjoy,
> Manolo


It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
won a bigger clay title than Federer.

Still, facts will ultimately define their careers & not rst fanfucking.



   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:53:30
From: Jesper Lauridsen
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 2009-01-26, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
>
> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
> won a bigger clay title than Federer.

Remind me, who did he play in the final?


    
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:53:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:
> On 2009-01-26, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
>> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
>> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
>> won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> Remind me, who did he play in the final?


He beat a procession of quality claycourters on the way to the final.
If he couldn't do that he wouldn't have a chance to play for the title.



    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:12:46
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:53:30 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
<rorschak@sorrystofanet.dk > wrote:

>> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
>> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
>> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
>> won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
>Remind me, who did he play in the final?

Ummm, the other guy who earned his way to the final?

-- Larry


    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:10:31
From: TT
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:
> On 2009-01-26, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> It was fun watching Sampras beat 7 FO champions on clay. He also easily
>> beat Agassi last 2 times on clay in straights. Reading imbecilic posts
>> on rst you'd think the guy never won a game on clay, when in reality he
>> won a bigger clay title than Federer.
>
> Remind me, who did he play in the final?

Stepanek.

Or am I mixing this with Federer's last Rome campaign?


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:40:38
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 4:28=A0pm, Adam Thirnis <adam.thir...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:16=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:20=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>
> > > <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> > > >> first two sets but not today...
>
> > > >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
> > > >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
> > > >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>
> > > at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.
>
> > > he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.
>
> > At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All of
> > those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
> > of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.
>
> none of pete's conquerors were reigning rg champs and only courier had
> ever been an rg champ.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The point is it typically took great clay court players to beat both
Fed and Pete on their worst surface when they were at peak.

Guga and Rafa in Fed's case

Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov in Pete's case

I realize Fed, rightly so, will go down as the greater clay court
player. But I think that Guga loss is going to always stand out a bit.
Fed was No. 1 in the world and lost to a past-it clay-court great.
That raises doubts whether *only* Rafa could have prevented him from
winning the French.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:34:38
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 1:32=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:28=A0pm, Adam Thirnis <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:16=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 7:20=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>
> > > > <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning th=
e
> > > > >> first two sets but not today...
>
> > > > >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
> > > > >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
> > > > >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>
> > > > at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early o=
n.
>
> > > > he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.
>
> > > At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All o=
f
> > > those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
> > > of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.
>
> > none of pete's conquerors were reigning rg champs and only courier had
> > ever been an rg champ.
>
> I disagree with Whispy that samp simply used FO as a tune-up. However,
> why would samp threaten his wimby chances by attempting to take a risk
> and adapt his game for FO? Plus with close proximity of FO to wimby if
> samp were to give it a real go, he probably knew he wouldn't have a
> whole load left in the tank.

Fragile fellow, that Pete.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 00:59:09
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:34:38 -0800 (PST), Sao Paulo Swallow
<Sao_Paulo_Swallow@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Jan 25, 1:32 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 9:28 pm, Adam Thirnis <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 8:16 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 25, 7:20 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>>
>> > > > <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
>> > > > >> first two sets but not today...
>>
>> > > > >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
>> > > > >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
>> > > > >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>>
>> > > > at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.
>>
>> > > > he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.
>>
>> > > At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All of
>> > > those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
>> > > of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.
>>
>> > none of pete's conquerors were reigning rg champs and only courier had
>> > ever been an rg champ.
>>
>> I disagree with Whispy that samp simply used FO as a tune-up. However,
>> why would samp threaten his wimby chances by attempting to take a risk
>> and adapt his game for FO? Plus with close proximity of FO to wimby if
>> samp were to give it a real go, he probably knew he wouldn't have a
>> whole load left in the tank.
>
>Fragile fellow, that Pete.

one dimensional.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:32:34
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 9:28=A0pm, Adam Thirnis <adam.thir...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:16=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:20=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>
> > > <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> > > >> first two sets but not today...
>
> > > >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
> > > >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
> > > >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>
> > > at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.
>
> > > he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.
>
> > At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All of
> > those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
> > of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.
>
> none of pete's conquerors were reigning rg champs and only courier had
> ever been an rg champ.

I disagree with Whispy that samp simply used FO as a tune-up. However,
why would samp threaten his wimby chances by attempting to take a risk
and adapt his game for FO? Plus with close proximity of FO to wimby if
samp were to give it a real go, he probably knew he wouldn't have a
whole load left in the tank.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:28:42
From: Adam Thirnis
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 8:16=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:20=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>
> > <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> > >> first two sets but not today...
>
> > >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
> > >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
> > >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>
> > at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.
>
> > he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.
>
> At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All of
> those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
> of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.

none of pete's conquerors were reigning rg champs and only courier had
ever been an rg champ.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:16:45
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 7:20=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>
> <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> >> first two sets but not today...
>
> >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
> >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
> >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>
> at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.
>
> he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.

At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All of
those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.

Pete's results were obviously not great considering his stature in the
sport, but they're not as bad as you're making it seem.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 21:40:02
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different

"Jason Catlin" <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:5c287c5b-3115-48b9-87e9-fdd5b1c5474b@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 7:20 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
>
> <adam.thir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> >> first two sets but not today...
>
> >yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
> >berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
> >dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.
>
> at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.
>
> he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.

At peak, Pete made the quarters three times and the semis once. All of
those losses in those years were against FO champions, just like all
of Fed's losses at RG at peak have been against FO champs.

Pete's results were obviously not great considering his stature in the
sport, but they're not as bad as you're making it seem.

***

Plus, Sampras wasn't raised on clay and suffered from poor stamina isssues.




 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:10:54
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different

"Fan" <TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote
> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> first two sets but not today...

Yes, slams are differents. In a similar vein, running the 800 m is different
from runnning the 100m, playing for a cup is not the same as playing for a
championship. etc ... Competition formats do change the tools needed to win.
Placing one above the other is usually quite subjective.




 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 07:37:25
From:
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
>You see Fed agrees with Pete that slams are the only thing that matter, not
>silly tune ups.



This is why Fed will never be number 1 again. Can't win a MS to save
his ass anymore.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 06:14:58
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 25 Jan., 17:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> > first two sets but not today...
>
> Well, in a non-slam match, winning the first two sets would pretty
> much win the match, wouldn't it?

TT is such a tool.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 03:42:16
From:
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> first two sets but not today...

Well, in a non-slam match, winning the first two sets would pretty
much win the match, wouldn't it?



  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:59:38
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:42:16 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
>> first two sets but not today...
>
>Well, in a non-slam match, winning the first two sets would pretty
>much win the match, wouldn't it?


these days yeah.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50
From: Adam Thirnis
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 8:26=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> first two sets but not today...

yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:20:58
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:26:50 -0800 (PST), Adam Thirnis
<adam.thirnis@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
>> first two sets but not today...
>
>yes you have to be able to play well when it matters - early on
>berdych was swinging freely with nothing to lose - as soon as it
>dawned on him he might win he wasn't up to it.


at the FO it never even dawned on Sampras that he might win early on.

he only prayed that he might someday get past R2/R3.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 01:50:29
From: ahonkan
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 2:19=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> wkhedr wrote:
> > I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as =
well.
>
> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
> let Berdych do his thing.

He did that in the first 2 sets too ... and lost both of those.
It'd be good to remember that Fed won by raising his level
and hitting lots of winners - and that Berdych hit almost the
same no. of winners.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 20:55:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
ahonkan wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> wkhedr wrote:
>>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.
>> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
>> let Berdych do his thing.
>
> He did that in the first 2 sets too ... and lost both of those.
> It'd be good to remember that Fed won by raising his level
> and hitting lots of winners - and that Berdych hit almost the
> same no. of winners.


Clearly we can't remember that because that's not what happened. To me
it looked like Fed played a little worse in last 3 sets not better.


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:59:35
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:55:41 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>ahonkan wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> wkhedr wrote:
>>>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.
>>> He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
>>> let Berdych do his thing.
>>
>> He did that in the first 2 sets too ... and lost both of those.
>> It'd be good to remember that Fed won by raising his level
>> and hitting lots of winners - and that Berdych hit almost the
>> same no. of winners.
>
>
>Clearly we can't remember that because that's not what happened. To me
>it looked like Fed played a little worse in last 3 sets not better.


Sampras did that too at the FO !

Amazing similarities !

oh but wait !

Sampras still lost.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 01:05:05
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Jan 25, 3:32=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Fan wrote:
> > In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> > first two sets but not today...
>
> Nah. Berdych would have probably choked before the winning the winning
> line in a best of 3 too.
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

Based on the last year, Fed probably wouldn't have cared enough to
fight back from a big deficit in a non-Slam
match.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 01:03:07
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On 25 jan, 09:32, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Fan wrote:
> > In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> > first two sets but not today...
>
> Nah. Berdych would have probably choked before the winning the winning
> line in a best of 3 too.

How do you figure that probable? He certainly didn't choke at the
Olympics '04 against Federer nor in Canada, Cincinatti and Madrid
against Nadal.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 10:32:59
From: TT
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
Fan wrote:
> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> first two sets but not today...

Nah. Berdych would have probably choked before the winning the winning
line in a best of 3 too.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 03:30:36
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.


"Fan" <TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4c297d58-4873-47ce-9380-59ce0ea0feb4@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
> first two sets but not today...




  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
wkhedr wrote:
> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.
>
>

He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
let Berdych do his thing.


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:18:28
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>wkhedr wrote:
>> I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as well.
>>
>>
>
>He didn't have to put too much effort in - just keep the ball in play &
>let Berdych do his thing.


sort of like Sampras at the FO eh ?


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 08:32:45
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
"wkhedr" <wkhedr@my-deja.com > wrote in message
news:497c234c@news.x-privat.org...
>I agree, and Federer wouldn't have put the efforts to win the match as
>well.
>


You see Fed agrees with Pete that slams are the only thing that matter, not
silly tune ups. But MurrayTards seem to think tune ups matter.



 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 08:28:12
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Federer just demonstrated why slams are different
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:26:37 -0800 (PST), Fan
<TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote:

>In any other tournament, Berdych would have won after winning the
>first two sets but not today...


that's very very true.