tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 08 Feb 2009 10:05:35
From: Stapler
Subject: Winning tennis...
is about taking time away from your opponent through:

* aces
* unreturnable serves
* well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors

But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time away
from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having even
less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.





 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:58:46
From: undecided
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 5:05=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> * aces
> * unreturnable serves
> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time awa=
y
> from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
> indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having ev=
en
> less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.

I think guys like Pete and Rafter perhaps even Henman would cause
Nadal severe problems. Nadal does not have the best ROS (like Hewitt
did during his peak). He basically puts the ball in play. Pete hit
very flat which is exactly the kind of shots Nadal does not like. Of
course Nadal would attempt to do the same thing to Pete that he does
to Roger. Run around and hit everything to the BH. But, Pete used to
camp to this BH side and dare people to go DTL to the deuce side since
he had that monster running FH. It would definitely be an interesting
match-up but we can only imagine it.


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:18:21
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 11, 11:58=A0am, undecided <cost...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:05=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> > * aces
> > * unreturnable serves
> > * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> > But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time a=
way
> > from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except o=
n
> > indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having =
even
> > less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.
>
> I think guys like Pete and Rafter perhaps even Henman would cause
> Nadal severe problems. Nadal does not have the best ROS (like Hewitt
> did during his peak). He basically puts the ball in play. Pete hit
> very flat which is exactly the kind of shots Nadal does not like. Of
> course Nadal would attempt to do the same thing to Pete that he does
> to Roger. Run around and hit everything to the BH. But, Pete used to
> camp to this BH side and dare people to go DTL to the deuce side since
> he had that monster running FH. It would definitely be an interesting
> match-up but we can only imagine it.

Sampras in 3 decisive sets - 6-3, 6-4, 7-5 on all surfaces bar clay...


   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 03:22:05
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

On 11-Feb-2009, RahimAsif <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 11, 11:58 am, undecided <cost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 5:05 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >
> > > is about taking time away from your opponent through:
> >
> > > * aces
> > > * unreturnable serves
> > > * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
> >
> > > But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
> > > away
> > > from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except
> > > on
> > > indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having
> > > even
> > > less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.
> >
> > I think guys like Pete and Rafter perhaps even Henman would cause
> > Nadal severe problems. Nadal does not have the best ROS (like Hewitt
> > did during his peak). He basically puts the ball in play. Pete hit
> > very flat which is exactly the kind of shots Nadal does not like. Of
> > course Nadal would attempt to do the same thing to Pete that he does
> > to Roger. Run around and hit everything to the BH. But, Pete used to
> > camp to this BH side and dare people to go DTL to the deuce side since
> > he had that monster running FH. It would definitely be an interesting
> > match-up but we can only imagine it.
>
> Sampras in 3 decisive sets - 6-3, 6-4, 7-5 on all surfaces bar clay...

I guess it's easy to be bold in predictions for things that will never come
to be....


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:39:40
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"undecided" <costasz@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:3c91bcb6-15ab-4c63-8127-8133579597ee@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 5:05 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> * aces
> * unreturnable serves
> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time away
> from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
> indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having
> even
> less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.

>I think guys like Pete and Rafter perhaps even Henman would cause
>Nadal severe problems. Nadal does not have the best ROS (like Hewitt
>did during his peak). He basically puts the ball in play. Pete hit
>very flat which is exactly the kind of shots Nadal does not like. Of
>course Nadal would attempt to do the same thing to Pete that he does
>to Roger. Run around and hit everything to the BH. But, Pete used to
>camp to this BH side and dare people to go DTL to the deuce side since
>he had that monster running FH. It would definitely be an interesting
>match-up but we can only imagine it.


Yes.




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 06:22:11
From: UC
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 5:05 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> * aces
> * unreturnable serves
> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time away
> from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
> indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having even
> less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.

Not if you go to the net.



 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 05:57:58
From:
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 5:05=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> * aces
> * unreturnable serves
> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time awa=
y
> from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
> indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having ev=
en
> less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.

Rafa is the best defender ever. Hey he is a defender like his uncle
Miguel Angel Nadal defender of Barcelona FC.


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 15:26:11
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:05:35 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote:

>is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
>* aces
>* unreturnable serves
>* well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
>But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time away
>from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
>indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having even
>less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.

It is more the current surfaces than Nadal. The players can get back
almost any kind of shot that should be a winner. Federer is also very
good at this. I don't like it. Bring back the surfaces that reward a
good shot.


  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 11:25:50
From: Ted S.
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:26:11 +0200, Sakari Lund wrote:

> It is more the current surfaces than Nadal. The players can get back
> almost any kind of shot that should be a winner. Federer is also very
> good at this. I don't like it. Bring back the surfaces that reward a
> good shot.

What about the new strings? Don't they make possible shots that would
have been much more difficult (if not impossible) previously?

Not that any advances in technology help me play tennis better. :-)

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova


   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 22:11:16
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
"Ted S." <tedstennis@myrealbox.com > wrote in message
news:1axo4z1cdozdo.dlg@tedstennis.tripod.com...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:26:11 +0200, Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>> It is more the current surfaces than Nadal. The players can get back
>> almost any kind of shot that should be a winner. Federer is also very
>> good at this. I don't like it. Bring back the surfaces that reward a
>> good shot.
>
> What about the new strings? Don't they make possible shots that would
> have been much more difficult (if not impossible) previously?
>
> Not that any advances in technology help me play tennis better. :-)
>


Federer also benefits from the new technology, his defense is pretty
phenomal too. He just doesn't play "nuclear" level like Nadal.



  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:34:03
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 1:26=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:05:35 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> >* aces
> >* unreturnable serves
> >* well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> >But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time aw=
ay
> >from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
> >indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having e=
ven
> >less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.
>
> It is more the current surfaces than Nadal. The players can get back
> almost any kind of shot that should be a winner. Federer is also very
> good at this. I don't like it. Bring back the surfaces that reward a
> good shot.

Yes the courts should be generally faster... but not ultra fast. Just
as people moan about the courts now being too slow, I also remember
many used to complain about Kraijjek Sampras Flipper Ivanesivic, e.t.c
serving 25-50 aces a match at Wimbledon in the mid 90's.

I think the US Open is a decent pace for a H/court, but australia is
too slow.


  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 13:57:31
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:26:11 +0200, Sakari Lund
<sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:05:35 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote:
>
>>is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>
>>* aces
>>* unreturnable serves
>>* well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>
>>But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time away
>>from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
>>indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having even
>>less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.
>
>It is more the current surfaces than Nadal. The players can get back
>almost any kind of shot that should be a winner. Federer is also very
>good at this. I don't like it. Bring back the surfaces that reward a
>good shot.


AMEN !!!!!!

bye bye Nadal hello roger !


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 04:55:35
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 10:05=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> * aces
> * unreturnable serves
> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time awa=
y
> from him to win the points it take to take sets and the match. Except on
> indoors which is his one weakness because it's a combination of having ev=
en
> less time due to the surface and not being 100% phyically by the fall.

But is winning tennis about that anymore?
If we go through the top 20 how many of them play 'attacking' tennis?

Federer
Roddick ? maybe...
Verdasco
Nalby
Blake
Tsonga
Soderling
Gonzalez
Stepanek

that is under half the top 20... Maybe winning tennis is actually
about who is the most consistent and makes the least errors these
days?


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 21:16:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Stapler wrote:
> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> * aces
> * unreturnable serves
> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
> away from him to win the points


Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 06:34:26
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

> > Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
> > his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>
> > After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
> > 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>
> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.............................who
would have guessed ?







   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 17:00:23
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>
>> > Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
>> > his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>>
>> > After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
>> > 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>>
>> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.
>
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.............................who
>would have guessed ?

I didn't even bother replying, but had to smile when I saw that.



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 03:11:42
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


*skriptis kirjoitti:
> Everyone can hit peak performance anytime in his career, I agree, but that
> makes the whole term "peak", irrelevant.

It does. I actually like your term "prime" better even though
difference is somewhat blurred.

Prime is easy to determine. "he was 24y and had been #1 for a year
with his best results...prime right?"

Peak is very subjective and has too many variables by its nature
(depends on opponents, conditions and even luck at some cases, like
one netcorder at USO89 alone seemed to define Becker's "absolute"
peak).

.mikko


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:14:51
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

*skriptis kirjoitti:

> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.

Have you ever done otherwise? No surprise there.

> How do you determine "peak" anyway?

Any player can play peak tennis even though for a selected period
(season) their overall results do not cope with that.

Kuerten played peak tennis at FO 1997 but it took several years to
turn that form consistent force.
Same for Sampras USO 1990. And from the opposite spectrum Sampras
again played peak tennis at USO 02.

Nothing changed in Goran's game 1989-2001. May be even his mental
strength gradually got worse due to constant losses...

There is no selected narrow timeframe for player when peak tennis is
only possible. Physical peak usually turns into the most consistent
and best overall results but as examples show every top player has
played their peak tennis way outside their supposed physical peak.

.mikko


   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 11:33:01
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:4dae336a-70c5-4a95-ab01-1c1a0adc50aa@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>
>> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.
>
> Have you ever done otherwise? No surprise there.

Why should I disagree when there is no reason?



>> How do you determine "peak" anyway?
>
> Any player can play peak tennis even though for a selected period
> (season) their overall results do not cope with that.
>
> Kuerten played peak tennis at FO 1997 but it took several years to
> turn that form consistent force.
> Same for Sampras USO 1990. And from the opposite spectrum Sampras
> again played peak tennis at USO 02.
>
> Nothing changed in Goran's game 1989-2001. May be even his mental
> strength gradually got worse due to constant losses...
>
> There is no selected narrow timeframe for player when peak tennis is
> only possible. Physical peak usually turns into the most consistent
> and best overall results but as examples show every top player has
> played their peak tennis way outside their supposed physical peak.
>
> .mikko

So you're using the 3rd subjective approach?
Sampras' 1999 was his peak grass performance, but he was not at peak that
year. ok.
Everyone can hit peak performance anytime in his career, I agree, but that
makes the whole term "peak", irrelevant.
It loses its meaning then. but whatever.

you're saying game-wise he was about the same player in all of his finals?
ok. I can agree with that.
But it's clear when he finally won, ir was, with some luck, but mostly
because he managed to keep his head together.

which translates to him being "better" the year he won than in 1992. more
experienced, more matured.
and we said Agassi had much more experience at the time of their wim final.





  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 01:30:47
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


Whisper kirjoitti:
> MBDunc wrote:
> >
> > *skriptis kirjoitti:
> >> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
> >> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
> >>
> >> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
> >
> > Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
> > Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
> > right?).
>
>
> 19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.

Not just theory as evidence is clear:

Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.

After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.

.mikko



   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 22:32:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
>>>> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
>>>>
>>>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>>> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
>>> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
>>> right?).
>>
>> 19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.
>
> Not just theory as evidence is clear:
>
> Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
> his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>
> After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
> 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>
> .mikko
>


Bruguera was experienced 2 time slam champ - Goran just out of juniors &
rookie status.


    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:05:43
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>>>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
>>>>> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
>>>>>
>>>>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>>>> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
>>>> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
>>>> right?).
>>>
>>> 19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.
>>
>> Not just theory as evidence is clear:
>>
>> Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
>> his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>>
>> After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
>> 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
> Bruguera was experienced 2 time slam champ - Goran just out of juniors &
> rookie status.

Sampras was experienced 13 time slam champ - Hewitt just out of juniors &
rookie status.

(fun, this is)


     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 23:18:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>>> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>>>>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
>>>>>> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>>>>> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
>>>>> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
>>>>> right?).
>>>> 19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.
>>> Not just theory as evidence is clear:
>>>
>>> Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
>>> his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>>>
>>> After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
>>> 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>>
>>
>> Bruguera was experienced 2 time slam champ - Goran just out of juniors &
>> rookie status.
>
> Sampras was experienced 13 time slam champ - Hewitt just out of juniors &
> rookie status.
>
> (fun, this is)


Sampras was old & tired & had little to play for (already held slam
record) - Agassi was only 22 & keen to win his 1st slam. No comparison.

Think carefully before wasting b/w. Ask yourself 'What would Whisper
say?' - then examine it closely & you'll save a heap of b/w.




      
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:28:53
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>>>> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
>>>>>>> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>>>>>> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
>>>>>> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
>>>>>> right?).
>>>>> 19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.
>>>> Not just theory as evidence is clear:
>>>>
>>>> Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
>>>> his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>>>>
>>>> After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
>>>> 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>>>>
>>>> .mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bruguera was experienced 2 time slam champ - Goran just out of juniors &
>>> rookie status.
>>
>> Sampras was experienced 13 time slam champ - Hewitt just out of juniors &
>> rookie status.
>>
>> (fun, this is)
>
>
> Sampras was old & tired & had little to play for (already held slam
> record) - Agassi was only 22 & keen to win his 1st slam. No comparison.
>
> Think carefully before wasting b/w. Ask yourself 'What would Whisper
> say?' - then examine it closely & you'll save a heap of b/w.

You, of all people, worried about wasting BW? I believe there's a RuPEDski quote
that could come in handy...


   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 10:43:08
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:132b686e-373c-4236-bd28-c525935941f2@u13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>> >
>> > *skriptis kirjoitti:
>> >> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
>> >> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of
>> >> them
>> >>
>> >> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>> >
>> > Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
>> > Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
>> > right?).
>>
>>
>> 19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.
>
> Not just theory as evidence is clear:
>
> Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
> his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>
> After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
> 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.


I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.

How do you determine "peak" anyway?

1. Reaching career best ranking? Then he was not peak in 1992 since that was
not his best ranking.
2. Having biggest success? Again, not, since he repeated 1992 few more times
and actually hit the sky in 2001.
3. Some subjective assesment of someone's play at given moment. I guess you
used this?


I said I have no problems calling him prime in 1992, but peak is a bit too
much imo.




  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 00:45:31
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


*skriptis kirjoitti:
>> And I almost feel I could bet on my life Fed/Rafa beating
> Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick etc..both are better players than anyonee
> in the group I mentioned, and since no one there knows how to play s/v game,
> the outcome is much more predictable.

It true that S&V vs S&V or S&V vs baseliner create more unpredicable
outcomes as baseliner vs baseliner.

It is the nature of S&V. High risk, high reward but also in danger to
subcumb badly. This is the main reason for S&V decline. In any single
fast court match top S&V can make the deed done but to stand 7 matches
with today's field...there is no room for off-day for S&V player.

And I do not necessarily think that Goran was any kind of S&V player.
He just used that strategy (as he was quided a'la Hewitt pre2002 on
grass) sure but my hunch is that with his built-in "not that great
volleying" he would had made same results or even better had he stayed
back.

.mikko


   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:09:36
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:f378b31b-33df-483d-9861-48c0449dd734@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>> And I almost feel I could bet on my life Fed/Rafa beating
>> Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick etc..both are better players than
>> anyonee
>> in the group I mentioned, and since no one there knows how to play s/v
>> game,
>> the outcome is much more predictable.
>
> It true that S&V vs S&V or S&V vs baseliner create more unpredicable
> outcomes as baseliner vs baseliner.
>
> It is the nature of S&V. High risk, high reward but also in danger to
> subcumb badly. This is the main reason for S&V decline. In any single
> fast court match top S&V can make the deed done but to stand 7 matches
> with today's field...there is no room for off-day for S&V player.
>
> And I do not necessarily think that Goran was any kind of S&V player.
> He just used that strategy (as he was quided a'la Hewitt pre2002 on
> grass) sure but my hunch is that with his built-in "not that great
> volleying" he would had made same results or even better had he stayed
> back.

You said the same thing about Sampras regarding his latter part of his
career.
But both of them surely had reasons not to stay back in their matches.
For Sampras it was his medical condition, probably, if true, which prevented
him from having too much in the tank for rallying, and for Goran, well, he's
was not so clownish form the baseline, in fact, I don't think his volleying
was so much better than his baseline game.

But he's just antibumrooting type, he hated it. That was a good strategy
anyway, don't do something you don't enjoy doing...




  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 21:49:25
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


*skriptis kirjoitti:
> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
>
> I belive that was Whisper's point here.

Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
right?). Nadal 2008 is way better grasscourt player than Agassi 1992.

The problem with all this thread's thinking is that somehow it has
been "locked" that you need a certain type of a game to excel at
Wimbledon.

Borg's chances at Wimbledon were still being dismissed after he had
already 2 of those under his belt just because "he did not play proper
game".

It is partly eye-candy factor, partly nostalgic non-sense and partly
PEIBS. And of course Goran happens to be likable and charismatic
person. Had he been Nikolai Lendldenko from Slovakia his clown status,
lost finals and choking would be mocked badly and his late Wimbledon
title considered as sob lucky act.

.mikko


   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:46:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
>
> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
>> Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them
>>
>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>
> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
> right?).


19 yr old Goran was peak? 1st time I hear this theory.



> Nadal 2008 is way better grasscourt player than Agassi 1992.



Opinion noted.




   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 07:34:46
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek,
>> Henman, Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against
>> any of them
>>
>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>
> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
> right?).

I don't know about him being peak in 92, maybe, but certainly he was prime,
ok.
Agassi was also two-time slam r/up, YEC winner. And older than Goran. Maybe
the experience was what made the difference. 6-4 in the fifth.

So he lost, yeah, we all know he couldn't win slams, not because he
completely lacked game but because he couldn't sustain it for 7 matches
and/or held his nerves.
You're talking as if someone said s/v player can't lose a match on grass.


>Nadal 2008 is way better grasscourt player than Agassi 1992.

But Agassi kept improving (agreed?) yet he never won another Wimbledon. Even
when he was peak. He was knocked-out by Becker, Sampras, Rafter.
So the point wasn't that Goran or other s/v would have beaten Nadal every
time, but no way would I bet on my life Rafa/Federer beating someone like
Krajicek,Goran,Rafter etc there in a single match.

And I almost feel I could bet on my life Fed/Rafa beating
Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick etc..both are better players than anyonee
in the group I mentioned, and since no one there knows how to play s/v game,
the outcome is much more predictable.




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:49:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
*skriptis wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>> Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek,
>>> Henman, Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against
>>> any of them
>>>
>>> I belive that was Whisper's point here.
>> Young and raw Agassi beat peak Goran at Wimb final (Goran had beat
>> Edberg, Lendl and Sampras during his route to that final, peak
>> right?).
>
> I don't know about him being peak in 92, maybe, but certainly he was prime,
> ok.
> Agassi was also two-time slam r/up,



3 time slam r/up - '90 & '91 FO, '90 USO.


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 07:25:45
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 9, 6:19=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> Stapler wrote:
> >>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> >>>> * aces
> >>>> * unreturnable serves
> >>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> >>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take tim=
e
> >>>> away from him to win the points
>
> >>> Bullshit. =A0I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> >> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal'=
s mental
> >> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>
> > How about on the serve?
>
> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the necessary
> double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to? Not Rios, not
> Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not Agassi, not Sampras... no=
t
> exaclty stellar mental material there.
>
> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran types but =
the
> guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock" Henman... I am confide=
nt
> that Nadal would have made him crumble.

What country is Goran from again? And what country is Whimpy and
Skriptroll from again?


   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 21:52:04
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:25:45 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 9, 6:19 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> >> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >>> Stapler wrote:
>> >>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>
>> >>>> * aces
>> >>>> * unreturnable serves
>> >>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>
>> >>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>> >>>> away from him to win the points
>>
>> >>> Bullshit.  I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>
>> >> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
>> >> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>
>> > How about on the serve?
>>
>> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the necessary
>> double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to? Not Rios, not
>> Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not Agassi, not Sampras... not
>> exaclty stellar mental material there.
>>
>> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran types but the
>> guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock" Henman... I am confident
>> that Nadal would have made him crumble.
>
>What country is Goran from again? And what country is Whimpy and
>Skriptroll from again?

Exactly. I was going to say that. A guy from Sampras era from Croatia.
Batman and Robin will make him the 2nd best player ever if this thread
continues much longer.


    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 14:52:56
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:p621p41flgcpis7tk1o9ktngd8s527ges0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:25:45 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 9, 6:19 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> > Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> >> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> >>> Stapler wrote:
>>> >>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>
>>> >>>> * aces
>>> >>>> * unreturnable serves
>>> >>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>
>>> >>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take
>>> >>>> time
>>> >>>> away from him to win the points
>>>
>>> >>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>>
>>> >> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that
>>> >> Nadal's mental
>>> >> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>>
>>> > How about on the serve?
>>>
>>> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the necessary
>>> double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to? Not Rios, not
>>> Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not Agassi, not Sampras...
>>> not
>>> exaclty stellar mental material there.
>>>
>>> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran types but
>>> the
>>> guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock" Henman... I am
>>> confident
>>> that Nadal would have made him crumble.
>>
>>What country is Goran from again? And what country is Whimpy and
>>Skriptroll from again?
>
> Exactly. I was going to say that. A guy from Sampras era from Croatia.
> Batman and Robin will make him the 2nd best player ever if this thread
> continues much longer.

Are you trying to be some kind of joker around here?




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:08:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:25:45 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 9, 6:19 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>>>>> * aces
>>>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>>>>>> away from him to win the points
>>>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>>>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
>>>>> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>>> How about on the serve?
>>> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the necessary
>>> double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to? Not Rios, not
>>> Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not Agassi, not Sampras... not
>>> exaclty stellar mental material there.
>>>
>>> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran types but the
>>> guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock" Henman... I am confident
>>> that Nadal would have made him crumble.
>> What country is Goran from again? And what country is Whimpy and
>> Skriptroll from again?
>
> Exactly. I was going to say that. A guy from Sampras era from Croatia.
> Batman and Robin will make him the 2nd best player ever if this thread
> continues much longer.


Isn't Ljubicic from Croatia too?

Don't let facts spoil a good story.



    
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:45:29
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:25:45 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 9, 6:19 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>
>>>>>>> * aces
>>>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force
>>>>>>> errors
>>>
>>>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to
>>>>>>> take time away from him to win the points
>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>>
>>>>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that
>>>>> Nadal's mental strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>>
>>>> How about on the serve?
>>>
>>> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the
>>> necessary double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to?
>>> Not Rios, not Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not
>>> Agassi, not Sampras... not exaclty stellar mental material there.
>>>
>>> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran
>>> types but the guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock"
>>> Henman... I am confident that Nadal would have made him crumble.
>>
>> What country is Goran from again? And what country is Whimpy and
>> Skriptroll from again?
>
> Exactly. I was going to say that. A guy from Sampras era from Croatia.
> Batman and Robin will make him the 2nd best player ever if this thread
> continues much longer.


Pathetic really. You wrote more about your juniors than I ever did about my
players.
Surely by now you've seen me very little writing/talking about home players,
and supporting them was never the case here.
I am a tennis fan. So is Whisper.

So you did nothing but joined arnab into his bigotry for which he's known.






     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:35:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
*skriptis wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:25:45 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 6:19 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>>>>>> * aces
>>>>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force
>>>>>>>> errors
>>>>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to
>>>>>>>> take time away from him to win the points
>>>>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>>>>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that
>>>>>> Nadal's mental strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>>>> How about on the serve?
>>>> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the
>>>> necessary double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to?
>>>> Not Rios, not Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not
>>>> Agassi, not Sampras... not exaclty stellar mental material there.
>>>>
>>>> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran
>>>> types but the guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock"
>>>> Henman... I am confident that Nadal would have made him crumble.
>>> What country is Goran from again? And what country is Whimpy and
>>> Skriptroll from again?
>> Exactly. I was going to say that. A guy from Sampras era from Croatia.
>> Batman and Robin will make him the 2nd best player ever if this thread
>> continues much longer.
>
>
> Pathetic really. You wrote more about your juniors than I ever did about my
> players.
> Surely by now you've seen me very little writing/talking about home players,
> and supporting them was never the case here.
> I am a tennis fan. So is Whisper.
>
> So you did nothing but joined arnab into his bigotry for which he's known.
>
>
>
>


Correct. You don't see anyone suggesting Wimbledon is unimportant & a
slam should be created in Croatia because there are better players there
than Britain.

Arnab thinks Asia should have a slam even if there are no good players
from there. Complete boob.




  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 03:17:11
From:
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 9, 10:21=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "MBDunc" <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
>
> news:619f276c-5617-4c98-aca1-9443f95f4764@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Whisper kirjoitti:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >> > Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> Stapler wrote:
> >> >>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> >> >>> * aces
> >> >>> * unreturnable serves
> >> >>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> >> >>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take t=
ime
> >> >>> away from him to win the points
>
> >> >> Bullshit. =A0I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> >> > Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nada=
l's
> >> > mental
> >> > strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>
> >> How about on the serve?
>
> > Well Goran obv. did not do extra great things even at his heydays.
> > Instead kept losing odd matches everywhere and very rarely won matches
> > over the very great. Practically he won Wimb SF against young Sampras
> > and Wimb SF against Becker who had his worst year on tour. Apart those
> > occasions Goran either lost early rounds to journeyman or always came
> > up short against his equal peers. Luckily he got his cinderella story
> > patch cleared up at Wimb 2001...
>
> > Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has has 3-4 even on Carpet)
> > Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
>
> Becker was as old in those years as Sampras was when he was making finals
> and winning USO in 01/02.
> So what if he beat Becker 4 times in 97/98.
>
> > Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
> > Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
> > great)
>
> Also one Key Biscayne final Ivanisevic retired because of a bad neck. So
> were'e discounting Ivanisevic's wins when he peaked before his oponent,
> and/or when his oponenet was past his prime?
>
> > Ivo vs Muster 3-3
>
> Beat Muster once in Davis Cup in Austria on clay. Imagine someone beating
> Nadal on clay in Spain?
> Huh.

Nadal is much better on clay than even Muster though ...




   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:32:06
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:21 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "MBDunc" <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:619f276c-5617-4c98-aca1-9443f95f4764@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>
>>>>>>> * aces
>>>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force
>>>>>>> errors
>>
>>>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to
>>>>>>> take time away from him to win the points
>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>
>>>>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that
>>>>> Nadal's mental
>>>>> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>
>>>> How about on the serve?
>>
>>> Well Goran obv. did not do extra great things even at his heydays.
>>> Instead kept losing odd matches everywhere and very rarely won
>>> matches over the very great. Practically he won Wimb SF against
>>> young Sampras and Wimb SF against Becker who had his worst year on
>>> tour. Apart those occasions Goran either lost early rounds to
>>> journeyman or always came up short against his equal peers. Luckily
>>> he got his cinderella story patch cleared up at Wimb 2001...
>>
>>> Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has has 3-4 even on Carpet)
>>> Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
>>
>> Becker was as old in those years as Sampras was when he was making
>> finals and winning USO in 01/02.
>> So what if he beat Becker 4 times in 97/98.
>>
>>> Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
>>> Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
>>> great)
>>
>> Also one Key Biscayne final Ivanisevic retired because of a bad
>> neck. So were'e discounting Ivanisevic's wins when he peaked before
>> his oponent, and/or when his oponenet was past his prime?
>>
>>> Ivo vs Muster 3-3
>>
>> Beat Muster once in Davis Cup in Austria on clay. Imagine someone
>> beating Nadal on clay in Spain?
>> Huh.
>
> Nadal is much better on clay than even Muster though ...

Completely agree. But how much better Federer is on clay than Ivanisevic,
much better too, no?




  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 03:15:22
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


*skriptis kirjoitti:
> Also one Key Biscayne final Ivanisevic retired because of a bad neck. So
> were'e discounting Ivanisevic's wins when he peaked before his oponent,
> and/or when his oponenet was past his prime?

Why not? There is no point to argue that someone like Rostagno has
winning h2h over Sampras either. Or that Chang once was 5-0 over
Sampras on tour. Agassi 1991 was a shadow of himself compared to 94-95
or 99- >.
1991 he was capable to great play but was extremely inconsistent as
his record shows for that year.

> > Ivo vs Muster 3-3
>
> Beat Muster once in Davis Cup in Austria on clay. Imagine someone beating
> Nadal on clay in Spain?
> Huh.

As you probably checked above you noticed when the match happened.
Also Muster was no Nadal (or was briefly 95-until FO96 on clay).

> > Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
>
> Beat him in Wimbledon final, great h2h.

Great? Equal (Rafter beat him at USO)

> This is more like solid, not mediocre considering he's won less slams than
> most of the guys.
> He actually has good h2h imo.

Good? Practically all Goran's wins were from tuneups and rarely from
big matches.

This is as ridiculous attempt to raise Goran as Whispers' sudden love
for Rafter and Chang last autumn (which contraticted very strongly to
his 2000-2005 posts about them).

Goran was great at times but he always failed against mentally
stronger opponents. Too bad, I liked his game but had he had proper
mental strenght or just some focus.

.mikko


   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:30:42
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
> *skriptis kirjoitti:
>> Also one Key Biscayne final Ivanisevic retired because of a bad
>> neck. So were'e discounting Ivanisevic's wins when he peaked before
>> his oponent, and/or when his oponenet was past his prime?
>
> Why not? There is no point to argue that someone like Rostagno has
> winning h2h over Sampras either. Or that Chang once was 5-0 over
> Sampras on tour. Agassi 1991 was a shadow of himself compared to 94-95
> or 99->.
> 1991 he was capable to great play but was extremely inconsistent as
> his record shows for that year.


While I agree to an extent it makes no sense to compare guys who clearly
were past their prime, or didn't hit it yet vs guys who were at their best
eg Rafter-Federer 3-0, I am oposed to relativisation. Eg. Federer-Hewitt.
One could claim Federer picked up all those wins vs Hewitt when the latter
was past his peak, even his prime. But Hewitt was not some 35+ at the time,
and neither was Becker when he lost those last matches vs Goran

Both Goran and Becker played for many years, played enough matches and the
difference between them is only 4 years, played on variety of surfaces so I
think there is no need disect so much. Both had ups and downs, that's part
of the tour.

This is not "who'd win at peak", but simple h2h data.




>> Beat Muster once in Davis Cup in Austria on clay. Imagine someone
>> beating Nadal on clay in Spain?
>> Huh.
>
> As you probably checked above you noticed when the match happened.
> Also Muster was no Nadal (or was briefly 95-until FO96 on clay).


Of course, Muster was no Nadal, but neither was Ivanisevic Federer.
You'd agree it takes humongous effort to beat the best claycourter of your
era on his home soil in best of 5. And he came back from 1-2 to do it.

It was in 97, shortly after Muster hit his best career ranking #2, and won
Miami I believe. So he wasn't quite washed up at the time.




>>> Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
>>
>> Beat him in Wimbledon final, great h2h.
>
> Great? Equal (Rafter beat him at USO)


Well it's great? I mean, we're not talking about GOAT-type, but Goran
Ivanisevic.
You don't think Krajicek sees his slam h2h vs Sampras 1-1 as great?




>> This is more like solid, not mediocre considering he's won less
>> slams than most of the guys.
>> He actually has good h2h imo.
>
> Good? Practically all Goran's wins were from tuneups and rarely from
> big matches.

That's why he only has 1 slam, but I don't see the point of denying
something when it happened and/or taking away well deserved wins he had by
saying they were only tuneups.



> This is as ridiculous attempt to raise Goran as Whispers' sudden love
> for Rafter and Chang last autumn (which contraticted very strongly to
> his 2000-2005 posts about them).

I don't know about that, I came in 2005.
Does it always have to be about Whisper around here anyway?




> Goran was great at times but he always failed against mentally
> stronger opponents. Too bad, I liked his game but had he had proper
> mental strenght or just some focus.

True. What was the subject of this thread anyway? Looking at it now one
would might think someone claimed Ivanisevic was tier 1 champ. :)




  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 03:01:53
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


Whisper kirjoitti:
> To be fair Rafa has not had the calibre of opponent Rafa is enjoying.
> He had to beat Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Courier, Krajicek,
> Agassi, Stich etc

..and he did as his record shows....wait a minute what was Goran's big
title count again? And his great wins against above players. One hand
fingers are enough to calculate those and even then they are mainly
from SF stage.

Doublestandards again from you.

.mikko


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 02:01:18
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


Whisper kirjoitti:
> He reached No.2 when peak Sampras was no.1 - that is testament to his
> ability.

Very briefly and with a relat=EDvely miserable record: wimb final and a
couple of tuneup titles. That was due to a) Agassi has not yet started
collecting his points (wrist surgery). b) All Becker/Edberg/Stich/
Courier subcumbed badly during same time. Just check Ivo's results
which generated his #2 ranking. Quite eh...it was transition time for
#2 spot (similar to during Fed's heyday year 2004 before Nadal started
his great career).

Ion Tiriac said he'd win 5 Wimbledons easy, & he woulda gone
> close if no goat around. He won titles on all surfaces including clay,
> & beat all the greatest players around at slams.

Wouldacouldashoulda. Especially when 95% of Goran's titles were
strickly from tuneups and most of them against mediocre fields. Sure
he would have won 2? Wimbledons extra (but no other slams still) if no
Sampras. But again Roddick would have won also 2? Wimbledons if no
Federer (+ some HC slams as well).

Apart from Wimbledon, Goran had one US semi. That's all. And you are
praising this guy? Goran sure had all the potential but no head to
stand against better opponents.

Ruthless Nadal would have eaten him alive.

.mikko






   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 21:08:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> He reached No.2 when peak Sampras was no.1 - that is testament to his
>> ability.
>
> Very briefly and with a relatívely miserable record: wimb final and a
> couple of tuneup titles. That was due to a) Agassi has not yet started
> collecting his points (wrist surgery). b) All Becker/Edberg/Stich/
> Courier subcumbed badly during same time. Just check Ivo's results
> which generated his #2 ranking. Quite eh...it was transition time for
> #2 spot (similar to during Fed's heyday year 2004 before Nadal started
> his great career).
>
> Ion Tiriac said he'd win 5 Wimbledons easy, & he woulda gone
>> close if no goat around. He won titles on all surfaces including clay,
>> & beat all the greatest players around at slams.
>
> Wouldacouldashoulda. Especially when 95% of Goran's titles were
> strickly from tuneups and most of them against mediocre fields. Sure
> he would have won 2? Wimbledons extra (but no other slams still) if no
> Sampras. But again Roddick would have won also 2? Wimbledons if no
> Federer (+ some HC slams as well).
>
> Apart from Wimbledon, Goran had one US semi. That's all. And you are
> praising this guy? Goran sure had all the potential but no head to
> stand against better opponents.
>
> Ruthless Nadal would have eaten him alive.
>
> .mikko
>
>
>
>


To be fair Rafa has not had the calibre of opponent Rafa is enjoying.
He had to beat Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Courier, Krajicek,
Agassi, Stich etc


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 00:49:19
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


Whisper kirjoitti:
> > Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has it 3-4 even on Carpet)
> > Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
> > Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
> > Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
> > great)
> > Ivo vs Muster 3-3
> > Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
> > Ivo vs Bruguera 5-4 (finally a winning h2h)
> > Ivo vs Courier 3-8 (this lopsided!)
> > Ivo vs Edberg 10-9 (Ivo won 6 in a row 92-93 and the last two 1996). I
> > actually remember one of their tune-up matches around 92-93 where Ivo
> > completely massacred Edberg.
> >
> > Ivo handled Krajicek well (9-3) though.
> >
> > So Ivo's campaign against his peers was quite mediocre.
>
> Huh?
>
> Those numbers look great.

Great? What glasses you are wearing? Biasnoculars?

Mediorce results for regular top5 player and to boot he never got his
acts correct when there were big stakes.
One Wimbledon late career (that was a fine end)
One GSC when it was already heading down from its very hypotetical
prestige status.
2 Masterseries/Supernine titles (tuneups right?)

Instead a lot of a) bitter nailbiting losses b) total miserable losses
at early rounds.

Alone the fact that Ivo won 22 titles (most of them at minor European
indoor venues with other greats missing) but lost 27 finals tells you
a story.

.mijkko




   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:23:08
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:14afb750-49b9-41a3-95e4-bc2f93ae77b4@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> > Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has it 3-4 even on Carpet)
>> > Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
>> > Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
>> > Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
>> > great)
>> > Ivo vs Muster 3-3
>> > Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
>> > Ivo vs Bruguera 5-4 (finally a winning h2h)
>> > Ivo vs Courier 3-8 (this lopsided!)
>> > Ivo vs Edberg 10-9 (Ivo won 6 in a row 92-93 and the last two 1996). I
>> > actually remember one of their tune-up matches around 92-93 where Ivo
>> > completely massacred Edberg.
>> >
>> > Ivo handled Krajicek well (9-3) though.
>> >
>> > So Ivo's campaign against his peers was quite mediocre.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Those numbers look great.
>
> Great? What glasses you are wearing? Biasnoculars?
>
> Mediorce results for regular top5 player and to boot he never got his
> acts correct when there were big stakes.
> One Wimbledon late career (that was a fine end)
> One GSC when it was already heading down from its very hypotetical
> prestige status.
> 2 Masterseries/Supernine titles (tuneups right?)
>
> Instead a lot of a) bitter nailbiting losses b) total miserable losses
> at early rounds.
>
> Alone the fact that Ivo won 22 titles (most of them at minor European
> indoor venues with other greats missing) but lost 27 finals tells you
> a story.


Are we discussing overall achievements or potential Wiimbledon matchups?




   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:37:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>> Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has it 3-4 even on Carpet)
>>> Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
>>> Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
>>> Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
>>> great)
>>> Ivo vs Muster 3-3
>>> Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
>>> Ivo vs Bruguera 5-4 (finally a winning h2h)
>>> Ivo vs Courier 3-8 (this lopsided!)
>>> Ivo vs Edberg 10-9 (Ivo won 6 in a row 92-93 and the last two 1996). I
>>> actually remember one of their tune-up matches around 92-93 where Ivo
>>> completely massacred Edberg.
>>>
>>> Ivo handled Krajicek well (9-3) though.
>>>
>>> So Ivo's campaign against his peers was quite mediocre.
>> Huh?
>>
>> Those numbers look great.
>
> Great? What glasses you are wearing? Biasnoculars?
>
> Mediorce results for regular top5 player and to boot he never got his
> acts correct when there were big stakes.
> One Wimbledon late career (that was a fine end)
> One GSC when it was already heading down from its very hypotetical
> prestige status.
> 2 Masterseries/Supernine titles (tuneups right?)
>
> Instead a lot of a) bitter nailbiting losses b) total miserable losses
> at early rounds.
>
> Alone the fact that Ivo won 22 titles (most of them at minor European
> indoor venues with other greats missing) but lost 27 finals tells you
> a story.
>
> .mijkko
>
>


He reached No.2 when peak Sampras was no.1 - that is testament to his
ability. Ion Tiriac said he'd win 5 Wimbledons easy, & he woulda gone
close if no goat around. He won titles on all surfaces including clay,
& beat all the greatest players around at slams.



  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 00:23:57
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...


Whisper kirjoitti:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Stapler wrote:
> >>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
> >>>
> >>> * aces
> >>> * unreturnable serves
> >>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
> >>>
> >>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
> >>> away from him to win the points
> >>
> >> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
> >
> > Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
> > strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>
>
> How about on the serve?

Well Goran obv. did not do extra great things even at his heydays.
Instead kept losing odd matches everywhere and very rarely won matches
over the very great. Practically he won Wimb SF against young Sampras
and Wimb SF against Becker who had his worst year on tour. Apart those
occasions Goran either lost early rounds to journeyman or always came
up short against his equal peers. Luckily he got his cinderella story
patch cleared up at Wimb 2001...

Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has has 3-4 even on Carpet)
Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
great)
Ivo vs Muster 3-3
Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
Ivo vs Bruguera 5-4 (finally a winning h2h)
Ivo vs Courier 3-8 (this lopsided!)
Ivo vs Edberg 10-9 (Ivo won 6 in a row 92-93 and the last two 1996). I
actually remember one of their tune-up matches around 92-93 where Ivo
completely massacred Edberg.

Ivo handled Krajicek well (9-3) though.

So Ivo's campaign against his peers was quite mediocre. Especially
considering that most of his wins where from tuneups and at slams/yec
he always subcumbed to his "better" opponents.

.mikko


   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:21:32
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:619f276c-5617-4c98-aca1-9443f95f4764@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> > Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> Stapler wrote:
>> >>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>> >>>
>> >>> * aces
>> >>> * unreturnable serves
>> >>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>> >>>
>> >>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>> >>> away from him to win the points
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>> >
>> > Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's
>> > mental
>> > strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>
>>
>> How about on the serve?
>
> Well Goran obv. did not do extra great things even at his heydays.
> Instead kept losing odd matches everywhere and very rarely won matches
> over the very great. Practically he won Wimb SF against young Sampras
> and Wimb SF against Becker who had his worst year on tour. Apart those
> occasions Goran either lost early rounds to journeyman or always came
> up short against his equal peers. Luckily he got his cinderella story
> patch cleared up at Wimb 2001...
>
> Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has has 3-4 even on Carpet)
> Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)

Becker was as old in those years as Sampras was when he was making finals
and winning USO in 01/02.
So what if he beat Becker 4 times in 97/98.




> Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
> Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
> great)

Also one Key Biscayne final Ivanisevic retired because of a bad neck. So
were'e discounting Ivanisevic's wins when he peaked before his oponent,
and/or when his oponenet was past his prime?


> Ivo vs Muster 3-3

Beat Muster once in Davis Cup in Austria on clay. Imagine someone beating
Nadal on clay in Spain?
Huh.


> Ivo vs Rafter 2-2

Beat him in Wimbledon final, great h2h.


> Ivo vs Bruguera 5-4 (finally a winning h2h)
> Ivo vs Courier 3-8 (this lopsided!)
> Ivo vs Edberg 10-9 (Ivo won 6 in a row 92-93 and the last two 1996). I
> actually remember one of their tune-up matches around 92-93 where Ivo
> completely massacred Edberg.
>
> Ivo handled Krajicek well (9-3) though.
>
> So Ivo's campaign against his peers was quite mediocre. Especially
> considering that most of his wins where from tuneups and at slams/yec
> he always subcumbed to his "better" opponents.


This is more like solid, not mediocre considering he's won less slams than
most of the guys.
He actually has good h2h imo.




   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 19:38:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>>>
>>>>> * aces
>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>>>
>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>>>> away from him to win the points
>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
>>> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>
>> How about on the serve?
>
> Well Goran obv. did not do extra great things even at his heydays.
> Instead kept losing odd matches everywhere and very rarely won matches
> over the very great. Practically he won Wimb SF against young Sampras
> and Wimb SF against Becker who had his worst year on tour. Apart those
> occasions Goran either lost early rounds to journeyman or always came
> up short against his equal peers. Luckily he got his cinderella story
> patch cleared up at Wimb 2001...
>
> Ivo vs Chang 5-6 (Chang has has 3-4 even on Carpet)
> Ivo vs Becker 9-10 (Ivo's last four wins 97-98)
> Ivo vs Sampras 6-12
> Ivo vs Agassi 3-4 (two of Ivo's wins 1991 when Agassi was yet *that*
> great)
> Ivo vs Muster 3-3
> Ivo vs Rafter 2-2
> Ivo vs Bruguera 5-4 (finally a winning h2h)
> Ivo vs Courier 3-8 (this lopsided!)
> Ivo vs Edberg 10-9 (Ivo won 6 in a row 92-93 and the last two 1996). I
> actually remember one of their tune-up matches around 92-93 where Ivo
> completely massacred Edberg.
>
> Ivo handled Krajicek well (9-3) though.
>
> So Ivo's campaign against his peers was quite mediocre.

Huh?

Those numbers look great.


  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 22:02:18
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Stapler wrote:
>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>
>> * aces
>> * unreturnable serves
>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>
>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>> away from him to win the points
>
>
> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.

Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
strength would make him crumble like a cookie.


   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 19:01:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Stapler wrote:
>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>
>>> * aces
>>> * unreturnable serves
>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>
>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>> away from him to win the points
>>
>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.


How about on the serve?



    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:45:04
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 11, 5:44 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Silence, Fedfucker!" <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:78dbd151-51af-4117-b81d-5cbc92768752@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 3:00 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Silence, Fedfucker!"
>
> >> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final,
> >> >> > actually
> >> >> > his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>
> >> >> > After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera.
> >> >> > Gorans
> >> >> > 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>
> >> >> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.
>
> >> >AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.............................who
> >> >would have guessed ?
>
> >> I didn't even bother replying, but had to smile when I saw that.
>
> > Yes, Skriptis is up Whisper's ass crack for sure.
>
> Wasn't it *skriptis=Whisper?

Well you are so far up his ass you have basically become part of him.
This is the reason you are known as a Tier One ANAL-yst.

Of course there is not much room up there with Bob as well. Maybe
Whisper will explode at some point and all three of you will explode.


     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:56:24
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"Silence, Fedfucker!" <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:1d24470d-c7bf-4a27-afcd-971b02e20da2@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 5:44 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Silence, Fedfucker!" <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:78dbd151-51af-4117-b81d-5cbc92768752@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 11, 3:00 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Silence, Fedfucker!"
>>
>> >> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final,
>> >> >> > actually
>> >> >> > his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>>
>> >> >> > After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera.
>> >> >> > Gorans
>> >> >> > 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>>
>> >> >> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with
>> >> >> Whisper.
>>
>> >> >AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.............................who
>> >> >would have guessed ?
>>
>> >> I didn't even bother replying, but had to smile when I saw that.
>>
>> > Yes, Skriptis is up Whisper's ass crack for sure.
>>
>> Wasn't it *skriptis=Whisper?
>
> Well you are so far up his ass you have basically become part of him.
> This is the reason you are known as a Tier One ANAL-yst.
>
> Of course there is not much room up there with Bob as well. Maybe
> Whisper will explode at some point and all three of you will explode.

It would be like a supernova explosion then...seed of new life.




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 08:05:39
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 11, 3:00 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Silence, Fedfucker!"
>
> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final, actually
> >> > his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>
> >> > After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera. Gorans
> >> > 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>
> >> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.
>
> >AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.............................who
> >would have guessed ?
>
> I didn't even bother replying, but had to smile when I saw that.

Yes, Skriptis is up Whisper's ass crack for sure.


     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:44:18
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...

"Silence, Fedfucker!" <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:78dbd151-51af-4117-b81d-5cbc92768752@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 3:00 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:34:26 -0800 (PST), "Silence, Fedfucker!"
>>
>> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Goran 1992 beat Sampras, Lendl and Edberg and reached final,
>> >> > actually
>> >> > his most quality wins ever at Wimbledon.
>>
>> >> > After all you keep on referring Bruguera 1996 as peak Bruguera.
>> >> > Gorans
>> >> > 1992 results are infinite times better than Bruguera's 1996.
>>
>> >> I really have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Whisper.
>>
>> >AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.............................who
>> >would have guessed ?
>>
>> I didn't even bother replying, but had to smile when I saw that.
>
> Yes, Skriptis is up Whisper's ass crack for sure.


Wasn't it *skriptis=Whisper?





    
Date: 09 Feb 2009 09:19:09
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>>
>>>> * aces
>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>>
>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>>> away from him to win the points
>>>
>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>
>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that Nadal's mental
>> strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>
>
> How about on the serve?
>

Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the necessary
double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to? Not Rios, not
Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not Agassi, not Sampras... not
exaclty stellar mental material there.

You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran types but the
guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock" Henman... I am confident
that Nadal would have made him crumble.


     
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:40:42
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>>>
>>>>> * aces
>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>>>
>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take
>>>>> time away from him to win the points
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>>
>>> Goran could not take it away even from Rios - and you know that
>>> Nadal's mental strength would make him crumble like a cookie.
>>
>>
>> How about on the serve?
>>
>
> Goran served great, but you could count on him coughing up the
> necessary double faults. Who does Ivanisevic have a winning h2h to?
> Not Rios, not Henman, not Rafter, not Corretja, not Moya, not Agassi,
> not Sampras... not exaclty stellar mental material there.
>
> You love to spout about Federer being "too softcock" for Goran types
> but the guy couldn't beat consistently Tim "Lord Softcock" Henman...
> I am confident that Nadal would have made him crumble.


Regular tour? Of course, but I believe someone claimed Nadal would be the
fav vs. Goran at Wimbledon.

It's notthing about Goran, I am sure he'd find a way to lose enough matches
to Nadal, even at Wimbledon.
But he beat some big names there, and he would be capable of beating Rafa
just as well.

Like most of s/v types would be. Not only Goran, but Krajicek, Henman,
Rafter etc. I don't see Rafa as a *strong favorite* against any of them

I belive that was Whisper's point here.


Guys like Kendrick, Soderling, Yozhny had him on the ropes there..so I think
it's too much to say Henman, Krajicek, Rafter, Goran would be the underdogs.





  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 07:49:25
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 6:34=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 8 helmi, 12:36, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:16:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Stapler wrote:
> > >> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> > >> * aces
> > >> * unreturnable serves
> > >> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> > >> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take tim=
e
> > >> away from him to win the points
>
> > >Bullshit. =A0I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> > oh now you added Goran I see. Is that supposed to make your folly more
> > believeable or what ?
>
> Yep. After all Goran one *one* significant fast court title during his
> whole career (1989-2004, though latter years he was often injured) No
> USO final, No even YEC final.... Otherwise he either choked titles
> away from his reach or just kept subcumbing to journeymen at early
> rounds.
>
> How Goran the Flakehead could have competed against the mental monster
> like Nadal? He had problems with way lesser players like Chang even on
> HC/Carpet...
>
> .mikko

Now I get it. You find Whisper funny, because of his blatant
stupidity. He is Tier 1 analysis at its best.



  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:54:02
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 5:16=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Stapler wrote:
> > is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> > * aces
> > * unreturnable serves
> > * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> > But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
> > away from him to win the points
>
> Bullshit. =A0I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.

Sampras always had the ability to win every match was well
demonstrated against mini-Nadal (Hewitt) in USO final and Safin as
well. Wondering if he had to meet the real Nadal, what the score line
will be. Nadal in 3 sets, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1.



   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 05:37:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
wkhedr wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:16 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Stapler wrote:
>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>> * aces
>>> * unreturnable serves
>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>> away from him to win the points
>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> Sampras always had the ability to win every match was well
> demonstrated against mini-Nadal (Hewitt) in USO final and Safin as
> well. Wondering if he had to meet the real Nadal, what the score line
> will be. Nadal in 3 sets, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1.
>


Do you think Fed will be even that good? You think he'll be able to
make 2011 USO final & win it in 2012?


    
Date: 09 Feb 2009 00:57:23
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:37:11 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>wkhedr wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 5:16 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>> * aces
>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>>> away from him to win the points
>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>
>> Sampras always had the ability to win every match was well
>> demonstrated against mini-Nadal (Hewitt) in USO final and Safin as
>> well. Wondering if he had to meet the real Nadal, what the score line
>> will be. Nadal in 3 sets, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1.
>>
>
>
>Do you think Fed will be even that good? You think he'll be able to
>make 2011 USO final & win it in 2012?


of course. you mean you have doubts ?


     
Date: 09 Feb 2009 18:59:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Superdave wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:37:11 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> wkhedr wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 5:16 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Stapler wrote:
>>>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>>>> * aces
>>>>> * unreturnable serves
>>>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>>>> away from him to win the points
>>>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>>> Sampras always had the ability to win every match was well
>>> demonstrated against mini-Nadal (Hewitt) in USO final and Safin as
>>> well. Wondering if he had to meet the real Nadal, what the score line
>>> will be. Nadal in 3 sets, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1.
>>>
>>
>> Do you think Fed will be even that good? You think he'll be able to
>> make 2011 USO final & win it in 2012?
>
>
> of course. you mean you have doubts ?


Some, yes.



  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 04:51:27
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Feb 8, 10:16=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Stapler wrote:
> > is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> > * aces
> > * unreturnable serves
> > * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> > But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
> > away from him to win the points
>
> Bullshit. =A0I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.

to be honest whisp Peak nadal would give Peak samp a pretty damn close
game on grass. But peak samp would prob lose 6/3 6/3 6/3 to peak nadal
on clay.



   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 23:54:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:16 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Stapler wrote:
>>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>> * aces
>>> * unreturnable serves
>>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>>> away from him to win the points
>> Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> to be honest whisp Peak nadal would give Peak samp a pretty damn close
> game on grass. But peak samp would prob lose 6/3 6/3 6/3 to peak nadal
> on clay.
>


No doubt Rafa would beat Pete on clay, but don't let Fed's shenanigans
cloud your judgment re Sampras' game.

Pete may lose a set here or there on grass but most likely is a 64 63 75
win in semi-arsed mode.



  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 04:34:52
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On 8 helmi, 12:36, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:16:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Stapler wrote:
> >> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>
> >> * aces
> >> * unreturnable serves
> >> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>
> >> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
> >> away from him to win the points
>
> >Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.
>
> oh now you added Goran I see. Is that supposed to make your folly more
> believeable or what ?

Yep. After all Goran one *one* significant fast court title during his
whole career (1989-2004, though latter years he was often injured) No
USO final, No even YEC final.... Otherwise he either choked titles
away from his reach or just kept subcumbing to journeymen at early
rounds.

How Goran the Flakehead could have competed against the mental monster
like Nadal? He had problems with way lesser players like Chang even on
HC/Carpet...

.mikko


  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 10:36:09
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Winning tennis...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:16:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Stapler wrote:
>> is about taking time away from your opponent through:
>>
>> * aces
>> * unreturnable serves
>> * well placed groundstrokes that are out of reach, or force errors
>>
>> But with Nadal, his inhuman speed takes away any ability to take time
>> away from him to win the points
>
>
>Bullshit. I bet Sampras/Goran could take time away from him.


oh now you added Goran I see. Is that supposed to make your folly more
believeable or what ?