deserves more respect...UPDATE on 10/9/05 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

deserves more respect...UPDATE on 10/9/05

federer express
04-18-2005, 01:46 AM
in general with some people on here, but more specifically for winning the french open. know who i'm talking about?

andre agassi....

people dont seem to want to give him credit for that slam. was described yesterday i think by world beater (i might be wrong, my memory sucks) as a 'powderpuff draw.' ok, did agassi beat all the top clay courters to win it that year? no he didn't, but he did beat moya and medvedev. but more importantly, so what?! were all the top players boycotting the event that year? nope. who played that year....

the draw had:
gaudio
sampras
safin
hewitt
rios
federer (a very young one)
moya
medvedev
muster
kuerten
korda
kafelnikov
chang
haas
gaudenzi
carlsen :p
corretja
costa
canas
berasategui
ivanisevic

in the end, you can only beat the people you play.

and beyond that:
reached the semis in 88 and took wilander to 5sets
reached the final in 90 beating courier, chang and svensson en route
reached the final in 91 losing in 5 sets to courier
reached the semis in 92
lost in qf in 95
lost a great match to safin in 98
and obviously won in 99
reached the qf in 01
reached the qf in 02 (losing to ferrero)
reached the qf in 03 (losing to coria)

so....winner once, runner-up twice, semi-finalist twice, quarter-finalist four times by my reckoning. that looks pretty damn good to me! :)

UPDATE: 5-2 vs ginepri in 5th set...come on andre the great!!!

bad gambler
04-18-2005, 01:48 AM
no arguments from me!

tennischick
04-18-2005, 02:03 AM
:worship: we take so many of these players' performances for granted. nice post federer-express ;)

tangerine_dream
04-18-2005, 02:28 AM
You're baiting GWH and his pathological obsession with Americans and clay, aren't you? ;) :lol:

federer express
04-18-2005, 02:32 AM
You're baiting GWH and his pathological obsession with Americans and clay, aren't you? ;) :lol:

we had been getting on so well too. oh well, gotta wind him up sometimes :p

no, not directed at him although i know he really wanted medvedev to beat agassi. i think he would probably have to agree with this, as he gets pissed when gaudio doesn't get the respect he deserves for his win there too.

who knows...he may think i'm just talking outta my backside again :shrug:

Domino
04-18-2005, 02:34 AM
The draw doesn't matter, Medvedev deserved the title more, that's why I don't give Andre that much credit.

DanEd
04-18-2005, 02:44 AM
gaudio and canas were ranked very low. he was lucky by not playing either safin ,Rios ,guga or even corretja.

he had a good win agaisnt moya after trailing 4-6 1-4 but I do not know if moya choked

federer express
04-18-2005, 02:45 AM
he was lucky by not playing either safin ,Rios ,guga or even corretja.


that argument doesn't hold for me because they all lost to somebody. agassi went those 2 weeks undefeated and so deserved the title and some credit for it. no? :confused:

alfonsojose
04-18-2005, 02:49 AM
You're baiting GWH and his pathological obsession with Americans and clay, aren't you? ;) :lol:
It can be worse than my sex obssession :eek: we all need to wear grass crucifix until RG

bad gambler
04-18-2005, 02:50 AM
The draw doesn't matter, Medvedev deserved the title more, that's why I don't give Andre that much credit.

deserving is one thing, getting the job done is another :yippee:

alfonsojose
04-18-2005, 02:52 AM
The draw doesn't matter, Medvedev deserved the title more, that's why I don't give Andre that much credit.
Come on. You're too smart and know enough about tennis to post something like this. Andre took his chance, and he deserved it

MisterQ
04-18-2005, 03:01 AM
Few of Andre's slams took more guts than that title. He came back from behind in several matches, and faced a lot of tight pressure situations. It was in this sense that he showed an increased maturity that wasn't there in 1990, 1991.

In terms of his tennis skills vis-a-vis the clay court players around at the time, Andre probably should have won the finals in 1990 and/or 1991. For him to pull out the victory in 1999, when he was NOT really one of the best clay court players in the world anymore, was very impressive.

federer express
04-18-2005, 03:06 AM
Few of Andre's slams took more guts than that title. He came back from behind in several matches, and faced a lot of tight pressure situations. It was in this sense that he showed an increased maturity that wasn't there in 1990, 1991.

In terms of his tennis skills vis-a-vis the clay court players around at the time, Andre probably should have won the finals in 1990 and/or 1991. For him to pull out the victory in 1999, when he was NOT really one of the best clay court players in the world anymore, was very impressive.

posts like this will be why you have an appreciation thread :clap2:

Federerhingis
04-18-2005, 03:17 AM
posts like this will be why you have an appreciation thread :clap2:


Theres no denying what a great player Agassi is, if you cant appreciate his great timing of the ball you cant simply appreciate tennis. His groundies are legendary, his return of serve probably the most famous after Connors' return of serve. I mean just look at how long he's been out there, what is this like his 20th year as a pro? He's still a contender at most tournies he enters, especially if they are played on medium paced hard courts. Unfortunately in the past few big tournies he's had to meet Federer before the semis and thats a bit unfair but its life and its how the draws play out.

Domino
04-18-2005, 03:36 AM
Come on. You're too smart and know enough about tennis to post something like this. Andre took his chance, and he deserved it

Maybe I should have put a smiley :p

Action Jackson
04-18-2005, 05:23 AM
no, not directed at him although i know he really wanted medvedev to beat agassi. i think he would probably have to agree with this, as he gets pissed when gaudio doesn't get the respect he deserves for his win there too.

who knows...he may think i'm just talking outta my backside again :shrug:

To tell you the truth I couldn't be bothered writing a thesis about this particular subject, but honestly this man at RG has never had a difficult draw and that is good considering how long he has played there, but enough of this. :)

He has won the career Slam and he won RG. Did he have luck? Yes, he did, but all Slam champions have that at some point during those 2 weeks, that isn't important.

Playing the guy who was ranked # 100 at the time in the final and a rain delay coming in to save him, but Agassi was good enough to take advantage of the situation and therefore he deserved his title in 1999 and someone who has won all the Slams he gets the respect he deserves.

Gaudio qualified for this event in 99, so how could he be considered a genuine contender. :)

jacobhiggins
04-18-2005, 07:07 AM
I agree, I actually think he has gotten better with age. I think this version of Agassi would beat his young version.

richard gasquet
04-18-2005, 09:39 AM
You're baiting GWH and his pathological obsession with Americans and clay, aren't you? ;) :lol:

:haha: I love your avatar, very funny :D

Puschkin
04-18-2005, 09:50 AM
The draw doesn't matter, Medvedev deserved the title more, that's why I don't give Andre that much credit.

Titles are not deserved, they are won. Having said that, my heart was with Andrej, but when the rain came, I knew it was over. BTW, does anyone know what became of him?

Action Jackson
04-18-2005, 09:51 AM
Titles are not deserved, they are won. Having said that, my heart was with Andrej, but when the rain came, I knew it was over. BTW, does anyone know what became of him?

I did a write up of him at the Older players thread on GM. He is working with tennis in Ukraine.

federer express
04-18-2005, 11:15 AM
honestly this man at RG has never had a difficult draw and that is good considering how long he has played there

like henman at wimbledon :p

over the years he has beaten the following there...
wekesa
kafelnikov (good win)
sapsford
milligan
gustafsson
nestor
golmard
haarhuis
krajicek (good win)
novak
nainkin
byron black
rafter (good win)
korda
dipasquale
woodruff
grosjean
courier (good win)
pioline (good win)
srichaphan
clement
arazi
derepasko
martin lee
schalken
todd martin (pretty good win)
federer (good win)
bachelot
draper
ferreira
kratochvil
sa
zib
llodra
soderling
nalbandian
ramirez hidalgo
heuberger
arazi
philippoussis

oh and who has he lost to, well generally a good player every time...
ancic, grosjean, hewitt, ivanisevic, philippoussis, sampras (x3), stich, todd martin, prinosil
in a decade at wimbledon he has maybe 7 good wins. i have honestly never seen anyone year after year get the most favourable draw possible the way he does at wimbledon. its bizarre....

Action Jackson
04-18-2005, 11:20 AM
oh and who has he lost to, well generally a good player every time...
ancic, grosjean, hewitt, ivanisevic, philippoussis, sampras (x3), stich, todd martin, prinosil
in a decade at wimbledon he has maybe 7 good wins. i have honestly never seen anyone year after year get the most favourable draw possible the way he does at wimbledon. its bizarre....

At least in Agassi's case I don't think it was fixed, though with Wimbledon they must do a collective jig everytime Timothy gets a nice draw. :)

federer express
04-18-2005, 11:23 AM
At least in Agassi's case I don't think it was fixed, though with Wimbledon they must do a collective jig everytime Timothy gets a nice draw. :)

his stats at wimbledon are very impressive. its only when you actually watch him play there and struggle past people like ramirez hidalgo, a match he came so close to going 2 sets to love down in (and get battered by ancic, grosjean and hewitt) that you can put his ability there into perspective.

tangerine_dream
04-18-2005, 05:47 PM
It can be worse than my sex obssession :eek: we all need to wear grass crucifix until RG

At least your sex threads are entertaining to read and focus on several different players with their own individual talents. ;) GWH's incessant whining about Americans and clay is just monotonous drivel. :yawn:

Get a load of the latest Americans-on-clay thread he created. Wow. Talk about needing to find a new hobby. :lol:

Action Jackson
04-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Get a load of the latest Americans-on-clay thread he created. Wow. Talk about needing to find a new hobby. :lol:

Thank you Australopithecus robustus for all your insightful contributions to various tennis discussions. I thought I was on ignore to your good self and yes that latest one was making fun of a Dane and a Thai, but I am surprised you missed that.

tangerine_dream
04-18-2005, 06:16 PM
:haha: I love your avatar, very funny :D

Thank you, Gasquet fan :D :hatoff:

Wulfram
04-18-2005, 06:59 PM
in a decade at wimbledon he has maybe 7 good wins. i have honestly never seen anyone year after year get the most favourable draw possible the way he does at wimbledon. its bizarre....

It's pretty hard to pick up good wins if you are highly seeded, but don't win Sf/QF. He plays the top players when he's seeded to, and unfortunately he get's beaten. Previously, when he was lowly or un-seeded, he got tough opponents in the relatively early rounds, and picked up some big wins (96:Kafelnikov, 97:Rafter, 98:Krajicek). Since then he's been fairly highly seeded, has got the draws which that entitles him to and has ably taken advantage of them.

NYCtennisfan
04-18-2005, 07:04 PM
That is so true. Nobody thought that AA was going to win the FO at that point in his career as there were just so many better clay courters but he hit the ball amazingly well the entire two weeks.

makro120
04-18-2005, 07:10 PM
He did beat the former champion Carlos Moya, that is enought for me. You are hardly lucky if you face the former RG champion in the 4th round. Medvedev was one great clay court player who beat Gustavo Kuerten on the way to the final in straight sets and was in the form of his life. What Agassi did to win that RG was simply amazing even if I will never consider him a great clay court player. But he was damn good playing above his normal level on clay in the biggest event of them all, RG.

Also he has lost in 2 finals, lost 2 semifinals and lost 4 qfs. Beaten RG champions in RG like Moya, Courier, Chang...
In 1988 semifinal young Agassi made Wilander beat him in 5 sets, in the year Wilander won 3 grand slams. Muster needed 5 sets 94. He simply has an amazing history in RG, much more impressive than his history in Wimbledon.

How can you call him lucky?

Action Jackson
04-18-2005, 07:27 PM
How can you call him lucky?

He played Marcelo Fillipini who was in the 140s in the quarters, a very young Hrbaty (in his first semi) in the semis, Medvedev who was 100 in the world and was chopping him up when the rain delay helped him. He played Squillari, Clement and Woodruff before that. Squillari was ranked # 38 at the time and a reasonable first round.

He was fortunate that there was a weak clay generation in between 89-92. In 93 Courier got exposed for what he was and Agassi had his chance then, but he fought back.

As I said every Slam Champ needs luck and Agassi had his in 1999. Did he deserve to win the title that year? Yes, he did, he put himself in the best position to take advantage and good for him.

makro120
04-18-2005, 07:36 PM
He played Marcelo Fillipini who was in the 140s in the quarters, a very young Hrbaty (in his first semi) in the semis, Medvedev who was 100 in the world and was chopping him up when the rain delay helped him. He played Squillari, Clement and Woodruff before that. Squillari was ranked # 38 at the time and a reasonable first round.

He was fortunate that there was a weak clay generation in between 89-92. In 93 Courier got exposed for what he was and Agassi had his chance then, but he fought back.

As I said every Slam Champ needs luck and Agassi had his in 1999. Did he deserve to win the title that year? Yes, he did, he put himself in the best position to take advantage and good for him.

That is weak. No one faces all great clay court players to win their RG titles, except Guga 97 maybe.

Just look at Coria's way to the final last year, that was really easy. He faced a Moya not near as good as the Moya Agassi faced and didn't beat any other great clay court player. Medved and Squillari are for example very good clay court players no matter their ranking, Coria didn't face any such good player on his way to the final.

Ferrero the year earlier only faced an old Costa tired from playing 4 5 set games in a row in the semifinals, no other "great" clay court players.

Not many years players have to beat one great clay court player after the other, doesn't mean they are lucky.

Action Jackson
04-18-2005, 07:55 PM
That is weak. No one faces all great clay court players to win their RG titles, except Guga 97 maybe.

Not as weak as the consistently easy draws that Agassi had. Example he never got a draw like this in his whole time like Sampras did in 96 ( no I don't like him) , just stating the obvious.

I am sure if you would not count Wilander beating number # 2, 5, 4 and 3 in a row in 82 as significant, since it was a joke then in your eyes.

Just look at Coria's way to the final last year, that was really easy. He faced a Moya not near as good as the Moya Agassi faced and didn't beat any other great clay court player. Medved and Squillari are for example very good clay court players no matter their ranking, Coria didn't face any such good player on his way to the final.

Did Coria win the title? When you face 3 guys 80 and above and 2 guys ranked in the 30s out of 7 matches and Agassi didn't get a fortunate draw, then what would clarify as fortunate for you?

Ferrero the year earlier only faced an old Costa tired from playing 4 5 set games in a row in the semifinals, no other "great" clay court players.

Mantilla and Gonzalez are rubbish claycourters I don't think so, they were at levels higher than Squilliari.

Not many years players have to beat one great clay court player after the other, doesn't mean they are lucky

What part of every Slam champion has had to had some luck in winning their titles are you missing? I said he deserved it and a Career Slam champion will always have respect.

makro120
04-18-2005, 10:56 PM
I am sure if you would not count Wilander beating number # 2, 5, 4 and 3 in a row in 82 as significant, since it was a joke then in your eyes.

I wasn't born then...
Don't know what to say, but when it comes to clay, ranking is not always that important. Ofcourse beating them all in straight match is impressive. I still will always have RG 97 as my favorite, with Guga beating all the GREATEST clay court players of the time to win RG and beeing totaly unknown. HE made me interested in tennis and I followed him and cheered for him from the time he beat Bj÷rkman to the day he lifted the trophy. These are some of the big guys he beat on his way (look at all 5 setters, 3 straight 5 setters against 3 amazing clay court players!!!!):

R32 Muster, Thomas (AUT ) 5 6-7(3) 6-1 6-3 3-6 6-4 (king of clay himself and RG champion 95)

R16 Medvedev, Andrei (UKR ) 20 5-7 6-1 6-2 1-6 7-5 (One of the greatest clay court players, Hamburg champion 94, 95, 97, monte carlo champion 94, later RG finalist)

QF Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS ) 3 6-2 5-7 2-6 6-0 6-4 (The former RG champion (96) himself)

F Bruguera, Sergi 6-3 6-4 6-2 (A former king of clay, RG winner 93, 94)






Did Coria win the title? When you face 3 guys 80 and above and 2 guys ranked in the 30s out of 7 matches and Agassi didn't get a fortunate draw, then what would clarify as fortunate for you?

Does it matter if Coria won or not, would you say he was lucky to get to the final?




Mantilla and Gonzalez are rubbish claycourters I don't think so, they were at levels higher than Squilliari.

I would say Medved and Squillari are together better than Gonzales and Mantilla. Squillari has been to a grand slam semifinal, Gonzales hasn't and MEdved has a more impressive career than MAntilla. Moya on his height is much more impressive than a tired Costa.



what would clarify as fortunate for you?

Thomas Johansson (except the final where he played great), Gaudio (not in the whole tournament, but in that final he was very lucky).

Agassi was not lucky, he had to face alot of dirt ballers, champions, great clay court players and also some bad players. But not close to comparable with for example Thomas Johansson.

makro120
04-18-2005, 11:01 PM
Interesting fact about MEdved I just found is that he lost 5 times to the eventual champion of RG in his career:

93 and 94 against Brugera in sf and qf, MUster 95 in R16, Guga 97 in R16 and finaly Agassi 99 in the final.

Action Jackson
04-19-2005, 07:50 AM
I wasn't born then....

So even then you don't think beating players ranked from 2-5 to in your first Grand Slam tournament ever is impressive? Yes, Lendl, Vilas and Clerc were absolute hacks on clay then.

What was the point of telling me about Guga's record anyone with an ounce of commonsense would know what he achieved and who he beat to win RG in 97 was one of the best ever Slam achivements and no he played there in 96 before you go on about how he won it the first time around. Tennis existed a long time before Guga and will afterwards.

Does it matter if Coria won or not, would you say he was lucky to get to the final?

Not relevant and no Coria wasn't lucky at all, Nalbandian was someone deemed lucky to make the Wimbledon final on allegedly his worst surface that has more parallels with Agassi.

I would say Medved and Squillari are together better than Gonzales and Mantilla. Squillari has been to a grand slam semifinal, Gonzales hasn't and MEdved has a more impressive career than MAntilla. Moya on his height is much more impressive than a tired Costa.

Mantilla had made a grand slam semi final or your memory missed that. Considering Gonzalez and Mantilla were in better form at the time collectively than Squillari and Medvedev, sure Medvedev had a great run at RG. Do you remember how far gone he was before the tournament and was the lowest ranked finalist in years to make a Slam final and yes 100 is low. Tell me if someone wanted an opponent in a final wouldn't they love someone ranked there.

Thomas Johansson (except the final where he played great), Gaudio (not in the whole tournament, but in that final he was very lucky).

Someone was lucky because they are better prepared physically, that makes sense. As I said before all Slam champions have had some luck. Federer had it at Wimbledon 04 and that can't be denied, but they were good enough to take advantage and were the best player over that 2 weeks.

How clear do I have to make this? Then again you are someone who thinkis Federer will win 20 Slams. Here it is the players that have won the Slams deserved it and I have said that many times, there is always some degree of luck to go with it, but they have to be good enough to take advantage and they did good luck to them and they deserved their victories.

Agassi was not lucky, he had to face alot of dirt ballers, champions, great clay court players and also some bad players. But not close to comparable with for example Thomas Johansson

Woodruff and Clement are very average on clay. Fillipini who had done nothing for years and beat Rusedski in the 4th round that year ranked 140, Hrbaty never played a semi at that level and Agassi wasn't lucky in that final that the rain delay saved him at that moment, you're kidding yourself. Just to repeat Agassi was better on the day and deserved to win.

Experimentee
04-19-2005, 03:49 PM
No matter what their rankings were, the players Andre had to face were in good enough form to go deep into the tournament, so its obvious that they were playing above their rankings. Medvedev in that tournament was playing amazing tennis, and I wouldnt consider anyone lucky to face him in that form. And as for the rain delay, unlike Medvedev, Andre had the nerves to not get distracted by it, that came from having better concentration, so that was not lucky either. He raised his level of play significantly after the first two sets and has to be given credit for that.

Action Jackson
04-19-2005, 03:56 PM
No matter what their rankings were, the players Andre had to face were in good enough form to go deep into the tournament, so its obvious that they were playing above their rankings. Medvedev in that tournament was playing amazing tennis, and I wouldnt consider anyone lucky to face him in that form. And as for the rain delay, unlike Medvedev, Andre had the nerves to not get distracted by it, that came from having better concentration, so that was not lucky either. He raised his level of play significantly after the first two sets and has to be given credit for that.

1999 was the carnage year for RG, just like 2002 Wimbledon was and for the most part it was funny.

So a rain delay saving a player when they were getting thrashed isn't fortunate? It's a lucky break and Agassi handled it better and deserved to win the title that year, but that seems lost to some people (not yourself).

Dirk
04-20-2005, 06:18 AM
Andre deserved that slam nice draw and all. Let's face it nobody wants a hard draw so we can't hold it against them when they get a nice one and win the event.

makro120
04-20-2005, 12:16 PM
So even then you don't think beating players ranked from 2-5 to in your first Grand Slam tournament ever is impressive? Yes, Lendl, Vilas and Clerc were absolute hacks on clay then.

What was the point of telling me about Guga's record anyone with an ounce of commonsense would know what he achieved and who he beat to win RG in 97 was one of the best ever Slam achivements and no he played there in 96 before you go on about how he won it the first time around. Tennis existed a long time before Guga and will afterwards.

Did I say anything? Didn't say that Guga played his 1st RG and his age wasn't that impressive. But what he did in that RG I will always remember as someking of miracle, I had my eyes on him from 2nd round to the end, I couldn't belive someone 20 years old who had never done anything special in his career until then would just go and all suddenly beat all the greatest clay court players in one tournament and win a grand slam. Wilander sounds impressive too, but I still think Guga's achievment must have been more of a surprise because of his quite high age and how unknown he was. Wilander was probably already known as a great talent when he won 17 years old and it surely must have been a surprise but not as big as in RG 97 I think. The achievment of beating those players you mentioned is however just as impressive.






Not relevant and no Coria wasn't lucky at all, Nalbandian was someone deemed lucky to make the Wimbledon final on allegedly his worst surface that has more parallels with Agassi.

No way, Agassi has been to 3 RG finals, 5 times to RG semifinal and 9 times to qf. I can't possibly compare him with NAlbandian in wimbledon, that is just silly, even if you think all clay court players all suddenly had disappeared between 90-93. Did Nalbandian beat the former Wimbledon champion or something like that?




Mantilla had made a grand slam semi final or your memory missed that. Considering Gonzalez and Mantilla were in better form at the time collectively than Squillari and Medvedev, sure Medvedev had a great run at RG. Do you remember how far gone he was before the tournament and was the lowest ranked finalist in years to make a Slam final and yes 100 is low. Tell me if someone wanted an opponent in a final wouldn't they love someone ranked there.

Why would I miss it? Did I say he hadn't been to semifinal? Medved has been to semifinal 2 times and been to final in RG and also has won 4 TMC titles on clay. I don't care about his ranking because he beat Gustavo Kuerten that year in RG when Guga was in an incredible form having won 2 TMC titles on clay that year and had been playing tennis out of this world. Why are you so obsessed with rankings? It is quite obvious that Medved was in a form out of this world to beat Guga that year in straight set, I still can't figure it out.

Agassi also beat Hrbaty who had just beaten Rios in qf, he beat Moya the defending champion, he beat Squillari a very tricky opponent on clay at that time. But nothing tops the fact that he beat Medved in the final when he obviously no matter what ranking he had was in the form of his life. If he faced 2-3 avarage players and maybe one bad in the early rounds I really don't care and wouldn't call it lucky.

Action Jackson
04-20-2005, 12:31 PM
I still think Guga's achievment must have been more of a surprise because of his quite high age and how unknown he was. Wilander was probably already known as a great talent when he won 17 years old and it surely must have been a surprise but not as big as in RG 97 I think. The achievment of beating those players you mentioned is however just as impressive.

You said Guga won RG at his 1st time, when it was his 2nd. Wilander won the juniors the previous year, but no one wins the senior title the next year, not even your beloved Federer did that.

No way, Agassi has been to 3 RG finals, 5 times to RG semifinal and 9 times to qf. I can't possibly compare him with NAlbandian in wimbledon, that is just silly, even if you think all clay court players all suddenly had disappeared between 90-93. Did Nalbandian beat the former Wimbledon champion or something like that?

Here is something if you have followed various sports should be familiar with. There are transition eras between different sporting generations and it happens that there are periods where the competition isn't as strong and that is how Agassi benefitted in the time he made those finals. That is not his fault that he was there at the time, but the overall depth of tennis on clay was a lot lower then.

Why are you so obsessed with rankings? It is quite obvious that Medved was in a form out of this world to beat Guga that year in straight set, I still can't figure it out.

Far from obsessed with rankings, but if someone had a soft draw, then it would be used. Medvedev well it was quite windy that day and used his serve to put Guga out into the garden that is how he did it and dropshotted him very well.

If he faced 2-3 avarage players and maybe one bad in the early rounds I really don't care and wouldn't call it lucky

Rios never played well at Slams and it was Hrbaty's first Slam semi final that is fortunate to get a player like that and since when has an old Fillipini, Clement and Woodruff on clay been a challenge.

Why are you continuing with this? Considering I already said he deserved to win that year and got all the respect he deserves.

Deejay
04-20-2005, 01:46 PM
No match is easy on clay, especially if you havnt grown up playing on it. Agassi winning the french at that time in his career was amazing. I remember that year he went straight from winning the french to the wimbledon final a couple of weeks later - that was the first and only time a player has done that since Borg. Thats how good Agassi is...

All this rubbish about him getting an easy draw is nonsense. He beat the defending champion in Moya nearly 2 sets down and had to beat a number of players playing right at their best. You can get an easy draw at Wimbledon as not many players can play well on grass but on clay 70% of the players with a world ranking know their way around a clay court to say the least...

Action Jackson
04-20-2005, 01:50 PM
All this rubbish about him getting an easy draw is nonsense. He beat the defending champion in Moya nearly 2 sets down and had to beat a number of players playing right at their best. You can get an easy draw at Wimbledon as not many players can play well on grass but on clay 70% of the players with a world ranking know their way around a clay court to say the least...

How were Woodruff, Clement and Fillipini playing at their best? Squillari hadn't reached his best at that point of time.

Just because 70% do, does it mean he is going to play 70% of them.

No match is easy on clay well how do you explain Bruguera winning 6-0 6-0 6-0 against a guy who could play on clay or Courier mauling Korda and Courier didn't grow up on it.

makro120
04-20-2005, 02:02 PM
Why are you continuing with this? Considering I already said he deserved to win that year and got all the respect he deserves.

All I am saying is that he didn't have an easy draw and beat the best to win the title un like Nalbandian in Wimbledon 2002. I actualy like Nalbandian more tha Agassi, but I know very well that Nalbandian had just alot of luck to get to a wimbledon final, while Agassi not only deserved his RG title but beat the best to get there.

Action Jackson
04-20-2005, 02:07 PM
All I am saying is that he didn't have an easy draw and beat the best to win the title un like Nalbandian in Wimbledon 2002. I actualy like Nalbandian more tha Agassi, but I know very well that Nalbandian had just alot of luck to get to a wimbledon final, while Agassi not only deserved his RG title but beat the best to get there.

He had an easy draw, though not to the level that Roddick had at AO this year. Moya was the only top player he beat. Corretja had a very bad virus and lost to Meligieni, it's not an excuse as he took the court and deserved the consequences. How can you say that Clement ( not good on clay), Woodruff and Fillipini ( well past it) are deemed to be difficult matches?

Ok, Sampras in 96 had Gustafsson, Bruguera, Todd Martin, Draper( the weakest one), Courier and lost to Kafelnikov. That is not what you call an easy draw. It opened up for Agassi and he took advantage of it.

Bibir
04-20-2005, 02:20 PM
It has nothing to do with RG but I'm really impressed by the number of good draws Agassi had in his carrer...Really!

I would like Safin to be that LUCKY!

TheMightyFed
04-20-2005, 02:20 PM
All I am saying is that he didn't have an easy draw and beat the best to win the title un like Nalbandian in Wimbledon 2002. I actualy like Nalbandian more tha Agassi, but I know very well that Nalbandian had just alot of luck to get to a wimbledon final, while Agassi not only deserved his RG title but beat the best to get there.
And plus Agassi had great results in many other RG, not to be forgotten...

Action Jackson
04-20-2005, 02:33 PM
It has nothing to do with RG but I'm really impressed by the number of good draws Agassi had in his carrer...Really!

I would like Safin to be that LUCKY!

Yes, 2004 RG that was very lucky for Marat.

Bibir
04-20-2005, 03:54 PM
Yes, 2004 RG that was very lucky for Marat.
as always. :)


That was a draw!

Callieri
Mantilla
Starace
Nalbandian
Kuerten (if he had won)
.........

I smell claycourters here...Where's Andre? :bolt:

makro120
04-20-2005, 04:22 PM
He had an easy draw, though not to the level that Roddick had at AO this year. Moya was the only top player he beat. Corretja had a very bad virus and lost to Meligieni, it's not an excuse as he took the court and deserved the consequences. How can you say that Clement ( not good on clay), Woodruff and Fillipini ( well past it) are deemed to be difficult matches?

Ok, Sampras in 96 had Gustafsson, Bruguera, Todd Martin, Draper( the weakest one), Courier and lost to Kafelnikov. That is not what you call an easy draw. It opened up for Agassi and he took advantage of it.

I am not talking about Sampras 96. I didn't say Clement, woodruff or Filipini are difficult matches, but neither can I remember many who didn't face 2-3 avarage clay court players on their way to the final. It is not lucky to face 2-3 avarage players on your way, it is lucky to face 6 like Johansson did in AO. If you don't fce one single avarage player on your way to the final you are very unlucky and I can't remember this has ever happened. So therefor I understand you mean every player needs to avoid beeing unlucky to win and not that every player needs luck to win grand slams, correct me if I am wrong.

A draw you wouldn't call lucky would be this in Rg I guess:

r1:Kuerten
r2:Ferrero
r3:Gasquet
r4:Nadal
qf:Coria
sf:Safin
f:Federer

makro120
04-20-2005, 04:33 PM
Interesting fact about MEdved I just found is that he lost 5 times to the eventual champion of RG in his career:

93 and 94 against Brugera in sf and qf, MUster 95 in R16, Guga 97 in R16 and finaly Agassi 99 in the final.

I forgot R16 Courier 92, that is 6 times loosing to the eventual champion. Unlucky guy....

Bibir
04-20-2005, 04:50 PM
Agassi is an incredible player and deserved to win RG...luck is part of the game.

But Makro, don't you think that he's VERY lucky with draws generally speaking?

makro120
04-20-2005, 07:37 PM
Agassi is an incredible player and deserved to win RG...luck is part of the game.

But Makro, don't you think that he's VERY lucky with draws generally speaking?

Knowing some mathematics I can say that it should be impossible to go around beeing lucky when you participate in so many grand slams. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Unless you are thinking about somekind of conspiracy by atp for mr.popular ofcourse... :)

Bibir
04-20-2005, 07:57 PM
Knowing some mathematics I can say that it should be impossible to go around beeing lucky when you participate in so many grand slams. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Unless you are thinking about somekind of conspiracy by atp for mr.popular ofcourse... :)
exactly, a BIG conspiracy!

federer express
04-20-2005, 10:25 PM
A draw you wouldn't call lucky would be this in Rg I guess:

r1:Kuerten
r2:Ferrero
r3:Gasquet
r4:Nadal
qf:Coria
sf:Safin
f:Federer

hmmm. keurten at the moment isn't the worst first round opponent going. could do worse than gasquet in the third round. and safin in the semis looks like a dream draw at the moment! ;)

World Beater
04-20-2005, 11:13 PM
That draw isnt even plausible is it, according to seedings?

World Beater
04-20-2005, 11:15 PM
Here's a harder one

Calleri
Canas
Gaudio
Nadal
Moya
Coria
Federer

Of course, this is not in order of difficulty. I could have easily switched federer, coria and gaudio

World Beater
04-20-2005, 11:20 PM
hmmm. keurten at the moment isn't the worst first round opponent going. could do worse than gasquet in the third round. and safin in the semis looks like a dream draw at the moment! ;)

You are right about guga. But this is RG, and Guga has a special connection with this place. I wouldnt want to play him there, it brings the best out of him. Just ask Federer.

tennischick
04-20-2005, 11:23 PM
but it IS in order of difficulty -- ideally Federer should always be the one to face in the finals ;)

Here's a harder one

Calleri
Canas
Gaudio
Nadal
Moya
Coria
Federer

Of course, this is not in order of difficulty. I could have easily switched federer, coria and gaudio

World Beater
04-21-2005, 12:30 AM
but it IS in order of difficulty -- ideally Federer should always be the one to face in the finals ;)

Yes, I forgot Federer's streak in finals. It will take something monumental to take him down :)

Action Jackson
04-21-2005, 02:36 AM
I am not talking about Sampras 96. I didn't say Clement, woodruff or Filipini are difficult matches, but neither can I remember many who didn't face 2-3 avarage clay court players on their way to the final. It is not lucky to face 2-3 avarage players on your way, it is lucky to face 6 like Johansson did in AO.

I just used an example of Sampras in 96 who had that kind of a draw and Agassi in all his time never had that difficult of a draw at RG. Guga had a tough draw. All I am saying every player has some luck to win a Slam, even Guga did, but they deserve it.

Actually Federer had a very tough one winning Hamburg
Gaudio
N.Lapentti
Gonzalez
Moya
Hewitt
Coria

That's respect man.

A draw you wouldn't call lucky would be this in Rg I guess:

r1:Kuerten
r2:Ferrero
r3:Gasquet
r4:Nadal
qf:Coria
sf:Safin
f:Federer

It depends on where he is seeded, but this wouldn't be too bad.
R1 Calleri
R2 Massu/Kuerten
R3 Gonzalez
R4 Nadal
QF Gaudio
SF Coria
F Federer

Experimentee
04-21-2005, 02:54 AM
How were Woodruff, Clement and Fillipini playing at their best? Squillari hadn't reached his best at that point of time.

Just because 70% do, does it mean he is going to play 70% of them.


Its not normal to get a tough draw from the first round. Usually the early rounds are easy in Slams and Squillari was tough considering who else he could have drawn in the first round.
Normally you would only beat 2 or 3 truly tough players in a Slam, and Moya, Hrbaty and Medvedev are not easy by any standard if you consider their form. You cant reach that far in a Slam by playing badly.

Action Jackson
04-21-2005, 03:01 AM
Its not normal to get a tough draw from the first round. Usually the early rounds are easy in Slams and Squillari was tough considering who else he could have drawn in the first round.
Normally you would only beat 2 or 3 truly tough players in a Slam, and Moya, Hrbaty and Medvedev are not easy by any standard if you consider their form. You cant reach that far in a Slam by playing badly.

It has happened to other top players that have had brutal draws, when Edberg won his 2nd US Open and Sampras won his first. I mean Agassi has had a huge amount of easy draws at RG during his time, that is not his fault. Hrbaty in his first Slam semi final at that age and Medvedev in his first final and a rain delay. You do know that 99 RG was the carnage Slam, where upsets were flying around everywhere?

Experimentee
04-21-2005, 03:11 AM
Yes there were upsets, but the players who were good enough to make those upsets shouldnt be dismissed as easy. They were the ones still standing at the end and so were the toughest opponents. They only showed on tv the semis onwards, but it was not a bad standard from what I saw.

Action Jackson
04-21-2005, 03:18 AM
Yes there were upsets, but the players who were good enough to make those upsets shouldnt be dismissed as easy. They were the ones still standing at the end and so were the toughest opponents. They only showed on tv the semis onwards, but it was not a bad standard from what I saw.

I was at the event and I never said it was a rubbish standard of play, it was just one of those events that happens. Corretja had an illness, Rios didn't turn up mentally which was their own faults, but if Rusedski is making the 4th round at RG, you can't tell me something isn't amiss. :)

Experimentee
04-21-2005, 03:23 AM
Henman made the SF last year, but that doesnt mean Coria was lucky to rech the final.

Action Jackson
04-21-2005, 03:27 AM
Henman made the SF last year, but that doesnt mean Coria was lucky to rech the final.

Henman played Chela in the quarter final and that was the only player of note on clay that he played. Henman played well to get there, but Saulnier, Burgsmuller, Blanco and Llodra before playing Chela are the epitome of tough challengers at RG.

Considering if you have read through the thread I already mentioned that Coria wasn't then again, beating Davydenko, Monaco, Ancic, Moya before he met Henman is credible and he wasn't lucky then.

WyveN
04-21-2005, 03:44 AM
Andre has had some easy slam runs both in RG and the AO but I suppose in such a long career your going to get a few breaks with the draw. This was probably his hardest FO draw in 1991.

R128 Rosset W
R64 Korda W
R32 P.Mcenroe W
R16 Mancini W
QF Hlasek W
S Becker W
F Courier L

Action Jackson
04-21-2005, 03:48 AM
Andre has had some easy slam runs both in RG and the AO but I suppose in such a long career your going to get a few breaks with the draw. This was probably his hardest FO draw in 1991.

R128 Rosset W
R64 Korda W
R32 P.Mcenroe W
R16 Mancini W
QF Hlasek W
S Becker W
F Courier L

Hlasek and Becker are good ones for the semi and quarters, but I'd agree that would have been his toughest one, he made Korda and PMac look like garbage.

federer express
09-10-2005, 07:14 PM
COME ON ANDRE!!!!!!!!!

sigmagirl91
09-10-2005, 07:23 PM
You do know that 99 RG was the carnage Slam, where upsets were flying around everywhere?

Wimby 2002 was right up there with it.

federer express
09-10-2005, 07:37 PM
Wimby 2002 was right up there with it.

exactly....biggest surprise that year though was gaston making the 2nd round :)