Wimbledon vs Roland Garros Champions - the bitter and ugly truth. Exposed. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wimbledon vs Roland Garros Champions - the bitter and ugly truth. Exposed.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:10 PM
The argument's been made that players like Pete Sampras, Roger Federer or perhaps even John McEnroe, the greatest the sport has ever seen lack versatility, simply because they couldn't play on clay. Well, what does that say for the Roland Garros Champions that have outclassed them in that department, by not only managing to skip tournaments and absolutely bomb out, in not only 1 tournament, but 3 others and 2 of those being on different surfaces. The anemic play of clay courters has not only haunted them in the villages of England, but this goes all the way to New York and even in some cases, Australia. If one is incapable of winning on rebound ace, then what tournament will they ever win ? Do we need to serve underhanded to make the game a tad simplier ? Rafael Nadal accumulated the best return percentage on tour this year, even if the majority of those results came on clay, a surface that makes it much easier to return. I'm not going to even bother listing at his stats for the tournaments played on a fast surface, but I can assure you they come nowhere close to those on dirt.

Fact of the matter is, clay courters have skipped Wimbledon and failed at 2 other slams aside from that, with the exception of a rare few, Roland Garros has been their only title.

Roland Garros is notorious for providing "average" champions.
Even more notorious for it's lack of real star power, even more amazing the people that don't win it.

Andres Gomez has won Roland Garros, yet John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and a cluster of others have yet to capture the title.
Something wrong with this picture?

Wimbledon, on the other hand, is notorious for creating Champions that have enjoyed success throughout the world and on each surface, showcasing their variety and talent on the Rebound Ace of Australia, Clay of Paris and the speedy courts in New York City.

Wimbledon Champs:
AO's: 12 - 7 different players won, as opposed to the domination of mainly a 3 RG champions.
FO's: 1 (Zero, aside from Agassi)
U.S Open's:22 - 9 different players.

Roland Garros
AO's: 12 ( Thank Andre, Wilander and Lendl)
Wimbledon's:1 (Zero, aside from Agassi)
U.S Open's: 4 - 2 players, Wilander and Lendl

We have to stop and ask ourselves, is it the reality that clay is one big equalizer and not so much having to do with skill, but repetition and not actual tennis, just, which player will blink first.



These figures outline the last

20 Year's of Competition between Roland Garros Champion
vs
24 Year's of Competition between Wimbledon Champions

Since a large portion of the records were amassed for Wimbledon Champions (14) in fact, (which nearly matches the pitiful amount of titles that have been captured off clay, in total, by each of the Roland Garros champions), I've decided to even the score by adding other Champions (2, Connors and McEnroe) into the equation.

12 Wimbledon Champions
vs
15 Roland Garros Champions


What exactly is being measured?
The amount of Slams won outside of Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

The total amassed by Roland Garros Champions:
17
Most of that coming solely from Lendl, Wilander and Agassi

The total amassed by Wimbledon Champions:
35


In conclusion, the problem doesn't seem like it has as much to do with the lack of versatility of those that have failed at the Roland Garros, but merely is an issue of quite the contrary. The lack of versatility that Roland Garros Champions have shown us. Also, one more challenge:

Look at this list of Roland Garros Champs and Compare the list of Wimbledon Champs.

Which is more likely to be known by the general public ?

Roland Garros:
1985 Mats Wilander Ivan Lendl 3-6 6-4 6-2 6-2
1986 Ivan Lendl Mikael Pernfors 6-3 6-2 6-4
1987 Ivan Lendl Mats Wilander 7-5 6-2 3-6 7-6
1988 Mats Wilander Henri Leconte 7-5 6-2 6-1
1989 Michael Chang Stefan Edberg 6-1 3-6 4-6 6-4 6-2
1990 Andrés Gómez Andre Agassi 6-3 2-6 6-4 6-4
1991 Jim Courier Andre Agassi 3-6 6-4 2-6 6-1 6-4
1992 Jim Courier Petr Korda 7-5 6-2 6-1
1993 Sergi Bruguera Jim Courier 6-4 2-6 6-2 3-6 6-3
1994 Sergi Bruguera Alberto Berasategui 6-3 7-5 2-6 6-1
1995 Thomas Muster Michael Chang 7-5 6-2 6-4
1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov Michael Stich 7-6 7-5 7-6
1997 Gustavo Kuerten Sergi Bruguera 6-3 6-4 6-2
1998 Carlos Moya Alex Corretja 6-3 7-5 6-3
1999 Andre Agassi Andrei Medvedev 1-6 2-6 6-4 6-3 6-4
2000 Gustavo Kuerten Magnus Norman 6-2 6-3 2-6 7-6(6)
2001 Gustavo Kuerten Alex Corretja 6-7(3) 7-5 6-2 6-0
2002 Albert Costa Juan Carlos Ferrero 6-1 6-0 4-6 6-3
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero Martin Verkerk 6-1 6-3 6-2
2004 Gastón Gaudio Guillermo Coria 0-6 3-6 6-4 6-1 8-6
2005 Rafael Nadal Mariano Puerta 6-7(6) 6-3 6-1 7-5

Wimbledon:
1981 John McEnroe Björn Borg 4-6 7-6(1) 7-6(4) 6-4
1982 Jimmy Connors John McEnroe 3-6 6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(5) 6-4
1983 John McEnroe Chris Lewis 6-2 6-2 6-2
1984 John McEnroe Jimmy Connors 6-1 6-1 6-2
1985 Boris Becker Kevin Curren 6-3 6-7(4) 7-6(3) 6-4
1986 Boris Becker Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-3 7-5
1987 Pat Cash Ivan Lendl 7-6(5) 6-2 7-5
1988 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2
1989 Boris Becker Stefan Edberg 6-0 7-6(1) 6-4
1990 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4
1991 Michael Stich Boris Becker 6-4 7-6(4) 6-4
1992 Andre Agassi Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(8) 6-4 6-4 1-6 6-4
1993 Pete Sampras Jim Courier 7-6(3) 7-6(6) 3-6 6-3
1994 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 7-6(2) 7-6(5) 6-0
1995 Pete Sampras Boris Becker 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2
1996 Richard Krajicek MaliVai Washington 6-3 6-4 6-3
1997 Pete Sampras Cédric Pioline 6-4 6-2 6-4
1998 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2) 7-6(9) 6-4 3-6 6-2
1999 Pete Sampras Andre Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5
2000 Pete Sampras Patrick Rafter 6-7(10) 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2
2001 Goran Ivanisevic Patrick Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7
2002 Lleyton Hewitt David Nalbandian 6-1 6-3 6-2
2003 Roger Federer Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5) 6-2 7-6(3)
2004 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) 6-4
2005 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 6-2 7-6(2) 6-4

Peoples
12-13-2005, 07:18 PM
Excellent post. Wimbledon and US Open have very few 'random' winners. But clay has a big part in tennis and those Wimbledon champions who are capable of winning Roland Garros are special (like Agassi).

El Legenda
12-13-2005, 07:23 PM
Wimbledon:
1982 Jimmy Connors John McEnroe 3-6 6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(5) 6-4
1983 John McEnroe Chris Lewis 6-2 6-2 6-2
1984 John McEnroe Jimmy Connors 6-1 6-1 6-2
1985 Boris Becker Kevin Curren 6-3 6-7(4) 7-6(3) 6-4
1986 Boris Becker Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-3 7-5
1987 Pat Cash Ivan Lendl 7-6(5) 6-2 7-5
1988 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2
1989 Boris Becker Stefan Edberg 6-0 7-6(1) 6-4
1990 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4
1991 Michael Stich Boris Becker 6-4 7-6(4) 6-4
1992 Andre Agassi Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(8) 6-4 6-4 1-6 6-4
1993 Pete Sampras Jim Courier 7-6(3) 7-6(6) 3-6 6-3
1994 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 7-6(2) 7-6(5) 6-0
1995 Pete Sampras Boris Becker 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2
1996 Richard Krajicek MaliVai Washington 6-3 6-4 6-3
1997 Pete Sampras Cédric Pioline 6-4 6-2 6-4
1998 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2) 7-6(9) 6-4 3-6 6-2
1999 Pete Sampras Andre Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5
2000 Pete Sampras Patrick Rafter 6-7(10) 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2
2001 Goran Ivanisevic Patrick Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7
2002 Lleyton Hewitt David Nalbandian 6-1 6-3 6-2
2003 Roger Federer Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5) 6-2 7-6(3)
2004 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) 6-4
2005 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 6-2 7-6(2) 6-4
1981 John McEnroe Björn Borg 4-6 7-6(1) 7-6(4) 6-4

1981 is not after 2005, i think 2006 comes after 2005. :retard:

DrJules
12-13-2005, 07:23 PM
Rather convienent that your period excludes Bjorn Borg; 6 x French Open and 5 x Wimbledon. Also 3 x Decoturf runner-up at US open.

You of course miss the point.

How few have won Wimbledon and French Open shows that the people who have done both are incredible players. The total difference in skills required for each surface is why many people consider Bjorn Borg the greatest player of all time.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:24 PM
1981 is not after 2005, i think 2006 comes after 2005. :retard:

Talk about trivial and minor details.

Bravo, once again, you win the award for missing the big picture. :rolleyes:

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:27 PM
Rather convienent that your period excludes Bjorn Borg; 6 x French Open and 5 x Wimbledon. Also 3 x Decoturf runner-up at US open.

You of course miss the point.

How few have won Wimbledon and French Open shows that the people who have done both are incredible players. The total difference in skills required for each surface is why many people consider Bjorn Borg the greatest player of all time.

Bjorn Borg never won the Australian Open or U.S Open.

He dominated in England and both Paris. It'd really an equal trade-off and what would be the point of including him ? He'd just mangle the statistics, the same way that a Sampras would, only reason I've included Pete is simply because he's being downplayed by critics due to his lack of success on clay, okay, well put Pete's numbers up against the entire Roland Garros Champions.

Scary thought, right ?

Borg is actually everything that I'm against here ...

He won Roland Garros.
Only could win Wimbledon.
Won Wimbledon
Only could win Roland Garros.

Hello, what about Australia and New York ? He succeeded on 2 different surfaces. The argument to be made for Borg is equally fair and beneficial for both sides of the card. Irrelevant.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 07:32 PM
Borg only played Australia once because during his playing time few top players went to the AO. Look at the list of winners in the late 70's; all players regularly on the losing side when playing Borg.

NO player has consistenly managed to dominate on clay, grass and Decoturf on regular basis. NO player has been that good. Maybe Roger????

musefanatic
12-13-2005, 07:33 PM
Brilliant post thanks for all that trivia, it was great to read and i do agree with you! ;)

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:35 PM
Borg only played Australia once because during his playing time few top players went to the AO. Look at the list of winners in the late 70's.

NO player has consistenly managed to dominate on clay, grass and Decoturf on regular basis. NO player has been that good. Maybe Roger????
Dominance isn't what should be measured in this instance.

It is variety.

Even in the AO, more Wimbledon champions have succeeded than Roland Garros champions.

There is a same amount of titles, but a higher number of players that won Wimby have succeeded in Australia.

Haute
12-13-2005, 07:40 PM
It's definitely true on the men's side, but not the women's. Far more women in the Open Era have been successful at winning Roland Garros and another Slam than the men have been; and just off the top of my head right now: Jennifer Capriati, Serena Williams, and Justine Henin-Hardenne. What does that say when the women's game has more versatility than the men's?

DrJules
12-13-2005, 07:42 PM
Agassi fans will like this post. It shows his unique achievement in this period.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:44 PM
It's definitely true on the men's side, but not the women's. Far more women in the Open Era have been successful at winning Roland Garros and another Slam than the men have been; and just off the top of my head right now: Jennifer Capriati, Serena Williams, and Justine Henin-Hardenne. What does that say when the women's game has more versatility than the men's?

That's one way of looking at it, then again, how many true "clay court specialists" are there on the Women's Side ?

1). Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario - Retired.
2). Conchita Martinez - Winding down near the end of her career.
3). Amelie Mauresmo - Mental weakness.
4). Justine Henin-Hardenne - Really the only player very strong on clay.
5). Kim Clijsters - Probably aside from Justine, the only specialist on clay.

There are a variety of others, how could I forget my favorite
Anastasia Myskina, but fact of the matter is that aside from Hardenne, Clijsters, Myskina and even Schynder there is a lack of players that can play on it really properly.

The Women's Game is dominated by power right now, which isn't a recipe for success on clay; however, Serena has accomplished something rare and that definitely deserves to be acknowledged. The only player of the last 20 years I can think of that would beat Serena on Clay is Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:47 PM
Agassi fans will like this post. It shows his unique achievement in this period.
Agassi is a legend of the game, that is precisely why I refuse to touch on any issues concerning his technique or sportsmanship, he can do whatever he wants within reason. The only other player still living that shares such an accomplishment (Career Grand Slam) is Rod Laver, so he is in good company.

Haute
12-13-2005, 07:51 PM
Interesting to bring up Conchita though as a clay court specialist; she never won Roland Garros but got to the Finals, and instead wins Wimbledon against Navratilova. :p That'd be like Coria winning Wimbledon against Fed, which would never happen.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 07:52 PM
Agassi is a legend of the game, that is precisely why I refuse to touch on any issues concerning his technique or sportsmanship, he can do whatever he wants within reason. The only other player still living that shares such an accomplishment (Career Grand Slam) is Rod Laver, so he is in good company.

Rod Laver of course did not have Rebound Ace or Decoturf although he proved his brilliance on hard courts on the professional tour.

Considering his versatility, all 4 grand slams + all 4 surfaces, I am amazed Agassi does not rate higher in all time greatest lists. He is in a group of 1.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 07:54 PM
Interesting to bring up Conchita though as a clay court specialist; she never won Roland Garros but got to the Finals, and instead wins Wimbledon against Navratilova. :p That'd be like Coria winning Wimbledon against Fed, which would never happen.
It is simply inexcusable that Conchita Martinez never won Roland Garros, but it's not too late, right ? I mean ... look at Mary Pierce this season and unless Conchita has retirement plans, she's really only an upset or 2 away from winning and let's face it.

The field is at the lowest point it's been in quite some time, so it's either now or never. Players know that, especially Martina Hingis.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 08:01 PM
That's one way of looking at it, then again, how many true "clay court specialists" are there on the Women's Side ?

1). Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario - Retired.
2). Conchita Martinez - Winding down near the end of her career.
3). Amelie Mauresmo - Mental weakness.
4). Justine Henin-Hardenne - Really the only player very strong on clay.
5). Kim Clijsters - Probably aside from Justine, the only specialist on clay.

There are a variety of others, how could I forget my favorite
Anastasia Myskina, but fact of the matter is that aside from Hardenne, Clijsters, Myskina and even Schynder there is a lack of players that can play on it really properly.

The Women's Game is dominated by power right now, which isn't a recipe for success on clay; however, Serena has accomplished something rare and that definitely deserves to be acknowledged. The only player of the last 20 years I can think of that would beat Serena on Clay is Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario.

Amelie Mauresmo with her slices and volleys is probably more of a grass court player.

Kim Clijsters is better on Rebound Ace and Decoturf. Clay is possibly her worst surface.

Haute
12-13-2005, 08:08 PM
I'm not sure about it being at its lowest point, but it's more like it's in a transitional phase as the power players are adapting more finesse. I think unlike on the men's side where there's really at most 4-5 people who could win a Slam next year, there are at least 20 women who could win Slams next year and not because there is a lack of depth but because it's that much more competitive and there are so many different players bringing something new to the game. Just look at Venus for example. She started out as just a sheer power player, and she still is for the most part, but she's serve and volleying now, throwing in drop shots, and watch her play on clay now and notice how natural she looks on it (you're not going to see Davenport, Serena, or Sharapova sliding around the way Venus does).

This is unlike the men's side, where there are just two types of players; power and clay courters (and then the rare finesse players like Fed and Fabrice). I think you addressed this for the most part, but power players on the men's side can't get away with success on clay the way they can on the women's side. You're not going to see Roddick winning Roland Garros the way Serena was able to.

And this is exactly the type of post I'd LOVE to make over on WTA World, but most people over there have the mental capacity of a peanut. :rolleyes:

prima donna
12-13-2005, 08:09 PM
Amelie Mauresmo with her slices and volleys is probably more of a grass court player.

Kim Clijsters is better on Rebound Ace and Decoturf. Clay is possibly her worst surface.

I thought about the Clijsters one a second time and losing to Davenport (on clay) isn't a good omen. She probably loses a lot, but she did grow up on it and her game is predicated on getting plenty of balls back, using opponent's pace, etc.

Based on Women's Standards, Kimmy is a clay court specialist. :)

As for the Mauresmo part, I completely disagree. For one simple fact, we are living in the Modern Age. What about her Serve ? Where is the Serve, volleying, slices and chips are an act of futility against the stronger players these days. She has had good showings there, but Mauresmo is the closest thing (based on game) to a female version of Roger.

If she bulked up her serve, sure, until then, her game is much more suited to clay, with all those spins and angles.

Haute
12-13-2005, 08:12 PM
What Amélie needs is a good therapist, and for Roland Garros to be played in a country other than France. ;)

LoveFifteen
12-13-2005, 08:20 PM
1. Kim Clijsters is not a clay-court specialist.

2. This post is terrible. Tennis is so delightful because it's played on many different surfaces. Learn to appreciate the unique qualities of each surface.

mangoes
12-13-2005, 08:23 PM
What Amélie needs is a good therapist, and for Roland Garros to be played in a country other than France. ;)


COMPLETELY AGREE.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 08:24 PM
1. Kim Clijsters is not a clay-court specialist.

2. This post is terrible. Tennis is so delightful because it's played on many different surfaces. Learn to appreciate the unique qualities of each surface.
Aside from retracting/adjusting the Kim Clijsters remark, relatively speaking and applying it to the Women's Game, on what basis is the post "terrible" ---

I've just given fact after fact, now you're asking that I appreciate "unique qualities" of each surface, when really, who said that I didn't ? Even if I don't, that's not the point.

Anyway, thanks for your input. :yeah:

El Legenda
12-13-2005, 08:32 PM
Talk about trivial and minor details.

Bravo, once again, you win the award for missing the big picture. :rolleyes:

someone has to do it, can't just leave the award out there :wavey:

prima donna
12-13-2005, 08:35 PM
Yet Another Fun Fact, based on the same standards:
12 Wimbledon Champions since 1981
vs
15 Roland Garros Champions since 1985

Wimbledon Champs that were Runner-up in Paris as opposed to Roland Garros Runner-up


84 - McEnroe
89 - EdBerg
90, 91 - Agassi
92 - Michael Stich

4 different players vs 2 different players.

Roland Garros champs (runner-up) Wimby
86, 87 Ivan Lendl
99 - Agassi


--- Wimbledon SF's at Roland Garros:
1). Pete Sampras
2). Roger Federer
3). Richard Krajicek
4). Boris Becker
5). Jimmy Connors

Each of the Wimbledon Champions (aside from Cash & Goran) has made SF & Finals of Roland Garros, proving they are 2nd best on a surface.

The same cannot be said for Roland Garros champs.

mongo
12-13-2005, 08:46 PM
Rod Laver of course did not have Rebound Ace or Decoturf although he proved his brilliance on hard courts on the professional tour.

Considering his versatility, all 4 grand slams + all 4 surfaces, I am amazed Agassi does not rate higher in all time greatest lists. He is in a group of 1.Nice catch, DrJules. She obviously doesn't know AO was played on grass until 1987. Not sure if she's aware that when Laver played, 3 of the 4 slams were held on grass.

"Grass is for cows."
-Ivan Lendl :D

But I agree with both of you, Agassi is in a class of his own, yet gets slighted for not having won the GS. IMO, Laver was a great grass court player.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 08:54 PM
French Open Champions best result off clay and this is considered the "Elite Group"

Gustavo Kuerten:
Australian Open ~ 3rd Round
Wimbledon ~ QF
U.S Open ~ QF

Thomas Muster
AO - SF
Wimbledon - 1st Round
U.S Open - QF

Rafael Nadal
AO - QF
Wimbledon - 2nd
U.S Open - 3rd

Gaston Gaudio:
AO -3rd
Wimbledon -2nd
U.S Open - 3rd

Michael Chang:
AO - Final
WImbledon - QF
U.S Open - Final

Jim Courier
AO - Champion
Wimbledon - F
USO - F

prima donna
12-13-2005, 08:55 PM
Nice catch, DrJules. She obviously doesn't know AO was played on grass until 1987. Not sure if she's aware that when Laver played, 3 of the 4 slams were held on grass.

"Grass is for cows."
-Ivan Lendl :D


That doesn't take anything away from Laver, he won the tournaments he was given, it's not his fault. You can't compare era's.

Just like it's not Connor's fault he had to play the USO on 3 separate surfaces and still managed to win all 3 times.

There is another cute little fact, they just keep popping up and just for the record, I'm a guy.

adee-gee
12-13-2005, 08:57 PM
Wow prima donna hasn't bashed Nadal yet. I'm impressed :D

DrJules
12-13-2005, 08:58 PM
I thought about the Clijsters one a second time and losing to Davenport (on clay) isn't a good omen. She probably loses a lot, but she did grow up on it and her game is predicated on getting plenty of balls back, using opponent's pace, etc.


"using opponent's pace, etc." is why she is best on hard courts. Similarly to Lleyton Hewitt it is easier to use opponents pace on hard courts.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:00 PM
Bjorn Borg never won the Australian Open or U.S Open.

He dominated in England and both Paris. It'd really an equal trade-off and what would be the point of including him ? He'd just mangle the statistics, the same way that a Sampras would, only reason I've included Pete is simply because he's being downplayed by critics due to his lack of success on clay, okay, well put Pete's numbers up against the entire Roland Garros Champions.

Scary thought, right ?

Borg is actually everything that I'm against here ...

He won Roland Garros.
Only could win Wimbledon.
Won Wimbledon
Only could win Roland Garros.

Hello, what about Australia and New York ? He succeeded on 2 different surfaces. The argument to be made for Borg is equally fair and beneficial for both sides of the card. Irrelevant.

To summarize, when dealing with a question that requires to look at data (use statistical methods)

1. You have an opinion before looking at the data. By itself, this is not a major crime, in statistical jargon it is called "having a prior". But then,
2. You exclude data points to avoid a conclusion that does not fit your opinion. That is indeed a major crime with respect to statistics. Then, in addition,
3. You keep total silence about aspects of the data that are inconvenient, for example the overall slam success of Wimbledon champions like Cash, Stich, Krajcek, Ivanicevic.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 09:01 PM
That doesn't take anything away from Laver, he won the tournaments he was given, it's not his fault. You can't compare era's.

Just like it's not Connor's fault he had to play the USO on 3 separate surfaces and still managed to win all 3 times.

There is another cute little fact, they just keep popping up and just for the record, I'm a guy.

If you check Laver's professional records he was dominant on the hard courts between his grand slam performances on clay and grass. He is the only player to achieve domination on all surfaces.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:02 PM
By the way, have you considered a carreer at forming pseudo-statistical talking points for political parties? Your talents would be greatly appreciated by both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.

EDIT: The methodology is similar to pseudo-statistical studies related to political goals.

World Beater
12-13-2005, 09:02 PM
That doesn't take anything away from Laver, he won the tournaments he was given, it's not his fault. You can't compare era's.

.

just like its not nadal's fault that he won two masters hc, even though his draw was rather easy. nadal won the tournaments he was given.

mongo
12-13-2005, 09:04 PM
84 - McEnroe
89 - EdBerg
90, 91 - Agassi
92 - Michael Stich

4 different players vs 2 different players.

Roland Garros champs (runner-up) Wimby
86, 87 Ivan Lendl
99 - Agassi

Roland Garros champs (runner-up) Wimby
86, 87 Ivan Lendl
93 - Courier
99 - Agassi

...your gonna hang your hat on that? 4 to 3. BFD.

World Beater
12-13-2005, 09:04 PM
To summarize, when dealing with a question that requires to look at data (use statistical methods)

1. You have an opinion before looking at the data. By itself, this is not a major crime, in statistical jargon it is called "having a prior". But then,
2. You exclude data points to avoid a conclusion that does not fit your opinion. That is indeed a major crime with respect to statistics. Then, in addition,
3. You keep total silence about aspects of the data that are inconvenient, for example the overall slam success of Wimbledon champions like Cash, Stich, Krajcek, Ivanicevic.

maybe cash and ivanesevic.

not the two others. krajicek reached the rg semis and qf of the uso. stich, the final of rg and uso. i dont remember goran or cash doing anything else xcept wimby.

adee-gee
12-13-2005, 09:04 PM
To summarize, when dealing with a question that requires to look at data (use statistical methods)

1. You have an opinion before looking at the data. By itself, this is not a major crime, in statistical jargon it is called "having a prior". But then,
2. You exclude data points to avoid a conclusion that does not fit your opinion. That is indeed a major crime with respect to statistics. Then, in addition,
3. You keep total silence about aspects of the data that are inconvenient, for example the overall slam success of Wimbledon champions like Cash, Stich, Krajcek, Ivanicevic.
I have never agreed with a post so much in my life :worship:

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:05 PM
just like its not nadal's fault that he won two masters hc, even though his draw was rather easy. nadal won the tournaments he was given.
This is hardly the same matter ...

Rafael Nadal's competition is what came into question and IMO, it's a compliment to Laver that he's achieved things so unfathomable we're reduced to nitpicking.

"Hey, he only won those Slams on mostly Grass "

Laver can't go back and change the surface he played on, but Nadal can and will be forced to face top flight competition. This is when his true worth on tour will be judged and only then, will it be a fair and proper assessment.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:08 PM
maybe cash and ivanesevic.

not the two others. krajicek reached the rg semis and qf of the uso. stich, the final of rg and uso. i dont remember goran or cash doing anything else xcept wimby.

You are right, but my point was that when you make a statement for sole RG champions you cannot ignore sole Wimbledon champions. Similarly, i have no doubt that Guga would have won in A.O. and U.S. Open by now if not for his injury. However, facts are facts and Guga did not.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:10 PM
3. You keep total silence about aspects of the data that are inconvenient, for example the overall slam success of Wimbledon champions like Cash, Stich, Krajcek, Ivanicevic.

I don't think it's any secret that Pat Cash is possibly the biggest fraud there is, atleast when it comes to Wimbledon champions.

As for Goran, he could never beat top level grass court champions in their prime and in my opinion his title should have an asterik's by the side of it.

Also, aside from my opinion:
What achievements does Goran have off grass ?

Do I really need to point that out, if so, allow for me to humor you by saying:
Ivo Karlovic is a serve and nothing else.

Certain things are so apparent, why bother to point them out ? Besides, if it's that important a good samaritan like you could always call me out on it ... which you did. :worship:

World Beater
12-13-2005, 09:14 PM
I don't think it's any secret that Pat Cash is possibly the biggest fraud there is, atleast when it comes to Wimbledon champions.

As for Goran, he could never beat top level grass court champions in their prime and in my opinion his title should have an asterik's by the side of it.

goran lost to sampras, so did everyone else..you are nitpicking here. the guy did reach four finals.

he lost to two of the greatest in history. agassi(only once in his first final too! give him a break) and sampras.

hardly an asterisk imo.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:14 PM
I don't think it's any secret that Pat Cash is possibly the biggest fraud there is, atleast when it comes to Wimbledon champions.

As for Goran, he could never beat top level grass court champions in their prime and in my opinion his title should have an asterik's by the side of it.

Thanks for the laughs, Goran won against Pete in 92 and he was very close in 98. Look at his results at Wimbledon.

SwissMister1
12-13-2005, 09:17 PM
To summarize, when dealing with a question that requires to look at data (use statistical methods)

1. You have an opinion before looking at the data. By itself, this is not a major crime, in statistical jargon it is called "having a prior". But then,
2. You exclude data points to avoid a conclusion that does not fit your opinion. That is indeed a major crime with respect to statistics. Then, in addition,
3. You keep total silence about aspects of the data that are inconvenient, for example the overall slam success of Wimbledon champions like Cash, Stich, Krajcek, Ivanicevic.

I'm studying statistics right now, definitely agree with you, Merton.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 09:18 PM
I apologise for any errors, but high number multiple grand slam winners are much more common amongst Wimbledon winners than French Open winners. I have listed number of grand slam wins of winner.

Roland Garros:
1985 Mats Wilander Ivan Lendl 3-6 6-4 6-2 6-2 (7 GS won by winner)
1986 Ivan Lendl Mikael Pernfors 6-3 6-2 6-4 (8 GS)
1987 Ivan Lendl Mats Wilander 7-5 6-2 3-6 7-6 (8GS)
1988 Mats Wilander Henri Leconte 7-5 6-2 6-1 (7GS)
1989 Michael Chang Stefan Edberg 6-1 3-6 4-6 6-4 6-2(1GS)
1990 Andrés Gómez Andre Agassi 6-3 2-6 6-4 6-4 (1GS)
1991 Jim Courier Andre Agassi 3-6 6-4 2-6 6-1 6-4 (4GS)
1992 Jim Courier Petr Korda 7-5 6-2 6-1 (4GS)
1993 Sergi Bruguera Jim Courier 6-4 2-6 6-2 3-6 6-3(2GS)
1994 Sergi Bruguera Alberto Berasategui 6-3 7-5 2-6 6-1 (2GS)
1995 Thomas Muster Michael Chang 7-5 6-2 6-4 (1GS)
1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov Michael Stich 7-6 7-5 7-6 (2GS)
1997 Gustavo Kuerten Sergi Bruguera 6-3 6-4 6-2 (3GS)
1998 Carlos Moya Alex Corretja 6-3 7-5 6-3 (1GS)
1999 Andre Agassi Andrei Medvedev 1-6 2-6 6-4 6-3 6-4 (8GS)
2000 Gustavo Kuerten Magnus Norman 6-2 6-3 2-6 7-6(6) (3GS)
2001 Gustavo Kuerten Alex Corretja 6-7(3) 7-5 6-2 6-0 (3GS)
2002 Albert Costa Juan Carlos Ferrero 6-1 6-0 4-6 6-3 (1GS)
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero Martin Verkerk 6-1 6-3 6-2 (1GS)
2004 Gastón Gaudio Guillermo Coria 0-6 3-6 6-4 6-1 8-6 (1GS)
2005 Rafael Nadal Mariano Puerta 6-7(6) 6-3 6-1 7-5 (1GS)

Wimbledon:
1981 John McEnroe Björn Borg 4-6 7-6(1) 7-6(4) 6-4(7GS)
1982 Jimmy Connors John McEnroe 3-6 6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(5) 6-4(8GS)
1983 John McEnroe Chris Lewis 6-2 6-2 6-2 (7GS)
1984 John McEnroe Jimmy Connors 6-1 6-1 6-2 (7GS)
1985 Boris Becker Kevin Curren 6-3 6-7(4) 7-6(3) 6-4(6GS)
1986 Boris Becker Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-3 7-5 (6GS)
1987 Pat Cash Ivan Lendl 7-6(5) 6-2 7-5 (1GS)
1988 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2(6GS)
1989 Boris Becker Stefan Edberg 6-0 7-6(1) 6-4 (6GS)
1990 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4 (6GS)
1991 Michael Stich Boris Becker 6-4 7-6(4) 6-4 (1GS)
1992 Andre Agassi Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(8) 6-4 6-4 1-6 6-4(8GS)
1993 Pete Sampras Jim Courier 7-6(3) 7-6(6) 3-6 6-3 (14GS)
1994 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 7-6(2) 7-6(5) 6-0 (14GS)
1995 Pete Sampras Boris Becker 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2 (14GS)
1996 Richard Krajicek MaliVai Washington 6-3 6-4 6-3 (1GS)
1997 Pete Sampras Cédric Pioline 6-4 6-2 6-4 (14GS)
1998 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2) 7-6(9) 6-4 3-6 6-2 (14GS)
1999 Pete Sampras Andre Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5 (14GS)
2000 Pete Sampras Patrick Rafter 6-7(10) 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2 (14GS)
2001 Goran Ivanisevic Patrick Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7 (1GS)
2002 Lleyton Hewitt David Nalbandian 6-1 6-3 6-2 (2GS)
2003 Roger Federer Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5) 6-2 7-6(3)(6GS)
2004 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) 6-4 (6GS)
2005 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 6-2 7-6(2) 6-4(6GS)

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:19 PM
Thanks for the laughs, Goran won against Pete in 92 and he was very close in 98. Look at his results at Wimbledon.

Being close has no business in this distinction.

Also, results aren't necessary when you've watched the matches for yourself and I am not going to make any excuses for why Pete lost ... you've a wide range of knowledge with regard to that particular match.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:23 PM
Being close has no business in this distinction.

Also, results aren't necessary when you've watched the matches for yourself and I am not going to make any excuses for why Pete lost ... you've a wide range of knowledge with regard to that particular match.

I have no particular knowledge, just happened that i were a big fan of Goran. Fact is, he played Pete 4 times, won once and lost 3 times. One of those times he could have won. You are write, the bottom line counts but winning one time out of four against Pete at Wimbledon is not bad at all indeed for an "asterisk" winner.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:25 PM
I apologise for any errors, but high number multiple grand slam winners are much more common amongst Wimbledon winners than French Open winners. I have listed number of grand slam wins of winner.

Roland Garros:
1985 Mats Wilander Ivan Lendl 3-6 6-4 6-2 6-2 (7 GS won by winner)
1986 Ivan Lendl Mikael Pernfors 6-3 6-2 6-4 (8 GS)
1987 Ivan Lendl Mats Wilander 7-5 6-2 3-6 7-6 (8GS)
1988 Mats Wilander Henri Leconte 7-5 6-2 6-1 (7GS)
1989 Michael Chang Stefan Edberg 6-1 3-6 4-6 6-4 6-2(1GS)
1990 Andrés Gómez Andre Agassi 6-3 2-6 6-4 6-4 (1GS)
1991 Jim Courier Andre Agassi 3-6 6-4 2-6 6-1 6-4 (4GS)
1992 Jim Courier Petr Korda 7-5 6-2 6-1 (4GS)
1993 Sergi Bruguera Jim Courier 6-4 2-6 6-2 3-6 6-3(2GS)
1994 Sergi Bruguera Alberto Berasategui 6-3 7-5 2-6 6-1 (2GS)
1995 Thomas Muster Michael Chang 7-5 6-2 6-4 (1GS)
1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov Michael Stich 7-6 7-5 7-6 (2GS)
1997 Gustavo Kuerten Sergi Bruguera 6-3 6-4 6-2 (3GS)
1998 Carlos Moya Alex Corretja 6-3 7-5 6-3 (1GS)
1999 Andre Agassi Andrei Medvedev 1-6 2-6 6-4 6-3 6-4 (8GS)
2000 Gustavo Kuerten Magnus Norman 6-2 6-3 2-6 7-6(6) (3GS)
2001 Gustavo Kuerten Alex Corretja 6-7(3) 7-5 6-2 6-0 (3GS)
2002 Albert Costa Juan Carlos Ferrero 6-1 6-0 4-6 6-3 (1GS)
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero Martin Verkerk 6-1 6-3 6-2 (1GS)
2004 Gastón Gaudio Guillermo Coria 0-6 3-6 6-4 6-1 8-6 (1GS)
2005 Rafael Nadal Mariano Puerta 6-7(6) 6-3 6-1 7-5 (1GS)

Wimbledon:
1981 John McEnroe Björn Borg 4-6 7-6(1) 7-6(4) 6-4(7GS)
1982 Jimmy Connors John McEnroe 3-6 6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(5) 6-4(8GS)
1983 John McEnroe Chris Lewis 6-2 6-2 6-2 (7GS)
1984 John McEnroe Jimmy Connors 6-1 6-1 6-2 (7GS)
1985 Boris Becker Kevin Curren 6-3 6-7(4) 7-6(3) 6-4(6GS)
1986 Boris Becker Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-3 7-5 (6GS)
1987 Pat Cash Ivan Lendl 7-6(5) 6-2 7-5 (1GS)
1988 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2(6GS)
1989 Boris Becker Stefan Edberg 6-0 7-6(1) 6-4 (6GS)
1990 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4 (6GS)
1991 Michael Stich Boris Becker 6-4 7-6(4) 6-4 (1GS)
1992 Andre Agassi Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(8) 6-4 6-4 1-6 6-4(8GS)
1993 Pete Sampras Jim Courier 7-6(3) 7-6(6) 3-6 6-3 (14GS)
1994 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 7-6(2) 7-6(5) 6-0 (14GS)
1995 Pete Sampras Boris Becker 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2 (14GS)
1996 Richard Krajicek MaliVai Washington 6-3 6-4 6-3 (1GS)
1997 Pete Sampras Cédric Pioline 6-4 6-2 6-4 (14GS)
1998 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2) 7-6(9) 6-4 3-6 6-2 (14GS)
1999 Pete Sampras Andre Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5 (14GS)
2000 Pete Sampras Patrick Rafter 6-7(10) 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2 (14GS)
2001 Goran Ivanisevic Patrick Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7 (1GS)
2002 Lleyton Hewitt David Nalbandian 6-1 6-3 6-2 (2GS)
2003 Roger Federer Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5) 6-2 7-6(3)(6GS)
2004 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) 6-4 (6GS)
2005 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 6-2 7-6(2) 6-4(6GS)

Why pick 1985 and 1981 respectively for your start year? At least pick the same year for both series. Why not go back to say, 1976 to have 30 data points?

Action Jackson
12-13-2005, 09:30 PM
Borg, Lendl made finals on grass twice and won RG twice and Wilander won Slams on 4 all surfaces, it's not surprising that leaving out certain variables was to be expected.

What is this actually saying, fact that 3 out of the 4 Slams are played on faster surfaces, so is it any surprise about these results, nah it's early in the morning I shouldn't have tried to respond to this thread, it's too thought provoking.

stebs
12-13-2005, 09:32 PM
really sorry Jules if you find it offensive that i have taken your post and edited it. I just think it is easier to see the data when presented like this.
All i have done is bolded each player who won on that surface once. It shows you that only two players who have triumphed at wimbledon have just that one slam to there name whereas six players have done that at RG.

Also adding the total grand slams won by the various winners of the each grand slam gives you 60 grand slams won by the winners of wimbledon compared to 42 grand slams won by the winners of RG, this is despite there being more different RG winners.

Roland Garros:
1985 Mats Wilander Ivan Lendl 3-6 6-4 6-2 6-2 (7 GS won by winner)
1986 Ivan Lendl Mikael Pernfors 6-3 6-2 6-4 (8 GS)
1987 Ivan Lendl Mats Wilander 7-5 6-2 3-6 7-6 (8GS)
1988 Mats Wilander Henri Leconte 7-5 6-2 6-1 (7GS)
1989 Michael Chang Stefan Edberg 6-1 3-6 4-6 6-4 6-2(1GS)
1990 Andrés Gómez Andre Agassi 6-3 2-6 6-4 6-4 (1GS)
1991 Jim Courier Andre Agassi 3-6 6-4 2-6 6-1 6-4 (4GS)
1992 Jim Courier Petr Korda 7-5 6-2 6-1 (4GS)
1993 Sergi Bruguera Jim Courier 6-4 2-6 6-2 3-6 6-3(2GS)
1994 Sergi Bruguera Alberto Berasategui 6-3 7-5 2-6 6-1 (2GS)
1995 Thomas Muster Michael Chang 7-5 6-2 6-4 (1GS)
1996 Yevgeny Kafelnikov Michael Stich 7-6 7-5 7-6 (2GS)
1997 Gustavo Kuerten Sergi Bruguera 6-3 6-4 6-2 (3GS)
1998 Carlos Moya Alex Corretja 6-3 7-5 6-3 (1GS)
1999 Andre Agassi Andrei Medvedev 1-6 2-6 6-4 6-3 6-4 (8GS)
2000 Gustavo Kuerten Magnus Norman 6-2 6-3 2-6 7-6(6) (3GS)
2001 Gustavo Kuerten Alex Corretja 6-7(3) 7-5 6-2 6-0 (3GS)
2002 Albert Costa Juan Carlos Ferrero 6-1 6-0 4-6 6-3 (1GS)
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero Martin Verkerk 6-1 6-3 6-2 (1GS)
2004 Gastón Gaudio Guillermo Coria 0-6 3-6 6-4 6-1 8-6 (1GS)
2005 Rafael Nadal Mariano Puerta 6-7(6) 6-3 6-1 7-5 (1GS)

Wimbledon:
1981 John McEnroe Björn Borg 4-6 7-6(1) 7-6(4) 6-4(7GS)
1982 Jimmy Connors John McEnroe 3-6 6-3 6-7(2) 7-6(5) 6-4(8GS)
1983 John McEnroe Chris Lewis 6-2 6-2 6-2 (7GS)
1984 John McEnroe Jimmy Connors 6-1 6-1 6-2 (7GS)
1985 Boris Becker Kevin Curren 6-3 6-7(4) 7-6(3) 6-4(6GS)
1986 Boris Becker Ivan Lendl 6-4 6-3 7-5 (6GS)
1987 Pat Cash Ivan Lendl 7-6(5) 6-2 7-5 (1GS)
1988 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4 6-2(6GS)
1989 Boris Becker Stefan Edberg 6-0 7-6(1) 6-4 (6GS)
1990 Stefan Edberg Boris Becker 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4 (6GS)
1991 Michael Stich Boris Becker 6-4 7-6(4) 6-4 (1GS)
1992 Andre Agassi Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(8) 6-4 6-4 1-6 6-4(8GS)
1993 Pete Sampras Jim Courier 7-6(3) 7-6(6) 3-6 6-3 (14GS)
1994 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 7-6(2) 7-6(5) 6-0 (14GS)
1995 Pete Sampras Boris Becker 6-7 6-2 6-4 6-2 (14GS)
1996 Richard Krajicek MaliVai Washington 6-3 6-4 6-3 (1GS)
1997 Pete Sampras Cédric Pioline 6-4 6-2 6-4 (14GS)
1998 Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2) 7-6(9) 6-4 3-6 6-2 (14GS)
1999 Pete Sampras Andre Agassi 6-3 6-4 7-5 (14GS)
2000 Pete Sampras Patrick Rafter 6-7(10) 7-6(5) 6-4 6-2 (14GS)
2001 Goran Ivanisevic Patrick Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7 (1GS)
2002 Lleyton Hewitt David Nalbandian 6-1 6-3 6-2 (2GS)
2003 Roger Federer Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5) 6-2 7-6(3)(6GS)
2004 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 4-6 7-5 7-6(3) 6-4 (6GS)
2005 Roger Federer Andy Roddick 6-2 7-6(2) 6-4(6GS)

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:32 PM
Why pick 1985 and 1981 respectively for your start year? At least pick the same year for both series. Why not go back to say, 1976 to have 30 data points?

A few reasons.

1). To prove that Wimbledon champions, even when numerically outmatched still overwhelm and have the advantage.

2). Borg's dominance throughout the 70's is another reason, he cancels out each argument.

If you're going to analyze the statistics that have been presented, that's your prerogative. That doesn't take away from:

There being more Roland Garros champions mentioned.
The fact that 4 years and 3 less players won't make much of a difference.

Based on memory alone, I can't recall anyone that could be proclaimed a "dirtballer", having any success over the last 30 + years, aside from Guillermo Vilas's triumph over Jimmy Connors (USO) and excluding the information I've already provided, so nobody start throwing Lendl (not a dirtballer anyhow) out there.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 09:32 PM
Why pick 1985 and 1981 respectively for your start year? At least pick the same year for both series. Why not go back to say, 1976 to have 30 data points?

It was the original data set. Going back to 1976 would introduce Borg(11GS) to both lists and more McEnroe(7GS) and Connors (8GS in total) wins at Wimbledon. 3 people won Wimbledon from 1976 to 1984. 1976 at Roland Garros had Panatta (1GS) another single grand slam winner, 1977 at RG was Vilas (4GS).

mongo
12-13-2005, 09:36 PM
Yes, grass truly is the specialists' surface.

Borg won 5 in a row
Pete won 7 out of 8
Becker played in 7 Wimby finals
Federer 3 for 3...
(going back to 1981) Navratilova played in 9 row, winning 6 straight at one point; played in a total of 10 between '81 and '94.
Graf played in 9 finals, winning 7

Oh, what drama. (Yawn, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Too bad the grass court season is just 3 weeks...

stebs
12-13-2005, 09:38 PM
Yes, grass truly is the specialists' surface.

Borg won 5 in a row
Pete won 7 out of 8
Becker played in 7 Wimby finals
Federer 3 for 3...
(going back to 1981) Navratilova played in 7 row, winning 6 straight at one point
Graf played in 9 finals, winning 7

Oh, what drama. (Yawn, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Too bad the grass court season is just 3 weeks...

yes certainly you have a point in saying this but that is not for thid thread. It is not about which is more exciting it is about which surface provides a better test of a players technical ability (i think) or something along those lines. Basically it is about which surface produces the greater champions. Maybe RG is more exciting but that's not the point.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:40 PM
Wimbledon champions prove more versatile and enjoy success in 3 other Slams (since success is not only measured by titles), yes, even Roland Garros.
It'd be ludicrous to imply runner-up is a complete failure in itself, aside from Lendl the same cannot be said for Roland Garros Champions.

It'd be interesting to see what the other 13 RG Champions have done if I were to remove Lendl or Wilander. They've carried clay in this particular instant.

Action Jackson
12-13-2005, 09:41 PM
One tournament produces more of a particular type of champion (RG) than the other (Wimbledon), but that has been known for ages.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:43 PM
A few reasons.

1). To prove that Wimbledon champions, even when numerically outmatched still overwhelm and have the advantage.

2). Borg's dominance throughout the 70's is another reason, he cancels out each argument.

If you're going to analyze the statistics that have been presented, that's your prerogative. That doesn't take away from:

There being more Roland Garros champions mentioned.
The fact that 4 years and 3 less players won't make much of a difference.

Based on memory alone, I can't recall anyone that could be proclaimed a "dirtballer", having any success over the last 30 + years, aside from Guillermo Vilas's triumph over Jimmy Connors (USO) and excluding the information I've already provided, so nobody start throwing Lendl (not a dirtballer anyhow) out there.

Borg doesn't cancel out each argument, he cancels out your argument. For your other point, you need to be precise in your definition of "dirtballer" I can think of three different definitions, that will lead to different conclusions:

1. A dirtballer is somebody who has only success on clay.
2. A dirtballer is somebody who had his major success on clay.
3. A dirtballer is somebody who grew up and developed his game on clay.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:45 PM
One tournament produces more of a particular type of champion (RG) than the other (Wimbledon), but that has been known for ages.
You'd be suprised how many people are blind to this fact or simply choose to ignore it.

A point like this in the eyes of anyone with any sort of clue regarding the history of tennis is more obvious than saying the sky is blue.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

DrJules
12-13-2005, 09:45 PM
Yes, grass truly is the specialists' surface. REALLY

Borg won 5 in a row (+ 6 grand slams not on grass)
Pete won 7 out of 8 (+ 7 grand slams not on grass)
Becker played in 7 Wimby finals (3 on grass + 3 not on grass)
Federer 3 for 3...(3 on grass + 3 not on grass)
(going back to 1981) Navratilova played in 9 row, winning 6 straight at one point; played in a total of 10 between '81 and '94. (+6 GS not on grass)
Graf played in 9 finals, winning 7 (+15 GS not on grass)

Oh, what drama. (Yawn, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Too bad the grass court season is just 3 weeks...

Action Jackson
12-13-2005, 09:46 PM
1. A dirtballer is somebody who has only success on clay.
2. A dirtballer is somebody who had his major success on clay.
3. A dirtballer is somebody who grew up and developed his game on clay.

Since the term is perjorative one, the first one is the that is the context that it's mostly used.

Example 1 : Gaston Gaudio and Mariano Puerta
Example 2: Thomas Muster and Alex Corretja, but were able to win TMS and the TMC off the clay.
Example 3: Björn Borg, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander

Action Jackson
12-13-2005, 09:47 PM
You'd be suprised how many people are blind to this fact or simply choose to ignore it.

A point like this in the eyes of anyone with any sort of clue regarding the history of tennis is more obvious than saying the sky is blue.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

You are almost sexy when you are insincere.

stebs
12-13-2005, 09:48 PM
Yes, grass truly is the specialists' surface. REALLY

Borg won 5 in a row (+ 6 grand slams not on grass)
Pete won 7 out of 8 (+ 7 grand slams not on grass)
Becker played in 7 Wimby finals (3 on grass + 3 not on grass)
Federer 3 for 3...(3 on grass + 3 not on grass)
(going back to 1981) Navratilova played in 9 row, winning 6 straight at one point; played in a total of 10 between '81 and '94. (+6 GS not on grass)
Graf played in 9 finals, winning 7 (+15 GS not on grass)

Oh, what drama. (Yawn, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Too bad the grass court season is just 3 weeks...

Good post. You make a very good point.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 09:49 PM
Borg doesn't cancel out each argument, he cancels out your argument. For your other point, you need to be precise in your definition of "dirtballer" I can think of three different definitions, that will lead to different conclusions:

1. A dirtballer is somebody who has only success on clay.
2. A dirtballer is somebody who had his major success on clay.
3. A dirtballer is somebody who grew up and developed his game on clay.

Borg's dominance of Wimbledon and Roland Garros is equally matched, he failed to ever win the Australian Open or U.S Open, so I don't see how he'd add anything to either argument aside from more numbers.

Borg:
Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
1974 French Open Manuel Orantes 2–6, 6–7, 6–0, 6–1, 6–1
1975 French Open Guillermo Vilas 6–2, 6–3, 6–4
1976 Wimbledon Ilie Năstase 6–4, 6–2, 9–7
1977 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 3–6, 6–2, 6–1, 5–7, 6–4
1978 French Open Guillermo Vilas 6–1, 6–1, 6–3
1978 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors 6–2, 6–2, 6–3
1979 French Open Victor Pecci 6–3, 6–1, 6–7, 6–4
1979 Wimbledon Roscoe Tanner 6–7, 6–1, 3–6, 6–3, 6–4
1980 French Open Vitas Gerulaitis 6–4, 6–1, 6–2
1980 Wimbledon John McEnroe 1–6, 7–5, 6–3, 6–7, 8–6
1981 French Open Ivan Lendl 6–1, 4–6, 6–2, 3–6, 6–1

Runner-up:
Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
1976 US Open Jimmy Connors 6–4, 3–6, 7–6, 6–4
1978 US Open Jimmy Connors 6–4, 6–2, 6–2
1980 US Open John McEnroe 7–6, 6–1, 6–7, 5–7, 6–4
1981 Wimbledon John McEnroe 4–6, 7–6, 7–6, 6–4
1981 US Open John McEnroe 4–6, 6–2, 6–4, 6–3

LoveFifteen
12-13-2005, 09:49 PM
To summarize, when dealing with a question that requires to look at data (use statistical methods)

1. You have an opinion before looking at the data. By itself, this is not a major crime, in statistical jargon it is called "having a prior". But then,
2. You exclude data points to avoid a conclusion that does not fit your opinion. That is indeed a major crime with respect to statistics. Then, in addition,
3. You keep total silence about aspects of the data that are inconvenient, for example the overall slam success of Wimbledon champions like Cash, Stich, Krajcek, Ivanicevic.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

stebs
12-13-2005, 09:52 PM
By the way to everyone posting in this thread KUTGW. One of the few threads i have been in on here which have people posting there point of view rather than just insulting here. Bravo.

Merton
12-13-2005, 09:59 PM
Borg's dominance of Wimbledon and Roland Garros is equally matched, he failed to ever win the Australian Open or U.S Open, so I don't see how he'd add anything to either argument aside from more numbers.



Your original point that RG champions are inferior would be statistically negated. By the way, Borg did not win the A.O. because he did not bother showing up and his overall success in hardcourts suggests that he had some issue in particular with the U.S. Open.

Action Jackson
12-13-2005, 10:01 PM
Your original point that RG champions are inferior would be statistically negated. By the way, Borg did not win the A.O. because he did not bother showing up and his overall success in hardcourts suggests that he had some issue in particular with the U.S. Open.

Once he failed at the US Open, he didn't bother to go to the Aus Open. Borg hated playing at night and wasn't a fan of New York, it got in his head. It's always easier to leave out things that don't fit into a particular view.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 10:03 PM
Your original point that RG champions are inferior would be statistically negated.

Stats (including Borg)

Titles total RG outside of Clay:
22

Titles total Wimbledon Champs outside of Grass:
41
(Of course, I could disregard his Roland Garros titles and even things up a bit more, still leaving a differential of 13).

All that's been added in stats and in the process, considering that Borg won FO 6 times and Wimbledon 5, there is actually 1 more added to the difference.

It really is mathematical, we all know that Borg was extra special and a legend. No one is denying that.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 10:06 PM
Once he failed at the US Open, he didn't bother to go to the Aus Open. Borg hated playing at night and wasn't a fan of New York, it got in his head. It's always easier to leave out things that don't fit into a particular view.
Rod Laver wasn't a fan of clay, didn't stop him from winning Roland Garros.

Pete hated grass, at first sight, found all the awkward bounces to be an annoyance. He adjusted.

The mark of a champion is to adjust.

Based on this ideology, because people tend to dislike working, it is acceptable to indulge in laziness and a life of poverty.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 10:11 PM
Once he failed at the US Open, he didn't bother to go to the Aus Open. Borg hated playing at night and wasn't a fan of New York, it got in his head. It's always easier to leave out things that don't fit into a particular view.

Borg did reach the US Open final 3 times on Decoturf (78,80,81)which compares favourably to Pete Sampras with only 1 semi-final at the French Open. Of course, because he effectively retired at 25 and did not play Australian (1 time only), he ended with 11 GS while Sampras who played all 4 GS's and played into his 30's won 14 GS. For some reason people keep rating Sampras higher in his greatness than Borg, but not sure why.

stebs
12-13-2005, 10:13 PM
Borg did reach the US Open final 3 times on Decoturf (78,80,81)which compares favourably to Pete Sampras with only 1 semi-final at the French Open. Of course, because he effectively retired at 25 and did not play Australian, he ended with 11 GS while Sampras who played all 4 GS's and played into his 30's won 14 GS. For some reason people keep rating Sampras higher in his greatness than Borg, but not sure why.

I guess because at the end of the day Sampras won more grand slams than anyone else. That is what counts in the history books.

Merton
12-13-2005, 10:18 PM
Stats (including Borg)

Titles total RG outside of Clay:
22

Titles total Wimbledon Champs outside of Grass:
41
(Of course, I could disregard his Roland Garros titles and even things up a bit more, still leaving a differential of 13).

All that's been added in stats and in the process, considering that Borg won FO 6 times and Wimbledon 5, there is actually 1 more added to the difference.

It really is mathematical, we all know that Borg was extra special and a legend. No one is denying that.

primadona, i apologize for my post #33. I edited that post, i did not mean to relate you personally to the abuse of statistics for political reasons. It just happened that i was reading a "statistical analysis" trying to make the point that gun ownership does not result in increased crime just before i entered this thread.

Back to the argument, you say that Wimbledon champs win more slams than RG champs. This is true, but it could just be due to the fact that RG is more competitive since there are more players that pose a threat.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 10:20 PM
Rod Laver wasn't a fan of clay, didn't stop him from winning Roland Garros.

Pete hated grass, at first sight, found all the awkward bounces to be an annoyance. He adjusted.

The mark of a champion is to adjust.

Based on this ideology, because people tend to dislike working, it is acceptable to indulge in laziness and a life of poverty.

Borg's problem at night would relate to your vision under floodlights. How your eyes adapt to lighting is biologically how you are. You would not be able to adjust your eyes.

prima donna
12-13-2005, 10:29 PM
Borg's problem at night would relate to your vision under floodlights. How your eyes adapt to lighting is biologically how you are. You would not be able to adjust your eyes.

Has something changed in the last 20 + years ?

If I'm not mistaken, Borg lost (4 times) in USO Final and aren't the Finals almost during day unless there is some type of weather delay ?

I've attended the USO for the last 10 years, including 6 finals and have yet to witness anything of the sort.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 10:33 PM
Has something changed in the last 20 + years ?

If I'm not mistaken, Borg lost (4 times) in USO Final and aren't the Finals almost during day unless there is some type of weather delay ?

I've attended the USO for the last 10 years, including 6 finals and have yet to witness anything of the sort.

Roscoe Tanner def Borg in 1979 under floodlights in QTR FINAL.

As 1980 final went 5 sets would expect floodlights on at end (this was the match were Borg recovered from 2 sets to love down and lost in the 5th set which was almost unknown for Borg to lose in final set)

prima donna
12-13-2005, 10:36 PM
Roscoe Tanner def Borg in 1979 under floodlights in QTR FINAL.

As 1980 final went 5 sets would expect floodlights on at end (this was the match were Borg recovered from 2 sets to love down and lost in the 5th set which was almost unknown for Borg to lose in final set)
The other 3 times ?

revolution
12-13-2005, 10:44 PM
Wow, what a thread.

My opinion is the winner of each Slam that takes place is a worthy winner.

Oh and Agassi won both, remarkable. :)

angiel
12-13-2005, 11:01 PM
The other 3 times ?


I guess it was all night and floodlight again. :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

Clara Bow
12-13-2005, 11:15 PM
My opinion is the winner of each Slam that takes place is a worthy winner.

My thoughts too.

I really don't the (rather frequent) tendency to look down on clay court tennis and French Open winners on this board.

In other sports- sometimes people can appreciate both gritty defense and also smooth offense. I don't know why a line always has to be drawn in the sand by some folks here or why people who appreciate clay court tennis and FO champions need to be made to feel that they are not appreciating "real tennis" or real champions. I can enjoy both Wimbledon and the French Open and appreciate their differences without having to view one as better than the other.

I understand that people have their individual preferances- but I must say that I don't like to be made to feel like I do not truly understand tennis, can't really appreciate tennis or am just stupid if I still happen to like my French Open and the champions who in the past 20 or so years may not have won as many other GS titles as Wimbledon winners.

Can't we all just get along? ;)

Sorry- not trying to be snotty- but just had to get that off my chest.

lau
12-13-2005, 11:30 PM
Oh and Agassi won both, remarkable. :)
:haha: :haha: :haha: You`re such a :devil:

BTW, the title of this thread is tabloid worthy :lol:

Haute
12-13-2005, 11:36 PM
French Open Champions best result off clay and this is considered the "Elite Group"

Gustavo Kuerten:
Australian Open ~ 3rd Round
Wimbledon ~ QF
U.S Open ~ QF

Thomas Muster
AO - SF
Wimbledon - 1st Round
U.S Open - QF

Rafael Nadal
AO - QF
Wimbledon - 2nd
U.S Open - 3rd

Gaston Gaudio:
AO -3rd
Wimbledon -2nd
U.S Open - 3rd

Michael Chang:
AO - Final
WImbledon - QF
U.S Open - Final

Jim Courier
AO - Champion
Wimbledon - F
USO - F

Aren't you forgetting Juan Carlos in this "Elite" group?
AO - SF
Wimbledon - 4th
USO - F

Clara Bow
12-13-2005, 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prima donna
French Open Champions best result off clay and this is considered the "Elite Group"

Gustavo Kuerten:
Australian Open ~ 3rd Round
Wimbledon ~ QF
U.S Open ~ QF

Thomas Muster
AO - SF
Wimbledon - 1st Round
U.S Open - QF

Rafael Nadal
AO - QF
Wimbledon - 2nd
U.S Open - 3rd

Gaston Gaudio:
AO -3rd
Wimbledon -2nd
U.S Open - 3rd

Michael Chang:
AO - Final
WImbledon - QF
U.S Open - Final

Jim Courier
AO - Champion
Wimbledon - F
USO - F


*****
Aren't you forgetting Juan Carlos in this "Elite" group?
AO - SF
Wimbledon - 4th
USO - F



And Nadal's rounds aren't right- they should be

Aussie - Round of 16
Wimbledon - 3rd Round
US Open - 3rd Round

DrJules
12-13-2005, 11:50 PM
My thoughts too.

I really don't the (rather frequent) tendency to look down on clay court tennis and French Open winners on this board.

In other sports- sometimes people can appreciate both gritty defense and also smooth offense. I don't know why a line always has to be drawn in the sand by some folks here or why people who appreciate clay court tennis and FO champions need to be made to feel that they are not appreciating "real tennis" or real champions. I can enjoy both Wimbledon and the French Open and appreciate their differences without having to view one as better than the other.

I understand that people have their individual preferances- but I must say that I don't like to be made to feel like I do not truly understand tennis, can't really appreciate tennis or am just stupid if I still happen to like my French Open and the champions who in the past 20 or so years may not have won as many other GS titles as Wimbledon winners.

Can't we all just get along? ;)

Sorry- not trying to be snotty- but just had to get that off my chest.

When I was young (too long ago) one man used to achieve total domination year after year on clay and grass; the adaption between the 2 totally different surfaces each year quite amazingly achieved with only 2 weeks between the 2 events. Borg actually did not lose a single match at Roland Garros and Wimbledon from Wimbledon 1976 (first win) to French Open 1981 (last win). I still wait for a player to do it again. Probably Nadal is the most likely in his career to do the double, but I doubt we will ever see anyone again achieve such a remarkable sequence as we did from the Nordic God. The ability to do both has always impressed me.

mongo
12-13-2005, 11:57 PM
yes certainly you have a point in saying this but that is not for thid thread. It is not about which is more exciting it is about which surface provides a better test of a players technical ability (i think) or something along those lines. Basically it is about which surface produces the greater champions. Maybe RG is more exciting but that's not the point.
My point is that of the 4 slams, Wimby is the anamoly. First, with a three week season (no MS/Tier I events), it suits the specialist. Second, since there are fewer grass court specialists than any other surface, you'll find the tournament less competitive than the others (i.e., dominated by the few).

DrJules
12-13-2005, 11:58 PM
And Nadal's rounds aren't right- they should be

Aussie - Round of 16
Wimbledon - 3rd Round
US Open - 3rd Round

Wimbledon 2nd round to Gilles Muller.

DrJules
12-14-2005, 12:00 AM
My point is that of the 4 slams, Wimby is the anamoly. First, with a three week season (no MS/Tier I events), it suits the specialist. Second, since there are fewer grass court specialists than any other surface, you'll find the tournament less competitive than the others (i.e., dominated by the few).

With fewer specialists maybe it will be easier for Nadal to win Wimbledon than Federer to win the French Open.

Merton
12-14-2005, 12:00 AM
Wimbledon 2nd round to Gilles Muller.

No, he reached 3rd round in 2003, when he was 17

DrJules
12-14-2005, 12:04 AM
No, he reached 3rd round in 2003, when he was 17

Yes, he beat Mario Ancic in the first round that year. Quite remarkable.

mongo
12-14-2005, 12:05 AM
With fewer specialists maybe it will be easier for Nadal to win Wimbledon than Federer to win the French Open.
:D :D :D

Well done.

IF Nadal actually dominates RG (I seriously doubt it) like Federer has Wimby, then it would be a fair comparison.

prima donna
12-14-2005, 12:47 AM
Wow, what a thread.

My opinion is the winner of each Slam that takes place is a worthy winner.

Oh and Agassi won both, remarkable. :)
I was expecting more from you. What a disappointment!

Paul Banks
12-14-2005, 01:37 AM
Tennis on grass is boring.

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 01:49 AM
Rod Laver wasn't a fan of clay, didn't stop him from winning Roland Garros.

Pete hated grass, at first sight, found all the awkward bounces to be an annoyance. He adjusted.

The mark of a champion is to adjust.

Based on this ideology, because people tend to dislike working, it is acceptable to indulge in laziness and a life of poverty.

Considering Laver grew up playing on a court that was very similar to clay, he had less to adjust.

Mark of a champion winning RG-Wimbledon double 3 times in a row and we know the only person to do that was don't we.

Considering you are not a fan of clay tennis and push the Wimbledon propaganda as the be all and end all for tennis, when it's not the case for all the players and fans, but this fact that you claim to have exposed has been long known.

If there are more players capable of winning RG than there are at Wimbledon, then it's not surprising that there would be a larger amount of tournament winners at RG.

RogiFan88
12-14-2005, 02:04 AM
Bjorn Borg never won the Australian Open or U.S Open.

He dominated in England and both Paris. It'd really an equal trade-off and what would be the point of including him ? He'd just mangle the statistics, the same way that a Sampras would, only reason I've included Pete is simply because he's being downplayed by critics due to his lack of success on clay, okay, well put Pete's numbers up against the entire Roland Garros Champions.

Scary thought, right ?

Borg is actually everything that I'm against here ...

He won Roland Garros.
Only could win Wimbledon.
Won Wimbledon
Only could win Roland Garros.

Hello, what about Australia and New York ? He succeeded on 2 different surfaces. The argument to be made for Borg is equally fair and beneficial for both sides of the card. Irrelevant.

That's why Borg was so amazing! AND winning RG and Wimby b-t-b on opposing surfaces too! :worship: I dare any player today to do that even once! ;)

RogiFan88
12-14-2005, 02:07 AM
:D :D :D

Well done.

IF Nadal actually dominates RG (I seriously doubt it) like Federer has Wimby, then it would be a fair comparison.

Why can't Rafa dominate RG?

Haute
12-14-2005, 03:14 AM
Because JC is going to rejuvenate and show everyone how awesome he is, of course. ;)

mongo
12-14-2005, 03:35 AM
Why can't Rafa dominate RG?
I didn't say he can't; I said that I seriously doubt it. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, unlike Wimby (a point I've attempted to drive home in this thread), save for Borg and Guga three decades later, historically, RG isn't dominated by a single player. Second, when I watch Nadal and his incredibly unorthodox style of play, I can't help but think he's an injury waiting to happen. The kid's only 19 and has already spent a lot of time in the infirmery.

mongo
12-14-2005, 03:38 AM
Tennis on grass is boring....the bitter and ugly truth exposed. ;)

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 03:42 AM
I didn't say he can't; I said that I seriously doubt it. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, unlike Wimby (a point I've attempted to drive home in this thread), save for Borg and Guga three decades later, historically, RG isn't dominated by a single player. Second, when I watch Nadal and his incredibly unorthodox style of play, I can't help but think he's an injury waiting to happen. The kid's only 19 and has already spent a lot of time in the infirmery.

How is Nadal's style unorthodox? Whether he dominates it or not isn't important, but I see your point as to why one would think he won't. At the same time I do see him winning it multiple times, though not just in a row.

Injuries happen in sport period.

prima donna
12-14-2005, 03:45 AM
Because JC is going to rejuvenate and show everyone how awesome he is, of course. ;)
I wish, if I have to watch clay play it would definitely be:

Juan Carlos Ferrero, Gustavo Kuerten or Roger. Let's not forget Coria.

mongo
12-14-2005, 03:59 AM
How is Nadal's style unorthodox?I've never seen anything like it--how he can run down a ball to his backhand that's both beneath his knees and already past him. And yet, while outstretched and reaching down he keeps two hands on the racquet and is able to generate an inordinate amount of torque while hitting unreturnable angles.

I'm not surprised he's had foot and knee problems. I think wrist problems are inevitable.

Billabong
12-14-2005, 04:02 AM
I'm still amazed Andre did it, he's really unbelievable:worship:

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 04:15 AM
I've never seen anything like it--how he can run down a ball to his backhand that's both beneath his knees and already past him. And yet, while outstretched and reaching down he keeps two hands on the racquet and is able to generate an inordinate amount of torque while hitting unreturnable angles.

I'm not surprised he's had foot and knee problems. I think wrist problems are inevitable.

What you never saw Thomas Muster play tennis then? There have been outstanding lefties on clay who could run all day, hit heavy topspin and had excellent anticipation, Nadal is not the first of these.

How are wrist problems inevitable? Bruguera and Berasategui for example hasd more outrageous grips than Nadal does and never suffered wrist problems.

Playing a lot of tennis in a short space of time can lead to wear and tear, this was just a year nobody was expecting from him.

mongo
12-14-2005, 04:34 AM
What you never saw Thomas Muster play tennis then? There have been outstanding lefties on clay who could run all day, hit heavy topspin and had excellent anticipation, Nadal is not the first of these.I'm glad you brought up Muster, because he did all of the above but with one hand on the backhand.

In any event, if you don't think Nadal's slyle of play is unorthodox, I can't help you...put in a tape.

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 04:38 AM
I'm glad you brought up Muster, because he did all of the above but with one hand on the backhand.

In any event, if you don't think Nadal's slyle of play is unorthodox, I can't help you...put in a tape.

Santoro that's unorthodox, not Nadal. Nadal and Muster have similarities but obvious differences, then again he could go the way of Muster, then again he might not. Yes, putting a tape is going to help me change my mind http://67.19.129.138/mtf/images/smilies/smile.gif

Merton
12-14-2005, 04:43 AM
I didn't say he can't; I said that I seriously doubt it. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, unlike Wimby (a point I've attempted to drive home in this thread), save for Borg and Guga three decades later, historically, RG isn't dominated by a single player. Second, when I watch Nadal and his incredibly unorthodox style of play, I can't help but think he's an injury waiting to happen. The kid's only 19 and has already spent a lot of time in the infirmery.

I see your point but I am not sure that "unorthodox" is a disadvantage. It might just make it more awkward to his opponents. Nothing wrong with that, tennis is a strategic game. I also don't see why his injuries are necessarily related to his style of play.

TheMightyFed
12-14-2005, 07:15 AM
How boring would tennis be if we had not the perpetual surface/style war, and GOAT rankings. Thanks to those who invented different surfaces... ;)

adee-gee
12-14-2005, 01:55 PM
:haha: people are still taking prima donna seriously :silly:

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 02:02 PM
:haha: people are still taking prima donna seriously :silly:

Who would be doing that?

adee-gee
12-14-2005, 02:03 PM
Who would be doing that?
You don't take anyone seriously, so you're alright ;)

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 02:05 PM
You don't take anyone seriously, so you're alright ;)

Just a select few, but everything that is flawed about this particular thread has been addressed by other people.

World Beater
12-14-2005, 03:13 PM
What you never saw Thomas Muster play tennis then? There have been outstanding lefties on clay who could run all day, hit heavy topspin and had excellent anticipation, Nadal is not the first of these.

How are wrist problems inevitable? Bruguera and Berasategui for example hasd more outrageous grips than Nadal does and never suffered wrist problems.

Playing a lot of tennis in a short space of time can lead to wear and tear, this was just a year nobody was expecting from him.

muster is not as quick as nadal...nadal is like hewitt on clay.

muster played a more offensive style on clay than nadal.

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 03:16 PM
muster is not as quick as nadal...nadal is like hewitt on clay.

muster played a more offensive style on clay than nadal.

Nadal looks faster than he actually is, it was said earlier there are similarities and there are differences between them and was only refering to when someone said Nadal was unorthodox and it's not the case.

Muster actually got more aggressive as he got older and yes I saw him play junior events.

World Beater
12-14-2005, 03:24 PM
Nadal looks faster than he actually is, it was said earlier there are similarities and there are differences between them and was only refering to when someone said Nadal was unorthodox and it's not the case.

Muster actually got more aggressive as he got older and yes I saw him play junior events.

well i think the berastaguei and the bruguera analogies were better because of the extreme grips they had(but they were not as quick of course). i dont remember musters grip to be as extreme as nadal.

Action Jackson
12-14-2005, 03:28 PM
well i think the berastaguei and the bruguera analogies were better because of the extreme grips they had(but they were not as quick of course). i dont remember musters grip to be as extreme as nadal.

The games were different. Berasategui was more aggressive. Bruguera was more patient and had better feel and there are more similarities with Nadal and Muster than the other two.

revolution
12-14-2005, 03:45 PM
It's easier for an RG clay courter to adapt to grass than for temperate grass/hard court nationalities to adapt to clay.

Agassi is the only one of the latter in recent years who has managed RG as well as other Slams.

Clay courters, calling a player a dirtballer or something like that should be for someone who has only won on clay, so Moya, Kuerten and Ferrero aren't dirt men as they have won more on other surfaces.

AgassiDomination
12-14-2005, 04:03 PM
Agassi fans will like this post. It shows his unique achievement in this period.

Heh, yup, I love this thread!

vincayou
12-14-2005, 06:39 PM
I think it's all down to a generation who:
- had suddendly more power thanks to technology (and bigger serves)
- whose physical condition have improved as well

And maybe a generation who was lacking a Lendl or a Wilander, players able to win on slow and fast surface. Clay is the most special surface, so there is no surprise to see that their winner have less success in the other slams.

Nonetheless, with Federer and Nadal around, there is a good chance to see champions with wins in Wimbledon and RG in the coming years.

prima donna
12-14-2005, 06:54 PM
:haha: people are still taking prima donna seriously :silly:
You're taking me more seriously than most.

The problem is, approaching and reading each one of my threads or posts with an angry or bitter attitude. Straighten yourself out. There's a bit of therapy for you, as if a visit to Dr. Phil weren't in order, especially after making such laughable statements, that included somewhere along the lines of listing your so-called "MTF Hataz"

You bring up prima donna everyday, he is your life and the air that you breathe; simply put, you cannot tolerate the charismatic Italian boy.

I'm just sayin, nothin ventured, nothin gained .. so I'm tellin you!

prima donna
12-14-2005, 07:09 PM
Just a select few, but everything that is flawed about this particular thread has been addressed by other people.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one pal.

You've touched on 3 issues:

1). Lendl being left-out (which he was not)
2). Borg being left out (which was addressed and the differential did not change a significant amount)
3). Faster surfaces, which suit players with a game towards that. It fails to answer my question, why the same amount of AO Titles and less Wimbledon Champions, yet more Wimbledon Champions won AO Titles than the group that is mostly made up of Lendl, Wilander and Agassi?

If you're unwilling to apply a certain level of gumption to this argument, then I can't do anything for you. As if it's not enough that there are more Roland Garros' Champions mentioned than Wimbledon Champions to begin with.

The most ludicrous part of it all was you using lighting as a legitimate excuse for Borg losing the U.S Open.

He made it to the Finals 4 times and he lost each of the 4 times, to 2 pairs of legends. Simply leave it at that and if anything, the NYC crowd was his problem. That's still not a valid excuse, I guess he'd simply crack under the pressure of Davis Cup if this type of an atmosphere is bothersome.

As for the other "flaws" addressed by posters, do a bit of reading and learn. No need to worry, sparky, I've handled those promptly as well.

This has nothing to do with me declaring Wimbledon the Slam of all Slams, but rather the facts.

By the way, are you familiar with Bob Marley ? Just a question is all.

Dirk
12-14-2005, 07:16 PM
Great thead Donna. :bigclap: I do agree that the more talented ones tend to win Wimbly vs. RG. I just hope Roger can take it next year along with OZ and keep his current slam titles.

Borg was a great fast court player by the way, he just couldn't win USO. Like you said he got beat by 2 legends.

Freddi22cl
12-14-2005, 08:27 PM
Great thead Donna. :bigclap: I do agree that the more talented ones tend to win Wimbly vs. RG. I just hope Roger can take it next year along with OZ and keep his current slam titles.

Borg was a great fast court player by the way, he just couldn't win USO. Like you said he got beat by 2 legends.


indeed Borg was a great fast court player, as evidenced by his numerous indoor and outdoor hardcourt titles. His performaces at The US Open are NOTHING to be ashamed off---reached the final FOUR TIMES!!!!! Let's remember Sampras NEVER reached a RG final and NEITHER has Federer, yet and maybe never will.

Borg played The AO Open just once, pity, he would have really racked up the GS titles if the tournament was meaningful then.

Borg IS one of the greatest of all time, could adjust and win on ANY surface. His 3 consecutive years of winning WImbledon/RG in the same year will never be matched, IMHO.........sorry Roger, you aint touching that one ;)

almouchie
12-14-2005, 08:38 PM
i havent read all ur posts
but its a great thread

its a verrrry interesting issue why so many RG champs mostly likely dont win any other GS.
there are definitely few exceptions (Bjorg, AA)

from the current era I thought JC Ferrero had the chance b4 his injury & illness season(US open finalist lost to roddick)
, as for Keurten the hip injury has ropped him of a US open I think title was well within his rank (remeber him winning the TMS & finishing n1)

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:13 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with that one pal.

You've touched on 3 issues:

1). Lendl being left-out (which he was not)
2). Borg being left out (which was addressed and the differential did not change a significant amount)
3). Faster surfaces, which suit players with a game towards that. It fails to answer my question, why the same amount of AO Titles and less Wimbledon Champions, yet more Wimbledon Champions won AO Titles than the group that is mostly made up of Lendl, Wilander and Agassi?

If you're unwilling to apply a certain level of gumption to this argument, then I can't do anything for you. As if it's not enough that there are more Roland Garros' Champions mentioned than Wimbledon Champions to begin with.

The most ludicrous part of it all was you using lighting as a legitimate excuse for Borg losing the U.S Open.

He made it to the Finals 4 times and he lost each of the 4 times, to 2 pairs of legends. Simply leave it at that and if anything, the NYC crowd was his problem. That's still not a valid excuse, I guess he'd simply crack under the pressure of Davis Cup if this type of an atmosphere is bothersome.

As for the other "flaws" addressed by posters, do a bit of reading and learn. No need to worry, sparky, I've handled those promptly as well.

This has nothing to do with me declaring Wimbledon the Slam of all Slams, but rather the facts.

By the way, are you familiar with Bob Marley ? Just a question is all.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

One would think that you would let this thread die as discretly as possible but it appears this is not the case. If you consider that you have handled flows addressed by other posters than it is you that need to read this thread again. I am not going to repeat myself here, so :wavey:

prima donna
12-14-2005, 09:19 PM
If you consider that you have handled flows addressed by other posters than it is you that need to read this thread again. I am not going to repeat myself here, so :wavey:

Your last rebuttal was this, and it makes really no sense.

Back to the argument, you say that Wimbledon champs win more slams than RG champs. This is true, but it could just be due to the fact that RG is more competitive since there are more players that pose a threat.

Allow me to explain why.

What does the level of competition at RG have to do with the lack of success outside of the tournament ?

Explain the U.S Open failures.
Explain the Wimbledon failures.
Explain the Australian Open failures, the numbers are rather deceiving and a limited amount of Roland Garros champions have prevailed there.

You are confused, I am not discussing the issue of how many RG's or Wimbledon's have been won, but the success of the past champions of these tournaments outside of each. That point was never addressed.

I think that you're confused, either way, please address the issues and stop trying to be a cyber show-off, that act is redundant.

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:27 PM
That was great, quote a part of our discussion related to one particular point to make it appear as the bottom line, thanks for that. I don't have to "explain" anything since i was not the one that offered an hypothesis here. You were that one, and i just pointed that your statistics was wrong.

As for me whowing off, thanks for the laugh, just compare my threads with yours. From the top of my head, i had a humorous thread about the legendary Konstantinos Economidis and a serious thread about predicting the U.S. Open winner from the winner-take-all market. No need to compare with your threads here. :wavey:

prima donna
12-14-2005, 09:31 PM
That was great, quote a part of our discussion related to one particular point to make it appear as the bottom line, thanks for that. I don't have to "explain" anything since i was not the one that offered an hypothesis here. You were that one, and i just pointed that your statistics was wrong.

As for me whowing off, thanks for the laugh, just compare my threads with yours. From the top of my head, i had a humorous thread about the legendary Konstantinos Economidis and a serious thread about predicting the U.S. Open winner from the winner-take-all market. No need to compare with your threads here. :wavey:

Thank you for wasting the time that it took for me to open this thread, direct my pupils towards meaningless ramble, that somehow invoked a comparison of prima donna's threads vs your threads.

You have successfully sidestepped the issue and that is, your entire argument was based on the fact that you completely misunderstood the point. Do not try to save face here. Stop while you're behind.

Fact is, the only reason you pointed out Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Cash is because you thought that I was comparing the quantity of Wimbledon's and Roland Garros', as opposed to the success outside of each.

This statement completely backs that theory:

Back to the argument, you say that Wimbledon champs win more slams than RG champs. This is true, but it could just be due to the fact that RG is more competitive since there are more players that pose a threat.

You're just wrong, that's all. Nothing bad about being human, everyone makes mistakes.

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:39 PM
Thank you for wasting the time that it took for me to open this thread, direct my pupils towards meaningless ramble, that somehow invoked a comparison of prima donna's threads vs your threads.

You have successfully sidestepped the issue and that is, your entire argument was based on the fact that you completely misunderstood the point. Do not try to save face here. Stop while you're behind.

Fact is, the only reason you pointed out Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Cash is because you thought that I was comparing the quantity of Wimbledon's and Roland Garros', as opposed to the success outside of each.

This statement completely backs that theory:


You're just wrong, that's all. Nothing bad about being human, everyone makes mistakes.

You said i was showing off on this message board, that is why i used some facts, that is threads opened in GM. I am not going to repeat the entire argument here, you are too smart for that. Just read again my initial post on this thread, it says everything.

Again, you use my quote in a context where it does not belong. This is for another thread, save your arguments for there.

prima donna
12-14-2005, 09:40 PM
You said i was showing off on this message board, that is why i used some facts, that is threads opened in GM. I am not going to repeat the entire argument here, you are too smart for that. Just read again my initial post on this thread, it says everything.

Again, you use my quote in a context where it does not belong. This is for another thread, save your arguments for there.
:yawn:

Next...

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:42 PM
:hug:

prima donna
12-14-2005, 09:47 PM
:hug:
:smooch:

lau
12-14-2005, 09:49 PM
Get a room... :rolleyes:







:p

Freddi22cl
12-14-2005, 09:50 PM
Get a room... :rolleyes:







:p
\

lol......at each other's throat, now potential lovers......... :cool:

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:55 PM
Why the surprise? We had a civilized argument, primadona comes from a neighbour country with an ancient civilization just like i do and, on top of that, he likes Myskina and Berdych :lol:

Action Jackson
12-15-2005, 06:02 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with that one pal.

You've touched on 3 issues:

1). Lendl being left-out (which he was not)
2). Borg being left out (which was addressed and the differential did not change a significant amount)
3). Faster surfaces, which suit players with a game towards that. It fails to answer my question, why the same amount of AO Titles and less Wimbledon Champions, yet more Wimbledon Champions won AO Titles than the group that is mostly made up of Lendl, Wilander and Agassi?

If you're unwilling to apply a certain level of gumption to this argument, then I can't do anything for you. As if it's not enough that there are more Roland Garros' Champions mentioned than Wimbledon Champions to begin with.

The most ludicrous part of it all was you using lighting as a legitimate excuse for Borg losing the U.S Open.

He made it to the Finals 4 times and he lost each of the 4 times, to 2 pairs of legends. Simply leave it at that and if anything, the NYC crowd was his problem. That's still not a valid excuse, I guess he'd simply crack under the pressure of Davis Cup if this type of an atmosphere is bothersome.

As for the other "flaws" addressed by posters, do a bit of reading and learn. No need to worry, sparky, I've handled those promptly as well.

This has nothing to do with me declaring Wimbledon the Slam of all Slams, but rather the facts.

By the way, are you familiar with Bob Marley ? Just a question is all.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

There are reasons I don't take you seriously and thus are very entertaining and that's good and the above post and the thread shows this.

How can something be exposed, when the particular fact is already as obvious as there are clouds on a rainy day?

Stats. well shouldn't they have both started at the same year and not one in 81 and not one in 85? Does this take into account that from 81-87 the AO was played on grass?

Do I really need to use smilies for you to get a joke? As for Borg and Davis Cup, you'd be aware he was undefeated in singles from 1974-1981 then wouldn't you, had more than enough problems handling the Davis Cup environment. He didn't like New York, he didn't like night matches, wasn't good enough to win the US Open or does something that obvious really need explaining.

Keep up the good work.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 06:14 AM
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

There are reasons I don't take you seriously and thus are very entertaining and that's good and the above post and the thread shows this.

How can something be exposed, when the particular fact is already as obvious as there are clouds on a rainy day?

Stats. well shouldn't they have both started at the same year and not one in 81 and not one in 85? Does this take into account that from 81-87 the AO was played on grass?

Do I really need to use smilies for you to get a joke? As for Borg and Davis Cup, you'd be aware he was undefeated in singles from 1974-1981 then wouldn't you, had more than enough problems handling the Davis Cup environment. He didn't like New York, he didn't like night matches, wasn't good enough to win the US Open or does something that obvious really need explaining.

Keep up the good work.

You still haven't answered my question about Bob Marley.

Are you a fan ?

Also, your opinions on wearing shoes, shaving cream or daily hair cuts ?

Another inquiry, your opinion on the traditions of ancient African primative societies?

Action Jackson
12-15-2005, 06:21 AM
You still haven't answered my question about Bob Marley.

Are you a fan ?

Also, your opinions on wearing shoes, shaving cream or daily hair cuts ?

Another inquiry, your opinion on the traditions of ancient African primative societies?

Interesting that this is the 3rd time I have been asked about Bob Marley, someone else asked about it as well?

Funny questions as I said keep up the good work and you're doing it.

There must be something you are trying to prove with the funny questions, so what is the conclusion you are attempting to find and MTF is a primitive society on a global scale.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 06:29 AM
Interesting that this is the 3rd time I have been asked about Bob Marley, someone else asked about it as well?

Funny questions as I said keep up the good work and you're doing it.

There must be something you are trying to prove with the funny questions, so what is the conclusion you are attempting to find and MTF is a primitive society on a global scale.
Should I include smilies next time to get across the point that you're not the only person capable of not taking others seriously ?

GWH, just smile, paisan. Laugh it off. I'm having fun with you, there's nothing mysterious about my line of questioning.

You're a good guy and I enjoy 99.9% of your posts, loosen up! :kiss:

I mean, I'm just curious what an intellect such as yourself would consider good tunes or beats as we call them here in NYC.

Action Jackson
12-15-2005, 06:37 AM
Should I include smilies next time to get across the point that you're not the only person capable of not taking others seriously ?

GWH, just smile, paisan. Laugh it off. I'm having fun with you, there's nothing mysterious about my line of questioning.

You're a good guy and I enjoy 99.9% of your posts, loosen up! :kiss:

I mean, I'm just curious what an intellect such as yourself would consider good tunes or beats as we call them here in NYC.

It's too mysterious for me and overwhelming my mind this line of questioning, so I have to question everything, therefore it's more fun to answer with a question.

Even better when you are insincere, that's what I like most about yourself.

Yes, I don't mind the late Robert Nestor Marley.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 06:46 AM
Yes, I don't mind the late Robert Nestor Marley.
:yeah:

I share the same affection for Frank Sinatra.

fabolous
12-15-2005, 09:36 AM
What is this actually saying, fact that 3 out of the 4 Slams are played on faster surfaces, so is it any surprise about these results.............One tournament produces more of a particular type of champion (RG) than the other (Wimbledon), but that has been known for ages.
that's it. the only reason why RG winners are something "special" is the fact that the surface is very different to the other three GS tournaments.


now imagine it would be the other way round: if you have three GS on a slow surface (let's say clay, what a thought, 3 clay GS :lol: ) and wimbledon on a fast surface, then all the wimbledon champions will have problems to win another slam and they would be seen as "random" GS winners.

DrJules
12-15-2005, 04:07 PM
that's it. the only reason why RG winners are something "special" is the fact that the surface is very different to the other three GS tournaments.


now imagine it would be the other way round: if you have three GS on a slow surface (let's say clay, what a thought, 3 clay GS :lol: ) and wimbledon on a fast surface, then all the wimbledon champions will have problems to win another slam and they would be seen as "random" GS winners.

There are 3 distinct surfaces; clay, grass and hard (Rebound Ace/Decoturf). In terms of a players movement the 3 surfaces will be very different and also in terms of bounce the 3 surfaces will be very different. Therefore, I am not sure how accurate it is to group the three grand slams (AO, Wimbledon, US Openj) all together.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 04:29 PM
that's it. the only reason why RG winners are something "special" is the fact that the surface is very different to the other three GS tournaments.


now imagine it would be the other way round: if you have three GS on a slow surface (let's say clay, what a thought, 3 clay GS :lol: ) and wimbledon on a fast surface, then all the wimbledon champions will have problems to win another slam and they would be seen as "random" GS winners.
---- Wimbledon Champ Runner-up's @ Roland Garros:
84 - McEnroe
89 - EdBerg
90, 91 - Agassi
92 - Michael Stich


--- Wimbledon SF's at Roland Garros:
1). Pete Sampras
2). Roger Federer
3). Richard Krajicek
4). Boris Becker
5). Jimmy Connors



Roland Garros Runner-up's at Wimbledon:

86, 87 Ivan Lendl
93 - Courier
99 - Agassi

Don't you think it's kind of obnoxious to even include Agassi (a legend) in this ? Really. I'd like to see the figures without the aid of Agassi or Lendl, 2 men that are cleary the exception and if indeed the case is that fast surfaces serve as an advantage towards the results of Wimbledon Champions, then why have they had far much success at Roland Garros than clay courters on grass ?

It's clear as day. Wake up.

Grass courters come in 2nd place at Roland Garros.
Clay courters don't even bother to show up to Wimbledon.

Just ask Muster, the pathetic excuse, yet to even win a match in England and he was a #1. :lol:

Dirk
12-15-2005, 04:40 PM
Donna that in itself is a reason to keep Muster out of the Hall of Fame forever. :lol:

prima donna
12-15-2005, 04:43 PM
Donna that in itself is a reason to keep Muster out of the Halle of Fame forever. :lol:
Yes, it's true.

Muster in the Hall Of Fame ranks right up there as a bigger joke than April Fool's Day.

Dirk
12-15-2005, 04:47 PM
Muster will get in because Chang got in but Chang did make other slam finals. Hall of Fame needs to be more picking.

revolution
12-15-2005, 04:50 PM
One thing I disagree on is that the game is designed for people on faster surfaces.

Wake up, fast is not a surface. HC can be slow, medium, fast, and is totally different from grass.

adee-gee
12-15-2005, 06:52 PM
Just ask Muster, the pathetic excuse, yet to even win a match in England and he was a #1. :lol:
I can't wait till GWH sees that :boxing:

prima donna
12-15-2005, 06:54 PM
I can't wait till GWH sees that :boxing:
:scared: :help:

adee-gee
12-15-2005, 07:00 PM
:scared: :help:
You're not getting any help from me brother.

I'm just waiting till you post something so complimentary about Nadal that I fall off my chair.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 07:08 PM
You're not getting any help from me brother.

I'm just waiting till you post something so complimentary about Nadal that I fall off my chair.
Would you like some cheese with that wine ?

adee-gee
12-15-2005, 07:28 PM
Would you like some cheese with that wine ?
No. I'll settle for another thread smacking of stupidity from you to amuse me.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 07:32 PM
No. I'll settle for another thread smacking of stupidity from you to amuse me.
Funny part is, you have no idea what is being discussed.

GWH does not take me seriously (which is a wise choice) and even he has chosen to address the issues at hand.

You simply ... well ... you just can't.

You are limited when it comes to discussing anything not involving your liberal views or opinions.

I'm really not here for an argument, a healthy debate (what I've had with Merton) sure, constant whining, moaning and taking everything to heart. No.

This is a tennis thread and you've managed to turn it into a kleenex commercial, splattering your tears all over the place.

adee-gee
12-15-2005, 07:34 PM
Funny part is, you have no idea what is being discussed.

GWH does not take me seriously (which is a wise choice) and even he has chosen to address the issues at hand.

You simply ... well ... you just can't.

You are limited when it comes to discussing anything not involving your liberal views or opinions.

I'm really not here for an argument, a healthy debate (what I've had with Merton) sure, constant whining, moaning and taking everything to heart. No.

This is a tennis thread and you've managed to turn it into a kleenex commercial, splattering your tears all over the place.
:haha: cracking post. Well done. I won't get drawn into another slagging match, I've had enough of you for today. I'll save it for another day.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 07:36 PM
:haha: cracking post. Well done. I won't get drawn into another slagging match, I've had enough of you for today. I'll save it for another day.
Wise choice.

It is never smart for a goldfish to swim in the same waters as perona.

adee-gee
12-15-2005, 07:37 PM
Wise choice.

It is never smart for a goldfish to swim in the same waters as perona.
A perona :confused: do you mean a piranha?

prima donna
12-15-2005, 07:40 PM
A perona :confused: do you mean a piranha?
Something of the sort, but fish and tropical creatures are not my expertise.

I think you're missing the big picture.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

You are merely an amateur and consulting with me almost as if we are exclusively on the same level of thinking.

Obviously we are not. I have gotten over your whining ages ago, it's time to move on and accept differences of opinion.

Isn't it enough that your obsession with me has cost you a vRelationship?

lau
12-15-2005, 07:54 PM
Something of the sort, but fish and tropical creatures are not my expertise.

I think you're missing the big picture.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

You are merely an amateur and consulting with me almost as if we are exclusively on the same level of thinking.

Obviously we are not. I have gotten over your whining ages ago, it's time to move on and accept differences of opinion.

Isn't it enough that your obsession with me has cost you a vRelationship?

PD, if you climb your ego and let yourself fall from there, you would die.... :o :p

prima donna
12-15-2005, 07:56 PM
PD, if you climb your ego and let yourself fall from there, you would die.... :o :p
Aw, that was a cute analogy.

lau :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

lau
12-15-2005, 07:57 PM
Aw, that was a cute analogy.

lau :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:
You`re welcome :D

EDIT: BTW, I think it´s a metaphor

DrJules
12-15-2005, 08:01 PM
PD, if you climb your ego and let yourself fall from there, you would die.... :o :p

Has PD's Ego replaced Everest as the worlds highest mountain.:lol:

prima donna
12-15-2005, 08:04 PM
EDIT: BTW, I think it´s a metaphor
Lau, observations like this, are a reason why I have come to appreciate you and grown emotionally attached to you.

lau
12-15-2005, 08:08 PM
Lau, observations like this, are a reason why I have come to appreciate you and grown emotionally attached to you.
http://bestsmileys.com/blushing/3.gif

Has PD's Ego replaced Everest as the worlds highest mountain.:lol:
This is an analogy, IMO ;) :p (your ego as one of the worlds highest mountains)

prima donna
12-15-2005, 08:12 PM
http://bestsmileys.com/blushing/3.gif


This is an analogy, IMO ;) :p (your ego as one of the worlds highest mountains)
Such persistence.

Action Jackson
12-16-2005, 03:17 AM
Yes, it's true.

Muster in the Hall Of Fame ranks right up there as a bigger joke than April Fool's Day.

Then again the Hall of Fame is a joke as well, as for Muster making the Hall of Fame, he lose sleep over it, if he missed out.

Action Jackson
12-16-2005, 03:51 AM
One thing I disagree on is that the game is designed for people on faster surfaces.

Wake up, fast is not a surface. HC can be slow, medium, fast, and is totally different from grass.

You really need to wake up and it's already been explained a multitude of times why the game is favoured to players who are better on faster surfaces, it always has been this way, it's the way it is and will continue to do so.

Go back to sleep on this one or do you really need to repeat Basic 101 on how this game is slanted to the players mentioned above more than 10 times.

revolution
12-16-2005, 12:11 PM
You really need to wake up and it's already been explained a multitude of times why the game is favoured to players who are better on faster surfaces, it always has been this way, it's the way it is and will continue to do so.

Go back to sleep on this one or do you really need to repeat Basic 101 on how this game is slanted to the players mentioned above more than 10 times.

It's already been explained by who?

Never said the game favoured clay, just that it isn't catered to faster surfaces, which it isn't.

its.like.that
12-16-2005, 02:05 PM
Rod Laver of course did not have Rebound Ace or Decoturf although he proved his brilliance on hard courts on the professional tour.

Considering his versatility, all 4 grand slams + all 4 surfaces, I am amazed Agassi does not rate higher in all time greatest lists. He is in a group of 1.

what a :retard: thing to say.

If in 50 years, they were to play all slams on cobblestones, would that render all previous slam winners redundant? :retard:

It is futile attempting to compare players of different eras.

Agassi has been somewhat of a glorified choker - over his career, he simply hasn't stood up in the big matches without some form of external aid.

its.like.that
12-16-2005, 02:07 PM
Then again the Hall of Fame is a joke as well, as for Muster making the Hall of Fame, he lose sleep over it, if he missed out.

Agassi making the hall of fame - that would be a joke.

He should open up a juice bar with Petr Korda, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, and Lance Armstrong.

revolution
12-16-2005, 02:10 PM
what a :retard: thing to say.

If in 50 years, they were to play all slams on cobblestones, would that render all previous slam winners redundant? :retard:

It is futile attempting to compare players of different eras.

Agassi has been somewhat of a glorified choker - over his career, he simply hasn't stood up in the big matches without some form of external aid.

Of course, he had to have doped didn't he- his achievements are too good for someone who didn't :rolleyes:

its.like.that
12-16-2005, 02:16 PM
Of course, he had to have doped didn't he- his achievements are too good for someone who didn't :rolleyes:

:confused:

if I were to accuse someone for being on drugs for their achievements, wouldn't I point the finger at Federer, Sampras, Lendl, or similar?

:rolleyes:

adee-gee
12-16-2005, 02:25 PM
:confused:

if I were to accuse someone for being on drugs for their achievements, wouldn't I point the finger at Federer, Sampras, Lendl, or similar?

:rolleyes:
Agassi has achieved more than Federer and Lendl to be fair.

RonE
12-16-2005, 02:58 PM
Agassi has achieved more than Federer and Lendl to be fair.

With Federer overall yes he has- as of now. However that is not a closed book yet- things could change over the coming years.

As for Lendl I disagree, despite the fact that Agassi has won all 4 slams and Lendl's hole in his resume is Wimbledon. Lendl has been ranked #1 in the world for 270 weeks overall in his career while Agassi has only been at the top for 88 weeks. Lendl has won 94 singles titles and reached 50 other finals. Agassi has won 60 titles and been runner-up 30 times. If you are just looking broadly at the different titles Agassi has won in each category- different slams and different TMS events then yes you have a point. However measuring a player's achievements constitutes not only which different kind of titles you won, but how many overall titles, how long you have been at #1 etc. Lendl made 8 consecutive U.S. Open finals. Agassi has never even made 8 consecutive Nasdaq Open finals. Agassi has only ever finished one year (1999) as the world's #1. I can't remember offhand how many years Lendl has finished as #1 however he did so quite a few times. Agassi has only managed to win more than 1 slam in a single year once (1999 FO + U.S) wheareas Lendl has done so twice (1985+1986 FO+U.S in both years).

So no, Agassi has not achieved more than Lendl has, to be fair.

Rex
12-16-2005, 03:05 PM
those who can take on the grass at wimby , and take the clay of Fo are the greater players, thats why i cant stop praising the bjorg and agassi

Dirk
12-16-2005, 03:09 PM
With Federer overall yes he has- as of now. However that is not a closed book yet- things could change over the coming years.

As for Lendl I disagree, despite the fact that Agassi has won all 4 slams and Lendl's hole in his resume is Wimbledon. Lendl has been ranked #1 in the world for 270 weeks overall in his career while Agassi has only been at the top for 88 weeks. Lendl has won 94 singles titles and reached 50 other finals. Agassi has won 60 titles and been runner-up 30 times. If you are just looking broadly at the different titles Agassi has won in each category- different slams and different TMS events then yes you have a point. However measuring a player's achievements constitutes not only which different kind of titles you won, but how many overall titles, how long you have been at #1 etc. Lendl made 8 consecutive U.S. Open finals. Agassi has never even made 8 consecutive Nasdaq Open finals. Agassi has only ever finished one year (1999) as the world's #1. I can't remember offhand how many years Lendl has finished as #1 however he did so quite a few times. Agassi has only managed to win more than 1 slam in a single year once (1999 FO + U.S) wheareas Lendl has done so twice (1985+1986 FO+U.S in both years).

So no, Agassi has not achieved more than Lendl has, to be fair.

Lendl was number one for 4 years. Agassi will never be one of the great champions. Yes, he has won all the biggest five titles but Lendl's dominance surpasses Andre by far.

prima donna
12-16-2005, 04:09 PM
With Federer overall yes he has- as of now. However that is not a closed book yet- things could change over the coming years.

As for Lendl I disagree, despite the fact that Agassi has won all 4 slams and Lendl's hole in his resume is Wimbledon. Lendl has been ranked #1 in the world for 270 weeks overall in his career while Agassi has only been at the top for 88 weeks. Lendl has won 94 singles titles and reached 50 other finals. Agassi has won 60 titles and been runner-up 30 times. If you are just looking broadly at the different titles Agassi has won in each category- different slams and different TMS events then yes you have a point. However measuring a player's achievements constitutes not only which different kind of titles you won, but how many overall titles, how long you have been at #1 etc. Lendl made 8 consecutive U.S. Open finals. Agassi has never even made 8 consecutive Nasdaq Open finals. Agassi has only ever finished one year (1999) as the world's #1. I can't remember offhand how many years Lendl has finished as #1 however he did so quite a few times. Agassi has only managed to win more than 1 slam in a single year once (1999 FO + U.S) wheareas Lendl has done so twice (1985+1986 FO+U.S in both years).

So no, Agassi has not achieved more than Lendl has, to be fair.


:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

prima donna
12-16-2005, 04:10 PM
Agassi has achieved more than Federer and Lendl to be fair.
Better get your record books out, squirt.

Dirk
12-16-2005, 04:34 PM
SINGLES CAREER TITLES (94): 1980--Barcelona, Basel, Hong Kong, Houston, Montreal / Toronto, Taipei, Tokyo Outdoor; 1981--Barcelona, Basel, Buenos Aires, Cologne, Las Vegas, Madrid, Masters, Montreal / Toronto, Stuttgart Indoor, Vienna; 1982--Cincinnati, Dallas WCT, Delray Beach WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Frankfurt, Genova WCT, Hartford WCT, Houston, Los Angeles-2 WCT, Masters, Munich-2 WCT, Naples Finals WCT, North Conway, Strasbourg WCT, Washington; 1983--Detroit WCT, Hilton Head WCT, Houston-WCT, Milan, Montreal / Toronto, San Francisco, Tokyo Indoor; 1984--Luxembourg, Roland Garros, Wembley; 1985--Dallas, Forest Hills, Fort Myers, Indianapolis, Masters, Monte Carlo, Stuttgart Outdoor, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, US Open, Wembley; 1986--Boca West, Fort Myers, Masters, Milan, Philadelphia, Roland Garros, Rome, Stratton Mountain, US Open; 1987--Hamburg, Masters, Montreal / Toronto, Roland Garros, Sydney Indoor, US Open, Washington, Wembley; 1988--Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome; 1989--Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor; 1990--Australian Open, London / Queen's Club, Milan, Tokyo Indoor, Toronto Indoor; 1991--Long Island, Memphis, Philadelphia; 1992--Tokyo Indoor; 1993--Munich, Tokyo Indoor FINALIST (50): 1979--Brussels; 1980--Kitzbuhel, Masters, Washington-2; 1981--Indianapolis, La Quinta, Richmond WCT, Roland Garros, Stuttgart Outdoor; 1982--La Quinta, Madrid, Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, US Open; 1983--Australian Open, Brussels, Dallas WCT, Masters, Philadelphia, US Open; 1984--Brussels, Forest Hills WCT, Masters, Philadelphia, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, US Open; 1985--Montreal / Toronto, Roland Garros, Stratton Mountain; 1986--Chicago, Sydney Indoor, Wimbledon; 1987--Key Biscayne, Tokyo Indoor, Wimbledon; 1988--Masters, US Open; 1989--Tokyo Outdoor, US Open; 1990--Stuttgart Indoor; 1991--Australian Open, Rotterdam, Tokyo Outdoor; 1992--Cincinnati, Long Island, Montreal / Toronto; 1993--Nice, Philadelphia; 1994--Sydney Outdoor


Andre has nothing on Lendl.

Rogiman
12-16-2005, 05:35 PM
Another huge point: how many year-end championships has Agassi won?
One, that's it.

You can't be the greatest if you met the greats year-in year-out and only once turned out victorious.

adee-gee
12-16-2005, 05:59 PM
Better get your record books out, squirt.
It's a matter of opinion, they've been 2 exceptional careers. Personally if I was offered the titles of Agassi or the titles of Lendl I'd take Andre's. When people talk about the greatest player of all time, Agassi is often ranked higher than Lendl on the list. Winning all 4 slams is an achievement not to be sniffed at. Even your precious Roger is struggling with that.

World Beater
12-16-2005, 07:09 PM
It's a matter of opinion, they've been 2 exceptional careers. Personally if I was offered the titles of Agassi or the titles of Lendl I'd take Andre's. When people talk about the greatest player of all time, Agassi is often ranked higher than Lendl on the list. Winning all 4 slams is an achievement not to be sniffed at. Even your precious Roger is struggling with that.

struggling?


haha....when did agassi win the french? i would say roger has a lot of time before we say he is struggling. in fact agassi won it relatively late. many wrote him off....seems like you are doing the foolish thing with federer now.

roger did get to the semis already at the FO. i wouldnt call it struggling.

struggling is what nadal is at wimbledon....although i woudnt use that term myself, since he is still so young and has ample time to improve

AlexNYR
12-16-2005, 07:33 PM
Yes, it's true.

Muster in the Hall Of Fame ranks right up there as a bigger joke than April Fool's Day.


if noah and novotna made the hall, muster should be in as well, his career was better than those two for sure

prima donna
12-16-2005, 08:17 PM
if noah and novotna made the hall, muster should be in as well, his career was better than those two for sure
The Tennis Hall Of Fame is already a big enough joke as it is, last time I checked, Gabriela Sabitini was on ballot for entry.

It really has become a pitiful display, mediocre players masquerading at podiums as legends of some kind.

Oh well, perhaps while we are at it - someone should lobby for Felix Mantilla to be inducted into the HOF. ;)

Any takers ?

jacobhiggins
12-16-2005, 10:22 PM
Wimby is the biggest and best and most hardest to win tournament out there. It's the Super Bowl of Grand Slams. The French Open while very hard to win, is not as highly viewed in most champions eyes. Also the fact that Wimby and the French Open are so close together and back to back. You sort of have to sacrifice one tournament for the other for most people, not Borg though. If the FO was as highly regarded as Wimby is, then I have no doubt, Sampras, Mcenroe, and Federer would have multiple FO titles instead of Wimby titles. Wimby is the big one that's why it's a specilatiy tournament for the greatest in history and they suit there games to adjust to the grass!

DrJules
12-16-2005, 10:38 PM
Wimby is the biggest and best and most hardest to win tournament out there. It's the Super Bowl of Grand Slams. The French Open while very hard to win, is not as highly viewed in most champions eyes. Also the fact that Wimby and the French Open are so close together and back to back. You sort of have to sacrifice one tournament for the other for most people, not Borg though. If the FO was as highly regarded as Wimby is, then I have no doubt, Sampras, Mcenroe, and Federer would have multiple FO titles instead of Wimby titles. Wimby is the big one that's why it's a specilatiy tournament for the greatest in history and they suit there games to adjust to the grass!

Problems with your view:

1) There are few grass courts in the world and few grass court tournaments, therefore, few people show a high skill level on the surface.

2) Only a small pool of players are competitive on it nowadays; Federer, Roddick, Hewitt and a few others.

3) The problems mentioned in point (1) and (2) do not apply to clay and hard courts which have more events and more players skilled on the surface.

I agree Wimbledon is the most prestigous and globally well known. Relates to the fact that it is the oldest and has that traditional English element. However, as an assessor of tennis skill and greatness I have my doubts for the reasons mentioned.

Dirk
12-16-2005, 11:00 PM
You have to have great weapons to do well on grass and a variety of skills to win on it.

heya
12-17-2005, 12:08 AM
Wow, the level of competition between 2000-2005 was more awesome than the 1980-1990 competition. :yawn:

jacobhiggins
12-17-2005, 12:32 AM
There's a reason why Sampras, Borg, Federer, and Mc Enroe are considered great, it's because of Wimby, it's the biggest and the best. The French Open is not, if the French Open was considered the best then the greatest of players would have practiced and considered the French Open a must win. Switch Sampras's Wimbys with French Opens, that what it would have looked like, but that's not the case, that's why the pinacle of tennis is Wimbeldon. That's what EVERYBODY strives to do good it, it's the benchmark! If any player could have choice for one title to win, it would be Wimbeldon and not the French Open and plus the best players and most skilled players compete for Wimbeldon while the talent isn't as great in the French Open Tournaments!

heya
12-17-2005, 01:33 AM
Borg quit tennis when he failed to win the US Open.
McEnroe's volleys couldn't compete with the more powerful & lanky opponents between 1987-1992.
Sampras couldn't last in 4 hour matches at the French Open.

Action Jackson
12-17-2005, 06:40 AM
With Federer overall yes he has- as of now. However that is not a closed book yet- things could change over the coming years.

As for Lendl I disagree, despite the fact that Agassi has won all 4 slams and Lendl's hole in his resume is Wimbledon. Lendl has been ranked #1 in the world for 270 weeks overall in his career while Agassi has only been at the top for 88 weeks. Lendl has won 94 singles titles and reached 50 other finals. Agassi has won 60 titles and been runner-up 30 times. If you are just looking broadly at the different titles Agassi has won in each category- different slams and different TMS events then yes you have a point. However measuring a player's achievements constitutes not only which different kind of titles you won, but how many overall titles, how long you have been at #1 etc. Lendl made 8 consecutive U.S. Open finals. Agassi has never even made 8 consecutive Nasdaq Open finals. Agassi has only ever finished one year (1999) as the world's #1. I can't remember offhand how many years Lendl has finished as #1 however he did so quite a few times. Agassi has only managed to win more than 1 slam in a single year once (1999 FO + U.S) wheareas Lendl has done so twice (1985+1986 FO+U.S in both years).

So no, Agassi has not achieved more than Lendl has, to be fair.

Very true and Lendl made 19 finals in Slams and apart from Cash, he lost to some of the greats in these finals Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker and Edberg, so if he is going to come runner up in finals that's a list of players, that it's not disgrace to lose to.

Lendl made the end of season Masters final 8 years in a row as well. Agassi hasn't been close to that.

jacobhiggins, since when has everybody thought Wimbledon is the pinnacle for all tennis. It's not the same for the whole tennis world and no there is more to it than the English-speaking world, keep up the outdated theories.

Action Jackson
12-17-2005, 06:42 AM
It's already been explained by who?

Never said the game favoured clay, just that it isn't catered to faster surfaces, which it isn't.

Good to see you are being funny and taking the piss. Good work son.

prima donna
12-17-2005, 07:01 AM
Good to see you are being funny and taking the piss. Good work son.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Action Jackson
12-17-2005, 07:10 AM
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

:kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :drool:

Betty
12-17-2005, 08:40 AM
:kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :drool:

George i never see u useing so more smiles :haha:

Sjengster
12-17-2005, 12:29 PM
Oh well, perhaps while we are at it - someone should lobby for Felix Mantilla to be inducted into the HOF. ;)

Any takers ?

:rocker2:

Cats like Felix like being inducted into Tennis Halls of Fame!

Dirk
12-17-2005, 04:15 PM
Wow, the level of competition between 2000-2005 was more awesome than the 1980-1990 competition. :yawn:

Oh how you would be singing a different tune if Andy was champion during the 02-05 period. :rolls: :hearts:

TheMightyFed
12-17-2005, 04:35 PM
Laver and Borg are in the GOAT society thanks to RG AND Wimby, so the combo defines greatness. Pete is in the GOAT club for his accumulation of Wimbies mainly (and USO). The discussion of which slam is bigger doesn't make sense. We know Wimby is the most highly regarded by players because this is the very first tournament of tennis in history, but it is very closely linked to RG to define greatness...

its.like.that
12-17-2005, 04:52 PM
Agassi has achieved more than Federer and Lendl to be fair.

Agassi never dominated the men's circuit the way Lendl did and Federer is doing.

It's not like guys would walk out onto the court and think "oh no, I'm playing Agassi"

Whereas when Federer only loses a dozen odd matches and wins 5 slams in 2 years, and when Lendl holds down #1 for as long as he did - it puts a lot of fear into their opponents.

its.like.that
12-17-2005, 04:57 PM
It's a matter of opinion, they've been 2 exceptional careers. Personally if I was offered the titles of Agassi or the titles of Lendl I'd take Andre's. When people talk about the greatest player of all time, Agassi is often ranked higher than Lendl on the list. Winning all 4 slams is an achievement not to be sniffed at. Even your precious Roger is struggling with that.

Agassi was only ever 2nd best at best - behind Courier, Sampras, Federer, and so on...

Whereas Lendl and Federer have both enjoyed reigns as undisputed champion of the world. :cool:

heya
12-17-2005, 10:00 PM
Apparently, dirk diggler lives vicariously through Federer, and he can read non-Federer fans' minds. Keep trying to BAIT people, genius!

jacobhiggins
12-17-2005, 11:20 PM
Lendl was better and much more dominate. How is this even a question lmao?????

its.like.that
12-18-2005, 04:47 AM
Lendl was better and much more dominate. How is this even a question lmao?????

but Agassian is a legend. :retard:

Dirk
12-18-2005, 03:34 PM
Apparently, dirk diggler lives vicariously through Federer, and he can read non-Federer fans' minds. Keep trying to BAIT people, genius!

Heya my dear I would never match you as a genius, after all you are the one who bet your lot on Roddick. :haha: It's ok you are still good for a few laughs.

heya
12-18-2005, 08:53 PM
Federer wants to
call his gay, delusional fan dirk.

He wants to tell dirk that his sad jokes aren't working. :o

Frank Winkler
12-18-2005, 09:21 PM
Your play with numbers is totally meaningless.
details details and you conveniently butcher the big picture.
nothing wrong with stats.
But you must define all aspects carefully.
amateurs do none of that.

Dirk
12-19-2005, 03:52 AM
Federer wants to
call his gay, delusional fan dirk.

He wants to tell dirk that his sad jokes aren't working. :o

Heya, underneath all that bitterness is a loving girl just wanting to be loved. PM me your number honey. :hug: :kiss:

rod99
12-19-2005, 07:52 AM
but Agassian is a legend. :retard:



yet another agassi hater. sad. :(

revolution
12-19-2005, 11:38 AM
yet another agassi hater. sad. :(

If you ever wondered why George started an appreciation thread for its.like.that, you just got your answer.

Action Jackson
12-19-2005, 11:44 AM
If you ever wondered why George started an appreciation thread for its.like.that, you just got your answer.

http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif

revolution
12-19-2005, 12:15 PM
http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/whine.gif

:D

Action Jackson
12-07-2006, 05:29 AM
Agassi never dominated the men's circuit the way Lendl did and Federer is doing.

Whereas when Federer only loses a dozen odd matches and wins 5 slams in 2 years, and when Lendl holds down #1 for as long as he did - it puts a lot of fear into their opponents.

Very true.

Merton
12-07-2006, 06:22 AM
Sometimes tennis playes cruel jokes, when Agassi won in 1999 he was nowhere near the top on clay. So many things needed to happen for him, but the stars just got perfectly aligned. It would be much more expected to win in 1991 but Courier was just more motivated and more professional at the time.

Merton
12-07-2006, 06:29 AM
By the way, this is an interesting thread to bump.

morningglory
12-07-2006, 06:40 AM
Clay is boring and rewards people who can run all day and spin, spin and slice... and stand 10 feet behind the baseline... naturally anyone wouldn't expect them to win on something else :o
I agree, Agassi is very special that he has RG...

Macbrother
12-07-2006, 06:56 AM
Borg is actually everything that I'm against here ...

He won Roland Garros.
Only could win Wimbledon.
Won Wimbledon
Only could win Roland Garros.

Hello, what about Australia and New York ? He succeeded on 2 different surfaces. The argument to be made for Borg is equally fair and beneficial for both sides of the card. Irrelevant.

As if Borg wouldn't have dominated AO's grass courts in that era...psh.. not to mention 3 U.S. Open finals where he lost to all-time greats John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. Don't compare that to people who can't even show up on clay or grass.

Overall though I agree in principle. Wimbledon is a hall of champions... Roland Garros is a [in large part] hall of one slam/surface wonders.

jocaputs
12-07-2006, 08:19 AM
this thread is :retard:
99% of RG winners are baseliners, while 99% of Wimby winners have serve&volley skills
the 2 surfaces aro so different and they require different skills.
players that won both are mostly all-round players


and grass is for cows

Federerhingis
12-11-2006, 03:23 AM
I wish, if I have to watch clay play it would definitely be:

Juan Carlos Ferrero, Gustavo Kuerten or Roger. Let's not forget Coria.

:worship: I totally agree with your options: Juan Carlos and Kuerten were always so at ease on clay. Coria just glides on clay; it's a joy to watch him dominate clay court matches when he is fit and playing well.

Furthermore, I enjoy Federer's tennis on any surface clay not excluded.