Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just pushes back the ball...
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1) 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world n.º1) 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1) 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher) 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1) 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking baseliner)
Now let's the Runner ups:
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher) 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher) 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher) 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher) 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher) 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much) 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher) 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner) 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much) 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio) who exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents... In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in FO...
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to believe!
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to believe!
The FO is tied with the USO as the 2nd most prestigious event in the sport. It's sad that bandwidth is wasted on rst "proving" that the 2nd most prestigious event isn't "meaningless"...
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
kurtz wrote:> Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just> pushes back the ball...>
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:>
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1)> 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world n.º1)> 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher)> 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking> baseliner)>
Now let's the Runner ups:>
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher)> 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher)> 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher)> 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher)> 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much)> 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner)> 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much)> 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)>
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio) who> exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents...> In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was> completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...>
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in FO...>
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to believe!>
Where are the dynamic No.1s? - Becker/Edberg/Mac/Sampras/Fed/Roddick.
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to believe!>
The FO is tied with the USO as the 2nd most prestigious event in the sport.> It's sad that bandwidth is wasted on rst "proving" that the 2nd most> prestigious event isn't "meaningless"...>
It's not meaningless, but sad that a title that supposedly means so much is boring to watch. A few bumrooters here or there is fine, but when they totally dominate an event then something should be done.
I'm interested in who wins the title as it's highly significant, but I don't care to watch any of it unless it's Roddick/Fed types getting through....
There must be some way of speeding the clay up a little..?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:A8TYd.658$D17.19516@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> kurtz wrote:>> Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just>> pushes back the ball...>>
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:>>
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1)>> 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world n.º1)>> 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)>> 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)>> 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)>> 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)>> 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)>> 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher)>> 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)>> 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking>> baseliner)>>
Now let's the Runner ups:>>
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher)>> 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher)>> 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher)>> 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)>> 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher)>> 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much)>> 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)>> 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner)>> 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much)>> 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)>>
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio) who>> exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents...>> In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was>> completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...>>
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in FO...>>
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to believe!>>
Where are the dynamic No.1s? - Becker/Edberg/Mac/Sampras/Fed/Roddick.
Is Roddick really as dynamic as the other 5 you've mentioned ? I don't think so.
John wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:A8TYd.658$D17.19516@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > kurtz wrote:> >> Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just> >> pushes back the ball...> >>
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:> >>
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1)> >> 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world
n.º1)> >> 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> >> 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> >> 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> >> 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> >> 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> >> 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher)> >> 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> >> 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking> >> baseliner)> >>
Now let's the Runner ups:> >>
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher)> >> 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher)> >> 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher)> >> 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> >> 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher)> >> 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much)> >> 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> >> 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner)> >> 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much)> >> 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)> >>
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio)
exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents...> >> In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was> >> completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...> >>
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in
FO...> >>
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to
believe!> >>
Where are the dynamic No.1s? -
Becker/Edberg/Mac/Sampras/Fed/Roddick.>
Is Roddick really as dynamic as the other 5 you've mentioned ? I
There must be some way of speeding the clay up a little..?
the slow clay play isn't my cup of tea either, but i don't mind it once a year, in fact it's very interesting.
now if i was forced to watch all those clay tuneups...
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1110686083.166203.139760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just pushes back the ball...
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1) 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world n.º1) 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1) 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1) 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher) 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1) 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking baseliner)
Now let's the Runner ups:
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher) 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher) 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher) 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher) 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher) 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much) 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher) 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner) 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much) 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio) who exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents... In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in FO...
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to believe!
of muster, kafelnikov, moya, kuerten, costa, agassi, ferrero, gaudio, how many "non FO" slams total do you have?
of muster, kafelnikov, moya, kuerten, costa, agassi, ferrero, gaudio, how> many "non FO" slams total do you have?>
enuff said.
If the USO were on red clay and the AO on green clay, how many "non FO" slams would they have? Lots.
The FO is just the only slam on a very slow surface.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
bob wrote:> >>"kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message> >>news:1110686083.166203.139760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just> pushes back the ball...>
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:>
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1)> 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world n.º1)> 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher)> 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking> baseliner)>
Now let's the Runner ups:>
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher)> 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher)> 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher)> 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher)> 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much)> 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner)> 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much)> 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)>
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio)
exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents...> In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was> completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...>
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in FO...>
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to
believe!>
of muster, kafelnikov, moya, kuerten, costa, agassi, ferrero, gaudio,
many "non FO" slams total do you have?
Well, quite a few actually: Kafelnikov (2) Moya (1) Agassi (9) Ferrero (1) Chang (1) Stich (1)
In total: 15 slam finals
enuff said.
Well no, not really. Your theory that 'it is almost impossible to be succesful at the FO AND everywhere else' appears to be more of an attempt to excuse Sampras's mediocre record at the FO, rather than an accurate reflection of what has actually happended.
Yes- Agassi is the only player who has won the FO and won multiple slams on faster surfaces, but the list above proves that it is not at all uncommon for a player to have success on clay and HC. OK, so only two of the players listed above ever made a W final, but should they really adapt their game to be successful on clay when only three weeks a year are devoted to grass?
Your response: 'Yes they should because W is more prestigous'.
kurtz wrote:> >The FO is tied with the USO as the 2nd most prestigious event in the> sport.> >It's sad that bandwidth is wasted on rst "proving" that the 2nd most> >prestigious event isn't "meaningless"...>
A lot of guys here in rst seem to defend that RO is meaningless
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissä news:yeTYd.661$D17.19388@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> There must be some way of speeding the clay up a little..?
FO already is one of the fastest clay court tournaments out there (both balls and surface is speedened compared to tune-ups leading into FO)
uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote:> Ram wrote:> > Sorry, the above statement should read 'should they> > really adapt their game to be successful on grass when only three> weeks> >
a year are devoted to grass?>
Grass and hard-court require the same dominant skills.
To a certain degree- yes. But a serve volleyer is much more likely to succeed on grass than a baseliner, which explains the success of Sampras, McEnroe and Becker at Wimbledon. The point I am making is, Would it be worth players concentrating on developing a big serve and good volleying skills when you consider that the grass season is so short?
FO already is one of the fastest clay court tournaments out there (both> balls and surface is speedened compared to tune-ups leading into FO)
Yes, but that's a necessity. Even Muster-calibre grinders would blanch at playing seven 3/5 set matches on slower clay...
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
I'm interested in who wins the title as it's highly significant, but I
don't care to watch any of it unless it's Roddick/Fed types getting>through....
I don't get one thing... You say you're australian and that you live in australia You say that FO isn't transmited in Australia... How the hell do you know if FO is boring or not? How the hell do you care to see Roddick/Fed if you can't see any of it? By the way... Explain me again what do you consider to be a bumrooter? I thougth it was someone who just pushes back the ball.. In the past ten years only 2 "pure pushers" won the event.. how the hell do you say bumrooters dominate the event?
of muster, kafelnikov, moya, kuerten, costa, agassi, ferrero, gaudio, how>>many "non FO" slams total do you have?>>
enuff said.>
If the USO were on red clay and the AO on green clay, how many "non FO"> slams would they have? Lots.>
The FO is just the only slam on a very slow surface.>
No, as all players would changed their games to suit the slams. eg Agassi woulda played a more clay optimized style rather than HC, & probably beat the bumrooters to more slams....
Agassi was smart & realized Wim/USO are the main goal...
The FO is just the only slam on a very slow surface.
No, as all players would changed their games to suit the slams.
Possibly, but then again it's also possible that players have only a limited ability to do that, given their natural talents...
We surely don't see many guys developing other skills - clay courters who become great grass players or vice versa...
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
I'm interested in who wins the title as it's highly significant, but I>
don't care to watch any of it unless it's Roddick/Fed types getting>>through....>
I don't get one thing...
Don't underestimate yourself....
You say you're australian and that you live in australia
You think that's a wacky thing I made up..?
You say that FO isn't transmited in Australia...
Not for last 2 yrs. Intially I thought 'wtf?', but now I realize it's not so bad....
I'll spew if Roddick gets to final & I don't get to see it though....
How the hell do you know if FO is boring or not?
I only need to hear 2 or 3 Britney Spears songs to size her up....
How the hell do you care to see Roddick/Fed if you can't see any of it?
I'm a tennis connoisseur & can predict quality of tennis before it happens...
By the way... Explain me again what do you consider to be a bumrooter?> I thougth it was someone who just pushes back the ball.. In the past> ten years only 2 "pure pushers" won the event.. how the hell do you say> bumrooters dominate the event?>
Guga for eg has been total flop at AO & never gone past q/f at any other slam.
I don't hink any Wim/USO champ has been this woeful in all other slams...
No, as all players would changed their games to suit the slams. eg> Agassi woulda played a more clay optimized style rather than HC, &> probably beat the bumrooters to more slams....>
Agassi was smart & realized Wim/USO are the main goal...
But instead, Agassi ended up with a stackload of AOs.
Guga for eg has been total flop at AO & never gone past q/f at any
other> slam.
Beating Agassi and Sampras (v.hard) to win a YEC, reaching several MS finals on HC, and a QF each at USO and W, prove Guga can play on faster surfaces. I think there is something about the AO that he really doesn't like e.g rebound ace, hot conditions.
Guga for eg has been total flop at AO & never gone past q/f at any
other> slam.
I wonder if his atrocious record at that slam is AO-specific e.g he hates the rebound ace, the excessive heat, maybe?
I mean, Kuerten has proved he can play on faster surfaces because he beat both Agassi and Sampras to win a YEC (hard to do), and has reached several MS finals, as well as making the QF of the USO and W.
Guga for eg has been total flop at AO & never gone past q/f at any>
other>
slam.>
Beating Agassi and Sampras (v.hard) to win a YEC, reaching several MS> finals on HC, and a QF each at USO and W, prove Guga can play on faster> surfaces. I think there is something about the AO that he really> doesn't like e.g rebound ace, hot conditions.>
Lol.. : )
1 Q/f at Wim/USO in 10 yrs means he's good at all slams?
Guga for eg has been total flop at AO & never gone past q/f at any> >
other> >
slam.> >
Beating Agassi and Sampras (v.hard) to win a YEC, reaching several
finals on HC, and a QF each at USO and W, prove Guga can play on
faster> > surfaces. I think there is something about the AO that he really> > doesn't like e.g rebound ace, hot conditions.> >
Lol.. : )>
1 Q/f at Wim/USO in 10 yrs means he's good at all slams?
Where did I say 'good at all slams'? I said he has proved he can be successful on faster surfaces. Do you think it is easy to beat Sampras and Agassi back to back to win a YEC?
Guga for eg has been total flop at AO & never gone past q/f at any>>>
other>>>
slam.>>>
Beating Agassi and Sampras (v.hard) to win a YEC, reaching several>
finals on HC, and a QF each at USO and W, prove Guga can play on>
faster>
surfaces. I think there is something about the AO that he really>>>doesn't like e.g rebound ace, hot conditions.>>>
Lol.. : )>>
1 Q/f at Wim/USO in 10 yrs means he's good at all slams?>
Where did I say 'good at all slams'? I said he has proved he can be> successful on faster surfaces. Do you think it is easy to beat Sampras> and Agassi back to back to win a YEC?>
"Ram" <rensid6h@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110753871.454216.77060@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
bob wrote:> >>"kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message> >>news:1110686083.166203.139760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Some happen to think that a good clay courter is someone who just> pushes back the ball...>
let's see the FO champions for the last 10 years:>
95 - Thomas Muster (a bit of a pusher, former world n.º1)> 96 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov (nothing like a pusher, former world n.º1)> 97 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 98 - Carlos Moya (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> 99 - Andre Agassi (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 00 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 01 - Gustavo Kuerten (not JUST a pusher, former world n.º1)> 02 - Albert Costa (a pusher)> 03 - Juan Carlos Ferrero (attacking baseliner, former world n.º1)> 04 - Gastón Gaudio (a pusher, who is getting to be an attacking> baseliner)>
Now let's the Runner ups:>
95 - Michael Chang (a bit of a pusher)> 96 - Michael Stich (nothing like a pusher)> 97 - Sergi Bruguera (not JUST a pusher)> 98 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> 99 - Andrei Medvedev (not JUST a pusher)> 00 - Magnus Norman (don't know him that much)> 01 - Alex Corretja ( a pusher)> 02 - Juan Carlos Ferrero(attacking baseliner)> 03 - Martin Verkerk (don't know him that much)> 04 - Guillermo Coria (attacking baseliner)>
In 8 different winners just 2 were pure pushers (Costa and Gaudio)
exploited the mental breackdown of their opponents...> In 7 different RU just 1 is a pure pusher (Corretja) who was> completelly owned by the winners (Guga and Moya)...>
Another stats: 14 out of 23 world n.º1 were winners or RU in FO...>
Just to show that FO isn't that meaningless as some want to
believe!>
of muster, kafelnikov, moya, kuerten, costa, agassi, ferrero, gaudio,
many "non FO" slams total do you have?
Well, quite a few actually: Kafelnikov (2) Moya (1) Agassi (9) Ferrero (1) Chang (1) Stich (1)
In total: 15 slam finals
i asked for champs, not finalists, and there are very few..in fact, in >finals it's very few too.
enuff said.
Well no, not really. Your theory that 'it is almost impossible to be succesful at the FO AND everywhere else' appears to be more of an attempt to excuse Sampras's mediocre record at the FO, rather than an accurate reflection of what has actually happended.
Yes- Agassi is the only player who has won the FO and won multiple slams on faster surfaces, but the list above proves that it is not at all uncommon for a player to have success on clay and HC. OK, so only two of the players listed above ever made a W final, but should they really adapt their game to be successful on clay when only three weeks a year are devoted to grass?
.Your response: 'Yes they should because W is more prestigous'.
Ram wrote:> uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote:> > Ram wrote:> > > Sorry, the above statement should read 'should they> > > really adapt their game to be successful on grass when only three> > weeks> > >
a year are devoted to grass?> >
Grass and hard-court require the same dominant skills.>
To a certain degree- yes. But a serve volleyer is much more likely to> succeed on grass than a baseliner, which explains the success of> Sampras, McEnroe and Becker at Wimbledon. The point I am making is,> Would it be worth players concentrating on developing a big serve and> good volleying skills when you consider that the grass season is so> short?
Duh....................... Yes, because these skills are also dominant on hard court.
Well no, not really. Your theory that 'it is almost impossible to be> succesful at the FO AND everywhere else' appears to be more of an> attempt to excuse Sampras's mediocre record at the FO, rather than an> accurate reflection of what has actually happended.
Not at all. How many FO champs have won FO and Wimby or US/AO? No American won the FO for 35 years!
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:> Ram wrote:> > uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote:> > > Ram wrote:> > > > Sorry, the above statement should read 'should they> > > > really adapt their game to be successful on grass when only three> > > weeks> > > >
a year are devoted to grass?> > >
Grass and hard-court require the same dominant skills.> >
To a certain degree- yes. But a serve volleyer is much more likely
succeed on grass than a baseliner, which explains the success of> > Sampras, McEnroe and Becker at Wimbledon. The point I am making is,> > Would it be worth players concentrating on developing a big serve
good volleying skills when you consider that the grass season is so> > short?>
Duh.......................> Yes, because these skills are also dominant on hard court.
But if Fed starts coming into the net on HC, he is more likely to lose because he'll get passed. If he stays at the back, no-one can live with him. So if he comes into the net more in general, he is more likely to win multiple Ws, but less likely to win slams on HC.
Well no, not really. Your theory that 'it is almost impossible to
succesful at the FO AND everywhere else' appears to be more of an> > attempt to excuse Sampras's mediocre record at the FO, rather than
accurate reflection of what has actually happended.>
Not at all. How many FO champs have won FO and Wimby or US/AO? No> American won the FO for 35 years!
OK, so FO and W is rare- only Agassi in recent times. But Kafelnikov, Courier and Agassi have won AO and FO. And numerous others have come close: Chang, Stich, Ferrero, Moya. Is is not almost impossible to win the FO and another slam, it's just very difficult.
Sorry, the above statement should read 'should they>>>>>really adapt their game to be successful on grass when only>
three>
weeks>>>>
a year are devoted to grass?>>>>
Grass and hard-court require the same dominant skills.>>>
To a certain degree- yes. But a serve volleyer is much more likely>
succeed on grass than a baseliner, which explains the success of>>>Sampras, McEnroe and Becker at Wimbledon. The point I am making is,>>>Would it be worth players concentrating on developing a big serve>
good volleying skills when you consider that the grass season is so>>>short?>>
Duh.......................>>Yes, because these skills are also dominant on hard court.>
But if Fed starts coming into the net on HC, he is more likely to lose> because he'll get passed. If he stays at the back, no-one can live with> him. So if he comes into the net more in general, he is more likely to> win multiple Ws, but less likely to win slams on HC.>
He'd be happy with that. He'd find it hard to tolerate winning all slams but Wimbledon - be like getting half a headjob..
<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110898266.422404.18730@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>
bob wrote:>
Well no, not really. Your theory that 'it is almost impossible to be>> succesful at the FO AND everywhere else' appears to be more of an>> attempt to excuse Sampras's mediocre record at the FO, rather than an>> accurate reflection of what has actually happended.>
Not at all. How many FO champs have won FO and Wimby or US/AO? No> American won the FO for 35 years!
an american won in 89..i don't care about americans winning slams; let fed win em, let becker/edberg win em....
"kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1110883077.370182.78600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> >Guga/Borg/Muster>
funny choice of players... Calling Borg a cly courter...
borg was a great dominant player of his day who was perfectly suited to clay and hit a lull in grass competition... if borg was born 5 yrs later, FO is the only slam he'd ever have won IMO.
bob wrote:> "kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:1110883077.370182.78600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> > >Guga/Borg/Muster> >
funny choice of players... Calling Borg a cly courter...>
borg was a great dominant player of his day who was perfectly suited
to clay> and hit a lull in grass competition... if borg was born 5 yrs later, FO is> the only slam he'd ever have won IMO.>
bob
A 'lull' that allowed him to win 5 Wimbledons? Funny kind of 'lull'.
"Ram" <rensid6h@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110931385.401151.261930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
bob wrote:>> "kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1110883077.370182.78600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>> > >Guga/Borg/Muster>> >
funny choice of players... Calling Borg a cly courter...>>
borg was a great dominant player of his day who was perfectly suited> to clay>> and hit a lull in grass competition... if borg was born 5 yrs later,> FO is>> the only slam he'd ever have won IMO.>>
A 'lull' that allowed him to win 5 Wimbledons? Funny kind of 'lull'.
what's funny about it? tennis can go into much longer lulls than that..name me great grass competition that was also at their peak from 76-80 please? (do not name me big "names" who were has beens or not peaked yet).
bob wrote:> "Ram" <rensid6h@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:1110931385.401151.261930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> >
bob wrote:> >> "kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message> >> news:1110883077.370182.78600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> >> > >Guga/Borg/Muster> >> >
funny choice of players... Calling Borg a cly courter...> >>
borg was a great dominant player of his day who was perfectly
suited> > to clay> >> and hit a lull in grass competition... if borg was born 5 yrs later,> > FO is> >> the only slam he'd ever have won IMO.> >>
A 'lull' that allowed him to win 5 Wimbledons? Funny kind of
'lull'.>
what's funny about it? tennis can go into much longer lulls than
that..name> me great grass competition that was also at their peak from 76-80 please?> (do not name me big "names" who were has beens or not peaked yet).>
bob
Well, what I was really saying was that any kind of lull should not detract from the achievement of winning 5 Wimbledons......guy obviously had talent.
A 'lull' that allowed him to win 5 Wimbledons? Funny kind of 'lull'.>
what's funny about it? tennis can go into much longer lulls than
that..name> me great grass competition that was also at their peak from 76-80 please?
Point is, it was far tougher competition than what Sampras faced at W between 93 - 00. That was borderline-pathetic.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"Ram" <rensid6h@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111022022.715951.14670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>
bob wrote:>> "Ram" <rensid6h@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:1110931385.401151.261930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> >
bob wrote:>> >> "kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message>> >> news:1110883077.370182.78600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>> >> > >Guga/Borg/Muster>> >> >
funny choice of players... Calling Borg a cly courter...>> >>
borg was a great dominant player of his day who was perfectly> suited>> > to clay>> >> and hit a lull in grass competition... if borg was born 5 yrs> later,>> > FO is>> >> the only slam he'd ever have won IMO.>> >>
A 'lull' that allowed him to win 5 Wimbledons? Funny kind of> 'lull'.>>
what's funny about it? tennis can go into much longer lulls than> that..name>> me great grass competition that was also at their peak from 76-80> please?>> (do not name me big "names" who were has beens or not peaked yet).>>
Well, what I was really saying was that any kind of lull should not> detract from the achievement of winning 5 Wimbledons......guy obviously> had talent.
sure he had talent..he was one of the very top players ever..i just said that his game was much more suited to clay, but he won on grass anyway because he was a great overall player AND just so happens his competition from 76-80 on grass was definitely a "lull" period..
"kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1111193691.199273.87900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> >from 76-80 on grass was definitely a "lull" period..>
lets twist a bit your argument...>
Sampras isn't a great grass player 'cause then 90's was a lull> period... saying this is just plain stupid as it is in the case of> Borg!
sampras won wimbledon over a longer stretch, and i wouldn't call it a lull period..there were guys who could've been big names on grass if not for sampras..if not for pete, becker/ivanisevic get big status improvements.
