1. Michael Chang 2. Brad Gilbert 3. Albert Costa 4. Jim Courier 5. Olivier Rochus
i admire Rochus...we're both short.
.
"Adam Thirnis" <adam.thirnis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1114036175.187602.10960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> They weren't born the most gifted but hell they made the most of what> the Good Lord gave them.>
Rod Laver once called Lendl the cleanest hitter from the baseline.> Arthur Ashe said that no one hits the hall harder like Lendl. They> might have been dickheads, right?>
"Adam Thirnis" <adam.thirnis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1114036175.187602.10960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> They weren't born the most gifted but hell they made the most of what> the Good Lord gave them.>
Well you may be right. If not the talent, he certainly didn't seem to> > have the brain to win it.> >
Desire.
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip slam. Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other slam, did all he could to win it, etc.).
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:dtT9e.26602$gs4.12100@okepread05...>> > Well you may be right. If not the talent, he certainly didn't seem to>> > have the brain to win it.>> >
Desire.>
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip slam.> Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other slam,> did all he could to win it, etc.).
steven, quit saying sampras prepped for FO more than any other slam..this is really not correct..not even close..he played tournaments during the long clay season leading to FO because what else would he do, sit home and practice with annacone?
it's a shame they don't have longer grass season..FO/W being that close together is just bad scheduling, tradition or not..but this is here nor there, everybody knows sampras's tennis life revolved around winning Wimbledon..
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1114114142.041923.107750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> StephenJ wrote:>> > > Well you may be right. If not the talent, he certainly didn't> seem to>> > > have the brain to win it.>> > >
Desire.>>
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip> slam.>> Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other> slam,>> did all he could to win it, etc.).>
Yes he would not have played 73 tourneys on clay if he did not wanna> win it.
he'd play those on grass of the tour offered it..he HAD had to play SOME tournaments in apr, may..hell, W is only 3 wks after FO, you don't go in raw......c'mon, simple stuff.
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip
slam.> > Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other slam,> > did all he could to win it, etc.).>
steven, quit saying sampras prepped for FO more than any other slam..
I would, if the record didn't indicate that it was so. It was, so why do you keep denying it?
this is> really not correct..not even close..he played tournaments during the long> clay season leading to FO because what else would he do, sit home and> practice with annacone?
Sure. He could be practicing on grass for W during that time.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Well you may be right. If not the talent, he certainly didn't seem to>>>have the brain to win it.>>>
Desire.>
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip slam.> Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other slam,> did all he could to win it, etc.).>
Lol. That's why the reporters were asking Roddick about his Queens prospects a couple of weeks ago. Hello - there's a blue-chip slam on before Queens.... : )
Of course Sampras wanted to win FO... but the fact remains he had no> abillity to do so. His game was completelly unsuited to clay. He also> didn't had the brains (i.e.: patience, strategie making ability, etc)> to do it!>
He is the greatest tennis player we've ever seen - by a good margin.
StephenJ wrote:>>this is>>really not correct..not even close..he played tournaments during the long>>clay season leading to FO because what else would he do, sit home and>>practice with annacone?>
Sure. He could be practicing on grass for W during that time.>
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip
slam.> > Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other slam,> > did all he could to win it, etc.).
Lol. That's why the reporters were asking Roddick about his Queens> prospects a couple of weeks ago. Hello - there's a blue-chip slam on> before Queens.... : )
.. and the reporters know he has no chance at it...
I've never heard of a top pro who didn't ache to win every blue-chip>
slam.>
Sampras was surely no different (prepped more for FO than any other>
slam,>
did all he could to win it, etc.).>
Lol. That's why the reporters were asking Roddick about his Queens>>prospects a couple of weeks ago. Hello - there's a blue-chip slam on>>before Queens.... : )>
.. and the reporters know he has no chance at it...>
I doubt too many reporters care about FO - they reflect what the general community deem significant.
Sure. He could be practicing on grass for W during that time.>>>
He was - just on clay.>
sweet jeebus>
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have more time on grass prep....
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline> game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have more> time on grass prep....
Why did he hire a clay oriented coach at one point in his career?
Googles wrote:>>Yes he did, as he beat great FO champs Bruguera/Courier/Costa/Muster at>>FO - clear evidence he could beat the best dirtballers on dirt.>
In one off individual matches, clearly wasnt good enough to beat them in 7> back to back matches.>
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline> game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have more> time on grass prep....
You've gone over the edge... i'm peering down looking for you....you're fading from sight...
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors> with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but> unspectacular game.
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots than anyone I've seen....
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline>>game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have more>>time on grass prep....>
You've gone over the edge... i'm peering down looking for you....you're> fading from sight...>
He played his normal game at FO - I'm not responsible for his actions. Just reporting the facts....
You've gone over the edge... i'm peering down looking for you....you're> > fading from sight...> >
He played his normal game at FO - I'm not responsible for his actions.> Just reporting the facts....
His normal game was his best game. If he'd tried anything else, he'd have lost worse.
C'mon: Would Agassi have improved his chances to win W again if he'd adopted an s/v strategy?
ROFL!
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Agassi and Lendl both took a long time to take full advantage of their> talents. Lendl had the Chokoslovakian reputation early on and early in> his career Agassi had similar problems. Before Agassi won Wimbledon at> age 24?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> drew wrote:>
Adam Thirnis wrote:>>
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors>> with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but>> unspectacular game.>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having > more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots > than anyone I've seen....
Hehe... you're funny when you get worked up. I reckon Mac & Leconte might call you retarded if they read this...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
drew wrote:>>
Adam Thirnis wrote:>>>
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors>>>with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but>>>unspectacular game.>>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having >>more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots >>than anyone I've seen....>
Hehe... you're funny when you get worked up. I reckon Mac & Leconte might > call you retarded if they read this... >
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:S_nae.345$bc7.11974@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> SV wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >> news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
drew wrote:>>>
Adam Thirnis wrote:>>>>
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors>>>>with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but>>>>unspectacular game.>>>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having >>>more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots >>>than anyone I've seen....>>
Hehe... you're funny when you get worked up. I reckon Mac & Leconte >> might call you retarded if they read this... >>
Anyone who doesn't rate Sampras at least co-best ever is biased.
No, if we discount all "woulda couldas" and all "wouldn'ta couldn'tas", Laver is clearly best-ever.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> drew wrote:>
Adam Thirnis wrote:> >
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors> > with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but> > unspectacular game.>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having> more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots> than anyone I've seen....
Wrong. I remember a story Bud Collins ran once, early on, about that promissing group of American juniors just hitting the Tour. Agassi and Courier were the ones tapped for greatness. Until Sampras started winning regularly, the spotlight and the expectations remained chiefly on Agassi.
Pedro Dias wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
drew wrote:>>
Adam Thirnis wrote:>>>
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors>>>with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but>>>unspectacular game.>>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having>>more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots>>than anyone I've seen....>
Wrong. I remember a story Bud Collins ran once, early on, about that> promissing group of American juniors just hitting the Tour. Agassi and> Courier were the ones tapped for greatness. Until Sampras started winning> regularly, the spotlight and the expectations remained chiefly on Agassi.>
Wrong. I still have articles saying otherwise - in effect Sampras had more talent in his little finger than Agassi/Courier/Chang/Wheaton combined - & this was all when he was 17 & a nobody. Yes that foursome have little natural talent, but still a heck of a call at the time.
"kurtz" <diogo.quintas@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1114126710.843932.327550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>he'd play those on grass of the tour offered it..he HAD had to play SOME>tournaments in apr, may..hell, W is only 3 wks after FO, you don't go
raw......c'mon, simple stuff.
Björn won W without playing any tune up...
yes, he didn't have boris becker or stefan edberg in draw either..
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:GyZ9e.46$bc7.1433@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> StephenJ wrote:>>>this is>>>really not correct..not even close..he played tournaments during the long>>>clay season leading to FO because what else would he do, sit home and>>>practice with annacone?>>
Sure. He could be practicing on grass for W during that time.>>
He was - just on clay.
spot on..and jaros' misunderstanding of this simple concept is getting monotonous..when clay tourneys are all that's offered, you play them.
"Googles" <bleh> wrote in message news:4268bf68$0$10307$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline>> game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have more>> time on grass prep....>
Why did he hire a clay oriented coach at one point in his career?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:20Zae.28$f_2.1719@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Pedro Dias wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
drew wrote:>>>
Adam Thirnis wrote:>>>>
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors>>>>with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but>>>>unspectacular game.>>>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as having>>>more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots>>>than anyone I've seen....>>
Wrong. I remember a story Bud Collins ran once, early on, about that>> promissing group of American juniors just hitting the Tour. Agassi and>> Courier were the ones tapped for greatness. Until Sampras started winning>> regularly, the spotlight and the expectations remained chiefly on Agassi.>>
Wrong. I still have articles saying otherwise - in effect Sampras had > more talent in his little finger than Agassi/Courier/Chang/Wheaton > combined - & this was all when he was 17 & a nobody. Yes that foursome > have little natural talent, but still a heck of a call at the time.
many former champs (not bozos like bud collins) knew sampras had enormous GS potential and said so before he ever won USO..and after USO, many correctly said he'd be multiple W champ..pedro has short memory.
spot on..and jaros' misunderstanding of this simple concept is getting> monotonous..when clay tourneys are all that's offered, you play them.
This is silly. Lendl *skipped the FO* to concentrate on Wimbledon. That's how you prep for W if you don't care about the FO.
In contrast, Sampras always played the FO, and varied his prep strategy. He also said he did all this.
It's plain as day. Arguments to the contrary are pure samprasfanz propaganda.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:%kdbe.13051$716.4008@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
"Googles" <bleh> wrote in message> news:4268bf68$0$10307$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline>>> game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have more>>> time on grass prep....>>
Why did he hire a clay oriented coach at one point in his career?>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:Jtdbe.25191$5f.3285@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:20Zae.28$f_2.1719@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Pedro Dias wrote:> >> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> >> news:3fgae.241$bc7.8403@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> >>
drew wrote:> >>>
Adam Thirnis wrote:> >>>>
Sampras truly made the best out of his talents, winning so many majors> >>>>with a great serve, steady nerves, and an otherwise solid but> >>>>unspectacular game.> >>>
That's retarded. Sampras was touted from very early age (17?) as
having> >>>more talent than any player since Mac. He's produced more 'wow' shots> >>>than anyone I've seen....> >>
Wrong. I remember a story Bud Collins ran once, early on, about that> >> promissing group of American juniors just hitting the Tour. Agassi and> >> Courier were the ones tapped for greatness. Until Sampras started
winning> >> regularly, the spotlight and the expectations remained chiefly on Agassi.> >>
Wrong. I still have articles saying otherwise - in effect Sampras had> > more talent in his little finger than Agassi/Courier/Chang/Wheaton> > combined - & this was all when he was 17 & a nobody. Yes that foursome> > have little natural talent, but still a heck of a call at the time.>
many former champs (not bozos like bud collins) knew sampras had enormous
potential and said so before he ever won USO..and after USO, many
correctly> said he'd be multiple W champ..pedro has short memory.> I'll take a citation from either you or Whisper. Should be easy, particularly since Whisper still "has articles".
many former champs (not bozos like bud collins) knew sampras had enormous
potential and said so before he ever won USO..and after USO, many
correctly> said he'd be multiple W champ..pedro has short memory.
Yes, Sampras was tabbed in 86-87 as a junior with enormous potential. I don't know why pedro is arguing this.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:-ISdnT2FivddK_DfRVn-gw@giganews.com...>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:%kdbe.13051$716.4008@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>>
"Googles" <bleh> wrote in message>> news:4268bf68$0$10307$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>
Yes, you'd think he'd modify his game a bit as he had a super baseline>>>> game in his youth. It looks like he wanted to go out early to have >>>> more>>>> time on grass prep....>>>
Why did he hire a clay oriented coach at one point in his career?>>
wtf are you talking about?>
Higueras
if you're talking about that miniscule 3-4 month stunt with higueras that sampras pulled in 2002, don't be ridiculous..
31+yr old sampras hiring higueras part time for few mos at very end of career hardly constitutes "focusing on clay"..
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news4hbe.5468$Bb.4589@okepread06...>> spot on..and jaros' misunderstanding of this simple concept is getting>> monotonous..when clay tourneys are all that's offered, you play them.>
This is silly. Lendl *skipped the FO* to concentrate on Wimbledon. That's> how you prep for W if you don't care about the FO.
and lendl knew he made a mistake.. clay tournaments are all that is offered in spingtime til FO, these are great to prep your match toughness..W is 2-3 wks after FO final, do you propose a guy takes 2 mos off, then practices at Queens only?
In contrast, Sampras always played the FO, and varied his prep strategy. > He> also said he did all this.
sure he played FO and the warmups, he would like to have won it..and if he didn't win it, he needed good match practice prior to W..surely winning W was #1 goal very single yr for sampras.
It's plain as day. Arguments to the contrary are pure samprasfanz> propaganda.
we both know sampras wanted to win FO..he wanted to win every match..the disagreement is the priority he put to winning FO..if you believe he'd have traded a W for anything else ever, you're way off..
but if you agree that W was his top priority always, we can continue the discussion in more depth as to lower level priorities..
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:T8xbe.7121$Bb.1450@okepread06...> > many former champs (not bozos like bud collins) knew sampras had enormous> GS> > potential and said so before he ever won USO..and after USO, many> correctly> > said he'd be multiple W champ..pedro has short memory.>
Yes, Sampras was tabbed in 86-87 as a junior with enormous potential. I> don't know why pedro is arguing this.>
So was Wheaton; the point is that the sharp focus was on Agassi at that point. Sampras was seen as one of a group or *other* promissing juniors. I don't recall anyone tagging him as Da Man. I may be wrong. I keep waiting for someone to show me I am. 'Cause Whisper's got articles.
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message> news:T8xbe.7121$Bb.1450@okepread06...>
many former champs (not bozos like bud collins) knew sampras had>
enormous>
potential and said so before he ever won USO..and after USO, many>>
correctly>>
said he'd be multiple W champ..pedro has short memory.>>
Yes, Sampras was tabbed in 86-87 as a junior with enormous potential. I>>don't know why pedro is arguing this.>>
So was Wheaton; the point is that the sharp focus was on Agassi at that> point. Sampras was seen as one of a group or *other* promissing juniors. I> don't recall anyone tagging him as Da Man. I may be wrong. I keep waiting> for someone to show me I am. 'Cause Whisper's got articles.>
Sampras was never a liar, and he said that he did everything he could to> > win> > the FO, and his record of preparation bespeaks that. It's silly for> > bob/whisper to keep denying the obvious.>
"The 31-year-old Sampras parted ways with Higueras just after his stunning> second round loss to George Bastl at Wimbledon, apparently because he
wanted> the legendary coach to travel with him more and Higueras wanted to continue> a part-time relationship. Higueras coached Jim Courier and Michael Chang
Grand Slam titles. Sampras' relationship with Higueras lasted just> four-and-a-half months.">
my god steven, if you call THAT "focusing on clay" you are truly one
biased> sonovagun.
wtf? I said "focused on the FO". The FO was over, so no point in keeping Higueras.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
This is silly. Lendl *skipped the FO* to concentrate on Wimbledon.
That's> > how you prep for W if you don't care about the FO.>
and lendl knew he made a mistake.
No, he said it gave him his best chance to win W.
It's plain as day. Arguments to the contrary are pure samprasfanz> > propaganda.>
we both know sampras wanted to win FO..he wanted to win every match..the> disagreement is the priority he put to winning FO..if you believe he'd
have> traded a W for anything else ever, you're way off..
Your error is in seeing a contradiction between FO and W. There isn't one. Pete tried maximally hard to win both. That's what his record, and what he said, tells us.
Unless you can bring forth actual evidence to the contrary - something beyond your gut feeling - there's no point in continuing this and your eventual concession will come about whenever the samprasfanz fever has sufficiently abated...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:UMMbe.4$kM6.0@okepread06...>> > This is silly. Lendl *skipped the FO* to concentrate on Wimbledon.> That's>> > how you prep for W if you don't care about the FO.>>
and lendl knew he made a mistake.>
No, he said it gave him his best chance to win W.
he said that first..afterwards, he said (and others noted) it was a mistake.
It's plain as day. Arguments to the contrary are pure samprasfanz>> > propaganda.>>
we both know sampras wanted to win FO..he wanted to win every match..the>> disagreement is the priority he put to winning FO..if you believe he'd> have traded a W for anything else ever, you're way off..>
Your error is in seeing a contradiction between FO and W. There isn't one.> Pete tried maximally hard to win both. That's what his record, and what he> said, tells us.
but steven, you just cannot try maximally hard to win both in this day/age..you can try maximally hard to win one, and the other will suffer somewhat.
Unless you can bring forth actual evidence to the contrary - something> beyond your gut feeling - there's no point in continuing this and your> eventual concession will come about whenever the samprasfanz fever has> sufficiently abated...
? don't need gut feeling, need to observe sampras's game and style only.
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:xKMbe.3$kM6.0@okepread06...>> > Sampras was never a liar, and he said that he did everything he could >> > to>> > win>> > the FO, and his record of preparation bespeaks that. It's silly for>> > bob/whisper to keep denying the obvious.>>
"The 31-year-old Sampras parted ways with Higueras just after his >> stunning>> second round loss to George Bastl at Wimbledon, apparently because he> wanted>> the legendary coach to travel with him more and Higueras wanted to> continue>> a part-time relationship. Higueras coached Jim Courier and Michael Chang> to>> Grand Slam titles. Sampras' relationship with Higueras lasted just>> four-and-a-half months.">>
my god steven, if you call THAT "focusing on clay" you are truly one> biased>> sonovagun.>
wtf? I said "focused on the FO". The FO was over, so no point in keeping> Higueras.
and if you think hiring higueras for 4 mos at end of career is "focusing on FO" you are truly one biased sonovagun!!!
what would you say if guga hired pat cash to coach him for next 3 mos?? would you deduce that guga really was focusing hard to win W? har har..please!!
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:1gSbe.348$m65.6868@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Pedro Dias wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:kSJbe.264$m65.3618@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>>
I must be. After all, you got articles.>>
What have you got? I'm betting on nothing.
If you've got something, post it. I'd be genuinely interested in what the supposed experts were saying about 16-year-old Sampras. Otherwise, quit posturing.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:ry3ce.187$_96.3666@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Hops wrote:
If you've got something, post it. I'd be genuinely interested in what
supposed experts were saying about 16-year-old Sampras. Otherwise, quit> > posturing.> >
Here's a couple - I have lots more but not time to go searching just> now....;>
For some time, Sampras, who aspires to be a right-handed Rod Laver, has> been, by pro¬clamation, the most talented young Yank in tennis, Andre> Agassi and Michael Chang not¬withstanding. Heady praise for a youngster> who had never reached the top 10 or won a single tournament, let alone a> Grand Slam. But his peers stick by their words. This is what some had to> say about him.> Tim Mayotte: "He has a tremendous> " ~ture. He's top five material because he's one> of the few guys that can do everything."> Kratzmann: "If he can keep going, he'll be top 10. You can't read where> he's hitting the ball, especially on his passing shots. That's why he's> going to be good. Most guys you can read pretty well but with him it's a> 50-50 guess. "> Gomez: "He's very underrated in America with the likes of Agassi and> Chang. To be fair, I think Pete's the best one. His game is com¬plete.> He can serve-volley and he can stay back. Pete's going to improve more> (than Agassi and Chang).">
at 14, he showed maturity and in¬> dependence in switching to a single-handed backhand and persisting with> a serve-volley game. "When I switched to a one-handed backhand," he> remembers, "my ranking went from 15 in the nation to 15 in the 16s. Then I> ,had a good year in 1987 when I beat Chang at the US Open juniors. I got> a lot of confidence with that win and then my backhand just got better. "> Son of a mechanical engineer who works for the US Air Force, and a> Greek-born mother, Sampras has a "hang-dog" look, as the Americans say.> He never gets heated over line-calls and has a cool, unemotional> attitude, in full evidence when discussing his more touted> contemporaries, Agassi and Chang.> "I enjoy being overshadowed by them>
All-time great Don Budge believes Pete Sampras has all the makings of a> champion. "I like him better right now than Chang and Agassi. ">
"It's inevitable that he's going to win Wimbledon," predicts Budge, who> captured the Grand Slam in 1938. "First of all, he has an all-around> game. He's an excellent server and volleyer and his groundstrokes are> good - better than John McEnroe's right now.> "I admire the way he approaches the game," says Budge. "He's cool and> calm and concentrates well. He's well-motivated and a> good sport. He doesn't make issues out of things like McEnroe and> Connors have done."> Noting the perils of prediction, Budge cau¬> tions: "You never know. Jack Kramer said, 'One thing about Borg - he'll> never win Wimbledon because he can't play on grass.' So he winds up> winning it five times!">
Well, better than I thought you'd do - but the thing that jumps out at me is that both articles make the point that they are bucking the general consensus that Agassi and Chang were the class of that class. So you're going to need to dig a bit deeper into your pile to support your contention that Sampras was widely seen as the best of the lot from the start. People who thought they were being generous were pegging him for Top 10, Top 5 in your articles. Agassi, from early on, was touted as a possible number one.
wtf? I said "focused on the FO". The FO was over, so no point in keeping> > Higueras.>
and if you think hiring higueras for 4 mos at end of career is "focusing
FO"
It's just one more piece of evidence. When stacked on top of all the rest, it's just the icing on a huge cake.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
No, he said it gave him his best chance to win W.>
he said that first..afterwards, he said (and others noted) it was a
mistake.
No, initially, everyone thought it was the best move. But retrospectively, well it didn't work.
Your error is in seeing a contradiction between FO and W. There isn't
one.> > Pete tried maximally hard to win both. That's what his record, and what
said, tells us.>
but steven, you just cannot try maximally hard to win both in this> day/age..you can try maximally hard to win one, and the other will suffer> somewhat.
Of course you can. These are pro athletes, and there are 2 weeks between them. There's no contradiction at all in going all-out at both.
Unless you can bring forth actual evidence to the contrary - something> > beyond your gut feeling - there's no point in continuing this and your> > eventual concession will come about whenever the samprasfanz fever has> > sufficiently abated...>
? don't need gut feeling, need to observe sampras's game and style only.
You need to review the record: massive prep work for the FO - moreso than for W or USO or AO - and *varied* prep work.
If Pete was really using the clay season to prep for W (silly on its face, of course), we'd see him play the same clay schedule each year (after all, whatever he was doing was working like gangbusters at W so no need to change).
Instead, throughout the whole time he was winning W every year, we see him making big *changes* to his clay court season. Why?
Obviously, to try and figure out the key to winning the FO.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:ry3ce.187$_96.3666@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Hops wrote:>
If you've got something, post it. I'd be genuinely interested in what>
supposed experts were saying about 16-year-old Sampras. Otherwise, quit>>>posturing.>>>
Here's a couple - I have lots more but not time to go searching just>>now....;>>
For some time, Sampras, who aspires to be a right-handed Rod Laver, has>>been, by pro¬clamation, the most talented young Yank in tennis, Andre>>Agassi and Michael Chang not¬withstanding. Heady praise for a youngster>>who had never reached the top 10 or won a single tournament, let alone a>>Grand Slam. But his peers stick by their words. This is what some had to>>say about him.>>Tim Mayotte: "He has a tremendous>>" ~ture. He's top five material because he's one>>of the few guys that can do everything.">>Kratzmann: "If he can keep going, he'll be top 10. You can't read where>>he's hitting the ball, especially on his passing shots. That's why he's>>going to be good. Most guys you can read pretty well but with him it's a>>50-50 guess. ">>Gomez: "He's very underrated in America with the likes of Agassi and>>Chang. To be fair, I think Pete's the best one. His game is com¬plete.>>He can serve-volley and he can stay back. Pete's going to improve more>>(than Agassi and Chang).">>
at 14, he showed maturity and in¬>>dependence in switching to a single-handed backhand and persisting with>>a serve-volley game. "When I switched to a one-handed backhand," he>>remembers, "my ranking went from 15 in the nation to 15 in the 16s. Then I>>,had a good year in 1987 when I beat Chang at the US Open juniors. I got>>a lot of confidence with that win and then my backhand just got better. ">>Son of a mechanical engineer who works for the US Air Force, and a>>Greek-born mother, Sampras has a "hang-dog" look, as the Americans say.>>He never gets heated over line-calls and has a cool, unemotional>>attitude, in full evidence when discussing his more touted>>contemporaries, Agassi and Chang.>>"I enjoy being overshadowed by them>>
All-time great Don Budge believes Pete Sampras has all the makings of a>>champion. "I like him better right now than Chang and Agassi. ">>
"It's inevitable that he's going to win Wimbledon," predicts Budge, who>>captured the Grand Slam in 1938. "First of all, he has an all-around>>game. He's an excellent server and volleyer and his groundstrokes are>>good - better than John McEnroe's right now.>>"I admire the way he approaches the game," says Budge. "He's cool and>>calm and concentrates well. He's well-motivated and a>>good sport. He doesn't make issues out of things like McEnroe and>>Connors have done.">>Noting the perils of prediction, Budge cau¬>>tions: "You never know. Jack Kramer said, 'One thing about Borg - he'll>>never win Wimbledon because he can't play on grass.' So he winds up>>winning it five times!">>
Well, better than I thought you'd do - but the thing that jumps out at me is> that both articles make the point that they are bucking the general> consensus that Agassi and Chang were the class of that class. So you're> going to need to dig a bit deeper into your pile to support your contention> that Sampras was widely seen as the best of the lot from the start. People> who thought they were being generous were pegging him for Top 10, Top 5 in> your articles. Agassi, from early on, was touted as a possible number one.>
I have a lot more. You'll note it was mainly the 'general public' who touted Agassi over Sampras (ie generally non-experts). Anyone with a little nouse woulda noted obvious superiority in Sampras' game....
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:qu6ce.470
to prep for W (silly on its face,> of course), we'd see him play the same clay schedule each year (after all,> whatever he was doing was working like gangbusters at W so no need to> change).>
Instead, throughout the whole time he was winning W every year, we see him> making big *changes* to his clay court season. Why?>
Obviously, to try and figure out the key to winning the FO.
the "key" to winning FO doesn't occur at age 30..it occurs in how you develop your game from teenager and before..sampras chose at young age to maximimize his game for grass to win W as many times as possible..his talent allowed him to even win 7 non grass slams..
but no way to "maximize" your chance at FO doing that..sorry to break it to ya.
to prep for W (silly on its face,> > of course), we'd see him play the same clay schedule each year (after
all,> > whatever he was doing was working like gangbusters at W so no need to> > change).> >
Instead, throughout the whole time he was winning W every year, we see
making big *changes* to his clay court season. Why?> >
Obviously, to try and figure out the key to winning the FO.>
the "key" to winning FO doesn't occur at age 30.
Yes, hiring Higueras was a desperate move, but then again by that point Pete was.... desperate. He ached to win the FO and so pulled out the last stop.
.it occurs in how you> develop your game from teenager and before..sampras chose at young age to> maximimize his game for grass to win W as many times as possible..his
talent> allowed him to even win 7 non grass slams..
No player has that much choice over how to play. Everyone tries out different styles and experience tells which style best fits their skills and athletic abilities. Pete could no more have been a champ baseliner than Agassi could be a champ s/v player. Didn't fit their skill set.
If Pete had tried to "craft" his game to win on clay, he wouldn't have won any more FOs - but would have lost all those Ws and USOs. He did the best he could with the talent given, just as other guys have.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:4Hbce.300$_96.5938@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Pedro Dias wrote:>
Well, better than I thought you'd do - but the thing that jumps out at
me is> > that both articles make the point that they are bucking the general> > consensus that Agassi and Chang were the class of that class. So you're> > going to need to dig a bit deeper into your pile to support your contention> > that Sampras was widely seen as the best of the lot from the start. People> > who thought they were being generous were pegging him for Top 10, Top 5
your articles. Agassi, from early on, was touted as a possible number
one.>
I have a lot more. You'll note it was mainly the 'general public' who> touted Agassi over Sampras (ie generally non-experts). Anyone with a> little nouse woulda noted obvious superiority in Sampras' game....
Well, I did. Easy to forget I'm a Sampras fan, around here. But I felt kind of alone there, for quite a while. And the "experts" in the quotes above are about right with my memory of the time: Agassi, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi, Chang, Courier and hey! doesn't that Sump-something kid look good!
StephenJ wrote:> If Pete had tried to "craft" his game to win on clay, he wouldn't have won> any more FOs - but would have lost all those Ws and USOs. He did the best he> could with the talent given, just as other guys have.>
Yes, he came close to fulfilling his potential, that's why he's best evr.
If Pete had tried to "craft" his game to win on clay, he wouldn't have
any more FOs - but would have lost all those Ws and USOs. He did the
best he> > could with the talent given, just as other guys have.> >
Yes, he came close to fulfilling his potential, that's why he's best evr.
Best since Borg, for sure.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
