2003: Year the New Balls Finally Emerge (article) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

2003: Year the New Balls Finally Emerge (article)

Tennis Fool
12-23-2003, 02:06 AM
Young guns emerge to revive tennis in 2003


December 22, 2003
By Dale Brauner
SportsTicker Tennis Editor

JERSEY CITY, New Jersey (Ticker) - The 2003 tennis season will go down as the year youthful promise became greatness delivered.

With its most recognizable players coming to the end of their careers, tennis has been pushing a group of men's players for three years, sometimes marketed as "New Balls" or "Generation Next." But for a few exceptions, most of the anointed ones were slow to show more than a hint of their talent.


But this season, the "Young Guns" - as they were sometimes called - dominated the ATP Tour. After 30-something Andre Agassi won the Australian Open, Juan Carlos Ferrero triumphed at the French Open, Roger Federer claimed Wimbledon and Andy Roddick captured the U.S. Open. ll three won their first career Grand Slams.

The trio is not only talented but also good for the game. These are personable fellows with distinct personalities and styles.

Ferrero is the best on clay but is not just a claycourt specialist. He won four titles, with one coming at the hardcourt Madrid Masters, and reached the finals of the U.S. Open.

The 23-year-old Spaniard comes off as intense, as when he forthrightly stated his goal was to become No. 1 and then put it all on the line in a losing cause. He finished the year third in the rankings.

Federer is the artist of the bunch, with his stylish strokes and cool-headed flair. He can play any style and on any surface, as evidenced by his ATP-leading seven titles. His bid for the top spot just came up short at the end of the year.

The 22-year-old lost just one set en route to the Wimbledon trophy, defeating two of the best grasscourt players in the game in Roddick and Mark Philippoussis in the semifinals and final, respectively.

"Wimbledon has taken a lot of pressure off my back, you know," said Federer, the first player born on Swiss soil to win a major. "I really started to feel that I should do better in Grand Slams. But then to end up winning it the way I did there really kind of just relieved me, big time."

Federer bounced back from a first-round loss at the French Open to go on a winning streak that brought his Grand Slam crown. So did Roddick, who replaced his long-time coach Tarik Benhabiles with former Agassi guru Brad Gilbert.

Under Gilbert's watch, Roddick's looked like the player he was hyped to be. The 21-year-old American - the only men's player to reach the semifinals or better at three of four of the Grand Slams - dominated the summer hardcourt season.

Armed with a devastating serve, he triumphed at Indianapolis, reached the semifinals of Washington and won consecutive Tennis Masters titles in Montreal and Cincinnati. His most impressive run came at Flushing Meadows, where he rallied from a two-set deficit (and one match point) against David Nalbandian in the semifinals before routing Ferrero in the final.

At 21 years, 2 months, Roddick became the youngest American and second youngest overall behind Lleyton Hewitt to finish the year No. 1.

"I was sitting there in May not really playing much after the French, kind of deciding what route I wanted to go," Roddick reflected. "I didn't really expect to finish up so strong. To have a Grand Slam title and then the Champions Race No. 1 trophy as well, it's been a ride since then."

Roddick showed a hint of what was to come when at the Australian Open in January, when he won a marathon five-set, five-hour quarterfinal over Younes El Aynaoui. The 21-19 fifth set was the longest in games in the history of Grand Slam play.

Roddick reminds many of a young Pete Sampras, who retired this year. They both might possess masterful games built around a potent serve and be romantically linked to actresses, but Roddick enjoys his celebrity and has more on his mind than tennis.

The Nebraska football fanatic was charming as he made the rounds to all the talk shows after his U.S. Open win, displaying a personality appealing to both men and women. He even poked fun at himself while appearing on "Saturday Night Live."

Save for the titanic Sampras-Agassi battles, the ATP circuit has been missing the rivalries it once enjoyed among Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl and Boris Becker.

But with Roddick, Federer and Ferrero meeting often during the year, the tennis world can expect many exciting battles. And with an American male back on top, tennis' profile has a strong shot of being raised at a time when the ATP has little TV visibility in this country, save the Grand Slams.

"It's definitely a tough market," Agassi said. "We have a lot of great sports and a lot of heroes and sports heroes. We're coming off a pretty incredible generation, too, of players. Obviously, Andy's stepping up this year is gonna be great for the interest of tennis in America. It would be nice to see one or two others as well."

It should be a marvelous generation of players, especially if Hewitt and Marat Safin are added to the mix. Hewitt, the year-end No. 1 the prior two years and the winner of two Grand Slams by 22, only won two titles this year and appeared rudderless after parting ways with coach Jason Stoltenberg early in the spring.

But the feisty Australian led his country to Davis Cup glory in December and is determined to remain a contender for the major titles.

The 2000 U.S. Open champion, Safin might be the most talented player, but had his season derailed in the first week with a wrist injury that was misdiagnosed and slow to heal. He is healthy again and eager to battle Roddick and company.

Rivalries have been a mainstay of the women's game. The top women tend to reach the later rounds more often than the men, allowing exciting matchups to develop.

Serena Williams met her older sister Venus in the final of the Grand Slam for the fourth straight time at the Australian Open and was the victor for the fourth time. In capturing what she labeled as the "Serena Slam," the younger Williams became the fifth woman to hold all four major titles at once and the ninth to win each Grand Slam in her career.

The two hooked up again in the championship at Wimbledon, with Serena triumphing again. But their rivalry has yet to produce a classic. By the summer, both were sidelined with injuries, Serena due to knee surgery and Venus with an abdominal strain that bothered her since February.

It was a disappointing year for several other former No. 1s. Americans Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati and Monica Seles also battled injuries during the year, while a foot ailment cut 22-year-old short Martina Hingis' career.

It was left to Belgians Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin-Hardenne to rule the WTA Tour. Clijsters won more often - a tour-leading nine titles while appearing in the semifinals or better in 20 of 21 events - while Henin-Hardenne was better in the bigger matches.

Slight but gritty, Henin-Hardenne took the French Open and U.S. Open crowns over her compatriot for her first career majors and finished the year in the top spot after Clijsters took over No. 1 from Serena Williams in the summer.

The Belgians initially were friendly, but their relationship has become increasingly testy, making their encounters all the more delicious.

Exciting play and compelling personalities, spiced by intense rivalries, should make for a tasty 2004

Tennis Fool
12-23-2003, 02:12 AM
Ok, we know this topic has been posted to death...

But for sake of argument before the new season gets underway in two weeks...

Do you agree or disagree that about the six listed here (Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Philippoussis, Hewitt, Safin)

1. That they will make for exciting rivalries over the next decade?
2. Ferrero is the best on clay?
3. That Roddick will save US tennis and raise its popularity?
4. That Safin is the most talented of the bunch?
5. That Roddick finally lived to his hype?

Action Jackson
12-23-2003, 02:44 AM
It was a good read that article, though he does miss a very obvious point.

Rivalries have been a mainstay of the women's game. The top women tend to reach the later rounds more often than the men, allowing exciting matchups to develop.


Then again that's a given as the player depth is so much greater in mens tennis than in womens, that it's less likely to happen on the mens tour. What Rios said about the depth of womens tennis is true.

Do you agree or disagree that about the six listed here (Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Philippoussis, Hewitt, Safin)


Good to see the lack of respect shown to Nalbandian and Coria is continuing and there will be other players coming through to challenge the top players and continue to make it interesting.

1. That they will make for exciting rivalries over the next decade?
Of the players listed certain combinations could have great rivalries, but as I said earlier the talent pool is so deep, that some of the best rivalries could include players like Nalbandian, Coria, Nadal and a few other wildcards not mentioned in the article.

2. Ferrero is the best on clay?
Out of that list of players that was mentioned he would be, though Safin has beaten him twice on clay and Federer is no muppet on the clay, though not to Ferrero's overall standard.

3. That Roddick will save US tennis and raise its popularity?
Well for the Americans to be interested in tennis, they need one of their own to be in top bracket of players. He is their best hope at the moment, but the other young players will need to raise the level of their games to attempt to raise its popularity, though the sporting market in the US is so different from elsewhere on the planet.

4. That Safin is the most talented of the bunch?
No, that would be Federer as the most talented, but Safin isn't very far behind at all, not many players give Hewitt a bagel ( Federer did) and on his best days he is virtually unstoppable.

5. That Roddick finally lived to his hype?
The end of the 2004 season will be a better indication of that, he has to a degree, but he has lots of points to defend and needs to improve his results away from the North American hardcourts and starting beating players consistently when the conditions aren't as suited to his style of play.

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 02:49 AM
Do you agree or disagree that about the six listed here (Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Philippoussis, Hewitt, Safin)

1. That they will make for exciting rivalries over the next decade?
2. Ferrero is the best on clay?
3. That Roddick will save US tennis and raise its popularity?
4. That Safin is the most talented of the bunch?
5. That Roddick finally lived to his hype?

Yes, I agree with all of those except #4.... I think Roger is the most naturally talented.

and George, excellent point about the depth of the men's tour making real Andre-Pete like rivalries harder.

Tennis Fool
12-23-2003, 10:08 PM
and George, excellent point about the depth of the men's tour making real Andre-Pete like rivalries harder.

Queston for both of you:

Was the Andre-Pete rivarly of the less decade due to:

1. Their being extraordinarily more talented than the rest of the field

or

2. The field being extraordinarily weak until the arrival of the New Balls?

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 10:22 PM
My opinion is that it was sort of a perfect equlibrium of the two. Pete's my favorite player so I'm going to be biased when I say that I think he's the best ever, and definitely the best during the time he was playing. Andre is wonderful, no doubt, but I don't think he was necessarily the second-best throughout that whole time.

I mean the fact that they met 34 times is just amazing. Part of that is perhaps that they entered some of the same smaller tourneys, just by the fact that they're both American (sort of how Andy and James have played each other so many times, if that makes sense). But they also met in so many slams, which sort of leads to the conclusion that they were better and would so often beat whoever came before them until they met each other whether it was a QF, SF, or Final...

I'm really equivocating on this one aren't I? I return to my original assertion: it was a nice combination of the two I think.... what's your take on it, Tennis Fool?

Sjengster
12-23-2003, 10:35 PM
I'd almost forgotten that Federer bagel at the Hopman Cup - of course, the fact that he managed to bagel Hewitt but still lost the match in three sets shows how hard Hewitt is to beat, even in an exhibition event. But come on, Blake managed it...

"Roddick reminds many of a young Pete Sampras" - eh? They're both young, both American, both have a big serve. Wow. By that criteria Roddick must also remind many of a young Roscoe Tanner, but the comparison ain't a valid one.

As for that list of players, I really doubt whether Philippoussis should be mentioned with the rest - he's much older, and despite his great Wimbledon run I still think he ended up in the world's Top 10 at the end of this year by default because of other players dropping out ahead of him with injuries or poor form. The Argentinians are far better prospects.

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 10:42 PM
I've been watching old 'classic' Andy matches lately since I haven't got anything else to do and you'd be surprised how often the commentators call Andy "Samprassian" - not so much in his style but how he can be sort of down and out and suddenly pull out a huge serve or a huge forehand or whatever... and that's exactly what Sampras used to do. Also going for the "Second serve first serve" on break point, Pete would do that too sometimes.

So not in their style of play but more in their mentality, resolve, ability to fight through pain/etc. and heart, they do sort of seem to be similar.

Sjengster
12-23-2003, 10:49 PM
Well, I suppose the obvious similarity in their serves is that they had/have the best second serves in the game, which is a large part of their success. But I must say, heart and winning ugly were a lot less noticeable in Sampras than they are in Roddick.

tripthemighty
12-23-2003, 10:51 PM
Ok, we know this topic has been posted to death...

But for sake of argument before the new season gets underway in two weeks...

Do you agree or disagree that about the six listed here (Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Philippoussis, Hewitt, Safin)

1. That they will make for exciting rivalries over the next decade?
2. Ferrero is the best on clay?
3. That Roddick will save US tennis and raise its popularity?
4. That Safin is the most talented of the bunch?
5. That Roddick finally lived to his hype?

1. I agree that those 6 will make up the rivalries. But like GeorgeW said, there's still a lack of appreciation given to players like Nalbandian and Coria who, by all standards should be included. I think, on the whole, tennis is kind of changing chapters, with so many of the 'old' players retiring, it's inevitable that these new rivalries are going to form. And that they are going to be as exciting, if not more, than Pete/Andre.

2. Ferrero's career on clay is more high-profile, with a Grand Slam win, and favorable TMS records (including a win). But, Federer should not be ruled out. He had a win, a final round appearance, and he beat Ferrero on clay this year. And again, what about Coria, whose clay record this year is fairly outstanding. (A TMS win, a Final round TMS appearance against Ferrero, and a semi-final GS appearance).

3. I don't know that Roddick can be given the single-handed credit for 'saving' US tennis. I think that he, along with 5 or 6 other young Americans, is helping to bring tennis to the forefront of sports that appeal to the younger generations. Pete and Andre brought tennis into the hearts of so many Americans. And Roddick is helping broaden that. But what about James Blake and Mardy Fish? Or Taylor Dent, with three titles this year alone?

4. I don't necessarily agree. Safin has not recently shown the complete game that Federer showed this year. That is not to say that if Safin returns completely healthy that he could not rival Federer's game. But, I don't think he can be called the most talented.

5. Roddick is just now beginning to achieve what people predicted for him. But I really think that 2004 is his year to live up to people's expectations. He made it to the top. Now, he has to prove that he can stay there. And that will be really tough, considering the playing field going into the season. If Roddick can stay on top, or at least end up in the top couple of slots, then he'll have lived up to some of that hype.

tripthemighty
12-23-2003, 10:55 PM
As for that list of players, I really doubt whether Philippoussis should be mentioned with the rest - he's much older, and despite his great Wimbledon run I still think he ended up in the world's Top 10 at the end of this year by default because of other players dropping out ahead of him with injuries or poor form. The Argentinians are far better prospects.

I agree. I don't count Philippoussis as part of the "New Balls" group at all. His Top 10 finish was really a work of art, to me. Just by looking at the points, it's amazing how it all worked out. The perfect combination of people dropped out at the right time, and suddenly Mark was there. And I really think that at either Nalbandian or Coria deserve a place in this group of new players moreso than he does.

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 11:01 PM
Well, I suppose the obvious similarity in their serves is that they had/have the best second serves in the game, which is a large part of their success. But I must say, heart and winning ugly were a lot less noticeable in Sampras than they are in Roddick.

Well winning ugly is somewhat subjective... and so is heart I suppose... but Pete had a ton of heart, in the way I meant it anyway as in fighting even when it looked like he couldn't fight anymore. He'd be throwing up or cramping or whatever and then suddenly throw out a 130mph serve or blast a forehand or smoke a return (which he wasn't particularly known for) - that sort of fighting heart. And Andy is very similar, he's just more outgoing about it and also likes to feed off of crowd support to pump him up whereas Pete seemed to look more internally.

Anyway I agree - seems Coria and Nalby were left out. But when was this New Balls thing made? They've both come up more recently it seems, maybe people didn't know they'd be big factors when it was made up? I mean they included Blake and he hasn't done nearly as much as people though, and Dent and Fish have come sort of out of nowhere too. I mean there are a lot of people who could be included in the New Balls and deserve it!

WyverN
12-23-2003, 11:04 PM
Well, I suppose the obvious similarity in their serves is that they had/have the best second serves in the game, which is a large part of their success. But I must say, heart and winning ugly were a lot less noticeable in Sampras than they are in Roddick.

You are kidding?

AO 95 versus Courier - Sampras was down 2 sets to love, his coach dying, Sampras in tears yet Sampras still manages to win.

Similar circumstances in USO 96 versus Corretja.

At a AO against Hrbarty Pete was down, cramping, dehydrated, playing in very hot temperatures and down 2 sets to 1 and still managed to win.

Sampras could not play ugly because even at 75% he was still margnally above the field.

Sampras was the mentally toughest player ever and his will to win was not matched by anyone. How many times have you seen Pete lose due to lack of trying like Roddick arguably did at the Masters Cup?

Sjengster
12-23-2003, 11:04 PM
Federer is certainly a threat in the regular clay season, but until he decides to end that 9-set losing streak at RG he can't be taken seriously as a title contender - you won't have a hope of beating Ferrero and Coria over five sets if you can't take care of Luis Horna. Just think, the last set he won in Paris was the fourth against Wayne Arthurs in the last 16 back in 2001. At the moment Coria is the clear second favourite behind Ferrero for the title.

As for the young Americans, Fish and Dent have definitely played their part - Blake on the other hand has done squat this year. I wonder if it's any coincidence that the three young Americans with the big serves have done the best - or that the two who regularly volley behind their serve are ranked second and third behind Roddick? Fish especially seems determined to make it clear that he isn't afraid of Roddick's new status or game, even though his one win was a retirement this year.

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 11:06 PM
Fish especially seems determined to make it clear that he isn't afraid of Roddick's new status or game, even though his one win was a retirement this year.

well yeah considering they lived together and practiced together and stuff it only makes sense that he feels good about knowing Andy's game, and vice versa. He probably should've won the Cincy match, but even though he lost, he gained a lot of fans in that match (me included!).

Sjengster
12-23-2003, 11:07 PM
I didn't say that it wasn't there, I said it was a lot less noticeable - which really comes down to a repeat of what I said about the big difference in their personality and on-court behaviour, and that Sampras made tennis look a little easier than Roddick does at times. (Of course, I did come along a little too late to actually see any of Sampras' great fightbacks that you mention - I do know of them, but Roddick's are fresher in the memory.)

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 11:10 PM
Sampras was the mentally toughest player ever and his will to win was not matched by anyone. How many times have you seen Pete lose due to lack of trying like Roddick arguably did at the Masters Cup?

yea.... that's what I was trying to say lol. To Andy's credit though, after the year he'd had I don't really blame him for tanking one match lol. One match, or even a few matches here and there doesn't make someone a non-fighter or mentally weak. Just like I would say that Ferrero's last few matches of 2003 aren't indicative of the player he is. But for sure, Pete was pretty special in that department

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 11:11 PM
I didn't say that it wasn't there, I said it was a lot less noticeable - which really comes down to a repeat of what I said about the big difference in their personality and on-court behaviour, and that Sampras made tennis look a little easier than Roddick does at times.

Definitely.... Andy's on court demeanor is just a lot more grandiose... he tries to pump up the crowd to in turn pump himself up, etc.

Maybe that's why I like them both though... the fighting spirit they both share is really appealing :)

star
12-23-2003, 11:13 PM
Well, I remember Sampras wilting against Agassi.... where was it? The AO? He looked as if he were half dead in the fifth set. Really going into that fifth set it looked to me as if Sampras could win and then he just .... It was like air out of a baloon.

So yes, to me, there have been many times when it looked to me as if Sampras wasn't fighting hard. Usually it looked as if he was only prepared to fight hard for a few games each set.

tripthemighty
12-23-2003, 11:16 PM
Blake has so many aspects of the game in his possession. He is lacking the mental game, though. Often times, he doesn't have the willpower to pull himself out of a losing position. As soon as he starts to slip, he just mentally loses focus. He also needs to manage his temper more. He lets things blow out of proportion and then he isn't concentrating anymore.

And especially against Roddick. He lets everything else dictate what he does, instead of just playing the game. He should know Roddick's game inside and out. But, whenever he gets on the court, he lets that all go by the wayside. And pretty soon he's frustrated, and losing.

Of the four Americans, Blake seems to be the one who has yet to completely grow up. And until he does that, he's always going to be the one who can't beat Roddick.

I'm very interested to see what Dent does with 2004. After entering the Champions race at 149 and then peaking at 23, I see a lot of success for him, if he can just be consistent. Fish is doing a good job of making a name for himself, without standing on someone else's shoulders. His run at Cincinnati TMS this year was telling of what he is capable of (beating Malisse, Philippoussis, Clement, Nalbandian, and Schuettler, before taking a set from Roddick and forcing the next two to tiebreaks, in the final).

WyverN
12-23-2003, 11:17 PM
yea.... that's what I was trying to say lol. To Andy's credit though, after the year he'd had I don't really blame him for tanking one match lol. One match, or even a few matches here and there doesn't make someone a non-fighter or mentally weak. Just like I would say that Ferrero's last few matches of 2003 aren't indicative of the player he is. But for sure, Pete was pretty special in that department

Well that seperates good players from champions. Sampras would usually come to the masters cup with the #1 ranking well and truly wrapped up yet he still won *five* of TMCs.

WyverN
12-23-2003, 11:23 PM
Well, I remember Sampras wilting against Agassi.... where was it? The AO? He looked as if he were half dead in the fifth set. Really going into that fifth set it looked to me as if Sampras could win and then he just .... It was like air out of a baloon.


That was AO semi 2000 I think. Sampras was totally exausted by the 5th set and Agassi's great physical condition showed through. Agassi did a similar thing to Rafter in the AO 2001 semi.

How about Sampras winning the 2002 USO after being told he can't do it by everyone, it was a tough draw as well.

Deboogle!.
12-23-2003, 11:26 PM
tripthemighty, I totally agree with you about Blake... I hope he can figure it out, he's such a likable guy and player IMO

Wyver... obviously Pete is your favorite but you're making it sound like he was perfect and at the same time faulting Andy for being exhausted after the whirlwind 6 months he'd had before that. Plus, I guarantee there was a time (and more than likely, a few times) in Pete's career where he wasn't able to dig deep enough just. It doesn't take anything away from either player, just shows they're human beings.

the 2002 USO was amazing - I just rewatched the final last night. No one (well except maybe star lol ;)) is denying anything about Pete. So Pete was exhausted in that AO match... ok... Andy was exhausted in the TMC match....ok.... they're both still fighters!

but anyway.... wasn't 2003 a great year for the New Balls? :)

Sjengster
12-23-2003, 11:30 PM
'Twas, and I will admit that he certainly managed to win ugly against Rusedski in the third round - boy, he was playing like shit (I remember he dumped his trademark shot, the overhead, twice into the net on important points with an embarrassingly exuberant yell) but he still won, thanks in part to a big-time choke from Rusedski when serving for the first set but also because of his mental toughness when managing to stay ahead in the final set. I have to say that getting my man SS in the semis was definitely a handy draw, even though Schalken provided considerably more opposition than Roddick ever did in the quarters.

WyverN
12-23-2003, 11:38 PM
Wyver... obviously Pete is your favorite but you're making it sound like he was perfect and at the same time faulting Andy for being exhausted after the whirlwind 6 months he'd had before that. Plus, I guarantee there was a time (and more than likely, a few times) in Pete's career where he wasn't able to dig deep enough just. It doesn't take anything away from either player, just shows they're human beings.


There is a difference between losing when your exausted or outplayed to losing because you had a big year and just don't care like Roddick did at the TMC.
Really says as much about Roddick as his great fighting come back wins.

J. Corwin
12-24-2003, 12:28 AM
An article rehashed several times.

WyverN, how do you know for sure that Roddick didn't lose in the TMC due to exhaustion? He didn't lose *just* because he didn't care.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 12:42 AM
Andy was exhausted. he looked exhausted, he played like he was exhausted and most of all he SAID he was exhausted. He didn't care BECAUSE he was exhausted and COULDN'T care, not because he didn't care. I'd like to see you have a year like Andy's and not be exhausted after it. Whatever, not fighting about this anymore - the double standards here at good ole MTF will never cease.

heya
12-24-2003, 01:27 AM
Don't you know that the FED EXPRESS will NEVER lose@Wimbledon & MASTERS CUP again?! :D

WyverN
12-24-2003, 02:26 AM
. Whatever, not fighting about this anymore - the double standards here at good ole MTF will never cease.

Stop acting like your the voice of reason here. your one of the most biased posters. There is probably 3 regular posters here who actually post intelligently.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 02:32 AM
I'm biased b/c I stand up for my current favorite player when I think he deserves it? You must miss all the times I support other players and speak about them honestly (even players I don't care for particularly) and all the times I do criticize Andy (and other players I love) Ok whatever. :rolleyes:

You said that Pete had trouble in that AO match against Agassi because he was exhausted. I said Andy didn't play well in TMC SF because he was exhausted. I say that these one particular matches don't matter for EITHER player because they are BOTH great fighters, and one exhausted match doesn't change that. Plus Pete is my all-time fave, WAY above Andy...so how exactly am I biased? Additionally I used the same logic with Ferrero (who is FAR from my favorite player), saying that his last few matches of 2003 are not at all indicative of the kind of player HE is because HE was clearly exhausted also. I'm trying to support ALL the players equally... which is a whole lot more than you can say.

Plus, this all started with my comments about how Pete and Andy might possibly be similar - I was supporting them both, giving them compliments I feel they deserve that I feel have been proven several times over... you are the one who turned it negative when you introduced the double standard that Andy's exhaustion for one week, or even one match, somehow makes him less of a fighter.

I suppose it's fitting though - not only is everything else about Andy inferior (his titles are all fakes, everything is fixed for him, he always gets lucky, he doesn't deserve anything), his exhaustion might as well be inferior too :rolleyes: puleeze.

WyverN
12-24-2003, 02:42 AM
Andy was exhausted. he looked exhausted, he played like he was exhausted and most of all he SAID he was exhausted. He didn't care BECAUSE he was exhausted and COULDN'T care, not because he didn't care.

There is a difference between being exausted from a long year and not being fired up for the year end championships because you are satisfied with what you have achieved throughout the year and what happened to Sampras in 2000 Semi final.

I'd like to see you have a year like Andy's and not be exhausted after it.

Federer did this year and Sampras did plenty of times

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 02:54 AM
the point is that exhaustion is exhaustion. Andy's exhaustion was after the craziest few months of his life, Pete's was at the beginning of the season...explain that discrepancy.

Andy was pumped up for the year-end championships. It was his goal all along. You read his press conference from all year and all he wanted was to qualify. Plus, everyone deals with everything differently. Yes Roger had a great year but he had been to TMC before, he'd had to play 11 months, he'd had a season where he'd played a lot more matches, plus he's been on the tour much longer. Andy rocketed all of a sudden starting in June, came from nowhere, no one would have predicted it. Plus Andy had to deal with the US media demands and people pulling him in 239079426 different directions. There's a big difference between being excited for something and having the energy to do it. When the tank is empty, really really empty, it's empty.

Plus, Juan Carlos was clearly the most exhausted of all - before TMC everyone said that he was the one who probably wanted #1 most of all... and he couldn't even win a match. how does that fit into your point? Can you say he didn't want it? Come on now.

Everyone deals with everything differently, to say that Andy didn't have the right to be tired just because Federer wasn't or Pete wasn't isn't being fair to any of the three players. Same with Juan Carlos - because I consider him to be a good fighter too - to say that he didn't want it/wasn't excited/gave up/whatever because he was just clearly out of steam isn't fair to him.

Gads, this thread was supposed to be positive, about good things and achievements in 2003. Can you not stand Sampras and Roddick being mentioned in the same breath THAT much that you had to make it negative by insulting Andy?

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 02:58 AM
Anyway.... so what a great year for those New Balls! :woohoo: Hopefully Hewitt, Safin, et al. will be back full-force in 2004 so it'll be even more exciting :)

tangerine_dream
12-24-2003, 03:08 AM
Do you agree or disagree that about the six listed here (Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Philippoussis, Hewitt, Safin)

1. That they will make for exciting rivalries over the next decade?
2. Ferrero is the best on clay?
3. That Roddick will save US tennis and raise its popularity?
4. That Safin is the most talented of the bunch?
5. That Roddick finally lived to his hype?

1. Agreed. The depth of the men's game today is better and more dynamic than the Sampras-Agassi-Courier-Chang generation. There's a greater international influence in the "new balls" and I don't think one player will dominate the way Sampras dominated. In my book, that's a huge plus.

2. He's brilliant on clay but let's see if he can defend his title. He's got an entire Argentinian armada to fight it out with on clay next year.

3. I do believe that Roddick will be as big a star as Andre Agassi once American audiences get to know him and watch him play. Tennis stars in America are not made overnight, unfortunately.

4. Again with the Safin lovefest crap? In a word: NO. That would be Federer. :yeah:

5. Definitely. Unlike Henman, Roddick did not wilt under the enormous pressure of carrying the tennis torch for his country (most normal people would). But instead, Roddick thrived in it and showed the tough mental fortitude that is needed to be a champion. The kid lived up to the hype and the expectations. He's not a one-hit wonder. :)

As a sidenote, for the record, I am getting tired of this downright lazy comparison journalists make by saying Roddick is "the next Sampras." They both have big serves--yeah, and..? Other than that, you couldn't find two more different players. If they must compare, Federer is more like Sampras than Roddick is.

tripthemighty
12-24-2003, 03:17 AM
Anyway.... so what a great year for those New Balls! :woohoo: Hopefully Hewitt, Safin, et al. will be back full-force in 2004 so it'll be even more exciting :)

That what I've been saying since the season ended. In my opinion, this year is possibly going to be one of the most exciting seasons that tennis has seen in a while. Just look at the players who are rumored to be in top form and ready. It reminds me of the Sampras-Agassi-Courier-Chang era that Tangerine mentioned. It's going to be so close, all year. At least, I hope so. Because we need exciting tennis. With rankings determined by one, two, and three points difference. Not hundreds.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 03:19 AM
As a sidenote, for the record, I am getting tired of this downright lazy comparison journalists make by saying Roddick is "the next Sampras." They both have big serves--yeah, and..? Other than that, you couldn't find two more different players. If they must compare, Federer is more like Sampras than Roddick is.

Tangy babe did you miss my whole explanation of this? It only started the big argument in the thread :p

I don't think anyone could be delusional enough to suggest that Pete and Andy have similar games, save for their serves.

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 03:21 AM
WyverN good to see you are making friends as usual.

Actually all the players apart from Agassi and to an extent Nalbandian were exhausted at the TMC, so how is it a valid excuse for Roddick when for example Federer and Schuettler had played more matches than Roddick did in the season.

Sampras had plenty of fighting ability, as Sjengster said it wasn't as obvious as he made the game look very easy so things like his fighting spirit are overlooked

He won a lot of his matches through the other players fear of winning. Hrbaty, Corretja, Costa are examples of players who had opportunites to beat Sampras at the Slams and they couldn't capitalise on these opportunities, and with Sampras they only got very few chances.

Originally Posted by WyverN
Sampras was the mentally toughest player ever and his will to win was not matched by anyone.

That is very subjective, just because he was one of the greatest players ever to play tennis, it doesn't mean his will to win was the greatest. Next you will be trying to convince me that he was the greatest tactician ever?

He was more successful than other players, through a combination of factors his serve, volleys, court speed, backhand (except on clay) and running forehand plus the above mentioned qualities, though his will to win has been matched by other players, he just happened to have more skill in winning matches more often than not, than other very determined yet less skillful players.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 03:23 AM
At least, I hope so. Because we need exciting tennis. With rankings determined by one, two, and three points difference. Not hundreds.

*nods* yup totally! Plus with guys like Nadal and Gasquet who are showing a lot of promise, and also other 20-23 yr olds like Fish, Dent, hopefully guys like Malisse, etc. starting to show their promise AND ALSO the older guys like Agassi, Guga, El-Aynaoui, Henman, Flip looking like some of their best stuff might be ahead of them..... could it get any more exciting?!? It better live up to what we're hyping it up to be lol

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 03:27 AM
Yes all the players were exhausted (save for Fed and Andre) and they all showed it, every last one of the six - not one of them played at NEARLY the level they'd played at all year long to get them to that point. So I think they ALL get to use exhaustion as an excuse. The only reason Roddick was the one brought up is because this all started when I said a similarity between Roddick and Sampras was their fighting spirit, and Wyver then started ribbing on Andy saying that his TMC performance disproved that he was a fighter. So I'm not saying Andy being exhausted is any more valid than any of the others being exhausted... all six of them were and it's valid for all of them.

And George... when's the last time we came out on the same side of an argument? :)

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 03:36 AM
This is bad I actually agree with bunk the only comparisons that could be made about Roddick/Sampras are that they have huge serves, excellent forehands, both American and made #1 .

Originally Posted bytanger ine_dream
He's not a one-hit wonder.

Form is temporary, class is permanent. He needs to show both of these, especially consistent form over a longer period of time as it will lead to the latter.

Well the end of 2004 will be a bigger indication of whether he is or not. One outstanding season doesn't mean that much, unless it can be backed up year after year. The same goes for Federer, Ferrero, and Coria.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 03:39 AM
This is bad I actually agree with bunk

awwww it doesn't hurt that bad does it George?

tangerine_dream
12-24-2003, 03:39 AM
Tangy babe did you miss my whole explanation of this? It only started the big argument in the thread :p

I don't think anyone could be delusional enough to suggest that Pete and Andy have similar games, save for their serves.

Yes, I saw your analysis of Pete and Andy's game but I was responding more to the fact that journalists cannot talk about Andy (at all) without throwing in the words "Samprasian" in there somewhere. The constant comparison to Sampras is an empty comparison and merely leads the casual sports fan to conclude that Andy is nothing more than a mini-me version of Sampras, and that's just not so. It's unfair to both players.

Does that make any sense?

tripthemighty
12-24-2003, 03:41 AM
Form is temporary, class is permanent. He needs to show both of these, especially consistent form over a longer period of time as it will lead to the latter.

Well the end of 2004 will be a bigger indication of whether he is or not. One outstanding season doesn't mean that much, unless it can be backed up year after year. The same goes for Federer, Ferrero, and Coria.


I agree on both counts. Especially that consistency has to be shown over longer periods of time than a season. I would even argue that two seasons doesn't prove much of anything. It certainly won't keep the critics at bay. Look at Hewitt's 'fall from favor'.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 03:43 AM
I hear ya, I understand what you mean now, tangy :) I guess I never assumed they were talking about their actual tennis games as opposed to sort of the way they appeared, as sort of the teenager who "would save American tennis" or whatever, or like the way Johnny Mac said it in the USO match that we were talking about - how he looked down and out and exhausted but somehow found a way to bomb a serve (or finesse a dropshot as the case may be :p), which is what Sampras was known for... I've never seen anyone say their games specifically are anything at all alike though and hopefully the general public isn't too stupid to realize that... then again they have to turn tennis on to know, but whatever lol.

Heck, I don't think Pete and Roger have that similar games either, but I know I'm not in the majority with that opinion.... per usual lmfao

tripthemighty
12-24-2003, 03:46 AM
Yes, I saw your analysis of Pete and Andy's game but I was responding more to the fact that journalists cannot talk about Andy (at all) without throwing in the words "Samprasian" in there somewhere. The constant comparison to Sampras is an empty comparison and merely leads the casual sports fan to conclude that Andy is nothing more than a mini-me version of Sampras, and that's just not so. It's unfair to both players.

Does that make any sense?

It's completely logical to me. Comparing the two infers several things. First that Sampras' game was typical and can be imitated and reproduced simply. Which it was not and cannot be. And secondly that there is nothing unique about Roddick. Which is also not true.

I'm just curious as to what you think about the observations journalists and commentators make about Roddick, along with others like Ferrero and Federer, being the 'new' Sampras' and Agassi's in terms of the competition. And how that competition constantly forced both players to rise to a higher level.

Deboogle!.
12-24-2003, 03:50 AM
I think the reason that BOTH Sampras and Agassi (and pretty much everyone else too) feel that their rivalry forced each other so much and was so important is #1 because they met SO many times and in many big matches and #2 the matches were often really high-quality, sometimes quite close, etc.

I think that it being just the two of them could have helped that too - it was a direct rivalry between two people with different styles but both greatly talented. Watching them play was so fascinating because of the contrasting styles, too.

I'm not sure if a rivalry amongst lots of different players is the same type of thing, though I do think that there's the potential for them all to force the others to be better players, assuming they all fall into a form in the next couple of years where they consistently play at or near their best (which hasn't quite happened yet).

am I making sense? lol

heya
12-24-2003, 04:04 AM
I enjoyed the few matches I've seen of Edberg and Borg too, but they quit too early.

star
12-24-2003, 04:08 AM
For a while everyone will be playing in Sampras' shadow until people figure it out that having a two year run as number one is a pretty damm fine accomplishment.

Right now, it seems that unless someone can show signs of being able to stay at the top for something like four years they are written off. Sampras (thank god) was one of a kind and (thankfully) we aren't going to see anyone with the same talent combined with the same ferocious drive to break records. Personally, I think Federer is as talented if not more talented than Sampras, but he doesn't have the same mentality as Sampras (Gottseidank)

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 04:16 AM
Actually I agree with the opinion that Marcelo Rios has of tennis journalists, the vast majority of them are stupid and lazy.

Of course playing against players, should help them raise their level of play. Players learn more from defeats than victories, if they keep on winning all the time then it's more difficult to adapt and add new parts to their games.

Well trip the critics love Hewitt, he just gives them so much to work with. So, yes his inactivity this year was enjoyed by the critics, though his last 2 victories were significantly over Federer and Ferrero and they would have enjoyed that.

Hewitt will never be in favour with the media, and he doesn't care too much about that. It will be interesting to see how 2004 shapes up for him. The difference is much as people dislike the guy, he has achieved quite a lot with not that much natural talent.

Yes, bunkie it does hurt that much.

star
12-24-2003, 04:26 AM
I enjoyed the few matches I've seen of Edberg and Borg too, but they quit too early.

Too early for what, heya?

Borg quit abruptly at age 26, but Edberg was 30 or so when he quit and the last year he played he wasn't playing at an elite level. His serve had lost some of its bite and the game was changing as well. I don't think he quit too early... unless you mean..... too early for you to see him play. :)

WyverN
12-24-2003, 04:33 AM
That is very subjective, just because he was one of the greatest players ever to play tennis, it doesn't mean his will to win was the greatest. Next you will be trying to convince me that he was the greatest tactician ever?

You are unbelievable, Sampras's mind was one of his greatest assets.

I see "will to win" as being able to rise for the big matches, the motivation if you like. Sampras won 14 out of 18 slam finals. Compare that to Lendl.
Sampras always played near his peak against Agassi and rose for those matches, often Sampras would seem in lacklustre form going into his match against Agassi yet he woul;d always find a way to raise his level.

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 04:53 AM
I love it mensa back to the old ways, this is more like it.

Originally Posted by WyverN
You are unbelievable, Sampras's mind was one of his greatest assets.

I see "will to win" as being able to rise for the big matches, the motivation if you like. Sampras won 14 out of 18 slam finals. Compare that to Lendl.
Sampras always played near his peak against Agassi and rose for those matches, often Sampras would seem in lacklustre form going into his match against Agassi yet he woul;d always find a way to raise his level.

Of course we have different interperations of this. Yes, he lifted his game against the better players, but that is what the champion players are supposed to. They are meant to peak at the right time in the majors and that is what he did.

Ok, onto the whole Lendl thing of course you haven't considered that there were a better top group players around at that time, and also Sampras was clearly superior to the others around him at that time.

If he was such a great tactician, why didn't he have greater success at the FO or on clay in general? Great tacticians have numerous gameplans, when the original one isn't working as well as hoped.

He had all the tools to have more success on clay, but he didn't have the mindset and wasn't prepared to alter some aspects that would have given him greater opportunities for success.

He had the midnset I don't have to do anything different, as my talent and ability will get me through the matches. That worked for the most part, but he was not a tactical genius.

WyverN
12-24-2003, 05:08 AM
I love it mensa back to the old ways, this is more like it.



Of course we have different interperations of this. Yes, he lifted his game against the better players, but that is what the champion players are supposed to. They are meant to peak at the right time in the majors and that is what he did.


I attribute him lifting his game as "will to win".


Ok, onto the whole Lendl thing of course you haven't considered that there were a better top group players around at that time, and also Sampras was clearly superior to the others around him at that time.


Absolute rubbish. The men's tour was deeper in the mid 1990s compared to the mid-late 1980s.



He had all the tools to have more success on clay, but he didn't have the mindset and wasn't prepared to alter some aspects that would have given him greater opportunities for success.

Sampras's failure to win the FO isn't due to bad luck or lack of tactics (he tried everything) , it's endemic in his
game, which relies on the serve as the main weapon. On clay, the serve, the half volleys, the running forehand are neutralized to an extent, and that's enough to turn Pete from the greatest
of champions everywhere else to 'merely' an above-average pro player on clay.




He had the midnset I don't have to do anything different, as my talent and ability will get me through the matches. That worked for the most part, but he was not a tactical genius.

We were talking about will to win were we not? he didnt have to be a tactical genius as he didn't have to rely on tactics to win very often

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 05:09 AM
Mensa, I think you have 'will to win" confused. I mean I have never questioned Sampras's courage or determination.

As for 'will to win" Thomas Muster had a greater will to win. Why? One he was not very talented and through sheer determination and bloody mindedness he had a very good career.

Two, you do remember the Miami incident? Well he got hit by the drunk driver in 1989 and seven months later he was playing. He had a ranking in the 100s and then finished #9 at the end of 1990, that was an outstanding effort.

Muster played every match like it was his last, and would do everything possible ( cheating included) to win a match which is something Sampras rarely did.

Therefore Muster had a greater will to win as he had to struggle back from the horrific injury and he wasn't blessed with much natural ability, so his game was built on strength of character and determination, which is something that Sampras didn't have to rely on regularly.

WyverN
12-24-2003, 05:14 AM
Mensa, I think you have 'will to win" confused. I mean I have never questioned Sampras's courage or determination.

As for 'will to win" Thomas Muster had a greater will to win. Why? One he was not very talented and through sheer determination and bloody mindedness he had a very good career.

Two, you do remember the Miami incident? Well he got hit by the drunk driver in 1989 and seven months later he was playing. He had a ranking in the 100s and then finished #9 at the end of 1990, that was an outstanding effort.


So to have a great "will to win" you must be a talentless hack who wins 1 slam after being run over by a car?
Your full of crap.

Regarding Sampras tactics when Pete de-emphasized the baseline aspect to emphasize the serve/volley aspect, he not only won Wimbledons, but almost everywhere else as well -that's when he rolled up the US titles, the Aussie titles, the great bulk of all the other titles (including an Italian Open), and became #1 for many years.
I see that as pretty damn good tactics of course he did have to sacrifice a french open.

reply to the rest of my post as well

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 05:29 AM
Ok, onto the whole Lendl thing of course you haven't considered that there were a better top group players around at that time, and also Sampras was clearly superior to the others around him at that time.

Absolute rubbish. The men's tour was deeper in the mid 1990s compared to the mid-late 1980s.

Another misrepresentation. That comment was not about the whole tour at the time, and I have said on many occassions the current player depth is very deep and getting deeper.

What it means that when Lendl was around the players at the top level, which means top 10, not the overall standard. Lendl had to compete against Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg and Wilander which at that time was better standard than what Sampras had initally as Edberg, Becker were on the way out, he owned Courier and Chang, Agassi was drifting in and out at that stage.

Sampras's failure to win the FO isn't due to bad luck or lack of tactics (he tried everything) , it's endemic in his
game, which relies on the serve as the main weapon. On clay, the serve, the half volleys, the running forehand are neutralized to an extent, and that's enough to turn Pete from the greatest
of champions everywhere else to 'merely' an above-average pro player on clay.

Shouldn't have he taken the pace of the serve, perhaps serve/volleyed more, brought the guy into the net and passed him, the guy could hit winners and take advantage of short balls, it was his defeatist mindset whinging about the surface, instead of using his gifts to his advantage. Attacking players have done well at the French eg Noah, Stich and even Rafter to a lesser extent. I am not saying he should/could have won, but he should have done a lot better.

We were talking about mind and will to win which are two totally different things. The mind well that does include tactical nous, court craft and demeanour, the will to win is the determination, desire to succeed, reach full potential etc.

There is no doubt Sampras had the will to win, it doesn't mean it was the greatest of all. It usually with players who are less gifted that have a greater will to win, but Sampras had the above definitions with his talent helped him to be one of the greats.

I am waiting for your insults Wyver.

Action Jackson
12-24-2003, 05:36 AM
Wyver if you think Thomas Muster didn't have great determination and a will to win, then you are absolutely delusional. Lleyton Hewitt has a great will to win, then I am probably full of crap on that one as well.

Of course you measure everything by Slams, then again everything being relative to the persons ability is probably an alien concept to you.

You probably think Sampras had the greatest high backhand all of time? Keep up with the insults, but you could make them funny please.

WyverN
12-24-2003, 05:45 AM
What it means that when Lendl was around the players at the top level, which means top 10, not the overall standard. Lendl had to compete against Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg and Wilander which at that time was better standard than what Sampras had initally as Edberg, Becker were on the way out, he owned Courier and Chang, Agassi was drifting in and out at that stage.


Borg retired early during Lendl's career. Connors was way past his prime during Lendl's career. Becker has said he played his best tennis during the 1990's.
A lot of Pete's opponents don't seem that great because Pete made them look average. For example Goran would probably have 4 Wimbledons if it wasn't for Sampras, Becker was Wimbledon king until Sampras came. Agassi is a all time great.

So a argument can be made that Sampras's top 10 was as tough as Lendls however even if that is not the case Sampras's advantage is wiped out when you consider it was far more difficult to make slam finals.



Shouldn't have he taken the pace of the serve, perhaps serve/volleyed more, brought the guy into the net and passed him, the guy could hit winners and take advantage of short balls, it was his defeatist mindset whinging about the surface, instead of using his gifts to his advantage. Attacking players have done well at the French eg Noah, Stich and even Rafter to a lesser extent. I am not saying he should/could have won, but he should have done a lot better.


It's no accident that all of the top players of the Open Era who relied
primarily on their service game - Mac, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras - failed to win the French Open. And Rafter was a real ace on clay :rolleyes:.

Funny insults are not worthy of you, fool is sufficient.

WyverN
12-24-2003, 05:48 AM
Wyver if you think Thomas Muster didn't have great determination and a will to win, then you are absolutely delusional. Lleyton Hewitt has a great will to win, then I am probably full of crap on that one as well.


Muster had great determination. But how does the fact that he was less talented then Sampras and had more obstacles make his will to win greater then Sampras's? You can not prove it either way with this issue so we have to look at results to support our argument.

WyverN
12-24-2003, 05:51 AM
You probably think Sampras had the greatest high backhand all of time? Keep up with the insults, but you could make them funny please.

Do you even realise that your the one who is arguing that Sampras was such a super player that he could adapt his game to suit clay?

Are you even trying to make a point? You jump from issue to issue like a kangaroo, changing topic mid post and then jumping back as soon as you run out of arguments.

Action Jackson
12-25-2003, 02:52 PM
Sampras/Lendl point was fair enough.

Ok, it's question time for you WyverN

Do you know why I call you Mensa? No, the answer I don't care doesn't count. You should know this one though.

Originally Posted by WyverN
Funny insults are not worthy of you, fool is sufficient.

The only reason fool is sufficient, is because you are not capable of saying anything humorous. I won't hold it against you that it seems you have had a sense of humour bypass.

Speaking of fool well I am not the individual who doesn't know how to use particular terms in the correct manner. Yes, I know English isn't your 1st language and it isn't mine either, but when I am going to use a particular term or word I understand the full and correct context. Example overrated/overachieved, mind/will to win these are clearly different concepts.

Muster had great determination. But how does the fact that he was less talented then Sampras and had more obstacles make his will to win greater then Sampras's?


You just answered your own question, do you realise that, or do you want me to spell it out for you? Also you are not using the term correctly, only use it suit your point of view, keep up with the spin.
Then again the everything is relative concept is something that you don't seem to understand.

Do you even realise that your the one who is arguing that Sampras was such a super player that he could adapt his game to suit clay?


Hahahahaha, actually the question is he was a super player and should have been able to adapt, but why didn't he? It wasn't through a lack of ability.

Are you even trying to make a point? You jump from issue to issue like a kangaroo, changing topic mid post and then jumping back as soon as you run out of arguments.

Mensa, keep up with sanctimonious posts. You have a go at me for being biased against Roddick, yet you do exactly the same thing against players who happen to be better on clay or are not Wimbledon champions, as you accused me of lacking objectivity when discussing Roddick.

It's Ok I like you so much as you provide me with such entertainment.

I will admit it now WyverN you are my hero :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Deboogle!.
12-25-2003, 02:56 PM
Mensa, keep up with sanctimonious posts. You have a go at me for being biased against Roddick, yet you do exactly the same thing against players who happen to be better on clay or are not Wimbledon champions, as you accused me of lacking objectivity when discussing Roddick.


I'm quickly going to leave this argument but I just wanted to say thank you for pointing this out. I was accused of being "one of the most biased people here" which doesn't really hold a lot of weight coming from one of the other most biased people on the board. So, thanks George (it doesn't hurt me to agree with you as much as it hurts you to agree with me :))

Action Jackson
12-25-2003, 04:53 PM
Thanks bunk I was only stating the obvious, but I am still going to hero worship Wyver. The enlightenment he has bought upon me recently, has led me away from the agnostic path to spirituality.

Deboogle!.
12-25-2003, 05:15 PM
lmfao... you do have a way with words George...

J. Corwin
12-25-2003, 08:15 PM
I always love reading a good debate. Keep it up.

WyverN
12-25-2003, 10:17 PM
I always love reading a good debate. Keep it up.

So do I.
This thread is a good example of whenever a debate goes from something more superificial then "who has the best serve?" George gets lost for words and decides to start posting about mensa, biased views and other uninteresting crap. Post a question about tennis Hitler and I will reply.

WyverN
12-25-2003, 10:18 PM
a lot of weight coming from one of the other most biased people on the board.

What am I biased about? You don't see me in threads arguing how Federer is the best player to ever live and how useless Roddick is.

star
12-25-2003, 10:24 PM
hmmmm.

I don't think you are extremely biased, Wyver.

You've got your definite opinions though.

Not that it is a bad thing. :)

WyverN
12-25-2003, 10:32 PM
You just answered your own question, do you realise that, or do you want me to spell it out for you? Also you are not using the term correctly, only use it suit your point of view, keep up with the spin.
Then again the everything is relative concept is something that you don't seem to understand.


You cannot prove Muster's will to win was greater then Sampras's as there is no gurantee if Sampras had faced the same circumstances as Muster he still wouldn't win 14 slams. And "will to win" is open to interpretation, I see it as the willingness to fight to succeed in tennis in different circumstances, for example Muster's situation but also Sampras's situation against Courier at AO 95.



Hahahahaha, actually the question is he was a super player and should have been able to adapt, but why didn't he? It wasn't through a lack of ability.


Are you serious? Sampras was not a superplayer.I will repost what I already said.

here you go.

Sampras's failure to win the FO isn't due to bad luck or lack of tactics (he tried everything) , it's endemic in his
game, which relies on the serve as the main weapon. On clay, the serve, the half volleys, the running forehand are neutralized to an extent, and that's enough to turn Pete from the greatest
of champions everywhere else to 'merely' an above-average pro player on clay.

If you say that Sampras should have adopted, well he could not. I consider Mac to be the most talented player of all time and he could not adapt.

It's no accident that all of the top players of the Open Era who relied
primarily on their service game - Mac, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras - failed to win the French Open. And Rafter was a real ace on clay



Mensa, keep up with sanctimonious posts. You have a go at me for being biased against Roddick, yet you do exactly the same thing against players who happen to be better on clay or are not Wimbledon champions, as you accused me of lacking objectivity when discussing Roddick.


I believe Wimbledon is more prestigious then the French Open, that is all. I am not biased against clay court players, for example I totally respect Ferrero and believe he will end up with around 5 French Opens and be a constant thread to #1.


It's Ok I have proven holes in your arguments on other issues, and will continue to do so, and I like you so much as provide me with such entertainment.


You don't know how silly some of your views are.

Sampras was a super player and should have won the French probably takes the cake.

WyverN
12-25-2003, 10:34 PM
hmmmm.

I don't think you are extremely biased, Wyver.

You've got your definite opinions though.

Not that it is a bad thing. :)

Thanks

While people might disagree with my opinions I think having opinions is far more interesting on a tennis forum then just being objective about everything

WyverN
12-25-2003, 10:44 PM
Do you know why I call you Mensa? No, the answer I don't care doesn't count. You should know this one though.


Your equating Bush and Hitler through your nickname.
I seem to think whatever the reason you equate mensa and me is just as ridiculous.

star
12-25-2003, 11:12 PM
Thanks

While people might disagree with my opinions I think having opinions is far more interesting on a tennis forum then just being objective about everything

I think hardly anyone is purely objective. :)

Tennis Fool
12-25-2003, 11:26 PM
Hmmm...did Bunk ask me to post an opinion? Maybe after the fight on court clears :p

Deboogle!.
12-25-2003, 11:28 PM
Hmmm...did Bunk ask me to post an opinion? Maybe after the fight on court clears :p

lol... I was curious for your take on the questions you asked us.... but after all this crap I don't even really remember what it was anymore :(

Action Jackson
12-26-2003, 08:15 AM
Well the Sampras/Muster thing I can see the point you are trying to make when you use the terms to suit your own arguments and not use them literally. It's two different interpretations that's all, no more, no less.

Originally posted by WyverN
This thread is a good example of whenever a debate goes from something more superificial then "who has the best serve?" George gets lost for words and decides to start posting about mensa, biased views and other uninteresting crap. Post a question about tennis Hitler and I will reply.

I keep forgetting that you are a supreme being that should be worshipped, and nothing ever you say should be challenged from anyone on this planet.

Ok, mensa if you bothered to read the opening posts to this thread, then you might see that I answered the original questions and gave reasons for why I came up those answers.

This whole debate came about because I questioned your claim that Sampras was the mentally toughest player ever and his will to win was not matched by anyone.

How about you posting more questions, then again with that encylopedia knowledge of yours that no mortal can possess, that might be beneath you.

I am not biased against clay court players, for example I totally respect Ferrero and believe he will end up with around 5 French Opens and be a constant thread to #1.

Yes you are biased as we all are to a certain extent. Yes, you are sanctimonious in the way of accusing my dislike and bias against Roddick, when you have done exactly the same thing to other players.

The thing is your opinion isn't any greater than mine or anyone else who happens to be a tennis fan and that goes the same for everyone else. I don't have a problem at all with your Wimbledon view, but just don't expect everyone to feel the same way as yourself.

Ferrero isn't just a claycourter and that has been proven. You denigrate players who happen to better on clay, just because you use Ferrero as an example to prove you are not biased is a fallacy and conceals the fact if they play well on clay or haven't won Wimbledon then they don't count.

You don't know how silly some of your views are. Sampras was a super player and should have won the French probably takes the cake.

Keep entertaining me and trying to irritate me mensa. When did I say Sampras should have won the French? Keep making it up and falsifying things that I said, then again you have done it before, so why stop now? Sampras was good enough to win the French is what I said, not that he should have, there is a major difference.

Ok, Wyver I still worship the ground you walk on and that's the truth. Though I thought you would have known the answer to the mensa question. It looks like I am going to have to tell you what the mensa things means, but not today.

Hail WyverN :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Action Jackson
12-26-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally Posted by Tennis Fool
Hmmm...did Bunk ask me to post an opinion? Maybe after the fight on court clears

Yes, it was an opinion on the answers that were recieved to the 6 questions that you asked, about the original article that you posted.

WyverN
12-26-2003, 09:05 AM
Sampras was good enough to win the French is what I said, not that he should have, there is a major difference.

I offered proof as to why Sampras could not win the French along with evidence that other players with similar game styles to him failed to win it as well.
So I am offering a opinion and backing it up with evidence (just as I did with the Wimbledon prestige issue) while you are just offering opinions wrapped up in mensa crap.


I snipped all the non tennis BS. Not in the mood to reply to it today, maybe some other time.

Action Jackson
12-26-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally Posted by WyverN
I offered proof as to why Sampras could not win the French along with evidence that other players with similar game styles to him failed to win it as well.

Then again, there is the difference, you are stating the obvious for why that the French was the most difficult for him to win, this doesn't mean he wasn't capable of winning or even should have won the tournament, which you accused me of saying.

So I am offering a opinion and backing it up with evidence (just as I did with the Wimbledon prestige issue) while you are just offering opinions wrapped up in mensa crap.

Well you had points to the Wimbledon issue, which unlike you I actually acknowledge were valid in many cases. However, the difference is you decided to come and call me names, when you said that it was the most prestigious for all the players invloved, and I backed it up with the Hewitt ( a winner) and other players who didn't feel that way. I suppose that was rubbish as well.

You mightn't reply at the moment but the facts are the same that your opinions are no more important than any other tennis fan and that goes for everyone.

Hail WyverN:worship: :worship: :worship:

WyverN
12-26-2003, 11:18 AM
You mightn't reply at the moment but the facts are the same that your opinions are no more important than any other tennis fan and that goes for everyone.


That is obviously why you call me mensa.

I must appologise for not replying to most of the non tennis stuff, it provided me with many laughs

These debates with you are a absolute blast , i am really glad i found this place.

It is like arguing with a politician

1. You select what to reply to
2. You mock the opposition instead of contributing to the debate
3. You twist the debate to suit your meaning
4. You post long essays thinking that somehow that makes your post more meaningul while it is still just fluff

I think we have drained this topic enough, hitler, until next time :)

Action Jackson
12-27-2003, 05:07 AM
Thanks Wyver I was wrong about you having a sense of humour bypass, and I sincerely apologise for that ( hopefuly it wasn't a one-off), your last post had me laughing for 10 minutes so thank you very much.

That politician call was very funny.

1. You select what to reply to
2. You mock the opposition instead of contributing to the debate
3. You twist the debate to suit your meaning
4. You post long essays thinking that somehow that makes your post more meaningul while it is still just fluff


1. You do exactly the same thing, so you are no better in this regard. If you have made valid points I acknowledge them, and if I don't reply to something it's because it has already been said and doesn't need to expanded upon.

2. Of course since I allegedly mock the opposition and your bias would cloud seeing any alleged contributions in your eyes that I have made.

3. Well done sanctimonious one, that is very classy coming from yourself. You are high priest of manipulating terms to justify and support your arguments. Or would you like me to explain the term spin doctoring?

4. Yes, the posts are long sometimes, then again as I said previously my opinion is no better or more valid than yours or any other individual.
Then again at least I don't go around portraying myself as some wise individual who knows anything and everything about tennis and expects everyone to follow blindly my views.

Yes, this topic has been drained but thanks for the laughs Wyver.

Hail WyverN :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: