Funny how none of these so called objective experts never mention how many times Pete lost the 1 rank in those 6 years. that should matter when praising him for being number 1 for 6 years. nobody is going to break Federers's 21 consecutive final wins. or his consecutive time as number 1. Nadal has been very impressive lately. but with his knee issues he won't be around long it looks like. so he better get what he can right now.
On 23 Aug, 09:41, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Federer already has the record for most consecutive weeks at No. 1,
but he's almost out of the hunt when it comes to breaking an even more
significant landmark: Pete Sampras' record of six consecutive years at
No. 1. That's a record a player gets to crack just once in a career,
for obvious longevity-related reasons.
Federer, at 27, still has plenty of time to break Pete Sampras' Grand
Slam singles titles record..."
*****
Reading the above, what would a naive reader come out thinking about
the value of the following three records?
1. consecutive weeks at #1
2. YE#1 streak
3. total # of slams
Pete - also has the biggest joke of clay record for a goat - the fact
he stayed no 1 that long on faster surfaces just shows how one
dimensional his game was
The fact he stayed no.1 a record 6 yrs in a row proves how versatile he was & explains his goat status.
If he was really 1-dimensional he wouldn't have been compared to the greatest sportsmen of all time at age 19. Looks like you've fucked up once again - how does it feel to be a tennis fan yet so clueless about the game?
On Aug 23, 4:01 pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 23, 4:33 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:15 am, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pete - also has the biggest joke of clay record for a goat - the fact
he stayed no 1 that long on faster surfaces just shows how one
dimensional his game was
Whether one likes Sampras or not, this characterization of his game
just isn't true. His game was hardly one-dimensional (if it was, I'd
be thrilled have such a dimension), and he had much more than "just a
serve," as you've previously stated. He was terrible on clay not for
lack of shots, but (1) lack of confidence (2) lack of patience (3)
lack of commitment to the clay season.
his shots sucked admit it..
he had no consistency
the poor quality of his shots and the fact he couldnt serve games out
to compensate for it meant he was toast..
sampras coasted many a tie breaked dragged out much with simply a few
pot of luck shot returns or winners backed up by his serve even on hc
he couldnt do that on clay because he couldnt - rally period or work
points with his strokes..
it always came down to the big serves or a few go for broke shots ..
like his forehand
Sampras was smart enough to tool his game and shots to win matches and
slams. You can't take the credit from him for what he has achieved.
Federer has more options and tools than Sampras had
Only from the baseline. Pete won points outright from serve, baseline & net, thus he had more weapons to fall back on. Roger is weaker & relies heavily on movement/confidence. Pete definitely was the greater champion in both ability & achievement.
Of course Roger may not yet be done, but it's not looking good for him.
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 .
