Pete Sampras' take on the big four [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Pete Sampras' take on the big four

Nole fan
06-18-2011, 02:44 PM
Pete Sampras' take on the big four
By Ravi Ubha
ESPN.com

Pete Sampras ruled Wimbledon. He won at the All England Club seven times, the most titles in more than a century, overpowering opponents with his devastating serve. Tennis, perhaps, has never seen a better second delivery.

So who better to discuss this year's tournament than Sampras, overall a 14-time Grand Slam champion and still a keen follower of the game?

In a telephone interview with ESPN.com, Sampras labeled buddy Roger Federer as the "slight" favorite at tennis' beloved grass-court major, ahead of world No. 1 Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Federer is "oozing with confidence" after reaching the French Open final, Sampras said.

Sampras praised Nadal, calling him a "machine" who surfaces "once every 25 years," but cautioned the Spaniard about his workload. He suggested Djokovic, owner of a recent 43-match winning streak, now has an "aura." As for Scot Andy Murray, the final member of the big four, Sampras says the type of pressure he's under at SW19 is virtually unparalleled.

The Fed Express

Federer, surprising many, ended Djokovic's winning streak in Paris. Two days later, give or take an inch, he might have upset Nadal in the finale.

Federer -- who was playing under Sampras' former coach, Paul Annacone, for the first time at Roland Garros -- showed more variety versus Nadal on dirt than ever. He returns to a more comforting surface, gunning for a seventh Wimbledon crown himself.

Sampras: "When Wimbledon comes around, you have to put Roger as the man to beat on that surface. He played extremely well in the French Open final and lost to one of the greats of all time on clay. I see him oozing with confidence.

"I see different things, especially in the final of the French, that Roger is trying to do -- be a little more aggressive, take the ball earlier, which is obviously tougher to do against Rafa on clay. And I like what I see. He wants to improve, and he still enjoys it. I think Paul has helped him with the mental side, just talking about strategy. Paul knows what it's like, he knows what a great player goes through, and it's really helped Roger in my mind."

The defending champion

By Nadal's own admission, it wasn't his finest French Open. Coming off four losses to Djokovic, two on clay, he lacked his usual level of confidence. However, he managed to claim a sixth title.

Nadal, as is his custom, hopped on a train and played the Aegon Championships in London, despite the fatigue, exiting in the quarterfinals. Federer and Djokovic, meanwhile, bypassed Wimbledon tuneups.

Nadal seeks a third French Open-Wimbledon double.

Sampras: "Whenever Wimbledon comes around and you look at Rafa's game, you might find him a little bit vulnerable. But year in, year out, he comes out with great results. He beats the guys he should, and before you know it, he's in the second week playing great. He saw what he had to do a couple of years back to play well at Wimbledon, and he's improved those areas.

"He's a machine. He feels he has to put in the time ahead of Wimbledon, and I respect that, but there's a part of you that has to give the mind and body a break. It might be a blessing in disguise he went down early [at Queen's], just to regroup and enjoy Paris a little bit. He's just one of those athletes that come once every 25 years. He keeps going and going. I hope that Rafa, as he gets older, is aware of his schedule and body. That's the only thing that can hold him back."

This year's phenom

The unplanned four days off Djokovic had in the second week of the French Open might have disrupted his rhythm. Emerging from the break, the 24-year-old faced a difficult task, encountering an in-form Federer.

Still, his 2011 record stands at 41-1. Djokovic, the top returner in tennis at the moment, is a different player than the one who underachieved most of the previous three seasons.

Sampras: "It's incredible what he's been able to do, be so consistent. Mentally he's figured it out, really shown great improvement. I think now he has an aura about him. He's turned into a great player.

"If you look at the history of the game, when I broke through and started to dominate, and Roger, we were about 23. Novak won that early major in 2008; it takes you a few years to figure out how you need to play, who you're playing against and to be really comfortable in your own skin, and I think Novak has turned the corner. With his game and athletic ability, I'm not surprised he's right there. When you break down his game, he doesn't have any holes."

Sampras, comparing Djokovic to Andre Agassi as a returner: "It's hard to say who has a better return because pretty much the style of play is one-dimensional today. When I was playing, you had a lot of different looks. If he was up against a Goran [Ivanisevic], [Stefan] Edberg or Becker consistently, you could really get a sense of how well he returns.

"But he's a great returner and will continue to be. I look at his percentage of breaking, and it's something ridiculous. I think it's the best in the world."

[B]The home hope

Many know the numbers by now, but here's a reminder: No British man has won a major since the 1930s. And if the drought was to end, most locals would want the magical occasion to transpire at Wimbledon.

Murray has been good enough to reach three Grand Slam finals, yet unable to produce his best at crunch time. A semifinalist at Wimbledon in 2009 and 2010, the often irritable (at least on court) Murray raised expectations by triumphing at Queen's this week.

Sampras: "I look at him as one of the favorites, but maybe not quite the same as the other guys. On a given day, if he plays well and gets the crowd support, he could very well have some destiny on his side.

"He's dealing with a lot more than the other guys, in terms of the pressure of the country and the media on every move and on everything he says. It's tough enough playing these guys, then you add all that. It's nothing that any other player has experienced. Maybe Becker, but he didn't have a major in Germany. Even in my generation with Tim [Henman], he talked to the press every day; it's like an ongoing thing in the back of his head. I hope Andy can shut that noise out and play his tennis.

"I do see him get agitated sometimes. Every now and again, you see him yelling at his box. He's an emotional guy, and that's what makes him tough -- he's in every point. But you'd like to see him recover a bit quicker and potentially chill, into something more positive. He's a little temperamental, which is fine. It's just that in this sport, you have to have a short memory. You play a bad point, you move on."

Wimbledon Withdrawal

Pete Sampras says he won't be at Wimbledon this year, even if friend and occasional practice partner Roger Federer reaches the final.

A title for Federer would mean seven at Wimbledon, tying him with Sampras for the Open era men's record. Sampras witnessed Federer eclipse his Grand Slam tally at the All England Club in 2009, the only time he's been back to the tournament since calling it quits in 2002.

"Probably not on the cards," Sampras said in a phone interview. "The record breaker was something I wanted to be at. But if he's there this year, I'll probably stay home and watch it."

Sampras has played in several exhibitions and on the seniors' tour following an initial hiatus in retirement.

So, could commentating be next for the 39-year-old? Chris Evert is back in the booth, returning at Wimbledon.

Sampras said no. He still prefers spending much of his time in California, where he resides.

"I sort of enjoy what I've been doing, playing every now and again, which keeps me in a bit of shape and keeps me a bit young," said Sampras, also an avid golfer. "I love being with my wife and kids. I still love the game, watching it and talking about it, but commentating is not something I'm willing to travel for. I enjoy sort of being in L.A."

Saberq
06-18-2011, 02:58 PM
The Master speaks

rubbERR
06-18-2011, 02:59 PM
Big four my ass, all except Novak are getting humiliated by lesser players.

Wth is this Big four crap anyways? :lol:

Sapeod
06-18-2011, 03:04 PM
Big four my ass, all except Novak are getting humiliated by lesser players.

Wth is this Big four crap anyways? :lol:
Big 4...Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal. Been there for 3 straight years, have been in most slam semi-finals, finals and won most masters titles. The rest of the field are behind these 4, by far.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-18-2011, 03:06 PM
big 4 thing is bullshit

Sapeod
06-18-2011, 03:09 PM
big 4 thing is bullshit
Wrong. The Big 4 is the Big 4. Nothing else to say.

romismak
06-18-2011, 03:09 PM
Sampras is right about everything- Roger´s best RG, confidence again for Wimby,Nole best returner in the world, Andy if took advantage of home crownd and take away pressure and also that Rafa first weeks looks like average player, but in 2nd week he is beast. I am sure no one besides top 4 guys can take tittle here, not Roddick, Tsonga anyone else in form.

mark73
06-18-2011, 03:10 PM
Big four my ass, all except Novak are getting humiliated by lesser players.

Wth is this Big four crap anyways? :lol:

They are the 4 recent multiple grandslam finalists.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-18-2011, 03:11 PM
nole fan is full of shit :haha:

Langers
06-18-2011, 03:13 PM
I sometimes struggle to read what Pete dishes up because there are so many traces of his gigantic ego.

GOAT = Fed
06-18-2011, 03:17 PM
Big four my ass, all except Novak are getting humiliated by lesser players.

Wth is this Big four crap anyways? :lol:

Mate what the heck are you on about? Humiliated by lesser players? Murray just won queens, Nadal just won the FO, Federer just reached the FO final. What humiliations are you talking about? A tired and fatigues Rafa losing to the 5th seed at queens? Murray losing to Belluci like 2 months ago? WTF brah?

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 03:17 PM
Good analysis by Sampras. Wish he'd lace up the sneakers and smack "The Big 4" around this Wimbledon.

mark73
06-18-2011, 03:18 PM
Wrong. The Big 4 is the Big 4. Nothing else to say.

Do they teach you how to argue in Scotland? You need to give REASONS for stating that he is one of the big four. For example results. Finalist at AO and semi at the FO. You always say things like "the big four is the big four". That will not not convince anyone. It like saying hes a good politician because hes a a good politician. NO. If you say hes a good politician BECAUSE he is honest and has economic plans that will (according to economists) lead to increased job growth, then that's an argument. Then that's an argument (whether a true one or a false one).

Kid I'm just trying to be the most important educational influence of your life. :)

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 03:19 PM
Mate what the heck are you on about? Humiliated by lesser players? Murray just won queens, Nadal just won the FO, Federer just reached the FO final. What humiliations are you talking about? A tired and fatigues Rafa losing to the 5th seed at queens? Murray losing to Belluci like 2 months ago? WTF brah?

Murray got a beatdown from Donald Young this year. It is pathetic that he can even be considered being in the Big anything for at least another 5 years. Maybe if he wins a Slam but we all know that isn't happening.

EliSter
06-18-2011, 03:20 PM
nole fan is full of shit :haha:

No u have that title... with your posts full of craps :rolleyes: :o

GOAT = Fed
06-18-2011, 03:21 PM
Murray got a beatdown from Donald Young this year. It is pathetic that he can even be considered being in the Big anything for at least another 5 years. Maybe if he wins a Slam but we all know that isn't happening.

Is that it? You can just give me one example? It was just a freak result and Murray was clearly shaken and out of sorts. His slam result shave been very good this year, in fact he's done as good as Federer this year in terms of slams.

RagingLamb
06-18-2011, 03:24 PM
The man knows what he's talkin about.

Johnny Groove
06-18-2011, 03:28 PM
More like the Big 2, the pretty large 1, and the medium sized 1.

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 03:29 PM
Kid I'm just trying to be the most important educational influence of your life. :)

:lol: noble attempt mark.

World Life repeats things about Murray in his mind so often that he believes they're undeniable realities of the world. It appears that he believes that everyone else does this as well. So any negative comment about Murray is very confusing to World Life....basically like telling a normal person "The Earth is flat".

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 03:33 PM
Is that it? You can just give me one example?

Uh...do you really need more? That isn't bad enough? The only way to make up for that pathetic loss is to win at least one Slam this year.

GOAT = Fed
06-18-2011, 03:34 PM
Uh...do you really need more? That isn't bad enough? The only way to make up for that pathetic loss is to win at least one Slam this year.

Haha hard to tell if you're serious or trolling :S

Sapeod
06-18-2011, 03:45 PM
Do they teach you how to argue in Scotland? You need to give REASONS for stating that he is one of the big four. For example results. Finalist at AO and semi at the FO. You always say things like "the big four is the big four".
Read:
Big 4...Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal. Been there for 3 straight years, have been in most slam semi-finals, finals and won most masters titles. The rest of the field are behind these 4, by far.
Hope that helped...
That will not not convince anyone. It like saying hes a good politician because hes a a good politician. NO. If you say hes a good politician BECAUSE he is honest and has economic plans that will (according to economists) lead to increased job growth, then that's an argument. Then that's an argument (whether a true one or a false one).
What?? :spit:

Kid I'm just trying to be the most important educational influence of your life. :)
Please, don't try :tape:

GOAT = Fed
06-18-2011, 03:48 PM
Read:

Hope that helped...

What?? :spit:


Please, don't try :tape:

No point arguing with them mate, they're just trolls and haters lol.

Oliboyz
06-18-2011, 03:48 PM
Do they teach you how to argue in Scotland? You need to give REASONS for stating that he is one of the big four. For example results. Finalist at AO and semi at the FO. You always say things like "the big four is the big four". That will not not convince anyone. It like saying hes a good politician because hes a a good politician. NO. If you say hes a good politician BECAUSE he is honest and has economic plans that will (according to economists) lead to increased job growth, then that's an argument. Then that's an argument (whether a true one or a false one).

Kid I'm just trying to be the most important educational influence of your life. :)

well,maybe the kid is right as MTF and reasons can't go along together :o

hipolymer
06-18-2011, 03:57 PM
Pete Sampras' take on the big four
By Ravi Ubha
ESPN.com
"It's hard to say who has a better return because pretty much the style of play is one-dimensional today.

Pete Sampras of all people calling today's tennis one dimensional.

:spit:

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 04:11 PM
Pete Sampras of all people calling today's tennis one dimensional.

:spit:

He's right. And the implication that Pete himself was a one-dimensional player just outed you as either an idiot or a guy that never watched him play.

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 04:14 PM
Love Pete but dont agree at all.. nadal is clearly the favorite at wimbledon these days. Not Fed.


And get the fuck out.. Pete wasn;t one dimensional. In fact, he was an all courter. He attacked from the baseline and attacked the net and attacked serving. He outhit Andre from the baseline. he out serve-volleyed Becker . Who can do all 3 today ? Ok then

Commander Data
06-18-2011, 04:20 PM
Sampras "pretty much the style of play is one-dimensional today. "

Good to see Pete agree with Fed.

hipolymer
06-18-2011, 04:22 PM
Let's be honest here guys; Pete would be nothing without his serve.

timafi
06-18-2011, 04:25 PM
Good analysis by Sampras. Wish he'd lace up the sneakers and smack "The Big 4" around this Wimbledon.

First of all when as an American himself Pete Sampras he doesn't mention Andy Roddick a former multiple x Wimbledon finalist who btw hasn't made the 2nd week at a slam since 2009 :tape: and has lost to Cipolla and Andujar and got destroyed by Andy " 1 foot working" Murray in Queens 3-1 I'd shut my piehole because

Nadal and Federer lost in the SEMIFINALS in Australia
Nadal and Federer were in the FINALS at the FO
Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray were in the finals in Australia and lost in the SEMIFINALS at the FO so yes THEY are the Big 4 not your boy :tape: :tape:

I really really mean it shut up so that you can stop embarrassing yourself.SHUT UP!:o:o

The "Now that you sneaked up into the top 8, prove that you belong there" thread:tape:

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 04:28 PM
Let's be honest here guys; Pete would be nothing without his serve.

He had a good forehand, volley, and mental strength as well. The backhand was streaky but i'd hardly call it a bad shot.

But take away any player's biggest weapon and they obviously wouldn't be as good. Federer with an average forehand isn't the best player in the world...he probably isn't much better than Gasquet. Andre without his backhand probably never wins a Slam. Nadal without his physical advantage would have him on the Challenger tour.

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 04:31 PM
First of all when as an American himself Pete Sampras he doesn't mention Andy Roddick a former multiple x Wimbledon finalist who btw hasn't made the 2nd week at a slam since 2009 :tape: and has lost to Cipolla and Andujar and got destroyed by Andy " 1 foot working" Murray in Queens 3-1 I'd shut my piehole because

Nadal and Federer lost in the SEMIFINALS in Australia
Nadal and Federer were in the FINALS at the FO
Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray were in the finals in Australia and lost in the SEMIFINALS at the FO so yes THEY are the Big 4 not your boy :tape: :tape:

I really really mean it shut up so that you can stop embarrassing yourself.SHUT UP!:o:o

The "Now that you sneaked up into the top 8, prove that you belong there" thread:tape:

Pretty sure I never even suggested that Roddick should be in the Big 4 or anywhere close to it.

In my mind, only the REAL contenders at Slams should be grouped together. If there has to be 4 of them, then i'd say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro. All Murray has proven is that he gags in the big moment time and time again. It might be different if he put up a respectable effort in his losses, but that isn't the case.

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 04:53 PM
He had a good forehand, volley, and mental strength as well. The backhand was streaky but i'd hardly call it a bad shot.

But take away any player's biggest weapon and they obviously wouldn't be as good. Federer with an average forehand isn't the best player in the world...he probably isn't much better than Gasquet. Andre without his backhand probably never wins a Slam. Nadal without his physical advantage would have him on the Challenger tour.

Agreed.. What is this with taking each player's biggest weapon away? Every all time great had a primary weapon he would resort to

Nasi
06-18-2011, 05:03 PM
Pretty sure I never even suggested that Roddick should be in the Big 4 or anywhere close to it.

In my mind, only the REAL contenders at Slams should be grouped together. If there has to be 4 of them, then i'd say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro. All Murray has proven is that he gags in the big moment time and time again. It might be different if he put up a respectable effort in his losses, but that isn't the case.

I think Del Potro could do well this year, I agree. He seems to be pretty well recovered. But in terms of who HAS been doing well at Slams lately, I think that includes the top four seeds at the moment. Murray may not be winning, but he's been ending up in the top four finalists. I'm sure if Del Potro gets into the finals at this one, the next article someone writes about the top contenders at the next slam will include him.

Start da Game
06-18-2011, 05:30 PM
he's definitely not writing off nadal......

timafi
06-18-2011, 05:33 PM
Pretty sure I never even suggested that Roddick should be in the Big 4 or anywhere close to it.

In my mind, only the REAL contenders at Slams should be grouped together. If there has to be 4 of them, then i'd say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro. All Murray has proven is that he gags in the big moment time and time again. It might be different if he put up a respectable effort in his losses, but that isn't the case.

Del Potro?:speakles: wtf are you smoking?please put it down:facepalm:
your boy Del Potro is nothing but 11-7 on grass and hasn't been past the 2nd round at Wimbledon :tape: if he plays Nadal;Rafa will slice that stick to fucking death:rolleyes:

Murray will have nothing to lose against Nadal and he's 44-11 and has made the SEMIFINALS in 09-10 and won 2 titles in Queens

it would be really nice if Del Potro put an effort on grass and oh Roddick as well:tape:

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 05:34 PM
he's definitely not writing off nadal......

He isn't but Nadal IMO should be the favorite at this point.. Not Roger. At 30 years old I dont even see where Roger SHOULD be a favorite at other then possibly the USO

viruzzz
06-18-2011, 05:37 PM
Big four my ass, all except Novak are getting humiliated by lesser players.

Wth is this Big four crap anyways? :lol:

Nadal and Federer are still more dangereous than Nole, you know that?
The Fedevic SF (on Federer's side), and the Fedal final had more tennis quality than all the whole Nole-year.
Great results but not so classy tennis by Nole.

Start da Game
06-18-2011, 05:42 PM
He isn't but Nadal IMO should be the favorite at this point.. Not Roger. At 30 years old I dont even see where Roger SHOULD be a favorite at other then possibly the USO

i think he knows deep down that rafa is tough to beat but he likes fed more than rafa and i see some optimism there when talking about fed.......

sampras probably also knows that to take out nadal at wimbledon, either his body shouldn't cooperate like he says in that post or it will have to be a big server with excellent finishing skill at the net......there is nobody who can do both those things today, plus they also have to deal with his will......

the favourite is nadal for sure but the world will hype up the other three more than him which is actually a good thing for rafa......

hipolymer
06-18-2011, 05:44 PM
Why would Sampras be optimistic about Federer when his record is on the line?

Start da Game
06-18-2011, 05:56 PM
Why would Sampras be optimistic about Federer when his record is on the line?

he doesn't mind fed breaking his records and i don't think he even cares whether fed can break it or not.......pete has mostly been appreciative towards current gen players.......

borg really believes what he says but pete is a little more thoughtful than borg, always been.......

ossie
06-18-2011, 05:58 PM
sampras calling this era one-dimensional :spit:

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 06:00 PM
he doesn't mind fed breaking his records and i don't think he even cares whether fed can break it or not.......pete has mostly been appreciative towards current gen players.......

borg really believes what he says but pete is a little more thoughtful than borg, always been.......



I don't think Pete wants to come off as bitter like the rest of the former greats for sure. He has said before though.. there have been alot of good players in the modern era not many great players

Start da Game
06-18-2011, 06:09 PM
He had a good forehand, volley, and mental strength as well. The backhand was streaky but i'd hardly call it a bad shot.

But take away any player's biggest weapon and they obviously wouldn't be as good. Federer with an average forehand isn't the best player in the world...he probably isn't much better than Gasquet. Andre without his backhand probably never wins a Slam. Nadal without his physical advantage would have him on the Challenger tour.

the problem with all those who never watched tennis before nadal and fed is that facets of the game like serve, volley would never appeal to them as much as the forehand and backhand......

BlueSwan
06-18-2011, 06:38 PM
Well, this Wimbledon is quite interesting given that there's certainly no outright favourite. I slightly favour Nadal, but he hasn't been playing his best tennis. Federers is objectively the best on grass, but he still needs to find his best form to win and he's unlikely to beat Nadal in a best of five match either way. Djokovic has been the best player by far this year, but he has yet to really prove himself at Wimbledon. Murray is good on grass but is likely to fold under pressure as usual. So it's something like this:

Nadal: 30%
Federer: 28%
Djokovic: 27%
Murray: 10%
Someone else: 5% (this is probably even too high!)

Saberq
06-18-2011, 06:47 PM
he doesn't mind fed breaking his records and i don't think he even cares whether fed can break it or not.......pete has mostly been appreciative towards current gen players.......

borg really believes what he says but pete is a little more thoughtful than borg, always been.......

Dont be fooled Pete is a very very proud person..He was not glad when Roger broke his record

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 06:51 PM
When u have records in place you have something to shoot for. If 16 grand slams was the count to beat Pete would have stayed on to surpass that. In Roger and Rafa's case there is a count to beat. Roger doesnt want Rafa to surpass him so he is trying to hold on and win more thus why he is sticking around. Rafa is trying to surpass 16. Pete had destroyed Andre more times then not and surpassed Emerson so he didn't feel there was much less to accomplish and he didn't think someone like Roger would come around and surpass it within 7 years either..

When there is records in place u have something to shoot for

guga2120
06-18-2011, 06:51 PM
Nadal and Federer are still more dangereous than Nole, you know that?

wrong
The Fedevic SF (on Federer's side), and the Fedal final had more tennis quality than all the whole Nole-year.
Great results but not so classy tennis by Nole.

:silly:

Commander Data
06-18-2011, 06:53 PM
Let's be honest here guys; Pete would be nothing without his serve.

can you read? It is not about his game. his point his that a lot more differnt types of players were around in the past. So you had to handle a lot more different playing styles if you wanted to win compared to today.

sampras calling this era one-dimensional :spit:

It is really a no-brainer :rolleyes: . today it is mostly baseline battle. S/V is gonna, and so on..

Commander Data
06-18-2011, 06:55 PM
When u have records in place you have something to shoot for. If 16 grand slams was the count to beat Pete would have stayed on to surpass that. In Roger and Rafa's case there is a count to beat. Roger doesnt want Rafa to surpass him so he is trying to hold on and win more thus why he is sticking around. Rafa is trying to surpass 16. Pete had destroyed Andre more times then not and surpassed Emerson so he didn't feel there was much less to accomplish and he didn't think someone like Roger would come around and surpass it within 7 years either..

When there is records in place u have something to shoot for

true, but that does not mean Pete would have made it to 16 GS. I doubt it..

Dougie
06-18-2011, 06:57 PM
When u have records in place you have something to shoot for. If 16 grand slams was the count to beat Pete would have stayed on to surpass that. In Roger and Rafa's case there is a count to beat. Roger doesnt want Rafa to surpass him so he is trying to hold on and win more thus why he is sticking around. Rafa is trying to surpass 16. Pete had destroyed Andre more times then not and surpassed Emerson so he didn't feel there was much less to accomplish and he didn't think someone like Roger would come around and surpass it within 7 years either..

When there is records in place u have something to shoot for

No. Pete ( and everyone else ) knew there was no gas left in the tank after he won his last US Open, and even that win was a miracle. There was no way he would have won more GS´s, and he knew it himself. If he´d genuinely believed he still had a shot to win a few, he would have kept going, no matter what his or anyone else´s records were by then.

guga2120
06-18-2011, 07:00 PM
When u have records in place you have something to shoot for. If 16 grand slams was the count to beat Pete would have stayed on to surpass that.


Do you remember Sampras's almost 2 year run befor he won the 2002 US Open? If he wanted to enhance his legacy it would have not have been winning more Wimbledon's or US Opens. It would have been winning Roland Garros.

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 07:00 PM
No. Pete ( and everyone else ) knew there was no gas left in the tank after he won his last US Open, and even that win was a miracle. There was no way he would have won more GS´s, and he knew it himself. If he´d genuinely believed he still had a shot to win a few, he would have kept going, no matter what his or anyone else´s records were by then.

Pete "had nothing left in the tank" AFTER he broken the GS record... But he was also considering going on.. You dont count out all time greats you know. Pete didnt win for two years until he won his last slam. Roger hasnt won on in over a year.. You stil dont count him out though.. You should know that

Modetopia
06-18-2011, 07:01 PM
more like the triangle.....

hipolymer
06-18-2011, 07:02 PM
he doesn't mind fed breaking his records and i don't think he even cares whether fed can break it or not.......pete has mostly been appreciative towards current gen players.......

borg really believes what he says but pete is a little more thoughtful than borg, always been.......

He doesn't mind? Well then that's a case for worry because any normal human being would mind.

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 07:02 PM
true, but that does not mean Pete would have made it to 16 GS. I doubt it..

The point is.. Pete already PASSED THE GS slam record after his win in 2000 at wimbledon. He just wanted one more.. Again... maybe he would have won more earlier had the record been there.. Its easier when you have a legit number in place to surpass.

IF 16 was the magic number. Pete would have done more earlier to surpass that. But 12 was the magic number at the time.. Years ago.. No one cared what the slam record was. The career slam wasn't the measuring stick nor was the slam count.. Now it is.

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 07:11 PM
The point is.. Pete already PASSED THE GS slam record after his win in 2000 at wimbledon. He just wanted one more.. Again... maybe he would have won more earlier had the record been there.. Its easier when you have a legit number in place to surpass.

IF 16 was the magic number. Pete would have done more earlier to surpass that. But 12 was the magic number at the time.. Years ago.. No one cared what the slam record was. The career slam wasn't the measuring stick nor was the slam count.. Now it is.

This was pretty obvious to everyone watching at the time. Pete settled down with his gf and went into Rocky 3 mode after he got the record....he had reached his goal and anything else he accomplished was just gravy.

He may not have won 16 Slams even had he remained focused and on top of his game for a few more years, but it's foolish to deny his mindset changed after he achieved his goal.

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 07:19 PM
This was pretty obvious to everyone watching at the time. Pete settled down with his gf and went into Rocky 3 mode after he got the record....he had reached his goal and anything else he accomplished was just gravy.

He may not have won 16 Slams even had he remained focused and on top of his game for a few more years, but it's foolish to deny his mindset changed after he achieved his goal.



I dont think there is a whole lot wrong with that. Roger just seems to be holding on to get one slam or two to possibly put the slam count of reach.. Chances are he doesn't want Rafa surpassing that in which he reasonably could within the next 3-4 years.. He has the opportunity. If Rafa only had 5-6 slams right now Roger might already be close to retiring.. He wants to keep his place in history and he doesn't want Rafa surpassing the 16 mark thus why he stays on

tangerine_dream
06-18-2011, 07:22 PM
Good analysis by Sampras. Wish he'd lace up the sneakers and smack "The Big 4" around this Wimbledon.
Yes, I liked his comments about the Top 4. I won't call them the Big Four because Murray still needs to win a slam first. Still can't believe anyone would pick him to win Wimby over Federer. Wishful thinking.

I'd like to see Pete take to the airways and do some commentating one day, like Agassi's done.

Roddickominator
06-18-2011, 07:25 PM
I dont think there is a whole lot wrong with that. Roger just seems to be holding on to get one slam or two to possibly put the slam count of reach.. Chances are he doesn't want Rafa surpassing that in which he reasonably could within the next 3-4 years.. He has the opportunity

I don't think Pete expected anyone to come along and break his record within just a few years....it came as a shock to him and he probably even experienced some bitterness. He worked his entire career for this goal and then it proved not to be as unreachable as he believed.

As he and Roger have become friends, I wouldn't be surprised if Pete has expressed his feelings on this to him in private about his regrets. Not winning the French Open and not putting the record out of reach. Roger clearly isn't making that same mistake. I think that Pete likes Roger a lot as a player, and as a person because he carries himself with such class. I don't think Sampras is happy that his records are being broken, but of all the people to break them(and keep them) I think he likes that it's Roger and that's why he roots for him.

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 07:29 PM
I don't think Pete expected anyone to come along and break his record within just a few years....it came as a shock to him and he probably even experienced some bitterness. He worked his entire career for this goal and then it proved not to be as unreachable as he believed.

As he and Roger have become friends, I wouldn't be surprised if Pete has expressed his feelings on this to him in private about his regrets. Not winning the French Open and not putting the record out of reach. Roger clearly isn't making that same mistake. I think that Pete likes Roger a lot as a player, and as a person because he carries himself with such class. I don't think Sampras is happy that his records are beating broken, but of all the people to break them(and keep them) I think he likes that it's Roger and that's why he roots for him.

Well.. Rafa has the career slam and is more then capable of being in position to suprass anything Roger has done. Not to mention hes destroyed Roger in their meetings. While Pete didn't let his rivals get the 1 up on him.. soo...

Start da Game
06-18-2011, 08:19 PM
He doesn't mind? Well then that's a case for worry because any normal human being would mind.

pete is not a fool like borg or fed to hope and pray that nobody ever breaks his records.......honestly i don't think he gives a shit because he comes off as a guy who really understands the saying "records are always meant to be broken" and he also knows that he has his own unique place in the history.......he chooses to be appreciative towards accomplish-ers of today.......

regarding his 2000-02 period, like setsampras said he lost his desire because there was no more any mission.......he broke emerson's record, stood at 13 slams and had nobody closing in......

i don't think he even played any tournament between wimbledon and us open in 2000, after he broke emerson's record......pete was easily good enough for 2 more wimbledons.......

guga2120
06-18-2011, 08:31 PM
pete was easily good enough for 2 more wimbledons.......

I am not sure how you figure that. Considering Lleyton won in 2002, who gave Sampras all kinds of trouble, everywhere, and the arrogant swiss took his first in 2003.

Start da Game
06-18-2011, 08:41 PM
I am not sure how you figure that. Considering Lleyton won in 2002, who gave Sampras all kinds of trouble, everywhere, and the arrogant swiss took his first in 2003.

mugwitt was pwned 4-1 until 2000......i watched all the things pan out in the year of 2000 and i still remember that post wimbledon 2000 phase when pete was so relieved and had no desire to even play tennis anymore outside the slams.......if emerson had 15 slams, he would not have slept until he reached that mark......

SetSampras
06-18-2011, 08:49 PM
You know if you want guys by the numbers at the end of the day forget it.. No one is going to tough Laver with his 199 tournaments, LONGEVITY, wins and his calendar slam.. So at the end of the day who cares about "numbers: we have witnessed greatness for the last 10 years we should be happy we have witeneesed it


Every era has its great and at the end thats all that matters. No one can say who is "better unless u create a time machine and make a neutral surface for all involved

Clydey
06-18-2011, 09:13 PM
When u have records in place you have something to shoot for. If 16 grand slams was the count to beat Pete would have stayed on to surpass that. In Roger and Rafa's case there is a count to beat. Roger doesnt want Rafa to surpass him so he is trying to hold on and win more thus why he is sticking around. Rafa is trying to surpass 16. Pete had destroyed Andre more times then not and surpassed Emerson so he didn't feel there was much less to accomplish and he didn't think someone like Roger would come around and surpass it within 7 years either..

When there is records in place u have something to shoot for

You're seriously saying Sampras could have won another 2 or 3 majors? You are delusional.

Clydey
06-18-2011, 09:14 PM
Pete "had nothing left in the tank" AFTER he broken the GS record... But he was also considering going on.. You dont count out all time greats you know. Pete didnt win for two years until he won his last slam. Roger hasnt won on in over a year.. You stil dont count him out though.. You should know that

Federer hasn't fallen out of the top 10, though. He is still right at the top of the game.

moon language
06-18-2011, 10:07 PM
"I enjoy sort of being in L.A."

:lol: Pete really loves his sort ofs.

Clay Death
06-18-2011, 10:25 PM
sampras still doesnt understand the modern sport of tennis.

so much has changed and he is oblivious to it.


prime sampras would have been decimated to pieces by the prime clay warrior, prime fed, and prime nole.


and that goes for any surface.

thrust
06-18-2011, 10:47 PM
Murray got a beatdown from Donald Young this year. It is pathetic that he can even be considered being in the Big anything for at least another 5 years. Maybe if he wins a Slam but we all know that isn't happening.

According to the ATP rankings, Nadal is #1, Novak is #2, Roger is #3, Murray is #4. The 5th ranked player is more than 2,000 points behing Murray. Therefore, big 4. Get it?

hipolymer
06-18-2011, 10:51 PM
According to the ATP rankings, Nadal is #1, Novak is #2, Roger is #3, Murray is #4. The 5th ranked player is more than 2,000 points behing Murray. Therefore, big 4. Get it?

And Murray is more than 2000 points behind Federer. And Federer is 3000 points behind Rafa and Nole.

It really should be the Big 2. ;) :wavey:

Nole Rules
06-18-2011, 11:09 PM
:lol: noble attempt mark.

World Life repeats things about Murray in his mind so often that he believes they're undeniable realities of the world. It appears that he believes that everyone else does this as well. So any negative comment about Murray is very confusing to World Life....basically like telling a normal person "The Earth is flat".

This post is gold.:spit::haha:
Roddickominator.:hatoff:

thrust
06-18-2011, 11:11 PM
He isn't but Nadal IMO should be the favorite at this point.. Not Roger. At 30 years old I dont even see where Roger SHOULD be a favorite at other then possibly the USO
I think Roger's best chance for a Slam this year, would be at Wimbledon. He still has the best game for grass courts than any other top player. He needs to be agressive and come to the net more than he has been lately.

!VamosRafa!
06-18-2011, 11:22 PM
Big 4???
I think the big 4 doesn't exist anymore...It's pretty much like this:
Djokovic and Nadal reach the final, whoever they play and Djokovic humiliates depressed Nadal every time...
So it's only Djokovic and not the big 4 :)
Supreme overlord of the ATP:worship:

Dougie
06-19-2011, 07:47 AM
Federer hasn't fallen out of the top 10, though. He is still right at the top of the game.

That´s the big difference between current Federer and Sampras of 2002, its not just about the slams. Federer is still winning matches, getting to the final stages of big tournaments, he isn´t as strong as he used to be, but he´s still more than capable of competing with the best.

Sampras, on the other hand, had a horrendous run before his last win at the US Open, and it was a miracle he won it. After that, he was mentally like an inflated balloon, even though he didn´t retire immediately, he never found the motivation again. He was done.

Federer is currently much more competitive than Sampras was. He will get some more changes of winning another slam, and he still has 2-3 good years ahead of him, anyway.

Ultravox
06-19-2011, 11:05 AM
Great results but not so classy tennis by Nole.

Not so classy tennis:devil:
4:0 against Rafito this year .Asskicking big time.
No class indeed:wavey:

A_Skywalker
06-19-2011, 11:14 AM
Not so classy tennis:devil:
4:0 against Rafito this year .Asskicking big time.
No class indeed:wavey:

So what, look at their h2h and h2h in important matches in GS.

I cant believe you are 35

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 11:43 AM
there is no such thing as big 4.

there is federer and nadal, then the rest.

look at whos won all the slams since 2004.

djokovic fluked his 2008 AO win over mono fed.

this big 4 talk was made up by the british media to get murray into the same group as federer and nadal.

there is potential for big 3, with federer, nadal and djokovic. but djokovic hasnt done jack shit at the slams apart from this year's AO. 2008 AO was fluke due to mono fed.

and murray in the big 4? :spit:
puhleeeeeze!

the guy has not won a single slam, hell, the guy has not even won a single set in a slam final. pathetic.

there is only the big 2, federer and nadal.
djokovic gets into big 3 when for a few months when he hits form, then disapears.
federer and nadal have been the big 2, winning all the slams since 2005.

why is this murray guy always in some so called big 4? ridiculous!

just british media hype.

u know im getting real tired of this murray hype, REAL F***ING TIRED!
i hope some guy, any guy, dumps murray out of wimledon to shut them up.

Sapeod
06-19-2011, 12:12 PM
And Murray is more than 2000 points behind Federer. And Federer is 3000 points behind Rafa and Nole.

It really should be the Big 2. ;) :wavey:
Who have been in the slam finals this year? The Big 4. The only other player who has been in the semi-finals of a slam this year is Ferrer. Big 4 definitely.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 12:14 PM
He had a good forehand, volley, and mental strength as well. The backhand was streaky but i'd hardly call it a bad shot.

But take away any player's biggest weapon and they obviously wouldn't be as good. Federer with an average forehand isn't the best player in the world...he probably isn't much better than Gasquet. Andre without his backhand probably never wins a Slam. Nadal without his physical advantage would have him on the Challenger tour.

:haha: u are truly the biggest idiot on this forum. nadal's forehand is one of the greatest shots in the history of the sport, mcenroe said it himself.

nadal's speed, his movement, his anticipation, his shot selection under pressure, his mental strength, his racket head speed, his ability to play the big points well, etc are what makes nadal the 4th greatest player ever.

ur just butthurt that one dimentional loser roddick got absolutely humiliated by murray at queens. andy roddick will FOREVER be known as a one hit wonder. roddick is an accidental slam winner, the biggest fluke ever. without that serve, the guy wouldnt even be playing tennis let alone play challenger or futures level.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 12:15 PM
Who have been in the slam finals this year? The Big 4. The only other player who has been in the semi-finals of a slam this year is Ferrer. Big 4 definitely.

u become BIG only when u win slams on a consistent basis.

murray is a nobody.

Sapeod
06-19-2011, 12:19 PM
:haha: u are truly the biggest idiot on this forum. nadal's forehand is one of the greatest shots in the history of the sport, mcenroe said it himself.
McEnroe also said Nadal's volleys are better than Federer's. The guy has no clue what he's talking about.
nadal's speed, his movement, his anticipation, his shot selection under pressure, his mental strength, his racket head speed, his ability to play the big points well, etc are what makes nadal the 4th greatest player ever.
4th greatest after Federer, Sampras and Laver?? Borg?? Okay, that's fair enough, BUT his game is not amazing. In fact, it's quite sorry to look at. The constant moonballing and topspin balls are really tiresome. He may not be the GOAT but he is the BOAT: most Boring Of All Time.
ur just butthurt that one dimentional loser roddick got absolutely humiliated by murray at queens. andy roddick will FOREVER be known as a one hit wonder. roddick is an accidental slam winner, the biggest fluke ever. without that serve, the guy wouldnt even be playing tennis let alone play challenger or futures level.
Can't disagree here.

Sapeod
06-19-2011, 12:20 PM
u become BIG only when u win slams on a consistent basis.

murray is a nobody.
He is the only Big 4 member without a slam, yes, but he consistently puts the top 3 under pressure and regularly beats them too. He has been in a slam final and a semi-final this year, the same as Federer. He is constantly the biggest threat anywhere, and will one day prove to be too much for the top 3 and win that slam, and then many. He is as much a Big 4 player atm as Federer.

Oh, and please learn how to spell properly.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 12:29 PM
He is the only Big 4 member without a slam, yes, but he consistently puts the top 3 under pressure and regularly beats them too. He has been in a slam final and a semi-final this year, the same as Federer. He is constantly the biggest threat anywhere, and will one day prove to be too much for the top 3 and win that slam, and then many. He is as much a Big 4 player atm as Federer.

Oh, and please learn how to spell properly.

spelling on a tennis forum?
:haha:

u my teacher?
do i get marks in here for performance?

Saberq
06-19-2011, 01:14 PM
there is no such thing as big 4.

there is federer and nadal, then the rest.

look at whos won all the slams since 2004.

djokovic fluked his 2008 AO win over mono fed.

this big 4 talk was made up by the british media to get murray into the same group as federer and nadal.

there is potential for big 3, with federer, nadal and djokovic. but djokovic hasnt done jack shit at the slams apart from this year's AO. 2008 AO was fluke due to mono fed.

and murray in the big 4? :spit:
puhleeeeeze!

the guy has not won a single slam, hell, the guy has not even won a single set in a slam final. pathetic.

there is only the big 2, federer and nadal.
djokovic gets into big 3 when for a few months when he hits form, then disapears.
federer and nadal have been the big 2, winning all the slams since 2005.

why is this murray guy always in some so called big 4? ridiculous!

just british media hype.

u know im getting real tired of this murray hype, REAL F***ING TIRED!
i hope some guy, any guy, dumps murray out of wimledon to shut them up.


Mono Fed does not exist ....When you have mono you cant play tennis pure and simple....If you are on the court you are well...Second he beat 6 other opponents...Third go get laid you 30 year old virgin....Fourth there is big 4 and yes Murray is BIG at least bigger than you you smalll,petty man

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 02:00 PM
:haha: u are truly the biggest idiot on this forum.

This means a lot coming from the forum's biggest overreacting emotional crybaby. I could probably throw idiot in there as well, but there is a lot of competition at "biggest forum idiot". And hint, i'm not one of them.

nadal's forehand is one of the greatest shots in the history of the sport, mcenroe said it himself.

McEnroe talks a lot of BS just to drum up interest in casual fans. Nadal's forehand is totally dependant upon current racquet and string technology to be effective. It also is a pretty average shot when he's struggling physically(see: Nadal's greatest strength, his physical advantage) as he hits a ton of short balls.

nadal's speed, his movement, his anticipation, his shot selection under pressure, his mental strength, his racket head speed, his ability to play the big points well, etc are what makes nadal the 4th greatest player ever.

So it sounds like you agree with me then. All of those attributes are either explicitly stating his physical advantage(speed, movement, racquet head speed) or are a direct result of his physical advantage. It's easy to have a great shot selection and play the big points well when you can run all day and know that your opponent can't. This is why Nadal looks so confused and lacking in mental strength when he plays non-gluten Djokovic...a player who has upped his physical level to possibly a greater height than Rafa is currently at.

ur just butthurt that one dimentional loser roddick got absolutely humiliated by murray at queens. andy roddick will FOREVER be known as a one hit wonder. roddick is an accidental slam winner, the biggest fluke ever. without that serve, the guy wouldnt even be playing tennis let alone play challenger or futures level.

:rolleyes: I love how people think talking trash about Roddick is a legit argument, even when the topic has absolutely nothing to do with him. A comment like this just shows me which posters have no ability to separate themselves in an unbiased manner from their favorite player when discussing them, as it all gets dragged down into childish "WELL MY FAVORITE PLAYER IS BETTER THAN YOURS SO THERE! HA!" talk. How about this CGS....i'll let you know when i'm interested in an idiot's opinion on Andy Roddick. Until then, save it for a Roddick thread.

Ultravox
06-19-2011, 02:31 PM
So what, look at their h2h and h2h in important matches in GS.

I cant believe you are 35

What are you talking about?
What do I care for the results of 5 years ago? Here we talk about 2011 not 2007.
So Nole v 2.0 kicked rafitos ass big time in 2011 and he will do it again.
Yes I am 35 and you are writting as if you were five years old.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 02:48 PM
This means a lot coming from the forum's biggest overreacting emotional crybaby. I could probably throw idiot in there as well, but there is a lot of competition at "biggest forum idiot". And hint, i'm not one of them.



McEnroe talks a lot of BS just to drum up interest in casual fans. Nadal's forehand is totally dependant upon current racquet and string technology to be effective. It also is a pretty average shot when he's struggling physically(see: Nadal's greatest strength, his physical advantage) as he hits a ton of short balls.



So it sounds like you agree with me then. All of those attributes are either explicitly stating his physical advantage(speed, movement, racquet head speed) or are a direct result of his physical advantage. It's easy to have a great shot selection and play the big points well when you can run all day and know that your opponent can't. This is why Nadal looks so confused and lacking in mental strength when he plays non-gluten Djokovic...a player who has upped his physical level to possibly a greater height than Rafa is currently at.



:rolleyes: I love how people think talking trash about Roddick is a legit argument, even when the topic has absolutely nothing to do with him. A comment like this just shows me which posters have no ability to separate themselves in an unbiased manner from their favorite player when discussing them, as it all gets dragged down into childish "WELL MY FAVORITE PLAYER IS BETTER THAN YOURS SO THERE! HA!" talk. How about this CGS....i'll let you know when i'm interested in an idiot's opinion on Andy Roddick. Until then, save it for a Roddick thread.

mcenroe knows alot more about tennis than some bitter hater like u that clings onto hope that no talent loser roddick will ever win a legitimate slam. roddick is nothing in this sport, absolutely nothing, a nobody, a footnote.

nadal's forehand is the greatest shot in this sport after federer's forehand in the history of tennis. everyone knows this. many current players and past players have said it. including murray, djokovic and numerous others.
they know alot more than u son.

no american player can beat nadal at his best. that hurts u deep down, i can sense it. nadal's best beats everyones best except maybe federer. u know it, i know it, everyone knows it.

of course technology evolves, every sport technolgy has advanced. i hope 10 years from now the tech is alot more advanced than now. without technology advancement, roddick would be flipping burgers. because his serve is all aided by those strings.

and how the fuck do u know nadal cant win with wooden rackets. nadal is an absolute genius, only federer has more natural talent than nadal. guys like sampras, agassi, roddick(zero talent) have limited talent compared to nadal.

every so called experts said nadal will never win wimbledon, then he cant win on hardcourts, then he cant win the USO.

just face it kiddo, nadal is a legend, an icon, the current laureus world sportsman of the year.
one of the greatest sportsmen in the history of sport!

there is nothing haters like u say or do that will ever change it.
nadal has more talent and success than all the americans that are playing on tour combined.
i know it hurts, it must be sooooo frustrating knowing that nadal is dominating this sport when haters like u said he will never do anything.

:haha:

nadal >>>>>>> rodDICK
10 > 1*
OWNAGE!

:wavey:
:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

Langers
06-19-2011, 02:53 PM
there is no such thing as big 4.

there is federer and nadal, then the rest.

look at whos won all the slams since 2004.

djokovic fluked his 2008 AO win over mono fed.

this big 4 talk was made up by the british media to get murray into the same group as federer and nadal.

there is potential for big 3, with federer, nadal and djokovic. but djokovic hasnt done jack shit at the slams apart from this year's AO. 2008 AO was fluke due to mono fed.

and murray in the big 4? :spit:
puhleeeeeze!

the guy has not won a single slam, hell, the guy has not even won a single set in a slam final. pathetic.

there is only the big 2, federer and nadal.
djokovic gets into big 3 when for a few months when he hits form, then disapears.
federer and nadal have been the big 2, winning all the slams since 2005.

why is this murray guy always in some so called big 4? ridiculous!

just british media hype.

u know im getting real tired of this murray hype, REAL F***ING TIRED!
i hope some guy, any guy, dumps murray out of wimledon to shut them up.
Why did Djokovic win the AO this year?? What was Federer’s problem then? The mono suddenly returned 3 years later? :confused:

I'm finding these arguments funny though, because there are bits of each post that I agree with, and disagree with. Firstly, saying Nadal is who he is because of the advancements made in techonology. :haha: Hilarious. Nadal is a legend, he is one of the best to have ever played. So smart, so smart at adapating his style and gameplan. So strong, the way he digs himself back into points due to his strength. His mental strength, how he handles the big points and big moments. So talented, one of the best ever.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Why did Djokovic win the AO this year?? What was Federer’s problem then? The mono suddenly returned 3 years later? :confused:

I'm finding these arguments funny though, because there are bits of each post that I agree with, and disagree with. Firstly, saying Nadal is who he is because of the advancements made in techonology. :haha: Hilarious. Nadal is a legend, he is one of the best to have ever played. So smart, so smart at adapating his style and gameplan. So strong, the way he digs himself back into points due to his strength. His mental strength, how he handles the big points and big moments. So talented, one of the best ever.

so true about rafa.

roddorkminator is a bitter hater that hates rafas success.
just a jealous ignorant tool.
he is basically accusing nadal of drugs.


yea i got carried away saying djokovic beat mono fed, in 2008 djoker beat fed legit.

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 03:20 PM
I like how my simple comment about Nadal's physical advantage being his greatest strength has you this worked up. It's pretty obvious to most that this helps him immensely despite his lack of talent.

Truth is, I don't even dislike Rafa. I just don't worship him and am able to give unbiased opinions on him.

mcenroe knows alot more about tennis than some bitter hater like u that clings onto hope that no talent loser roddick will ever win a legitimate slam. roddick is nothing in this sport, absolutely nothing, a nobody, a footnote.

You sound a lot more bitter than I do....and your favorite player is #1 in the world. Must be sad to be you. I'm fine with Roddick's place in history. His career will end and so will Nadal's, and tennis will go on. I'll still watch it and enjoy it. I'm not an obsessive fan whose day is ruined when Roddick loses, I am more a fan of tennis than anything.

McEnroe undoubtedly knows more about tennis than 99% of anyone....but he still embellishes quite a bit to make the game of tennis appeal to more casual fans. It has nothing to do with his tennis knowledge, it's just his job.

no american player can beat nadal at his best. that hurts u deep down, i can sense it. nadal's best beats everyones best except maybe federer. u know it, i know it, everyone knows it.

Not sure where this nationalistic nonsense is coming from. I don't like or dislike players because of their nationality.

The "X player at his best" discussion is pretty much always BS....your opponent doesn't always let you play your best. Any hard hitter on a fast court can beat Nadal on a given day and make him look "not his best".

nadal's forehand is the greatest shot in this sport after federer's forehand in the history of tennis. everyone knows this. many current players and past players have said it. including murray, djokovic and numerous others.
they know alot more than u son.

of course technology evolves, every sport technolgy has advanced. i hope 10 years from now the tech is alot more advanced than now. without technology advancement, roddick would be flipping burgers. because his serve is all aided by those strings.

and how the fuck do u know nadal cant win with wooden rackets. nadal is an absolute genius, only federer has more natural talent than nadal.

Nadal's forehand would be shanktastic in any other era, and even now it's average when he faces players that can attack his forehand with their backhand. Nadal is pretty lucky that he plays lefty and can bludgeon the ball into his opponent's weaker wing against 90+% of his opponents.

As for Roddick and the strings....i'd say that he has been more neutralized by modern strings than helped. He can probably serve a little better, but now more players can get his serve back in play. And now pretty much everyone on tour can pass with ease off of both wings(even Roddick), so it pretty much limits tactics in regards to going to net. For whatever reason this hasn't stopped Roddick from rushing the net only to get passed in embarrassing fashion, but it is what it is.

And I never said that Nadal couldn't win with wooden racquets. But obviously he wouldn't if he tried to hit his forehand the same way. He would be smart enough to adapt his game and play in another era I would imagine.

guys like sampras, agassi, roddick(zero talent) have limited talent compared to nadal.

This is why i'm even bothering to respond to your trolling....this is pure gold. I'd love for you to expand on this thought. Please, tell us how Agassi and Sampras lack in talent compared to Nadal.

Also, the simple fact that you would even group Sampras and Agassi with Roddick in the talent department shows us all about your limited mental talent.

Dougie
06-19-2011, 03:31 PM
and how the fuck do u know nadal cant win with wooden rackets. nadal is an absolute genius, only federer has more natural talent than nadal. guys like sampras, agassi, roddick(zero talent) have limited talent compared to nadal.



Wow. What little credibility you had left, you lost it right there.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 03:31 PM
You sound a lot more bitter than I do....and your favorite player is #1 in the world. Must be sad to be you. I'm fine with Roddick's place in history. His career will end and so will Nadal's, and tennis will go on. I'll still watch it and enjoy it. I'm not an obsessive fan whose day is ruined when Roddick loses, I am more a fan of tennis than anything.

McEnroe undoubtedly knows more about tennis than 99% of anyone....but he still embellishes quite a bit to make the game of tennis appeal to more casual fans. It has nothing to do with his tennis knowledge, it's just his job.



Not sure where this nationalistic nonsense is coming from. I don't like or dislike players because of their nationality.

The "X player at his best" discussion is pretty much always BS....your opponent doesn't always let you play your best. Any hard hitter on a fast court can beat Nadal on a given day and make him look "not his best".



Nadal's forehand would be shanktastic in any other era, and even now it's average when he faces players that can attack his forehand with their backhand. Nadal is pretty lucky that he's a lefty and can bludgeon the ball into his opponent's weaker wing against 90+% of his opponents.

As for Roddick and the strings....i'd say that he has been more neutralized by modern strings than helped. He can probably serve a little better, but now more players can get his serve back in play. And now pretty much everyone on tour can pass with ease off of both wings(even Roddick), so it pretty much limits tactics in regards to going to net. For whatever reason this hasn't stopped Roddick from rushing the net only to get passed in embarrassing fashion, but it is what it is.

And I never said that Nadal couldn't win with wooden racquets. But obviously he wouldn't if he tried to hit his forehand the same way. He would be smart enough to adapt his game and play in another era I would imagine.



This is why i'm even bothering to respond to your trolling....this is pure gold. I'd love for you to expand on this thought. Please, tell us how Agassi and Sampras lack in talent compared to Nadal.

Also, the simple fact that you would even group Sampras and Agassi with Roddick in the talent department shows us all how about your limited mental talent.

:haha:

u bitter bitter hater.

10 slams for king rafa.
0 slams for accidental champion roddick.

keep the hate going, enjoy ur mental masturbation about hating on our rafa.

i really hope rafa beats sampras slam total. i want rafa to be superior to EVERY american player ever.
thats why i want rafa to win 15 slams before he retires.

:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 03:39 PM
:haha:

u bitter bitter hater.

10 slams for king rafa.
0 slams for accidental champion roddick.

keep the hate going, enjoy ur mental masturbation about hating on our rafa.

i really hope rafa beats sampras slam total. i want rafa to be superior to EVERY american player ever.
thats why i want rafa to win 15 slams before he retires.

:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

Take a snapshot guys....this post by CGS is what it looks like when you realize that you've been made to look like an idiot and have nothing to say. Surrender noted.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 04:48 PM
Take a snapshot guys....this post by CGS is what it looks like when you realize that you've been made to look like an idiot and have nothing to say. Surrender noted.

:haha:

i cant be bothered to argue with a hater.
its clear u hate him and will never give credit to him. so why bother arguing with haters.
u hate nadal and i hate roddick even more. when i mean i hate roddick, i mean the most intense hate.
i hate the guy's guts to the very core.

the fact is nadal is a legend and roddick is a nobody.

u got no stat to say ur guy is better than my guy.

my guy's records beats ur guy's records by a HUGE MARGIN.
its that simple, u can accuse nadal of drugs all u want, the fact is nadal is just better than roddick.

who's ur daddy now biarch!
:haha:

unless u can come up with an argument how roddick is more successful than nadal.
i accept ur surrender.

10 > 1*

nuff said!
facts > opinions

juan27
06-19-2011, 05:01 PM
Wow. What little credibility you had left, you lost it right there.

jajajaja.

nadal`s spin exist because the new technologys of the rackets, with a wood racket the spin of nadal was not possible.

his forehand it too much artificial

agassi or sampras not talented and nadal yes??????

please...

Start da Game
06-19-2011, 05:09 PM
relax both, let me settle this.......roddickominator, your assessment is not very bright about nadal's forehand.......you sound as if the current racket technology is helping only him.......

i agree that nadal's style is physical and brute strength is one of the essential ingredients for his success but his dynamics on the forehand is something which nobody even tries.......

if anybody could win just with physical strength, they would all be bulking up their biceps and building themselves like wrestlers, which is evidently not the case.......

that is all just half the story, the other half is his pre 2005 forehand.......that was not a forehand back then, it was a missile......a missile which was firing flatter and harder than what agassi ever hit......he was 17 back then and you can imagine the rest.......

nadal's forehand is the greatest groundstroke ever......whatever he won till date is 70% purely because of his forehand.......

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 05:09 PM
:haha:

i cant be bothered to argue with a hater.

Yet you continue trying. Albeit poorly.

its clear u hate him and will never give credit to him. so why bother arguing with haters.
u hate nadal and i hate roddick even more. when i mean i hate roddick, i mean the most intense hate.
i hate the guy's guts to the very core.

I don't care if you hate Roddick.

And I don't hate Nadal. I give him plenty of credit when it is due....that doesn't mean I have to slobber all over him and call him the greatest ever or anything. The difference between us is that you are in love with Rafa, and are unable to see fault in his game(unless he loses, at which point you turn into an emotional upset woman and talk trash about Rafa much like you have been with Roddick).

I haven't even said anything that bad about Rafa. For whatever reason, you take exception to me saying that his greatest weapon(his physical advantage) is what makes him a great player. Well it's the truth, sorry if you can't see it. Every great player has a big weapon that they are reliant on. My original post was simply talking about this and saying that if you take that weapon away from each great player, then that makes them pretty average.

u got no stat to say ur guy is better than my guy.

my guy's records beats ur guy's records.
its that simple, u can accuse nadal of drugs all u want, the fact is nadal is just better than roddick.

At least you are completely up front with your childish mentality. I guess you're going to tell me that your dad can beat up my dad too, huh? It's a silly thing to beat your chest about...but whatever makes your undoubtedly miserable day a little better, I suppose.

I never claimed that Roddick was better than Nadal....I actually never mentioned Roddick at all this thread until someone else brought him up. So if you want to claim victory on an argument that I wasn't making, then go ahead. Maybe it will save you from emotional breakdown.

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 05:27 PM
relax both, let me settle this.......roddickominator, your assessment is not very bright about nadal's forehand.......you sound as if the current racket technology is helping only him.......

It obviously helps everyone...and Rafa is the one who has taken most advantage of it. So congrats to him for that. But lets not go around calling it the greatest shot ever when it wouldn't have worked in any other era...and when no one else in another era had the same technology to make use of and develop the shot with.

Add that his forehand gets to play against every right-handed player's backhand, almost always the weaker shot...and it obviously makes the shot look better. When players are strong off of their left wing, his "greatest forehand ever" is much less effective.

i agree that nadal's style is physical and brute strength is one of the essential ingredients for his success but his dynamics on the forehand is something which nobody even tries.......

if anybody could win just with physical strength, they would all be bulking up their biceps and building themselves like wrestlers, which is evidently not the case.......

I don't disagree with any of that. But when i'm talking "physical advantage", I am referring to strength, endurance, speed, and consistency. Strength is only part of the equation...and in tennis I doubt weightlifter muscles would be of much use. It needs to be functional strength. Nadal has this in spades.

nadal's forehand is the greatest groundstroke ever......whatever he won till date is 70% purely because of his forehand.......

Fair enough if you believe that.

I think his ability to run down every ball for an entire match without becoming fatigued is a bigger strength than his forehand. When you have the advantage of knowing that you can hit shots with big margin, and run faster and longer than your opponent, then you can play defense all day and put the pressure squarely on them to play incredible offense over an entire match to win(where they usually fail). Nadal and Uncle Toni developed a game around that, and it works with today's conditions and equipment. He gets full credit for that...and for improving his entire game over the years.

Start da Game
06-19-2011, 05:48 PM
It obviously helps everyone...and Rafa is the one who has taken most advantage of it. So congrats to him for that. But lets not go around calling it the greatest shot ever when it wouldn't have worked in any other era...and when no one else in another era had the same technology to make use of and develop the shot with.


his forehand would have worked in any era, he would have played differently.......that's why i referred to his pre 2005 forehand......compare that to his forehand of today, such amazing contrast......

we talk about players in different eras, saying so and so would have played in so and so method.......well nadal is one of the few that actually did it.....

if it were the 90s, he would have spanked it better than agassi ever did off that wing.......if it were the age of wooden rackets he would probably have adopted borg's style, might even have done better than borg with his superior wrists.......

we can't be sure that rafa is the one that took max advantage of the strings.......fed(benefits from the spin assistance) and djokovic(benefits from the power) have benefited to their best ability as well with the new age strings.......

Pirata.
06-19-2011, 05:49 PM
:facepalm:

Start da Game
06-19-2011, 05:49 PM
:facepalm:

cry more...

Corey Feldman
06-19-2011, 05:52 PM
Sampras thinks Nole doesnt have any holes

Dougie
06-19-2011, 06:13 PM
jajajaja.

nadal`s spin exist because the new technologys of the rackets, with a wood racket the spin of nadal was not possible.

his forehand it too much artificial

agassi or sampras not talented and nadal yes??????

please...

Maybe you should read my previous post again, along with the post I quoted. I´m not the one who claimed Agassi and Sampras are not talented.

MaxPower
06-19-2011, 07:04 PM
wow I can't believe some posts here. Hope it's trolling or just massive delusions.

Anyway Nadal doesn't win anything because of his forehand (or his serve or his backhand). They are all bad especially for a #1 player. The serve is even embarrasing for a #1 player even if he has improved it the past years. His weapon is his physicality and endurance. Without that freak nature of his he wouldn't be nowhere near his results.

Proof is of course seeing Nadal indoors when the serve and big groundstrokes come into play more. His indoor record is indeed embarassing for a nr1 and also proof that it is purely his defensive game that has taken him to where he is. Nothing more. To be honest he will never be able to improve either his serve or his groundstrokes to be an awesome indoor player either. He simply lacks talent for a top offensive game judging him vs past greats or even other active players.

Vida
06-19-2011, 07:52 PM
a blast from the past - big four.

pederer
06-19-2011, 08:38 PM
Nadal is a special player in that his personality is peppered with eccentricities with his compulsive butt-picking, percise bottle arrangement, line jumping, etc. I mean seriously, I don't know about any of you guys but I would skip the lines when I was like 6 years old. He attempts to exude this tough, grinding type of image on the court, but when he steps off of it he can barely make eye contact with the people talking to him. When he retires from tennis he might be the GOAT but he will not have anything else in his life; compare this to well-rounded individuals like Nole, federer and Andy. He still hasn't moved out of his parents house/basement, he met only girlfriend through his tennis coach or something. He came from a wealthy, privileged background, while players like Djokovic came from a war ravaged country, with his family barely getting by as they tried to finance their son's burgeoning tennis career. Not to mention that his game is as visually appealing as a malignant tumor.

Saberq
06-19-2011, 08:51 PM
Sampras thinks Nole doesnt have any holes

He doesn't..Roger didnt have any in his prime also...What goes around comes around

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 09:34 PM
his forehand would have worked in any era, he would have played differently.......that's why i referred to his pre 2005 forehand......compare that to his forehand of today, such amazing contrast......

If it would have worked in any era, then why would he play differently? He would HAVE to play differently because he would shank 50 balls a match with that forehand swing.

Also not sure where you're getting that his 2005 forehand was bigger. He played much more defensively back then and if anything, moonballed the forehand much more often. Nadal has gotten better in this regard by shortening up and flattening out his swing on faster surfaces, and i'd need to see evidence that he hit bigger forehands back then. I seriously doubt it.

if it were the 90s, he would have spanked it better than agassi ever did off that wing.......if it were the age of wooden rackets he would probably have adopted borg's style, might even have done better than borg with his superior wrists.......

Comparing Nadal's forehand to Agassi's is pretty silly. Agassi was never a guy that went around blasting monster forehands...he simply took the ball early and ran his opponent around the court. Nadal has certainly gotten better at taking the ball earlier and hitting the ball more aggressively early in the point on faster surfaces, but he'll never be able to do that like Agassi. Nadal never had to, he can retrieve a million balls then get a short one and unload on it.

we can't be sure that rafa is the one that took max advantage of the strings.......fed(benefits from the spin assistance) and djokovic(benefits from the power) have benefited to their best ability as well with the new age strings.......

Well obviously everyone benefits. Especially on passing shots and returns. Djokovic's amazing consistency hitting the ball deep and powerful would never have been possible with older technology. Federer gets pretty high up there in the RPM's as well, but no one gets anywhere close to Nadal. It's just too obvious that Nadal's extreme topspin forehand and being able to pass easily from even deep behind the baseline are both huge parts of Nadal's game enhanced greatly by technology.

Pirata.
06-19-2011, 09:38 PM
cry more...

2011 ACC champion losing his mind :stupid:

Proof is of course seeing Nadal indoors when the serve and big groundstrokes come into play more. His indoor record is indeed embarassing for a nr1 and also proof that it is purely his defensive game that has taken him to where he is. Nothing more. To be honest he will never be able to improve either his serve or his groundstrokes to be an awesome indoor player either. He simply lacks talent for a top offensive game judging him vs past greats or even other active players.

And naturally, the ATP seems intent on phasing out indoor courts as they have done with carpets :smash:

GOAT = Fed
06-19-2011, 10:01 PM
Nadal is a special player in that his personality is peppered with eccentricities with his compulsive butt-picking, percise bottle arrangement, line jumping, etc. I mean seriously, I don't know about any of you guys but I would skip the lines when I was like 6 years old. He attempts to exude this tough, grinding type of image on the court, but when he steps off of it he can barely make eye contact with the people talking to him. When he retires from tennis he might be the GOAT but he will not have anything else in his life; compare this to well-rounded individuals like Nole, federer and Andy. He still hasn't moved out of his parents house/basement, he met only girlfriend through his tennis coach or something. He came from a wealthy, privileged background, while players like Djokovic came from a war ravaged country, with his family barely getting by as they tried to finance their son's burgeoning tennis career. Not to mention that his game is as visually appealing as a malignant tumor.

Rafa might not be the GOAT, in fact he's more than likely not to. If Rafa gets to 12 and Roger is still on 16 then maybe he has a shot. Furthermore I don't get what Rafa's life outside of tennis has got to do with us? I mean as long as he is content then why should we bother about what he does with his personal life? It seems like he's got a good family life as he lives with his family and he is very personal with them which is a good thing.

FormerRafaFan
06-19-2011, 10:34 PM
How good is Nole on grass? can he win Wimbledon? I think so. I think he proved by winning Madrid and Rome that he can play on all surfaces.

Sunset of Age
06-19-2011, 10:37 PM
How good is Nole on grass? can he win Wimbledon? I think so. I think he proved by winning Madrid and Rome that he can play on all surfaces.

Madrid and Rome were on clay, and don't say anything about Djoko's prowness on grass. That said, it DOES say that he's improved a mighty lot the past six months or so, and as he's already played a final in Halle and Queens, he should be expected to be a very serious candidate at this year's Wimbledon.

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 10:53 PM
If it would have worked in any era, then why would he play differently? He would HAVE to play differently because he would shank 50 balls a match with that forehand swing.

Also not sure where you're getting that his 2005 forehand was bigger. He played much more defensively back then and if anything, moonballed the forehand much more often. Nadal has gotten better in this regard by shortening up and flattening out his swing on faster surfaces, and i'd need to see evidence that he hit bigger forehands back then. I seriously doubt it.



Comparing Nadal's forehand to Agassi's is pretty silly. Agassi was never a guy that went around blasting monster forehands...he simply took the ball early and ran his opponent around the court. Nadal has certainly gotten better at taking the ball earlier and hitting the ball more aggressively early in the point on faster surfaces, but he'll never be able to do that like Agassi. Nadal never had to, he can retrieve a million balls then get a short one and unload on it.



Well obviously everyone benefits. Especially on passing shots and returns. Djokovic's amazing consistency hitting the ball deep and powerful would never have been possible with older technology. Federer gets pretty high up there in the RPM's as well, but no one gets anywhere close to Nadal. It's just too obvious that Nadal's extreme topspin forehand and being able to pass easily from even deep behind the baseline are both huge parts of Nadal's game enhanced greatly by technology.

:haha: still trying so hard i see.

the fact is, when u wake up in the morning tomorrow, roddick will still be a mug with a fluke slam and nadal will be a 10 slam legend.
u can write 1000 word essays all u want trying to convince people, but facts are facts, nadal is a superior human being to roddick.

facts > opinion

careergrandslam
06-19-2011, 10:56 PM
wow I can't believe some posts here. Hope it's trolling or just massive delusions.

Anyway Nadal doesn't win anything because of his forehand (or his serve or his backhand). They are all bad especially for a #1 player. The serve is even embarrasing for a #1 player even if he has improved it the past years. His weapon is his physicality and endurance. Without that freak nature of his he wouldn't be nowhere near his results.

Proof is of course seeing Nadal indoors when the serve and big groundstrokes come into play more. His indoor record is indeed embarassing for a nr1 and also proof that it is purely his defensive game that has taken him to where he is. Nothing more. To be honest he will never be able to improve either his serve or his groundstrokes to be an awesome indoor player either. He simply lacks talent for a top offensive game judging him vs past greats or even other active players.

facts are, no swedish mug is greater than nadal.

nadal > borg

Nasi
06-19-2011, 11:41 PM
:haha: still trying so hard i see.

the fact is, when u wake up in the morning tomorrow, roddick will still be a mug with a fluke slam and nadal will be a 10 slam legend.
u can write 1000 word essays all u want trying to convince people, but facts are facts, nadal is a superior human being to roddick.

facts > opinion

I don't get it, man. Why do you keep ignoring the points he makes? And why on Earth do you keep talking about Roddick? I think you're the only one in the conversation who's even bringing that dude up.

Pirata.
06-19-2011, 11:47 PM
facts are, no swedish mug is greater than nadal.

nadal > borg

CGS, just stop embarrassing yourself.

Roddickominator
06-19-2011, 11:47 PM
I don't get it, man. Why do you keep ignoring the points he makes? And why on Earth do you keep talking about Roddick? I think you're the only one in the conversation who's even bringing that dude up.

He has been outclassed in the thread and is just resorting to what he does best...8th grade quality trolling. With his Roddick tourettes it looks like we may have a male version of heya on our hands. We need to get them together in a Roddick thread.

careergrandslam
06-20-2011, 01:11 AM
I don't get it, man. Why do you keep ignoring the points he makes? And why on Earth do you keep talking about Roddick? I think you're the only one in the conversation who's even bringing that dude up.

that roddicktard is trolling by indirectly accusing nadal of drugs.
i tried to have a proper conversation but he continued his tirade against rafa by brining 'physical advantages' (aka drug abuse) into it and that pretty much destroyed his credibility to be taken and given serious answers.
i dont care about his opinions.

i deal with facts and realities, not some mental masturbation of what ifs and coulda, woulda and shoulda nonsense.

i hate roddick and i will never understand how on earth u can be a fan of that so called tennis player, the guy is a low life bully.
and a first class cheater. the way he bullied the umpire in that match against gonzeles at the aussie open, bullying nishikori at some MM tournament. roddick is the cookie plate winner, nadal is the trophy winner.
rafa shows his talent and class in slams, roddick's lack of talent shows up in slams, look at the way the clown runs to the net like a headless, clueless and brainless chicken and then looks stunned with his beady little eyes when he gets passed

the FACT is that nadal is a 10 slam legend and roddick is a nobody.

careergrandslam
06-20-2011, 01:15 AM
He has been outclassed in the thread and is just resorting to what he does best...8th grade quality trolling. With his Roddick tourettes it looks like we may have a male version of heya on our hands. We need to get them together in a Roddick thread.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20110605/capt.dce78cee6c134226996cac71eb57a8dd-dce78cee6c134226996cac71eb57a8dd-0.jpg?x=262&y=345&q=85&sig=EDQY4rJMcwLFitLO7W9OOw--

http://www.menstennisforums.com/photos/data/500/fabulous_dog.jpg


10 > 1*

Roddickominator
06-20-2011, 01:30 AM
that roddicktard is trolling by indirectly accusing nadal of drugs.

You're the only one mentioning drugs...and it isn't the first time you've done so in this thread. If anyone were to read this they'd come to the conclusion that you're extremely paranoid about someone accusing your hero of drugs. But no one did that so I don't see why you're so upset.

i tried to have a proper conversation

No you didn't. Might want to go re-read the thread.

i deal with facts and realities, not some mental masturbation of what ifs and coulda, woulda and shoulda nonsense.

Gotta love a guy that considers thinking and discussion "mental masturbation". Maybe you should do some "mental masturbation" yourself, you'd probably be a lot less manic and spaz, a bit more relaxed.

i hate roddick and i will never understand how on earth u can be a fan of that so called tennis player, the guy is a low life bully.
and a first class cheater. the way he bullied the umpire in that match against gonzeles at the aussie open, bullying nishikori at some MM tournament. roddick is the cookie plate winner, nadal is the trophy winner.

Roddick obviously pissed in your cheerios or stole your dream woman or lord knows what else....but seriously nobody cares. Especially in a thread that has nothing to do with him. You just look mentally unstable going off on Roddick rants when it has nothing to do with the discussion. Like I said, a male version of heya. At least she is amusing though.

Topspindoctor
06-20-2011, 01:31 AM
There were never big 4. Mugray doesn't belong anywhere near the top 3 guys. Wake me up when the huge moyth wins a set in a GS final.

abraxas21
06-20-2011, 01:36 AM
facts are, no swedish mug is greater than nadal.

nadal > borg

even though you were just a rookie, you still managed to make the semis the last year. i think youve got an actual shot for the title this year

paseo
06-20-2011, 01:52 AM
Sampras thinks Nole doesnt have any holes

:D




Anyway, Fed will win Wimbledon.

careergrandslam
06-20-2011, 02:26 AM
even though you were just a rookie, you still managed to make the semis the last year. i think youve got an actual shot for the title this year

so u consider either borg, wilander or edberg to be greater than nadal?

how so?

listen to what mcenroe says about where nadal stands in the GOAT debate.
watch from 13:06

Wr5aqaMb0FI

Fedexpress#11
06-20-2011, 03:07 AM
Pistol Pete speaks the truth

Start da Game
06-20-2011, 04:32 AM
If it would have worked in any era, then why would he play differently? He would HAVE to play differently because he would shank 50 balls a match with that forehand swing.

Also not sure where you're getting that his 2005 forehand was bigger. He played much more defensively back then and if anything, moonballed the forehand much more often. Nadal has gotten better in this regard by shortening up and flattening out his swing on faster surfaces, and i'd need to see evidence that he hit bigger forehands back then. I seriously doubt it.



Comparing Nadal's forehand to Agassi's is pretty silly. Agassi was never a guy that went around blasting monster forehands...he simply took the ball early and ran his opponent around the court. Nadal has certainly gotten better at taking the ball earlier and hitting the ball more aggressively early in the point on faster surfaces, but he'll never be able to do that like Agassi. Nadal never had to, he can retrieve a million balls then get a short one and unload on it.



Well obviously everyone benefits. Especially on passing shots and returns. Djokovic's amazing consistency hitting the ball deep and powerful would never have been possible with older technology. Federer gets pretty high up there in the RPM's as well, but no one gets anywhere close to Nadal. It's just too obvious that Nadal's extreme topspin forehand and being able to pass easily from even deep behind the baseline are both huge parts of Nadal's game enhanced greatly by technology.

wah, good......the pop which fed gets on his passes from defensive positions, the kick varieties on the serve, the control on the return, forehand with sheer pace and sheer spin, the slice they all are off wooden racket right? same with del potro's serve and forehand and djokovic's serve, forehand and backhand i guess......

you just have to realize that different players utilize the technology differently.......there's nothing like one player benefited more and one player less, they all benefited to their max.......

nobody tries the bug whip swing because they can't, not that nadal is able to do it just because the rackets favour that thing......it's a combination of technology favouring plus nadal's own ability......

similarly there are things which rafa can't do even with this technology while others can......his serve, his return and his slice are the best examples......if he is really benefiting from technology more than anybody like you said, he would be a totally unbeatable force with unbreakable serve, earth shattering return and knife of a slice, which is not the case actually.......

it also seems that you haven't watched his pre-2005 matches.......

Clay Death
06-20-2011, 04:49 AM
another excellent post by general shankar.

abraxas21
06-20-2011, 04:50 AM
prime sampras would have been decimated to pieces by the prime clay warrior, prime fed, and prime nole.

:rolleyes:

Clay Death
06-20-2011, 04:52 AM
the game has changed.

stop living in the past.

say NO to darkness and the dark ages.

abraxas21
06-20-2011, 04:59 AM
so u consider either borg, wilander or edberg to be greater than nadal?

how so?

they weren't moonballers

abraxas21
06-20-2011, 05:00 AM
the game has changed.

stop living in the past.

say NO to darkness and the dark ages.

tennis is pretty much dead now. i'm just lingering by the door waiting for a resurrection.

Clay Death
06-20-2011, 05:08 AM
borg was a moonballer. he played with a small wooden racquet that had a sweet spot the size of a dime.

clay warrior is unleashing endless topspin cyclones of death at 90+ mph and they have ridiculous net clearance.


no imagine if you have the ability: 90+ mph forehands and backhands with massive topspin on top of that. ask berdych, fed, and murray how hard he hits the ball. you are clearly clueless.

and he can hit near 100+ mph forehands at will.

that is no moonball. its only a moonball to a homeless, gutless, toothless, eyeless, legless 87 year old bag lady on the side of the road.

Topspindoctor
06-20-2011, 05:09 AM
tennis is pretty much dead now. i'm just lingering by the door waiting for a resurrection.

Yeah, I am sure clowns like Sweeting, Tomug, Harrison, Del Potro and Raonic will ressurect tennis when Nadal/Olderer are gone. You will be at the edge of your seat every match watching these epic rivalries unfold :rocker2:

Clay Death
06-20-2011, 05:10 AM
tennis is pretty much dead now. i'm just lingering by the door waiting for a resurrection.



only one thing left to do mate:

bass fishing tournaments.

MaxPower
06-20-2011, 06:20 AM
clay warrior is unleashing endless topspin cyclones of death at 90+ mph and they have ridiculous net clearance.



moonballs is about net clearance. Topspin takes pace off the ball. If you want to hit 100mph forehands you hit them flat. no way a topspin moonball can reach the same speeds as real offensive FHs. If you think that you know nothing about the mechanics of the game.

Furthermore Nadal should worry about serving as hard as some other ppl rip forehands. His second serves are often in the 90-100mph range. Guess it was mostly water and fat in those biceps he had before. Probably why he removed most of them.

Have no fear. He will be exposed in the indoor season yet again in a few months. The endless grinding game doesn't work as well then

FedererXPress
06-20-2011, 07:13 AM
Sorry but I don't recognize a "big four". What I see is two of the greatest to ever play the game with a monopoly on Grand Slam titles, one very good player who is on the brink of breaking through and starting his own Grand Slam legacy, and one extremely overhyped player who hasn't won anything of significance yet. He's claimed by the Brits when he's winning and is discarded as a Scot when he loses lol. On a side note: I can't believe one of the posters actually lumped Sampras and Agassi in with Roddick...WTF?

tribalfusion
06-20-2011, 08:02 AM
wah, good......the pop which fed gets on his passes from defensive positions, the kick varieties on the serve, the control on the return, forehand with sheer pace and sheer spin, the slice they all are off wooden racket right? same with del potro's serve and forehand and djokovic's serve, forehand and backhand i guess......


This bears A LOT of repeating. It is the whole game which has changed. EVERY player has grown up with the tech we now have.

What you can compare across generations is fighting spirit and athletic ability which Nadal has in spades.

There is not much point in debating with quite a few people here who start from Nadal being a bad player and reason backwards from this absurd premise to even more absurd conclusions.

tribalfusion
06-20-2011, 08:04 AM
Have no fear. Nadal will be exposed in the indoor season yet again in a few months. The endless grinding game doesn't work as well then

A guy with 3 of 4 slams is to be "exposed."

The only person "exposed" here is you with these absurd comments.

MaxPower
06-20-2011, 08:25 AM
A guy with 3 of 4 slams is to be "exposed."

The only person "exposed" here is you with these absurd comments.

Read up before you call a comment absurd. He's already been exposed for years during the indoor season. Nadal is 49-27 over his entire career indoors? are you kidding me? That is worthless for a number 1 player that some ppl mention in GOAT discussions.

Federer is already 197-51. McEnroe is 419-72, Borg is 215-51 and he quit at 26.

So of course it is a big thing. It basically exposes a lack of talent in Nadal. That his offensive game isn't at all on a comparable level to past greats or to Federer. Now the slams happen to be outside but tennis isn't only about slams. So what is absurd? It definitely exposes Nadal and will be a major argument against him after his career and in comparison to past greats and to Federer. It shows he is NOT all-round and lacks skill to dominate matches when it turns to precision tennis

Just like heaven
06-20-2011, 08:31 AM
Now the slams happen to be outside but tennis isn't only about slams.

:yeah: Real tennis is played indoors. We all know that.

bokehlicious
06-20-2011, 08:34 AM
real tennis is monte carlo and barcelona, no? :confused:

MaxPower
06-20-2011, 08:38 AM
Well its very telling that guys like Sampras, Borg, Federer, Laver and more are all in the top10 indoors as well. Their tennis doesn't suffer if you move it indoors. How come Rafito can't play indoors? I mean if he is so good as some ppl claim here what does a roof and some walls matter? Or can't he play without wind to cool himself down after all the running? saying that the slams are outdoor isn't relevant. Still doesn't explain why he sucks so badly indoors when none of the other greats suck indoors. It's very interesting and says a lot of things about his game

Mimi
06-20-2011, 08:41 AM
Well its very telling that guys like Sampras, Borg, Federer, Laver and more are all in the top10 indoors as well. Their tennis doesn't suffer if you move it indoors. How come Rafito can't play indoors? I mean if he is so good as some ppl claim here what does a roof and some walls matter? Or can't he play without wind to cool himself down after all the running? saying that the slams are outdoor isn't relevant. Still doesn't explain why he sucks so badly indoors when none of the other greats suck indoors. It's very interesting and says a lot of things about his game

As much as I loved Pete, the way he sucked on clay was much worst than Rafa sucked on indoors.

MaxPower
06-20-2011, 08:45 AM
As much as I loved Pete, the way he sucked on clay was much worst than Rafa sucked on indoors.

clay, grass, hardcourt, carpet are the surfaces.

Indoor/Outdoor is another question.

Basically Rafa seems to benefit from wind, sun, uneven surfaces and other distractions while if you remove them his game isn't as good. As I said it is telling

wee
06-20-2011, 08:54 AM
Good analysis

Just like heaven
06-20-2011, 09:03 AM
Well its very telling that guys like Sampras, Borg, Federer, Laver and more are all in the top10 indoors as well. Their tennis doesn't suffer if you move it indoors. How come Rafito can't play indoors? I mean if he is so good as some ppl claim here what does a roof and some walls matter? Or can't he play without wind to cool himself down after all the running? saying that the slams are outdoor isn't relevant. Still doesn't explain why he sucks so badly indoors when none of the other greats suck indoors. It's very interesting and says a lot of things about his game

He can't play indoors? :scratch: He reached the final in Paris, he reached the final in Madrid (and won), he reached the final at the WTF. Are there any other important indoor tournaments? Maybe his win/loss record isn't that great because there aren't many important indoor tournaments and he doesn't play Basel, Stockholm, Vienna, Marseille, Valencia, etc. like others did or do.

After the raquet technology argument, the slow surfaces, the lefty forehand (because we all know that if he would have played with the right hand he wouldn't have won anything), we have another reason for his success: he gets help from the wind and the sun. :worship:

careergrandslam
06-20-2011, 09:16 AM
tennis greatness is decided by slams.

Fedex
06-20-2011, 10:17 AM
I see the trolling on MTF is at up to it's usual high standards.

yesh222
06-20-2011, 10:36 AM
I wouldn't say that being bad indoors "exposes" Rafa. Everyone has a weakness to their game. Rafa just doesn't play as well on indoor courts for a variety of reasons. That doesn't take away from his 10 Grand Slams or 2 year-end #1s in any way, the same way Sampras is still considered one of the best ever even though he couldn't play so well on clay.

GOAT = Fed
06-20-2011, 10:43 AM
facts are, no swedish mug is greater than nadal.

nadal > borg

:facepalm:

Pirao666
06-20-2011, 10:48 AM
clay, grass, hardcourt, carpet are the surfaces.

Indoor/Outdoor is another question.

Basically Rafa seems to benefit from wind, sun, uneven surfaces and other distractions while if you remove them his game isn't as good. As I said it is telling

Indeed, your strawman arguments are quite telling that you hate Nadal's guts. It's good it doesn't matter what you think :wavey:

JolánGagó
06-20-2011, 10:51 AM
indoor tennis is an oxymoron, that thing is called ping-pong.

JolánGagó
06-20-2011, 10:54 AM
and really, who the f+ck cares about "indoor season"? it's even less relevant than the South American clay one.

anticaria
06-21-2011, 10:34 AM
In a telephone interview with ESPN.com, Sampras labeled buddy Roger Federer as the "slight" favorite at tennis' beloved grass-court major, ahead of world No. 1 Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Federer is "oozing with confidence" after reaching the French Open final, Sampras said.




couldn't disagree more with pete here.. roger the favorite ahead of rafa just because the swiss is supposedly 'oozing with confidence' after reaching the fo final?

how could roger be 'oozing with confidence' after losing his 5th-consecutive match to rafa in paris? :confused:

if anyone's OOZING WITH CONFIDENCE, it's rafa after ACTUALLY WINNING his 6th fo title..

memo to pete:

1. in the fo semis, roger merely stopped a player with a 0:6 best-of-5 record against rafa.. no need to read too much into that one win..

2. roger will never again be 'the favorite' against rafa at this point, 'slight' or otherwise..

careergrandslam
06-21-2011, 12:29 PM
couldn't disagree more with pete here.. roger the favorite ahead of rafa just because the swiss is supposedly 'oozing with confidence' after reaching the fo final?

how could roger be 'oozing with confidence' after losing his 5th-consecutive match to rafa in paris? :confused:

if anyone's OOZING WITH CONFIDENCE, it's rafa after ACTUALLY WINNING his 6th fo title..

memo to pete:

1. in the fo semis, roger merely stopped a player with a 0:6 best-of-5 record against rafa.. no need to read too much into that one win..

2. roger will never again be 'the favorite' against rafa at this point, 'slight' or otherwise..

even though rafa has won wimbledon twice, he is vulnerable more than federer.

anticaria
06-21-2011, 12:56 PM
even though rafa has won wimbledon twice, he is vulnerable more than federer.


at roger's advanced 'tennis age,' he's definitely more vulnerable than rafa.. and i think the fact that the swiss lost in the quarters last year to the likes of tomas berdych is all the proof we need.. again, if roger were 24 years of age, i'd agree with pete..

peribsen
06-21-2011, 04:34 PM
:facepalm:

+1.

I know, I know. It can be trying sometimes.

Borg has 11 slams on natural surfaces. That's f**ing creepy. Nadal, with 8, comes 2nd, not bad at all, but there's still a gap. Will he close it? Hope so, but we'll have to take it a step at a time.