tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 16 Feb 2009 10:42:20
From: Raja
Subject: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Stich,+Michael&player2=Sampras
Michael Stich leads 5-4

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Krajicek,+Richard&player2=Sampras
Richard Krajicek leads 6-4

Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.

Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.

How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=K214&playernum2=S351

That was tough too.
Micheal Stich lead 8-6

The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.






 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 18:16:31
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 18, 12:46=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in h=
is
> >>> life. =A0It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - ever=
ybody
> >>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
> >> Interesting statement but false. =A0It is the same as ignoring Sampras=
'
> >> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. =A0Sampras was fortunate tha=
t
> >> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> >> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> >> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> >> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> >> tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda was
> >> just better.
>
> >> It happened frequently to Sampras. =A0Even Pioline said it when he los=
t
> >> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. =A0Words to the effect that the guy w=
as
> >> not that much better than anybody else out there. =A0Sampras had troub=
le
> >> with a lot of guys. =A0They were often players who were up one day and
> >> down the next. =A0Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guy=
s
> >> in majors. =A0Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> >> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> >> This is not a knock against Sampras. =A0Just a reality check for those
> >> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> >> when he played.
>
> >> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> >> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>
> > Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
> > untouchable GOD.
>
> Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. =A0If not
> then the stat has no relevance.

He never said he didnt try to win tournaments. You cannot stay as 286
weeks as #1 without winning tournaments. He won 63 tournaments after
all. Higher than Wilander/Becker/Edberg/Agassi. He was very much
arsed to win every match out there, like a real champion would do. A
real champion does not going in to a match half arsed. Only cowards
will quit trying to win. Sampras was not a coward. He just wasnt as
dominating as Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer. Those 5 were more
dominating.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 06:00:59
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
Raja wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:46 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam
>>>>> in his life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod
>>>>> Laver - everybody including JA's family have forgotten & don't
>>>>> care.
>>>> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring
>>>> Sampras' losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was
>>>> fortunate that most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands
>>>> of guys who were too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of
>>>> a major.
>>
>>>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda
>>>> in 5 sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played
>>>> better tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great.
>>>> Korda was
>>>> just better.
>>
>>>> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he
>>>> lost to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the
>>>> guy was not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras
>>>> had trouble with a lot of guys. They were often players who were
>>>> up one day and down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not
>>>> to meet these guys in majors. Somebody else would take them out.
>>>> Wayne Ferreira was another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>>
>>>> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
>>>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
>>>> when he played.
>>
>>>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their
>>>> primes. Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>>
>>> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
>>> untouchable GOD.
>>
>> Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. If not
>> then the stat has no relevance.
>
> He never said he didnt try to win tournaments. You cannot stay as 286
> weeks as #1 without winning tournaments. He won 63 tournaments after
> all. Higher than Wilander/Becker/Edberg/Agassi. He was very much
> arsed to win every match out there, like a real champion would do. A
> real champion does not going in to a match half arsed. Only cowards
> will quit trying to win. Sampras was not a coward. He just wasnt as
> dominating as Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer. Those 5 were more
> dominating.

Yes and that's why they're ranked above Sampras in all goat discussions. lol




   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:16:43
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:00:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>Raja wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 12:46 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam
>>>>>> in his life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod
>>>>>> Laver - everybody including JA's family have forgotten & don't
>>>>>> care.
>>>>> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring
>>>>> Sampras' losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was
>>>>> fortunate that most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands
>>>>> of guys who were too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of
>>>>> a major.
>>>
>>>>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda
>>>>> in 5 sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played
>>>>> better tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great.
>>>>> Korda was
>>>>> just better.
>>>
>>>>> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he
>>>>> lost to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the
>>>>> guy was not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras
>>>>> had trouble with a lot of guys. They were often players who were
>>>>> up one day and down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not
>>>>> to meet these guys in majors. Somebody else would take them out.
>>>>> Wayne Ferreira was another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>>>
>>>>> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
>>>>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
>>>>> when he played.
>>>
>>>>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their
>>>>> primes. Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>>>
>>>> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
>>>> untouchable GOD.
>>>
>>> Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. If not
>>> then the stat has no relevance.
>>
>> He never said he didnt try to win tournaments. You cannot stay as 286
>> weeks as #1 without winning tournaments. He won 63 tournaments after
>> all. Higher than Wilander/Becker/Edberg/Agassi. He was very much
>> arsed to win every match out there, like a real champion would do. A
>> real champion does not going in to a match half arsed. Only cowards
>> will quit trying to win. Sampras was not a coward. He just wasnt as
>> dominating as Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl/Federer. Those 5 were more
>> dominating.
>
>Yes and that's why they're ranked above Sampras in all goat discussions. lol
>


Thanks. I know it took courage to admit it.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 15:17:59
From:
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 17, 10:26=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
> > life. =A0It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everyb=
ody
> > including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>
> Interesting statement but false. =A0It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. =A0Sampras was fortunate that
> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda was
> just better.
>
> It happened frequently to Sampras. =A0Even Pioline said it when he lost
> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. =A0Words to the effect that the guy was
> not that much better than anybody else out there. =A0Sampras had trouble
> with a lot of guys. =A0They were often players who were up one day and
> down the next. =A0Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
> in majors. =A0Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> This is not a knock against Sampras. =A0Just a reality check for those
> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> when he played.
>
> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.

Sampras wasn't a great slow court player, but he molded his game to be
the best on fast courts
and he was pretty damn close to untouchable at Wimby/USO in his prime,
which were the tournaments
he cared about the most and are certainly the biggest for any American
player.

At his abolute peak, his only losses at those tournaments were to
Yzaga (Pete apparently had some injury
that hurt his prep, so kinda like Fed's loss at 05 YEC), Krajicek and
Korda. Seven out of 10 is pretty untouchable.

I would imagine Fed is the only player in tennis history to win more
than 70% of all Wimby/USOs he played in any 5-year stretch.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:59:08
From:
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 17, 10:56=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:45=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:42:20 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > >Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
S...
> > >Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
K...
> > >Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > >Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > >final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > >slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > >Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > >Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > >slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > He was mentally so much tougher, and avoided injuries much better. The
> > difference in skills between Sampras and Krajicek or Sampras and Stich
> > is not 14 to 1.
>
> True, but it's virtually always the case that huge disparities in
> outputs do not reflect huge disparities in inputs, but simply marginal
> advantages applied repeatedly. Federer is not even close to being
> eight times as good as Roddick, but if he's merely 5 or 10% better and
> plays to that level consistently, he can amass a 16-2 head-to-head
> edge.
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fed probably wins 5-10 % more overall games than Roddick in their
matches. I bet it's an average
of one break a set.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:56:49
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 17, 10:45=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:42:20 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> >Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS.=
..
> >Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DK.=
..
> >Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> >Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> >final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> >slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> >Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> >Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> >slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> He was mentally so much tougher, and avoided injuries much better. The
> difference in skills between Sampras and Krajicek or Sampras and Stich
> is not 14 to 1.

True, but it's virtually always the case that huge disparities in
outputs do not reflect huge disparities in inputs, but simply marginal
advantages applied repeatedly. Federer is not even close to being
eight times as good as Roddick, but if he's merely 5 or 10% better and
plays to that level consistently, he can amass a 16-2 head-to-head
edge.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 18:54:39
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: I waRe: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:56:49 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>On Feb 17, 10:45 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:42:20 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
>> >Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>>
>> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
>> >Michael Stich leads 5-4
>>
>> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=K...
>> >Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>>
>> >Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
>> >final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
>> >slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>>
>> >Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
>> >Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
>> >slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>>
>> He was mentally so much tougher, and avoided injuries much better. The
>> difference in skills between Sampras and Krajicek or Sampras and Stich
>> is not 14 to 1.
>
>True, but it's virtually always the case that huge disparities in
>outputs do not reflect huge disparities in inputs, but simply marginal
>advantages applied repeatedly. Federer is not even close to being
>eight times as good as Roddick, but if he's merely 5 or 10% better and
>plays to that level consistently, he can amass a 16-2 head-to-head
>edge.

Yes, I know. I was lazy writing that. I really just wanted to say the
biggest difference was in mental strength.



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 17:45:25
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:42:20 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com >
wrote:

>Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
>Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Stich,+Michael&player2=Sampras
>Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Krajicek,+Richard&player2=Sampras
>Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
>Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
>final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
>slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
>Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
>Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
>slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.

He was mentally so much tougher, and avoided injuries much better. The
difference in skills between Sampras and Krajicek or Sampras and Stich
is not 14 to 1.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:42:45
From:
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 17, 9:26=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
> > life. =A0It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everyb=
ody
> > including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>
> Interesting statement but false. =A0It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. =A0Sampras was fortunate that
> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda was
> just better.
>
> It happened frequently to Sampras. =A0Even Pioline said it when he lost
> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. =A0Words to the effect that the guy was
> not that much better than anybody else out there. =A0Sampras had trouble
> with a lot of guys. =A0They were often players who were up one day and
> down the next. =A0Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
> in majors. =A0Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> This is not a knock against Sampras. =A0Just a reality check for those
> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> when he played.
>
> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.

Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
untouchable GOD. He was good at collecting slams during inferior
competition. I give him credit for all slams won between 90-95, after
that it is all suspect.



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
>>> life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>>
>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
>> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
>> just better.
>>
>> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
>> not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
>> with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
>> down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
>> in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>>
>> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
>> when he played.
>>
>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>
> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
> untouchable GOD.


Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. If not
then the stat has no relevance.


   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 16:05:00
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
>>>> life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
>>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>>> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
>>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
>>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
>>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>>>
>>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
>>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
>>> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
>>> just better.
>>>
>>> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
>>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
>>> not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
>>> with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
>>> down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
>>> in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
>>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>>>
>>> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
>>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
>>> when he played.
>>>
>>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
>>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>>
>> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
>> untouchable GOD.
>
>
>Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. If not
>then the stat has no relevance.


If not he was a piss poor sportsman and a disgrace to the game as
well.


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 17:03:12
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek

<zepfloyes@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:c90c74bb-7e4f-44ea-aae0-12003ebe88b2@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
> > life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
> > including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>
> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
> just better.
>
> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
> not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
> with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
> down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
> in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> when he played.
>
> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.

>Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
>untouchable GOD. He was good at collecting slams during inferior
>competition. I give him credit for all slams won between 90-95, after
>that it is all suspect.


We, tier 1 analyst of rst, don't give you any credit for your efforts around
here.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:41:19
From:
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 17, 9:33=A0am, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> > If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> > sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> > tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda was
> > just better.
>
> Er, Korda was juicing.

He might have started juicing later on. He was definitely a great
talent, a wasted one though.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:33:04
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek

>
> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
> just better.

Er, Korda was juicing.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:26:06
From: drew
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
> life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.

Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.

If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
just better.

It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.

This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
when he played.

There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:44:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
drew wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
>> life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>
> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
> just better.
>
> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
> not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
> with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
> down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
> in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> when he played.
>
> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>


Interesting. Do I listen to real experts who predicted Sampras at age
19 would be a sporting god like Pele, Jordan, Nicklaus, Bradman etc, or
instead prefer the analysis of 'Drew' from rst who claims Sampras was
lucky to avoid Korda types....?

Tough call. I'll have to sleep on it.



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:58:34
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek

"drew" <drew@technologist.com > wrote in message
news:f8fd4dca-b67c-4eec-bf09-a2bb2d7c3250@f4g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
>> life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>
> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
> just better.
>
> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
> not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
> with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
> down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
> in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> when he played.
>
> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.


Yes, however if your aim is to become a high tier analyst you also must
consider the fact that Korda might have been juiced at the time.




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 18:45:57
From: Quincy
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 7:42=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS..=
.
> Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DK..=
.
> Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> That was tough too.
> Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.

Try h2h against Paul Haarhuis. Lol.


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 17:13:19
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 7:05=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 16-Feb-2009, RahimAsif <RahimA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 6:43=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 6:14=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 12:42=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wond=
ers
> > > > > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohea=
d/?player1=3DS...
> > > > > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohea=
d/?player1=3DK...
> > > > > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > > > > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > > > > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 1=
4
> > > > > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > > > > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 200=
0
> > > > > US
> > > > > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a =
14
> > > > > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > > > > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohea=
d/default.as...
>
> > > > > That was tough too.
> > > > > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > > > > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> > > > Er, Goran's legacy was re-written with the fairytale run of 2001 -
> > > > calling him a choker post July 7th 2001 is a wild mistake...
>
> > > He would have never been able to beat Becker/Cash/Edberg/Stich/Agassi=
/
> > > Sampras/Federer in a Wimbledon final. He was lucky to get another
> > > choker in that final.
>
> > That year he would have beaten anybody - it was destiny. And by the
> > way, he absolutely crushed Becker in 1994 semi, so if he managed to
> > squeak by Sampras in the semi in 1995, it wouldn't be far fetched to
> > think he would beat Becker in the final...
>
> You believe in destiny? =A0Seriously, in terms of tennis there really is =
no
> such thing.

There is no other way to explain how Goran would win Wimbledon in 2001
after getting a wildcard and ranked 125 - as they say it was written
in the stars.

"When the opened the gates on Monday, something was shining. I don't
know what it was, but I wish it happened every day" - Goran
Ivanisevic, after his 4th round win at Wimby 2001...


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 01:24:53
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek

On 16-Feb-2009, RahimAsif <RahimAsif@hotmail.com > wrote:

> There is no other way to explain how Goran would win Wimbledon in 2001
> after getting a wildcard and ranked 125 - as they say it was written
> in the stars.
>
> "When the opened the gates on Monday, something was shining. I don't
> know what it was, but I wish it happened every day" - Goran
> Ivanisevic, after his 4th round win at Wimby 2001...

It sounds nice and poetic, but still all I can say is NO!


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:50:57
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 6:43=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:14=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 12:42=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
S...
> > > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
K...
> > > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as.=
..
>
> > > That was tough too.
> > > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> > Er, Goran's legacy was re-written with the fairytale run of 2001 -
> > calling him a choker post July 7th 2001 is a wild mistake...
>
> He would have never been able to beat Becker/Cash/Edberg/Stich/Agassi/
> Sampras/Federer in a Wimbledon final. He was lucky to get another
> choker in that final.

That year he would have beaten anybody - it was destiny. And by the
way, he absolutely crushed Becker in 1994 semi, so if he managed to
squeak by Sampras in the semi in 1995, it wouldn't be far fetched to
think he would beat Becker in the final...


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 01:05:51
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek

On 16-Feb-2009, RahimAsif <RahimAsif@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 16, 6:43 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 6:14 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 12:42 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > > > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
> > > > Michael Stich leads 5-4
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=K...
> > > > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
> >
> > > > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > > > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
> >
> > > > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000
> > > > US
> > > > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
> >
> > > > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
> >
> > > > That was tough too.
> > > > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
> >
> > > > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
> >
> > > Er, Goran's legacy was re-written with the fairytale run of 2001 -
> > > calling him a choker post July 7th 2001 is a wild mistake...
> >
> > He would have never been able to beat Becker/Cash/Edberg/Stich/Agassi/
> > Sampras/Federer in a Wimbledon final. He was lucky to get another
> > choker in that final.
>
> That year he would have beaten anybody - it was destiny. And by the
> way, he absolutely crushed Becker in 1994 semi, so if he managed to
> squeak by Sampras in the semi in 1995, it wouldn't be far fetched to
> think he would beat Becker in the final...

You believe in destiny? Seriously, in terms of tennis there really is no
such thing.


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:43:02
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 6:14=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:42=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS.=
..
> > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DK.=
..
> > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> > That was tough too.
> > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> Er, Goran's legacy was re-written with the fairytale run of 2001 -
> calling him a choker post July 7th 2001 is a wild mistake...

He would have never been able to beat Becker/Cash/Edberg/Stich/Agassi/
Sampras/Federer in a Wimbledon final. He was lucky to get another
choker in that final.


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:14:46
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 1:30=A0pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 16 feb, 19:42, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS.=
..
> > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DK.=
..
> > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> > That was tough too.
> > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
> Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
> volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2

Sampras hardly had easy matches against Goran. He won most of the
time, but it was rarely "easy"...


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:14:06
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 12:42=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS..=
.
> Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DK..=
.
> Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> That was tough too.
> Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.

Er, Goran's legacy was re-written with the fairytale run of 2001 -
calling him a choker post July 7th 2001 is a wild mistake...


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 13:10:05
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 2:27=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 16 feb, 20:30, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 feb, 19:42, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
S...
> > > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
K...
> > > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as.=
..
>
> > > That was tough too.
> > > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> > Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
> > Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
> > volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2
>
> And how can we forget Forget. Guy was 5,5 years older than Pete, yet
> beat Pete 4 out of 5 times vs when Pete was already in the Slamprace.
>
> This Guy made Sampras' GOAT candidacy "Forgettable" as he led 4-2
> against the guy considered GOAT by many (a sheep) :D

Another hole in Sampras career...lol



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 22:42:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
Raja wrote:
>>>> The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>>> Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
>>> Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
>>> volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2
>> And how can we forget Forget. Guy was 5,5 years older than Pete, yet
>> beat Pete 4 out of 5 times vs when Pete was already in the Slamprace.
>>
>> This Guy made Sampras' GOAT candidacy "Forgettable" as he led 4-2
>> against the guy considered GOAT by many (a sheep) :D
>
> Another hole in Sampras career...lol
>


Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:05:20
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek

"Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6b96cf3b-87ec-4a2c-a07c-ec7c152c8c23@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 2:27 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 16 feb, 20:30, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 feb, 19:42, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
> > > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=K...
> > > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> > >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> > > That was tough too.
> > > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> > Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
> > Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
> > volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2
>
> And how can we forget Forget. Guy was 5,5 years older than Pete, yet
> beat Pete 4 out of 5 times vs when Pete was already in the Slamprace.
>
> This Guy made Sampras' GOAT candidacy "Forgettable" as he led 4-2
> against the guy considered GOAT by many (a sheep) :D

>Another hole in Sampras career...lol


Sampras has a hole in his career but also 7 Wimbledon titles, 14 slams, 6
YE#1 and that makes him GOAT.

You have a hole in your ass and that's all what you are, an asshole.




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 12:33:00
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On 16 feb, 21:30, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 16 feb, 21:27, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And how can we forget Forget. Guy was 5,5 years older than Pete, yet
> > beat Pete 4 out of 5 times when Pete was already in the Slamprace.
>
> > This Guy made Sampras' GOAT candidacy "Forgettable" as he led 4-2
> > against the guy considered GOAT by many (a sheep) :D
>
> For good measure;
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=forget&p...

Notice how they managed to Forget adding the Guy's picture.


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 12:30:22
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On 16 feb, 21:27, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> And how can we forget Forget. Guy was 5,5 years older than Pete, yet
> beat Pete 4 out of 5 times when Pete was already in the Slamprace.
>
> This Guy made Sampras' GOAT candidacy "Forgettable" as he led 4-2
> against the guy considered GOAT by many (a sheep) :D

For good measure;

http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=forget&player2=sampras


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 12:27:57
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On 16 feb, 20:30, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 16 feb, 19:42, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
> > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=K...
> > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> > That was tough too.
> > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
> Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
> volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2

And how can we forget Forget. Guy was 5,5 years older than Pete, yet
beat Pete 4 out of 5 times vs when Pete was already in the Slamprace.

This Guy made Sampras' GOAT candidacy "Forgettable" as he led 4-2
against the guy considered GOAT by many (a sheep) :D


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 11:38:47
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 16, 1:30=A0pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 16 feb, 19:42, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> > Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS.=
..
> > Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DK.=
..
> > Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> > Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> > final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> > Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> > Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> > slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> > How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> > That was tough too.
> > Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> > The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.
>
> Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
> Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
> volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2

Yes you are right. he also has a losing h2h against peak Edberg

Ederg lost 4 of the last 5 when he was clearly past it (1994-96), else
he would have led h2h 5-4

Sampras led Becker only 4-3 until 1993.



 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 11:30:34
From: serve & volley
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On 16 feb, 19:42, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Fuck that choker Goran Ivanisevic, of the one slam Wimbledon wonders
> Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were much better.
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
> Michael Stich leads 5-4
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=K...
> Richard Krajicek leads 6-4
>
> Sampras won the 1993 Wimbledon QF, but Stich got him at 1993 YEC
> final. It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> slam winner and Stich a one slam wonder.
>
> Krajicek won the 1996 Wimbledon QD but Sampras got him at the 2000 US
> Open QF.It was pretty much see-saw, suprising that Sampras was a 14
> slam winner and Krajicek a one slam wonder.
>
> How did Stich and Krajicek fare against each other?
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>
> That was tough too.
> Micheal Stich lead 8-6
>
> The last 3 (losses) were when Stich was past his prime though.

Sampras always struglled against good SERVE & volley players
Henman did not have a top serve and Ivanisevic did not have a good
volley, so Sampras could easily beat these 2


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:39:10
From: drew
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 18, 12:40=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:05=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam i=
n his
> > >>>> life. =A0It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - e=
verybody
> > >>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
> > >>> Interesting statement but false. =A0It is the same as ignoring Samp=
ras'
> > >>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. =A0Sampras was fortunate =
that
> > >>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> > >>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> > >>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda i=
n 5
> > >>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> > >>> tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda =
was
> > >>> just better.
>
> > >>> It happened frequently to Sampras. =A0Even Pioline said it when he =
lost
> > >>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. =A0Words to the effect that the gu=
y was
> > >>> not that much better than anybody else out there. =A0Sampras had tr=
ouble
> > >>> with a lot of guys. =A0They were often players who were up one day =
and
> > >>> down the next. =A0Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these =
guys
> > >>> in majors. =A0Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> > >>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> > >>> This is not a knock against Sampras. =A0Just a reality check for th=
ose
> > >>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> > >>> when he played.
>
> > >>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes=
.
> > >>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>
> > >> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
> > >> untouchable GOD.
>
> > >Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. =A0If not
> > >then the stat has no relevance.
>
> > If not he was a piss poor sportsman and a disgrace to the game as
> > well.
>
> Yes Whisper seems to think that saying someone was "half-arsed" is a
> compliment..
> I never understood that.
> By most peoples logic the person who gave 100% and lost deserves most
> credit, but by Whispers we should recognise those that were only "half-
> arsed."

I was disgusted and I still am when I see players tank out of a
match. Ivanisevic made me puke the way he would put in an appearance
and not give a damn. I don't think Pete Sampras was like that at
all. I just think that his winning formula didn't always work over
three sets and it was much more effective over 5. I don't think he
put as much as he should have into non-major events and his Davis Cup
non-effort didn't gain him fans but overall he was a decent
sportsman. Just not the kind of game that was very inspirational for
me. Simple and effective. Not a very nice backhand.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:11:13
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 18, 12:40=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:05=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam i=
n his
> > >>>> life. =A0It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - e=
verybody
> > >>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
> > >>> Interesting statement but false. =A0It is the same as ignoring Samp=
ras'
> > >>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. =A0Sampras was fortunate =
that
> > >>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> > >>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> > >>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda i=
n 5
> > >>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> > >>> tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda =
was
> > >>> just better.
>
> > >>> It happened frequently to Sampras. =A0Even Pioline said it when he =
lost
> > >>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. =A0Words to the effect that the gu=
y was
> > >>> not that much better than anybody else out there. =A0Sampras had tr=
ouble
> > >>> with a lot of guys. =A0They were often players who were up one day =
and
> > >>> down the next. =A0Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these =
guys
> > >>> in majors. =A0Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> > >>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> > >>> This is not a knock against Sampras. =A0Just a reality check for th=
ose
> > >>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> > >>> when he played.
>
> > >>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes=
.
> > >>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>
> > >> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
> > >> untouchable GOD.
>
> > >Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. =A0If not
> > >then the stat has no relevance.
>
> > If not he was a piss poor sportsman and a disgrace to the game as
> > well.
>
> Yes Whisper seems to think that saying someone was "half-arsed" is a
> compliment..
> I never understood that.
> By most peoples logic the person who gave 100% and lost deserves most
> credit, but by Whispers we should recognise those that were only "half-
> arsed."

Whisper doesn't care about sportsmanship or other moral factors. His
personal pantheon is based solely on results (how else could McEnroe
head the table?). Sampras' losses are undeniable facts; since they
can't be denied, they must be excused. There are essentially two
options: either Sampras is mortal and loses occasionally when he
tries, or he is superhuman and loses only when he doesn't try. From
the worshipful point of view, being "half-arsed" is clearly the lesser
of two evils.

Joe Ramirez


   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:10:58
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:11:13 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>On Feb 18, 12:40 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 4:05 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > >> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > >>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
>> > >>>> life.  It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
>> > >>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>> > >>> Interesting statement but false.  It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
>> > >>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda.  Sampras was fortunate that
>> > >>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
>> > >>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>>
>> > >>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
>> > >>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
>> > >>> tennis.  The level was high and Pete was playing great.  Korda was
>> > >>> just better.
>>
>> > >>> It happened frequently to Sampras.  Even Pioline said it when he lost
>> > >>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final.  Words to the effect that the guy was
>> > >>> not that much better than anybody else out there.  Sampras had trouble
>> > >>> with a lot of guys.  They were often players who were up one day and
>> > >>> down the next.  Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
>> > >>> in majors.  Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
>> > >>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>>
>> > >>> This is not a knock against Sampras.  Just a reality check for those
>> > >>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
>> > >>> when he played.
>>
>> > >>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
>> > >>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>>
>> > >> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
>> > >> untouchable GOD.
>>
>> > >Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups.  If not
>> > >then the stat has no relevance.
>>
>> > If not he was a piss poor sportsman and a disgrace to the game as
>> > well.
>>
>> Yes Whisper seems to think that saying someone was "half-arsed" is a
>> compliment..
>> I never understood that.
>> By most peoples logic the person who gave 100% and lost deserves most
>> credit, but by Whispers we should recognise those that were only "half-
>> arsed."
>
>Whisper doesn't care about sportsmanship or other moral factors. His
>personal pantheon is based solely on results (how else could McEnroe
>head the table?). Sampras' losses are undeniable facts; since they
>can't be denied, they must be excused. There are essentially two
>options: either Sampras is mortal and loses occasionally when he
>tries, or he is superhuman and loses only when he doesn't try. From
>the worshipful point of view, being "half-arsed" is clearly the lesser
>of two evils.
>
>Joe Ramirez


you really nailed it here joe.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:40:55
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
On Feb 18, 4:05=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in =
his
> >>>> life. =A0It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - eve=
rybody
> >>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
> >>> Interesting statement but false. =A0It is the same as ignoring Sampra=
s'
> >>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. =A0Sampras was fortunate th=
at
> >>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
> >>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>
> >>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in =
5
> >>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
> >>> tennis. =A0The level was high and Pete was playing great. =A0Korda wa=
s
> >>> just better.
>
> >>> It happened frequently to Sampras. =A0Even Pioline said it when he lo=
st
> >>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. =A0Words to the effect that the guy =
was
> >>> not that much better than anybody else out there. =A0Sampras had trou=
ble
> >>> with a lot of guys. =A0They were often players who were up one day an=
d
> >>> down the next. =A0Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these gu=
ys
> >>> in majors. =A0Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
> >>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>
> >>> This is not a knock against Sampras. =A0Just a reality check for thos=
e
> >>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
> >>> when he played.
>
> >>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
> >>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>
> >> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
> >> untouchable GOD.
>
> >Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. =A0If not
> >then the stat has no relevance.
>
> If not he was a piss poor sportsman and a disgrace to the game as
> well.

Yes Whisper seems to think that saying someone was "half-arsed" is a
compliment..
I never understood that.
By most peoples logic the person who gave 100% and lost deserves most
credit, but by Whispers we should recognise those that were only "half-
arsed."


   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 23:57:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Pete Sampras' stuggle against Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:05 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 9:26 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 6:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Losing to Guy means nothing as he was never a factor in any slam in his
>>>>>> life. It's the same deal when John Alexander beat Rod Laver - everybody
>>>>>> including JA's family have forgotten & don't care.
>>>>> Interesting statement but false. It is the same as ignoring Sampras'
>>>>> losing record in 5-setters against Korda. Sampras was fortunate that
>>>>> most of the talent during the 90s was in the hands of guys who were
>>>>> too inconsistent to make it deep into the draw of a major.
>>>>> If you saw the USO match where peak Sampras was defeated by Korda in 5
>>>>> sets, you would have to conclude that Korda simply played better
>>>>> tennis. The level was high and Pete was playing great. Korda was
>>>>> just better.
>>>>> It happened frequently to Sampras. Even Pioline said it when he lost
>>>>> to Sampras in a Wimbledon final. Words to the effect that the guy was
>>>>> not that much better than anybody else out there. Sampras had trouble
>>>>> with a lot of guys. They were often players who were up one day and
>>>>> down the next. Sampras was ususally fortunate not to meet these guys
>>>>> in majors. Somebody else would take them out. Wayne Ferreira was
>>>>> another guy who whacked Sampras a few times.
>>>>> This is not a knock against Sampras. Just a reality check for those
>>>>> who think that 14 majors make him a tennis god who was untouchable
>>>>> when he played.
>>>>> There weren't too many players who were untouchable in their primes.
>>>>> Sampras certainly wasn't one of them.
>>>> Anyone who has just a 77% win loss record cannot claim to be an
>>>> untouchable GOD.
>>> Depends on whether the guy was hellbent on winning tune-ups. If not
>>> then the stat has no relevance.
>> If not he was a piss poor sportsman and a disgrace to the game as
>> well.
>
> Yes Whisper seems to think that saying someone was "half-arsed" is a
> compliment..
> I never understood that.
> By most peoples logic the person who gave 100% and lost deserves most
> credit, but by Whispers we should recognise those that were only "half-
> arsed."


If you follow what I've been saying you'll know that's one of the things
I hated about Sampras, & at least with Fed you know he's trying to win
every point so from that perspective Fed is better value for fans - you
know he's busting a gut on every point.

However I'm also very impressed he could get away with that strategy.
Lots of players woulda been deflated by tune-up losses & needed to play
well to build up to slam form/confidence. Sampras just had the game to
hop off the couch & it's lights out for the field. He had that ability
to break any point wide open at any time, & he could afford to rest & go
easy on most return games. That's why Sampras had a lot of 64 64 wins &
the dim amongst like Raja think it's a close match when in reality it's
the same as a 61 61 Graf blitzkrieg. It really shouldn't be a surprise
the last 2 tournaments he won in his career were Wimbledon & USO 2 years
apart.

I would have loved for Sampras to play to win every point - it would be
something like his 1990 USO performance. But he knew that wouldn't work
for him over 12 years. He'd have little left for slams if he was
busting a gut in tune-ups & had to manage his efforts carefully.

So when I sum up Sampras I do it in totality - I factor in his
half-arsed approach into the equation. Can you imagine any other
playing getting away with this approach? Could Rafa do it? No way.

Roger doesn't serve big enough or have sufficient power to pull it off
either.

That leaves nobody.

So while on the one hand I agree there is an element of
unprofessionalism in his approach, end of the day he set some
astonishing records so you have to respect the end result.