| |
Main
Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:44:50
From: Amy
Subject: Agassi on Fed
|
after 05 USO. Old news but still......
Here are Agassi's words:
You know, he's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere
to go {with your shots or strategy}. You know, there's nothing to do
except hit fairways, hit greens, and make putts. I mean, every shot has
that sort of urgency on it-and, if you do what you're supposed to do,
you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too
good.
I had a set apiece, 4-2, 30-love serving, and he hit an inside out
backhand mishit that found the line. Then I hit a net cord to set him
up {to win the next point, leading to a break of serve}. That's the
thing, you know, it doesn't take much with him. He can break a match
open, or he can get back into it right away. But I would say that
normally if I play that way against anybody, I would be favoring
myself.
There's other guys you play-I've played a lot of them {over} many
years-there's a safety zone, there's a place, something to focus on,
there's a way. But anything you try to do, Roger potentially has an
answer for-and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the
triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.
He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.
I'm just speaking of the standard and the options and the talent and
the execution that he shows in all the biggest matches. It's crazy.
What has he won, 24 straight finals, something like that? Twenty-three?
I'd be hard pressed to think of anybody that's ever done that.
I've seen a lot of people play special matches arbitrarily, you
know, just out of nowhere, just played a great match. He certainly has
done that a number of times against me. But it's different when you
play somebody in the finals of a Slam, that's the place where you can
really assess someone effectively. And I've never seen that {degree
of excellence} in anyone before.
Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get
to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, {the match}
could be {played} on your terms. There's no such place like that with
Roger. I think he's the best I've played against.
{Roger} is the only guy I've ever played against where, if you hold
serve to go 1-0, you're thinking, "All right, good."
At this point, the press erupted with laughter, and even Andre seemed
amused by his frank confession. But he didn't want it to be taken as
a quip. He didn't want to be seen as the proverbial clown, crying
inside while making others laugh. So he went on:
I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it
is. Roger can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love, he wins
the point. It's 30-15, the pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than
anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every
shot. You know, it's an incredible challenge.
You know, I certainly didn't have enough today. I know three five
setters {in my last three matches} doesn't help. But it's still a
standard Roger sets out there that you got to exceed, exceed yourself
all the time.
The questions focused a little more narrowly on the X's and O's in
the next portion of the interview.
I certainly like {the match-up of} my backhand to his backhand, or
I certainly like that as a better option than my backhand to his
forehand.
But, you know, with that being said, he hit an inside out winner at
30-love, 4-2 in the third set that found the line. He hit a few up the
line. He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand.
Just the amount of options he has to get around any particular
stage of the match where maybe something's out of sync-it seems to be
endless. His success out there is just a mere reflection of all the
things that he can do. The only thing I could conceive of that would
make him more difficult is him 6'5". He's, you know . . . he does
things that others just can't do.
Well, he always elevates, you know, in tiebreakers. You'll always
see that when he plays, he takes his chances. But I was using the kick
serve effectively against the wind-sorry, I mean with the wind. In
that particular stage, I was serving once in the tiebreak on that side
and I was against the wind. And it was a second serve.
That's my point, I was safe for a long time out there just hitting
a dumpy second serve to the backhand and getting into the point. Then
at any point he can decide, "Well, I want to make you worry about
that." He had the breeze on his back. He just stayed through that ball
and hit it up the line. It was pretty much past me.
And those next couple of points-you know he's going to step up,
you have that little extra pressure to do a little bit more with the
ball, to push it through the wind, and to get it deep because you don't
want to leave anything hanging against him on either wing. And, you
know, you make a couple errors because you're trying to play too good.
So anything that you're trying to execute out there only lasts for
a period of time till he makes the adjustment. Then you have to change
it. All the while, everything you're planning on doing, you have to do
well and you have to do it start to finish. So that's, you know, you
can only say it so many ways. You know, that's too good.
What then, can be done? Is there a way to beat Roger? Can you do
something, or hope he stutters in some aspect of his game, and how
realistically can you hope for that?
And what about the way he ran away with the fourth set, just pulled
away like a five-speed sports car racing one with only four gears?
A reporter relayed the numbers: 70 wins, 3 losses. Two Grand Slam
titles. (Add a new record, surpassing Sampras by one win, for
consecutive matches won on a hard court, 35.) Then he asked if Roger
was beatable.
At this point, laughter echoed again. Andre, showing the instinct of a
guy working one of the Big Rooms in Vegas, waited for a beat.
More laughter, after which Andre said:
Enough said, don't you think?
Well, something needs to be off one way or another. You need to
play the craziest tennis you've ever played or he needs to be doing
something off because, you know, you have to do it for such a long
period of time. And while I believe I can do that, you always got to
look at it for what it is and you say, "This guy's won that many finals
for a reason."
I mean, that stat alone {23 consecutive final wins} is pretty
crazy. I mean, you're talking about the best that are left in the
tournament and he's winning that many times in a row . . . . It is what
it is but you do step on the court feeling like you have to play a
perfect match. Of course, he has to execute. I mean, he has to do what
he does. But if he does, you have to play a perfect match.
That fourth set getting away was really just a testament to his
standard and how he can raise his game and why you can't give him the
lead. All the great players, you can't give them a lead. They stretch a
match open quickly. And, you know, he's definitely one of those.
I mean, you know, this is not-a match is a complicated thing.
There are a lot of ebbs and flows in it. But ultimately, the person
that brings the most, the most amount of times, you know, is going to
win. Roger just brings a lot all the time for all the options he has.
And while there are periods that you can have him on the fence, his
options when he's on the fence are better than most.
You know, I had him. I had his back against the wall to some degree
at one set all, 4-2, 30-love serving, but he just figured that to be a
cue for him to do something else.
Oh, sure. Everybody's beatable, I mean, on any given day. How many
matches-what's his record this year? He's lost three times?
He's lost three times. He's won, 70? Yeah, he's definitely beatable
. . .
I just don't like those odds.
But, I mean, in sports you have to execute, you know. You can't
phone in the result or else everybody could have just stayed home and
barbecued this Sunday. You can't phone in the result. You have to show
up and you have to do it and that's what he has to do.
So you can't just say he's full of talent, you have to give him his
respect for hard work and discipline and commitment and the mindset
that it takes to step on the court being the favorite every time, to
step in the finals hoping today's not the day that something goes
wrong, like you're talking about. And he does it over and over again.
You have to respect not just his abilities, but you also have to
respect what that goes into. And it's in the mindset. It is the
focus. It is the, you know, the knowing when to play, when not to play.
It's pulling out of tournaments as you prepare to peak for other
tournaments. You know, he's made a lot of good decisions, and he
certainly is maximizing all the arsenal that he has.
And I can't say it surprises me because I don't know him. But it
certainly amazes me . . .
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 04:13:51
From: RuPEDski
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Amy" <testing.automation@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162093490.670248.116600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>
> Here are Agassi's words:
>
> You know, he's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere
> to go {with your shots or strategy}. You know, there's nothing to do
> except hit fairways, hit greens, and make putts. I mean, every shot has
> that sort of urgency on it-and, if you do what you're supposed to do,
> you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too
> good.
>
> I had a set apiece, 4-2, 30-love serving, and he hit an inside out
> backhand mishit that found the line. Then I hit a net cord to set him
> up {to win the next point, leading to a break of serve}. That's the
> thing, you know, it doesn't take much with him. He can break a match
> open, or he can get back into it right away. But I would say that
> normally if I play that way against anybody, I would be favoring
> myself.
>
> There's other guys you play-I've played a lot of them {over} many
> years-there's a safety zone, there's a place, something to focus on,
> there's a way. But anything you try to do, Roger potentially has an
> answer for-and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the
> triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.
>
> He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.
> I'm just speaking of the standard and the options and the talent and
> the execution that he shows in all the biggest matches. It's crazy.
> What has he won, 24 straight finals, something like that? Twenty-three?
> I'd be hard pressed to think of anybody that's ever done that.
>
> I've seen a lot of people play special matches arbitrarily, you
> know, just out of nowhere, just played a great match. He certainly has
> done that a number of times against me. But it's different when you
> play somebody in the finals of a Slam, that's the place where you can
> really assess someone effectively. And I've never seen that {degree
> of excellence} in anyone before.
>
> Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get
> to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, {the match}
> could be {played} on your terms. There's no such place like that with
> Roger. I think he's the best I've played against.
>
> {Roger} is the only guy I've ever played against where, if you hold
> serve to go 1-0, you're thinking, "All right, good."
>
> At this point, the press erupted with laughter, and even Andre seemed
> amused by his frank confession. But he didn't want it to be taken as
> a quip. He didn't want to be seen as the proverbial clown, crying
> inside while making others laugh. So he went on:
>
> I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it
> is. Roger can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love, he wins
> the point. It's 30-15, the pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than
> anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every
> shot. You know, it's an incredible challenge.
>
> You know, I certainly didn't have enough today. I know three five
> setters {in my last three matches} doesn't help. But it's still a
> standard Roger sets out there that you got to exceed, exceed yourself
> all the time.
>
> The questions focused a little more narrowly on the X's and O's in
> the next portion of the interview.
>
> I certainly like {the match-up of} my backhand to his backhand, or
> I certainly like that as a better option than my backhand to his
> forehand.
>
> But, you know, with that being said, he hit an inside out winner at
> 30-love, 4-2 in the third set that found the line. He hit a few up the
> line. He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
> uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
> your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand.
>
> Just the amount of options he has to get around any particular
> stage of the match where maybe something's out of sync-it seems to be
> endless. His success out there is just a mere reflection of all the
> things that he can do. The only thing I could conceive of that would
> make him more difficult is him 6'5". He's, you know . . . he does
> things that others just can't do.
>
> Well, he always elevates, you know, in tiebreakers. You'll always
> see that when he plays, he takes his chances. But I was using the kick
> serve effectively against the wind-sorry, I mean with the wind. In
> that particular stage, I was serving once in the tiebreak on that side
> and I was against the wind. And it was a second serve.
>
> That's my point, I was safe for a long time out there just hitting
> a dumpy second serve to the backhand and getting into the point. Then
> at any point he can decide, "Well, I want to make you worry about
> that." He had the breeze on his back. He just stayed through that ball
> and hit it up the line. It was pretty much past me.
>
> And those next couple of points-you know he's going to step up,
> you have that little extra pressure to do a little bit more with the
> ball, to push it through the wind, and to get it deep because you don't
> want to leave anything hanging against him on either wing. And, you
> know, you make a couple errors because you're trying to play too good.
>
> So anything that you're trying to execute out there only lasts for
> a period of time till he makes the adjustment. Then you have to change
> it. All the while, everything you're planning on doing, you have to do
> well and you have to do it start to finish. So that's, you know, you
> can only say it so many ways. You know, that's too good.
>
> What then, can be done? Is there a way to beat Roger? Can you do
> something, or hope he stutters in some aspect of his game, and how
> realistically can you hope for that?
>
>
> And what about the way he ran away with the fourth set, just pulled
> away like a five-speed sports car racing one with only four gears?
>
>
> A reporter relayed the numbers: 70 wins, 3 losses. Two Grand Slam
> titles. (Add a new record, surpassing Sampras by one win, for
> consecutive matches won on a hard court, 35.) Then he asked if Roger
> was beatable.
>
>
> At this point, laughter echoed again. Andre, showing the instinct of a
> guy working one of the Big Rooms in Vegas, waited for a beat.
>
>
> More laughter, after which Andre said:
>
>
> Enough said, don't you think?
>
> Well, something needs to be off one way or another. You need to
> play the craziest tennis you've ever played or he needs to be doing
> something off because, you know, you have to do it for such a long
> period of time. And while I believe I can do that, you always got to
> look at it for what it is and you say, "This guy's won that many finals
> for a reason."
>
> I mean, that stat alone {23 consecutive final wins} is pretty
> crazy. I mean, you're talking about the best that are left in the
> tournament and he's winning that many times in a row . . . . It is what
> it is but you do step on the court feeling like you have to play a
> perfect match. Of course, he has to execute. I mean, he has to do what
> he does. But if he does, you have to play a perfect match.
>
> That fourth set getting away was really just a testament to his
> standard and how he can raise his game and why you can't give him the
> lead. All the great players, you can't give them a lead. They stretch a
> match open quickly. And, you know, he's definitely one of those.
>
> I mean, you know, this is not-a match is a complicated thing.
> There are a lot of ebbs and flows in it. But ultimately, the person
> that brings the most, the most amount of times, you know, is going to
> win. Roger just brings a lot all the time for all the options he has.
> And while there are periods that you can have him on the fence, his
> options when he's on the fence are better than most.
>
> You know, I had him. I had his back against the wall to some degree
> at one set all, 4-2, 30-love serving, but he just figured that to be a
> cue for him to do something else.
>
> Oh, sure. Everybody's beatable, I mean, on any given day. How many
> matches-what's his record this year? He's lost three times?
>
> He's lost three times. He's won, 70? Yeah, he's definitely beatable
> . . .
>
> I just don't like those odds.
>
> But, I mean, in sports you have to execute, you know. You can't
> phone in the result or else everybody could have just stayed home and
> barbecued this Sunday. You can't phone in the result. You have to show
> up and you have to do it and that's what he has to do.
>
> So you can't just say he's full of talent, you have to give him his
> respect for hard work and discipline and commitment and the mindset
> that it takes to step on the court being the favorite every time, to
> step in the finals hoping today's not the day that something goes
> wrong, like you're talking about. And he does it over and over again.
>
> You have to respect not just his abilities, but you also have to
> respect what that goes into. And it's in the mindset. It is the
> focus. It is the, you know, the knowing when to play, when not to play.
> It's pulling out of tournaments as you prepare to peak for other
> tournaments. You know, he's made a lot of good decisions, and he
> certainly is maximizing all the arsenal that he has.
>
> And I can't say it surprises me because I don't know him. But it
> certainly amazes me . . .
Why do Fedfanboys insist on using so many sock puppets? Why be so ashamed of
it?
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:06:56
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Amy wrote:
> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>
> Here are Agassi's words:
>
> You know, he's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere
> to go {with your shots or strategy}. You know, there's nothing to do
> except hit fairways, hit greens, and make putts. I mean, every shot has
> that sort of urgency on it-and, if you do what you're supposed to do,
> you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too
> good.
>
> I had a set apiece, 4-2, 30-love serving, and he hit an inside out
> backhand mishit that found the line. Then I hit a net cord to set him
> up {to win the next point, leading to a break of serve}. That's the
> thing, you know, it doesn't take much with him. He can break a match
> open, or he can get back into it right away. But I would say that
> normally if I play that way against anybody, I would be favoring
> myself.
>
> There's other guys you play-I've played a lot of them {over} many
> years-there's a safety zone, there's a place, something to focus on,
> there's a way. But anything you try to do, Roger potentially has an
> answer for-and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the
> triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.
>
> He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.
> I'm just speaking of the standard and the options and the talent and
> the execution that he shows in all the biggest matches. It's crazy.
> What has he won, 24 straight finals, something like that? Twenty-three?
> I'd be hard pressed to think of anybody that's ever done that.
>
> I've seen a lot of people play special matches arbitrarily, you
> know, just out of nowhere, just played a great match. He certainly has
> done that a number of times against me. But it's different when you
> play somebody in the finals of a Slam, that's the place where you can
> really assess someone effectively. And I've never seen that {degree
> of excellence} in anyone before.
>
> Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get
> to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, {the match}
> could be {played} on your terms. There's no such place like that with
> Roger. I think he's the best I've played against.
>
> {Roger} is the only guy I've ever played against where, if you hold
> serve to go 1-0, you're thinking, "All right, good."
>
> At this point, the press erupted with laughter, and even Andre seemed
> amused by his frank confession. But he didn't want it to be taken as
> a quip. He didn't want to be seen as the proverbial clown, crying
> inside while making others laugh. So he went on:
>
> I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it
> is. Roger can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love, he wins
> the point. It's 30-15, the pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than
> anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every
> shot. You know, it's an incredible challenge.
>
> You know, I certainly didn't have enough today. I know three five
> setters {in my last three matches} doesn't help. But it's still a
> standard Roger sets out there that you got to exceed, exceed yourself
> all the time.
>
> The questions focused a little more narrowly on the X's and O's in
> the next portion of the interview.
>
> I certainly like {the match-up of} my backhand to his backhand, or
> I certainly like that as a better option than my backhand to his
> forehand.
>
> But, you know, with that being said, he hit an inside out winner at
> 30-love, 4-2 in the third set that found the line. He hit a few up the
> line. He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
> uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
> your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand.
>
> Just the amount of options he has to get around any particular
> stage of the match where maybe something's out of sync-it seems to be
> endless. His success out there is just a mere reflection of all the
> things that he can do. The only thing I could conceive of that would
> make him more difficult is him 6'5". He's, you know . . . he does
> things that others just can't do.
>
> Well, he always elevates, you know, in tiebreakers. You'll always
> see that when he plays, he takes his chances. But I was using the kick
> serve effectively against the wind-sorry, I mean with the wind. In
> that particular stage, I was serving once in the tiebreak on that side
> and I was against the wind. And it was a second serve.
>
> That's my point, I was safe for a long time out there just hitting
> a dumpy second serve to the backhand and getting into the point. Then
> at any point he can decide, "Well, I want to make you worry about
> that." He had the breeze on his back. He just stayed through that ball
> and hit it up the line. It was pretty much past me.
>
> And those next couple of points-you know he's going to step up,
> you have that little extra pressure to do a little bit more with the
> ball, to push it through the wind, and to get it deep because you don't
> want to leave anything hanging against him on either wing. And, you
> know, you make a couple errors because you're trying to play too good.
>
> So anything that you're trying to execute out there only lasts for
> a period of time till he makes the adjustment. Then you have to change
> it. All the while, everything you're planning on doing, you have to do
> well and you have to do it start to finish. So that's, you know, you
> can only say it so many ways. You know, that's too good.
>
> What then, can be done? Is there a way to beat Roger? Can you do
> something, or hope he stutters in some aspect of his game, and how
> realistically can you hope for that?
>
>
> And what about the way he ran away with the fourth set, just pulled
> away like a five-speed sports car racing one with only four gears?
>
>
> A reporter relayed the numbers: 70 wins, 3 losses. Two Grand Slam
> titles. (Add a new record, surpassing Sampras by one win, for
> consecutive matches won on a hard court, 35.) Then he asked if Roger
> was beatable.
>
>
> At this point, laughter echoed again. Andre, showing the instinct of a
> guy working one of the Big Rooms in Vegas, waited for a beat.
>
>
> More laughter, after which Andre said:
>
>
> Enough said, don't you think?
>
> Well, something needs to be off one way or another. You need to
> play the craziest tennis you've ever played or he needs to be doing
> something off because, you know, you have to do it for such a long
> period of time. And while I believe I can do that, you always got to
> look at it for what it is and you say, "This guy's won that many finals
> for a reason."
>
> I mean, that stat alone {23 consecutive final wins} is pretty
> crazy. I mean, you're talking about the best that are left in the
> tournament and he's winning that many times in a row . . . . It is what
> it is but you do step on the court feeling like you have to play a
> perfect match. Of course, he has to execute. I mean, he has to do what
> he does. But if he does, you have to play a perfect match.
>
> That fourth set getting away was really just a testament to his
> standard and how he can raise his game and why you can't give him the
> lead. All the great players, you can't give them a lead. They stretch a
> match open quickly. And, you know, he's definitely one of those.
>
> I mean, you know, this is not-a match is a complicated thing.
> There are a lot of ebbs and flows in it. But ultimately, the person
> that brings the most, the most amount of times, you know, is going to
> win. Roger just brings a lot all the time for all the options he has.
> And while there are periods that you can have him on the fence, his
> options when he's on the fence are better than most.
>
> You know, I had him. I had his back against the wall to some degree
> at one set all, 4-2, 30-love serving, but he just figured that to be a
> cue for him to do something else.
>
> Oh, sure. Everybody's beatable, I mean, on any given day. How many
> matches-what's his record this year? He's lost three times?
>
> He's lost three times. He's won, 70? Yeah, he's definitely beatable
> . . .
>
> I just don't like those odds.
>
> But, I mean, in sports you have to execute, you know. You can't
> phone in the result or else everybody could have just stayed home and
> barbecued this Sunday. You can't phone in the result. You have to show
> up and you have to do it and that's what he has to do.
>
> So you can't just say he's full of talent, you have to give him his
> respect for hard work and discipline and commitment and the mindset
> that it takes to step on the court being the favorite every time, to
> step in the finals hoping today's not the day that something goes
> wrong, like you're talking about. And he does it over and over again.
>
> You have to respect not just his abilities, but you also have to
> respect what that goes into. And it's in the mindset. It is the
> focus. It is the, you know, the knowing when to play, when not to play.
> It's pulling out of tournaments as you prepare to peak for other
> tournaments. You know, he's made a lot of good decisions, and he
> certainly is maximizing all the arsenal that he has.
>
> And I can't say it surprises me because I don't know him. But it
> certainly amazes me . . .
Clearly Agassi is a casual tennis follower, someone who doesn't know
the difference between "clowns" and "goats", like a "low-tier" armchair
"analyst" in rst suffering from "ceibs." He's also doing all this to
get back at Pete.
It's so transparent and well-rehearsed. ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 05:16:52
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Amy wrote:
>> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>
>> Here are Agassi's words:
>>
>> You know, he's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere
>> to go {with your shots or strategy}. You know, there's nothing to do
>> except hit fairways, hit greens, and make putts. I mean, every shot has
>> that sort of urgency on it-and, if you do what you're supposed to do,
>> you feel like it gives you a chance to win the point. That's just too
>> good.
>>
>> I had a set apiece, 4-2, 30-love serving, and he hit an inside out
>> backhand mishit that found the line. Then I hit a net cord to set him
>> up {to win the next point, leading to a break of serve}. That's the
>> thing, you know, it doesn't take much with him. He can break a match
>> open, or he can get back into it right away. But I would say that
>> normally if I play that way against anybody, I would be favoring
>> myself.
>>
>> There's other guys you play-I've played a lot of them {over} many
>> years-there's a safety zone, there's a place, something to focus on,
>> there's a way. But anything you try to do, Roger potentially has an
>> answer for-and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the
>> triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.
>>
>> He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.
>> I'm just speaking of the standard and the options and the talent and
>> the execution that he shows in all the biggest matches. It's crazy.
>> What has he won, 24 straight finals, something like that? Twenty-three?
>> I'd be hard pressed to think of anybody that's ever done that.
>>
>> I've seen a lot of people play special matches arbitrarily, you
>> know, just out of nowhere, just played a great match. He certainly has
>> done that a number of times against me. But it's different when you
>> play somebody in the finals of a Slam, that's the place where you can
>> really assess someone effectively. And I've never seen that {degree
>> of excellence} in anyone before.
>>
>> Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get
>> to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, {the match}
>> could be {played} on your terms. There's no such place like that with
>> Roger. I think he's the best I've played against.
>>
>> {Roger} is the only guy I've ever played against where, if you hold
>> serve to go 1-0, you're thinking, "All right, good."
>>
>> At this point, the press erupted with laughter, and even Andre seemed
>> amused by his frank confession. But he didn't want it to be taken as
>> a quip. He didn't want to be seen as the proverbial clown, crying
>> inside while making others laugh. So he went on:
>>
>> I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it
>> is. Roger can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love, he wins
>> the point. It's 30-15, the pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than
>> anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every
>> shot. You know, it's an incredible challenge.
>>
>> You know, I certainly didn't have enough today. I know three five
>> setters {in my last three matches} doesn't help. But it's still a
>> standard Roger sets out there that you got to exceed, exceed yourself
>> all the time.
>>
>> The questions focused a little more narrowly on the X's and O's in
>> the next portion of the interview.
>>
>> I certainly like {the match-up of} my backhand to his backhand, or
>> I certainly like that as a better option than my backhand to his
>> forehand.
>>
>> But, you know, with that being said, he hit an inside out winner at
>> 30-love, 4-2 in the third set that found the line. He hit a few up the
>> line. He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
>> uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
>> your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand.
>>
>> Just the amount of options he has to get around any particular
>> stage of the match where maybe something's out of sync-it seems to be
>> endless. His success out there is just a mere reflection of all the
>> things that he can do. The only thing I could conceive of that would
>> make him more difficult is him 6'5". He's, you know . . . he does
>> things that others just can't do.
>>
>> Well, he always elevates, you know, in tiebreakers. You'll always
>> see that when he plays, he takes his chances. But I was using the kick
>> serve effectively against the wind-sorry, I mean with the wind. In
>> that particular stage, I was serving once in the tiebreak on that side
>> and I was against the wind. And it was a second serve.
>>
>> That's my point, I was safe for a long time out there just hitting
>> a dumpy second serve to the backhand and getting into the point. Then
>> at any point he can decide, "Well, I want to make you worry about
>> that." He had the breeze on his back. He just stayed through that ball
>> and hit it up the line. It was pretty much past me.
>>
>> And those next couple of points-you know he's going to step up,
>> you have that little extra pressure to do a little bit more with the
>> ball, to push it through the wind, and to get it deep because you don't
>> want to leave anything hanging against him on either wing. And, you
>> know, you make a couple errors because you're trying to play too good.
>>
>> So anything that you're trying to execute out there only lasts for
>> a period of time till he makes the adjustment. Then you have to change
>> it. All the while, everything you're planning on doing, you have to do
>> well and you have to do it start to finish. So that's, you know, you
>> can only say it so many ways. You know, that's too good.
>>
>> What then, can be done? Is there a way to beat Roger? Can you do
>> something, or hope he stutters in some aspect of his game, and how
>> realistically can you hope for that?
>>
>>
>> And what about the way he ran away with the fourth set, just pulled
>> away like a five-speed sports car racing one with only four gears?
>>
>>
>> A reporter relayed the numbers: 70 wins, 3 losses. Two Grand Slam
>> titles. (Add a new record, surpassing Sampras by one win, for
>> consecutive matches won on a hard court, 35.) Then he asked if Roger
>> was beatable.
>>
>>
>> At this point, laughter echoed again. Andre, showing the instinct of a
>> guy working one of the Big Rooms in Vegas, waited for a beat.
>>
>>
>> More laughter, after which Andre said:
>>
>>
>> Enough said, don't you think?
>>
>> Well, something needs to be off one way or another. You need to
>> play the craziest tennis you've ever played or he needs to be doing
>> something off because, you know, you have to do it for such a long
>> period of time. And while I believe I can do that, you always got to
>> look at it for what it is and you say, "This guy's won that many finals
>> for a reason."
>>
>> I mean, that stat alone {23 consecutive final wins} is pretty
>> crazy. I mean, you're talking about the best that are left in the
>> tournament and he's winning that many times in a row . . . . It is what
>> it is but you do step on the court feeling like you have to play a
>> perfect match. Of course, he has to execute. I mean, he has to do what
>> he does. But if he does, you have to play a perfect match.
>>
>> That fourth set getting away was really just a testament to his
>> standard and how he can raise his game and why you can't give him the
>> lead. All the great players, you can't give them a lead. They stretch a
>> match open quickly. And, you know, he's definitely one of those.
>>
>> I mean, you know, this is not-a match is a complicated thing.
>> There are a lot of ebbs and flows in it. But ultimately, the person
>> that brings the most, the most amount of times, you know, is going to
>> win. Roger just brings a lot all the time for all the options he has.
>> And while there are periods that you can have him on the fence, his
>> options when he's on the fence are better than most.
>>
>> You know, I had him. I had his back against the wall to some degree
>> at one set all, 4-2, 30-love serving, but he just figured that to be a
>> cue for him to do something else.
>>
>> Oh, sure. Everybody's beatable, I mean, on any given day. How many
>> matches-what's his record this year? He's lost three times?
>>
>> He's lost three times. He's won, 70? Yeah, he's definitely beatable
>> . . .
>>
>> I just don't like those odds.
>>
>> But, I mean, in sports you have to execute, you know. You can't
>> phone in the result or else everybody could have just stayed home and
>> barbecued this Sunday. You can't phone in the result. You have to show
>> up and you have to do it and that's what he has to do.
>>
>> So you can't just say he's full of talent, you have to give him his
>> respect for hard work and discipline and commitment and the mindset
>> that it takes to step on the court being the favorite every time, to
>> step in the finals hoping today's not the day that something goes
>> wrong, like you're talking about. And he does it over and over again.
>>
>> You have to respect not just his abilities, but you also have to
>> respect what that goes into. And it's in the mindset. It is the
>> focus. It is the, you know, the knowing when to play, when not to play.
>> It's pulling out of tournaments as you prepare to peak for other
>> tournaments. You know, he's made a lot of good decisions, and he
>> certainly is maximizing all the arsenal that he has.
>>
>> And I can't say it surprises me because I don't know him. But it
>> certainly amazes me . . .
>
>
> Clearly Agassi is a casual tennis follower, someone who doesn't know
> the difference between "clowns" and "goats", like a "low-tier" armchair
> "analyst" in rst suffering from "ceibs." He's also doing all this to
> get back at Pete.
>
> It's so transparent and well-rehearsed. ;-)
>
This is going to bring out the Sampras maniacs out for sure.
--
Cheers,
vc
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 23:26:49
From: stephenj
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Amy wrote:
> Clearly Agassi is a casual tennis follower, someone who doesn't know
> the difference between "clowns" and "goats", like a "low-tier" armchair
> "analyst" in rst suffering from "ceibs." He's also doing all this to
> get back at Pete.
>
> It's so transparent and well-rehearsed. ;-)
:)
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:45:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>> And I can't say it surprises me because I don't know him. But it
>>certainly amazes me . . .
>
>
>
> Clearly Agassi is a casual tennis follower, someone who doesn't know
> the difference between "clowns" and "goats", like a "low-tier" armchair
> "analyst" in rst suffering from "ceibs." He's also doing all this to
> get back at Pete.
>
> It's so transparent and well-rehearsed. ;-)
>
;
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:02:26
From: coop-a-loop
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Or the other way around...
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:31:43
From: drew
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
> Amy wrote:
> > after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>
> He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
> ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
> at 35 had him on the ropes...?
Obviously you don't know anything about boxing and you've never seen
the great Ali on the ropes. Agassi is the son of an Olympic boxer
and knows a thing or two about having a guy on the ropes. Every boxer
is on the ropes at some point in the match unless it is a one-sided
affair and it doesn't mean that you will lose the match, only that you
are against the ropes and have to find a way back into the center of
the ring.
>
> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
> can't see him beating peak Sampras.
The fact remains that he did beat peak Sampras. In real life you have
to count the real events, not some imaginary scenario that favours your
position. When Sampras played Federer, both men were on their game.
Great match and Sampras lost. You simply cannot complain that your man
was past his best because he was still in his 20s and was the defending
Wimbledon champion. That's about as peak as you can get in the real
world.
Whisper, you are a clown and a half. You don't give credit where
credit is due and you are constant making predictions that don't pan
out.
I fear that some day you will reflect upon your own silliness and
decide that you must stick a firecracker the size of the universe up
your ass and light it just to save face.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:48:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
drew wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>Amy wrote:
>>
>>>after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>
>>He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
>>at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>
>
> Obviously you don't know anything about boxing and you've never seen
> the great Ali on the ropes. Agassi is the son of an Olympic boxer
> and knows a thing or two about having a guy on the ropes. Every boxer
> is on the ropes at some point in the match unless it is a one-sided
> affair and it doesn't mean that you will lose the match, only that you
> are against the ropes and have to find a way back into the center of
> the ring.
This would have some credence if it were peak Agassi v peak Federer - as
it wasn't remotely close to this you have no point.
>
>
>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>can't see him beating peak Sampras.
>
>
> The fact remains that he did beat peak Sampras.
There is no expert on the planet who thinks Sampras was peak in 2001.
> In real life you have
> to count the real events, not some imaginary scenario that favours your
> position. When Sampras played Federer, both men were on their game.
Then you simply can't dismiss Henman's achievement in beating peak Fed
the very next rd. Tim has to be included in peak goat considerations
along with Sampras, Fed, Pancho & Hoad. You see how the dickhead
analysts are exposed when we follow through on their logic...?
> Great match and Sampras lost. You simply cannot complain that your man
> was past his best because he was still in his 20s and was the defending
> Wimbledon champion. That's about as peak as you can get in the real
> world.
He retired a yr later because he was losing every week. this is not a
subjective opinion.
>
> Whisper, you are a clown and a half. You don't give credit where
> credit is due and you are constant making predictions that don't pan
> out.
>
> I fear that some day you will reflect upon your own silliness and
> decide that you must stick a firecracker the size of the universe up
> your ass and light it just to save face.
>
Essentially you're asking me to stick my head up my arse & ignore basic
tennis facts. Fed fuckers seem to have no problem with this, which
amazes & saddens me....
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:08:08
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:454486f7$0$18128$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> drew wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>Amy wrote:
>>>
>>>>after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>>
>>>He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>>ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
>>>at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>>
>>
>> Obviously you don't know anything about boxing and you've never seen
>> the great Ali on the ropes. Agassi is the son of an Olympic boxer
>> and knows a thing or two about having a guy on the ropes. Every boxer
>> is on the ropes at some point in the match unless it is a one-sided
>> affair and it doesn't mean that you will lose the match, only that you
>> are against the ropes and have to find a way back into the center of
>> the ring.
>
>
> This would have some credence if it were peak Agassi v peak Federer - as
> it wasn't remotely close to this you have no point.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras.
>>
>>
>> The fact remains that he did beat peak Sampras.
>
>
> There is no expert on the planet who thinks Sampras was peak in 2001.
>
>
>
>> In real life you have
>> to count the real events, not some imaginary scenario that favours your
>> position. When Sampras played Federer, both men were on their game.
>
>
> Then you simply can't dismiss Henman's achievement in beating peak Fed the
> very next rd. Tim has to be included in peak goat considerations along
> with Sampras, Fed, Pancho & Hoad. You see how the dickhead analysts are
> exposed when we follow through on their logic...?
>
>
>> Great match and Sampras lost. You simply cannot complain that your man
>> was past his best because he was still in his 20s and was the defending
>> Wimbledon champion. That's about as peak as you can get in the real
>> world.
>
>
> He retired a yr later because he was losing every week. this is not a
> subjective opinion.
>
>
>>
>> Whisper, you are a clown and a half. You don't give credit where
>> credit is due and you are constant making predictions that don't pan
>> out.
>>
>> I fear that some day you will reflect upon your own silliness and
>> decide that you must stick a firecracker the size of the universe up
>> your ass and light it just to save face.
>>
>
>
> Essentially you're asking me to stick my head up my arse & ignore basic
> tennis facts. Fed fuckers seem to have no problem with this, which amazes
> & saddens me....
They are not tennis facts, the fact is Sampras played Federer once and lost
that match. Sampras did not play Fed again at USO or Wimbledon and did
not win those imaginery matches. People are asking you to stick to tennis
facts not imaginery match ups. You seems to have problem differentiate
facts
and imaginery match ups which counts for zero.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 12:09:20
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:454486f7$0$18128$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> drew wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Amy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>>> He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>>> ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
>>>> at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>>>
>>> Obviously you don't know anything about boxing and you've never seen
>>> the great Ali on the ropes. Agassi is the son of an Olympic boxer
>>> and knows a thing or two about having a guy on the ropes. Every boxer
>>> is on the ropes at some point in the match unless it is a one-sided
>>> affair and it doesn't mean that you will lose the match, only that you
>>> are against the ropes and have to find a way back into the center of
>>> the ring.
>>
>> This would have some credence if it were peak Agassi v peak Federer - as
>> it wasn't remotely close to this you have no point.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>> can't see him beating peak Sampras.
>>>
>>> The fact remains that he did beat peak Sampras.
>>
>> There is no expert on the planet who thinks Sampras was peak in 2001.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In real life you have
>>> to count the real events, not some imaginary scenario that favours your
>>> position. When Sampras played Federer, both men were on their game.
>>
>> Then you simply can't dismiss Henman's achievement in beating peak Fed the
>> very next rd. Tim has to be included in peak goat considerations along
>> with Sampras, Fed, Pancho & Hoad. You see how the dickhead analysts are
>> exposed when we follow through on their logic...?
>>
>>
>>> Great match and Sampras lost. You simply cannot complain that your man
>>> was past his best because he was still in his 20s and was the defending
>>> Wimbledon champion. That's about as peak as you can get in the real
>>> world.
>>
>> He retired a yr later because he was losing every week. this is not a
>> subjective opinion.
>>
>>
>>> Whisper, you are a clown and a half. You don't give credit where
>>> credit is due and you are constant making predictions that don't pan
>>> out.
>>>
>>> I fear that some day you will reflect upon your own silliness and
>>> decide that you must stick a firecracker the size of the universe up
>>> your ass and light it just to save face.
>>>
>>
>> Essentially you're asking me to stick my head up my arse & ignore basic
>> tennis facts. Fed fuckers seem to have no problem with this, which amazes
>> & saddens me....
>
> They are not tennis facts, the fact is Sampras played Federer once and lost
> that match. Sampras did not play Fed again at USO or Wimbledon and did
> not win those imaginery matches. People are asking you to stick to tennis
> facts not imaginery match ups. You seems to have problem differentiate
> facts
> and imaginery match ups which counts for zero.
>
>
But Whisper has "seen" Sampras beating Federer hundreds of times in his
thought experiments. How can something he feels to the last fiber of his
body and soul be so untrue?
All you have as evidence is one real match. Bah! Have you no shame?
--
Cheers,
vc
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:04:25
From: Amy
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On 29, 2:54 am, "RuPEDski" <datacip...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "chrome" <chr...@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:2WZ0h.2108$s6.54@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> > "Amy" <testing.automat...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
> >>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
> >>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>
> >>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
> >>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
> >> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> >> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>
> > Well, let's see, I don't think this is very difficult to follow so let's
> > try: the subject YOU BROUGHT UP was Agassi talking mainly about Federer
> > being better than Sampras, right??? Wh then replied. It's a mystery to
> > you what happened here and it requires insults?What's worse is the sock puppet has already done the SAME TROLL
Posting what former tennis greats say about the current best tennis
player in a tennis group is troll. Even you can do better than that and
that is saying something.
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread...
>
> Note: Agassi's quote is included.
>
> Again, the only question is which of the usual suspects made this cowardly
> troll attempt?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:06:23
From: Amy
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On 29, 1:49 am, "chrome" <chr...@nospam.com > wrote:
> "Amy" <testing.automat...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but
> >> I
> >> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
> >> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak
> >> Fed;
>
> >> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
> >> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
> > You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> > thread? Aren't there enough already?Well, let's see, I don't think this is very difficult to follow so let's
> try: the subject YOU BROUGHT UP was Agassi talking mainly about Federer
> being better than Sampras, right??? Wh then replied. It's a mystery to
> you what happened here and it requires insults?
Please read it again. The topic I started is Agassi talking about Fed.
It is not about as you say 'mainly about Federer being better than
Sampras'. Infact, I believe Sampras is goat based on his overall
achievement.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:34:18
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Amy wrote:
>
> On 29, 1:49 am, "chrome" <chr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Amy" <testing.automat...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but
>>>>I
>>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak
>>>>Fed;
>>
>>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?Well, let's see, I don't think this is very difficult to follow so let's
>>
>>try: the subject YOU BROUGHT UP was Agassi talking mainly about Federer
>>being better than Sampras, right??? Wh then replied. It's a mystery to
>>you what happened here and it requires insults?
>
>
> Please read it again. The topic I started is Agassi talking about Fed.
er, Agassi also mentioned how he had Fed on toast - you don't think this
was self-serving from his pov...? Come off it.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:32:28
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
>
> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>
> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
Huh? Where did those come from?
Links please?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:52:04
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>
>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
> Huh? Where did those come from?
>
> Links please?
>
See their Wimbledon match. Sampras was close to his peak and almost had
young whippersnapper (and now whispersnapper?) Federer on the ropes deep
in the fifth set before losing.
Just imagine what would happen if Sampras was really at peak (marginally
better) and Federer becomes ten times better. See!?
--
Cheers,
vc
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 06:10:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
>> Whisper wrote:
>>
>>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>
>>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>>
>> Huh? Where did those come from?
>>
>> Links please?
>>
>
> See their Wimbledon match. Sampras was close to his peak and almost had
> young whippersnapper (and now whispersnapper?) Federer on the ropes deep
> in the fifth set before losing.
>
> Just imagine what would happen if Sampras was really at peak (marginally
> better) and Federer becomes ten times better. See!?
>
heh ; )
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 19:55:54
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:EB01h.144303$QZ1.92496@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>
>>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>> Huh? Where did those come from?
>>
>> Links please?
>>
>
> See their Wimbledon match. Sampras was close to his peak and almost had
> young whippersnapper (and now whispersnapper?) Federer on the ropes deep
> in the fifth set before losing.
>
> Just imagine what would happen if Sampras was really at peak (marginally
> better) and Federer becomes ten times better. See!?
One year and two months before retirement...close to peak.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 19:03:43
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
*skriptis wrote:
> "Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:EB01h.144303$QZ1.92496@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>>
>>>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>> Huh? Where did those come from?
>>>
>>> Links please?
>>>
>> See their Wimbledon match. Sampras was close to his peak and almost had
>> young whippersnapper (and now whispersnapper?) Federer on the ropes deep
>> in the fifth set before losing.
>>
>> Just imagine what would happen if Sampras was really at peak (marginally
>> better) and Federer becomes ten times better. See!?
>
>
> One year and two months before retirement...close to peak.
>
>
1 year after 4 Wimbledons in a row, in the middle of 3 US Open finals in
a row and one year and 2 months before a 14th slam. Yes, I would call
that close to peak.
--
Cheers,
vc
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:12:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>
>>
>> One year and two months before retirement...close to peak.
>>
>
> 1 year after 4 Wimbledons in a row, in the middle of 3 US Open finals in
> a row and one year and 2 months before a 14th slam. Yes, I would call
> that close to peak.
>
No you wouldn't. Remember you said Fed was tired v Schricha, & he is 25
& really at peak. Let the anger go - it's only tennis. Fed will only
surpass Sampras when he betters his slam/No.1 record - if he doesn't you
can still refuse to watch Sampras matches... ; )
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:31:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>
>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
>
> Huh? Where did those come from?
>
> Links please?
>
Sampras had bigger weapons, & importantly was deadly from the net as
well as serve & baseline winners. Fed is brilliant, but anyone watching
those nice clips Eric posts can see all the opportunities Sampras woulda
had to crowd net & put volleys away. The quality woulda surpassed
anything the opponents in Sampras' era produced - that's why he always
looked bored & only half-heartedly got up for Agassi - but a pumped
Sampras v a big talent like Fed woulda brought out the goat stuff in
Sampras' game.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:55:47
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:454474d7$0$18094$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>
>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>>
>> Huh? Where did those come from?
>>
>> Links please?
>>
>
>
> Sampras had bigger weapons, & importantly was deadly from the net as well
> as serve & baseline winners.
I like to know if those big weapons are dependable to win matches when
that big serve is been neutralised like what happened in those two USO
against Hewitt and Safin. Sampras had a bigger serve and better volleys
but rest of his weapons are not as big and consistant as Federer's.
Fed is brilliant, but anyone watching
> those nice clips Eric posts can see all the opportunities Sampras woulda
> had to crowd net & put volleys away.
Sampras would have to crowd the net because the other part of his game
does not match up consistantly against Federer.
The quality woulda surpassed
> anything the opponents in Sampras' era produced - that's why he always
> looked bored & only half-heartedly got up for Agassi - but a pumped
> Sampras v a big talent like Fed woulda brought out the goat stuff in
> Sampras' game.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:12:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:454474d7$0$18094$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>>>Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>>
>>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? Where did those come from?
>>>
>>>Links please?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Sampras had bigger weapons, & importantly was deadly from the net as well
>>as serve & baseline winners.
>
>
> I like to know if those big weapons are dependable to win matches when
> that big serve is been neutralised like what happened in those two USO
> against Hewitt and Safin.
They happened at arse end of his career which you've failed to factor in.
> Sampras had a bigger serve and better volleys
> but rest of his weapons are not as big and consistant as Federer's.
Not as consistent I agree, but then Fed generally hits much shorter &
less power than Sampras, thus inviting many opportunities for Pete to
tee off & crowd net.
>
> Fed is brilliant, but anyone watching
>
>>those nice clips Eric posts can see all the opportunities Sampras woulda
>>had to crowd net & put volleys away.
>
>
> Sampras would have to crowd the net because the other part of his game
> does not match up consistantly against Federer.
>
It wouldn't make sense for Sampras to rally with Fed as he hits very
short often during rallies - Pete's instincts are to attack these short
balls...
You also haven't factored in Sampras' motivation levels if Fed was top
dog in his era... he had no rivals in his era so '1 break per set' was
his mantra....
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:21:46
From: Amy
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Amy wrote:
> > after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>
> > Here are Agassi's words:This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll keep a copy. He makes some
> good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him.
> I haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
>
> He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
> ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
> at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>
> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>
> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
thread? Aren't there enough already?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:19:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Amy wrote:
>
> On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Amy wrote:
>>
>>>after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>
>>>Here are Agassi's words:This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll keep a copy. He makes some
>>
>>good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him.
>> I haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
>>
>>He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
>>at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>>
>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>
>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
>
> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>
You started it.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:47:03
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45447201$0$18097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Amy wrote:
>>
>> On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Amy wrote:
>>>
>>>>after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>>
>>>>Here are Agassi's words:This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll
>>>>keep a copy. He makes some
>>>
>>>good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him.
>>> I haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
>>>
>>>He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>>ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
>>>at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>>>
>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>
>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>>
>> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>
>
>
> You started it.
Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:53:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>
>>
>>
>>You started it.
>
>
> Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
> you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
> your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>
Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I
had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
Spare me.....
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:59:59
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> John wrote:
>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You started it.
>>
>>
>> Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>> you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>> your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>
>
>
> Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
> making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
> the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward. Facts
are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>
> Spare me.....
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:20:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You started it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
>>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>
>
> Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward. Facts
> are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>
Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
drubbing.
It is sickening listening to Agassi rave on how awesome Fed is on 1
hand, then say a mishit turned it around for Fed in USO final. Complete
bollocks.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:13:34
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45448075$0$18110$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> John wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You started it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
>>>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>
>>
>> Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward.
>> Facts
>> are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>
>
> Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
> to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
> in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
> drubbing.
So does that mean Sampras should not be consider GOAT because he lost
to Hewitt 6,1,1 in USO ?
>
> It is sickening listening to Agassi rave on how awesome Fed is on 1 hand,
> then say a mishit turned it around for Fed in USO final. Complete
> bollocks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:49:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45448075$0$18110$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You started it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
>>>>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>
>>>
>>>Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward.
>>>Facts
>>>are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>>
>>
>>Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
>>to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
>>in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
>>drubbing.
>
>
> So does that mean Sampras should not be consider GOAT because he lost
> to Hewitt 6,1,1 in USO ?
>
Sampras wasn't peak then - Fed is.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:12:04
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45449551$0$18117$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> John wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:45448075$0$18110$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You started it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest
>>>>>in making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35
>>>>>I had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward.
>>>>Facts
>>>>are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>>>
>>>
>>>Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
>>>to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
>>>in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
>>>drubbing.
>>
>>
>> So does that mean Sampras should not be consider GOAT because he lost
>> to Hewitt 6,1,1 in USO ?
>>
>
>
> Sampras wasn't peak then - Fed is.
Sampras was at his peak when he lost to Yzaga so he should not be consider
GOAT.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 12:41:51
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45449551$0$18117$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> John wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:45448075$0$18110$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>> John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>>> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You started it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>>> you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>>> your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest
>>>>>> in making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35
>>>>>> I had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>>>
>>>>> Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward.
>>>>> Facts
>>>>> are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>>>>
>>>> Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
>>>> to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
>>>> in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
>>>> drubbing.
>>>
>>> So does that mean Sampras should not be consider GOAT because he lost
>>> to Hewitt 6,1,1 in USO ?
>>>
>>
>> Sampras wasn't peak then - Fed is.
>
> Sampras was at his peak when he lost to Yzaga so he should not be consider
> GOAT.
>
>
Which year was Sampras peak? Was it the year he lost 12 times or the
year he lost 16 times? I always forget! ;-)
--
Cheers,
vc
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 12:46:12
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On Sun, 29 2006 12:41:51 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
<cinicke@netscape.net > wrote:
>John wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:45449551$0$18117$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> John wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:45448075$0$18110$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>> John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>>>> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You started it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>>>> you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>>>> your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest
>>>>>>> in making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35
>>>>>>> I had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward.
>>>>>> Facts
>>>>>> are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>>>>>
>>>>> Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
>>>>> to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
>>>>> in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
>>>>> drubbing.
>>>>
>>>> So does that mean Sampras should not be consider GOAT because he lost
>>>> to Hewitt 6,1,1 in USO ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sampras wasn't peak then - Fed is.
>>
>> Sampras was at his peak when he lost to Yzaga so he should not be consider
>> GOAT.
>>
>>
>
>Which year was Sampras peak? Was it the year he lost 12 times or the
>year he lost 16 times? I always forget! ;-)
I thought it was the 3rd year he lost 19 ?
Or, was it the second of 3 years he lost 17 ?
I forget.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:39:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
>>
>>Sampras wasn't peak then - Fed is.
>
>
> Sampras was at his peak when he lost to Yzaga so he should not be consider
> GOAT.
>
>
At leats it went 5 sets - peak Fed last a couple weeks ago in straights
to that Murray clown...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 04:51:08
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On Mon, 30 2006 15:39:15 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:
>John wrote:
>>>
>>>Sampras wasn't peak then - Fed is.
>>
>>
>> Sampras was at his peak when he lost to Yzaga so he should not be consider
>> GOAT.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>At leats it went 5 sets - peak Fed last a couple weeks ago in straights
>to that Murray clown...
er.... in your own words Feds was a "tune-up" and not a "slam".
Sampras "peaks" for slams or so you say and yet he lost to Yzaga at a
SLAM.
So, what comes next ? Excuse # 137 followed by #123 and #89 ?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 08:49:02
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Amy" <testing.automation@gmail.com > wrote
> On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but
>> I
>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak
>> Fed;
>>
>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>
Well, let's see, I don't think this is very difficult to follow so let's
try: the subject YOU BROUGHT UP was Agassi talking mainly about Federer
being better than Sampras, right??? Wh then replied. It's a mystery to
you what happened here and it requires insults?
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 09:54:37
From: RuPEDski
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"chrome" <chrome@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:2WZ0h.2108$s6.54@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "Amy" <testing.automation@gmail.com> wrote
>> On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>
>>> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>> You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>> thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>
>
> Well, let's see, I don't think this is very difficult to follow so let's
> try: the subject YOU BROUGHT UP was Agassi talking mainly about Federer
> being better than Sampras, right??? Wh then replied. It's a mystery to
> you what happened here and it requires insults?
What's worse is the sock puppet has already done the SAME TROLL
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/df9895bce2e821ab/29a43c8ea598c218?rnum=1&q=testing.automation%40gmail.com&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fdf9895bce2e821ab%2F25121e837c4a8ddf%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3Dtes
Note: Agassi's quote is included.
Again, the only question is which of the usual suspects made this cowardly
troll attempt?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 19:01:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Amy wrote:
> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>
> Here are Agassi's words:
>
This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll keep a copy. He makes some
good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him.
I haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
at 35 had him on the ropes...?
Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:30:34
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45445fc4$0$18147$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Amy wrote:
>> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>
>> Here are Agassi's words:
>>
>
>
>
> This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll keep a copy. He makes some
> good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him. I
> haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
>
> He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
> ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi at
> 35 had him on the ropes...?
>
> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the right
> to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>
> Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
> USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
Crap, yes to this point what you posted above is rubbish. Cross era
comparison
is meaningless as always just as the score you
outlined above with imaginary Pete and Fed matches in Wimbledon and USO.
Fed is competing with players of his own generation and try to beat records
in the book. And who give a shit about your assumption wether he can beat a
peak
Sampras. The only realistic match in their career is at Wimbledon which Fed
won.
And if Fed beat Sampras' record and then he is a greater player than Sampras
regardless of your meaningless imagery victory of peak Sampras beat peak
Fed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:45:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45445fc4$0$18147$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>Amy wrote:
>>
>>>after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>>
>>>Here are Agassi's words:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll keep a copy. He makes some
>>good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him. I
>>haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
>>
>>He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi at
>>35 had him on the ropes...?
>>
>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the right
>>to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>
>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
>
> Crap, yes to this point what you posted above is rubbish. Cross era
> comparison
> is meaningless as always just as the score you
> outlined above with imaginary Pete and Fed matches in Wimbledon and USO.
> Fed is competing with players of his own generation and try to beat records
> in the book. And who give a shit about your assumption wether he can beat a
> peak
> Sampras. The only realistic match in their career is at Wimbledon which Fed
> won.
> And if Fed beat Sampras' record and then he is a greater player than Sampras
> regardless of your meaningless imagery victory of peak Sampras beat peak
> Fed.
>
>>
>
I agree with last sentence.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:02:35
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45447837$0$18094$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> John wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:45445fc4$0$18147$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>Amy wrote:
>>>
>>>>after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>>>>
>>>>Here are Agassi's words:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This really is classic Agassi - I think I'll keep a copy. He makes some
>>>good insights, but overall it really is incredibly funny stuff from him.
>>>I haven't laughed like this for a few weeks in rst.. : )
>>>
>>>He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
>>>ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi at
>>>35 had him on the ropes...?
>>>
>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>>>
>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>
>>
>> Crap, yes to this point what you posted above is rubbish. Cross era
>> comparison
>> is meaningless as always just as the score you
>> outlined above with imaginary Pete and Fed matches in Wimbledon and USO.
>> Fed is competing with players of his own generation and try to beat
>> records
>> in the book. And who give a shit about your assumption wether he can beat
>> a peak
>> Sampras. The only realistic match in their career is at Wimbledon which
>> Fed won.
>> And if Fed beat Sampras' record and then he is a greater player than
>> Sampras
>> regardless of your meaningless imagery victory of peak Sampras beat peak
>> Fed.
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> I agree with last sentence.
Then stop day dreaming on some imainery match ups...........
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:29:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
John wrote:
>>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>>
>>>
>>>Crap, yes to this point what you posted above is rubbish. Cross era
>>>comparison
>>>is meaningless as always just as the score you
>>>outlined above with imaginary Pete and Fed matches in Wimbledon and USO.
>>>Fed is competing with players of his own generation and try to beat
>>>records
>>>in the book. And who give a shit about your assumption wether he can beat
>>>a peak
>>>Sampras. The only realistic match in their career is at Wimbledon which
>>>Fed won.
>>>And if Fed beat Sampras' record and then he is a greater player than
>>>Sampras
>>>regardless of your meaningless imagery victory of peak Sampras beat peak
>>>Fed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I agree with last sentence.
>
>
> Then stop day dreaming on some imainery match ups...........
>
Imo peak Sampras is peak goat as well as achievement goat. My guess is
Hoad also tops Fed at this point as he had complete game & deadly from
the net as well as incredibly strong/athletic.
I repeat Fed can still become goat depending how he goes next few yrs,
but if his career stopped now he's not goat.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:03:06
From: John
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45448267$0$18124$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> John wrote:
>>>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
>>>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Crap, yes to this point what you posted above is rubbish. Cross era
>>>>comparison
>>>>is meaningless as always just as the score you
>>>>outlined above with imaginary Pete and Fed matches in Wimbledon and USO.
>>>>Fed is competing with players of his own generation and try to beat
>>>>records
>>>>in the book. And who give a shit about your assumption wether he can
>>>>beat a peak
>>>>Sampras. The only realistic match in their career is at Wimbledon which
>>>>Fed won.
>>>>And if Fed beat Sampras' record and then he is a greater player than
>>>>Sampras
>>>>regardless of your meaningless imagery victory of peak Sampras beat peak
>>>>Fed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I agree with last sentence.
>>
>>
>> Then stop day dreaming on some imainery match ups...........
>>
>
>
> Imo peak Sampras is peak goat as well as achievement goat. My guess is
> Hoad also tops Fed at this point as he had complete game & deadly from the
> net as well as incredibly strong/athletic.
IMO and my guess are not realistic stick to something more realist and can
be backed up with facts.
>
> I repeat Fed can still become goat depending how he goes next few yrs, but
> if his career stopped now he's not goat.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 19:27:39
From: David W
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:45445fc4$0$18147$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
> can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
> right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
Whether he does or not, does fleeting peak form really matter? If their
careers started at the same time, who would win more slams?
David
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:21:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
David W wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45445fc4$0$18147$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but I
>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak Fed;
>
>
> Whether he does or not, does fleeting peak form really matter? If their
> careers started at the same time, who would win more slams?
>
> David
>
>
>
Good question. Lots of variables there, like if Sampras beats him early
a few times in Wim/USO finals does Fed lose confidence & fade away...?
But certainly the tennis would be amazing.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 19:00:56
From: David W
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
"Amy" <testing.automation@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162093490.670248.116600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> after 05 USO. Old news but still......
>
> Here are Agassi's words:
He makes Hazel look moderate.
David
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:26:58
From: drew
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>
> See their Wimbledon match. Sampras was close to his peak and almost had
> young whippersnapper (and now whispersnapper?) Federer on the ropes deep
> in the fifth set before losing.
>
> Just imagine what would happen if Sampras was really at peak (marginally
> better) and Federer becomes ten times better. See!?
Just imagine what kind of reaction this would get from a Sampras fan.
I don't mean Whisper of course because he is a Federer fan and hates
Sampras.
I think players who are at their peak should wear a yellow jacket.
When they are a little past their peak it is brown and when they hit
thirty they have to wear a black jacket and a death mask. Pre-peak
players should wear a green jacket. Players who have pre-existing
medical conditions should have their condition tattooed on their
forearms so that an asterisk can be placed after a loss so that
everybody knows they are not responsible for losing. Players who
display peak form before or after their actual peak must be judged in
such a way that their peak performance can be invalidated by the
sub-peak performance of their peak opponent or by the pre-existing
medical condition factor of the post-peak, peak-like performance of the
previous opponent.
This way the fans will know if the matchup is valid and the victory or
loss counts for either player.
How is the status of each player and their jacket colour to be
determined? Well, there is only one way. Ask a tier one analyst.
Which one, you ask? There is only one man who is qualified for this
job.....
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:47:30
From: fearsomeforehand
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
> At leats it went 5 sets - peak Fed last a couple weeks ago in straights
> to that Murray clown...
I thought slams were all that mattered..at least try to be consistent!
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:13:40
From: drew
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
> Whisper wrote:
> > Obviously you don't know anything about boxing and you've never seen
> > the great Ali on the ropes. Agassi is the son of an Olympic boxer
> > and knows a thing or two about having a guy on the ropes. Every boxer
> > is on the ropes at some point in the match unless it is a one-sided
> > affair and it doesn't mean that you will lose the match, only that you
> > are against the ropes and have to find a way back into the center of
> > the ring.
>
>
> This would have some credence if it were peak Agassi v peak Federer - as
> it wasn't remotely close to this you have no point.
Agassi was in the finals of the USO. He was playing great tennis.
Your imaginary peaks and valleys mean nothing in the real world.
Whether Agassi would have could have done better at 29 is impossible to
know. Maybe. Fact is that when you can reach the finals of a Slam you
must be playing pretty good ball. Might be your last gasp, might be a
flash in the pan...it doesn't matter.
Agassi told it as it was and it is so true. Federer on the ropes still
seems to turn it around and put the pressure back on to his opponent.
And the great ones can do this. Agassi should know.
>
> Then you simply can't dismiss Henman's achievement in beating peak Fed
> the very next rd.
Henman played some nice tennis, especially on grass but he couldn't put
together 7 matches to win a major. If one match makes a career then
you can count Yzaga, Korda, and Bastl amongst your all time greats.
>
> >
> > Whisper, you are a clown and a half. You don't give credit where
> > credit is due and you are constant making predictions that don't pan
> > out.
> >
> > I fear that some day you will reflect upon your own silliness and
> > decide that you must stick a firecracker the size of the universe up
> > your ass and light it just to save face.
> >
>
>
> Essentially you're asking me to stick my head up my arse & ignore basic
> tennis facts.
The opposite in fact. I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass
and stick a firecracker in there instead. Light it, roll the camera
and post it to youtube.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:10:57
From:
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Agassi may have a vested interest in his remarks about Fed being the
best he ever played, but maybe not.
The fact is this: Agassi is the *only* to player in a position to make
this comparison. He's the only player who has played peak Sampras in
slam finals and peak Fed in slam finals.
If he says Fed is the best he's played, I would lend credence to it.
He's the only player in a position to make the comparison based on his
long history of playing Pete and then playing Fed multiple times,
several times in slams.
It's also obvious Agassi's comment pissed Pete off, based on his tepid
remarks when Andre retired.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:39:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
ulysses@mscomm.com wrote:
> Agassi may have a vested interest in his remarks about Fed being the
> best he ever played, but maybe not.
>
> The fact is this: Agassi is the *only* to player in a position to make
> this comparison. He's the only player who has played peak Sampras in
> slam finals and peak Fed in slam finals.
...yet old Agassi came far closer to beating peak Fed last 2 USOs then
he ever got v Sampras. Go figure.... ; )
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:20:30
From: Amy
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On 29, 2:34 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Amy wrote:
>
> > On 29, 1:49 am, "chrome" <chr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Amy" <testing.automat...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>On 29, 1:01 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>Fed is obviously a great player & 1 of my top 10 faves to watch, but
> >>>>I
> >>>>can't see him beating peak Sampras. If he gets better I reserve the
> >>>>right to change my mind, but to this point peak Sampras beats peak
> >>>>Fed;
>
> >>>>Wimbledon : 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-3
> >>>>USO : 6-4 6-3 7-5
>
> >>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> >>>thread? Aren't there enough already?Well, let's see, I don't think this is very difficult to follow so let's
>
> >>try: the subject YOU BROUGHT UP was Agassi talking mainly about Federer
> >>being better than Sampras, right??? Wh then replied. It's a mystery to
> >>you what happened here and it requires insults?
>
> > Please read it again. The topic I started is Agassi talking about Fed.er, Agassi also mentioned how he had Fed on toast - you don't think this
> was self-serving from his pov...? Come off it.
Moron, wouldn't it be more self serving if he had praised Pete instead
as he had beaten him 14 times. But then logic is beyond you.
You are to Fed what Dave is to Nadal, perhaps a bit more.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:07:24
From:
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Sampras also had an almost career threatening injury in his late 20s
that forever slowed him down.
CZ
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 12:25:17
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
> John wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> >>John wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> >>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You started it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
> >>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
> >>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
> >>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
> >>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
> >
> >
> > Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward. Facts
> > are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
> >
>
> Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
> to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
> in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
> drubbing.
>
> It is sickening listening to Agassi rave on how awesome Fed is on 1
> hand, then say a mishit turned it around for Fed in USO final. Complete
> bollocks.
If you honestly think that a single shot, a mishit at that, is the
reason that Fed beat Agassi, you are dumber than I give you credit for.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:18:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Sasidharp wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You started it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
>>>>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>
>>>
>>>Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward. Facts
>>>are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>>
>>
>>Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
>>to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
>>in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
>>drubbing.
>>
>>It is sickening listening to Agassi rave on how awesome Fed is on 1
>>hand, then say a mishit turned it around for Fed in USO final. Complete
>>bollocks.
>
>
> If you honestly think that a single shot, a mishit at that, is the
> reason that Fed beat Agassi, you are dumber than I give you credit for.
>
..that's the way Andre paints it.
He said he was in control of the match, comfortable lead then Fed hit a
mishit winner & it all turned around.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 12:22:43
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
> John wrote:
> >>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> >>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>You started it.
> >
> >
> > Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
> > you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
> > your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
> >
>
>
> Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
> making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I
> had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>
> Spare me.....
Right... well, I don't want to get involved in this thread but your
argument is feeble.
One could make a better argument that Agassi had a vested interest by
elevating Sampras since Agassi actually beat Sampras at peak in 4 sets
AO Final, while all he has against Federer is what?
That he took a set off of him HAH :)
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:16:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Sasidharp wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You started it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I
>>had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>
>>Spare me.....
>
>
> Right... well, I don't want to get involved in this thread but your
> argument is feeble.
>
> One could make a better argument that Agassi had a vested interest by
> elevating Sampras since Agassi actually beat Sampras at peak in 4 sets
> AO Final, while all he has against Federer is what?
>
> That he took a set off of him HAH :)
>
....at age 35, while Fed is *11 yrs younger* & at absolute peak? Agassi
has much to gain if Fed is considered goat as he was far closer to
beating Fed than he ever got v Sampras at any USO. I mean if that were
true it could be argued Agassi was actually goat at his peak, which he
wouldn't mind... ; )
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 05:01:11
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Sasidharp wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > Sasidharp wrote:
> > > Whisper wrote:
> > >
> > >>John wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> > >>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You started it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
> > >>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
> > >>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
> > >>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I
> > >>had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
> > >>
> > >>Spare me.....
> > >
> > >
> > > Right... well, I don't want to get involved in this thread but your
> > > argument is feeble.
> > >
> > > One could make a better argument that Agassi had a vested interest by
> > > elevating Sampras since Agassi actually beat Sampras at peak in 4 sets
> > > AO Final, while all he has against Federer is what?
> > >
> > > That he took a set off of him HAH :)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ....at age 35, while Fed is *11 yrs younger* & at absolute peak? Agassi
> > has much to gain if Fed is considered goat as he was far closer to
> > beating Fed than he ever got v Sampras at any USO. I mean if that were
> > true it could be argued Agassi was actually goat at his peak, which he
> > wouldn't mind... ; )
>
> Ok.. let me repeat my point since you appear to have overlooked it
>
> First Agassi got 1 bloody set off Federer, it means nothing, while
> Agassi actually beat Peak Sampras at AO.
>
> So, if Agassi says that Sampras was GOAT he has more to gain because he
> actually beat Peak Sampras at AO
>
> OTOH What does he have against Federer? A possible coulda-woulda
> scenarion in which he could win if they played when he was younger.
>
> Besides, he beat Sampras so many times in the tune ups even at peak,
> while Federer never lost to him after '03 Wimbledon.
>
> In the end, Agassi can say that he ACTUALLY BEAT Peak Sampras in a slam
> and in tune ups in your scenario.
>
> OTOH If he calls Federer the best over Sampras, if Agassi actually
> meant what he was saying, then he could say that IF he were younger he
> COULD have taken Federer to 5 sets and COULD have possibly won that
> imaginary meeting.
>
> Clearly the first scenario is more advantageous for Agassi. So your
> theory is debunked.
Easy. It's not over. It never is. He'll throw the exact same bs at you
at least a hundred times more. Verbatim. He's a troll at heart first,
tennis fan second. He knows people don't have time to search for old
posts on usenet. He knows people are generally amnesiac and are just
going with the flow in internet discussions. Be prepared.
The truth is: you just wasted a whole lot of words on this particular
troll.
There's no way you can correct a troll. They are incorrigible.
Ignore it. Or try to find its weak points.
Whisper's weakpoint is pretty easy to find. Poke for it a little. ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:54:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>>Clearly the first scenario is more advantageous for Agassi. So your
>>theory is debunked.
>
>
> Easy. It's not over. It never is. He'll throw the exact same bs at you
> at least a hundred times more. Verbatim. He's a troll at heart first,
> tennis fan second. He knows people don't have time to search for old
> posts on usenet. He knows people are generally amnesiac and are just
> going with the flow in internet discussions. Be prepared.
>
> The truth is: you just wasted a whole lot of words on this particular
> troll.
>
> There's no way you can correct a troll. They are incorrigible.
>
> Ignore it. Or try to find its weak points.
>
> Whisper's weakpoint is pretty easy to find. Poke for it a little. ;-)
>
You can gasbag all you like, but the facts are Sampras is goat by a big
margin;
7 Wimbledons v 4
5 USO v 3
6 yrs No.1 v 3 yrs No.1
18 v 8 just there.
Tune-ups, streaks etc can't bridge this massive gap. Fed has to keep
plugging away & achieving at the highest level for a few more yrs.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 11:57:29
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
On Tue, 31 2006 17:54:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:
>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>
>>>Clearly the first scenario is more advantageous for Agassi. So your
>>>theory is debunked.
>>
>>
>> Easy. It's not over. It never is. He'll throw the exact same bs at you
>> at least a hundred times more. Verbatim. He's a troll at heart first,
>> tennis fan second. He knows people don't have time to search for old
>> posts on usenet. He knows people are generally amnesiac and are just
>> going with the flow in internet discussions. Be prepared.
>>
>> The truth is: you just wasted a whole lot of words on this particular
>> troll.
>>
>> There's no way you can correct a troll. They are incorrigible.
>>
>> Ignore it. Or try to find its weak points.
>>
>> Whisper's weakpoint is pretty easy to find. Poke for it a little. ;-)
>>
>
>
>
>You can gasbag all you like, but the facts are Sampras is goat by a big
>margin;
>
>7 Wimbledons v 4
>5 USO v 3
>6 yrs No.1 v 3 yrs No.1
>
>
>18 v 8 just there.
>
>
>Tune-ups, streaks etc can't bridge this massive gap. Fed has to keep
>plugging away & achieving at the highest level for a few more yrs.
>
er...he can do it all next year pal.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 04:55:30
From:
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Agassi was playing out of his mind at that point. also, the crowd was
decidedly behind him. every point he got was received with a
thundering ovation.
Whisper wrote:
>
> He praises Fed to high heavens, but then throws in how he had him on the
> ropes! - I mean c'mon - Fed is greatest ever & at peak age, yet Agassi
> at 35 had him on the ropes...?
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 04:52:21
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
> Sasidharp wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >
> >>John wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>John wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> >>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You started it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
> >>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
> >>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
> >>>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
> >>>>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward. Facts
> >>>are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
> >>>
> >>
> >>Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
> >>to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
> >>in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
> >>drubbing.
> >>
> >>It is sickening listening to Agassi rave on how awesome Fed is on 1
> >>hand, then say a mishit turned it around for Fed in USO final. Complete
> >>bollocks.
> >
> >
> > If you honestly think that a single shot, a mishit at that, is the
> > reason that Fed beat Agassi, you are dumber than I give you credit for.
> >
>
>
>
> ..that's the way Andre paints it.
>
> He said he was in control of the match, comfortable lead then Fed hit a
> mishit winner & it all turned around.
Since when do you listen to what Agassi says -- you obviously ignored
the rest of his speech.
Besides, that point may have been the turning point but that does not
mean that the match hinged on that single point. It just means that
that point was the beginning of the end.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:50:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Sasidharp wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>Sasidharp wrote:
>>
>>>Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>news:45447a17$0$18125$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You started it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>>>>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I had
>>>>>>the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Facts are Agassi did play that match and made the comment afterward. Facts
>>>>>are your comments are rubbish and are base on imaginery match ups..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts are Agassi at 35 should in no way be good enough to be in position
>>>>to topple a potential goat at his peak in USO final. The correct result
>>>>in this kind of matchup, if Fed were goat & Agassi 35, is 6-2 6-1 6-2
>>>>drubbing.
>>>>
>>>>It is sickening listening to Agassi rave on how awesome Fed is on 1
>>>>hand, then say a mishit turned it around for Fed in USO final. Complete
>>>>bollocks.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you honestly think that a single shot, a mishit at that, is the
>>>reason that Fed beat Agassi, you are dumber than I give you credit for.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>..that's the way Andre paints it.
>>
>>He said he was in control of the match, comfortable lead then Fed hit a
>>mishit winner & it all turned around.
>
>
> Since when do you listen to what Agassi says -- you obviously ignored
> the rest of his speech.
>
> Besides, that point may have been the turning point but that does not
> mean that the match hinged on that single point. It just means that
> that point was the beginning of the end.
>
Whatever, it certainly paints Agassi in a very favourable light - old &
busted & leads *peak* Fed 3-6 6-2 4-2 breakpoint in USO final - man
imagine how good he musta been in his youth.
Penny dropping yet...?
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 04:50:15
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
> Sasidharp wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >
> >>John wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
> >>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You started it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
> >>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
> >>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
> >>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I
> >>had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
> >>
> >>Spare me.....
> >
> >
> > Right... well, I don't want to get involved in this thread but your
> > argument is feeble.
> >
> > One could make a better argument that Agassi had a vested interest by
> > elevating Sampras since Agassi actually beat Sampras at peak in 4 sets
> > AO Final, while all he has against Federer is what?
> >
> > That he took a set off of him HAH :)
> >
>
>
>
> ....at age 35, while Fed is *11 yrs younger* & at absolute peak? Agassi
> has much to gain if Fed is considered goat as he was far closer to
> beating Fed than he ever got v Sampras at any USO. I mean if that were
> true it could be argued Agassi was actually goat at his peak, which he
> wouldn't mind... ; )
Ok.. let me repeat my point since you appear to have overlooked it
First Agassi got 1 bloody set off Federer, it means nothing, while
Agassi actually beat Peak Sampras at AO.
So, if Agassi says that Sampras was GOAT he has more to gain because he
actually beat Peak Sampras at AO
OTOH What does he have against Federer? A possible coulda-woulda
scenarion in which he could win if they played when he was younger.
Besides, he beat Sampras so many times in the tune ups even at peak,
while Federer never lost to him after '03 Wimbledon.
In the end, Agassi can say that he ACTUALLY BEAT Peak Sampras in a slam
and in tune ups in your scenario.
OTOH If he calls Federer the best over Sampras, if Agassi actually
meant what he was saying, then he could say that IF he were younger he
COULD have taken Federer to 5 sets and COULD have possibly won that
imaginary meeting.
Clearly the first scenario is more advantageous for Agassi. So your
theory is debunked.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:48:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Sasidharp wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>Sasidharp wrote:
>>
>>>Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You are pathetic. Do you have to start this Fed-Pete thing in every
>>>>>>>thread? Aren't there enough already?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You started it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where she started she started with facts and you are pathetic because
>>>>>you can only throw in a non fact based pathetic arguments base on
>>>>>your imaginery peak pete vs peak fed match ups.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Facts? You posted some thoughts from a guy who has a vested interest in
>>>>making himself look pretty awesome v potential goat - eg 'at age 35 I
>>>>had the goat on toast, then he hit a mishit winner & beat me'...
>>>>
>>>>Spare me.....
>>>
>>>
>>>Right... well, I don't want to get involved in this thread but your
>>>argument is feeble.
>>>
>>>One could make a better argument that Agassi had a vested interest by
>>>elevating Sampras since Agassi actually beat Sampras at peak in 4 sets
>>>AO Final, while all he has against Federer is what?
>>>
>>>That he took a set off of him HAH :)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>....at age 35, while Fed is *11 yrs younger* & at absolute peak? Agassi
>>has much to gain if Fed is considered goat as he was far closer to
>>beating Fed than he ever got v Sampras at any USO. I mean if that were
>>true it could be argued Agassi was actually goat at his peak, which he
>>wouldn't mind... ; )
>
>
> Ok.. let me repeat my point since you appear to have overlooked it
>
> First Agassi got 1 bloody set off Federer, it means nothing, while
> Agassi actually beat Peak Sampras at AO.
>
> So, if Agassi says that Sampras was GOAT he has more to gain because he
> actually beat Peak Sampras at AO
>
> OTOH What does he have against Federer? A possible coulda-woulda
> scenarion in which he could win if they played when he was younger.
>
> Besides, he beat Sampras so many times in the tune ups even at peak,
> while Federer never lost to him after '03 Wimbledon.
>
> In the end, Agassi can say that he ACTUALLY BEAT Peak Sampras in a slam
> and in tune ups in your scenario.
>
> OTOH If he calls Federer the best over Sampras, if Agassi actually
> meant what he was saying, then he could say that IF he were younger he
> COULD have taken Federer to 5 sets and COULD have possibly won that
> imaginary meeting.
>
> Clearly the first scenario is more advantageous for Agassi. So your
> theory is debunked.
>
Not at all. *Peak* Agassi was a handful on HC's - much more so than the
old busted version that took Fed to the brink '04/'05 USOs......
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:37:12
From: Adam Thirnis
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > coop-a-loop wrote:
> >
> >> Or the other way around...
> >>
> >
> > Interesting question. How many slams would Federer have won in the
> > Sampras era as a sub for Sampras?
> >
>
>
> Yes, very interesting. Possibly just as many.
>
> Sampras would do just as well in this era - Nadal in Wimbly final, Bags
> at AO?
undoubtedly lose both - after all at his peak he was losing to
flip/kucera types at ao - bagman/nadal is a much higher calibre
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:40:11
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: Agassi on Fed
|
Whisper wrote:
>
> You can gasbag all you like, but the facts are Sampras is goat by a big
> margin;
>
> 7 Wimbledons v 4
> 5 USO v 3
> 6 yrs No.1 v 3 yrs No.1
>
>
> 18 v 8 just there.
>
18 vs. 10 really, but making tournament wins equal to years is idiotic
anyway.
|
|
