Finalists for Australian Open? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Finalists for Australian Open?

Devotee
01-02-2004, 07:46 AM
Please click on 2 choices only.

Jazzy
01-02-2004, 08:41 AM
i no, i clicked 1 !!!! :sad:

WyverN
01-02-2004, 08:49 AM
ill go for federer & roddick

trixy
01-02-2004, 09:05 AM
Seeing as none of the warm-up events have been played and we dont know how players have pulled up in 2004 (i still cant get over the fact that it's 2004, i feel weird whenever i rite it) and what sort of form they're showing. I wont let that stop me tho. I'll go with ferrero and hewitt.

Fedex
01-02-2004, 09:06 AM
Federer & Agassi Of course you wouldnt know if that was even possible until the draw comes out ;)

maratski
01-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Fat dave and andre, it's just a hunch ;)

oxy
01-02-2004, 11:03 AM
my vote goes to ferrero n hewitt...;)

kfh_9118
01-02-2004, 12:46 PM
Agassi and Other Player :D

star
01-02-2004, 12:58 PM
I'd like to see a draw before I vote. :)

Kiara
01-02-2004, 02:01 PM
no idea.....but Federer has a good shot

*Ljubica*
01-02-2004, 02:43 PM
Don't care who the other one is as long as David's one of them :) .....but I voted for my "other" to be Federer as I think he is the best player out there right now. And yes I know that might be considered "wishful thinking" with their head-to-head record, but I'm not too sure after Houston.

Vass
01-02-2004, 03:03 PM
Ferrero and Hewitt.
Shouldn't we be entitled to two votes here?

jbud
01-02-2004, 03:37 PM
Whoever impresses in Sydney will go far... Andy Roddick perhaps if his serve is fizzing and Carlos Moya as an outsider.

Deboogle!.
01-02-2004, 04:30 PM
yea I'll wait til the warmups are over and the draw comes out lol

yanchr
01-02-2004, 04:53 PM
TOO early to make any predictions! But never mind it as long as Roger takes the one. The other...guess...Dalbandian...Am I endangering Roger?

Vass
01-02-2004, 06:30 PM
TOO early to make any predictions! But never mind it as long as Roger takes the one. The other...guess...Nalbandian...Am I endangering Roger?
Not realy, I think.

MisterQ
01-02-2004, 06:40 PM
I will also wait for the draw before voting, to avoid choosing two players who cannot meet in the final.

But at this point, I think any of the top four players are definite possibilities for the final: Roddick, Federer, Ferrero and Agassi.

HybridTheory
01-02-2004, 06:45 PM
Federer - Nalbandian

LubiG
01-02-2004, 07:49 PM
How come Guille is not there?

Deboogle!.
01-02-2004, 08:00 PM
It might limit you to 10 choices...

Devotee
01-02-2004, 08:29 PM
How come Guille is not there?

Although Coria has gone through a breathtaking improvement
recently, I still don't think he's in the same league as the
players on my list when it comes to hard court.
Who knows, though, he may shock us all in a few weeks!

Ma. Estefania
01-02-2004, 09:42 PM
No idea, and I don't dare to choose yet.

AO is always so surprising (exception: Agassi at the final :rolleyes: )

J. Corwin
01-02-2004, 10:09 PM
I will wait until the draw comes out as well.

Chloe le Bopper
01-02-2004, 11:31 PM
Whoever impresses in Sydney will go far... Andy Roddick perhaps if his serve is fizzing and Carlos Moya as an outsider.

I wouldn't say that Sydney is really that great an indicator of performance at the Australian Open. Your winner last year won ONE game off of Agassi in the first round (or was it the second round?) last year. The runner up lost in the quarters to Ferreira. Although one of the semifinalists DID end up making the finals... I wouldn't read into that too much.

If I'm not mistaken, both Hewitt and Federer have won Sydney before as well, and neither has had great success in Australia (they've posted half decent results, but nothing worth writing home about for a former number 1 and current number 2).

Deboogle!.
01-03-2004, 12:19 AM
yeah and the reverse is true... some people played really badly in the warmups and went on to play well at AO

LubiG
01-03-2004, 01:16 AM
Although Coria has gone through a breathtaking improvement
recently, I still don't think he's in the same league as the
players on my list when it comes to hard court.
Who knows, though, he may shock us all in a few weeks!

I dunno... i think he has the same chances. Everyone thought he wouldn't do well in the Swiss Indoor and he won...

guganumberone
01-03-2004, 01:43 AM
I would like to see El Aynaoi in there along with.....federer or schuettler (or guga!)

Devotee
01-03-2004, 02:58 AM
I would like to see El Aynaoi in there along with.....federer or schuettler (or guga!)


I so want Kuerten to go far in this Australian Open. I have no idea
why he always does badly at this tournament.

Leo
01-03-2004, 04:31 AM
I dunno... i think he has the same chances. Everyone thought he wouldn't do well in the Swiss Indoor and he won...

I agree. He is, after all, #5 in the world. He definitely deserves to be up there instead of El Aynaoui or Philippoussis.

Too early to say since the draw is not even out yet, but I wouldn't be surprised (or displeased, for that matter) if Nalbandian or Hewitt reached the final.

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 04:39 AM
Coria made the 4th round in Australia last year, and the quarter finals of the US Open... which is actually a better record than pretty much anybody not named Andre, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian or Schuettler.

So I'm not sure what this bunk about him not performing on hardcourts is all about.

WyverN
01-03-2004, 04:59 AM
So I'm not sure what this bunk about him not performing on hardcourts is all about.

Lucky draws at AO and USO and a 17-10 hard court record in 2003.

guganumberone
01-03-2004, 06:20 AM
I agree. He is, after all, #5 in the world. He definitely deserves to be up there instead of El Aynaoui or Philippoussis.

Too early to say since the draw is not even out yet, but I wouldn't be surprised (or displeased, for that matter) if Nalbandian or Hewitt reached the final.

i dont know why you would think that El Aynaoui and Phillippousis Dont Deserve to be up thier....I think they have both accomplished far much more than Nalbandian and Coria

Leo
01-03-2004, 07:11 AM
i dont know why you would think that El Aynaoui and Phillippousis Dont Deserve to be up thier....I think they have both accomplished far much more than Nalbandian and Coria

Nalbandian and Coria are currently better players. The rankings reflect that.

guganumberone
01-03-2004, 07:18 AM
Nalbandian and Coria are currently better players. The rankings reflect that.

thats one of the most naive things i have ever heard on these message boards.... rankings dont reflect on everything

WyverN
01-03-2004, 07:45 AM
thats one of the most naive things i have ever heard on these message boards.... rankings dont reflect on everything

Exactly

ranking is far overrated..ranking is by and large just a method to determine seedings at tournaments..and if any ranking counts at all, it's the yr end one, which has a small psychological factor associated with it.

drf716
01-03-2004, 07:56 AM
i really hope for marat and the 2000 players

Tingu
01-03-2004, 08:52 AM
I hope Andy & some really bad player should be in the final :)

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 09:32 AM
Lucky draws at AO and USO and a 17-10 hard court record in 2003.
Andre didn't exactly have difficult draws at either of those slams either, but I don't see anybody knocking him for it.

Hypocrite ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 09:43 AM
i dont know why you would think that El Aynaoui and Phillippousis Dont Deserve to be up thier....I think they have both accomplished far much more than Nalbandian and Coria
Um. Excuse me? Younes has accomplished more than Coria and Nalbandian? Come again?

I'll give you Mark. 6 more years on tour are bound to work in his favour.

Looking just at the last year, Wimbledon finals aside, Mark was no more impressive than the other two. He certainly did nothing to indicate to me that he will go further in Australia than Coria or David. Remind me who he lost to at the USO this year?

claudine140
01-03-2004, 09:46 AM
why not moya??? He reached the final a long time ago, but it is a while ago since he done something good in a grand slam, so i have the feeling this will be the year of surprises from moya!!!!!!

WyverN
01-03-2004, 10:37 AM
Andre didn't exactly have difficult draws at either of those slams either, but I don't see anybody knocking him for it.

Hypocrite ;)
I recall him beating Coria twice.

We are discussing whether Coria can play on hardcourts and you bring up Agassi, a person who has won 6 hardcourt slams, to back up your argument.

Idiot.

Action Jackson
01-03-2004, 10:42 AM
I went for other vs other as I haven't seen the draw and won't make any claims until we see the full draw.

Wyver I see you are making friends as usual.

joske
01-03-2004, 10:46 AM
Well I voted Roddick, Federer, Nalbandian and Ferrero *wishful thinking? I certainly hope not!* for the semi's.. Can't really say who will play the finals, but looking at my amount of luck in past HC tourneys, I guess Roddick and someone else than Ferrero? :(:(:( ;)

WyverN
01-03-2004, 11:15 AM
Wyver I see you are making friends as usual.

Yeah I am mr popular around here. You are making a couple as well in some other thread.

Jazzy
01-03-2004, 11:58 AM
hee hee lol WyverN, i think i can c that!! (not physically tho)
i'm not sure who''ll b in the final, there's a question mark over Nalbandian's head, as this rist injury has forced him 2 pull out of a tournament, & never no, that could happen 2 ne of the other players, sooo i'm not sure, but 4 some reason i have a sneak suspesion that roddick mite, i no, i no, i'm not really a roddick, fan , but i'm being realistic here, as he has played well last year!

Action Jackson
01-03-2004, 12:04 PM
Yeah, WyverN how do you handle the popularity? It mustn't be easy.

Trying to guess who will win the AO from this far out, would drive me to a very similar fate as the picture below.

WyverN
01-03-2004, 12:10 PM
It comes with the job. I knew popularity would be a issue when i chose this line of work.

It is a hassle but someone has to do it - that is someone has to talk sense on these forums.

WyverN
01-03-2004, 12:12 PM
LOL hitler!

That picture shows exactly how I feel when I am reading posts from some individuals here

Action Jackson
01-03-2004, 12:12 PM
Good answer, do you resemble the guy on the right of the above picture?
Sorry about the double post, impeccable timing.

WyverN
01-03-2004, 12:34 PM
george this is how i feel

Action Jackson
01-03-2004, 12:38 PM
Wyver, that was as good as the Borg vs wall comment. How did you manage to change the text of the picture?

Action Jackson
01-03-2004, 12:40 PM
Is the cow meant to be Roddick?

WyverN
01-03-2004, 12:41 PM
saved it and edited it with paint shop pro.........2 minute job

WyverN
01-03-2004, 12:44 PM
Is the cow meant to be Roddick?

Only if he is posting under the nickname of Leo, QueenRebecca or GeorgeWHitler ;)

lizabeth..*
01-03-2004, 01:21 PM
Federer or Ferrero....and Moya as an outsider

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 06:36 PM
I recall him beating Coria twice.

We are discussing whether Coria can play on hardcourts and you bring up Agassi, a person who has won 6 hardcourt slams, to back up your argument.

Idiot.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point.

You also decided to tell me things that I already knew.

Again... please. Go massage your ego elsewhere.

Idiot ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 06:37 PM
LOL hitler!

That picture shows exactly how I feel when I am reading posts from some individuals here
It's also roughly how I feel when you break out in to one of your infamous "I'm the smartest most knowlegable tennis fan who has ever walked the eath. Bow to me!" speeches.... then make it clear in the very same post that you are too blinded by your own biases to really know fuck all.

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 06:38 PM
Only if he is posting under the nickname of Leo, QueenRebecca or GeorgeWHitler ;)
Because obviously everybody who disagrees with you is wrong, since you are the smartest most knowlegable tennis fan around!

I don't think that I've ever seen a poster blow more hot air out his own ass before.

Congratulations!

Chloe le Bopper
01-03-2004, 06:40 PM
By the way, halfwit, if you ever think that I said that "RG>Wimbledon" OR vice versa, than you really ought to sign up with hooked on phonics, because you clearly can't read.

Illiterate dumbass.

Pea
01-03-2004, 10:25 PM
Federer vs. Hewitt.:cool:

WyverN
01-03-2004, 11:21 PM
lol spectacular outburst, rather boring though, hitler is far more entertaining.


By the way, halfwit, if you ever think that I said that "RG>Wimbledon" OR vice versa, than you really ought to sign up with hooked on phonics, because you clearly can't read.


and you talk to me about missing the point :rolleyes:

Leo
01-04-2004, 12:31 AM
thats one of the most naive things i have ever heard on these message boards.... rankings dont reflect on everything

Naive? You're the one saying El Aynaoui has had a more successful career than Nalbandian or Coria. :lol:

In this case the rankings are absolutely correct. Nalbandian and Coria achieved more in 2003 and deserve to be ranked higher than Philippoussis and El Aynaoui. They've been better players in the past 52 weeks.

Looking back on their hard court results of 2003, I don't understand how you can say El Aynaoui and Philippoussis have a better chance of winning the Aussie Open than the two Argentines. Lacks something called "logic". It's often a foreign idea around here.

Leo
01-04-2004, 12:34 AM
and you talk to me about missing the point :rolleyes:

The point was pretty clear. It was a comical attempt, but, alas, another failure on your part. Cry on my shoulder if you feel it neccessary.

tangerine_dream
01-04-2004, 01:16 AM
I don't know the first thing about Oddsmaking, but I found these on a sports betting site. It looks like, according to the bookies at least, that Federer is the favorite to win the AO this year (for now at least; I'm assuming they'll change when the draw is out):

Mens Australian Open Betting Odds

Roger Federer 10/3

Andy Roddick 4/1

Andre Agassi 8/1

Lleyton Hewitt 8/1

Juan Carlos Ferrero 16/1

David Nalbandian 18/1

Guillermo Coria 18/1

Carlos Moya 28/1

Tim Henman 33/1

Mark Philippoussis 33/1

Taylor Dent 40/1

Marat Safin 40/1

LubiG
01-04-2004, 01:37 AM
I recall him beating Coria twice.

We are discussing whether Coria can play on hardcourts and you bring up Agassi, a person who has won 6 hardcourt slams, to back up your argument.


Excuse me for asking, but where does this myth about Coria not being able to play in hardcourts come from??

Chloe le Bopper
01-04-2004, 02:01 AM
I don't know the first thing about Oddsmaking, but I found these on a sports betting site. It looks like, according to the bookies at least, that Federer is the favorite to win the AO this year (for now at least; I'm assuming they'll change when the draw is out):

Mens Australian Open Betting Odds

Roger Federer 10/3

Andy Roddick 4/1

Andre Agassi 8/1

Lleyton Hewitt 8/1

Juan Carlos Ferrero 16/1

David Nalbandian 18/1

Guillermo Coria 18/1

Carlos Moya 28/1

Tim Henman 33/1

Mark Philippoussis 33/1

Taylor Dent 40/1

Marat Safin 40/1
Odds are created by people who want to make money... not by tennis pundits predicting winners. That said, obviously they are usually somewhat realistic looking. Few would argue Federer, Agassi and Roddick should top the list.

But the point is, these are made from a financial frame reference.

A popular player is likely to get better odds than they perhaps deserve in some cases, simply because a lot of people will bet on them since they are a "name".

Action Jackson
01-04-2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by WyverN
lol spectacular outburst, rather boring though, hitler is far more entertaining.

Why thank you WyverN that I am capable of entertaining you, well actually you are the entertaining one. I mean when you said arguing with me is like talking to a politician, hahaha.

As I have 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 sage individual who knows anything and everything about tennis and expects everyone to follow blindly my views.

Just remember don't let your biases cloud your judgements, when you make good and valid points I will acknowledge them. It would be very boring if everybody thought the same way.

WyverN
01-04-2004, 10:29 AM
Then again at least I don't go around portraying myself as some sage individual who knows anything and everything about tennis

when you make good and valid points I will acknowledge them.

bit of a contradiction there

Action Jackson
01-04-2004, 10:42 AM
Well I know I acknowledge valid points, even if I don't agree with them, and no I don't think I am the most intelligent person on this planet regarding tennis or any other subject for that matter.

Anyway, do you want to confirm the points system we had for our Hewitt/Roddick thing in the Slams?
1200 for winning was the right number wasn't it?

WyverN
01-04-2004, 10:46 AM
yep wasn't that all sorted?

my point is what gives you the right to judge what is valid and what is not

JennyS
01-04-2004, 03:41 PM
I voted for Hewitt and Agassi.

Chloe le Bopper
01-04-2004, 05:59 PM
yep wasn't that all sorted?

my point is what gives you the right to judge what is valid and what is not

Now there's a question that you really ought to be asking yourself.

Jakub
01-04-2004, 10:11 PM
Lleyton or Andy
I think one of them will be for sure

WyverN
01-04-2004, 10:24 PM
Now there's a question that you really ought to be asking yourself.

i think your highness has forgotten that this was all started by you attacking my opinion that Coria is not very good on hardcourts

JeLuliA88
01-05-2004, 12:56 AM
It all depends on how the draws are set out... if the draws are favourable, agassi and roddick probably have the best chances, but we won't really know their form until the lead up tournaments are played.

Good luck to Ferrero and Federer @ the aus open!

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 01:09 AM
i think your highness has forgotten that this was all started by you attacking my opinion that Coria is not very good on hardcourts
You apparently have never read anything you wrote on the Wimbledon-Roland Garros issue.

Or the time that you said any tennis fan worth a dime "knows" that Sampras is the greatest ever... when there are several who will nod in favour of Borg or Laver.

Ma. Estefania
01-05-2004, 02:41 AM
I went for other vs other as I haven't seen the draw and won't make any claims until we see the full draw.

I'll have to agree with you.....we're making so much speculations and we don't even know what could happen in the next days until the start of the tournament......though all these "discussions" are exciting. :p

WyverN
01-05-2004, 06:46 AM
Or the time that you said any tennis fan worth a dime "knows" that Sampras is the greatest ever... when there are several who will nod in favour of Borg or Laver.

I would love to hear you make a case for Borg being greater then Sampras considering the one weakness in Sampras's resume also occurs in Borgs.

Sampras outshines Laver as well, when you consider the respective eras and the fact that during Laver days 3/4 slams were on grass.

FanOfHewitt
01-05-2004, 10:30 AM
Borg won 11 grand slams by the age of 26 and he never even played in the Australian Open! Had he come down under and had he played till he was 30 it is arguable that he could have had well over 15 grand slams.

He also had a better win/loss ratio than Sampras, and whilst Sampras' bogey tournament was the French in which he failed to even get to the final, Borg was runner up at his bogey tournament, the US, on 4 occasions.

I think there is definitely an argument there for Borg. In any case, I don't see how it can be an open and shut case for Sampras.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 10:53 AM
Borg won 11 grand slams by the age of 26 and he never even played in the Australian Open! Had he come down under and had he played till he was 30 it is arguable that he could have had well over 15 grand slams.


That is all "could have hypothesis", if Sampras played 3/4 slams on grass like Laver did he would probably have over 20 slams.


He also had a better win/loss ratio than Sampras, and whilst Sampras' bogey tournament was the French in which he failed to even get to the final, Borg was runner up at his bogey tournament, the US, on 4 occasions.


of course his win/loss ratio is better then Sampras's as Borg retired at his prime and avoided those declining older years where a player usually begins to struggle.

Well Borg's game was much more suited for hard courts then Sampras's game was for clay yet he still failed to win.

Biggest issue against Borg is that as soon as another all time great came along (Mcenroe) Borg began losing regularly to him. Sampras on the other hand was never second to anyone.

J. Corwin
01-05-2004, 11:36 AM
I also see Sampras as greater than Laver or Borg (with reasons stated by WyverN already). Just my opinion.

heya
01-05-2004, 12:11 PM
The top 10 now isn't as dominant as it was a decade ago. Plus, with much more aggressive, stronger players, anyone is vulnerable to an upset in a slam.

FanOfHewitt
01-05-2004, 12:13 PM
That is all "could have hypothesis", if Sampras played 3/4 slams on grass like Laver did he would probably have over 20 slams..

I could use the same argument for Borg.

The fact that something is hypothetical does not mean that it carries no weight. It's also a hypothesis that if I walk into the next room i wont be walking through a portal to another world. Does that make my hypothesis purely speculation?


Well Borg's game was much more suited for hard courts then Sampras's game was for clay yet he still failed to win.

True, but you can also word it that Borg was more competant on his weakest surface than Sampras was on his.

Biggest issue against Borg is that as soon as another all time great came along (Mcenroe) Borg began losing regularly to him. Sampras on the other hand was never second to anyone.

Well Sampras in his last few years definitely found himself getting beaten as well. I know you will say that Sampras was well past his prime by then, and fair enough, but if some of the new balls had popped up on the scene a couple years earlier I dont think Sampras would have escaped without being beaten by them a few times in major events either. I'm not saying that he wouldnt have got the best of them, but I think he wouldnt have been so dominant.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 01:04 PM
I could use the same argument for Borg.

The fact that something is hypothetical does not mean that it carries no weight. It's also a hypothesis that if I walk into the next room i wont be walking through a portal to another world. Does that make my hypothesis purely speculation?


Woulda Couldas simply can not count as they can go on forever. Results count.



True, but you can also word it that Borg was more competant on his weakest surface than Sampras was on his.


Or you could say Borgs results on his weakest surface look more impressive because the depth of tour was greater during Sampras's era yet when they both came against good players on their respective weakest surfaces they both struggled. This is getting beside the point which is why only results should matter.



but if some of the new balls had popped up on the scene a couple years earlier I dont think Sampras would have escaped without being beaten by them a few times in major events either.

That is not a very good argument as to why Sampras is not best ever. What if Mcenroe popped up 5 years earlier and began beating Borg in 77?

Besides if the new balls are such so much better compared to players in Sampras's era, suggesting that Pete would struggle struggle against them at his peak then why does Agassi, at 32/33 years of age still give them a great challange besides being 10 years their senior and way past his peak?

We all know how Agassi usually fared against Pete.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 01:20 PM
Borg won 11 grand slams by the age of 26 and he never even played in the Australian Open! Had he come down under and had he played till he was 30 it is arguable that he could have had well over 15 grand slams.

He also had a better win/loss ratio than Sampras, and whilst Sampras' bogey tournament was the French in which he failed to even get to the final, Borg was runner up at his bogey tournament, the US, on 4 occasions.

I think there is definitely an argument there for Borg. In any case, I don't see how it can be an open and shut case for Sampras.
Borg most definately has a case, and many a tennis writer would agree with that. It's only an open and shut case to an extremely close minded individual like WyverN.

Chloe le Bopper
01-05-2004, 01:21 PM
I would love to hear you make a case for Borg being greater then Sampras considering the one weakness in Sampras's resume also occurs in Borgs.

FandeHewitt has addressed the Borg-Sampras bit in detail. They both have knocks against them, but one can make a case FOR either of them. Feel free to keep your head up your ass on this one and not see what is right in front of your nose.

Sampras outshines Laver as well, when you consider the respective eras and the fact that during Laver days 3/4 slams were on grass.

It's awfully hard to consider respective eras, when Laver spent half his days as an "amature" and the other half as a pro.

Riley Finn
01-05-2004, 01:32 PM
I see people stopped putting Marat in the polls,cause it's obvious he's gonan win it ;)

Dre-marat final

LubiG
01-05-2004, 01:38 PM
i think your highness has forgotten that this was all started by you attacking my opinion that Coria is not very good on hardcourts

Sincerilly i don't get why the hell do you think that.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 01:51 PM
Sincerilly i don't get why the hell do you think that.

I just do. His not a poor player on hardcourt, better then average actually, but not anywhere near his #5 ranking.

FanOfHewitt
01-05-2004, 01:57 PM
Woulda Couldas simply can not count as they can go on forever. Results count.

ROFLMFAO! Coming from Hewitt's (the guy who has the best results over the last 3 years) biggest bagger! Rightio!


Or you could say Borgs results on his weakest surface look more impressive because the depth of tour was greater during Sampras's era yet when they both came against good players on their respective weakest surfaces they both struggled. This is getting beside the point which is why only results should matter.

It is one thing to say that Borg struggled at the final of the US, and its another thing to say that Sampras struggled to get past the second round of the French.


That is not a very good argument as to why Sampras is not best ever. What if Mcenroe popped up 5 years earlier and began beating Borg in 77?

Besides if the new balls are such so much better compared to players in Sampras's era, suggesting that Pete would struggle struggle against them at his peak then why does Agassi, at 32/33 years of age still give them a great challange besides being 10 years their senior and way past his peak?

We all know how Agassi usually fared against Pete.

Pete didn't exactly demolish Andre. Their records against each other are not that one sided. 20-14. And besides, styles make matches. Pete's style may have just matched up well agaisnt Andre's style, but it doesn't mean that Pete would thereby beat all the players that Andre beats. And by the way, Andre peaked late and as yet it is not so clear that he is past his prime. Yes he plays less tournaments, but he is still showing top form.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 02:06 PM
ROFLMFAO! Coming from Hewitt's (the guy who has the best results over the last 3 years) biggest bagger! Rightio!


I never said anything about his achievements, no one can take that away from him, I just don't think he will achieve much in the future.




It is one thing to say that Borg struggled at the final of the US, and its another thing to say that Sampras struggled to get past the second round of the French.


As I have already said, could be because there are far more able clay courters during the 1990s then hardcourt players during Borgs days (hardcourt was very new).




Pete didn't exactly demolish Andre. Their records against each other are not that one sided. 20-14. And besides, styles make matches. Pete's style may have just matched up well agaisnt Andre's style, but it doesn't mean that Pete would thereby beat all the players that Andre beats. And by the way, Andre peaked late and as yet it is not so clear that he is past his prime. Yes he plays less tournaments, but he is still showing top form.

Agassi was a far better player in 1999/2000. It does not make sense to say Pete would struggle against the new balls as he did not struggle against any other consistent top players during his generation but I suppose we will never know.

FanOfHewitt
01-05-2004, 02:22 PM
I never said anything about his achievements, no one can take that away from him, I just don't think he will achieve much in the future.

Oh really? Didn't you just say on another thread that you never rated him? Or was it on this thread?


As I have already said, could be because there are far more able clay courters during the 1990s then hardcourt players during Borgs days (hardcourt was very new).

And Borg was a veteran on the surface was he?

Agassi was a far better player in 1999/2000. It does not make sense to say Pete would struggle against the new balls as he did not struggle against any other consistent top players during his generation but I suppose we will never know..

Well it all depends on whether the new generation are of a higher calibre than the players that were about during Sampras' glory years. And i think time will be the best judge of that. But the way it is looking, there are about 5 or 6 guys out there that are equally as good as each other at the moment. And the depth outside those players is only increasing as well....

star
01-05-2004, 06:46 PM
I don't like to compare players of different eras in order to decide who was the "best." Each one was great for his time. There are a few special players that dominate. Naturally the young people who didn't see Borg play won't appreciate his greatness as I do, just as I don't appreciate Laver because I never saw him play.

I do want to clear up one misconception and that is that Borg quit when McEnroe began to beat him regularly. Borg and McEnroe's head to head is 7-7.

They never met on clay, but only on carpet, hard, and grass. McEnroe won the last three of their meetings, Milan, Wimbledon, USO, but McEnroe actually beat Borg the very first time they played in 1978. They battled four times in 1979 and traded victories. In 1980, Borg won the Masters and Wimbledon, but McEnroe won the USO. Now, what everyone thinks happened is that McEnroe beat Borg everytime they played after that 1980 USO, but that is not true. Borg won their next two meetings in 1981, but of course McEnroe won the last three of thier matches in 1981.

Borg won another tournament in September 1981, but that was really his good moment in tennis. He lost at the Tokyo Indoor the second round to Tim Gullickson. That was really the end, although he played Monte Carlo in both 1982 and 1983.

The reasons for Borg quitting were complex, and it was not just that McEnroe had begun to take the edge, after all their last two matches were 4 sets each. Borg also had a dispute with the ATP that many don't remember that played a role in his feelings about tennis overall.

WyverN
01-05-2004, 11:58 PM
Oh really? Didn't you just say on another thread that you never rated him? Or was it on this thread?



I never rated hewitt as a long term #1

WyverN
01-06-2004, 12:03 AM
I do want to clear up one misconception and that is that Borg quit when McEnroe began to beat him regularly. Borg and McEnroe's head to head is 7-7.

They never met on clay, but only on carpet, hard, and grass. McEnroe won the last three of their meetings, Milan, Wimbledon, USO, but McEnroe actually beat Borg the very first time they played in 1978. They battled four times in 1979 and traded victories. In 1980, Borg won the Masters and Wimbledon, but McEnroe won the USO.
Borg won another tournament in September 1981, but that was really his good moment in tennis.


I guess we will never know why he really quit but I think it was because of Mac. Borg was a perfectionist, tennis was all or nothing to him, after totally dominating for so long being second to anyone just was not a option to him.

After being beaten rather easily in 1981 at Wimbledon by Mac, Borg must have realised his grasp on Wimbledon was coming to a end as Mac has not even reached his peak yet. After being beaten in 1981 USO by Mac Borg was clearly #2 and knew his time at the top was up.

star
01-06-2004, 12:03 AM
What is your definition of a long term #1?

WyverN
01-06-2004, 12:08 AM
What is your definition of a long term #1?

fighting it out for the top spot for a period of around 5 years.

J. Corwin
01-06-2004, 06:52 AM
So being in top 3 for five years would count?

Action Jackson
01-06-2004, 06:54 AM
Probably not.

WyverN
01-06-2004, 07:13 AM
Yeah, top 3 should count as long as the front 2 have not completely ran away with it. Agassi fought for the #1 spot over most of his career despite only ever finishing #1 once.

Yashirobai
01-07-2004, 05:18 PM
it is not logical to have El Aynaoui as an option in stead of guys like Moyá.

RebelNYC
01-07-2004, 08:13 PM
I picked Andre The King and Roger The Prince....
This would be a terrific final! Anything can (and does) happen
Down Under, so nothing could surprise me! GO ANDRE!

cheliste
01-10-2004, 04:26 AM
Since my crystal ball cracked years ago, I vow not to venture into prognostications. That is to save myself from embarassment each time reality contradicts my "fantasies". :p