Winning Ugly [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Winning Ugly

TENNISCRACK
12-01-2011, 06:16 AM
Do you think there could be another Brad Gilbert type of player. He had very little talent, but was in phenomenal shape and had a playing style that bothered many people. Could a player like him crack the top ten ?

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 06:18 AM
I thought he was better then Roddick to be honest.. Maybe Roddick should have kept him around as a coach.

Awesome tennis here and he takes out Becker at the peak of his powers in 5 sets at the USO

Between BEcker and Gilbert in '87 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwC_2kSVyRE Roddick only wishes he could have attacked the net and hit some lobs and had a running FH like that.

The dude had some talent

Hewitt =Legend
12-01-2011, 06:32 AM
It's harder for that sort of player to emerge in today's contemporary state of the game. The ever increasing racquet technology and homogenisation of the surfaces greatly benefits the ballbashing type of player. That's why there's an influx of them in the top 100 now. Today, the default style is to stay on or behind the baseline and bash the ball from side to side. This is now being taught from the juniors up and is very hard to overcome.

EddieNero
12-01-2011, 07:21 AM
Are you kidding me? Ugliness is the main style of winning nowadays. Breaking Top 10? What about Del Potro, Soderling, Berdych?
Hardly any of them play aesthetically.

Globetrotter
12-01-2011, 04:58 PM
Are you kidding me? Ugliness is the main style of winning nowadays. Breaking Top 10? What about Del Potro, Soderling, Berdych?
Hardly any of them play aesthetically.

I don't think this thread is about your personal taste of aesthetical players (which is pretty screwed up imho if you don't enjoy risky tennis like those three display). I think it's more about a player who cracks the top 10 not by hitting talent, but by great fighting abilities and mental game. I think in the current top 10 Ferrer is as close as you can get to such a player, but generally I think he's extremly talented too. Don't see any player near top 10 who I'd describe as "very little talented" tbh.

eduggs
12-01-2011, 07:06 PM
I thought he was better then Roddick to be honest.. Maybe Roddick should have kept him around as a coach.

Awesome tennis here and he takes out Becker at the peak of his powers in 5 sets at the USO

Between BEcker and Gilbert in '87 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwC_2kSVyRE Roddick only wishes he could have attacked the net and hit some lobs and had a running FH like that.

The dude had some talent

That clip was embarrassing for Becker. What a clown. It just shows how mentally weak that generation was when paired against a super mentally tough club level player. No wonder Sampras had no strong rivals.

Gilbert was fun to watch and root for. I still think the mental side of the game is extremely important, so yes, there could be more players in the future who have more mental strength than physical talent. Hewitt was a hybrid version in recent times. Nowadays you need a lot more tennis ability because the field is much stronger and not filled with mental midgets like Boris.

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 07:08 PM
That clip was embarrassing for Becker. What a clown. It just shows how mentally weak that generation was when paired against a super mentally tough club level player. No wonder Sampras had no strong rivals.

Gilbert was fun to watch and root for. I still think the mental side of the game is extremely important, so yes, there could be more players in the future who have more mental strength than physical talent. Hewitt was a hybrid version in recent times. Nowadays you need a lot more tennis ability because the field is much stronger and not filled with mental midgets like Boris.

Becker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Monfils, Blake, Berdych, Tsonga, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Ljubicic, Murray..........................etc.


:)

eduggs
12-01-2011, 07:08 PM
I think Murray could be a modern version of Gilbert if he could keep his emotions in check. He can definitely get under an opponent's skin and give them a rope to hang themselves with.

eduggs
12-01-2011, 07:10 PM
Becker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Monfils, Blake, Berdych, Tsonga, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Ljubicic, Murray..........................etc.


:)

Wait, did you watch that clip? The over 40 ladies at my club play better than that. I thought strong players were supposed to rise to the occasion on the grandest of stages? US OPEN. He clearly is and was just a mug. End of story.

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 07:12 PM
Wait, did you watch that clip? The over 40 ladies at my club play better than that. I thought strong players were supposed to rise to the occasion on the grandest of stages? US OPEN. He clearly is and was just a mug. End of story.

Me too... So why is it Roddick only has 1 slam, Hewitt only with 2, Murray with 0, Safin only with 2, Tsonga, BErdych, Monfils, Davydenko, Nalbandian and down the line with a big ZERO.

Becker has 6

Sham Kay
12-01-2011, 07:13 PM
Apart from Federer, everyone in the top 10 wins ugly often. Especially Nadal.. The man epitomises ugly. As does his winning.

Dougie
12-01-2011, 07:18 PM
Apart from Federer, everyone in the top 10 wins ugly often. Especially Nadal.. The man epitomises ugly. As does his winning.

Read the book. You obviously have no idea what "Winning Ugly" means.

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 07:21 PM
Nahh.. You want to see winning "ugly" look at Fed these past few years.. Wimbledon 09, the YEC this year and down the line............

eduggs
12-01-2011, 07:26 PM
Me too... So why is it Roddick only has 1 slam, Hewitt only with 2, Murray with 0, Safin only with 2, Tsonga, BErdych, Monfils, Davydenko, Nalbandian and down the line with a big ZERO.

Becker has 6

Because Federer stopped them.

In the 80s when Becker accumulated his slams, guys could not handle his power game. But in the 90s, the era of Pete, Becker no longer dominated. Becker was never a legitimate rival of Sampras except late season indoors. Go back and check.

eduggs
12-01-2011, 07:29 PM
Me too... So why is it Roddick only has 1 slam, Hewitt only with 2, Murray with 0, Safin only with 2, Tsonga, BErdych, Monfils, Davydenko, Nalbandian and down the line with a big ZERO.

Becker has 6

Federer has defeated everyone of those players late in slams or in finals. They are/were all capable of winning those titles (with the possible exception of Monfils). IF not for Federer's consistent domination, we would have a generation of slam winners - probably at least a half dozen different guys.

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 07:36 PM
Because Federer stopped them.

In the 80s when Becker accumulated his slams, guys could not handle his power game. But in the 90s, the era of Pete, Becker no longer dominated. Becker was never a legitimate rival of Sampras except late season indoors. Go back and check.

ROFL. No you need to check.. So Fed stopped Nalbandian at how many slams?? Where was Nalbandian the rest of the 200 slams. ( At Crispy Cremes) WHere was Roddick for the rest of the 50 slams he didn't meet Fed.

Where was Safin between the USO in 2000 and the AO in 2005.. Did Fed stop him those 5 years too?


Did Fed stop Monfils, Berdych, and Davydenko, Baghaditis, Gonzales, etc.. from being all time greats? I think not. They all "stopped" themselves

eduggs
12-01-2011, 08:08 PM
ROFL. No you need to check.. So Fed stopped Nalbandian at how many slams?? Where was Nalbandian the rest of the 200 slams. ( At Crispy Cremes) WHere was Roddick for the rest of the 50 slams he didn't meet Fed.

Where was Safin between the USO in 2000 and the AO in 2005.. Did Fed stop him those 5 years too?


Did Fed stop Monfils, Berdych, and Davydenko, Baghaditis, Gonzales, etc.. from being all time greats? I think not. They all "stopped" themselves

Winning a slam is different than being an all-time great. You keep changing the goal posts. Yes Federer stopped every one of his rivals in the late stages of grand slam tournaments.

Fed stopped Nalbandian at the 2004 Australian, the 2005 US Open and the 2006 Roland Garros. This was right in the middle of Nalbandian's prime when he was beating Federer, Nadal, and everybody else.

Fed stopped Roddick at the 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009 Wimbledon. The 2006 and 2007 US Opens. And the 2007 and 2009 Australian Opens. That means EVERY TIME RODDICK GOT TO THE SF OR BETTER except Aussi 2003, 2005 and US 2003, HE LOST TO FEDERER. And of the 3/11 times he didn't meet Federer, he won the 2003 US Open. Roddick's career was decimated by Federer.


And I said you should check about Boris being a legitimate Sampras rival. They played 3 times at slams, all at Wimbledon, when Boris was passed his best.

Fujee
12-01-2011, 09:39 PM
ROFL. No you need to check.. So Fed stopped Nalbandian at how many slams?? Where was Nalbandian the rest of the 200 slams. ( At Crispy Cremes) WHere was Roddick for the rest of the 50 slams he didn't meet Fed.

Where was Safin between the USO in 2000 and the AO in 2005.. Did Fed stop him those 5 years too?


Did Fed stop Monfils, Berdych, and Davydenko, Baghaditis, Gonzales, etc.. from being all time greats? I think not. They all "stopped" themselves

You need to check your facts. You are literally so full of shit its unbelievable.

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 09:41 PM
You need to check your facts. You are literally so full of shit its unbelievable.


Oh really?? Once again.. I ask the question. Where were all these guys at the 100 other tournaments they entered where Fed didn't take them out? The Fards on here seem to think Fed has taken all these slamless or one time slam mugs out every tournament they have entered. ROFL

Fujee
12-01-2011, 09:59 PM
Yes really, now continue to tug yourself off over a by gone era.

SetSampras
12-01-2011, 10:12 PM
Yes really, now continue to tug yourself off over a by gone era.

Way to refute the claims. ROFL.

Its too easy destroying the Fards

r2473
12-01-2011, 10:17 PM
Winning:

http://thetenniscentre.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/aaaaradek_stepanek_rome11.jpg

Ugly:

http://img.skysports.com/09/02/218x298/Radek-Stepanek_1864920.jpg

eduggs
12-01-2011, 11:38 PM
Oh really?? Once again.. I ask the question. Where were all these guys at the 100 other tournaments they entered where Fed didn't take them out? The Fards on here seem to think Fed has taken all these slamless or one time slam mugs out every tournament they have entered. ROFL

Of course Safin, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Roddick, and Hewitt couldn't win everything. It's not reasonable to expect any or all of them to make every slam final. But when the conditions suited them and they were in great form, Federer was ALWAYS there waiting to knock them off.

Between Australian Open 2004 and 2010 - that's 25 SLAMS - the ONLY guys who snuck through Federer were Kuerten, Safin, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro. Just think about that. 5 guys at 25 slams! Every other guy who was peaking at a grand slam ran into Federer and lost. He was simply a road block for 6 years.

Roddick is a perfect example. At his best he was a huge threat at Wimbledon and the US Open, and to a lesser extent the Australian. Every time he was in great form on his best surfaces and made a deep run at a slam, he ran into Federer. 3 finals and a semi at Wimbledon. 1 final and 1 QF at the US Open. And 1 SF and one QF at the Australian. Roddick didn't have 100s of slam chances. He had a dozen shots. He took his chance at the 2003 US Open before Federer closed the door. Thereafter, Federer denied him 8 times. There was never a time when Federer wasn't waiting.

SetSampras
12-02-2011, 12:21 AM
Of course Safin, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Roddick, and Hewitt couldn't win everything. It's not reasonable to expect any or all of them to make every slam final. But when the conditions suited them and they were in great form, Federer was ALWAYS there waiting to knock them off.

Between Australian Open 2004 and 2010 - that's 25 SLAMS - the ONLY guys who snuck through Federer were Kuerten, Safin, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro. Just think about that. 5 guys at 25 slams! Every other guy who was peaking at a grand slam ran into Federer and lost. He was simply a road block for 6 years.

Roddick is a perfect example. At his best he was a huge threat at Wimbledon and the US Open, and to a lesser extent the Australian. Every time he was in great form on his best surfaces and made a deep run at a slam, he ran into Federer. 3 finals and a semi at Wimbledon. 1 final and 1 QF at the US Open. And 1 SF and one QF at the Australian. Roddick didn't have 100s of slam chances. He had a dozen shots. He took his chance at the 2003 US Open before Federer closed the door. Thereafter, Federer denied him 8 times. There was never a time when Federer wasn't waiting.

And how often was Safin and Nalbandian in great form? When they were at their BEST form both beat Fed. ( Nalbandian at the TMC in 07, and Safin at the AO in 05) Other then that their "great form" occurred as about as often as Haley's comet..


Roddick is only a threat to country clubbers.. Roddick is no threat to champions. As evident with Pete's beat down on him at the USO and Agassi's 5-1 h2h over Roddick as an old man Give me a break.

mystic ice cube
12-02-2011, 01:55 AM
I've never seen a member so wounded in my life. Does it really hurt THAT BAD that Federer surpassed Sampras's 14 GS's SetSampras? All I seem to see you do on this forum is conjure up as many different scenarios about how weak a champion Federer is and basically dog him in one way or another in every post. It's pathetic.

bjurra
12-02-2011, 09:26 AM
Troicki maybe...If he starts winning...

American278
12-02-2011, 11:17 AM
And how often was Safin and Nalbandian in great form? When they were at their BEST form both beat Fed. ( Nalbandian at the TMC in 07, and Safin at the AO in 05) Other then that their "great form" occurred as about as often as Haley's comet..


Roddick is only a threat to country clubbers.. Roddick is no threat to champions. As evident with Pete's beat down on him at the USO and Agassi's 5-1 h2h over Roddick as an old man Give me a break.

he still beat sampras 2times;)so sampras was a country clubber?

peRfect-Tennis
12-02-2011, 08:20 PM
Nadal wins ugly everyday with his moonball style!

safin-rules-no.1
12-03-2011, 01:33 AM
Murray wins ugly when he goes on court and shows his face.

dabeast
12-03-2011, 04:11 AM
I wouldn't knock this style. The posterboy for winning fugly has racked up 10 GS and counting... jokes...(everyone seems to be trolling here, just returning the favour :))

Vida
12-03-2011, 11:09 AM
Nadal wins ugly everyday with his moonball style!

its not ugly at all. nobody play it like he does. sure its simple tactics for most part, but still a unique player.