"It was always a tough surface for me and it definitely diminished my
serve and volley game," Sampras said in a phone interview this week.
"It was a tougher surface to move on, especially at the net. I didn't
cover the net quite as well. You've got to be patient. You've got to
play with a lot of spin and take your time."
Seems like Sampras attributed his failings (relatively speaking) on
clay to his poor movement skills on that surface, not to clay being a
surface that requires fewer true tennis skills ...
What's your point? If he would have said clay requires "fewer true tennis skills" he would have been terribly wrong or simply not telling the truth. So of course he didn't say that.
Admitting that he doesn't have good enough ground strokes would've been truthful, but he's obviously too proud to admit it.
On Sep 26, 7:35 pm, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:
Here's pete yesterday, commenting on clay:
"It was always a tough surface for me and it definitely diminished my
serve and volley game," Sampras said in a phone interview this week.
"It was a tougher surface to move on, especially at the net. I didn't
cover the net quite as well. You've got to be patient. You've got to
play with a lot of spin and take your time."
Seems like Sampras attributed his failings (relatively speaking) on
clay to his poor movement skills on that surface, not to clay being a
surface that requires fewer true tennis skills ...
Do not expect anything less from a great champion like Sampras.
Leave the excuses to the rst trolls
Are you saying Sampras couldn't play on clay due to lack of skills...?
Clearly it's a choice he made to prolong his career, & he had that blood condition which woulda made it dumb to bumroot for hrs when he didn't have to.
<blanders0604@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190834902.160483.227640@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 26, 1:35 pm, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:
Here's pete yesterday, commenting on clay:
"It was always a tough surface for me and it definitely diminished my
serve and volley game," Sampras said in a phone interview this week.
"It was a tougher surface to move on, especially at the net. I didn't
cover the net quite as well. You've got to be patient. You've got to
play with a lot of spin and take your time."
Seems like Sampras attributed his failings (relatively speaking) on
clay to his poor movement skills on that surface, not to clay being a
surface that requires fewer true tennis skills ...
Clay forces you to put more spin on the ball on groundstrokes, so it
blunts the effectiveness of a guy who specializing ih hitting with
flatter penetration. Trying to drive it too flat and hard on clay
usually results in a lot of shots going into the net. This is why so
many little fellas can make a better go of it on clay--it helps level
the playing field vs. the big guys. Sampras could hit pretty loopy,
clay-like shots and won some good matches on clay but of course, no
FO. I'm sure it was frustrating for him.
Sampras is talking about the general challenges of covering the net on
clay. It is very unforgiving in terms of committing yourself, and at
net there is not time at all to recover from even a slight wrong
move. It is easier to get passed on clay.
it's easier to get passed on clay for another reason - hard to hit a good penetrating approach. the friggin ball sits up slowly like a sweet tomato waiting to be smacked. makes it easier for the guy NOT at net. not just for pete, for mac, for becker too.
Yet your hypothesis for Sampras' poor results on clay rely on him not
having good movement. So how can he be top 3 mover of all time...Oh I
see, clay doesn't count...
Find me 1 credible reference to Sampras' poor movement.
Your or Sampras'?
Sampras did say that his movement was one of the problems on clay.
Yes, you didn't say in this thread that Sampras' lack of movement was
the cause. Now, if it's not movement or groundstrokes, I'd be interested
to hear on what do you base his poor success on clay then?
Impatience with the claycourt game & stamina issues. Sampras was reknowned for his exceptional movement - very fluid, greased lightning. When you think of fluid movement/power no one really comes close to Sampras.
The 'movement' he's referring to in the claycourt sense is not referring to movement per se, rather the need to bumroot back & forth constantly & hit 20 balls just to win a point.
Come on - this is all obvious stuff - like Sampras not capable of hitting a bh or winning points from baseline - pretty dumb for a premier tennis ng.
Vari L. Cinicke 27 September 2007 20:04:33 [ permanent link ]
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
On Sep 27, 5:32 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
TJT wrote:
Yet your hypothesis for Sampras' poor results on clay rely on him not
having good movement. So how can he be top 3 mover of all time...Oh I
see, clay doesn't count...
Find me 1 credible reference to Sampras' poor movement.
Your or Sampras'?
Sampras did say that his movement was one of the problems on clay.
Yes, you didn't say in this thread that Sampras' lack of movement was
the cause. Now, if it's not movement or groundstrokes, I'd be interested
to hear on what do you base his poor success on clay then?
Impatience with the claycourt game & stamina issues. Sampras was
reknowned for his exceptional movement - very fluid, greased lightning.
"greased lightning"? LOL! What kinda metaphor is that?
When you think of fluid movement/power no one really comes close to
Sampras.
"fluid movement/power"? What the slash sign doing there?
And quite a few players come close to Sampras in either "fluid
movement" or "power" categories. Sampras combined those in exceptional
ways, but not on clay courts. Hole in the r sum .
Sampras fanboy.
The 'movement' he's referring to in the claycourt sense is not referring
to movement per se, rather the need to bumroot back & forth constantly &
hit 20 balls just to win a point.
Sorry, little whimpy in rst is not Sampras's official mouthpiece.
Also note the weak attempt at disguising Sampras's less than perfect movement on clay by calling it *bumrooting back and forth*.
Why didn't Whispy's super-Sampras not end the point sooner than letting opponents hang around 20 shots into the rally? What happened to the "nuclear" shots?
Sampras one of the Top 3 movers of all time on clay? Now we have heard everything. I didn't believe that even Whispy could sink so low in his fanboydom. Turns out he is not even working hard sinking so low.
er, that's not addressing the pretty obvious point that the lion's share
of big events, slams and even masters, are not on clay.
Honest to goodness, just because Whisper posts like a moron doesn't
mean everyone else has to!!!
My original post was in response to Madhavan who made some comments
about Sampras' movement, with which I agree. When I looked at some of
the keywords Madhavan used, and generalised them:
... explosive mover
... but surface X requires some very different footwork and sliding
skills that {he} had difficulty mastering to the same degree as
players who grew up on {that surface}
... he....found it unnatural to stop using his {surface X} court
footwork on {surfaceY} and that put him at a disadvantage.
... I think it's a great testament to X's skills that in spite .....he
was able to [challenge] Y on {surface Z}.
...seems like his window of opportunity on {surface X} is very short -
it took him quite a while to get good at it and it seemed like his
{2007} run was strenuous
enough that he stopped believing that he had the stamina to win
there. That could
have reduced his motivation in later years.
it seemed to me that they could be used of Nadal now. I then
speculated why this might be.
Whisper went off a totally irrelevant tangent, as usual. If I could
have been arsed to use the two brain cells needed to answer his
arguments I would have pointed out that 'everything' he wrote could be
answered by my original statement i.e. replace Sampras with Nadal and
HC with clay. They can be considered two sides of the movement coin,
except Nadal still has a chance to adapt, while Sampras didn't manage
it. I wondered if Nadal will be able to make the adjustment.
Some of the readers out there understand this. As for the rest...I
can't really be arsed.
You're suggesting Sampras lacked the intrinsic ability to play on clay, rather than concluding the obvious point all tennis experts make - ie he 'refused' to make that committment - iow it was his 'choice'.
Even Newk & Stolle, who aren't exactly fond of Sampras, admitted he coulda won FO had he committed to it - ie go to Europe 3 mnths early & just play clay tennis.
The reward for Sampras making that kind of investment wasn't considered worthwhile. Honing a clay game in lead up to Wimbledon didn't compute in his mind - committing tennis suicide.
Dave Hazelwood 29 September 2007 14:33:53 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:24:29 -0700, topspin <goolagongfan@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 29 Sep, 10:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
You're suggesting Sampras lacked the intrinsic ability to play on clay,
rather than concluding the obvious point all tennis experts make - ie he
'refused' to make that committment - iow it was his 'choice'.
Even Newk & Stolle, who aren't exactly fond of Sampras, admitted he
coulda won FO had he committed to it - ie go to Europe 3 mnths early &
just play clay tennis.
The reward for Sampras making that kind of investment wasn't considered
worthwhile. Honing a clay game in lead up to Wimbledon didn't compute
in his mind - committing tennis suicide.
a) I'm not suggesting anything. Just stating that, for whatever
reason, he did not make the transition. My question remains - will
Nadal end up the same on HC?
and
b) If you transpose Sampras <-> Nadal and clay <-> HC/Wimbledon, you
can STILL use every just about word you wrote above...
Also means since Borg was able to make that transition not once, not twice but THREE times that Borg is easily the goat over Sampras who could not walk and chew gum at the same time.
Dave Hazelwood 29 September 2007 14:39:59 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:26:41 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
topspin wrote:
On 28 Sep, 22:50, stephenj <s...@cox.net> wrote:
er, that's not addressing the pretty obvious point that the lion's share
of big events, slams and even masters, are not on clay.
Honest to goodness, just because Whisper posts like a moron doesn't
mean everyone else has to!!!
My original post was in response to Madhavan who made some comments
about Sampras' movement, with which I agree. When I looked at some of
the keywords Madhavan used, and generalised them:
... explosive mover
... but surface X requires some very different footwork and sliding
skills that {he} had difficulty mastering to the same degree as
players who grew up on {that surface}
... he....found it unnatural to stop using his {surface X} court
footwork on {surfaceY} and that put him at a disadvantage.
... I think it's a great testament to X's skills that in spite .....he
was able to [challenge] Y on {surface Z}.
...seems like his window of opportunity on {surface X} is very short -
it took him quite a while to get good at it and it seemed like his
{2007} run was strenuous
enough that he stopped believing that he had the stamina to win
there. That could
have reduced his motivation in later years.
it seemed to me that they could be used of Nadal now. I then
speculated why this might be.
Whisper went off a totally irrelevant tangent, as usual. If I could
have been arsed to use the two brain cells needed to answer his
arguments I would have pointed out that 'everything' he wrote could be
answered by my original statement i.e. replace Sampras with Nadal and
HC with clay. They can be considered two sides of the movement coin,
except Nadal still has a chance to adapt, while Sampras didn't manage
it. I wondered if Nadal will be able to make the adjustment.
Some of the readers out there understand this. As for the rest...I
can't really be arsed.
You're suggesting Sampras lacked the intrinsic ability to play on clay,
rather than concluding the obvious point all tennis experts make - ie he
'refused' to make that committment - iow it was his 'choice'.
Even Newk & Stolle, who aren't exactly fond of Sampras, admitted he
coulda won FO had he committed to it - ie go to Europe 3 mnths early &
just play clay tennis.
The reward for Sampras making that kind of investment wasn't considered
worthwhile. Honing a clay game in lead up to Wimbledon didn't compute
in his mind - committing tennis suicide.
Also means since Borg was able to make that transition not once, not twice but THREE times that Borg is easily the goat over Sampras who could not walk and chew gum at the same time.
Or in other words, Borg was able to do something easily that would have caused Sampras to commit Wimbledon suicide. Read that another way and it shows Borg found Wimbledon a lot easier than Sampras did who had to bust his chops to eek out 7 while Borg coasted to 5 in a row while bagging 6 FO's along the way.
Compared to Borg, Sampras was a real loser. Oh wait ! Their respective records show that too ! Oh wait wait ! Whisper says losers don't count !!!
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
er, that's not addressing the pretty obvious point that the lion's share
of big events, slams and even masters, are not on clay.
My original post was in response to Madhavan who made some comments
about Sampras' movement, with which I agree. When I looked at some of
the keywords Madhavan used, and generalised them:
ok.. i was lumping you in with some nadal apologists-idiots around here who seem to think that the tour won't be "fair" to clay players unless 50% of the events are on clay.
sorry about that.
-- Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Vari L. Cinicke 30 September 2007 02:47:37 [ permanent link ]
stephenj wrote:
Whisper wrote:
topspin wrote:
You're suggesting Sampras lacked the intrinsic ability to play on
clay, rather than concluding the obvious point all tennis experts make
- ie he 'refused' to make that committment - iow it was his 'choice'.
and with good reason: sampras couldn't have become a clay master. he
lacked the physical and psychological abilities.
Even Newk & Stolle, who aren't exactly fond of Sampras, admitted he
coulda won FO had he committed to it - ie go to Europe 3 mnths early &
just play clay tennis.
absurd. sampras did everything within reason to win the FO. said so
himself.
Clay events Sampras played in before RG
2002 - Houston, Rome, Hamburg, World Team Cup 2001 - Rome, Hamburg, World Team Cup 2000 - Hamburg, World Team Cup 1999 - Rome, World Team Cup 1998 - Monte Carlo, Atlanta, Rome 1997 - Monte Carlo, Rome, World Team Cup 1996 - World Team Cup (Only RG SF - Kafel crushed him at both events) 1995 - Barcelona, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome 1994 - Rome, World Team Cup 1993 - Atlanta, Rome, World Team Cup 1992 - Nice, Monte Carlo, Atlanta, Rome, World Team Cup 1991 - Hamburg, Rome
Sampras tried everything short of voodoo to win Roland Garros. Even Nadal normally plays only 3 clay events prior to RG. Sampras did more than that a few times. Whisper's lies are just that -- lies.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
