20 y.o. Nadal (2 GS+9 TMS)/10 TMS soon >>> Sampras (16 TMS life, 1 GS @ age 21) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

20 y.o. Nadal (2 GS+9 TMS)/10 TMS soon >>> Sampras (16 TMS life, 1 GS @ age 21)

Pages : [1] 2

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:12 PM
Nadal won his first slam at age 19y1w earlier than Pete won his first slam at age 19y1m.


It is general consensus that Sampras is more talented than Agassi who didnt win his first slam until he was 22 and won 5 of his 9 slams after that age of 29. (while it may disputed, I still think that Michael Chang is the most talented player in history)

Samprass in April 1993 when Pete reached #1 ranking for the first time at age 21, this was his recrod at the time, and he has acompplished much more than Roddick/Aggassi did at age 21 without question.
Slam - 1 (US Open)
Master Cup - 1
Masters - 2 (Cinncinati, Miami)
Titles - 16

Nadal at 20y3m and now #2 in the world
Slam - 2 (French Open)
Masters - 6
Titles - 17

(for comparison: Hewitt in June 2003 @ age 22, the last time he was #1)
Slam - 2 (US Open, Wimbledon)
Master Cup - 2
Masters - 2 (Indian Wells)
Titles - 19

It seems that Nadal has achieved more at his age, except for the ranking.
While he has not achieved #1, he has surpassed in achievement than Sampras and Hewitt at their respective age. Talent is pointless as some may suggest, but if Nadal keeps this up, he may well surpass Sampras.! :eek: and still rank #2.

Naranoc
09-08-2006, 07:15 PM
Not a good idea to start this thread straight after Nadal is knocked out of the Quarters...

LCeh
09-08-2006, 07:15 PM
I think by using your logic, Nadal would be ahead of Roger as well. So you basically just contradicted yourself right in that post. ;)

mangoes
09-08-2006, 07:17 PM
I think by using your logic, Nadal would be ahead of Roger as well. So you basically just contradicted yourself right in that post. ;)


Exactly............

El Legenda
09-08-2006, 07:19 PM
Nadal wont win 10 slams :wavey:

Pigpen Stinks
09-08-2006, 07:21 PM
Huh? What does talent have to do with what age you are when you win titles. I think many would say Agassi had more raw talent than Sampras. As for Chang, he won matches based on his quickness and his mental strength. I think he was one of the least talented players of his era.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:23 PM
Huh? What does talent have to do with what age you are when you win titles. I think many would say Agassi had more raw talent than Sampras. As for Chang, he won matches based on his quickness and his mental strength. I think he was one of the least talented players of his era.
one of the least talented players of his era.?REALLY?

Talent is correlated wth age, there is no question about that, no one wrote Boris Becker off ever since he won his first slam at 17. Young slam winners always project future winning potentials.

LCeh
09-08-2006, 07:25 PM
Actually with 2 slams at 20, he is ahead of Roger already on clay and he is coming up on grass and hardcourt. Roger to the eye of Nadal is not as unbeatable as in the past. Let us not forget that Nadal already reached WIMBLEDON FINAL, and threatened Roger. There is no question he is a threat.

So why is Nadal not more talented than Roger according to your analysis and data?

Castafiore
09-08-2006, 07:25 PM
:rolleyes:

^^ Stupid poll, stupid thread, silly troll.

Asking people to ignore this is pointless, right?

Deboogle!.
09-08-2006, 07:26 PM
Talent is correlated wth age, there is no question about thatReally? I have a question about that.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:27 PM
:rolleyes:

^^ Stupid poll, stupid thread, silly troll.
I dont think it's stupid to appreciate unappreciated #2 in the world.

Castafiore
09-08-2006, 07:28 PM
I dont think it's stupid to appreciate unappreciated #2 in the world.
Two options:

1. you haven't been long on MTF so you don't know to what this sort of thing leads here: feeding a tard-war.
2. You are trolling and you are feeding a tard-war on purpose.

Which option is it?

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:29 PM
So why is Nadal not more talented than Roger according to your analysis and data?
My true opinion is that Roger-Nadal will be more dominating on the tour than Sampras-Agassi. Roger does best on grass and hardcourt and only starts to "display" his talent by winning his first Wimbledon victory, some already say that even Safin is more talented than Roger, but I dont believe so. But I believe that once Nadal improves on grass and hardcourt (he already reached Wimbledon final and won hardcourt master, so he has already done much better than many top 10 players e.g. Lujbicic), he will become more talented.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:30 PM
Two options:

1. you haven't been long on MTF so you don't know to what this sort of thing leads here: feeding a tard-war.
2. You are trolling.

Which option is it?

What is a tard-war? And I dont want to start a war, Sampras is already retired and I think Nadal is talented, and objectively based on record, Nadal does better than Sampras, that is it.

Deboogle!.
09-08-2006, 07:30 PM
My true opinion is that Roger-Nadal will be more dominating on the tour than Sampras-Agassi. Roger does best on grass and hardcourt and only starts to "display" his talent by winning his first Wimbledon victory, some already say that even Safin is more talented than Roger, but I dont believe so. But I believe that once Nadal improves on grass and hardcourt (he already reached Wimbledon final and won hardcourt master, so he has already done much better than many top 10 players e.g. Lujbicic), he will become more talented.
How can one "become" more talented?

LCeh
09-08-2006, 07:31 PM
Wait, so someone can be even more talented as they age? :confused:

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:31 PM
Nadal wont win 10 slams :wavey:
I think Nadal will pass Agassi's 8 slams. He will not retire until he is at least 26, and he only needs another 7 slams out of the next 24 slams he plays, I honestly think he will win at least 7 more before he retires.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:32 PM
Wait, so someone can be even more talented as they age? :confused:
Yes they can, but that's the essence of my question, what I am saying is Nadal now has done better than Samprass at Nadal's age, could this mean that he is more talented?

Deboogle!.
09-08-2006, 07:33 PM
Yes they can, but that's the essence of my question, what I am saying is Nadal now has done better than Samprass at Nadal's age, could this mean that he is more talented?Since when is talent correlated with age? This is a new one to me.

Fumus
09-08-2006, 07:34 PM
Really? I have a question about that.

Yea me too. According to that way of thinking Pat Rafter was not very talented because he didn't win his first slam until 25.

LCeh
09-08-2006, 07:35 PM
Yes they can, but that's the essence of my question, what I am saying is Nadal now has done better than Samprass at Nadal's age, could this mean that he is more talented?

Talent is only one of the factors in tennis. There is hardwork, coaching, your attitude towards the game, etc. all these things can affect your achievements. So you cannot go by achievements alone and say one is more talented than the other cause of that.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:36 PM
Yea me too. According to that way of thinking Pat Rafter was not very talented because he didn't win his first slam until 25.
It is well understood that Rafter was not considered a favourite when he won his first slam. Lleyton was hailed as the most talented player in decades because of his record of being the youngest player to win a title (or sort) and he was already called a more talented player than Michael Chang by press. One cannot deny that age is correlated with talent, that's simply how the world and the press operate.

Fumus
09-08-2006, 07:37 PM
Also, Micheal Chang is clearly more talented than all these guys because he won his first slam at 17.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:38 PM
Talent is only one of the factors in tennis. There is hardwork, coaching, your attitude towards the game, etc. all these things can affect your achievements. So you cannot go by achievements alone and say one is more talented than the other cause of that.
Agreed. So my question will only rest on talent, since Nadal at age 20 > Sampras at age 20, could Nadal continue his achievement and surpass Sampras? (objectively, I love Sampras as I cheer him on 7 times he won Wimbledon, but admitting that Nadal could do great things will not deminish Pete's achievement).

Naranoc
09-08-2006, 07:38 PM
Read the first post in this thread:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78381&highlight=Laws

Everything you need to know about MTF :)

LCeh
09-08-2006, 07:39 PM
Agreed. So my question will only rest on talent, since Nadal at age 20 > Sampras at age 20, could Nadal continue his achievement and surpass Sampras? (objectively, I love Sampras as I cheer him on 7 times he won Wimbledon, but admitting that Nadal could do great things will not deminish Pete's achievement).

I don't understand your question. Even if Nadal continues with his success and outachieves Sampras, that wouldn't necessarily mean that Nadal is more talented than him. So what's your question?

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:41 PM
Read the first post in this thread:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78381&highlight=Laws

Everything you need to know about MTF :)
Haha, is this official? Well, then this is probably right, speculation can be treated as fact, as can fact be considered speculation. But I am speculating based on record, I dont find a fault in that, but I hope people dont get offended by this thread. Pete is so far the greatest player alive IMO.

TenHound
09-08-2006, 07:42 PM
Beginning w/Wimby at least, you can no longer them compare based on records, since Pete played in an era of random draws.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:42 PM
I don't understand your question. Even if Nadal continues with his success and outachieves Sampras, that wouldn't necessarily mean that Nadal is more talented than him. So what's your question?
Maybe I have to define what talent is to avoid confusion in the future.
Talent = the possibility to achieve, so to have more talents will mean it is likely that Nadal have more potential to achieve i.e. win more slams than Sampras does.

DrJules
09-08-2006, 07:42 PM
Define talent?

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:43 PM
Define talent?
To quote from the previous post in reponse to LCeh
Talent = the possibility to achieve, so to have more talents will mean it is likely that Nadal have more potential to achieve i.e. win more slams than Sampras does.

LCeh
09-08-2006, 07:44 PM
Maybe I have to define what talent is to avoid confusion in the future.
Talent = the possibility to achieve, so to have more talents will mean it is likely that Nadal have more potential to achieve i.e. win more slams than Sampras does.
Talent is only one of the factors in tennis. There is hardwork, coaching, your attitude towards the game, etc. all these things can affect your achievements. So you cannot go by achievements alone and say one is more talented than the other cause of that.

;)

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 07:44 PM
Most talented at age 20 is not the same as most talented overall. In fact, most accomplished would be a better way of putting it, since others may have been more talented, they just couldn't harness it at that age.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 07:46 PM
;)
Haha, no argument there, but I still think being talented is good:).

Fumus
09-08-2006, 07:59 PM
Talent is only part of the three sided triangle known as the successful professial tennis player. Luck and work ethic are the other two sides. I define mental fortitude and tennis smarts as a function or part of talent. To that end, simply looking at a players talent will not help you to decide if that player will in the end become great than another player. I would say, Nadal is slightly lacking in the luck catagory being that he has had several injuries already, his god given style of play doesn't lend itself to a long career, and oh yea, he is playing tennis in an era where one guy is winning most of titles and hogging that number 1 spot.

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 08:00 PM
There's a difference between talent and accomplishments, and I think you are confusing the two. Marat Safin is arguably one of the most talented players on tour. His accomplishments may not reflect just how talented he is and that's because more than just talent is required to get those accomplishments.

Is Nadal playing to his potential? Yes. Is his talent the greatest on tour? Debatable.
Having talent and fulfilling it are two completely different things.

Fumus
09-08-2006, 08:02 PM
There's a difference between talent and accomplishments, and I think you are confusing the two. Marat Safin is arguably one of the most talented players on tour. His accomplishments may not reflect just how talented he is and that's because more than just talent is required to get those accomplishments.

Is Nadal playing to his potential? Yes. Is his talent the greatest on tour? Debatable.
Having talent and fulfilling it are two completely different things, and I think you are confusing them.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=82579&page=5&pp=15

Deboogle!.
09-08-2006, 08:09 PM
So by this logic, because Lleyton is the youngest player ever to finish #1, he is the most talented, and Andy the 2nd youngest ever, so he is the 2nd most talented ever?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA RIGHT :)

Fumus
09-08-2006, 08:10 PM
So by this logic, because Lleyton is the youngest player ever to finish #1, he is the most talented, and Andy the 2nd youngest ever, so he is the 2nd most talented ever?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA RIGHT :)


Nadal hasn't finished number 1, he's lacking talent.

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 08:11 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=82579&page=5&pp=15
:o Don't remind me! Where is Hawkie by the way?

Anyway, if he's using accomplishments to determine talent, this is still a bit of a silly argument, since Nadal is just at the beginning of his career. Going by our illustrious thread starter's assertions, we wouldn't be able to determine how much talent Nadal has until he's done.

Actually now that I think about it, s/he may be confusing talent with being precocious, since s/he has this preoccupation with age.

DrJules
09-08-2006, 08:14 PM
Talent is only part of the three sided triangle known as the successful professial tennis player. Luck and work ethic are the other two sides. I define mental fortitude and tennis smarts as a function or part of talent. To that end, simply looking at a players talent will not help you to decide if that player will in the end become great than another player. I would say, Nadal is slightly lacking in the luck catagory being that he has had several injuries already, his god given style of play doesn't lend itself to a long career, and oh yea, he is playing tennis in an era where one guy is winning most of titles and hogging that number 1 spot.

Nadal has imposed that style on himself. I actually feel he is capable of playing a much more attacking and less physically demanding tennis. A left handed server with very good volley skills most of the time playing most of the time far behind the baseline.

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 08:15 PM
I'm actually convinced that they are confusing talent with precocious:

Talent:
tal‧ent  /ˈtælənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tal-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.
2. a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.
3. a talented person: The cast includes many of the theater's major talents.
4. a group of persons with special ability: an exhibition of watercolors by the local talent.
5. Movies and Television. professional actors collectively, esp. star performers.
6. a power of mind or body considered as given to a person for use and improvement: so called from the parable in Matt. 25:14–30.
7. any of various ancient units of weight, as a unit of Palestine and Syria equal to 3000 shekels, or a unit of Greece equal to 6000 drachmas.
8. any of various ancient Hebrew or Attic monetary units equal in value to that of a talent weight of gold, silver, or other metal.
9. Obsolete. inclination or disposition.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE talente < L talenta, pl. of talentum < Gk tálanton balance, weight, monetary unit]

—Synonyms 1. capability, gift, genius. See ability.

Precocious:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
pre‧co‧cious  /prɪˈkoʊʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-koh-shuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. unusually advanced or mature in development, esp. mental development: a precocious child.
2. prematurely developed, as the mind, faculties, etc.
3. of or pertaining to premature development.
4. Botany.
a. flowering, fruiting, or ripening early, as plants or fruit.
b. bearing blossoms before leaves, as plants.
c. appearing before leaves, as flowers.
[Origin: 1640–50; L praecoci-, s. of praecox (see precocity) + -ous]

DrJules
09-08-2006, 08:17 PM
Nadal hasn't finished number 1, he's lacking talent.

And he will not if he continues playing negative, cynical and defensive tennis; a sort of 2-D brick wall.

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 08:28 PM
And he will not if he continues playing negative, cynical and defensive tennis; a sort of 2-D brick wall.

Sounds like... Pong? *beeping computer music*

cmurray
09-08-2006, 08:33 PM
Too early to say either way because of two things. Number one, we have no idea if Rafa will continue to improve. He has so far, meaning that almost all of his results are better this year than last year, but unless he continues to do so, we clearly cannot call him more talented. Number two, as somebody else mentioned the age with which you win your first slam isn't completely indicative of raw talent. Do I think he's talented? Hell yeah, but I'm not about to place him over Pete just yet.

mongo
09-08-2006, 08:34 PM
Funny this topic keeps appearing in some form or another.

Anyway, while winning back-to-back RGs, Jim Courier was also winning back-to-back AOs before Pete had won his 2nd slam or Andre his first. Further, Courier was ranked #1 for more than a year over that stretch.

Nadal has a long way to go to catch a young Jim Courier.

Other notables:
1. '91 USO runner-up (Edberg)
2. '93 RG runner-up (Bruguera)
3. '93 W runner-up (Sampras)
4. '95 USO SF (Agassi)

Fumus
09-08-2006, 08:37 PM
Arrggghhh...

What are we even talking about anymore?!!!?

I am going to go play some tennis and then get drunk. :)
I suggest you all do the same. It's frickin' friday.

scarecrows
09-08-2006, 08:48 PM
Entrylist for arse clown contest is not closed yet I hope

Allure
09-08-2006, 08:52 PM
Just because player A has more accomplisments (titles) than player B doesnt mean Player A is more talented. There could be other factors like mental strength, luck, injuries, etc.

Johnny Groove
09-08-2006, 09:03 PM
Read the first post in this thread:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78381&highlight=Laws

Everything you need to know about MTF :)

ahhhhh. Legendary thread :) :rocker2:

supersexynadal
09-08-2006, 10:25 PM
BLAA BLA BLA!! MTF IS STRESSFUL! Every thread is a fight!

zicofirol
09-08-2006, 10:49 PM
Such a dumb logic the one youre using.

Talent has nothing to do with age, the thing is if players get to ever develop their talent or when they do it, Safin is one of th emost talented players of the last 15 years yet he is so inconsistent that he has underachieved for the talent he has IMO.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 10:59 PM
Just because player A has more accomplisments (titles) than player B doesnt mean Player A is more talented. There could be other factors like mental strength, luck, injuries, etc.
Yes, maybe Nadal is not more "talented" that's why I put it to a poll (glad to see people who agree with me on Nadal), even if Nadal isnt more "talented", I must say his record certainly looks "better" than Pete.

LCeh
09-08-2006, 11:01 PM
Yes, maybe Nadal is not more "talented" that's why I put it to a poll (glad to see people who agree with me on Nadal), even if Nadal isnt more "talented", I must say his record certainly looks "better" than Pete.

Well, there is still a lot of work left for Nadal to do. Do I believe that Nadal will break Sampras's 14 slams record? No, but only time will tell.

All_Slam_Andre
09-08-2006, 11:02 PM
At what age player breaks through and matures on the big stage is not important at all. Becker had won 2 grand slams at the age of 18. On Agassi's 22nd birthday, he still hadn't won a grand slam. Yet Agassi had the more successful career. Different players take different amounts of time to develop

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 11:09 PM
At what age player breaks through and matures on the big stage is not important at all. Becker had won 2 grand slams at the age of 18. On Agassi's 22nd birthday, he still hadn't won a grand slam. Yet Agassi had the more successful career. Different players take different amounts of time to develop
It is easy to look in retrospect, it is much harder to predict prospect, thus the poll. It certainly didnt look that Agassi would have such a great career when Andre was Nadal or Hewitt's age.
BASED ON THE RECORD, however, Nadal looks to be ready to surpass Sampras, obviously though Federer will become the greatest tennis player alive.

J. Corwin
09-08-2006, 11:12 PM
Talent is correlated wth age, there is no question about that, no one wrote Boris Becker off ever since he won his first slam at 17. Young slam winners always project future winning potentials.

Andy won his first slam and ended year #1 earlier than Roger. Andy is obviously way more talented than Roger! I always knew it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Suck on that, hatas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banana::banana:

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 11:15 PM
Andy won his first slam and ended year #1 earlier than Roger. Andy is obviously way more talented than Roger! I always knew it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Suck on that, hatas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banana::banana:
One thing is for sure.....Roger's talent wasnt realized then, he could have won Wimbledon when he beat Pete in 2001 in a werido Wimbledon won by some WC player from Europe, but he didnt. He never did realize his true potential, but that's beside the point. (cuz we all know how much talent Roddick has).

But we are talking about Nadal and Sampras here, I mean Michael Chang has all the talent in the world but he never did realize it soon enough.

Michael Chang IS and likely going to be the BEST #2 PLAYER IN HISTORY.

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 11:17 PM
One thing is for sure.....Roger's talent wasnt realized then, he could have won Wimbledon when he beat Pete in 2001 in a werido Wimbledon won by some WC player from Europe, but he didnt. He never did realize his true potential, but that's beside the point. (cuz we all know how much talent Roddick has).




:eek: Oh no he didn't! :haha:

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 11:21 PM
Nadal achieves MORE than Pete and will likely surpass Sampras if he keeps this up.
That's the point, if you cant understand that, then that's too bad:).

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 11:24 PM
Just out of curiousity... how old are you? You seem to be very focused on the whole age issue.

J. Corwin
09-08-2006, 11:27 PM
Nadal achieves MORE than Pete and will likely surpass Sampras if he keeps this up.
That's the point, if you cant understand that, then that's too bad:).

You've already achieved more than most trolls at MTF with your 28 posts here. You will likely surpass all the legends and Mae (:tape: ) if you keep this up. Understand :).

scoobs
09-08-2006, 11:28 PM
I'm looking forward to Nadal's 7 wimbledon titles then :lol:

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 11:32 PM
You've already achieved more than most trolls at MTF with your 28 posts here. You will likely surpass all the legends and Mae (:tape: ) if you keep this up. Understand :).
It is in response to some of the most abusive posts I have seen in my history of visiting forums. And this does not involve George Bush. I wonder what these people take offense of. I dont intend to be a troll and I dont intend to troll. I say the truth as it is.

Just Cause
09-08-2006, 11:33 PM
I'm looking forward to Nadal's 7 wimbledon titles then :lol:
7 Wimbledon titles? I suspect Roger will win more than 7, as for Nadal, he will do what Pete cant do on clay, not only by winning RG, but to win it more than 7 times. I have faith in both player in dominating what they are good for.

mangoes
09-09-2006, 12:09 AM
Just out of curiousity... how old are you? You seem to be very focused on the whole age issue.


If I had to guess, I'd say he is a teenager. Hence the reason age is so important to him ;)

Jimnik
09-09-2006, 12:12 AM
Rafa could end up being the greatest player to never be ranked #1.

NYCtennisfan
09-09-2006, 12:14 AM
The poll questions asks about who is more talented, but the thread is about achievements? Which one do you want to talk about?

As for a dominating rivalry, Sampras and Agassi only had a real dominating 1-2 presence in 1995 when they squared off in so many hardcourt finals. Other than that, their rivalry was spread out over 12 years.

LCeh
09-09-2006, 12:17 AM
Rafa could end up being the greatest player to never be ranked #1.

I would be very very surprised if Nadal doesn't get the no. 1 ranking some time during his career. He's 5 years younger than Roger after all. If he can keep this up, improve his game, he will get that no. 1 spot eventually, I think.

scoobs
09-09-2006, 12:20 AM
I'm sure he will make it at some point - he has a lot of years in him yet and Federer can only realistically be expected to keep this level up a few more years before things just start to get tougher.

mangoes
09-09-2006, 12:26 AM
Rafa could end up being the greatest player to never be ranked #1.

That's a possibility that many aren't considering. If Roger successfully holds on to the ranking as the other guys in Rafa's generation catch up to him, then, him being no. 1, one day, isn't a foregone conclusion.

Nadal's generation is rich with many talented players. Nadal bloomed quicker than the others, but others will bloom too. Am I saying Nadal will never be no. 1? No. But, were it not for Federer, he would have achieved it already. When I consider this topic, I remember Hewitt. Hewitt bloomed faster than the guys in his generation. Yet, when they caught up to him, they started challenging him. Hewitt held on to the no. 1 ranking for 2 years. But, it was right at a period when the prior generation and Hewitt's generation intercrossed. The guys from Hewitt's generation were not ready. I think that Nadal bloomed at a similar crossroad. The difference is, that the guy from the previous generation, is too good and isn't ready to go away as yet.

Jimnik
09-09-2006, 12:38 AM
I would be very very surprised if Nadal doesn't get the no. 1 ranking some time during his career. He's 5 years younger than Roger after all. If he can keep this up, improve his game, he will get that no. 1 spot eventually, I think.
I think people talk too much about Nadal's age. Just because he's young doesn't mean he'll improve at a faster rate. His playing style is very intense, both physically and mentally, and his peak years will most likely be in his early 20s. As he gets older, I think he might struggle a lot more. I'll be surprised if he wins any slams beyond the age of 25.

Bagelicious
09-09-2006, 01:54 AM
If I had to guess, I'd say he is a teenager. Hence the reason age is so important to him ;)

Exactly my sentiments. According to his profile: Jan 5th 1990. Just as you suspected Mangoes, 16. :baby:

I've spoken to a couple of mature 16 year olds on this forum... somehow I don't think that this number will increase anytime soon.

Just Cause
09-09-2006, 02:03 AM
That's a possibility that many aren't considering. If Roger successfully holds on to the ranking as the other guys in Rafa's generation catch up to him, then, him being no. 1, one day, isn't a foregone conclusion.

Nadal's generation is rich with many talented players. Nadal bloomed quicker than the others, but others will bloom too. Am I saying Nadal will never be no. 1? No. But, were it not for Federer, he would have achieved it already. When I consider this topic, I remember Hewitt. Hewitt bloomed faster than the guys in his generation. Yet, when they caught up to him, they started challenging him. Hewitt held on to the no. 1 ranking for 2 years. But, it was right at a period when the prior generation and Hewitt's generation intercrossed. The guys from Hewitt's generation were not ready. I think that Nadal bloomed at a similar crossroad. The difference is, that the guy from the previous generation, is too good and isn't ready to go away as yet.
Quite true, and they are overshadowed by Nadal.
But Pete was dominating in an era of American heroes, I think their instances arethe same and Pete has it easier without playing an active tennis legend.

Just Cause
09-13-2006, 02:23 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=85628

Why? Federer in 2001 at age 20 beat Sampras but he was not developed. But he lost a set to Nadal in 2006 in Wimbledon.

Also, Nadal will WALK OVER Sampras on clay. So he would have ranked higher than Sampras 2001 with his current condition and he only has nowhere to go but up.

Johnny Groove
09-13-2006, 02:26 AM
Will you PLEASE stop making pointless threads? who care if Nadal of 2006 can beat Sampras of 01. It CANT happen, therefore the thread is IRRELEVENT! Stop please. Why? Just Cause :p

Just Cause
09-13-2006, 02:29 AM
Will you PLEASE stop making pointless threads? who care if Nadal of 2006 can beat Sampras of 01. It CANT happen, therefore the thread is IRRELEVENT! Stop please. Why? Just Cause :p
Irrelevant...IRRELEVANT?
Tell me which one is more relevant.
"ÄA" http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=85864
"I hate Kiefer so badly" http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=67115

I really hate giving out red dots to people, but some just leave me no choice.

Johnny Groove
09-13-2006, 02:31 AM
Irrelevant...IRRELEVANT?
Tell me which one is more relevant.
"ÄA" http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=85864
"I hate Kiefer so badly" http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=67115

I really hate giving out red dots to people, but some just leave me no choice.

AA is a chat thread and will be moved when it reaches 1000 posts. the kiefer thread is a bashing thread, very common here, and acceptable. This thread however, is a meaningless discussion. You cant compare X player from Y year to XX player from YY year. It doesnt work.

Just Cause
09-13-2006, 02:36 AM
AA is a chat thread and will be moved when it reaches 1000 posts. the kiefer thread is a bashing thread, very common here, and acceptable. This thread however, is a meaningless discussion. You cant compare X player from Y year to XX player from YY year. It doesnt work.

No need to give out more examples
e.g. "Get Rid of Doublas" or "Fed-Tards anon. bashers"
but you get my point.

As for you thinking my thread being postless...well, leave and Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out thank you very much.

jcempire
09-13-2006, 04:20 AM
LOL

Nadal of 2006 CAN beat Sampras of 2001,

LOL

I have tell you do not dream that,

If That's a game, Sampras of 2001 will be Nadal of 2006, but not in clay

Why, ask yourself, why, easy to get answer

jcempire
09-13-2006, 04:21 AM
That's samething, you will can draw

2000 Andre will can beat 2006 Roger, May be. who knows,

Just guess,

may be 70%

hoobSD
09-13-2006, 04:30 AM
No need to give out more examples
e.g. "Get Rid of Doublas" or "Fed-Tards anon. bashers"
but you get my point.

As for you thinking my thread being postless...well, leave and Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out thank you very much.

What's your point? People other than you make pointless threads too. Yes, it's a shock, I know. Doesn't mean that they're ok. Your crap smells just as bad as theirs.

JimmyV
09-13-2006, 04:42 AM
This is an awful thread.

Just Cause
09-13-2006, 07:13 AM
This is an awful thread.
I know how you feel, but Sampras in 2001 really was not nearly as goo as Nadal, and Pete was in his prime. You cannot blame Nadal for his talent I must say.

Mimi
09-13-2006, 07:27 AM
i love both of them, but pls don't insult pete, he is way much better than nadal :rolleyes:

oz_boz
09-13-2006, 10:00 AM
Just Cause, why do you make this claim?

hitchhiker
09-13-2006, 10:26 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=85628

Why? Federer in 2001 at age 20 beat Sampras but he was not developed. But he lost a set to Nadal in 2006 in Wimbledon.



retarded logic

DrJules
09-13-2006, 12:30 PM
i love both of them, but pls don't insult pete, he is way much better than nadal :rolleyes:

Sampras leads by 12 grand slams, but Nadal possibly has another 10 years playing time. It is too early in the Nadal career to ascertain.

Lee
09-13-2006, 08:08 PM
I know how you feel, but Sampras in 2001 really was not nearly as goo as Nadal, and Pete was in his prime. You cannot blame Nadal for his talent I must say.

Pete was in his prime in 2001

:rolls: :rolls: :haha: :haha:

How many Slams he won that year? How many titles he won that year?

Radek Stepanek
09-13-2006, 10:53 PM
Nadal is the best, forever.

prima donna
09-13-2006, 11:02 PM
Nadal is becoming more overrated by the day, after not doing shit during the hard court season, it's time that people put up or shut up.

Fumus
10-13-2006, 02:55 PM
Omg, not this thread again.

DIE!!

DIE!!

Just Cause
10-18-2006, 05:29 AM
People talk about Pete and Roger. Let's not forget that Nadal is already better than Sampras at his age.

CmonAussie
10-18-2006, 05:53 AM
Rafa could end up being the greatest player to never be ranked #1.
:wavey:
I was thinking the same thing~~ if Federer can maintain his level for another few years & then Nadal starts to burn out or get injured then it`s very possible Nadal will be the greatest player never to get to #1:sad:

Michael Chang would be the previous best player to never nab #1~ since the rankings system started in the early 1970s.

General Suburbia
10-18-2006, 06:02 AM
The thing about great young players-they burn out early. The best young guns are great largely due to their athleticism: speed, strength, etc. Don't count on Nadal being greater than Sampras simply because he has the greater results at a younger age. Look at the younger greats: Bjorn Borg and Michael Chang at the top of my head. They started out incredible, but couldn't keep up their pace as long as most people do. Michael faded into obscurity and Borg simply quit.

angiel
10-18-2006, 03:25 PM
The thing about great young players-they burn out early. The best young guns are great largely due to their athleticism: speed, strength, etc. Don't count on Nadal being greater than Sampras simply because he has the greater results at a younger age. Look at the younger greats: Bjorn Borg and Michael Chang at the top of my head. They started out incredible, but couldn't keep up their pace as long as most people do. Michael faded into obscurity and Borg simply quit.


So true my friend, so true.:worship: :worship: :worship: :wavey:

nobama
10-18-2006, 03:55 PM
People talk about Pete and Roger. Let's not forget that Nadal is already better than Sampras at his age.
So what? They talk about Roger because right now he's in the prime of his career and 5 slams shy of Pete's record 14. Nadal is at the beginning of his career. Too early to say how it will end up.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-18-2006, 06:50 PM
It's not fair to judge Sampras by AMS titles cause he started his career before the Series startet.
And he surely hadn't the wish to win AMS titles.

Yes, Nadal was better at comparable age.

GlennMirnyi
10-18-2006, 07:15 PM
People are dumb or what? Nadal more talented than Sampras? That's just ridiculous!!! Sampras is until proven otherwise the best player ever.
Nadal can't volley and only moonballs, there's no comparison between him and Sampras.

Nadal is just like Hewitt. Great beginning... and where's Hewitt now?

I bet my money on it.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-18-2006, 08:58 PM
At 19, Sampras won the illustrous Grand Slam Cup and earned two million dollars prize money.

guga2120
10-18-2006, 09:14 PM
There is no question what Nadal has done at his age is more impressive than Sampras, i do not think at all he will have the longetivity that Pete had, but at 20 he is a good if not better than Anybody in history, but since he is so prone to injury and throws himself at every point i can't see him doing this for 12 years like Pete, maybe 5.

Just Cause
01-01-2007, 04:57 AM
There is no question what Nadal has done at his age is more impressive than Sampras, i do not think at all he will have the longetivity that Pete had, but at 20 he is a good if not better than Anybody in history, but since he is so prone to injury and throws himself at every point i can't see him doing this for 12 years like Pete, maybe 5.
Personally, I think his dominance on clay DEFINITELY can last a decade.

Macbrother
01-01-2007, 05:12 AM
Personally, I think his dominance on clay DEFINITELY can last a decade.

This based on what? No one in tennis history has even come close to dominating clay that long. There's a reason dirtballer careers are usually short lived.

Jimnik
01-01-2007, 03:09 PM
Rafa is still head and shoulders above the rest on clay. Federer might be able to play a couple of really good sets and beat him in MC or Rome (in the new best of 3 format) but RG is still a long shot.

jacobhiggins
01-01-2007, 06:53 PM
I think saying Federer winning the FO is a longshot is a little silly. He has a good chance to win it. He has shown he can compete and out hit Nadal on clay so it wouldn't be a surprise if he did beat Nadal at the FO. Many commentators, fans, and past players all think Federer has a good shot to win the FO even with Nadal reigning supreme there at the moment.

If Nadal can keep this up then he could become greater then Sampras. He's won the FO twice and made it to the Wimby final, that's pretty freakin good. At this age he does seem to be more talanted then Sampras but who knows what will happend down the road.

GlennMirnyi
01-01-2007, 07:33 PM
I think saying Federer winning the FO is a longshot is a little silly. He has a good chance to win it. He has shown he can compete and out hit Nadal on clay so it wouldn't be a surprise if he did beat Nadal at the FO. Many commentators, fans, and past players all think Federer has a good shot to win the FO even with Nadal reigning supreme there at the moment.

If Nadal can keep this up then he could become greater then Sampras. He's won the FO twice and made it to the Wimby final, that's pretty freakin good. At this age he does seem to be more talanted then Sampras but who knows what will happend down the road.

More talented than Sampras? Are you insane? The guy is probably one of the top 5 most talented players ever. Nadal can only moonball and run. Can't serve and can't volley. Awful slice.

jazar
01-01-2007, 07:49 PM
nadal is neverg going to eclipse sampras' achievements, the only thing he ahs on sampras and will ever have on sampras is that he has won the french open. however, nadal has won the french open in a time when players are becoming less specialised with regards to surface, as most players are now adept on all surfaces, whereas when sampras was playing we were still saying so and so is only a clay courter. in a few years nadal will be like lleyton hewitt, slipping down the rankings and winning only the occasional accolade.

DrJules
01-01-2007, 08:57 PM
The thing about great young players-they burn out early. The best young guns are great largely due to their athleticism: speed, strength, etc. Don't count on Nadal being greater than Sampras simply because he has the greater results at a younger age. Look at the younger greats: Bjorn Borg and Michael Chang at the top of my head. They started out incredible, but couldn't keep up their pace as long as most people do. Michael faded into obscurity and Borg simply quit.

Agreed with Michael Chang, but Borg did actually win at least 1 grand slam a year for 8 successive years from 1974-1981. How many players have won at least 1 grand slam a year for more than 8 successive years?

Just Cause
01-01-2007, 11:22 PM
I think saying Federer winning the FO is a longshot is a little silly. He has a good chance to win it. He has shown he can compete and out hit Nadal on clay so it wouldn't be a surprise if he did beat Nadal at the FO. Many commentators, fans, and past players all think Federer has a good shot to win the FO even with Nadal reigning supreme there at the moment.

If Nadal can keep this up then he could become greater then Sampras. He's won the FO twice and made it to the Wimby final, that's pretty freakin good. At this age he does seem to be more talanted then Sampras but who knows what will happend down the road.
Federer does not really overpower Nadal, and Nadal simply runs every ball down like a tiger (that's why I love him so much:)). Nadal simply plays Federer (or everyone) like a toy on clay.

You are definitely right, Nadal will be greater than Sampras, just look he has already gotten two slams at age 20 unmatched by Sampras. Another five clay slams and he will be able to rival Sampras in acheivement on grass (which is much simpler to dominate).

GlennMirnyi
01-01-2007, 11:55 PM
Federer does not really overpower Nadal, and Nadal simply runs every ball down like a tiger (that's why I love him so much:)). Nadal simply plays Federer (or everyone) like a toy on clay.

You are definitely right, Nadal will be greater than Sampras, just look he has already gotten two slams at age 20 unmatched by Sampras. Another five clay slams and he will be able to rival Sampras in acheivement on grass (which is much simpler to dominate).

You're a :retard: and a big one. Toy? How do a toy has MPs then?

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 12:30 AM
Federer does not really overpower Nadal, and Nadal simply runs every ball down like a tiger (that's why I love him so much:)). Nadal simply plays Federer (or everyone) like a toy on clay.

You are definitely right, Nadal will be greater than Sampras, just look he has already gotten two slams at age 20 unmatched by Sampras. Another five clay slams and he will be able to rival Sampras in acheivement on grass (which is much simpler to dominate).
Federer doesn't overpower Nadal? Right... That's why Federer's points are winners and Nadal's points are unforced errors from Federer. You know what? You're right. They both just moonball and Federer just misses more. :retard: As for the rest of your post... I won't even adress that. It's moronic beyond imagination.

You're a :retard: and a big one. Toy? How do a toy has MPs then?

This might be the best and truest post of the day.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 12:34 AM
You're a :retard: and a big one. Toy? How do a toy has MPs then?
Yes, Federer is a tough cookie on clay since he receive his first major TMS title on clay. While I applaud Federer's effort by reaching the clay sam final in 2006 for the first time in his career, Nadal is simply too much for him to handle. I hope he will have a better luck this year.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-02-2007, 12:35 AM
Are you sure you're not GlennMiryni in disguise - Kax Misha?

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 12:39 AM
Are you sure you're not GlennMiryni in disguise - Kax Misha?

Seeing as you 1) didn't bring anything new into this disvussion or made any valid points, and 2) didn't succeed to correctly spell my screen name, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Then again, comparing this post to the crap you usually write - I guess it's onw of your better ones. :wavey:

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 12:40 AM
Federer doesn't overpower Nadal? Right... That's why Federer's points are winners and Nadal's points are unforced errors from Federer. You know what? You're right.
That is called consistency which Federer does not have on clay. With a bounce like a gun on clay, Nadal is also able counter excellent shots from Federer into deadly weapons. I definitely love Federer, but the truth is Federer has to improve on clay against Nadal. As for Sampras, he wouldnt be able to hold his own against either of the two on clay.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-02-2007, 12:41 AM
Seeing as you 1) didn't bring anything new into this disvussion or made any valid points, and 2) didn't succeed to correctly spell my screen name, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Then again, comparing this post to the crap you usually write - I guess it's onw of your better ones. :wavey:

Oh I thought so.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 12:41 AM
That is called consistency which Federer does not have on clay. With a bounce like a gun on clay, Nadal is also able counter excellent shots from Federer into deadly weapons. I definitely love Federer, but the truth is Federer has to improve on clay against Nadal. As for Sampras, he wouldnt be able to hold his own against either of the two on clay.

I didn't disagree with any of that. What I disagreed with was your statement that Federer doesn't overpower Nadal. If he didn't, he wouldn't win any points, now would he?

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:26 AM
That is called consistency which Federer does not have on clay. With a bounce like a gun on clay, Nadal is also able counter excellent shots from Federer into deadly weapons. I definitely love Federer, but the truth is Federer has to improve on clay against Nadal. As for Sampras, he wouldnt be able to hold his own against either of the two on clay.

You underestimate Sampras. You probably never saw him play and beyond everything is a fanboy of the moonballer.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:29 AM
I didn't disagree with any of that. What I disagreed with was your statement that Federer doesn't overpower Nadal. If he didn't, he wouldn't win any points, now would he?

You know we only bother to answer some of those statements because we like some laughs, don't you mate? Saying Federer doesn't overpower all the circuit is as true as saying Volandri is a S&V.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 02:30 AM
I didn't disagree with any of that. What I disagreed with was your statement that Federer doesn't overpower Nadal. If he didn't, he wouldn't win any points, now would he?
I see where the misunderstanding comes from. I guess for me to overpower means to blast someone off the court as Roddick does. But I will agree with you some what if you mean that Federer out"plays" him on surfaces other than clay.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 02:31 AM
You underestimate Sampras. You probably never saw him play and beyond everything is a fanboy of the moonballer.
Of course I remember, who could forget how he was embarrassed by Federer in Wimbledon's ROUND OF 16 who was nowhere near his prime till years later.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:32 AM
I see where the misunderstanding comes from. I guess for me to overpower means to blast someone off the court as Roddick does. But I will agree with you some what if you mean that Federer out"plays" him on surfaces other than clay.

Federer's strokes are far more powerful than Roddick's.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:34 AM
Of course I remember, who could forget how he was embarrassed by Federer in Wimbledon's ROUND OF 16 who was nowhere near his prime till years later.

Sampras was embarassed? Oh my, you're much more :retard: than I ever thought. Federer has always been like today, he wasn't consistent before. Sampras on the twilight of his career managed to take a young guy playing his best (what he does today consistently) to a fifth set and almost win.

Sure 14 GS means nothing to you...

You should be called

LOST CAUSE.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:37 AM
You underestimate Sampras. You probably never saw him play and beyond everything is a fanboy of the moonballer.

You disagree that Sampras wouldn't have much of a chance against Federer or Nadal on clay? Come on now.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 02:38 AM
Sampras was embarassed? Oh my, you're much more :retard: than I ever thought. Federer has always been like today, he wasn't consistent before. Sampras on the twilight of his career managed to take a young guy playing his best (what he does today consistently) to a fifth set and almost win..
Of course he was. Federer was not even in top shape (nowhere near top 10 then) when he beat Sampras at his prime (who was defending Wimbledon Championship (dont think one year would change him that much) and later won US Open). Sampras was outplayed and was later also embarassed by Hewitt. I guess he was just lucky that he was not playing in Federer's era because he would be slaughtered (Hewitt already made a comment on the changing of era).

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:39 AM
I see where the misunderstanding comes from. I guess for me to overpower means to blast someone off the court as Roddick does. But I will agree with you some what if you mean that Federer out"plays" him on surfaces other than clay.

Federer's forehand is far superior to Roddick's. Hit hits many more winners. In what way does Roddick "blast player off the court" that Federer doesn't? Did you see this year's US Open final? Or how about the Shanghai final? Forget it. This is pointless.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 02:42 AM
Federer's forehand is far superior to Roddick's. Hit hits many more winners. In what way does Roddick "blast player off the court" that Federer doesn't? Did you see this year's US Open final? Or how about the Shanghai final? Forget it. This is pointless.

Nope, I dont see tennis god's hand as "powerful", it may bbe mighty, but he does not blast people off the court, he simply plays out the perfect shot from any position. That's how he won his slams and master titles, and that's how he will continue to win in the future.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:48 AM
Nope, I dont see tennis god's hand as "powerful", it may bbe mighty, but he does not blast people off the court, he simply plays out the perfect shot from any position. That's how he won his slams and master titles, and that's how he will continue to win in the future.

Well, seeing as you consistently show little understanding of the game, this comes as no surprise. Next time you watch a Federer match, check out the speed of some of his forehand winners (they sometimes show that in miles per hour or kilometers per hour). It's one of the most powerful forehands in the game. If you don't want to take my word or objective numbers for it, ask John McEnroe and he'll tell you it's "the biggest shot in the game." Case closed.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:48 AM
Of course he was. Federer was not even in top shape (nowhere near top 10 then) when he beat Sampras at his prime (who was defending Wimbledon Championship (dont think one year would change him that much) and later won US Open). Sampras was outplayed and was later also embarassed by Hewitt. I guess he was just lucky that he was not playing in Federer's era because he would be slaughtered (Hewitt already made a comment on the changing of era).

1996's Sampras would still be #1 today.

Jlee
01-02-2007, 02:48 AM
Nope, I dont see tennis god's hand as "powerful", it may bbe mighty, but he does not blast people off the court, he simply plays out the perfect shot from any position. That's how he won his slams and master titles, and that's how he will continue to win in the future.

Federer's game is better than any player currently active. Almost every one of his shots is better than any other active player, with the BH being arguable. Federer's forehand is his best shot. It beats everybody's. No question. No argument. Maybe you don't think he's "blasting people off the court" because he's so fluid with his shots. It doesn't look like he's putting that much into it, in contrast to Roddick, but believe me. He is. He can blast anyone off the court almost every day of the year. And since when is placing a ball perfectly viewed as less useful than hitting it hard!?

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:52 AM
Federer's game is better than any player currently active. Almost every one of his shots is better than any other active player, with the BH being arguable. Federer's forehand is his best shot. It beats everybody's. No question. No argument. Maybe you don't think he's "blasting people off the court" because he's so fluid with his shots. It doesn't look like he's putting that much into it, in contrast to Roddick, but believe me. He is. He can blast anyone off the court almost every day of the year. And since when is placing a ball perfectly viewed as less useful than hitting it hard!?

You took the words right out of my mouth. Just because Federer is good at everything, people seem to be thinking: "well, he can't be a hard hitter, because he is an allround player." News flash people! The fact that he is good at other studd too doesn't make his forehand any less powerful. This is the reason why he dominates - his forehand is right up there with the hardest hitters in the game, while at the same time, he is also excellent at everything else.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:53 AM
1996's Sampras would still be #1 today.

No way. You must be kidding.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:54 AM
You took the words right out of my mouth. Just because Federer is good at everything, people seem to be thinking: "well, he can't be a hard hitter, because he is an allround player." News flash people! The fact that he is good at other studd too doesn't make his forehand any less powerful. This is the reason why he dominates - his forehand is right up there with the hardest hitters in the game, while at the same time, he is also excellent at everything else.

His forehand is for sure the most powerful shot of tennis today. That's definite.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 02:55 AM
No way. You must be kidding.

Are you serious? Because you can't be.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:58 AM
Are you serious? Because you can't be.

Please tell me how he would beat Federer.

Jlee
01-02-2007, 03:00 AM
You took the words right out of my mouth. Just because Federer is good at everything, people seem to be thinking: "well, he can't be a hard hitter, because he is an allround player." News flash people! The fact that he is good at other studd too doesn't make his forehand any less powerful. This is the reason why he dominates - his forehand is right up there with the hardest hitters in the game, while at the same time, he is also excellent at everything else.

:) Sorry I quoted the same thing you did though, I agree with what you said too.

Ohhh a Sampras vs. Federer discussion :D

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 03:01 AM
Please tell me how he would beat Federer.

The way he beat every other player during that time. A huge serve backed with amazing volleys and great passing shots. You know his serve is much better than anyone playing today, his placement was amazing. He's no Roddick: all power no placement.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:13 AM
The way he beat every other player during that time. A huge serve backed with amazing volleys and great passing shots. You know his serve is much better than anyone playing today, his placement was amazing. He's no Roddick: all power no placement.

Karlovic has a batter serve than Sampras. True, he sucks at everything else, but still. Anyway, that's not the point. You won't beat Federer at serving. Also keep in mind that Federer is superior to Sampras from the baseline by quite a margin. How is Sampras going to break him? ;)

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:16 AM
The way he beat every other player during that time. A huge serve backed with amazing volleys and great passing shots. You know his serve is much better than anyone playing today, his placement was amazing. He's no Roddick: all power no placement.

Besides, Sampras was never even close to the kind of dominance Federer is displaying these days. Not even close. Ever.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 03:16 AM
Karlovic has a batter serve than Sampras. True, he sucks at everything else, but still. Anyway, that's not the point. You won't beat Federer at serving. Also keep in mind that Federer is superior to Sampras from the baseline by quite a margin. How is Sampras going to break him? ;)

Agassi was better from the baseline than Sampras and it never stopped him. In fact, many players were better than him there and he still won. There's something called TBs.

Sampras was a much better server than Karlovic, don't fool yourself.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 03:17 AM
Besides, Sampras was never even close to the kind of dominance Federer is displaying these days. Not even close. Ever.

He didn't have to play Roddicks, Blakes, Robredos, a bunch of jokers.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:19 AM
Agassi was better from the baseline than Sampras and it never stopped him. In fact, many players were better than him there and he still won. There's something called TBs.

Sampras was a much better server than Karlovic, don't fool yourself.

Agassi was better from the baseline than Sampras, but not by the same margin that Federer is. ;) As for the Sampras-Karlovic serving issue - come on! Karlovic can ONLY serve and is a steady top 100 player. The only player who had a better serve than Karlovic was Ivanisevic.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:20 AM
He didn't have to play Roddicks, Blakes, Robredos, a bunch of jokers.

So you're telling me players from Sampras's era would trouble Federer? Who? Kafelnikov? Korda? Moya? Rios? Not likely.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 03:27 AM
So you're telling me players from Sampras's era would trouble Federer? Who? Kafelnikov? Korda? Moya? Rios? Not likely.

Not Federer, but the general level of the top 10 was much better.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 03:28 AM
Federer's game is better than any player currently active. Almost every one of his shots is better than any other active player, with the BH being arguable. Federer's forehand is his best shot. It beats everybody's. No question. No argument. Maybe you don't think he's "blasting people off the court" because he's so fluid with his shots. It doesn't look like he's putting that much into it, in contrast to Roddick, but believe me. He is. He can blast anyone off the court almost every day of the year. And since when is placing a ball perfectly viewed as less useful than hitting it hard!?
Yes, he does have a better FH than other guys on the tour and the best single handed BH as well (Pete is again no match). His serve may not be the fastest, but he continues to have the perfect placement on the ball as he does with other aspects of his game. Yes, his strokes are more powerful than a lot of other clay guys, including Nadal, but he is certainly not the most powerful man on the tour. Nope, that title does not belong to him, that title still belongs to Andy Roddick which brought Roddick to several finals on grass.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:33 AM
Yes, he does have a better FH than other guys on the tour and the best single handed BH as well (Pete is again no match). His serve may not be the fastest, but he continues to have the perfect placement on the ball as he does with other aspects of his game. Yes, his strokes are more powerful than a lot of other clay guys, including Nadal, but he is certainly not the most powerful man on the tour. Nope, that title does not belong to him, that title still belongs to Andy Roddick which brought Roddick to several finals on grass.

Are you fucking joking? Roddick the most powerful guy on tour? Is that why it took like an entire set for him to hit a groundstroke winner in the US Open final. There are tons of guys with more powerful forehands than Roddick. Just from the top of my head: Federer (obviously), Gonzalez, Tursunov, Blake, Srichaphan. And Roddick is more powerful than Safin? :haha: COME ON! And one more thing - Federer has the best single handed backhand on tour? NO WAY! Come on - stop doing this. Gasquet? Gaudio? Ljubicic? Ever heard of them? How about Wawrinka? Federer does have the best slice (by quite a margin), but there are plenty with a better backhand drive than he has.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:34 AM
Not Federer, but the general level of the top 10 was much better.

While true, I fail to see how it is relevant in this context. :confused:

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 03:38 AM
Are you fucking joking? Roddick the most powerful guy on tour? Is that why it took like an entire set for him to hit a groundstroke winner in the US Open final. There are tons of guys with more powerful forehands than Roddick. Just from the top of my head: Federer (obviously), Gonzalez, Tursunov, Blake, Srichaphan. And Roddick is more powerful than Safin? :haha: COME ON! And one more thing - Federer has the best single handed backhand on tour? NO WAY! Come on - stop doing this. Gasquet? Gaudio? Ljubicic? Ever heard of them? How about Wawrinka? Federer does have the best slice (by quite a margin), but there are plenty with a better backhand drive than he has.
Or Karlovic, but I think it is quite clear what I meant. The most accomplished guy who plays with power the most on the tour right now is Roddick.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 03:41 AM
While true, I fail to see how it is relevant in this context. :confused:

It's relevant to the point you can't realise Federer's true potential against a legend like Sampras when he plays a bunch of chokers and brainless moonballers/heavy-hitters.

I rest my case... 'till tomorrow, at least... :p

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 03:44 AM
Nadal is becoming more overrated by the day, after not doing shit during the hard court season, it's time that people put up or shut up.
Overrated as in what? Roger pretty much wins everything and other than another clone Roger no one can surpass him on harddoor (except Nadal in Dubai).

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:49 AM
Or Karlovic, but I think it is quite clear what I meant. The most accomplished guy who plays with power the most on the tour right now is Roddick.

See, you really prove that you understand nothing with that posy. Or Karlovic? OR KARLOVIC? Karlovic is completely powerless. He doesn't even know how to hit a groundstroke. You seem to think that having a powerful serve and having powerful groundstrokes are the same thing. They're not. Roddick clearly has the most powerful serve, but Federer has more power on all the ground strokes. This is a fact. In fact, Roddick's ground strokes aren't particularly powerful. Not even his forehand is. There are plenty of players who can overpower Roddick from the baseline.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:50 AM
It's relevant to the point you can't realise Federer's true potential against a legend like Sampras when he plays a bunch of chokers and brainless moonballers/heavy-hitters.

I rest my case... 'till tomorrow, at least... :p

Well, you can analyze their respective games. Do that and you'll conclude that Federer will win. ;)

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 03:56 AM
See, you really prove that you understand nothing with that posy. Or Karlovic? OR KARLOVIC? Karlovic is completely powerless. He doesn't even know how to hit a groundstroke. You seem to think that having a powerful serve and having powerful groundstrokes are the same thing. They're not. Roddick clearly has the most powerful serve, but Federer has more power on all the ground strokes. This is a fact. In fact, Roddick's ground strokes aren't particularly powerful. Not even his forehand is. There are plenty of players who can overpower Roddick from the baseline.
I think you are mistaken with powerlessness and cant hit. Karlovic simply cant hit a winning shot with placement like Gonzalez as they continue to hit ou the range, not to mention that Karlovic really doesnt win points from behind the baseline. But he is more powerful than Federer wherease Federer simply has the better technique of transferring the right weight onto his hits all the time while Roddick can only produce real powerful shots when the ball is in the right position.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 03:59 AM
I think you are mistaken with powerlessness and cant hit. Karlovic simply cant hit a winning shot with placement like Gonzalez as they continue to hit ou the range, not to mention that Karlovic really doesnt win points from behind the baseline. But he is more powerful than Federer wherease Federer simply has the better technique of transferring the right weight onto his hits all the time while Roddick can only produce real powerful shots when the ball is in the right position.

Look... Federer's hardest forehand will travel at a higher velocity than Roddick's hardest forehand, which in turn will travel at a velocity higher than Karlovic's hardest forehand. These are facts. In your book, this might mean that Karlovic is the most powerful of the three, followed by Roddick and finally Federer, but for the rest of us, it means the exact opposite.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 04:00 AM
Look... Federer's hardest forehand will travel at a higher velocity than Roddick's hardest forehand, which in turn will travel at a velocity higher than Karlovic's hardest forehand. These are facts. In your book, this might mean that Karlovic is the most powerful of the three, followed by Roddick and finally Federer, but for the rest of us, it means the exact opposite.

You continue to believe that Roddick is a weaker hitter than Federer, but there will be people who believe otherwise.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 04:04 AM
You continue to believe that Roddick is a weaker hitter than Federer, but there will be people who believe otherwise.

Well, seeing as this is objectively quantifiable, believing in this matter is nothing short of moronic. I KNOW that Federer's forehand is harder than Roddick's. Numbers don't lie. I'm sorry.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 04:06 AM
Well, seeing as this is objectively quantifiable, believing in this matter is nothing short of moronic. I KNOW that Federer's forehand is harder than Roddick's. Numbers don't lie. I'm sorry.
It is recognized that Federer's FH is bette than Roddick's, but when Roddick decides to blast people off the court, even a god like Federer can do nothing about it.

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 04:09 AM
It is recognized that Federer's FH is bette than Roddick's, but when Roddick decides to blast people off the court, even a god like Federer can do nothing about it.

You're right. This must be why Roddick has a staggering 12-1 lead in their head-to-heads over Federer. The funny thing is that even in Federer's lone win, Roddick served for the match but choked. No, wait... Maybe it was the other way around... :wavey:

gomarray
01-02-2007, 04:41 AM
I didn't like Sampras that much when he was playing, but I am sure he would beat Nadal on a fast court.

I miss Sampras and Rafter's aggressive net rushing games, and I think they would be able to handle Nadal on anything but clay.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 07:00 AM
I didn't like Sampras that much when he was playing, but I am sure he would beat Nadal on a fast court.

I miss Sampras and Rafter's aggressive net rushing games, and I think they would be able to handle Nadal on anything but clay.
Not so fast......
Can Nadal return Sampras's serve? Yes he can.
Can Nadal hit past Sampras or can he be too fast for Sampras to handle with his "lengendary volleying game"? Yes he can.
Can Nadal win Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year or at least reach final in both in the same year? Yes he can.

Seriously though, with Nadal winning an indoor TMS title last year on the fastest surface out of all TMS tournmanets, I wonder how fast the court it has to be for Sampras to destroy Nadal. But one thing is for sure, Nadal can take Sampras apart on clay, and he will probably win against Sampras on fast courts too as Nadal is much stronger and faster than Sampras's rivals in Chang and Agassi.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 07:06 AM
and besides if age defined who would achieve wht by the end of his career then i think hewitt and safin should or would hve won atleast 15 grand slams between them by now :lol:

You dont know what you are talking about.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=85628

Samprass in April 1993 when Pete reached #1 ranking for the first time at age 21, this was his recrod at the time, and he has acompplished much more than Roddick/Aggassi did at age 21 without question.
Slam - 1 (US Open)
Master Cup - 1
Masters - 2 (Cinncinati, Miami)
Titles - 16

Nadal at 20y3m and now #2 in the world
Slam - 2 (French Open)
Masters - 6
Titles - 17

(for comparison: Hewitt in June 2003 @ age 22, the last time he was #1)
Slam - 2 (US Open, Wimbledon)
Master Cup - 2
Masters - 2 (Indian Wells)
Titles - 19
It seems that Nadal has achieved more at his age, except for the ranking.
While he has not achieved #1, he has surpassed in achievement than Sampras and Hewitt at their respective age. Talent is pointless as some may suggest, but if Nadal keeps this up, he may well surpass Sampras.! and still rank #2.

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 07:11 AM
and besides if age defined who would achieve wht by the end of his career then i think hewitt and safin should or would hve won atleast 15 grand slams between them by now :lol:

As for Safin, he didnt win his first slam until months into his 20's. His record now at age 26 (soon 27) are 2 slams and 5 TMS titles.

Nadal, he at age 20 already had 2 slams and 6 TMS titles. (more titles in total too). It is a given that that he will have accomplished more than Safin will (or it could be Nadal has already done that).

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:25 PM
Not so fast......
Can Nadal return Sampras's serve? Yes he can.
Can Nadal hit past Sampras or can he be too fast for Sampras to handle with his "lengendary volleying game"? Yes he can.
Can Nadal win Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year or at least reach final in both in the same year? Yes he can.

Seriously though, with Nadal winning an indoor TMS title last year on the fastest surface out of all TMS tournmanets, I wonder how fast the court it has to be for Sampras to destroy Nadal. But one thing is for sure, Nadal can take Sampras apart on clay, and he will probably win against Sampras on fast courts too as Nadal is much stronger and faster than Sampras's rivals in Chang and Agassi.

Seriously, get out of here. You clearly don't understand anything, but that's not even half as annoying as your constant factual errors. Madrid the fastest Masters tournament? Are you fucking high?

nobama
01-02-2007, 02:31 PM
Not so fast......
Can Nadal return Sampras's serve? Yes he can.
Can Nadal hit past Sampras or can he be too fast for Sampras to handle with his "lengendary volleying game"? Yes he can.
Can Nadal win Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year or at least reach final in both in the same year? Yes he can.

Seriously though, with Nadal winning an indoor TMS title last year on the fastest surface out of all TMS tournmanets, I wonder how fast the court it has to be for Sampras to destroy Nadal. But one thing is for sure, Nadal can take Sampras apart on clay, and he will probably win against Sampras on fast courts too as Nadal is much stronger and faster than Sampras's rivals in Chang and Agassi.You're :retard:

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:34 PM
You're :retard:

That's the understatement of the year. Just Cause discussing tennis is like me discussing American Football, that I know absolutely nothing about and have never watched.

nobama
01-02-2007, 02:37 PM
You dont know what you are talking about.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=85628

Samprass in April 1993 when Pete reached #1 ranking for the first time at age 21, this was his recrod at the time, and he has acompplished much more than Roddick/Aggassi did at age 21 without question.
Slam - 1 (US Open)
Master Cup - 1
Masters - 2 (Cinncinati, Miami)
Titles - 16

Nadal at 20y3m and now #2 in the world
Slam - 2 (French Open)
Masters - 6
Titles - 17

(for comparison: Hewitt in June 2003 @ age 22, the last time he was #1)
Slam - 2 (US Open, Wimbledon)
Master Cup - 2
Masters - 2 (Indian Wells)
Titles - 19
It seems that Nadal has achieved more at his age, except for the ranking.
While he has not achieved #1, he has surpassed in achievement than Sampras and Hewitt at their respective age. Talent is pointless as some may suggest, but if Nadal keeps this up, he may well surpass Sampras.! and still rank #2.This is quite pointless. What matters is how many slams Nadal has at the end of his career and how long he was #1 (if he ever gets to #1). To say that Nadal will surpass Pete because he's accomplished more at age 20 than Pete did is ridiculous. You can't predict the future.

Johnny Groove
01-02-2007, 02:38 PM
i see we have a sudden upsurge in the nadal and roddick putdowns and bashing. keep it up guys :yeah: :rolleyes:

KaxMisha
01-02-2007, 02:39 PM
i see we have a sudden upsurge in the nadal and roddick putdowns and bashing. keep it up guys :yeah: :rolleyes:

What kind of bullshit is this? Saying that Madrid TMS isn't the fastest Masters tournament is Nadal bashing? Are you trying to be as much of a :retard: as Just Cause?

nobama
01-02-2007, 02:41 PM
That's the understatement of the year. Just Cause discussing tennis is like me discussing American Football, that I know absolutely nothing about and have never watched.I think it's pointless to say player X achieved more at age ## than player Y did therefore player X will surpass player Y. No one can predict the future.

nobama
01-02-2007, 02:45 PM
i see we have a sudden upsurge in the nadal and roddick putdowns and bashing. keep it up guys :yeah: :rolleyes:Take your blinders off dude. :rolleyes: It's not bashing Nadal, it's questioning the logic of Just Cause. So Nadal has achieved more at age 20 than Sampras. So what? Unless he ends his career with 15 slams and 7 year-ends at #1 it doesn't matter.

Sunset of Age
01-02-2007, 05:17 PM
I think it's pointless to say player X achieved more at age ## than player Y did therefore player X will surpass player Y. No one can predict the future.

Yep. In all sports there are young people burning out very quickly (Hewitt, anyone?), and (relatively) slow-starters who get to do great things later in their carreers (Agassi, for instance).
The future of a player is unpredictable.

Oh, and indeed, I haven't noticed anyone bash Nadal in this thread (yet) - I've seen merely Just Cause 'logic' being attacked - with reason I might add.

Johnny Groove
01-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Just Cause is a complete moron and this thread is pointless. Not a surprise, considering who started it.

DrJules
01-02-2007, 05:29 PM
The way he beat every other player during that time. A huge serve backed with amazing volleys and great passing shots. You know his serve is much better than anyone playing today, his placement was amazing. He's no Roddick: all power no placement.

Actually only in 1999 did Sampras lose less than 10 matches in a year and in that year only won 40. Sampras actually was more beatable than Federer:

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=SAP001

DrJules
01-02-2007, 05:32 PM
Agassi was better from the baseline than Sampras and it never stopped him. In fact, many players were better than him there and he still won. There's something called TBs.

Sampras was a much better server than Karlovic, don't fool yourself.

Sampras never beat Agassi at the Australian Open or French Open:

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=headtohead&player1id=SAP001&player2id=AGA001

On clay and slow hard courts Agassi had an advantage.

Johnny Groove
01-02-2007, 05:35 PM
Actually only in 1999 did Sampras lose less than 10 matches in a year and in that year only won 40. Sampras actually was more beatable than Federer:

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=SAP001

Sampras really didnt play that much in the first place. Probably because the required tourneys were less? :shrug:

Just Cause
01-02-2007, 06:16 PM
i see we have a sudden upsurge in the nadal and roddick putdowns and bashing. keep it up guys :yeah: :rolleyes:

Haha, yes, I have just realized that he is just trying to cook things up:).
I will ignore him.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 06:45 PM
Not so fast......
Can Nadal return Sampras's serve? Yes he can.
Can Nadal hit past Sampras or can he be too fast for Sampras to handle with his "lengendary volleying game"? Yes he can.
Can Nadal win Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same year or at least reach final in both in the same year? Yes he can.

Seriously though, with Nadal winning an indoor TMS title last year on the fastest surface out of all TMS tournmanets, I wonder how fast the court it has to be for Sampras to destroy Nadal. But one thing is for sure, Nadal can take Sampras apart on clay, and he will probably win against Sampras on fast courts too as Nadal is much stronger and faster than Sampras's rivals in Chang and Agassi.

You're the biggest :retard: ever!

If Nadal can't return Kendrick's serve, do you think he would return the best server in the world? Sampras would devastate him off his serve.
Nadal plays against bad volleyers, except for Federer, and in Rome was clueless when Federer started going to the net. He would be humiliated by Sampras on that part.

Nadal can only moonball and run. Everything else is hype.

GlennMirnyi
01-02-2007, 06:46 PM
Sampras never beat Agassi at the Australian Open or French Open:

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=headtohead&player1id=SAP001&player2id=AGA001

On clay and slow hard courts Agassi had an advantage.

The least important GS.

Johnny Groove
01-02-2007, 06:49 PM
You're the biggest :retard: ever!

If Nadal can't return Kendrick's serve, do you think he would return the best server in the world? Sampras would devastate him off his serve.
Nadal plays against bad volleyers, except for Federer, and in Rome was clueless when Federer started going to the net. He would be humiliated by Sampras on that part.

Nadal can only moonball and run. Everything else is hype.

I agree about the Sampras part, but he has moonballed, ran, and hyped himself to 2 slams, 6 TMS titles, and 17 total titles :yeah:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-02-2007, 08:33 PM
His forehand is for sure the most powerful shot of tennis today. That's definite.

I'd say Gonzalez's forehand is more powerful.

nobama
01-02-2007, 08:35 PM
Sampras really didnt play that much in the first place. Probably because the required tourneys were less? :shrug:Sampras was all about the majors. He freely admits that.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-02-2007, 08:49 PM
You're the biggest :retard: ever!

Nadal can only moonball and run. Everything else is hype.


I think with that comment you're the biggest :retard: ever.

Your hating ignorance is outstanding. So Nadal can only run - well why doesn't a 100 metre runner take up tennis, maybe they would stand a chance of winning a GS. Why haven't half of the top 50 tennis players won 2 GS titles by the age of 20 then, they can all run. In fact I'm sure you probably consider most of them much more talented than Rafa :rolleyes: Are you telling me you're so arrogant and ignorant that you can't even acknowledge that a player you dislike has an amazing talent (or even a little talent).

Of course there is no way that Nadal is as good than Sampras, but who knows what the future holds. If he can beat Federer on hard courts, I see no reason to think he couldn't beat Sampras.

Just Cause
01-04-2007, 09:26 PM
I think with that comment you're the biggest :retard: ever.

Your hating ignorance is outstanding. So Nadal can only run - well why doesn't a 100 metre runner take up tennis, maybe they would stand a chance of winning a GS. Why haven't half of the top 50 tennis players won 2 GS titles by the age of 20 then, they can all run. In fact I'm sure you probably consider most of them much more talented than Rafa :rolleyes: Are you telling me you're so arrogant and ignorant that you can't even acknowledge that a player you dislike has an amazing talent (or even a little talent).

Of course there is no way that Nadal is as good than Sampras, but who knows what the future holds. If he can beat Federer on hard courts, I see no reason to think he couldn't beat Sampras.

Exactly..my point was Nadal @ age 20 is better than Samprass @ age 21.

KaxMisha
01-04-2007, 09:30 PM
Exactly..my point was Nadal @ age 20 is better than Samprass @ age 21.

Your using of "@" in normal sentences says more than enough about the overall level of your posts. :wavey:

angiel
01-05-2007, 11:22 PM
Exactly..my point was Nadal @ age 20 is better than Samprass @ age 21.



Who say so, you???? well by God you are crazy for sure.:mad: :sad:

NYCtennisfan
01-06-2007, 01:47 AM
Who say so, you???? well by God you are crazy for sure.:mad: :sad:

:lol: I found this rather funny.

Bagelicious
01-06-2007, 03:25 AM
:lol: I found this rather funny.

I found the entire thread extremely hilarious. I can't believe anyone found the time to seriously debate with a delusional (clueless at best) 16 year old who thinks Nadal is greater than Sampras ever was.

Lee
01-06-2007, 05:11 AM
I found the entire thread extremely hilarious. I can't believe anyone found the time to seriously debate with a delusional (clueless at best) 16 year old who thinks Nadal is greater than Sampras ever was.

Just turn 17 today ;)

Just Cause
01-06-2007, 05:38 PM
Who say so, you???? well by God you are crazy for sure.:mad: :sad:

lol...please read my first page.........i have laid it all out there....

Just Cause
01-06-2007, 11:23 PM
Nadal won his first slam at age 19y1w earlier than Pete won his first slam at age 19y1m.


It is general consensus that Sampras is more talented than Agassi who didnt win his first slam until he was 22 and won 5 of his 9 slams after that age of 29. (while it may disputed, I still think that Michael Chang is the most talented player in history)

Samprass in April 1993 when Pete reached #1 ranking for the first time at age 21, this was his recrod at the time, and he has acompplished much more than Roddick/Aggassi did at age 21 without question.
Slam - 1 (US Open)
Master Cup - 1
Masters - 2 (Cinncinati, Miami)
Titles - 16

Nadal at 20y6m and now #2 in the world
Slam - 2 (French Open)
Masters - 6
Titles - 17

(for comparison: Hewitt in June 2003 @ age 22, the final week he was #1)
Slam - 2 (US Open, Wimbledon)
Master Cup - 2
Masters - 2 (Indian Wells)
Titles - 19

Nadal has achieved more at his age, except for the ranking.
While he has not achieved #1, he has surpassed in achievement than Sampras and Hewitt at their respective age. Talent is pointless as some may suggest, but if Nadal keeps this up, he may well surpass Sampras.! and still rank #2.

pente
01-06-2007, 11:35 PM
I found the entire thread extremely hilarious. I can't believe anyone found the time to seriously debate with a delusional (clueless at best) 16 year old who thinks Nadal is greater than Sampras ever was.

:wavey: :angel: ;)

love your sense of humor and sense of REALITY... I love bagels too and JAMAICAN coffe in the morning + burrrr(R?!)rrrito with eggs and ham!;) :) :angel:
-----
Fly AIR JAMAICA! Simply the BEST!!!;) :) :worship: :angel:
-----
edit ;) - ;) :worship: :angel:
I forgot my favorite- The CR(RRRRRRRRRR!!!!!)EAM of wheat!/wit!!!;)
:worship: :angel: :worship: :) :wavey:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-06-2007, 11:36 PM
I don't think its a popular consensus that Sampras was more talented than Agassi.....

Sure Sampras could serve better, but I don't consider that much of a talent anyway, so take that away and Agassi has much more....

nobama
01-07-2007, 01:06 AM
I don't think its a popular consensus that Sampras was more talented than Agassi.....

Sure Sampras could serve better, but I don't consider that much of a talent anyway, so take that away and Agassi has much more....Except Sampras has 14 slams to Andre's 8. ;)

tangerine_dream
01-07-2007, 01:07 AM
Except Sampras has 14 slams to Andre's 8. ;)
Except that Andre has the Golden Slam and Pete doesn't. ;)

pente
01-07-2007, 09:01 AM
I don't think its a popular consensus that Sampras was more talented than Agassi.....

Sure Sampras could serve better, but I don't consider that much of a talent anyway, so take that away and Agassi has much more....

------------------------
... of what...?/!
:) :angel: :) :worship: :worship: :worship: ;) :wavey:

Boris Franz Ecker
01-07-2007, 09:24 AM
I don't think its a popular consensus that Sampras was more talented than Agassi.....

Sure Sampras could serve better, but I don't consider that much of a talent anyway, so take that away and Agassi has much more....

Maybe not popular, but Sampras was more talented. Anything else is not realistic.
Serve belongs to the game, Volley also.

nobama
01-07-2007, 11:42 AM
Except that Andre has the Golden Slam and Pete doesn't. ;)So? I think 7 Wimbledons is greater than 1 French. Plus 6 year ends at #1 which Andre never accomplished.

Boris Franz Ecker
01-07-2007, 07:12 PM
Except that Andre has the Golden Slam and Pete doesn't. ;)

Agassi has no Golden Slam and he was never in the situation to get one.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-07-2007, 07:34 PM
Except Sampras has 14 slams to Andre's 8. ;)

Ah right, so Nadal must be much more talented than Marcelo Rios as he's won 2 GS and Rios has won none. Talent is not just about how much you win.

Agassi has no Golden Slam and he was never in the situation to get one.

No-one has been in a position to get one for a very long time, but he is the first player for a very long time to actually win all 4 grand slams, which you know what TD was talking about, so this kind of comment was pointless :rolleyes:

nobama
01-07-2007, 08:22 PM
Ah right, so Nadal must be much more talented than Marcelo Rios as he's won 2 GS and Rios has won none. Talent is not just about how much you win.



No-one has been in a position to get one for a very long time, but he is the first player for a very long time to actually win all 4 grand slams, which you know what TD was talking about, so this kind of comment was pointless :rolleyes:Talent is subjective. There is no way to definitively say who was/is the most talented. At the end of the day all we can really measure is results, and Sampras has more titles and more slams than Agassi does.

Richard_from_Cal
01-07-2007, 09:24 PM
have any of these hosers: Rafael, Roger, Peter, Andre...ever interceded with the Lord and healed anybody? Walked on water?? Won a Nobel <in ANY category>?

Talent is subjective...

I paid to see Andre Kirk Agassi. Twice.

Just Cause
01-08-2007, 04:59 AM
Agassi has no Golden Slam and he was never in the situation to get one.

Yup...he only won Wimbledon cuz bad goran showed up...:devil:

RonE
01-08-2007, 05:05 AM
(while it may disputed, I still think that Michael Chang is the most talented player in history)


Forget all the pointless threads you started and infinite amount of horseshit spewed from your keyboard- that statement alone shows you know f*** all about tennis :haha:

Just Cause
01-08-2007, 05:09 AM
:angel: Forget all the pointless threads you started and infinite amount of horseshit spewed from your keyboard- that statement alone shows you know f*** all about tennis :haha:

Yes...Roger Federer won the French Open at sweet 16.....:rolleyes:
Why dont you watch back at how Michael Chang played, he had always been my idol...

RonE
01-08-2007, 05:26 AM
:angel:

Yes...Roger Federer won the French Open at sweet 16.....:rolleyes:
Why dont you watch back at how Michael Chang played, he had always been my idol...

Believe me, I have seen more Michael Chang matches than 99% of people on this forum. I will grant you that talent is a concept open to interpretation and taking that into account Chang was talented without a doubt, but even so if you cannot understand why your statement is totally ludicrous then I have nothing else to add.

Just Cause
01-08-2007, 05:29 AM
Believe me, I have seen more Michael Chang matches than 99% of people on this forum. I will grant you that talent is a concept open to interpretation and taking that into account Chang was talented without a doubt, but even so if you cannot understand why your statement is totally ludicrous then I have nothing else to add.
Ya...whatever...lol:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-08-2007, 12:08 PM
Fair enough Just Cause if thats what you think. I happen to disagree, and think Agassi is the most talented of all time, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I'd say you know alot about tennis :)

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-08-2007, 12:10 PM
Talent is subjective. There is no way to definitively say who was/is the most talented. At the end of the day all we can really measure is results, and Sampras has more titles and more slams than Agassi does.

I agree with, I was just saying that I don't think its totally true that everyone believes Sampras is more talented than Agassi. Of course success is something different.

angiel
01-08-2007, 12:31 PM
lol...please read my first page.........i have laid it all out there....



Did you, and what did you laid out my dear friend:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

angiel
01-08-2007, 12:37 PM
I don't think its a popular consensus that Sampras was more talented than Agassi.....

Sure Sampras could serve better, but I don't consider that much of a talent anyway, so take that away and Agassi has much more....



It is Andre'sNo1Fan, ask most people and they will tell you Pete is more talented than Andre is, every polls that i ever saw Pete is alway ahead of Andre but popularity.:worship: :worship:

Just Cause
01-08-2007, 11:50 PM
Did you, and what did you laid out my dear friend:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Nadal already won 2 grand slams at age 19 (youngest player ever to have 2 slams).
Sampras only won 1 at age 21 and he became #1. And you say it is fair?

GlennMirnyi
01-08-2007, 11:57 PM
Nadal already won 2 grand slams at age 19 (youngest player ever to have 2 slams).
Sampras only won 1 at age 21 and he became #1. And you say it is fair?

Of course it is. Moonballers should never be #1.

PamV
01-09-2007, 12:07 AM
It doesn't seem to me that we should think a strict comparison of a timeline of what two players did at the age of 20 means much. I think it's better to compare after both careers are over in order to look at the length of the career and all the ups and downs involved.

GlennMirnyi
01-09-2007, 12:10 AM
It doesn't seem to me that we should think a strict comparison of a timeline of what two players did at the age of 20 means much. I think it's better to compare after both careers are over in order to look at the length of the career and all the ups and downs involved.

ALERT ALERT ALERT!

Stop making sense or you'll be put to shame on GM. :p ;)

PamV
01-09-2007, 12:21 AM
Since when is talent correlated with age? This is a new one to me.

I don't understand this premise either.

Becker won two Wimbledon's by the age of 18......does that make him more talented than Sampras or Nadal?

PamV
01-09-2007, 12:23 AM
Nadal already won 2 grand slams at age 19 (youngest player ever to have 2 slams).
Sampras only won 1 at age 21 and he became #1. And you say it is fair?

Becker won two Wimbledon's by age 18.

KaxMisha
01-09-2007, 12:43 AM
Becker won two Wimbledon's by age 18.

OH MY GOD! :eek: You've just made Just Cause's point! Becker won two Wimbledons by the age of 18 and he ended up with 29 slams! That's more than anyone, right? YEAH! The predictive power of early wins is astonishing! :retard:

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-09-2007, 12:51 AM
Agassi had far more talent than Sampras.
Sampras was just a great serving android.

GlennMirnyi
01-09-2007, 12:54 AM
Sampras - 14 GS. That says enough about his talent.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-09-2007, 12:59 AM
Nadal 2 GS
> Lluboho 0 GS
Mirnyi 0 GS
many of the other idiots on your sig

So Nadal is more talented unlike you believe.

Remember you are not smart enough to compete or debate with me.

nobama
01-09-2007, 12:59 AM
Agassi had far more talent than Sampras.
Sampras was just a great serving android.:retard:

GlennMirnyi
01-09-2007, 01:00 AM
Nadal 2 GS > Lluboho 0 GS
Mirnyi 0 GS
many of the other idiots on your sig

Remember you are not smart enough to compete or debate with me.

:haha:

Sampras + Federer + Kuerten = 26 GS.

Are you what? 14?

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-09-2007, 01:00 AM
The QueenBee of the Fedtards has arrived. Has your groups combined IQ reached 10 yet.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-09-2007, 01:02 AM
How many GS do Tursunov, Roddick, Ljubicic, Ivanisevic have.

Does Nadal have more.

Think you clown think.

GlennMirnyi
01-09-2007, 01:03 AM
How many GS do Tursunov, Roddick, Ljubicic, Ivanisevic have.

Does Nadal have more.

Think you clown think.

The day your Nadal learns how to volley, come back here. :haha:

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-09-2007, 01:06 AM
The day Lluboho learns how to run come back here.

PamV
01-09-2007, 01:43 AM
OH MY GOD! :eek: You've just made Just Cause's point! Becker won two Wimbledons by the age of 18 and he ended up with 29 slams! That's more than anyone, right? YEAH! The predictive power of early wins is astonishing! :retard:

I think a complete study is in order that includes height, weight and birthday.

nobama
01-09-2007, 01:48 AM
The QueenBee of the Fedtards has arrived. Has your groups combined IQ reached 10 yet.Looks like you don't mind being :retard: since you're low on vcash....

KaxMisha
01-09-2007, 03:38 AM
I think a complete study is in order that includes height, weight and birthday.

Yeah. Becker was obviously taller than Sampras. That must have been why he won more slams. Karlovic > Becker > Sampras in talent. It's as easy as that.

angiel
01-09-2007, 12:31 PM
Agassi had far more talent than Sampras.
Sampras was just a great serving android.


Keep on fooling yourself my friend and see how far it is going to get you.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :sad:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-09-2007, 01:34 PM
The day your Nadal learns how to volley, come back here. :haha:

He doesn't need volleys to win grand slams :)

stebs
04-23-2007, 04:37 PM
Another TMS win for NADAL:D

Nobody is disputing how good he is on clay. He can win Monte Carlo, Rome and RG for another 11 years in a row and Sampras will still have a more impressive GS record unless Nadal wins outside of clay. I am not saying he won't, the signs point to the fact that he is a top player on hardcourts as well but the fact of the matter is Sampras has 14 slams to his name. When Nadal has acheived anything close to that we can talk but until then this whole thread is pointless.

Just Cause
04-23-2007, 05:17 PM
Nobody is disputing how good he is on clay. He can win Monte Carlo, Rome and RG for another 11 years in a row and Sampras will still have a more impressive GS record unless Nadal wins outside of clay. I am not saying he won't, the signs point to the fact that he is a top player on hardcourts as well but the fact of the matter is Sampras has 14 slams to his name. When Nadal has acheived anything close to that we can talk but until then this whole thread is pointless.

It's not "pointless", all I am saying is that Nadal has not even hit 21 yet, and he has already accomplished so much more than when Samprass hit 21, (and even tho he became #1 later he still could not compare with his record back then).

maqk
04-23-2007, 06:57 PM
Sampras The Great

Nadal Has To Do More I Think But He Can Do It

angiel
04-23-2007, 07:58 PM
It's not "pointless", all I am saying is that Nadal has not even hit 21 yet, and he has already accomplished so much more than when Samprass hit 21, (and even tho he became #1 later he still could not compare with his record back then).


Why do you keep repeating yourself over and over, when Nadal reach Sampras level we will talk and it is pointless to compare them, Nadal is nowhere in Sampras league - how much titles outside of clay does Nadal has?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :devil:

GlennMirnyi
04-23-2007, 08:25 PM
THIS THREAD SUCKS BECAUSE: (Place X where applies)

[_] Fake account
[_] It asks when and/or will Nadal become #1 in the world
[_] It is a Nadal v Federer thread where making sense is prohibited
[_] It assumes Federer will forever be on top of the tennis world
[X] It is a lame ass troll attempt
[_] It is a “Threaten to leave” thread
[_] It was started by Rafa=FedKilla
[X] It over hypes players that don’t deserve it
[_] It contains the Croatian contingent in a argument either among themselves or with others
[X] It was started by JustCause the biggest asshatter ever
[_] Original Posters grammar makes me suspect the post was written by 4 year old
[_] It claims Player X career is over after 1 bad loss
[_] It tries to determine the best player ever (on any surface) for the 200th time
[_] It asks when or if a young player will ever reach their potential after a totally expected loss
[_] It is a serious discussion of a exhibition match
[_] It proclaims a 16-18 year olds career is finished after a couple of first round losses
[_] It has the word Gilbert in the subject line
[_] It discusses doubles when its not a Davis Cup weekend
[_] It is a serious discussion of a clay clowns chances at a clay event or in a individual match against a competent clay player
[_] It is the annual thread where people bitch about clay courters not showing up and embarrassing themselves on grass
[_] LOL Jerry Seinfeld
[_] To much sex talk in this thread
[_] It speculates whether player X is on dope without any evidence
[_] It asks/assumes Safin is finished in tennis after a totally expected few first round loss to the local baker in the first round of small tournament X
[_] Use the damn search engine
[_] It accuses the loser of choking when he did nothing of the sort
[_] It talks about fake injuries and/or fake injury time outs
[_] Cramp is called a injury
[_] BROKEN CAPS LOCK
[_] It claims females can be competitive with males in any form of tennis
[_] Wrong forum, douche

GlennMirnyi
04-23-2007, 08:25 PM
It takes huge nerve to compare the GOAT 'till now with a moonballer who can't beat Clement on a fast court.

Snowwy
04-23-2007, 08:45 PM
It takes huge nerve to compare the GOAT 'till now with a moonballer who can't beat Clement on a fast court.

To be fair, when Sampras was 20, he lost to this amazing clay courter named Thierry Champion.

I always would say taht losing to a fomer top ten player on his best surface isnt bad or embarrassing.

JBdV
04-23-2007, 08:46 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: Yet another classic thread!

RagingLamb
04-23-2007, 08:53 PM
How do you compare Sampras and Nadal?

I can't think of a single thing they have in common.

Just Cause
04-23-2007, 09:15 PM
HAHA, you guys have some good replies. Saying how great Pete is.
I admit that Pete is currently the greatest player on ATP (14 GS, though soon to be overtaken). Where did I say he sucked?

I said he sucked @ age 21 comparing to Nadal who has accomplshed what, at least double amount @ age 20. And hey, Pete actually became #1 with so little accomplished, it's much like Marcelo Rios, so I say give the credits where credits are due.

RonE
04-23-2007, 09:42 PM
Just Cause needs to learn how to count before educating the rest of us about tennis.

9 TMS titles for Nadal you say? Let's see:

1. Monte Carlo 2005
2. Rome 2005
3. TMS Canada 2005
4. Madrid 2005
5. Monte Carlo 2006
6. Rome 2006
7. Indian Wells 2007
8. Monte Carlo 2007

Oh wait, I get it. You must have also counted Miami 2005 since he was only 2 points from the match that means he actually defeated Roger for the title on that day ;)

almouchie
04-24-2007, 08:10 AM
whats teh point
trying to compare players
at certain points in time

let go of this endless discussion
does every post have to be who is better than the other

angiel
04-24-2007, 05:38 PM
HAHA, you guys have some good replies. Saying how great Pete is.
I admit that Pete is currently the greatest player on ATP (14 GS, though soon to be overtaken). Where did I say he sucked?

I said he sucked @ age 21 comparing to Nadal who has accomplshed what, at least double amount @ age 20. And hey, Pete actually became #1 with so little accomplished, it's much like Marcelo Rios, so I say give the credits where credits are due.


Accept this Just Cause, Nadal is not at Pete's level and he has a long time to reach there, maybe you should wait until he does and come chat again, and it is going to be a very long time to do so.:wavey: :wavey: :eek:

Champion number 1
04-24-2007, 05:40 PM
Is it normal in this forum that people make retard statements and threads?

angiel
04-24-2007, 05:42 PM
How do you compare Sampras and Nadal?

I can't think of a single thing they have in common.


They don't compare, but Just Cause can't see that my dear.:wavey: :D he thinks Nadal is better, how he comes to that conclusion I don't know, weird.:mad: :sad:

Veronique
04-24-2007, 06:05 PM
If you wanted to praise Rafa, you wound up making him look like a midget. The child has a long way to go before being spoken in the same breath as Pete Sampras. This was unnecessary.

RagingLamb
04-24-2007, 06:06 PM
They don't compare, but Just Cause can't see that my dear.:wavey: :D he thinks Nadal is better, how he comes to that conclusion I don't know, weird.:mad: :sad:

Well, when Pete played his last match 'Just Cause' was about 11 or 12, so that could be one reason.

Just Cause
04-24-2007, 09:51 PM
Well, when Pete played his last match 'Just Cause' was about 11 or 12, so that could be one reason.

Federer is NO PETE.......I think that's a given.
Federer was a nothing at age 21, so why are we talking about him back then.
You just hope that he better not peaked yet (as he apparently has) otherwise 5 more slams to surpass Sampras may not be his after all.

RagingLamb
04-24-2007, 10:08 PM
Federer is NO PETE.......I think that's a given.
Federer was a nothing at age 21, so why are we talking about him back then.
You just hope that he better not peaked yet (as he apparently has) otherwise 5 more slams to surpass Sampras may not be his after all.

Sorry, when was I talking about Federer in this thread?