Vari L. Cinicke 15 February 2006 16:34:29 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
robin wrote:>
Too show how to beat someone you actually have to beat them, not win>> one point in stylish fashion.>>
That's my point - Sampras would be hitting big approaches & putting > volleys away at every opportunity - Agassi does it once or twice per > match...
Yet Sampras failed when he had the chance on grass before the recent slowing of the surface.
His serves were certainly clicking and his forehand was as big as ever. He must have forgotten how it is done at the net.
Or something. Because he could not get it done. He came really close though. Remember the break points he had in the 5th set which would have allowed him to serve it out if he converted?
Oops, I forgot that he got broken when serving to stay in the match.
Too show how to beat someone you actually have to beat them, not win>>> one point in stylish fashion.>>>
That's my point - Sampras would be hitting big approaches & putting >> volleys away at every opportunity - Agassi does it once or twice per >> match...>
Yet Sampras failed when he had the chance on grass before the recent > slowing of the surface.>
His serves were certainly clicking and his forehand was as big as ever. > He must have forgotten how it is done at the net.>
Or something. Because he could not get it done. He came really close > though. Remember the break points he had in the 5th set which would have > allowed him to serve it out if he converted?>
Oops, I forgot that he got broken when serving to stay in the match.>
Cheers,>
vc
I thought you said this match wasn't significant because Fed may be doing even worse when he's 31....?
Vari L. Cinicke 15 February 2006 17:09:25 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>
Whisper wrote:>>
robin wrote:>>>
Too show how to beat someone you actually have to beat them, not win>>>> one point in stylish fashion.>>>>
That's my point - Sampras would be hitting big approaches & putting >>> volleys away at every opportunity - Agassi does it once or twice per >>> match...>>
Yet Sampras failed when he had the chance on grass before the recent >> slowing of the surface.>>
His serves were certainly clicking and his forehand was as big as >> ever. He must have forgotten how it is done at the net.>>
Or something. Because he could not get it done. He came really close >> though. Remember the break points he had in the 5th set which would >> have allowed him to serve it out if he converted?>>
Oops, I forgot that he got broken when serving to stay in the match.>>
Cheers,>>
I thought you said this match wasn't significant because Fed may be > doing even worse when he's 31....?>
It is the only reference point we have to evaluate all Sampras vs. Federer claims. It is the reality check to catch out fanboys.
Too show how to beat someone you actually have to beat them, not win>>>>> one point in stylish fashion.>>>>>
That's my point - Sampras would be hitting big approaches & putting >>>> volleys away at every opportunity - Agassi does it once or twice per >>>> match...>>>
Yet Sampras failed when he had the chance on grass before the recent >>> slowing of the surface.>>>
His serves were certainly clicking and his forehand was as big as >>> ever. He must have forgotten how it is done at the net.>>>
Or something. Because he could not get it done. He came really close >>> though. Remember the break points he had in the 5th set which would >>> have allowed him to serve it out if he converted?>>>
Oops, I forgot that he got broken when serving to stay in the match.>>>
Cheers,>>>
I thought you said this match wasn't significant because Fed may be >> doing even worse when he's 31....?>>
It is the only reference point we have to evaluate all Sampras vs. > Federer claims. It is the reality check to catch out fanboys.>
You won't need to worry about it! >
Cheers,>
vc
Yet you ignore his humiliating losses to Henmman & Ancic after that match....?
Vari L. Cinicke 15 February 2006 20:13:06 [ permanent link ]
harukim0@gmail.com wrote:
costasz@gmail.com wrote:>
OK, I know you like to pick on Whisper but it's not fait to Pete.>>First, Pete was under a lot of pressure to te the record. Remember,>>Pete was all about errors.>>Pressure=errors. Pete still served big and hit big forehands but after>>his back injury he was never the same. He was more timid. Also, it was>>obvious to anyone who saw the thrashing that he received at the hands>>of Safin that he was a step slower. That one step closer to net makes>>the difference between making a volley and not making it.>>
Fed could play brilliant tennis even back then he was just not>>consistent enough to string together enough wins in a row to win a slam>>but he could definitely bring the same quality tennis as today on any>>given day.>>
So, to summarize, please be fair to Pete.>>
You are wasting your time. These back and forths between lots of these> guys aren't about being "fair", so your plea will not mean much. They> are just killing time.>
It's like a car accident. Looking at it will just upset you. It's just> best to move on. Nothing to see here really.>
You should watch some tennis. There are some entertaining players on> the live feed today: gasquet, grosjean, monfils, bagman.>
Vari L. Cinicke 15 February 2006 20:22:26 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>
Whisper wrote:>>
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>
robin wrote:>>>>>
Too show how to beat someone you actually have to beat them, not win>>>>>> one point in stylish fashion.>>>>>>
That's my point - Sampras would be hitting big approaches & putting >>>>> volleys away at every opportunity - Agassi does it once or twice >>>>> per match...>>>>
Yet Sampras failed when he had the chance on grass before the recent >>>> slowing of the surface.>>>>
His serves were certainly clicking and his forehand was as big as >>>> ever. He must have forgotten how it is done at the net.>>>>
Or something. Because he could not get it done. He came really close >>>> though. Remember the break points he had in the 5th set which would >>>> have allowed him to serve it out if he converted?>>>>
Oops, I forgot that he got broken when serving to stay in the match.>>>>
Cheers,>>>>
I thought you said this match wasn't significant because Fed may be >>> doing even worse when he's 31....?>>>
It is the only reference point we have to evaluate all Sampras vs. >> Federer claims. It is the reality check to catch out fanboys.>>
You won't need to worry about it! >>
Cheers,>>
Yet you ignore his humiliating losses to Henmman & Ancic after that > match....?
Not relevant to the discussion.
Who ignores them? Every loss and every win is part of the record.
stephenj wrote:> agassi played as well in that 05 USO final as he did in the 02 or 99> final or the 95 final, and better than he did in the 90 final.>
generally speaking he's far from his peak, but is still capable of> playing a peak-like match.>
Nah, barely beat Blake (hack), & has won 1 tune-up in 2 yrs. It just looks like he's playing well cause the power is less these days & he has time to reach the slower balls...
Dave Hazelwood 16 February 2006 01:22:17 [ permanent link ]
On 15 Feb 2006 06:54:04 -0800, costasz@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I know you like to pick on Whisper but it's not fait to Pete.>First, Pete was under a lot of pressure to te the record. Remember,>Pete was all about errors.>Pressure=errors. Pete still served big and hit big forehands but after>his back injury he was never the same. He was more timid. Also, it was>obvious to anyone who saw the thrashing that he received at the hands>of Safin that he was a step slower. That one step closer to net makes>the difference between making a volley and not making it.>
Fed could play brilliant tennis even back then he was just not>consistent enough to string together enough wins in a row to win a slam>but he could definitely bring the same quality tennis as today on any>given day. >
So, to summarize, please be fair to Pete.>
CZ
Sure. Pete lost. Couldn't do what Borg did when he had the chance. Lost his nerve, lost his serve and lost the match to a young kid who we all know now has developed into a better all around player than Pete ever was.
Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is not about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. My point is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, Fed's highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when the surface most suited Pete.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43f32cd2$0$22036$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> Scott wrote:>> Federer would still win, as he did when Pete was still able to win a slam >> and the speed of the grass heavily favored Pete.>>
Fed couldn't even beat Henman then (Pete smashed Henman every time), & > even lost 1st rd Wimbledon the following yr.>
You fanboys should get a grip on reality lol... ; )
Robi wrote:> Having looked at the clip, Agassi had to play several good, accurate> BHs (crosscourt/DTL) just to get Fed in the position where AA could> knock off a fairly straightforward volley to win the point. It's not> easy to construct numerous pts like that within an entire match - and> Sampras did not have a BH as steady as Agassi's.>
lol - Sampras hit big approach shots straight off the bat without bumrooting...
Scott wrote:> Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is not > about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. My point > is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, Fed's highest > level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when the surface most > suited Pete.>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great volleyers. He just looks great v today's bumrooters.
Vari L. Cinicke 16 February 2006 02:42:50 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
Scott wrote:>
Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is >> not about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. >> My point is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, >> Fed's highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when >> the surface most suited Pete.>>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great volleyers. > He just looks great v today's bumrooters.>
Get some perspective you fool...
I think some of us have seen the Federer-Sampras match. I believe you missed it. You are just talking out of ignorance.
"Scott" <scottloughrey@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:AgOIf.16069$rH5.5821@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...> Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras.
tells you what level federer, sampras and henman were all at in 2001, eh? anything even remotely close to peak pete never loses to henman, wouldn't lose to a green federer either..(or bastl either)
my point is not about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost > to Pete. My point is that in a final, where you give everything you've > got, Fed's highest level is higher than Pete's.
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message news:_%OIf.28681$id5.27305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> Whisper wrote:>
Scott wrote:>>
Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is not >>> about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. My >>> point is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, Fed's >>> highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when the >>> surface most suited Pete.>>>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great volleyers. >> He just looks great v today's bumrooters.>>
Get some perspective you fool...>
I think some of us have seen the Federer-Sampras match. I believe you > missed it. You are just talking out of ignorance.
if sampras had beaten fed in close match instead of losing close match, then he loses to henman (as fed did)..obviously not near peak sampras.
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:58f7v1l56nm169dv2k7rgtdo3napmdm1rr@4ax.com...> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:12:17 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> > wrote:>
Habib wrote:>>> Whisper wrote:>>>
stephenj wrote:>>>>
agassi played as well in that 05 USO final as he did in the 02 or 99>>>>>final or the 95 final, and better than he did in the 90 final.>>>>>
generally speaking he's far from his peak, but is still capable of>>>>>playing a peak-like match.>>>>>
Nah, barely beat Blake (hack), & has won 1 tune-up in 2 yrs. It just>>>>looks like he's playing well cause the power is less these days>>>
Really?>>>
Yes - pull out some peak Sampras tapes & it's obvious....>
What ? It's not peak when you are going to tie the record for most> consecutive W titles held by the great Bjorn Borg ?>
Hey if it was not peak then the previous 4 were .... flukes ? or> real poor competition ? or ?????>
You have to be a moron to think a guy shooting for a 5th W> and a record was not peak.>
Oh yes, but then you are.
you dumbo. listen next time i explain something to u.
Dave Hazelwood 16 February 2006 04:53:38 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:31:40 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote:
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message >news:58f7v1l56nm169dv2k7rgtdo3napmdm1rr@4ax.com...>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:12:17 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> >> wrote:>>
Habib wrote:>>>> Whisper wrote:>>>>
stephenj wrote:>>>>>
agassi played as well in that 05 USO final as he did in the 02 or 99>>>>>>final or the 95 final, and better than he did in the 90 final.>>>>>>
generally speaking he's far from his peak, but is still capable of>>>>>>playing a peak-like match.>>>>>>
Nah, barely beat Blake (hack), & has won 1 tune-up in 2 yrs. It just>>>>>looks like he's playing well cause the power is less these days>>>>
Really?>>>>
Yes - pull out some peak Sampras tapes & it's obvious....>>
What ? It's not peak when you are going to tie the record for most>> consecutive W titles held by the great Bjorn Borg ?>>
Hey if it was not peak then the previous 4 were .... flukes ? or>> real poor competition ? or ?????>>
You have to be a moron to think a guy shooting for a 5th W>> and a record was not peak.>>
Oh yes, but then you are.>
you dumbo. listen next time i explain something to u.>
bob >
you have nothing to say that is worth hearing. absolutely nothing.
GregRupedski 16 February 2006 05:42:38 [ permanent link ]
<costasz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140027002.605588.119600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Just don't poke at him, perhaps he will refrain from constantly trying> to defend Sampras's honor >
Um....yeah....considering the usual suspects here....not going to happen! Nice thought though. Instead we'll just have to sit through wave after wave of nonsensical Sampras bashing from those who are either ignorant or simply don't mind sacrificing reality to "get" Whisper. What a place RST has become.
Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is >>> not about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. >>> My point is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, >>> Fed's highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when >>> the surface most suited Pete.>>>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great >> volleyers. He just looks great v today's bumrooters.>>
Get some perspective you fool...>
I think some of us have seen the Federer-Sampras match. I believe you > missed it. You are just talking out of ignorance.>
Cheers,>
vc
That match doesn't count as Sampras was losing every week.
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete when he beat him.
On today's slower grass surface, Fed would win. On the fast surface that favored Pete, Fed beat him.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43f3b6b0$0$22050$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> Scott wrote:>> Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is not >> about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. My >> point is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, Fed's >> highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when the surface >> most suited Pete.>>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great volleyers. He > just looks great v today's bumrooters.>
Vari L. Cinicke 16 February 2006 06:31:43 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>
Whisper wrote:>>
Scott wrote:>>>
Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is >>>> not about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to >>>> Pete. My point is that in a final, where you give everything you've >>>> got, Fed's highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true >>>> when the surface most suited Pete.>>>>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great >>> volleyers. He just looks great v today's bumrooters.>>>
Get some perspective you fool...>>
I think some of us have seen the Federer-Sampras match. I believe you >> missed it. You are just talking out of ignorance.>>
Cheers,>>
That match doesn't count as Sampras was losing every week.>
I guess that is almost the same reason you are not counting Federer's wins. Because he is winning every week!
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. for Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after winning a Grand Slam final.
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament at that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a surface that favored Pete.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43f3f37d$0$22038$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> Scott wrote:>> Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete when >> he beat him.>>
Scott wrote:> Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. for > Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after winning a > Grand Slam final.>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament at > that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a > surface that favored Pete.
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:43f3f37d$0$22038$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>
Scott wrote:>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete when >>>he beat him.>>>
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message news:zmSIf.404938$qk4.116956@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> Whisper wrote:>
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>
Whisper, federer lost to Henman AFTER playing Sampras. my point is >>>>> not about whether Federer could win a Slam the year he lost to Pete. >>>>> My point is that in a final, where you give everything you've got, >>>>> Fed's highest level is higher than Pete's. that was even true when >>>>> the surface most suited Pete.>>>>>
No, as Fed has obvious weaknesses both at the net, & v great volleyers. >>>> He just looks great v today's bumrooters.>>>>
Get some perspective you fool...>>>
I think some of us have seen the Federer-Sampras match. I believe you >>> missed it. You are just talking out of ignorance.>>>
Cheers,>>>
That match doesn't count as Sampras was losing every week.>>
I guess that is almost the same reason you are not counting Federer's > wins. Because he is winning every week!
no, fed is expected to win..so is (was) sampras..but when he began to lose consistently to bad players, losing to fed told us nothing about fed, only that sampras was far below his peak...losing to henman told us that fed was below his peak also..
comparing two guys nowhere near their peak based on a single h2h is futile and dumb..if borg played connors tomorrow and connors won, what would it tell us?
"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message news:Jg0Jf.182529$oG.155303@dukeread02...> Whisper wrote:>> Scott wrote:>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete when >>> he beat him.>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is inconsistency. > fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs. henman. makes sense, > no?
neither were peak..hence, very very dumb to compare based on it..
Dave Hazelwood 17 February 2006 04:47:16 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:38:02 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote:
"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message >news:Jg0Jf.182529$oG.155303@dukeread02...>> Whisper wrote:>>> Scott wrote:>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete when >>>> he beat him.>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is inconsistency. >> fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs. henman. makes sense, >> no?>
neither were peak..hence, very very dumb to compare based on it..>
bob >
Not peak and going for 5 Wimbledons in a row record ?????????
Vari L. Cinicke 17 February 2006 04:53:17 [ permanent link ]
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:38:02 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote:>
"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message >>news:Jg0Jf.182529$oG.155303@dukeread02...>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete when >>>>>he beat him.>>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is inconsistency. >>>fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs. henman. makes sense, >>>no?>>
neither were peak..hence, very very dumb to compare based on it..>>
bob >>
Not peak and going for 5 Wimbledons in a row record ?????????>
A ha ha ha ha ha ha>
What is wrong with this picture ?
It makes perfect sense to fanboys like Whispabob. Sampras was so good that he could be losing every week and going for his 5th French Open title in a row.
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete >>> when he beat him.>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is > inconsistency. fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs. > henman. makes sense, no?>
Sampras was losing in every tournament he entered for > 2 yrs - makes sense?
Dave Hazelwood 17 February 2006 05:50:31 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:27:17 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
stephenj wrote:>> Whisper wrote:>>
Scott wrote:>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete >>>> when he beat him.>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is >> inconsistency. fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs. >> henman. makes sense, no?>>
Sampras was losing in every tournament he entered for > 2 yrs - makes sense?
He won W those two years correct ? Ergo you are admitting that the competition was so weak he won by default. Later, he won the USO which also must have been an "accident" ? Yet you want to cite 14 slams as why Sampras was better than Borg ?
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. for>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after winning a>>>Grand Slam final.>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament at>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>surface that favored Pete.>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2 yrs....?
Sampras was obviously not winning tournaments. however, i've been discussing the possibility that Fed plays Pete in a final. This is a one-match event. There's no Henman afterwards. Under this circumstance, considering the previous outcome, there's a strong argument that Fed could handle Pete.
put those two on today's Wimbledon grass which is much slower than before and Fed wins in four or five.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43f5c0e8$0$17083$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> topspin wrote:>> Whisper wrote:>>
Scott wrote:>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. for>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after winning >>>>a>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament >>>>at>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2 > yrs....?>
Mikko Ämmälä 17 February 2006 15:58:55 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:> topspin wrote:>
Whisper wrote:>>
Scott wrote:>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. >>>> for>>>> Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>> winning a>>>> Grand Slam final.>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire >>>> tournament at>>>> that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>> surface that favored Pete.>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2 > yrs....?
Probably Pete was not good enough for the improved field...
Scott wrote:> Sampras was obviously not winning tournaments. however, i've been > discussing the possibility that Fed plays Pete in a final. This is a > one-match event. There's no Henman afterwards. Under this circumstance, > considering the previous outcome, there's a strong argument that Fed could > handle Pete.>
Get fucked - this is dripping in cooda wooda....
put those two on today's Wimbledon grass which is much slower than before > and Fed wins in four or five.>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:43f5c0e8$0$17083$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>
topspin wrote:>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. for>>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after winning >>>>>a>>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament >>>>>at>>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2 >>yrs....?>>
Vari L. Cinicke 17 February 2006 18:50:26 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
bob wrote:>
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message >> news:MsTIf.29350$id5.12723@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete >>>>> when he beat him.>>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>>>
Sampras proved beatable. Henman proved not to be beatable.>>
please vari, don't be dumb.>>
Vari's default position is, sadly, dumb.>
I think it made 1 or 2 good posts...?>
Whispabob gets into a frenzy at my quoting the two events that happened. If mere facts can do that to your feeble minds, what might an actual opinion do?
Get a life, WHispabob. Actually, see if Whispabob is capable of acquiring more than one life!
Vari L. Cinicke 17 February 2006 18:53:21 [ permanent link ]
topspin wrote:
Whisper wrote:>
topspin wrote:>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. for>>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after winning a>>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament at>>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>yrs....?>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer> handled him.>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the reasons very well.
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras >>>>>> match. for>>>>>> Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>>>> winning a>>>>>> Grand Slam final.>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire >>>>>> tournament at>>>>>> that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>> surface that favored Pete.>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I >>>>> missing?>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>> yrs....?>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>> handled him.>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the > reasons very well.>
Cheers,>
vc
The question is why do you think that match pisses me off....?
Dave Hazelwood 18 February 2006 04:40:19 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:13:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>> topspin wrote:>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
topspin wrote:>>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras >>>>>>> match. for>>>>>>> Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>>>>> winning a>>>>>>> Grand Slam final.>>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire >>>>>>> tournament at>>>>>>> that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>>> surface that favored Pete.>>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I >>>>>> missing?>>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>>> yrs....?>>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>>> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>>> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>>> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>>> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>>> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>>> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>>> handled him.>>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>>> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the >> reasons very well.>>
Cheers,>>
The question is why do you think that match pisses me off....?
Dave Hazelwood 18 February 2006 05:10:48 [ permanent link ]
On 17 Feb 2006 18:01:34 -0800, "Tinesan" <tinesan@gmail.com> wrote:
Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:13:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>>
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>> >> topspin wrote:>> >>
Whisper wrote:>> >>>
topspin wrote:>> >>>>
Whisper wrote:>> >>>>>
Scott wrote:>> >>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras>> >>>>>>> match. for>> >>>>>>> Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after>> >>>>>>> winning a>> >>>>>>> Grand Slam final.>> >>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire>> >>>>>>> tournament at>> >>>>>>> that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>> >>>>>>> surface that favored Pete.>> >>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I>> >>>>>> missing?>> >>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>> >>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>> >>>> yrs....?>> >>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>> >>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>> >>> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>> >>> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>> >>> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>> >>> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>> >>> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>> >>> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>> >>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>> >>> handled him.>> >>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>> >>> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>> >>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the>> >> reasons very well.>> >>
Cheers,>> >>
The question is why do you think that match pisses me off....?>>
Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:13:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>>
topspin wrote:>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>
topspin wrote:>>>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras >>>>>>>>match. for>>>>>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>>>>>>winning a>>>>>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire >>>>>>>>tournament at>>>>>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I >>>>>>>missing?>>>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>>>>yrs....?>>>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>>>>getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>>>>that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>>>>slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>>>>of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>>>>pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>>>>his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>>>>handled him.>>>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>>>>yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the >>>reasons very well.>>>
Cheers,>>>
The question is why do you think that match pisses me off....?>
Because it does.
I can guarantee you it does not - if it were the final it woulda meant something.... clearly it means a lot to Vari.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:13:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>>
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>>>
topspin wrote:>>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>>
topspin wrote:>>>>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras>>>>>>>>>match. for>>>>>>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after>>>>>>>>>winning a>>>>>>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire>>>>>>>>>tournament at>>>>>>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I>>>>>>>>missing?>>>>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>>>>>yrs....?>>>>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>>>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>>>>>getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>>>>>that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>>>>>slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>>>>>of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>>>>>pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>>>>>his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>>>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>>>>>handled him.>>>>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>>>>>yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>>>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the>>>>reasons very well.>>>>
Cheers,>>>>
The question is why do you think that match pisses me off....?>>
Because it does.>
Does it?>
Not at all. Sampras deserved all the wins/losses he had in his career. After watching Goran beat Roddick in 3rd rd I tipped him to go all the way, & Sampras was still in the event (that tells you what I thought of his chances even before he lost to Fed)....
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:tmaav1li5fugt0narcnd45j2l0gubi40ut@4ax.com...> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:38:02 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote:>
"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message>>news:Jg0Jf.182529$oG.155303@dukeread02...>>> Whisper wrote:>>>> Scott wrote:>>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete >>>>> when>>>>> he beat him.>>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is >>> inconsistency.>>> fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs. henman. makes sense,>>> no?>>
neither were peak..hence, very very dumb to compare based on it..>>
Not peak and going for 5 Wimbledons in a row record ?????????> A ha ha ha ha ha ha> What is wrong with this picture ?
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:o7eav19b26rd8f6rt8mtps3o9k3t3crsmj@4ax.com...> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:27:17 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> > wrote:>
stephenj wrote:>>> Whisper wrote:>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete>>>>> when he beat him.>>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>>
remember, one of the characteristics of not being 'peak' is>>> inconsistency. fed played well vs. sampras but had a let-down vs.>>> henman. makes sense, no?>>>
Sampras was losing in every tournament he entered for > 2 yrs - makes >>sense?>
He won W those two years correct
he won Wim in 2000..Wim 2001 is 12 months later, no? Wim 2002 is 24 months later, no? dumbo.
"Scott" <scottloughrey@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:krjJf.112$5M6.38@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...> Sampras was obviously not winning tournaments. however, i've been > discussing the possibility that Fed plays Pete in a final. This is a > one-match event. There's no Henman afterwards. Under this circumstance, > considering the previous outcome, there's a strong argument that Fed could > handle Pete.
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message news:6hmJf.34846$id5.6065@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> Whisper wrote:>
bob wrote:>>
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message >>> news:MsTIf.29350$id5.12723@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>
Come on, Whisper. "Get some perspective you fool" is childish.>>>>>>
sure, Fed has trouble with S/Vs today. but he was S/V against Pete >>>>>> when he beat him.>>>>>>
Yet couldn't beat Henman?>>>>>
Sampras proved beatable. Henman proved not to be beatable.>>>
please vari, don't be dumb.>>>
Vari's default position is, sadly, dumb.>>
I think it made 1 or 2 good posts...?>>
Whispabob gets into a frenzy at my quoting the two events that happened. > If mere facts can do that to your feeble minds, what might an actual > opinion do?>
Get a life, WHispabob. Actually, see if Whispabob is capable of acquiring > more than one life!
bob wrote:> "Scott" <scottloughrey@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:krjJf.112$5M6.38@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
Sampras was obviously not winning tournaments. however, i've been >>discussing the possibility that Fed plays Pete in a final. This is a >>one-match event. There's no Henman afterwards. Under this circumstance, >>considering the previous outcome, there's a strong argument that Fed could >>handle Pete.>
? what on earth are you talking about?>
bob >
Beats me - this is the level of 'insight' rst has to offer.... : (
I maintain Sampras WAS peak when Fed beat him. At the time he WAS> Wimbledon champ for 4 years running was he not ?
At the time of that match Sampras had gone a whole yr losing in every tournament he entered.
That is a fact, so that makes you less than brainy.....
If you are going to dis-avow that then those titles should be dis-avowed as> well no ?
That's right - no.
(must say your writing style is hard to follow, but I think I can guess what you're on about....?)
You can't on one hand claim him to be goat because of his slam wins and> then say oh well he was not peak when he lost as the reigning 4 x in a row> champ ?
How about if he just completed 12 months losing every tournament he entered? What say you now?
Vari L. Cinicke 18 February 2006 15:58:32 [ permanent link ]
Whisper wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:>
topspin wrote:>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
topspin wrote:>>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras >>>>>>> match. for>>>>>>> Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>>>>> winning a>>>>>>> Grand Slam final.>>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire >>>>>>> tournament at>>>>>>> that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it >>>>>>> on a>>>>>>> surface that favored Pete.>>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I >>>>>> missing?>>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>>> yrs....?>>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>>> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>>> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>>> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>>> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>>> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>>> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>>> handled him.>>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>>> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize >> the reasons very well.>>
Cheers,>>
The question is why do you think that match pisses me off....?
Number of excuses you have made per minute played?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43f71799$0$17093$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>
I maintain Sampras WAS peak when Fed beat him. At the time he WAS>> Wimbledon champ for 4 years running was he not ?>
At the time of that match Sampras had gone a whole yr losing in every > tournament he entered.>
That is a fact, so that makes you less than brainy.....>
If you are going to dis-avow that then those titles should be dis-avowed >> as>> well no ?>
That's right - no.>
(must say your writing style is hard to follow, but I think I can guess > what you're on about....?)>
You can't on one hand claim him to be goat because of his slam wins and>> then say oh well he was not peak when he lost as the reigning 4 x in a >> row>> champ ?>
How about if he just completed 12 months losing every tournament he > entered? What say you now?
So what did you say about Sampras beating Bruguera in 96 FO, you said Sampras was beating Bruguera who was at his peak in 96 and your reasoning was Bruguera was at his peak because he reached the final of FO in 97 while leading up to FO Brugera did absolutely nothing in 95 and 96. So if we hold the both of your argument with the same logic, Sampras was at his peak in 2001, he won Wimbledon in 2000, runner up in USO 2000 and 2001. Result wise look more of peak Sampras to me if we applied the same logic.
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message news:RjmJf.34853$id5.14177@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> topspin wrote:>
Whisper wrote:>>
topspin wrote:>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. >>>>>>for>>>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>>>>winning a>>>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament >>>>>>at>>>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>>yrs....?>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>> handled him.>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the > reasons very well.
I think it is pretty clear that Whispa has double standard when it consider the players at their relative peak, in Whisper's opinion that Samrpas was not at his peak in 2001 but in the 15 months spell between 2000 and 2001 Sampras reached 3 slam finals. When discussing Sampras' performance on clay, Whispy's argument was Sampras could beat the best clay court player and he based his argument on Sampras' victory over Bruguera, arguing Bruguera was in the peak of his form because he reached the FO final the following year while the truth is Bruguera did nothing between 95 to 96. If reaching GS final the following year suggesting a player was at the peak of his career then Sampras definitely was at his peak of his career.>
Dave Hazelwood 19 February 2006 03:36:17 [ permanent link ]
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:21:14 +1100, "John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote in message >news:RjmJf.34853$id5.14177@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>> topspin wrote:>>
Whisper wrote:>>>
topspin wrote:>>>>
Whisper wrote:>>>>>
Scott wrote:>>>>>>
Whisper...once again the Henman match came after the Sampras match. >>>>>>>for>>>>>>>Federer at age 19, that's like playing Henman immediately after >>>>>>>winning a>>>>>>>Grand Slam final.>>>>>>>
the issue isn't whether Federer could get through an entire tournament >>>>>>>at>>>>>>>that age. the issue is whether he could beat Pete. He proved it on a>>>>>>>surface that favored Pete.>>>>>>
er but Pete was losing every week. Not relevant.... what am I missing?>>>>>
A cerebellum, a cortex, 100 IQ points,....>>>>>
You're denying Sampras was losing every tournament he enetered for > 2>>>>yrs....?>>>>
Ok, but I don't want to see your logic....>>>
You have said yourself that Sampras was 'pacing' himself, and only>>> getting himself up for matches that mattered. There is lots of evidence>>> that at the time of the Federer match he could still get deep into HC>>> slams. Pancho Gonzalez, a similar strong serving player, did that sort>>> of pacing until he was way into his 30s, showing how a good player can>>> pace themselves. This was a Wimbledon which would have given Sampras>>> his 5th in a row, matching Borg.>>>
He wanted to win, he could raise his game when it mattered, but Federer>>> handled him.>>>
I think the evidence is strong that on Sampras' favourite surface a>>> yet-to-be-at-his-match-playing-peak Federer could handle his game.>>>
Why do you think that match pisses Whispa off so much? You summarize the >> reasons very well.>
I think it is pretty clear that Whispa has double standard when it consider >the players>at their relative peak, in Whisper's opinion that Samrpas was not at his >peak in 2001>but in the 15 months spell between 2000 and 2001 Sampras reached 3 slam >finals.>When discussing Sampras' performance on clay, Whispy's argument was Sampras>could beat the best clay court player and he based his argument on Sampras' >victory>over Bruguera, arguing Bruguera was in the peak of his form because he >reached>the FO final the following year while the truth is Bruguera did nothing >between 95 to 96.>If reaching GS final the following year suggesting a player was at the peak >of his career>then Sampras definitely was at his peak of his career.
Whisper likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
Most people find that so amazing and it captures their attention so completely that they do not notice when he steals their wallet and pisses on their shoes.
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 .
